PDA

View Full Version : Explain to me Martin Luther



Cow Poke
05-28-2014, 02:51 PM
Sure, I've read books about him, but how would you say he has impacted your view of Christianity, if at all.

What's your favorite Luther quote?

What's your favorite resource or work on him?

Thoughtful Monk
05-28-2014, 04:22 PM
Sure, I've read books about him, but how would you say he has impacted your view of Christianity, if at all.

What's your favorite Luther quote?

What's your favorite resource or work on him?

For me, the biggest impact was one of the better pastors I have know was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. Other than that, no real direct impact - besides being a Protestant.

mossrose
05-28-2014, 04:56 PM
You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you.




Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.




“Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God--
Naught else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.

I'll trust in God's unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!”



I cannot choose but adhere to the word of God, which has possession of my conscience; nor can I possibly, nor will I even make any recantation, since it is neither safe nor honest to act contrary to conscience! Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God! Amen.

And, finally,


A person who...does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs

rogue06
05-28-2014, 05:02 PM
And, finally,


A person who...does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs
So he's familiar with my singing I see. :sad:

mossrose
05-28-2014, 05:35 PM
He didn't say anything about those who can't carry a tune in a bucket. He was referring to those who don't think music is a marvelous creation of God.

:hug:

rogue06
05-28-2014, 05:57 PM
He didn't say anything about those who can't carry a tune in a bucket. He was referring to those who don't think music is a marvelous creation of God.

:hug:
If he heard me sing he would've had second thought about music being a marvelous creation and possibly even that it came from God.

mossrose
05-28-2014, 06:17 PM
If he heard me sing he would've had second thought about music being a marvelous creation and possibly even that it came from God.

No.

Catholicity
05-28-2014, 06:28 PM
Umm maybe the hymn "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and "Away in a Manger." I think Luther was really able to vocalize the need for acceptance of Grace and the need for Christians to have Faith. I also think he made an impact in giving Christianity a new dimension. He was more vocal and needed to be about the wrongdoing of the accepted church of the time. (I think Emeritus was also calling for similar reforms.) Sadly it went over political but he had the right ideas....

Leonhard
05-29-2014, 03:25 AM
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

Does anyone know where this is from and what the context is? Its not an uncommon thing to find in his writings.


All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false.


[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things.

I know that Martin Luther has a tendency to engage in, what we at least today find to be, very odious hyperbolic rhetoric. Most of the time that explains his statements. I'd be very surprised to learn that Martin Luther actually believed that there was a conflict between reason and faith.

However it seems clear that he was against any attempts at using metaphysics to understand the articles of faith.

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 04:41 AM
He was a contrarian who got excommunicated, then , out of pure avarice to the church, purposely developed a theology where the Pope was the antichrist. He was also an extremely strong advocate of the divine right of kings, and, as such, the reformation was used only as a tool, for the kings and princes to push away the influence o of the church, the only thing keeping them in check, which allowed them to have absolute power over church and state and viciously oppress their people.

Why he is revered, I have no idea. His "reformation" was so bad, even he, himself, had regretted what he had done.

robrecht
05-29-2014, 05:17 AM
He was a contrarian who got excommunicated, then , out of pure avarice to the church, purposely developed a theology where the Pope was the antichrist. He was also an extremely strong advocate of the divine right of kings, and, as such, the reformation was used only as a tool, for the kings and princes to push away the influence o of the church, the only thing keeping them in check, which allowed them to have absolute power over church and state and viciously oppress their people.

Why he is revered, I have no idea. His "reformation" was so bad, even he, himself, had regretted what he had done. To be fair, it's not has if the Church itself was immune from the very same failings of the governments that you speak of. I'm no great fan of Luther's exegesis of Paul, or the outcome of state churches, but I agree with most of his criticisms of some of the practices of the church of his time.

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 05:55 AM
To be fair, it's not has if the Church itself was immune from the very same failings of the governments that you speak of. I'm no great fan of Luther's exegesis of Paul, or the outcome of state churches, but I agree with most of his criticisms of some of the practices of the church of his time.

I'm not so sure. His critism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, as that was a practice that the Church did many times in the past as well, to fund projects such as cathedrals and the Crusades, although I agree that many people loweron the rung did abuse the system, however, if you actually know what an indulgence actually does, the proposition that people can "buy forgiveness" is clearly unfounded.

KingsGambit
05-29-2014, 08:09 AM
I recently read a book that argued that Luther suffered from a severe form of OCD, which places an interesting context for his exegesis of Paul and makes it understandable why he would have embraced those insights to the degree he did.

mossrose
05-29-2014, 08:19 AM
Luther's contribution to Christianity is immeasurable, in spite of his humanity and fallibility. After all, none of the popes have been perfect.

He brought us out of the dark age of salvation by works into the new light of salvation by faith alone.

robrecht
05-29-2014, 08:23 AM
Luther's contribution to Christianity is immeasurable, in spite of his humanity and fallibility. After all, none of the popes have been perfect.

He brought us out of the dark age of salvation by works into the new light of salvation by faith alone.
But why did he add the word 'alone' to the text of Paul?

Paprika
05-29-2014, 08:26 AM
But why did he add the word 'alone' to the text of Paul?
I'd hazard a guess that it was an overreaction, which has caused no end of trouble to this day.

mossrose
05-29-2014, 08:28 AM
But why did he add the word 'alone' to the text of Paul?

How should I know? I am not privy to his thoughts or why he did what he did.

robrecht
05-29-2014, 08:44 AM
How should I know? I am not privy to his thoughts or why he did what he did.
Reportedly, he said he was translating concepts and not words, but I don't have a reference to where he said this or if that is the extent of his explanation. I agree with this translation philosophy but not with this specific translation, but I have the benefit of hindsight and more recent discoveries.

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 10:01 AM
Luther's contribution to Christianity is immeasurable, in spite of his humanity and fallibility. After all, none of the popes have been perfect.

He brought us out of the dark age of salvation by works into the new light of salvation by faith alone.

Oh, you mean that "dark age" that nobody chose to exit, save for the people in power? You mean those "dark ages" that the people of Norway fought for and died to keep around? You mean those "dark ages" that the kings and prices had to force nearly every one of their citizens to leave through way of decietful tactics and military oppression?

Course, I'm not implying that Luther intended it to be that way either...

mossrose
05-29-2014, 10:47 AM
Oh, you mean that "dark age" that nobody chose to exit, save for the people in power? You mean those "dark ages" that the people of Norway fought for and died to keep around? You mean those "dark ages" that the kings and prices had to force nearly every one of their citizens to leave through way of decietful tactics and military oppression?

Course, I'm not implying that Luther intended it to be that way either...


Actually, I was referring to spiritual darkness.

:ahem:

One Bad Pig
05-29-2014, 11:11 AM
Actually, I was referring to spiritual darkness.

:ahem:
To be fair, so is TT; he just disagrees (strongly) with your characterization.

rogue06
05-29-2014, 11:18 AM
Oh, you mean that "dark age" that nobody chose to exit, save for the people in power? You mean those "dark ages" that the people of Norway fought for and died to keep around? You mean those "dark ages" that the kings and prices had to force nearly every one of their citizens to leave through way of decietful tactics and military oppression?

Course, I'm not implying that Luther intended it to be that way either...
You mean the Dark Ages that were largely a myth and ended nearly five centuries before Luther's time?

Darn that Martin Luther and that time machine of his http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/angry/mad.gif

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 11:47 AM
You mean the Dark Ages that were largely a myth and ended nearly five centuries before Luther's time?

Darn that Martin Luther and that time machine of his http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/angry/mad.gif

Don't think that's what she meant, rogue.

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 11:50 AM
Actually, I was referring to spiritual darkness.

:ahem:

I know, my point still stands, though. The thing is, if the Church's teaching and practice had become as corrupted as you say, everyone, especially the academics, should have been jumping for joy at a chance to push it away. However, this was not the case. In literally every territory it was present, the Reformation was always started almost exclusively by the kings and princes, and even then, they had to force it on their people through ways of deceit and military oppression. Civil war, even, in the case of Denmark and Norway I previously mentioned.

Sparrow
05-29-2014, 05:21 PM
Merits:

Some practices of the RCC at the time, like Tetzel infamously claiming that indulgences could free the dead from purgatory (in contradiction to actual Catholic teaching), truly did need to be reformed.

Translated the Bible into the vernacular (a good thing to do, though I personally am not as directly affected by it as by the translations of Wycliffe and Tyndale).

Wrote "A Mighty Fortress is our God." That's a really nice hymn.

Demerits:

Started the schismatic movement that tragically fragmented what unity there was among Christians into hundreds, or maybe thousands, of denominations (with RCC, EO, and OO all existing prior to the Reformation it is not as if there were total unity, but at least the major groups were countable). The repercussions of this on Christian witness are pretty awful; this is evident to anyone who has ever talked to a non-Christian who was confused about all the different sects within Christianity.

His teaching of "sola Scriptura" has been abused and led to people believing that the Bible is the only authority, period, not the only absolute authority as Luther himself taught. Taken to its extreme conclusion this leads to every individual being his own denomination (his own Pope, if you will), deciding matters of biblical interpretation and doctrine by himself based on his own individual reading of the Bible.

His teachings of "sola fide" and "sola gracia" have been distorted into the pernicious idea that all you have to do is pray one time to accept Jesus into your heart and then nothing else matters, Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace." I've witnessed personally the damage this kind of thinking can do in people's lives, so I am not too fond of the Protestant understanding of salvation by grace alone.

Basically, my feelings are pretty mixed.

robrecht
05-29-2014, 05:48 PM
That's a pretty fair assessment, I think. Well intentioned, but both sides took it too far, without thinking of the consequences.

TimelessTheist
05-29-2014, 08:24 PM
Some practices of the RCC at the time, like Tetzel infamously claiming that indulgences could free the dead from purgatory (in contradiction to actual Catholic teaching), truly did need to be reformed.

I assume you're referring to this?: "Soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."-Tetzel

I admit,this sounds heretical at first, however, Tetzel was known for being needlessly hyperbolic. I doubt that he actually, sincerely believed that indulgences automatically got you out of purgatory, or that the Church taught this as their official position.

Chrawnus
05-29-2014, 11:40 PM
Reportedly, he said he was translating concepts and not words, but I don't have a reference to where he said this or if that is the extent of his explanation. I agree with this translation philosophy but not with this specific translation, but I have the benefit of hindsight and more recent discoveries.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html Here's an online version of Luther's letter on adding the word "allein" in his German translation of Romans 3 for those interested.

robrecht
05-29-2014, 11:46 PM
Cool, thanks!

Chrawnus
05-30-2014, 12:00 AM
Demerits:

Started the schismatic movement that tragically fragmented what unity there was among Christians into hundreds, or maybe thousands, of denominations (with RCC, EO, and OO all existing prior to the Reformation it is not as if there were total unity, but at least the major groups were countable). The repercussions of this on Christian witness are pretty awful; this is evident to anyone who has ever talked to a non-Christian who was confused about all the different sects within Christianity.

It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.



His teaching of "sola Scriptura" has been abused and led to people believing that the Bible is the only authority, period, not the only absolute authority as Luther himself taught. Taken to its extreme conclusion this leads to every individual being his own denomination (his own Pope, if you will), deciding matters of biblical interpretation and doctrine by himself based on his own individual reading of the Bible.

Wait a second. Are you trying to say that people's misuse and mischaracterization of Luthers teaching on "sola Scriptura" is somehow to be blamed on Luther? To be sure, "sola Scriptura" has been and is misused in the way you write above, but blaming Luther for it when he never intended it that way and never endorsed such a view seems a bit silly to me. :shrug:


His teachings of "sola fide" and "sola gracia" have been distorted into the pernicious idea that all you have to do is pray one time to accept Jesus into your heart and then nothing else matters, Bonhoeffer's "cheap grace." I've witnessed personally the damage this kind of thinking can do in people's lives, so I am not too fond of the Protestant understanding of salvation by grace alone.

Again, as you yourself admit, what you're opposing is the distortions his teachings have underwent, not his teachings proper. And whatever distortions his teachings have undergone can hardly be counted as demerits on Luther's account, can they? By that logic anytime a heretical cult such as the JW's and Mormons distort the teachings of the Bible those distortions should be counted as a demerit on the Biblical author's (and God's) account.



Basically, my feelings are pretty mixed.

As I see it, only your first complaint about Luther's movement leading to the schism between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church is even partially valid, while the two following complaints seem to me to be terribly misguided. It's hardly fair to blame a person for the consequences of distortions of his teachings, is it?

robrecht
05-30-2014, 12:07 AM
The Roman Catholic Church admits their fault in schisms in their catechism (perhaps we should call this cateschism):

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Chrawnus
05-30-2014, 12:11 AM
I assume you're referring to this?: "Soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."-Tetzel

I admit,this sounds heretical at first, however, Tetzel was known for being needlessly hyperbolic. I doubt that he actually, sincerely believed that indulgences automatically got you out of purgatory, or that the Church taught this as their official position.

Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?

Chrawnus
05-30-2014, 12:19 AM
The Roman Catholic Church admits their fault in schisms in their catechism (perhaps we should call this cateschism):

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that. :yes:

robrecht
05-30-2014, 03:53 AM
Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that. :yes:I just offered this up because I thought it might interest both Sparrow and you. No criticism of you was intended.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 04:29 AM
Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?

Yeah, that's probably what happened.

Then again, I'm not defending the fact that he made such a statement in the first place. He shouldn't have.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 05:23 AM
It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.

Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2014, 06:35 AM
Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.
I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.

Chrawnus
05-30-2014, 06:46 AM
Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

You really ought to read up on your Luther. As OBP stated, you're confusing Luther's eventual standpoint with his initial one.

robrecht
05-30-2014, 07:10 AM
It's not like they would not have let him back in if he really wanted to reform the church from within, or he could have become a martyr to the truth (he says too lightly), but it sounds like he got caught up in the politics of the day and apocalyptic speculation. I wonder if, with 20—20 hindsight from purgatory or heaven, he might have done things a little differently? God knows, the Roman Catholic Church could have handled things much better, so I don't intend this as a one-sided critique of Luther. What if Luther had tried to reform the church more along the lines of a Francis of Assisi (or John Huss)? He preached by example and was not a theologian, but some of his later followers would join the political opposition to the pope, and some also adopted an apocalyptic stance in opposition to the official church. Ironically, Huss was killed by the Conciliarsts, who opposed Rome, though I have little doubt Rome would have been happy to have obliged. It is only speculation how things might have occurred differently if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides, of course.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2014, 07:24 AM
Ironically, Huss was killed by the Conciliarst, who opposed Rome, though I have little doubt Rome would have been happy to have obliged. It is only speculation how things might have occurred differently if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides, of course.
Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 07:26 AM
I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.

Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.

Paprika
05-30-2014, 07:30 AM
Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.
:hrm:
If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.

robrecht
05-30-2014, 07:32 AM
Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).
Cool!

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 07:33 AM
:hrm:
If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.

Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.

Paprika
05-30-2014, 07:47 AM
Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.
Because those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.
:ahem:

robrecht
05-30-2014, 08:08 AM
I'm no expert on Luther and Lutheran theology, but I don't see much difference between transubstantion and consubstantiation, and therefore not much difference with respect to the mass, although the sense of the sacrifice of the mass is obviously a bigger difference, yet some modern Catholic theologians present this in a manner that is, I believe, hardly controversial. We faithfully join ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, ie, a sharing in the blood and body of Christ. As for the pope, they come and go, and disagree among themselves, and cannot take the place of the individual conscience of each believer. Canonization of saints, is that really that much of a problem? If we can agree to disagree about papal infallibility (and Catholic theologians can do that privately), canonizations are just a subset of that. Purgatory? Heck, if we can tolerate the Book of Qohelet in our canon of Scripture, we ought to be able to agree to disagree on purgatory without cursing and anathematizing each other.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2014, 08:52 AM
Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.
Did you read what you quoted? :duh:

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 12:10 PM
Did you read what you quoted? :duh:


With this, I could have been content

You know, meaning that he would simply tolerate it, not accept it. You also seemed to have missed the rest of it, where he keeps ranting about the Pope being the head of the Church, and declaring himself an authority and "lord" over the Church, and such. It clearly doesn't sound like he accepts the papacy, the way he berates it, and ridicules it, and declares it false, all through the rest of the writing, such as this part:


so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots.

What do you call 'that' exactly, but a clear condemnation of the entire system?


If they would teach the gospel, clear and true, and stop injecting human inventions and lies

Right there. He's not talking about their ethical practices, he's flat out saying that all their doctrine is all wrong.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 12:29 PM
Because those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.
:ahem:

They are for Catholics, and if he denied all those things, that pretty much destroys any insinuation that Luther was just trying to "reform" the Church.

Paprika
05-30-2014, 12:40 PM
They are for Catholics, and if he denied all those things, that pretty much destroys any insinuation that Luther was just trying to "reform" the Church.
:ahem:
So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 12:45 PM
:ahem:
So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?

Destroy the entire system, and replace it with his own Church, and own theology.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2014, 12:48 PM
You know, meaning that he would simply tolerate it, not accept it. You also seemed to have missed the rest of it, where he keeps ranting about the Pope being the head of the Church, and declaring himself an authority and "lord" over the Church, and such. It clearly doesn't sound like he accepts the papacy, the way he berates it, and ridicules it, and declares it false, all through the rest of the writing, such as this part:



What do you call 'that' exactly, but a clear condemnation of the system?



Right there. He's not talking about their ethical practices, he's flat out saying that all their doctrine is all wrong.
Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself. He clearly accepted the idea of the papacy; it was the pope's abuse of the system and the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

Paprika
05-30-2014, 12:50 PM
Destroy the entire system, and replace it with his own Church, and own theology.
:twitch:

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 01:23 PM
Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself. He clearly accepted the idea of the papacy; it was the pope's abuse of the system and the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

I didn't see anything in there railing against the "abuse of they system". I saw him railing against the sytem itself actually. Like the fact that the Pope had authority over the church. Or those who consider the Church a spiritual authority, are, as proclaimed by him, "idiots". That's not railing against abuses of the system, that's just railing against the basic systems of the Papacy and the Catholic Church.


the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

What "false teachings"? I thought his entire concern was (supposedly) about the abuse of indulgences and his alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority? Regardless of any abuses of indulgences, or any alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority, the Pope only taught Catholic doctrine. He's attacking Catholic doctrine here, pure and simple.


Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself.

He simply stated he would tolerate the papacy. It's very clear that he didn't directly accept it, both by what he said in this writing, and what he said later, about it.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 01:35 PM
:twitch:

It's common sense, if you actually read it. He rejected the authority of the Pope, the authority of the Church, and claimed that Catholic doctrine had "injected human inventions and lies". He rejected pretty much everything the Church actually was.

RBerman
05-30-2014, 03:04 PM
He was a contrarian who got excommunicated, then , out of pure avarice to the church, purposely developed a theology where the Pope was the antichrist. He was also an extremely strong advocate of the divine right of kings, and, as such, the reformation was used only as a tool, for the kings and princes to push away the influence o of the church, the only thing keeping them in check, which allowed them to have absolute power over church and state and viciously oppress their people. Why he is revered, I have no idea. His "reformation" was so bad, even he, himself, had regretted what he had done.


His critism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, as that was a practice that the Church did many times in the past as well, to fund projects such as cathedrals and the Crusades, although I agree that many people lower on the rung did abuse the system, however, if you actually know what an indulgence actually does, the proposition that people can "buy forgiveness" is clearly unfounded.

Always fun to see how other people analyze the same data set! The fact that indulgences had been around for a while is not an argument for their appropriateness. But you have agreed that they were often abused at any rate, which was Luther's initial item of concern.

RBerman
05-30-2014, 03:24 PM
Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.

You're reading how he described his experience in 1535, almost twenty years after his attempts at Reform had begun, and almost 15 years after his excommunication. He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope." If you'll read his 95 Theses from 1517, you'll find that not only does Luther not criticize the Pope, he assumes that the Pope rightly has, and rightly uses, a divine authority to ease men's time in Purgatory. Thesis #61 is representative: "For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases." Thesis #91 assumes that the abuses of indulgences reflect the practices of pardoners who are failing to follow the Pope's "spirit and mind" as they should. Luther started out assuming good faith on the part of Rome. It was only when he endured repeated threats to his spiritual state and his person by Rome's delegates that he saw that the corruption went much higher up than he had ever feared or dreamed, but even then, he remained a son of the Roman Church until the day he was expelled.

Catholicity
05-30-2014, 04:03 PM
Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 04:25 PM
Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.

I don't remember denying the corruption within the Church, with the pardoners and clerics abusing indulgences, and things like that, however I'm not exactly sure about the accusation that Leo, himself, was corrupt. I know of his borrowing and spending habits, if that's what you mean, however, I'm not sure that extremely lavish spending habits constitutes corruption. In fact, there's a lot of good evidence that he was 'not' corrupt, such as his compassion for the Jewish people in a time of great anti-semitism, his speech against slavery, his great charity, as one scholar puts it:

"Leo X was lavish in charity: retirement homes, hospitals, convents, discharged soldiers, pilgrims, poor students, exiles, cripples and the sick, unfortunates of every description were generously remembered, and more than 6,000 ducats were annually distributed in alms"

I'll have to look into your other accusations of "corruption of the highest rank" as well.e ' of Reformation was that the kings and princes forced their subjects to adhere to the Reformation through the methods of harassment, strategic seizure of property, imprisonment and/or execution of prominent figures who stood against the Reformation, and military oppression. This took place everywhere the Reformation spread.

Example: The new King of the Danes, Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein was put in power after the old king, Frederick's nephew, was expelled for violating the Church's rights, and for trying to institute his own tyranny by taking rights away from the nobles, and enforcing his absolution of politics. However, once he was in power, in true violation of his coronary oath to remain faithful to the Church and to expel heresy, he revealed himself to be a secret Lutheran, and started pushing the Reformation on his citizens. After his death, the population, fearing that Protestantism would be forced upon them, as it was in the other countries, rallied behind Count Christopher of Oldenburg, and instituted him as the new king. However, the nobles, with the help of the Swedes (Protestantism had taken over Sweden by now) started a revolt, upsurped power from Christopher, and placed Frederick's Lutheran son into power, who's first act as king was to arrest all the Catholic bishops, only offering them freedom if they would conform to Lutheranism. Now, Iceland, which was under the ownership of Denmark at the time, knew that this king was a liar and a fraud, and obtained his kingship through illegitimate means. They were also able to erect a militia of Catholic insurgents to expel his advances by force, so as to reject his pushing of the Reformation on them. In response, the king sent an army to Iceland, fought them for years, and finally conquered them and forced the Reformation on them.

These are not the actions taken by some righteous revolution of the people. Heck, a "revolution" implies that it was propagated 'by' the people, not forced on them by a totalitarian regime of power-hungry kings and princes.

Reason for Edit: It was Iceland, not Norway. Sorry about that.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 04:50 PM
You're reading how he described his experience in 1535, almost twenty years after his attempts at Reform had begun, and almost 15 years after his excommunication. He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope." If you'll read his 95 Theses from 1517, you'll find that not only does Luther not criticize the Pope, he assumes that the Pope rightly has, and rightly uses, a divine authority to ease men's time in Purgatory. Thesis #61 is representative: "For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases." Thesis #91 assumes that the abuses of indulgences reflect the practices of pardoners who are failing to follow the Pope's "spirit and mind" as they should. Luther started out assuming good faith on the part of Rome. It was only when he endured repeated threats to his spiritual state and his person by Rome's delegates that he saw that the corruption went much higher up than he had ever feared or dreamed, but even then, he remained a son of the Roman Church until the day he was expelled.


He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope."

Eh, those are both the same things, just different semantics. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that he didn't believe those things at the time, when he, himself, said that he believed that at the time.

One Bad Pig
05-30-2014, 05:51 PM
I didn't see anything in there railing against the "abuse of they system". I saw him railing against the sytem itself actually. Like the fact that the Pope had authority over the church. Or those who consider the Church a spiritual authority, are, as proclaimed by him, "idiots". That's not railing against abuses of the system, that's just railing against the basic systems of the Papacy and the Catholic Church.



What "false teachings"? I thought his entire concern was (supposedly) about the abuse of indulgences and his alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority? Regardless of any abuses of indulgences, or any alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority, the Pope only taught Catholic doctrine. He's attacking Catholic doctrine here, pure and simple.



He simply stated he would tolerate the papacy. It's very clear that he didn't directly accept it, both by what he said in this writing, and what he said later, about it.
You and I appear to have different definitions of "content." One is not typically "content" with what one merely tolerates.

TimelessTheist
05-30-2014, 06:03 PM
You and I appear to have different definitions of "content." One is not typically "content" with what one merely tolerates.

Maybe he meant "content" with the Pope stating this, and not actually the position itself? Anyway, I'm not sure, I can't seem to find a Latin copy of this paper anywhere, so I don't know how accurate the translation "content" is, however, the rest of the work seems to paint the picture that he's extremely, extremely uncontent with this. Heck, a couple lines later, he straight up says that he has a problem with the Pope declaring himself the authority of the Church. Even later still, he says that he has a problem with the Church declaring itself an authority in general. That seems to deny, both, the legitimacy of the Papacy, 'and' the Church.

Edit: Ah, I see it now. He simply said he was content with the statement: "there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth."

However, that does not necessarily mean the Papacy. The fact that he denied the authority of the Pope, and the authority of the Church itself, proves this.

robrecht
05-30-2014, 07:46 PM
Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. ... I think you mean Erasmus.

Sparrow
05-30-2014, 08:25 PM
It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.


my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it.

That the Protestant Reformation was started by Luther is a pretty non-controversial statement, I think. He also doesn't seem to have gone about things in a particularly irenic fashion. But yes, at least as far as what I've been told, Luther's original intention wasn't to split from the Catholic Church, so I don't mind emending my statement to distribute the blame more evenly:

The agitation of Luther and the other reformers, and the response of the RCC to their calls for reform, resulted in a schism which has fragmented the Church into thousands of denominations. (Better? :smile:)

Nevertheless, there is something inherently schismatic about Protestantism itself: unlike previous schisms, in which AFAIK Montanists were just Montanists and didn't split up into dozens of competing Montanist sects, the Protestant reformation immediately split within itself into several competing factions which have only continued to multiply as time progresses. I think it's the way that it places the locus of doctrinal authority in each individual's reading of the Bible rather than in the tradition of the Church.


Wait a second. Are you trying to say that people's misuse and mischaracterization of Luthers teaching on "sola Scriptura" is somehow to be blamed on Luther? To be sure, "sola Scriptura" has been and is misused in the way you write above, but blaming Luther for it when he never intended it that way and never endorsed such a view seems a bit silly to me.

Cow Poke was more or less asking what people's thoughts are on Luther. My thoughts are that I lament the extremes to which his teachings were taken. I don't see anything silly about that.


I just offered this up because I thought it might interest both Sparrow and you.
That was interesting, thanks. It was particularly nice to see that the RCC is not blaming people for were raised outside of the Catholic Church for not being raised Catholic.

Paprika
05-30-2014, 09:46 PM
It's common sense, if you actually read it. He rejected the authority of the Pope, the authority of the Church, and claimed that Catholic doctrine had "injected human inventions and lies". He rejected pretty much everything the Church actually was.
:lolo:
All I can say is that your militant attitude is leading you to take some of the looniest stances I've ever seen. Do go on though, it is most entertaining.

RBerman
05-31-2014, 06:09 AM
Eh, those are both the same things, just different semantics. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that he didn't believe those things at the time, when he, himself, said that he believed that at the time.

If you want to establish what Luther's motives were at the time that he acted, you should read what he carefully wrote at the time that he acted, not summary statements made off-the-cuff (which is what his Table Talk lectures were, transcriptions of extemporaneous conversations with his students) after living half his life excommunicated from the Church he had attempted to Reform. And even in the quotation from Table Talk which you offered, Luther does not say that he left the Church. He fell out with the Pope because he wanted to improve the Church, in an area of practice in which the Church, in the Counter-Reformation, did in fact enact subsequent reforms.

RBerman
05-31-2014, 06:12 AM
Maybe he meant "content" with the Pope stating this, and not actually the position itself? Anyway, I'm not sure, I can't seem to find a Latin copy of this paper anywhere, so I don't know how accurate the translation "content" is, however, the rest of the work seems to paint the picture that he's extremely, extremely uncontent with this. Heck, a couple lines later, he straight up says that he has a problem with the Pope declaring himself the authority of the Church. Even later still, he says that he has a problem with the Church declaring itself an authority in general. That seems to deny, both, the legitimacy of the Papacy, 'and' the Church.

"Has a problem," present tense. Again, when you see him in Table Talk quotations denying the Pope's authority, you're dealing with Luther's mature position almost twenty years after his excommunication, after wars, exile, attempts on his life, etc. You're not dealing with what he wanted and thought at Wittenberg or even Worms.

robrecht
05-31-2014, 06:31 AM
"Has a problem," present tense. Again, when you see him in Table Talk quotations denying the Pope's authority, you're dealing with Luther's mature position almost twenty years after his excommunication, after wars, exile, attempts on his life, etc. You're not dealing with what he wanted and thought at Wittenberg or even Worms. IIRC, you are not a Lutheran, but a Calvinist of some sort, correct? As far as I can tell, there is no single, authoitative position of the Lutheran Church about some of these matters, but rather various synods and theologians dispersed over the world and time come up with various interpretations of what exactly the Lutheran church stands for. Is that correct? Perhps an exaggeration?

robrecht
05-31-2014, 06:32 AM
If you want to establish what Luther's motives were at the time that he acted, you should read what he carefully wrote at the time that he acted ...Yes! Finally! Now, where are the Lutherans when you need them?

RBerman
05-31-2014, 06:42 AM
IIRC, you are not a Lutheran, but a Calvinist of some sort, correct? As far as I can tell, there is no single, authoitative position of the Lutheran Church about some of these matters, but rather various synods and theologians dispersed over the world and time come up with various interpretations of what exactly the Lutheran church stands for. Is that correct? Perhps an exaggeration?

That sounds correct. When you read Luther's early works (e.g. 1517), what is your own impression of his attitude toward the Pope?

robrecht
05-31-2014, 06:54 AM
That sounds correct. When you read Luther's early works (e.g. 1517), what is your own impression of his attitude toward the Pope?I think he thought the pope (and bishops) could and should and would step in and fix things. But I've only read a little bit of Luther and am not sure of this. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written not so longer afterward (1520) and he definitely did not think so at that time. Haven't read that since college, 'though, so, again, I'm not sure I'm remembering this so well.

RBerman
05-31-2014, 07:14 AM
I think he thought the pope (and bishops) could and should and would step in and fix things. But I've only read a little bit of Luther and am not sure of this. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written not so longer afterward (1520) and he definitely did not think so at that time. Haven't read that since college, 'though, so, again, I'm not sure I'm remembering this so well.

That is my assessment as well.

robrecht
05-31-2014, 07:17 AM
That is my assessment as well.So the evolution in his position, for the most part, seems to have occured very quickly?

RBerman
05-31-2014, 07:31 AM
So the evolution in his position, for the most part, seems to have occured very quickly?

I'm no expert on when he changed his mind exactly on what issues, though one would imagine that by the end of 1521, the year of his trial and excommunication, his trust in the papacy had probably evaporated. If "four years" is "quickly," then I suppose so. It could have been quicker, but I wouldn't know.

robrecht
05-31-2014, 07:39 AM
I'm no expert on when he changed his mind exactly on what issues, though one would imagine that by the end of 1521, the year of his trial and excommunication, his trust in the papacy had probably evaporated. If "four years" is "quickly," then I suppose so. It could have been quicker, but I wouldn't know.If our understanding is correct, in less than a year he went from expecting the pope to fix things to calling him the antichrist. I would consider that a fairly quick evolution of his views. But, again, I am no expert on Luther and would happily be corrected.

TimelessTheist
05-31-2014, 08:52 AM
:lolo:
All I can say is that your militant attitude is leading you to take some of the looniest stances I've ever seen. Do go on though, it is most entertaining.

>Paprika talking about "militant attitudes"
>Irony

TimelessTheist
05-31-2014, 08:53 AM
"Has a problem," present tense. Again, when you see him in Table Talk quotations denying the Pope's authority, you're dealing with Luther's mature position almost twenty years after his excommunication, after wars, exile, attempts on his life, etc. You're not dealing with what he wanted and thought at Wittenberg or even Worms.

Yes, I know, but in this particular part of the writing, he was describing what his position was all the way back then, what caused him to, quote: "Fall out with the Pope."

TimelessTheist
05-31-2014, 08:57 AM
If you want to establish what Luther's motives were at the time that he acted, you should read what he carefully wrote at the time that he acted, not summary statements made off-the-cuff (which is what his Table Talk lectures were, transcriptions of extemporaneous conversations with his students) after living half his life excommunicated from the Church he had attempted to Reform. And even in the quotation from Table Talk which you offered, Luther does not say that he left the Church. He fell out with the Pope because he wanted to improve the Church, in an area of practice in which the Church, in the Counter-Reformation, did in fact enact subsequent reforms.


"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

I'm sorry, but 'this' particular passage is describing his view at the time he fell out with the Pope, not the later view he formed. While it's not as extreme as his view of the Papacy being the anti-Christ, and the Church being corrupted beyond all measure, it's clear that, at the time, he still denied the authority of the Papacy, the authority of the Church, and, while he doesn't mention what specific doctrine, it's clear he thought that some of the central doctrine that the Church is teaching is false.

Paprika
05-31-2014, 09:08 AM
>Paprika talking about "militant attitudes"
>Irony
Oh, there's nothing wrong with militant attitudes per se, but yours is rather silly. Carry on.

Catholicity
05-31-2014, 02:41 PM
Well on the one hand at Luther's time you have a lot of people calling for change. Maybe Luther was just more vocal about it? Prior one had Wycliffe and Hus. It took the Church until Pope JP II to apologize for the execution of Hus....( Conveniently the Pope is infallible on Faith and morals and ex cathedra and this was a morality thing you know declaration of a heretic to be excommunicated and it went all the way to Pope John XXII)
Martin Luther sees the abuses, he's vocal about them and of course politicians like it. And they offer him protection because after all the church isn't very nice. And how do they get out of the accusations or try to get rid of Luther and keep their conscience clean? By declaring the Pope an infallible authority.
While it doesn't make the Pope an anti-Christ, it is anti-Scriptural Doctrine.

RBerman
05-31-2014, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry, but 'this' particular passage is describing his view at the time he fell out with the Pope, not the later view he formed. While it's not as extreme as his view of the Papacy being the anti-Christ, and the Church being corrupted beyond all measure, it's clear that, at the time, he still denied the authority of the Papacy, the authority of the Church, and, while he doesn't mention what specific doctrine, it's clear he thought that some of the central doctrine that the Church is teaching is false.

Still don't know why you say that. The quotation is from 1535. If you want to know what he thought in 1517, read what he wrote in 1517.

TimelessTheist
05-31-2014, 03:20 PM
Still don't know why you say that. The quotation is from 1535. If you want to know what he thought in 1517, read what he wrote in 1517.

Well, it's because he, himself, said that's what he thought at the time.

RBerman
05-31-2014, 03:42 PM
Well, it's because he, himself, said that's what he thought at the time.

At what time? 1517 when he first posted his theses? 1521 when he was excommunicated? Some other time? Obviously his 1535 quotation is summarizing the overall trajectory of what happened, emphasizing the end. From your perspective it might seem that "falling out with the Pope" is the same as "leaving the Church," but that approach fails to analyze Luther on his own terms, or to even take him at his word, in which case quoting him on anything becomes an exercise in futility.

robrecht
05-31-2014, 04:20 PM
Well on the one hand at Luther's time you have a lot of people calling for change. Maybe Luther was just more vocal about it? Prior one had Wycliffe and Hus. It took the Church until Pope JP II to apologize for the execution of Hus....( Conveniently the Pope is infallible on Faith and morals and ex cathedra and this was a morality thing you know declaration of a heretic to be excommunicated and it went all the way to Pope John XXII)
Martin Luther sees the abuses, he's vocal about them and of course politicians like it. And they offer him protection because after all the church isn't very nice. And how do they get out of the accusations or try to get rid of Luther and keep their conscience clean? By declaring the Pope an infallible authority.
While it doesn't make the Pope an anti-Christ, it is anti-Scriptural Doctrine.John XXII (usually known as antipope John XXIII) was one of three papal claimants at the time, and he had agreed to resign, fled his own Council of Constance, later renegged and was deposed before Huss was executed. Gregory XII had already sent legates to Constance to resign the papacy, and this was accepted by the Council a couple of days before Huss' execution. Benedict XIII did not agree to resign but was later deposed by the Council of Constance. In the 18th century, Benedict XIV would later change his own designation to Benedict XIII to make it clear that the earlier Benedict XIII was an antipope. Angelo Roncalli, who would eventually call the Second Vatican Council, when he was elected pope in 1958, specifically chose not just the name John but also the numerical designation of John XXIII to make it clear that the previous John was an antipope. So, actually, there was no pope when John Hus was executed. His execution is the biggest black mark upon the soul of conciliarism (the belief that the council has higher authority of the pope), in an otherwise admirable effort to stem the power of the pope in the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect all three of the papal claimants would have been happy to burn John Huss at the stake so I am not trying to excuse them of any blame, but it just so happens to be an interesting period in the sad saga of the papacy. Personally, I choose to believe that John Hus was the unelected vicar of Christ at the time of his execution.

Catholicity
05-31-2014, 05:03 PM
John XXII (usually known as antipope John XXIII) was one of three papal claimants at the time, and he had agreed to resign, fled his own Council of Constance, later renegged and was deposed before Huss was executed. Gregory XII had already sent legates to Constance to resign the papacy, and this was accepted by the Council a couple of days before Huss' execution. Benedict XIII did not agree to resign but was later deposed by the Council of Constance. In the 18th century, Benedict XIV would later change his own designation to Benedict XIII to make it clear that the earlier Benedict XIII was an antipope. Angelo Roncalli, who would eventually call the Second Vatican Council, when he was elected pope in 1958, specifically chose not just the name John but also the numerical designation of John XXIII to make it clear that the previous John was an antipope. So, actually, there was no pope when John Hus was executed. His execution is the biggest black mark upon the soul of conciliarism (the belief that the council has higher authority of the pope), in an otherwise admirable effort to stem the power of the pope in the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect all three of the papal claimants would have been happy to burn John Huss at the stake so I am not trying to excuse them of any blame, but it just so happens to be an interesting period in the sad saga of the papacy. Personally, I choose to believe that John Hus was the unelected vicar of Christ at the time of his execution.

Its certainly horrific in the line of the papacy. However, It still is suspect that in all the time of the abuse the claim that comes out of the next council is authoritative and to correct error the pope is declared an antipope. It remains at best resounding of pride.

robrecht
05-31-2014, 05:26 PM
Its certainly horrific in the line of the papacy. However, It still is suspect that in all the time of the abuse the claim that comes out of the next council is authoritative and to correct error the pope is declared an antipope. It remains at best resounding of pride.Yes, it was a sad saga of the papacy. But, just so you know, the Roman Catholic Church never accepted as valid or authoritative the earlier decisions of the Council of Constance. Nor do I think the Council of Constance deposed Benedict XIII because of any need to correct a specific error of his, but rather to end definitively the sad saga of three papal claimants. On could argue that their own election of Martin V established their higher authority, even if they did not always exercise it well. Bottom line, there is no single model or structue of human authority that is immune from abuse, whether popes, councils, bishops, priests, synods, secular authorities, or even the age old method of 'Eenie, meanie, minie moe, catch a tiger by the toe ...'

TimelessTheist
05-31-2014, 07:54 PM
Well on the one hand at Luther's time you have a lot of people calling for change. Maybe Luther was just more vocal about it? Prior one had Wycliffe and Hus. It took the Church until Pope JP II to apologize for the execution of Hus....( Conveniently the Pope is infallible on Faith and morals and ex cathedra and this was a morality thing you know declaration of a heretic to be excommunicated and it went all the way to Pope John XXII)
Martin Luther sees the abuses, he's vocal about them and of course politicians like it. And they offer him protection because after all the church isn't very nice. And how do they get out of the accusations or try to get rid of Luther and keep their conscience clean? By declaring the Pope an infallible authority.
While it doesn't make the Pope an anti-Christ, it is anti-Scriptural Doctrine.

Eh, I'm sorry, Cath, but John XXII was an anti-pope. He was one of three who claimed to be the Pope, however, this was not so, so, the Papal Infallibility does not apply.


While it doesn't make the Pope an anti-Christ, it is anti-Scriptural Doctrine.

I can give proof to the opposite.

Also, you have to love how you still make it out to look like Martin Luther was some heroic revolutionary, when there is indisputable proof that the Reformation was spread by force literally everywhere it was spread.

Catholicity
05-31-2014, 10:06 PM
TT I don't think you read my post clearly enough.
1st you accused me of spreading ML as a hero. Nothing of which I have ever said up to this point. You're diving in at the shallow end of the pool kiddo, and making an accusation which has not been in ANY post of mine.
Secondly I have not disputed any of the "Anti pope" claims, merely pointed out that despite them there still this matter of authority and primacy that I understand why Luther raised a question to and I think Robrecht's interpretation of the Constance Era is interesting FYI. I also am calling into Question why it took until JP II for the full apology to be issued.
We have not discussed the political aspects of the Reformation nor the other problems of it, but we are calling into question what started it. FYI, I am not a militant protestant, nor do I idolize Luther, as I understand that this is a common teaching in Catholic Apologetic Circles, so slow it down a bit. In fact I myself can point out multiple problems in church history that have zilch to do with Catholicism. Believe me there is plenty of blame to share.

Obsidian
06-01-2014, 01:10 AM
Why are we even arguing over whether Luther was hostile to the papacy, as though that were some bad thing? Luther's early affinity for the papacy was a character flaw. His toleration of the pope mimicked Samson's early toleration of the Philistines. God caused the ultimate showdown. It was good that they had a falling out. And the pope probably was the antichrist. Daniel 7 says that the little horn grows up out of Rome.

robrecht
06-01-2014, 05:21 AM
Why are we even arguing over whether Luther was hostile to the papacy, as though that were some bad thing? Luther's early affinity for the papacy was a character flaw. His toleration of the pope mimicked Samson's early toleration of the Philistines. God caused the ultimate showdown. It was good that they had a falling out. And the pope probably was the antichrist. Daniel 7 says that the little horn grows up out of Rome.Luther probably meant THE Antichrist and seems to have thought that the end of the world was imminent. Again, I'm no expert on Luther, but I think there was some give and take in his apocalyptic views and that they shifted over time. Even though, at first, he did not attribute as much authority to the book of Revelation, he may have given it more and more importance in interpreting the events of his time and his own role in them.

TimelessTheist
06-01-2014, 11:56 AM
TT I don't think you read my post clearly enough.
1st you accused me of spreading ML as a hero. Nothing of which I have ever said up to this point. You're diving in at the shallow end of the pool kiddo, and making an accusation which has not been in ANY post of mine.

Eh, sorry. That's what it looked like.


Secondly I have not disputed any of the "Anti pope" claims, merely pointed out that despite them there still this matter of authority and primacy that I understand why Luther raised a question to and I think Robrecht's interpretation of the Constance Era is interesting FYI.

Oh, okay. Well, that also wasn't what it looked like. It looked like you were using the words of John XXII in an attempt to disprove papal infallibility.


I also am calling into Question why it took until JP II for the full apology to be issued.

:shrug: Maybe, since he was an anti-pope, and thus had no actual, legitimate claim to the papacy, they didn't consider it the Church's fault in the first place? Which, to an extent, that's still kind of true.


We have not discussed the political aspects of the Reformation nor the other problems of it, but we are calling into question what started it. FYI, I am not a militant protestant, nor do I idolize Luther, as I understand that this is a common teaching in Catholic Apologetic Circles, so slow it down a bit.

Well, okay then. I'm just saying that, if the Church corruption was one of the causes of it, the citizens and academics should have in support of it. Instead it was forced on all of them.

robrecht
06-01-2014, 02:02 PM
... :shrug: Maybe, since he was an anti-pope, and thus had no actual, legitimate claim to the papacy, they didn't consider it the Church's fault in the first place? Which, to an extent, that's still kind of true. ...Well, it is not like all the church hierarchy involved up to that point were Lutherans. After that point, "on 1 March, 1420, Pope Martin V issued a Bull inviting all Christians to unite in a crusade for the extermination of Wycliffites, Hussites, and other heretics."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07585a.htm

Catholicity
06-01-2014, 02:09 PM
Eh, sorry. That's what it looked like.



Oh, okay. Well, that also wasn't what it looked like. It looked like you were using the words of John XXII in an attempt to disprove papal infallibility.



:shrug: Maybe, since he was an anti-pope, and thus had no actual, legitimate claim to the papacy, they didn't consider it the Church's fault in the first place? Which, to an extent, that's still kind of true.



Well, okay then. I'm just saying that, if the Church corruption was one of the causes of it, the citizens and academics should have in support of it. Instead it was forced on all of them.
I'm pointing out that it looks "fishy" and suspicious to make a declaration of antipope in order to sustain the claim of infallibility during the time of corruption. I hope that makes sense to you.

Secondly the reformation started as optional, later it was forced as a political issue.
Obviously this is wrong, but it was just as wrong for Catholicism to attempt to force defectors back, and if they didn't :mob:
(clearly this is not an endorsement of two wrongs make a right this is a point of politics became an issue entertwined with religion here on both the protestant and the catholic side where it appeared initially to be about religion)

Obsidian
06-01-2014, 06:07 PM
I think if the Catholic empire were effectively at war with with Protestants, which it was, then it made perfect sense to use violence to suppress Catholicism.

Catholicity
06-01-2014, 06:39 PM
I think if the Catholic empire were effectively at war with with Protestants, which it was, then it made perfect sense to use violence to suppress Catholicism.
Actually, yes...it does.

robrecht
06-01-2014, 06:57 PM
Wars have unintended consequences, and religious wars are not a good witness to the message of Jesus, especially when both sides claim to be Christians. But if the Church and secular state believe heresy is punishable by death and the Protestant forces believe they are fighting against the Antichrist, each side believes a religious war is justified. I think both sides were wrong and Christ's church suffered unintended consequences.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 06:39 AM
I'm pointing out that it looks "fishy" and suspicious to make a declaration of antipope in order to sustain the claim of infallibility during the time of corruption. I hope that makes sense to you.

Save for the fact that he was 'not' the Pope. Get it?


Secondly the reformation started as optional, later it was forced as a political issue.
Obviously this is wrong, but it was just as wrong for Catholicism to attempt to force defectors back, and if they didn't
(clearly this is not an endorsement of two wrongs make a right this is a point of politics became an issue entertwined with religion here on both the protestant and the catholic side where it appeared initially to be about religion)

Those two things aren't comparable. One made heresy illegal within its own territories, in which the temporal authorities were intertwined with the Church itself, the other was stealing territories that didn't belong to it and forcibly oppresing the people that lived there.

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 08:10 AM
Those two things aren't comparable. One made heresy illegal within its own territories, in which the temporal authorities were intertwined with the Church itself, the other was stealing territories that didn't belong to it and forcibly oppresing the people that lived there.

Because the Catholic Church NEVER stole property that wasn't hers to begin with and never forcibly oppressed people who lived their.....:duh:

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 08:17 AM
Wars have unintended consequences, and religious wars are not a good witness to the message of Jesus, especially when both sides claim to be Christians. But if the Church and secular state believe heresy is punishable by death and the Protestant forces believe they are fighting against the Antichrist, each side believes a religious war is justified. I think both sides were wrong and Christ's church suffered unintended consequences.
That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 08:24 AM
That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.

I'm glad I'm just a Christian.

robrecht
06-02-2014, 10:32 AM
That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.
Though some, on both sides, will not admit this, there were faults on both sides in the causes of the East-West schisms. I do not believe that Rome has a valid claim to being the one true church, original and authoritative, but it is ancient and did its best, for the most part, to fill a void in the West, whereas the East has its own shining elements and weaknesses. The papal pretense of universal jurisdiction or doctrinal authority should not be accepted, nor Constantinople's claim to be the Ecumenical or worldwide patriarchate. Both exaggerated their role, especially given the crises in the West and the fall of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in the West. True Christian primacy should always be found in the local community. If it is not found there, it can never be imposed from a higher authority, at whatever level. The Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity should also be true when applied to church administration. I also see the more fundamental schism occurring much earlier in the split between Judaism and Christianity. We both lost out in that separation, as Christians lost touch with our spiritual roots and our ability to tolerate theological diversity, charitable dissent, and prophetic critique of human authority that characterize Judaism. St Paul and futurists of today rightly look forward to the healing of that rift as of fundamental importance.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 11:14 AM
Because the Catholic Church NEVER stole property that wasn't hers to begin with and never forcibly oppressed people who lived their.....:duh:

The closest they ever came to stealing stuff that wasn't theirs were embezzlement schemes carried
out by corrupt members of the Church, I guess you could also attempt to argue that this was the case with the conversion of England, however, that was carried out by the king, not the Church.

As for the oppresion of their people, eh, can you give some examples?

robrecht
06-02-2014, 11:23 AM
By the way, this approach of the primacy of the local church, ie, an ecclesiology of the communion of churches, was proposed to Pope Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council in a private audience with one of the theological experts in attendance at the Council. Paul VI looked back at him without a hint of understanding and said he didn't know what he was talk about. After another attempt to explain, he said, no, that's not what the Lord wants, the Orthodox will just have to come around. But later on, he seemed perhaps to understand, and said that things will change little by little. The theologian later admitted to being cowardly in this private meeting. Note to self: don't be afraid to make your point forcefully with the pope.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:27 AM
I am so glad ya'll have explained to me Martin Luther. I understand him MUCH better now. :brood:

robrecht
06-02-2014, 11:36 AM
The closest they ever came to stealing stuff that wasn't theirs were embezzlement schemes carried
out by corrupt members of the Church, I guess you could also attempt to argue that this was the case with the conversion of England, however, that was carried out by the king, not the Church.
You're right, the popes were very generous with their gifts of lands they obtained from the Donation of Constantine. For example, look at how generous Adrian IV (the only English pope) was in giving Ireland to Henry II and his invading armies. How generous he was to the King of England. That worked out splendidly, that did.

robrecht
06-02-2014, 11:39 AM
I am so glad ya'll have explained to me Martin Luther. I understand him MUCH better now. :brood:
I'm not sure its possible to understand Luther apart from his battle for freedom from the Antichrist. It seems to be how he understood himself and his role in history.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:44 AM
I'm not sure its possible to understand Luther apart from his battle for freedom from the Antichrist. It seems to be how he understood himself and his role in history.

But it HAS been an interesting read! :thumb:

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:08 PM
You're right, the popes were very generous with their gifts of lands they obtained from the Donation of Constantine. For example, look at how generous Adrian IV (the only English pope) was in giving Ireland to Henry II and his invading armies. How generous he was to the King of England. That worked out splendidly, that did.

Eh, according to historian Edmund Curtis, and several other recognized historians, the authenticity of the grant in the bull has not been verified yet.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:15 PM
I am so glad ya'll have explained to me Martin Luther. I understand him MUCH better now. :brood:

Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially.

I'm not exactly sure 'how' to understand him though, other than reading his works on the Reformation and such. He was a man that loved his rhetoric, that's for sure. Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot :lol:.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 01:17 PM
Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot :lol:.

OK, now you've gone from preachin' to medlin'. :glare:

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:19 PM
Though some, on both sides, will not admit this, there were faults on both sides in the causes of the East-West schisms. I do not believe that Rome has a valid claim to being the one true church, original and authoritative, but it is ancient and did its best, for the most part, to fill a void in the West, whereas the East has its own shining elements and weaknesses. The papal pretense of universal jurisdiction or doctrinal authority should not be accepted, nor Constantinople's claim to be the Ecumenical or worldwide patriarchate. Both exaggerated their role, especially given the crises in the West and the fall of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in the West. True Christian primacy should always be found in the local community. If it is not found there, it can never be imposed from a higher authority, at whatever level. The Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity should also be true when applied to church administration. I also see the more fundamental schism occurring much earlier in the split between Judaism and Christianity. We both lost out in that separation, as Christians lost touch with our spiritual roots and our ability to tolerate theological diversity, charitable dissent, and prophetic critique of human authority that characterize Judaism. St Paul and futurists of today rightly look forward to the healing of that rift as of fundamental importance.

Yeah, I'll agree to this too, the schism part, I mean. Which side had more to do with schism is another thread (I don't want to start another argument, and derail this thread even more than it's already been derailed) but it's clear there were actions on both sides that caused the schism.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:22 PM
OK, now you've gone from preachin' to medlin'. :glare:

I'm just calling a spade, a spade, man.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 01:23 PM
I'm just calling a spade, a spade, man.

That was a joke, son. :smug:

robrecht
06-02-2014, 01:27 PM
Eh, according to historian Edmund Curtis, and several other recognized historians, the authenticity of the grant in the bull has not been verified yet.
And the Donation of Constantine?

robrecht
06-02-2014, 01:37 PM
Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially.

I'm not exactly sure 'how' to understand him though, other than reading his works on the Reformation and such. He was a man that loved his rhetoric, that's for sure. Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot :lol:.
Sure you want to use the word 'recanted'?

As for his weight, I'm sure we can blame his Catholic monastic training for that, and not just the food either, but especially the beer, which he and his wife continued to brew in his home. He was ornery enough, but he never would have been accepted as an honorary Southern Baptist.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:41 PM
And the Donation of Constantine?

Well, it's clearly a forgery, however, its authorship is unknown. It could have been a conspiracy engineered by the Church of Rome itself, or it could have been done by an over zealous fanatic without Rome's permission, and yet another hypothesis suggests that it was done by a schismatic Greek. However, the fact that it was exposed by a Roman Cardinal, and again by a Roman Bishop, shows that not even the Church itself knew it was a forgery until that date, and until someone actually, conclusively proves who authored it, you can't exactly attribute it to a Roman conspiracy to steal land.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 01:44 PM
Sure you want to use the word 'recanted'?

Well, I mean, he, himself, said that things were better off under the Church of Rome than the power hungry Protestant kings, so yes.


As for his weight, I'm sure we can blame his Catholic monastic training for that, and not just the food either, but especially the beer, which he and his wife continued to brew in his home. He was ornery enough, but he never would have been accepted as an honorary Southern Baptist

Eh, well, it's not like he was the only hefty person in Christendom. :hehe:

One Bad Pig
06-02-2014, 01:53 PM
Eh, well, it's not like he was the only hefty person in Christendom. :hehe:
My favorite Catholic is G. K. Chesterton.

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 03:24 PM
During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King. :shrug:

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 03:36 PM
During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King. :shrug:

I assume you mean the Native Americans?

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 04:41 PM
I assume you mean the Native Americans?
For starter's yes. Then of course there was the flip flopping of the Tudor Line in England (Elizabeth the I and Queen Mary and then the Catholic/Anglican/Puritan/Catholic/Anglican Oppression of the People) and of course the French problem with the Bourbons and the Hugenots and yes more opression until after the Revolution then you have a new kind of oppression and OH lets not forget Napolean......Yes the Catholics WERE SQUEAKY CLEAN!!!!

Manwë Súlimo
06-02-2014, 05:07 PM
My favorite Catholic is JRR Tolkien.

Fixed your grievous error.

One Bad Pig
06-02-2014, 05:18 PM
During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King. :shrug:
How much of that was church policy? Wasn't that mostly driven by political considerations, with the forced baptisms more of a religious veneer?

One Bad Pig
06-02-2014, 05:20 PM
Fixed your grievous error.
Much as I admire JRRT, religious writings trump fiction (no matter how well told). I do like Tolkien's fiction better.

robrecht
06-02-2014, 05:26 PM
Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially. ...

Well, I mean, he, himself, said that things were better off under the Church of Rome than the power hungry Protestant kings, so yes. Recanted in what sense, exactly? Or do you just mean that he regretted some of the unforeseen consequences? Did he recant in the sense that he acknowledged the pope's authority or correctness or that he was not really the Antichrist? That he accepted the seven sacraments? That he regretted leaving the monastery and marrying? Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 05:31 PM
Recanted in what sense, exactly? Or do you just mean that he regretted some of the unforeseen consequences? Did he recant in the sense that he acknowledged the pope's authority or correctness or that he was not really the Antichrist? That he accepted the seven sacraments? That he regretted leaving the monastery and marrying? Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

Yeah, that part. He regretted the consequences of his Reformation.

TimelessTheist
06-02-2014, 05:37 PM
For starter's yes. Then of course there was the flip flopping of the Tudor Line in England (Elizabeth the I and Queen Mary and then the Catholic/Anglican/Puritan/Catholic/Anglican Oppression of the People) and of course the French problem with the Bourbons and the Hugenots and yes more opression until after the Revolution then you have a new kind of oppression and OH lets not forget Napolean......Yes the Catholics WERE SQUEAKY CLEAN!!!!

Eh, hold on there. My statement was directed at the Church as a body, not just "Catholics" in general, so I'm not exactly sure the Bourbons and Hugenots apply, as that was a war between houses.

As for Napoleon....eh, what exactly is your problem here? Yes, he was bad, but he also restored the Church hierarchy and made Catholicism the religion of France. Just because did a lot of bad things doesn't make 'everything' he did, bad.

As for the constant chaos, and executions of the opposite side that plagued England for so very long, they were a tragedy, indeed, however.....well, I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but who's fault exactly is it that England ended up like that in the first place?

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 09:10 PM
OBP it was a sense of religious zealousness, but it was also that religion was highly politicized.

TT: I believe we have a "both" problem. Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good. The primary thing you are looking away from; Religion at this point was HIGHLY political. Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill. It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either. And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda or to oppress people. I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past. Trust me Luther, Calvin(nother issue altogether) Zwingli and others began splits which in many cases took on new challenges politically and certainly were wrong it a lot of ways (I can rip apart the geneva settlement without a problem and certainly some heresies I know exist) however because of it, we enjoy religious understanding we might not otherwise have.

robrecht
06-02-2014, 10:32 PM
Yeah, that part. He regretted the consequences of his Reformation.Can you please point to the specific text(s) of Luther that you are referring to?

TimelessTheist
06-03-2014, 01:30 PM
OBP it was a sense of religious zealousness, but it was also that religion was highly politicized.

TT: I believe we have a "both" problem. Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good. The primary thing you are looking away from; Religion at this point was HIGHLY political. Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill. It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either. And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda or to oppress people. I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past. Trust me Luther, Calvin(nother issue altogether) Zwingli and others began splits which in many cases took on new challenges politically and certainly were wrong it a lot of ways (I can rip apart the geneva settlement without a problem and certainly some heresies I know exist) however because of it, we enjoy religious understanding we might not otherwise have.


Henry the VIIIX didn't think he should have to submit to the Church in Rome, and quite frankly for all intense and purposes under "free will" He didn't.

Eh, no, I disagree. I don't think he was justified in betraying the Church, the Pope, and his people.


He didn't. Not to excuse what he did. However culture at the time was that He SHOULD have been given the annullment and divorce but for political reasons it didn't look good.

Kind of downplaying the situation, aren't you? King Henry's wife was Catherine, and Catherine didn't want the annulment, and Catherine's nephew was holding the Pope as prisoner. If the Pope had went ahead with the annulment anyway, I doubt his captor would have taken kindly to his aunt being denied her demand to not do it.


Religion and politics were completely inseperable and whatever a person did they used religion as the "good" or the "bad" to conquer and to kill.

The only major event where the Church did that was the Crusades, and as I said before, they were a justified defense against Islamic Jihadists. If you're talking about the Kings and Queens however, well, of course a lot of them did so. Doesn't make what they did right if it was bad, or wrong if it was good.


And there is no way to defend using the name of God to start a political agenda

Depends what the agenda is. For instance, if you wanted to enact laws against abortion (Which, by the way, Reformed England was one of the first countries in Christendom to legalize abortion), I would think enacting God for that agenda would be okay.


It doesn't look good for the Catholics or the political Reformation either.

I have yet to see you prove that the Catholic Church was as deceitful or oppressive as those who propagated the Reformation.


I think it boils down to needing to acknowledge the faults of one's own church past.

I'm not saying there were no faults within the Church, ever. Heck, it has some problems right now, with some of the declarations made in Vatican 2. However, what we're talking about right now, isn't one of them.

Catholicity
06-03-2014, 02:06 PM
I've made several attempts but you are completely convinced that using God as long as its the way you can justify it is okay. I promise if the Independent Fundamental Baptists or Strict Fundamental Christians (as in Bob Jones University) were to suddenly take over America and begin to dictate your religion and property rights you'd be singing a different tune.

TimelessTheist
06-03-2014, 02:56 PM
I've made several attempts but you are completely convinced that using God as long as its the way you can justify it is okay. I promise if the Independent Fundamental Baptists or Strict Fundamental Christians (as in Bob Jones University) were to suddenly take over America and begin to dictate your religion and property rights you'd be singing a different tune.

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Catholicity
06-03-2014, 03:46 PM
I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

Also I was not putting words in your mouth I was giving you a scenario to consider. And you yourself have pointed out that you believe that using God politically is fine as long as its for the right reasons. The problem is you don't seem to understand how corrupt the human heart really is. Especially when it comes to politics.

TimelessTheist
06-03-2014, 04:40 PM
I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

Also I was not putting words in your mouth I was giving you a scenario to consider. And you yourself have pointed out that you believe that using God politically is fine as long as its for the right reasons. The problem is you don't seem to understand how corrupt the human heart really is. Especially when it comes to politics.

Well, if they're using they're corrupt, then they're not using it for the right reasons, are they? :duh:

Also, I don't support forcing your religion on countries that don't want it under any circumstances, so your analogy does not work.


I'm beginning to sense that you have a "my mind is made up, please don't confuse me with facts"

I see that psychological projection is still the most common defense mechanism among humans.

Catholicity
06-03-2014, 08:41 PM
I don't believe I can actually make any convincing arguement so before this gets too silly, I'm not going to debate any further right now. That and I have other more pressing concerns at hand.

TimelessTheist
06-03-2014, 08:49 PM
I don't believe I can actually make any convincing arguement so before this gets too silly, I'm not going to debate any further right now. That and I have other more pressing concerns at hand.

Alright then.