The relics in at the Wittenburg Castle Church of Luther's Day

The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants | 1964 | Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed.

[drstevej]

Source: Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants (Harper and Row, Inc. 1964, Reprint Baker Book House, 1978) pp. 47-49.

The Castle Church at Wittenberg, where Luther probably posted his ninety-five theses, was famous for its extensive collection of relics, as the following excerpt from what might be called the official catalogue's shows.

... Three pieces of the city where the Virgin Mary was born. One piece of a yarn which she spun. One piece of the house where she lived at the age of fourteen. Two pieces of the city of Mt Zion where Mary lived. Two pieces of the room where Mary was greeted by the angel. Five particles of the milk of the Virgin Mary. One piece of the tree where Mary nursed the Lord near the Garden of Balsam. Four pieces of the hair of Mary. Three pieces of the shirt of Mary. Three pieces of one robe of Mary. Eight pieces of other robes of Mary. Four pieces of the belt of Mary. Seven pieces of the veil of Mary. Two pieces of the veil of Mary which was sprinkled with the blood of Christ under the Cross. One piece of the city where Mary died. One piece of the wax candle given to Our Lady when she died. Six pieces of the grave of Mary. Two pieces of the earth of the grave of Mary. One piece of the place where Mary ascended into heaven. VI. A silver picture of the little baby Jesus. Four pieces of the city where the Lord Jesus was born. One piece of the diaper in which he was wrapped. Thirteen pieces of the manger of Jesus. One piece of the cradle. Two pieces of the hay. One piece of the straw on which the Lord lay when he was born. One piece of the gold and of the myrrh which the Three Kings offered unto the Lord. One piece of the city where the Lord Jesus was circumcised. VII. Four pieces of the mountain on which the Lord Jesus fasted. Two pieces of the city where Christ preached the Lord's Prayer. One piece of the stone on which Jesus stood while weeping over Jerusalem. One piece of the stone from which Christ got on the donkey. Two pieces of the ground where the Lord Christ was arrested. VIII.... Five pieces of the table on which the Lord Christ held the Last Supper with his disciples. One piece of the bread of which Christ ate with his disciples during the Last Supper. IX.... One piece of the land which was bought for the thirty pieces of silver for which Christ was betrayed. One piece of the Holy Land. Three pieces of the stone where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the ground where the Lord sweated blood. One piece of the stone sprinkled with the blood of Christ. X. Three pieces of the Mount of Olives and of the rod of Aaron. Two pieces of the rod of Moses. One piece of the burning bush which Moses saw. One piece of an object sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Eleven pieces of Mount Calvary. Two pieces of the Mount of Olives. XI. One piece of the cloth with which the Lord wiped his disciples' feet. One piece of the robe of Christ: One piece of the seamless robe of Christ. One piece of the robe of Christ. One piece of his purple robe. Two pieces of the cloth which St Veronica received from the Lord. Three pieces of the white robe in which the Lord was ridiculed by Herod . Three pieces of the cloth with which our Lord's holy eyes were blindfolded. One piece of the beard of the Lord Jesus. XII. One piece of the wax of the candles which touched the sudarium of Christ. One piece of the wedge with which the cross of Christ was held. Three pieces of the stone on which the cross stood. Three pieces of the place where the cross of Christ was found. Twelve pieces of the column where the Lord Christ was scourged and flogged.

The Eight Aisle. I. One piece of the rope with which Jesus was tied. Three pieces of the rod with which the Lord Jesus was scourged. Three pieces of the whip with which the Lord Jesus was flogged. One piece of the stone upon which the Lord Jesus sat when he was crowned. One piece of the stone which was crushed while the Lord carried the cross. One piece of the sponge with which the Lord was given vinegar and gall.... III. Two pieces of the crown of the Lord Jesus. Eight complete thorns of the crown of the Lord Jesus. IV. One large piece of one nail which was driven through the hands or feet of the Lord Jesus. V. A thorn which wounded the holy head of the Lord Jesus. VI. One piece of the holy cross.... VII. Three pieces of the holy cross. VIII. Three pieces of the three kinds of wood of the cross of Christ. IX. A particularly large piece from the holy cross. X. Twenty-five pieces of the holy cross. XI. One piece of the stone which lay on the grave of Christ. Twenty-two pieces of the grave of Christ. One piece of the stone from which Christ descended into heaven. XII. A casket lined with silver in which are found sixteen hundred and seventy-eight pieces. Seventy-six pieces of holy remains. Bones from holy places which on account of faded writing can no longer be read and identified. All in all : five thousand and five pieces. An indulgence of one hundred days for each piece. There are eight halls and each hall has an indulgence of one hundred and one days in addition. Blessed are those who participate therein.

Lucas Cranach, Wittemberger Heiligthumsbuch.

[Gotterdammerung]

I think Catholicism intrigues him. Won't be long before he starts listening, embracing, and falling madly in love with it.
It's happened to many of us.

[Elsie]

Will you just GIVE IT UP!!??

You know, from experience, that the LDS organization has no solid answers for this prophecy that has failed to come true.

---

The individual members may have OPINIONS about it, but hey, that sure don't count, does it?

Besides, they are VERY quiet in the OTHER threads this has appeared in; they'd rather hop over to ANOTHER thread to hide out for a while.

[TexConfederate1861]

That is because there hasn't been a valid ecumenical council of the ENTIRE church, (Both East & West) since 700-800 AD......

When the whole church comes together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wonderful things happen.

[Elsie]

Since the thread we were on has been flamed so it would get moved to the back room (plus an even worse, and very vulgar, natural-woman FRmail to me from the same poster), I reply to you here.

HMmm... It worked just fine for me just a while ago.

Besides, moving it to the 'backroom' hurts nothing, unless one considers it 'hidden' there, where an innocent lurker probably would not be going.

---

All my replys are back at the old thread, I don't think my dog has been entered in the fight on this one.........

[Elsie]

Old thread = ..balanced debate...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/896355/posts?page=209#209

[old and tired]

So much for respecting and ecumenical council

I think you mistake Desdemona's meaning. I think she is saying the modernists and liturgists have hijacked the council's writings and twisted their meanings for their own worldly purposes. Sound familiar?

[SoliDeoGloria]

** Fortunately that was all before the doctrine of papal infallibility. **

I have heard several Roman Catholics echo this sentiment. I'm curious: Before which date were Popes' pronouncements fallible? That is, when did the whole "infallibility" thing kick in?

As background: Assume I understand Vatican I's pronouncements concerning the Pope speaking ex-cathedra.

[Revelation 911]

"He is OFF THE CROSS already! Take Him down!" Me: :-) Seriously, it seems (from our perspective) like some of the relics are keeping the Savior ON the cross, not as the Risen Lord. Again it is a perception thing. :-) Hope that helps a little.

yeah - my sweethearts pastorpals say the same to me (I have a Cross with Jesus on the mantle) - but for me - it reminds me of the act of atonement - yeah, He is risen - amen - but I like to be reminded of His sacrifice on the cross - Its a reminder of my sins

[NYer]

when did the whole "infallibility" thing kick in?

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

For the record, infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

[conservonator]

Truth be told, Steve realizes that only the Catholic Church fulfills those qualities. And, it scares him.

The progressive nastiness may be an indication that the good Doctor may be about to renounce his apostasy and return to Christ's Church. It's always darkest before the dawn and some converts are their nastiness before conversion. It's kind of an internal last-ditch effort to convince them selves that the belief system that they have held for, in many cases, their entire lives is a lie. So it’s not unusual for them to cling desperately to their most fanciful and contrived views of the Church. Not an easy thing to confront. Pray for him.

[sfRummygirl]

I must say, I am very new to Catholic history, too. But I really don't like the junk I have seen on this thread. I am so thirsty for theology right now, and luckily go to a church (LCMS) where the scriptures are taught every time, so between that and other good sorces, I'm learning.

But I tell ya, if I was a person that didn't have that support, some of these posters would turn me away from Christ. Watch it people, ok? Remember what the big goal is. Don't be a stereotypical self rightous jerkball.

[sfRummygirl]

Thank you for the welcome.
Well, hopefully we can all debate this stuff, but keep our heads together. I'm glad you are here, because I have been taught that Mormons and JW's aren't Trinitarians, and this is new to me also. Don't know much about you guys.

[NYer]

I'm glad you are here, because I have been taught that Mormons and JW's aren't Trinitarians, and this is new to me also. Don't know much about you guys.

I'm not a mormon but have looked into their faith. Here are some of the points that I recall.

Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church. He developed this doctrine over a period of years to reflect his belief that not only are there many gods, but they once were mortal men who had developed in righteousness until they had learned enough and merited godhood.

The Mormon church uses the term "eternal progression" for this process, and it refers to godhood as "exaltation." Such euphemisms are used because the idea of men becoming gods is blasphemous to orthodox Christians. Needless to say, Smith encountered much hostility to these doctrines and so thought it wise to disguise them with unfamiliar terminology.

Jesus Christ

According to Morman teaching, at one point in the eternities past, this man-become-God, or "Heavenly Father," begat the spirit body of his first son. Together with his heavenly wife, the Father raised his son in the council of the gods.

Before the creation of this world, Jesus Christ presented to his father a plan of salvation which would enable the billions of future human beings the opportunity of passing through mortality and returning to heaven, there to become gods of their own worlds. At the same time, another son of the Heavenly Father and brother of Christ offered a competing plan. When Christ’s was chosen, the rejected Lucifer led a rebellion of one-third of the population of the heavens and was cast out.

In time, Mormans believe, the Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary. Rejecting both the testimony of Scripture (Luke 1:34-35) and the constant teaching of the Christian Church, Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the Father, and not by the Holy Spirit. (Journal of Discourses 2:268.)

Moreover, Mormans teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) He was first made by a union of his heavenly parents. After having been reared and taught in the heavens, he achieved a certain divine stature. Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god.

Mormons now believe that Christ’s divinity is virtually equal to that of his Father’s. As we have seen, this is a compromised godhood: Jesus Christ merely joins the end of a long line of gods who have preceded him, an infinite "regression" of divine beings whose origin Mormons cannot explain. )

[redgolum]

Welcome Rummy! This thread is a take off of a previous thread where some not so nice things were said about medieval relics. It was started to list some of those "relics" that the a church in Germany claimed to have at one time, claims that for the most part were local fabrications.

It kind of got out of hand. I tried to interject a few times, but didn't feel like slinging to much mud. Desdemona is usually pretty calm, but drstevej hit a nerve.

Glad you found a good LCMS church! The LCMS is not with out its problems, but I call it home. They have resisted a lot of the modernism that plagues many other denominations (and the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in areas) but there is some starting to creep in.

Don't let the group here in the FR back room scare you to much.
Red

[SoliDeoGloria]

** The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching ** - NYer

Putting aside my obvious disagreement with this teaching, I quoted xJones as saying the following:

** Fortunately that was all before the doctrine of papal infallibility. **

My hidden criticism was that all Roman Catholics, including yourself, use their own criteria for determining what is infallible and what is not. xJones, not liking what some of the former Popes have taught, seems to have a different view than you concerning the timelessness of Papal infallibility. I have heard this sentiment a number of times.

Please Note: I understand the threefold criteria set forth by Vatican One in determining whether a Papal decree is infallible. In fact, I'll even quote the Baltimore Confession:

***
Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?
A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:

1.(1) He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
2.(2) He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
3.(3) He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.
***

Tell me, do you follow these guidelines under the following two circumstances?

1) The Papal Bull "Unum Sanctum" by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302.

2) Vatican II (1965)

Are both of these Infallible declarations?

[A.J.Armitage]

He insists we're persecuting him.

He won't, however, answer the simple question of whether persecution as he defines it should be against the law.

[TexConfederate1861]

Hold on there bub....

Papal Infalibility was not even spoken of until the 800's or so. Here is some history for you:

In the year 752, Pope Zacharias anointed Pepin the Short, the chief steward of the Frankish kings, to be king, and by this gave, as it were, the Church's blessing to the overthrow carried out by Pepin in the Frankish kingdom that removed the lawful Frankish king from power. For this, Pepin, in the year 755, took away from the Germanic tribe of the Lombards the lands conquered by them in Italy and delivered into the pope's hands the keys to twenty­two cities and the Ravenna Exarchate, which had previously belonged to the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Pope was transformed from a subject of the Eastern Roman (Constantino­politan) emperor into an independent secular sovereign, not dependent on any other sovereign, with an independent territory and with possession of supreme state authority on this territory.

This rapidly demoralized the papacy. The inner contradiction between the ascetic ideal and secular authority appeared as a dangerous enemy of the moral purity of the popes. It entailed a radical change not only in the status, but also in the behavior, in the intentions, in the aspirations and in the modi-operandi of the Roman popes. Conceit, pride, lust for power and the aspiration to subordinate all the local churches to their authority, which had previously appeared in the behavior of the Roman popes only as tendencies, as sporadic phenomena ­ now wholly take possession of the popes.

At first, the popes set themselves the task of strengthening their authority in those Western churches ­ the African, Spanish and Gallic Churches ­ which did not form a part of the Roman Church. Despite a certain resistance on the part of the African Church, the popes succeeded comparatively easily in securing the subordination to themselves of these churches: great was the authority of Rome in these its former provinces.

As for the churches in Britain, Germany and in the other countries of Western Europe that were newly founded by missionaries of the Roman bishop, the popes succeeded in subordinating them to their authority all the more easily, inasmuch as the idea of the supremacy of the pope in the Church was inculcated in them simultaneously with the preaching of Christianity.

While subordinating to themselves the Western churches, the popes were simultaneously taking measures in order to substantiate their authority, if not dogmatically, then at least juridically. For this, a collection of ecclesiastical juridical acts was compiled in the West at the beginning of the ninth century in the name of Isidore, an authoritative Spanish sacred minister. Since both the name of the compiler and the contents of the collection, as was established later on, were spurious, it received the name of the "Pseudo­Isidorian Decretals." The collection consists of three parts. In the first part, there are fifty Apostolic Canons and sixty decretals of the Roman popes. Of these sixty decretals, two are partly falsified, while fifty­eight are altogether spurious. In the second part, among other spurious material, there is the spurious donation of the city of Rome by the Emperor Constantine the Great to the Roman Pope Silvester.

The collection was first published only at the end of the sixteenth century, and then scholars proved without difficulty the spuriousness of the documents that were in it. At the present time, even Catholic scholars do not recognize their authenticity. But at that time, the collection served as an authoritative basis for the development of ecclesiastical relations in the West, inasmuch as it was accepted on faith, and in the course of all the Middle Ages enjoyed the authority of authenticity. The popes began categorically to cite the decretals of the collection in substantiation of their rights to supremacy in the whole Church.

Pope Nicholas the First (858-­876) began first to cite the "Pseudo­Isidorian Decretals," since he first formulated sharply and decisively the idea of papal omnipotence in the Church. But the East, naturally, did not recognize this omnipotence. Pope Nicholas the First tried to subordinate the East to himself in a swoop. But he did not succeed in this. As a consequence of this failure, the Church schism appeared: for the first time in the ninth century, and definitively in the eleventh century (1054

A little different outlook.......

[sinatorhellary]

Does anyone know the nummber of times in the past 1500 years the pope has claimed to have spoken infallibly. I read in "Catholicism Against Itself" that the number is quite small - about 20.

If this is true, seems a bit stingy, someone who has this ability to exercise it on behalf of the world only 20 times in 1500 years.

Looking for an authoritative answer.

[Salvation]

To read later.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** Looking for an authoritative answer ** I have no idea... I've often been curious concerning the inequitable support Rome gives towards it's Traditions and Scripture. Doesn't the RCC think both are "Sacred"? Aren't the ex-cathedra proclamations of the Magisterium apart of their supposed "Sacred Tradition"? If so, then shouldn't those writings be held as equals to "Sacred Scripture"? Shouldn't the RCC at least provide a compilation of these extra scriptures? Oh yea... I forgot... The Roman Church officially teaches that people need not read Scripture or Tradition.