Posted on 12/07/2005 4:35:34 AM PST by HarleyD
If you ask any good Protestant about the trial of Martin Luther, they will almost certainly proceed to tell you about his trial before the Diet of Worms. They will tell you that church officials demanded Luther recant of his theological views and his criticism and that he responded by saying something like “I will only first show me in the Bible where I am wrong.” Then, if that good Protestant knew their history well enough, they would go on to tell you that those same church officials refused to do that but instead persisted in their demand that he recant his errors as they saw and outlined them in their charges.
Then they would probably end by telling you that Luther concluded his response by saying, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, —my conscience is and will remain bound by the Word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. HERE I STAND, I CAN DO NO OTHER; MAY GOD HELP ME? AMEN!”1
Now if that is what the good Protestant you were talking to told you about Luther’s trial they would, in fact, be right…but they would only be partially right and the reason they would only be partially right is because Luther was tried not one time, but three times.
Now I am making that point because I think it is important for you to understand that the argument between Luther and the Catholic Church developed as it went along. Luther did not pass directly from the Door at Wittenberg to the Diet of Worms. There was a continual dialogue, a continual argument…there was…a great deal of interaction between Luther and the Catholic Church between Wittenberg and Worms. In fact, along the way, the Catholic Church actually granted a number of concessions regarding Luther’s principal objections to the sale of indulgences. And it did that while it simultaneously attempted to reel in abusive men like Tetzel by formally charging them with disturbing the peace and purity of the church. I think you could even say that many of those in the hierarchy of the church were perfectly willing to offer up Tetzel as a burnt offering, and I am not speaking metaphorically when I say that, in order to put an end to the conflict.
But the Catholic Church was always a step or two behind in the argument. Each time it found itself willing to make a concession to pacify Luther or the Germans it found that the argument had already moved on to some other issue and there is a reason for that. The reason for that is that it took awhile for the parties to realize what they were really fighting over. In fact, even today, a few scholars still disagree over the nature and substance of the real argument behind the Reformation but that is because they find it difficult to admit that people could ever really argue about theology for the sake of truth. They want to say, instead, that the theological argument was a convenient cover up for a developing German nationalism and discontentment. Or they want to say that the Reformation was really a battle over excessive taxation or even an increased desire for individual rights and freedom. But all that is wrong and here I am giving you my opinion and not charging you anything extra for doing that. The real fight was over how men are made right with God. That is, it was over how men are justified before a holy and righteous God.
Now it took everyone awhile to realize that that was the fight was about. For awhile the church thought it was over indulgences and then it thought the conflict was over the authority of the Pope and I guess you would have to say that there was a sense in which that was true for a moment in time. But the real issue, the heart of the matter, was the doctrine of justification.
R.C. Sproul does a wonderful job explaining this careful distinction between the issues of authority and justification, in his book Faith Alone. Now to do that, he uses Aristotle’s famous categories of cause. You see, Aristotle made a very careful distinction between the natures of different kinds of causes. He distinguished between material cause, formal cause, final cause, efficient cause and instrumental cause. Now I don’t want you to get bogged down in any of this so let me make it as simple as I can.2
Let’s say a woman makes a cake. The material cause would be the material or stuff out of which the cake is made of: flour, eggs, milk, sugar, etc. The formal cause, or the form or pattern used, would be the recipe for in her favorite recipe book or in the Duncan Hines manufacturing plant where the box of cake mix was made. The final cause, or the end for which it was designed, would be the birthday party for the woman’s grandchild. The efficient cause, the principal agent causing the thing to be made, would be the grandmother. The instrumental cause would be the mixer that mixed the cake or the oven where it was cooked or the pan in which it was cooked or whatever.
Anyway, in his book Sproul focuses on the two principal underlying causes of the Reformation. That is, he focuses on the formal and the material causes of the Reformation. Sproul argues that the formal cause of the Reformation was the issue of authority. That is, the issue of the authority was the form that the argument took and it focused on this question, “Is the ultimate authority for a Christian a combination of the Pope, the magisterium, and the councils or is it the Bible?” Now if you are strictly looking at the form the argument took then I think Sproul is exactly right.
But Sproul goes on to argue that the material cause of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification. That is, is a sinner justified by grace through faith on account of Christ by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, or is it necessary for a Christian to maintain his justification by the combination of works of love and penance for our sins? And you can see, I think, where that question raises another, “Is justification a singular act in time graciously based upon the atoning work of Christ or is justification a process based partly on the work of Christ and partly upon our own works of righteousness?” Brothers and sisters, do you see the importance of the question? I hope you do.
Anyway, we are going to look this morning at Luther’s three trials and doing that we are going to focus on the formal cause or issue of authority. That is, we are going to focus on the principal “form” the argument took but before we do that I think I ought to add that if you consider the five solas of the Reformation you can see how they really match up with these five categories of cause from Aristotle. I mean think about it. The formal cause of the Reformation was authority. Which of the five solas matches up to that? Sola Scriptura, of course. The material cause of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification. Which of the five solas matches up to that? Sola Fide, of course.
The final cause of the Reformation or the end result of the Reformation was the glory of God. Which of the five solas matches up to that? Soli Deo Gloria, of course.
The efficient cause of the Reformation was God’s kindness. Which of the five solas matches up to that? Sola Gratia, of course.
And lastly, the instrumental cause of the Reformation was the redemptive work of Christ. Which of the five solas matches up to that? Solus Christus, of course. Now all that has taken us away from our topic but it is Christmas and I wanted to give something special.
Now, as I said earlier, the formal cause of the Reformation was the issue of authority and the problem that the Catholic Church had in addressing the issue of authority with Luther is that the argument kept developing and they were always one step behind in the discussion. You can see that, I think, especially in the three trials Luther faced in his opposition first to indulgences and then to papal authority. Now, I don’t want to give you the impression that Luther always realized what was happening. I am not sure that he did. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that that is how things worked out. Now let’s press on.
Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the Door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517 and they were immediately translated and distributed across Germany in a matter of weeks. Luther went from obscurity to national and even international fame overnight. Now at the same time he posted the 95 Theses he mailed a letter and a copy of the 95 Theses to Albrecht the Archbishop of Mainz, who you will remember really started the whole mess when he decided to buy his third and most important bishopric and thus become one of the seven electors of the Holy Roman Empire.
In his letter to Albrecht, Luther assumed that the new Archbishop had no idea of Tetzel’s abuses and he wanted to inform him because he viewed Albrecht as the undershepherd responsible for a whole number of souls that were being deluded through the sale of indulgences. Albrecht, who as I mentioned last week, had no theological inclination or understanding simply forward Luther’s letter and copy of the Theses on to Rome to Pope Leo X.
By August of 1518, almost ten months after the posting of the 95 Theses, Luther was summoned by the Pope to appear in Rome within sixty days to answer charges regarding his protestations against the selling of indulgences. During that time, Luther decided to write an explanation of each of the 95 Theses explaining what he had meant by each point he had made in the Theses. He did that at that same time he made another important discovery using Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. Roland Bainton puts it like this:
The Latin for Mart. 4:17 read penitentiaqn agite,“do penance,” but from the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, Luther had learned that the original meant simply ‘‘be penitent.’’ The literal sense was “change your mind.’’ ‘‘Fortified with this passage,” wrote Luther to Staupitz in the dedication of the Resolutions, “I venture to say they are wrong who make more of the act in Latin than of the change of heart in Greek.’’ This was what Luther himself called a “glowing” discovery. In this crucial instance a sacrament of the Church did not rest on the institution of Scripture.
Do you see what I mean?
Anyway, Rome had summoned Luther to appear in Rome in sixty days.
Frederick the Wise, the elector of Saxony and therefore Luther’s principal temporal lord, interceded on behalf of Luther and asked Pope Leo X to allow Luther to be examined in Germany by the papal delegate, Cardinal Cajetan, at an upcoming meeting of the Diet…it was called a Diet whenever the seven electors met officially with the Holy Roman Emperor. Frederick argued that whatever advantage Luther might enjoy by being examined in Germany would be more than offset by his being examined by so eminently qualified and astute a man as Cardinal Cajetan.
Now what is surprising about that is that Rome agreed with Frederick and agreed even to allow Luther to be examined privately by Cajetan and not before the Diet. Rome’s reasoning for that was simple. They wanted something in return. They wanted the seven electors and the Holy Roman Emperor to go on a crusade against advancing Muslims, the used the term “Turks”, in the east. They not only wanted them to go on a crusade against the Muslims but they wanted them to finance the crusade as well. Rome’s thinking was that if they were to make the concession with regard to Luther being examined in Germany instead of Rome, the electors and the Emperor would approve whatever Cajetan decided regarding Luther and agree to finance and undertake the crusade as well.
Rome could not have been more wrong about both things.
The first day of the Diet after the niceties were out of the way, the Diet rejected the idea of sending a crusade against the Muslims and it rejected the idea of paying any additional tax to make it happen. The princes felt they had already been put upon enough by Rome. They responded in a brief written statement noting their grievances and then they replied in an uncharacteristically nasty way:
Cajetan kept on insisting that Luther recant. Luther refused. They yelled at each other. Luther wanted to be shown where he was in error. Cajetan refused at first to accommodate Luther at all. Finally he responded that Luther’s principal error was the denial of the Treasury of Merit set forth in a papal decree by Clement VI in 1343. Cajetan went on to say that Luther by his words and actions denied the Treasury of Merit. Luther stood silently looking at Cajetan. Cajetan held the document and said, “This document says that the merits of Christ are a Treasure to the church.”
Without blinking, Luther said, “If that is what it says I will recant of everything.” Cajetan smiled and agreed to turn in the text and handed it to Luther to read. Luther said, “This says that Christ’s merits acquired for us a Treasure…not that they are a treasure. To be and to acquire do not mean the same thing. If his merits acquire a treasure they are no longer the treasure itself. You need not think we Germans are ignorant of grammar.”4 Luther continued, “Scripture is above the pope.”
The cardinal reminded Luther that Scripture has itself to be interpreted. The pope is the interpreter. The pope is above a council, above Scripture, above everything in the Church. ‘‘His Holiness abuses Scripture,” retorted Luther. “I deny that he is above Scripture.” The cardinal flared up and bellowed that Luther should leave and never come back unless he was ready to say, “Revoco”—”I recant.”5
“Retract!” said Cajetan; “retract! or if you do not, I shall send you to Rome to appear before judges commissioned to take cognizance of your affair. I shall excommunicate you with all your partisans, with all who are or who may be favorable to you, and reject them from the Church. All power has been given me in this respect by the holy apostolic see. Think you that your protectors will stop me? Do you imagine that the pope cares anything for Germany? The pope’s little finger is stronger than all the German princes put together.”6
The meeting ended. Luther was not quite sure what to do. He didn’t know whether to run for it or stay. That night Cajetan had supper with Staupitz and insisted that Staupitz tell Luther to recant. Staupitz answered, “I cannot keep up with his knowledge of Scripture. You are the pope’s representative. It’s up to you.”7
That night Staupitz released Luther from his monastic vows so he would not be bound to turn him over to Rome even if Rome insisted. Luther waited for a week and then heard a rumor that Cajetan had been granted the right to arrest him.
That night the city gates were guarded, presumably to keep Luther from escaping. With the help of friendly citizens, Luther escaped on a donkey through a breach in the city wall. He rode all night reaching Wittenberg two days later on the one year anniversary of pasting the 95 Theses. He had temporarily escaped. The next month he appealed for a general council. That is, he appealed to have his case heard by a council…arguing that while Scripture stood in ascendancy over the pope and councils…councils stood higher than the pope.
Two months later, in January 1519, the Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian died. I think here is a very real sense in which his death kept Luther from being burned at the stake.
It was expected by everyone that Charles V, Maximilian’s nephew, would succeed him. Rome did not want that to happen. Rome wanted Frederick the Wise to succeed him and as a result was willing to humor him. Frederick the Wise wanted Luther to have a hearing. Rome sent Frederick the Wise a full-size rose made out of pure gold as a sign of its affection. If even offered a cardinalship if he could get Luther to recant. Interestingly, the cardinalship was not for Frederick, it was for Luther.
In June 1519, Luther obtained permission to have a hearing at Leipzig and to debate the issue of indulgences with John Eck for some three days. A week before the debate, Frederick the Wise and the other electors chose Charles the V, as the new Holy Roman Emperor. At that debate, Luther no longer argued that church councils were above the pope. In fact, he argued that even church councils could err and that Scripture alone was the suitable guide for Christians.
On the second day of the debate, Eck accused him of following Wycliffe and Huss. During the night Luther went back and read the account of the Council of Constance, the council which had condemned Huss. The next day, Luther stated in the debate that while he had always thought that Huss had been wrong, he now saw that Huss had been right and that the council had been wrong in condemning him to death. The audience and the papacy groaned.
The debate ended and Rome ordered Luther to appear in Rome in sixty days. In October 1520, Luther published his book redefining the sacraments, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Luther’s books were condemned and burned at Cologne.
Luther publicly burned the pope’s bull directed against him.
Rome issued an edict against Luther calling for his condemnation…formally excommunicating him. In April 1521, he was called to Worms…not to debate…not to discuss…not even really to recant. He was called there to be formally condemned and here I am going to let Philip Schaff tell you the story.
…Eck, as the official of the Archbishop, put to him, in the name of the Emperor, simply two questions in Latin and German, - first, whether he acknowledged the books laid before him on a bench (about twenty-five in number) to be his own; and, next, whether he would retract them…Luther’s advocate, who stood beside him, demanded that the titles of those books be read. This was done. Among them were some inoffensive and purely devotional books as an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and of the Psalms.
Luther was apparently overawed by the August assembly, nervously excited, unprepared for a summary condemnation without an examination, and spoke in a low, almost inaudible tone. Many thought that he was about to collapse. He acknowledged in both languages the authorship of the books; but as to the more momentous question of recantation he humbly requested further time for consideration, since it involved the salvation of the soul, and the truth of the word of God, which was higher than any thing else in heaven or on earth. We must respect him all the more for this reasonable request, which proceeded not from want of courage, but from a profound sense of responsibility.
The Emperor, after a brief consultation, granted him “out of his clemency” a respite of one day.
One catholic observer (Aleander) reported on the same day to Rome, that the heretical “fool” entered laughing, and left despondent; that even among his sympathizers some regarded him now as a fool, others as one possessed by the Devil; while many looked upon him as a saint full of the Holy Spirit…
That same evening Luther recollected himself, and wrote to a friend: “I shall not retract one iota, so Christ help me.”
The next day, Thursday, the 18th of April, Luther appeared a second and last time before the Diet. It was the greatest day in his life. He never appeared more heroic and sublime. He never represented a principle of more vital and general importance to Christendom.
He was…kept waiting two hours outside the hall, among a dense crowd, but appeared more cheerful and confident than the day before. He had fortified himself by prayer and meditation, and was ready to risk life itself to his honest conviction of divine truth. The torches were lighted when he was admitted.
Dr. Eck, speaking again in Latin and German, reproached him for asking delay, and put the second question in this modified form:, “Wilt you defend all the books which you acknowledge to be yours, or recant some part?”
Luther answered in a well-considered, premeditated speech, with modesty and firmness, and a voice that could be heard all over the hall.
After apologizing for his ignorance of courtly manners, having been brought up in monastic simplicity, he divided his books into three classes:
(2) Books against the corruption and abuses of the papacy, which vexed and martyred the conscience, and devoured the property of the German nation: these he could not retract without cloaking wickedness and tyranny.
(3) Books against his popish opponents: in these he confessed to have been more violent than was proper, but even these he could not retract without giving aid and comfort to his enemies, who would triumph and make things worse.
He was requested to repeat his speech in Latin. This he did with equal firmness and with eyes upraised to heaven.
Eck, in the name of the Emperor, sharply reproved him for evading the question; it was useless, he said, to dispute with him about views which were not new, but had been already taught by Hus, Wyclif, and other heretics, and had been condemned for sufficient reasons by the Council of Constance before the Pope, the Emperor, and the assembled fathers. He demanded a round and direct answer, without “horns.”
This brought on the crisis.
Luther replied, he would give an answer “with neither horns nor teeth.” From the inmost depths of his conscience educated by the study of the word of God, he made in both languages that memorable declaration which marks an epoch in the history of religious liberty:
On reaching his lodgings, Luther threw up his arms, and joyfully exclaimed, “I am through…I am through.” In the presence of others, he said, “If I had a thousand heads, I would rather have them all cut off one by one than make one recantation.”8
When Luther left the Bishop’s palace greatly exhausted, the old Duke Erik of Brunswick sent him a silver tankard of Eimbeck beer, after having first drunk of it himself to remove suspicion. Luther said, “As Duke Erik has remembered me today, may the Lord Jesus remember him in his last agony.” The Duke thought of it on his deathbed, and found comfort in the words of the gospel: “Whosoever shall give unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, he shall in no wise lose his reward.”9
Now Luther had been granted a safe conduct. That is, he had been granted a safe conduct to and from Worms…which meant that he was supposed to be able to come and go without being arrested. After the decision of the Diet, he was, of course, on his own. Luther left, intending to head back straight to Wittenberg and he left in a hurry remembering that Huss had been granted a safe conduct and had been arrested and burned at the stake just the same. Luther never made it back to Wittenberg. He was kidnapped before he got there…but he was kidnapped by his friends… men under the direction of Frederick the Wise. He was escorted off to Wartburg Castle to be kept in protective custody there for almost two years…imagine that…while the church scoured the country looking for Luther to arrest him. During his exile at Wartburg, Luther translated the Bible into German for the first time.
So what are we to make of the role Luther played in the Reformation and the recovery of the gospel? Without question it is wonderful, almost too wonderful for words. If ever there was a reluctant hero, it was Luther. He was not the best preacher, or by his own admission the best theologian. He was prone to bursts of profanity and sarcasm. He was always plain spoken. Indeed, sometimes he spoke when he should have held his peace but never in the history of the world had there been a man so utterly in love with the gospel. I wonder if it was because Luther had a genuine understanding of the depth of his own sin. Today, we gloss over sin not from bad motives but out of compassion. But Luther knew no such gentility. He wrestled with his sin and the bleakness of what the mystics called “the dark night of the soul”. What he discovered was that the gospel was outside of himself. He had been looking for some mystical ladder to appropriate God’s smile and found God condescending to save him in the blood and sweat of the cross. That’s why he could say:
If you do not want to go wrong or be lost, then believe Scripture, which testifies that all men are sinners and that no man living is just in the sight of God. To become just they will have to become so through Christ, the blessed Seed, who was promised to Adam, Abraham, and others as He who should crush the serpent’s head and redeem the whole world from the curse. This He has done. He has taken the sin of the whole world upon Himself, has become a curse for us, and in this way has redeemed from the curse all who believe on Him. Such knowledge and faith make a joyous heart which can say with certainty and assurance: I am no longer conscious any sins, for all of them rest on the shoulders of Christ, and they surely cannot rest on Him and on us at the same.10
Let’s pray.
The History of the Reformation…The Goose That Became a Swan…John Huss (Part 2)
The History of the Reformation… The Morning Star of the Reformation… John Wycliffe (Part 3)
The History of the Reformation…De Haeretico Comburendo… The Lollards (Part 4)
The History of the Reformation...The Little Red Bible Chained to the Wall (Part 5)
The History of the Reformation…The Cowl (Part 6)
The History of the Reformation…Rome and Romans (Part 7)
The History of the Reformation…The Door…(Part 8)
THE ROOTS OF THE REFORMATION (Part 2) BY KARL ADAM
THE ROOTS OF THE REFORMATION (Part 3/5)
History ping. Only 3 left in this series.
Thanks for the posting.
I am struck by the mistakes in translation from Greek to Latin. Is it possible that Jerome was driven by pressure from within the institutional structure of the RCC, or were they just mistakes?
I am surprised to learn that the RCC still offers indulgences today.
From part 8: defective view - must be the understatement of all time
Thanks.
Excellent article. I am learning much from this series. Thanks for the ping.
It was a mistake only if you take as true Luther's theology about repentance. This is a good example of claiming as fact what is in fact a dispute about interpretation. Sproul needs to read some medieval theologians before he pontificates about justification. Read Alister McGrath, Justitia Dei. McGrath is an Evangelical Protestant but he's honest enough a scholar (unlike the author of this article) to recognize that the Reformers introduced a totally new understanding of justification. McGrath thinks this is good because he thinks Augustine misunderstood the Hebrew terms translated in the Septuagint and that Luther and the humanists recovered the original forensic, or courtroom, meaning of the Greek terms. One can equally well look at the philology of the humanists as primitive--they failed to take into account that the secular Greek use of the terms involved would not govern their use in a religious text translating Hebrew theology, in the Septuagint. So Luther's reliance on the modernist scholarship of his day (humanism) actually led to a misunderstanding of what the Greek text meant when it was written and used by Paul.
In terms of methodology in biblical exegesis, what Luther did was to employ contemporary (modernist, from "modernus" meaning "now") methods that were primitive forays at lower criticism, and he ended up with false results because he didn't think through all the implications of the new scholarship.
It is true that the Greek terms translating the Hebrew language about "righteous" had only courtroom acquittal meanings in secular Greek literature in Paul's day. But that doesn't mean Paul had secular court acquittal meanings in mind when he used these terms. Words can take on new meanings. For centuries these Greek courtroom acquittal terms had been used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew words that for the Jews clearly meant "become righteous" not merely "be declared righteous" or "acquitted." Paul was a Jew, steeped in the Jewish understanding of becoming righteous. When he read and used Greek courtroom acquittal terms in writing about righteousness, he thought in Hebrew terms. In other words, when one translates into a new language, the force of the meaning of what is translated can, over time, give new meaning to the words of the host language used to translate. One sometimes has to, in translating, use words that have only one, inadequate, set of connotations in the host language but their meaning becomes clear because the material, the content, being translated moves powerfully in the direction of a different meaning. That the Hebrews understood righteousness to be something we really are (or aren't) not merely a matter of courtroom acquittal, seems obvious to me. If one reads all the Hebrew scriptures on this subject in Greek dress (the Septuagint) again and again, as Paul would have done, the non-courtroom-acquittal meaning of "righteousness" would have come through.
Thus, if we wish to know what Paul meant by these terms (which Luther did, because he accused the Catholic church of misinterpreting them in the Church's theology of justification and salvation), going to secular Greek literature of the day by itself won't help. Yet that's what the humanist scholars on whom Luther depended did. And Luther could not see how limited, how narrow his exegetical method was. In short, the Reformation theology of justification rested on uncritical use of poor scholarship that had only recently come on-line. Luther was a modernist.
1. Translating a long article Wicks wrote for the Dictionnaire de Spiritualite is the book Luther and his spiritual legacy (Wilmington, Del. : M. Glazier, Date: 1983)
2. Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy>/i> (Catholic University of America Press, 1978)
3. Luther's reform : studies on conversion and the church, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz. Beiheft ; 35 (Mainz : Verlag P. von Zabern, Date: 1992)
4. Man yearning for grace; Luther's early spiritual teaching (Washington, Corpus Books, 1968)
Wicks studied carefully the archives relating to the Cajetan story. Cajetan did not accuse Luther of heresy. He told him he was a rash theologian. As I have posted before, behind his back, others were maneuvering to have Luther arrested for heresy. The story as told here is an embellished Protestant myth. Wicks admires Luther. He is not a Catholic hack historian. And he's a far more careful historian than the sources upon with this preacher depends.
The specific details of the events of 1518 based on Wick's archival studies were published in a long article in a scholarly journal about the time of the book Luther and His Spiritual Legacy. I don't have the citation immediately at hand but perhaps can post it later. But the guts of his argument will be found in his 1992 book.
I find in reading both perspectives on this subject Catholic authors present their views from the authority of the Church (sympathetic to Rome) while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther). This shouldn't surprise us for that's where the road of indulgences led us. I doubt if an author, let alone a reader, can be very objective.
One cannot fault Cajetan because he was entrenched in the beliefs of the authority of the Church. He was a fast riser (a Cardinal at 21) and probably had visions of being Pope. His "feather in his cap" would have been to have Luther publicly recant in front of all Germany. It was certainly a throne in his side when he was unable to do so. I suspect Rome was pretty mad at him and Cardinal Cajetan saw his Popeship being flushed down the toilet (understanding that indoor plumbing had not been invented.)
I think it’s just as equally wrong to say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan. Luther was firm in his convictions just as Cajetan was. Catholics like to paint Luther as just willy-nilly coming up with a “new” theology. After he was told to recant his writings and he said he had to think about it, I’m sure he mentally went through all the years of Church fathers writings and compared it against what he had written. His affirmation of his writings was based just as much on history as Cajetan view was. But what spur Luther on was the paying for indulgences was clearly wrong, had no basis in scripture and yet the Church persisted in arguing in favor of the practice simply by saying the Pope can make up any rule He wishes.
You no doubt disagree with Luther stance on this, but in this lay the heart of the Reformation.
I give you evidence that others in the Church were to blame (in the Curia) and evidence that the portrayal of Cajetan as having treated Luther as a heretic is simply false. I did not exonerate the Catholic Church. Luther was wronged, but not by Cajetan. Cajetan was utterly fair to him and the sermon you posted utters calumny against Cajetan.
You do no research to evaluate my claims. You simply speculate solely out of your own brain and place the blame entirely on Cajetan, whom you portray as a venal and evil man.
Now that is a sin against Christian charity, Harley. You have stated what you cannot know to be true as an explanation for what happened. You have borne false witness against us Catholics, after I offered you a nuanced understanding of what happened: Luther had legitmate complaints about abuses; he did some poor theologizing at the same time, Cajetan called him on the poor theologizing but agreed that many abuses needed correcting; Cajetan was stabbed in the back by members of the Curia. The posted article distorts this. You come back and portray Cajetan as venal.
You now cannot plead ignorance, Harley. Show where I'm wrong by showing evidence from the sources, not from some hack Protestant apologist, of Cajetan's venality or power-hunger or else apologize. Some day you will have answer for asserting what you cannot really know to be true.
Cajetan's writings are readily available in English. I cited them in my previous posting. I have read them. Have you?
Now, I did not write simply from a biased Catholic perspective. I showed where plenty of blame lies on Catholic shoulders. The articles by Karl Adam that have been posted recently excoriates the abuses in the late medieval church. (I have two or three quibbles with Adam's account, which I will post soon, but otherwise, I would agree with him.) So you cannot reasonably simply dismiss what I wrote as "biased Catholic."
Secondly, I did not say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan. You use that as a premise upon which to tee off against Cajetan, saying, in effect, "so's your mother." But I did not fault Luther for obstinacy here. I do fault him (as Karl Adam does) for obtinacy later. As I have posted at least twice before, Luther and Cajetan might have reached an agreement about which theological points Luther ought to repudiate, not as a heretic, but as a rash theologian. But this failed in large part because Luther and Cajetan were undermined by sinful dealings of members of the curia. So your premise--that we Catholics say Luther was obstinate to Cajetan--is something I have not alleged. I have praised Luther's actions up to this point. (One of my criticisms of Adam's account is that he places Luther's going off the rails way too early, in 1512.) I fault his actions after this point. I praise Cajetan's actions. Both Cajetan and Luther acted honorably and fairly in this exchange, which is why the way it's portrayed in the sermon you posted is so false and misleading. I fault others in the Church who undermined both Luther and Cajetan's efforts to reach a settlement theologically, before Luther could be charged with heresy. He was not a heretic at this point and he would not have become a heretic had he not reacted to the injustice done against him by throwing overboard fundamental principles of Christian Catholic teaching. He had not done so up to this point. (And here, again, I disagree slightly with Adam, although Adam does not accuse him of serious error before 1520, rather says that Luther was psychologically and theologically predisposed to error in the period from about 1510 to 1520. Here too, I disagree--and rely on Wicks's careful examination of this period for my evidence.)
Harley,
You should correct this to state:
while Protestant authors present their views from the authority of their interpretation of scripture (sympathetic to Luther).
As I have attempted to show several times, there are many, many issues where there is a definite scriptural basis for traditional, apostolic Christian belief that have hence been rejected by the protestants.
Examples include:
So, in fact, it is the Protestant interpretation of scripture that is in question. The fact that there are so many diverse denominations, all of which say they possess the authentic Christian message, many of which claim exclusivity, that have developed since the time of Wyclif, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli is the most telling evidence of this point.
After all, if this was not the case, there would be no need for the Lutherans (ECLA, LCMS, WCLA, etc.), the Disciples of Christ (+First Christian), the Methodists (plus AME, CME, Weslyan, Nazarene, etc.), the Baptists (General, Southern, Independent, Free-Will, Primative, United, etc.), the Church of Christ (in various permutations), the Assemblies of God, the Four-Square, the Pentacostals, the Holiness, the Reformed, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterians (PCUSA, PCA, etc.), the Mennonites, etc. This is not to mention the smaller groups and the non-affiliated churches, many of whom have their own theology. And I'm sure I left out some group (no offense intended).
I am not trying to mock any of these denominations, but all of these differences exist among Protestant denominations. All of them claim to assert the primacy of the Bible and hold to the principle of sola scriptura and sola fide.
There are certain denominations that state that you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit in order to be assured of salvation. There are other denominations that state that the gifts of the Holy Spirit disappeared at the time of the apostles. Both sides, in their extreme, claim that those who don't subscribe to their beliefs are going to Hell. Not only that issue: there are some who do not subscribe to Jesus being the second person of the Trinity (e.g., United Pentacostal, Jehovah's Witnesses). Some Protestant denominations would hesitate calling these people Christians, because they deny the Trinity. People from these groups accuse Trinitarians of idolatry. Both sides claim scripture as their authority.
So your statement that Protestant authors present their views from the authority of scripture (sympathetic to Luther) rings hollow to me as a Catholic, because I see all the division within the protestant camp. If that statement was true, Western Christianity would consist of two groups: protestants (with the only subdivisions being merely stylistic) and Catholics. It's clear that an individual's interpretation of scripture is essential in the Protestant camp, as much if not more so than the authority of scripture itself.
The above is not intended to offend or mock anybody's beliefs. It is simply my observations of western Protestantism and the logical conclusions I draw from those observations.
From your point of view isn't that what being a Protestant is all about?
I think that is a fair statement and a correction is in order. You are right that it was Luther's interpretation. I still don't think he "willy-nilly" pulled this out of the sky and he more than likely went back and did some serious soul searching and replayed things that he read over again in his mind. Nor can we say that this was just Luther's idea because we see the same thing in Hus and Wycliffe as well as some of Luther's supporters. But I will agree with you that you can fairly say this was what became the "Protestants' interpretation".
As far as all those various denominations you'll find those who still hold the Reformed view of Luther have very little doctrinal differences on minor points. Also, as a Protestant viewing the Catholic Church, I can say with some degree of confidence that most of us Protestants see the same sort of splintering and divisions within the Catholic Church as with the Protestants. The problem is Catholics don't want to admit it.
You replied: "From your point of view isn't that what being a Protestant is all about?."
Sir, with respect, that is irrelevant. Even if our point of view is that that's all Protestants ever do (which is false), presenting mere speculation as fact is always bad.
It's also not true that we say that Protestantism is nothing but pure speculation. Once more you have answered my claim with ad hominem: you in effect reply that I have nothing but prejudice against Protestants and thus what I write need not be taken seriously.
You have once more borne false witness. Please show me where I ever said that no Protestant ever says anything except speculation from his own brain?
I have and do say that Protestants interpret Scripture, as do Catholics and that the debate among them boils down to interpretation of Scripture. But that does not mean that all Protestant or all Catholic interpretations of Scripture spring merely out of speculation. Both Catholic and Protestant interpretations are based on a wide variety of evidence and reasoning. Sometimes they are based on speculation. Speculation is not in and of itself bad. It's when it is presented as fact or when it does not serve helpfully to figure out something that could not readily be figured out with the aid of speculation that it is bad.
Harley, I made a specific accusation against you, namely that your interpretation of Cajetan's motives was not based on evidence but was pure speculation. To be fair, you cited the supposed fact that he was named a cardinal at age 21. Then you deduced that he was a fast riser in the church, then deduced from that that he was motivated in his dealings by ambition for power, ambitions to be come pope. You have one purported fact followed by wild speculation.
Now, Harley, please read carefully: Cajetan was named a cardinal not at age 21 but at age 48 or 49. He was born in 1469, named a cardinal in 1517, after a distinguished career in the Dominican Order, including being head of the order.
So the one tiny piece of evidence upon which you built your huge tower of speculative calumny was based on a false statement that you could have checked out easily. On that you built speculation that accused Cajetan of being and evil man. This, Harley, is an evil thing that you did. There is no getting around it. It is despicable. And that is not merely ad hominem. I do not use the term despicable lightly. But what you did is dishonest and despicable.
Where did you get this factoid about Cajetan being 21 when he was made a cardinal? Did it appear in the earlier sermons by this Presbyterian hack you've been posting or did you mistranscribe it? In any case, on this ludicrous fact (it should have aroused your suspicion so that you checked it out), which I mercifully did not rub in your face in my posting, you build your whole case.
And then when I challenge your case, you come back with an ad hominem toward us Catholics as a whole, which does not apply to anything I have ever posted.
You have now not only vilified Cajetan but you have calumniated me. Once more, I ask you respectfully to admit that you have wronged both of us and retract your falsehoods.
I can say with some degree of confidence that most of us Protestants see the same sort of splintering and divisions within the Catholic Church as with the Protestants.
There are divisions and differences among people, particularly in the wake of Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae, after which it became stylish to publically dissent. The difference is that, with the exception of a couple of relatively small sedevacantist groups, the dissenters, at least, consider themselves in communion with the Holy See...and they all consider themselves Catholic.
The problem is Catholics don't want to admit it.
Oh no, we admit what exists and discuss it on a regular basis; otherwise, you would never have heard of it to begin with.
Ah, but most of us Protestants (with the exception of a couple of relatively small groups) would say we are in communion with one another as a body of believers. For all our differences we still consider ourselves Protestants.
In fact we would welcome the Catholics to take communion with us.
No. 14, Harley. Your retraction will be welcome at your convenience.
”…you in effect reply that I have nothing but prejudice against Protestants and thus what I write need not be taken seriously.” – Post 14
You have now not only vilified Cajetan but you have calumniated me.” - Post 14
Your retraction will be welcome at your convenience. Then mine will be forthcoming or you can simply refer to the first paragraph.
You sure have gall. I outlined step by step your speculations. That you tossed in a "probably" makes no difference because if you now are saying, "I didn't really mean what I speculated about Cajetan" then why did you offer it as your only argument to exonerate Luther? I took you seriously. Are you suggesting that in the future, anytime HarleyD writes "probable" we should skip over what follows because he wrote it but didn't mean it to be taken seriously?
Not to put too fine a point on it, Harley, when you wrote those things about Cajetan wanting to be pope and being ambitious, did you or did you not wish your readers to think negatively about Cajetan and to see him as dishonest and untrustworthy in his dealings with Luther?
Or did you merely toss them into the hopper for no reason at all? If so, what was the point of your posting?
And now to your "so's your old man" response: I did not speculate on your speculations, Harley. Honestly, you are incapable of understanding the words you use. I did not SPECULATE on your chain of reasoning. I outlined step by step exactly what you did. Your reasoning was in simple fact nothing but speculation based on an utterly false premise, a premise you now concede to have been false. I don't know everything about your research or reasonings or readings, Harley. I did not claim to know. But I can tell from what you wrote that you did not research Cajetan or you would not have built a tower of speculation on a false (on its face improbable) premise. From what you wrote it's obvious your reasoning was flawed, as even you admit. So my claim that you did no research is based on what you wrote and is not speculation. If you prefer, I will change my charge from "no research" to "incompetent research." That much is evident from the results of your "research." That your reasoning is incompetent is evident to everyone but yourself and Dr. Eckleburg. And my question to you about how much of Cajetan you've read remains unanswered. Surely if you have read Cajetan's writings you would have trumpeted it by now. So, is my surmise that you have not in fact false or is it perhaps (speculation) accurate?
Harley, what you just did was to admit that you were wrong on your premise and you then claimed to withdraw your speculations. Then you called on me to retract my claim that you vilified Cajetan. Now, if you were wrong about his age and wrong about your speculations that he was ambitious, mistreated Luther because he was ambitious etc., then you accused Cajetan of moral defects, accusations you now admit had no foundation in fact but existed solely in your speculation based on a falsehood about Cajetan's age. You did brand Cajetan venal when you attributed his actions to desire for power. You did vilify Cajetan. Truth is a good defense against libel. But your claims were false, as you admit. So my claim that you vilified Cajetan stands. So take your all for my retraction and stuff it.
I have nothing to retract Harley. I wish I could thank you for your retraction but you cannot even admit that you made a foolish mistake without immediately flinging new abuse. That's what I mean by calumny. You admit you were wrong but falsely accuse me of the same thing. You respond like an 11-year-old. I hope it made you feel better.
HarleyD, I'm sorry to inform you that history is not all about speculation. It employs speculation, yes. But all legitimate speculation must be based on some evidence. Your sole evidence was completely false as you admit.
And now you give yourself license to speculate about all the cardinals that ever existed. I would never be so foolish as to think I would know what goes on in the minds of even a handful of cardinals or of the two I happen to know by slight acquaintance. In the case of the one I have met and conversed with a few times (that's the evidence for the following speculation), I would have to speculate that he would very much not want to be pope even though, were he not an American, he would have been very much in the running at the last conclave. On the evidence of the writings of Gregory the Great, I would not need to speculate but can state categorically that he abhorred the idea of being pope. But he wasn't a cardinal, so, I guess he doesn't count.
Let's examine your speculation here about cardinals. What underlies your speculation is the same calumny you hurled at Cajetan: you assume that to be a cardinal is to be ambitious and eager for power, power in the Church. This certainly has nearly always been true of some although I doubt that it was true of very many bishops in the early centuries, since to be a bishop was to risk death in many cases.
You start from an implied premise--that most cardinals are ambitious (before you protest, yes, I know you implied it the other way around--that you doubt any were not--and yes, it is implied, but the implication is very clear--please spare me the specious rejoinder that you merely implied this and didn't mean it, please). What's your evidence for this implied premise? What have you read or studied about the lives of individual cardinals over the 1000 years in which they have functioned as papal electors? How many bishops have you known--really known, either in the present or by reading history? What do you know about the degree to which they are venal or ambitious or power hungry as compared to humble and compassionate and holy? I have studied a good bit of church history and I can name examples of both types. I would never be so foolish as to claim that all cardinals were of either type. If you believe that history legitimately composed of this sort of speculation, then you don't know much about historical research.
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.