The Office of the Pope and the/an "Antichrist"

I know, to my Roman Catholic friends, that sounds very harsh.  So instead of presenting the Lutheran perspective on this (which you may read at the link), I'd like to give you just the words of the Roman Catholic Church on this teaching, with minor commentary on the passages.  I've tried to keep everything in context, although some passages are rather lengthy.  I included links to where the entire documents I quote from can be read in full so that you can investigate the context for yourself if you so choose.

The purpose of this post is not so much to change the minds of my Roman Catholic friends, but rather to explain where I come from when I say that the office of the Pope is an Antichrist because I know it angers some of them (and from their perspective, I can understand why).

Before that, however, I would be remiss if I didn't define "Antichrist".  Contrary to what Dispensationalists, Classic Pre-Millennialists, and Post-Millennialists errantly teach, the Antichrist is a religious, not political, figure.  There is not only one, but many, Antichrists (1 John 2:18).  An Antichrist is anyone who puts themself in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching.  I could easily make a laundry list of protestants who certainly fit the latter portion of that definition (for example, I would include folks like Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Patricia King, Beth Moore, Charles Finney, Jacobus Arminus, and maybe to a lesser extent, even John Calvin--and we haven't even gotten to the heretics I write about weekly).

The Christian Cyclopedia defines 'Antichrist' as:

Term used in the NT (1) of all false teachers (1 John 2:18; 4:3) and (2) of one outstanding adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18). Characteristics of the Antichrist are mentioned, e.g., in Daniel 11; 2 Thessalonians 2.

As to why Lutherans consider the Office of the Pope to be an "Antichrist", I give you the following Roman Catholic documents.  Keeping the definition of Antichrists above in mind (anyone who puts themselves in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching), the words below kind of speak for themselves.


From the Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].  Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

Vicar means "to stand in place of".  The Pope, as "Vicar of Christ", stands in place of Christ since they cannot be two, but one.  This is essentially their first argument, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, to the Pope having dominion over the Left and Right Hand Kingdoms (a discussion for another time).

"This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]*. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are subject to anyone but God (not the Pope, not Peter, not anyone).  The only way for Catholics to make the argument that all humans are subject to the Pontiff is by saying the Pope stands in place of Christ.  This, then, would fall under both false teaching and placing oneself in the place of Christ, both of which fall under the definition of an "Antichrist".

* Probably not the time for this discussion, but Jesus' statement "On this rock I shall build my Church" refers to Peter's confession ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."), not Peter in specific.  Additionally, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," etc. refers to the Office of the Keys, not Peter specifically.  A simple look at the original text in Greek makes this very clear.


From Session 6 of the Council of Florence (1439):

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

Again, nowhere in Scripture is the Pope (or anyone but God) given "primacy" over the world, nor is Peter or the line of Popes given authority to stand as the "Vicar of Christ", nor is anyone but God the Father of all Christians.  It is dangerous to put one's trust in man rather than God, especially when God gives no man such status.


Interestingly, The Council of Trent (following the Lutheran and protestant reformations) does not mention the Pope (at least on this topic).  Considering it was such a point of contention, and that both Lutherans and protestants raged in many ways against the Pope, one would think that would be the prime topic of such a council.


From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

"4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.   

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41]."

Christ, not Peter (or the Office of the Roman Pontiff) is the Cornerstone and foundation of the Church.

"6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends."

The strength of the catholic church (universal church) is faith in Christ, not faith in the primacy of the Pope.



From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), Chapter 4:

"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60]."

In other words, Peter never sinned in his teaching and the Pope (office) has never sinned in its teaching.  Nevermind that Peter was called "Satan" by Christ and told to get behind him (Matthew 16:13-23, the previous verses included for context--just after Peter's confession of faith that is the foundation of the church, he dares to rebuke the Lord and is rebuked himself), denied Christ three times (the only mortal sin is denial of God and blasphemy of the Holy Ghost--Matthew 26:71-75, Mark 14:66-68, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:15-27), hypocritically participated with the Judaizers when it suited him (Galatians 2:11-21); and nevermind that Catholic doctrine has 'evolved' and sometimes contradicts itself because of the proclamations of various Popes.  No, none have ever erred or sinned in their teaching, including Peter.  (Sorry, I really was trying to keep the snark to a minimum...)

"7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

See the previous comment.  Always speaking the truth and with never-failing faith.  Was Peter's faith never-failing when he denied Christ?  Was he truthful when he denied his Savior?  When he rebuked Jesus?  When he participated with the Judaizers (a heretical sect, I might add)?

"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ["from the chair"], that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Always truthful, never-failing faith and now infallible (a person who cannot fail, as opposed to inerrant, meaning without error in fact).  And yet the evidence is to the contrary.  Peter himself was clearly not perfect, not always truthful, and not always faithful to God.  He was a man, just like the rest of us.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (note: I removed the footnotes for readability, if you want to see those, they are at the link):

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Again, the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" or "the one who stands in the place of Christ".

"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In other words, the Ex Cathedra declarations of the Pope are to be viewed and believed as if it was Scripture itself.

"892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

And here, that the non-Ex Cathedra declarations are to be adhered to with "religious assent", while distinct from the "assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."  In other words, not quite infallible, but it almost might as well be.


Finally, from Vatican II (1965):

"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

Once again, the Office of the Pope (the Roman Pontiff) in the place of God the Father and God the Son.  Nowhere in Scripture is this power given to any human.


A few brief notes in closing.

In Confession and Absolution, a Lutheran minister would say, "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  This power comes from Matthew 16:19, where the Office of the Keys (all ministers of God) are given the power to bind and loose sins.  This is not the same as proclaiming oneself the "Vicar of Christ", because this power was given to ministers by Christ--anything beyond that was not a power given to the pastors and ministers.

There is no need for the office of infallibility because our doctrine is clear and does not change: our doctrine comes from Scripture, and no utterances of man should ever be held on the same level as Scripture.

An interesting thought from when we did a study on this in Church: the Roman Catholic Church has but one Sacrament, the Pope.  Because all power and authority are given to the Pope according to Roman Catholic teaching, all sacraments would lead back to him rather than God.

At some point, in a separate post, I will write about the three reasons why the Pope is not the head of both the Left-Hand and Right-Hand Kingdoms as he claims.  If anything, he would "rule" in (but not be the head of) the Right-Hand Kingdom alone and his (meaning the office as a whole) intrusion into the Left-Hand Kingdom has caused many problems throughout history.

Morality and Spirituality: Christians, please stop confusing the two!

For those who don't know me in "real" life, I do politics for a living.  Specifically, I do political strategy and campaign consulting.  I generally try not to cross streams between politics and theology as much as possible, but there are too many Dispensationalists (read here for a little background if you are unfamiliar with that term) in politics for me to often get away with that, much to my frustration and chagrin.

One of my biggest pet peeves both in politics and in Christendom today is the utter confusion of the Two Kingdoms--or worse, the fact that most Christians I encounter in politics don't even know what Two Kingdoms theology is.  This is something I have written about before, but I feel like it's time for a refresher after several conversations last week on the topic.  From my previous post on the subject:

Two Kingdoms Theology refers to the Lutheran teaching of the proper distinction between the Left-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of Man) and the Right-hand Kingdom (or the Kingdom of God).  I personally consider Romans 13 to be the original separation of Church and State document.  By this, I don't mean that they are completely severed from each other at all, but as another Pastor reminded me, it shows the proper distinction of the Kingdoms, and more importantly, the proper role of a Christian in both Kingdoms.   

I also mean by "separation of Church and State" that a) theocracies are a BIG no-no (basically, preachers are preachers and rulers are rulers, the two roles should not be combined--that is, no blurring of the clear lines between the two Kingdoms); b) that the Left-hand Kingdom is meant to not interfere with the Right-hand Kingdom (First Amendment, anyone?); and c) Christians are called to be involved in government, not using government to advance Christianity, but rather, to advance Natural Law (which we'll get to in a minute). 

For a better illustration, here are some of the differences between the two Kingdoms:

Left-hand Kingdom	Right-hand Kingdom
Kingdom of the Man (State)	Kingdom of God (Church)
Law	Gospel
Sword: Internal* and External**	Word, no swords
Power	Grace
Exists for Order	Exists for Mercy
External Righteousness	Internal Righteousness
Realm of Morals	Realm of Faith
Ruled by Reason	Ruled by Scripture

 *Internal Sword = police, etc.**External Sword = military 

Now, from the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) perspective, Natural Law is exemplified in the second table of the Ten Commandments.  The first table deals with the Right-hand Kingdom, or our faith in God, and the second table deals with the Left-hand Kingdom, or Natural Law and interaction with our neighbor.

While our faith is to govern our actions, we have to understand the clear distinction between the Two Kingdoms to properly function in the political sphere.  We are not to be like the Anabaptists (Radical Reformed), who eschew all political involvement by Christians (in the world, but as far removed from it as possible).  We are also to not be like the Dispensationalists specifically (Calvinists and Arminians alike) and Calvinists in general, who seek theocracies (in the case of Calvin himself, socialist theocracies...).  We are also not to be like the Roman Catholics, who see the Pope as the head of both the Left-hand and Right-hand Kingdoms (I'll be posting on that soon--I should note that the RCC has a right division of the two from my reading of their own church documents, my only complaint is that they put both under the authority of the Pope, which is not a correct application of a correct division, but they are far and away the closest to Lutherans on this issue).

Some pertinent notes on this topic from a sermon my Pastor preached in October 2012 (same post that I quoted above):

• Many Pastors say that you must "Take your faith into the voting booth," but that is wrong
• It is not faith, but reason, by which we should vote because the Left-hand Kingdom is ruled by reason (the Right-hand Kingdom is ruled by faith)
• We should bring not the Apostle's Creed but the 10 Commandments into the voting booth
• We don't need to elect someone who is Orthodox, but someone who understands and values Natural Law
• Pagans and Christians should vote the same, because it is by reason and natural law that we should all cast our votes
• The 10 Commandments are the Christian's "Cliff Notes" of Natural Law
• Knowing the 10 Commandments makes us reasonable, keeping them makes us wise
• The State exists for order and the Law, the Church exists for mercy and the Gospel

Beyond a misapplication/misunderstanding/total ignorance of Two Kingdoms Theology, there seems to be this misunderstanding that the United States of America is a "Christian Nation".  Because of the separation of the Two Kingdoms, and because of how utterly dangerous it is to blur the two together, that is simply impossible.  One can say that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (although, more accurately, it was founded on Natural Law, which I would argue stems from Judeo-Christian principles since I believe that Natural Law was written on the hearts of all men by God, but that's another topic).  One can also say that America's Founding Fathers were largely (but NOT entirely, as some foolishly attempt to argue contrary to fact and reason) Christians.  In the first segment of Table Talk Radio, Episode 150, there is a great explanation of this (as well as a succinct explanation of why Dispensationalists totally get it wrong about the nation of Israel, another theological pet peeve of mine).

Finally, there seems to be this misconception that, even if we aren't right now, we are supposed to be a Christian nation.  No.  No, no, no, no, no.  Just no.  That is, again, a Dispensationalist construct.  Theocracies are dangerous and never work (anyone remember what happened to Israel and Judah when they tried doing a theocracy their way?  how about Islam? what about the Holy Roman Empire? etc.).  If man were not fallen, there would be no need for anything else but a theocracy--but we are fallen and sinful human beings, and that simply doesn't work with our fallen nature.

However, we are to be a nation of morals, based on Natural Law.  Morality, being a Left-hand Kingdom thing, is not the same as spirituality, a Right-hand Kingdom thing (see the chart above).  The two should not be confused.  I know many moral non-Christians, and many immoral "Christians".  Morality deals with Natural Law and the conscience which, as I've already mentioned, I would certainly argue are given to all men by God--but the key thing there is that all men possess this, whether or not they are Christians.  One does not need to have faith to be moral, and it is a fallacy at absolute best to say otherwise.

Theological Pet Peeves

Note: I originally wrote this two weeks ago (18 November, to be specific), and just haven't gotten back around to editing and post it between Thanksgiving, illness and travelling.  Finally getting there! -S

A few weeks ago was especially unnerving for me, hitting on many of the "theological pet peeves" I have, so I thought I might put together a brief commentary on each of them.  They're not in any particular order (other than how I thought of them).

1) "Accepting" vs. "Receiving" faith
While I generally understand what Christians mean when they ask, "When did you accept Jesus?", my mind immediately reacts with "SEMI-PELAGIANIST!!!"  I know it may seem like semantics, but in all the research I have been doing of late on Original Sin, I know that no one would ever "choose" faith.  We cannot choose spiritual good.  I've spent years trying to figure out how to explain this in a concise manner, and it finally dawned on me this week.  I've always said that our role in the creation of faith is passive, not active.  But finally, the right word to use instead of accept dawned on me.  It is receive.  We receive faith.  We may reject it (which is what everyone would do, were it not for the working of the Holy Ghost), but our receipt of  faith is entirely passive.  Putting the emphasis on our acceptance (or supposedly active) role in salvation is nothing short of Semi-Pelegianism, even if it isn't meant that way.  We have to be very precise in what we say, not be lazy or sloppy in theology.

2) Saying "just" in prayers
I don't know if there is necessarily anything theologically wrong with this, but I can't stand when people use the world "just" in prayers.  It's a filler, it's annoying and it just makes me want to scream.  Another thing that drives me nuts is when people mutter things under their breath in prayer.  Again, not sure there is really anything wrong with it, but I can't concentrate when I am listening to others when I'm supposed to be praying.  Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard a Lutheran do either of those things.  I wonder why that is?

3) Dual Covenant vs. New Covenant Theology
With all that has gone on in Israel the past weeks, I keep seeing posts on Facebook about how America has to save Israel and (yes, some people have actually said this) how America was created to save Israel, even though Israel wasn't a nation until 150+ years after we were founded as a country.  This comes from a largely Dispensational idea that Israel must be restored before the return of Christ (something I've never found in the Bible).  What the Bible does make clear is the New Covenant, which is not just for Israel but for all in Jesus.  America may have strategic or other reasons to help or "save" Israel, but using Dispensational Theology with no Biblical basis to make political decisions terrifies me.

4) End Times Signs-seekers
Jesus told us that even He does know know when He is to return.  One of the frustrations that also comes from Dispensationalism is that there are those who continue to look for signs, even though we cannot know the hour or day when Jesus is to return.  From solar flares to the UN (which is, by the by, a misunderstanding of the Antichrist, who is a religious, NOT political, figure) to waiting for an invented Rapture, I seem to see something new at least weekly.  There are even those who claim that 21 December 2012, the day the Mayan Calendar supposedly predicts the end of the world, is also the day the Rapture will happen.  These attempts to read signs that aren't there just makes the rest of us Christians look silly and loony.  It's hard for anyone to take Christianity seriously when what is known about it is just plain goofy, and not actual Christian, Biblical doctrine.

5) "Baptism is just a symbol, but you must be fully immersed and not an infant for it to be valid."

If something is only "symbolic", why do you care how it is done?  What does it matter?  Sigh.

6) "You cross yourself?  Oh, you must be a Catholic."
Um... no.  I know many non-Catholics who cross themselves: Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc.  I wish this was something more Christians did, but no, that doesn't make me Catholic.

7) "Lutherans are intellectual Christians."
For some reason, people seem to think this is an insult.  It isn't.  What's sad is that more Christians aren't "intellectual".  What I mean by that is that they know and understand the Bible, Theology, church history, other Denominations, early Church Fathers, etc.  So few seem to dig into the meat of Christianity, and it is sad.  Our faith is not just one of belief, but also of reason.  It is very logical, but you have to understand and study. That is the greatest disservice done by American Churches today--they seem to be nothing more than fluff and entertainment, and seriously lack substance.  Yes, that is a generalization.  But I hear so often we should ignore our differences for unity.  No.  We cannot have unity without understanding our differences, and why those differences exist.  Then we can have discussions about differences and perhaps come to a place of unity.  Ignoring them only makes the divisions worse.

8) Not capitalizing appropriate references to God
I've been typing up charts from a book written by a protestant theological professor which are largely helpful, but he seems incapable of capitalizing "He" in reference to God, or "The Word" in reference to the Bible, or many other similar examples.  It has reminded me how much that drives me nuts.  You don't have to capitalize everything, but when you're specifically referring to God or His Word, it is the right thing to do.

9) "Why do you have to be so arrogant?"
I get that a lot, and it is a fair criticism to some extent.  I tend to be a very snarky person by nature.  I'm very good at speaking the truth, I'm not so good at always doing it in love.  Rather than arrogance (which I can understand how it looks that way), though, I would submit it is confidence--confidence in my faith to the point that I would die for it.  I made that vow in my confirmation, and I take it very seriously.  I have a hard time even wanting to evangelize, because I see a broken church--and why on earth would I want to bring more people into something broken?  So I spend more (most) of my time attempting to correct the serious errors I see in Christendom today.  One thing I desperately miss about the early church is the condemnation of heresy.  The Roman Catholic Church still does this to some degree, but we need more of it.  There is so much heresy in the church today, and few seem to even realize it.  And so in my frustration and sadness over this, I tend to resort to snark.  For that I apologize.  I hope you will all understand it comes from a place of confidence in my faith and wanting to not see heresy in the church.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." -- Martin Luther

Reformation Day

Today, for many individuals, is a strange custom known as "Halloween".  I never really saw the point in it, so I generally choose to avoid participating in it (costumes are fun, though, so I enjoy the dances, parties and such that spring up at this time of year with masks and disguises).

However, for Lutherans, today is Reformation Day.  495 years ago on 31 October, 1517, Dr. Martin Luther nailed his "Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church.  At that time, the door was much like a bulletin board, with all forms of notices posted there--this notice being one for debate on the topic of Indulgences.

Luther's Rose (or Luther's Seal), enshrining the core of our beliefs in Sola Fida, Sola Gratia and Sola Scriptora: Faith Alone by Grace Alone as taught to us in Scripture Alone. 

Before I get into more about the Theses, I came across two interesting links in looking for further information on this topic.  One from what appears to be a Catholic source, actually speaks very kindly of the Theses, which is encouraging to me and I would like to hear from my Catholic friends to see if this is common sentiment or just someone posting on the internet.  Another is an article from The Economist on 17 December 2011, addressing how Luther "went viral" in his day.  If you haven't seen the more recent Luther movie, you're missing out.  Below you can watch the 95 Theses scene--but seriously, watch the whole movie as soon as possible.  It is excellent.




Why did Luther write these 95 Theses in the first place?  Briefly, Luther strongly (and rightly) opposed the practice of purchasing the forgiveness of sins and giving false hope to sinners and believers about their salvation and forgiveness being just a few coins away.

Indulgences are pieces of paper you can could once buy (edit: per a Catholic friend, you cannot still purchase indulgences, however you may still earn or gain them and it appears to me the practice has been somewhat reformed, addressing issues of contrition and repentance now at least) from the Roman Catholic Church for absolution of your sins, or removing dead relatives from Purgatory.  Johann Tetzel, the hand of Pope Leo X in the selling of indulgences, had a nice little ditty: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!"  These pieces of paper are, of course, utterly meaningless for forgiveness of sins (particularly since Purgatory does not even exist) and were simply a means of raising money for building projects and to finance the exceedingly extravagant lifestyle of the Pope at that time.  In order to sell more indulgences, the priest Tetzel began to claim that all sins (past, present and future, with no further need for confession and absolution) were forgiven with his indulgences--for just a little more money.

Additionally, it was said that veneration of relics would allow the sinner to receive pardon for their sins by "skipping" Purgatory.  Wittenberg, because of Prince Frederick III of Saxony, held a large collection of relics at that time, reportedly over 5,000--and, like most relics, they were frauds.

Luther was rightly outraged that the Church would charge money for a gift freely offered and already paid for by Christ.  In order to expose this fraud, Luther, being a scholar, requested a public debate at the University of Wittenberg, with the 95 Theses being the outline of topics for discussion.  They also were the challenge to anyone who would come and defend the appalling practice of selling Indulgences.

After posting the 95 Theses, Luther also sent copies to the Archbishop Albert of Mainz (who authorized the selling of Indulgences in his area) and to the Bishop of Brandenburg, Luther's superior.  Within two weeks, the Theses had spread across the country with the aid of the printing press.  Within two months, copies could be found all over Europe.  In January 1518, friends of Luther's translated the Theses from Latin to German, and further distributed them so that even the common man could understand.

Not much happened until Albert of Mainz decided to score some political points with the Pope.  As mentioned below, had Albert not made the "big deal" of these theses and that monk he had, Luther would likely have been largely unknown today.  The response to Luther, besides greatly angering Johann Tetzel, came on 15 June, 1520 from Pope Leo X in the Exsurge Domine.

Within two years, Wittenberg had turned away from many (what they considered to be heretical) Catholic practices and Luther became much more popular than he ever desired.  From testimony of witnesses to his own writings, he never meant to start a "revolution", merely sought to reform what he considered false teachings within the Church he so dearly loved.  From there, Luther was excommunicated within a few years, within a decade, the Lutheran Princes issued the Augsburg Confession, and the rest, as they say, is history.

To the credit of the Roman Catholic Church, some of the most egregious practices that Luther opposed have been addressed at least to some extent, but it took centuries for that to occur.  By then, they had already severed ties with Luther, and Lutherans, and certainly did not address all concerns that were later laid out in the Augsburg Confession and other portions of the Book of Concord.

To close, I thought I would share a few quotes from those far more eloquent and smart than I.

Some great general commentary on Luther's role in the Reformation from Dr. Gene Edward Veith:

"Luther's goal was to reform the church, but the church repudiated him and what he was trying to do. It is often said that Luther split from the Roman Catholic Church. That is not true. He was thrown out of the Roman Catholic Church. There is a huge difference. Luther was no schismatic. He did not start some new religion on his own authority. He did not dream up some new theology. He was trying to bring the church back to its true nature and its true message, as defined by the Word of God, which the church itself professed to believe. 

The Roman Church, in turn, refused to take the concerns seriously, much less give them a genuine hearing. The pope refused to address even the most flagrant abuses that were obvious to everyone. Instead of listening to those who questioned its direction, the Roman Church tried to destroy them. Thus the Roman Catholic Church created Protestantism." 

Interesting perspective on what might have been had not a church bureaucrat seized what he thought was an opportunity to gain favor with Rome from Pr. Donavon Riley:

"What happened when Luther posted the 95 Theses on the church door? Nothing. An irrelevant monk posted his theses for academic debate on the church doors in an irrelevant city, in an irrelevant part of Saxony, known for its fish, beer, and prostitutes. Several months later the theses were read by Albrecht, "Bishop" of Mainz, who used them as an [political] opportunity for himself to garner more favors from Rome. If not for him ... Obscurity for our frail friar."

"The World's Most Interesting Reformer..."