D
Duhawk83
Guest
If Protestantism is a heresy why would Luther not be a heretic?
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
TertiumQuid,
The Church’s definition of “heresy”…
“**Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”
According to the Catholic Church since the 16th century, didn’t Martin Luther obstinantly deny truths that must be believed with divine and catholic faith? If the Catholic Church has changed it’s mind on this, can you provide the magisterial text which did so?
The Church’s definition of “heresy”…
“**Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”
According to the Catholic Church since the 16th century, didn’t Martin Luther obstinantly deny truths that must be believed with divine and catholic faith? If the Catholic Church has changed it’s mind on this, can you provide the magisterial text which did so?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, but appearantly not in the Epistle of James
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Dave,
Just curious, what is the official RCC definition of "profound Heretic, and how is it different than the definition of “heretic”? If you read my words carefully, you will note I commented on “profound heretic”
I have an interesting little book right here called “Catholic Beliefs From A to Z” written by Alfred Mcbride, O.Praem. He says:
The question for you: Is Luther your brother in Christ?
I agree with a statement quoted aprovingly by the Catholic historian Sebastian Merkle:
If though, you are correct, and Protestants are “heretics” why are you talking to me?-
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
What is Luther’s argument against the book of James? A major part of his argument is that James was a second century Christian, and not an eyewitness. Did Luther simply arrive here with no basis? No. Throughout his career, he maintained a position that echoed other Church Fathers:Yes, but appearantly not in the Epistle of James
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
TertiumQuid,
TertiumQuid:
Just curious, what is the official RCC definition of "profound Heretic, and how is it different than the definition of “heretic”? If you read my words carefully, you will note I commented on “profound heretic”
“Profound” is not part of a technical term, but merely a noun modifier. Webster’s dictionary can describes it better than I can. Was Luther a profound heretic? If by “profound” one is describing Luther as: “having intellectual depth and insight … difficult to fathom or understand”, then yes, I’d have to agree.
Yet, there is a difference between a material heretic and a formal heretic, according to Catholic doctrine. The latter is a damnable sin, while the former is not necessarily damnable, depending upon whether one has “full consciousness” of the intellect with regard to the gravity of the sin, and/or whether one does or does not have impediments to the freedom of will such that the sin can be no longer described as freely chosen or deliberate.
The question for you: Is Luther your brother in Christ?
Certainly. Yet, he was a heretic. A profound one at that. Whether he was a formal or material heretic is solely the judgment of God. Still heresy, while not necessarily a mortal sin in every circumstance, is still a sin which is harmful to the soul and to the Church, and as such, excommunication is a prudent response to heresy.
If though, you are correct, and Protestants are “heretics” why are you talking to me?
Now you’re just being silly, aren’t you? Surely you don’t presume to know more about Catholic canon law than I do, do you? The Church has the power to bind, but it also has the power to loose. If I were living in 1917, I certainly would be in violation of canon law by publically debating religion with a heretic. Yet, I don’t live in 1917. I am instead bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the decrees and constitutions of Vatican II which abrogate such a prohibition. Have you read these? If so, you wouldn’t have asked such a silly question.
What is Luther’s argument against the book of James?
That it’s “justified by works and not by faith alone” verse was contrary to the Epistle of Romans, which he tragically and knowingly modified in his translation by adding words that were not present in the Greek manuscripts. He was quite wrong, wasn’t he?
I’m quite aware of the non-uniformity of Sacred Scripture until the end of the fourth century, and even some disagreements as to the inspired nature of some books of the canon, however limited it was, between the 4th and 16th centuries. However, I suggest Luther didn’t really accept any scholarship as authoritative except Luther’s. I also suggest the universal acceptance of the canon was abundantly clear, albeit not yet definitive (i.e. believe or anathema) at the Council of Florence, which was a century prior to the Reformation.
One can quote from St. Jerome’s scholarship as their authority, as many Protestants polemically attempt, but the fact remains that the judgment of the Churches was even more clear in the 16th century than it was in the 4th century. St. Jerome accepted the judgment of the Churches despite his personal opinion, and Luther did not (e.g., Jerome accepted the Theodotian (2nd century Jewish) recession of Daniel, did he not? Why didn’t Luther? Why don’t those who polemically claim to merely accept Jerome’s scholarship accept Jerome’s acceptance of Theodotian’s recession of Daniel?).
Just curious, what is the official RCC definition of "profound Heretic, and how is it different than the definition of “heretic”? If you read my words carefully, you will note I commented on “profound heretic”
“Profound” is not part of a technical term, but merely a noun modifier. Webster’s dictionary can describes it better than I can. Was Luther a profound heretic? If by “profound” one is describing Luther as: “having intellectual depth and insight … difficult to fathom or understand”, then yes, I’d have to agree.
Yet, there is a difference between a material heretic and a formal heretic, according to Catholic doctrine. The latter is a damnable sin, while the former is not necessarily damnable, depending upon whether one has “full consciousness” of the intellect with regard to the gravity of the sin, and/or whether one does or does not have impediments to the freedom of will such that the sin can be no longer described as freely chosen or deliberate.
The question for you: Is Luther your brother in Christ?
Certainly. Yet, he was a heretic. A profound one at that. Whether he was a formal or material heretic is solely the judgment of God. Still heresy, while not necessarily a mortal sin in every circumstance, is still a sin which is harmful to the soul and to the Church, and as such, excommunication is a prudent response to heresy.
If though, you are correct, and Protestants are “heretics” why are you talking to me?
Now you’re just being silly, aren’t you? Surely you don’t presume to know more about Catholic canon law than I do, do you? The Church has the power to bind, but it also has the power to loose. If I were living in 1917, I certainly would be in violation of canon law by publically debating religion with a heretic. Yet, I don’t live in 1917. I am instead bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the decrees and constitutions of Vatican II which abrogate such a prohibition. Have you read these? If so, you wouldn’t have asked such a silly question.
What is Luther’s argument against the book of James?
That it’s “justified by works and not by faith alone” verse was contrary to the Epistle of Romans, which he tragically and knowingly modified in his translation by adding words that were not present in the Greek manuscripts. He was quite wrong, wasn’t he?
I’m quite aware of the non-uniformity of Sacred Scripture until the end of the fourth century, and even some disagreements as to the inspired nature of some books of the canon, however limited it was, between the 4th and 16th centuries. However, I suggest Luther didn’t really accept any scholarship as authoritative except Luther’s.
I also suggest the universal acceptance of the canon was abundantly clear, albeit not yet definitive (i.e. believe or anathema) at the Council of Florence, which was a century prior to the Reformation.One can quote from St. Jerome’s scholarship as their authority, as many Protestants polemically attempt, but the fact remains that the judgment of the Churches was even more clear in the 16th century than it was in the 4th century. St. Jerome accepted the judgment of the Churches despite his personal opinion, and Luther did not (e.g., Jerome accepted the Theodotian (2nd century Jewish) recession of Daniel, did he not? Why didn’t Luther? Why don’t those who polemically claim to merely accept Jerome’s scholarship accept Jerome’s acceptance of Theodotian’s recession of Daniel?).
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
The papal court theolgian Prierias wrote an offical papal treaty codemning Luther as a heretic, which was sent to Luther along with an offical summons to Rome. As Heiko Oberman explains,
“The papal legate in Augsburg was instructed to have Luther, who was already designated a heretic, arrested if he refused to recant. Two days later, on August 25, the Saxon provinicial was ordered to have Luther seized and imprisoned, ‘bound hand and foot.’”
-snip-
“Luther traveled to Augsburg convinced that he would suffer a martyr’s death if he did not recant.”
-snip-
(Heiko Oberman, Luther:Man Between God and the Devil, p. 194-196)
Dave, i have no idea who you are, so you could be a papal lawyer for all I know, staying up all night studying the stuff. (I ask slighly sarcastic…) did the papacy during Luther’s time make this distinction of “formal and material” heretics, and if so, which was Luther? They didn’t seem to have a problem handing him over to the Emperor for certain death. You seem to be a little more “tolerant” than your Catholic forefathers.
I suggest you go back and first re-read what i said. I said something like “a major part of his argument…”. Key word: major. Since you appear to be an astute pupil, I won’t bore you with my simplistic regurgitation of what Luther said, in context, about the book of james, and how it correlates to what I posted to you previously.
Thanks for the suggestion, however, Luther was a Doctor of Theology, I believe the highest degree one could achieve during his time period. Luther, like many who came before him, studied the opinions of many. A cursory reading of anything by Luther usually shows he agreed with some ideas, and disagreed with some others. Surely you don’t believe every opinion from every Church father?However, I suggest Luther didn’t really accept any scholarship as authoritative except Luther’s.
Would you care to explain the opinions of Erasmus & Cajetan, two of the greatest Catholic minds during the 16th Century? I’d love to hear about what they thought about the book of James.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
TertiumQuid,
I’m quite familiar with Luther’s condemnation as a heretic. I’m not denying that he was a heretic. You seem to have read some favorable comments about Luther from some Catholic theologians and concluded the Church had changed her mind about Luther’s heresy. That’s incorrect.
“Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as “Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”, i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. … It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words “dictum vel factum vel concupitum” denote the material element of sin, a human act: “contra legem æternam”, the formal element.” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - “Sin”)
The Catholic Church has, since before Luther’s time, taught that a human act committed either without full constent of the will, or with invincible ignorance, is not a mortal sin. (cf., St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *IIa, 88, 6). Whether Luther acted with full consent of his will and intellect (i.e., formal sin) in his heresy is, like I said earlier, only known to God. So, Luther was most certainly a heretic, a profound one at that, but whether he was a formal heretic or merely a material heretic is only known to God, as the judge would have to know the impediments to the will and intellect, and only God can know this with certainty.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, ignorance itself is a sin, unless it is invincible. If one commits an act out of invincible ignorance with regard to the gravity of the transgression, then one is not guilty of sin. Such impediments to the intellect and will have always been considered by Catholic moral theology, to diminish the guilt of a transgression.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
I’m quite familiar with Luther’s condemnation as a heretic. I’m not denying that he was a heretic. You seem to have read some favorable comments about Luther from some Catholic theologians and concluded the Church had changed her mind about Luther’s heresy. That’s incorrect.
Yes. The Catholic Church distinguished between formal and material sins (heresy being one type of sin), even before Luther.
“Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as “Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”, i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. … It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words “dictum vel factum vel concupitum” denote the material element of sin, a human act: “contra legem æternam”, the formal element.” (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - “Sin”)
The Catholic Church has, since before Luther’s time, taught that a human act committed either without full constent of the will, or with invincible ignorance, is not a mortal sin. (cf., St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica, *IIa, 88, 6). Whether Luther acted with full consent of his will and intellect (i.e., formal sin) in his heresy is, like I said earlier, only known to God. So, Luther was most certainly a heretic, a profound one at that, but whether he was a formal heretic or merely a material heretic is only known to God, as the judge would have to know the impediments to the will and intellect, and only God can know this with certainty.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, ignorance itself is a sin, unless it is invincible. If one commits an act out of invincible ignorance with regard to the gravity of the transgression, then one is not guilty of sin. Such impediments to the intellect and will have always been considered by Catholic moral theology, to diminish the guilt of a transgression.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
You said:
No. But unlike Luther, and very much like St. Jerome, I assent to the judgment of the Churches. I don’t have the liberty to pick and choose what books, chapters, and verses belong to Holy Writ, for example.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
TertiumQuid,
Since the canon of Sacred Scripture was not yet a *de fide *definition of the Catholic faith until the Council of Trent, Cajetan, et. al., were free to hold a different view as to what books of the canon were inspired and which were not. After Trent, to do so would be heresy. Despite these differing views, the canon of Scripture was universally held to be the same as that described by the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th century, which had been the same list of books since the 4th century canons.
Whether they are two of the greatest Catholic minds of the 16th century is rather speculative, and in the case of Erasmus at least, quite a stretch. Erasmus was certainly the most important German humanist in his day, but since his first publications he was quite antagonistic to the Church, so I’d say he was a lousy Catholic.
Since the canon of Sacred Scripture was not yet a *de fide *definition of the Catholic faith until the Council of Trent, Cajetan, et. al., were free to hold a different view as to what books of the canon were inspired and which were not. After Trent, to do so would be heresy. Despite these differing views, the canon of Scripture was universally held to be the same as that described by the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the 15th century, which had been the same list of books since the 4th century canons.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
So Luther’s removal of the Books prior to Trent was not heresy?
A
Apologia100
Guest
No, Luther’s removal of books after Hippo and Carthage is heresy. The Council of Trent happened several years after Luther’s reinvention of the Canon of Scripture.
I
II_Paradox_II
Guest
So you would deny Dave’s assertion that the canon was not De Fide belief until Trent? I so, what of the opinions of Cajetan and Erasmus (among quite a few medivals who had strong suspicions about various parts of the canon)?
ken
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
One thing you ought to keep in mind, inspiration and canonization are not the same thing. Luther made up his own canon. Cardinal Cajetan did not. Yet, Cardinal Cajetan did indeed believe that some books of the canon of Scripture were not inspired. His opinion (held prior to Trent) was not heretical, nor did it re-establish the canon of Scripture, as the canons of the Church do not rely upon the opinions of theologians, but upon the judgment of the Church.
If Luther had done nothing but hold that some books of the canon were not inspired, he would not have been a heretic (prior to Trent). Unfortunately, his heresy was more profound than merely holding opinions similar to Cardinal Cajetan with regard to the inspiration of some books of Scripture.
If Luther had done nothing but hold that some books of the canon were not inspired, he would not have been a heretic (prior to Trent). Unfortunately, his heresy was more profound than merely holding opinions similar to Cardinal Cajetan with regard to the inspiration of some books of Scripture.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’d say it was unlawful, but not not strictly heretical.
Local synods cannot define *de fide *dogmas of the Catholic Church. St. John of Damascus, Syria (675-749) was not bound by the Synods of Hippo and Carthage. He did not count the Book of Wisdom or Sirach among the OT books, for example. (cf. St. John Damascene, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, *Book IV, Ch. XVII). He too was not heretical for his contrary opinion.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t see it among the condemnations of Martin Luther from Pope Leo X in his Bull Exsurge Domini.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM
After the Council of Trent, it would most certainly be a heresy.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Dave,
An interesting sociological type thing that I find, is that many Catholics will conclude that Luther is their Christian brother. You in fact agreed that Luther was your brother in Christ. Exsurge Domine implies the execution of Luther as a heretic. As Philiip Schaff has pointed out when reviewing the bull,
“For the person of Luther, the Pope professes fatherly love and forbearance, and entreats him once more, by the mercies of God and the blood of Christ, to repent and recant within sixty days after the publication of the bull in the Brandenburg, Meissen, and Merseburg dioceses, and promises to receive him graciously like the prodigal son. But failing to repent, he and his adherents will be cut off, as withered branches, from the vine of Christ, and be punished as obstinate heretics. This means that they shall be burned; for the bull expressly condemns the proposition of Luther which denounces the burning of heretics as “contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.” All princes, magistrates, and citizens are exhorted, on threat of excommunication and promise of reward, to seize Luther and his followers, and to hand him over to the apostolic chair. Places which harbor him or his followers are threatened with the interdict. Christians are forbidden to read, print, or publish any of his books, and are commanded to burn them.
Source: bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf117.htm
When Catholics like yourself admit that Luther is your brother in Christ, I wonder what Pope Leo would think of your opinion, or The Council of Florence, which declared the following:
I know Catholics think Luther is a heretic. Even Joseph Lortz, who I cited above, concluded Luther was a heretic. What I despise (in the strongest sense) is Luther vilification. I ventured onto these boards a few weeks back, and one of the first threads I read was that dreadful compilation of out-of-context Luther quotes and Luther-bashing. My point (which I have made many times in the last few weeks) is that many 19th-20th Century Roman Catholic Scholars do not partake in such inanity. They are able to delve into Luther’s theology, read it in context, and form intelligent opinions, without attacking Luther’s character.
An interesting sociological type thing that I find, is that many Catholics will conclude that Luther is their Christian brother. You in fact agreed that Luther was your brother in Christ. Exsurge Domine implies the execution of Luther as a heretic. As Philiip Schaff has pointed out when reviewing the bull,
“For the person of Luther, the Pope professes fatherly love and forbearance, and entreats him once more, by the mercies of God and the blood of Christ, to repent and recant within sixty days after the publication of the bull in the Brandenburg, Meissen, and Merseburg dioceses, and promises to receive him graciously like the prodigal son. But failing to repent, he and his adherents will be cut off, as withered branches, from the vine of Christ, and be punished as obstinate heretics. This means that they shall be burned; for the bull expressly condemns the proposition of Luther which denounces the burning of heretics as “contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.” All princes, magistrates, and citizens are exhorted, on threat of excommunication and promise of reward, to seize Luther and his followers, and to hand him over to the apostolic chair. Places which harbor him or his followers are threatened with the interdict. Christians are forbidden to read, print, or publish any of his books, and are commanded to burn them.
Source: bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf117.htm
When Catholics like yourself admit that Luther is your brother in Christ, I wonder what Pope Leo would think of your opinion, or The Council of Florence, which declared the following:
Luther never repented. According to the above quote, Luther cannot become a participant in eternal life. How is it possible then for you to conclude that Luther is your brother in Christ? Pope Leo and the Council of Florence seem at odds with itsjustDave.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Dave,
Find me any complete version of Luther’s Bible in which books are missing.Luther translated all the books of the Bible (and also the apocrypha). None were removed.
Luther held that some books are more important than others. He gave his interpretation of which one’s he thought they were. Had he been the anarchist some think he was, then he would have removed books from the Bible. But he removed none, all were included. Luther was a Doctor of theology, and was concerned that some of the books were not written directly by the apostles.
Luther was given authority to be a Doctor of sacred Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church. He was given an education which included studying canon issues. Therefore, in regards to Luther dismissing books on the ground of apostolicity, the Roman Church gave him the authority to study the issue. It also gave Cajetan the same thing.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Same for you too: find my any complete translation of Luther’s Bible that is missing books. Fact is, during the sixteenth century Luther even translated the apocrypha.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
TertiumQuid,
You may think quoting Luther is equivalent to attacking Luther’s character, but I do not.
Nice attempt at quibbling, but placing Biblical books in an appendix while contrasting, for example the Epistle of St. James to “**all the genuine sacred books” **makes is seem pretty clear that he didn’t consider it a “genuine sacred book.” Did he not state in his preface to the Epistles of St. James: "I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my bible"?
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
You missed my point. I object to spurious quoting of Luther that ignores the context of his words, or the polemical context of the situation. Quoting Luther is fine, as long as one attempts to be fair. I was encouraged in my study of 19th-20th century Catholic scholarship that focused on Luther’s theology, rather than following in the footsteps of Cochlaeus. Unfortunately, many Cyber-Catholic-warriors love doing that Jerry Springer type approach with Luther.
Seems to me I dismantled your comparrison of Luther and Cajetan.
Luther said,
- Status