Question for all protestants

[Isaiah45_9]

On the contrary, the Church had full control on how the west was run back then. It was the Holy Roman Empire, the Church ran the Politics and the Religion.

Sadly, that was a 2-way street my friend. Sadly, it seems that you want to exclusively attribute all evils of the era to the Church… we will take responsibility for ours but not for that of others.

Part of what happened that time was the result of combining Church and State, the line gets muddy in how things are to dealt with as far as crimes.

The situation requires much more study and understanding. You are hung up on the actions and it appears to have not taken the time to look at the circumstances and the era, before passing judgment.

And, BTW, not to justify the actions by any means but the horrors committed in that era were a 2-way street as well. We must look into all truth, not just the one we want to or are willing to look for.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, have you ever read Unam sanctam? Do you understand the relationship between the Pope and the rulers of Europe in the 1500’s, or are you viewing it through the lens of a modern-day, secularized Westerner?

Yes I have. And if you want to see how I understand it, go to the teaching of Pope John Paul 11. IT can’t be any clearer. I gotta run, but will check in later or sometime this weekend.

I was on here SO SO long, I got nothing done, and got to get moving. BUt will check back later as soon as I can. It may be while though. Its the weekend!:extrahappy:

 

[steido01]

Sadly, that was a 2-way street my friend. Sadly, it seems that you want to exclusively attribute all evils of the era to the Church… we will take responsibility for ours but not for that of others.

Part of what happened that time was the result of combining Church and State, the line gets muddy in how things are to dealt with as far as crimes.

The situation requires much more study and understanding. You are hung up on the actions and it appears to have not taken the time to look at the circumstances and the era, before passing judgment.

And, BTW, not to justify the actions by any means but the horrors committed in that ear were a 2-way street as well. We must look into all truth, not just the one we want to or are willing to look for.

Indeed. :sad_yes:

“Large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -** for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame**.” - Wounds to Unity

 

[dronald]

What you don’t get (AND WONT LET ME HELP YOU) is in defining what a heretic is.

Jon, I would fall under the definition of a heretic back then.

Further, it does not say that all heretics are to be burned. I mean for goodness sake they didn’t burn the greatest heretic of all Martin Luther, nor his followers.

That’s saying something.

Steido01 has explained this perfectly. Luther was always in danger, let’s not ignore history.

All he says in 33 is, “Teaching that the death penalty is against the teaching of God is not tolerated”

I can fully support such a statement.

No, what he’s saying is “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” is a heresy. I’ll even quote it in a way that’s less confusing straight from the source:

*In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Read what it says. What did Luther state, what does the bull state. Luther states that heretics to be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Yes Rinnie, I know. What do you think my argument here is? The fact that we should be able to stand up and say, “no” when such things are declared.

I’m not saying the CC is evil, was evil, or set out to commit evil. I’m saying they err’d and we should be allowed to disagree vocally with the Pope in such an error without fear of excommunication and in turn extermination.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You can’t say you would be a heretic back then.

Your beliefs were not even created yet.

You as a follower of Christ would have most likely been a Catholic.

This is why you are in such error. The world was nothing like today back then.

Further the idea that Luther was in danger from the church is reformation propaganda.

I have no doubt that he had many enemies, but if the church had wanted him executed he would have been and their decrees to him would have declared his sentence as death not mercy as it did.

 

[steido01]

Further the idea that Luther was in danger from the church is reformation propaganda.

I have no doubt that he had many enemies, but if the church had wanted him executed he would have been and their decrees to him would have declared his sentence as death not mercy as it did.

I won’t get into the rest of this discussion, but I will not allow this point to pass. It is flat-out factually wrong to pretend that Luther was in no physical danger from the RCC. :dts:

The RCC had a history of promising “safe conduct” to examinations, and then proceeding to burn the examined at the stake (see Hus). Luther had no actual promise of safety. Simply appearing at Worms was to risk his very life! When he spoke his famous closing statements, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen,” he fully expected to die. He likely would have, too, had not his elector thought it prudent to kidnap him.

christian-history.org/diet-of-worms.html
historytoday.com/andrew-pettegree/execution-martin-luther
pbs.org/empires/martinluther/about_relu.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

I won’t get into the rest of this discussion, but I will not allow this point to pass. It is flat-out factually wrong to pretend that Luther was in no physical danger from the RCC. :dts:

The RCC had a history of promising “safe conduct” to examinations, and then proceeding to burn the examined at the stake (see Hus). Luther had no actual promise of safety. Simply appearing at Worms was to risk his very life! When he spoke his famous closing statements, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen,” he fully expected to die. He likely would have, too, had not his elector thought it prudent to kidnap him.

christian-history.org/diet-of-worms.html
historytoday.com/andrew-pettegree/execution-martin-luther
pbs.org/empires/martinluther/about_relu.html

As a Lutheran, I would expect no other position from you.

 

[dronald]

As a Lutheran, I would expect no other position from you.

Perhaps you should turn him over to the secular authorities?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes the BISHOPS not individual churches decided for themselves. This still happens today. There are things that the church has not ruled definitively on and as such may or may not be practiced/ taught at the discretion of the Bishop.

Exactly. And ultimately we are responsible to be obedient to our own Bishop, even if the next Bishop over is doing things we happen to like better.

The role of the Pope is to settle those questions of doctrine, morality, or discipline that affect the entire Church. Once he has made a ruling, no one can contradict him.

Matters of posture during the liturgy, or who can be an Altar Server, or Friday penances, etc. are local issues that the Bishop is capable of dealing with himself, in his own way.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I won’t get into the rest of this discussion, but I will not allow this point to pass. It is flat-out factually wrong to pretend that Luther was in no physical danger from the RCC. :dts:

The RCC had a history of promising “safe conduct” to examinations, and then proceeding to burn the examined at the stake (see Hus). Luther had no actual promise of safety. Simply appearing at Worms was to risk his very life! When he spoke his famous closing statements, “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen,” he fully expected to die. He likely would have, too, had not his elector thought it prudent to kidnap him.

christian-history.org/diet-of-worms.html
historytoday.com/andrew-pettegree/execution-martin-luther
pbs.org/empires/martinluther/about_relu.html

Who did Luther go before at the diet of worms?

The pope and bishops???

Nope

The Emporer Charles V and the German princes at the empirical parliament (diet)

If there was danger to his life as I am sure there was it came from these civil authorities not the Pope as dronald wants us so much to believe.

 

[jmcrae]

The RCC had a history of promising “safe conduct” to examinations, and then proceeding to burn the examined at the stake (see Hus).

Hus refused to recant his heresies, and declared that he wanted to suffer the same fate as his idol, John Wycliffe. His desire was granted.

If he had recanted his heresies and sworn obedience to the Church, he would have been set free. (They did not put men in prison for heresy back in those days.)

 

[dronald]

If there was danger to his life as I am sure there was it came from these civil authorities not the Pope as dronald wants us so much to believe.

I don’t care if the Pope was a threat or not, that’s not my point. My point is that he condoned burning heretics and Luther’s claim that people should not be burned was deemed a heresy. So, what that means is that telling the Pope his opinion on burning heretics is heretical can get you labeled as a heretic and thus burned. Someone needs to be able to stand up and say no to such claims.

Hus refused to recant his heresies, and declared that he wanted to suffer the same fate as his idol, John Wycliffe. His desire was granted.

If he had recanted his heresies and sworn obedience to the Church, he would have been set free. (They did not put men in prison for heresy back in those days.)

I don’t understand how this helps your case.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t care if the Pope was a threat or not, that’s not my point. My point is that he condoned burning heretics and Luther’s claim that people should not be burned was deemed a heresy. So, what that means is that telling the Pope his opinion on burning heretics is heretical can get you labeled as a heretic and thus burned. Someone needs to be able to stand up and say no to such claims.

I don’t understand how this helps your case.

On what grounds do you declare it heretical ?

Your opinion?

The Bible disagrees with you, do even with sola Scriptura this amounts to an unfounded opinion.

 

[JonNC]

Hus refused to recant his heresies, and declared that he wanted to suffer the same fate as his idol, John Wycliffe. His desire was granted.

If he had recanted his heresies and sworn obedience to the Church, he would have been set free. (They did not put men in prison for heresy back in those days.)

This is a remarkable statement. I try to stay clear of these kinds of debates because, frankly, they only serve to drive wedges instead of pulling them out. The fact is there are few innocent characters involved in this, be they in the Church or civil government.

You are probably right. Had Hus recanted, he probably would not have been burned at the stake. It just seems to me that we should all be appalled that he was burned at the stake under any condition. I’m sure you feel the same way.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is a remarkable statement. I try to stay clear of these kinds of debates because, frankly, they only serve to drive wedges instead of pulling them out. The fact is there are few innocent characters involved in this, be they in the Church or civil government.

You are probably right. Had Hus recanted, he probably would not have been burned at the stake. It just seems to me that we should all be appalled that he was burned at the stake under any condition. I’m sure you feel the same way.

Jon

Yes I do feel that way. What I hope in my conversations here is not to seem to be a supported of heretical burnings. In fact , like much of the Catholic Church, I am opposed to the death penalty for any reason in our modern society.

But I understand, as I think you do JohnNC, that 16th century Europe was a different place with different laws and abilities just as 1000 BC Israel was different.

In 1000 AD, God deemed it moral and just to stone people to death for things as “little” as not being a virgin at marriage.

The death penalty has remained a part of Judeo Christian Ethics for a wide range of issues since that time.

I believe that as society has progressed we have seen a slow shift to more justice, greater mercy and compassion. This modern perspective though should not cloud our judgement of history, for no doubt, every one of us would make different decisions regarding this issue if we were alive 500 years ago based on a wholly different paradigm.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t care if the Pope was a threat or not, that’s not my point. My point is that he condoned burning heretics and Luther’s claim that people should not be burned was deemed a heresy. So, what that means is that telling the Pope his opinion on burning heretics is heretical can get you labeled as a heretic and thus burned. Someone needs to be able to stand up and say no to such claims.

May I ask how you would respond to the fact that in the early post-reformation period over 30,000 women were burned at the stake in England alone, and in Protestant Germany over 100,000 women were burned, all accused of being witches?

 

[JonNC]

=Jon S;11383261]Yes I do feel that way. What I hope in my conversations here is not to seem to be a supported of heretical burnings. In fact , like much of the Catholic Church, I am opposed to the death penalty for any reason in our modern society.

I can see justification for the death penalty when acts of war or terrorism are involved, but with great caution indeed.

But I understand, as I think you do JohnNC, that 16th century Europe was a different place with different laws and abilities just as 1000 BC Israel was different.
In 1000 AD, God deemed it moral and just to stone people to death for things as “little” as not being a virgin at marriage.

The death penalty has remained a part of Judeo Christian Ethics for a wide range of issues since that time.

Oh, I am not arguing the history of it. In fact, I think we need to aware of the history. I just get concerned when we use the history in order to win debate points against each other, or use them in a polemical way. No one wins with that type of usage

I believe that as society has progressed we have seen a slow shift to more justice, greater mercy and compassion. This modern perspective though should not cloud our judgement of history, for no doubt, every one of us would make different decisions regarding this issue if we were alive 500 years ago based on a wholly different paradigm.

I wouldn’t take issue with this.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t care if the Pope was a threat or not, that’s not my point. My point is that he condoned burning heretics and Luther’s claim that people should not be burned was deemed a heresy.

When did Luther ever declare that? He himself practiced burning of anyone in Germany who disagreed with him; he certainly wasn’t opposed to it when he was promoting Lutheranism. He didn’t just burn people at the stake, either; he burned down whole cities.

 

[dronald]

Yes I do feel that way. What I hope in my conversations here is not to seem to be a supported of heretical burnings. In fact , like much of the Catholic Church, I am opposed to the death penalty for any reason in our modern society.

But there was a time and a place after the death of our Lord when it was acceptable for heresy?

In 1000 AD, God deemed it moral and just to stone people to death for things as “little” as not being a virgin at marriage.

Just to clear things up you mean 1000BC correct?

The death penalty has remained a part of Judeo Christian Ethics for a wide range of issues since that time.

Not for heresy, no. It’s never been okay.

I believe that as society has progressed we have seen a slow shift to more justice, greater mercy and compassion. This modern perspective though should not cloud our judgement of history, for no doubt, every one of us would make different decisions regarding this issue if we were alive 500 years ago based on a wholly different paradigm.

Of course it has progressed, we now have other Churches that can condemn one if it makes claims like the Church of old has.

May I ask how you would respond to the fact that in the early post-reformation period over 30,000 women were burned at the stake in England alone, and in Protestant Germany over 100,000 women were burned, all accused of being witches?

I completely disagree with it. Mary 1, Elizabeth, Leo X, in the name of Religion, Politics, I disagree with it. There was no time and place when burning human beings for disagreeing with your Religious practices was okay.

 

[JonNC]

When did Luther ever declare that? He himself practiced burning of anyone in Germany who disagreed with him; he certainly wasn’t opposed to it when he was promoting Lutheranism. He didn’t just burn people at the stake, either; he burned down whole cities.

Source.

See. This is what I mean. Charges and counter charges. Some with a grain of truth. Some without. And the history doesn’t change. Just the attitudes we have towards one another.

No side was clean. And no one today is responsible for that being the case.
Jon