The Inquisition ...

[Thomas]

Taken from a Quick summary:

• The Inquisition was originally welcomed to bring order to Europe because states saw an attack on the state’s faith as an attack on the state as well.
• The Inquisition technically had jurisdiction only over those professing to be Christians.
• The courts of the Inquisition were extremely fair compared to their secular counterparts at the time.
• The Inquisition was responsible for less than 100 witch-hunt deaths, and was the first judicial body to denounce the trials in Europe.
• Though torture was commonly used in all the courts of Europe at the time, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently.
• During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000 people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month).
• The Church executed no one.

Regarding the Spanish Inquisition:
Towards the end of the 15th century King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established an Inquisition to weed out 'traitor-heretics', mostly Jews. This Inquisition was controlled by the secular government (even when staffed by clergy). It operated largely outside the control of the Church. When abuses were reported, Pope Innocent VIII complained, but to no avail.

The persecution of heretics is also tied in with the politics of the day. In England, for example, the emerging Anglican Church under Henry VIII used heresy as a device to get rid of Catholics in High Office. When Mary came to the throne, the pendulum swung the other way ... and then Elizabeth I and it swung back.

The persecution of Catholics under Elizabeth became so bad the population lost the taste for it, and there was a brewing PR problem. Then the Pope made the great mistake of saying a Catholic was under no moral obligation to serve a non-Catholic monarch. The accusation of heresy was immediately switched to treason, and amid the paranoia about the Pope, the French, the Spanish, the civil population was more content to burn traitors than heretics.

'Bloody Mary' is just another example of anti-Catholic spin.

It's generally assumed that 'Bloody Mary. is the result of an unrestrained execution of Protestants. In reality, Mary's butcher's bill was pretty meagre, compared to that of her father or her successor, Elizabeth I.

The nickname ‘Bloody Mary’ came about as Protestant propaganda during the reign of Elizabeth I. Mary had married King Philip II of Spain an unpopular move as the English did not want to be ruled by a foreign king.

Mary died in 1558, succeeded by Elizabeth I. Philip of Spain, unwilling to relinquish England so easily, proposed to marry the new Queen Elizabeth. That plan failed, so he launched an Armada to invade England. The Armada was defeated by the English Navy and foul weather.

Queen Mary reputation, as the wife of the loathed Spanish invader, was in the mud. Her infamy was magnified out of all proportion. She very easily became 'Bloody Mary’'.

 

[RJM]

Taken from a Quick summary:

• The Inquisition was originally welcomed to bring order to Europe because states saw an attack on the state’s faith as an attack on the state as well.
• The Inquisition technically had jurisdiction only over those professing to be Christians.
• The courts of the Inquisition were extremely fair compared to their secular counterparts at the time.
• The Inquisition was responsible for less than 100 witch-hunt deaths, and was the first judicial body to denounce the trials in Europe.
• Though torture was commonly used in all the courts of Europe at the time, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently.
• During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000 people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month).
• The Church executed no one.

Regarding the Spanish Inquisition:
Towards the end of the 15th century King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established an Inquisition to weed out 'traitor-heretics', mostly Jews. This Inquisition was controlled by the secular government (even when staffed by clergy). It operated largely outside the control of the Church. When abuses were reported, Pope Innocent VIII complained, but to no avail.

The persecution of heretics is also tied in with the politics of the day. In England, for example, the emerging Anglican Church under Henry VIII used heresy as a device to get rid of Catholics in High Office. When Mary came to the throne, the pendulum swung the other way ... and then Elizabeth I and it swung back.

The persecution of Catholics under Elizabeth became so bad the population lost the taste for it, and there was a brewing PR problem. Then the Pope made the great mistake of saying a Catholic was under no moral obligation to serve a non-Catholic monarch. The accusation of heresy was immediately switched to treason, and amid the paranoia about the Pope, the French, the Spanish, the civil population was more content to burn traitors than heretics.

'Bloody Mary' is just another example of anti-Catholic spin.

It's generally assumed that 'Bloody Mary. is the result of an unrestrained execution of Protestants. In reality, Mary's butcher's bill was pretty meagre, compared to that of her father or her successor, Elizabeth I.

The nickname ‘Bloody Mary’ came about as Protestant propaganda during the reign of Elizabeth I. Mary had married King Philip II of Spain an unpopular move as the English did not want to be ruled by a foreign king.

Mary died in 1558, succeeded by Elizabeth I. Philip of Spain, unwilling to relinquish England so easily, proposed to marry the new Queen Elizabeth. That plan failed, so he launched an Armada to invade England. The Armada was defeated by the English Navy and foul weather.

Queen Mary reputation, as the wife of the loathed Spanish invader, was in the mud. Her infamy was magnified out of all proportion. She very easily became 'Bloody Mary’'.

Thank you. I do understand that Mary executed only a relatively small number. And the rest of her family did far worse, as Protesants. Nevertheless, Mary as a Catholic, did burn heretics, regardless if the true reason was political.

And I think it would be wrong to completely whitewash over the church involvement in the Spanish Inquisition during the 30 year reign of Isabella, when at least 2000 of the executions did occur, often after Torquemada's sentencing?

It did happen, though not on the scale of popular imagination.

It wasn't a pretty time and I believe the church should admit it. In the sense that most people understand 'the Spanish Inquisition'?

 

[Thomas]

I do understand that Mary executed only a relatively small number.

OK.

And the rest of her family did far worse, as Protestants.

Well, they just did the same, on a grander scale. Mary was raised in isolation, and never intended to hold a position in the world. She was completely out of her depth in the political sphere ... but they didn't do worse because they were Protestant, rather they did what they did for political gain, and certainly both sides feared the other, and rightly so.

The public got fed up of burning theologians, priests, etc. Especially when the victims were public figures who had been well liked ... there were occasions when a bag of gunpowder found its way to the foot of the pyres.

And I think it would be wrong to completely whitewash over the church involvement in the Spanish Inquisition during the 30 year reign of Isabella, when at least 2000 of the executions did occur, often after Torquemada's sentencing?

I don't think it's a whitewash. Scholars seem to agree there's a lot of hyperbole about the Spanish Inquisition, and these things have to be seen in context. Without the office of the Inquisition, the death-rates would have been far higher. Where there were abuses of the system, the pope complained, but was ignored.

It wasn't a pretty time and I believe the church should admit it. In the sense that most people understand 'the Spanish Inquisition'?

Er, no, the Church should not be obliged to admit and ask forgiveness for things not done, and false accusations laid against her, surely?
Pope JP-II has publicly acknowledged the Church's errors in the Inquisition, and has asked for forgiveness.

I'm not saying there were not abuses, or that history should be white-washed, but I am saying the current existing is a whitewash, and that scholars are now demythologising of history, revealing the truth behind the expansion of the Christian Faith (discussed elsewhere), the Inquisition (and the Spanish Inquisition in particular), the Crusades, the trial of Galileo and so on ...

 

[wil]

Ow! I don't hate Protestants ... just trying to shake of generations of black propaganda, and counter the idea that the reformation was a snow-white and necessary counter to Catholicism.

I was always taught it was simply a schism, a disagreement on interpretation of scripture. As I see it, while there were many before...they didn't take significant numbers. And since this one did, it was only the start of thousands more.

 

[Thomas]

An example I do hold to is the trial and subsequent burning of Marguerite Porete, a contemporary of Master Eckhart, and something of a speculative mystic, like him, and someone who expressed certain very Eckhartian views ...

Both she and Eckhart were accused of heresy by bishops, whom it would not be unfair to say mots probably lacked their theological insight or savvy. Simply, if its sounded dodgy, it probably was, and if I think it's dodgy, then it's bound to lead my flock astray, so it needs be stopped...

Porete's thoughts about the relation of the soul to the Divine, and the nature of Divine Union, were very close, if not identical, to those of St John of the Cross, two centuries later (who suffered persecution, this time over politics within the Carmelite Order), and John was never accused of heresy...

It's not so much that theology had moved on. Rather it was that there were currents abroad in Marguerite's time that 'disturbed' the calm of the Church (an assumption of absolute authority) and that needed to be sorted out... so it's politics again, really ...

 

[juantoo3]

so it's politics again, really ...

Good posts, and I don't wish to take away from them.

I do however, wish to point out that when *I* associate the close ties between religion and politics in past discussions, you have always been quick to dismiss me. I have only stated that politics and religion were either the same (in many instances) or closely tied (in the remaining instances) throughout history up to the little American experiment in separation of Church and State...which throughout this thread you seem to readily acknowledge my long standing position in cursory form. So forgive me if I seem a little confused...

But yes...all history, which cannot help but be intertwined with Church history in the west (other religions are tied to their political histories around the world), is political. No one writes about what John Miller in the glade around the bend from the fork in the road in the little hovel beside his bean garden had for supper on the night of June 11, 1605...essentially, no one cares...certainly not enough to put it into writing. What gets written is the proclamations and actions of the vying political powers in existence as they shoved each other back and forth, wrestling for political dominance and control over the masses and each other. A goodly bit is propaganda, and effective propaganda has a habit of perpetuating itself long after the reality has passed.

 

[Thomas]

I was always taught it was simply a schism...

Well, I'd say it was quite a schism, the single biggest schism since the separation of the Latin and Greek communions. And the conflict betweens papists and proddies goes on even today ...

... a disagreement on interpretation of scripture.

Not so sure about that ... certainly Luther had his views, and he lost the dispute when he put his case before the authorities, on the grounds that his views were too negative. As is often the case, the theological distinctions are so nuanced that your average lay person would know what they were arguing about.

Luther's famous anti-indulgences stance was notably there when the monies raised by indulgences were going to Rome, and not there when the monies raised by indulgences were going to his bishop ... it was a partisan and political dispute, although I do agree the way the indulgences were being sold was wrong.

As I see it, while there were many before...

What, schisms? Yeah ... but none like this for a thousand years, I think ...

they didn't take significant numbers.

Not sure what you mean?

And since this one did, it was only the start of thousands more.

Well not 'thousands' ... remember the Reformers were as zealous at stamping out heresy as their predecessors.

What triggered 'thousands' was the US constitution that allowed religious freedom, and especially when the spirit of free enterprise got hold of that idea and began to leverage the commercial opportunities ...

 

[Thomas]

I do however, wish to point out that when *I* associate the close ties between religion and politics in past discussions, you have always been quick to dismiss me.

OK ...

Well, for one, I will admit you've caused me to review my assumptions, and sometimes they've been wrong. Mea culpa if I've offended ...

On the other, I do try and understand the dynamic between church and state, who has the upper hand, etc., and where I disagree most vehemently is the sway the roman emperors had over the early church development ... but then that might be a reflex, because you know as well as I there's an awful lot of b•llsh•t rears its head when you mention 'Constantine' ...

Mea culpa if I've offended ....

 

[juantoo3]

I was always taught it was simply a schism, a disagreement on interpretation of scripture. As I see it, while there were many before...they didn't take significant numbers. And since this one did, it was only the start of thousands more.

Martin Luther, by my understanding, started out as a devout Catholic Monk. It wasn't until he paid a visit to the Vatican and was overwhelmed by the "excesses" that he saw all around him, which on his return to his home (I want to say Wittenburg, in what we know today as Germany) he wrestled for a time with his conscience and composed the 95 theses:

---

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).
12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words ``plenary remission of all penalties,'' does not actually mean ``all penalties,'' but only those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
55. It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
61. For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. (1 Co 12[:28])
79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
82. Such as: ``Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?'' The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
83. Again, ``Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?''
84. Again, ``What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, beca use of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?''
85. Again, ``Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?''
86. Again, ``Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?''
87. Again, ``What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?''
88. Again, ``What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?''
89. ``Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?''
90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Peace, peace,'' and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ``Cross, cross,'' and there is no cross!
94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

---
ref: http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

What I only became aware of in the past couple of years is that the Gutenberg printing press had only just come into widespread use, and being in a University town Luther was able to use the printing press to his advantage to invite debate over the issues.

I am not deeply familiar with the story, but my understanding is the various Catholic scholars that argued against Luther were never able to mount a genuine defense, and what scared the Vatican proper was the loss of revenue that was collected by selling indulgences. Indulgences built St Peter's cathedral as we know it today, it was greatly expanded over the original that was constructed by Constantine...again, I'm not conversantly familiar with the details as to when and by whom, or which Pope started the selling of indulgences....but clearly it was a stiff tax levied on the gullible and the Church profited handsomely. Luther exposed all of that and brought it to light.

The Lutheran Church even today, follows an awful lot of the Catholic tradition and ceremony, you might politely say "Catholic light." They have simply separated themselves from the authority of the Pope.

Now, it was folks like John Huss and John Wesley and others, seeing the inroads Luther made and being a little better situated (Huss was eventually burned at the stake), continued the tradition of challenging the theological assertions of the Catholic traditions and ceremonies. These "protests" became a tradition of their own, with new denominations challenging the previous denoms over "proper" translations and implementations - but all of them could see clearly the overstepping of the authority of the Vatican in application of the traditions and ceremonies.

There are numerous old threads throughout this site dealing with many of these issues singly, one on one. To list them all here would be futile and overwhelming, so I will only draw on one case in particular...the "iconography" of Hell as having levels of torture, each more severe than the previous - which comes directly out of Dante's "Inferno," which was written as political satire but taken up as divinely inspired for political reasons and foisted upon the illiterate masses for political control...none of which was Biblical, yet the propaganda remains to this day in the minds of people who don't care to know any better.

So yes, political abuses through the use of propaganda was (and I would argue still is) used by both sides of the historical aisle, as it were. The Church is nowhere near innocent in that regard.

*I need to correct myself, in looking into Luther I found John Huss (Jan Hus) died about a hundred years before Luther went on trial

 

[juantoo3]

What triggered 'thousands' was the US constitution that allowed religious freedom, and especially when the spirit of free enterprise got hold of that idea and began to leverage the commercial opportunities ...

"Church" is big business...the Vatican taught us that.

How much would it cost in today's money to build St Peters? To think, that was built on "purgatory."

 

[RJM]

As far as I know the sale of indulgences meant the sale for money of letters granting the bearer time off from purgatory. Luther objected to the principle.

But I'm already way out of my depth here ...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Ow! I don't hate Protestants ... just trying to shake of generations of black propaganda, and counter the idea that the reformation was a snow-white and necessary counter to Catholicism.

Sure, but it's much funnier of you hate them.

 

[Thomas]

It wasn't until he (Luther) paid a visit to the Vatican and was overwhelmed by the "excesses" that he saw all around him, which on his return to his home ...

Don't know enough to say. Inclined to regard this Luther's own issues? he certainly had them. As for Rome, I can remember visiting tutors waxing lyrical about drinking expressos on the via whatever, while my fellow students were lamenting the closure of churches in Liverpool and elsewhre because of lack of funds.

So it goes, as Vonnegut says.

Luther certainly objected to the way preacher Johann Tetzel was selling indulgences, and rightly so, Tetzel was taking certain theological and doctrinal 'liberties': "Once the coin into the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs!"

But Tetzel had been appointed by Luther's boss, Albrecht von Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz, who was deeply in debt to pay for a large accumulation of benefices. He needed to contribute a considerable sum toward the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome towards clearing it. Albrecht obtained permission from the pope to sell indulgences and the two would split the income 50:50.

Luther, of course, knew nothing of this, and when he complained to the archbishop, Albrecht thought him a pain in the arse.

What I only became aware of in the past couple of years is that the Gutenberg printing press had only just come into widespread use, and being in a University town Luther was able to use the printing press to his advantage to invite debate over the issues.

Yes. Luther's "Theses" had got to Rome, who were going through them carefully, debating how to respond, but in the meantime, the document was going into print and distribution, so the Vatican was well behind events, and caught out by these new-fangled machines ...

I am not deeply familiar with the story, but my understanding is the various Catholic scholars that argued against Luther were never able to mount a genuine defense ...

Point of view, I suppose. The way I see it, Luther lost the arguments, but simply rejected the authority of pope, Tradition, whoever, so the whole exercise was pretty futile. I don't think he made any telling theological points, and his theology is far too dour and pessimistic for my taste, so he'd certainly not win anything from me.

The Lutheran Church even today, follows an awful lot of the Catholic tradition and ceremony, you might politely say "Catholic light." They have simply separated themselves from the authority of the Pope.

Yes. Luther, like Arius, opens the door and seven demons follow in on his tail, kind of thing. Certainly the Reformation left him well behind. Lutheranism was limited to Germany and Scandinavia, I think.

... so I will only draw on one case in particular...the "iconography" of Hell as having levels of torture, each more severe than the previous - which comes directly out of Dante's "Inferno," which was written as political satire but taken up as divinely inspired for political reasons and foisted upon the illiterate masses for political control...none of which was Biblical, yet the propaganda remains to this day in the minds of people who don't care to know any better.

Absolutely.

At a public debate in Leipzig in 1519, when Luther declared that "a simple layman armed with the Scriptures" was superior to both pope and councils without them, he was threatened with excommunication.

Yes, and the Reformation quickly demonstrated that such statement was only true if the 'simple layman armed with the Scriptures' interpreted said Scriptures in line with the teaching of whoever was in charge. Luther's condemnation of the Peasant's Revolt — founded on the idea in Scripture that 'the labourer is worth his hire' (Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7, 1 Timothy 5:18, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:15) — soon put paid to that ridiculous notion.

Modern ideas that 'sola Scriptura' means everyone has the right to interpret Scripture as it appears to them is romantic and untrue. Scripture itself says it needs be explained and the Reformation Preachers in their Pulpits very quickly told their congregations how they should interpret the text, and the heretic's reward was never far away.

The idea that every man is his own priest is the same as saying every man is his own sheriff, and what right has anyone else to tell him what's legal and what's not? Every man is his own therapist, lawyer, judge, policeman, surgeon, doctor, dentist, teacher ... it's just silly.

 

[Thomas]

How much would it cost in today's money to build St Peters? To think, that was built on "purgatory."

I always wondered whether the Boston diocese had amassed its wealth to build an equivalent in the US, but then had to use the money to try and buy of the victims of abuse ...

 

[juantoo3]

Just as a simple point of note, the next to last quote attributed to me is not from me...not that I disagree, but I'm not taking credit for something I didn't do.

----
"Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and Magdeburg did not reply to Luther's letter containing the Ninety-five Theses. He had the theses checked for heresy and in December 1517 forwarded them to Rome.[50] He needed the revenue from the indulgences to pay off a papal dispensation for his tenure of more than one bishopric. As Luther later noted, "the pope had a finger in the pie as well, because one half was to go to the building of St Peter's Church in Rome".[51]

Pope Leo X was used to reformers and heretics,[52] and he responded slowly, "with great care as is proper."[53] Over the next three years he deployed a series of papal theologians and envoys against Luther, which served only to harden the reformer's anti-papal theology. First, the Dominican theologian Sylvester Mazzolini drafted a heresy case against Luther, whom Leo then summoned to Rome. The Elector Frederickpersuaded the pope to have Luther examined at Augsburg, where the Imperial Diet was held.[54]

There, over a three-day period in October 1518, Luther defended himself under questioning by papal legate Cardinal Cajetan. The Pope's right to issue indulgences was at the centre of the dispute between the two men.[55][56] The hearings degenerated into a shouting match. More than writing his theses, Luther's confrontation with the church cast him as an enemy of the pope.[57] Cajetan's original instructions had been to arrest Luther if he failed to recant, but the legate desisted from doing so.[58] With help from the Carmelite monk Christoph Langenmantel, Luther slipped out of the city at night, unbeknownst to Cajetan.[59]

In January 1519, at Altenburg in Saxony, the papal nuncio Karl von Miltitz adopted a more conciliatory approach. Luther made certain concessions to the Saxon, who was a relative of the Elector, and promised to remain silent if his opponents did.[60] The theologian Johann Eck, however, was determined to expose Luther's doctrine in a public forum. In June and July 1519, he staged a disputation with Luther's colleague Andreas Karlstadt at Leipzig and invited Luther to speak.[61]

Luther's boldest assertion in the debate was that Matthew 16:18 does not confer on popes the exclusive right to interpret scripture, and that therefore neither popes nor church councils were infallible.[62] For this, Eck branded Luther a new Jan Hus, referring to the Czech reformer and heretic burned at the stake in 1415. From that moment, he devoted himself to Luther's defeat.[63]"

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

 

[juantoo3]

The main events of the Diet of Worms relating to Luther took place from 16 to 18 April 1521.

On 16 April, Luther arrived in Worms. Luther was told to appear the following day before the Diet at 4 p.m. Dr. Jeromee Schurff, Wittenberg professor in Canon Law, was to act as Luther’s lawyer before the Diet.

On 17 April, the imperial marshal, Ulrich von Pappenheim, and the herald, Caspar Sturm came for Luther.[2] Pappenheim reminded Luther that he should speak only in answer to direct questions from the presiding officer, Johann Eck. Eck asked if a collection of books was Luther’s and if he was ready to revoke their heresies. Dr. Schurff said, "Please have the titles read." There were 25 of them, probably including The 95 Theses, Resolutions Concerning the 95 Theses, On the Papacy at Rome, Address to the Christian Nobility, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and On the Freedom of a Christian. Luther requested more time for a proper answer, so he was given until the next day at 4 p.m.

On 18 April, Luther, stating he'd prayed for long hours, consulted with friends and mediators, presented himself before the Diet. When the counselor put the same questions to him, Luther first apologized that he lacked the etiquette of the court. Then he answered, "They are all mine, but as for the second question, they are not all of one sort." Luther went on to place the writings into three categories: (1) Works which were well received by even his enemies: those he would not reject. (2) Books which attacked the abuses, lies and desolation of the Christian world and the papacy: those, Luther believed, could not safely be rejected without encouraging abuses to continue. To retract them would be to open the door to further oppression.[3] "If I now recant these, then, I would be doing nothing but strengthening tyranny".[3] (3) Attacks on individuals: he apologized for the harsh tone of these writings but did not reject the substance of what he taught in them; if he could be shown from the Scriptures that he was in error, Luther continued, he would reject them. Luther concluded by saying

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.[4]

According to tradition, Luther is said to have declared, "Here I stand, I can do no other," before concluding with "God help me. Amen."[5] However, there is no indication in the transcripts of the Diet or in eyewitness accounts that he ever said this, and most scholars now doubt these words were spoken.

Eck informed Luther that he was acting like a heretic:

"'Martin,' said he, 'there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John Huss—The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude.'"[6]

Private conferences were held to determine Luther's fate, but he was not arrested at Worms. Through negotiations by his prince, Frederick III, Luther had been given a letter of safe conduct to and from the hearing. After his dismissal he departed for his home in Wittenberg. However, fearing for Luther's safety, Frederick III sent men to fake a highway attack and abduct Luther, hiding him away at Wartburg Castle.

Edict of Worms[edit]
The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V, declaring:

For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.

The Papal nuncio at the diet, Girolamo Aleandro, drew up and proposed the denunciations of Luther that were embodied in the Edict of Worms, promulgated on 26 May. The Edict declared Luther to be an obstinate heretic and banned the reading or possession of his writings.

It was the culmination of an ongoing struggle between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church over reform, especially in practice of donations for indulgences. However, there were other deeper issues that revolved around both theological concerns:

• On a theological level, Luther had challenged the absolute authority of the Pope over the Church by maintaining that the doctrine of indulgences, as authorized and taught by the Pope, was wrong.[7]
• Luther maintained that salvation was by faith alone (sola fide) without reference to good works, alms, penance, or the Church's sacraments. Luther maintained that the sacraments were a "means of grace," meaning that while grace was imparted through the Sacraments, the credit for the action belonged to God and not to the individual.[8]
• He had also challenged the authority of the Church by maintaining that all doctrines and dogmata of the Church not found in Scripture should be discarded (sola scriptura).

To protect the authority of the Pope and the Church, as well as to maintain the doctrine of indulgences, ecclesiastical officials convinced Charles V that Luther was a threat and persuaded him to authorize his condemnation by the Holy Roman Empire. Luther escaped arrest and remained in seclusion at Wartburg castle

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms

 

[juantoo3]

So it is most likely true, the earlier claim that the Church didn't execute anybody....they had the secular authorities do it on their behalf. Plausible denial.

 

[RJM]

I believe Luther wrote a LOT of stuff. There is no central 'Lutheran Church' authority. Lutheran churches take many different roads?

 

[juantoo3]

In 1511 Luther and another monk were sent to Rome to carry out some business of the Augustinian Order, of which they were a part. Luther was given ten gold florins to take care of his needs. The two traveled on foot and found food and lodging in monasteries along the way. Luther was bothered by the luxurious living, the loose morals, and the lack of interest in spiritual things among the monks they visited. Nevertheless, Luther still held high expectations for Rome itself. When the papal capitol first came into view he shouted, “Hail, holy Rome!” as ecstatically as a Jewish pilgrim catching his first glimpse of Jerusalem.

Within the city was a large staircase which was said to come from the house of Pilate. Those who climbed it on their knees were promised an indulgence from one thousand years of penance. Luther, believing the superstition, decided to try the ascent. He had climbed halfway up repeating the usual prayers when these words came to his mind: “The just shall live by faith.” He stood up and walked slowly down the stairs.

During his stay in Rome, Luther learned a little Hebrew from a Jewish Rabbi. He also took some Greek lessons from a refugee from Constantinople. But the more Luther saw of the city, the more his reverence for Rome turned to loathing:

The city, which he had greeted as holy, was a sink of iniquity; its very priests were openly infidel, and scoffed at the services they performed; the papal courtiers were men of the most shameless lives; he was accustomed to repeat the Italian proverb, “If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.” [11]So he went away thoroughly disenchanted with the “holy city,” but the month he spent there counted for much later on. He never forgot what he saw.

ref: http://martinluther.ccws.org/journey/index.html

 

[juantoo3]

So in the span of 10 years, Luther was sent to Rome on an errand...came back lamenting what he saw, leading to the composition of the 95 theses...had a court date with a Papal Legate and slipped away before he could be arrested...and finally stood before the Holy Roman Emperor (secular government) where he stood in court toe to toe with a Papal Nuncio whose dismissal of Luther's position amounted to "You don't know what you're talking about. We, on the other hand, do." Before Luther could be arrested, he was spirited away under the protection of the Prince who had guaranteed Luther's safe passage. Luther's life was never the same after that.