This square isn’t in Vatican City; it is in Rome itself. They can name their streets however they wish.
I conceded he had valid points (which the Church had to address in the Counter-Reformation); the fact that there are different Lutheran denominations today with huge differences in theology is the most basic of his flaws. When you’re born rebelling against authority, good luck trying to assert any later...
Some Lutheran denominations resulted from the desire to conduct services in English rather than German. That wasn't theology. In recent times, factions like the ELCA wanted to be more "I'm OK, you're OK" so that they could have female and most recently homo pastors. The Wisconsin and Missouri Synod churches are still pretty straight-laced Lutherans, adhering very closely with Luther's doctrine.
Some of us Lutherans are just real sorry that the ELCA imagines itself to be Lutheran.
I understand that Rome is not Vatican City. I further understand that the City of Rome can name a square or street whatever they please.
And I do not care to discuss Luther’s reforms per se.
I simply said I am a protestant. I don’t really care about him or if he was able to assert authority later. There is little point in replacing a Roman C Pope, with an ersatz Protestant pope. I don’t think the point of his reform was to assert some new authority.
But all of those things aside. Rome is correctly viewed as a heavily Catholic city with a very thin Protestant tradition. So my question, as simple as I know to ask it is; even though Rome obviously has the right, why is it naming this square after the Catholic churches chief opponent? It just seems odd.
It would be like building a statue of Sheridan somewhere in Atlanta.
If you can take off the apologetic blinders for a moment, you might notice that I as a Protestant, am basically arguing that this Luther Square seems antagonistic to a large predominantly Catholic city.