Posted on 11/02/2012 7:17:23 AM PDT by marshmallow
(Reuters) - It's rare to be invited to an event five years off and even rarer to bicker about its details, but Germany's Catholic Church finds itself in that delicate situation thanks to an overture from its Protestant neighbors.
German Protestants are planning jubilee celebrations in 2017 to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's launching of the Reformation, a major event in the history of Christianity, of Europe and of the German nation, language and culture.
The Protestants have invited the Catholics to join in, a gesture in harmony with the good relations the two halves of German Christianity enjoy and the closeness many believers feel across the denominational divide.
But even after five centuries, being asked to commemorate a divorce that split western Christianity and led to many bloody religious wars is still hard for some Catholics to swallow.
"It's not impossible in principle, but it depends on the character of the events planned," Bishop Gerhard Feige, the top Catholic official dealing with Protestants, said in a statement for the Protestant Reformation Day holiday on Wednesday.
"Catholic Christians consider the division of the western Church as a tragedy and - at least until now - do not think they can celebrate this merrily," he wrote in the text outlining Catholic doubts about the event.
LUTHER, A GERMAN GIANT
The Reformation began in 1517 when German monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door to denounce corruption in the Catholic Church, especially the sale of indulgences to help build the lavish new Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Excommunicated by Rome, he won support from German princes who soon battled others who remained Catholic. The ensuing wars of religion killed about a third of Germany's population over the next century and spread to neighboring countries as well.
After............
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
It is clear that you do not know what an indulgence is.
Would keeping that money be the medium view?
The orthodox view is that Luther's position (good works have effectively zero value) and Tetzel's position (good works have precise and measurable value) are false.
The orthodox view is that good works (like making a donation for the rebuilding of a church) have value as they proceed from faith - that they are not a means of salvation (like the saving grace that comes through faith), but they are a means of sanctification.
So you disagree with this:
Yet not until the question of the "sale" of indulgences arose in Luther's diocese did the issue acquire "legs," as the journalists say.
The "selling" of indulgences occurred in the neighboring diocese of Mainz; it was the spill-over into the Luther's diocese and into his confessional that brought the issue to his attention. The twenty-three year-old archbishop of Mainz had allowed indulgences to be preached in his diocese in exchange for a "cut" in the revenue raised. The money was supposed to go to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In fact, the archbishop needed the money to pay a fee to the Roman Curia for a dispensation allowing him to hold three dioceses at once.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences? Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
Do these guys? From the same link above:
How did something spiritual — an indulgence is after all a remittance of temporal punishment due to sin — come to be "sold"? The theory was that monetary offerings could count as a form of penance, when the donor truly gave sacrificially from his heart, with the proper motive.
Unfortunately, the practice easily degenerated into "buying" remittance of punishment for sin. Worst yet, "selling" of indulgences got linked to a misapplication of the principle of praying for the dead in purgatory. Catholic teaching was that one could offer one's penitential acts to God through Christ as a sort of "petition" on behalf of those who had died and were being purified in purgatory.
But five hundred years later, here one comes blowing smoke up our skirts about what was happening in those times. Luther was a professor of theology at Wittenberg, he was there and saw the abuse. Again, what was schismatic about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences.
I am NOT "offended" that an invitation was extended to the Catholic Church for the Luther celebration.
At least the offer was made in a very nice gesture.
I'm also NOT "offended" if the invite is rejected with good grace. My world will not crash.
This is how to get along in these "across the aisle" efforts and situations.....no one's principles are compromised, no one is offended, no one is a "victim"....the celebration and world goes on.
I should get the Nobel Peace Prize if someone will nominate me.
Leni
Ummm, find any German dictionary and look up the word "tur" or its plural "turen". Better yet, try any one of the on-line German-English translators and type in "turen der kirchen". The phrase quite unambiguosly means: doors of churches.
There really isn't any evidence that the church doors of Wittenberg were used as bulletin boards.
Someone should have told Pope Leo. Article VII of the Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther ordered that it be published by nailing to church doors.
I apologize for the wrong reference. (Can barely see - severe reaction from eyedrops)
The source uses the word "sale" and "selling" in scare quotes, demonstrating that indulgences cannot legitimately be sold.
What was 'schismatic' about opposing the buying and selling of indulgences?
A schism is a deliberate breaking of the unity of the Church. Luther did nothing wrong in opposing Tetzel's simony. He did wrong in denying the authority of the Church to define Christian doctrine.
Did not the Catholic church quit doing this when the stench became unbearable or just after they replaced the line of popes who dealt in God's business for money?
You forgot to add "when did you stop beating your wife?" to your string of rhetorical fallacies.
Anyone in 1517 who believed himself to be purchasing an indulgence was committing a mortal sin that rendered any indulgence for himself impossible, and anyone who believed himself to be selling an indulgence (an impossibility) was likewise committing a mortal sin.
The same was true before 1517 and is true down to the present day. I intend to avail myself of the plenary indulgence for the Year of Faith this week. Monetary cost to me: $0.00.
You should also truthfully detail the schizophrenic correspondence penned by Luther to Pope Leo X and reproduce in its entirety Tetzel's Vorlegung. You should but we all know that you won't.
The correct German phrase for that would have been "auf den Turen".
In the big picture whether Luther nailed his theses to the doors or adjacent to the doors is of little consequence. Most churches had and have bulletin boards, The church at Wittenberg was no different.
Unnecessary, as I speak German.
The phrase quite unambiguosly means: doors of churches.
Apparently you did not read my translation above, since that is precisely what I wrote.
However, equally unambiguously, Roerer's annotation says absolutely nothing about physical documents being nailed to the doors of churches. It says that the "theses were made known at the doors of churches."
There are ways of expressing one's opinion at the door of a church other than physically nailing them.
Someone should have told Pope Leo. Article VII of the Papal Bull excommunicating Martin Luther ordered that it be published by nailing to church doors.
Interesting that you would make this claim, since the bull itself shows how unusual such a practice was. Let's look at what it says:
However, since it would be difficult to deliver the present missive, with its declarations and announcements, to Martin and the other declared excommunicates in person, because of the strength of their faction, our wish is that the public nailing of this missive on the doors of two cathedrals—either both metropolitan, or one cathedral and one metropolitan of the churches in the said Germany—by a messenger of ours in those places, shall have such binding force that Martin and the others we have declared shall be shown to be condemned at every point as decisively as if the missive had been personally made known and presented to them.
The Holy Father is saying that as unusual as it may be to nail this document on a church door, that is the only way - given the impossibility of physically delivering the letter to its intended recipients - to communicate its contents to the intended recipients.
Clearly hand delivery is the preferred method. The nailing of documents to churches is an extraordinary measure that has to be spelled out.
So simony was Christian doctrine then?
Anyone in 1517 who believed himself to be purchasing an indulgence was committing a mortal sin that rendered any indulgence for himself impossible, and anyone who believed himself to be selling an indulgence (an impossibility) was likewise committing a mortal sin.
Impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony. The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome. More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states. The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread. Monetary Cost to you $0.00
I am saying that there is no evidence at all to claim that the theses were nailed anywhere. Let alone on a church door, or multiple church doors or adjacent to multiple church doors.
Most churches had and have bulletin boards, The church at Wittenberg was no different.
The bulletin-board is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is first attested in the early 1800s. Pasted handbills are older. Scattered leaflets are older than that, and were actually known at the time.
And, of course, the 95 theses were composed in Latin.
Printing was in its infancy at the time, and literacy was relatively rare. Literacy in scholastic Latin was arguably even rarer.
The tiny University of Wittenberg was not even 15 years old when Luther wrote his theses - it was not Paris where hundreds of passersby could be expected to be able to read and discuss theological papers written in Latin. 99% of the people in Wittenberg could not read the language the theses were written in.
Fewer could follow the arguments being made in them.
In context, it would have been an absolute waste of time to do this.
The reason why I bring up the legend of The Nailing of the 95 Theses, is because it is an example of the way folklore tends to dramatize and distort history.
If Luther was simply calling Tetzel a simoniac, that would have been no problem, since that is what he was. The problem was Luther denying the value of charitable deeds.
impossible, and yet they were sold, you must admit, you accused Tetzl of simony.
If I promised to sell you sunshine at midnight, would sunshine actually be saleable?
Not at all.
But if I signed a contract with you agreeing to deliver said goods at said time, I would still be committing fraud.
Tetzel arguably pretended to be able to sell grace (he would likely have denied this characterization), but if something is sold it cannot be grace - by literal definition.
You know where the term "simony" comes from, right?
The Archbishop of Mainz split the take with Rome.
Correct.
More of what is believed in the field vs. what the Catechism states.
Does it surprise you that human beings are not perfect, and that they are prone to sin?
The source didn't use 'scare quotes' they told it like it was.
The source quite clearly used scare quotes. The scare quotes are right there in your post.
I'm sure you'll rate an indulgence for your historical obfuscations on this thread.
If I obfuscated anything, you should be able to present contrary evidence.
But you haven't.
Proof positive that indulgences can still be bought, just not for coin.
Tetzl sold indulgences
Split the money with the Arch bishop of Mainz
Archbishop sent the cut to the Pope
The Pope wasn't Christ Vicar on earth at the time so this violation of Catholic doctrine means that the Pope/Archbishop and Tetzl weren't selling indulgences because that's impossible in the Catholic church.
Got it, no obfuscations. .Org first.
And I suspect that you do not understand what a "medium of exchange" is.
and the Archbishop of Mainz claimed 50% of the proceeds from these sales of courage,
and Tetzel sent the other half of these sales of courage to the Pope -
would that somehow prove that courage could actually be sold?
Your suspicions are unfounded.
But, let's assume he Scotch taped the theses. The fact would remain that Luther did not consider the Theses to be a mere academic exercise; he sent a copy directly to Archbishop Mainz. The fact would also remain that the Archbishop knew of Tetzel's sale of indulgences for the sins of the dead and profited from it. Whether the Pope personally knew, the Vatican also profited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.