C
churchcamefirst
Guest
You cannot answer this question when you say in respect to the Lord God Almighty. It is God who will judge him, not us.
- Status
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
No I don’t think he was unjustly excommunicated. Just read his works and understand what he believed in and you’ll understand why he was excommunicated from the church. But in no way does that mean that Luther was a bad person. I see no reason to bash him or no reason to defend his ideas. Just remember that he needed prayers just like everyone else
R
ralphinal
Guest
It is a fair question. Was he rail-roaded? Was he given a chance ot defend himself? These are good things to ask.
P
poiuy
Guest
Hi,
I actually came here looking for guidance and realing from an argument I had with an evangelical friend over the issue of charity. My friend has many God-given gifts, and has a very strong faith in God, but lives a life basically devoid of any meaningful charity.
When I asked my friend how he reconciles this with his Christianity, he said it is not a requirement of Christianity to make this world heaven-like because this world will pass away, and that salvation does not require charity because salvation comes from faith alone, clearly Luther’s teaching.
It is my belief that 500 years (so far) of well-meaning, devout Christians with this belief justifies the excommunication of Luther, not on the grounds of obedience to the Catholic Church, but for violations of the basical morality that the church teaches. Protestants with this belief will not only fail to fufill Jesus’s teachings on charity, and therefore fail to feed the hungry and visit the sick, but will also not experience the Christian joy that comes from performing charity, a joy that Jesus intended for us.
Whether they will also be denied entrance to heaven based on misinformation, I think, is a more difficult question that I do not think I have any basis to speak on.
So yes, I believe the excommunication was justified. The couching of it as a political act by the Catholic church, or an act based only on his disobedience to the church, ignores the real practical damage done by Luther, and greatly underestimates the horror that the wise Catholic clergy would have seen before them as they thought through the consequences of Luther’s teachings.
I am no great theologian and no historian, but this is my personal belief.
Thank you!
I actually came here looking for guidance and realing from an argument I had with an evangelical friend over the issue of charity. My friend has many God-given gifts, and has a very strong faith in God, but lives a life basically devoid of any meaningful charity.
When I asked my friend how he reconciles this with his Christianity, he said it is not a requirement of Christianity to make this world heaven-like because this world will pass away, and that salvation does not require charity because salvation comes from faith alone, clearly Luther’s teaching.
It is my belief that 500 years (so far) of well-meaning, devout Christians with this belief justifies the excommunication of Luther, not on the grounds of obedience to the Catholic Church, but for violations of the basical morality that the church teaches. Protestants with this belief will not only fail to fufill Jesus’s teachings on charity, and therefore fail to feed the hungry and visit the sick, but will also not experience the Christian joy that comes from performing charity, a joy that Jesus intended for us.
Whether they will also be denied entrance to heaven based on misinformation, I think, is a more difficult question that I do not think I have any basis to speak on.
So yes, I believe the excommunication was justified. The couching of it as a political act by the Catholic church, or an act based only on his disobedience to the church, ignores the real practical damage done by Luther, and greatly underestimates the horror that the wise Catholic clergy would have seen before them as they thought through the consequences of Luther’s teachings.
I am no great theologian and no historian, but this is my personal belief.
Thank you!
J
JRKH
Guest
For “With Questions”, it seems that the main issue is the “Authority” of the Church as it relates to God. I have posted this before, but will do so again for the purpose of clarifying how the Bible itself clearly teaches the Authority of the Church as Christ’s Kingly Steward on Earth.
When the NT was written there was One Christian Church, All other “churches” were either pagan or heretic. Christ established One Church on Earth and that Church is Catholic (Universal), Authoritative, and Visible.The passages below seem to me to be a clear demonstration of Christ’s authority and how He passed it on to the Church.
Christ’s instruction of what to do about a brother who “sins” against us.:
Some of our Protestant brothers will want to tell us that the “Church” not an “institution” but the entire body of believers. If this were so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
So how does Christ define His Church?
Even a casual reading of this passage shows that Simon (Peter) is named Rock and upon this Rock Jesus institutes His Church with Authority to Bind and loose. Bind and Loose What? Bind and Loose “Whatever”. This is a Pretty Broad latitude.
But then this begs the question, of Jesus Authority to grant this power.
Since this passage is given after Jesus Resurrection, it’s safe to say that Jesus Had “The Father’s” ear. In other words His Resurrection was certainly sufficient to Prove His divinity. So Now He has been given Authority in Heaven and Earth. He in turn gave authority to His Church, soon to be founded upon the Rock of Peter (Kepha). This Authority is to Bind, Loose, hold and teach the Truth of the Gospel.
Finally as to the issue of obeying the Church, I will again point to the Masters own words. When Jesus was teaching in Matthew about the Jewish Law and the interpretations thereof, He sternly reprimanded the Jewish leadership and He did so publicly, but what did He tell the Faithful Jewish “laymen”? He told them:
Jesus is saying that the teaching of the Jewish leaders remains binding and valid even though the leaders themselves are sinful men. Jesus thus establishes that, under the Old Covenant, those who “Sit on the seat of Moses” have the power to bind and loose. Under the New covenant, that Power resides in those who sit on the “Chair of Peter”, who was selected by Christ to Lead His Church.
Even if the Church were to teach something in error, it is still up to us to obey her as the rightful steward of Christ the King. The King will deal harshly with the offenders, and mercifully with His faithful servants. I shudder to think what He will do to those who not only reject but also vilify the Authority He established and has maintained for so long.
This Church is not simply a mystical – ethereal collection of believers, though certainly that is what makes up the Church, it is an institution of God given to us for Guidance. No different than the system set –up in the OT of Priests and Elders teaching and enforcing the Law from the temple.
I hope this will clarify the Church’s position on Authority for “With Questions”.
Now how does this relate to Luther’s excommunication? He was excommunicated by the Authoritative Catholic Church - The Christian Church in Luther’s Time and Place, and the one to which he belonged Since the Church Bound the excommunication on earth, it was thus bound in heaven.Even IF the Church leaders were wrong, or sinful, or whatever in this process does not change the fact that Luther was excommunicated for defying God’s own Authority as given to the Church by Christ Himself.
Peace
James
S
SPH1
Guest
If you’re thinking of a so-called invisible church of “true believers”, an invisible church is the same as no church at all. Certainly incapable of conveying authority.
If the church has authority, then it’s decrees are to be followed, right or wrong. Your religious authorities are still your authorities. Only proper authority can do any correction.
But “authority” can also imply that correct teaching will be forthcoming.
A
Angainor
Guest
Martin Luther did not wish to be excommunicated. If you ask me, I would rather Pius X never issued Decet Romanum Pontificem. But he did, and we deal with that and go about our business.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Luther thought that his own judgment was superior to that of the Bible and the Church.
He deserved excommunication by any standard.
Regarding the scriptures(James):
Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. I think it was written by a Jew who had heard of the Christians but not joined them. He had learned that the Christians insisted strongly on faith in Christ, and so he said to himself, “Well, you must take issue with them and speak only of works,” and so he does. He says not a word of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the text of all the other apostles. Moreover, he has no order nor method. He speaks now of clothes, now of wrath, jumping from one topic to another. He has this simile: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Mary, mother of God! He compares faith to the body, when it should be compared to the soul.10
Regarding the Revelation of John:
About this Book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion. I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic . . . There is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals exclusively with images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . They are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what it is, to say nothing of keeping it . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it . . . Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely . . . This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it. But until this very day they have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held it was not the work of St. John the Apostle . . . For our part, we share this doubt."11
Regarding Polygamy:
In January 1533, Henry secretly married Anne and thus became a polygamist. His actions may have been prompted by a letter that Melanchthon wrote to the king in August 1531:
But what is to be done, if the public welfare renders a new marriage advisable for the sake of succession, as is the case with the King of England, where the public welfare of the whole kingdom renders a new marriage advisable? Here I reply: if the King wishes to provide for the succession, it is much better to do this without any stigma on the previous marriage. And this can be done, without any danger to the conscience or reputation of anyone, through polygamy . . . So I hold that the safest course for the King is the first one; for it is certain that polygamy is not forbidden by divine law (quia certum est polygamiam non esse prohibitam iure divino), nor is it a thing altogether without precedent. Abraham, David, and other holy men had several wives; hence it is obvious that polygamy is not against divine law (unde apparet polygamiam non esse ius divinum).20
Comparing Luther to Jesus:
Christ taught: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.”[26]
Luther teaches[27]: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” [28]
Regarding The Jews:
Christ taught: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”-Matt 22:39
Luther teaches: "My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…
Regarding Marriage Vows:
Christ taught: “For this reason shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. . . Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery.”[38]
Luther teaches: “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”[39]
One more gem from Luther:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”[62]
He deserved excommunication by any standard.
Regarding the scriptures(James):
Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. I think it was written by a Jew who had heard of the Christians but not joined them. He had learned that the Christians insisted strongly on faith in Christ, and so he said to himself, “Well, you must take issue with them and speak only of works,” and so he does. He says not a word of the passion and resurrection of Christ, the text of all the other apostles. Moreover, he has no order nor method. He speaks now of clothes, now of wrath, jumping from one topic to another. He has this simile: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Mary, mother of God! He compares faith to the body, when it should be compared to the soul.10
Regarding the Revelation of John:
About this Book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion. I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic . . . There is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals exclusively with images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . They are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what it is, to say nothing of keeping it . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it . . . Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely . . . This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it. But until this very day they have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held it was not the work of St. John the Apostle . . . For our part, we share this doubt."11
Regarding Polygamy:
In January 1533, Henry secretly married Anne and thus became a polygamist. His actions may have been prompted by a letter that Melanchthon wrote to the king in August 1531:
But what is to be done, if the public welfare renders a new marriage advisable for the sake of succession, as is the case with the King of England, where the public welfare of the whole kingdom renders a new marriage advisable? Here I reply: if the King wishes to provide for the succession, it is much better to do this without any stigma on the previous marriage. And this can be done, without any danger to the conscience or reputation of anyone, through polygamy . . . So I hold that the safest course for the King is the first one; for it is certain that polygamy is not forbidden by divine law (quia certum est polygamiam non esse prohibitam iure divino), nor is it a thing altogether without precedent. Abraham, David, and other holy men had several wives; hence it is obvious that polygamy is not against divine law (unde apparet polygamiam non esse ius divinum).20
Comparing Luther to Jesus:
Christ taught: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.”[26]
Luther teaches[27]: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” [28]
Regarding The Jews:
Christ taught: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”-Matt 22:39
Luther teaches: "My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire… Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…
Regarding Marriage Vows:
Christ taught: “For this reason shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. . . Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery.”[38]
Luther teaches: “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”[39]
One more gem from Luther:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”[62]
V
VARC
Guest
People in glass houses…
The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice – in all towns, districts, and places – must depart these regions. ~ Pope St. Pius V (From his Bull, “The Jewish Race,” Feb.26, 1569; PAC, p.648).
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
While neither statement is admirable, there is a huge disparity in these two judgments.
S
swariffin
Guest
If he is not excommunicated, there would be no Protestant today.
A
Angainor
Guest
Exactly! Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
A
adstrinity
Guest
Excommunicated means that he could not recieve the Sacraments. It is a safegard against both the person and the Church. Seeing as how he didn’t believe in five of the Sacraments, he was cut off from all seven of them, lest he commit sacrilidge.
S
swariffin
Guest
Off course it would be wonderful. (1) There would be no protestant, (2) The Church corrected any clergy’s wrong practices such as misusing the indulgency, (3) Explain and discuss more carefully before issuing any dogma, so everybody agreed. And… we are all in one single Universal Church with common beliefs and practices throughout the earth, just as Jesus wanted.
A
Angainor
Guest
Yes! If they could have done all that without excommunicating Luther or “Lutherans,” it would have been a win/win situation. As to (1), “protestant” is one of those funny terms that means different things to different people, but I think the the thing they were protesting the most was their excommunication, so of course there wouldn’t be protestants.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Actually, he had to be excommunicated.
First, he knowingly taught heresy.
Second, he refused to recant or correct his heretical teachings.
Third, the Pope told him he had to recant or he was out.
He was not excommunicated for teaching that the sale of indulgences was wrong. It was the other stuff that did him in, like the five solas. He also violated the vows he took when he became a priest, though that was after the excommunication.
Now, if Lutherans want to take a different position on the five solas and discuss coming home, they will be welcomed. It would be great to have a German Rite.
A
Angainor
Guest
I was just joining swariffin in indulging* for a moment in thinking about a world where the Pope did not tell Luther he “had to recant or he was out” and how wonderful it would be. A what if? scenario. Daydreaming I guess. Thank you for snapping me back to reality (I think).
*Pun intended!
"Martin Luther:
I am not convinced of error in the five solas by the testimony of Scripture or by manifest reasoning. Now what?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Well, he had to protect the flock. If not from Luther, from Calvin…
And there it is. Sola Scriptura is the key of the bunch. DOes the Bible teach that all you need is the Bible?
But, as for all the solas, why can I give you as many verses that counter those teachings as you can give me for them? Is it possible that BOTH concepts are taught? Is it likely? Is it more correct to say that one of us is seeing something that is not there but is being read into it by men? If so, who is correct?
A
Angainor
Guest
Presume for the moment that I have heard your arguments and I am still not convinced of error in the five solas by the testimony of Scripture or by manifest reasoning.Angainor:
And there it is. Sola Scriptura is the key of the bunch. DOes the Bible teach that all you need is the Bible?
But, as for all the solas, why can I give you as many verses that counter those teachings as you can give me for them? Is it possible that BOTH concepts are taught? Is it likely? Is it more correct to say that one of us is seeing something that is not there but is being read into it by men? If so, who is correct?
Now what? You speak of “coming home” and “being welcomed,” but if my unconvinced-of-error-in-the-five-solas-by-the-testimony-of-Scripture-or-by-manifest-reasoning self is welcome than really welcome me. If I am not really welcome, please do not pretend that I am and leave me be. It amounts to taunting me. It makes me think of that alternate universe where the Pope never said “recant or get out” with sadness because I cannot and will not recant.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I am sorry, but I misunderstood what you were asking. Please forgive me. In order to discuss these things, we must establish if they are, in fact, really there. I would hold that they are not, save one. However, you will not be moved otherwise. That said, we should pause for your next question.
Now, from a CAtholic perspective, you are looking for something that is not there. We are not allowed to pick and choose doctrine based on what we think. IN all honesty, if you cannot accept it all, you have two choices. First, you join the Church anyway and force your will to accept that which your mind does not. Second, you do not join but you keep studying until you decide one way or another. However, if you are certain that the Catholic CHurch is the one founded by Jesus, you only truly have option one.
Do not think of it as taunting. It is not. All of us must, at some point in our faith lives, accept something because it is True, even if we do not understand or even agree with it.
Let me take an extreme case. Let’s say that you do not believe in the Real Presence. You have no issue telling everyone that it is a load of superstition. Would your pastor be correct in showing you the door? SHould he give you the chance to learn the correct teaching first? If you refuse to say that you were wrong, can you blame him for asking you to leave? The answers, in my opinion, should be yes, yes, and no. One person cannot be allowed to teach others heretical ideas, just because that is what they believe and to hell with dogma. It is the same case as with the Reformers.
Now, why do you hold that the Solas are correct? First and formost, I would assume that you were taught that they were, at some point. YOu may have come to the conclusion on your own. If so, you are a smarter person than I am. I have yet to find any of the proofs of them to be convincing. I can see where they are coming from, but I have yet to be sure that the Catholic CHurch is wrong on any of them. It is what I see versus what you see. If you decide that the Catholic CHurch is right about most things, but have issues with these, I suggest that you study both sides a little more and see where you land.
You must remember that the Bible never says anything about Sola Scriptura, and Jesus does not teach Sola Gratia or Sola Fide. Those are issues for another day…
- Status