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.
It seems to me that your entire ecclesiological theology is complete focused on being antiCatholic. It is what defines your brand of Christianity. You have no physical, real, genuine, church to proffer as a replacement for the Catholic Church. At least the Fundamental Baptists (usually) proffer up themselves as a real physical example of the holy catholic apostolic church with that succession from the First Century until now; or at least they used to teach that; of course Westboro Baptist Church is one of those churches and all fundamental New Testament churches are local and independent so all they could choose to do is not fellowship with it, barring some heresy which would make it not really what it said it was.
Is that what you believe or are you really one of those universal invisible body types who teach a church no one can see, with a history no one can read, with all things defined by the antiCatholic bogeyman ?
“mother of Jesus” is simply a description to let us know which Mary is being discussed. Otherwise it would be “Mary, the Mother of Jesus”, the word “mother” capitalized to show an important title. Smilar to Jesus, Son of Man. It’s like if there were three men named Steve and we wanted to differentiate them; Steve, with the blond hair; Steve, with the big nose; and Steve, with the tattoo.
Amen to that!
The Chalcedonian Creed of 451 uses Theotokos. It clarifies Theotokos nicely.
born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood
Scripture says *mother of Jesus*.
The Holy Spirit clarifies who Mary is quite nicely.
And yet they deny it. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 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.
Scripture is clear in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
Did the Holy Spirit not inspire these verses? L:uke 1:43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
What would Jesus think if you were looking to Mary at the moment of your death instead of Him?
He will be there, Mary will not be there.
I certainly hope you, as a highly respected Catholic authority here at FR, do not get Catholics convinced that they need to see Mary as they pass from this life.
I also hope you do not believe, as some popes do, that Mary can give salvation.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
OK
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3165205/posts?page=428#428
Institutional monopoly as in the way the Orthodox did it after the fall of Constantinople or as the various CAtholic rites do it now, works imho. It ensures a trueness to doctrine rather than something like the Anglican communion
Jesus was/is God. full-stop. Mary bore Him and was His mother, hence she was the bearer i.e. the mother of God
If you state therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body you are separating out Jesus the 100% man and Jesus the 100% God -- that is wrong. Jesus was fully man and fully God, both natures intertwined. If you say that she bore only His human nature, that means a sense of Adoptionism, as if you would state that Jesus the man was "possessed" by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism
if you reject the term “Mother of God” what exactly do you call Mary? The mother of His human nature? Then did she bear only His human nature? What happened to His divine nature?
So are you saying Jesus <> God?
with institutional monopoly you get corruption like the bishops covering up for child molestors, shipping them from parish to parish without telling the unsuspecting congregations anything about the criminals who are being foisted on them. how much more corrupt would this institution be in a non-pluralistic society where it didn’t have to answer to any authority didn’t have to fear defections of the victimized faithful to other denominations.
It seems you are having a problem separating a discussion disputing claims Catholics are making on this thread with others stating why they are in disagreement with that conclusion. I didn't post this thread. A Roman Catholic did and most likely with the intent to provoke a reaction from those being attacked and which WAS an anti-Protestant article. You can't turn around and blame those who defend against such claims as doing so out of an anti-Catholic bias. Scold the one who keeps putting these discord causing threads - not those who won't sit by and not have a reply.
I've already explained plenty of times that there ARE real, physical, genuine churches (your Catechism calls them "eccesliastical communities") that CONTAIN those that are members of Christ's body. They may go by different names but what unites them is the rule of the Christian faith as it has always, everywhere and by all been believed and as spelled out in sacred Scripture. Everything that Jesus and His Apostles/disciples taught from the start is found within the Bible. God left nothing out pertaining to truth and Godliness. What binds believers together is the unity of the Spirit, the bond of love and saving faith in Jesus Christ. This body HAS been visible throughout ALL time and it is incredibly short-sighted, not to mention elitist, to assert it is ONLY found in one assembly that was started in Rome. There actually were MANY churches in Rome - it's a big city. The churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Colossi, Constantinople and others were no more or less visible congregations of Christians. What bound them together was the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Maybe if you could think outside that box for once, you could start to grasp what MAKES a church a part of the Body of Christ. There's no need for a "replacement" church since the REAL body of Christ has always existed and spans nations, peoples, languages and time - all become one IN Christ Jesus.
Mary was the mother of the physical body of Jesus. His spirit was God and exists eternally. No beginning or end. Mary is not God’s mother. She was created by God for God as a vessel for His purpose.
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.