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.
I understood your point completely (without blinders); I guess I should have responded by saying a statue of Sherman (or Philip Sheridan) would be completely appropriate in Atlanta if the population was pro-Yankee at some point down the road.
Rome hasn’t been “Catholic” in half a century; any American Lutheran (or any other Protestant) would feel quite at home there.
I'm a Catholic and I agree with you, it seems bizarre to name some location in Rome in honor of Martin Luther (especially given all the anti-Rome comments that Luther made during his lifetime).
Because they have admitted that he was correct and saved even the Catholic Church eventually. They no longer do most of the things with which Luther took issue, except for worship of the VM and saints.