Martin Luther and the Heidelberg Disputation

[@JohnO318]

I learned numerous details about this part of History that I never knew before. Thank you thank you.

[@ArroyoRoblesWinery]

15:16 , did he say Catherine of "Aragorn"? Imagine Lord of the Rings Characters in a Reformation setting.... Sauron as the Pope? Frodo as Luther? Imagine Gollum as Tetzel?.... "Give us Indulgences, My Precious, we needs it..."

[@KTChamberlain]

He did, though to be fair that's something of a Freudian slip up. I had a reversal to that when I got into Lord of the Rings. I thought Aragorn was called Aragon because I hadn't read it yet. Funny enough, Ian McKellen, who famously played Gandalf actually played Martin Luther in the 1960s.

[@JohnO318]

KTChamberlain Now that's an interesting tidbit. LOL

[@rscottr]

I have read that the Johann Eck at Leipzig is different than the Johann Eck at Worms. Do you consider them the same person?

[@kjvnews8326]

Thank you for posting all of these video lectures, They are very informative. There is one thing that i would like to mention however that was recorded by most of the chroniclers of that period, and that is Frederick the Wise' famous dream. There is no explanation as to why Prince Frederick would not just turn Luther over to the inquisition in the first place. He was even presented with a golden rose that year (1518). This was an extremely rare presentation made by the pope to only one person every few years, or decades. There can be little doubt it was a bribe. Ironically, the next one to receive a rose was Henry VIII in 1521, when he was also given the title 'Defender of the Faith" (two bad investments by the same, pope Leo X) The question is, why would Frederick support Luther in the first place? Princes rarely, if ever, went against papal authority. Popes claimed the authority to depose princes and emperors, and they had done so several times in the past. Frederick was risking excommunication himself, and losing the allegiance of his subjects from another papal bull. In addition, there was an indulgence for Wittenberg itself, and he had one of the largest collections of relics in Europe that people were paying to see. By his preaching, Luther was taking money out of his pocket as well as the popes. In my opinion, the only thing that can answer that question is that dream. Reportedly, Prince Frederick had this same dream three nights in a row, where the saints had come to him and told him that God was sending him a monk that was a true son of the Apostle Paul, and the saints were asking the prince permission to allow this monk to write something on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The third dream was reported to have occurred on the night before all saints day, and the day of the 95 thesis. The complete dream can be found online: on reformation.org the Elector Frederick the Wise' famous dream. The dream was also briefly mentioned in a 1958 movie about Martin Luther. In any event, I believe the story is true. I think only some supernatural event could explain why this prince would go to such lengths to protect Luther, and even to the extent of hiding him in one of his castles for six months. As I previously mentioned, I think these videos are great and very informative, and I guess you can't include everything, but I thought that this was an important point.

[@RyanReevesM]

+KJVNEWS // Great comment. The issue with the dream, though, is it's not mentioned by the chroniclers of the period at all. The story of Frederick's Dream is something that started to be told in the later 16th century and really only took on legs in the 17th century. We're not quite sure who started it, but these types of legends tend to crop up about great events. But in terms of Luther's day, it was not told and not part of the story itself. I do think the dream points to a vital issue: why would Frederick support Luther? The answer is not that he had no reason to support him. But a more likely answer is that quite a few German princes were at odds with papal policy in their day, and for Frederick he was not about to be bullied into giving up his new celebrity professor in Wittenberg! :)

[@JohnO318]

Ryan Reeves I believe you're right about that. The university in Fredericks area was relatively new and having Luther there helped put that University firmly on the map.

[@dalgetty]

thanks for this interesting lecture series loved the "Catherine of Aragorn" at 15:15 - I also love LOTR

[@shellyvivian5116]

Great lecture - just one comment - Hus was burned in Constance, not in Rome, I think - am I mistaken about that?

[@jy2460]

Correct Shelly. Hus was executed at Constance, Germany. Agree that it is a great lecture.

[@lucascropp2842]

Shelly Vivian you are correct

[@jenna2431]

1:06 "janury" (It's easy to read right over familiar words). Question: When did the title "Vicar(ious) of Christ" become attached to the papacy? Does the Cum postquam have any reference to actual Scripture as a basis for the practice of indulgences?

[@RyanReevesM]

Yeah finished it late and night, uploaded it, and then saw that misspelling immediately. Doh... The Vicar of Christ terminology shows up roughly around the 5th or 6th centuries, though its use is caught up in the increased need for the bishop of Rome to exert his authority over against the bishops of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and elsewhere. Constantinople, in particular, was rising in stature as the seat of imperial authority, and so it's around this time that language related to the bishop of Rome starts to shoot for the starts in terms of its hyperbole. Cum postquam really doesn't focus on biblical texts supporting indulgences, per se, but rather on the authority of the papacy to define these ordinations within the life of the church.

[@jenna2431]

Thank you for those explanations. Both make sense.

[@meirdrummer]

I just discovered your lectures and I am enjoying them. If you saw the 2003 Hollywood movie, Luther, starring Joseph Fiennes as Luther, in the scene where he goes before Cardinal Cajetan, Luther refers to a bull about Indulgences issued by Pope Clement VI - Unigenitus in 1343. Do you know what the issue is about that, that Cajetan said "the good works of Jesus, Mary, and the saints are a treasury of merit" (from my memory, I hope that is accurate); but Luther said Clement VI wrote, "acquire" a treasury of merit. What was the point about that? The Popes were issuing indulgences since the Crusades, and I didn't understand the point of the difference between "acquire" vs. "are" in the context of Luther's objection to the abuse of indulgences. Luther also said that that Papal Bull was an embarrassment and extravagant. Was the movie even accurate about that meeting? Roman Catholics have pointed out a few historical mistakes in the movie - such as the fact that the RC did translate the Bible into German before, but they were not good translations and not widely available to the people. The Catholic translations (German, 2 Italian) before Luther's NT even had "alone" in Romans 3:28, which R. C. Sproul pointed out in "Faith Alone" on page 168.

[@JohnO318]

Ken Temple "RC Sproul" LOLOL!!!

[@onceANexile]

another first rate, second rate view....