Posted on 03/17/2016 7:49:46 AM PDT by ebb tide
Rome has found a name for a new Square in the heart of the city, an open space in the middle of a leafy garden park in a choice area near the Coliseum: Martin Luther Square.
Almost 500 years after Augustinian monk Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Cathedral of Wittenberg, Swabia (October 1517), and 494 years after the bull of excommunication issued by Pope Leo X ("Decet Romanum Pontificem", January 1521), the city of Rome has honored the man who sparked the Protestant Reformation, a movement premised on what Luther condemned in that very city, the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
The nameplate “Martin Luther – German Theologian (1483-1546)” is assigned to an area laden with history: nearby are Emperor Nero's Domus Aurea and the boulevard named after the Greek-Egyptian goddess Serapide. The square was officially inaugurated on Wednesday, September 16 of last year.
The decision came six years after an official request was advanced by the Union of Seventh Day Adventist Churches and the Union of the Lutheran Evangelical Churches in Italy.
While no official comment was issued by the Vatican, Lutheran circles have understandably been all abuzz. “I'm very pleased that our request has come true before the anniversary of the Reform in 2017,” said Pastor Heiner Bludau, senior pastor of the Lutheran Evangelical Church in Italy:
When we researched [in 2010] the meaning of Martin Luther's visit to Rome … we saw that his stay was clearly a part of the history of the Reformation and therefore of the history of Europe. So to dedicate a square in Rome to the great reformer is a highly symbolic and momentous step; in the light of world history it is a step that reflects the level reached by the process of European unification. On both counts I am extremely grateful.
The news, however, barely registered on the press radar, not only because Italy is grappling with engrossing social and economic troubles, but also because the revival of the memory and cult of Martin Luther has become almost normal fare now, both in secular and ecclesiastical circles.
In secular circles it has been powered in part by Germany's effort to unify the separate cultures which were shaped in the formerly partitioned East and West sides of the country, quietly renewing pride in a common national history so as to get over the country’s guilt complex for the World Wars and the Holocaust, so often mentioned in post-war German education.
The endeavor to get past the memories of the twentieth century, not to mention the economic morass inherited from East Germany in the 1990s, has been so successful that Germany today enjoys a hegemony over the European Union. (Germany trails only the U.S. and the U.K. on the “Elcano Global Presence Report 2015”.) This is the case not just from an economic point of view but also a renewed admiration for the country’s apparent efficiency, moral rigor and hard work.
The process can be illustrated by the success among children and families of the plastic toy Luthers recently marketed by Playmobil, which is the fastest-selling Playmobil figure in the company’s history. Related toy replicas have also been popular, including one of Wittenberg Cathedral, one of the castle of Warburg, and one of Luther’s wife, Katharina von Bora, the ex-Cistercian nun he married in 1525, which are sold as specially numbered collector's items.
Gemany's Catholic authorities also had a part in the revival and unprecedented universality of respect for the father of Protestant Christianity. In January 2015, the Archbishop of Munich, Cardinal Reinhard Marx—President of the German Bishops’ Conference and coordinator of Pope Francis's Board of Economic Advisors—summed up Martin Luther’s long march through the institutions of ecumenism in Politik & Kultur: “Now having completed fifty years of dialogue, a Catholic Christian, too, may respectfully read the texts penned by Luther and benefit from his ideas.” The same acceptance has been variously expressed by Cardinal Walter Kasper, German Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, and Fr. Hans Kung. In his 2008 publication “Night-time Conversations in Jerusalem”, written in German, Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini praised Luther as having somehow inspired the changes that came after Vatican Council II, thereby effectively recasting as the greatest of reformers he who had previously been seen as the prototypical excommunicated heretic.
Last November, Pope Francis caused a stir when, in the words of Vatican reporter Edward Pentin, he appeared “to suggest that a Lutheran wife of a Catholic husband could receive holy Communion based on the fact that she is baptized and in accordance with her conscience.” Pentin reported a month later that Pastor Jens Kruse of Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church “said he believes Pope Francis ‘opened the door’ to intercommunion when the Holy Father spoke to his church last month, and that his parishioners generally have the same opinion.” When asked if he interpreted the Pope’s remarks as “allowing Lutherans to receive holy Communion, leaving it up to their conscience?”, Kruse replied in the affirmative:
The Pope said that’s a question each person has to decide for himself. I think it’s typical for Pope Francis to open doors, and now we, as churches, have the duty to find ways to fill this open door with more of a life of ecumenism, of unity. The image of an open door is, I think, a very good one because we are in front of this door at this moment and now we have to find ways to go through this open door.
Following the November 2015 event, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, told Aleteia.org, “Intercommunion is not permitted between Catholics and non-Catholics. You must confess the Catholic Faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive Communion. That is very, very clear. It’s not a matter of following your conscience.” In order to receive Holy Communion, Cardinal Sarah emphasized, “I need to be in the state of grace, without sin, and have the faith of the Catholic Church. … It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church.”
Prior to his pontficate, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger invited the faithful to reflect “very seriously” on Luther's message and “save the great things in his theology”. But he did so without blurring the lines that define the radical change that Luther brought about in “the relationship between the Church and the individual, between the Church and the Bible”, which to this day prevents Catholics and Protestants from sharing “the certainty that recognizes in the Church a common conscience which is greater than private intelligence and interpretations”.
On his trip to Germany, less than a year and a half before abdicating, Pope Benedict XVI stopped at Erfurt, where Luther studied theology and celebrated his first Mass. In the talk given on that occasion, Benedict dwelled on the importance attributed by Luther to the issue of sin, a particularly significant facet of Luther’s teaching in the light of the current emphasis on mercy that often seems to downplay the reality of sin and the real possibility of judgment. Benedict stated:
“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. The question no longer troubles us.
In January, it was announced that Francis plans to travel to Sweden in October of this year “for a joint ecumenical commemoration of the start of the Reformation, together with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of other Christian Churches.” The event will be the start of events marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation; it will also “highlight the important ecumenical developments that have taken place during the past 50 years of dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans.”
I hope, however, that the warmth to Luther’s ideas will not go even further and fashion the formerly excommunicated heretic into a hero and a saint, whitewashing history until even actual events lose all meaning. For the former Augustinian monk was as much a man of the flesh and of turbulent spirits as Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), whose sins we are in no danger of being allowed to forget.
If there is a reciprocal owning up of mistakes all around, on the part of the Protestants this might include, for example, a formal disowning of Luther's most virulent invectives, such as the ones against the Jews, contained in Luther’s 1543 book On the Jews and Their Lies, and the ones in his “Admonition to Peace”. In the latter, with regard to “The Twelve Articles of the Christian Union of Upper Swabia” (April 1525), Luther pleaded with the German nobility to suppress all the “murderous and thieving hordes of peasants” in the following terms:
What reason be there for leniency with the peasants? If there be any innocents among them, God will know how to best defend and rescue them. If God doesn't rescue them, then that means they are criminals. I think it's best for God to kill farmers rather than princes and judges, as the peasants have no Divine authority on which to base their wielding of the sword. No mercy, no patience towards the peasants, only wrath and indignation, from God and from man. This moment is so exceptional that a prince can earn heaven through bloodshed. Therefore, dear gentlemen, go ahead and exterminate, slay, strangle, and may whoever has power, use it.
Ironically, it was reported that at the September 2015 event in Rome, Michael Kretschmer, representative of the Bundestag (the national Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany), “remembered the sensitivity of the father of the Reformation for the last (of the world). ‘If he were here today, he would tell us to take care of the poor,’ he said.” Meanwhile, the mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino, stated: “Today gesture means that Rome has to respect every religion and faith. It is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice, Einstein said. And here we have broken some prejudices.” By all means, let’s welcome the ridding of wrong prejudices, but let’s not reject a prejudice for the truth.
Sorry for the late response, but I do not condone such language. Care to answer my question now?
Is not condone synonymous for condemn ?
Care to answer my question now?
I have no idea what is in a book of concord; does it mention Judaism ?
I have a very good idea what Lutherans confess on this thread. It seems quite at odds with what the Lutherans of the Missouri Synod teach about Judaism on this web page. Thus I ask again if the Lutherans here are condemning post 19 by a denominational colleague who wrote "Luther agitated against the demonic cult known as Judaism."
We in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod “condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins.”
You might want to be careful about opening this can of worms. There is a lot pope quotes and actions against Jews as well:
POPE CLEMENT VIII: "All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live."
SYLVESTER I. Condemned Jewish anti-Christian activity.
GREGORY VIII. Forbade Jews to have power over Christians, in a letter to Alfonso VI of Castile.
GREGORY IX. Condemned the TALMUD as containing "every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine."
BENEDICT XIII. His Bull on the Jewish issue (1450) declared: "The heresies, vanities and errors of the TALMUD prevent their knowing the truth."
JULIUS III. Contra Hebreos retinentes libros (1554) ordered the TALMUD burned "everywhere" and established a strict censorship over Jewish genocidal writings - an order that has never been rescinded and which presumably is still binding upon Catholics.
PAUL IV. Cum nimis absurdim (1555) promulgated immediately after his coronation, was a powerful condemnation of Jewish usury. It embodies a model legal code to curb Jewish power that was recommended to all communities.
PIUS V. Hebraeorum gens (1569) expelled all Jews from the Papal States.
GREGORY XIII. Declared that Jews: "continue to plot horrible crimes" against Christians "with daily increasing audacity."
BENEDICT XIV. Quo Primum 1751) denounced Jewish control of commerce and "systematical despoliation" of the Christian through usury.
PIUS VII. Known generally as an 'anti-Semite' by Jewish writers.
“I have a very good idea what Lutherans confess on this thread.”
So one sentence in one post is good enough for that? Hmmm...
“Thus I ask again if the Lutherans here are condemning post 19 by a denominational colleague who wrote ‘Luther agitated against the demonic cult known as Judaism’.”
Is it burden to condemn everything someone else says? I do not believe Judaism is a demonic cult, and I feel it was inappropriate to do so. But reviewing the posts by the poster, and without reading his mind, I also think it quite clear he was not intending to be anti-semetic.
“I have no idea what is in a book of concord; does it mention Judaism?”
Taking at face value and in good faith (though simply clicking on the link would have given all you need to know about it), the Book of Concord was written mostly during the reformation (though the ancient creeds also form a part of it) explaining the beliefs of the “Lutheran” church in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church. It is accepted completely (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) or to some extent (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) by Lutheran churches as faithful statements of Christian doctrine.
Does it mention Judaism? Well I can do a search on that page same as you, and the Jews get a couple of brief mentions, apparently nothing significant. Which is understandable.
“It seems quite at odds with what the Lutherans of the Missouri Synod teach about Judaism on this web page.”
Okay, so then why such ado about what one poster posted on one thread somewhere on the internet?
Because you are the first, and only, (apparent) Lutheran who condemned the antisemitic post when you wrote, "I do not believe Judaism is a demonic cult, and I feel it was inappropriate to do so. "
All nations are subject to the Messianic Judgment. The can of worms defense strategy is unlikely to fare better than the when did we defense. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Little children, let no man deceive you:he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses thirty one to forty six,
First John, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verse seven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine
I have read of Father Miliks theories and while they are certainly interesting,they are in no way conclusive. I believe they came about in the 1950's or thereabout and I'm pretty sure that they have been or are being researched for their validity.
It wasn't Luther's writings that caused the Holocaust. You're being silly. Luther's book on this fell into obscurity in the centuries leading up to Hitler, it was not the manifesto of antiSemitism. There were plenty of Germans (and popes, as my quotes show) that were thinking the same on their own on this.
All nations are subject to the Messianic Judgment. The can of worms defense strategy is unlikely to fare better than the when did we defense.
Oh so all the popes just loved the Jews and Talmudic Judaism? My quotes from them show otherwise.
Oh yeah, it's a funny story. After Peter's ossuary was found in Jerusalem and confirmed by Milik, the Vatican immediately came up with a set of bones they found in a wall and were Peter's, as they said. Well, on further study it was a collection of animal bones and the bone of a woman. So the Vatican went back and immediately found another set of bones somewhere there, that the pope's personal archaeologist confirmed was Peter's, but the archaeologist wasn't named and no one else is allowed to study them. Now that's desperate. lol
You have still not sourced your quotes.
You have still not sourced your quotes.
Well, one of the worst was Julius III. An account of his Nazi-like order to burn Jewish property is in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia pp391-392.
Should pope Julius III be declared an anti-pope for his Nazi-like order that put such suffering on the Jews?
There was a lot of Protestants in Germany, it was a desperate attempt of using Luther at his trial to get protestant sympathy to weasel out of his crimes.
You avoided my question, should Julius III be declared an anti-pope for his Nazi-like order to burn Jewish property?
should Julius III be declared an anti-pope for his Nazi-like order to burn Jewish property?
No, I don't think so; perhaps you (or I) don't understand the term anti-pope. He should be judged by King Messiah for what he did and did not do, just as I posted previously with Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five.
Anti-pope, anti-Semite, whatever. I don't care about the rules about anti-popes.
He should be judged by King Messiah for what he did and did not do, just as I posted previously with Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five.
Okay, why do you judge Luther as an anti-Semite for his nazi-like statements, and not pope Julius III for his nazi-like actions? Luther just talked, Julius actually acted.
A lot of things happen on birthdays. I'm surprised they didn't implement it on Julius' birthday. lol
Again, the Nazis hated Christians but still they needed the support of Christians and Catholics, so they modeled a lot of things from the Catholic way of doing things and tried to bring in the protestants too. Hitler kept Pius XII close until the end, to the point the Catholic ratlines helped escaping nazis. No different than Obama claiming to be Christian, Hitler used the same strategy.
Anti-Semitism was non uncommon in “Christian” Europe, including Germany, and existed independent of Luther. Google Johann Eck. He was a Catholic theologican and pretty anti-semitic himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.