Explain to me Martin Luther

[TimelessTheist]

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]

"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]

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]

>Paprika talking about "militant attitudes"
>Irony

Oh, there's nothing wrong with militant attitudes per se, but yours is rather silly. Carry on.

[Catholicity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.