Luther's 95 Theses

[sainthumbert]

In speaking of Luther’s anger, it is also notable that Luther would have taken a vow of celibacy and later abandon the vow.

 

[JamesTheJust]

In speaking of Luther’s anger, it is also notable that Luther would have taken a vow of celibacy and later abandon the vow.

By running off with a nun, no less! That adds another broken vow, a promise to God, to his tally.

 

[Jennie1964]

I’ve never really got the vibe that Paul was an angry defensive man. He had a very good sense of humour, I thought. I’m only just starting on a read through the Church Fathers, so I cannot comment on them. But Calvin, boy howdy, the arrogance and defensiveness just leaps out at you on the pages.

I find this whole Catholic vs Protestant thing very trying at the moment. I wish Jesus would just yank the scales off my eyes much in the same way He did with Paul. Sigh. I feel like I’m wading through tomes and tomes of theology without the background or education to actually figure it all out. And I’m terribly afraid of making a mistake in even thinking about turning to Catholicism.

Oh well, back to the studying.

 

[robwar]

I’ve never really got the vibe that Paul was an angry defensive man. He had a very good sense of humour, I thought. I’m only just starting on a read through the Church Fathers, so I cannot comment on them. But Calvin, boy howdy, the arrogance and defensiveness just leaps out at you on the pages.

I find this whole Catholic vs Protestant thing very trying at the moment. I wish Jesus would just yank the scales off my eyes much in the same way He did with Paul. Sigh. I feel like I’m wading through tomes and tomes of theology without the background or education to actually figure it all out. And I’m terribly afraid of making a mistake in even thinking about turning to Catholicism.

Oh well, back to the studying.

Keep on what you are doing. i would also read Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn who studied his way into the Catholic church. He was pretty anit-Catholic and even at one time detroyed his grandmother’s rosary.

 

[Novocastrian]

I’ve never really got the vibe that Paul was an angry defensive man. He had a very good sense of humour, I thought. I’m only just starting on a read through the Church Fathers, so I cannot comment on them. But Calvin, boy howdy, the arrogance and defensiveness just leaps out at you on the pages.

I find this whole Catholic vs Protestant thing very trying at the moment. I wish Jesus would just yank the scales off my eyes much in the same way He did with Paul. Sigh. I feel like I’m wading through tomes and tomes of theology without the background or education to actually figure it all out. And I’m terribly afraid of making a mistake in even thinking about turning to Catholicism.

Oh well, back to the studying.

Galatians 5.12 is pretty angry…

 

[Jennie1964]

There are some things in Vatican II which seem to me to address some of Luther’s theses as well as later views:

1. “This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: “Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.”
2. From the Wikipedia article: “The council sought to *revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life *of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation. A new approach to interpretation was approved by the bishops. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the “mother tongues” of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives. This affirmed the importance of Sacred Scripture as attested by Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes throughout Church history but also approved historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture as presented in Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

As a Protestant, as I read Canon law and look at parts of Vatican II, I don’t think the Cathlolic Church gave up anything that really mattered. It didn’t change any doctrines, but seemed to just change some of its outward practices in trying to make the faith more accessible to its own and less denouncing to others. But those are my Protestants eyes looking at it.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That quote from Lumen Gentium is very easy to misunderstand. Make no mistake, the Church does not teach that all Protestants are somehow invisibly united to the Church. That status is reserved for the invincibly ignorant.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

No, Vatican II did not really address any of Martin Luther’s “concerns” contained in the Ninety-Five Theses. As you probably know, the Catholic Church still has indulgences for the remission of the temporal punishment due sin. Shortly after the end of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI issued the apostolic constitution “Indulgentiarum Doctrina,” which explained indulgences and revised their usage. As far as I can see, nothing substantial was changed that Luther complained about (insofar as his complaints were accurate). Read here for yourself.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

But, like Genesis 315 said, the Ninety-Five Theses are not a good measure of Luther’s objections to Catholicism. It was only the tip of the iceberg. Most of his principle objections are only there seminally (although others, such as Tetzel, picked up on them). To find out the later Luther’s objections to Catholicism, I would read something like the Smalcald Articles instead which goes into much more detail.

You deserve praise, however, for trying to understand Catholic beliefs by reading Catholic sources rather than reading Protestant polemics. I wish more people followed that approach!

There are some things in Vatican II which seem to me to address some of Luther’s theses as well as later views:

1. “This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: “Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.”

I think you might misunderstand what Lumen Gentium is saying. It says that elements of sanctification and truth exist outside the visible confines of the Church. It does not say that salvation exists outside the visible confines of the Church. Listen to a famous passage from St. Augustine.

Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is possible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is possible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.
augustinus.it/latino/discorso_cesarea/index.htm

The same section of Lumen Gentium you are quoting from also denies that we should separate the invisible Church from the visible Church.

But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.

Luther taught that the episcopate was a human institution rather than something instituted by Christ.

This does not mean that there are no people outside of visible communion with the Church who are saved, but Lumen Gentium is not saying that anyone gets a free pass because they have elements of sanctification and truth (such as the sacrament of baptism and the Bible).

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Galatians 5.12 is pretty angry…

I don’t think it need be understood that way. Here is Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary on this verse.

Ver. 12.—I would that they were even cut off which trouble you. Cut off from the Church and your fellowship, lest they corrupt the whole. Cf. 1 Cor, v. 3. This is the obvious meaning, and one befitting the dignity of an apostolic writer. However, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome, Augustine, and others understand it of the total deprivation of the organ to which circumcision is applied, so as to bring it more closely within the scope of the whole passage, in which circumcision is the main topic.

It may be asked how the Apostle can rightly imprecate a curse on the Judaisers, since this is opposed to charity, and is a mark of impatience and of a revengeful temper. “So detestable,” says Jerome, “is the act of castration, that whoever inflicts it on a man against his will, or on himself, ought to be accounted infamous.”

1. Jerome replies that the Apostle said this as a man and in passion; but God forbid that an Apostle, and one especially who was moved by the Holy Spirit, should so speak. Accordingly, Jerome gives another answer, according to which, like Peter to Simon Magus (Acts viii. 20), and Elisha to the children who mocked him (2 Kings ii. 24), he spoke, not in anger, but partly in zeal for righteousness, partly in love, and entreated that they might be punished through their sin, i.e., through circumcision, and so, when punished, be purged of their shame.
2. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that the Apostle is not imprecating a curse, but speaking jestingly, as much as to say, If they insist on it, let them be not only circumcised, but wholly cut off.
3. S. Augustine and Anselm think that there is no curse here but a blessing, as if he were to say, Would that the Jews would become spiritual eunuchs by chastity for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and cease to preach Jewish circumcision, fixing their thoughts instead on heavenly things, and on the law of Christ, as the way to attain them. Of these three explanations the second of Jerome’s is the best.
   sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/galatians/cornelius-a-lapide-on-galatians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5

None of these interpretations require us to interpret St. Paul to be speaking in the manner that Luther wrote in. St. Paul does not write letters in which he spends the entirety calling his opponents “asses” and buffoons" and making toilet jokes. yes, I know I am exaggerating Luther’s style but I think there is an immediately apparent difference between the Apostle’s writings and Luther’s.

 

[Genesis315]

There are some things in Vatican II which seem to me to address some of Luther’s theses as well as later views:

1. “This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: “Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.”

The Church already acknowledged this at the time of the Reformation. While Protestantism did not exist at that time, the separated Greek Churches did–and since their separation the Catholic Church always acknowledged that they had elements of sanctification and truth, most notably, true and valid sacraments.

Luther may even have had a more restrictive view. Whereas the Catholic Church has always acknowledged that every truth, no matter who says it, comes from the Holy Spirit, Luther said truth can only be found in the Christian church, albeit defining the Church in a broader sense.

“For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.” Martin Luther,Sermon for the Early Christmas Service (1521-1522); Luther’s Works, American Ed., Hans J. Hillerbrand, Helmut T. Lehmann ed.

I think your point on Scripture is probably the best point (although as you mention, this renewal had been going on for a while before Vatican II), although the Church still claims the ability to judge authoritatively whether certain interpretations are permissable or not.

Jennie1964:

As a Protestant, as I read Canon law and look at parts of Vatican II, I don’t think the Cathlolic Church gave up anything that really mattered. It didn’t change any doctrines, but seemed to just change some of its outward practices in trying to make the faith more accessible to its own and less denouncing to others. But those are my Protestants eyes looking at it.

I think this is a good summary (through Catholic or Protestant eyes! ). The reason why it was less denouncing was because Protestants today are not in the same situation as those who first willfully separated and changed the faith. Those born centuries later into separated communities have likely not made the kind of perverse act of the will that makes one guilty of heresy. They usually have in good faith received their knowledge and love of Jesus from parents and their communities. Of course, the Church still teaches that all have an obligation to the truth. Someone born into a separated community could possibly become guilty of separation by disregarding or rejecting the truth, through sloth or pride or some other sinful disposition.

Either way, all of us have the duty to Our Lord to seek the unity of all Christians in His one visible Church.

 

[rfournier103]

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 Catechism 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.

I am not, nor have I ever been Protestant; so therefore I can only answer this from a “Roman” Catholic perspective. (I prefer Latin Catholic of the Roman Rite; but I digress…)

I see Protestantism as having TWO very distinct origins; and I personally view them very differently. I have mentioned this in several other posts of mine, so those of you who have read them before; please bear with me.

First, we have the “Lutheran side of the family”; founded in continental Europe by Martin Luther. Lutherans and all of their “offspring” fall on this side.

The Church (the CATHOLIC Church) definitely needed reform in the 16th Century. I don’t think there is ANY doubt about that. There was corruption, and scandalous behavior; and that needed to change.

Where I get MY skivvies in a twist is that rather than REFORM the Church; Luther left it. Lutherans see Lutheranism as a continuation of the Church; rather than having abandoned it. In response to this; the Church DID reform, and cleaned itself up. This is known as the COUNTER-Reformation. (I like to say that the Reformation is the biggest wake-up call in the history of the world).

However, there were doctrinal changes that Luther made in addition to his “reforms”; and this is where the Church and Protestantism collide. The Church will never compromise with Protestant theology regarding Purgatory, intercessatory prayer, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, transubstantiation, Sacred Tradition, or the 73-book Bible. That’s just the way it is.

The other side of the “Protestant family” hails from Great Britain; and is a result of King Henry VIII wanting an annulment for the umpteenth time… The Anglican Church and all of IT’S offspring had no reason to “protest” whatsoever, and I personally see no justification for them leaving. They replaced the Bishop of Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury and have never sought to reconcile. At least Luther’s position can be understood, if not condoned. Henry VIII’s position is indefensible.

So, IS there a reason to protest in the 21st Century? If you’re protesting corruption and abuse of power; I don’t think so. I think the Counter-Reformation cleaned up the bad practices and corruption; and the Church as we know it today has never been better (in MY opinion). If you’re protesting THEOLOGY; then yes, there’s still a reason. But remember… the Church’s theology has NEVER changed. Doctrine has NEVER changed. And it never needed to.

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 churches with numbers reaching near a billion can keep any other mega churches 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.

Oh, there are plenty of non-Christians and lapsed Catholics who have no problem “calling the Church out” on all kinds of things both real and imagined. I think that if there were only ONE Catholic/Christian Church, the world would be a far better place. We would be solving the world’s problems and not wasting our energy fighting and debating amongst ourselves.

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

As said in another post; Luther went against many other tenets of the Faith in addition to the papacy.

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.

Or a need for it. A very good point on your part. Gold star for the day.

.

 

[rfournier103]

I find this whole Catholic vs Protestant thing very trying at the moment. I wish Jesus would just yank the scales off my eyes much in the same way He did with Paul. Sigh. I feel like I’m wading through tomes and tomes of theology without the background or education to actually figure it all out. And I’m terribly afraid of making a mistake in even thinking about turning to Catholicism.

I think that ANYONE interested in theology, Christianity in general, or the Catholic Church in particular MUST be careful to not over-complicate things. It can be overwhelming! My wife became Catholic just last Easter, and her’s was a bumpy road before the “lightbulb came on”.

The TWO issues you must resolve for yourself are:

A: INTERPRETATION

and

B: AUTHORITY

So, DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE OR NOT?

Once you can resolve that, I think the journey becomes easier. The Church can justify it’s doctrines from Scripture; you just have to accept it’s interpretation. It’s really that simple.

As a Protestant, as I read Canon law and look at parts of Vatican II, I don’t think the Cathlolic Church gave up anything that really mattered. It didn’t change any doctrines, but seemed to just change some of its outward practices in trying to make the faith more accessible to its own and less denouncing to others. But those are my Protestants eyes looking at it.

I think that’s a great way to look at it - because you’re correct. That’s exactly what Vatican II was INTENDED to do. It didn’t change the recipe or the meal; just the way it was presented on the plate (to use a metaphor).

I will pray for you. God bless.

.

 

[Novocastrian]

The other side of the “Protestant family” hails from Great Britain; and is a result of King Henry VIII wanting an annulment for the umpteenth time… The Anglican Church and all of IT’S offspring had no reason to “protest” whatsoever, and I personally see no justification for them leaving. They replaced the Bishop of Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury and have never sought to reconcile. At least Luther’s position can be understood, if not condoned. Henry VIII’s position is indefensible.
.

For various reasons, this isn’t quite an accurate representation of what happened.

 

[robwar]

I think that ANYONE interested in theology, Christianity in general, or the Catholic Church in particular MUST be careful to not over-complicate things. It can be overwhelming! My wife became Catholic just last Easter, and her’s was a bumpy road before the “lightbulb came on”.

The TWO issues you must resolve for yourself are:

A: INTERPRETATION

and

B: AUTHORITY

So, DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE OR NOT?

Once you can resolve that, I think the journey becomes easier. The Church can justify it’s doctrines from Scripture; you just have to accept it’s interpretation. It’s really that simple.

I think that’s a great way to look at it - because you’re correct. That’s exactly what Vatican II was INTENDED to do. It didn’t change the recipe or the meal; just the way it was presented on the plate (to use a metaphor).

I will pray for you. God bless.

.

I would suggest reading the latest book being promoted by CAF which is the Protestant Dilema. You are not quite accurate in your analysis of different branches and streams of thought in Protestantism. The book does go into some of the differences starting with the reformation. It is not as simplistic as you are grouping and not accurate.

 

[Novocastrian]

I don’t think it need be understood that way. Here is Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary on this verse.

Ver. 12.—I would that they were even cut off which trouble you. Cut off from the Church and your fellowship, lest they corrupt the whole. Cf. 1 Cor, v. 3. This is the obvious meaning, and one befitting the dignity of an apostolic writer. However, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome, Augustine, and others understand it of the total deprivation of the organ to which circumcision is applied, so as to bring it more closely within the scope of the whole passage, in which circumcision is the main topic.

It may be asked how the Apostle can rightly imprecate a curse on the Judaisers, since this is opposed to charity, and is a mark of impatience and of a revengeful temper. “So detestable,” says Jerome, “is the act of castration, that whoever inflicts it on a man against his will, or on himself, ought to be accounted infamous.”

1. Jerome replies that the Apostle said this as a man and in passion; but God forbid that an Apostle, and one especially who was moved by the Holy Spirit, should so speak. Accordingly, Jerome gives another answer, according to which, like Peter to Simon Magus (Acts viii. 20), and Elisha to the children who mocked him (2 Kings ii. 24), he spoke, not in anger, but partly in zeal for righteousness, partly in love, and entreated that they might be punished through their sin, i.e., through circumcision, and so, when punished, be purged of their shame.
2. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that the Apostle is not imprecating a curse, but speaking jestingly, as much as to say, If they insist on it, let them be not only circumcised, but wholly cut off.
3. S. Augustine and Anselm think that there is no curse here but a blessing, as if he were to say, Would that the Jews would become spiritual eunuchs by chastity for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and cease to preach Jewish circumcision, fixing their thoughts instead on heavenly things, and on the law of Christ, as the way to attain them. Of these three explanations the second of Jerome’s is the best.
   sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/galatians/cornelius-a-lapide-on-galatians/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5

None of these interpretations require us to interpret St. Paul to be speaking in the manner that Luther wrote in. St. Paul does not write letters in which he spends the entirety calling his opponents “asses” and buffoons" and making toilet jokes. yes, I know I am exaggerating Luther’s style but I think there is an immediately apparent difference between the Apostle’s writings and Luther’s.

I don’t think toilet jokes are worse than saying you’d rather your opponents castrated themselves! 1 and 2 seem more likely (i.e. recognising that the divine Scriptures have a human element; e.g. Paul’s big handwriting elsewhere!, on the one hand, and rhetoric on the other) than 3, which is rather wishful thinking on Augustine and Anselm’s venerable parts.

 

[rfournier103]

I see Protestantism as having TWO very distinct origins; and I personally view them very differently. I have mentioned this in several other posts of mine, so those of you who have read them before; please bear with me.

Possibly over-simplified? Maybe. My opinion? Definately. I am not a theologian, and don’t even play on on TV; but every single thing I have ever read, seen, or heard about the Reformation have either Henry VIII or Luther as the protagonists.

The other side of the “Protestant family” hails from Great Britain; and is a result of King Henry VIII wanting an annulment for the umpteenth time… The Anglican Church and all of IT’S offspring had no reason to “protest” whatsoever, and I personally see no justification for them leaving. They replaced the Bishop of Rome with the Archbishop of Canterbury and have never sought to reconcile. At least Luther’s position can be understood, if not condoned. Henry VIII’s position is indefensible.

For various reasons, this isn’t quite an accurate representation of what happened.

Sorry about that. Would you care to enlighten me about WHY Henry VIII REALLY left the Catholic Church?

I would suggest reading the latest book being promoted by CAF which is the Protestant Dilema. You are not quite accurate in your analysis of different branches and streams of thought in Protestantism. The book does go into some of the differences starting with the reformation. It is not as simplistic as you are grouping and not accurate.

How so? Weren’t Luther and Henry VIII the “first reformers”? Don’t all of the mainline Protestant churches spring from them?

Thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll read it when I get the chance.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How so? Weren’t Luther and Henry VIII the “first reformers”? Don’t all of the mainline Protestant churches spring from them?

No, there were many more players.

Actually, Wycliffe and Hus precede them both.

Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin, Cranmer, Cromwell, Latimer, Knox, Melanchton, Tyndale, Zwingli… I may have forgotten some… But those should suffice.

And even before that in France during the Western (Papal) Schism there were others. I think this schism started up Wycliffe, Hus and the others that followed.

I did not include all the political players that took part in this…

 

[rfournier103]

No, there were many more players.

Actually, Wycliffe and Hus precede them both.

Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin, Cranmer, Cromwell, Latimer, Knox, Melanchton, Tyndale, Zwingli… I may have forgotten some… But those should suffice.

And even before that in France during the Western (Papal) Schism there were others. I think this schism started up Wycliffe, Hus and the others that followed.

I did not include all the political players that took part in this…

Hmm… How come the history books never talk about those guys? I suppose the origins of the Reformation and the “major players” probably fill numerous volumes already; and that would turn a history class into a theology class.

 

[Novocastrian]

No, there were many more players.

Actually, Wycliffe and Hus precede them both.

Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, Bullinger, Calvin, Cranmer, Cromwell, Latimer, Knox, Melanchton, Tyndale, Zwingli… I may have forgotten some… But those should suffice.

And even before that in France during the Western (Papal) Schism there were others. I think this schism started up Wycliffe, Hus and the others that followed.

I did not include all the political players that took part in this…

I’m genuinely curious as to how and why Erasmus finds his way onto this list.

 

[Novocastrian]

Hmm… How come the history books never talk about those guys? I suppose the origins of the Reformation and the “major players” probably fill numerous volumes already; and that would turn a history class into a theology class.

I’d be surprised if there are any histories of the reformation that don’t mention Calvin, Zwingli or Cranmer!