Posted on 01/03/2008 8:04:03 AM PST by Sopater
On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.
In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.
Shouldn’t this be in “Breaking News?”
And the misconceptions continue today. Sad. Or, perhaps the sentence is just written poorly. I guess I'll assume that for the sake of charity.
For the record though, "indulgences" are not a "sin for free card", nor are they "forgiveness of sin". They pay for the temporal, not eternal, consequence of sin that a just God demands. His Son was (and is) the only one that can pay for the eternal consequence; but just as when you break a window, you should pay to get it fixed (even if its owner forgives you) to be just, when you sin against God, to be wholly just and pure, you are not only asked to pay for the eternal consequence (which only the Son can do for you), but also the temporal consequence (which you either do through prayer and good works of your own or by tapping into the unlimited merit gained by the Saints before you, via indulgences, or by time in Purgatory).
And indulgences could never be bought or sold in the Church before Luther; it was the acts of a few corrupt individuals that did that, not official Church policy; so the Church didn't "change" then either.
But these facts are always dismissed by those all to eager to disparage the Church for whatever (usual) personal reason.
When the bishops were absentee caretakers & Rome didn't bother with discipline, what does official church teaching mean if it's not the truth on the ground? In the places where the corrupt & undereducated were running the show, corruption & neglect becomes the default understanding by a share of the flock.
Considering Marty’s obsession with excrement (wrote several treatises on the subject), it should have been called the “95 Feces.”
Not even a Christian, just pointing out one of the eccentricities of Friar Martin.
1517-1521: Martin Luther’s preaching divides Bavaria and Germany.
1529: Muslims sweep across Bavaria, laying siege to Vienna.
Care to speculate why the Bavarian regions of Germany are Catholic, whereas the Northern regions are Lutheran?
I’ll give you hint: the defenders of civilization included Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Austrians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Portuguese... Hmmm... Wherever did the Germans go? Oh, Henry? Henry? Wherefore art thou, Henry? Whatever was King Henry doing in the 1530s? Gustav?
Yes, actually most are enthusiastically proclaimed by the Catholic Church. You’ll notice that at this stage, Luther even proclaims the efficacy of indulgences, and speaks as on the side of the pope! (”Those are enemies of Christ, and the Pope, who...”)
Closer to Rome and the thumb of the church.
>> A perfect example of an insular Vatican not seeing the growing fire all around them... <<
Well, it WAS in Rome, quite many days’ journey away (and through the treacherous Switzerland). Certainly, the result would have been preferably if Rome had been as adept at hailing the many important truths of Luther as they were at condemning the errors. But then also the results would have been far more preferable if Luther had deviated from the Theses towards Rome a fraction as much as he deviated from them to oppose Rome, allowing himself to be manipulated by scoundrel lords who simply saw him as an excuse to abandon their defense of civilization, using him much as liberals used budget concerns in the 1980s to oppose defense budgets.
And having nothing to do with the Muslim armies occupying their lands or their neighboring lands? That’s right: In 1529, Islam lay between Germany and Rome. And Luther pronounced Mohammed preferable to the Pope.
Henry, had been forced by the Church to cede most of his holdings on the continent & his excommunication was an open invitation to any prince in good standing with the Church to claim his crown. Good Catholics were a greater risk to him than the Muslims were.
Prussian princes had been made vassals with the help of the Church a mere few centuries earlier. Holy Roman Emperor indeed.
German's knew what the yoke of the Pope felt like, after Rome sent the sword to convert the last pagan hold outs in Europe.
Best be able to handle the size chunk you've bit off, else you may end up choking yourself. Citing Rome's distance from portions of Her flock almost looks like support for the Eastern Orthodoxy's position that amounted to greater local control.
Certainly, the result would have been preferably if Rome had been as adept at hailing the many important truths of Luther as they were at condemning the errors.
If he'd been Italian or French instead of German they might have taken him more seriously.
But then also the results would have been far more preferable if Luther had deviated from the Theses towards Rome a fraction as much as he deviated from them to oppose Rome, allowing himself to be manipulated by scoundrel lords who simply saw him as an excuse to abandon their defense of civilization,
Those in the south didn't exactly consider Germans to be part of civilization, so what exactly were those German prince's "abandoning", a culture that mostly despised them?
Are you sure about that? I'm no scholar on Luther, but I've heard that he had a penchant for sarcasm, and the way I read these Theses, they are just dripping with it.
>> Best be able to handle the size chunk you’ve bit off, else you may end up choking yourself. Citing Rome’s distance from portions of Her flock almost looks like support for the Eastern Orthodoxy’s position that amounted to greater local control. <<
I’ll only defend Rome inasfar as doctrine; I’ll cede many a point about bad governance.
>> If he’d been Italian or French instead of German they might have taken him more seriously. <<
Or perhaps had he lacked his tendency towards provocation, sarcasm, and exaggeration that are cited by his defenders as explanations for his more outrageous comments.
>> Those in the south didn’t exactly consider Germans to be part of civilization, so what exactly were those German prince’s “abandoning”, a culture that mostly despised them? <<
Uh, the conflict against the Muslims?
Does this sound sarcastic?
“The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).”
In that passage he seems to be arguing that the pope has no authority to release souls from purgatory himself, but he does seem to assert that intercessions are effective in granting remission to the souls in purgatory.
Today, not. But as I understand it, in 1521, the Bishop of Rome claimed authority of Emperors, Kings, Dukes, and all civil government. Kings were only vassals and representatives of Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.