Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Annie39]

I do agree that Luther seemed to suffer from OCD/Scrupulosity, but Luther was not one who ever adopted the certainty of salvation heresy that was later promoted by Calvin. Luther understood that his salvation lay in the hands of God, and never professed the once saved always saved idea that came afterwards.

It is true that he did “discover” through scripture the importance of salvation by grace, through faith (alone), and that this did help with his scrupulosity. However, the other mental and emotional issues that he had from childhood were not assuaged by it, as we can see in his later writings, where he was so provoked by those who disagreed with him, ,and some of the polemics he wrote against Jews and peasants. He was clearly a troubled man in other areas as well.

He had the same problem with Calvanism later. Despite the difficulties he had with living the penitential life, he recognized that the way to heaven was steep and narrow, not wide and easy. He insisted that one must live a life worthy of the calling, ,and be transformed (sanctified) by that same grace that saved them through faith alone

This is a concept (rejection of cheap grace) that was fortunately retained by the Lutheran communion afterwards. It is one part of Sacred Tradition that Lutherans retain, along with Anglicans. One must bear the fruits that befit repentance, not just give money, collect a paper from a preacher, and go back to the same debauchery.

I think you only say this because you reject your own Church’s position (in the JDDJ). Luther’s concept of salvation by faith is not different than the Catholic concept. Saving faith is faith that works (produces good fruit), it is faith that transforms (sanctifies). Catholics would say that faith is never “alone” in that it is always accompanied by hope and charity, but the end result is the same.

I think that Luther had errors in his conception of indulgences, but it is not related to his craving for “certainty” about salvation. He had certainty about grace, it came to him late, but he did grasp it. He had an insufficient understanding of how impossible it is to have a perfect contrition because he did not understand the unconscious. I also think that he was possessed of a considerable degree of hubris that led him to think that he was able to have perfect contrition.

Perhaps not, but Christianity was already stood on it’s ear by Catholics, who did not practice or preach the faith. If the laypeople were well formed in their faith, then the Reformation would not have occurred (this is why there never was such a thing in the East). The conditions that existed at the time the enabled Luther to start the avalanche were all brought about by Catholics - centuries of the abuse of power, privilege, greed etc.

This is a topic that particularly fascinates me, but difficult, as with any historical figure. We can really only speculate in the end, since we can only go on the remaining historical evidence.

Oh plenty of people noticed things. What was different at that time were the conditions around Luther. The German princes were just looking for an opportunity to wrestle property and income back from Rome. Luther provided that leverage. Once secular rulers got involved, it was no longer just a theological debate.

Once again the JDDJ is not the Church’s official position. This is

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Annie

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Once again the JDDJ is not the Church’s official position. This is

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Annie

Thanks because you will always be correct by referencing the Holy See website.

The theological points seem minute but important clarifications of JDDJ. Any thoughts on these statements?

1. In pursuing this study further, it will be necessary to treat also the sacrament of penance, which is mentioned in n. 30 of the Joint Declaration. According to the Council of Trent, in fact (7), through this sacrament the sinner can be justified anew ( rursus iustificari ): this implies the possibility, by means of this sacrament, as distinct from that of baptism, to recover lost justice (8). These aspects are not all sufficiently noted in the above-mentioned n. 30.

1. These remarks are intended as a more precise explanation of the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the points on which complete agreement has not been reached; they are also meant to complete some of the paragraphs explaining Catholic doctrine, in order to bring out more clearly the degree of consensus that has been reached. The level of agreement is high, but it does not yet allow us to affirm that all the differences separating Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine concerning justification are simply a question of emphasis or language. Some of these differences concern aspects of substance and are therefore not all mutually compatible, as affirmed on the contrary in n. 40.

1. We need finally to note, from the point of view of their representative quality, the different character of the two signataries of this Joint Declaration. The Catholic Church recognises the great effort made by the Lutheran World Federation in order to arrive, through consultation of the Synods, at a “magnus consensus”, and so to give a true ecclesial value to its signature; there remains, however, the question of the real authority of such a synodal consensus, today and also tomorrow, in the life and doctrine of the Lutheran community.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

 

[guanophore]

  In fact, there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there.

What sort of “reign” do you imagine he had?

Again, Luther took a page from the Catholic book in this approach. So did Calvin. They implemented the same practice the CC had of eliminating disputes by silencing, banishing, or executing dissidents.

  Please understand that there was fault on both sides as the Catholic Church has repeatedly admitted.  But it is my position that no matter whatever abuses the Church might have been guilty of, those abuses did not justify Luther’s use of Private Interpretation to challenge doctrines which had no direct connection to the abuses.

Is there anything to which Luther objected that was exempt from abuse? (with regard to the CC).?

. . I have been involved in Catholic Apologetics both on and off of the internet for many years.

I’m writing this on the fly so forgive me if it seems disjointed; I have had quite a day.

You certainly do have some interesting phone calls!

Once again the JDDJ is not the Church’s official position. This is

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Annie

Ok. From the docurment cited above:

It is rightly stated that there is “a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification”

I did not claim that all the issues are resolved. I am simply making the point that Luther’s concept of “faith alone” is one that understands saving faith as faith that works, faith that hopes “to the end”.

 

[JonNC]

Once again the JDDJ is not the Church’s official position. This is

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Annie

Hi Annie,
I wish my synod would use this approach to the JDDJ. Accept and clarify. We have on other documents of the dialogue, and it seems appropriate, given how much convergence the JDDJ represents, and recognizing that it doesn’t reconcile of of our differences on the issue of justification.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your response.

I think you have a point and I will take your recommendation under advisement. After all, repeatedly making false un-provable accusations and slandering another poster FALSELY, is a very serious matter. This kind of behavior must have consequences for the offender. Certainly it is against CA Forum rules. And then they complain about ‘character assignation’? In the past about the ONLY consequence I have seen when these false accusations are made is that the thread is closed which is exactly what they wanted in the first place.

At any rate, thanks for the recommendation.

God Bless You Peter, Topper

Hope I helped you. (I try.)

 

[TertiumQuid]

when Brecht makes comments that show Luther in a negative light, they must be viewed as being credible.

Brecht’s primary purpose in this section is to explain the rampant abuse of indulgences and Luther’s involvement in the controversy. In his words, there is nothing out of the ordinary describing this or Luther personally. It’s standard stuff within Luther studies.

The generally accepted story about the Indulgence and Tetzel’s administration of them was that they were solely for the purpose of profit by the Church. Not so.

Brecht states:
“How much the indulgence could become or had become a scandalous financial business, mixed up with political and commercial interests, is shown precisely by Pope Leo X’s plenary indulgence of 31 March 1515 which was intended to finance the building of the new St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome… it was this that touched off Luther’s protest that led to the Reformation…” (178)

“Pope Leo X’s bull of indulgence on 31 March 1515… openly displayed the connection between pastoral and financial interests from the outset.” (179)

While many people paid on the basis of their status: “The indigent were to fast and pray.” … Clearly, the Church wanted to have everyone receive the Indulgence regardless of the ability to pay.

On page 180-181 Brecht points out that everyone paid (including the sick and disabled) except those who had nothing (the indigent).

The standard Protestant version of John Tetzel is not exactly flattering. He has been pilloried for centuries and was supposedly rude, crude, lewd, and greedy.

While Brecht notes the education and speaking abilities of Tetzel, as well as Luther’s opinion of him, he points out that in regard to preaching on indulgences “He was in complete command of the indulgence propaganda” (183), and then cites from Tetzel directly: “Have mercy upon your dead parents,” “Whoever has an indulgence has salvation; anything else is of no avail” (183). Brecht notes also, “His remarks about the treasure of the church caused offense, and he cheapened grace because he was interested chiefly in as large a financial gain as possible” (183). “As an indulgence commissioner Tetzel was paid extremely well” (183).

Much has been made here of Luther’s understanding of indulgences. Again, if Luther had a poor understanding of the issue, then it would appear that he should not have presumed to have the background necessary to challenge the teachings of the Church in their regard.

The lack of clarity goes beyond Luther. There was no complete dogma on the indulgence at this time. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Brecht also notes the lack of official doctrinal clarity of indulgences present to this day (176-177). Early on, Luther did not deny the validity of indulgences, but was concerned with the abuse of the indulgence. That there was an abuse of indulgences during this period and that Luther pointed it out, and that the church later sought to correct the abuses, is indisputable.

“Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog (22 miles from Wittenberg), in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons. **He himself was not completely clear about indulgences, but he was convinced that he could do better, that there was something more certain than obtaining indulgence letters.” **Ibid, pg. 184

This is a misquote. “22 miles from Wittenberg” is not in the immediate text, and crucial words have been left out as well. The sentence actually reads: "Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then later wishing Luther to absolve them without repenting and amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons.”

In context, Brecht explains that Luther’s concern over the indulgence literature at this time was to safeguard the sacrament of penance. Brecht notes Luther came to maintain the following: “Repentance is sorrow over the sins one has committed because of the love one has for God” (185) and that this was something “which could only be reconciled with the practice of indulgences only with difficulty” (185).

**“Around 1514……Luther was already complaining that people were trying to make the way to heaven easy with indulgences, and with minimal demands – a sigh was sufficient – they were making grace cheap.” **Ibid, pg. 185 How ironic is it that Luther complained that indulgences made grace cheap and then went on to invent Salvation by Faith Alone.

According to Brecht, Luther at this time was concerned with the inner repentance of the heart (187), and that inner repentance is demonstrated by “the outward repentance which consists of confession of sin and satisfaction” (187). Brecht states: “Luther comes to the following conclusion: indulgences presuppose true contrition; they have value only in regard to the satisfactions imposed in private confession” (187). For Luther, a truly contrite and repentant person does not seek indulgences, but rather the cross (187-188).

The entire section from Brecht is well worth reading, because it demonstrates the great piety of Luther and his great concern for a real and personal relationship with God. What I think is fascinating is how Luther and the indulgence controversy demonstrates a reoccurring problem within Christianity- that some people preach and think paying money is a way to God without actually having a real relationship with God.

 

[TertiumQuid]

In fact, there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there.

I’d like to have some clarification on this point, if possible. I don’t recall Luther being elected to political office or having a political reign in Wittenberg. As far as I know, he was an influential preacher and a theologian in Wittenberg in an age in which the church and state had a close relationship. Nor do I recall Luther specifically having individuals executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. I am aware of some people being executed for witchcraft in Wittenberg in the early 1540’s, and I’m familiar with the severe interrogations of some Anabaptists in Wittenberg in the 1530’s.

As someone always willing to learn (or to be reminded of what I’ve forgotten), I’d like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. While it certainly is within the realm of possibility that the secular authorities of Wittenberg during the 1530’s carried out capital punishment, I don’t recall this actually happening in the 1530’s, or more specifically, that Luther was involved with the carrying out of executions during the 1530’s, especially against Anabaptists.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you. Being neck-deep in the Tiber myself, should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks, not because of them.

On behalf of ignorant and bigoted Catholics, I offer an apology. It took me a long time to get beyond “Luther -bashing” myself, thanks to so me rehabilitation by JonNC. and instruction int he Lutheran faith.

Although I still shudder that anyone would want to name their faith after the man, I have come to appreciate him and afford him basic human dignity. It turns out I had a lot of biased education about him. Please take the opportunity to correct people here whenever you see uncharitable remiarks. It is against the forum rules, and only adds to the wounds to unity.

It is a pretty amazing list isn’t it? Somehow we are supposed to believe that Luther was right on all of these things and that the Church of his day had been wrong? Of course that’s preposterous.

And who is telling you that you have to believe Luther was right on all these things?

Even Lutherans do not believe Luther was right on everything, so I am confused about where you are getting this influence.

I believe that Luther agreed that it was Peter who received the keys from Christ, but that all he really did was receive them for the whole Church. Thus the ‘Power’ of the keys belong to all, which is all ‘democratic’ (and all). But we must remember that he wrote the above quote in 1520, which is before he was excommunicated. In addition, this was in his “All men have the authority to privately interpret” phase, which of course lasted another five years or so until even he recognized how poorly it was working in the real world. After that time (roughly 1525 or so) he began to emphasize his own personal authority, rather quickly getting to the point where he was demanding that he had an authority far beyond that which had presumed by ANY Pope. The quotes from Luther which document this ‘attitude’ are both shocking and disturbing.

I can certainly appreciate shocking and disturbing attitudes and quotes from Luther.

However, I think that Luther was a fairly accurate reflection of the Popes in many ways. What do you think he did that was “far beyond”?

 

[guanophore]

 This may sound like an insincere question but it is not. I’m genuinely interested in why you write “should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks”

I would think that reading what he had to say about the Church would give one great pause.

The Lutheran communion did/does not adope all of what Luther believed and said. Many modern Lutherans, just like Catholics, are uneducated in the history of the Church and the Reformation, so they have never read some of Luthers more blasting polemics. The vast majority of the issues that provoked Luther no longer exist, and if he were born into the timeline today, he would have different complaints all together. Being so passionate about his faith, he would likely be preaching against lukewarm and cafeteria Catholics!

Of course if he was misquoted and unfairly treated I personally would defend him. His legacy is that many of those who come after him actually believe that the Pope is the anti-christ.

People tend to believe whatever they are brought up to believe. For example, a great many Catholics of the previous generations will insist that Limbo was a doctrine of the faith, because that is how this pious speculation was taught to them, and they never bothered to research it.

It is not fair to hold spiritual descendants responsible for the actions of their forebears.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper:
Once again you make valid points into Luther’s thinking about indulgences. So for as I understand from my research on indulgences controversy Luther never met Tetzel, but because so many were going to see Tetzel to receive an indulgence seems to have set Luther off. Why? because those granted the letter for an indulgence had to go to confession in order to have the indulgence effected. Luther was the person who was seeing these people who wanted to complete what was needed to receive the indulgence and Luther thought that he was not in control and began thinking that those wanting an indulgence were trying to get into heaven without having to work for it as some cheap way of gaining heaven without perfect contrition. At least it appears that way to me.

Your using Martin Brechts history on Luther particularly on indulgences shows that by the time Tetzel started preaching on indulgences that Luther was already forming his thinking about indulgences; though he says that he did not know what indulgences were, and about salvation and perfect contrition that remits all punishments due to sin. its obvious Luther did not understand indulgences and did not want to since it conflicted with his own ideas on salvation based on his scrupulosity that nothing could ever it seems save him from damnation except by faith alone.
Luther fails to understand that while one may receive or be granted an indulgence, no one is sure that one is going to be liberated from all punishments due to sin, since in the end only God knows the hearts of men. One has to have faith that God accepts indulgences as it is mercy based in love. Luther thinking that somehow that indulgences were some cheap way of gaining heaven shows that Luther lacked any understanding of indulgences and if Luther’s thinking was true that it would also mean that confessions were also a cheap way into heaven since when one goes to confession one is asking forgiveness of whatever sins they have and if indulgences do not remit punishment then confession does not forgive either since both work on mercy and love.

The idea of perfect contrition removes all punishment how would Luther know that for certain? he does not. No one can give a prefect confession and have perfect contrition but one can try; but it is not how perfect one has contrition but how much love one has in trying to make prefect contrition for one’s sins. And only God knows whether or not one is sincere. John said that Jesus said something on the order of “Love as I have loved you.” If one has love then one forgives and has mercy. Indulgences are the Churches mercy and love in forgiving one whatever temporal punishment due to the sin or sin that had been committed Seems to me that Luther either did not know or could not understand. And if it is due to lack of real understanding that it is due to his upbringing being punished at every turn it appears for every infraction and minor things he did, which in the end seems to have influenced his thinking as an adult. Luther’s belief in perfect contrition removing all punishment also shows that for Luther having always it seems to be punished as a child that he needed to find some release from feeling that no matter what he did to atone, nothing worked, so that faith by faith alone was the only answer for him.

Luther had a very strong ego and it seems a very bad temper with those who disagreed with him. What is so sad is that while Luther could do so many good things, yet, when it came to anyone questioning his theology Luther turned violently towards them, its like he was two different persons.

If we want evidence that Luther didn’t really know what he was doing when he complained about Indulgences, all we have to do it listen to Lutheran Professor Martin Brecht (Volume I) in reference to the 95 Theses, which of course started the whole mess. This ‘smoking gun’ quote is as follows:

“It was not because of money and wealth that Luther had gotten involved in this matter, but because Tetzel provoked him. He himself was at first not at all aware of the scope of his objection. Only afterward did he recognize that the tiny matter was the greatest of all. Had he foreseen this, he would have kept silent. Out of ignorance he fell into the conflict. Like a blind horse he had gotten into it.” Brecht, Vol. I, pg. 199

This is an incredible admission by a Lutheran Scholar, especially one who is prone to take Luther’s side on any issue. It contains several interesting points.

First of all, how, specifically and exactly (of course), did Tetzel actually ‘provoke’ Luther? A few pages earlier Brecht reviews, in general, the 95 Theses. He mentions Thesis # 27, which is as follows:

“27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.” Luther, “95 Theses”

“The phrase ‘as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs’ is also extremely questionable.” Brecht, pg. 194

Here Brecht admits what virtually every reputable Scholar (Protestant and otherwise) now understands, that Tetzel never said ‘as soon as the coin…….”. This means that Luther was mistaken about how Tetzel was preaching the Indulgence. Had he not gone off half-cocked but had bothered to actually make sure of the facts of the matter, he would not have made this mistake, and maybe, just maybe, without the misperception of a ‘provocation’ by Tetzel, possibly Luther might not have started the ‘Reformation’.

To be continued…

 

[Topper17]

We have learned from other sources that Tetzel was correctly preaching the Indulgence, so how, exactly, did Tetzel ‘provoke’ Luther, especially from 22 miles away? If Luther was going to write a set of Theses and send them off to several Bishops, then didn’t he have a responsibility to make sure that he was correct on the facts of the matter?

Brecht also of course mentions that Luther was “not at all aware of the scope of his objection”, and ‘did not recognize’ the magnitude of his objections. He also states that Luther would have kept silent if he had foreseen what a great matter it really was. “Out of ignorance he fell into the conflict…like a blind horse”.

Let’s be honest, Brecht’s comments do not exactly inspire confidence that Luther knew what the heck he was doing theologically. He also mentions Theses 27-9 stating that “Here is doubtless a denial of papal power over indulgences.” Of course, many Catholic (and better) Theologians, (like Eck), recognized well how Luther’s Theses were an indirect attack on the power of the pope. Luther didn’t though, and for many, many months claimed that his Theses did not challenge the authority of the papacy. It wasn’t until 18 months after the 95 Theses, at the Leipzig Debate, that Luther came to realize what so many already knew about his beliefs, that they were seriously out of sync with Catholic teaching. I would suggest that a decent Catholic Theologian should have known what everybody else knew, that he had strayed from the teachings of the Church, especially after they made it very clear to him why they thought what he had.

Brecht also seriously questions the posting of the Theses as an invitation to a debate explaining that the chronology does not meet historical scrutiny. He also mentions that Luther’s friend was opposed to Luther’s writing the Theses:

**“Schurff opposed this; writing against the pope (!) would not be tolerated. Luther, however, would not let himself be dissuaded.” **Ibid, pg. 200

Apparently either Schurff was one of those ‘better Theologians’, or, Luther was well aware of the fact that his Theses challenged the authority of the Pope and did it anyway, later dishonestly claiming that they were not challenging the authority of the Pope. Either way……….

If we have any doubt about how well Luther understood what he was doing when he wrote his 95 Theses, we need only to turn to another honest Lutheran Scholar, E. G. Schweibert:

“**There was much more to the Theses than a mere attack. Already apparent was an undertone of the later Reformer of which Luther himself was completely unconscious. ****His new revelations from the study of Romans had changed his whole conception of religion. In reality, his teachings no longer fitted into the old accepted Scholastic pattern, yet he believed that his new outlook made him a better Catholic.” **Schwiebert (Lutheran), “Luther and his Times”, pg. 315-6

How can we see statements like this without questioning whether Luther properly understood the Teachings of the Church for which he was a monk, Priest, Doctor of Theology and Professor? Statements like this are peppered in even Lutheran accounts of Luther’s life.
“This new concept of religion made it impossible for Luther to harmonize Tetzel’s teachings on Indulgences with the Scriptures.” Ibid, pg. 316

It seems to me that the answer to the question as to why Luther was excommunicated lies in the above quote. A ‘Reformer’ reforms, he does not develop a “new concept of religion”. What Luther did was develop a ‘new concept of religion’ in which man and God had a completely different relationship than what was understood by the Church. That ‘new concept of religion’ was exactly what Luther absolutely HAD to have in order to be able to live with his fears over his everlasting Salvation.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Catholics have been demonized by Protestants for centuries. Luther has left the church which bears his name the legacy of believing that the Pope is the anti-christ so I don’t think that it is out of line to tell people just what sort of person came to this conclusion.

.

Hi Annie,

I agree 100%. This is precisely the point. Luther did tremendous harm to the unity of the Church that Christ founded. Luther’s accusation that the Pope is the antichrist remains today as the official teaching of the communion(s) which bear his name. Much of what separates us doctrinally was originated by Luther Himself. It is an absolute necessity that we deal with who the man really was and examine ALL of his teachings. We also should not ‘skip past’ the factual history of the man but recognize that our hoped for future unity requires us to deal with him honestly and openly.

God Bless You Annie, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It appears the demand that Lutherans hold themselves accountable for every thing Martin Luther said and did could be a perilous expectation for some Catholic posters.

What if some Lutherans demand the same for the statements/ actions of every Pope? And since Leo X was the leader of the Church during Luther’s time, we could start with him.

 

[Stilldreamn]

.

We also should not ‘skip past’ the factual history of the man but recognize that our hoped for future unity requires us to deal with him honestly and openly.

God Bless You Annie, Topper

Topper, Luther is dead. What more is there to deal with? He was a sinner who loved God and followed his conscience. He said some beautiful and true things, and he said some terribly wrong things. If the Lutherans on this board (who you may have noticed have a great love for the Catholic church and our siblings therein) slavishly agreed with every word Luther said, we would not be here.

Let’s move on.

 

[Novocastrian]

Catholics have been demonized by Protestants for centuries.

True. And vice-versa, one ought to add!

 

[steido01]

Topper, Luther is dead. What more is there to deal with? He was a sinner who loved God and followed his conscience. He said some beautiful and true things, and he said some terribly wrong things. If the Lutherans on this board (who you may have noticed have a great love for the Catholic church and our siblings therein) slavishly agreed with every word Luther said, we would not be here.

Let’s move on.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[steido01]

It appears the demand that Lutherans hold themselves accountable for every thing Martin Luther said and did could be a perilous expectation for some Catholic posters.

What if some Lutherans demand the same for the statements/ actions of every Pope? And since Leo X was the leader of the Church during Luther’s time, we could start with him.

Agreed, friend.

Sergius III, Alexander VI, Benedict IX and John XII are also worth discussion, if the individual character of prominent teachers is what defines an ecclessial body. Especially considering that these were not just influential teachers in the Roman Catholic Church - but the leader!

Thankfully, this sort of bashing has little tolerance with [most] posters here on CAF. Now that other forum that shall not be named… well, there’s a reason I don’t go there. There is truly no point in beating dead (ha!) horses. Most of us live in the present.

 

[MaryT777]

Missed this thread; interesting discussion…

 

[guanophore]

It appears the demand that Lutherans hold themselves accountable for every thing Martin Luther said and did could be a perilous expectation for some Catholic posters.

What if some Lutherans demand the same for the statements/ actions of every Pope? And since Leo X was the leader of the Church during Luther’s time, we could start with him.

God Forbid!

But indeed that would be a fair exchange.

 

[Annie39]

True. And vice-versa, one ought to add!

Example?