Luther and the Papal Bulls

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo X issued a papal bull, Exsurge Domine, which threatened Martin Luther with excommunication if he did not retract portions of his 95 Theses.

In November 1520, Martin Luther published in Latin and in German a tract called Against the Bull of Antichrist.

On December 10, 1520, Martin Luther publically burned the papal bull at Wittenburg. An account of the event is given here.

On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issued the Decet Romanum Pontificem, the papal bull which excommunicated Martin Luther from the Roman Catholic Church.

A more detailed account of the sequence of events can be found here.

Martin Luther Burns the Papal Bull on December 10, 1520:

LutherPapalBull.jpg
 
I think if Luther could roll in his grave if they did such a thing
He would.

Reading through these articles it shows Luther didn't care about the excommunication, as far as he was concerned HE
left the RCC with no intent of ever returning.

it just looks like they want to do something against HIS wishes even though he himself is dead, and based on the fact he is dead, does it really matter if they remove his excommunicant stance now? He left the RCC of his own volition. And most importantly it doesn't change Luthers beliefs.

That's like the Mormon church baptising people into membership at their church once the person is already dead.



[Edited on 12-9-2005 by BJClark]
 
I don't think its right to say that Luther left of his own volition. He was definitely kicked out, and kicked out of an apostate church, a church that had elevated man's teaching above that of Scripture: that was his right to burn the papal writ.

I think there's a difference. As long as he was in the church he had an obligation to the offices themselves, if not to the men in the offices, because that respect is due to the offices by Christ's appointment. When the men in the offices used their positions to oust him, that was then the men leaving the church, not Luther. At that point they departed their appointment by Christ to pursue their own authority, and so left the Church. That made it Luther's right to despise the writ of excommunication against him, because it was not legitimate.
 
I don't believe we can really say Luther kicked out of the "Church"; He was however kicked out of the RC Denomation, which I believe there is a distinct difference. I believe he left of His volition, because they would not change their stance concerning what they taught.

If we look at say the PC there are many who did not like the direction they were headed, so there was a split, many people stood up against the false teachings and when they couldn't bring about change they left, of their own volition, and were probably excommunicated from the other denomation in the process.

Just as with the PC-USA today, there are many who do not like the direction it's going, and they are addressing those issues within trying to bring about much needed change, it's not working, so many of them are leaving because the leaders refuse to make the changes.

When I read things about Luther, I see that is exactly the same thing he did.
 
Excuse me, please, Bobbi. You're right that Luther was not kicked out of the "Church"; he was kicked out of the RC church. What I was trying to say was that in excommunicating Luther the RC church was alienating itself from the true Church, turning from truth instead of from false practice. They made their choice. Luther, on the other hand, was willing to submit to the offices, but not to falseness. It was the prelacy that tied the two intrinsically together: falseness and the offices. Therefore Luther was right in despising the writ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top