Excellent post. Non-Catholics need to respond in kind, as well.
If I read your signature correctly, happy birthday.
Jon
- Status
If I read your signature correctly, happy birthday.
Jon
C
commenter
Guest
Yes, it is my 65th birthday, thanks!
T
Topper17
Guest
Part two:
One of the major things that convinced me of the Truth of the Catholic Church was the recognition that SS does not work. SS has not and cannot produce any kind of doctrinal certainty. Personally I believe that Christ actually does want us to know His Doctrinal teachings with certainty. With SS, we cannot. Of course the ‘Catholic model of authority’ does not incorporate SS. This does not make the Catholic Church IS teaching the Truth. But for my money, I would prefer to follow something that COULD be true as opposed to something that obviously is NOT.
Again, given that it was Luther who introduced SS (and PI) into Western Christianity, understanding how and why he did so is crucial. As we have seen, Protestants and especially Lutherans are not exactly thrilled about dealing with the actual history of Luther and even avoid dealing with the comments offered by Lutheran Scholars on the matter. There is a reason for that.
Personally I believe that if we don’t oppose SS and PI we will be allowing it to infect Catholicism (even more than it already has). Do we want to see the 51% of Christianity that is RCC become as fractured as the 29% that is Protestant?
The forum guidelines for the Apologetics Forum states that it is to be used so that we can ‘learn to respond to questions about and challenges to your Faith’. However, as we have seen, some people do not like having their beliefs challenged. This particular forum is also to ‘examine historical controversies’. I would suggest that Luther’s claims to have the authority to rebuke the Authority of the Catholic Church is an historical controversy worthy of discussion. In addition, the history of the teaching of Sola Scriptura would appear to be a valid topic for this forum.
I would agree though that this discussion needs to be done with charity, but it is wrong to suggest that the topic cannot be broached at all because it makes some people uncomfortable. Clearly this discussion cannot be conducted without some disagreement and some people wishing that they could limit the subject to so as to protect the perceived viability of their personal positions. By the same token, this is an important discussion, one that should not be stifled. I don’t see attempts to limit the discussion on things Luther as being particularly ‘fair’, other than being more ‘fair’ to Luther than to the Church he wanted to bring down. In the ‘historical controversy’, it was Luther vs. the Catholic Church. Are we supposed to believe that that controversy has had no impact on our disunity today? Why is it, specifically and exactly, that Protestants want to take the discussion of Luther off the table?
Should we really buy into this complaint that any criticism of Luther is uncharitable, or that revealing any of ‘inconvenient facts’ about the man runs counter to ecumenism?
Should we notice that we don’t see much at all in the way of responses to all of the quotes from these honest, reputable Protestant Scholars?
Commenter, all that being said, maybe you could provide some suggestions about how this kind of material about Luther could be presented in an ‘acceptable manner’.
God Bless You commenter, and Happy Birthday, Topper
One of the major things that convinced me of the Truth of the Catholic Church was the recognition that SS does not work. SS has not and cannot produce any kind of doctrinal certainty. Personally I believe that Christ actually does want us to know His Doctrinal teachings with certainty. With SS, we cannot. Of course the ‘Catholic model of authority’ does not incorporate SS. This does not make the Catholic Church IS teaching the Truth. But for my money, I would prefer to follow something that COULD be true as opposed to something that obviously is NOT.
Again, given that it was Luther who introduced SS (and PI) into Western Christianity, understanding how and why he did so is crucial. As we have seen, Protestants and especially Lutherans are not exactly thrilled about dealing with the actual history of Luther and even avoid dealing with the comments offered by Lutheran Scholars on the matter. There is a reason for that.
In general I would agree. But if we extrapolate from your statement, then what is the role of Catholic Apologetics? Isn’t this a Catholic Apologetics site? Are we not to defend the Catholic Faith? Are we to simply accept teachings that we believe are errant without a debate?
Personally I believe that if we don’t oppose SS and PI we will be allowing it to infect Catholicism (even more than it already has). Do we want to see the 51% of Christianity that is RCC become as fractured as the 29% that is Protestant?
The forum guidelines for the Apologetics Forum states that it is to be used so that we can ‘learn to respond to questions about and challenges to your Faith’. However, as we have seen, some people do not like having their beliefs challenged. This particular forum is also to ‘examine historical controversies’. I would suggest that Luther’s claims to have the authority to rebuke the Authority of the Catholic Church is an historical controversy worthy of discussion. In addition, the history of the teaching of Sola Scriptura would appear to be a valid topic for this forum.
I would agree though that this discussion needs to be done with charity, but it is wrong to suggest that the topic cannot be broached at all because it makes some people uncomfortable. Clearly this discussion cannot be conducted without some disagreement and some people wishing that they could limit the subject to so as to protect the perceived viability of their personal positions. By the same token, this is an important discussion, one that should not be stifled. I don’t see attempts to limit the discussion on things Luther as being particularly ‘fair’, other than being more ‘fair’ to Luther than to the Church he wanted to bring down. In the ‘historical controversy’, it was Luther vs. the Catholic Church. Are we supposed to believe that that controversy has had no impact on our disunity today? Why is it, specifically and exactly, that Protestants want to take the discussion of Luther off the table?
Should we really buy into this complaint that any criticism of Luther is uncharitable, or that revealing any of ‘inconvenient facts’ about the man runs counter to ecumenism?
Should we notice that we don’t see much at all in the way of responses to all of the quotes from these honest, reputable Protestant Scholars?
Commenter, all that being said, maybe you could provide some suggestions about how this kind of material about Luther could be presented in an ‘acceptable manner’.
God Bless You commenter, and Happy Birthday, Topper
Save this for a moment, Topper.
I am perfectly willing to defend our use of sola scriptura. I am perfectly willing to defend the use of personal interpretation where personal piety and adiaphora are concerned.
I am not willing to defend Luther when what he says is not in keeping with what we are Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. I am not willing to defend Luther when he speaks in a way offensive.
Return to the first paragraph. I believe I can defend our beliefs about the catholic faith and never criticize a Catholic personality. I believe a Catholic can defend his/her faith and never mention the quirks, behaviors, or arrogance of Luther. Defense of the faith on either side has to do more with speaking highly of one’s on communion than speaking in criticism of another’s.
If you want to convince me that I should be Catholic, or that any protestant or Lutheran should be Catholic, the starting point is not an assault on Martin Luther for Lutherans, John Calvin for the Reformed, etc. The starting point is to convince that the Catholic faith, as practiced and described by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is the historic, proper understanding of the catholic faith.
In short, a defense of one’s faith is not defined as an offense against another.
I can’t remember a single Catholic, in all the time I’ve been here, that has not opposed sola scriptura. I cannot recall a single Catholic, nor can I think of offhand a Lutheran, that has defended prevate interpretation.
I would agree with the bolded, but a defense of the Catholic faith, expressed by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, is to explain why Luther’s challenge of the authority of the see of Rome lacks validity.
Who made this claim?
Who is making this claim, Topper?
Further, in the historical controversy, it was far, far more than “Luther against the Catholic Church”.
Criticism of Luther is not necessarily uncharitable, but when the facts about the man have little to do with the doctrines that divide us, when the “facts” about a man are used only to try to discredit a communion’s teaching, that is uncharitable.
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: On this s well as the other posts you posted are correct as far as history goes. It should make anyone wonder about the man Luther and his true motives.
S
steve_b
Guest
Not to belabor this subject, I’ll try and be quick, so we can get back to the topic.
if it was a “rhetorical flourish” of Luther and you’re quick to dismiss it, why are you sooo upset wth my using the word “merely”? Where’s the sense of proportion here?
C:
Again, If Luther wasn’t teaching his theology in that letter, and was only bloviating, why then do you get so upset with my use of the word “merely” in context of Luther would have it so?
As far as vilifying Luther, and tearing down protestantism, we’re not tearing doing either one, anymore than examining Arius is tearing down Arianism. The same goes for any historical heretic. You do know that Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies correct?
C:
He’s considered the Father of protestantism, and founder of Lutheranism. He and his theology are on the table. Just like one can’t separate Peter from his faith.
C:
You want to correct me for saying “merely” but give yourself a pass on saying Luther had “some” errors. Where is YOUR sense of proportion?
That’s why I said “me thinks you protest tooooo much”
C:
. This is obviously wrong, first of all because Luther never questioned that heretics would go to hell (like all heretics until very recently, he didn’t think he was one),
Edwin,
tell me what Luther’s error # 33 means? Luther said “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
Why is the Church saying that is an error?
C:
is this phrase T or F? “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”
C:
Lateran Council, 200+ years before Luther, canons 3 & 8, heretics in particular, are NOT to be killed.b. That IV Lateran, instead of commanding that heretics be handed over to civil rulers for execution, actually forbids the execution of heretics. Steve cites a translation of the Lateran decrees that (in canon 3) tells civil rulers to “expel” (rather than the more common “exterminate”) heretics. Talk about translations with theological bias. Certainly “exterminare” in this context has the connotation of getting rid of them from the territory. It could refer either to expulsion or execution, but to translate it as “expel” implies non-lethal means. And we know, historically, that lethal means were used with the full approval of the Church. We have plenty of records of Church courts handing people over (Hus is one of the famous examples) for execution. Steve points out rightly that canon 18 forbids church officials from directly issuing death sentences. But they got around this by handing the condemned person over to civil authorities.
If you haven’t answered by now this question, give me the meaning of Luther’s error #33
As far as the government executing people, they have their own reasons for executions. One being civil unrest.
C:
What Aquinas does is discuss scenarios Should heretics be tolerated? then he gives an answer as to what the Church does, where he has authority to speak about these issues
S
spina1953
Guest
If I understand the OP I think the belief in Bible alone took root with Luther when he came up with the idea of Private interpretation and SS. I maybe wrong here but from all that I have read so far seems to point in that direction. It also seems to me that when the Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church and no longer accepted its authority, they needed a new authority and that became the Bible as the final authority.
S
steve_b
Guest
for some reason that link didn’t turn into a usable link
hopefully this works newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3
Edwin,
I don’t get the same understanding you have, when I’m reading that.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s true, and I apologize for lumping you in with steve b. On the other hand, you did seem to think that I was making too big a deal about steve’s inaccuracy and that what really mattered was to say bad things about Luther. You seemed a bit impatient that I was getting in the way of this noble cause. Hence I included you in my criticism–you seemed a lot less interested in simply telling the truth about Luther (which was what I was trying to do with regard to “On Translating”) and more in saying whatever would discredit him. I agree that nothing you yourself said was (that I recall) factually inaccurate.
Oh, it isn’t. I have fought both on this forum and elsewhere against the myth that Luther was just trying to “reform the Church” but the mean Church kicked him out. If I could shatter that myth once and for all, I would think it was a lifetime achievement worth boasting of.
However, both terms (“destroying the Church” and “reforming the Church”) are pretty vague, because it depends on how we define “the Catholic Church.” In the letter to Trutvetter he says that he wants to destroy scholasticism and canon law. I wouldn’t identify the Church, per se, with either or both of those things. By 1519, I think he had reached the conclusion that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was part of the problem and had to go, and at that point I think it’s reasonable to say that he wanted to destroy the Catholic Church. However, even then I’m not sure that’s the best way to put it. After all, the Church is most fundamentally the company of the baptized. The pope and bishops are essential to the proper ordering of the Church, but they are not, in themselves, the Church. So both the statements “Luther wanted to reform the Church” (if “the Church” means the company of baptized Christians existing throughout time and space) and “Luther wanted to destroy the Church” (if “the Church” means a hierarchical body committed to scholasticism and canon law) are potentially correct, and both I think are too vague to be useful for the purposes of careful and fair analysis. But that’s not really a question of factual inaccuracy.
Steve keeps saying that I “protest toooooo much” because I pointed out his inaccuracy. And you seem to agree that I’m making too big a fuss over this. That indicates that you don’t think the accuracy of inaccuracy of a statement about Luther matters very much. Instead, both of you have lectured me repeatedly on what a bad person Luther was. I don’t know how to interpret that other than to conclude that both of you think that since Luther was such a bad person and had such a bad influence on the history of the Church, the important consideration is whether a given statement will make Luther look good or bad rather than whether the statement is true or false. I don’t mean that either of you would willingly say something false, only that you seem to think it’s some kind of nit-picking pedantry on my part to care about whether Steve’s statement was true or false.
And ironically, you are imitating Luther in that respect. Luther did this kind of thing all the time. In fact, he arguably introduced it this sort of “balancing the record” rhetorical strategy to Christian theology. That’s why he said crazy stuff like “I could commit adultery 100 times a day and it wouldn’t affect my relationship with God.”
I think this was one of Luther’s worst legacies, and I would advise you against continuing it. The best way to balance the record is to be strictly accurate, not to exaggerate on the other side. (That being said, I’m guilty of some of the same tactics at times–I am an inveterate devil’s advocate. But I do try to be as accurate as possible while playing devil’s advocate
)I’m not sure what this means. I’m not trying to get your posts banned by the moderators, if that’s what you mean.
No, I’m talking about steve b’s inaccurate statement about Luther.
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, indeed. Why imitate him?
Edwards’ work is invaluable, by the way. Oberman does have some valid criticisms, but his main objection is that Edwards focuses on Luther’s late years and finds Luther’s nasty language to reflect Luther’s frustration and anger toward the end of his life. Oberman’s response is to show that Luther used scatological language freely from the very beginning of his career. Which from a certain point of view actually makes Luther look worse
No one is defending “the Luther that you learned about.” You need to get past reacting to the silly Whig propaganda you were no doubt fed as a Protestant. I got it too. (Though it probably helped that in the last few years before I went to grad school my family had gotten to know quite a few Neo-Anabaptists who talked a lot about the ugly side of the “magisterial” Reformers.
Yes. The problem with Marius’ argument is his supposition that Luther was tormented by doubts about the reality of God in the first place. That seems to be Marius reading his own issues as a modern person into Luther. Oberman (who is certainly not without his own biases) is much better as a biographer of Luther in historical context.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure how you avoid it. Here are some of the key statements in bold:for some reason that link didn’t turn into a usable link
hopefully this works newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3
Edwin,
I don’t get the same understanding you have, when I’m reading that.
The mercy of the Church is shown in not handing the offender over to be executed until it is clear that he is a stubborn repeat offender.
And this claim of mercy is borne out in practice. Our best collection of primary sources (at least the best collection that’s been studied and published so far) on the medieval Inquisition is the record of Jacques Fournier’s inquisition at Montaillou in 1318-25. Fournier seems to have been very slow to hand people over for execution. I’m not claiming that the medieval Church was bloodthirsty and cruel. Given the framework of assumptions in which they were operating, church leaders did generally try to give people every change to repent. But they were willing to hand them over for execution if they thought the alternative was to allow them to go on corrupting other people.
Edwin
S
steve_b
Guest
I think you miscaracterize this
Since we are talking about the bible on this thread, it’s fitting to address how Paul looked at those (like Luther) who cause division in the Catholic Church. #34
(all emphasis mine)
Paul is talking to the Church of Rome here. The same Church pope Francis is over today. The same Church Luther was excommunicated from for his heresies…
Rom 16: 17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties ( διχοστασίας division ), in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom 16&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-32514b”)] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.c]
Where does Paul get that teaching? it’s the HS, but that menas it ultimately came from Jesus John 16:12-15 . So it’s Jesus saying through the HS through Paul, the one who causes division in the Church does evil, and is serving Not Jesus but Satan.
If a person dies in that sin, Jesus who judges the living and the dead, says they go hell
Gal 5: **19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension ( διχοστασίας division ) , party spirit, 21 envy,(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal 5&version=RSVCE#fen-RSVCE-33342b”)] drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The same for the heretic
Tit 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
So in view of a forum like this, I would suggest for one to remain silent, and not bring this up with someone who needs to hear it, is NOT being charitable. It can actually be uncharitable to remain silent. As Peter said we are to always be prepared to give an answer (apologia ) for the hope that lies witin us.
[1 Peter 3:15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+3:15&version=RSVCE) Always be prepared to make a defense ( ἀπολογία, ας, ἡ , apologia ) to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
S
steve_b
Guest
As you know, Aquinas in his style of the Summa, would give the objection(s) to a particular issue, (not his objections but those of the time), then he would give various answers to those questions from various sources, then he would give his answer from the Church’s position.
The government OTOH, has it’s issues. It’s possible heresies and schisms which are strictly Church matters overlap with a state matter. For example as it pertains to overall peace.
for example
#481
In the past, If a person is still in the Church and hasn’t been excommunicated, that’s one scenerio, if the Church excommunicates that person, then if the state has interests in that person or movement they lead or are in, Re: their impact on the state, then the state does it’s thing.
C
Contarini
Guest
But the bit I’m quoting is not from the objections. It’s from his own response. You can see that, surely–it’s clearly marked.
That isn’t what he’s talking about. He’s talking about heresy–obstinate denial after baptism of some truth proclaimed by the Church. Sure, heresy was seen as being disruptive of society, but it was disruptive simply by being heresy.
A good summary of medieval and early modern attitudes to persecution is found in Brad Gregory’s book Salvation at Stake, in the chapter called “The Willingness to Kill.” (Gregory is a Catholic, if it matters
) And yes, he covers Protestant “willingness to kill” as well.But the Church specifically handed people over to the state with the full knowledge that they were going to be executed. True, there was a pro forma plea for mercy, but as the passage from Aquinas shows (and also Exsurge Domine, which is not just talking about eternal damnation!), the Church openly taught that the civil authorities had the duty of carrying out the death penalty.
Also see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Heresy:
I presume you aren’t going to claim that the 1911 CE is some kind of anti-Catholic propaganda?
In fact, I often find their treatment of these kinds of subjects to be extremely biased–but they are generally accurate in matters of fact, and the paragraph above is a good summary of the historical situation.Edwin
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
What I am interested in is the ‘transition’ between Luther as an actual Catholic, and Lutheranism as being ‘Confessional’. It is that ‘pre-Confessional period’ that nobody here seems to want to deal with. After all, it wasn’t until that last document was complete that Lutheranism became “fully Confessional”.
Lutheranism was founded on Luther’s Private Interpretation. Given that you refute PI when being used on doctrinal issues, how do you justify what Luther did?
As for your communion’s teaching Jon, should I not try to discredit your teaching about the pope as the antichrist? Should we Catholics be THAT ‘ecumenical’? Should we just ‘let that go’?
You mentioned Luther’s arrogance. What do you think about the outrageous statements that Luther made in regards to his self-proclaimed authority? Personally I think they reveal a great deal about the man and whether his challenge to the Catholic Church was ‘valid’ in God’s Eyes.
As Always Jon, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I understand that totally. But as you know, Luther used his Private Interpretation as his ‘authority’ to break with his Church. Do you support the way he used his Private Interpretation or do you not?
Are you suggesting that it is somehow ‘inappropriate’ to criticize Luther while at the same time admitting that Lutherans do not believe various things that Luther taught? Isn’t that statement a criticism of the man? I think you realize that my criticisms have been probably 95% directed towards Martin Luther the man and not your communion.
Jon, not one time have I tried to convince you that you should be a Catholic. As for your recommendations as to how to defend one’s faith, those methods have not exactly worked out all that well in maintaining Protestant (or even Lutheran) unity, so maybe you should ‘allow’ a little latitude here.
A defense of the truth also involves refuting historical falsehoods and exposing critical weaknesses in an opponent’s position. I do understand though why you would be opposed to this kind of argumentation.
This is EXACTLY my point. Lutherans will not defend Private Interpretation on matters of doctrine AND YET, that is exactly what Luther used to rebuke the teaching authority of his Church and establish his own.
What I am interested in is the ‘transition’ between Luther as an actual Catholic, and Lutheranism as being ‘Confessional’. It is that ‘pre-Confessional period’ that nobody here seems to want to deal with. After all, it wasn’t until that last document was complete that Lutheranism became “fully Confessional”.
Lutheranism was founded on Luther’s Private Interpretation. Given that you refute PI when being used on doctrinal issues, how do you justify what Luther did?
I could not agree more and that is exactly what I do. It appears that the only problem here is that I want to use ALL of the information which shows that Luther’s challenge lacked (God’s) authority.
That would be me. Who, specifically and exactly is suggesting that this is not a valid way to conduct apologetics?
True, but it was Luther who ‘set the tone’ and was responsible for the establishment of SS+PI in Western Christendom (not counting heretics of course). We have documented the influence that Luther had on the Reformation as a whole.
On this we could NOT disagree more. Martin Luther established the fundamental principles and doctrines which were to become the foundation of Protestantism and the things that divide us doctrinally. As such, EVERYTHING about him is important and that includes his education, intellect, character, temperament, etc., etc. But most of all, given that he is responsible for SS+PI, the most important issue involving the man is his self-understanding of his authority to establish (or reject) doctrine.
As for your communion’s teaching Jon, should I not try to discredit your teaching about the pope as the antichrist? Should we Catholics be THAT ‘ecumenical’? Should we just ‘let that go’?
You mentioned Luther’s arrogance. What do you think about the outrageous statements that Luther made in regards to his self-proclaimed authority? Personally I think they reveal a great deal about the man and whether his challenge to the Catholic Church was ‘valid’ in God’s Eyes.
As Always Jon, May God Continue to Bless You, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks and thanks for your response.
With regard to Luther’s 1520 ‘Freedom of a Christian’, Richard Marius comments:
“The work that emerged……was an open letter to the pope meant to be affixed as a preface to ‘A Treatise on the Freedom of a Christian’. The letter was humorous in the heaviness of its irony. Its surface radiates conciliation and humility, but it is in fact a declaration that the differences between Luther and the papacy were irreconcilable…..
As urged, Luther professed willingness to make amends, claiming that he had never spoken evil of Leo as a man, praising his innocence, blaming the pope’s bad counselors for the troubles of the church, and begging for a hearing where they two of them might get their minds together……
He never had much talent for apology. Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a Good schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his ‘glory’ – that is, the title of pope – to retire to a parish and live on the income of a simple priest, and to accept all of the doctrinal definitions Luther had proposed. Then Leo could help Luther reform the church. In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy.
The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichirst at Rome.” Marius, pg. 265-6
This is shocking! Here even before his excommunication Luther was suggesting that the papacy be abolished and that Leo help HIM ‘reform the church’. I think this speaks volumes about Luther’s perceptions of his own authority. I wonder if it would be wrong to speak of Luther’s arrogance here. This incident (among many others) show us about Luther’s perception of his own authority.
In addition, here again we see evidence that Luther wanted to destroy the church, even before he was excommunicated.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks and thanks for your response.
You mention Luther’s motives and of course no analysis of Luther’s actions would be complete without an attempt to understand why he did what he did.
With regard to Luther’s 1520 ‘Freedom of a Christian’, Richard Marius comments:
“The work that emerged……was an open letter to the pope meant to be affixed as a preface to ‘A Treatise on the Freedom of a Christian’. The letter was humorous in the heaviness of its irony. Its surface radiates conciliation and humility, but it is in fact a declaration that the differences between Luther and the papacy were irreconcilable…..
As urged, Luther professed willingness to make amends, claiming that he had never spoken evil of Leo as a man, praising his innocence, blaming the pope’s bad counselors for the troubles of the church, and begging for a hearing where they two of them might get their minds together……
He never had much talent for apology. Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a Good schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his ‘glory’ – that is, the title of pope – to retire to a parish and live on the income of a simple priest, and to accept all of the doctrinal definitions Luther had proposed. Then Leo could help Luther reform the church. In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy.
The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichirst at Rome.” Marius, pg. 265-6
This is shocking! Here even before his excommunication Luther was suggesting that the papacy be abolished and that Leo help HIM ‘reform the church’. I think this speaks volumes about Luther’s perceptions of his own authority. I wonder if it would be wrong to speak of Luther’s arrogance here. This incident (among many others) show us about Luther’s perception of his own authority.
In addition, here again we see evidence that Luther wanted to destroy the church, even before he was excommunicated.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
C
commenter
Guest
I am in the learner stage on Apologetics, so I need to think how to respond. I’ve been a social worker over 40 years, so I think of my little apologetic attempts as part of a relationship between me and the listener, or reader, where we both learn. Sometimes I need the sledge hammer, to make a point. (I don’t mince words on legalization of abortion). Other times you need to be more indirect. I think the whole Reformation was harmful. But if John Doe, my neighbor thinks John Calvin was a great guy, I’m more interested in John Doe than in John Calvin. If I keep criticizing Calvin and Calvinism - which tend to get interconnected - I may get Doe to hold onto Calvin/Calvinism all the tighter. I need to understand Doe even more than I understand Calvin.
Maybe there’s some aspect of Calvinism that seems inconsistent with Scripture, history, and human nature. I may point out some aspect of Catholicism that might answer this better than Calvinism, that would appeal to the unique person John Doe. (If you, the apologist, are a person like Mother Theresa, your reasoning will appear far more powerful to the person John Doe. If you aren’t a person like Mother Theresa, why aren’t you?)
I learn from the Protestants on CAF and in my personal contacts. They differ from each other. They can tell when you are listening to them and when not. I never try to say “here’s where you are wrong”. I may point out where I think the Magisterium may provide a better solution, and why. I use other tools in addition to the sledge hammer, especially my ears.
Luther and Calvin are not off limits for discussion. I have disagreed with Protestants, but also, especially, with liberal Catholics, secularists, extreme conservatives, and the whole zoo-full of my opponents on the Internet and in personal life, but I always try to point them towards something (or rather Someone), respecting what truth they do have. Protestantism endures, not because certain reformers centuries ago were never adequately refuted, but because of human nature, and because so few Catholics really know their own faith.
I never, ever doubt that the Magisterium has the best answer, but my main hope in talking and posting is to nudge the person, and me, towards God. So yes, use the sledge hammer but use other tools too, prepare thoroughly especially from the Catechism, and most important, pray.
S
steve_b
Guest
Getting straight to the point, is burning heretics against the Holy Spirit?But the bit I’m quoting is not from the objections. It’s from his own response. You can see that, surely–it’s clearly marked.
That isn’t what he’s talking about. He’s talking about heresy–obstinate denial after baptism of some truth proclaimed by the Church. Sure, heresy was seen as being disruptive of society, but it was disruptive simply by being heresy.
A good summary of medieval and early modern attitudes to persecution is found in Brad Gregory’s book Salvation at Stake, in the chapter called “The Willingness to Kill.” (Gregory is a Catholic, if it matters
But the Church specifically handed people over to the state with the full knowledge that they were going to be executed. True, there was a pro forma plea for mercy, but as the passage from Aquinas shows (and also Exsurge Domine, which is not just talking about eternal damnation!), the Church openly taught that the civil authorities had the duty of carrying out the death penalty.
Also see the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Heresy:
I presume you aren’t going to claim that the 1911 CE is some kind of anti-Catholic propaganda?
Edwin
Since you didn’t answer my many requests for an answer, particularly as it pertains to Luther’s error #33, I will answer the question. God definitely eliminated heretics in the past by fire. Genesis 19:24-25 , and He will do it again in hell.
If God did it even ONCE, it would be enough to say burning / destroying heretics was not against the HS.
The Church passed laws that prohibited Church members from engaging in that activity. I presented the documents to support that.
C
commenter
Guest
I agree with Topper that SS is an error, and that sometimes it helps to p(name removed by moderator)oint how and why an error began. That works for a few people, but not all. You need more than one tool in your kit.
In my workshop I have a sledgehammer. Some things are so blatantly evil, like quoting the Bible to justify legal abortion, that you just have to slam back (and get stung in the process).
I also have a regular hammer. Sometimes, for some people, the right quote or argument will “hit the nail on the head”. But you have to show something else - from the Catholic Faith - answers the question better - “better” from that other person’s POV, not yours. If I keep slamming away with my hammer, I do damage and sometimes hit my fingers, causing strange tongues to emit from my workshop.
My other hammer is a little one. Sometimes a trained craftsman (not me) will tap carefully on a pipe or part of the furnace or engine that seems unrelated to the problem, then you suddenly see the connection. G. K. Chesterton was the master of this. The Lutherans on CAF know Luther better than I know my wife. Shamefully some of them seem to know my Catholic doctrine better than me. So I pointed out something they apparently were unaware of - a new challenge to the NT canon, which makes a current living Magisterium appear a little more necessary now. It’s a tiny point, but may start some fruitful train of thought.
So hang in there, read Chesterton, develop different tools, and be an apologist.
In my workshop I have a sledgehammer. Some things are so blatantly evil, like quoting the Bible to justify legal abortion, that you just have to slam back (and get stung in the process).
I also have a regular hammer. Sometimes, for some people, the right quote or argument will “hit the nail on the head”. But you have to show something else - from the Catholic Faith - answers the question better - “better” from that other person’s POV, not yours. If I keep slamming away with my hammer, I do damage and sometimes hit my fingers, causing strange tongues to emit from my workshop.
My other hammer is a little one. Sometimes a trained craftsman (not me) will tap carefully on a pipe or part of the furnace or engine that seems unrelated to the problem, then you suddenly see the connection. G. K. Chesterton was the master of this. The Lutherans on CAF know Luther better than I know my wife. Shamefully some of them seem to know my Catholic doctrine better than me. So I pointed out something they apparently were unaware of - a new challenge to the NT canon, which makes a current living Magisterium appear a little more necessary now. It’s a tiny point, but may start some fruitful train of thought.
So hang in there, read Chesterton, develop different tools, and be an apologist.
C
Contarini
Guest
I did answer, by pointing out that eternal punishment is very clearly not what that passage from Exsurge Domine is talking about.
We can talk about hell if you want to, but that’s not what Exsurge Domine is about. My own belief is that the "fires of hell are a way of talking about how the presence of God is experienced by people who have irreversibly set themselves against God. But that’s not really relevant to the present discussion.
Ah–I didn’t realize you were thinking of Sodom. That’s interesting, but again, clearly not what Pope Leo was talking about. Also, the people of Sodom were not killed for being heretics, but (according to the prophets) for being materialistic and neglecting the poor. Their apparent habit of gang rape can’t have helped either
.You aren’t going to get very far with me on this point, since I do not take these sorts of passages literally. But that really isn’t relevant here.
No, it prohibited members of the clergy from being directly involved, but it got around this by handing people over to civil authorities (who were also Catholics, doing something that theologians and Church decrees said they should do) for the actual execution.
No, you presented documents which you said supported that, and I demonstrated that they didn’t. I pointed out that you’re using a translation which says “expel” instead of “exterminate” (I’m not insisting on “exterminate”–I’d be OK with, say, “wipe out” or even “remove,” as long as it’s clear that the word could refer to capital punishment) and that the “due punishment” mentioned in Canon 3 was clearly understood at the time to be burning at the stake (not expulsion, as the translation you cited dishonestly suggests). I have also quoted a paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia making it clear that IV Lateran did in fact say that heretics should be handed over for execution.
Edwin
- Status