"Vatican to Issue Stamp Featuring Martin Luther"

[Randolph]

Some Catholics have a purely triumphalist view of Catholic Church history. Sanitization and historical spin.

Then, allow wisdom, facts and reason to convince others of your views. I can’t see subtle insults or polite mockings toward other posters will win the day. Can you?

 

[PluniaZ]

The indulgences used at the time of Martin Luther, were from the hierarchy of the Church, to refurbish the Church coffers which had been depleted by extravagant living and wars.

Even when Christ called St Francis to rebuild the Church, Christ did so because the Church was in fact leading people astray.

Yeah, it was great that Jesus called St Francis to reform the Church, but by the time Martin Luther came along, those who called out the errors of the Pope and Bishops, were imprisoned, tortured and even burned at the stake.

So the Reformation could’ve have been according to God’s plan to get the Church back on the gospel.

Whenever religions get in bed with the political power structures, it looses the tenets of the faith in which the founders had originally established.

Its no different for the Catholic religion.

Heck, even in our own time, the sex abuse scandal has certainly led people away from the Church, which you call “astray.”

It’s a tap dance to say it wasn’t the Church, but just members of the Church. The members are the Church.

It is a historical fact we’ve had bad popes, bad bishops and bad priests.

Heck, read up on the Borgia Pope’s and don’t get too upset about it, especially Pope Alexander VI.

It’s better to acknowledge the dirty laundry in Church history than turn a blind eye to it as if it never happened.

Jim

Indulgences are perfectly orthodox and in accordance with the true Catholic faith.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Indulgences are still practiced today. I recommend you add them to your spiritual life, if you aren’t already.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm

As for the Church leading people astray, we seem to be arguing over words. Your standard seems to be, “Here is an example of a Pope sinning. Therefore, the Church has led people astray.”

To which I would answer, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae

 

[MarcoPG]

So what about when the Church was leading people astray by charging money for indulgences to avoid purgatory, which was the cause of Martin Luther’s protest ?

What about the Pope riding a white horse wearing gold plated armor, as he led the papal army into Rome after going to war ?

In 1500’s, when Martin Luther saw what the Church was doing, it was corrupt, have no doubt about it.

Luther didn’t intend to leave the Catholic Church, the Pope excommunicated him.

Jesus does not lead people astray, but people lead others astray as many in the Church did over the centuries including our own time, with the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Church.

Today, it is Jesus who is leading Lutherans and Catholics back together.

Should we be so proud of our religion that we reject this ?

Jim

Luther taught heretical views on salvation. The Church’s practices weren’t taught; even if wrong, it wasn’t a dogma that you had to buy an indulgence, only a personal sin.

The pope in gold plated armour isn’t 100% sure, but even if he did indeed, it was in accordance with his time of war, and had he sinned graviously by doing so, it was his personal sin again not a teaching of the Church.
Had Luther done what he had to do to correct the Church abuses that you mention, he would have been a Catholic hero, and would be remembered in stamps and probably made a Saint. But He taught Sola Fide, was openly against the pope, mutilated the Bible, well…
Since the Pope excomunicated him, he left the Church, and didn’t want to come back.

“Jesus does not lead people astray, but people lead others astray as many in the Church did over the centuries including our own time, with the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Church.” Exactly, not the Church, people, like Luther, like Arius, like the JW, bad bishops, …

“Should we be so proud of our religion that we reject this ?” But we don’t. I am not against Lutherans at all, but against Luther, in the same way as I am against Mohammed and Islam, but I love Muslims. I don’t want a stamp of Muhammad because there has to be a dialogue between us.

 

[MarcoPG]

Yes, but then a Trent-like council would have been much later.

Luther sparked Reformation, which led to a Counter-Reformation. Cause and effect.

We cannot say when it would have taken place, but it would have anyway.

Again, the Cause cannot use evil to have good consequences, as Luther did. GOd only may do that with His Providence. Luther may have thought of himself as the pope, but he took initiatives which weren’t his to take. We cannot say Luther did the right thing. He may have started with good intentions, but went too far and didn’t come back.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Indulgences are perfectly orthodox and in accordance with the true Catholic faith.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Indulgences are still practiced today. I recommend you add them to your spiritual life, if you aren’t already.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/indulgences_conditions.htm

As for the Church leading people astray, we seem to be arguing over words. Your standard seems to be, “Here is an example of a Pope sinning. Therefore, the Church has led people astray.”

To which I would answer, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae

I’m referring to the abuse of indulgences which were taking place in Rome when Martin Luther went there at witnessed the Pope and Bishops, so out of touch with Christ and the people, he had no choice but respond.

You’re merely bringing up the legitimate use of indulgences, but even there, most Catholics misunderstand them.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Luther taught heretical views on salvation. The Church’s practices weren’t taught; even if wrong, it wasn’t a dogma that you had to buy an indulgence, only a personal sin.

The pope in gold plated armour isn’t 100% sure, but even if he did indeed, it was in accordance with his time of war, and had he sinned graviously by doing so, it was his personal sin again not a teaching of the Church.
Had Luther done what he had to do to correct the Church abuses that you mention, he would have been a Catholic hero, and would be remembered in stamps and probably made a Saint. But He taught Sola Fide, was openly against the pope, mutilated the Bible, well…
Since the Pope excomunicated him, he left the Church, and didn’t want to come back.

“Jesus does not lead people astray, but people lead others astray as many in the Church did over the centuries including our own time, with the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Church.” Exactly, not the Church, people, like Luther, like Arius, like the JW, bad bishops, …

“Should we be so proud of our religion that we reject this ?” But we don’t. I am not against Lutherans at all, but against Luther, in the same way as I am against Mohammed and Islam, but I love Muslims. I don’t want a stamp of Muhammad because there has to be a dialogue between us.

You’re presuming Luther merely rebelled against the Pope without having addressing the problems to him and the Bishops.

Fact is, Martin Luther attempted to change the Church before his posting his thesis, but he also had to flee to Germany to avoid being arrested by the Pope and thrown into prison.

Wouldn’t be the first one.

St John of the Cross was arrested by his own order in that same era, by his own order.

St Teresa of Avila was brought before the Spanish Inquisition.

Had Martin Luther stuck around Rome, we would probably not be talking about him today, but rebellion by German nobles who wanted to separate from Rome in the first place, and were the one’s to pressure Luther into posting his thesis.

1500’s Europe, was not a good time for Catholicism and reformers were usually arrested, tortured and burned at the stake.

Its easy for us to sit back and judge Martin Luther as a heretic, but it makes us no better than the other inquisitors who persecuted anyone who threatened their place of power.

Jim

 

[PluniaZ]

I’m referring to the abuse of indulgences which were taking place in Rome when Martin Luther went there at witnessed the Pope and Bishops, so out of touch with Christ and the people, he had no choice but respond.

You’re merely bringing up the legitimate use of indulgences, but even there, most Catholics misunderstand them.

Jim

And as I explained to you already through the following link, the Catholic Church hierarchy corrected the abuses:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Protestant_Reformation

“The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them.”

It sounds like Cardinal Cajetan is the hero you’re looking for, not the heretic Martin Luther, who used the indulgence controversy as an opportunity to tear the Holy Roman Catholic Church asunder.

 

[Pulvis]

You’re presuming Luther merely rebelled against the Pope without having addressing the problems to him and the Bishops.

Fact is, Martin Luther attempted to change the Church before his posting his thesis, but he also had to flee to Germany to avoid being arrested by the Pope and thrown into prison.

Wouldn’t be the first one.

St John of the Cross was arrested by his own order in that same era, by his own order.

St Teresa of Avila was brought before the Spanish Inquisition.

Had Martin Luther stuck around Rome, we would probably not be talking about him today, but rebellion by German nobles who wanted to separate from Rome in the first place, and were the one’s to pressure Luther into posting his thesis.

1500’s Europe, was not a good time for Catholicism and reformers were usually arrested, tortured and burned at the stake.

Its easy for us to sit back and judge Martin Luther as a heretic, but it makes us no better than the other inquisitors who persecuted anyone who threatened their place of power.

Jim

Jim, can you point me to the documents or publications that substantiates Luther being forced to present his thesis at Wittenberg? I would very much like to read that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And as I explained to you already through the following link, the Catholic Church hierarchy corrected the abuses:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Protestant_Reformation

“The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them.”

It sounds like Cardinal Cajetan is the hero you’re looking for, not the heretic Martin Luther, who used the indulgence controversy as an opportunity to tear the Holy Roman Catholic Church asunder.

This is the statement addressed and not in the Papal Bull

“As soon as money in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory’s fire springs."

However, the fact remains that the Church did sell indulgences for payments made to the Church in order to fill the coffers.

Martin Luther saw priests charging fees for people to climb the Scala Sancta on their knees, and given and indulgence for making it to the top. People were given all sorts of promises from limiting the number of days in purgatory, to avoiding purgatory altogether, depending how much they paid to climb the stairs.

But the abuse goes back much further. Pope Urban II offered an indulgence for those who volunteered for the Crusades and were killed in battle. The Pope’s indulgence would provide for the Crusader’s soul, to avoid purgatory and go directly to heaven.

Jesus never would’ve placed such conditions on salvation.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, can you point me to the documents or publications that substantiates Luther being forced to present his thesis at Wittenberg? I would very much like to read that.

I didn’t say he was forced, but he was influenced by the nobles of Germany, who wanted to separate from Rome.

Jim

 

[TheAdvocate]

Then, allow wisdom, facts and reason to convince others of your views. I can’t see subtle insults or polite mockings toward other posters will win the day. Can you?

Not mocking. What I wrote is simply of matter of fact. Sometimes the truth hurts. But no insult intended.

 

[MarcoPG]

You’re presuming Luther merely rebelled against the Pope without having addressing the problems to him and the Bishops.

Fact is, Martin Luther attempted to change the Church before his posting his thesis, but he also had to flee to Germany to avoid being arrested by the Pope and thrown into prison.

Wouldn’t be the first one.

St John of the Cross was arrested by his own order in that same era, by his own order.

St Teresa of Avila was brought before the Spanish Inquisition.

Had Martin Luther stuck around Rome, we would probably not be talking about him today, but rebellion by German nobles who wanted to separate from Rome in the first place, and were the one’s to pressure Luther into posting his thesis.

1500’s Europe, was not a good time for Catholicism and reformers were usually arrested, tortured and burned at the stake.

Its easy for us to sit back and judge Martin Luther as a heretic, but it makes us no better than the other inquisitors who persecuted anyone who threatened their place of power.

Jim

I don’t presume that. I am simply saying that had he made only what he had to do, he wouldn’t have rebelled. As Saint Pio says: The Church is Magistera also when it punishes.

Yes, and the big difference between Luther and Saint John and Theresa is that they remained Catholic by not rebelling against the pope. Obedience isn’t absolute in the sense that one should accept the abuse, that is sure, but desobedience mustn’t lead to schism. You are repeating that Luther didn’t want to leave the Church; alright, but he then did and refused to retract his views even on his death bed.

If it is enough to pressure Luther, he isn’t very steady in his faith, is he…we know of Saints who resisted everything, and remained orthodox. My problem isn’t the right intention, but the heterodoxy. Will we have stamps with Calvin, Zwingly? Every heretic begins contesting a teaching with a good intention, probably. Also, since they use the Bible and not Tradition, they always find a way to support their views. All that shows that without the Church, the true one, fragmentation is a matter of time. BY saying he could interpret the Bible apart from Tradition, he started or popularised the idea that one could be his own authority and therefore the Church meant a lot less, to say the least.

Are you saying that the Cathoic Church burned the heretics? Really?

We aren’t judging without evidence. Not only his views on Salvation are a dangerous innovation, but inquisitors weren’t only condemning. There are examples where there was nothing to persecute for.
Was the Inquisition about power? No. Did some use it for themselves? Yes. Does the Church allow this? No. So, it isn’t the Church fault if some individuals or groups do stupid, sinful things. As it was said before, the Church put them in line.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Are you saying that the Cathoic Church burned the heretics? Really?

Yep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Ignoring it would be to sanitize history.

 

[MarcoPG]

Are you saying that the Cathoic Church burned the heretics? Really?

Yep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Ignoring it would be to sanitize history.

Since you want to use WIkipedia: click on “burned at the stake”. You will go to an article called “Death by burning”.
Then “Death by burning - Wikipedia”

This states “Sumner notes that death by burning for heretics was made positive law by Pedro II of Aragon in 1197. In 1224 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, made burning a legal alternative, and in 1238, it became the principal punishment in the Empire. In Sicily, the punishment was made law in 1231, whereas in France, Louis IX made it binding law in 1270.”

This was civil law, not the Church’s law. Once the Church found someone guilty, he/she was handed to the secular power, who executed the sentence. Therefore, The Church killed no one, that way at least. It was when Church and State weren’t separate as for laws.

What about the rest of my response?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

MarcoPG;.

Are you saying that the Cathoic Church burned the heretics? Really?

Oh, right, the tap dance.

The Church didn’t directly burn heretics, but she didn’t oppose it and was complicit in it, as the Monarchy’s carried out capital punishment against heretics, whom the Ecclesiastical Courts found guilty.

Read up on St Thomas Moore as a start, who tried and burned four.

Jim

 

[TheAdvocate]

Tap dancing indeed. The Church would hand over heretics to the secular authorities, knowing full well what that could and even would entail.

 

[TheAdvocate]

MarcoPG;.

Oh, right, the tap dance.

The Church didn’t directly burn heretics, but she didn’t oppose it and was complicit in it, as the Monarchy’s carried out capital punishment against heretics, whom the Ecclesiastical Courts found guilty.

Read up on St Thomas Moore as a start, who tried and burned four.

Jim

I never knew this about More. Fascinating. I still consider him a saint of course–violent capital punishment was the convention at the time. We can’t always judge past events using modern conventions. Regardless of how shocking it sounds today, I’m sure that More followed his conscience.

 

[PluniaZ]

This is the statement addressed and not in the Papal Bull

However, the fact remains that the Church did sell indulgences for payments made to the Church in order to fill the coffers.

Martin Luther saw priests charging fees for people to climb the Scala Sancta on their knees, and given and indulgence for making it to the top. People were given all sorts of promises from limiting the number of days in purgatory, to avoiding purgatory altogether, depending how much they paid to climb the stairs.

But the abuse goes back much further. Pope Urban II offered an indulgence for those who volunteered for the Crusades and were killed in battle. The Pope’s indulgence would provide for the Crusader’s soul, to avoid purgatory and go directly to heaven.

Jesus never would’ve placed such conditions on salvation.

Jim

And Cardinal Cajetan condemned that statement. Without introducing new heresies or calling the Vicar of Jesus Christ the anti-christ.

I think you should follow Cardinal Cajetan. Not Martin Luther.

 

[MarcoPG]

MarcoPG;.

Oh, right, the tap dance.

The Church didn’t directly burn heretics, but she didn’t oppose it and was complicit in it, as the Monarchy’s carried out capital punishment against heretics, whom the Ecclesiastical Courts found guilty.

Read up on St Thomas Moore as a start, who tried and burned four.

Jim

The tap dance is the position of the Church, and Wikipedia’s, for that matter. The fact that it was indirect, as you call it, is a crucial difference. The punishment was secular. If it was beheading or burning at the stake at the time, that was it. The Church wasn’t to punish, but to sentence on the religious. If the punishment was a fine or tickling with feathers, the Church had little power to choose what the State had to do next.

Same goes for Thomas More. What he did, he did for the State. Not saying it was good or nice, but it was his time.

That the Church knew full well what would happen doesn’t really prove anything. If the Church excommunicates someone today for heresy, no one puts them in jail, if a priest kills someone, he is not excommunicated, but could be killed, depending on what state he lives in. The Church has nothing to do with that.