I would say that they aren’t even Jon’s views. They have always been that of Lutheranism, just as Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism long for reunion amidst the often venomous polemics that we sinful creatures are so quick to spew. All sides act with limited charity at times, but the reality, at least for us Lutherans, remains essentially as Melancthon stated in his subscription to the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:
Quote: “Regarding the Pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, his superiority over the bishops which he has otherwise, is conceded to him by human right also by us, for the sake of the peace and general unity of those Christians who are also under him, and may be under him hereafter.”
This is charity? I am more than a little surprised that you would bring this quote up, because what it actually proves is nothing like what you must think. First of all, you didn’t post the source of the quote, which of course makes it ‘difficult’ to check, or at least it would have if I didn’t already know of it. What the quote actually proves is an unbelievable arrogance on the part of Melanchthon.
In regards to Melanchthon’s ‘attitude’ towards papal authority:
“Melanchthon’s letters during the summer of 1534 show much anxiety in regard to the peace and safety of the Church. He expresses the conviction that the commotions cannot be settled by human counsels. Only God can prevail. About the middle of the summer he wrote a long Opinion on the Settlement of the Controversies in Religion? He concedes that for the sake of harmony some abuses may be overlooked and condoned, but not those which destroy the necessary articles of faith, or are idolatrous, or drive men to open sin. He is willing that the government of the Pope, and of the bishops, shall remain for the sake of unity throughout the world, provided they do not abuse their authority by suppressing sound doctrine. He also favours common rites in the Church, but on the condition that such rites are to be regarded as indifferent things, which do not make for righteousness, and are not to be used to foster superstition. Confession may be retained, but an enumeration of sins must not be required. Justification is not bestowed on account of our contrition, or works, “but alone through the mercy of God apprehended by faith, that is, trust in Christ.” (Philip Melanchthon: The Protestant Preceptor of Germany, James William Richard [Lutheran], New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898, 213 [online link] )
So – Melanchthon is ‘willing’ to allow the authority of the pope BUT ONLY under an astonishing set of conditions. In order for Lutherans to recognize the authority of the Pope, the Church had to capitulate and stop opposing what it considered to be heresy. Specifically, the Pope would be recognized IF the Church would allow ‘common rites’, but only if those common rites were to be regarded as indifferent things. In addition, the Lutherans would allow the Church to retain confession, but not unless the enumeration of sins were eliminated. Of course, justification by faith alone was a Lutheran requirement for recognition of the authority of the Pope. The Church could never agree to such conditions, but it is EXTREMELY telling that the Lutherans would even think to propose them.
And oh can forget Luther’s unquestionable stance on defending the Sacraments?
Quote: “I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Enthusiasts.”
Context is everything Steido. First of all you failed to document the source of this quote. It is from LW, Vol. 37, pg. 317, “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper”, (1528). This tract was a response to Zwingli, with whom he was having a very heated debate over the nature of the Holy Eucharist. In fact, Zwingli had been accusing Luther of being a liar.
“Over and over again he roundly accuses Luther of “lying” and “falsehood,” though his language is not so lurid as his adversary’s.” Grisar, Vol. III, pg. 380 Luther considered Zwingli to be: “ a child of his loins " who had betrayed him.” Ibid, pg. 380 As a result of their disagreements: “Luther refused to recognize Zwingli and his followers as brothers, in spite of all the prayers of his opponents. He would not concede to them Christian brotherhood but merely “Christian charity,” that charity, moreover, which, as he declared, we owe even to our enemies.” Grisar, Vol. III, pg. 381 So great was Luther’s hatred of Zwingli that: “Luther was in high glee when news of Zwingli s death reached him.” Grisar, Vol. pg. 383
It may be true that Luther would have actually preferred to share the Eucharist with Catholics rather than the ‘enthusiasts’ like Zwingli, but the fact is that he hated both although maybe not equally in every moment.
As for Luther defending the Sacraments? Certainly you don’t mean the 7 Catholic Sacraments, 5 of which he denied as being Sacraments in the same way that he ‘demoted’ 4 books of the NT to a lesser status. Sorry but I cannot bring myself to see Luther as a defender of the Sacraments, nor of Scripture for that matter.
We know that Luther hated the Pope and also individual Catholics:
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as the agents of Satan.” (Lutheran Professor) Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36
In all honestly that kind of sentiment does not sound like Luther was all that ‘loving’ or charitable towards Catholics. Yet, amazingly, it seems that Luther hated the ‘enthusiasts’ as much or more than he did Catholics.
For the record, it bothers me when historical events and circumstances are inaccurately portrayed, even when it is done innocently. In my experience, when these errors are made they are ALWAYS in Luther’s favor. I call this the propensity to ‘clean up history’ the “Legend of Luther”.
