Prior to Modern separation of Church and State, this is how Christian authorities proceeded almost without exception, from the exile of Arius onwards. Without the Modern understanding of the Two Kingdoms (which is certainly one way in which Modern Theology has improved on Ancient or Medieval Theology), it makes as much sense to accuse King Josiah of theft for destroying idols and ashtaroth as it does to accuse a Lutheran prince of theft for ousting Papist priests from the churches in his land.
But you agree that it was objectively theft and stealing and a violation of the Ten Commandments and can only "justify" it at all (if indeed you are doing that) based on the observation that "everyone" did it?
I don't care if every person in the history of the world did something. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Period. Now why is it that Protestants are so reluctant to admit this about their own past sins?
If the early Lutherans wanted to start a new church (i.e., an ecclesiological sense), let them build their own church (i.e., building). But instead, they not only forbade Catholics to worship as they pleased, at all, but stole their buildings to use as their own, and sacred items to plunder and line the pockets of already rich kings and princes and "nobles."
If Catholic churches were such abominations and idolatrous dens (as Luther and Calvin say ad nauseum), then the oh-so-pious-and-holy Lutherans should have (logically, from their own premises) torn them down like the ancient smashers of pagan temples and idols.
But they figured out that they could save money and time and labor by stealing them, raping the art (mostly Calvinists did that, not Lutherans) and making them good little Protestant churches, with whitewashed walls, etc.
Nor is "two kingdoms" any adequate answer: either in theory or in practice. I recently critiqued that:
Reply to Two Lutheran Pastors on Fundamental Misconceptions Regarding the Catholic Position on the Death Penalty (Including an Examination of the Lutheran "Two Kingdoms" Model of Church and State) (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pastors-
on.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2826726/
#134133
"Without the Modern understanding of the Two Kingdoms (which is certainly one way in which Modern Theology has improved on Ancient or Medieval Theology), it makes as much sense to accuse King Josiah of theft for destroying idols and ashtaroth as it does to accuse a Lutheran prince of theft for ousting Papist priests from the churches in his land."
What malarkey. Ancient and Medieval Christians knew quite well the difference between property owned by the Church and property not owned by the Church (Constantine, for instance, ordered that the Church's buildings that the pagan government had confiscated be given back to the Church). The Protestant nobles who seized the Church's property did it through simple and brazen force, disregarding the Church's ancient titles to the property that had been bequeathed to them by the ancestors of those nobles. There is no ethical, moral, or qualitative difference between what the Protestant nobles and kings did back then and what the Communists did in Russia and Europe: they simply took what didn't belong to them and put it to uses according to their own will. Explain it, put it in historical context, yes, understand it all you want -- but let's not kid ourselves. God has a word for what they did: "stealing." We've all heard of that word: it's something explicitly proscribed by the Ten Commandments.
Jordan,
They didn't take it from the Church. They took it from control of the Papists. I know that explanation won't wash with your definitions, but they weren't using your definitions. Secular rulers had removed churches from the control of heretics ever since Arius was exiled by Constantine. This was nothing new.
Dave,
Was it theft when Arian bishops were kicked out of their cathedrals and replaced by Nicene ones?
It (quite obviously, I think) depended on who owned the churches. Property is property, and that is a matter of natural law that is independent of theology. I understand that in the medieval mind correct doctrine trumped every other right, but nevertheless, theft is theft. It hardly makes sense to reverse one of the Ten Commandments in the name of the supposed rescued "Gospel".
Secondly, removing a heretical leader is entirely different from confiscation of property. That was a matter of jurisdiction, which is in turn related to who owned the property in the first place.
Now perhaps you will answer my earlier question?:
But you agree that it was objectively theft and stealing and a violation of the Ten Commandments and can only "justify" it at all (if indeed you are doing that) based on the observation that "everyone" did it?
The other contradiction inherent in this position is that Luther and Calvin are said to have regarded Catholics as fellow Christians because they had legitimate baptism, etc. This is the argument that is made. Even Josh S. acknowledges this, much as he obviously loathes and detests Catholicism.
I think it is a mixed bag. Luther and Calvin, IMHO, actually both contradict themselves and say things that don't go together or form a coherent whole. But assuming that a Lutheran or a Calvinist today accepts the fact that Catholics are Christians, and thinks that Luther and/or Calvin thought the same, then where do you get off comparing (in your analogy) Catholics to Arians, who don't even accept the Trinity, and think Jesus was a creation?
"If you can kick out the Arians, and steal their property, why not the Catholics?" How would you like it if we equated present-day Protestants with Jehovah's Witnesses, as if there were no (rather huge) qualitative difference? There is no analogy there.
It all works together. If Catholics were Christians, then how can Lutherans justify stealing their property and kicking them out, as non-Christians?
But if they aren't Christians, then why do people today who think they are Christians defend the immoral actions of those who (in this scenario) thought they were not?
Seems like you ought to be on the Catholic side of this, and on the side of natural law, and join me in condemning these actions unequivocally, just as I would vigorously condemn any similar behavior towards Lutherans (being one who hates any kind of religious persecution or intolerance).
But that in turn presents a huge problem for any advocate of the "Reformation", which was so often promulgated (indeed, even established in the first place) by such immoral means. What do you do: suggest that all the great cathedrals that the Anglicans stole should be given back to the Catholic Church and that all the confiscated wealth of the landed gentry should be returned?
That puts you in a very odd place as well. So I understand your predicament. But much better that, than defending outright immorality and sin. The "Reformation" often makes for atrocious ethical (as well as theological) analysis.
Dave,
1) Who did own the churches? The Church, or the Roman Church? Christians, or the Pope? Their situation was quite different from ours today, where multiple church entities are recognized, and they hold different property. This was the division of a single body into several. This was a divorce. Who gets the silver?
2) You claim there's a difference between expelling heretical clergy and removing the property from their control, as if one thing could be done without the other. That makes no sense.
3) The degree to which Papists are like or unlike Arians is irrelevant to my argument. I'm simply talking about the precedent that had been in place for the entire political life of Christendom: the secular ruler was to defend the true church against all heretics and false shepherds, whether they were subChristian by our more discriminating modern standards or not. Lutheran and Calvinist princes believed that the Papists were heretics and false shepherds, so they did their duty accordingly.
(Not that this covers every instance. Henry VIII may be the most flagrant example of a rascal with no theological convictions jumping on the bandwagon for his own ignoble reasons, but I have no illusions that he was the only one).
Who did own the churches? The Church, or the Roman Church?
The two are one and the same. The Catholic Church, headed at Rome by the pope, owned them, as far as I know, just as it owns churches today (or I suppose the local diocese owns it, or whatever).
Christians, or the Pope?
The historic Christian Church was not socialist, as far as I know. There was such a thing as property. Luther didn't deny this when he sanctioned the theft of church buildings. He simply stated that the Catholics had become heretics and so "the goods are no longer his." Very convenient, isn't it? But in any event, there were still goods. Changing one's view of ecclesiology on a dime doesn't make theft not theft.
Otherwise, virtually any sin could be rationalized: just invent a new doctrine supposedly rooted in the Bible, and there you go? That's what is done with abortion and homosexuality these days; why not theft in the 16th century?
Historian Will Durant (a citation in my paper) casually assumes that the Catholic Church owned these properties: "You expropriated Church property to give it to the state and the rich . . ."
Protestant historian A.G. Dickens does the same thing:
"In Sweden Gustavus Vasa deprived the Church of all its landed properties . . . The
proportion of land held by the crown increased during his reign from 5.5% to 28%:
that of the Church from 21% to nil."
Erasmus assumes the same as well:
"This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests
so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own
wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits."
Are you saying all three of them don't know what the hell they are talking about? That there was no such identifiable entity as "the Church" or "Church property" and that they are ignorant as to "church" meaning some abstract, Gnostic-like invisible entity that has no institutional, historic meaning?
This was a divorce. Who gets the silver?
If Protestants wanted to leave the established, apostolic Church, they get nothing of that Church. Let them build their own Church buildings. My five-year-old daughter could readily understand the ethics of that, but you, an educated man, cannot for some reason.
It's be like, for example, one-fourth of the Oxford University faculty leaving the university and deciding to take one-fourth of the university buildings with them. It doesn't work that way. No one would recognize such absurd, ludicrous ethics, yet when we come to theological matters, we cloak these sinful actions with piety and good intentions and can't see through the haze of 500 years passed, and justify heinous sin.
I can easily demonstrate the absurdity of your view. You go to church somewhere? Okay; give me the address, and I'll gather an army of 500 Catholics and we'll come into your service, kick you out, steal your property, smash the
(cont.)
. . . stained glass and altars, steal sacred vessels and vestments, and forbid you to worship anywhere near the place because you don't accept Catholic doctrines in toto, and are therefore enemies of the gospel. How do you like those ethics, Eric? Yet you think it's fine and dandy as long as Catholics 500 years ago are the target.
2) You claim there's a difference between expelling heretical clergy and removing the property from their control, as if one thing could be done without the other. That makes no sense.
Really now. I must say you have completely lost me. You can't comprehend that if an Arian or a Sabellian priest or Lutheran pastor started promulgating his heresies from the pulpit that his church cannot remove him without stealing a building???!!!! Please explain this one to me. There must be some scholastic subtlety that I have missed.
The Lutherans did not OWN Catholic buildings in the first place, so they had no right to steal them. Why is this so difficult? It's Christian Ethics 0101 and Natural Law 0101. Hammurabi or Solon could have easily grasped these elementary concepts of law, order, and property rights, but a Lutheran today or in the 1500s cannot?
Lutheran and Calvinist princes believed that the Papists were heretics and false shepherds, so they did their duty accordingly.
And you think this was ethical and can be defended as such, by recourse to historical exigencies?
"They didn't take it from the Church. They took it from control of the Papists."
Wrong. They took it from the Church and kept it for themselves -- they took official ownership of the property, but allowed the Protestants to use some of the property they had stolen from the Church. It wasn't just a case of replacing Catholic church ownership with Protestant Church ownership. It was a case of lands and buildings being taken by the state, with most if not all of them becoming state property, and a few of them being given to the Protestants.
"I know that explanation won't wash with your definitions,"
Nor with your definitions, for that matter.
"but they weren't using your definitions."
Of course not. As with all state intrusions into the liberty of the Church, they cloaked their crimes by redefining the words. War is peace. Love is hate. Catholicism is heresy. And Big Lutheran/Anglican/Calvinist Brother is watching you.
"Secular rulers had removed churches from the control of heretics ever since Arius was exiled by Constantine."
Trouble is, orthodox Christianity can't suddenly transform into heresy after 1,500 years. This wasn't a case of the orthodox expelling heretics and reclaiming their rightful property. This was a case of heretics and secular opportunists stealing the property that their ancestors had deeded to the orthodox. That they believed, or claimed to believe, Catholicism to be heresy is no justification for the crimes they committed.
To whom did Henry VIII give all the monasteries and convents that he pillaged? To the Church of England? Of course not. He took it for himself and then doled it out to his favorites. Those ecclesiastical possessions passed into the hands of the state, and ceased being ecclesiastical possessions.
This whole discussion serves to illustrate how a-historical Protestantism tends to be . . . .
Eric, it is interesting that you used the divorce analogy to describe the basis for confiscation of Church property. St. Francis de Sales used that same analogy to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the protestant churches that the reformers set up in the place of the Catholic Church in his book, "The Catholic Controversy" which led to the re-conversion of thousands of Calvinists back to the Catholic faith.
As far as the taking away churches away from Arian bishops, that wasn't stealing~those actions would better be described as the evictions of squatters. The Arians didn't build new churches; they occupied the Sees and positions formerly held by priests and bishops who were true to the Catholic faith. The churches and cathedrals had been built by Catholics, not Arians.
If the secular rulers were truly taking churches away from the heretical papists in the name of God, then they should have followed one of the cornerstone tenets of "sola scriptura" and followed the biblical example and razed the buildings as someone has suggested earlier.
It's all very simple folks! Those wonderful Protestant reformers were simply trying to do the world a favor by wresting, not only the bible, but also the Church’s treasure, away from that mean old superstitious and idolatrous “Sodomite Pope” and his minions in Rome!
And once freed from the “corruption” of that “most hellish father” and from the “bondage to Rome,” they could then devote themselves entirely to the imitation of the lives of the early Christian saints - lives exemplified by love, holiness, and purity.
And surely it's not possible to find fault with a movement that produced these kinds of "fruits." zzzzzzz 
Dave,
I asked, "Who did own the churches? The Church, or the Roman Church?"
You replied, "The two are one and the same."
That sums it all up. It's exactly what you ought to believe as a convinced Roman Catholic, but you shouldn't expect Protestants to share that presupposition, or act so surprised when they don't. If there is no difference, then Protestants are something new, stealing Church land. But there is a difference. Protestants are also "the established, Apostolic Church."
> You can't comprehend that if an Arian or a Sabellian priest or
> Lutheran pastor started promulgating his heresies from the
> pulpit that his church cannot remove him without stealing a
> building?
Dave, you are missing the point. What you call "stealing the building" is the same thing as removing the priest--because in the case we are talking about, it wasn't one rogue priest being removed by his own hierarchy, it was ALL the Papist priests AND their hierarchy being removed from the church in question as one large heretical party.
quote: "This whole discussion serves to illustrate how a-historical Protestantism tends to be "
No, the whole discussion is absurd in the first place. As one poster said, the Reformation was like a divorce, and both sides did some nasty things. That includes Catholics. I know of one Lutheran pastor whose ancestors had their property taken from them during the Reformation by the archbishop of Salzburg and were expelled by him from the city in the middle of winter simply because they were Lutheran.
The complaint about Protestants "stealing" churches also sounds absurd to me because usually whole towns or areas became Protestant. So what were these Protestants supposed to do, give the parish church property in their town to some out of town Catholic bishop who they no longer recognized as having spiritual authority over them and who thus would have nothing in the town but an empty church building? Really, this is silly.
But if you guys want to complain about losing church property, don't forget what a scam indulgences had become by the time of Luther. The way indulgences were done was as bad as what t.v. preachers on TBN do today. Sorry, but if you are going to talk about stealing you should at least be honest and admit what a thief and scoundrel the pope and many RC bishops were at the time.
I've never denied that there was plenty of Catholic sin; indeed I presuppose it in my discussions of the period. But I also have never condoned anything that I believe to be sin and tried to rationalize it away.
There was plenty of sin in the matter of indulgences; that its precisely why the Church reformed them. But there is plenty of misunderstanding about what they actually are, too, and lies and disinformation.
If something (anything) was truly sin, I'd be the first to freely admit and it and lament it, no matter where it comes from, and my Church has done the same. Where are the official Protestant statements of regret and remorse over past sins of Protestants?
Below are scanned images from pp. 76-83 of a much earlier edition of Calvin Theological Treatises.
I think they show that, among other things, Protestants have had, from their very beginning, quite a sorry history of taking that which was not lawful for them to take. And thus we should certainly not be surprised in the least by their casual indifference to having stolen from the Church, since these folks stole even from their defenseless own. They simply think nothing of doing such things!
Here's a whole list of things for which folks were fined/imprisoned by Calvin Inc. under the guise of the "pure gospel." I wonder if they accepted Visa and MasterCard?
http://thumbsnap.com/v/GtiVBTgl.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/BsnnVQgT.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/SbkUROIQ.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/EauYGKVW.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/3fU4vbvv.jpg
Funny, we NEVER told about THIS type of LEGALISM and EXTORTION, only about Catholic excesses.
Surely our Protestant friend MUST realize that this passage from Matthew was intended not only for wayward Catholics:
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matt. 7:5
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...v&
showtools=yes
quote: "Where are the official Protestant statements of regret and remorse over past sins of Protestants?"
Me: Well, Protestant churches don't make official statements in the same manner that the RC does.
That of course doesn't mean that they agree with everything Protestants have done in the past or don't think that the Reformers and their followers were without sin.
quote: "I think they show that, among other things, Protestants have had, from their very beginning, quite a sorry history of taking that which was not lawful for them to take. And thus we should certainly not be surprised in the least by their casual indifference to having stolen from the Church."
Me: And who was the church, pray tell? Don't forget that the Reformers didn't see the papacy as a legitimate authority or as "the church" and they didn't see themselves as outside the church. So, for example, how would a town in northern Germany that became Lutheran consider it "stealing" to use the parish church that had been in their town for years for Lutheran worship? I mean really, what were they suppose have done? Give the church building (which would have remained empty since the town was now Lutheran) to some distant Catholic bishop? And hey, it's not like the papacy gave refunds for all those indulgences so that Protestants could build their own churches. So what were Protestants supposed to have done for a place to worship?
I don't doubt that Calvin and Zwingli did some wacky, legalistic things, and I find their iconoclasm darn near heretical (I'm not Reformed if you haven't guessed). But overall, since whole towns and areas generally went Lutheran, Reformed or Catholic, I think the whole church property issue was a lot more complicated that just Protestants "stealing" things.
Anyone who knows and understands the history and culture of Europe in those days will know better than to expect either Protestants or Catholics in those days to have practiced religious toleration. It's quite understandable that the Protestants would seize churches and convert them to their own use rather than build their own, or that Catholics would try to prevent them from building their own, etc. But that doesn't make it any less a sin that they didn't practice toleration, or that they did steal church property. (BTW, Protestants did start building their own churches in short order, since many of them thought the old Catholic churches to be unsuitable and inappropriate.)
Let's not forget that the name "Protestant" arose because the Protestants were "protesting" a Catholic proposal that both Protestants and Catholics should have to right to coexist in the same territory and should try to live and let live.
Jordan says,
> the Protestants were "protesting" a Catholic proposal that both Protestants and
> Catholics should have to right to coexist in the same territory and should try to live
> and let live.
Not really. They were protesting a decision that reinstated the Edict of Worms' condemnation of Luther and attempted to freeze the progress of the Reformation at its current stage. Also the Diet they objected to had stipulated that all who denied the Real Presence (and lamentably, this includes the majority of non-Lutheran Protestants) "shall absolutely not be tolerated, no more than the Anabaptists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pro...ation_at_Speyer
You're absolutely mistaken, Eric. The 1529 diet's decision was that where Catholicism existed, it should remain undisturbed, and where Lutheranism existed, it should remain undisturbed. The "Protestant" princes, however, wanted the freedom to spread Luther's doctrines and to subvert Catholicism.
As Daniel-Rops said, at that time, "It was necessary 'to listen to the thoughts and opinions of each man with charity.' Since a council was becoming increasingly certain, it seemed more convenient to wait for its decisions before taking any action. Therefore the emperor confined himself to deciding that the Edict of Worms should be enforced in all the Catholic states, so that Lutheranism might not be allowed to penetrate those areas which still remained uncontaminated. Wherever it existed it would be tolerated subject only to the reservation that there should be no further preaching against the Eucharist, that Catholics should be allowed to celebrate Mass in their own way and that they should not be disturbed. Now this was a decision which maintained the status quo, and it should have been perfectly acceptable. But the extent of the authority already acquired by the supporters of the new doctrine is shown by the fact that this compromise was rejected. The Lutherans declined to tolerate in their midst the papist Mass, which they declared idolatrous, nor were they prepared to confine their preachers to a straightforward exposition of their theology. Supported by fourteen cities, Philip of Hesse and various other influential nobles sent the emperor a vehemnt protest, and it was thus that the supporters of the Reformation became described as Protestants."
The diet was concerned only with Catholicism vs. Lutheranism, so the stipulation about the denial of the Real Presence had nothing to do with the Lutheran princes' rejection of the compromise -- Lutherans as well as Catholics rejected Zwinglian and Calvinist redefinitions of the biblical doctrine of the Real Presence, so the Protestants who were the subject of the diet's proposal of toleration were Lutherans. No, what the Lutheran princes complained (protested) about was that they would not be allowed to spread their doctrines into Catholic states (i.e., it "reinstated" the Edict of Worms condemnation of Luther -- but only in those states where it had always been in force), and that they would no longer be allowed to persecute and kill Catholics living in Protestant states.
Jordan,
So, let me make sure I understand what you (or Daniel-Rops) are saying. An edict that:
1) Forbade all Lutheran missionary activity (a.k.a. "contamination"),
2) Forbade all criticisms of Roman Eucharistic doctrine, and
3) Insisted that Lutheran authorities must leave Romanists alone, but allowed the condemnation and persecution of Lutherans in Romanist princedoms to stand...
"...maintained the status quo, and it should have been perfectly acceptable."
I don't really know how to respond to that kind of bald-faced absurdity.
And who was the church, pray tell?
Well, I think it safe to say it sure wasn't this group of hell-raising madmen. See pages 295-300 of “A critical and historical review of Fox's Book of martyrs,: shewing the inaccuracies, falsehoods and misrepresentations in that work of deception."
http://books.google.com/books?id...+and+castles%
22
You know, reading this stuff reminds me, for some reason, of a song popular when I was a teen. That too was a time fraught with childish REBELLION AGAINST AUTHORITY. Maybe these lyrics were intended as a belated anthem of the reformation!
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
AND THE MEN WHO SPURRED US ON
SIT IN JUDGMENT OF ALL WRONG!
They decide and the shotgun sings the song!!!
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
THEN I’LL GET ON MY KNEES AND PRAY
WE DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN!
THE CHANGE IT HAD TO COME
WE KNEW IT ALL ALONG
We were LIBERATED FROM THE FOE, that' all
And the world looks just the same …
For I know that the hypnotized never lie…
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
(actually should read: TEN TIMES WORSE THAN THE OLD BOSS!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6...h?
v=6jhk5RtXJd0
Hey, isn’t that old man Calvin cranking those power chords? And that dude on bass, doesn’t he also look a bit familiar. Isn’t he, nah….
I bet Luther couldn't play drums or guitar like Moon and Townshend. The words fit, though. You have an interesting imagination.
This is actually in my Top Ten of all-time favorite rock songs. I LOVE it.
The cover fits with the analogy too, with the band peeing on existing structures. Maybe "who's next" means what church parish is next to have its church building robbed, pillaged, smashed, and stolen?
I bet Luther couldn't play drums or guitar like Moon and Townshend.
True. But nevertheless, I bet LOONY LUTHER and KOOKY KALVIN could've smashed their equipment with the best of them! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ima...galbumcover.jpg
The cover fits with the analogy too, with the band peeing on existing structures. Maybe "who's next" means what church parish is next to have its church building robbed, pillaged, smashed, and stolen?
YIKES! Maybe we should run for the hills or, at the very least, arm our pets!
In any event, one thing’s for sure: Our dear Protestant friends can’t accuse us of not being ecumenical - heck, we both love their ‘national’ anthem!
Btw, since I introduced ‘rock’ into the discussion, I thought this might be of some slight interest.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/cg9AfvoR.jpg
These are from my ‘garage band’ days c. 1975, with the color pic of me and my bass player friend (c. ’77). Because I not only jammed in the garage but also worked on it, I had to, from time to time, trade my “axe” – in this instance a Gibson SG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_SG ) -- for a saw and a headband.
How appropriate then, that I just posted my 1981-1982 blues and folk recordings! My late brother Gerry played in rock bands (organ) from 1967-1971 and was actually on a local TV music show once (Swingin' Time out of Windsor, Ontario).
defaulted government loan student defaulted government loan student defaulted government loan student. bank personal loan for bad credit bank personal loan for bad credit bank personal loan for bad credit.
Commenting by HaloScan
