Posted on 12/06/2005 2:16:55 AM PST by HarleyD
It was a Wednesday.
It was a Wednesday, October 31, 1517. It was not really all that different from the thousands of other Wednesdays that had come before. It was fall, of course, and the air had cooled down and the leaves were putting on a wonderful show of color along the River Elbe on the hillside. It was nice time to be a German. It was a nice time to live in rural Germany.
That was how I started out our first lesson some eight weeks ago and this morning we are returning, at last, to that same autumn day, October 31, 1517 with which we began our study. We are also returning to that same old door and by that I mean, of course, the door to the castle church at Wittenberg…the door where Luther posted his 95 Theses on October 31, 1517. Of course, none of that ought to be surprising. That is the place people always point to when they talk about the start of the Reformation…and there is a sense in which you can understand that perfectly.
That is why, eight weeks ago, I felt compelled to start there myself.
Of course, rather than start there and go forward in time I chose to start there and go backwards. I did that because I wanted you to see that Luther’s 95 Theses were not something that just came out of the blue. I wanted you to see the connection between Luther and Huss and Wycliffe and the Lollards. Actually, Luther’s 95 Theses were not the beginning but rather the culmination of a whole series of events…a whole series of reforming protests and actions. There was and had been a steady drumbeat of protest and opposition to the practice of selling indulgences dating back at least to the time of Wycliffe and really even farther back that that. The Door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517 was simply the place where everything came together. It was the place Luther, Huss, Wycliffe, the Lollards and the Renaissance converged. It was the place were there was enough nationalistic pride, enough freedom, enough education and enough ink and paper1 to put an end to the tyranny of the middle ages.2 And when I use that kind of language…tyranny, nationalistic pride, freedom, education, ink and paper…I am not talking politically…I am talking theologically. Wittenberg was the place where a whole number of events came together at once to launch a tremendous spiritual upheaval and you know, the thing that is surprising about all that is not so much that it happened…looking back through the historical development of opposition leading up to the Reformation you can actually see it coming. Still, the thing that is remarkable is that it happened in such an out of the way, obscure, little, backwater town. In that sense, Wittenberg was a little like Bethlehem. It was not the kind of place anyone would ever expect anything to happen that would impact the world. But it did…and what happened there still impacts the world today.
Now let me take a minute or two and refresh your memory concerning what we talked about when we first started our study together some eight weeks ago.
Martin Luther was a young professor of the Bible at the University of Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. On that particular day, he was thirty-three years old. He had only been at Wittenberg four or five years. He had been brought there by Staupitz, who was the prior of the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits and the head of theological studies at the university. He had been brought there to teach theology and the Bible. Luther had known Staupitz at Erfurt and Staupitz had been a wonderful encouragement to Luther in his battle with sin and despondency. But you mustn’t think that their relationship was all giving on the part of Staupitz with Luther doing all the taking. Staupitz recognized in Luther a wonderful sense of genius, ability and drive. He saw the way the people responded to Luther’s preaching and he saw how Luther’s students responded to his lectures. Staupitz, of course, admired Luther’s knowledge and grasp of the Bible. You will remember that I pointed out that Luther was the only monk Staupitz had ever met that had actually read the Bible prior to becoming a monk.
Anyway, by October 31, 1517 Luther had had the time to study and teach through the Psalms, Romans and Galatians. He had had his theological breakthrough in which he had discovered that the righteousness of God mentioned in Romans 1:17 was not just the righteousness that God demanded but also the righteousness that God provided to sinners by grace through their faith in the atoning work of Christ. The righteousness then that God demanded was the borrowed or imputed righteousness of Christ. We talked at length about all that last week and I don’t really want to go through it all over again.
What I want to do this morning is just flesh out for you the political and theological landscape of Germany and Italy on the morning of October 31, 1517.
The reason I want to do that is because I think if you understand how things were and how large the forces were that were at work, you’ll understand even more the miracle of God’s kindness in having an obscure Augustinian monk in the right place, thinking about the right things at the right time.
In Germany, things started when twenty-four year old Prince Albrecht of Brandenburg made a play to become the Archbishop of Mainz. In that day, Germany, part of France, Switzerland, Poland, Lithuania, and part of Bohemia, what we now know as Czechoslovakia, made up a political confederation known as the Holy Roman Empire. Now the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected by seven men…seven men were known as electors. Those seven electors were comprised of three ecclesiastical men and four provincial chieftains.3
The 4 provincial offices were:
Now, Albrecht faced three small obstacles. The first problem that he faced was that canon law did not permit a man to stack up offices. In other words, a man was not allowed to be the bishop of more than one see or diocese or area at a time and Albrecht was already the Bishop of Magdeburg and essentially the Bishop of Halberstadt.4 The second problem that he faced was that he was only twenty-four and was thus too young to be a bishop in the first place.5 The third problem he faced was that the Diocese of Mainz was bankrupt. You see whenever a new bishop was chosen the Diocese had to pay a large sum of money to the papacy and the Diocese of Mainz had had the misfortune of having three archbishops die in ten years. That meant that the Diocese had not had enough time to recover all the money it had paid to Rome.
But all of those problems were solvable and the man that could solve them was named Jacob Fugger…otherwise known as the kingmaker.6 Fugger, the head of the Fugger Bank, had been known to finance more than one rise to power in his lifetim and he already had a wonderful amicable relationship with the papacy. He agreed to finance the 29,000 gulden needed to secure Albrecht’s appointment to the Archbishopric at Mainz with the stipulation that he would be permitted to recoup his loan…and a small profit…through the selling of the St. Peter’s indulgence in Albrecht’s districts. After a short period of negotiation terms were agreed on. Jacob Fugger estimated the profit to be roughly 52,000 ducats and that profit was to be split between the Albrecht, the Fugger Bank and the papacy.7
Now, unless you are a lot different than I was, you’re probably struggling to wrap your mind around the terms “ducats” or “gulden.” The terms were for me almost completely meaningless so I tried this week to do some research and to make some calculations to try to put some of these things and terms in perspective. That is always a hard thing to do, five hundred years and the difference between their culture and ours make such calculations extremely hazardous…so keep that in mind.
That is a lot of money. It sounds almost like the Presidential election process in the United States…but I digress.
At that same time Albrecht was arranging his financial offer in Germany the issue of money was becoming very important to the new Pope in Italy, Pope Leo X.
Leo X, whose given name was Giovanni Medici, was the second son of Lorenzo de Medici. Leo succeeded the tumultuous Julius II as the Vicar of Rome on February 20, 1513. Now there were a lot of differences between Leo and his predecessor, Julius. One of those differences involved the way they perceived money.
Julius II had been a skinflint…that is, he was renowned for being a pennypinching, money grubbing old miser. I think something of his frugal nature comes across very plainly in the movie the Agony and Ecstasy starring Charlton Heston as Michelangelo and Rex Harrison as Julius II. If you have seen the movie you will remember that Julius forced Michelangelo to work on the Sistine Chapel in the harshest of conditions for almost no pay…and yes, both Michelangelo and the famous artist Raphael were contemporaries of Luther and would have been in Rome at the time of Luther’s visit there. Anyway, Julius was a penny pincher. But he was also a warrior pope. He was not above leading armed incursions to demand obedience, and that obedience almost always involved money, from the faithful.
Still, in spite of his military expeditions and in spite of his many artistic projects…the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, David and the laying the foundation of the new St. Peter’s Basilica, Julius managed his finances quite well and had actually garnered a sizeable surplus at the time of his death in February 1513.
Leo X blew through that surplus like a grass fire through the Texas Hill Country in August.
Leo was in every way different than Julius. First off, he was of the House of Medici. He was used to extravagance and finery. His father was one of the great art connoisseurs of the Renaissance. Leo was scholar, and artist and a bit of a dandy. In addition, to that he loved to hunt. In fact, Roland Bainton writes that one of the principal complaints lodged against him during the first years of his primacy was that adoring visitors coming to pay homage and to kiss his big toe often found his feet to be shod in muddy, pointy-toed hunting boots.9
Anyway, to illustrate something of Leo’s lack of restraint and reserve, Paul Thigpen writing in a 1992 edition of Christian History magazine points out that Leo X spent almost 100,000 ducats on his own coronation to the papacy…an amount that equaled almost one-seventh of the entire reserve set aside by Julius.10 If that were true, and my other calculations were right, that would have meant that Leo X would have spent some $16 million on his coronation…and that is a figure which is so high it causes me to doubt all my other calculations.
Still, Leo was Medici and he was frivolous with money. Thigpen goes on to add that within two years Leo X had squandered all the money Julius had saved and on that point there is no argument of any kind.
Anyway, when Prince Albrecht pitched his offer through the Fugger bank to Leo X, he found Leo pleasantly receptive. That is not surprising. Leo, it seems, had no intention of making any cutbacks or in restricting his appetites or in suffering during his tenure as pope in any way. He is famous for once having said, “God has granted us this Holy See (or office) and we shall enjoy it.” His eight year reign bears adequate testimony that he meant what he said.
Anyway, as I mentioned, Leo was receptive to Albrecht’s offer. Prince Albrecht, represented by the Fugger Bank was interested in attaining the Archbishopric of Mainz and was willing an able to pay a lot of money to get it. It was a match made in heaven or in hell depending upon your historical perspective.
Now as I said, the loan was financed by the selling of the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Half of the money was to go to Rome and half was to be split between the Fugger Bank and Prince Albrecht. Now the St. Peter’s Indulgence was designed originally to finance the building of a new St. Peter’s Basilica. Prior to the construction of the new St. Peter’s, the church worshipped in an old wooden building dating back to the days of Constantine some eleven hundred years before.11 But Julius II had determined to rebuild St. Peter’s. He had laid a foundation and had begun construction but was initially slowed by one war or another and finally stopped altogether by his death. Leo intended to take up where Julius had left off except that he intended to that on an even grander scale than what Julius had planned.
Now there is almost no way to calculate the cost of St. Peter’s. It is still the largest church in the world. It can hold a hundred thousand people if they are standing and sixty thousand if they are seated. It is an extraordinary building by any standard. The fact that it took over a hundred and twenty years to build and contains some of the most priceless artifacts in the world only adds to its extraordinary value. The Catholic Church says officially that it cost a $48 million dollars to build but when you consider that the new stadium in Arlington is going to cost $700 million it hardly seems likely that $48 million dollars can be right in terms of dollars adjusted to present day value. Oh, it is true that a great deal of the material used it its construction was salvaged from other and older sites in and around Rome but even that could not reduce the enormous amount of manpower and craftsmanship it took to put it all together. Anytime Michelangelo was brought in to do duty as an architect you know the work and the cost was going to be something special. I once heard a scholar say that building St. Peter’s cost in ancient terms of gross national product just about what it cost the United States to put a man on the moon in the sixties. I think that is just about right.
Now the intention on Prince Albrecht’s part was simply to disguise the payment for the Archbishopric at Mainz under the cover of the St. Peter’s Indulgence. That is what happened. No one, other than the representatives directly involved, had any idea that part of the St. Peter’s Indulgence was going to purchase the archbishopric for Albrecht. Luther did not find out that that was what happened until he was an old man.
Now the price of the St. Peter’s Indulgence was not cheap for it was a plenary indulgence. The price was determined both by income and station of life. Kings and Queens were required to pay 25 gulden or about $2,500 in modern dollars. High prelates and counts had to pay 10 gulden or about $1,000. Lesser prelates paid 6 gulden or about $600. Townsfolk and merchants paid 3 gulden or about $300. Artisans paid 1 gulden about $100 and really poor people paid a half or a quarter gulden…$50 down to $25.12
Most people thought they were getting a bargain.
Still there were a few people who were unhappy about the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Luther was unhappy about it because he had come to view the whole indulgence practice as something of a scandal. But he was not the only one. Frederick the Duke of Saxony…the leader of the province where Luther lived and the patron of the University at Wittenberg were Luther taught was also very much against the St. Peter’s Indulgence. Now his reasons were not theological at all. They were in fact quite mercenary. Frederick the Wise objected to the selling of the St. Peter’s Indulgence because he too was in the indulgence business.
These were the treasures made available on the day of All Saints.13
Now the reason, the theological reason that so many people believed that such an indulgence could be granted was because the Church taught the principle of supererogation. That is the Church taught that some saints did above and beyond whatever works of penance were required of them. The Church taught that that extra labor or merit was not wasted but was stored up as a work of supererogation in the Treasury of Merit. It was added to the works of Christ and to the works of Mary and could then be dispensed to the faithful upon the basis of their penitential works as the Pope or Church saw fit.
Now last week we talked about the nature of indulgences and how indulgences did away with the temporal punishment of sin that otherwise had to be paid for in purgatory. We also talked about how penance and indulgences differed and I don’t want to go over all that again. Instead, I want to spend most of our remaining time introducing you to infamous John Tetzel.
John Tetzel was a Dominican priest assigned the principal role in selling the St. Peter’s Indulgence on behalf of Prince Albrecht. He tramped all over Germany selling the St. Peter’s Indulgence and often skirted the province of Saxony less than twenty miles from Wittenberg. People flocked to hear him including many from Luther’s congregation. He was the principal recipient of Luther’s scorn and criticism. Listen to this description by D’Aubigne.
Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins that you intend to commit may be pardoned.
There is no sin so great, that an indulgence cannot remit; and even if any one (which is doubtless impossible) had offered violence to the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, let him pay — only let him pay well, and all will be forgiven him.
Reflect then, that for every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory: now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life!...Alas! these sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life obtain a plenary remission of all your penalties and all your sins!15
As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from purgatory springs.
Will you not then for a quarter of a form receive these letters of indulgence through which you are able to lead a divine and immortal soul into the fatherland of paradise?16
And Luther had come to a breakthrough there as we saw last week. He had come to understand from Romans 1:17 that God provides the righteousness He requires in the atoning work of Christ and that any man woman boy or girl that responds to Christ in faith is clothed in the imputed righteousness of Jesus. So Luther argued against indulgences primarily on the basis of the doctrine of justification. But that is not how the Church argued back. They argued back on the basis of the authority of the church and of the pope to formulate whatever doctrine it chose.
And, of course, Luther responded that true authority did not lay with the church but with Holy Scripture.
But all that was yet to come. Within two weeks of Wittenberg, Luther was known all over Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. His 95 Theses were published in German and distributed just about everywhere. Luther was instantly loved by the common people and by those longing for the church to be reformed. He was instantly hated by church officials.
Now you should know that when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door at Wittenberg he sent, at the same time, a letter to Albrecht the Archbishop of Mainz appealing to him to pull Tetzel back. The letter was very respectful and took the position that Albrecht could not possibly know what Tetzel was doing and why it wrong. But Albrecht did not stop, he simply forwarded the letter to Rome and the fight was on. Over the next four years Luther would be tried three separate times, first at Augsburg, then at Leipzig and finally at Worms and each time the trial ratcheted up the implications of Luther’s objections.
First, they had him deny the infallibility of the Pope.
Secondly, they had him deny the infallibility of Church Councils.
Finally, they had him affirm the opposition and theology of John Huss.
But we won’t talk about those things until next week.
For now keep this in mind. Luther objected to the practice of indulgences but the real objection was theological. The real objection was founded in the church’s faulty view of justification but what the church heard Luther say was that he rejected the church’s authority and that was true as well, he did. He rejected in favor of the authority of Holy Scripture. That is why the Reformers would later constantly repeat three of the five solas, sola gratia, sola fide and sola scriptura.
That is why we repeat them so often today.
It all goes back to the door.
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)
History Ping
bump
HISTORY PING!
I think it is fair to say that the Church will always have "renegade" leaders or wolves in the flock. I think all Christians inevitably have to deal with the weeds among the wheat. Considering God's Providence and Foreknowledge, it is interesting to note how God brings about reform in His Church by allowing such things to happen. Certainly, God could prevent such abuses from happening. To me, at any rate, I find all of this comforting - that no matter how much man screws up things, God is always there to prevent His Church from falling to Hell, while maintaining man's free will.
Regards
I would say no. Please remember Wycliffe was English and Huss preached in Cheksosovankia (Spelling might not be right but this is what the spell checker says). They all hated the abuse of indulgences so it wasn't limited to Germany alone. However, it may have been limited to northern Europe.
"Was their any other bishopric other than in Mainz that this was a problem?"
From the article we know Freddrick the Wise was also abusing indulgences. I think it is safe to say from the trials of Luther most Church leaders felt there was nothing wrong with indulgences. Keep in mind the Catholic Church saw this as an issue to set policy-not indulgences. I doubt if many in the Church's policy making business would have disagreed with that position. Indulgences was the policy of the Church and the Church had the right to set policy. Luther eventually saw it as a wrong teaching of the Church-man is justified by faith. It just culminated around indulgences.
"From what I hear from my brother Protestants, it seems that the entire Church was teaching and abusing the idea condemned by Luther, an over dramatization."
The Church burned Hess at the stake, excommunicated Wycliffe and burned his bones 40 years after his dead and tried to condemn Luther to death-all over indulgences. I wouldn't call it an "over dramatization".
Don't know if you care to know or not, but St. Ignatius of Loyola led a demonstration/procession with the Blessed Sacrament at the helm, for the express purpose of protesting the unspeakable cruelties unleashed on the Lutherans. He did this with the Pope's blessing, and I'm sorry I can't remember the year.
Have you any idea, if and how the Church has justified these actions, and where in Scripture or Tradition they would have sought such justification?
Harley, we've been through this once or twice before so I will just summarize here:
Frankly, Harley, there was plenty of burning going on throughout that time frame -- both on the part of Catholic rulers and on the part of Protestant rulers -- that we could exchange flames (no pun intended) for years.
Just something for you to consider in making future responses...
St. Ignatius of Loyola also led the Counter-Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't wish to minimize his devotion to peace but he was what could be termed one of the first "official" apologists of the Roman Catholic Church's position. At the risk of sounding cynical, he had much to gain by appealing to reason.
Here is a historical timeline to put it in perspective:
1448 - Concordat of Vienna. Emperor gives up attempts to reform the Church .
1466 - Birth of Erasmus, Dutch scholar and leader of revival of learning in northern Europe.
1483 - Martin Luther born.
1484 - Bull condemns withcraft. Inquisitors sent to Germany to try witches.
1492 - Rodrigo Borgia elected Pope (Pope Alexander VI).
1517 - Luther posts his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg.
1521 - Diet of Worms. Luther refuses to back down.
1534 - Henry VIII of England breaks with Roman Catholic Church.
1534 - St. Ignatius Loyola founds the Society of Jesus (called the Jesuits) to help reform the Roman Catholic Church.
1541 - John Calvin founds "City of God" in Geneva.
1545 - Council of Trent begins. Aims to reform the Roman Catholic Church.
1555 - Peace of Ausgbury. Germans are obliged to follow the religions of their rulers. Applies to Catholics and Lutherans only.
1562-1578 - French religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. (for more information on this click -> here)
1575 - Oratorian movement begun in Vincenza, Itatly.
1582 - Calendar reformed by Pope Gregory XIII. Only Roman Catholic countries accept it.
1592 - New edition of the Vulgate (Roman Catholic Bible) published.
1611 - King James Authorized Version of the Bible published.
In my way of thinking this is similar to Jews saying Rome crucified our Lord Jesus. Technically they would be correct.
I can see your way of thinking on this; however, it is clear where Hus committed heresy (his theology when against the defined Magesterium of the Church). Please tell me where Christ violated any aspect of the Jewish law (i.e., was a heretic)?
If not for that, you'd have a very apt analogy.
You are contradicting yourself again. I hadn't realized that Indulgences were of any concern to Huss or Wycliffe. I would imagine that most devout Catholics would hate the abuse of power by the clergy (and continue to today). But was Indulgence abuse an universal problem? That's my question.
Indulgences was the policy of the Church and the Church had the right to set policy. Luther eventually saw it as a wrong teaching of the Church-man is justified by faith. It just culminated around indulgences.
I think things spun out of control for Luther. He initially appears to have desired ONLY work to correct abuses on indulgences, at least that is what his 95 thesis mention. Nothing on "justified by faith", as far as I can tell. Luther wrote several letters to the Pope expressing his recognition of the Pope's rightful position within the Church. But I think his examinations by Erasmus and later Eck eventually "forced" him to move into heresy. Also, no doubt, he was influenced by the nominalism of his era. Of course, we cannot entirely blame Luther. In Germany, it appears that there were abuses in Indulgences, and he rightfully complained. I don't see how his denial of the infallibility of the Church Councils had anything to do with Indulgences. Like I said, things spun out of control, kind of like one lie leading to another and so forth, until you can't keep up with them.
The Church burned Hess at the stake, excommunicated Wycliffe and burned his bones 40 years after his dead and tried to condemn Luther to death-all over indulgences. I wouldn't call it an "over dramatization".
Two comments. First, you are being anachronistic and one-sided. Protestants burned each other quite regularly. The anachronism comes into play because you forget that that is how THEY did things back then. Religion was deadly serious and a huge part of Medieval life. Rightfully so, one could be tried with treason against the state because of religious heretical teachings. Thus, the state fully supported the burning of heretics. Recall that the power of the king relied on the divine. Thus, the Church and State had an interacting role with each other (although they often fought over whose power was superior on earth). Secondly, what does indulgences have to do with Wycliffe and Huss? We are speaking of indulgences and their abuse in a local area within the Universal Church, and you are now trying to attach what the Church did to two men who had nothing to do with Indulgences?
Overdramatization, considering you have to bring up things that have nothing to do with the issue. While a bit odd in burning bones, is punishing heretics wrong?
Regards
In Matthew 26:61, two witnesses came forward with similar testimony against Jesus, but Mark 14:55-59 explains that it did not meet the legal requirement for conviction. The Sanhedrin was forced by their own procedures to ask Jesus outright if He claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus confessed the crime (Matthew 26:63-66, Mark 14:61-65, Luke 22:70-71). By confessing, Jesus convicted Himself, and the trial went into the penalty phase.
The penalty for blasphemy was death, but since the Romans had taken away their authority to impose the death penalty, they had to refer Jesus to the Roman authorities. But Pilate declared that Jesus was not guilty of any crime against Roman law. (Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:14, Luke 23:13-16, John 18:38) In the end, Pilate bowed to pressure and consented to the crucifixion under protest. (Matt. 27:24)
Was burning them at the stake a permissible and desirable way to deal with them? Was it done to keep political order? Is there something in Christ's teaching or life that illustrates the righteousness of dealing with heretics this way? How would you propose dealing with heretics today? Is it fair to call Hans Kung a heretic, and if so, what should be done with him?
If the defined Magesterium of the Church stated that heretics preaching against the Church should die, then it is difficult to say the Church did not execute Hus. Hus broke no civil laws.
Blasphemy means to speak evilly of God (to curse God). Again, I don't see where he confessed to this crime in there. Now, I'll grant that they convicted Him. But the point I was driving at was that He, in fact, did not violate their law in any way. As it says in Hebrews:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, yet without sin.
You are incorrect on this. All "Christian" countries had (civil) laws against heresy at the time.
Did you read articles 2, 3 and 4?
"I think things spun out of control for Luther."
You are free to think whatever you like. There is some truth to this because Luther thought people were reasonable and they could all sit down and discuss the issue. Unknown to Luther was the fact that the Archbishop of Mainz approved of Tetzel extortion technique. There was nothing to spin out of control. The Church was promoting a false policy (one that has been admitted to by the Church) and this policy would have continued. Was Luther to say nothing? Those of us who believe in Predestination don't believe it was simply something that "spun out of control".
I should add that the Catholic website still feels that Tetzel is "misunderstood". However, reading through a bit of his writings and understanding the times I'm not sure how they draw that conclusion.
First, you are being anachronistic and one-sided. Protestants burned each other quite regularly.
No, we tend to focus on Catholics. :O)
I believe I stated this somewhere on one of the posts. Regrettably Protestants did enact heretical laws and enforced them for a brief time. I believe this was a reflection of the practice they were use to under the Roman Catholic Church. I would also add that as the Bible was relooked at by both sides this practice died out.
Interestingly, I'm unsure when exactly the practice of burning heretics started or where it came from. My guess is that it started about the time of the Inquisition around the 13th century. If so it would have been going on for almost 200-300 years so it would have seemed like something one should do. Changing the practice would be equivilent to changing something in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps, but to suggest the Church had nothing to do with enacting those laws is silly.
It is much older. One has to recognize that the state throughout history has reserved to right to punish those who defied the established religion. This was precisely why the Romans persecuted Christians for not offering a pinch of incense to Minerva.
This old Roman law got imported unchanged into Christian practice, except now it was Christianity which was the state religion. Heresy was thus illegal and punishable by death according to *state law*, not the law of the Church, which for many many centuries relied only on excommunication as its strongest penalty.
However, there was a problem. Namely, that feudal lords were convicting and persecuting "heretics" when they themselves were not qualified to determine what heresy was. Talk for 15 minutes about the Trinity, and I don't care how orthodox you are, chances are you will accidently slip into something heretical.
Thus the Inquisition. To curb the abuses of the feudal lords, who were offing political rivals on trumped-up charges of heresy, Rome took over from the state the power of deciding what was heresy and what was not. Its role was strictly as an arbiter of fact--*was* this person guilty of heresy? If he was, then, in the language common to the Inquisition courts, "he was handed over to the secular arm to be burned."
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.