The Reformation

[Belle]

The Germans are wanting to make a permanent public holiday to honour Luther. He had no idea what he was starting as he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church on All Hallows Eve, October 31, 1517.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgyz0XqDEEA

[John F]

Not all Germans, I'm sure. Bavaria is largely Catholic, and there are many Muslims in Berlin and elsewhere. It might pass in some of the German states, but like Martin Luther King Day in the US, probably not nationwide.

[jbuck919]

Not all Germans, I'm sure. Bavaria is largely Catholic, and there are many Muslims in Berlin and elsewhere. It might pass in some of the German states, but like Martin Luther King Day in the US, probably not nationwide.

I agree in general, having lived in Bavaria for two years. The holidays they observe are still largely Catholic religious, such as Mariae Himmelfahrt (the Feast of the Assumption). They are a nuisance, just as most US holidays are, including MLK, which by the way, is a totally national holiday. Take them away and let people have more leave time of their own choice.

Martin Luther was a very problematic character. He didn't have to do what he did the way he did it. He initiated a series of religious wars of apocalyptic proportions. He has a lot to answer for in the afterlife, if there is such a thing.

[Belle]

It's a pretty big "IF"!!

[barney]

I had a large feature on this in The Age on Sunday. I doubt anyone can be bothered to read to the end, but I post it so you can read the first para, the first 5 or whatever.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-ma ... 025-gz7qni

Here are the first two paras, so you don't have to go to the link for para 1!

When Martin Luther stepped up to the doors of Wittenberg Castle Church with hammer, nails and paper 500 years ago on Tuesday, he had no idea of the momentous events he was about to unleash: the Reformation, the birth of the Protestant churches, truly vicious European wars, the Enlightenment, even modern democracy.

From one simple idea – what historian Alister McGrath has called "Christianity's dangerous idea" – flowed far-reaching changes that influence us today in education, communication, work, science, capitalism, democracy, philosophy and secularism.

[barney]

Luther certainly had no idea what he was starting, and no intention of splitting away from the Roman Catholic Church, obviously. But in contrast to JohnB, I believe his contribution was inestimably important.

[Belle]

Barney, that was an excellent essay. My husband has just read it with me, looking over my shoulder on the computer. One excellent consequence of the Reformation was the music of JS Bach!! Where would we be without it?

It's appalling to think school children are never taught any of this European history any more. I had to teach The Pardoner's Tale (Chaucer) for the HSC English Advanced in 2005 (the year I retired from permanent f/t teaching) and none of them knew anything at all about Christianity so I spent half the unit explaining how it all worked!!

In 2011 I saw Calvin's chair in a cathedral in Geneva, Switzerland, and you mention the importance of Calvin in your essay. And now some appropriate Bach from the magnificent Benedictine Monastery,Melk, Austria. Not sure about Ian Bostridge, though!! (And what a lukewarm reception Concentus/Harnoncourt gets here!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPSQMOFxbA

Radio Stephansdom, Wien, has a program coming up on Saturday on Luther and the consequences for music. Worth a listen, if you have Deutsch!! Author, curator and musicologist Otto Biber will be discussing this:

https://radioklassik.at/

[barney]

Thank you for those generous remarks.
Yes, I agree about education. It makes us sound old-fashioned, and perhaps - no, almost certainly - we are, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Today it is astonishingly broad and astonishingly shallow, such that it seems you have to get to at least Masters level to reach what was once an undergraduate degree standard.
I have taught/tutored in 3 different universities, and noticed the same drop in standards in all 3. I am sure there must be a commensurate gain somewhere else, but I'm not sure where.

[barney]

PS: Bostridge has rather divided the CMG community in the past. I like his singing, and love his books. Have you come across them? Brilliant one on Winterreise, fine one called A Singer's Notebook. That's all I have.

[Belle]

No, I have neither CDs nor books by Ian Bostridge. I just felt his voice was a little thin and nasal for the Bach. But his lieder may be more successful, possibly. I prefer Thomas Quasthoff in that repertoire anyway.

And Harnoncourt is so very much missed!

[jbuck919]

It is absurd to think that we owe the Enlightenment and modern science to the religious reformers. All they wanted was to have Christianity their own way and not the pope's way. Martin Luther would not have cared about the difference between a black hole and a doughnut hole. The reason we had those developments, Galileo notwithstanding, is that no one in Christendom seriously stood in their way. Gregor Mendel was a monk. In contrast, there was a specific figure among Muslims, whose name I forget, who impeded their equal progress and is the main source of their almost universal fundamentalism.

[John F]

About Martin Luther King Day: it may be a federal holiday, meaning that federal government employees get the day off, but under widely varying state laws other employers aren't obliged to give their workers a holiday, and most of them don't.

Although the federal holiday honoring King was signed into law in 1983 and took effect three years later, not every U.S. state chose to observe the holiday at the state level until 1991, when the New Hampshire legislature created "Civil Rights Day" and abolished "Fast Day". In 2000, Utah became the last state to have a holiday named after King when "Human Rights Day" was officially changed to "Martin Luther King Jr. Day."

In 1986, Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, created a paid state MLK holiday in Arizona by executive order just before he left office, but in 1987, his Republican successor Evan Mecham, citing an attorney general's opinion that Babbitt's order was illegal, reversed Babbitt's decision days after taking office. Later that year, Mecham proclaimed the third Sunday in January to be "Martin Luther King Jr./Civil Rights Day" in Arizona, albeit as an unpaid holiday. In 1990, Arizona voters were given the opportunity to vote on giving state employees a paid MLK holiday. That same year, the National Football League threatened to move Super Bowl XXVII, which was planned for Arizona in 1993, if the MLK holiday was voted down. In the November election, the voters were offered two King Day options: Proposition 301, which replaced Columbus Day on the list of paid state holidays, and Proposition 302, which merged Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays into one paid holiday to make room for MLK Day. Both measures failed to pass, with only 49% of voters approving Prop 302, the more popular of the two options; although some who voted "no" on 302 voted "yes" on Prop 301. Consequently, the state lost the chance to host Super Bowl XXVII, which was subsequently held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. In a 1992 referendum, the voters, this time given only one option for a paid King Day, approved state-level recognition of the holiday.

On May 2, 2000, South Carolina governor Jim Hodges signed a bill to make King's birthday an official state holiday. South Carolina was the last state to recognize the day as a paid holiday for all state employees. Prior to this, employees could choose between celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day or one of three Confederate holidays.

Overall, in 2007, 33% of employers gave employees the day off...

[jserraglio]

Martin Luther was a very problematic character. He didn't have to do what he did the way he did it. He initiated a series of religious wars of apocalyptic proportions. He has a lot to answer for in the afterlife, if there is such a thing.

It is absurd to think that we owe the Enlightenment and modern science to the religious reformers.

Yep, Luther has it coming (don't we all?) but maybe there will be even more to answer for by those who tried to squash him and his ideas, which in the long run changed Western civilization, sometimes for the better. I do think the rise of empirical science was indebted to what the Protestant Reformation unleashed. So was the Enlightenment. And Milton's Christian humanism. And the Deism of Jefferson, Franklin and Paine. And capitalism. And social contract political thought. And so on.

[Belle]

I'm interested in how the Reformation changed music, as it had been the prerogative of the Catholic church up until Luther. Then came the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thoughts?

[jbuck919]

I'm interested in how the Reformation changed music, as it had been the prerogative of the Catholic church up until Luther. Then came the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thoughts?

You mean aside from the fact that the Council of Trent came very close to banishing Renaissance polyphony from the Mass? (Even today it is used very seldom in the RC church and is usually performed badly when it is performed at all, including at the Basilica of St. Peter. It has become the province of high-church Anglicans.) I'll leave it to others to respond to the other aspects of your interesting question.

[Belle]

Yes, the banishing of complex Renaissance polyphony from the mass (which I ADORE); I always understood this was because the music was deemed to have overwhelmed the religious words and that the church objected to this. The whole topic is very interesting and I briefly discussed it with one of my friends at our music group this morning. I'll come back to it later when I've gathered my thoughts and been back through a book or two!!

[barney]

It is absurd to think that we owe the Enlightenment and modern science to the religious reformers. All they wanted was to have Christianity their own way and not the pope's way. Martin Luther would not have cared about the difference between a black hole and a doughnut hole. The reason we had those developments, Galileo notwithstanding, is that no one in Christendom seriously stood in their way. Gregor Mendel was a monk. In contrast, there was a specific figure among Muslims, whose name I forget, who impeded their equal progress and is the main source of their almost universal fundamentalism.

It depends how much you hang on the word "owe". The Reformation preceded the Enlightenment and was undoubtedly causally connected, not least in the way I outlined. The Enlightenment didn't spring fully formed like Aphrodite on the seashell and was, by and large, the product of Christian thinkers. It also freed the way for non-theistic (or deistic) ways of looking at the world.
Luther was a bit preoccupied with other issues, such as survival of himself and his ideas. Bit unreasonable to expect him to know about black holes when no one then did. Even so, a connection can be traced, do you not admit?

[barney]

I'm interested in how the Reformation changed music, as it had been the prerogative of the Catholic church up until Luther. Then came the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thoughts?

Hierarchies have often struggled with music, and the more ornate the more problematic it seemed. Popes banned music at the Mass a couple of times, iirc, including in the 19th century. Protestants used music to teach their congregations, but also had mixed attitudes. As I'm sure you know, some Presbyterian groups to this day permit only the Psalms to be sung in church.

[RebLem]

So, what date would they like? Luther's dob, the date of his posting of the 99 Theses, the date of his excommunication from the Catholic Church in 1522 by the Diet of Worms, the date of his marriage to Catherine, with which he violated his previous vow of chastity, or perhaps the date in the 1540's when he published his diatribe against the Jews?

[John F]

The Reformation preceded the Enlightenment and was undoubtedly causally connected, not least in the way I outlined. The Enlightenment didn't spring fully formed like Aphrodite on the seashell and was, by and large, the product of Christian thinkers.

Chronology does not equate to causality. The Enlightenment is first of all associated with France, a Catholic country. The most Enlightened monarch in Europe in the later 18th century was Joseph II of Austria, also a Catholic country. If any non-Catholic nation of about that time is associated with the Enlightenment it would be the United States and the English colonies that preceded it. The U.S. has always been a predominantly Protestant country but the law of the land prohibits the establishment of a state religion, so we are officially neutral. In which Protestant countries did the Enlightenment flourish in the 18th century, its early years? England is a complicated case, the Protestant government of Cromwell being in no way Enlightened, yet their American colonies were.

[jbuck919]

I'm interested in how the Reformation changed music, as it had been the prerogative of the Catholic church up until Luther. Then came the Counter Reformation and the Council of Trent. Thoughts?

Hierarchies have often struggled with music, and the more ornate the more problematic it seemed. Popes banned music at the Mass a couple of times, iirc, including in the 19th century. Protestants used music to teach their congregations, but also had mixed attitudes. As I'm sure you know, some Presbyterian groups to this day permit only the Psalms to be sung in church.

The situation you mention in your last sentence does not pertain in the US. They generally have excellent music programs and one of the better newer hymnals, and I had my first experience as a substitute organist substituting for my own organ teacher in high school at the local Presbyterian church.

I'm also, as a cradle Catholic and an educated one, unaware of a pope banning music in the 19th century. What Pius IX did was issue his motu proprio (on his own motivation) Inter solicitudines (among the concerns) in which he pleaded for a return to artistic ideals headed by Gregorian Chant and the music of Palestrina. It was almost universally ignored, and parishes continued to sing the schlock of the time, which was exceeded in bad taste only by the schlock the RC church currently uses. (More modern papal statements have banned the use of "profane" instruments, meaning other than the organ, but this is also widely ignored. Many if not most churches, even those few that have decent organs, rely almost entirely on a "contemporary group" which uses electric keyboards, guitars, rhythm sections, etc.)

[John F]

Protestantism has many sects and there's no uniformity in their church music. Some of the most elaborate church music of all is Bach's cantatas for choir of the Lutheran Thomaskirche in Leipzig, and then there's the opening chorus of the Matthew Passion. The cantatas also contain some of the simplest, the chorales (hymns) to be sung by the congregation. As I understand it, music of the Anglican Church has a similar range, from hymns to musical liturgies such as evensong. This isn't my field, far from it, but my interest in music generally has made me familiar with a lot of music for a wide range of religious uses, not just Catholic and Protestant but Masonic etc.

[jserraglio]

Chronology does not equate to causality . . . . . The U.S. has always been a predominantly Protestant country but the law of the land prohibits the establishment of a state religion, so we are officially neutral. In which Protestant countries did the Enlightenment flourish in the 18th century, its early years? England is a complicated case, the Protestant government of Cromwell being in no way Enlightened, yet their American colonies were.

It is not a question of causality but of influence. To argue from whether or not a country officially establishes a particular religious sect or from which sect happens to be a country's prevailing religion misses the point: In England of the 1640s and later in the American colonies and France, declaring monarchical authority to be null and void would have been improbable without the precedent of the Protestant revolt.

[jbuck919]

Chronology does not equate to causality . . . . . The U.S. has always been a predominantly Protestant country but the law of the land prohibits the establishment of a state religion, so we are officially neutral. In which Protestant countries did the Enlightenment flourish in the 18th century, its early years? England is a complicated case, the Protestant government of Cromwell being in no way Enlightened, yet their American colonies were.

It is not a question of causality but of influence. To argue from whether or not a country officially establishes a particular religious sect or from which sect happens to be a country's prevailing religion misses the point: In England of the 1640s and later in the American colonies and France, declaring monarchical authority to be null and void would have been improbable without the precedent of the Protestant revolt.

I have heard this so much. (In fact, our former moderator Corlyss bought into the idea.) But I need direct evidence, not just supposition. John F said correctly that the English Reformation is problematic. Henry VIII was at the time arguably the greatest tyrant in European history since the Roman Empire. His son Edward VI allowed the Lutheran influence to become so pervasive that the church in that country lost the apostolic succession, for what that's worth and although Anglicans to this day deny it. Considerations were still all religious. Yet Britain produced Newton, the greatest scientist and mathematician of all time, at about the time period you're talking about. The Enlightenment and science are miracles. I read a lot in the history of science, and we might never have had it at all and still be living in darkness. Explaining them away by an arbitrary historical connection simply will not do.

[jserraglio]

The Enlightenment and science are miracles. I read a lot in the history of science, and we might never have had it at all and still be living in darkness. Explaining them away by an arbitrary historical connection simply will not do.

Even a metaphorical appeal to miracles smacks of superstition.

The intellectual roots of the English Revolution and Civil War with its subsequent deposition and execution of the king were fueled by radical Calvinism, unthinkable without Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Anglicanism had been defeated in England by the 1650s and did not reassert itself till after the Restoration. Milton is perhaps the best example of how one could be both a humanist and a Calvinist at one and the same time. He advocated divorce, political liberty, freedom of publication from prelatial imprimatur, violent revolution and regicide.

John F's statement that France was a Catholic country at the time of the Enlightenment and his challenge to name one Protestant country where the Enlightenment emerged is amusing, a bit like saying that North America was white European w/o bothering to notice that those white guys had killed off a good number of original inhabitants. By the 18th century, France had become a Catholic country (nominally that is--the great Voltaire surely did not profess Catholicism) only after practically all of the French Protestants had been exterminated in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yeah, the Enlightenment did emerge in Catholic France but that was 'cuz the Catholics had murdered as many Protestants as they could lay their hands on.

"Arbitrary historical connection?" Suit yourself.

[John F]

The Enlightenment was not a precondition for great scientific achievement. The Age of Enlightenment dates from the 18th century; Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc. preceded it. One might argue, though I don't, that they and their like caused the Enlightenment rather than the other way around.

As for the violent overthrow of monarchical authority, whether in France, England, or the American colonies, that was not part of the Age of Reason's "program" and owes nothing to it.

[jserraglio]

.
As for the violent overthrow of monarchical authority, whether in France, England, or the American colonies, that was not part of the Age of Reason's "program" and owes nothing to it.

A blanket statement Tom Paine might well have taken issue with.

[Belle]

An interesting essay from a very good libertarian online journal, "Spiked":

http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-rev ... tion/20459

[jserraglio]

Paradoxically, it was atheist Marxist historians like Christopher Hill and Brian Manning who proposed a generation ago the seemingly improbable link between the Calvinist English Revolution and the rise of liberal democracy. As it turned out, it might not ever have happened had not Martin Luther taken a heroic stand against the tyranny of the Church instead of following the tradition of medieval anticlericism and lamely protesting the Church's abuses.

[barney]

Chronology does not equate to causality . . . . . The U.S. has always been a predominantly Protestant country but the law of the land prohibits the establishment of a state religion, so we are officially neutral. In which Protestant countries did the Enlightenment flourish in the 18th century, its early years? England is a complicated case, the Protestant government of Cromwell being in no way Enlightened, yet their American colonies were.

It is not a question of causality but of influence. To argue from whether or not a country officially establishes a particular religious sect or from which sect happens to be a country's prevailing religion misses the point: In England of the 1640s and later in the American colonies and France, declaring monarchical authority to be null and void would have been improbable without the precedent of the Protestant revolt.

I have heard this so much. (In fact, our former moderator Corlyss bought into the idea.) But I need direct evidence, not just supposition. John F said correctly that the English Reformation is problematic. Henry VIII was at the time arguably the greatest tyrant in European history since the Roman Empire. His son Edward VI allowed the Lutheran influence to become so pervasive that the church in that country lost the apostolic succession, for what that's worth and although Anglicans to this day deny it. Considerations were still all religious. Yet Britain produced Newton, the greatest scientist and mathematician of all time, at about the time period you're talking about. The Enlightenment and science are miracles. I read a lot in the history of science, and we might never have had it at all and still be living in darkness. Explaining them away by an arbitrary historical connection simply will not do.

We're not explaining them away. That is tendentious language indeed. We are not diminishing the effects of the Enlightenment or modern science or making them co-terminous with the Reformation, or asserting that the Reformation was the only influence. We (if I can speak for jserraglio as well as myself) are making the very non-tendentious assertion by modern historical standards that the links between the Reformation and Enlightenment are such that the latter would not have been possible, at least as it unfolded, without the former. I am interested that this very obvious observation seems to cause a strong reaction in you. What we are saying seems, to me, to be like saying that Obama could not have been elected president without the civil rights movement. That doesn't say the civil rights was the sole cause, but that - as events actually unfolded - it was a necessary precursor.

[jserraglio]

Martin Luther was a very problematic character. He didn't have to do what he did the way he did it. He initiated a series of religious wars of apocalyptic proportions. He has a lot to answer for in the afterlife, if there is such a thing.

[Luther’s teaching is] deadly poison. [We cannot] tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors [in the 95 Theses] without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. (1520)

Well, the leaders of the Catholic Church have reformed their thinking since 1520, even if some self-styled "cradle Catholics" from the rank-and-file still insist on labeling Luther as a damned soul. The Church has abandoned for a while now such retrograde notions and is willing these days to recognize Luther's importance and that of his Reformation.

Pope John Paul II: [Luther] ''contributed in a substantial way to the radical change in the ecclesiastical and secular reality in the West.'' (1983)

Pope Benedict XVI: “Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too,” (2011)

Pope Francis I: [The question that haunted Martin Luther about God’s mercy is] “the decisive question of our lives,” [while his doctrine of justification by faith alone] “expresses the essence of human existence before God.” (2016)

[jbuck919]

Martin Luther was a very problematic character. He didn't have to do what he did the way he did it. He initiated a series of religious wars of apocalyptic proportions. He has a lot to answer for in the afterlife, if there is such a thing.

[Luther’s teaching is a] deadly poison. [We cannot] tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors [in the 95 Theses] without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. (1520)

Well, the leaders of the Catholic Church have reformed their thinking since 1520, even if some self-styled "cradle Catholics" from the rank-and-file still insist on labeling Luther as a damned soul. The Church has abandoned for a while now such retrograde notions and is willing these days to recognize Luther's importance and that of his Reformation.

Pope John Paul II: [Luther] ''contributed in a substantial way to the radical change in the ecclesiastical and secular reality in the West.'' (1983)

Pope Benedict XVI: “Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too,” (2011)

Pope Francis I: [The question that haunted Martin Luther about God’s mercy is] “the decisive question of our lives,” [while the doctrine of justification] “expresses the essence of human existence before God.” (2016)

I assure you, these quotations are taken entirely out of context, especially the last one with the brackets. And it is just Pope Francis There won't be a Francis I until there is another Pope Francis.

From the RC official point of view, Martin Luther was a horrible heretic, and remains so.

[jserraglio]

In the limited time I had, I could not find more context online when I wrote up the original post early this morning, so if you have it handy, please reproduce it. Trust but verify.

Greatly relieved to learn that Luther is still regarded as a heretic. Hell being on my itinerary, I look forward to greeting the great Reformer in the one place all theologians worth their salt should aspire to. Indeed, there's a lot to be said for unreconstructed Catholicism.

As for my Francis I Freudian slip, you're quite right and it's not a trivial matter:

Here is a Francis. When comes such another?
Never! Never!

[barney]

Yet the Roman Catholic Church has adopted many precepts of the Reformation, even if it came to them very late. I am thinking of such very important developments as the Mass in the vernacular from Vatican II, when the Church engaged in a new way. It no longer sells indulgences, either. I'm not sure what the official status of purgatory is - perhaps you can tell me.
The Council of Trent and the early counter-Reformation simply rejected almost everything.
As I said in my article - again, a view of several church historians - the Reformation became a crisis for the church because of its heavy-handed inflexible approach which remained a problem at the top under John-Paul II and Benedict. Francis does seem different.
But of course the genius of the Catholic Church - indeed, of Christianity - is how flexible and adaptable it is at the local level. In Australia, most Catholics get on with their lives within their parishes and pay little or no attention to bishops or the Vatican. I suspect it is much the same in the US.

[jbuck919]

Yet the Roman Catholic Church has adopted many precepts of the Reformation, even if it came to them very late. I am thinking of such very important developments as the Mass in the vernacular from Vatican II, when the Church engaged in a new way. It no longer sells indulgences, either. I'm not sure what the official status of purgatory is - perhaps you can tell me.
The Council of Trent and the early counter-Reformation simply rejected almost everything.
As I said in my article - again, a view of several church historians - the Reformation became a crisis for the church because of its heavy-handed inflexible approach which remained a problem at the top under John-Paul II and Benedict. Francis does seem different.
But of course the genius of the Catholic Church - indeed, of Christianity - is how flexible and adaptable it is at the local level. In Australia, most Catholics get on with their lives within their parishes and pay little or no attention to bishops or the Vatican. I suspect it is much the same in the US.

It is the same in the US, but that does not change the fact that the hierarchy still lobbies to have church doctrine, especially regarding abortion and gay rights, written into secular law.

Adopting the vernacular only happened more than 400 years after the Reformation, and was then still very controversial. At Vatican II, European bishops who were still eloquent in Latin argued for it, while American ones who had bad Latin argued against it.

[jserraglio]

From the RC official point of view, Martin Luther was a horrible heretic, and remains so.

During the Joint Ecumenical Prayer Service last year in the Lutheran Cathedral of Lund, Sweden, Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Yunan, President of the Lutheran World Federation, signed this Joint Declaration. The full text is found below. Read and decide for yourselves what the Catholic Church's present attitude toward Luther and the Reformation is. Here the head of the RC Church joins the Lutheran Church in commemorating the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation. The day may come when they take the Eucharist together. Who woulda predicted that a generation ago?

Lund, 31 October 2016

«Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me» (John 15:4).

With thankful hearts

With this Joint Statement, we express joyful gratitude to God for this moment of common prayer in the Cathedral of Lund, as we begin the year commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. Fifty years of sustained and fruitful ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans have helped us to overcome many differences, and have deepened our mutual understanding and trust. At the same time, we have drawn closer to one another through joint service to our neighbours – often in circumstances of suffering and persecution. Through dialogue and shared witness we are no longer strangers. Rather, we have learned that what unites us is greater than what divides us.

Moving from conflict to communion

While we are profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, we also confess and lament before Christ that Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the Church. Theological differences were accompanied by prejudice and conflicts, and religion was instrumentalized for political ends. Our common faith in Jesus Christ and our baptism demand of us a daily conversion, by which we cast off the historical disagreements and conflicts that impede the ministry of reconciliation. While the past cannot be changed, what is remembered and how it is remembered can be transformed. We pray for the healing of our wounds and of the memories that cloud our view of one another. We emphatically reject all hatred and violence, past and present, especially that expressed in the name of religion. Today, we hear God’s command to set aside all conflict. We recognize that we are freed by grace to move towards the communion to which God continually calls us.

Our commitment to common witness

As we move beyond those episodes in history that burden us, we pledge to witness together to God’s merciful grace, made visible in the crucified and risen Christ. Aware that the way we relate to one another shapes our witness to the Gospel, we commit ourselves to further growth in communion rooted in Baptism, as we seek to remove the remaining obstacles that hinder us from attaining full unity. Christ desires that we be one, so that the world may believe (cf. John 17:21).

Many members of our communities yearn to receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full unity. We experience the pain of those who share their whole lives, but cannot share God’s redeeming presence at the Eucharistic table. We acknowledge our joint pastoral responsibility to respond to the spiritual thirst and hunger of our people to be one in Christ. We long for this wound in the Body of Christ to be healed. This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavours, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.

We pray to God that Catholics and Lutherans will be able to witness together to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, inviting humanity to hear and receive the good news of God’s redeeming action. We pray to God for inspiration, encouragement and strength so that we may stand together in service, upholding human dignity and rights, especially for the poor, working for justice, and rejecting all forms of violence. God summons us to be close to all those who yearn for dignity, justice, peace and reconciliation. Today in particular, we raise our voices for an end to the violence and extremism which affect so many countries and communities, and countless sisters and brothers in Christ. We urge Lutherans and Catholics to work together to welcome the stranger, to come to the aid of those forced to flee because of war and persecution, and to defend the rights of refugees and those who seek asylum.

More than ever before, we realize that our joint service in this world must extend to God’s creation, which suffers exploitation and the effects of insatiable greed. We recognize the right of future generations to enjoy God’s world in all its potential and beauty. We pray for a change of hearts and minds that leads to a loving and responsible way to care for creation.

One in Christ

On this auspicious occasion, we express our gratitude to our brothers and sisters representing the various Christian World Communions and Fellowships who are present and join us in prayer. As we recommit ourselves to move from conflict to communion, we do so as part of the one Body of Christ, into which we are incorporated through Baptism. We invite our ecumenical partners to remind us of our commitments and to encourage us. We ask them to continue to pray for us, to walk with us, to support us in living out the prayerful commitments we express today.

Calling upon Catholics and Lutherans worldwide

We call upon all Lutheran and Catholic parishes and communities to be bold and creative, joyful and hopeful in their commitment to continue the great journey ahead of us. Rather than conflicts of the past, God’s gift of unity among us shall guide cooperation and deepen our solidarity. By drawing close in faith to Christ, by praying together, by listening to one another, by living Christ’s love in our relationships, we, Catholics and Lutherans, open ourselves to the power of the Triune God. Rooted in Christ and witnessing to him, we renew our determination to be faithful heralds of God’s boundless love for all humanity.

Pope Francis, in Sweden, Urges Catholic-Lutheran Reconciliation
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/worl ... ation.html

LUND, Sweden — Almost 500 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to a church door, setting off more than a century of religious warfare and forever changing the practice of Christianity worldwide, Pope Francis on Monday urged atonement and Christian reconciliation.

Visiting the cities of Lund and Malmo in southern Sweden for a joint Catholic-Lutheran commemoration of the Reformation, the pope observed the 499th anniversary of Luther’s protest of the sale of indulgences by noting the beneficial impact it had on Catholicism.

“With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the church’s life,” the pope said in a joint declaration at Lund Cathedral with Bishop Munib A. Younan, the head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land and the president of the Lutheran World Federation.

The trip, which kicked off a year of events leading up to the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, was announced in January, but it was no less striking for those who listened to the pope. Sweden played a pivotal and troubling role in Protestant and Catholic history. From the 16th century, Catholics were persecuted and even put to death in Sweden. As recently as 1951, Catholics were barred from becoming doctors, teachers and nurses, and Catholic convents were banned until the 1970s.

Some Catholics and Lutherans, especially those whose families are intermingled, hoped that the event would produce a concrete step toward the two churches’ allowing their members to take communion in each other’s worship services. In their joint declaration, Pope Francis and Bishop Younan acknowledged the divide, but said only that they were working toward a resolution through dialogue.

“We experience the pain of those who share their whole lives, but cannot share God’s redeeming presence at the Eucharistic table,” the declaration said. “We long for this wound in the body of Christ to be healed. This is the goal of our ecumenical endeavors, which we wish to advance, also by renewing our commitment to theological dialogue.”

The Lutheran World Federation was founded in Lund in 1947, in an effort to unite churches after World War II. One of the main obstacles to relations between Lutherans and Roman Catholics was bridged in 1999, when the Vatican and the federation signed a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification, a core belief about God’s forgiveness of sins.

Francis was the first pope to visit Sweden in 27 years, and only the second pope to visit the Scandinavian country. In Lund, he met with King Carl XVI Gustaf, Queen Silvia and Prime Minister Stefan Lofven.

“We, too, must look with love and honesty at our past, recognizing error and seeking forgiveness,” Francis said.

________________________________

Blogpost: About Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) in dialogue with Lutherans:

Why Lutherans can thank God for the Papacy of Benedict XVI
http://scecclesia.com/archives/6986

I have been asked to pen a few words for my wife’s parish newspaper on Benedict XVI’s papacy. I thought I would focus on his relationship with Luther and the Lutherans. I hope the editor of the magazine does not mind me publishing it ahead of time here on my own page.--Schutz

On February 28, 2013, at 8 pm in the evening, Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy comes to an end. Everyone has a different assessment of his papacy, each from their own point of view. From my point of view, as a “Lutheran in communion with the Bishop of Rome”, Benedict XVI will always stand out as unique among all the popes of history as the only one who really read, knew, and understood Martin Luther.

Part of the reason for this is that Benedict XVI is a German. Except for John Paul II (who came from a country even more uniformly Catholic than Italy), all other popes since Adrian VI (d.1523) were Italians. Not one of them had any first-hand lived experience of Lutheranism. Joseph Ratzinger on the other hand was raised in an environment where Catholics and Lutherans lived side by side. Since Luther forms part of the literary heritage of Germany, his bible and his writings were easily accessible to the young Ratzinger, who once claimed that he had already read all of Luther’s pre-reformation writings by the time he entered University. He continued his theological education in German universities where both Protestant and Catholic theologians and biblical exegetes were studied.

All of this would have greatly helped him understand the theological issues that divided and still divide Catholic and Lutherans. It was this background that gave him such a great advantage when he was negotiating the final deal on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999. It was Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who saved this Declaration from a dismal death at the draft stage. Cardinal Cassidy, the Australian prelate who was the head of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity at the time, had given up on it. But Ratzinger travelled to Germany, where, in his brother Georg’s home, he met together with Lutheran leaders to find the right formulas for affirming the joint faith of Catholics and Lutherans in regard to the doctrine of Justification. Thanks to this rescue mission, the Joint Declaration was signed into concrete history on October 31, 1999:

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

In an address in November, 2008, Pope Benedict addressed the central passage in Paul that caused so much division between Catholics and Lutherans.

Let us now reflect on a topic at the centre of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the question of justification. How does man become just in God’s eyes?…

It is precisely because of his personal experience of relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul henceforth places at the centre of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between the two alternative paths to justice: one built on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ. The alternative between justice by means of works of the Law and that by faith in Christ thus became one of the dominant themes that run through his Letters…

Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.

“If faith is not opposed to charity” – that was always the Catholic concern. In Catholic dogmatic tradition, faith was often seen as an intellectual exercise. Thinking of faith in this way made it impossible for Catholics to affirm that “faith alone” could justify. But Pope Benedict understood the way in which Luther (and no doubt St Paul) meant “faith”: a complete self-entrustment to Christ, which had the spiritual effect of conforming the soul to Christ in such a way that a true union with Christ was effected. It was as unimaginable to Luther that such faith could ever be without love as it was to St James and St Paul (cf. James 2:14f).

Benedict was the first pope ever to preach from a Lutheran pulpit (at the Roman Lutheran Church in March 2010) and the first to visit Luther’s monastery in Erfurt in September 2011. On that latter occasion, he met with Germany’s Lutheran Church leaders. In his speech, he correctly identified the two driving issues for Luther: “Wie kriege ich einen gnädigen Gott” (“How do I find a gracious God?”) and “Was Christum treibet?” (“What promotes Christ?”)

In respect to the first question, Pope Benedict said:

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? …The question no longer troubles us. But are they really so small, our failings? …The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

And in reflection on the second, he said:

God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “Was Christum treibet” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life.

It is certainly what was at the heart of Ratzinger/Benedict’s own spirituality, and why I believe he was a very “Lutheran” pope. Many commentators will tell you that Ratzinger’s theology was “Christological” – but it was more than this: it was “Christocentric”. Christ was at the centre of his faith and theology in a way that was quite new in Catholic papal teaching. Again and again, you will find references in Benedict’s teaching to seeking the face of God in the human Christ. References to a “theology of the Cross” and a focus on the personal aspect of the mystery of the incarnation permeate Benedict’s teaching as strongly as it did Luther’s.

Perhaps this is why Pope Benedict XVI was such a strong promoter of the “new evangelisation” in our age. He was an “evangelical” pope, who knew that faith begins with a personal encounter with Jesus. He opened his first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est” (God is Love), with these words:

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

As he retires to a life of prayer, precisely to enter more deeply into that encounter with his Lord, Benedict XVI leaves us with a body of decisive papal teaching that will pave the way for future reflections between Lutherans and Catholics. Although we cannot perhaps hope that the new pope will have the same depth of appreciation for Lutheranism as his predecessor, it is my prayer that the relationship between Catholics and Lutherans which he fostered will grow and bear fruit in the years to come under the new papacy.

[jbuck919]

It is very nice that the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Germany now get along very well, a fact of which I have some personal experience, but all of this is an ingenious evasion of what is still an essential difference between them. If the two denominations want to get closer, let the RCs give up their ridiculous position on contraception, celibacy, gay rights, ordination of women, etc. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about the doctrines related to justification.

[maestrob]

It is very nice that the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Germany now get along very well, a fact of which I have some personal experience, but all of this is an ingenious evasion of what is still an essential difference between them. If the two denominations want to get closer, let the RCs give up their ridiculous position on contraception, celibacy, gay rights, ordination of women, etc. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about the doctrines related to justification.

Amen!

[jserraglio]

It is very nice that the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church and the Roman Catholic Church in Germany now get along very well, a fact of which I have some personal experience, but all of this is an ingenious evasion of what is still an essential difference between them. If the two denominations want to get closer, let the RCs give up their ridiculous position on contraception, celibacy, gay rights, ordination of women, etc. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about the doctrines related to justification.

As ingenious evasions go, yours merits a gold medal. I thought the issue here was your assurance that (1) positive statements about the Reformation by three popes were quoted out of context, implying that the quotations I gave did not reflect their actual views; and that (2) the Church officially maintains to this day that Luther was a "horrible heretic."

I assure you, these quotations are taken entirely out of context.

From the RC official point of view, Martin Luther was a horrible heretic, and remains so.

Then, when evidence is presented to suggest that both of these assertions are untrue, the ground shifts, the goalposts migrate and the issue all of a sudden becomes the Church's failure to connect with the modern world.

Well, I agree entirely with you, the Church needs to get real on all these issues and several more: contraception, celibacy, gay rights, ordination of women and divorce and remarriage. So should you not admit then that kudos go to the Reformation for first opening the door in a systematic way for individual Christians to challenge the Church on matters of conscience? As for the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of justification by faith alone, it is not simply a theological cul de sac--it is part and parcel of our colonial history and shaped who we are as Americans. I am fascinated then that Catholics and Lutherans chose this as the linchpin issue on which they could achieve a meeting of minds--maybe nobody cares about this doctrine today, but people shed their blood for it yesterday.

If I may, I would also question whether the differences you listed (gay rights, contraception, celibacy, etc.) would in practice need to be bridged before Lutherans and Catholics could take the Eucharist together. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there may be ample room for diverse views on all the matters you listed b/c the two churches, following Martin Luther by recognizing their radical sinfulness, are likely to maintain separate mundane identities even if in the domain of the sacred, they take communion together.

[barney]

Nobody in the "real" world? This seems to me a circular argument. If you care about justification by faith, QED you do not live in the real world. It's a matter I care about, and the world I live in feels palpable, tangible, real and includes many of the same things as the world you live in, from music to an interest in my (your) dinner and concern about the state of the world.

[jbuck919]

Look, guys, I taught in a Catholic school for ten years. I endured Mass on a regular basis. The local custom was open communion. I once saw a Jewish boy receive, which even I admit is just plain wrong. If the cardinal had been there (and he did visit the school a couple of times), he would have dropped dead of apoplexy.

My point is that none of these things are important anymore. We live in a secular society governed by science and the rule of law. It is only deluded or benighted religious fanatics who impede progress with these arbitrary considerations. The church in the US serves strictly a social function (and quite an important one). Doctrinal considerations have long been tossed into the dumpster, and anyone who gives any weight to those considerations is seriously missing the point. Unfortunately, a large portion of the US population who don't get it yet is in fact impeding progress or even attempting to take us backward.

[jserraglio]

Look, guys, I taught in a Catholic school for ten years. I endured Mass on a regular basis. The local custom was open communion. I once saw a Jewish boy receive, which even I admit is just plain wrong. If the cardinal had been there (and he did visit the school a couple of times), he would have dropped dead of apoplexy.

My point is that none of these things are important anymore. We live in a secular society governed by science and the rule of law. It is only deluded or benighted religious fanatics who impede progress with these arbitrary considerations. The church in the US serves strictly a social function (and quite an important one). Doctrinal considerations have long been tossed into the dumpster, and anyone who gives any weight to those considerations is seriously missing the point. Unfortunately, a large portion of the US population who don't get it yet is in fact impeding progress or even attempting to take us backward.

Look, I think you might agree that theory and practice are two different things. Newton did mathematics and banned religion from the academy but in practice he also devoted an inordinate amount of time to theology and alchemy. So too, open communion is the practice in my neck of the woods. They even give me Communion when in theory they shouldn't and know they shouldn't. That doesn't mean that theological issues are trivial.

As for science and secularism, maybe, and it's a big maybe, the East Coast can be called secular, though it seemed a hotbed of religiosity (not religion) to me when I lived there. Western Europe, I am told, is secular, and England is said to be downright godless, thank God, but this country as a whole is decidedly not secular, as you yourself admit. You just wish it were secular. Like it or not, the US is still a religious country. Only in theory are we governed by science and law. In practice, when our Calvinist forebears demand their blood tribute, we pay it.

[jbuck919]

Newton did mathematics and banned religion from the academy but in practice he also devoted an inordinate amount of time to theology and alchemy.

Responding only to this part of your post, you are correct. Newton was a piece of work in many ways. His famous remark to Robert Hooke, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" is widely misunderstood. What he meant was that Hooke, also a great scientist, had stood on the shoulder of midgets.

I could go on and on about Newton. It is pretty hard to catch me out on the history of science or mathematics. Nevertheless, the fact that the US body politic is backward does not change the fact that we are a nation of science and law. We just have to keep fighting for it. Francis Fukuyama had the right idea when he wrote of the end of history. What he meant was that liberal democracy was the end stage of civilization, and he was right. The forces of darkness continue to impede us, but IMO they cannot ultimately prevail, even if you and I have to deal with them for the remainder of our lives.

[jserraglio]

It is pretty hard to catch me out on the history of science or mathematics.

On my end, even if the exchange sometimes gets heated, I view it as discussion and, like Bacon the empiricist, as the advancement of learning, not as competition. Peace.