Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Peter_J]

Are you saying Luther espoused the positions advocated by the Cathars, Iconoclasts, Monophysites, Nestorians, Arians and Gnostics? I am not seeing that.

If I might answer a question not directed at me I would say No, but it does go to illustrate that’s things weren’t just all hunky-dory before the sixteenth century (just in case anyone holds that myth).

 

[steido01]

A technique he learned from the pope? Which Pope? Or Popes?

Pick nearly any Borgia (Or their grandsons). Later, a Medici. We are blessed to have such god-fearing men as Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis in recent years. This was not always so.

 

[manualman]

I do think that we catholics like to criticize Luther from a bubble long removed from his own environment. Americans as a whole ought to be able to relate a little to Luther’s hot-headedness. Lord knows Luther himself might blush a bit at how we reacted as a nation after 9/11 and the number of civilian deaths that have come about due to “collateral damage” from out counter-strikes since then…

My point is that Luther did indeed live in a time of many corrupt churchmen and to his credit, it certainly does not seem as if Luther was in it for the accumulation of personal wealth! A lot of catholic bishops of the era couldn’t make that claim before the judgment seat of God.

I do think the man genuinely suffered from a terrible case of scrupulosity, so I suspect he’s not as culpable as he otherwise would be from an objective evaluation of the outcome of his theological and ecclesial innovations. Good intentions don’t prevent sinful actions from begetting terrible carnage. But they do sometimes reduce culpability for those sins. In His mercy God offers to forgive any of us who seek that forgiveness sincerely. Whatever his flaws, you can’t say Luther didn’t seek that forgiveness.

 

[guanophore]

A technique he learned from the pope? Which Pope? Or Popes?

To be fair, it goes back way further than Leo X. It was customary before the Popes forthe Roman Empire to confiscate property of “criminals” and traitors, so when the Roman Pontiff inherited this authority he was also a product of his culture.

Confiscation of property was customarily used during all the inqusitions. Frequently the Pope aurhorized the local authorities who were involved in prosecuting offenders to take and keep the property of the accused. In 1183, at the time of the rampant Cathar heresy Duke Philip of Flanders, aided by William of the White Hand, Archbishop of Reims had the support of the Holy See to ravage these “heretics” as it was also considered a disruption of civil society to rebel against the Catholic faith . They caused many citizens in their domains, nobles and commoners, clerics, knights, peasants, spinsters, widows, and married women, to be burnt alive, confiscated their property, and divided it between them.

“Pope Alexander III at the Lateran Council of 1179 renewed the decisions already made as to schismatics in Southern France, and requested secular sovereigns to silence those disturbers of public order, if necessary by force, to achieve which object they were at liberty to imprison the guilty (servituti subicere, subdere) and to appropriate their possessions.”

Then there was the underswriting of Malleus Maleficarum by Innocent VIII, although most of those accused of being witches were not holders of great wealth. The Inquistion frequently targeted those of means, since forfeiture of their land and belongings was a consequence of their guilt.

I am not excusing any of what we today consider butchery and consequences with undue process, but I am pointing out that this sentiment of Luther was consistent with medieval practices toward heterodoxy and heresy.

 

[JonNC]

I do think that we catholics like to criticize Luther from a bubble long removed from his own environment. Americans as a whole ought to be able to relate a little to Luther’s hot-headedness. Lord knows Luther himself might blush a bit at how we reacted as a nation after 9/11 and the number of civilian deaths that have come about due to “collateral damage” from out counter-strikes since then…

My point is that Luther did indeed live in a time of many corrupt churchmen and to his credit, it certainly does not seem as if Luther was in it for the accumulation of personal wealth! A lot of catholic bishops of the era couldn’t make that claim before the judgment seat of God.

I do think the man genuinely suffered from a terrible case of scrupulosity, so I suspect he’s not as culpable as he otherwise would be from an objective evaluation of the outcome of his theological and ecclesial innovations. Good intentions don’t prevent sinful actions from begetting terrible carnage. But they do sometimes reduce culpability for those sins. In His mercy God offers to forgive any of us who seek that forgiveness sincerely. Whatever his flaws, you can’t say Luther didn’t seek that forgiveness.

Hi manualman,
As usually, your post here is measured and well thought out.
Related to some of the things you’ve said, I came across an interesting essay by Catholic scholar Father Michael Scanlon of Villanova University.

A couple of quotes:

For Martin Luther, the doctrine of justification by faith is “the article on which the Church stands or falls.” He had been taught that the righteousness (justice) of God was the righteousness whereby God is just and punishes sinners. But how could that be “good news?”

Then he discovered that the righteousness of God, revealed in the Gospel, is a divine gift given to sinners. God is not a harsh judge but a merciful, gracious God who gives us what we can never attain by our own feeble effort. This biblical righteousness is the external or alien justice of Jesus Christ, a justice never our own but always Christ’s. Through grace-enabled faith, this justice of Christ is imputed to the sinner, who becomes simultaneously both justified and sinner (simuL justus et peccator).

Here Luther moves away from Augustinian and medieval transformationist models. To avoid the notion of a gradual process of healing and transformation, Luther did not draw a distinction between justification and sanctification. The Lutheran simuL (the Christian is both sinner and justified) is central to his theology.

And

If Roman Catholics recognize an authentically evangelical thrust surging through the more or less adequate formulas of Luther and Reformation anthropology in general, then they must see in it a theology of grace that is a valid complement to their own and other traditional formulations.

Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.

he fundamental coherence of Luther’s position with Augustine, the Council of Orange and Thomas Aquinas, along with its striking formulation, merit for him pride of place with them in the Western theological tradition. This ecumenical recognition is now evident in recent Catholic publications in Christian anthropology. An excellent illustration of this recognition is work done recently on the differences between Luther and Thomas Aquinas. Needless to say, they are quite different. But while Luther can be described as an “existential” theologian focused on our experience of ourselves as sinners graced through Christ, Thomas can be seen as a “sapiential” theologian focused on God the creator, transforming his creatures into friends.

Jon

 

[manualman]

An interesting article. I’ve noticed in my reading that in catholic history there are a fair number of people who suffer from the pains of scrupulosity, but that this ailment is almost non-existent in evangelical protestant communities. Luther’s perspective seems quite effective in eliminating that problem.

On the other hand, the problem of cheap grace seems to thrive in the theological communities profoundly influenced by Luther’s thinking (which includes almost all catholics alive in the USA today!). I might go so far as to say that Luther’s theological emphases are perhaps individually what the sufferers of scrupulosity need to hear. But I think there are a lot more self-satisfied Christians (including catholics) today who instead need to spend more time considering the damage they’ve wrought to the world by their sins and spend a bit more time in repentance and penance.

 

[JonNC]

An interesting article. I’ve noticed in my reading that in catholic history there are a fair number of people who suffer from the pains of scrupulosity, but that this ailment is almost non-existent in evangelical protestant communities. Luther’s perspective seems quite effective in eliminating that problem.

On the other hand, the problem of cheap grace seems to thrive in the theological communities profoundly influenced by Luther’s thinking (which includes almost all catholics alive in the USA today!). I might go so far as to say that Luther’s theological emphases are perhaps individually what the sufferers of scrupulosity need to hear. But I think there are a lot more self-satisfied Christians (including catholics) today who instead need to spend more time considering the damage they’ve wrought to the world by their sins and spend a bit more time in repentance and penance.

Couldn’t agree more.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer -

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

Jon

 

[manualman]

I must be getting old. I didn’t used to be able to make friends with committed Lutherans!

Grace works, eh?

 

[Denise1957]

To be fair, it goes back way further than Leo X. It was customary before the Popes forthe Roman Empire to confiscate property of “criminals” and traitors, so when the Roman Pontiff inherited this authority he was also a product of his culture.

Confiscation of property was customarily used during all the inqusitions. Frequently the Pope aurhorized the local authorities who were involved in prosecuting offenders to take and keep the property of the accused. In 1183, at the time of the rampant Cathar heresy Duke Philip of Flanders, aided by William of the White Hand, Archbishop of Reims had the support of the Holy See to ravage these “heretics” as it was also considered a disruption of civil society to rebel against the Catholic faith . They caused many citizens in their domains, nobles and commoners, clerics, knights, peasants, spinsters, widows, and married women, to be burnt alive, confiscated their property, and divided it between them.

“Pope Alexander III at the Lateran Council of 1179 renewed the decisions already made as to schismatics in Southern France, and requested secular sovereigns to silence those disturbers of public order, if necessary by force, to achieve which object they were at liberty to imprison the guilty (servituti subicere, subdere) and to appropriate their possessions.”

Then there was the underswriting of Malleus Maleficarum by Innocent VIII, although most of those accused of being witches were not holders of great wealth. The Inquistion frequently targeted those of means, since forfeiture of their land and belongings was a consequence of their guilt.

I am not excusing any of what we today consider butchery and consequences with undue process, but I am pointing out that this sentiment of Luther was consistent with medieval practices toward heterodoxy and heresy.

Oh, so now you say that it’s about the inquisition. Right. But you said nothing about that in the post I was asking about. You accused the popes of confiscating whatever property they wanted, going back for centuries, and whoever did not cooperate was given with imprisonment or exhile. And now you say that it was about properties confiscated during the Inquisition, and then use this to then further accuse the Church of murdering Cathars. Let me remind you of what you wrote in the post I asked you about:

“Topper, do you have any idea how those properties and resources GOT into the hands of the Church in the first place? Actually, it is a technique learned from the Pope. A person did not comply with the wishes of the Pope or whatever secular power the pope supported would be called into court, either locally, or in Rome. While the person was there to defend himself, his lands and property would be confiscated. Sometimes the uncooperative would be imprisoned or exiled. Their hiers were also displaced from their property.”

 

[pablope]

An interesting article. I’ve noticed in my reading that in catholic history there are a fair number of people
who suffer from the pains of scrupulosity, but that this ailment is almost non-existent in evangelical protestant communities. Luther’s perspective seems quite effective in eliminating that problem.

.

Hmm…from my observation, there is one…though many may not percieve it…a scrupulosity on Mary or anything Marian, in that there is a fear if they say the Hail Mary, or even mention Mary, protestants somehow offend God, or deviate from attention to Christ. There is a feeling of angst…

 

[JonNC]

Hmm…from my observation, there is one…though many may not percieve it…a scrupulosity on Mary or anything Marian, in that there is a fear if they say the Hail Mary, or even mention Mary, protestants somehow offend God, or deviate from attention to Christ. There is a feeling of angst…

Hey, as long as its the pre-Tridentine, Lutherans should be cool with it.

“Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Amen.”

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hey, as long as its the pre-Tridentine, Lutherans should be cool with it.

“Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Amen.”

Jon

Are you implying that Lutherans would not be comfortable with the second half?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Are you implying that Lutherans would not be comfortable with the second half?

It depends on what you mean by comfortable. I’m perfectly comfortable with other people praying it. It’s just not part of my own personal practice.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, so now you say that it's about the inquisition.

Not sure what you mean by “it’s about the inquistion”. I thought we were discussing the practice of confiscating property. I am only pointing out that this was not Luther’s brainchild. It had been practiced in the Roman Empire since before Christianity, and was endorsed by the Popes.

Before we are scandalized by Luther, we need to consider that 1) he was a product of his culture and 2) Catholics did it first.

 Right. But you said nothing about that in the post I was asking about. You accused the popes of confiscating whatever property they wanted, going back for centuries, and whoever did not cooperate was given with imprisonment or exhile.

That is a little broad. “whoever they wanted” to do that to were 1) those deemed to be heretics 2) Those who disobeyed and defied their wishes to the extent it was considered a disruption of civil order.

 And now you say that it was about properties confiscated during the Inquisition, and then use this to then further accuse the Church of murdering Cathars.

I also am not saying that Luther’s encouragement of confiscating monastery property was “about the properties confiscated during the inquisition”. I am saying that it was a long standing practice to confiscate properties (even before the Inquisition) and did not originate with Luther.

I also did not “use this” (the princple of confiscating property?) to “accuse the church”. I did not accuse the church of murdering anyone. I linked to the Catholic encyclopedia, which described the response of secular authorities (under the blessing of the pope) eliminating the Cathars.

Let me remind you of what you wrote in the post I asked you about:

“Topper, do you have any idea how those properties and resources GOT into the hands of the Church in the first place? Actually, it is a technique learned from the Pope. A person did not comply with the wishes of the Pope or whatever secular power the pope supported would be called into court, either locally, or in Rome. While the person was there to defend himself, his lands and property would be confiscated. Sometimes the uncooperative would be imprisoned or exiled. Their hiers were also displaced from their property.”

This was a standard practice. But it was used before the inquisition, and after. Those who live in glass houses must be cautious about throwing stones.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry for being snarky; so many posters are unfamiliar with the incredible statements of consensus between Lutherans and Catholics, that I tend to react.

No problems…!

“Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity” is the Roman Curia. These Catholic talks with Lutherans are official Vatican statements. I generally suggest starting with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification for an overview. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Right: the Pontifical Council is part of the Curia, as I’d also noted. Yet, this organization is sponsored by that council, and not part of it. I guess I’m sensitive, too – in this age of throwaway soundbites on the internet, misattribution is a pet peeve of mine!

The Joint Declaration is a very cool document – and very helpful for me, as a Catholic, since it enables me to show Christians of various denominations that the Church doesn’t believe things that they’ve been told we do!

 

[JonNC]

Are you implying that Lutherans would not be comfortable with the second half?

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.” is an invocation for intercession.

She is holy, she is the Mother of God, and she prays for sinners. All of these are true.

Invocation of the saints, however, is not typically part of Lutheran practice, though I do not oppose it.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Not sure what you mean by “it’s about the inquistion”. I thought we were discussing the practice of confiscating property. I am only pointing out that this was not Luther’s brainchild. It had been practiced in the Roman Empire since before Christianity, and was endorsed by the Popes.

Before we are scandalized by Luther, we need to consider that 1) he was a product of his culture and 2) Catholics did it first.

That is a little broad. “whoever they wanted” to do that to were 1) those deemed to be heretics 2) Those who disobeyed and defied their wishes to the extent it was considered a disruption of civil order.

I also am not saying that Luther’s encouragement of confiscating monastery property was “about the properties confiscated during the inquisition”. I am saying that it was a long standing practice to confiscate properties (even before the Inquisition) and did not originate with Luther.

I also did not “use this” (the princple of confiscating property?) to “accuse the church”. I did not accuse the church of murdering anyone. I linked to the Catholic encyclopedia, which described the response of secular authorities (under the blessing of the pope) eliminating the Cathars.

This was a standard practice. But it was used before the inquisition, and after. Those who live in glass houses must be cautious about throwing stones.

You did not qualify, in the post I referred to, in any way whatsoever, that the confiscation of property by popes had to do with those who who were heretics or who disobeyed. Please point out where in your post to Topper where you qualified this.

Here’s the post in question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12241091&postcount=197

 

[EvangelCatholic]

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.” is an invocation for intercession.

She is holy, she is the Mother of God, and she prays for sinners. All of these are true.

Invocation of the saints, however, is not typically part of Lutheran practice, though I do not oppose it.

Jon

Well stated. There certainly are Lutherans who pray the full Hail Mary; personally I have no problems with it. We know that holy Mary is in Heaven and that she prays for the Church so acknowledging with gratitude her role is acceptable to Lutherans.

 

[guanophore]

This is a link to another Catholic Encyclopedia article that references “the penalties that dated from Innocent III” which included confiscation of property.

"The representative of the Church were also children of their own time, and in their conflict with heresy accepted the help that their age freely offered them, and indeed often forced upon them. Theologians and canonists, the highest and the saintliest, stood by the code of their day, and sought to explain and to justify it. The learned and holy Raymund of Pennafort, highly esteemed by Gregory IX, was content with the penalties that dated from Innocent III, viz., the ban of the empire, confiscation of property, confinement in prison, etc. "

I am not accusing either side, or justifying the actions under discussion, just stating historical facts.

 

[guanophore]

Hmm…from my observation, there is one…though many may not percieve it…a scrupulosity on Mary or anything Marian, in that there is a fear if they say the Hail Mary, or even mention Mary, protestants somehow offend God, or deviate from attention to Christ. There is a feeling of angst…

Many such people are amazed to learn that all the Reformers were Marian devotees, and that Luther kept saying his Rosary up until his death.