Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[spina1953]

Context, context, context. It is clear that the meaning you are ascribing to this statement is not consistent with the facts. Luther collected indulgences himself, at least since he became a monk, and witnessed the actions of them for decades. He had not seen the papers Tetzel whas handing out, so he did not know specifically what they said, but this statement does not mean he knew not what they were. If you read the 95 Theses, it is clear that his beliefs about them are largely what the Church teaches today - that for them to be effective, one must be in a state of grace (repentant) and have a heart of contrition (commitment to sanctity). How could he write these if he did not understand them? He was right, it is not possible to purchase God’s grace.

I am not excusing Luther’s boorish behavior, namecalling, or spouting about things of which he was ill informed. I don’t think he knew what Tetzel had (though he probably did later) and I think he was provoked because his parishioners were flocking over there instead of listening to him.

A false conclusion emanating from a false premise.

Luther would have been well acquainted with the Papal indulgences given to his own order.

Actually, I don’t think his reaction was quick at all, but had been fomenting for years as he was developing his undersanding of salvation by grace, through faith, rather than works.

Even the Church acknowledged that Tetzel’s actions (and what was customary in that day) could give the appearance that an indulgence was being “sold” and that a person did not have to have a contrite heart or be in a state of grace.

Perhaps. we shall never know.

No, we don’t. But I concede it is possible that his experience of indulgences was so different from what he had been told Tetzel was doing that he had to wonder if these indulgences were something completel foreign to his experience, which was that one could not be sold.

Apparently this is your own formulation of the facts.

Luther had valid complaints about the process, or else it would not have been corrected.

Hi Guanophore: All I can really say is that they are the words of Martin Luther from his pamphlets the sources being Wider hans Worst 1541 ( WA 51, 538, and Luther’s Schriften, herausg.Von Walch XV, 446) If you think them incorrect it is not me but Luther who wrote it, I was just quoting Luther’s words concerning Tetzel. I also want to point out that it was in full context and I did not take it out of context but quoted the whole thing.

 

[Denise1957]

I find it curious that you would come into a thread with this title, and yet be disinterested it what your own Magesterium is doing to heal the wounds to unity.

Yes, more heterodoxy later than earlier. Luther was right about indulgences, and he was right that they were being abused.

If you are not interested in the Joint Declaration, published on your own Vatican website, itis unlikely that you have read or are willing to read the

Disputation of Martin Luther on Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. But if you were, you might see some things that might surprise you, such as

71 . He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed

Then you have left me confused with your question. I stated that Luther was right about encouraging Scripture reading, and you asked how that was practical, since people didn’t have them. Granted, they were not as common as they are now, but far more people had them than before the printing press!

I think literacy might have been as big of an issue.

The title of the thread has to do with why Luther was excommunicated. I’m primarily interested in why he was excommunicated in relation to that time in Church history. And I’ve not seen that you’ve taken any interest at all in reading and analyzing Tetzel’s rebuttal against Luther, which very much has to do with the situation surrounding Luther’s excommunication. There’s evidence that Luther’s views on indulgences were wrong. You don’t appear to be interested in that at all. You only focus on his concerns regarding abuses, and what the Lutherans and Catholics are discussing nowadays. You aren’t looking at the whole picture, which is something that some of us here are trying to do, and will continue to do. Perhaps you can start a thread to discuss the joint declaration if you like.

I don’t think that Luther was excommunicated because of his views on reading scripture, so I’m not going to comment on that further for now.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore: All I can really say is that they are the words of Martin Luther from his pamphlets the sources being Wider hans Worst 1541 ( WA 51, 538, and Luther's Schriften, herausg.Von Walch XV, 446) If you think them incorrect it is not me but Luther who wrote it, I was just quoting Luther's words concerning Tetzel.

I have no dispute that he used these words.

I also want to point out that it was in full context and I did not take it out of context but quoted the whole thing.

You are ascribing meaning to it that is contrary to the context, and you are ignoring his life experience and all the other writings he produced. Do you honestly believe he was not aware of the indulgences given to his own monastic order? He probably went to Rome to do the indulgenced stations of the cross!

 

[spina1953]

I have no dispute that he used these words.

You are ascribing meaning to it that is contrary to the context, and you are ignoring his life experience and all the other writings he produced. Do you honestly believe he was not aware of the indulgences given to his own monastic order? He probably went to Rome to do the indulgenced stations of the cross!

Hi Guanophone: you can dispute that Luther used these words but the fact is that he wrote them and has been handed down and collected by those who have them.

My opinions are based only on what Luther said and my thinking is of course my own and I do not ask anyone to agree or believe my thoughts as gospel truth.

Right now I am focusing on Luther and his attack on Tetzel at this point in time as to one of the many reasons as to why Luther was excommunicated. yes, there is plenty about Luther’s life and experiences but since its about why Luther was excommunicated, The reason being that it was it seems to me indulgences that set the stage for Luther to begin questioning the CC and its teachings, which led to his being excommunicated.

 

[Peter_J]

**The title of the thread has to do with why Luther was excommunicated. **I’m primarily interested in why he was excommunicated in relation to that time in Church history.

That certainly makes sense. It’s just that, in view of the above, I would think you would be interested in the Joint Declaration.

 

[benhur]

In doing some research about Luther, I came across this that Luther wrote. “After Tetzel had received a substantical amount of money at Leipzig, a nobleman asked him if it were possible to receive a letter of indulgence for a future sin. Tetzel quickly answered in the affirmative, insisting, however, that the payment had to be made at once. This the nobleman did, receiving thereupon letter and seal from Tetzel. When Tetzel left Leipzig the nobleman attacked him along the way, gave him a thorough beating, and sent him back empty-handed to Leipzig, with the comment that this was the future sin which he had in mind.” Source Luther’s Schriftan, herausg,von Walch XL,446.

First of all we do not know who this nobleman was. Also so far as anyone knows this incident never happened. Tetzel was well liked in Leipzig and never had any trouble there. There was never any proof that Tetzel ever sold indulgences or sold them for some future sin as Tetzel was very much knowledgeable concerning indulgences and as modern scholarship has pointed out nearly everything Luther claimed Tetzel did was bogus. This writing of Luther clearly shows that he had it out for Tetzel and was going to great lengths to discredit Tetzel in order to not only cast doubts on Tetzel but to further his own doctrines on indulgences that he had already said that he nothing about in his Wider Hans Worst pamphlet of 1541. All we have is Luther’s word that this incident happened to Tetzel, but no proof that it ever took place. This also show just how vindictive Luther could be towards someone he did not even know or even spoke to. Tetzel was able to prove that Luther’s 95 Theses was not doctrinally or theologically sound, to which inflamed Luther to make innuendo’s and make insidious remarks against Tetzel in order to make himself look better in the eyes of others.

How is it that Luther knew nothing of indulgences when his 95 points do seem to strike a dagger into the heart of the matter ?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Sorry for being slow to respond. I’m away from home for the next week.

Not sure what doctrines you think he challenged and don’t recall his 90 some points and don’t recall if he challenged sincerity or challenged effectualness of tetzel’s indulgencse on all grounds. Otherwise thought I was specific in previous post.

Over the years I have heard Protestants claim that the Catholic Church was wrong to excommunicate Martin Luther. The following is a list of 50 doctrines that Luther challenged/refuted/revised and ALL before he was excommunicated in 1521.

You asked for it, but I have to tell you that I post the list with some reservations. It seems that every time I post it, I get several responses which claim that of course he was right to do so because the poster personally agrees with one of the 50 doctrinal issues (probably using their Private Interpretation to do so).

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. The tossing out of seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).”

The above from, Armstrong, “Martin Luther, Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise”, Chapter One, Was Martin Luther a “Revolutionary” Who Had Many Fundamental Disagreements With the Catholic Church?

This is a list of things that Luther differed with the Church over BEFORE his excommunication.

Of course even very traditional Catholics can probably find one of the 50 with which they agree, but that is not at all the point. The point is the number of doctrinal issues which Luther rejected or revised.
**
Where did Luther ‘get’ the Authority to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church? ** No Church would put up with this kind of ‘independence’ (arrogance) and as we know, the Lutheran church certainly would not.

Did Luther’s ‘authority’ to demand that he was right (and everybody who disagreed with him was wrong) come from God? Did it come from Scripture? Did it come from his role as a monk, a priest, a Theologian, a Professor? Exactly what was it that should cause us to believe that Luther was right and the Church was wrong?

This thread is about why Luther was excommunicated. Rejecting/revising 50 important doctrines should be seen as the answer. It was the magnitude of Luther’s Revolt that resulted in his excommunication.

As we have learned, Lutherans are not allowed to use their Private Interpretation on doctrinal matters, and yet when I point this out to Lutherans as ask why what Luther did should be acceptable, I get nothing but silence.

Ben, rather than addressing one or more of the various 50 things, could you please address, from a Lutheran perspective, why what Luther did in rejecting SO MUCH of Catholic doctrine, is not exactly what the Lutheran church condemns.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Sorry for being slow to respond. I’m away from home for the next week.

Over the years I have heard Protestants claim that the Catholic Church was wrong to excommunicate Martin Luther. The following is a list of 50 doctrines that Luther challenged/refuted/revised and ALL before he was excommunicated in 1521.

You asked for it, but I have to tell you that I post the list with some reservations. It seems that every time I post it, I get several responses which claim that of course he was right to do so because the poster personally agrees with one of the 50 doctrinal issues (probably using their Private Interpretation to do so).

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. The tossing out of seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).”

The above from, Armstrong, “Martin Luther, Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise”, Chapter One, Was Martin Luther a “Revolutionary” Who Had Many Fundamental Disagreements With the Catholic Church?

This is a list of things that Luther differed with the Church over BEFORE his excommunication.

Of course even very traditional Catholics can probably find one of the 50 with which they agree, but that is not at all the point. The point is the number of doctrinal issues which Luther rejected or revised.
**
Where did Luther ‘get’ the Authority to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church? ** No Church would put up with this kind of ‘independence’ (arrogance) and as we know, the Lutheran church certainly would not.

Did Luther’s ‘authority’ to demand that he was right (and everybody who disagreed with him was wrong) come from God? Did it come from Scripture? Did it come from his role as a monk, a priest, a Theologian, a Professor? Exactly what was it that should cause us to believe that Luther was right and the Church was wrong?

This thread is about why Luther was excommunicated. Rejecting/revising 50 important doctrines should be seen as the answer. It was the magnitude of Luther’s Revolt that resulted in his excommunication.

As we have learned, Lutherans are not allowed to use their Private Interpretation on doctrinal matters, and yet when I point this out to Lutherans as ask why what Luther did should be acceptable, I get nothing but silence.

Ben, rather than addressing one or more of the various 50 things, could you please address, from a Lutheran perspective, why what Luther did in rejecting SO MUCH of Catholic doctrine, is not exactly what the Lutheran church condemns.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

You pose a new question. Just to answer your first one, a few of your fifty do address the indulgence problem.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

You pose a new question. Just to answer your first one, a few of your fifty do address the indulgence problem.

Ben, you asked for the things about which Luther disagreed. I posted them.

Now the question becomes how we should view someone who took SO MUCH ‘responsibility’ and authority upon his own shoulders. After all, the Lutheran Church will not allow its members or pastors or Theologians or Professors to use their Private Interpretation on matters of doctrine, because that is the role of the Lutheran church.

**That being the case, then how can we NOT see what Luther did as being exactly what the Lutheran church considers to be unallowable? **

That is the key question and it goes directly to the reason for Luther being excommunicated. It would seem to me that unless Lutherans today can offer some kind of rational and credible justification for Luther’s wholesale rejection of so many doctrines, then modern day Lutheranism is basically admitting that it was founded on a basis of authority that is/was not justifiable or legitimate.

It seems to me that the credibility of Protestantism and specifically Lutheranism is at stake here.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Just a quick question topper. What is Fiduciary faith.

Thanks Annie

 

[guanophore]

**
Where did Luther ‘get’ the Authority to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church? **

It is a simple matter of conscience, not authority. Every human soul has the freedom to decide for oneself - that is how God created us. It is immoral to force someone to act in opposition to one’s conscience. Luther was clear that he was acting according to his conscience, and that he could only be “moved” by being convinced through the Holy Scriptures.

I have never read anything anywhere that any theologians present at the Diet of Worms, or afterwards, that offered to sit down with him and, using the Scriptures, show him the error of his ways.

Did Luther’s ‘authority’ to demand that he was right (and everybody who disagreed with him was wrong) come from God? Exactly what was it that should cause us to believe that Luther was right and the Church was wrong?

Again, it has nothing to do with authority. He had his opinion, and I have heard that they are as common as belly buttons.

Nothing could convince me, but if I was a afaithful Christian living in Germany and observing the abuses of the Catholic clergy, I may well have ended up Lutheran.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. Good going, Topper; you are at least consistent.

 

[Annie39]

It is a simple matter of conscience, not authority. Every human soul has the freedom to decide for oneself - that is how God created us. It is immoral to force someone to act in opposition to one’s conscience. Luther was clear that he was acting according to his conscience, and that he could only be “moved” by being convinced through the Holy Scriptures.

I have never read anything anywhere that any theologians present at the Diet of Worms, or afterwards, that offered to sit down with him and, using the Scriptures, show him the error of his ways.

Again, it has nothing to do with authority. He had his opinion, and I have heard that they are as common as belly buttons.

Nothing could convince me, but if I was a afaithful Christian living in Germany and observing the abuses of the Catholic clergy, I may well have ended up Lutheran.

guanophore is your order connected in any way to The College St. Benedict and St. John’s University?

Thanks,

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. Good going, Topper; you are at least consistent.

Specifically what do you object to EC?

Annie

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Specifically what do you object to EC?

Annie

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

Luther wrote expansively as a reformer of the Church and the Church which came to be known as Lutheran encapsulated much of Martin Luther’s understanding in the Augsburg Confession. That is the document Catholic’s use in dealing with Lutherans in Dialogue and why I try to only use Catholic sources on anything concerning doctrinal agreements with Lutherans.

Perhaps a refresher via the Roman Curia in accurate and honest statements about Martin Luther will better inform the reader.

It is possible for us today to learn from Luther together. “In this we could all learn from him that God must always remain the Lord, and that our most important human answer must always remain absolute confidence in God and our adoration of him” (Cardinal Willebrands).
�As a theologian, preacher, pastor, hymn-writer and man of prayer, Luther has with extraordinary spiritual force witnessed anew to the biblical message of God’s gift of liberating righteousness and made it shine forth.
�Luther directs us to the priority of God’s Word in the life, teaching and service of the church.
�He calls us to a faith which is absolute trust in the God who in the life, death and resurrection of his son has shown himself to be gracious to us.
�He teaches us to understand grace as a personal relationship of God to human beings which is unconditional and frees from fear of God’s wrath and for service of one another.
�He testifies that God’s forgiveness is the only basis and hope for human life.
�He calls the churches to constant renewal by the word of God.
�He teaches us that unity in essentials allows for differences in customs, order and theology.
�He shows us as a theologian how knowledge of God’s mercy reveals itself only in prayer and meditation. It is the Holy Spirit who persuades us of the truth of the gospel and keeps and strengthens us in that truth in spite of all temptations.
�He exhorts us to remember that reconciliation and Christian community can only exist where not only “the rule of faith” is followed, but also the “rule of love” “which always thinks well of everyone, is not suspicious, believes the best about its neighbors and calls anyone who is baptized a saint” (Martin Luther).

Trust and reverent humility before the mystery of God’s mercy are expressed in Luther’s last confession which, as his spiritual and theological last will and testament, can serve as a guide in our common search for unifying truth: “We are beggars. This is true.”
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…rc_luther.html

 

[Annie39]

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

Luther wrote expansively as a reformer of the Church and the Church which came to be known as Lutheran encapsulated much of Martin Luther’s understanding in the Augsburg Confession. That is the document Catholic’s use in dealing with Lutherans in Dialogue and why I try to only use Catholic sources on anything concerning doctrinal agreements with Lutherans.

Perhaps a refresher via the Roman Curia in accurate and honest statements about Martin Luther will better inform the reader.

May I have a couple of examples?

Annie

 

[steido01]

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

Luther wrote expansively as a reformer of the Church and the Church which came to be known as Lutheran encapsulated much of Martin Luther’s understanding in the Augsburg Confession. That is the document Catholic’s use in dealing with Lutherans in Dialogue and why I try to only use Catholic sources on anything concerning doctrinal agreements with Lutherans.

Perhaps a refresher via the Roman Curia in accurate and honest statements about Martin Luther will better inform the reader.

I’m not sure it’s worth it, EC. Topper has set his mind on ‘destroying’ Luther the man, and he won’t be swayed by any authoritative sources - even his own church. He’s posted this dishonest list before, and it’s been responded to (you should have read the time he tried to imply Swan was a poor historian!). But if he keeps spouting his propaganda long enough and loud enough…

He falls victim to polemical lies as many Luther-bashers before him, but he’s different from the usual sort, who simply doesn’t know any better. He demonstrates at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Reformation, and then omits facts, sources and contexts in favor of half-truths. The misinformation isn’t even consistent; 33, 43 and 50 cannot all be true. But it is what it is. Give thanks that his communion is led by wiser men: patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/09/the-pope-on-luther-4/

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Topper17
Did Luther’s ‘authority’ to demand that he was right (and everybody who disagreed with him was wrong) come from God? Exactly what was it that should cause us to believe that Luther was right and the Church was wrong?

I thought Latican I dogmatically defined Luther’s infallibility.

 

[Peter_J]

But seriously …

I’m not sure it’s worth it, EC. Topper has set his mind on ‘destroying’ Luther the man, and he won’t be swayed by any authoritative sources - even his own church. He’s posted this dishonest list before, and it’s been responded to (you should have read the time he tried to imply Swan was a poor historian!). But if he keeps spouting his propaganda long enough and loud enough…

He falls victim to polemical lies as many Luther-bashers before him, but he’s different from the usual sort, who simply doesn’t know any better. He demonstrates at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Reformation, and then omits facts, sources and contexts in favor of half-truths. The misinformation isn’t even consistent; 33, 43 and 50 cannot all be true. But it is what it is. Give thanks that his communion is led by wiser men: patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/09/the-pope-on-luther-4/

I can’t really speak to this specifically, as I haven’t read very many of Topper’s posts. But speaking generally, may I point out that we would be much better off if more people followed the old advice “Don’t believe everything you read.” if so, then you wouldn’t need to worry too much about telling people Such-and-such was posted on the Internet but it isn’t true. and so on.

 

[steido01]

I thought Latican I dogmatically defined Luther’s infallibility.

Latican II was taken by many to be a softening of that UltraMartin position.