Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
The CA answers this in the conclusion.
**“The Protestant princes showed greater firmness than their theologians. ** Phillip of Hesse rode off without taking leave of the emperor, the others waited a month in order not to give offense……**the princes did not yield ground on any fundamental questions. ****They declared their faith identical with the Gospel and not disproved by the “Confutation” (the Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession).” **Holborn, pg. 213
The princes of the time were not what you would call ‘admirable’ and yet, here we learn that they were more firm on theology than were the Lutheran Theologians.
Catholic convert and Harvard Professor of Roman Catholic Studies Christopher Dawson comments about Augsburg:
“Melanchthon, who was at once the most humanist and most conciliatory of the reformers, was well fitted to take the lead in this work, and the result of his labors was the famous **Confession of Augsburg, the most un-Lutheran of Lutheran formularies, which slurs over some of the most distinctive doctrines of the new faith.
It was an attempt to exaggerate the points of disagreement between Lutherans and Zwinglians, in order to minimize the disagreements between Lutherans and Catholics.**
He [Melanchthon] went even further in his letter to the papal legate, Campeggio, in which he declared that ‘we reverence the authority of the Pope of Rome and the whole heirarchy’, **He goes so far as to write, ‘For no other reason are we hated as we are in Germany than because we defend and uphold the dogmas of the Roman Church with so much persistence.” **
It is true that Luther had written in a similar vein in his letter to [Pope] Leo X, but that was in 1518: since then the great break had occurred and the Roman Church had been denounced by all the leaders of the Reformation as the Seat of Anti-Christ and the Synagogue of Satan.” Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 104.
Again, this was a BALDFACED LIE. As a matter of fact, it has NEVER been a dogma of the Catholic Church that it was the seat of the Anti-Christ.
BTW Jon, since you are reading Bouyer’s wonderfully insightful book, you might want to look at page 251, where he refers to ‘the Lutheran reaction – the handing over to the civil authority of the organization and direction of the church’. I think it allows for a better understanding of why the Augsburg Confession as presented was a dishonest representation of Lutheran belief. That ‘handing over’ was pretty much completed at Augsburg, and as for the ‘practical results’, it hasn’t worked out all that well in the Scandinavian countries has it?
“It was not so much Luther as his colleague Philipp Melanchthon, Professor of Greek at Wittenberg, and praeceptor Germaniae, who introduced the principal of dogmatic order and uniformity at the** Augsburg Confession (1530). The beginning of a lengthy and messy process that refined and defined Lutheranism, culminating in another of history’s jokes, the “Book of Concord (1580). Not for nothing did Shakespeare refer to “spleeny Lutherans.”** Professor of History at Cambridge (and presumably a Protestant), Patrick Collinson, Anglican Professor of History at Cambridge, “The Reformation, A History”, pg. 67
That’s a pretty harsh assessment of the Formula of Concord, and I would doubt that this Anglican was upset specifically with the extremely anti-Catholic nature of the Formula.
“After Luther’s death** Melanchthon translated the Augsburg Confession into Greek
for the patriarch at Constantinople and in doing so actually transmuted Luther’s teaching of justification by faith into the Greek concept of the deification of man through sacramental union with the incorruptible Christ.” **Bainton, pg. 115-7
Here Bainton comments that Melanchthon actually misrepresented Luther’s teaching on Justification by faith in his Greek translation. This from an author who could HARDLY be accused of being anything but PRO-Luther. Bainton comments further about Melanchthon at Augsburg:
“He sat in his room and wept. ** At the same time he explored every avenue of conciliation and even went so far as to say that the differences between the Lutherans and the Catholics were no more serious than the use of German in the mass.”, **Bainton, pg. 333
Clearly Melanchthon’s heretofore unmentioned claim is ANOTHER lie. That is – UNLESS you completely redefine what is meant by the term “Catholic Church”.
“Now Melanchthon was for recognizing even the pope, whereas
Luther felt that there could be no peace with the pope unless he abolished the papacy.” Bainton, pg. 333
Luther wanted the papacy abolished simply because HE disagreed with Catholic teaching? Could this possibly have been more arrogant?
As for the Augsburg Confession being a “Lutheran Confesssion” and an accurate depiction of Lutheran belief:
“Calvin is notorious, however, not for his negative but for his positive judgments of Luther. Kark Holl called Calvin Luther’s best disciple, and there are historical reasons for that judgment. **Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession **and in the controversy with Zwingli………………David Steinmetz, “Luther in Context”, pg. 86.
This book was recommended to me by Edwin (Contarini). Steinmetz if I remember correctly was his Doctorial Advisor. (In fact I did read it Edwin.)
I have never heard before that Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession, but if it is true, it doesn’t speak very well for the AC (or CA) being a complete statement of Lutheran belief or in fact, even very Lutheran.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
