The voice of him that crieth in the Bloggerness!
Without delving into the substance here, aren't you making a rather shaky assumption here -- that Leo X was fairly characterizing Luther's views, Leo's attempts at reconciliation, and Luther's response to those efforts?
Maybe I hang around too many politicians, but I'm accustomed to one side putting the other side's views and actions in the worst possible light and their own in the best possible light. Exsurge Domine wasn't principally a message to Martin Luther. It was a message to the German nobles who supported him or who were tempted to support him. It's a polemic pamphlet, and as such its assertions about the other side probably tell us more about the author than about the target of the broadside.
I have to basically agree with Michael--and I would disagree with many of your comments (esp. Purgatory)
Also to characterize Luther through this is also unfair--at the time he was working through issues--he was convicted of some truths already, but working towrds others.
His response to Leo was also based on a very real threat to his life, and on a highly political situation, as the Roman Ctaholic Church & politics were closely entwined in those days--in a way I fear we can never fully understand.
In any case I don't agree with everything Luther said or wrote--and neither did he. But I do agree with what I do see in Scripture.
And that is my final court of authority, not Luther, not Rome, not any mere human.
I too would tread cautiously in evaluating Luther through Exsurge Domine. It was not written with an eye towards trying to charitably get Luther's views right.
I tend to agree with the sentiment of many of the above comments... I don't think we can get an accurate picture of Luther's theology via ED. Unfortunately, Leo wasn't exactly a pope in the mold of JPII or B16. In many ways.
Obviously, there are problems in Luther's theology. I'm not denying that. But I don't think we can get an objective view of that theology via ED.
Joel, you said "Whose canon, Martin? Yours or the unexpurgated one? (Pardon the pun.)"
Now, I ask you this: Can we genuinely pardon a mortal pun, when you are guilty of so many more? And can we possibly show mercy to pardon, when you have asked for pardon?
Ah, maybe so. At least you didn't indicate that you were sorry for it.
Sorry, LLB above is me.
Yes, my take on it is one-sided; that's mostly a reaction to the fact that most of the accounts I've read before tend to exonerate Luther (even Catholic ones), and at best, Leo is regarded as kind of an embarrassment to the Church. If the truth lies between his account and Luther's, well, Leo's side is still worth speaking up for. The excommunication is often treated as though it were unjust, but if this is what Leo meant, then it seems pretty well-balanced.
And Michael, I know there's spin involved, and maybe Leo wasn't as charitable as he paints himself. Then again, maybe he was. At any rate, the popular image of Luther as "plucky-common-man-standing-up-to-rapacious-
authority" falls to pieces if even a significant part of what's in the Bull is accurate.
At any rate, if Luther really DID make the statements being condemned, then they deserve to be. If he didn't, then there's no reason for Lutherans to gripe about the bull, since it condemns things that didn't happen anyway.
Chhristine--I know you are just having fun with your husband--but I would classify that as a venial pun, not a mortal one (or I would if I believed in the disticnction of mortal & venial puns.)
Worthy of temporal rather than eternal pun-ishment?
Well, that's fine if all you intended was to disprove one stereotype, just be careful not to promote a different one in its place.
As for the Luther "quotes", I am always leary of this kind of apologetic, since it robs you of context and frequently this is important in nuanced discussions when a single word can be significant, not to mention the concern with whether Luther even said those things. It is all too easy to attribute what some less than careful follower of Luther says to Luther himself.
hi, i think it was very brave of you to talk about Luther in your catholic site. most catholic site leave him alone and what he thought is left out of lectures in catholic schools. catholic schools teach the Luther was a bad man but they leave out what he why he was bad.he was upset with the rampant corruption that was the hallmark of the catholic church.not to mention that the church would hunt down and kill people who had bibles or distributed them to the people. theres a good reason why the catholic church didnt want people to have bibles. the word of God would expose catholicism for what it is. a fraud
Wayne, you sound like a decent sort, so I'm going to assume you just have some poor sources of information.
I've never been to Catholic school, so I can't vouch for it directly, but I can tell you the Catholics I know regard Luther as a good guy but dead wrong theologically. Personally, as I said, I suspect he wasn't entirely compos mentis.
Corruption was indeed a problem. Luther was right about that. What he was wrong about was changing doctrines to suit himself. The Church ended up rooting out that corruption and still holding to the faith once delivered.
I don't know where you got the idea that the Church "hunted down and killed people who had Bibles." That's never happened and I'd be interested in hearing about any case where it did. The economics of the day meant that most people didn't have Bibles of their own. However, the Bible was read to them every day at Mass, and anybody who could read was welcome to read all he wanted. After the printing press was developed, it became comparatively easy to get hold of copies. Far from banning it, the Church subsidized its printing.
The canard that the Church prohibited reading the Bible was invented later to lend credibility to the Protestant reformation (and particularly the English Reformation). How do you suppose Luther could have been familiar with it, if it were prohibited? He was an Augustinian priest, after all.
If the Catholic Church didn't want people to have Bibles, it wouldn't have gone to so much effort to translate the Word into the vernacular and to spread it throughout the known world. Luther's translation wasn't even the first in German; it was (IIRC) the twenty-second.
Finally, I'd be willing to bet I know my Bible as well as you do. Much of the reason I became Catholic was because I found Luther's doctrines to be contrary to scripture.
Are there any of Luther's statements listed above that you think should have been upheld by the church instead of condemned?
hi joel, you have me a little wrong. im no devotee of Luther and what he thought. he was rite for exposing the cathoilc church. very brave thing to do at those times. my girlfriend went to catholic school 1 thru 12. i grew up with catholic friends who were in catholic school and i went to Xmas mass a number of times with them.Luther was a bad man to them. as far as the catholic church banning bibles, thats a matter of historical record. dont search history in catholic sites. do you think they will tell the horrid truth of their sorded past. i was in this site called catholic answers reading about the inquisition. the way they tell it sounds like a day at disneyland. it was absolutely funny. wouldnt gods true church be at least honest? im sorry my new friend, but you wont find honesty in the catholic church.find text books or the like to find out church history. Wycliff was hunted down by the church for translating the bible for the people.by the way, i was in europe and just about in every single town, no matter how small, there was a dungeon where the inquisitors tortured and killed non catholics. bible believes included. some were destroyed by war but tons of them remain. i dont follow Luther. i follow Jesus
Commenting by HaloScan
