Was Luther Right About This?

[utunumsint]

I agree. To me, it goes back to the “give Caesar his due” argument in Scripture. I do think the Catholic Church overstepped its bounds for centuries - I am reading a book about the Papacy during the Holy Roman Empire up to the Middle Ages - . I tire of Catholics dancing around this sordid history like it didn’t happen; it makes us look ten times worse than just admitting it and saying that time is past. (For that matter, the Index wasn’t abolished until 1966.)

I’m relieved that I’m not the only one who thinks this way! I think we need to face up to our own sins as a Church if we are to be sincere followers of Christ.

Luther is inconsistent often though - but in terms of the Peasants’ Rebellion I think he just writing in the context that the State should protect social order as was their right and duty as ordained by God: "Paul, too, speaking in Romans 12 [13:1] to all baptized Christians, says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”

I don’t remember the details of the Peasants’ Rebellion but my guess is the peasants probably had a decent case against the authorities as well. I know Luther’s support of the suppression is very controversial, even for Lutherans.

scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Peasants.html

I think this was just a consequence of his theology. The princes were only too happy to go along with Luther when it came to shedding the authority of Rome. This allowed them to start up national churches, stop the flow of income from Germany to Rome, and handle ecclesiastical appointments on their own territory, as France had already done in the previous century. But the license that Luther extended to the Princes clearly extended to the peasants as well and their shedding of sinful princely authority and abuse.

As for the Pope’s role vs. the State today, obviously he has no authority to act against the State but I think he has a right to speak out in a spiritually authoritative capacity (the voice of God), such as in defense of violence against Christians in the Middle East or other injustices that affect the poor.

Agreed. But as Ron Conte points out, where does that leave our interpretation of Unam Sanctam? I think he makes a good point that spiritually speaking, the church has a higher authority and than the state, but this does not translate in a direct power over the secular sword. Just a moral power. I’m wondering if this is how the church sees things as well?

God bless,
Ut

 

[steido01]

I think this was just a consequence of his theology. The princes were only too happy to go along with Luther when it came to shedding the authority of Rome.

Certainly. That’s why we see many of them quickly drop Luther for Zwingli and Calvin when they realize Luther was quite C/catholic.

This allowed them to start up national churches, stop the flow of income from Germany to Rome, and handle ecclesiastical appointments on their own territory, as France had already done in the previous century.

Among other things. But #NotAllPrinces were politically motivated. There were true believers among them.

But the license that Luther extended to the Princes clearly extended to the peasants as well and their shedding of sinful princely authority and abuse.

I know it’s not the point of this thread, but you are mistaken - and quite badly, friend. I recommend a read through Luther’s treatise On Christian Liberty. His concept of the Two Kingdoms is very finely thought-out. The liberty of the Princes, soldiers, and other secular rulers does not necessarily extend to the people, and the Christian’s personal liberty never grants license to do harm on others, much less other Christians. The novel assertion that “We, the People” have the God-given right to cast off divinely-instituted rulers would not come about until the mid 1700’s.

Agreed. But as Ron Conte points out, where does that leave our interpretation of Unam Sanctam? I think he makes a good point that spiritually speaking, the church has a higher authority and than the state, but this does not translate in a direct power over the secular sword. Just a moral power. I’m wondering if this is how the church sees things as well?

I pray this is so.

 

[utunumsint]

I know it’s not the point of this thread, but you are mistaken - and quite badly, friend. I recommend a read through Luther’s treatise On Christian Liberty. His concept of the Two Kingdoms is very finely thought-out. The liberty of the Princes, soldiers, and other secular rulers does not necessarily extend to the people, and the Christian’s personal liberty never grants license to do harm on others, much less other Christians. The novel assertion that “We, the People” have the God-given right to cast off divinely-instituted rulers would not come about until the mid 1700’s.

No doubt - I am still working through the chapter on the reformation in Wiker and Hahn’s book. I believe they were alluding the people’s emulation of Luther’s rejection of the papacy. Not so much that Luther taught this or sanctioned it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m relieved that I’m not the only one who thinks this way! I think we need to face up to our own sins as a Church if we are to be sincere followers of Christ.

Agreed, whether it’s the scandals or some sordid episode in history - I do believe it is best to apply humility, not pride, defensiveness or (worst of all) sophistry to what are clearly errors or misdeeds. If you look at it the other way, I have a lot more respect for a Protestant who admits and disowns problems on the Protestant side for the sake of truth. It makes Christians much more credible witnesses of Christ - probably because we are - if we do this authentically, not just to save face. There is enough good in the Catholic Church that we don’t have to run around justifying or denying the bad.

I think this was just a consequence of his theology.

One of my favorite things about Luther is that he doesn’t have a system of theology. He just kind of wings it. Hit and miss - usually hit. It makes him very entertaining to read and he hits the truth often enough - truth can be paradoxical, right? There is nothing wrong with changing your perspective either when new evidence or experiences come into play, as long as you are within orthodoxy.

Agreed. But as Ron Conte points out, where does that leave our interpretation of Unam Sanctam? I think he makes a good point that spiritually speaking, the church has a higher authority and than the state, but this does not translate in a direct power over the secular sword. Just a moral power. I’m wondering if this is how the church sees things as well?

Here, I don’t know - I am weak on this kind of Church knowledge; I just Google it. I believe the Church answers to God, not the State (issues like war, abortion, etc.), and that it represents God’s authority in the world. I am very reluctant to say though that this authority goes beyond spiritual or moral authority in temporal affairs. Luther would say God granted temporal powers to State leaders (within God’s Judeo-Christian context if you will). The Church should respect that. The Church can no doubt condemn State authority that has renounced or trespassed its God-given authority within its Christian context. (Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Excessive Capitalist Exploitation) But take up arms? No.

 

[steido01]

No doubt - I am still working through the chapter on the reformation in Wiker and Hahn’s book. I believe they were alluding the people’s emulation of Luther’s rejection of the papacy. Not so much that Luther taught this or sanctioned it.

God bless,
Ut

Ah. There’s a twinge of truth to that. Various factions often looked to Luther as a figure to rally 'round or against, regardless of the man’s actual views. Still a popular practice today.

Keep reading. Keep studying. Also keep in mind is that, just as back then, apologists tend to package agendas with their history. It could just as easily be argued that the peasants were emulating the cruel oppression that they witnessed their Catholic rulers exercise. You see what I’m getting at? It was a time for rebellion; Luther was as much a product of the times as the peasants. To say one caused the other is simplistic, at best, and intentionally misleading, at worst. History tells a richer, thicker, and substantially less-simple story.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. To me, it goes back to the “give Caesar his due” argument in Scripture. I do think the Catholic Church overstepped its bounds for centuries - I am reading a book about the Papacy during the Holy Roman Empire up to the Middle Ages - .

Well, I admit I have noticed differences between the current Pope and medieval Popes … but isn’t that just because Fiats hadn’t been invented back then?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[utunumsint]

Here, I don’t know - I am weak on this kind of Church knowledge; I just Google it. I believe the Church answers to God, not the State (issues like war, abortion, etc.), and that it represents God’s authority in the world. I am very reluctant to say though that this authority goes beyond spiritual or moral authority in temporal affairs. Luther would say God granted temporal powers to State leaders (within God’s Judeo-Christian context if you will). The Church should respect that. The Church can no doubt condemn State authority that has renounced or trespassed its God-given authority within its Christian context. (Marxism, Fascism, Socialism, Excessive Capitalist Exploitation) But take up arms? No.

Right. I think even looking at this from another perspective will also help. The church does not claim that popes are impeccable, only infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals. This means that church leadership at any level is fallible. I’ve seen pedophile priests and even a bishop in my country.

Just admitting this fact means that there has to be some sort of accountability at every level. Even for the pope! And same is true for secular authorities. They too must be accountable for their actions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, I admit I have noticed differences between the current Pope and medieval Popes … but isn’t that just because Fiats hadn’t been invented back then?

Looks pretty eco-friendly to me.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes he was right. Church and state mixing where the church is in charge, or the state is in charge have both been disasters. Better that they stay separate.

BadNewsBarrett:

You mean like a Christian version of Sharia law? No, that would not be a better world. A better world is one that separates church from state and promotes secular governance. Not necessarily a secular society that is denuded of any public/visible religious expression, which is an erroneous assumption that people often jump to. Instead, governance should be secular in the sense that- on paper, at the very least- any person of any religion is equal before the law, and the law basically works well for everyone.

If the law works extremely well for one certain type of Christian and very badly for everyone else, Those Other People Matter- they Matter, they Matter, they Matter just as much as your people do, and even if it were true that your church has a monopoly on the fullness of truth, all those other people would still Matter.

We would not be living in a better world if certain people were treated as if they don’t matter.

OK… so what you’re arguing for isn’t an inherent advantage of one system over another, but rather, that bad government can come from all sides. That’s fair enough. But, I can’t look at the performance of the Red Sox and the Rockies this year, and from their lack of success, conclude that baseball is a horrible sport, can I? That would be an inaccurate extrapolation. Likewise, we can’t look at particular examples of bad governance and conclude that the system itself is *necessarily *flawed, can we?

Moreover, it seems unfair to throw the excesses of secular leadership in Europe following the Reformation and lay them at the feet of the Church – or, for that matter, of secular leaders who were following Reformation teachings. If a Catholic secular leader, or a Lutheran secular leader, or any secular leader of religious persuasion X, does something reprehensible, do we say that it’s the fault of the Catholic Church, or of Lutheranism, or of the particular belief system? That dog just don’t hunt.

Certainly, you can offer the opinion that certain historical circumstances played out poorly. No doubt about it. But, to extrapolate from that experience and conclude that a certain system of governance is at fault is a bad conclusion. (You might say that, based on experience, system X is more likely to lead to a good result than system Y, but now you’ve just lapsed into the realm of personal opinion.)

 

[utunumsint]

I’m not sure why I haven’t done this yet, but I looked in the CCC and found this:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a3.htm

And also this one:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm#V

The political community and the Church

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I agree. To me, it goes back to the “give Caesar his due” argument in Scripture. I do think the Catholic Church overstepped its bounds for centuries - I am reading a book about the Papacy during the Holy Roman Empire up to the Middle Ages - . I tire of Catholics dancing around this sordid history like it didn’t happen; it makes us look ten times worse than just admitting it and saying that time is past. (For that matter, the Index wasn’t abolished until 1966.)

Luther is inconsistent often though - but in terms of the Peasants’ Rebellion I think he just writing in the context that the State should protect social order as was their right and duty as ordained by God: "Paul, too, speaking in Romans 12 [13:1] to all baptized Christians, says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”

I don’t remember the details of the Peasants’ Rebellion but my guess is the peasants probably had a decent case against the authorities as well. I know Luther’s support of the suppression is very controversial, even for Lutherans.

Excellent remarks.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Excellent remarks.

Thanks!

 

[Peter_J]

Its from Martin Luther’s letter to the German nobility.

I’ve been reading Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker’s Politicizing the Bible.

Cool. I read a number of Hahn’s books back-in-the-day, though not that particular one – which I guess isn’t surprising since I see that it is recentish – but you can always count on Hahn. (I’ve thought about trying to incorporate his name into a new saying … like instead of saying that someone “tries to outpope the Pope” we could say that he/she “tries to outHahn Hahn”. I’m not sure it would catch on, but anyhow …)