Luther's 95 Theses
Posted on 06/08/2014 1:59:17 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
In 2017, we will witness the 500th anniversary of one of the most important, influential and regrettable events in Church history: the Protestant Reformation, or the Protestant Rebellion, as some prefer to call it. Indeed, the latter term would suit me better, too. But, being German, I am used to the former expression and should I ever refer to said event as die protestantische Rebellion, people would think me some sort of radical. On that thought, perhaps it is worth noting that rebels are often quite radical themselves, which is one thing we can definitely say of the so-called "Reformers". To mark this anniversary, the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) has planned a number of events, beginning with a "Lutheran Decade" from 2008 to 2017. Each year has it’s own theme in the form of "The Reformation and…", i.e. Education, Freedom, Music, Tolerance, Politics and others.
The decade will culminate in the celebratory year of 2017, to which the President of the Evangelical "Church" in Germany (EKD), Nikolaus Schneider, has even invited Pope Francis. But, really, how likely is it His Holiness will hop on a plane and join in the celebration of someone his predecessor excommunicated? One might ask, is there any room for Catholics to take part in some sort of event? This is the question that is circulating in the mother country of the Reformation: Germany. The Most Reverend Gerhard Feige, Bishop of Magdeburg, is the Bishops' Conference's representative for ecumenical affairs. He has dedicated a lot of thought and time to the question how Catholics should view this event.
It begins with the name: Do we call it an anniversary, something that could imply happiness, or a commemoration of an event that has wrought such great damage upon the Body of Christ, His holy Bride, the Catholic Church? The German bishops have chosen the latter term. There is still confusion on the whole thing, though: The EKD is not being very clear on what exactly they want to celebrate. One hears catchy words such as "diversity", "conscience", and the like stuck onto the Reformation in their talk, but never do we hear of heresy, schism or even the antisemitism of Luther and his ilk. Indeed, who in his right mind would celebrate the chaos and harm inflicted on the Church by the so-called "Reformers"? Not even the Protestants organizing the event dare to say thus. Yet, one gets the impression that the whole event is not actually interested in critically evaluating the past, or their theology for that matter, but rather praising it as the dawn of an era of "tolerance" and "liberty".
Could this be any further from the truth? Professor Heinz Schilling of Berlin, a member of the advisory board for the anniversary, stated in an interview that Luther was "everything but tolerant" and criticized the EKD as "quite understandably not interested in any of the research’s findings". He went even further and said that the organizers made themselves appear "laughable among scholars" by claiming what they do. Margot Käßmann, who is the anniversary’s ambassador and a former Lutheran "bishop", once claimed that it was thanks to Luther that her sect had female "bishops". The professor criticizes this as yet another inaccuracy and something that Luther certainly did not envision. Is it any wonder, then, that the EKD has not come out clearly and said what the entire occasion is about for them, as the bishops have repeatedly bewailed, if even their own board members see through their catchy slogans?
What about us Catholics? Is there any way in which we can join our separated brethren in their commemoration? I argue: no. Some will disagree, but to me, the Reformation is intrinsically connected to fracture in the Body of Christ, heresy and the resulting total chaos. I could never join any such "commemoration", even if one doesn't call it an "anniversary" for the sake of appeasing Catholics. When have we ever "commemorated" the schism of 1054, or any heresy, for that matter? I believe we would do great harm to the effort of achieving Christian unity by taking part in any way. It obscures the borders between Catholicism and Protestantism, confuses people, and may even cause scandal.
The aforementioned Margot Käßmann suggested the following kind of participation of Catholics and Protestants: Each group could begin a pilgrimage on their own route, and reach one common destination. She would also like the program to achieve that all people learn "that 31 October is Reformation Day and not Halloween", to which Bishop Feige of Magdeburg replied "and the eve of All Saints". But the problem I see with Käßmann’s proposal is this: Although the idea might seem nice, it suggests that Protestantism and Catholicism are somehow equals. They most definitely are not. And certainly not according to Luther himself! Catholics know that their Church is the Church Christ the Lord founded on St. Peter, and Protestantism's very name already suggests otherwise. The Reformers made that point very clear. From a Catholic point of view, a heretical movement that splits the Church cannot be of equal worth as the One True Faith. Just think how we would have fought Arianism if such had been our position! This is not to say that Protestants aren't Christians, of course, but we must realize that Protestantism is not what our Lord willed us to have or believe: Catholicism is. Thus, two equal pilgrimages reaching one destination à la Käßmann would cause scandal and confusion. I assume she does not want it to symbolize the way we might some day find unity, but rather the common destination means Christ. But that is precisely the point: The Catholic Church is the ark of salvation, the Body and Bride of Christ, and She alone has "the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). She is Christ in this world apart from Whom "no one comes to the Father" (John 14:6). Protestantism has distorted those words of eternal life fundamentally, and thus cannot be on equal footing with Holy Mother Church. If Christ is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" apart from Whom there is no salvation, then so is the Catholic Church, for She is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24).
Thus, let me emphasize again: Celebrating the Reformation, or even commemorating it with Protestants, will blur the sharp line between the One True Church and those communities that came from the Protestant Reformation. It will scandalize and, actually, almost certainly make Christian unity harder to achieve. For in pretending Protestantism is somehow equally valid or of the same dignity as Catholicism, we take away the very reason for Christian unity: to be united in the one Church that our Lord left us, founded on Peter in the person of the Roman Pontiff.
Therefore, I hope the German bishops decide not to participate – however unlikely that is. It remains to be seen whether the ecumenical progress in achieving unity hoped for will come about. Let us pray, that 2017 will bring to many people's attention the Truth of Catholicism and the scandal that the separation of Christians is, fostering in them the desire for unity with Christ in His Bride, which is Holy Church.
Luther's 95 Theses
—
Follow Phillip on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to Matthew Olson's YouTube videos.
Yup.
Your chosen religion can REALLY talk the talk!
Who was the pope that conjured up the COUNTER Reformation?
It still is ...
The brevity of your response just SHOWS what a doofus (a probably a hateful bigot; too) that you are.
Saddly, many here are color blind.
(And they can’t PARSE worth a, uh, darn; either.)
That’s what ‘missing the mark’ is all about.
It can be deduced that many FR posters are, indeed, buggy.
Have you noticed that LoudMouth has not said anything about #293 or #297, but POUNCED on #302?
Which one? Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant?
Years ago I started reading some of the modern translations thinking that modern English might be easier but found too many contradictions.
I have also found it hard to pin down just which bible the Catholic and protestant reads.
Why does your Roman reasoning see my documentation of RC hypocrisy as defending Luther's animosity toward the Jews? Was Paul defending pagan idolatry when he condemned Jews for their iniquity?
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (Romans 2:1)
Why not admit it is duplicitous to condemn Luther's latter day attitude and recommended actions against the Jews of his day when popes much (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 ) exhibited the like? Instead you avoided that in engaging in absurd reasoning, which further testifies to the myopic defend-Rome-attack-Prots-at-any-cost bondage.
Meanwhile, no religious group is more pro-Israel than those who hold most strongly to Scripture as being supreme and authoritative, rather than following Luther (who was far more Catholic than evangelical Christians) as a pope.
You response is irrational. You asked a question about where a Prot has authority, and as an itinerant Jewish Preacher was asked the same and responded by asking a question about where John the baptist obtained his authority, so did I asked where souls obtained authority to affirm John as being a prophet indeed.
Why avoid answering it?
It matters not whether Bryan can or will respond, and i did not even see what he wrote, for your question applies to anyone and pertains to a fundamental issue, which all may address on a forum.
Mary ruled for only five years, while Elizabeth's reign lasted 45 years. One can only wonder how many more Mary would have killed had she ruled for 45 years
because you posted it in defense of Luther and it was lame, halt, and blind; in addition the German nation and the Nazis they elected effectively used Luther's treatise to dehumanize and commit systematic genocide against the Jews as he recommended. If you want to start a thread commemorating wicked popes, do it. Do not defend Martin Luther.
Which Bible versions do you and your bishops sanction?
You still won’t identify the denomination, sect, or cult you learned this from. I proved only from the Scriptures that Miriam/Mary is the mother of Emmanuel, which the Spirit of God interprets as “God with us” and still you still you deny the clear inspired Scripture means what it says.
Denomination is irrelevant. Biblical facts are.
You've proven nothing other than the RCC will twist a verse to pull something out that's not there.
By your implication, Mary as the mother of God, this is saying God/Jesus has not always existed.
Additionally, to carry your line of thinking out...Mary was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. That is how she became pregnant with Christ. Are you willing to say that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Christ????
I hope not for that would be indeed be blasphemy. But that is what you have to go with with your line of thinking. If Mary is the "mother of God" then the Holy Spirit has to be the "Father of God." Sheer utter nonsense and blasphemy if one believes that.
If you will read the post I provided to you earlier and forget the false teachings of "tradition" you'll understand this.
Again...no where in the NT is the title "mother of God" used. You're reading something into the text that's just not there.
And just where did i defend Luther's antisemitism? What I said was that Luther is not a pope to us, despite the seeming inability for papists to comprehend this, while your post is that of a typical myopic view that cannot see the same in Rome. And yet it turns out you tried this before and were shown The Popes Against the Jews that Luther, as often, had Catholic company and his animosity was not novel, and thus your duplicity is inexcusable.....See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 ...If you want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity, then see to your own house. And Rome has been too partial toward the Muslims as regards the Promised land.
Why won't you admit the RC hypocrisy instead of contriving some way to charge me with defending Luther's latter attitude toward the Jews?! Indeed your myopic attack mode is manifest as lame, halt, and blind.
in addition the German nation and the Nazis they elected effectively used Luther's treatise to dehumanize and commit systematic genocide against the Jews as he recommended.
No doubt, selectively and as convenient, as if these determined what Scripture said which is contrary to SS, and as if Luther here was to be followed as popes who did likewise, and here again actual scholarship (if you permitted your eyes to read it) indicts Rome as also being used for this.
“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9). The Popes Against the Jews
If you want to start a thread commemorating wicked popes, do it. Do not defend Martin Luther.
If you want to start a thread attacking Martin Luther as a pope, don't leave out wicked popes.
Bump to your post.
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.