Having just read Luther's 95 Theses, I wonder why this caused such a rift with his Roman masters?

Question

For being one of the Fathers of the True Church, and steering us away from Roman blasphemy, he certainly sounds Roman Catholic...

Answer 1

Indulgences were the big money maker for the Roman Catholic Church at the time. It used to be a traveling road show, where people were guilted into giving money. It was not too Roman Catholic to go against the will of the popery. In fact, they were right in viewing his actions as an offense, so far from the scripture they had become. After all, the Roman Catholic Church had the Bible outlawed! Salvation by faith wasn't the way people thought back then. And a personal relationship with God was not to be thought of as anything but heresy, the Church placing itself as the way to God's heart through your works.

Answer 2

You are correct. More recent Church historians have interpreted Martin Luther as being conservative. He was not seeking to challenge the Roman Catholic Church. An earlier Protestant reformer John Hus was more radical; more challenging of the church in general. He was promised safe passage to appear, and then burned at the stake.

Two points should be stressed. Martin Luther primarily protested the practice of selling indulgences. Priests literally said if given money people could get their loved ones out of Purgatory. John Tetzel said as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs. This is obviously not a Christian practice. But pope, I believe Leo, needed much money for his ambitious building projects, which the indulgences provided.

The matter heated up into a great debate. John Eck formally debated for the Catholic Church against Luther. At first the debate was on indulgences. But then ECK pushed the matter to the authority of the church. At that point Luther stated the pope or a council are not infallible. He was then declared a heretic.

You are very perceptive about Luther's basic nature--he was not radical. The Catholic Church at that time was very much a hierarchy, it would concede no flaws from the top leadership. As a Protestant minister I see flaws in the basic nature of the Catholic church. That is best not discussed here, but you can go to a website in which I discuss it in a little article, "Keys to the Kingdom, Not." It is on my website, "Free Webs.com--keystothekingdom.

I will briefly state that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is taught along side the Bible with equal authority. Protestants, and Luther came to this position, have the Bible as sole authority, in which offers salvation.

But to come back to other point Luther had conservative views, such as on transubstantiation, which were very close to the Catholic church. He was also a strong opponent of radical Protestants, such as Anabaptists.

Answer 3

Almost all non-catholic "protestant" churches are merely the bastard children of that apostate church. Sound like an SDA don't I? Nope I'm not. I've just done some studying on my own and while I agree with alot that the SDA church teaches they have their own false doctrine..but anyhoo...gotta love'um though...The Bible clearly states the purpose for the Protestant churches which was to loosen the grip that the Roman Catholic Church had on scripture so that it could be given to the gentile nations (Rev 11 and Dan 7). Love in Christ, ~J~

Answer 4

One of Luther's problems with the Church was the way the leaders were using their positions to make a profit. For example, wealthy families with more than one son would often buy a church position for the son who would not inherit the father's land or title, thus assuring him of status in the community. Another common practice was the selling of indulgences, which allowed the rich to buy off their sins. Luther felt these practices went against the religion, while church leaders wanted to keep the flow of gold coming into the church.

Answer 5

Don't forget what happened in England. Henry VIII got the title of Defender of the Faith from the Pope for writing a defense of the RC position. He only seceded from the Church of Rome for purely political/private reasons (wanting to annul his marriage so he could get a wife would give him a male heir), and it is only gradually that the logic of separating from RC made him and others move the Church of England in the protestant direction. Most revolutions are like this, becoming more radical as time goes by (compare the French Revolution).

Answer 6

Posting a thesis was common. People would see it, and decide whether or not to see the debate. What was different was that Luther didn't back down on any. This is how he gained the nickname of the "Mad Monk."
Beginning a whole branch of Christian church was NOT what he thought of doing.
Luther held to the Bible, whereas his leaders did not.

Answer 7

True Church? How can the "True" Church begin 1500 years after the death of Christ?

And yes, compared with today's protestants, he does sound very Catholic. You should think about that. Protestantism has disgarded many of the beliefs of their first "reformers".

Only the Catholic Church can date itself back to Christ. As John Henry Newman - the great protestant bishop turned Catholic - once said: To go back in history is to cease being protestant. (...no offense to my protestant brothers, God love them.)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

Answer 8

The 95 Theses pointed out all the Churches deficiencies for all to see.

Answer 9

I don't care about Luther. True saved believers existed before him and after him, and none of them were a part of the catholic cult. Catholics are not saved Christians.

Answer 10

the later development of thought within the protestant tradition was completly unknown to him at the time. he had onyl his catholic framework to work in really.