I sense a disquieting desire to talk about everything BUT the issue before us.... the issue the RCC split the church over and so boldly condemned.
Lutheranism was a conservative reformation. I know 500 years of history has cast this as something violent and revolutionary, but my readings (including one I'm reading now) tells me that while the polemic language and at times reactions was tragic, Luther's was a very conservative thing... and he sincerely felt the RC Denomination would eventually embrace it rather than so powerfully reject it. Catholics may disagree, but IMO, the agreement among us is stunning - theologically, spiritually and in practice. I feel that Catholicism WAY over-reacted and for POLITICAL and ECONOMIC reasons, did much of what it did (don't forget the RCC was more of a political than religious institution at the time, governed by men who would NEVER would be accepted in the RCC now). And I feel that for political and economic reasons, many pushed Luther and used the Reformation for their own purposes. There was MUCH mishandling on both sides. But let this not get lost: Luther loved the RCC, highly respected even the HORRIBLE popes of his day, and OVERWHELMINGLY agreed with the Church's teachings (indeed, even Indulgences he rejected BECAUSE he felt it was not in line with the teachings of the RCC). I think 500 years of "spin" on ALL sides (and the ability to quote some TERRIBLE things said.... and note some TERRIBLE things done....) has made the Lutheran 'Reformation' seem to be what it wasn't.
What happened, is that radicals followed.... men who did NOT love the Church, did NOT embrace Tradition, did NOT desire to reform... but revolutionaries, who determined that all was rotten and that thigns needed to be re-established from the ground up. Radicals such as the Anabaptists and groups Luther called the "enthuseists." Luther was far more citical of them than he ever was of Catholicism. And IMO (sic), I too feel closer to Catholicism than to this radical (sometimes called "second" and "third" wave Protestantism).
It IS true that for centuries, Scripture played a lesser and lesser role in Catholicism. Biblical ignorance - even among the clergy - was enormous. And it is true that Luther stressed BIBLICAL Authority, while distancing himself from classic Scholasticism and the Humanism that was attempting to replace it in Luther's time - Luther rejected them both and looked to Scripture. But it is wrong to say he was alone in this, wrong to say he did so in the individualistic way the Revolutionaries did (Luther embraced Tradition and the Councils to a great extent), Luther did not reject the authority of the church - just the absolute, unaccountable authority especially when it contradicted Scripture. It was more a difference of degree than kind. And yes, Luther did translate Scripture into the everyday language of the Bible because he felt Scripture is a Means of Grace and that it should be known, but he rejected the "individual interpretation" idea of the Anabaptists and others. And of course, his was not the first German translation - just the first one to be widely owned and read.
NOW, BACK TO THE ISSUE: The Lutheran view on Justification (narrow) - see post 671 - which the RCC anathematized, condemned, and labeled as apostate heresy (and thus the Catholic position at least since 1551 MUST be radically different from).
- Josiah
