Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reformation Day
Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the church for debate
This Sunday, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, a confessional Lutheran church of which I am a member, that subscribes to the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, commemorates Reformation Day, marking the formation and break of Protestants with Roman Catholicism. Some would say we celebrate, but that is not a word I am in concord with. As when the Pope initiated the Great Schism in 1054, effectively separating the Western and Eastern churches, ostensibly over one word added by a pope to the Nicene Creed without Eastern participation or consent, Luther set in motion a cascade of revolts against a corrupt Roman Catholic majesterium that resulted in the public emergence of a passel of theological views that had lived just below the surface, often in local enclaves, for centuries.
The advent of the printing press and the inevitable explosive spread of literacy served as the kindling for the fire of theological rebellion. Local rulers soon realized their opportunity to cut the steady flow of gold from their dominions to Rome, with its brothels for clerics and a thousand traditions and pilgrimages all calculated to separate the faithful from their money. The recently completed Sistine Chapel (1508) stood as an example of a Roman white elephant built on coin drained from distant parishes, and construction on the much more ambitious Saint Peter’s Basilica was already under way. Also bear in mind that, historically, the popes held territory which they would both try to expand and be forced to defend. The Papal States were a mundane commitment that, in the most favorable construction, gave the church security rather than placing it under the thumb of mundane rulers. A fair criticism was that it served to reduce the pope’s dignity to that of one more ruler of many, lending a whiff of mundanity to the office.
The practice which Dr. Luther targeted when he posted his 95 theses on the church door in 1517 was indulgence selling. Indulgences were and are a Roman innovation where, for a monetary fee and following some ritual instructions, the Roman Catholic Church would reduce the designated beneficiary soul’s time in Purgatory. Purgatory was another Roman innovation that never penetrated to the Eastern Roman Church and was universally rejected by Protestants. Johann Tetzel, a Dominican Friar, excelled so thoroughly at terrifying the masses (literally, in mass as well as city squares) into buying indulgences that the Pope himself acted to halt Tetzel’s abuses. Indulgences are still around today, as described in Pope Paul VI’s Indulgentarium Doctrina, 1967. But I am assured by Catholic friends that the dynamic is not now as it was in Brother Tetzel’s day.
Is there a Purgatory? I do not know, and certainly do not mean to decide such an awesome question here. I do know that Jesus and Paul and John spoke frequently in scripture on Heaven and Hell without mentioning or warning their disciples of Purgatory. I commend my soul into His mighty hand and His will be done.
My point is not to shame Catholics because Tetzel was Catholic or because the Roman Church was beset by corruption and human frailty, how could it be otherwise. Nor to exalt Protestants for fracturing the church and worshipers of Jesus Christ. Protestant churches were and are also filled with fallen human beings capable of unspeakable things. The church was already fractured, Dr. Luther applied a nail to a church door and the cracks became undeniable. He became the most read man in Europe thanks to the printing press. 20% of the material published in the German language between 1500 and 1530 was written by Luther. And every ambitious churchman that could get away with it latched onto a local ruler and seized or cobbled up a theological novelty and every doctrine was challenged somewhere.
There is a lot of room for humility on both sides. Rome eventually held the Counsel of Trent, 1563, to address issues raised by Protestants and even invited Dr. Luther to attend, promising him safe passage after decades of offering a price for his head. Dr. Luther understandably declined. Rome went to Trent to close the barn doors, but the horses were long gone.
This does not mean that 16th Century Europe became the religious marketplace we see today. As I write, there is an Adventist church down the street from me, Bruton Parish Episcopal (Anglican when Jefferson and Madison attended there) Church in the Colonial Williamsburg exhibit, still an active church today, a Presbyterian Church next to a Baptist Church a few blocks away, the National Shrine to Our Lady of Walsingham, Saint Bede Catholic Church, Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, and many, many more. All denominations with their own history, their own culture, their own traditions, and their own doctrine. I can attend any or all and can donate to any, all, or none, freely, Covid and my anti-Christ governor notwithstanding. Not back in the day.
There was nothing like that in 16th Century Europe. Instead there was an officially sanctioned church, occasionally some other churches at the periphery of the domain tolerated for whatever reason or about to be quashed or already quashed with remnants meeting in houses and such. And where Jews were tolerated, some form of synagogue. If you expected to get anywhere and be someone, you got your tuchus to the right church every Sunday. In fact, it was the law. And fines were steep.
The Roman Church was often the primary legal authority on the ground depending on how land was held and population centers organized. They had their own courts, collected taxes and fees as well as tithes. The shakers and movers were lesser sons of nobles consigned to a clerical life of nominal chastity to frustrate later claims against noble estates. The Romans themselves found the vow of chastity a useful tool after early disputes over what bishop’s child should inherit a bishopric and where “church” lands held by the bishop personally. And the congregants in a parish were as much under the rule of their priests as a serf was under the rule of their noble. The slackening of the chains that bind would eventually occur, but there was a lot of argument and violence and a whole new continent to conquer on the way to making that happen.
I took part as one of four associate justices sitting with a chief justice in a mock trial at the Courthouse in Colonial Williamsburg. One of the cases was that of a man who had stopped coming to the Anglican services where he was registered, and declared his interest in attending a church under a different denomination, which was allowed for at the time in the colony. The court granted permission for the change of his registered worship congregation, and then came to the matter of fines for a month or so of failing to attend. The head judge, played by one of Williamsburg’s excellent reenactors rather than just another tourist like myself, expressed mild disdain when the four associate judges on the panel elected three to one to wave the rather stiff fines. That is a portrayal of the climate in 1774 as religious liberty was still feeling its way into American culture. We talk today of how the churches used to be full. How God-fearing we were. Whatever happened to us. It’s not the whole story, far from it, but dropping the fines had some impact, I am sure.
Reformation Day is rooted in an era radically different from our own, but if we are to understand where we are, we need to understand where we have been and how we arrived here.
So yes, I commemorate Reformation Day. But I do not celebrate it. It did not begin the fissuring of His church, that had begun by the time of the First Jerusalem Council where Saint Paul contended with Saint Peter over whether gentile Christians were to be saddled with a long list of Jewish customs, but it mapped the cracks for the print age, for the world to see.
Jesus said:
49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
– Luke 12 (ESV)
I spend this day reflecting on the state of His worshippers, among all peoples and in all languages, and pray that they may firmly find themselves firmly in His mighty hand and live in the eternal peace he promises in the next world after persevering the discord of this world, as we have made it.
I am a Christian first and foremost, and I hail any man earnestly and humbly seeking to learn about and worship my Savior, the only begotten son of the living God, regardless of which fragment of His church they might embrace, and pray that He would somehow guide then and save them all, and unite us under His eternal rule. His will be done. Amen.
The peace of the Lord be with ye, always. Amen.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Well, if you go here to Catholic Answers on Purgatory, you can learn the entire basis for Purgatory, more than you can imagine. You will learn that it is implied both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. It’s implied just like the Trinity is implied. That’s not mentioned anywhere either. You do believe in the Trinity, right? That’s not mentioned by Jesus, or Paul, or John either. You would think that Jesus would mention the Trinity since He’s part of it. And yes, Purgatory is implied by the very words spoken by Jesus and Paul. And perhaps it’s not mentioned as a proper place in the Gospels because it is a part of heaven. Did you ever consider that?
Duplicate comment with the next
The Trinity has more evidence.
Moses and David suffering in this life for their transgressions is well understood, that does not mean they were made to wait in the next before going into God’s presence. Moses died in the 15th century BC, and yet appeared to Jesus and some of the apostles in 30-ish AD so whatever his time in purgatory, it was shorter than 1500 years. Of course Elijah also appeared at the transfiguration, he reckons from the 9th century BC, so whatever time he spent in purgatory, it was 600 years less than Moses.
Or God gave them a day pass out of Heaven to convince the apostles to listen to Jesus. (My preferred theory)
Well, apparently they didn’t know their Catechism because in the Church the couple performs the marriage sacrament. The priest is merely a witness.
I have heard Catholic Answers and Bishop Fulton Sheen and Bishop Robert Barron and Dr. Taylor Marshall read Aquinas and the Canon of the Council of Trent and many others on the topic. Whereas the Trinity is undeniably witnessed in Luke 3:22 and elsewhere, but the citations used to establish Purgatory are much less compelling, and much too complicated to pursue here.
There are influences that Eusebius brings in in a quotation of Plato’s Concerning the Soul in Praeparatio Evangelica for discussion that is then read into earlier scriptural and church father’s discussions of praying for the dead. Who among us has not been moved to pray to the Lord for mercy on a deceased friend or loved one? It never takes root in the East because they categorically rejected Greek philosophy contaminating holy church doctrine as anathema. It is rejected in Protestantism owing to the corrupt example of Tetzel under Pope Leo X. If Eusebius were speaking to an oral tradition of Purgatory arising from the Apostolic Tradition, he would have said so rather than dragging a pagan philosopher into the matter.
I appreciate that it is Roman Catholic doctrine and can speculate on scenarios where it is private revelation of the truth or demonic deception to lead the faithful astray, but none of that would be useful and the fact of the debate itself could serve as a stumbling block for those weaker siblings among the faithful. The Lord is the one pointed to, I am certain that the Holy Spirit can bring salvation because of or in spite of earthly churches as necessary.
His peace be with you.
I guess I think about brotherhood differently. To be a “brother” is to share a bond in some concrete human organization, and “brotherhood” takes meaning in the context of that particular organization. There is the biological family, of course, and to call someone a “brother” in this sense has a particular meaning. It means you have a relationship with him, either biologically, or by adoption into the biological family.
There are also spiritual families, for instance in monasteries. To be a “brother” here is to be part of a particular human community, dedicated to a way of life and having a concrete and visible organization. Or even college fraternities, whatever we might think of them. To be a “brother” in a Greek alphabet organization is to be a member of some particular community with a particular organization.
To be a Catholic is to be part an historical community of believers going back thousands of years. We Catholics, of course, believe it is more than a merely human community of believers, that it is also a supernatural organization guided by the Holy Spirit; in fact it is the Mystical Body of Christ. But all that heavy spiritual overlay doesn’t make it less than a human organization, and like any human organization, to be a “brother” in it is to accept the concrete manifestation of the organization and its structure.
What does it mean to be a “brother” when there is no concrete human organization to give that brotherhood context? I’m not sure. People talk about the “brotherhood of mankind” but it seems to me a fairly empty statement. What about the “brotherhood of Christians” when it also has no reference to a concrete community but only signifies that we share certain beliefs about Christ? I guess we can use the word but I’m not sure it buys us very much.
You have imputed the sin of presumption against a fellow sinner, me. I pray that that is not counted against you.
My comment was motivated by the OP’s introduction of Johann Tetzel as someone who Catholics might be ashamed of. Do you think Catholics should be ashamed of him? If so, why? If not, then I have no argument with you.
The movie Luther provided a good example. You want to nick a duke for a few thousand marks? Go for it. There was a lady living in the woods caring for a disabled orphan. The lady wouldn’t take charity, though the monks had tried. Instead she gathered firewood and brought it to the monastery. The monks didn’t need it. They managed a forest or two. Firewood was as far away as giving a brother an axe and pointing him out the door. But they bought her meager scraps anyway. From that meager income, she was donating for the redemption of her sins and the sins of the little girl.
I am both ignorant and apathetic regarding Johan Tetzel. Whatever one’s beliefs, presuming they are Christian, he is beyond the reckoning of normal men and has entered into his eternal reward (or not, depending on one’s view of purgatory and an accurate accounting of whatever sins he had not atoned for).
In short, I don’t know and I don’t care.
I do care, in a conversational way, about the presumption of taking sins away from Christ and declaring to take them on yourself. That seems kind of fundamental to Christian belief. But I am only interested in the conversation – not judgement – that is not for me.
Just like it is not for me judge the outcome of Johan Tetzel – I don’t know and I don’t care.
Perhaps a better word to use here is guilt. Why do we die? Death for man entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. Not death just for them, but for all of us. How is it that all us are subject to the penalty? What has Adam’s sin to do with us?
The answer is in Christ. What have our sins to do with Christ? Nothing, except he voluntarily took on the guilt of them for our sakes. Since Christ took on the guilt of my sins, I am not ashamed to take on the guilt of Adam’s sin or the sins of Catholics. By staying in communion with them, I am imitating Christ, who does not separate from us despite our sins. Whom am I to separate from fellow Catholics because of their sins? So when Protestants point out the bad deeds of Catholics of the past, as though their shame is my shame, and that should be a reason to abandon the Church and start my own religion, I feel exactly the opposite. Being a Catholic means imitating Christ in sharing the guilt of everyone in the communion; but also it means sharing in the glory of everyone in the communion as well, Christ first and foremost, but all the saints and martyrs of the Church as well.
I am a convert to the Catholic faith. I too consider Christians (Protestant or otherwise) brothers and sisters in Christ. See you at the table!
Catholics are generally more private in their faith habits and devotions and too many don’t know and understand their faith as well as they should. I am trying to encourage more Evangelical Catholics. There is much truth and wisdom revealed over the centuries from the Church that Jesus Christ founded on Saint Peter.
Jesus did pray that we would all be one, and the more branches/offshoots that are created over secular silliness, the farther away we are from that ideal. We are certainly allies in this world, not enemies. And we both have our roots in Judaism with Father Abraham and the Old Testament.
That is fair.
It is like when people point out that as a Catholic, you’re a bad person if you don’t follow exactly every tenet. No. We’re just practicing. Nobody said we were good at it. The idea is that you adhere to the rules as best you can. When you don’t and you have remorse for not living the way we’re asked to, you go and confess. Not because you have something horrible to admit and should be ashamed, but because as humans it means a lot to go to another person (even if that person is a representation of Jesus on this Earth) and to admit what you did out loud, what might have been behind it, and what you might do to make it right. It also helps that we discuss ways to not do that thing again.
In other faiths, you can just accept Jesus and you’re done. You know you’re a sinner, you asked Jesus for forgiveness and…you are done.
Not so much in Catholicism. We accept Jesus, we accept that He is the Way. But we also accept that we have a path and what we do matters and it matters that we continue working. Because work is holy. Because work is necessary to human fulfillment (even if it is not “work” in the physical sense).
Do Catholics fail? Yep. All the time. Look at Biden and Pelosi. They don’t just fail at being Catholic, they fail at being good people. Now, can I judge them? Sure. I’ve got eyes, ears, and a brain. But ultimately, my naysaying and admonishments mean nothing because their ultimate reckoning is with The Man Himself. Does that mean that all Catholics are hypocrites for denouncing them but not prefacing their complaints with everything they’ve done wrong themselves? No. We accept that we’re all hypocrites, we’re all trying, and some of us are doing better than others. We are ashamed of our leaders because they are meant to lead and instead they’ve actively hurt the faithful. That’s why we’re ashamed. But our priests are still human. They still fail. Because our nature is not perfect.
Amen 🙏
How do you know how much time was spent or if any? I don’t understand where this is coming from. Or the actual point.
Whatever the influence that Eusebius brings has nothing to do with the fact that Jews and Christians pray for the dead. You are taking Eusebius’ point as the sole reason for the doctrine. Eusebius alone didn’t create the doctrine. As Catholic Answers points out, implied in Jesus’ and St. Paul’s words are an implication of a purgation period. Jews and Christians pray for the dead; there has to be a reason to pray for them. By the way, Eastern Orthodox, and I assume all the apostolic Christian traditions, while they don’t give the purgation place the name “purgatory,” do believe in a purgation after death and the efficacy of praying for the dead. Apostolic Christians being those that trace back to apostolic times.
In addition, Paul in 2 Cor 12:2-4 speaks of a “third heaven,” which he traveled to in a mystical state. So if there are stages to heaven, are there not stages to reaching proper holiness to be with God? So, if there are at least three sections to heaven, according to St. Paul, why do you say there cannot be a section for purgation, whether you call it Purgatory or not?
It’s called “eternal security,” also known as “once saved, always saved.” There are Protestant denominations that say once you have accepted Christ into your heart you are forever saved and no matter what you do as a sinner you are going to heaven. To my perception as I engage with Protestants over their beliefs it seems to be gaining in popularity. Or perhaps since all Protestant denominations are conflating into Evangelicals they are taking on this dogma. I don’t know. It seems far out to me.
Just to put some Biblical meat on that point, besides the numerous places Jesus issues commands for His followers to perform specific deeds (see Matthew 25:31-46 for the most obvious) St. John the Baptist summarizes it in Matt 3:
“Bear fruit worthy of repentance.”
It means I went to your link regarding purgatory and read the evidence presented there. As to the times presented, those dates (approx death date for Moses and Elijah, as well as the time of the Transfiguration) are generally understood.
Had those men any sins that they hadn’t paid for in this life, then presumably they had to pay it in purgatory. (I don’t believe in purgatory, but for the sake of conversation, I posited the maximum time they had to spend there. ~1500 years for Moses, ~900 for Elijah at the outside.)
Of course you neglected to mention my preferred theory:
I think it’s gaining in popularity because it is the most consistent with current culture. You say you’re Christian, take the bath, and put on your “Blessed!” shirt and go do your hot yoga.
And yes, I’m making light of it.
And we’re all absolutely sure that Divine time is completely in tandem with human time?
7 days to create the world and all that? Moses was 900 when he died?
‘Cause I’m guessing these are fundamental differences.
I’m told my image is broken. If so, you can find the comic here.
Of coarse there are some Protestant churches that go the easy believism route. No different than Catholics that think I was baptized, confirmed and been in the church all my life. Of course I”m good. And Purg is my second chance.
Sorry, same broad brush.
Truth is, both houses will be surprised at who is and isn’t at table.
It’s a test: if you can’t see it, you’re not a real Christian. ;-)
Moses is not posited as being 900, but rather 120. At 40 years old he kills the Egyptian and flees to Midian. Lives there 40 years until he returns to Pharaoh to demand the Israelites be let go. 50 days after Passover they sojourn at Sinai where Moses receives the law then off to the Promised Land – where, once the spies doubt God, God decrees that they will wander the desert for 40 years. Moses dies just before they enter the Promised Land.
I gave you the human timeline from when the two people departed this mortal coil until they appeared at the transfiguration. Nearly known times, all of them.
Give or take a few years.
What the Orthodox actually believe regarding the Roman doctrine of Purgatory:
As for the “Third Heaven”, this is an artifact of translating the Hebrew phrase “Heaven of heavens”, used to distinguish between the heaven of the sky, the heaven of the universe, and the Lord’s Heaven. In Greek, there is no plural for their word for heaven, so “Third Heaven” was used to designate His Heaven.
And, again, I do not discount the possibility of Purgatory, I say that the case made by the Roman Church is unconvincing and insupportable from scripture. In the plain text Jesus tells the thief on the cross: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 22:43) Not: “Truly, I say to you, some number of years from now after being tortured to fulfill the temporal punishment owed for your sins, you will be with me in paradise.” I do not believe Jesus was lying.
The first plenary indulgence?