H
Hisalone
Guest
For excommunicating Martin Luther?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
manualman
Guest
I suppose it depends. Do you think Luther did anything that warranted excommunication? What IS excommunication and when is it appropriate?
Tell me your answers and I’ll tell you mine.
Tell me your answers and I’ll tell you mine.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Paul
heresy
Main Entry:
her·e·sy
1 a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
It was Luther who, by definition, was the heretic.2 a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
Paul
H
Hesychios
Guest
Leo X’s errors and shortcomings were legion (as were Luther’s), and would probably be meat for a couple of different threads. But I am not exactly sure what reason was given (or reasons) for the excommunication of Luther.For excommunicating Martin Luther?
It would have to be an error (or divergence) in teaching that makes him (or another) a heretic, and possibly something like that would show up in the Bull of excommunication, but I doubt it.
Does anyone have access to the text of the Bull translated into English?
Michael
R
Rocky
Guest
Is public dissent from Church teaching a sin? Did Jesus mean what He said in John about the Apostles having the authority to forgive sins, or holding them bound? If you believe in what the Bible says, and in Apostolic succession, then no matter what the personal life of Leo X might be (holy or not), He had the authority to declare Luther a heretic.
Or are you asking if Luther had authority to declare Leo X a heretic?
Or are you asking if Luther had authority to declare Leo X a heretic?
T
tbuley
Guest
Luther and his followers thought the pope to be the Antichrist, which would make him a heretic.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is very interesting.Is public dissent from Church teaching a sin? Did Jesus mean what He said in John about the Apostles having the authority to forgive sins, or holding them bound? If you believe in what the Bible says, and in Apostolic succession, then no matter what the personal life of Leo X might be (holy or not), He had the authority to declare Luther a heretic.
Or are you asking if Luther had authority to declare Leo X a heretic?
I have heard or read some Catholic apologists state (and I believe them) that none of the original abuses Luther complained about in his 95 thesis (which were actually an invitation to debate, originally) are extant in the Catholic church today.
In other words, none of his original complaints would be warrented complaints today. To me that means he did not propose any heresies at that point in his life, while he was a professor of biblical theology at a Catholic University.
So I’d like to know
- when was he excommunicated
- why was he excommunicated
I have no actual doubt that Luther was a heretic eventually in his life, but in the beginning that was not clear.
The Medici’s were a pretty disreputable couple of characters themselves, I think they share the blame for the whole reformation fiasco. But the original question here was something about Leo being a heretic for excommunicating Luther, it seems a rather far fetched a proposal, I would like to see the OP’s reason for raising such a possibility.
Michael
H
Hesychios
Guest
I don’t know if that qualifies. Was he just heaping insults or what?Luther and his followers thought the pope to be the Antichrist, which would make him a heretic.
I think he called the Pope a horses dupa too, but that wouldn’t make him a heretic.
I think the Pope probably felt the same way about the professor. Insulting people maliciously is a sin, of course (and a very common failing), but not generally considered heresy.
Michael
T
tundramom
Guest
My understanding is that Luther did away with 4 of the Sacraments, which would make him a heretic, not Leo X
in Christ
Steph
in Christ
Steph
T
tbuley
Guest
No, in the confessional writings of Much of historical protestantism the pope is seen as thee Antichrist. See the Lutheran Book Of Concord and the Presbyterian and Anglican Westminster confession of faith.I don’t know if that qualifies. Was he just heaping insults or what?
Michael
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Anglican Westminster confession of faith.
The Westminster confession is NOT Anglican.
The Westminster confession is NOT Anglican.
T
tbuley
Guest
“The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition. Although drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly, largely of the Church of England, it became and remains the ‘subordinate standard’ of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
In 1643, the English Parliament called upon “learned, godly and judicious Divines”, to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.”
Wikipedia
It was at least at one point held.
In 1643, the English Parliament called upon “learned, godly and judicious Divines”, to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.”
Wikipedia
It was at least at one point held.
G
Gara3987
Guest
I myself don’t know to much about Luther and I an not to interest in studing up on him, but here were some questions that were answered by REV. DR. LESLIE RUMBLE, M.S.C.
**Q. Luther knew that his love for God did not forbid his entering the state of matrimony which Jesus had blessed at Cana.
A. Luther knew that it was certainly contrary to his duty to God to violate the solemn vows he had made to God, and still more so, to take a Nun from her Convent as his wile. As for love of God, Jesus invited His Apostles to love Him 80 much as to leave aside ail attachment to father, mother, wife, or children, in order the more closely to follow Him. He blessed marriage for such as are called to that state. But He Himself did not marry, nor did His Apostles after they were called to the ministry.
**
Q. Lutlier believed that he is happy whose conscience alloweth the thing that he doth.
A. The only lawful sense of such a saying is, “Happy is he whose conduct never goes against what a right conscience allows.” With Luther it meant, “Happy is he whose conscience is twisted and distorted until it allows whatever one wishes to do.” If a Catholic Priest to day did what Luther did then, the Protestant world would hold up its hands in horror, and the newspapers would broadcast it as yet another scandal in the Catholic Church. Picture the heading, “Priest runs away with Nun!” Yet you pretend that it is edifying in Luther. No one who has an elementary knowledge of the life of Christ and of that of Luther could possibly reconcile them. The majority of those who glorify Luther know little or nothing about him save his name. They believe in a legendary Luther, accepting it on trust that he tried to follow the pure Gospel. Sincere Protestants to-day do wish to follow Christ, but the more they do so, the less like Luther they become.
Q. Do you know of any good in Luther?
A. Intellectually, not much. He declared that reason was of the devil, and that the Christian must regard it as his greatest enemy. Morally, less still. St. Paul says that those who are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences. Gal. V., 24. That Luther indulged his vices and concupiscences is clear from his writings, where he gives disgraceful descriptions of his own indulgence in everything passionate. His diaries record shocking excesses of sensuality, which could not be printed in any decent book to-day. A true Apostle of Christ does not give vent to such expressions as, “To be continent and chaste is not in me,” or, “Why do I sit soaked in wine.” I do not say these things merely to detract from the memory of Luther. But it is not right that people should be duped by the thought that Luther was a well-balanced and saintly reformer. He was not entirely devoid of good qualities. He was endowed with a certain kindness and generosity. But this does not compensate for his vices. He should have controlled his sentimentality and emotional nature in the light of Christian principles. He did not, but gave free rein to his lower passions, calmly saying that a man has to do so, and will not be responsible for such conduct.
**Q. Was the Diet of Spires held under Catholic or Protestant auspices?
**A. Under Catholic auspices. It was convened by Charles V., a Catholic sovereign, chiefly to secure temporal peace. In 1517 Luther had broken into open revolt against the Catholic Church, preaching new and heretical doctrines. Charles V. became Emperor in 1520. Many German states, anxious to revolt politically against Charles, followed the new religious revolt of Luther. Chaos reigned in Germany. The Emperor was anxious for political peace; the Pope was anxious to stop the corruption of Catholicism by the preaching of these new doctrines. Charles, therefore, called a Diet or general assembly of all the lesser German princes at Spires in 1529. Pope Clement VII. urged Charles to take up the cause of the Catholic religion at the same time, and in reference to religion, the Diet made three main propositions. The celebration of Mass was to be permitted in those states where Protestants had forbidden it. The reformers were to be free to practice their new religion in those states where it had already been accepted, but it was not to be propagated beyond those states. No sect which denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist could be tolerated. The vast majority of Protestants at the Diet approved these laws, but the evangelical minority, whilst accepting the third law, refused to permit Mass, and to refrain from preaching Protestantism to still Catholic peoples. They formally protested that the religion of the people in a given place must be the religion of the temporal ruler of the country, and it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.
**Q. Did not the Diet of Spires profoundly affect the history of human thought?
**A. It did, but rather for evil than for good. It led to dire results and the wrecking of the Catholic faith in many unthinking people. I am speaking, of course, of those delegates at the Diet who protested against its decisions, and am dealing with religious thought. Scientific thought would have gone on in any case. It is not to Protestantism that we owe the scientific and mechanical progress of modern times. That would have come just the same. But in religion Protestantism has given us only chaos, dreary contradictions, and several millions of would be infallible individual authorities on religious questions. It was a regression from the authority of God to that of erratic man. And where Protestantism began by pretending to defend the rights of the Bible, it has ended by practically declaring the Bible to be worthless.
(Q = Question or Argument, A = Answer or Reply)
**Q. Luther knew that his love for God did not forbid his entering the state of matrimony which Jesus had blessed at Cana.
A. Luther knew that it was certainly contrary to his duty to God to violate the solemn vows he had made to God, and still more so, to take a Nun from her Convent as his wile. As for love of God, Jesus invited His Apostles to love Him 80 much as to leave aside ail attachment to father, mother, wife, or children, in order the more closely to follow Him. He blessed marriage for such as are called to that state. But He Himself did not marry, nor did His Apostles after they were called to the ministry.
**
Q. Lutlier believed that he is happy whose conscience alloweth the thing that he doth.
A. The only lawful sense of such a saying is, “Happy is he whose conduct never goes against what a right conscience allows.” With Luther it meant, “Happy is he whose conscience is twisted and distorted until it allows whatever one wishes to do.” If a Catholic Priest to day did what Luther did then, the Protestant world would hold up its hands in horror, and the newspapers would broadcast it as yet another scandal in the Catholic Church. Picture the heading, “Priest runs away with Nun!” Yet you pretend that it is edifying in Luther. No one who has an elementary knowledge of the life of Christ and of that of Luther could possibly reconcile them. The majority of those who glorify Luther know little or nothing about him save his name. They believe in a legendary Luther, accepting it on trust that he tried to follow the pure Gospel. Sincere Protestants to-day do wish to follow Christ, but the more they do so, the less like Luther they become.
Q. Do you know of any good in Luther?
A. Intellectually, not much. He declared that reason was of the devil, and that the Christian must regard it as his greatest enemy. Morally, less still. St. Paul says that those who are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences. Gal. V., 24. That Luther indulged his vices and concupiscences is clear from his writings, where he gives disgraceful descriptions of his own indulgence in everything passionate. His diaries record shocking excesses of sensuality, which could not be printed in any decent book to-day. A true Apostle of Christ does not give vent to such expressions as, “To be continent and chaste is not in me,” or, “Why do I sit soaked in wine.” I do not say these things merely to detract from the memory of Luther. But it is not right that people should be duped by the thought that Luther was a well-balanced and saintly reformer. He was not entirely devoid of good qualities. He was endowed with a certain kindness and generosity. But this does not compensate for his vices. He should have controlled his sentimentality and emotional nature in the light of Christian principles. He did not, but gave free rein to his lower passions, calmly saying that a man has to do so, and will not be responsible for such conduct.
**Q. Was the Diet of Spires held under Catholic or Protestant auspices?
**A. Under Catholic auspices. It was convened by Charles V., a Catholic sovereign, chiefly to secure temporal peace. In 1517 Luther had broken into open revolt against the Catholic Church, preaching new and heretical doctrines. Charles V. became Emperor in 1520. Many German states, anxious to revolt politically against Charles, followed the new religious revolt of Luther. Chaos reigned in Germany. The Emperor was anxious for political peace; the Pope was anxious to stop the corruption of Catholicism by the preaching of these new doctrines. Charles, therefore, called a Diet or general assembly of all the lesser German princes at Spires in 1529. Pope Clement VII. urged Charles to take up the cause of the Catholic religion at the same time, and in reference to religion, the Diet made three main propositions. The celebration of Mass was to be permitted in those states where Protestants had forbidden it. The reformers were to be free to practice their new religion in those states where it had already been accepted, but it was not to be propagated beyond those states. No sect which denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist could be tolerated. The vast majority of Protestants at the Diet approved these laws, but the evangelical minority, whilst accepting the third law, refused to permit Mass, and to refrain from preaching Protestantism to still Catholic peoples. They formally protested that the religion of the people in a given place must be the religion of the temporal ruler of the country, and it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.
**Q. Did not the Diet of Spires profoundly affect the history of human thought?
**A. It did, but rather for evil than for good. It led to dire results and the wrecking of the Catholic faith in many unthinking people. I am speaking, of course, of those delegates at the Diet who protested against its decisions, and am dealing with religious thought. Scientific thought would have gone on in any case. It is not to Protestantism that we owe the scientific and mechanical progress of modern times. That would have come just the same. But in religion Protestantism has given us only chaos, dreary contradictions, and several millions of would be infallible individual authorities on religious questions. It was a regression from the authority of God to that of erratic man. And where Protestantism began by pretending to defend the rights of the Bible, it has ended by practically declaring the Bible to be worthless.
(Q = Question or Argument, A = Answer or Reply)
H
Hesychios
Guest
It seems the original post was just a drive-by. Not worth any more effort.
H
Hisalone
Guest
tracts.ukgo.com/bull_decet_romanum.docLeo X’s errors and shortcomings were legion (as were Luther’s), and would probably be meat for a couple of different threads. But I am not exactly sure what reason was given (or reasons) for the excommunication of Luther.
It would have to be an error (or divergence) in teaching that makes him (or another) a heretic, and possibly something like that would show up in the Bull of excommunication, but I doubt it.
Does anyone have access to the text of the Bull translated into English?
Michael
1
1234
Guest
Scientific thought would have gone on in any case. It is not to Protestantism that we owe the scientific and mechanical progress of modern times. That would have come just the same.
Well, the RCC did its best to stifle any scientific research and publication which the RCC thought might counter its apparent doctrines–that the sun revolved around the earth, for ex, and that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo was silenced and Bruno was burnt.
Protestants learned to read, and then read the Bible and learned to question given authority, all hallmarks of the sort of scientific inquiring mind which leads to new inventions.
The unquestioning acceptance of authority is not conducive to research on any level.
Well, the RCC did its best to stifle any scientific research and publication which the RCC thought might counter its apparent doctrines–that the sun revolved around the earth, for ex, and that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo was silenced and Bruno was burnt.
Protestants learned to read, and then read the Bible and learned to question given authority, all hallmarks of the sort of scientific inquiring mind which leads to new inventions.
The unquestioning acceptance of authority is not conducive to research on any level.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.