Still Not Going Back to Luther

Not Yet Heard Bishop Pivarunas, But Did Leave Comments · Still Not Going Back to Luther

Orthodox Christians SLAM Martin Luther For THIS...
Bless God Studios | 9 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npyzGLbKizQ

0:34 "Luther is a lay monk, he's not a priest" — where did you get that from?

// Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. //

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

2:47 Where does Pageau even get the idea that Luther being martyred was a practical option?

Germany didn't have any Inquisition, last time I think someone had been burned was Hus and Jerome of Prague on the Council of Constance. C. 100 years earlier. Apart from my not approving of the comparison between Inquisitors and Red Army, it's a bit like the idea of a Russian Orthodox priest hoping to get martyred by popular fury in Putin's Russia, as if it were Lenin's Russia.

4:04 Luther is the diametric opposite of St. Maximus (whom Latin rite Catholics celebrate on Aug. 13).

He's more like Patriarch Sergius, or like Arius' fellows in the service of Constantius II (whose portrait looks like some portraits of Luther).

4:35 Pageau had the wrong idea of what happened then.

In the place where he was, Maximus stood alone.

But in the Church as a whole, he didn't. St. Sophronius of Jerusalem stood out against Patriarch Sergius and even Pope Honorius.

The Church is not reduced to one voice of truth. Even in Apocalypse 11, there are two of them.

Elias and Elisaeus (Elijah and Elishah to some) were successive heads of a school of prophets, which we claim became the Carmelite order, the reason why Egyptian monks already found monasticism in Palestine when they arrived, there were 7000 in the North Kingdom that didn't bow down to Baal, but what's more, the South Kingdom didn't.

4:51 The Emperor in that day was not worshipping lots of Pagan gods either.

5:37 Old Calendarists in the Orthodox Church, that's basically like Trads in the Catholic Church.

Now, to be precise on the theology of the episcopate : we Catholics hold that a bishop has the right to rule his flock, and a bishop of Rome the Church universal, from the moment he accepts his election or nomination, even if he's not yet ordained a priest or consecrated bishop.

This means, the idea that one could and even should hold an election outside Rome, even if the elected person had to wait more than 21 full years to be consecrated bishop (1990 vs 2011), as long as he intended to accept ordination and consecration, which he did, immediately resulted in a papacy (if the other factors are right, i e no pope alive then, no other more clerical, more Roman way to get one elected possible at the moment, so the attempt was not usurping someone other's initiative with better rights), meaning, we have had a Pope since Michael I was elected in 1990.

Unfortunately, lots of trads seem to prefer a take like that of Old Calendarists, based on Orthodox ecclesiology : a bishop is enough.

6:39 He had no business protesting against indulgences.

Protesting against monetary arrangements surrounding the specific indulgence preached by Tetzel, I get you.

The theory was, the indulgenced act is giving a contribution to the building of St. Peter's in Rome. You could do that in materials, like stones, in labour, like going there and personally working, and for people far off, obviously by giving money. In practise, the Dominicans had lobbied to get the right to preach the indulgence, on which they made (also theoretically) a marginal profit, BUT to do the lobbying, they had borrowed money from the Fuggers and in practise 50 % of each gift went to their payment to the Fuggers.

If he had called that sacrilege and told Dominicans they should pay the Fuggers by other means, fine.

No, he went against the very idea that the Pope had power to allow certain acts to win graces about the afterlife, for souls that later die (if you win an indulgence for yourself) or have died (if you win one for others) at all, pretending that any soul that really loved God would for that reason so much relish the pains in Purgatory, that he wouldn't even want an indulgence. That was basically what Luther had said back in 1517, one of the things that Pope Leo X told him to retract. Even more, he was on a kind of social "crusade" against all kinds of beggars, both laymen that beg from unwanted poverty and beggar monks or friars who chose poverty as a life style, for God. In Persia, he'd have supported Haman against Mordochai.

7:08 Actually, Luther very much did acknowledge at least priests were above laymen, as per Jesus chosing the Apostles.

His schtick about the universal priesthood was not an abolition of clergy, it was simply boosting powerful laymen (fathers, employers, kings) against clergy when it came to the obedience of less powerful laymen (children, employees, subjects).

9:02 Ah, thank you!

The Church as the New Israel definitely is in the New Testament (btw, this is one of the things Trads insist on against Ratzinger calling that "Replacement theology"). The Christian Palestinians belong both to the Church and to the physical heirs of the Old Israel.