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. I took what someone meant as an insult and defanged it by owning its positive message! ;o)
It's best when the shake-up is far behind you and you've moved on to better things. Whatever was wrong with the Reformation, we probably wouldn't have the degree of freedom we've had without something like it.
Then Rome is free to make up whatever it wants. It's circular reasoning. How does the RCC say it's true? Because they've declared it to be true.
The RCC cannot point to one verse to support any of this. They have to rely upon man-made tradition and taking three verses totally out of context.
An interesting word search on tradition reveals 13 places in the NT with the word tradition. Most of these are against using tradition.
The RCC relies upon three verses for their "tradition". But if you look at these in context no where does it support adding new meanings or doctrines to the Bible....which is what the RCC has done.
However, if a word search is done on "it is written" one finds 99 passages in OT and NT that appeal to the written Word.
Jesus extensively quoted from the OT...especially when He was being tempted by Satan. If relying upon the written word is good enough for Christ, it should be good enough for us.
Guess all that part about selling/buying indulgences was ok with Scriture? NOT!
Based on this alone the RCC declares its own teaching to be foolish and false.
If you think that works are going to keep you out of heaven or gain you entrance, you don’t understand grace.
This thread may be of assistance...
Grace is not a Thing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3166813/posts
Well, even a good liar is limited by what serves credulity, and thus Rome is limited to what traditions she can give a semblance of support for - even if it is not actually seen in Scripture - and i am quite certain that if it were not for those pesky chapter-and-verse Protestants, then Rome would have come up with even more traditions of men, though perhaps not having to resort to the egregious extrapolations often seen in attempting to support them from Scripture, mainly in condescension to evangelicals
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Well, that example is where you get into what of officially taught versus implicitly sanctioned, as well as what is infallible versus non-binding, both of which is subject to variant interpretation.
But obedience to the pope in some centuries could require torturing and exterminating theological heretics, and in other one's it means holding torture as intrinsically evil, and upholding religious freedom. But some RCs hold that V2 is not binding, and those Prots must submit to the pope to be saved, and other lies.
this would apply to the RCF
Btw....I think the indulgences were official....if not then silence is acceptance.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Those who do not have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account, WILL be judged by their works, just as they want to be.
Problem is, they will ALL go to hell.
God’s standard for entrance into heaven is absolute, total perfection, something mo man or woman can attain. The very fiber of our being is tainted by sin. Everything we do is sin stained. We can do no deeds righteous enough to satisfy God.
That’s why God has to forgive us and give us as a gift by His grace, the righteousness He demands of us.
So then, those of us who have put our faith and trust in Christ to make us righteous, become the righteousness of Christ in God’s eyes, so that even if He were to judge us by our works, we’d get in because God sees Christ’s works as our works and sees us as righteous as His Son.
I noticed you left something out of this. I highlighted it for note:
In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.
It is something I have noted among the RCC as a whole. The RCC has to cherry pick verses and take them out of context to make the verse "fit" their doctrine.
Interestingly, the term sacred writers is not defined so as to leave it open to practically anyone.
In this passage we see the priority of the doctrine of the church over the Bible.
This is how you get indulgences, purgatory, salvation requiring works, the assumption of Mary, etc. If the doctrine says it's ok, it's ok, even though the Bible does not teach on any of these and in most speaks against these false teachings.
This is the reason that we have 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
It is a warning for the verses to come in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
That was left out as it was not the issue. That the sacred writers of Scripture do not contradict each other is a given as all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but that Scripture or tradition cannot contradict Rome is also rejected under the premise that RC doctrine is also inspired of God, and which is based upon the premise that the supreme magisterium of Rome is assuredly infallible, thus her doctrine is trustworthy.
The buying and selling of indulgences, the assumption of Mary, immaculate conception, icons of mary people "venerate", prayers to Mary, Urban II promises forgiveness of sins for those who died in the Crusades...and now there is discussion within the RCC of Mary as a co-redemtrix being declared dogma.
But wait...why hasn't it happened yet?
In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,
"the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.
Ya think??
Give it a little more time and it will happen. It only took from around the 5th century to 1950 to declare Mary's "assumption" as dogma. BTW, the vote on that one was 1210 in favor out of 1232 bishops.
Question: If the pope is the vicar of Christ, why does he need an opinion poll? Either he is or isn't the vicar of Christ. If he his he doesn't need an opinion poll.
All because the teaching of Rome is superior over the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God.
We have the Word of God as being the only Holy Spirit inspired words. The words of the man-made post of the pope, which is also non-biblical, are not inspired...at least not by Heaven.
If you read my post, you would see that no one says she contributed to His godhood. However the fact is that she bore a 100% god and 100% man.
To be honored to carry your savior and creator is what I would call special. Wouldn’t you?
Cynicalbaer “His godhood and manhood separate” - do you believe them separate entities? Or joined for some time?
If you read the post above this you will see that some do still believe in this adoptionism
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.