Luther's 95 Theses

[Jon_S_1]

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 fantastic question. Based on my studies I would say no he would not feel any need to break with the Catholic Church of today. The church needed some reforming, but it needed to be done within the church. Luther was impatient and created schism which has dissolved into only more and more schism and bickering.

There is a book called “Is the Reformation Over” by Mark Knoll, an evangelical. He basically answers it as yes it is over. It is a scholarly book and a tough read (for me at least) but you may see if you can get it from a library to at least peruse.

 

[robwar]

A fantastic question. Based on my studies I would say no he would not feel any need to break with the Catholic Church of today. The church needed some reforming, but it needed to be done within the church. Luther was impatient and created schism which has dissolved into only more and more schism and bickering.

There is a book called “Is the Reformation Over” by Mark Knoll, an evangelical. He basically answers it as yes it is over. It is a scholarly book and a tough read (for me at least) but you may see if you can get it from a library to at least peruse.

Luther didn’t break away per say, he was excommunicated because he refused to renounce some of the things he was teaching which was heresy. Luther may have desired reform but his refusal to renounce a number of things he was beginning to teach is what got him into trouble. When he received his ex-communication, he ripped it up. His defiance is what got him into trouble and the rest is history.

 

[dronald]

i believe so, althought the KJV 1611 is based more on Tyndall’s translation than what Wycliffe did. There is an evangelical missionary society called Wycliffe which send missionaries around the world to translate the Bible in native languages in honor of Wycliffe’s attempts. When i was still Protestant, I was told that translating the Bible into English is what got him jailed. After becoming Catholic, I learned the rest of the story which was he taught the Eucharist was only symbolic and nothing more. and it was teaching this heresy that landed him in jail.

Oh, phew.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh, phew.

Really…

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

i believe so, althought the KJV 1611 is based more on Tyndall’s translation than what Wycliffe did. There is an evangelical missionary society called Wycliffe which send missionaries around the world to translate the Bible in native languages in honor of Wycliffe’s attempts. When i was still Protestant, I was told that translating the Bible into English is what got him jailed. After becoming Catholic, I learned the rest of the story which was he taught the Eucharist was only symbolic and nothing more. and it was teaching this heresy that landed him in jail.

Wycliffe was never jailed (he had a lot of political support). He only received any real punishment after his death when he was condemned and exhumed. He taught a doctrine consubstantiation, not pure symbolism. Evidently, this is because he rejected transubstantiation on philosophical grounds. His rejection of revelation proves Paul’s statement: The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif/

 

[robwar]

Wycliffe was never jailed (he had a lot of political support). He only received any real punishment after his death when he was condemned and exhumed. He taught a doctrine consubstantiation, not pure symbolism. Evidently, this is because he rejected transubstantiation on philosophical grounds. His rejection of revelation proves Paul’s statement: The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/wyclif/

I was lead to believe before becoming Catholic that he was jailed because he wanted to translate the Bible from Latin to English. A number of the things he taught such as the Bible being the final authority etc were adopted by Luther himself. The wikipedia article about him was interesting. I knew some people involved with Wycliffe Bible society. He also equated the Pope to the anti-christ. It seems like Luther took a number of Wycliffe’s and Peter Waldo’s ideas to formulate his own.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I am not sure whether the Waldensians are really proto-Reformers anymore than the Cathars or Albigensians or any other heretical movement. Just like I wouldn’t call the early Gnostics proto-Reformers. The main thrust of the original Waldensian movement seems to be living a life of perfection/poverty rather than anything distinctively Protestant. In fact, the main Protestant bodies tended to ridicule the religious life. There are common threads to be sure, but they can mostly be traced to a denial of the authority of the Church.

 

[SlowerAndSlower]

Do you think the concerns expressed in the 95 theses have been answered and “reformed” as he thought they ought to be?

---

From en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses, thesis #91 of Luther’s 95 is translated as:
“If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.”

Since indulgences are not sold now (a pastoral abuse at the time), nor is there currently preaching advocating such sales (to my knowledge), it follows from thesis #91 that “all” of the initial nominal reasons for founding the Lutheran church do “not exist” now.

 

[Novocastrian]

---

From en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses, thesis #91 of Luther’s 95 is translated as:
“If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.”

Since indulgences are not sold now (a pastoral abuse at the time), nor is there currently preaching advocating such sales (to my knowledge), it follows from thesis #91 that “all” of the initial nominal reasons for founding the Lutheran church do “not exist” now.

We all know that there’s more to the Reformation than the Theses.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

 

[Jennie1964]

There became more to the Reformation than these theses, but at first, there were the theses. Today, I believe there would be none of these complaints and therefore no Reformation. Luther was a stubborn man (an overworked man who fell into OCD-like behaviors from what I can see, severe anxiety and scrupulosity) who had some very good points in regards to indulgences at the time, but he let his concerns get the better of him it seems; and then pride, self-righteousness and divisiveness took over. He made it a public cry rather than tackling the problem through proper channels which created a horrible schism, which he and others then seemed to justify through various heresies he began to teach. It’s very telling though that the public went along with him, although whether for purely political motives, or due to some odiousness within the Church, I can’t tell.

Or at least that’s how it seems to this Protestant who is now wondering what this horrible time in history actually meant, and whether with any good conscience, she can continue to support its aftermath.

 

[pablope]

Or at least that’s how it seems to this Protestant who is now wondering what this horrible time in history actually meant, and whether with any good conscience, she can continue to support its aftermath.

This may be a good book for you to read…ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

• In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work–for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It’s these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. *

 

[MDK]

Yes, Luther would have a problem with the Catholic Church today. Why? Because he had a very incorrect view of God, had his own personal view of salvation, and wanted to be the authority over God’s word so much, that he altered the meanings of it to fit his own agenda rejected some of the inspired word of God and added his own to Scriptures. The Catholic Church has never once taught error in faith and morals binding on the faithful…, OF COURSE Luther would have a problem with the authentic authority to teach God’s word because it still is at odds with his own ideas.