The real Luther

[Gottle_of_Geer]

kindlylight:

Luther as an instrument of God stretches credibility. Would an instrument of God write the following as quoted in a book by Peter Weiner:

Would a Vicar of Christ condemn the proposition that “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit” ? Leo X did, in Exsurge Deus (1520), when Luther said this. Lutherans have their skeletons and problems with credibility - so do we ​

IOW - sometimes people behave disappointingly. Even if they may well be instruments of God. And one can be an instrument of God without knowing it - and without being Christian. Attila was called the “scourge of God”.

And there is this:

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.

This is not a happy way of being an instrument of God - but it is one of them.

Luther’s antisemitic laws consist of seven paragraphs only. Here they are:

Luther
"Set fire to their synagogues and schools; and what will not burn, heap earth over it so that no man may see a stone or relic of them forever.

Pull down and destroy their houses since they perpetrate the same nefarious things in them as in their schools.

This was what was often done in cases of heresy - mediaeval, and in Spain. Maybe he had Inquisitorial practice in mind​

Pack them all under one roof or stable, like the gypsies, that they may know that they are not lords and masters in our land as they boast.

Deprive them of all their prayer-books.

I suppose it’s a bit harsher than burning Talmuds, as had happened before, and would happen again - but not much. The burners were not always ignorant fanatics - St. Louis IX burnt a cartload of Talmuds. Sometimes, what was praised, becomes deplorable - and contrariwise.​

Forbid their rabbis henceforth to teach.

Deprive them of the right to move about the country.

Forbid them the business of usury, and take from them all their belongings.

Hand the strong young Jews of both sexes flail, axe, mattock, spade, distaff, and spindle; and make them work for their bread in the sweat of their brow, like all the children of Adam. Confiscate their property and drive them out of the country." (W53, 525 abridged).

This isn’t pretty, but if it had been decreed by a Council (such as Lateran IV), I suspect it would have been defended by saying:​

1. Men are sinful, even in the Church
2. It’s not infallible
3. The Church has apologised.

In which case - why don’t we extend the same courtesy to Luther (who is now beyond man’s judgement, at least) ?

If the Inquisition can be defended by the argument (perfectly fair, surely ?) that we must not judge the 16th century by the standards of the 20th - why not allow this reasoning to apply to Luther ? We can’t apply one moral standard to Catholic things, and another to non-Catholic things. Especially if we are not relativists

 

[Mickey]

Gottle of Geer:

For “Luther”, substitute “St. Augustine”, “St. Jerome”, “St. Thomas Aquinas” - he was a theologian; they were theologians.

Did the writings and ideas of these Holy Saints inspire a faith of protest?
Gottle of Geer:

if he had been an RC to the end of his life, his personal failings, however deplorable, would have had no value as a weapon against Lutheranism; only against Catholicism.

That’s a mighty big “IF” that you are using there.
Gottle of Geer:

why can Catholics not learn from a heretic ? If reading Tertullian was not intolerable to St. Cyprian of Carthage, and if St. Augustine read Tyconius, a Donatist - why should we reject everything in Luther, or in any other non-RC or ex-RC ?

If I am not mistaken, there were many beneficial writings from these men before they were heretics. Never-the-less, there is much to learn from the heresies. Why do old heresies renew themselves even today? Because people have forgotten their history and why it was declared a heresy in the first place. Not everything Luther preached was heretical–his successors did much of the damage.

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

For “Luther”, substitute “St. Augustine”, “St. Jerome”, “St. Thomas Aquinas” - he was a theologian; they were theologians. - Yes. Did you notice the distinction? The one who is not a saint is Martin Luther. St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas all worked within the framework of the Church.

(And it is his ideas that matter, not least to his being Catholic - at least by Catholic standards: if he had been an RC to the end of his life, his personal failings, however deplorable, would have had no value as a weapon against Lutheranism; only against Catholicism.) - If he had been a RC until the end, I don’t believe he would have been known, let alone used as “a weapon”. His infamy comes from his actions against and outside of the Church.

We don’t expect any of those three to be without error - and they aren’t. Not if we believe as the CC believes. So if we don’t demand total doctrinal perfection of them, before we hear what they say : why demand this of Luther ? - **“Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its fullest meaning. They are not *official ***teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; and theologians do not receive with the bishops that ‘sure gift of truth’ *(Dei Verbum 8) *that apostolic witnesses of faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.” (Wuerl 7)

Because he was a heretic ? At least one has to be a Christian to be a heretic - **Please see my post above about heresy as defined by the Church as “spiritual poison”. It is a serious charge; much greater than just a “sinner”. If you rephrase the statement it would read “Why demand this of Luther? Because he was a spiritual poison?” **

Plato was not a Christian, just as Aristotle was not. - Yes. They were also dead when Jesus was born.

Or Avicenna.- Not declared a heretic

Or Moses Maimonides. - Not declared a heretic

But if Catholics are prepared to learn from two pagans, a Muslim philosopher, and a Jewish philosopher,

even though they werte not Christians (let alone Catholics) - Catholics were the first Christians

for even one moment of their lives -

why can Catholics not learn from a heretic ? - Because a heretic teaches in opposition to truth.

If reading Tertullian was not intolerable to St. Cyprian of Carthage-After reading the works of Tertullian, St. Cyprian converted to Christianity.

and if St. Augustine read Tyconius, a Donatist - St. Augustine reproaches Ticonius with an anticipation of Pelagian ideas.

If there is a “Protestant view” - maybe there is a “Protestant faith” - **Yes. None of them completely agree, yet all of them use the interpretation of Scripture as their foundation. This nicely illustrates the error of “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t it? **​

Definition of Protestantism: the theological system of any of the churches of western Christendom that separated from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. Hence, the “Protestant view” is a view held in common by "any of the churches of western Christendom that separated from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation."

St. Thomas differed from St. Augustine on certain matters - that does not mean they were not one in faith: it can’t mean that, if the Church is to have them both as Doctors and Saints. - Please see the above quote from Bishop Wuerl regarding theologians and scholars in the Church.​

Interpretation also varies because, although one can be confident there is a right answer or set of answers, it has yet to be granted. - Please see the above quote from Bishop Wuerl regarding theologians and scholars in the Church.

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

It is quite possible to agree with Presbyterians that God is Sovereign and freely elects those who are to be saved (say) - although this is in agreement with Presbytereian doctrine, it is also in agreement with that of the CC and Luther -** All truth in any of the Protestant churches derives directly from the truth in the “deposit of truth” entrusted to the Catholic bishops and Pope. While these churches have “some of the truth”, only the Catholic Church contains “all of the truth.” **

A Lutheran can differ from his Presbyterian brother, just as he can differ from his RC sister - this does not imply any relativism -

Definition of Relativism: The view that truth is relative and not absolute. It varies from people to people, time to time.
Unlike Lutheranism and Presbyterianism, Roman Catholics have never wavered from the “deposit of faith” even when it was unpopular. The “deposit of faith” is absolute.

(a much-abused word, IMHO) -** not a much-abused word, a much-abused way of thinking**

Rather like St. Augustine - and indeed, St. Thomas.To speak of no others.** (?)**

This is to be expected - if a Christian grows in wisdom, what he once held, may come to need revising: not because it has changed, but because he has (or she ) - **“Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.” **
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Both of them, like St. Alphonsus Liguori, changed their minds on various points. - Please expound upon this

Which is what a “disciple” is - a “learner”. - Definition of a "disciple"someone who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another

 

[Shibboleth]

Eden:

If you believe that the Catholic Church has no special authority, why did you tell me some time back that Luther had authority because he was once a priest?

:tsktsk: I mentioned nothing of authority with Luther in regards to his priesthood that I can remember. I simply argued that he retained a valid holy order, by which he still retained certain charisms such as the ability to consecrate the Eucharist.

All that aside though, I was speaking of Protestantism not myself. I believe in Apostolic Succession and Tradition. One thing that should be noted though is that Bishops can error as bad or worse than Luther, just look at how many were Arians back in the day. Anyways I digress… there is a good quote though that should be listened to in regards to some of the posts I have seen…

Between stimulus and response, there is a space.
In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response.
In our response lies our growth and our freedom.
Chose wisely before responding.

 

[Mickey]

Shibboleth:

One thing that should be noted though is that Bishops can error as bad or worse than Luther, just look at how many were Arians back in the day.

Yes, the majority were Arians. One wonders how the Nicene Bishops prevailed.

Shibboleth:

Between stimulus and response, there is a space.

In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response.

In our response lies our growth and our freedom.
Wonderful quote!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

Blaming Luther is not my intention now that I have definitive information from a doctor of theology in the Lutheran church that Lutherans do not believe Luther had any “special authority”.

This is called changing horses in mid stream ​

Much of the discussion on this thread has been about Luther’s character and its compatibility (or otherwise) with that of a reformer of the Church - it isn’t good enough, for people to blame Luther for X, Y & Z, and then to switch suddenly to a completely different reason to criticise him.

Who he was, is irrelevant to what he said - what he said, is what matters.

Much depends on what is meant by “special authority” - authority of what sort ? What in ? From what source ? ##

What I have clearly stated is that Luther did not have the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. The churches outside the Catholic Church that formed as a result of the “Reformation” do not hold the fullness of truth given to us from the Holy Spirit through the apostles. This fullness of truth is called the “deposit of faith”. Therefore, what Luther preached was not “truth” as it was not authoritative. He preached “opinion”.

For whatever reasons new churches were formed through the fault of both Church clergy and reformers outside the Church. But no church other than the Catholic Church is “true”.

Neither is the CC - Christ is “Faithful and True” and is the Truth: no Church can be, because no Church is sinless or free from all faults. How can the Church, which is not Christ in Person, is always in need of reform, and is not yet grown to the full measure of the maturity of Christ, be the true Church ? She isn’t even alone in being blessed by God. The Church lives by the Truth, but she is not Him, just as the moon is not the sun.​

We are told that with the death of the last apostle, no new public revelation would be given. The responsibility of the Pope and the bishops as apostolic successor was not to create new revelations but to protect, preserve and pass on the “deposit of truth” revealed through the Holy Spirit. This “deposit of faith” has been taught and passed down through the Pope and Bishops for 2,000 years.

From The Catholic Way: Faith for Living Today by Bishop Donald W. Wuerl:

LEAVING THE CHURCH IS LEAVING CHRIST

Bishops “have the God-given task of teaching in the name of Christ, sanctifying by the power of Christ, and governing with the authority of Christ.” (Wuerl p 103)

“Given Christ’s identification with his Church, which is His Body, it is an illusion to think that one can walk away from the Church and not in some way step aside from Christ.” (Wuerl pp 103-4)

[snip]

There is much blame to go around for the “Reformation” but that does not legitimize the movement. Reform should have come from within. In fact, corruption and reform were not new to the Church.

That is why both Constance and Lateran V legislated for reform - but nothing much was done. The requirements of governance in the Church do not legitimise neglect of those who were affected by the disorders in the Church, either. These were people for whom Christ died, even if some churchmen forgot this.​

There were reformers before Luther’s time who worked within the Church and became saints (i.e. St. Charles Borromeo). However, there was no need to “reform” the “deposit of faith” which is what Luther did.

If it’s not contradictory to the character of the deposit of faith to define dogmas which the Fathers either do not mention, or even deny: why should it be contrary to the once-for-all character of the deposit for an Augustinian friar to be able to see something the Church of his day did not admit to be true ?​

The Fathers do not refer to the Assumption of Mary until very late - yet the definition of 1950 does not violate the finality of this deposit. Why should Luther’s ideas of 400 years before 1950 not be as legitimate as the Assumption ? The Popes do not have a monopoly of insight and wisdom - so why should a heretic not see more clearly than they at times ?

If the definition of 1950 is not too recent to be part of, or implicit in, or a development of, the deposit - why should the ideas of Luther be too recent ? Isn’t a fresh definition a reform, to some degree ? (Not necessarily, perhaps - it may depend on the model for definition and doctrinal development one has in mind.)

Alternatively, they might have been premature then, but just what is needed now - maybe the CC of 1520 was not capable of receiving them: that they were not received, does not of itself prove they are untrue. Maybe the CC has matured enough to have the abilty to accept them.

These are all possibilities - and they may help to explain why the claims of the CC are less luminously obvious than might be supposed: though, to be sure, one risks going off-topic in saying this ##

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

Would a Vicar of Christ condemn the proposition that “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit” ? Leo X did, in Exsurge Deus (1520), when Luther said this. Lutherans have their skeletons and problems with credibility - so do we - **Please tell me about “Exsurge Deus”. I am familiar with “Exsurge Domine”. To read the 41 errors taught by Luther, here is a link: **ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM - Heresy in depth: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

IOW - sometimes people behave disappointingly. Even if they may well be instruments of God. And one can be an instrument of God without knowing it - and without being Christian. Attila was called the “scourge of God”. - Attila the Hun was called the “scourge of God” because he lay waste to much of the Holy Roman Empire. What the relevence of this is to Luther?

Isa 10:5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. - **Are you saying Luther was sent to punish us? **

This is not a happy way of being an instrument of God - but it is one of them. - **I can’t argue with that. Being a scourge is not a “happy way of being an instrument of God.” :whacky: **

This was what was often done in cases of heresy - medieval, and in Spain. Maybe he had Inquisitorial practice in mind - Who is he? Luther, God or Attila the Hun?

I suppose it’s a bit harsher than burning Talmuds (what is a bit harsher than burning the Talmud), as had happened before, and would happen again - but not much. The burners were not always ignorant fanatics - St. Louis IX burnt a cartload of Talmuds. Sometimes, what was praised, becomes deplorable - and contrariwise. -

Source of text below: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4705

"The Talmud was brought most forcefully to the papacy’s attention in 1239, when a former Jew, Nicholas Donin, informed Pope Gregory IX that it was filled with errors, blasphemies, and heresies. Gregory sent a letter ordering secular lords to confiscate Jewish literature and turn it over to the ecclesiastical authorities for study. **The following year, St. Louis IX of France summoned to his court a council of rabbis to defend the Talmud. They failed to convince the Church’s scholars, who concluded that the Talmud had supplanted the Torah, leading the Jewish people to abandon Mosaic Law. **Louis ordered the confiscation of all copies of the Talmud in Paris. A few years later, Pope Innocent IV, acting in response to Jewish complaints, ordered a new investigation of the Talmud. But the new commission came to the same conclusion: The Talmud was filled with blasphemies against God and the Christian faith.

In response to these findings, Innocent IV enshrined in canon law the right of the pope to act to preserve Judaism from heresy. On the face of it, this may seem absurd. But it was entirely consistent with the Church’s long-standing defense of the Jews. St. Paul and St. Augustine agreed that the Jews must be respected, not out of some anachronistic appreciation of religious diversity, but because they were both a witness to the truth of the Old Testament and the chosen people who would one day come to salvation through Christ. The Talmud struck at the heart of both of these rationales. Henceforth, for the popes, defending the Jews meant not only defending Jewish rights and persons but also the purity of the Jewish faith. In practice, though, Church-sponsored confiscations of the Talmud were rare."

%between%

 

[Mickey]

Gottle of Geer:

Neither is the CC - Christ is “Faithful and True” and is the Truth: no Church can be, because no Church is sinless or free from all faults.

As Catholics, we believe the visible Church is the Bride of Christ. And so we believe that the Faith and Truth of Christ is present with His Bride.
Gottle of Geer:

How can the Church, which is not Christ in Person, is always in need of reform, and is not yet grown to the full measure of the maturity of Christ, be the true Church?

When The Divine Liturgy or Mass begins, Heaven meets earth as the Bride of Christ, (The Catholic Church), worships and glorifies The Holy Trinity. Christ is there in person. There is no need of reform. The Church is enveloped in the full measure of the maturity of Christ.
Gottle of Geer:

The Church lives by the Truth, but she is not Him

No. She is His Bride. And we receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in The Holy Eucharist–His Real Presence!

**PS–**Your profile says you are a Roman Papist Catholic. What exactly does this mean?

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

This isn’t pretty (What isn’t pretty? Confiscations of the Talmud?), but if it had been decreed by a Council (such as Lateran IV), I suspect it (What is it?) would have been defended by saying:

1. Men are sinful, even in the Church
2. It’s not infallible
3. The Church has apologised.

In which case - why don’t we extend the same courtesy to Luther (who is now beyond man’s judgment, at least) ? - Extend what courtesy?

If the Inquisition can be defended by the argument (perfectly fair, surely ?) that we must not judge the 16th century by the standards of the 20th (or 21st) - why not allow this reasoning to apply to Luther ? We can’t apply one moral standard to Catholic things, and another to non-Catholic things. Especially if we are not relativists -

"The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state."

***"*The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community." “*****As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.” Source: **http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

The Fathers do not refer to the Assumption of Mary until very late - yet the definition of 1950 does not violate the finality of this deposit.

**The teaching that Mary was assumed into Heaven was not new in the 20th century. It was there from the earliest days. It was until 1950 not a teaching that Catholics were required to believe. This is completely different from a new belief. “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith.” **

"As for the Assumption, the strongest evidence for Mary’s Assumption is, oddly enough, a complete lack of evidence.
That is to say, no early Christian ever claimed to have a bodily relic of Mary, and no city ever claimed to have Mary’s remains. And this is in STARK contrast to the early veneration of the tombs of the Apostles and the other saints of the early Church. For example, everyone knew that the graves of Peter and Paul were at Rome. Likewise, the graves of John and Timothy were at Ephesus. The grave of Luke was in Greece, whereas the grave of Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt; later being transported to Venice. Likewise, the grave of James was at Jerusalem; the grave of Mary Magdalene was at Marseille. And, even the graves of the Old Testament saints were similarly venerated – such as the graves of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at Hebron; the grave of Rachel at Bethlehem (Matt 2:18), and the grave of David in Jerusalem itself (Acts 2:29). So, why did NO early Christian ever speak about a grave of the Virgin Mary? Unless there never was one.

Indeed, in the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), we had the heresy of the Docetists, who claimed that Jesus did not have an earthly body. St. Ignatius, a disciple of Mary’s caretaker, the Apostle John himself, speaks out against these Docetists in his Epistle to the Ephesians, citing Jesus’ relationship to Mary to prove that the Lord had a true, human body. Yet, if Mary’s grave was available, it would have been used by both Ignatius and the Docetists to support their positions. Ignatius would have argued that Jesus’ body was real because His mother’s body is with us today; and the Docetists would have argued that Jesus’ body was not real because He was not subject to death, whereas His mother’s mortal body was. Yet, we have no mention of this. Why not?"

And, as with the Immaculate Conception, the earliest evidence that we have for the Assumption comes to us from the Eastern, non-Greek-speaking Church. Around 390 AD, we have the writings of St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Now, St. Epiphanius was a native of Palestine (so he would have been familiar with all the Sacred Traditions of the original Jewish Church in Jerusalem). Yet, in around 390, St. Epiphanius moved to the Greek island of Cyprus, where he was elected to be the Bishop of Salamis. Thus, around this time, we have this Palestinian bishop writing to his Greek flock about the end of Mary’s earthly life. And, speaking very diplomatically, he writes:

"Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through WHOM THE DIVINE LIGHT SHONE UPON THE WORLD IS IN THE PLACE OF BLISS WITH HER SACRED BODY. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory." (Haer. lxxix, 11).

**So, St. Ephiphanis is speaking to his Greek, Cypriot flock – a flock which apparently had no established Tradition about the Assumption. Yet, even so, Epiphanius mentions his own, Palestinian Tradition of the Assumption; and, while he does not force it upon the Greeks since, at this time, it was not a dogma and one did not have to accept it to be in the Church, he does present it to the Greek-speaking world. **

Indeed, a similar case comes to us from St. John Damascene. Although he wrote in the 700’s, he tells us a Tradition from his own, Jerusalem city-church about its bishop Juvenal, who represented the Church of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, about 50 years after St. Epiphanius was writing. And St. John tells us …

 

[Eden]

"Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon (451) made known to the Emperor Marcian and [his Empress] Pulcharia, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles and that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to Heaven." (Homily on the Dormition, PG 96)

So, this shows us that as late as 451 the Tradition of the Assumption was not widely known within the Greek-speaking world. Indeed, the Emperor and Empresses (who would not have been the most devout of Christians anyway) didn’t know about it, and had to be informed by the Bishop of Jerusalem. So, as I’ve said, it seems that the Assumption of Mary was understood by the Church in a relatively “private” way.

Yet, by the late 5th century, all this changed. The feast of “The Dormition and Assumption of Mary” began to be widely celebrated in the East; and this feast was moved to the West in the 700’s by one of the aforementioned Syrian Popes, St. Sergius I. And, at this point, the Assumption begins to be widely publicized for the first time. Thus, we begin to see the following quotes from the Fathers:
The Pseudo-Augustine (c. 500):

"This venerable day has dawned, the day that surpasses all the festivals of the saints, this most exalted and solemn day on which the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. On this day the queenly Virgin was exalted to the very throne of God the Father, and elevated to such a height that the angelic spirits are in admiration."
St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours in France (594 AD)

"The Lord . . . commanded the body of Mary be taken in a cloud into paradise; where now, rejoined to the soul, Mary dwells with the chosen ones."
St. Germaine I, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 732 AD speaking of Mary)

"Thou art . . . the dwelling place of God . . . exempt from all dissolution into dust."
St. John Damascene [of Damascus] (c. 700)

"He who had been pleased to become Incarnate (of) her . . . was pleased . . . to honor her immaculate and undefiled body with incorruption . . . prior to the common and universal resurrection."

The Assumption was celebrated all of these centuries as Tradition until it was declared dogma in 1950 meaning Catholics are required to believe in the Assumption. Being an ancient Tradition but not official dogma is very different from being a “new doctrine”.

**Sources: **ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM
bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

 

[kindlylight]

Luther had his good points no doubt but the whole point is that he was judged and condemned by the standards of his own time. The bull of excommunication was clear that he was attacking the Catholic Faith.

Decet Romanum 1521:
" Nevertheless Martin himself–and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this–the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same."

Luther went far beyond correcting abuses to the extent of introducing the worst abuse, that of heresy. I agree it is a major mistake to judge one era by the standards of another.

After all some of my best friends are atheists and heretics, should I not shun them as commanded by the Apostle.