Luther

[Albion]

In which way do you believe Francis of Assisi was a challenge to the Church of the day?

Well, as you know, he was very unconventional in his approach. He was not a certified theologian or even an ordained priest of the church. He gathered a lot of followers who functioned somewhat like monks but were not within the usual system of the church. And so on. Plus, we know that he worried the Papal higher-ups and they interviewed Francis. In the end, they felt that it was not prudent or beneficial to quash his movement since he was not actually a heretic and did promise to be strictly loyal to the church and its requirements.

But the church was powerful and pretty confident in Francis' day. It and the whole of Medieval civilization was back on its heels when Luther posted his theses. Had this fairly conventional challenge to a debate, posted in a university setting, and done by a renowned Bible scholar and priest been made in better times, the Papacy might well have treated Luther more like it had treated Francis. Of course, there is a lot of guessing that goes into such speculation, so we cannot be sure of it.

 

[gordonhooker]

Well, as you know, he was very unconventional in his approach. He was not a certified theologian or even an ordained priest of the church. He gathered a lot of followers who functioned somewhat like monks but were not within the usual system of the church. And so on. Plus, we know that he worried the Papal higher-ups and they interviewed Francis. In the end, they felt that it was not prudent or beneficial to quash his movement since he was not actually a heretic and did promise to be strictly loyal to the church and its requirements.

But the church was powerful and pretty confident in Francis' day. It and the whole of Medieval civilization was back on its heels when Luther posted his theses. Had this fairly conventional challenge to a debate, posted in a university setting, and done by a renowned Bible scholar and priest been made in better times, the Papacy might well have treated Luther more like it had treated Francis. Of course, there is a lot of guessing that goes into such speculation, so we cannot be sure of it.

He most certainly was unconventional and he never felt he was ever called to be anything other than a Friar Minor. After his audience with the Pope he and his fellow friars developed a rule based solely on the Gospel and his calling was simply to be of service to the sick, the poor and the marginalised to rebuild the Church so to speak following the teaching of Jesus. He was always loyal to the Church and Church hierarchy, and he never set out to start a movement he simply served and others followed.

 

[tz620q]

He most certainly was unconventional and he never felt he was ever called to be anything other than a Friar Minor. After his audience with the Pope he and his fellow friars developed a rule based solely on the Gospel and his calling was simply to be of service to the sick, the poor and the marginalised to rebuild the Church so to speak following the teaching of Jesus. He was always loyal to the Church and Church hierarchy, and he never set out to start a movement he simply served and others followed.

Yes, he had a humility that was absent in Luther. This is not necessarily a blanket condemnation of Luther. Perhaps in Luther's time a more forceful form of dissent was needed. That is not my opinion; but I can understand those who might think so.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, as you know, he was very unconventional in his approach. He was not a certified theologian or even an ordained priest of the church. He gathered a lot of followers who functioned somewhat like monks but were not within the usual system of the church. And so on. Plus, we know that he worried the Papal higher-ups and they interviewed Francis. In the end, they felt that it was not prudent or beneficial to quash his movement since he was not actually a heretic and did promise to be strictly loyal to the church and its requirements.

But the church was powerful and pretty confident in Francis' day. It and the whole of Medieval civilization was back on its heels when Luther posted his theses. Had this fairly conventional challenge to a debate, posted in a university setting, and done by a renowned Bible scholar and priest been made in better times, the Papacy might well have treated Luther more like it had treated Francis. Of course, there is a lot of guessing that goes into such speculation, so we cannot be sure of it.

Luther threatened the Papal piggy bank, Francis did not.

As one cardinal cynically whispers at the end of Franco Zeffirelli's Brother Son, Sister Moon... "This man will bring the poor back to the Church". Francis message could more easily be incorporated into medieval piety without upsetting the status quo.

 

[Resha Caner]

Take the case of the famous professor, theologian, writer, and priest Hans Kung, who has for years sternly questioned the role of the Pope himself among other doctrinal matters. He has not been excommunicated or defrocked, let alone put on trial and declared an outlaw, etc.

I was going to ask something similar. When was the last time the RCC excommunicated a monk over theological matters? Maybe it's more common than I realize, but if so I don't hear about it. Further, Luther didn't leave the RCC. He was thrown out.

It's interesting that the issues you've pointed to here are not unique in Church history. For example, Francis of Assisi, despite the fond way we moderns think of him, was something of a challenge in his own day. But the church essentially let it pass for a variety of reasons. At the time, the Church was in its prime.

Right.

But Luther came on the scene at a time when the Church was going through a variety of troubles. Luther was far from being the first critic who found favor with ordinary people during the Late Middle Ages.

Also right. Luther wasn't even the only critic in his day. Nor was he initially reviled. The church actually did listen to him (albeit briefly). It was more a comedy of errors that escalated his case to such a frenzy.

I've read some RCC historians who exhibit a certain amount of frustration over it all. They point to the other critics of Luther's day and claim the church was already on a path to reform, already largely recognized and acknowledged the problems at hand, and that Luther's case, by becoming so politicized, actually hindered rather than helped that reform. I think they're overstating their case, but it's an interesting spin on it.

 

[tz620q]

I was going to ask something similar. When was the last time the RCC excommunicated a monk over theological matters? Maybe it's more common than I realize, but if so I don't hear about it. Further, Luther didn't leave the RCC. He was thrown out.

It is fairly common. Here is a case in the last decade from this link List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church - Wikipedia.

• Sr. Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[78] McBride later reconciled with the Church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication.

The number of priest and bishops excommunicated is a lot higher than monks and nuns. The pertinent point to Sr. McBride's story is that her excommunication was lifted. This could have happened with Luther as well, if he had sought reconciliation.

 

[Albion]

It is fairly common. Here is a case in the last decade from this link List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church - Wikipedia.

• Sr. Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[78] .

In other words, she was not excommunicated for advocating that the church change its attitude towards abortion itself. That would be the comparison to make when addressing the church's response to Luther.

 

[Resha Caner]

In other words, she was not excommunicated for advocating that the church change its attitude towards abortion itself. That would be the comparison to make when addressing the church's response to Luther.

I had thought of making a similar reply, but that probably constitutes special pleading.

 

[tz620q]

In other words, she was not excommunicated for advocating that the church change its attitude towards abortion itself. That would be the comparison to make when addressing the church's response to Luther.

True, Sr. McBride's "offense" was different from Luther's. Actually they did not need to write any excommunication of Sr. McBride, though they did. From Canon Law

"Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.:"

I had not thought of this; but all of Luther's protestations came prior to Trent, which made a lot of them anathema. Not sure what the canon law stated prior to Trent.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think it's a matter that for Lutherans is adiaphora, whether or not Mary was immaculately conceived. Luther's views seem to have fluctuated throughout his life. Early on, he seems to respond affirmatively, but later his answers are more non-committed, though he believed at least that Mary was holy. There were a variety of opinions at the time in the Catholic Church about Mary's sinlessness.

Theologically, it's just not that important to us. While we don't have Mary-phobia, and our churches do occasionally have images of Mary, Mary is not a central figure for us in our faith.

I think Lutherans are the true doctrinal via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, because our focus is doctrinal rather than in institutions. Like Catholics, we emphasize the objective reality of baptism and the other sacraments, but like Protestants we emphasize justification by faith alone and the centrality of the Bible in our theology. So ,we are between Catholics and Presbyterians, to use a crude analogy.

Actually, this is not Adiaphora; the BVM was human, born of human parents; and therefore, bore the stain of original sin just like the rest of us. Without this being the case, Mary would not have needed a savior.

The assumption of Mary is considered Adiaphora in Lutheranism though.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In which way do you believe Francis of Assisi was a challenge to the Church of the day? As a Franciscan it would be interesting to hear to what you a referring to, from my reading and study he was seen as a simple and different man, he was loyal to the Church but tied up in the politics of it all.

I'm not exactly sure why, but Luther called the Franciscans "lice in the fur coat of God". I quite like all of the Franciscans I have met; but their tendency here in Canada) to have "ecumenical" services with Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, and any other religious faction make me question their dedication to Christianity. More "Catholic Unitarians" maybe.

 

[Athanasias]

Actually, this is not Adiaphora; the BVM was human, born of human parents; and therefore, bore the stain of original sin just like the rest of us. Without this being the case, Mary would not have needed a savior.

The assumption of Mary is considered Adiaphora in Lutheranism though.

I would surmise that Luther probably could say that about Mary's sinlessness because he realized the same principle that catholics do, namely that even if Mary was made sinless by God she still needed a Savior as no one could create themselves sinless. In other words her sinless nature was not of her own doing it was the grace of God and the merits of Christ applied to her. I would imagine thats is why Dr Luther could say

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" -Martin Luther (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

What is curious is the younger Lutheran ministers are disovering Marian devotion but the older ones fear it of being too "Catholic"

Here is a great article on this by my Lutheran Minister friend:

Mary, Model Christian

 

[gordonhooker]

I'm not exactly sure why, but Luther called the Franciscans "lice in the fur coat of God". I quite like all of the Franciscans I have met; but their tendency here in Canada) to have "ecumenical" services with Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, and any other religious faction make me question their dedication to Christianity. More "Catholic Unitarians" maybe.

That would most likely be because Franciscan’s believed that when Jesus said love your neighbour he meant it, not just those that belong to your particular tribe.

 

[Albion]

More likely it was because of the condition of the friars, both Franciscans and Dominicans, at that time in history. They had acquired a widely-held reputation for dissoluteness at worst and useless at best. Of course, they recovered in time, so most moderns have a completely different impression.