Luther's 95 Theses

[Jennie1964]

Do you think that Martin Luther would have had a problem with the Catholic Church today? Do you think the concerns expressed in the 95 theses have been answered and “reformed” as he thought they ought to be? Do you think Vatican II addressed those issues and would have satiated his concerns?

In a word, is there still a reason for Protestants to protest Catholicism? As a Protestant, I am trying to see Catholicism through Catholic eyes rather than view it in the very Protestant tradition I am used to. I am trying to understand and see Catholicism for what it is rather than for what I’ve been told it is by studying the early Church fathers, Canon law, the Chatechism etc. The Catholic church then and the Catholic church now are quite different in practice, although there are some doctrinal issues that still exist (which I am questioning and seeking clarity about).

I am just wondering whether the Reformation was heresy, or schism, or both. Seeking, seeking, and trying to understand.

 

[dronald]

It would be interesting to theorize on alternate history assuming Luther was born now and not five hundred years ago. Certainly the existence of multiple Church’s with numbers reaching near a billion can keep any other mega Church’s from corruption by calling them out.

Assuming the CC had all 32% of the Christians as Catholics, there would certainly be a better chance that they could abuse their power without protest.

As for your question, I think Luther would only object to the Papacy as it is now.

 

[hazcompat]

Our Father’s simple plan for salvation continues to blossom in time and eternity. It is difficult to move time and circumstances from the past into modern reality. While Luther may have had legitimate issues, it is the “how” he addressed them that is problematic. In reading the early fathers I have noticed dissent and error a constant companion, and Holy Mother Teacher Church the pillar of truth.

May the grace of God be your constant companion on your journey to God.

Come Holy Spirit!

Peace

 

[robwar]

Do you think that Martin Luther would have had a problem with the Catholic Church today? Do you think the concerns expressed in the 95 theses have been answered and “reformed” as he thought they ought to be? Do you think Vatican II addressed those issues and would have satiated his concerns?

In a word, is there still a reason for Protestants to protest Catholicism? As a Protestant, I am trying to see Catholicism through Catholic eyes rather than view it in the very Protestant tradition I am used to. I am trying to understand and see Catholicism for what it is rather than for what I’ve been told it is by studying the early Church fathers, Canon law, the Chatechism etc. The Catholic church then and the Catholic church now are quite different in practice, although there are some doctrinal issues that still exist (which I am questioning and seeking clarity about).

I am just wondering whether the Reformation was heresy, or schism, or both. Seeking, seeking, and trying to understand.

It hard to juxtapose the things that lead up to Luther and his 95 thesis and eventual excommunication into this day and age. The politics of the time were different where the Vatican was a Holy Roman empire, today it is the smallest country in the world. Major construction like St. Peter’s basilica are not being done. That played an issue in Luther’s time because of the overly aggressive selling of indulgences to build it was a factor. Freedom of speech and thought and press was not the norm as it is now. Finally there is Luther himself who in the bottom of it was a rather angry man, dealing with scruples as a monk. I think his mishandling by his religious order in dealing with his inner demons and his issues with his abusive father lead him down the road to have issues with the authority of the Pope and his eventual rejection of authority but the Bible. Maybe that is a simplistic view of a very complex man but his writing are rather angry and violent. The reformation was the perfect storm so to say and in today’s world those factors that lead to it are not exactly there. There are not German Dukes looking for an opportunity to brake away from the Holy Roman empire like there was with Luther’s time. I think in today’s world, counseling and therapy would have been given to him in his religious order. His more blunt, earthy style of writing probably wouldn’t have been the big hit like it was in his day.
The better would be to look at some of the things that lead up to the reformation and understand them instead of thinking if it would happen today, which with everything considered probably not.

 

[robwar]

Do you think that Martin Luther would have had a problem with the Catholic Church today? Do you think the concerns expressed in the 95 theses have been answered and “reformed” as he thought they ought to be? Do you think Vatican II addressed those issues and would have satiated his concerns?

In a word, is there still a reason for Protestants to protest Catholicism? As a Protestant, I am trying to see Catholicism through Catholic eyes rather than view it in the very Protestant tradition I am used to. I am trying to understand and see Catholicism for what it is rather than for what I’ve been told it is by studying the early Church fathers, Canon law, the Chatechism etc. The Catholic church then and the Catholic church now are quite different in practice, although there are some doctrinal issues that still exist (which I am questioning and seeking clarity about).

I am just wondering whether the Reformation was heresy, or schism, or both. Seeking, seeking, and trying to understand.

A good book to read is by Jimmy Aiken, “Fathers Know Best”. It covers the early 800 years of Christianity. Yes, that isn’t the reformation but the book discusses several heresies which would help you see the reformation in light of Catholic eyes. Reformation is considered a heresy or actually more than one heresy.

 

[DaveBj]

I think that if the popes of the 15th and 16th centuries had been like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries, there would have never been a reformation.

(This is just a personal opinion, but it is based on some considerable reading in the church history of the period.)

 

[Genesis315]

Vatican II didn’t address any of the issues in the 95 Theses at all, as far as I can tell.

Those theses, which are a bit muddled, deal primarily with issues regarding indulgences and purgatory. In many of the theses, Luther denies the truth of these things, especially the idea that indulgences can be applied to the dead and that they can apply to more than just canonical penalties.

He also addresses some abuses, which were corrected by the Council of Trent and during the Counter-Reformation, well before the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II does not address these issues).

Nothing has changed therefore with regard to the principles Luther opposed in his 95 theses–they are still heretical on those points. Likewise, the Reformation grew to be about more than the truth of indulgences, and came to include various other heresies concerning the sacraments, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the sources of revelation, justification, etc. The Second Vatican Council did not eliminate or change any of these dogmas, but rather affirmed those that it even addressed at all.

 

[JamesTheJust]

The issue that ignited Luther’s rebellion was the paid indulgences peddled (without hierarchical approval) by monks such as Johann Tetzel, which have all but disappeared. However, I suspect that Luther would still have many doctrinal beefs with Catholicism, on things ranging from papal supremacy to the Immaculate Conception.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Many of Luther’s problems were not addressed by Vatican 2, I must admit to finding it curious as to why you think they were? For example,

– Luther rejected the Eucharist as being wholly, entirely, and substantially changed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Vatican 2 affirmed this teaching.

– Luther rejected purgatory. The Church still teaches this to this day.

– Luther rejected the authority of the Church, including the Papacy, propping himself up instead as an alternative magisterium. Vatican 2 reaffirmed the authority of the Pope and the Church.

– Luther rejected the ordained preisthood. Vatican 2 affirms it.

– Luther rejected 5 of the 7 ancient Sacraments of the Church. The Church still retains all 7.

– Luther promoted sola scritura, the idea that the Bible is the sole measure of truth in matters of the faith. The Church absolutely rejects this, both then, and since Vatican 2.

– Luther rejected the Mass as a sacrifice. Vatican 2 affirms the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Honestly, the idea that “the Catholic Church then and the Catholic Church now are quite different in practice” is wholly mistaken.

Pax Christi.

 

[robwar]

Vatican II didn’t address any of the issues in the 95 Theses at all, as far as I can tell.

Those theses, which are a bit muddled, deal primarily with issues regarding indulgences and purgatory. In many of the theses, Luther denies the truth of these things, especially the idea that indulgences can be applied to the dead and that they can apply to more than just canonical penalties.

He also addresses some abuses, which were corrected by the Council of Trent and during the Counter-Reformation, well before the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II does not address these issues).

Nothing has changed therefore with regard to the principles Luther opposed in his 95 theses–they are still heretical on those points. Likewise, the Reformation grew to be about more than the truth of indulgences, and came to include various other heresies concerning the sacraments, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the sources of revelation, justification, etc. The Second Vatican Council did not eliminate or change any of these dogmas, but rather affirmed those that it even addressed at all.

The Counsel of Trent addressed the issues raised by Luther. Vatican II is about other things.

 

[robwar]

Do you think that Martin Luther would have had a problem with the Catholic Church today? Do you think the concerns expressed in the 95 theses have been answered and “reformed” as he thought they ought to be? Do you think Vatican II addressed those issues and would have satiated his concerns?

In a word, is there still a reason for Protestants to protest Catholicism? As a Protestant, I am trying to see Catholicism through Catholic eyes rather than view it in the very Protestant tradition I am used to. I am trying to understand and see Catholicism for what it is rather than for what I’ve been told it is by studying the early Church fathers, Canon law, the Chatechism etc. The Catholic church then and the Catholic church now are quite different in practice, although there are some doctrinal issues that still exist (which I am questioning and seeking clarity about).

I am just wondering whether the Reformation was heresy, or schism, or both. Seeking, seeking, and trying to understand.

Another good book that I am currently reading is the latest one being promoted by CAF which is “The Protestant Dilemma”. The book does go into what some the different reformers believed and taught and their inconsistencies.

 

[Genesis315]

The issue that ignited Luther’s rebellion was the paid indulgences peddled (without hierarchical approval) by monks such as Johann Tetzel, which have all but disappeared. However, I suspect that Luther would still have many doctrinal beefs with Catholicism, on things ranging from papal supremacy to the Immaculate Conception.

From what I can tell, at least at the time he wrote the 95 Theses, he acknowledged papal supremacy and the Immaculate Conception as true. He only later denied papal supremacy, and he went back and forth on the Immaculate Conception, but appears to ultimately affirm it.

 

[JamesTheJust]

From what I can tell, at least at the time he wrote the 95 Theses, he acknowledged papal supremacy and the Immaculate Conception as true. He only later denied papal supremacy, and he went back and forth on the Immaculate Conception, but appears to ultimately affirm it.

I didn’t realize that we were judging Luther’s acceptance by his beliefs in 1517. If we were, I suppose that his only objection would be those now-extinct paid indulgences. He only rejected papal supremacy years later. I’m not too sure about his beliefs regarding the IC in his later life, but I know that he accepted it at least early on.

 

[Jennie1964]

Hmm…now that’s interesting. One of you mentioned that Luther seemed a very angry man in his writings. I was reading Calvin’s Institutes at some point last year and could only get through two of the books precisely for that reason. Calvin was also a very angry man, and I just couldn’t take the vehemence and the anger of his defenses and points anymore. Give over, already, Calvin!

So Luther was angry as well? Hmmm…it makes me wonder.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Hmm…now that’s interesting. One of you mentioned that Luther seemed a very angry man in his writings. I was reading Calvin’s Institutes at some point last year and could only get through two of the books precisely for that reason. Calvin was also a very angry man, and I just couldn’t take the vehemence and the anger of his defenses and points anymore. Give over, already, Calvin!

So Luther was angry as well? Hmmm…it makes me wonder.

Luther was always a furious man, but he got even worse towards the end of his life. Look up “On the Jews and Their Lies” (German: “Von den Jüden und iren Lügen”; in modern spelling “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen”). It’s horrifying.

 

[robwar]

Hmm…now that’s interesting. One of you mentioned that Luther seemed a very angry man in his writings. I was reading Calvin’s Institutes at some point last year and could only get through two of the books precisely for that reason. Calvin was also a very angry man, and I just couldn’t take the vehemence and the anger of his defenses and points anymore. Give over, already, Calvin!

So Luther was angry as well? Hmmm…it makes me wonder.

Yes, Luther was very angry. toward the end of his life, he developed a 6 step plan to exterminate the Jews. He likewise was pretty vicious when the peasant revolt occured against the Duke that was supporting Luther. Luther in turn turned his back on them and called out some pretty vicious stuff against them. I never read Calvin’s material and didn’t realize he had the same problem too.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yes, Luther was very angry. toward the end of his life, he developed a 6 step plan to exterminate the Jews. He likewise was pretty vicious when the peasant revolt occured against the Duke that was supporting Luther. Luther in turn turned his back on them and called out some pretty vicious stuff against them. I never read Calvin’s material and didn’t realize he had the same problem too.

I forgot about the Peasants’ Revolt. The commoners, following Luther’s ideas, revolted against a German duke, and Luther turns around and calls for their heads in order to stay friendly with the German higher-ups! Now that’s just insidious.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hmm…now that’s interesting. One of you mentioned that Luther seemed a very angry man in his writings. I was reading Calvin’s Institutes at some point last year and could only get through two of the books precisely for that reason. Calvin was also a very angry man, and I just couldn’t take the vehemence and the anger of his defenses and points anymore. Give over, already, Calvin!

So Luther was angry as well? Hmmm…it makes me wonder.

Yep, angry men. But I’m not sure we should read too much into that. After all, most of Paul’s letters have some real fury in them. As do several of the great Fathers.

 

[robwar]

Yep, angry men. But I’m not sure we should read too much into that. After all, most of Paul’s letters have some real fury in them. As do several of the great Fathers.

What fury are you talking about with St. Paul? He didn’t call for the death and destruction of people that disagreed with him like Luther did. What great Fathers are you speaking about that are angry and furious?

 

[robwar]

I forgot about the Peasants’ Revolt. The commoners, following Luther’s ideas, revolted against a German duke, and Luther turns around and calls for their heads in order to stay friendly with the German higher-ups! Now that’s just insidious.

yes, they actually were living out what Luther was teaching them. There are a number of commentaries I’ve read where in the opinion, Luther betrayed them to save himself.