Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

[benidict]

Well you got their talking points down pretty good. Joseph Goebbels could do no better.

actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better.

 

[Nominefili]

actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better.

No one has ever claimed that Luther was infallible. Everyone knows that he, particularly in his later years, had an extreme anti-Semitic bias. However, I don’t see how that is relevant to his discussion of justification, considering that no church body I’m aware of uses those writings as matters of doctrine. If your goal is simply to portray him as such a horrible human being that nothing he says could possibly be correct, you’re wasting your time. Every Lutheran theologian and pastor is aware of his unfortunate views, but upon viewing his doctrinal writings in light of the holy Scriptures, we believe his explication to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[LilyM]

No one has ever claimed that Luther was infallible. Everyone knows that he, particularly in his later years, had an extreme anti-Semitic bias. However, I don’t see how that is relevant to his discussion of justification, considering that no church body I’m aware of uses those writings as matters of doctrine. If your goal is simply to portray him as such a horrible human being that nothing he says could possibly be correct, you’re wasting your time. Every Lutheran theologian and pastor is aware of his unfortunate views, but upon viewing his doctrinal writings in light of the holy Scriptures, we believe his explication to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why even bother with someone who is every bit as theologically fallible as you though? You’d do just as well ignoring Luther completely and going with your own gut ideas on what Scripture means. That’s the point - not that I believe every word that fell from his lips was wrong, even the Church conceded he was right on some points, but that an entirely fallible teaching authority amounts to very little in the end

 

[Hesychios]

Why even bother with someone who is every bit as theologically fallible as you though? You’d do just as well ignoring Luther completely and going with your own gut ideas on what Scripture means. That’s the point - not that I believe every word that fell from his lips was wrong, even the Church conceded he was right on some points, but that an entirely fallible teaching authority amounts to very little in the end

It is the church which is infallible.

Individuals like Popes and Priests are not.

 

[Hesychios]

actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better.

They need have gone no further than Johann Eck. Anti-Semitism was running rampant in Europe during that generation and onward. (As a testimony to that consider that the Jewish ghetto in Rome dates from 1555AD, after Father Luther and Father Eck’s prime time but in the middle of the Council of Trent. I believe that would have been pope Julius III’s decision.)

But Luther was considerably better known and admired in 20th century Germany, so it is no surprise that he would be the one quoted.

 

[Zooey]

No, I think what they’re getting at is this:

The Pope claimed that by purchasing indulgences, one could shorten one’s stay in Purgatory, or the stay of a loved one, so long as said indulgence had the papal stamp of approval. If this is the case, why didn’t the Pope, being Christ’s vicar on earth, just grant these to every christian, rather than trying to profit from it?

I think someone needs a crash course in what indulgences are.
And how the pope keeps getting the blame for what a con-man (albeit a tonsured con-man) was up to, is something that I still find perplexing.

question: were the 95 thesis put up on the door, before or after he ran off with his " rescued " nun from the convent? from what ive been led to understand, martin luther tried not to reform the church, for the sake of reformation, but for his own worldly lust. such as the love of a woman. sorry, i know its a cheap shot. but to honour someone like him is somewhat impossible. also seeing what his reformation led to is a reason to mourn the day he did this rather than honour it.

The theses were put up before.

 

[Hisalone]

actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better.

Germany a supposed Christian nation brought shame to both Protestants and Catholics alike. How could the Christians allow it to happen?

 

[josie_L]

It is the church which is infallible.

Individuals like Popes and Priests are not.

No one denies the Church is infallible but without the pope as (earthly) head then your Church will not be able to infallibly confirm anything (it’s probably why the Orthodox Churches haven’t held an ecumenical council since the 8th century). Furthermore, the Pope is infallible by virtue of his petrine office, moreover, he has only made two infallible statements of which the Church was already in much deliberation about (the immaculate conception and the assumption was not an invention of the pope’s making). He can only use his infallibility on such issues already pondered (or being questioned) by the Church.

**"An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church…

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position."**

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[josie_L]

How do you say this? What source has made this accessment?

Here it is:

"Luther and Eck’s discussion, 4 July, was on papal supremacy. The former, though gifted with a brilliant readiness of speech, lacked — and his warmest admirers admit it — the quiet composure, curbed self-restraint, and unruffled temper of a good disputant. The result was that the imperturbable serenity and unerring confidence of Eck, had an exasperating effect on him. He was “querulous and censorious”, “arbitrary and bitter” (Mosellanus), which hardly contributed to the advantage of his cause, either in argumentation or with his hearers. Papal supremacy was denied by him, because it found no warrant in Holy Writ or in Divine right. Eck’s comments on the “pestilential” errors of Wiclif and Hus condemned by the Council of Constance was met by the reply, that, so far as the position of the Hussites was concerned, there were among them many who were “very Christian and evangelical”. Eck took his antagonist to task for placing the individual in a position to understand the Bible better than the popes, councils, doctors, and universities, and in pressing his argument closer, asserting that the condemned Bohemians would not hesitate to hail him as their patron, elicited the ungentle remonstrance “that is a shameless lie”. Eck, undisturbed and with the instinct of the trained debater, drove his antagonist still further, until he finally admitted the fallibility of an ecumenical council, upon which he closed the discussion with the laconic remark: “If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican” (Köstlin-Kawerau, op. cit., I, 243-50). This was 15 July. Luther returned sullen and crestfallen to Wittenberg, from what had proved to him an inglorious tournament.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

p.s. The debate took place in 1518 (not 1520).

 

[2nd_Adam]

actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better.

Hiter was raised Catholic

Childhood and youth

Adolf Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler’s father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was a religious sceptic,[1] while his mother was a practising Catholic.[2] According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer’s writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Hitler.[4] At the Benedictine monastery school which Hitler attended for one school year as a child (1897-98), Hitler became top of his class, receiving twelve 1’s, the highest grade, in the final quarter. He also sang as a chorister at the monastery and was very proud of this.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs

So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,
his Roman Catholic Church
never questioned his Catholicism

• at least not in public - which is
  where it mattered politically.

A posed picture which Hitler himself used often
to show what a good “practicing Catholic” he was.

    Catholics today all try to repudiate Adolf Hitler and deny that he was a fellow Roman Catholic.  But this was definitely not the case so long as he was in power, after he had given Germans jobs and reasons to be proud of their powerful country, following the period of great economic depression and great shame which were the results of the country's disastrous defeat in World War One.  Hitler understood how much it would hurt his cause if the 66% of the German population who were Protestants and the 33% who were fellow Catholics were to learn how anti-Christian he and his Nazi ring leaders actually were in their hearts.  Although we now know that Adolf Hitler expressed his true thoughts and feelings for his Catholic Church in his private writings and in his candid communications with his inner circle, we also know that he was a shrewd politician who knew how to manipulate the churchmen of both of the major German faiths to his advantage, by convincing them at the time that he was a champion, not an opponent, of Christianity...

liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith.html

 

[josie_L]

Hiter was raised Catholic

Childhood and youth

Adolf Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler’s father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was a religious sceptic,[1] while his mother was a practising Catholic.[2]** According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer’s writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Hitler.**[4] At the Benedictine monastery school which Hitler attended for one school year as a child (1897-98), Hitler became top of his class, receiving twelve 1’s, the highest grade, in the final quarter. He also sang as a chorister at the monastery and was very proud of this.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs

He became an apostate in his late teens so what’s your point?

 

[2nd_Adam]

He became an apostate in his late teens so what’s your point?

This person’s attempt to discredit Martin Luther with this post. I’m responding to his post.

Originally Posted by benidict
actually hitler and the nazis used the writings of martin luther to give testimony to their extermination of six million jews. so you are right. goebbels could do no better

.
The Catholic Church as well as the Lutheran Church in Germany should give an account to their influence or lack of influence during the rise of Hitler. Please look at this link since a Catholic has tied Hitler together with Martin Luther.

liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith.html

So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,
his Roman Catholic Church
never questioned his Catholicism

• at least not in public - which is
  where it mattered politically.

A posed picture which Hitler himself used often
to show what a good “practicing Catholic” he was.

(see link)

 

[tweetymom]

Aren’t you the one who plagiarized Dave Armstrong? You don’t have the credibility to call anybody ignorant.

Amen to that!

 

[Randy_Carson]

In honor of the anniversary of the day when Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the cathedral door of Wittenburg, I want to bring up his 82nd thesis in particular.

Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose.

The Church can grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who seeks it, but she cannot retroactively apply it to someone who is dead. It requires the active cooperation of the one who seeks it, not a passive acceptance. In other words, the Church has a storehouse of spiritual treasures, based most heavily on Christ’s sacrifice, which also contains other people’s sacrifices, almsgiving, and so forth, their corporeal and spiritual acts of mercy. She can apply it to those seeking to amend their lives and who cooperate with God’s Will.

If the Church just flat-out granted them to anyone she sees fit or anyone who says he wants one but doesn’t want to do what’s required to gain one, she is denying the role of free will in our salvation. She would then in essence become like a overindulgent parent, letting children get something for nothing. That is the Lutheresque model; sit back, stay sinful, and let God do all the work. Yes, He gets the credit, but there’s a whole lot of Scripture that contradicts such quietism.

Since Christ requires us to drink the cup He drank and be baptized in the baptism He underwent, He expects us to take up our crosses and follow Him. We are called upon to suffer and make sacrifices, for our own spiritual good and the good of others around us.

In other words, we don’t get the bonus without the onus. Even a plenary indulgence (which is incredibly difficult to get, by the way) requires our cooperation, free will actions and some sort of sacrifice, and even then, it’s not a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. We can toss it away if we commit another mortal or even venial sin. It isn’t permanent.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Church can grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who seeks it, but she cannot retroactively apply it to someone who is dead. It requires the active cooperation of the one who seeks it, not a passive acceptance. In other words, the Church has a storehouse of spiritual treasures, based most heavily on Christ’s sacrifice, which also contains other people’s sacrifices, almsgiving, and so forth, their corporeal and spiritual acts of mercy. She can apply it to those seeking to amend their lives and who cooperate with God’s Will.

If the Church just flat-out granted them to anyone she sees fit or anyone who says he wants one but doesn’t want to do what’s required to gain one, she is denying the role of free will in our salvation. She would then in essence become like a overindulgent parent, letting children get something for nothing. That is the Lutheresque model; sit back, stay sinful, and let God do all the work. Yes, He gets the credit, but there’s a whole lot of Scripture that contradicts such quietism.

Since Christ requires us to drink the cup He drank and be baptized in the baptism He underwent, He expects us to take up our crosses and follow Him. We are called upon to suffer and make sacrifices, for our own spiritual good and the good of others around us.

In other words, we don’t get the bonus without the onus. Even a plenary indulgence (which is incredibly difficult to get, by the way) requires our cooperation, free will actions and some sort of sacrifice, and even then, it’s not a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. We can toss it away if we commit another mortal or even venial sin. It isn’t permanent.

Great post, Randy. I’ve never thought of it put quite this way. Very insightful. Thanks…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luther wanted debate on justification.
You prove that Catholics today like yesterday want no part of that discussion.

http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/images/whatstilldividesus-LG.jpg

Catholics continue to debate and refute the false Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.

You can purchase and listen to this debate for yourself here:
surprisedbytruth.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=96

And, of course, I have just refuted your absurd assertion, as well.

 

[EphelDuath]

liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith.html

So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,
his Roman Catholic Church
never questioned his Catholicism

• at least not in public - which is
  where it mattered politically.

A posed picture which Hitler himself used often
to show what a good “practicing Catholic” he was.

(see link)

Perhaps you should pick up “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David G. Dalin. Pope Pius XII opposed the Nazi Party at every turn, but unfortunately, Hitler became attained a fanatical popularity once he turned the Weimar Republic into a fascist state. Later, the Pope’s efforts in risking his own life to oppose the Axis powers resulted in him saving half a million lives.

But we can’t let silly things like facts get in the way of slander, right?

 

[JonNC]

The Church can grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who seeks it, but she cannot retroactively apply it to someone who is dead. It requires the active cooperation of the one who seeks it, not a passive acceptance. In other words, the Church has a storehouse of spiritual treasures, based most heavily on Christ’s sacrifice, which also contains other people’s sacrifices, almsgiving, and so forth, their corporeal and spiritual acts of mercy. She can apply it to those seeking to amend their lives and who cooperate with God’s Will.

If the Church just flat-out granted them to anyone she sees fit or anyone who says he wants one but doesn’t want to do what’s required to gain one, she is denying the role of free will in our salvation. She would then in essence become like a overindulgent parent, letting children get something for nothing. That is the Lutheresque model; sit back, stay sinful, and let God do all the work. Yes, He gets the credit, but there’s a whole lot of Scripture that contradicts such quietism.

Since Christ requires us to drink the cup He drank and be baptized in the baptism He underwent, He expects us to take up our crosses and follow Him. We are called upon to suffer and make sacrifices, for our own spiritual good and the good of others around us.

In other words, we don’t get the bonus without the onus. Even a plenary indulgence (which is incredibly difficult to get, by the way) requires our cooperation, free will actions and some sort of sacrifice, and even then, it’s not a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. We can toss it away if we commit another mortal or even venial sin. It isn’t permanent.

Sounds to me, Randy, like during Luther’s time, some in leadership positions within the Church, particularly in Europe, were abusing the indulgence system in a way that caused Luther to respond with his 95 Theses, in an attempt to expose and draw discussion about those abuses of the system at the expense of believers.

It is amazing to me that we cannot, as brother and sisters in Christ, calmly discuss the issue on a thread without it breaking down into throwing insults and accusations back and forth. I am thankful you were willing to post a thoughtful response to the thread.

Jon

 

[EphelDuath]

No one has ever claimed that Luther was infallible. Everyone knows that he, particularly in his later years, had an extreme anti-Semitic bias. However, I don’t see how that is relevant to his discussion of justification, considering that no church body I’m aware of uses those writings as matters of doctrine. If your goal is simply to portray him as such a horrible human being that nothing he says could possibly be correct, you’re wasting your time. Every Lutheran theologian and pastor is aware of his unfortunate views, but upon viewing his doctrinal writings in light of the holy Scriptures, we believe his explication to be correct. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please explain to me, from the perspective of divine providence, why God would choose a man who espoused such wicked views to reform His Church for the salvation of the world. Usually He sends saintly men like Elijah and St. John the Baptist to save His people when they stray from righteousness. I am happy to debate Luther’s theological opinions, but I do not think this individual point is something to be brushed aside. It is completely inconsistent with how God relates to the world.

Now, to answer the original question of the thread:

Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter’s church, a very minor purpose.

It is not within the power of the Pope to “give” indulgences to people. Johann Tetzel, the man who Martin Luther discovered selling indulgences, did not do so under church authority; nor did Tetzel himself seem to understand exactly what an indulgence was.

Is Pope Leo X a saint? I couldn’t tell you, but nobody claims that Catholics aren’t sinners. However, this is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the Catholic Church is the same of that established by Christ, which it is, given that otherwise Christ was mistaken when he said “the gates of hell would not prevail against it” in Matthew 16:18-19.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are sadly mistaken. The Roman Catholic Church has never been wrong about anything, ever.

I understand that you are being facetious, but I think your attempt at sarcasm betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility.

That or an intentional mischaracterization of it.