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
I can see Him now, assigning John from the cross to authorize the specie transfer and write up the certificate of plenary indulgence and sign it in His name. I wonder who was holding the purse with Judas out of pocket. Obviously, Matthew would be doing the books, so he would need to be involved. If John is signing for Him, then another cosigner would be necessary on the expenditure. Sure, it’s just account to account, but Matthew is a stickler for a clean ledger and everyone was a bit burned about Judas’ embezzlement case. Matthew didn’t expect to need to conduct regular audits with, you know, Apostles handling the money.
Or maybe the Orthodox are right and limitless grace really is limitless grace and capable of actually forgiving temporal punishment along with sins and rendering the elect incorruptible without resorting to torture. But that wouldn’t fit in with Leo X’s funding needs to fulfill his real estate ambitions.
It’s a tough call. I look forward to asking Him when the opportunity arises.
I think Jesus would have dispensed with the paperwork. He is, after all, God.
And a stickler for the rules, fulfilling every jot and tittle.
I uave always felt talking to the Saints felt like asking someone better connected than me to Him to put in a good word for me. It is like Jesus is too busy, and “I’ve got a guy on the inside”. I was raised that Jesus himself was my guy on the inside.
My wife has explained it is more like asking people alive to pray for you, so what is the difference of asking Mary to pray for you. My answer is, when I ask someone to pray for me, I don’t do it in a formalized ritual. In short, Hail Mary seems to be a sacred act, whereas “Hey, prayers are appreciated” does not.
I don’t get caught up in that. Catholics and Orthodox agree on prayer to saints, and it appears to start shortly after the Apostolic Age. Luther condemns it but both sides are throwing things by then. I pray to the Lord, as He commands in scripture, but He hears every word and thought whether you direct it to Him or His saints. The praying to the saints side stipulates that the Lord embraces the practice and empowers the saints to receive and act on the prayers. In fact, Father Amorth’s books talk to the protection and support his work received from Mary. The demons complained under obedience that they couldn’t touch him because of her protection and they hated when he invoked her because she is so fierce in the defense of their victims.
Father Amorth has credibility with me because his experience with the demonic is along the same lines a my one major experience in the field. Note: Do not attend or conduct seances. I got shanghaied to one once and the chuckleheads summoned a demon. Don’t. Just don’t. Ever. Skip the Ouija boards and magic eight balls and Tarot, too. Divination is a no-no. I am not joking. Final warning.
There is a lot of poison in all this fracturing from all sides, and some of it is well earned. Innocence is in short supply in this life.
Well, the Hail Mary has warrant in Scripture itself: Luke1:28, 1:31-32, 1:42, 1:45, 1:48. So it might be a little more than just saying prayers are appreciated.
But the practice of praying to Mary and the Saints is part of the Catholic tradition because it was practiced by some of the greatest Catholic martyrs and saints; people with a courage, joy, and depth of holiness and spirituality far beyond my own. That’s how Catholic traditions develop: They were devotions practiced by people of evident holiness and recommended by them. If they stay around long enough, and are validated by good spiritual fruit, the Church approves of them. So, for myself, when I see a Catholic devotion that doesn’t make immediate sense to me, one approach is to just write it off as of no value or a product of superstition; another is to put my own spirituality in question and wonder whether it’s me rather than the Catholic tradition that is deficient.
Which of his books do you recommend?
An Exorcist Tells His Story (1999) is his first book and an excellent place to start. Father Amorth approaches himself and his subject with great humility. He held office hours and had a waiting room like a doctor. He has some wonderful stories, but never loses sight of the risks involved or the plight of the oppressed and possessed people who came to him. Where the church says eliminate all other explanations before attempting an exorcism, Amorth points out that a quick investigative attempt can be very useful diagnostically.
From there there is More Stories (2002), along the same line but maybe a little looser in attitude since he could build on what he shared in the first book.
An Exorcist Explains the Demonic (2016) which is more tilted to the doctrine of demonology and how his experience compares with the doctrine.
The Devil is Afraid of Me (2019) which is a collection of interviews, reminiscences by an assistant, and whatnot. In this one he has boastful moments, but it is still amazing.
The biggest surprise for me was not the demonic part, but that he regularly used and valued the services of a psychotherapist personally. He counted it an important part of his regimen, along with daily communion and frequent resanctification of himself to Mary, in protecting himself on the spiritual battlefield.
I hope you find his work interesting.
I’m sorry. I was just confused by your comment. I had not read that link through its entirety to catch the Moses and David references. Your preferred theory is quite possible. I would tend to think that both Moses and David would have very short if no time in purgatory. But no one really knows.
If people think that Catholic concept of Purgatory is a realm of punishment, then that is a misconception. Purgatory is a place to clean, ie purify, the soul to be in perfection before God. It is akin to Moses having to take off his sandles before the burning bush. It is akin to the purification rituals in Judaism. It is not a punishment or a jail. Those that are in purgatory have met the requirements of being saved.
I can’t speak to translations, but Wikipedia doesn’t seem to agree.
Wikipedia doesn’t even mention the Septuagint, where uses can be compared with the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text. Not a passing grade (for them, you are pursuing important questions faithfully and have my full respect).
If you would like to look into the Greek, there is an affordable resource on Amazon that is a good place to start. The Complete Koiné-English Reference Bible, Joshua Dickey. Intra-word translation with links for Greek words to the appropriate dictionary entry. There are better tools for university students but this is a very accessible resource that you can use to explore and share questions with teachers.
I don’t have a comparable tool for the Masoretic Text, maybe someone else can chime in.
That’s exactly what it is, and it’s Biblical too. See chapters 5 and 7 from Revelations, with this being quite explicit:
The prayers are put forth in front of the Lamb, which is Christ.
Don’t feel like it.
Praying to the saints is in the Book of Revelation as I just referenced in my previous reply, but the efficacy of appealing to Mary is demonstrated in John chapter 2 at the wedding feast at Cana.
We should remember that there is no requirement in Catholicism to pray to Mary or the Saints. It’s a practice that has a strong pedigree in the tradition (see my last comment), but if it’s not working for you, then leave it. There is a great deal of freedom in Catholicism, a great number of spiritual practices that are approved by the Church but not required (and others that are positively disapproved of.) Not all spiritual practices fit all people, or the same people all of the time. There are aspects of Catholic spirituality that make no impression on me; that’s OK, I try to persevere in the others that seem to produce good fruit.
Here is what Johann Tetzel said on the topic:
So, not like taking off a pair of sandals.
Thank you for accepting my clarification.
These words of yours are, to my mind, the most important and can actually be said of anyone and everyone.
It is absolutely true that no one knows who or for how long a person would end up in purgatory.
Wait a moment, N number if Hail Marys is homework coming from Confession. How is being told by a Priest to do it, not required?
Heard recently that, although priests will fold the Hail Mary into a mass as an option, it is not part of core liturgies. So, optional in that sense, at least.
OH come on. That is not really that optional.
And does not adrsss the Pennece issue
Tell him you’d prefer a different penance, that you have a problem with the Hail Mary. It would probably engender an interesting discussion. You can actually talk to these people. I’m sure he would assign a different penance if you asked.
Why do you take Johann Tetzel as the authoritative voice of Catholicism ? I’ve never heard of the guy before now. This is an odd thing I notice about Protestants: The Catholic Church is famous for having Popes, Bishops and Councils to define the faith. In fact, Protestants become Protestants specifically because they reject that authority. But when discussing Catholicism, they don’t reference those authoritative voices, but dig up some obscure Catholic they don’t like, usually from hundreds of years ago, and demand Catholics defend every word the guy wrote. I don’t get it.
I don’t demand anyone defend anything. I think the Purgatory stipulated by Tetzel is repugnant, but it was Roman orthodoxy in 1517. If you read the post, you will see that the salient point is what was taught by Pope Leo X’s agent, Johann Tetzel, on Purgatory, has he exercised his license to sell indulgences. Johann Tetzel was the face of the Magisterium on Purgatory and Indulgences in the day across Italy, France, and Germany at least. Frankly, what a church actually teaches has way more relevance than what they have buried in their library. If you tell me I am wrong about what was taught and endeavor to correct me falsely, I am bound to respond with the truth. Why would anyone want to defend that aside from some loyalty to the Magisterium?
You have never heard of Johann Tetzel before because, like everyone else, the Roman Church does not focus on their awkward moments. But to understand Dr. Luther and why Europe was primed for the Protestant revolt Tetzel is a critical piece to any reasonable understanding. The earliest source I have found on indulgences at the Magisterial level is the canon from the Council of Florence (1443), which declares Purgatory a punishment and Trent (1563), which does so also. There is also an Appendix to Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae that bears on the topic, where among much else he writes: “But the chief purpose of the punishment of Purgatory is to cleanse us from the remains of sin; and consequently the pain of fire only is ascribed to Purgatory, because fire cleanses and consumes.” So Tetzel is hardly without a firm foundation, Aquinas is widely considered the greatest doctor of the Roman church by the Roman church.
The current catechism excises the concept of punishment from the discussion, a development which I acknowledge and salute, but the topic was radically different in substance in 1517 and even at Trent, a Magisterial council. Being on the Internet, it is difficult to quickly assess the level of different conversationalists, and the faithful are eager to rise in defense of their faith, as am I. Those that have not studied history are not always aware that there have been significant developments in the Magisterium. Apologies if I have caused anyone anxiety on this account.
That’s The Father.
Yeah. I was thinking of Noah.
This might surprise you, but Tetzel is not the end-all be-all of Catholicism.
I don’t particularly care what that dude says. He’s not speaking with Infallibility and he’s not my guide in the faith. So…whatever. Purgatory is taught as a place of spiritual cleansing and readiness. Though one may be saved from Hell, that doesn’t mean that one is ready, spiritually, for Heaven. If one still has certain things weighing on them, Purgatory would be useful (not as a place, but more as a time). And the idea that sins are innumerable? Well, human life is finite, therefore sins are also finite, so that’s a dumb argument that’s false on it’s face.
Priests can tell you lots of things. They’re not always right. But also…what priest is this!? Dude’s gotta be old school. I haven’t gotten a “say some prayers” as a penance in years. They’re usually more creative than that these days.
No one accepts the Tetzel exposition.
Yeah. I love me some Father Amorth. One of my only liked/enjoyed movies about exorcism was The Rite. Despite being glossed up by Hollywood, it wasn’t done to a degree that was particularly unsavory. This is exceptionally rare. It was a story of faith and the process of faith (because it is a process for a lot of people).
Maybe I’ll write a post on it.
In any case, people who have any interest in exorcism, Father Amorth is a great place to start. Be forewarned, he’s very Italian in tone. If you don’t know a lot of Italians, it might bother you. I’m not saying Italian-Americans. I’m saying Italians. He’s very…Italian. Just go with it.
This needs a temporal qualification, as a great many people obviously accepted his exposition.
Perhaps “no one now living” otherwise it is somewhat misleading.