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.
Thanks.
Where did you learn that teaching ? This sure sounds like a denomination/sect/cult that denies the divinity of the LORD Jesus Christ; Jesus is God with us.
Matthew 1:18-23 (not Luke 1) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Luke 1:30-33
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
John 14:8-11
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
In fact I would say that most non-Catholics would not agree with Luther's 95 points, like
41 Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
etc. but the main theme is about i and quite frankly most if not all of what he argued against are gone.
Sorry, but it does make sense for Christians to hold to common beliefs in the Trinity and the nature of the Godhead otherwise you have anomalies like Mormons, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals etc.
Which simple message do you agree with? The Ebionites? The Gnostics? The Marcionite? The Oneness Pentecostal? etc. etc.
You did not cite any scripture that would indicate that I was in error in my response. You used a scripture to make a conclusory statement. You would be laughed out of a first grade debate by doing that. I did not lie and to say otherwise is a lie. Mote......beam. Christ is the object of my worship because He is the risen Savior. I will simply shake the dust off my shoes with you and move on now.
Whew...that was a close one. I dont think I could have made it through the day without another Protestant v Catholic Freeper bash up. Its been at least 5 minutes since the last one. Keep up the fine work of making us all look silly...
Nope. The Trinity. Three separate people yet one.
Nope...just trying to clarify twisted RCC teaching.
First, although the Bible documents that Mary became the mother of Jesus and clearly teaches that Jesus is God, it never states, or even implies, that Mary was (or is) the “Mother of God.” For a theological syllogism to explain correctly the relationship between Mary and God, it must be based on biblical truth. We can propose correctly that (1) Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8); (2) God became flesh (John 1:1,14); (3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body.
Second, we should keep in mind that Deity is not constituted by a literal family—with fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters—like some of the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Although we refer to the first and second Persons of the Godhead as the Father and the Son, these titles do not denote a literal familial bond, but emphasize Their united and divine nature. To refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is to misunderstand the nature of Deity and misapply Scripture.
Third, consider the consequences which develop from such an inappropriate use of the syllogism aforementioned. Since the Bible records that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), Catholics conclude that it is correct to refer to Mary as “the daughter of God the Father, Mother of Jesus Christ, and true spouse of the Holy Spirit” (Peffley, n.d., p. 3). If the Holy Spirit is Mary’s “husband” (and, therefore, Jesus’ “father”), and Jesus is God, would not the Holy Spirit be the “father” of God? This is not only a completely erroneous application of Scripture, but also blasphemous theology. Now let us consider some additional evidence from the Bible that further explains Mary’s relationship to God.
God does not have a physical mother
Speaking to the Son, the Father declared, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8, emp. added). In God’s revelation to the apostle John, the resurrected Christ said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,...who is and who was and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8, emp. added). The Son did not have a beginning; He is the Beginning. “He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). Paul pointed out, “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17, emp. added).
The Son’s existence did not begin with His conception in Mary’s womb. He was alive in eternity (cf. Micah 5:2), and, at the right time in history, He became flesh (John 1:1,14). Paul put it this way: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). On the other hand, Mary came into a time-bound world long after the creation of the Universe. She, like all human beings, was not eternal. She was not divine, not “from everlasting to everlasting” (Micah 5:2). She could not have provided an eternal nature to her Son. He is Deity. He is the “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5).
Consider how Jesus explained His divine nature. When addressing the Pharisees, He asked them: “‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord’.... If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?’” (Matthew 22:42-45, emp. added). The Pharisees failed to answer the question correctly because they were thinking about the physical nature of the Messiah. While Christ was a physical descendant of David (cf. Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:1), according to His divine nature He did not have a physical father, since He Himself is before all (John 8:58). In the same way that David could not be the father of the divine Messiah since he called Him “Lord,” Mary cannot be the “Mother of God” since she calls Him “Lord” in Luke 1:38,46-47. The truth is, as Paul explains, “according to the flesh, Christ came” through the patriarchs, David, and, yes, Mary, but according to His deity, He is the “eternally blessed God” who is over all (Romans 9:5, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2670
Again, the "mother of God" concept by the RCC is another attempt to twist Scripture to fit their false teaching regarding Mary.
I like what you did with the colors. Brings out the meaning very well.
the RCC is good at little subtle changes to the text.
The actual text from John 2:1-5 (NASB)
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
I added the bold face so we could see how John referenced Mary....the mother of Jesus. Not the "mother of God".
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Are you infallible? Do you speak for all protestants, if not all how many? Are you saying that you eat insects in the desert? Can you prove Bryan’s absurd, obnoxious and rude claim, without vitriol or hyperbole? What’s wrong with Bryan it’s his claim, why can’t he answer?
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...
There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace...
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.
They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
• There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)
Thanks. i understood that and was not claiming any violation. To do so would be reading minds, which even the RM would have to do in order to cite one for expressing hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
That’s what I posted...
When you pray to, it’s worship...
When you ask for something, it’s pray you...
The examples are given right in the piece you posted...
This is debatable.
What’s not, is the FACT that the seven churches listed in Revelation were CATHOLIC.
Just ask ANY of our staunch Catholic FR posters.
"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)
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.