Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

[guanophore]

From what Ive read and understand, Luther was a very clever man, well schooled in the ways of the church.

Surely he would have known this. That the Pope cannot and does not release souls from Purgatory. That is the preserve of God the Father.

Perhaps what he was doing was playing up to a common misunderstanding of the time? Perhaps people, some people, catholics, did believe that the Pope could release souls from Purgatory, if they paid for the privilage.

And Luther was highlighting this abuse - the fact that the Pope couldnt release souls from purgatory, but was quite happy to let the commoner live with the misunderstanding he could, in order to claim cash for indulgences.

Luthers approach was to get the debate going, perhaps, to expose the common misunderstandings and expose those ruthless enough to exploit these commoners lack of true church understanding.

Yes, I think you hit that nail on the head. I think he was playing “the devils advocate” so to speak, and following the ridiculous notion to it’s logical conclusion. If putting a coin in a coffer could release a soul, then there is no good reason not to release all of them!

 

[guanophore]

Nobody is denying that Catholics are sinners. But the fact is that Jesus said that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against his Church (Matthew 16:18-19), which would certainly be the case if Lutheranism were true, since then His Church would’ve been steeped in heresy for 1,500 years.

From the point of view of Luther and the vast majority of European Christians it sure looked like the gates of Hell had prevailed. One of the reasons for that is expemplified in the 82nd thesis. The corrupt Roman clergy were pandering falsehoods, and taking advantage of the poor through greed.

 

[guanophore]

As you can see, the Church therefore is protected from error, whereas the gates of Hell prevail against your alleged "unified church" that can agree on nothing.

Your arguement is flawed. The fact the Catholic Church got it right on abortion (or any other single topic) does not prove she is infallible.

This statement you made above is also a baseless error. On the contrary, the Lutheran Church shares the vast majority of her doctrines with Catholics. I am mystified you are using this thread to attack our Lutheran brethren. Why are you avoiding the topic?

To summarize my argument: if you believe that Matthew 16:18-19 refers to some alleged “undivided church,” then the question arises how the Church can be a “pillar of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) when none of its members can even agree on what the truth is, due to the nature of Sola scriptura leading all of its adherents to wildly different beliefs.

Your arguement seems to have nothing to do with the topic.

The thread appears to have activated some unresolved issues in you.

When I see posts like yours, I sometimes I wonder,but for only brief moments, why I challenge Protestants on here who claim or imply Catholics are not Christian. Your position is equally uncharitable to theirs.

Jon

May I say that I am pleased you have not fallen into the lack of charity, but also urge you to return to the topic?

 

[EphelDuath]

From the point of view of Luther and the vast majority of European Christians it sure looked like the gates of Hell had prevailed. One of the reasons for that is expemplified in the 82nd thesis. The corrupt Roman clergy were pandering falsehoods, and taking advantage of the poor through greed.

I am uninterested in opinions. The fact is that this belief is illogical.

Your arguement is flawed. The fact the Catholic Church got it right on abortion (or any other single topic) does not prove she is infallible.

No, but it does demonstrate that Sola scriptura is an insufficient doctrine to derive belief from.

I am mystified you are using this thread to attack our Lutheran brethren. Why are you avoiding the topic?

I am not avoiding the topic. I don’t believe I’m “attacking” Lutherans by questioning their beliefs; though perhaps you have forgotten that this topic was posted to affirm one of Luther’s theses against Catholicism in the first place, and therefore what I’m doing is simply refuting this argument.

Your arguement seems to have nothing to do with the topic.

The argument is that the Church cannot have fallen into error, which was against JonNC’s point that the Church teaches “error mixed with truth.” He responded by saying that Christ referred to some abstract notion of “a church,” and not the Catholic Church. How is this not relevant? You appear to have skipped one of the pages in this thread and thus lost the context of this debate that JonNC and I were having.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

I am uninterested in opinions. The fact is that this belief is illogical.

Are you talking about this saying attributed to Tetzel: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”?

For someone who claims they dislike illogical beliefs,you certainly have posted a number of them on this thread.

No, but it does demonstrate that Sola scriptura is an insufficient doctrine to derive belief from.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this point. It is certainly off topic in this thread.

Come to think of it, I think it was the 28th thesis that pertained to Purgatory, was it not?

1. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

In this issue, Luther was upholding the Teaching of the Catholic Church, over against the claims of Tetzel.

In fact, thesis 82

1. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

finds it’s answer in # 28. The reason why the Pope did not do this, us because it is in the power of God alone.

I am not avoiding the topic. I don’t believe I’m “attacking” Lutherans by questioning their beliefs; though perhaps you have forgotten that this topic was posted to affirm one of Luther’s theses against Catholicism in the first place, and therefore what I’m doing is simply refuting this argument.

You are avoiding the topic Ephel, and you are attacking Lutherans. The questioning of their beliefs is not relevant to this thread. The thread is about the 82nd thesis, and not all these other unrelated issues you have brought about Luther.

Luther had some righteous complaints to make against the practices of Catholic clergy in his region. You have done nothing to refute this.

The argument is that the Church cannot have fallen into error,

If you look at the theses, you will see that the conduct of the European clergy at the time did not accurately represent the Teaching of the Church. These men, who had fallen into error, then precipitated more error around themselves.

was against JonNC’s point that the Church teaches “error mixed with truth.”

This is what the represenatatives of the Church were doing at the time.

You appear to have skipped one of the pages in this thread and thus lost the context of this debate that JonNC and I were having.

God bless.

not a bit. On the contrary, I have read every off topic post you and Jon have posted.

 

[EphelDuath]

I am not denying that there was corruption among peoples in the Church, but this does not mean the Church itself was corrupt. Luther’s theses themselves were based on his belief of Sola scriptura (i.e. that you could challenge sacred tradition on the grounds of a personal interpretation of scriptures), and hence what I’m saying is that while he was right to target corruption, he was absolutely wrong to use this as a wedge to split from the Church altogether, as SS is a demonstratively wrong belief. Things he wrote suggests that he had already formulated his “Sola” doctrines before the Tetzel incident, so trying to make some dichotomy between “Luther the reformer of the Church” and “Luther the Protestant” is impossible.

 

[josie_L]

From the point of view of Luther and the vast majority of European Christians it sure looked like the gates of Hell had prevailed. One of the reasons for that is expemplified in the 82nd thesis. The corrupt Roman clergy were pandering falsehoods, and taking advantage of the poor through greed.

I admit, of course, that there were those who did cause scandal, but how much and how prevalent? In other words what are the historical (primary) sources to provide us with such information?

p.s. I know for example that when the plague hit more than 60% percent of the clergy were killed as such we can surmise that those who replaced them due to haste and necessity were not exactly exemplary priests.

 

[josie_L]

Saint Peter was no Pope in the modern sense, and we all know this!

Pope Saint Peter would recognize the papacy in the modern sense, and do you know why? Because Pope Saint Peter would have realized the significance of the keys which were given to him by the Son of David, the King of the Jews, Jesus to his newly appointed “prime minister”. The other apostle/ministers would also have understood the meaning and significance of the keys because that was the model or authoritative/hierarchical structure which the Kingdom of Israel was built upon. The prime minister was given an authority that was far greater than that of the other ministers, and there is no denying this because it is scriptural. Here is something I thought might help you understand our position better:

**"King David pleased God so much that he made a special covenant with him. God promised that he would build a dynasty after him. He would even give David a descendant–a Son–who would be a great deliverer for the people of Israel–the long-awaited Messiah whom God had promised some time earlier, and who now would be the great and glorious Son of David, who would build a kingdom surpassing even David’s.

Now King David, like all kings–especially the good ones–was a very busy guy. He had funds to raise, public works projects to oversee, crimes to punish, legal cases to settle, wars with other nations to fight, foreign diplomacy to conduct, and that is on top of the tasks of an ordinary man, such as eating, sleeping, and raising his family.

Because there was no way David could personally oversee those doing these tasks, no way he could give instructions personally to every servant or family member, no way he could reward them if they followed the instructions or punish them if they didn’t, David appointed a group of ministers to handle the overseeing of his house for him. It was these servants who would instruct, reward, and discipline the members of the household in their daily tasks.

But his house was so large, with so many members to oversee, that there was a large number of ministers overseeing them, and whenever you have a large number of people doing something, there are going to be quarrels. Members of one department are going to want things which another department wants for itself. Some will think the children will need to be taught one way, while other will think they need to be taught differently. Some want the daily schedule ordered one way; others want it ordered another. And there needs to be some way to settle these quarrels and keep the overseeing ministers operating as a harmonious group.

So the wise King David arranged for such a method. He appointed one particular minister who would serve as the chief steward of his house, rather like the President today has the White House Chief of Staff. This minister, who was accountable to King David alone, had the task of settling quarrels, keeping ministers in line, and in general keeping the house together and running smoothly.

When the king was away, this meant that the chief steward or chamberlain of the house was in charge. He was the head of the household when the king was away, and was second in command when the king was present.

This arrangement of having one chief minister who could oversee the lesser ministers and keep them from getting into conflicts with each other was so successful that it was used by the later kings of the House of David, and even by the kings of the House of Israel, when that broke away from the Southern Kingdom after Solomon died."**

cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Pope Saint Peter would recognize the papacy in the modern sense

At this point in time I doubt that.

He would most likely be wondering why one person claims to be the head of the entire church instead of working in concert with his partner bishops from Antioch, Jerusalem, etc concilliar fashion, as he did.

 

[EphelDuath]

At this point in time I doubt that.

He would most likely be wondering why one person claims to be the head of the entire church instead of working in concert with his partner bishops from Antioch, Jerusalem, etc concilliar fashion, as he did.

Is there some contradiction between working with other bishops and being the head of the Church?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Is there some contradiction between working with other bishops and being the head of the Church?

I think there is when the Bishop of Rome doesnt make decisions in conjunction with the other Patriarchs. Thats the church Peter would recognise to address josies remark.

But again this is off topic and guanophore who I have an enormous amount of respect and time for, is going to come back here and be forced to make an uncharitable remark, and thats not fair on him

Back to the topic -

 

[josie_L]

At this point in time I doubt that.

He would most likely be wondering why one person claims to be the head of the entire church instead of working in concert with his partner bishops from Antioch, Jerusalem, etc concilliar fashion, as he did.

He does work in concert with the other bishops (do you think the pope’s a despot?). And he doesn’t claim to be the head of the (earthly) church, scripture, i.e, God, tradition, and history testify that he is. Furthermore, the Pope does not have the consolidated power some presume he has, for instance, bishops are not appointed by the Pope exclusively, in fact, there is more than one person involved.

Ordination of Bishops and Eparchs

Main article: Appointment of Roman Catholic bishops

The appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church is a complicated process with several officials being invoved. In the Latin Church, the local synod, the papal nuncio (or apostolic delegate), various dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and the Pope all take a part; since the 1970s it has become common practice for the nuncio to solicit (name removed by moderator)ut from clergy and laity within the vacant diocese. In patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Eastern Churches, the permanent synod, the holy synod, and the patriarch or major archbishop also play a role in the selection of bishops.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(Catholic_Church

Here’s an article from the USCCB delineating the process:

www.usccb.org/comm/bishopsfinal.pdf

p.s. Did you not notice (if you read the article in full it would help) how the structure of the Kingdom of Israel is similar to that of the Catholic Church? The Kingdom of Israel was/is a typography for the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

I think there is when the Bishop of Rome doesnt make decisions in conjunction with the other Patriarchs. Thats the church Peter would recognise to address josies remark.

But again this is off topic and guanophore who I have an enormous amount of respect and time for, is going to come back here and be forced to make an uncharitable remark, and thats not fair on him

Back to the topic -

How can the Bishop of Rome make decisions in conjunction with the other Patriarchs who are in schism with us? And do you not realize that sacerdotal unity and ecumenical agreement are central to the petrine office, i.e., the Pope? It is for this reason we continue to have ecumenical councils and (structural and theological) unity.

 

[guanophore]

I am not denying that there was corruption among peoples in the Church, but this does not mean the Church itself was corrupt. Luther’s theses themselves were based on his belief of Sola scriptura (i.e. that you could challenge sacred tradition on the grounds of a personal interpretation of scriptures), and hence what I’m saying is that while he was right to target corruption, he was absolutely wrong to use this as a wedge to split from the Church altogether, as SS is a demonstratively wrong belief. Things he wrote suggests that he had already formulated his “Sola” doctrines before the Tetzel incident, so trying to make some dichotomy between “Luther the reformer of the Church” and “Luther the Protestant” is impossible.

We are in agreement on these points. How would you apply them to the topic of the thread?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

My point was you said St Peter would recognise the papacy in its modern sense today - and I have doubts that would be the case.

He would most likely ask where are the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch etc and why arent you doing everything in conjunction with them??!!

Im prepared to be wrong on this, but several million Orthodox christians have the same view, and they would say its the catholic church that broke away from them, and one of the central issues is the papacy.

And this is not on topic

 

[guanophore]

I admit, of course, that there were those who did cause scandal, but how much and how prevalent? In other words what are the historical (primary) sources to provide us with such information?

p.s. I know for example that when the plague hit more than 60% percent of the clergy were killed as such we can surmise that those who replaced them due to haste and necessity were not exactly exemplary priests.

Yes, this is quite true. Most of the priests were uneducated, and poorly catechized. The climate was rampant for abuse. Scripture testifies to the principle that when the shepherd is attacked, the sheep will be scattered, and this is exactly what happened.

 

[guanophore]

At this point in time I doubt that.

Well, of course! If not, you would already be Catholic.

He would most likely be wondering why one person claims to be the head of the entire church instead of working in concert with his partner bishops from Antioch, Jerusalem, etc concilliar fashion, as he did.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be responsible for the care and feeding of the flock, and work together with others who have the same responsibility.

 

[josie_L]

My point was you said St Peter would recognise the papacy in its modern sense today - and I have doubts that would be the case.

He would most likely ask where are the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch etc and why arent you doing everything in conjunction with them??!!

Im prepared to be wrong on this, but several million Orthodox christians have the same view, and they would say its the catholic church that broke away from them, and one of the central issues is the papacy.

And this is not on topic

I said he would recognize the papacy (as it is today in the Catholic Church) through that of the prime minister’s role within the kingdom of Israel. I will refer you to Isaiah 22:22:

" The Lord said to Shebna. “When that happens, I will send for my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will put your official robe and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. I will give him complete authority under the King, the descendant of David (Jesus). He will have the keys of office (Peter); what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open. I will fasten him firmly in place like a peg, and he will be a source of honour to his whole family.”

 

[SyCarl]

I said he would recognize the papacy (as it is today in the Catholic Church) through that of the prime minister’s role within the kingdom of Israel. I will refer you to Isaiah 22:22:

" The Lord said to Shebna. “When that happens, I will send for my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will put your official robe and belt on him and give him all the authority you have had. He will be like a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. I will give him complete authority under the King, the descendant of David (Jesus). He will have the keys of office (Peter); what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open. I will fasten him firmly in place like a peg, and he will be a source of honour to his whole family.”

Do the following verses from Isaiah 22 also apply to the papacy?

"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
(Isaiah 22:24-25 NASB)

 

[Hisalone]

Do the following verses from Isaiah 22 also apply to the papacy?