Showing posts with label Exsurge Domini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exsurge Domini. Show all posts

Why Was Luther Wrong - Part 8 - Purgatory

This is Part 8 of a series of 8 presenting "Why Was Luther Wrong" using Exsurge Domini from Pope Leo X.  This section deals with Luther's errors on Purgatory.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
"Proved" is a big word - but that Purgatory can be shown in Canon of Sacred Scripture, well that is quite easily demonstrated for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear!  2 Macc. 12:46; Matt. 5:26; Luke 12:59; Matt. 12:32.
38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.
This just shows a complete lack of understanding of what the teaching on Purgatory is.  Only those who ARE SAVED can go to Purgatory.  Those who are damned go straight to Hell.  Interesting that in #37 he challenges the existence of Purgatory, but in 38, 39 and 40 he speaks as matter of fact regarding the souls IN Purgatory!
39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.
A judgment Luther makes regarding the souls in Purgatory - but he has no knowledge, nor place to make such a judgment from.
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
Souls freed from Purgatory are happy, period - for they are now in the full glory of God, and can stand there because they are spotless and pure.  There is no more animosity, no jealousy over how they were freed - they are simply happy because they ARE free.  To be jealous or envious of not doing it for themselves would be a sin in and of itself - and therefore would keep them from entering Heaven.  Sorry Martin, your logic just doesn't play out here.

One more is listed and rather than a separate posting, I'll tag it along with the Purgatory posting.
41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.
This is simply presumptuous of Luther to judge the prelates and secular princes so.  One can just as easily argue that without the money bags, they would exude what they need/desire in other, perhaps even more cruel ways.


See the Indices Page for the complete listing of these articles.

Why Was Luther Wrong - Part 7 - Sin

This is Part 7 of a series of 8 presenting "Why Was Luther Wrong" using Exsurge Domini from Pope Leo X.  This section deals with Luther's errors on sin.

31. In every good work the just man sins.
If it is a "good work" then there is no sin, especially if the work is done by a "just man."  The assumption is made that the man is justified, like Abraham was justified when he did not withhold his son when God instructed him to sacrifice Isaac (James 2:21-24) and it was by his works that Abraham was justified; by his works Abraham's faith was perfected.  There is no sin in the just man doing good works!
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
My response is much the same as the previous.  Speaking as a former Lutheran myself - I know that Luther's point here is sola fide (faith alone), the concept of which is utterly thwarted in James 2:24 - the ONLY place in Scripture where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together - and it is DENIAL of sola fide!
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
One must recall the time/period of Luther and this statement.  There was no separation of church and state at this time and heresy was seen as treason.  To this day treason is punishable by death in many countries.  It was most often the state which tried and put persons to death - but not always.  There were also cases (many of them, like Servetus) where Protestants put persons to death for heresy too.  To be fair, I am not aware of Lutherans doing this, but Calvinists and Anglicans of Luther's day have their share of blood on their hands.  My point here is that society in general supported capital punishment of heretics - regardless of which "side" they were on.  I would add too, there is this place called "Hell" which has an "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7) set aside for heretics from the Faith - so this would also make Luther's statement contrary to what God has in store for the heretic.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
If there is a cause for a just war then it is the responsibility of the country to protect herself.  That God might use an enemy force to punish iniquities is not an excuse not to defend ones self and country.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
In order for a sin to be a mortal sin it has to be done with full consent of the will, thus if there happened to be some "hidden vice" then it would not be with full consent and thus not a mortal sin.
36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.
Without free will there would be no just cause for God to condemn actual sin (mortal or venial).  Since our God is a Just God, free will is necessary for God's justice.  We should also remind the Lutheran that there are indeed two types of sin, one which is unto death (mortal) and one which is not unto death (venial).  See 1 John 5:16.

See the Indices Page for the complete listing of these articles.

Why Was Luther Wrong - Part 6 - Councils

This is Part 6 of a series of 8 presenting "Why Was Luther Wrong" using Exsurge Domini from Pope Leo X.  This section deals with Luther's errors on Church councils.
29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.
This statement is completely contrary to Matthew 18:18.  Jesus gave to the group of the Apostles, our first bishops, the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose and there is no "weakening" of this authority.  To claim there is such a "weakening" denies the authority of Jesus Christ!
30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
None of the Errors of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are as Luther labels them.  There are thirty errors listed by the council, which I have linked here.  As this series is not about John Hus, rather Martin Luther, I will not enumerate those errors at this time.  It is good to see, however, that Luther would use the term "universal Church" in reference to the Catholic Church; while "catholic" does mean "universal" it is just interesting to note that Luther still recognizes this truth.

The next section deals with Luther's errors on sin.

See the Indices Page for the complete listing of these articles.


Why Was Luther Wrong Part 5 - The Papacy

Pope Leo X
This is a continuing project reflecting upon Exsurge Domini - where Pope Leo X declared the Errors of Martin Luther.  This section deals with the papacy.
 
25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

John 21:15-17 is where Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, hands over to St. Peter the duty of Shepherd.  So yes, Martin, it was instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

If that were true then the Apostles would not be fulfilling the command of Jesus Christ when He said to them, "as the Father sent Me, I also send you" (John 20:21).  The Son was sent to select the Apostles, our first bishops, and He empowered them (Matt. 18:18) and specifically St. Peter (Matt. 16:18-19) with infallible authority.  If they truly were sent out as the Son was sent out, then they pass on this authority to their successors.
27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.
Again, looking back at Matt. 16:18-19 and Matt. 18:18, Jesus empowers first St. Peter alone and then the Apostles/bishops as a group with the authority to bind or loose whatsoever he/they choose.  So yes, they were given this authority and as was pointed out previously, that authority was handed down to their successors (John 20:21).
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
There is no "if" here - and no pope has erred in declaring an infallible teaching on faith or morals - not one!  Do popes err on other things?  Certainly!  Some popes were downright scoundrels, but not ONE of those scoundrels "taught" anything from the Chair of Peter.

The next section will be on Church councils.



Why Was Luther Wrong Part 4 - Excommunication

In this section, we begin with Luther's errors as delimited in exsurge domini concerning excommunication.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

To state an excommunication is "only" an external penalty is false.  Excommunication deprives one of receiving any of the Sacraments, save the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation.  
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

Excommunication is intended to be reconciliatory, it is a corrective tool used by the Church when one has strayed from the truth and is in danger of losing their soul and/or may be endangering others of losing their souls.  In one respect one could "cherish" this corrective action - but the very reason this action is being taken is because the recipient is in danger of being lost, which is something to fear!  One should fear the reason excommunication is being levied upon them.

In the next section we discuss Luther's errors regarding the papacy.





Why Was Luther Wrong (Part 3)

This is a continuing project reflecting upon Exurge Domini - where Pope Leo X declared the Errors of Martin Luther.  This article deals with the Eucharist and indulgences.
15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

The "this" here is contrition (from #14).  If one did not have true contrition for their sins when they confessed them, then the confession would be invalid.  If the confession is invalid, then they would still have that/those sin/s upon their souls.  If one approaches the Eucharist with unforgiven sins upon them, then they do so in the unworthy manner St. Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 11:27.  To approach the Eucharist in such a manner - even if you "believe" in this "faith alone" does the exact opposite of making one "pure and worthy," for it brings upon them "the judgment."
16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

Participation in the Eucharist in one or both species is not a matter of heresy or schism; Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have continued the practice throughout history.
17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.
22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

Indulgences are granted by the authority of the Church.  This authority is given in Matthew 16:18-19 to St. Peter alone and in Matthew 18:18 to the Apostles, including St. Peter, as a group.  They were told, as the Father had sent the Son, He was sending them.  Thus, they too would "send" others with this same authority.  Therefore the pope (successor of St. Peter) and the bishops gathered in ecumenical council (successors of the Apostles) have this authority, to this day!  If an indulgence has so been bound or loosed - then amen!  It is so!  Luther has not the authority to deny this!

The next section I will deal with begins talking of excommunication.

Why Was Luther Wrong? (Part 2)

This is part 2 of a continuing series on why Luther was wrong.  Pope Leo X declared the "Errors of Luther" in his papal bull, "Exsurge Domini" and this series examines those errors.  This section deals with Luther's errors on the Sacrament of Penance.


11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc."  Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

The Act of Contrition is an important part of the Sacrament of Penance (aka, the Sacrament of Reconciliation).  Contrition demonstrates one's true sorrow for the sins they committed.  If one was not sincere in asking for forgiveness, then God will not forgive him those sins.  A false confession is truly no confession.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

If this were true, then the person believing becomes the priest/minister of the Sacrament, and that is not the way Jesus Christ established the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation for us!  He breathed upon them, the Apostles - our first bishops, and said "Those sins you shall forgive, are forgiven; those sins you to not forgive, they are not forgiven."  This authority was specifically given to the bishopric - and remains with it to this day!  Outside of one whom has been empowered by his bishop to forgive sins - sins are not forgiven.  (A wake-up call for Protestants!)


13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

As stated in my response to #12, that authority to forgive sins is NOT granted to "even a woman or child" - but ONLY through the bishops and whom they have granted faculties to minister the Sacrament of Penance.  That beings said, Luther's error here starts with a truism - what the pope or the bishop may do in relation to the Sacrament of Penance, is no more than the lowest priest who has been validly authorized.  His conclusion is a non sequitur, it does not follow that in the absence of a priest that anyone can forgive sins.


14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

Without the priest's knowledge of the contrition of the penitent, he could not, or at least should not, give absolution.  If absolution is not given, the sins are not forgiven (no matter what the penitent "believes").

The next section begins dealing with the Eucharist...

(Part 1 can be found by clicking HERE)


Why Was Luther Wrong? (Part 1)




Why Was Luther Wrong?

The primary reason Luther was wrong is due to his rejection of due authority which God Himself put in place.  I can hear the Protestants, especially the Lutherans now, stating how Luther was right because he stood up to corrupted authority.  To a point, I have to agree!  There WERE some problems in the Catholic hierarchy at the time and there was definitely some need for "reform."   Now we can banter all around about how "wrong" each side was - but ultimately you do not "reform" a church when you're no longer part of it and WANT no part of it! 


The other thing we must consider is that Luther was not really this "Lone Ranger" standing up for a cause.  In reality the German princes did not like the amount of power the Catholic Church had in Germany so they used Luther as a pawn in their battle with Rome.  The found a very willing accomplice in Luther.  The chaos which ensued before, during and after the Peasants War was successful in disrupting the unity of those who may have remained loyal to the Catholic Church - this played right into the hands of the quite willing German princes.  The point being, there were some quite political reasons for Germany's revolt against the Catholic Church - and NOT solely Luther's 95 Theses. 

The Errors of Luther (condemned by Pope Leo X on June 15, 1520 via papal bull Exsurge Domini).
1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.
The sacraments of the New Law, especially the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) does indeed provide pardoning grace for those who do not set up an obstacle!  If ones confession is contrite and not withholding sin - then the confessee indeed receives pardoning grace (Sanctifying Grace) and his soul is made pure again through the absolution given by one validly empowered to grant absolution.  (John 20:23)
2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.
While a child may be released from Original Sin by the Sacrament of Baptism (another sacrament which bestows pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle, which an infant could not do) this does not change the fact that the child has a corrupt/fallen nature - however, all sin IS gone.  Original Sin is washed away and before the "age of reason" the child has no ability to commit Actual Sin.  
3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.
It is possible, but maybe improbable, that one may be in such a state of grace at the time of their death that there is no impediment for entering Heaven.  We know of at least two such souls, from the Old Testament, who did not even die - and were bodily assumed into Heaven (Enoch and Elijah).
4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.
Luther seemed to have a great struggle with his own fears and sins and it is definitely an error to impute his fears upon others.
5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.
The first two are obvious - there can be no forgiveness if one is not contrite and does not confess his sins to one empowered to forgive sins (John 20:23).  As for "satisfaction" - I must assume Luther refers to "doing the penance" - which is really part of contrition for in doing the penance one demonstrates beyond the mere words that they are contrite.
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
For a "General Confession" one would go back throughout their life to reflect upon all sins, but this would only be done ONCE - not repeatedly.  Once absolution is given, sins are forgiven.  It is my perception that Luther had a real problem with sin and just how forgiveness was imparted to those who follow Christ.
7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."
One could use that as a self-imposed penance - but the "highest penance" is that which comes from your confessor!  It is THAT penance which demonstrates true contrition and ultimately forgiveness of sins through the Sacrament of Penance - how could any penance be "higher" than that which is part of a Sacrament instituted by Christ to dispense grace?
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
It is the responsibility of the faithful Christian to not willfully withhold any mortal sin from the confessional!  If one willfully does so then this person is not truly contrite for their sins - and thus rather than enjoying the graces bestowed by the Sacrament of Penance - they would actually be heaping coals of judgment upon themselves in not making a worthy or valid confession.  Now, if a mortal sin happened to slip ones mind and was not confessed - it is STILL FORGIVEN in the absolution, for Christ through His priest declares ALL your sins are forgiven!  If such a sin were later remembered and it concerned the person, then they should meet with their confessor to discuss it - and not necessarily in a formal confession (but it may turn into that, depending upon how the confessor feels).
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.
This is an error because the desire to confess all sins without exception is PRECISELY throwing ourselves at the Mercy Seat of God and begging forgiveness!  
10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.
This is not true because the priest need not believe sins are forgiven!  If the priest, speaking alter christus (as Christ) declares the sins forgiven - ultimately it is not the priest who forgives the sin - but Christ Himself THROUGH the priest.

(End of Part 1)

Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...