Search This Blog


Thursday, April 16, 2015

BRIEF STATEMENT – Special Presentation, Part 1 Intro

adopted 1932
[April 17: See Comments below for additional historical info.]
      In the spirit of my blog post on Franz Pieper's "theological diapers" and in "honor" of Prof. Jeffrey Kloha's (and many others) desire to disassociate his LC-MS from the Brief Statement of 1932, I want to give it a Special Presentation.  The cover page of the booklet I purchased in the mid-1990s looked like this (see right) ==>>
The text from this booklet appears to be the original English text, the same since it was adopted in 1932.  But the version sold by CPH today has been poorly re-typeset since that time.  Today, as far as my research has found, there seems to be no fully accurate online publication of this "official" document of the LC-MS.  How so?  Because virtually all publications, either online texts or PDF downloaded scans, have lost the italics emphasized wording from the original publication.  And on a humorous note, the newer texts (except here) have allowed errors to creep in.  I attribute these errors to poor proofreading, not malicious intent, for example:
  1. extraneous characters "6:30-8:30" are inserted into the text of paragraph #32: "If, however, 6:30-8:30 the minister..."; 
  2. omitted words (in highlight) from paragraph #25:  "invisible, Luke 17, 20, and will remain invisible  till Judgment Day. 
The LC-MS/CPH may not have had malicious intent in their poor proofreading, but don't they do a better job of proofreading Hermann Sasse's works, or Matthew Harrison's works?  Hmmm... (I'm just sayin')

Downloadable versions: 
  1. Pieper's 1897 original Statement in English ==>>  here  <<==
  2. Pieper's 1922 updated version w/ English translation    ==>>  here  <<==
  3. Original German publication in CTM May 1931  ==>> here  <<==
  4. Original English publication in CTM, June 1931 ==>>  here  <<==
      But I want to do more than restore the original text, I want to add hyperlinks to all its referenced sources, so that one can easily learn from Pieper's source materials.  Even more, I may add in cross-references to these sources for even more ease of use.  Of course the automatic "Reftagger" will tag all Bible verses, but the Brief Statement also refers to the Book of Concord (i.e. the Lutheran Confessions) in many places.  In 1932, that meant Pieper would use the Concordia Triglotta, which had replaced the Mueller edition a few years earlier in 1921; but Pieper also included the page numbers of Mueller's ("M.") edition which the Triglotta also cross-referenced.
      As stated previously, virtually all of the former members of the old Synodical Conference and their descendants have retained this document as a semi-"official" declaration of their teaching.
      Ah, but the Brief Statement has a stormy history – there was (and is) almost no end to its opponents:
  1. One opposition author states that a number of clergy felt it was "a dangerous innovation in the church's confessional position".  
  2. Another opposition author stated it was "subjected to increasing criticism by a number of theologians" and that it was "unconstitutional to bind pastors consciences" to it.  
  3. And finally, the prolific scholar, "Beloved, LegendaryArthur Carl Piepkorn called it "at best a transient formulation of opinion".  
But Franz Pieper's Last Words to his dear Missouri Synod included these:
...that his Theses (The Brief Statement of 1932) on the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod should be regarded as his bequest...
Indeed the vehement scorn of A. C. Piepkorn against Pieper's work is like the scorn of Matthias Loy and his charge of "theological diapers"... and I would say with Pieper to Piepkorn that "almost too much honor lies in this strong expression".  —   And so this Special Presentation of "at best a transient formulation of opinion" is to the blessed memory of its author:
Prof. Franz Pieper.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Because the full text of the Brief Statement takes up considerable screen space, I will present it, in its entirety, in the next Part 2...  (This Intro may be edited if I learn more in the proofing process.)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

"Just saying"— today's LC-MS on Antichrist

There is a fairly new expression used in everyday conversations today:
"I'm just saying"
This expression has been explained quite well by a noted psychologist Dr. Lynn Margolies on —
Lately the annoying expression “I’m just saying” — usually tacked to the end of what would be an otherwise thoughtless remark — keeps coming up in everyday conversation. ... we can be onto the hidden dynamics that make this and other such figures of speech so irritating, and we can prepare ourselves for the next time.
Brooke used the expression “I’m just saying” after making an off-putting remark, conveniently absolving herself of responsibility for the affront. This tagline is a handy conversational tool: It serves as a free pass for the speaker to say anything and then negate any ill intent.
I find this explanation particularly incisive, at least in a worldly way:
"...a free pass for the speaker to say anything and then negate any ill intent".
Oh, but this expression has a far greater spiritual application!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Officially the LC-MS says the Pope is the Antichrist here:
Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. ... [But why say  "it is important that we observe the distinction ... between the ... papacy ... and the individual men"...  Isn't it also important to recognize that the Pope in Rome is the very Antichrist?  Are they declaring the Pope to be the very Antichrist or... are they "Just saying?"]
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.  At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.  [Why always the tone of doubt immediately following each pronouncement of the Papacy as the very Antichrist? – are they "Just saying?"]
But in the CPH book leading up to the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, The Lutheran Difference (2010 edition), they say this:
page ix-x: List of Comparisons - among the 39 specific areas of "Comparisons" which include "Justification", there is no comparison on the doctrine of the Antichrist between the Lutheran Church and other external church bodies – why? ... "Just saying?"
page 545: Luther ... increasingly saw connections between the prophecies in Revelation, the corrupt world, and the pope as Antichrist. [The editor allows that Luther "saw... the pope as Antichrist", but why is there no clear affirmation of this by the essayist himself?  There is virtually no mention here that the Lutheran Confessions clearly teach that the Pope in Rome is the very Antichrist, only that Luther "saw connections".  Is the LC-MS "Just saying?"]
page 572, Glossary: Antichrist. Based on 1 John 2:18; 4:3, the Antichrist is one who opposes the teachings of Christ. The term is also used to describe "the lawless one" (2 Thessalonians 2:8) or beast of the earth (Revelation 13:11), a deceptive religious leader who will emerge at the end of time. [Again, no mention is made that the Pope in Rome is the very Antichrist...  no mention that the Lutheran Confessions specifically teach this.  There is no mention that the Roman Catholic Church has not struck down its anathemas of the Council of Trent against all Christianity.  Is the LC-MS "Just saying?"]
      Aren't the "hidden dynamics" becoming clear now?  Isn't the LC-MS "just saying" that the Pope in Rome is the very Antichrist?...  that it sees that the world takes offense at this teaching and so, as psychologist Margolies says, it is "conveniently absolving itself of responsibility for the affront?"
      The Roman Catholic Church continues to condemn all Christianity with its Council of Trent anathemas, and its head, The Pope, IS THE VERY ANTICHRIST! 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      There remains a point to be said about my use of a worldly psychologist to unravel today's conversations.  A Christian repudiates whatever "wisdom" that psychology professes, for he already knows the truth: The Truth, The Way, The Life... in Christ Jesus.  The world's psychology is only broken cisterns (Jeremiah 2:13) apart from Christ, which leads one away from his Christian faith.  Dr. Lynn Margolies has no wisdom for the true Christian Church.  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It was Martin Luther, not a psychologist, who unraveled "hidden dynamics" better than anyone!  Perhaps the most forceful example of this is his comments on Erasmus from the book A Life of Luther by Oskar Thulin, Fortress Press,  page 50:
“It is true that he uses refined words, like ‘the dear, holy Christ,’ ‘the saving Word’, ‘the holy sacraments’, but in reality he considers them to be very cold matters.
… Carefully and intentionally he says everything in a tone of doubt; his words are ambiguous and he can interpret them as is expedient to him.
… Erasmus of Rotterdam looks upon the Christian religion and doctrine as if they were a comedy or a tragedy, in which all the events described therein never actually happened or really took place, but were fabricated with the sole purpose of instructing the people in a good external conduct and life and preparing them for worthy obedience and discipline.” (WA, TR 2, 2420; TR 1, 699, 797; TR 2, 2170)
Or translated in our modern vernacular:  Erasmus of Rotterdam was "Just Saying"!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Today's LC-MS
"We're Just Saying!

"We believe, teach and confess..."

Monday, April 13, 2015

Pieper still in theological diapers – Matthias Loy (on Election/Predestination)

      My headline comes from an article in 1881, in Lehre und Wehre, vol. 27, page 334 (German text here).  It is a quote from Prof. Matthias Loy of the Ohio Synod (see pages 503-504 here) against Prof. Franz Pieper of the St. Louis seminary of the old (German) Missouri Synod regarding the doctrine of Election of Grace or Gnadenwahl.  It highlights the chasm that had developed after the Ohio Synod removed itself from the Synodical Conference because of the conflict over this doctrine, sometimes referred to as the Predestinarian Controversy (#2 here).
Prof. Matthias Loy
Ohio Synod
      Prof. Matthias Loy is quite well known in the history of American Lutheranism.  He is considered by many as a faithful, conservative Lutheran.  He translated several German hymns into English.  Theodore Tappert published three essays of Loy in his Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 1840-1880.  And so his accusation that Pieper was in "theological diapers" is rather striking.  And considering their age difference (Pieper was only 29 to Loy's 53), an older man might feel this way when he saw this younger theologian refuting his theology.  In fact at the time of Pieper's article in 1881, the Ohio Synod was cutting off fellowship with the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference.
      There are today some who feel that this controversy is over, but it is not.  The controversy continues, here and now.  Only the battlefields have shifted. –  But Franz Pieper delineated, perhaps as well as his leader Prof. Walther, the points at issue and exposed the Ohio Synod's errors, despite their claims of orthodoxy.  Claiming the truth does not make one's doctrine true – only Holy Scripture makes doctrine true.
     For those who have not seen this prolific attack on God's doctrine of Election, I am presenting Prof. Matthias Loy's signature essay as he removed himself from fellowship with C.F.W. Walther:
(Highlighting added; Hyperlinks added for reference and must be opened in new tab/window)

      Indeed, Prof. Loy is quite passionate in his attack on Missouri's teaching against the use of "in view of faith" (intuitu fidei) as the reason for God's Election of Grace and quotes John Gerhard (see 2nd to last page above) in his defense – Gerhard's weakness.  Loy attempts to portray himself as the great defender of the Lutheran teaching of "justification by faith", defending against the great error of Walther that Election is NOT "in view of faith" but purely by God's grace.  And when Theodore Tappert reprinted Loy's essay, Tappert certainly did not refute Loy's stand defending the erroneous teaching of God's election of a Christian "in view of his faith".
      Franz Pieper continued on in his essay to highlight the point at issue: that it was the Doctrine of Conversion that the Ohio Synod was erring on.  And many years later, in Pieper's Brief Statement of 1932, the conflict over the Doctrine of Conversion (and Election of Grace) was put to rest. (see "Of Conversion" here)  Indeed, Pieper's writing of the Brief Statement, "OF CONVERSION" and "OF THE ELECTION OF GRACE", directly answers the objections of Prof. Matthias Loy as well as those of all his theological descendants:
12. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone....
36. ...Nor does Holy Scripture know of an election "by foreseen faith," "in view of faith," as though the faith of the elect were to be placed before their election...
It is sad for me that Prof. Roland Ziegler questions the use of the Brief Statement today when in fact it wonderfully upholds the Lutheran Confessions, even above John Gerhard...

Although Prof. Loy uses strong language in saying "theological diapers", what strikes me more is Pieper's response:

"For us, almost too much honor lies in this strong expression ('theological diapers')." 
 Franz Pieper (1881)

Dear God!  May I be in the same "theological diapers" that Franz Pieper glories in!
Matthew 18:3 – Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Martyrs 24b: Auto da fé: Lutherans &... a Jew?; Herrezuelo cries out

   This continues from Part 24a (Table of Contents in Part 1a and Part 1b) publishing the book of Hermann Fick on the martyrs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. — Part 24b concludes the account of the Auto da fé at Valladolid, the Spanish Inquisition against Lutherans.

Lutheran Martyrs and a Jew

      This portion presents Pastor Hermann Fick's comments on Jews that were put to death by the Spanish Inquisition.  —  Indeed, Hermann Fick expresses some indignation at the Inquisition for condemning Jews to death.  But that is not why he mentions this aspect of the Inquisition.  Rather Fick brings out this detail to further condemn the Roman Antichrist's reviling of true Christians, as the Inquisitors combined a Jew with the Valladolid Lutherans to revile them.  So the Jews of today, and their sympathizers, may take away some measure of "comfort" that a true Lutheran pastor grants them some "sympathy", but this is demolished with his description of "dishonor", "blaspheme", and "defile" in relation to the Roman Antichrist's use of a Jew against the Lutheran martyrs.
     The analogy to today's LC-MS is striking for they would say that in their condemnation of Martin Luther over the Jews, they were only following this "indignation" that even Pastor Hermann Fick showed over a Jew being put to death by the Spanish Inquisition.  But today's LC-MS would never then openly condemn the Spanish Inquisition for its use of a Jew to dishonor, blaspheme and defile the Gospel of Christ through the Valladolid Lutheran martyrs.
      The effects on modern history by the Spanish Inquisitionand its head, the Pope in Rome – should be quite obvious to all in this account of the Auto da fé in Valladolid -- the tortures, the yellow gowns (Sanbenitos), the killings.  So why does modern history rather attribute so much of today's evil to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis?... as some have even called Hitler the "Antichrist?"  They should rather be seeing the effects of the true Antichrist, the Pope in Rome, on ALL modern history...
==>> Why does the LC-MS tell all Lutherans that they are to be "haunted" by Martin Luther's remarks about the Jews, when they should rather be weeping (as Fick and I do) for the Lutheran martyrs murdered by the authority of the Pope in Rome?
Some highlighting added; hyperlinks added for reference.
by C.J. Hermann Fick
(tr. by BackToLuther)
The sixth sentence of condemnation was issued on the dry bones and picture of the blessed woman Leonora de Bivero, [or Dame Leonore de Bivero in Foxe], although they had never heard that she had any opinion for or against the Roman Church.  This godly woman was the mother of the five mentioned convicted siblings and had died long before.  She had heartily loved the true Christian religion during her life, led a blameless transition, and let preaching and Christian gatherings be held in her home.  Her excavated bones were brought in a coffin, after which her figure could be seen, and the solicitor spoke over them the judgment that her bones and dead form be burned as a Lutheran to ashes, and all her goods should be confiscated, that also her house be torn down to the ground, and [page 190] in memory of the place a marble stone should be erected on which the cause of her burning and this devastation would be recorded for everyone with engraved letters. [Where is this place; is monument still standing?]
For the seventh was Alfonso Perez, a priest at Valencia, condemned that he should first be demoted, then burned as a heretic and his property be confiscated for the king.
Now that the aforementioned persons and dry bones had received their judgment, the bishop of Valencia came forward in his episcopal attire, and began to solemnly demote the dear martyrs Cazalla, Francisco de Bivero and Alfonso Perez as no longer priests, while he gave each a cup in his hand, and withdrew from them the priestly garments one by one, as he had first put on them. Then he took from them of the priestly ordination according usual popish use on fingers, lips and head, whereupon they were again dressed in the Sanbenito and had placed on each man a paper hat.  Although Cazalla began to speak and ask the Princes and Lords to grant him a hearing, he could not obtain it, but was driven back hard and unkind, and pushed to his place.  Nevertheless, he said in a loud voice that his faith for which he was thus treated, was not heretical, but in agreement with the pure, infallible Word of God.  For the same he would be also ready and willing to die, as a devout, right Christian, and not like a heretic.
The eighth brought forward was Don Pedro Sarmiento, Knight of the Order of Alcantara, who was at Valencia and was the son of the Marquis de Poza.  He was publicly proclaimed a heretic, and condemned that he should wear the Sanbenito for the rest of his life and sit forever in prison.  In addition, he should be deprived of his Order of Knights and all his goods, and he would have no right to wear gold, silver, pearls or precious stones.  After him was called his wife, Maria de Figueroa, who would be cried out as a heretic and condemned as her husband with the same punishment.  For the tenth, Don Luis de Rojas, the son and heir of the Marquis de Poza, was called and publicly declared a heretic, but in consideration of the great intercession that happened for him, he was only sentenced that he bear the Sanbenito to the town hall and should be deprived of all his goods.  This was followed by Mrs. Anna Henriques, resident of Toro, daughter of Count Ascanzes, and mother of the Marquis de Poza, former wife of Mr. Alfonso de Fonesco. She was also declared a heretic and condemned, that she should carry the Sanbenito to the city hall and be deprived of all her goods.
Furthermore Christoval del Campo [or Christobal de Ocampo], a citizen of Samora [Zamora?], was called forward and proclaimed a heretic and condemned to the fire; his property should be forfeited to the common chest. [page 191]  The same judgment was received by another citizen of Zamora, Christoval de Padilla.  The fourteenth was Antonio de Huezvello [or Antonio Herrezuelo], a Bachelor of Theology, who had lived at Toro.  He was announced as a heretic and condemned to the fire: his property should be confiscated.  He had a bit put in his mouth so that he could not speak to the people, nor could make a confession of his faith.  For the fifteenth, Catalina de Roman [or Catherine Roman de Pedrosa, pgs 202-203] was called from her seat, a citizen of Pedrosa [Pedroda del Rey?], and condemned that she should be deprived of all her goods and burned.  The licentiate Francisco Errem, a native of Peñaranda [de Bracamonte or de Duero],  was condemned likewise as an abominable heretic, burned alive and his property should be confiscated.  After this was called Mrs. Catalina Ortega [or Donna/Dona Catherine de Ortega], residing at Valladolid, a daughter of the solicitor Fernando Piazo, and the widow of the captain Louis [or commander Loaisa].  Because she was held by the rest as the teacher, she was publicly decried as a noble and exceptional heretic and condemned to the fire: her property to be forfeited to the royal chamber.  In the eighteenth and nineteenth places were Isabella de Strada [or Isabella d’Estrada] and Juan Velasques [or Valazquez], both of Pedrosa.  They were sentenced to be burned and forfeit their goods.  The same sentence was given a certain Blechschmidt, who had been an elder of the church, and had granted his house as a meeting place for the Christians.
However the servants of the Roman Antichrist were not satisfied to take from these dear evangelical Lutheran martyrs only their property and their lives, for they sought in the most deceitful way to even rob them of their honor.  In order to more blaspheme [schmähen] and defile [schänden] the divine truth of the Gospel and its Confessors, and cause suspicion by the ignorant, they now presented a Jew and Marrano from Lisbon in Portugal by the name of Gensalo Vaes [or Gonzalez Baez], who had fallen again to Judaism after his baptism, and condemned him also that he should lose his property and be burned at the same time with the Lutherans in judgment.  It was generally [überhaupt] an excessive [unerhörte] tyranny to punish these people with death for the sake of their false religion.  However, while the Inquisitors combined this Jew, who had denied the Lord Jesus, together with the Lutherans, and condemned him to the same punishment, they wanted to create the false impression for the poor people, as if the Lutherans would also reject the Lord Jesus.  But disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord, Matt. 10:24.  But also our Lord Jesus Christ was reckoned among the transgressors and crucified in the middle between two criminals.
Then Juana de Silva was called, the wife of Juan de Bivero, brother of Dr. Cazalla.  They declared her [page 192] a heretic and put a robe of shame on her to wear for life, as a sign of her crime, and all her goods should be robbed.  Further, Leonora de Cisveros [or Leonora de Cisneros or Eleonora de Cisneros], the wife of the previously mentioned Bachelor Antonio de Huezvello, as well as Marina de Sojavedra, the wife of Cisveras de Sareglio, and Daniel Quadra, a Pedrosa native, were convicted, decried as total heretics, and that they should lose all their property and do penance in prison for life clothed with robes of shame.  Maria de Royas [or Donna Maria de Roxas], the sister of the Marquis de Royas, was condemned that she carry a robe of disgrace to the city hall, lose her goods and should ever repent, but as such grace happened to her because she had been a convent nun and came from noble lineage.  Then was brought forward and convicted Antonio Dominigo [or Santo Domingo (Fray antonio de)] of Pedrosa, that he be dressed with a yellow coat, stand a three-year prison sentence, lose all his property and should do repentance so for his heresy.  Finally, the twenty eighth prisoner Anthony Basor [or Anthony Wasor] was called forward.  Because he was an Englishman, he received the verdict that for his crime he should bear the Sanbenito to the City Hall, imprisoned a year in a monastery and be taught in the Roman Church teachings as necessary.
After these convictions were spoken, the dear Confessors were condemned to death by fire together with the coffin of the dead woman and her portrait sitting there, then were passed to the secular authorities and the executioners with orders to carry out the executions immediately.  Then they all were immediately seized and bound facing rearward upon an ass, and so accompanied by many armed and armored soldiers they were led out to the place of judgment, which lay outside the city and was called Del Campo.  Fourteen poles were erected spaced equally from each other on which the dear martyrs were lashed, and strangled first according to Spanish habit, then burned to ashes.  An exception was made with the blessed Antonio Huezvello [or Antonio Herrezuelo]. Because he violently loathed the clergy of the Pope in and out of prison, his mouth was blocked with a bit and so the faithful witness was burnt alive.
So these faithful Christians, for the sake of truth and the pure Word of God, were led like sheep to the slaughter, and had not only each other for Christian comfort, but also exhorted all bystanders to the knowledge of Christ, so that are all were highly surprised to see only their constancy and their calm and gentle end.  And hereby ended this miserable spectacle worthy of weeping.  However the reporter who wrote this news from Spain to Germany noticed that there was a rumor that there were probably thirty seven other Lutherans still sitting imprisoned with which they were willing to perform a similar tragedy before long.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
24. Auto da fé in Valladolid. Sources:  1. Crocius, p. 1012.  2. Herrn Baker’s vollständige Historie der Inquisition, p. 772 or here,  3. Foxe, The acts & c, p. 47l.  –  Leonora de Cisveros had suffered death according to testimony of the Papists, as if her body were of stone and not of flesh; as it says in the Unschuldige Nachrichten from 1718, p 242. She must have been burned later also.  Her name is mistakenly written as Lisveros on page 192. [See “Leonor de Cisneros”: Profile in Faith on website; also here, and here]
= = = = = = = = = =   End of Auto da fé in Valladolid.   = = = = = = = = = = =

These martyrs of Spain were not Reformed, or Calvinists, or Erasmian, or "reflecting evangelists", or "semi-Protestants", or any other notion of Reformed or secular historians... they were condemned and died as Lutherans!  Historians generally put the spotlight on Dr. Cazalla, but I am perhaps most impressed with Antonio Huezvello/Herrezuelo because...
"he violently loathed the clergy of the Pope in and out of prison"...
... and so the Spanish Inquisition had to mechanically close Herrezuelo's mouth to shut him up!  Oh dear Huezvello/Herrezuelo! ... this blog post is dedicated to your memory because your mouth is now wide open and your "violent loathing of the clergy of the Pope" continues!  The Gospel of Jesus Christ cries out against the papists with a loud, loathing cry for it condemns their robbing of its power... today!... here and now!
- - - - - - - - - -
This ends Hermann Fick's account of the Spanish martyrs.  He goes on from here to cover the martyrs in Italy, but I may take a break from translating this work for awhile...

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Martyrs 24a: Auto da fé at Valladolid; caught as Lutherans

   This continues from Part 23d (Table of Contents in Part 1a and Part 1b) publishing the book of Hermann Fick on the martyrs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. — Part 24a presents the essay on the well known Auto da fé in Valladolid with its multiple martyrs.
      Why do I persist in presenting this Lutheran account of the martyrs when there is so much information already on the Internet?  It is because there is so much misinformation related to these martyrs, such as this example from an 1851 book by an expulsed member of "Primitive Methodist" sect, who uses portions of John Foxe's Acts and Monuments:
"To return to Spain. A remarkable oneness of purpose actuated the leading evangelists of that country. They were not at first so much indebted to Germany as might be supposed. The religious wars and persecutions of their own country had provoked reflection. Not only the Koran, but the Old Testament, had been a household book through long ages of trial.  Prevalent idolatry and fiend-like persecution had closed the heart of the afflicted Jew against the evidences of Christianity."
This assessment of Church History deflects the "oneness of purpose" among the followers of Luther in Spain away from the Reformation, away from the Reformer, Martin Luther.  It shows a willful ignorance of the singular power of Luther's Reformation.  Even the Romanist Spanish historian Llorente admits (pg 196 ff.) that these Valladolid martyrs were Lutherans.  And so I continue this Lutheran martyrology.

Some highlighting added; hyperlinks added for reference.
by C.J. Hermann Fick
(tr. by BackToLuther)
"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?  And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
Rev, 7:13-14
At this time, since many people of high and low estates were caught as Lutherans, the inquisitors decided to show their power and strength even in a public spectacle before the whole world, and to hold an Auto da fé, which means in German: to hold to an act of faith.  This was their name for their solemn executions of Christian believers, as the wretched Papist tyrants were under the delusion that they were performing a God pleasing work, as the Lord Christ declared before, "Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2.   Except it is a far more correct naming of such executions as an act of faith because the Christians steadfastly confessed their faith in front of everyone by God's grace unto death.
It was in 1559, when the inquisitors held captive a large number, including many distinguished persons, as Lutherans, bound at Valladolid, where [page 187] the King of Spain usually kept his court encampment.  There they setup in the market before the city three large, far-reaching show stages or scaffolding, with chairs, benches and a gallery, whereupon the royal personages should sit together with other lords and courtiers to view this bloody, or rather fiery tragedy.  Not far from the city were 14 high-stakes or poles erected with some steps where l4 Lutherans should be burned.
Now when the 21st day of May had dawned, early in the morning at 6 o’clock, the Princess Juana,
Auto da fé in Valladolid
sister of
King Philip and regent of his kingdom, and his son, the young Prince Don Carlos, together with many other princes, lords and courtiers, assembled with great pomp on the gallery and settled there.  However, all around the stages, the whole marketplace, and all houses and roofs were filled with an immense number of spectators from all ranks  who stood looking out of the windows and from the houses to hear the verdicts of the Inquisition and to look at the court.  When the royal and princely persons were seated and waited a long time, the Inquisition judges emerged in their splendor, led by the Archbishop of Seville, as the chief of the synagogue of the inquisitors of the Inquisition Council along with other bishops of the country and the king's counselors, and mounted the other stage.
Now then the princes, and the other spiritual judges and councillors took their places by their station, surrounded by a large number of archers, halberdiers and armed soldiers, while four heralds of the coat of arms were doing their service and the imperial marshal carried the bare sword and the countless masses expectantly watched: there were led up as a spectacle and triumph the poor servants and witnesses
Sanbenito depiction
       by Goya
of the Lord Jesus, about thirty in number, caught  and bound, with burning candles in their hands and all clothed as dishonest people with yellow shameful gowns or
Sanbenitos that were decorated with red crosses.  Along with them was also brought to the stage the coffin and picture of a noble woman who had died long before, and during her life should have been a Lutheran, in order to receive her judgment.  Those [page 188] which should be condemned to death had paper hats which the Spaniards call Coaca on their heads, and a black linen-covered crucifix was carried ahead of them as a sign of mourning.  Then they were put in an order, one after the other, according to how they were considered guilty.  The noblest of all was the Augustinian monk, Doctor Cazalla, Canon of Salamanca, a very famous theologian and excellent man, who had been for some years a court preacher of Emperor Charles V in Upper and Lower Germany. Therefore, he had been placed ahead of the others, to a higher bench.  He along with his whole family was imprisoned soon after Charles's death, and in 1559 thirteen people among this family were burned.
Then came a Dominican monk, named Melchior Cano, who gave a sermon lasting about an hour.  After the sermon, the General Procurator went by his show stage with the archbishop of Seville to the Royal Gallery, which were connected to each other so that one could go from one to the other, and solemnly administered to the royal and princely people the following oaths, where each one of them had to lay two fingers on a Crucifix painted in a missal: "Your Majesties are sworn to favor and promote the Holy Inquisition, and not only to not prevent it in any way, but also will support with all force to kill all those who separate themselves from the Roman Church and join the sect of the Lutheran heretics without respect of persons, from whatever standing, dignity or condition they may nevertheless be from."  Also the second oath was "Your Majesties will swear that they will force all of their subjects to submit to the Roman Church and to keep their commandments in honor, and to help them resist those who still cherish the heresy of the Lutherans or any take any part of it."  All royal and princely persons swore obediently to this oath, after which the Archbishop uplifted his hand and gave them his blessing, saying: "God bless your Highnesses, and grant them long life!"  The same swore also the remaining states and lords who were present in large numbers, each according to his rank. [page 189]
After completion of this wicked ceremony, the condemnation of the poor prisoners was read in the order listed publicly and in a loud voice, whose whole crime was that they loved the pure evangelical Lutheran doctrine agreeing with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, and rejected the superstitious human institutions of the Roman papacy. The Procurator Solicitor or great-collector of the Pope began with the already mentioned Dr. Augustino Cazalla, [or Cacalla in Foxe] whom he called from his seat that he should come near and listen to his judgment, which read thus: Because one would certainly know that Cazalla was a teacher, preacher and as it were the flag leader of the Lutheran sect in Spain, so one should therefore first solemnly degrade him, and then immediately burn him, but confiscate all his goods for the betterment of the Inquisition. [See here for painting of this event, text in Spanish]
The second one called by the Solicitor was Francisco de Bivero [or Francis de Bivero from Foxe], Cazalla's brother and minister to Valladolid, who was also sentenced to the fire. But because he was very popular with the people and a most eloquent, zealous man who had confessed the truth freely inside and outside the prison, his mouth was so connected that he could not speak a word. They were worried that he would open his mouth too much, and thus attract the people and show his innocence in the light of day.
The third was a sister of the two mentioned martyrs, Mrs. Blanca de Bivero [or Dame Blanche de Bivero in Foxe], and she was condemned in the same way to death by fire.
Fourthly was Juan de Bivero, a brother of the preceding who was cried out as a heretic and condemned to eternal prison, and that he should wear a Sanbenito or yellow gown of shame throughout his life as a sign that he was disreputable and would be deprived of honor.  Fifth, was a sister of the same, Constantia de Bivero, [or Dame Constance de Bivero in Foxe], widow of Fernando Ortis, who had been for a while at Valladolid, condemned to be burned with her brothers.
= = = = = = = = = =   concluded in Part 24b   = = = = = = = = = = =

The Spanish Inquisition is rather well known in history.  Yet it is distorted in many ways to diminish its infamy, whether by the Roman Church, the Reformed, or secular historians... though there are surprisingly some who are not completely blind to how it affected later history.  —  There is currently a blog from Valladolid (in Spanish) that presents additional information on this Auto da fé with more pictures.

It is noteworthy that the Auto da fé is also covered in the Jewish Encyclopedia, as they attempt to honor the Jews who were also put to death by the Roman Antichrist.  But the only reason for mentioning this is that it also relates to a portion of Fick's history of the Lutheran martyrs at Valladolid... coming in the next Part 24b.  Hmmm, Lutherans and... Jews?