Germany Catholics wary about major Luther festivities

[bpcatholic]

I disagree. Luther ripped the body of Christ (the Church) apart. There is absolutely nothing to celebrate about that.

The bishop did not say that Catholics should celebrate the Reformation, as if it were a good thing. He flat out rejects the idea. What he did say was that Catholics can join in and learn from our brothers and sisters.

 

[Dale_M]

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, has urged cooperation between the churches. Her basic argument makes sense.

Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Germany’s Protestant and Roman Catholic churches on Monday to stress their common beliefs at ceremonies marking the 500th anniversary of the start of the Protestant Reformation.

Merkel, daughter of a Protestant pastor, made a rare visit to the synod and said that, in a secularized world, Christian churches should stress what united them, rather than their enduring theological differences.

reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/us-germany-reformation-merkel-idUSBRE8A41C620121105

Here is a little more from the article, indicating some progress has been made.

EKD President Nikolaus Schneider told the synod the two churches had already agreed to write a joint book on Christianity next year and hold a major conference on the Bible in 2015 in preparation for the anniversary.

They have also begun discussing whether they could hold a joint service of reconciliation in 2017 “that recognizes before God all the injuries both churches inflicted on each other”.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Hardly. He got the Church to wake up to its failings, and we can be thankful for that.

Harldy? He started what has fractioned the body of Christ into literally thousands of pieces, all of which have, to a certain extent, heretical teachings on Christianity. His actions led millions away from the one true Church.

 

[Lucky7]

Harldy? He started what has fractioned the body of Christ into literally thousands of pieces, all of which have, to a certain extent, heretical teachings on Christianity. His actions led millions away from the one true Church.

Agreed. There are ways to address the Church’s “failings” without creating a new church with heretical teachings. Unless by “failings” we’re talking about “false teachings” none of which the Catholic Chruch has ever had since it is the One True Church.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The bishop did not say that Catholics should celebrate the Reformation, as if it were a good thing. He flat out rejects the idea. What he did say was that Catholics can join in and learn from our brothers and sisters.

What exactly would we be celebrating, apart from the Reformation, when attending a celebration of Martin Luther. The only reason anyone celebrates him is because of the Reformation. That would be like celebrating Lenin’s birthday but not celebrating Communism.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

What exactly would we be celebrating, apart from the Reformation, when attending a celebration of Martin Luther.

Catholics could celebrate (if they wished) Mass in the vernacular, simplification of the Mass under Vatican II, increased emphasis on the Bible, Bible translation, Bible reading and Bible scholarship, hymn singing, and basic educational standards for priests. Over time, the Catholic Church adopted many of the Lutheran reforms.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Harldy? He started what has fractioned the body of Christ into literally thousands of pieces, all of which have, to a certain extent, heretical teachings on Christianity. His actions led millions away from the one true Church.

The Church was already ripe for fracturing, with many, many abuses that had ordinary Catholics ready for a change. Just consider how easily Protestantism arose thereafter. It wouldn’t have had a chance if there were no reasons to break away.

I’d not point a finger at Luther because when I’d do that, three fingers would be pointing back at me.

 

[bpcatholic]

What exactly would we be celebrating, apart from the Reformation, when attending a celebration of Martin Luther. The only reason anyone celebrates him is because of the Reformation. That would be like celebrating Lenin’s birthday but not celebrating Communism.

Again, it’s not celebrating. It’s learning from the past. There’s no point in denying it ever happened or wishing it never happened. What happened happened. The only thing we as Catholics can do is learn. Which is what the bishop is trying to say. When we have trials in our own lives, the thing we should do, we are told, is to learn from them and not deny them. And so it is with the Church. The bishops want to have a part in it as well because it affects the Church.

I think the Lenin example is a terrible example. You can celebrate his birthday without celebrating Communism.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The Church was already ripe for fracturing, with many, many abuses that had ordinary Catholics ready for a change. Just consider how easily Protestantism arose thereafter. It wouldn’t have had a chance if there were no reasons to break away.

I’d not point a finger at Luther because when I’d do that, three fingers would be pointing back at me.

I would never argue there were no abuses going on or that the Reformation probably would have happened aside from him (in fact, one could easily argue the Reformation began before Luther, with Hus, Wycliffe, etc). He was, however, the catalyst for the fractioning of the Church. However you want to look at change or abuses, what happened was unspeakable and has damaged the Church probably beyond full repair.

It was not only about abuses. Martin Luther:
Denied the authority of the pope
Denied the authority of Tradition and the Church
Denied the canonicity of about 10 books of the Bible
Denied the Sacrifice of the Mass
Denied the role of works along with faith in salvation
Denied the existence of Purgatory and the necessity of prayers for the dead
Denied 5 of the 7 Sacraments

The list could go on. This is not the “fixing” of abuses. This is radical, heretical change from historic and biblical Christianity.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Again, it’s not celebrating. It’s learning from the past. There’s no point in denying it ever happened or wishing it never happened. What happened happened. The only thing we as Catholics can do is learn. Which is what the bishop is trying to say. When we have trials in our own lives, the thing we should do, we are told, is to learn from them and not deny them. And so it is with the Church. The bishops want to have a part in it as well because it affects the Church.

I think the Lenin example is a terrible example. You can celebrate his birthday without celebrating Communism.

What the German Protestants do is celebrate. This is not a history lesson or going there to learn from past mistakes. It is a celebration of Martin Luther and what he did. Catholics can learn from the past without celebrating the life and works of a heretic.

And what exactly would you be celebrating about Lenin’s birthday that would be separate from Communism? If not for Communism, no one would know who he was.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Catholics could celebrate (if they wished) Mass in the vernacular, simplification of the Mass under Vatican II, increased emphasis on the Bible, Bible translation, Bible reading and Bible scholarship, hymn singing, and basic educational standards for priests. Over time, the Catholic Church adopted many of the Lutheran reforms.

The Bible was translated into vernacular by Catholics before Protestants existed. Anyone that could read could read the Bible (it was left in the churches so it could be read by anyone who went there). The problem is only a fraction of the population could read. Luther had nothing to do with Catholics starting to read the Bible; the increase of basic education over time did. Luther did not inspire Vatican II and the “simplified” Mass that came afterwards was not called for in the council itself.

See my above post about the tenants of faith Luther denied. As I’ve said before, under no circumstances should Catholics celebrate what he did.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Germans (both Protestant or Catholic) see this as part of their broader heritage of leading the world into reform during the Renaissance–sort of their answer to the Italians.

To the Italians? Their answer to the Italians? As one whose ancestery includes Italian and Alsatian (German, sort of) forbears, I take umbrage. Luther’s infection was and remains mainly a north German thing. That part of Germany sometimes referred to as “Mediterranean Germany”; the Rhineland, Bavaria (also Elsass und Lothringen) never left off their connection to Italy. Visit churches in “Catholic Germany” and those in “Protestant Germany” and you’ll see it in an instant.

 

[Lucky7]

Rand, speak it brother.

 

[TrueLight]

Catholics can learn from the past without celebrating the life and works of a heretic.

 

[bpcatholic]

What the German Protestants do is celebrate. This is not a history lesson or going there to learn from past mistakes. It is a celebration of Martin Luther and what he did. Catholics can learn from the past without celebrating the life and works of a heretic.

And what exactly would you be celebrating about Lenin’s birthday that would be separate from Communism? If not for Communism, no one would know who he was.

I still stand with my earlier post. No point in repeating it again.

There is more to a person than just his political or religious beliefs. There are several Germans who celebrate the life of Karl Marx, even though they are staunch capitalists.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Bible was translated into vernacular by Catholics before Protestants existed. Anyone that could read could read the Bible (it was left in the churches so it could be read by anyone who went there).

I’d be curious as to where you are getting your information. There were no German vernacular translations before Luther and there were certainly no vernacular translations anywhere from the original languages. The few vernacular translations that did exist were not widely distributed–certainly not enough so that every church had one. Biblical interpretation, which was highly allegorical, was restricted to theologians.

The problem is only a fraction of the population could read. Luther had nothing to do with Catholics starting to read the Bible; the increase of basic education over time did.

Bible reading as an encouraged Catholic lay practice didn’t kick in until after Divino Afflante Spiritu and the Second Vatican Council. I have Catholic students today that still (erroneously) believe they are prohibited from reading the Bible at home.

Luther did not inspire Vatican II and the “simplified” Mass that came afterwards was not called for in the council itself.

Regardless, the Mass was greatly simplified after Vatican II. So what inspired this simplification if not the Protestant Reformation? Why is the doxology now part of the Mass if not for Protestant influence? Would the changes brought about by the Catholic Reformation have occurred without Martin Luther?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

To the Italians? Their answer to the Italians? As one whose ancestery includes Italian and Alsatian (German, sort of) forbears, I take umbrage. Luther’s infection was and remains mainly a north German thing. That part of Germany sometimes referred to as “Mediterranean Germany”; the Rhineland, Bavaria (also Elsass und Lothringen) never left off their connection to Italy. Visit churches in “Catholic Germany” and those in “Protestant Germany” and you’ll see it in an instant.

Yes, I’ve been to Germany many times and agree it’s a north/south thing. I would even go further and say that you could lump the Normans in with the ethnic groups that were sick of being dominated economically, culturally and religiously by Italians.

Of course at the time there was neither a Germany nor an Italy.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I’d be curious as to where you are getting your information. There were no German vernacular translations before Luther and there were certainly no vernacular translations anywhere from the original languages. The few vernacular translations that did exist were not widely distributed–certainly not enough so that every church had one. Biblical interpretation, which was highly allegorical, was restricted to theologians.

That’s simply not true. There were actually about 13 German translations of the Bible prior to Luther’s. See this page for a start on many different vernacular translations: newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Again, all the Bible translations in the world wouldn’t have helped people read them, as most people could not read. Those who were educated and could read could read Latin, anyway.

Regardless, the Mass was greatly simplified after Vatican II. So what inspired this simplification if not the Protestant Reformation? Why is the doxology now part of the Mass if not for Protestant influence? Would the changes brought about by the Catholic Reformation have occurred without Martin Luther?

This would be a topic for another thread completely, but I don’t believe the “simplification” of the Mass was necessary or advisable. So, I don’t view this as a positive outcome whatever the cause is listed as.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That’s simply not true. There were actually about 13 German translations of the Bible prior to Luther’s. See this page for a start on many different vernacular translations: newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

What the CE isn’t telling you is that a) the vast majority of these vernacular translations were partial (only the Gospels, only the Psalter, etc.) and b) that works such as the much-acclaimed Mentelin Bible weren’t really translations per se, but were sort of running “Latin interlinears” (although minus the Latin text in some Bibles) that were specifically used by scholars to help them with their Latin by giving word-for-word equivalents in a particular German dialect–kind of like a biblical dictionary if you will. Even Bibles that are considered “complete” are often missing books from the deuterocanon or things like II and III John. But if you wish to refer to them as vernacular translations, that’s fine with me–with the caveat that even these precursors are still only translations of a translation. As I recall, a good book on the topic is Sanders, German: The Biography of a Language if you’re interested in more details.

But the point is, by the 1540s one in every thirteen German households had at least a partial copy of the Luther Bible; that’s a pretty phenomenal shift. Once there was something actually available to read, people became quite interested in learning how to read–especially since Luther placed a great emphasis on lay Bible reading as a basic Christian responsibility.
Rand Al'Thor;9989351:

I don’t believe the “simplification” of the Mass was necessary or advisable. So, I don’t view this as a positive outcome whatever the cause is listed as.

I guess that’s something you will have to take up with the Catholic Church. Maybe those who do think changes in the Mass are positive would want to celebrate it and Luther?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I guess that’s something you will have to take up with the Catholic Church. Maybe those who do think changes in the Mass are positive would want to celebrate it and Luther?

Well, that is alarming that Catholics would want to celebrate the life and works of a heretic who ripped the Church apart.