Prince of darkness finds peace at church

The Standard ^ | Jan 27, 2007 | Malcolm Moore

[Campion]

For example, can ex cathedra statements be rescinded? Can popes be fired?

There's a certain amount of tautological self-referential self-understanding going on with us. :-)

Suppose a Pope attempted to promulgate an infallible decree that was obviously and unambiguously heretical ... suppose, for example, that it rejected the Trinity.

At least some Catholic theologians would argue that he was infallibly prevented from dogmatically teaching heresy by virtue of the argument that, as soon as he attempted to do so, he ceased to be a Pope, because he ceased to be a Catholic (and only Catholics can be Pope :-)).

Of course, that's a theoretical argument only. The Holy Spirit is abundantly capable of preventing Popes from infallibly teaching heresy by the simple expedient of removing them from the scene.

[xzins]

Can popes be fired for personal behavior?

[redgolum]

Most of the early actions in the Reformation have much more to do the with politics in the Elector States than anything with theology. Luther got caught between the Pope and the Princes, and managed to annoy both.

As to the Apocryphal books, remember that there place in the canon was at that point a bit of an open issue. Erasmus (if you both remember that 15,000 post thread) and some of the cardinals of the time agreed that they were good books to use for teaching, but not on the same level as the rest of Scripture. It was (I think) Trent that finalized the canon. That is why in many older Lutheran Bibles (pre WWI) in the US and most foreign Bibles have the Apocryphal books still in them. For instance we studied the Maccabees in confirmation and Sunday school.

The accusation of Luther "hating" the Epistle of James is something different. He never said that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it shouldn't be read, but that if you read it wrong you can end up with the idea that your works will save you.

In many ways, the issues for today are not the issues of that time. If the Roman Catholic Church were then what it is now, I doubt that the Reformation would have happened. But remember this, if things had been a bit different, St. Francis would have likely been condemned or ordered to shut up. Challenging the popes during some of the eras was a good way to end up dead (same with challenging the king).

I am staying out of this one for the most part, as neither side in the argument is seeing the whole picture.

[Campion]

Only by God.

[xzins]

Most of the early actions in the Reformation have much more to do the with politics in the Elector States than anything with theology. Luther got caught between the Pope and the Princes, and managed to annoy both.

If the papacy hadn't been so corrupt for so long, the heads of the princes wouldn't have been turned toward relief from some quarter.

[xzins]

So, you're telling me that they could not fire Alex6 if he were pope today?

That's too bad. Discouraging.

[wmfights]

The special powers given to the Apostles ended at the end of the Apostolic era

Got Scripture?

Nice try.

Your the one claiming the head of your church is infallible. I have never seen evidence that the local church leaders that followed the end of the Apostolic Era consistently possessed supernatural powers, like the ability to raise people from the dead let alone the idea that one of them is infallible.

[Campion]

Who's "they"?

There's one instance of a Pope being deposed by an ecumenical council, but that wasn't over his personal behavior.

If anyone deserved to be "fired" by "them" for his personal behavior, St. Peter would probably be among the top candidates for denying Our Lord in his hour of greatest need.

[Campion]

Nice try.

I'm not the one who believes in sola scriptura.

If you make a claim and can't provide convincing Scripture to back it up, as far as I'm concerned, it's man-made tradition, and a man-made tradition that I reject.

[redgolum]

The fight between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Papacy goes back to well before the Borgia Popes. Almost all the way to the sons of Charlemagne. It is hard to say what would have happened if someone other than Leo X was the Pope. Perhaps the massive building program that started the sale of indulgences wouldn't have been started, or would have been done differently. But we can't really know now.

[xzins]

The allusion to Peter doesn't help. Pentecost was still a number of weeks away.

Behavior should be a charge that would remove someone.

[xzins]

The Holy Roman Emperor was on the side of Pope in the struggle against the N.Europe break-away princes.

[Campion]

The allusion to Peter doesn't help. Pentecost was still a number of weeks away.

Then there's that Galatians 2 episode ...

[redgolum]

Charles V was, but there was a lot of competition for the election. Many of the northern electors didn't like the way things were handled, and had been looking for a way to change things.

During the 30 years war, Charles was on the side of the "Catholic" faction, though a good number in his army were Lutheran. Same with the "Protestant" side, which had a number of Catholics. France was playing the house of the Hamburgs (of which Charles was a member) against some of the electors who had voted for a different person to be the emperor, in order to raise the standing of the Bourbons. In short, it was one heck of a mess on all sides.

[xzins]

Theological concern.

I doubt Alex6 had too much internal conflict about the right course of action regarding "the Theology of fathering illegitimate kids".

[xzins]

A downright lovely period of history.

And it didn't get better for quite a while. In fact, I think Britain and France still hate each other.

[dangus]

>> My sole point in citing Exsurge Domine was that Luther was not some guy hell-bent on schism, at least not initially. He was sort of backed into that corner. <<

OK, I'd agree with that. But, then, the previous post had merely discussed the effect on the patient, not the intent of the practitioner.

>> Both Protestantism and the Catholic church have evolved since then, so largely this is an academic, historical discussion. <<

Not really... most Americans are told a very cartoonish version of the Catholic church's history which suffices in the minds of most to discredit medieval Catholicism, and serve as an ad hominem against even traditional morality.

>> (Did he reject the Apocrypha and the Epistles as early as Worms? That is news to me - I was under the impression that occurred later in life.) <<

I wouldn't swear to it; he left worms rhetorically defeated by those who cited 1 Maccabees, Revelations, James and Hebrews. I'm not certain that he immediately began to dismiss them. But at that point, one certainly could not make the sympathetic claim that he was just trying to interpret the entirety of scripture as best he could.

Every reading of Luther has always presumed the best motives for him (in spite of slanderous rhetoric); hence, it is presumed that it he who was manipulated by the bellicose and greedy German princes who saw his message as an excuse to seize the entirety of the church's monetary, political and authoritative wealth. If he did not forumlate his rejection of holy scripture at Worms, then why did he not at least temporarily back down until he could reconcile his intellect with his heart? He claims to have desired to reform the Church, not rend it, but if he'd submit neither to the Church's councils nor scripture, was there any option not to excommunicate him? Keep in mind, he was teaching with great authority at a time of minimal literacy; the Church, at the very least, had to make clear that he was a heretic.*

On the other hand, if he did back down, at least temporarily, when he renewed his objections, he'd have to intellectually convince others of his point (as countless saints had done); he would not have the greed and avarice of the German princes to impose his teachings. It is tempting to consider, therefore, that he was hardly peaceable pawn he is portrayed as.

[* One could argue that today we cannot find a justification for exiling him with what we know the Church knew at the time, but he hardly proved the Church wrong with his subsequent actions.]

[redgolum]

Hamburgs should be Hapsburg's. I need more coffee and a better spell check!

[xzins]

I knew it was a typo.

[redgolum]

It is tempting to consider, therefore, that he was hardly peaceable pawn he is portrayed as.

LOL! Luther may have been a pawn, but he was as loudmouth as any German can be! He had the tendency to speak his mind, and could throw insults with the best of them (ok, Augustine vs Jerome is better, but not quite as funny to me). Luther's main problem was that he was not political and didn't see any of the political games being played as important. The reason he fled to the castle during the Peasants Revolt was that he realized he had given the peasants reason to revolt (raising the peasant's boot ) the nobles reason to kill them. Both sides took something he said and used it to full fill their own aims. That troubled Luther greatly.