Pope asks mercy, pardon for ways Christians have harmed one another

[ProVobis]

Oh, I don’t know about that. Burning hundreds of people at the stake as Protestant heretics and the involvement of clergy in plots to murder Queen Elizabeth were pretty divisive things for starters.

Not that chopping heads off faithful Catholics and taking all Church property was much better.

 

[ProVobis]

Compare Luther with, say, St. Benedict, St Francis, St Teresa of Avila, or any reforming saint who was not content with the lifestyle of his/her fellow Catholics. The reformed the Church from within, they didn’t leave it.

It is the most obvious non sequitur to say that the bad behaviour of Catholics justifies one thinking the Church is bad. Luther like every other Catholic knew what being a good Catholic meant, but he didn’t want to be a good Catholic. He wanted a religion that accorded with the kind of lifestyle he chose for himself.

One good thing came out of the Reformation, though, and that was the Council of Trent, which made the Church stronger and clearer in its mission. I believe Pope Francis recently praised the documents of Trent and echoed Pope Benedict’s hermemeutics of continuity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A point to keep in mind here, Martin Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church, he sought to correct it. However, when he nailed his thesis to the church door, he was excommunicated.

There was a strong desire among German nobles to get out of the grips of the Pope and they played a role in supporting Martin Luther.

Luther was correct in speaking out against the corruption he saw in the Church.

His excommunication however, which must have wounded him, for as I said, he didn’t want to separate from the Church, and I believe it eventually drove him to madness, as you can see the digression in his writings. His last was probably written out of insanity.

When Pope Benedict XVI visited the Luther’s Monastery in Germany, he correctly stated;

“For him theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God,” said the Pope, observing that Luther constantly asked the question – ‘how do I receive God?’ “The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make an impression on me,” said the Pope.

He also expressed admiration for Luther’s attempt to put Christ at the center of his thinking and spirituality, which Pope Benedict called “thoroughly Christocentric.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/at-martin-luthers-monastery-pope-says-personal-sins-matter/

How many here who are speaking against Pope Francis, are content with Pope Benedict XVI in his praise of Martin Luther ?

Jim

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Oh, I don’t know about that. Burning hundreds of people at the stake as Protestant heretics and the involvement of clergy in plots to murder Queen Elizabeth were pretty divisive things for starters.

A number of Luther’s theses concern the behavior of Catholic clergy so I’d say that if the behavior of clergy is scandalous enough to cause schism then its pretty divisive. In truth, for Luther and many of those who followed in his path, it was their complete disenchantment with the clergy because of their behavior, corruption, and abuse of authority that drove them from the Catholic Church more than any disagreement with Catholic doctrine.

And ye the message is that Luther and his followers should have forgiven those who were guilty of perceived injustices rather than sow more seeds of division, and we should forgive those who left the Church, no?

One cannot defend Luther’s actions but claim the attitudes fomented against him in the centuries that followed were wrong in the same breath.

Luther’s excommunication was a prompting to align himself with the Church, forgive, and seek mercy and if he chose, to seek reform within the Church. He did not seek to truly forgive, which the Pope is saying should have happened.

Likewise, once he made his bed, forgiveness from those within the Church is due to him and his followers, correct?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Luther was correct in speaking out against the corruption he saw in the Church.

How many here who are speaking against Pope Francis, are content with Pope Benedict XVI in his praise of Martin Luther ?

Jim

Indeed. And he was not alone. Many many others, inside and outside of the Church were saying the same thing, rejecting the same worldly excesses and abuses of power - in some cases centuries before Luther, but also after him. This was a time when the Pope was playing politics to the hilt (within and without the Church), excommunicating heads of state (Elizabeth I), just as one example, though many other excesses could be discussed - and have been within and without the Roman Catholic Church for years.

And I don’t think Luther ever went mad.

I can’t wait for the day when a good Catholic can talk about Luther without those kinds of wild statements. Oh, wait - maybe that day is already here. See Pope Benedict, Saint John Paul II, Pope Francis for further information.

 

[ProVobis]

A number of Luther’s theses concern the behavior of Catholic clergy so I’d say that if the behavior of clergy is scandalous enough to cause schism then its pretty divisive. In truth, for Luther and many of those who followed in his path, it was their complete disenchantment with the clergy because of their behavior, corruption, and abuse of authority that drove them from the Catholic Church more than any disagreement with Catholic doctrine.

Okay, fair enough. But the question then would be where would the Catholic Church be today without having held the Council of Trent, the council to counter the Reformation in its entirety. There was much more than selling of indulgences to which the Reformers objected.

 

[Pulvis]

We have to keep in mind that during Luther’s time, the Church had just gone through the corruption of the Borgias, especially Pope Alexander VI.

Luther, a theologian visited Rome for the first time and witnessed clergy charging people money for indulgences which they said would keep them out of purgatory and sent right to heaven upon their deaths.

Then he sees the Pope ride into the Vatican riding upon a white horse wearing gold plated military armor, as the people bowed to the ground giving him homage.

If we had seen such, we too would’ve been disgusted, well, at least we should have.

Yes, Luther didn’t follow the path that St Teresa and St John of the Cross did at that time, which was during the corrupt Spanish Inquisition.

Was it Luther’s error, or how God inspired him ?

Who knows, but to me, the best thing that happened to the Church was the reformation.

Without it, we would be like Islam is today, which has not yet had a reformation.

Pope Francis is showing the world the love and mercy of God.

This upsets those who look for God’s retributive justice over restorative justice.

Pope Francis understands that God’s justice is restorative and God desires that all humans be drawn to Him.

Mercy and love, there is no other way.

Jim

Jim, with all due charity, Why would God have led Luther to divide the Body of Christ, and lead to the enumerable branches of Protestantism that we see today? Division is not from God.

As far as the Reformation, yes, it succeeded in causing the Council of Trent and helped correct numerous abuses. But this could have, and probably would have happened without the destruction of the unity of Christendom. Just look at what happened in western Europe post Reformation.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Jim, with all due charity, Why would God have led Luther to divide the Body of Christ, and lead to the enumerable branches of Protestantism that we see today? Division is not from God.

As far as the Reformation, yes, it succeeded in causing the Council of Trent and helped correct numerous abuses. But this could have, and probably would have happened without the destruction of the unity of Christendom. Just look at what happened in western Europe post Reformation.

Yes, it is a bit like saying the Priest scandal was wrought from God’s plan to help better get a handle on how to deal with abuses. Just because something positive can spring from a tragedy does not make the event any less tragic.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes, it is a bit like saying the Priest scandal was wrought from God’s plan to help better get a handle on how to deal with abuses. Just because something positive can spring from a tragedy does not make the event any less tragic.

I wonder how the crucifixion of Christ fits into all of this.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Okay, fair enough. But the question then would be where would the Catholic Church be today without having held the Council of Trent, the council to counter the Reformation in its entirety. There was much more than selling of indulgences to which the Reformers objected.

The real question is, where would the Church be today without Vatican II?

Jim

 

[Brendan_64]

Right. Catholic teaching may not have caused his “scrupulosity”…but the behavior of fellow Catholics (clergy would surely be considered “fellow Catholics”?) is what prompted his frustration, disillusionment, and speaking out. And others who agreed with him didn’t all do so because of scrupulosity, but because they agreed with some or all of the grievances he aired.

.

And this “speaking out” also included calling the Pope the antichrist and the vicar of the devil (and that was before he was excommunicated). I’m not sure that there were indeed many within the Church who agreed with him on that one.

Pope Leo X was extremely tolerant and patient with Martin Luther, but in the end how can a Catholic priest who publicly declares the pope to be the antichrist and the vicar of the devil be allowed to remain within the Church?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, with all due charity, Why would God have led Luther to divide the Body of Christ, and lead to the enumerable branches of Protestantism that we see today? Division is not from God.

As far as the Reformation, yes, it succeeded in causing the Council of Trent and helped correct numerous abuses. But this could have, and probably would have happened without the destruction of the unity of Christendom. Just look at what happened in western Europe post Reformation.

You want me to answer for God ?

I can’t and won’t even try.

The Council of Trent laid down the hammer on Catholics to be obedient and condemn those who dared look at Luther’s writings. They did more to create a hostile attitude between Catholics and Protestants for centuries, than a move for unification. Protestants also did the same, and were often far more brutal, so they’re not without blame, but the context of the times led people to react they way they did. We’d be wrong to judge them with the hindsight of 500 years.

The economics and politics of the time outweighed the religious. Catholics still engaged in the slave trade even after the Church prohibited it. Religion took a back seat to economics and power from both Catholics and Protestants, who still loved under monarchies.

Pope Francis, loves as Christ loves and that means, everyone and everything that God created.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And this “speaking out” also included calling the Pope the antichrist and the vicar of the devil (and that was before he was excommunicated). I’m not sure that there were indeed many within the Church who agreed with him on that one.

Pope Leo X was extremely tolerant and patient with Martin Luther, but in the end how can a Catholic priest who publicly declares the pope to be the antichrist and the vicar of the devil be allowed to remain within the Church?

Well that would’ve been easy for Luther to state during that time. Pope Leo X was from the corrupt Medici family, no less corrupt than the Borgias.

Pope Leo X is the one who granted indulgences to those who donated to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica and to increase the papal coffers.

He spent much on luxuries and was the one wearing gold plated armor and riding a white horse, which Luther witnessed.

After someone inside the Vatican tried to poison him, he changed the complexion of the college of cardinals by appointing 31 new Cardinals, all men with connections to the Medici family and other powerful people of the time.

Heck, look how some Catholics today are getting upset of Pope Francis praying with Lutherans, Jews and Muslims, and asking for mercy and forgiveness for the harm Christians may have done to them.

Imagine if he behaved like Pope Leo X, what do you suppose their reaction would be today ?

Jim

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Well that would’ve been easy for Luther to state during that time. Pope Leo X was from the corrupt Medici family, no less corrupt than the Borgias.

Pope Leo X is the one who granted indulgences to those who donated to rebuild St Peter’s Basilica and to increase the papal coffers.

He spent much on luxuries and was the one wearing gold plated armor and riding a white horse, which Luther witnessed.

After someone inside the Vatican tried to poison him, he changed the complexion of the college of cardinals by appointing 31 new Cardinals, all men with connections to the Medici family and other powerful people of the time.

Heck, look how some Catholics today are getting upset of Pope Francis praying with Lutherans, Jews and Muslims, and asking for mercy and forgiveness for the harm Christians may have done to them.

Imagine if he behaved like Pope Leo X, what do you suppose their reaction would be today ?

Jim

This is more of an either/or debate when it shouldn’t be.

The Church had issues, as did the Borgias and Pope Leo X. Pope Alexander VI was no better. The Church needed to address certain practices to be sure.

Luther and his followers (and consequently, all of Protestant history) was wrong, and continues to be. Luther’s objections may have had some validity, but his approach and means were wrong.

There is no need for us to defend one side or the other, other than to say, ultimately, even without Luther, the Church would have prevailed in some way. As we are told when someone frets over a speech given by the Pope, our faith and morals are never in jeopardy. Doctrine is never threatened.

If that is in fact the case, the arguments defending the Reformation and Luther fall flat and can be dismissed under the same guise.

 

[Brendan_64]

Imagine if he behaved like Pope Leo X, what do you suppose their reaction would be today ?

Jim

Well I’m not sure that there would be many priests who would be able to publish books calling the Pope the antichrist and the vicar of the devil (regardless of his behaviour) and expect to remain within the Church. Criticising the pope, disrespecting the pope, insulting the pope even is one thing, but regarding him as the vicar of the devil is something entirely different.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Also steer clear of the Orthodox talking about the supremacy of the papacy if you want to avoid heartburn. Warning: ‘heretical’ is used as an adjective.

 

[Pulvis]

The real question is, where would the Church be today without Vatican II?

Jim

We both know that much of the zeitgeist behind Vatican Council II was to lessen the effects of Trent. Many theologians of the day saw Trent as too stifling to the modern Church. From some of your comments i get the impression that you agree, but that is purely speculation on my part. Either way, the opening of the windows has led to some interesting developments, including this one. I cannot imagine the look on Pius V face to see the Church commemorating the Reformation. That there have been atrocities conducted against all parties is factual. That apologies are due is obvious. I will await the Protestant apologies with bated breath.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And ye the message is that Luther and his followers should have forgiven those who were guilty of perceived injustices rather than sow more seeds of division, and we should forgive those who left the Church, no?

One cannot defend Luther’s actions but claim the attitudes fomented against him in the centuries that followed were wrong in the same breath.

Luther’s excommunication was a prompting to align himself with the Church, forgive, and seek mercy and if he chose, to seek reform within the Church. He did not seek to truly forgive, which the Pope is saying should have happened.

Likewise, once he made his bed, forgiveness from those within the Church is due to him and his followers, correct?

Well, I think Luther’s actions should first be understood and doing that requires acknowledging certain realities about the state of the Catholic Church in Luther’s time. The Church had plenty of inquisitors to police the laity, but there really wasn’t any oversight of the clergy or religious and they ran amok. Rome was indifferent so if your local clergy or religious said, did, or promoted things that were in flagrant violation of Catholic doctrine then that was your problem. One of the obvious issues being that there was a rather large class of poor and uneducated people who couldn’t tell the difference, relied on their local clergy and religious to tell them what they needed to believe, did what they were told out of obedience. The corrupt preyed upon that dependency and the roots of such issues as simony were vast and deep.

Those two things were the very heart of Luther’s objections. The reformation was not about separation, but intent to reform the Catholic Church to enforce its own doctrines and bring the clergy and religious into compliance with them. Rome had no intention of doing so at that time so this led to Luther’s ultimate conclusion, which was/is really the source of contention between Catholics and Protestants. In Luther’s view, it was not enough for Rome to simply repeat Catholic Doctrine. If the shepherds abandon their flock to the wolves, and/or stand implicated of corruption and abuse themselves, and if they treat Doctrine and the Gospels as effectively nothing more than words on paper that don’t require daily living then they have ceded their authority. As he bluntly put it, “Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.”

Asking (more-so demanding) that Luther align himself with a Church that was not aligned with itself was a futile endeavor. I think if Luther were alive today he probably would not leave the Catholic Church because it is in a far better state. There are avenues for recourse to address errant clergy and religious that yield results and there are forums for theological debate. As for whether Luther should have simply forgiven and moved on, well, I wonder what any living Catholic would do if the Church had the same problems today that it did in the 16th century and to the same extent.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well, I think Luther’s actions should first be understood and doing that requires acknowledging certain realities about the state of the Catholic Church in Luther’s time. The Church had plenty of inquisitors to police the laity, but there really wasn’t any oversight of the clergy or religious and they ran amok. Rome was indifferent so if your local clergy or religious said, did, or promoted things that were in flagrant violation of Catholic doctrine then that was your problem. One of the obvious issues being that there was a rather large class of poor and uneducated people who couldn’t tell the difference, relied on their local clergy and religious to tell them what they needed to believe, did what they were told out of obedience. The corrupt preyed upon that dependency and the roots of such issues as simony were vast and deep.

Those two things were the very heart of Luther’s objections. The reformation was not about separation, but intent to reform the Catholic Church to enforce its own doctrines and bring the clergy and religious into compliance with them. Rome had no intention of doing so at that time so this led to Luther’s ultimate conclusion, which was/is really the source of contention between Catholics and Protestants. In Luther’s view, it was not enough for Rome to simply repeat Catholic Doctrine. If the shepherds abandon their flock to the wolves, and/or stand implicated of corruption and abuse themselves, and if they treat Doctrine and the Gospels as effectively nothing more than words on paper that don’t require daily living then they have ceded their authority. As he bluntly put it, “Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” In the end, if all they’re going to do is enjoy the trappings of their office and use the Church to improve their own lot in life then they are owed nothing.

Asking (more-so demanding) that Luther align himself with a Church that was not aligned with itself was a futile endeavor. I think if Luther were alive today he probably would not leave the Catholic Church because it is in a far better state. There are avenues for recourse to address errant clergy and religious that yield results and there are forums for theological debate. As for whether Luther should have simply forgiven and moved on, well, I wonder what any living Catholic would do if the Church had the same problems today that it did in the 16th century and to the same extent.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Well, I think Luther’s actions should first be understood and doing that requires acknowledging certain realities about the state of the Catholic Church in Luther’s time. The Church had plenty of inquisitors to police the laity, but there really wasn’t any oversight of the clergy or religious and they ran amok. Rome was indifferent so if your local clergy or religious said, did, or promoted things that were in flagrant violation of Catholic doctrine then that was your problem. One of the obvious issues being that there was a rather large class of poor and uneducated people who couldn’t tell the difference, relied on their local clergy and religious to tell them what they needed to believe, did what they were told out of obedience. The corrupt preyed upon that dependency and the roots of such issues as simony were vast and deep.

Those two things were the very heart of Luther’s objections. The reformation was not about separation, but intent to reform the Catholic Church to enforce its own doctrines and bring the clergy and religious into compliance with them. Rome had no intention of doing so at that time so this led to Luther’s ultimate conclusion, which was/is really the source of contention between Catholics and Protestants. In Luther’s view, it was not enough for Rome to simply repeat Catholic Doctrine. If the shepherds abandon their flock to the wolves, and/or stand implicated of corruption and abuse themselves, and if they treat Doctrine and the Gospels as effectively nothing more than words on paper that don’t require daily living then they have ceded their authority. As he bluntly put it, “Personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.”

Asking (more-so demanding) that Luther align himself with a Church that was not aligned with itself was a futile endeavor. I think if Luther were alive today he probably would not leave the Catholic Church because it is in a far better state. There are avenues for recourse to address errant clergy and religious that yield results and there are forums for theological debate. As for whether Luther should have simply forgiven and moved on, well, I wonder what any living Catholic would do if the Church had the same problems today that it did in the 16th century and to the same extent.

Nailed it.