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.
then i guess you're not going with that whole Mary is sinless or that she remained a virgin thing....if you, as you say, believe the Scriptures....which btw, I do.
I just don't twist them to find something that's not in there.
With one hand you write that you don't believe Mary is the mother of God with us and with the other that you do.
I've already stated what the Bible says.
I'm asking you if you believe the Bible or the RCC view that Mary was sinless or that she remained a virgin.
You might even believe the Holy Spirit was the "father of God" if Mary was the "mother of God"....which are non-Biblica. You never see the title "mother of God" used to describe Mary.
See what happens when you start twisting the Scripture to get the meaning you want? You get non-Biblical real quick.
now you've changed the title from mother of God, to mother of God with us.
God is with us in His Son. His Son holds the attributes of God, but, is at the same time, the second member of the Trinity. Hence a different person from God in this perspective and capacity, yet He and the Father are One. Jesus, the Son, was given to us as a sacrifice.....not God the Father.
When Jesus was born He was born with all of His Heavenly attributes, yet He was flesh that walked among us. He has undergone and passed all of the temptations we faced yet we failed.
Christ, as the second member of the Trinity and the Son of God, died for us...not the Father, the first member of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity, impregnated Mary. Yet the Holy Spirit is not the "father of Jesus"...or God is with us. God the Father is Christ's Father. And now the Holy Spirit is our Helper and intercedes for us all the time.
Each member of the Trinity is separate yet one. It's a hard concept to understand.
If you keep the Biblical attributes of the Trinity it makes things easier to understand.
yes, you have corruption in many institutions. nothing is perfect in this world. that’s why competition and consumer choice are so important, not one-size-fits-all, top-down bureaucracies that everybody has to belong to/subscribe to.
WHAT 'question'?
That must be why there is a shrine to Mary everywhere in Italy and Mexico.
Really?
Well, I THOUGHT one eye was open... Sorry to bother you - go on back to sleep.
Perhaps you ought to take the issue up with the Holy Spirit as HE was the one who called Mary *mother of Jesus* in the Scripture He breathed out.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell God that He was wrong in how He inspired Scripture, but that never stopped a Catholic before and I don’t expect it to now.
I have simply and truthfully presented the Scriptures that show Mary is the mother of God with us.
You have denied the Scripture. You deny Mary is the mother of God with us as the Scripture says. You have no apostolic authority and are espousing something unorthodox and relatively new.
Using only the Bible to answer these questions since you say I am denying the Bible:
Was Mary sinless?
Did she remain a virgin?
Was she taken up into Heaven?
Are we to make icons of Mary and put them in our homes and "venerate" them?
Is anyone saved through Mary?
Are we to pray to Mary in any fashion?
Are we to rely upon Mary for anything regarding our salvation?
Using your parameter of the Scripture, none of these positions are found in the Scriptures.
So if catholic teaching on these these aspects of Mary cannot be found in Scripture, why should I believe what the RCC says about Mary being the "mother of God" when that title is never used to describe Mary?
It is a false attempt by the RCC to elevate Mary to a position not given to her in the Bible.
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.
Enjoyed the conversation.
Just as you are not the creator of your kids but bore them, so too is Mary the bearer of her child, Jesus Christ, our Lord, GOD and master and her creator
Your soul exists before birth, it is not created by your mother. Mary bore and gave birth to the 100% man and 100% God Jesus Christ. The human and divine natures are utterly intertwined. She did not give birth to just a physcial husk that was later filled/possessed by the Word. She did not bear the Father or the Spirit, but bore the Son, the 100% man and 100% God part of the Triune godhead
What is it's stand on:
What would you call her? Mother of Jesus? That statement is implicitly saying that either Jesus is not God or that the two natures are separate and were separate at the point of birth at the very least
I believe that the movements around the 15th century were a mix of religious but also a lot of economic and political reasons
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
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.