- Martin Luther was the undisputed founder of Protestantism.
- Martin Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
- Most modern-day Protestants do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
- Therefore, Martin Luther would not consider most modern-day Protestants to be good Protestants or even good Christians.
I think it is unfair to declare Luther the founding ring-leader of what we Catholics call Protestantism. They were not organized under any real structural system of belief. Luther was definately the major mover in Germany but we also see the
Hussites inciting a large religious rebellion a century earlier in Czechoslovakia to start a general wave of protestation against church authority. This was mostly an attempt to dis-empower The Church and use the university system as an arbitor for resolving church disputes according to independent private ruling of scripture. I see it as a patriotic nationalistic movement. The Hussites wanted autonomy to preach “the word of God” (as they interpreted it) and ironically demanded BOTH species of Communion (they insisted that the laity get to partake of the cup - the chalice becomes a unifying symbol placed on their warriors shields). The also demanded a separation of church and state to dis-empower the clergy from all matters of secular life. But again, ironically, the also demanded punishment for mortal sins. Go figure.
This Hussite movement immediately fractures into two groups:
The moderate party, who followed Hus more closely, sought to conduct reform while leaving the whole hierarchical and liturgical order of the Church untouched.
But the more radical party identified itself more boldly with the doctrines of John Wycliffe, sharing his passionate hatred of the monastic clergy, and his desire to return the Church to its supposed condition during the time of the apostles.
My theory is that Luther, also a patriot who believed the state was supreme was just an opportunist who took inspiration from the Hussites even as the Catholic Church was already in the motions of its own reformation in the Lateran Councils 6 months before Luther nailed his infamous 95 thesis.
But note that it was us Catholics who later placed all the various heretical sectarians who rebelled against the Church under the one big-tent of “Protestantism”. We saw it as one general satanic spiritual attack against unity - which under all the various human motives is what it really is from the Catholic perspective. Except for the schismatic Orthodox there was no prior notion of other Christian “Churches” before Protestants tried to claim an independent one. From our perspective Satan was clearly attempting to use the general trend of anti-ecclesial contempt to remove authority as a means to fragment and marginalize the role of The Church and her apostolic authority and reduce the subscriptions to grace giving sacraments.
What is extremely ironic to me though is that all the early “protesters” like Huss had a strong desire for MORE lay participation in the sacraments and the liturgy but today as the laity get their way we have wholesale rejection of the sacraments as they self-teach it all away as not “biblical”. Amazing.
I find it interesting to note that under that big-tent of Protestantism, Catholicism’s very own orthodoxy becomes the single framework that keeps that very tent-work standing erect. That is, The Catholic Church becomes the single main structural pole that Protestants off all flavors can agree to rally behind to protest (almost like Christ on the cross to garner so much attention and common scorn). Note too that in the Catholic perspective we have “the [Catholic] church as the pillar and foundation of truth”. But Catholics can see Protestantism as using the “the Catholic Church as the single pillar and foundation by which to rally all the tribes against to protest”. If it were not impossible for the gates of hell to prevail against the Catholic Church Protestants would be foolish to not see what unifies them as they keep hacking away at the Catholic Church. It is self defeating to attack and protest the one single unifying structural pole. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are just minor poles holding up all the individual small tents under the larger one. If Protestants lost the main pole holding up the big tent they would be fated to endless conflicts among themselves in the entanglement. Or if an uneasy truce could be made they would be forced to travel in an unlikely caravan of related gypsies all tinkering the thin tin of private theology and peddling whatever artifacts come out of private belief among themselves. But I doubt it would long survive.
Protestants have yet to figure out that without the Catholic Church they have no leg of their own to stand on. But I do agree with some Protestants here - why do they care about Luther? But I will also rejoin - indeed why when they can now believe anything they desire and have no one to contradict them except the Catholic Church. But they have already turned a deaf ear to Catholic authority.
At some point the Protestant church leaders are going to have to come to realize that they have preached themselves right out of a job. Now that they imagine that the revolution is a
fait accompli - who anymore needs a church and a preacher who insists on his vig to feed his wife and children when everyone else wants the same and have their own dusty bible; a bible they can put on the nightstand at home to read whenever they feel that they need to feel-good or when one desires to reaffirm their own private readings? Why not just sleep in on Sunday morning when the bible will not only save us but will also give us permission to do anything one might want to read into it?
James
rolleyes:you know the “story” on that I am sure).
).
Because, here in America, his faith helped shape the faith of this Country. He may or may not be the undisputed founder of protestantism but he is at least relevant in understanding the Reformation.