500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary

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.

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.

The pope does not, as unlike the Bishops,

Can. 1404

"the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." CCC 882

And the individual bishop receives his pastoral power immediately from the Pope.

This of course, is a result of the unScriptural development of the papacy and progressive deformation of the NT church, with its misconstruance of the Peter of Scripture versus that of Rome.

And one aspect of which that i think is important is that of it's increasing recourse to the arm of the flesh. As early as the Pope Damasus I employed a murderous mob in seeking to secure his throne, and which slew over 100 of his rival pope's supporters.

By the 11th century we see a form of a caesario-papacy reflected in the Dictatus Papae, a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075. Part of which states

That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.

That he himself may be judged by no one. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

As a Catholic source (http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/215-revisiting-dictatus-papae.html) writes,

in Dictatus Papae, we see that the secular and the spiritual are more intertwined. The Bishop of Rome not only has authority over the secular arm, but the papacy itself was seen as a sort of glorified secular arm.

This concept of the imperial papacy was a clear imitation of the ancient Roman ideal. For example, Cardinals in the later 11th century were referred to as "spiritual senators." During the pontificate of Urban II (1088-1099), the papal government developed three new departments that were common in secular governments - the camera (a kind of exchequer), the chancery, and the chapel, which was a kind of papal entourage. The papal curia strongly resembled the curia regis of France, and the pope had his own steward, cupbearer, cellarers, constable and marshalls (senescalcus, pincerna, buticularii, comestabulus, marescalci). A contemporary ecclesiastical writer calls the pope "a royal priest and imperial bishop"

The imperial insignia were used by the popes in their coronations beginning in the mid 11th century. It is best known from the biography of Paschal II, successor to Urban II. Upon his accession, the pope was clothed in imperial purple (called "immantation"). From there he proceeded into the Lateran Basilica, where he sat alternatively in two chairs and received a girdle with seven keys and a scepter, which symbolized his lordship over the Lateran palace and the papal lands. The imperial purple became a symbol of the papacy. The papal coronations date from this period, as well.

These signs were very intentional. St. Bruno of Segni, a theologian for both Urban II and Paschal II, stated that, "All the insignia of the Roman Empire belong to the pope; whence, in great processions, the Pontiff appears in all that magnificence which used to formerly belong to the emperors" (Bruno of Segni, Tractatus de sacramentis ecclesiae).

Another interesting statement is numbers ten and eleven. Ten states "[The pope's"] name alone shall be spoken in the churches." This clearly refers to the practice of including the name of the reigning pontiff during the Roman Canon. This decree perhaps means that the pope's name alone shall be mentioned universally (versus bishops or secular rulers, who are only mentioned within their respective territories). Eleven is of more interest, for after establishing that only the pope's name shall be used universally, it goes on to say of the pope "That this is the only name in the world."

This phrase sounds a little awkward in English and makes no sense on the literal level. The Latin says Quod hoc unicum est nomen in mundo, which can also be rendered "there is only one such pope" or "the title pope is only to be used of the Roman pontiff", which would be a declaration against both the Holy Roman Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, both of whom had tried to usurp the title "Universal" in one way or another. This was already stated in article two, but perhaps it builds on article 10, which stated that the pope's name alone shall be spoken in the churches, and that in article eleven this is to be understood as applying universally and exclusively.

Nineteen reminds us that pope is judged by no one. Sedvecantists should be reminded of this.

While the Dictatus Papae is not considered an infallible document or very viable in this age, yet the pope as ruling supreme over the secular realm was a historical reality, which it seems many conservative RCs wish for today. . In canon 3f the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council [1215] states,

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics.. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

And in the Baltimore Catechism, the de facto standard Catholic school text in the United States from 1885 to the late 1960sm we read,

Q. 549. How is the Church One?

The Church is One because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one head.

Q. 539. What do we mean by the "temporal power" of the Pope?

A. By the temporal power of the Pope we mean the right which the Pope has as a temporal or ordinary ruler to govern the states and manage the properties that have rightfully come into the possession of the Church.

Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power?

A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm : The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX [distinct from Pius X] is differently explained by Catholic theologians.

Just to add to the discussion on the manhood of Jesus. Consider the following.

If during Jesus’ walk on the Earth he was “100% God”:
How could he suffer, shed his blood, or die if he is immortal? (Romans 5:6-8, 8:32, Heb 9:14-18, 27-28, 12:2, 13:12, 20, )
How could he taste death for everyone? (Heb 2:9)
How could he be tempted and relate to our temptations? (Matthew 4, Heb 4:15)
How could he sympathize with our weaknesses? (Heb 2:18, 4:15)
How could he become sin? (Rom 8:3, 2 Cor 5:21)
Why did he need to be anointed by the Holy Spirit to minister to folks? (Isaiah 61, Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38)

Note the name that he most frequently used for himself - Son of Man. This title disappears in the letters to the Church, the Body of Christ.

Note the names that the Holy Spirit inspires Paul to use for him - Last Adam, and Firstborn of many - meaning there would be more like him. (Romans 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15:20-23 & 45, Col 1:15-18, Heb 1:6)

The key verse:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:5-8 Webster

The original Greek really amplifies what Jesus did. He set aside temporarily his divinity to be the lamb of God, perfect example for man. Hence the enemy’s confusion about what he was doing on Earth:

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NIV

God’s Word became flesh, spoken by Gabriel and believed by Mary. And through the work of the Holy Spirit, the incorruptible seed was placed in Mary’s womb. This was a spiritual process, not physcial - no physical union between God and Mary like in Greek and Roman mythology - satan’s perversions of the Truth.

During a normal pregnancy, no blood is shared between mother and child, so the sin nature of fallen Adam was not in Jesus - remember life is in the blood. (John 1, Lev 17:11) Jesus would operate as man, like Adam before the fall. He set aside his divine nature to be in all ways, our perfect example.

9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9 NIV

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. Hebrews 2:14-15 NIV

17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18 NIV

5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” 6 And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 5:5-6 NIV quoting Psalm 2:7 & 110:4 - Consider when this took place - See verse 9 & 10 of Hebrews 5.

3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Hebrews 7:3 - In the context of comparing Jesus to Melchizedek as an Eternal High Priest, it is relevant to this discussion.

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. Romans 6:3-5 NIV

Jesus came as a man, suffered and died, so that we might live as he lives. Catch a revelation of this, its powerful.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. ...

17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 1 John 4:9 & 17 KJV

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.