The examples are what you are missing. Schism is unfortunate, but the point you miss is that the fault of the schism lies with the party that is promoting the error. In this case that would be Rome. Do you find joy in being a Christian or follow of Jesus or do you mope around because of the schism between the Jews and the Apostles.

Simply put, you arbitrary apply schism only to what benefits your current argument.

--------
All your Luther examples are just attempts at distraction.

Luther was a monastic, under a system he came to understand was flawed and incorrect. For you to have any sort of argument, you would have to justify that by Luther turning from a monastic vow that he in some fashion violated God's law, which he didn't. The fact that you see this as problematic is actually the more interesting thing because it was so often that men and women were forced into monasticism, seemingly against their will. And yet you would demand they potentially go against god to declare a vow of man.

Additionally, Luther, or any man is not required to be blindly obedient to a false teacher. That would be quite terrifying if true, but fortunately it's not Scriptural. This of course does not mean we should not show them honor and respect, but we should absolutely rebuke them:

Titus 1:10-16

10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.[h] 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. 12 One of the Cretans,[i] a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."[j] 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.


1 Timothy 5:17-20

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages." 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
-------------

Paul calls us to speak out against heresy and yet you demand we should be silent when told to. I'll side with Paul.

Edit...and I will add further, it appears that while everything I said about monastic vows hold, Luther was also released from his monastic vow by his Father confessor Staupitz.

So the claim by you would be false even before a debate of monastic vows and the problems that came from it.

Link several documents sources: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2018/02/luther-broke-his-solemn-religious-vows.html?m=1

I think there was fault on both sides - I think anyone with any kind of unbiased view would say that. That Rome was wrong does not make Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or the anabaptists) right.

Why the appeal to some kind of force for monks? Was Luther forced into monasticism? Or did he do it willingly after making a vow to God during a thunderstor, against the advice of his family and friends? A monk's Abbot can't erase the fact that they make a vow. He can let them go - but it doesn't magically annul it, any more than a person who gets a divorce can make their marriage vanish as if it never happened. It is God's to judge, not mine.

St Paul's letter to Titus was written to St Titus, a bishop. St Paul's letter to Timothy was written to St Timothy, a bishop. Bishops should rebuke those who are in error who are under their authority. Laymen should submit to their bishop, and by extension to their presbyters and deacons. Presbyters are in submission to their bishop. You quoted St Ignatius earlier, I believe?

"Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual."

"It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience 'you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing,' and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified....Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God..."

"It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found...He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience...Fare well in Jesus Christ, while you continue subject to the bishop, as to the command [of God], and in like manner to the presbytery."

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop...Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God...Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father...For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop."

"where the bishop is, there let all the people be, just as, where Jesus Christ is, we have the catholic church."

I didn't say anyone should be silent. I say people should not abandon their monastic vows, or their bishop, and priests should not set up separate communion outside the authority of a bishop. You may say, well the bishop was in error - so be it. It does not follow that a priest usurps the place of bishop in that case. In the end, the reality of schism is made manifest by the separate Eucharist. But what bishop presides? And why did we go in the west from one communion to countless? You can say Rome was in error, but you don't commune with baptists or calvinists or even certain Lutherans. So everyone is in error now, from schism to many many many schisms. Do you find joy in this?

I want to start my response by making sure that it is clear that Reformation Day is not a celebration of schism. It is a celebration of the rediscovery of the Word of God and the saving faith that comes with it.

That was what I believe was the reason for the post and I don't want that to be lost in any of this subsequent discussion.

-----------------

Quote:

---

I think there was fault on both sides - I think anyone with any kind of unbiased view would say that. That Rome was wrong does not make Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or the anabaptists) right.

---

Don't forget that this argument would also be applicable to the Great Schism. Rome being wrong would not make the Eastern Orthodox right.

There are always degrees of right and wrong to be considered. History itself is messy, especially Christian history.

------------------

Most of the rest is just an attempt to sidestep the issue. The question is not whether we should be subordinate to leadership. The question is what should we do when facing heresy whether it be from an elder or anyone else. Would Paul have us follow a leader into heresy or would he have us speak against it?

------------------
Your final paragraph has been shown to be incorrect. It appears Luther was released from his monastic vows. Whether you want to argue that his Father Confessor had the authority to do that or not or whatever is fine, but irrelevant. You're attempting to read your opinion into history and that's typically not good scholarship.