Martin Luther was a German priest and theologian who started the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century. He strongly disproved of the temporal power and wealth which the Catholic Church regarded greatly. He opposed ideas such as the "paid indulgences," whereby one could supposedly remove God's punishment of sin by paying the Church in temporal wealth. Martin Luther famously wrote the ninety-five theses that included all the errors of the Church at the time. When he refused to retract his statements, he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X.
In the required reading, Luther gives an account of arguments and counter-arguments regarding Church authority. He states that there are "three walls of the Romanists" which they use to protect themselves from reformation. The first wall is that "if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal." Luther's response to this is that the whole Church is made up of members of the Body of Christ, and therefore he states that we are all one body of priests. He believes there is no consecration needed to enter the priesthood. The second wall is "if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scripture, they objected that no one may interpret the Scripture but the Pope." Luther counters this by claiming that the Pope can indeed make errors in matters of faith, and that when Christ gave St Peter the keys of authority, he gave them in fact to the whole Church. The third wall is stated as "if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope." Luther points out to his audience that if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, the Church members are dutifully bound to admonish and enlighten the erring Pope. Luther also quotes the Acts of the Apostles to show that not only did St. Peter call councils, but the other apostles and elders of the time.
Luther's arguments are clearly stated and supported by logic and by Scripture. He was a very learned and spiritual man, who followed his conscience and spoke out to the leaders of his time about matters which gravely contradicted his conscience. What were his true motives, however, of publicly proclaiming the errs of the Church at the time? Did go too far with his accusations? Why did he think it was necessary to not only reform the Church, but also to create a schism amongst the Christians of the 16th century?
Risa
Martin Luther is considered to be the start of the Protestant Reformation with his 95 Theses in 1517. Luther argued against the church for multiple reasons which are known as the "Three Walls": that the priests should not control worship, that the scriptures should be accessible to all and that councils should not just be called by the pope. In short, Luther wanted Catholicism to be more accessible to the general public. Luther believed that everything came from the Scriptures and that every person had faith, which would make them eligible to be a priest. Luther hated the practice of selling indulgences and argues against it in his letter to the German nobles stating that sin would always exist. He sent his letter to the nobles because he knew that they had the most power after the church and would most likely be the ones to establish the Protestant religion. The Diet of Worms in 1521 would be the nobles reaction when he is accused of hearsey. For me, reading Luther's letter to the nobles was revolutionary and I can't help but see the letter through a history lens as suppose to a theological one. AP European History probably is the cause of that. Luther, in both the history world and the theological world, was a major cornerstone to the results of what was to come in later years.
Tara
All that I knew about Martin Luther before this reading was that he started the protestant movement. I sort of knew about his 95 Theses, but only once I was reminded by the posts above. Before this, I always saw Luther as a man who destroyed the unity of Christianity, and I have never considered his view. This reading has changed my perspective. I agree with his idea that Catholicism should be more fulid and able to change his policies more easily. There should be an eaiser way to make Chatholicism policies more accessable for everyone it encompases, and Luther's idea for reformation should not have gotten him excommunicated (although he could have gone about implementing his ideas in a less abrasive way).
ReplyDeleteBefore reading these passages I honestly did not know that much about Martin Luther. Having now read, I understand him to have been a man of possessing great difficulties and oppositions to the church. He felt strongly, as illustrated through his Three Walls of The Romanists, that the Pope were abusing their power and influence over the church. He argued how the church should have equality amongst its followers in so that "all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them". His reasoning and proposition for challenging the Three Walls was done so by extracting key aspects of the church that needed to be altered or reformed. I believe he had good intentions of questioning the church and its ability to accurately serve God and its people, yet he proceeded so in a very insulting way, which is an approach that the church did not appreciate, understand, or tolerate.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Smedley
I knew very little of Martin Luther before doing this reading. I was aware that he was the starter of the Protestant Reformation, I knew about his 95 Theses, and that he was opposed to many of the practices of the Church at that time.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Luther was trying to do a good thing, in making Catholicism easier to access for everyone. However, he disrupted the church greatly, which I don't believe was necessary.
Tom May
Prior to reading Martin Luther's address to the German nobility I was able to associate him with the facts that his teachings inspired the Protestant Reformation, that he nailed 95 theses on a church door, that he called for the church to return to the teachings of the Bible and that this also resulted in the Counter-Reformation of the Catholic Church. Prior to the reading I knew some of " what" he did, after the reading I know more about "why” behind his actions, I am more aware of the reasoning behind his actions. The reading sheds more light on his relationship with God "We must seek God's help with earnest prayer" and his thoughts on spirituality "we are all spiritual" "we are one body". He specifically takes issue with three ways that the Romanists insulate themselves from reform. Martin Luther refers to them as the Three walls of the Romanists: first, that the temporal power is not equal to the spiritual power; second only the pope may interpret scripture; third that the pope is the only one who can call council. Through his arguments we are able to see his knowledge and dependency on scripture to further his cause.
ReplyDelete-Carolyn Spero
Martin Luther had no hesitance whatsoever when it came to stating how he felt about the so called "Romanists". I don't blame him. He proposes that the Romanists have put up three primary arguments or "walls" that protect and barricade them. What's interesting is that Martin says the walls are made of paper and straw, which is later explained when he (very simply) knocked them down with his refutations. The first wall or argument was that temporal estate (priests, monks, lords, princes) have great hierarchy compared to the lay. Martin's argument that I found most helpful was that we have all had one Baptism, one Gospel, one faith and that we are all Christians alike... We are all equal. His example is taking a bunch of Christian laymen and placing them in a desert to start their own community/fend for themselves. They don't have a priest consecrated by a Bishop, yet it would more than acceptable to all agree to elect one of them to baptize, celebrate mass, to absolve, and preach. The second wall or argument has to do with the Pope being the only person who can interpret the Scriptures. Martin's argument against this is that the Pope has made errors, and if he has "whereas a common man may have true understanding" then "why should we then not follow him?" the last wall or argument, which quickly falls and loses is that no one may call the council but the Pope. My favorite part of Martin's argument is when he gives the example that "if a fire were to break out in a city, and every one were to keep still and let it burn on and on, whatever might be burnt, simply because they had no the mayor's authority? Is not every citizen bound in this case to rouse and call in the rest?" Just as in this example, if a problem or issue were to occur among the Christian community, then any fellow Christian should be able to speak and call together others. Why? Because "here each member is commanded to take care for the other".
ReplyDelete-Katie Lamb
Prior to reading Martin Luther's Address to the German Nobility, I knew that Luther is associated with the Protestant Reformation and that he wrote the Ninety-Five Theses. Luther also believed that salvation is possible through faith alone, without good works. Of course, Catholics understand faith and good works to be essential parts of following Christ. After reading Luther's Address, I have a more thorough understanding of the problems that Luther believed the Catholic Church had. He speaks of the division between those called to the spiritual estate and those called to the temporal estate. Although at the time of Luther's address, there might have been a more definitive separation between the two estates, today, Catholics understand all people to be called to holiness, but people are called to live out that holiness in different ways. Luther did not believe believe in the indelible character impressed on priests at their ordination, although this idea is supported by Scripture: "You are a priest forever" (Psalm 110:4). Overall, Luther seems to have had the biggest issue with accepting the authority of clergy and specifically, the Pope. Although I can understand Luther's concerns and good intentions for feeling that it is dangerous to place so much trust in the teachings of one person, it is important to have a leader. Without a pope, councils would be called left and right, there would be no cohesiveness to the precepts of the Faith, and there would be general chaos. Catholics believe that the Church is specially protected by the Holy Spirit, and the role of the Pope is essential to the existence of the Church, because Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, the first Pope, alone, not to the other apostles.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this, I honestly new nothing about Martin Luther. Martin Luther begins by stating in religion, there are two groups; the spiritual and the temporal estate. He states that all Christians are from the Spiritual estate and there is no difference between priests, popes, civilians etc. He states that we are all consecrated as priests at Baptism. He claims that a priest is no longer a priest after deposition. As people it is our duty to oppose the evil and to drive him away. If a man were to escape punishment because he is above the rest, then no one would punish each other. Every Christian should aid their faith by understanding it and defending it and by condeming all errors. Christians can do nothing against Christ, but the devil can.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther seems very outspoken and against the seperation of people and God's servants.
-Lindsey Ritter
Martin Luther was a reformer, who brought about the Protestant Reformation. He published a writing called the Ninety-Five Theses; in this pamphlet (which he famously hammered onto church doors) Luther pointed out what he believed to be discrepancies and issues he had with the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest discrepancy Luther pointed out was the inequalities between the temporal estate, which were the lay people, and the spiritual estate, which were the monks and other religious. While Catholicism says that all people are called to be holy, Luther says that this division between the two estates violated this, because it put more emphasis on the holiness of some people and not others. He did not agree with the idea that someone who was living a monastic life was “holier” than someone who had chosen a different lifestyle, because in the end they were both living the vocation that was called for them.
Luther believed different things than the Church. He thought that it was possible for salvation to come solely through faith and good works. He also did not agree with following the hierarchy of the Church, because he believed all people to be created with the same amount of holiness.
These were radical ideas, ones that as a Catholic I do not agree with, but I do not find completely off base. Luther, unlike our previous readings, seems to rely more on logic to make his arguments than references to Scripture. Through that, he was able to present an argument convincing enough that it led to a massive reform of Christianity, and the development of a new kind of faith called Protestantism.
Before doing the reading I knew some basic things about how Martin Luther challenged Christianity. I had learned about the 95 Thesis and his following excomunication by the Pope at the time. I knew that it was his followers, not Luther himself, that moved to separate from Catholicism, and that his intention was merely to improve Catholicism. After reading the selection for today, I learned about his views more in depth and about the history of his life and movement more in detail.
ReplyDeleteI did not know much about Martin Luther before this class. All I knew was that he wrote his 95 Thesis, revealing flaws of the Church. From this reading, I can understand his point of view a little more clearly. He believes that it is everyone's duty as a Christian to serve each other. "Every man should by his office or function be useful and beneficial to the rest, so that various kinds of work may all be united for the furtherance of body and soul, just as the members of the body all serve another." (Pg 137) Martin Luther explains how all Christians must unite to reveal the corruption within the Church. He thinks it is pointless to remain idle while he witnesses the failings and deceit of the Church. He is trying to unify Christians for his cause by saying that all are equal. "Between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real difference is one of office and function, and not of estate; for they are all of the same spiritual estate...though their functions are not the same." (Pg 137) Martin Luther explains through convincing rhetoric that all the members of the Church are equal, and only differ through their functions ascribed to them.
ReplyDelete-Elisabeth O'Toole
Before reading this I had little knowledge as to who Martin Luther was. However, after reading this I realized Martin Luther was actually a strong part of Catholicism. I think it was right of Luther to try to improve Catholicism, but I think it is somewhat wrong to say the Pope was the same as the baptized people of Christianity. I think the Pope has similarities with the people, but I do not think we are the same. I also learned that Luther was very strong and knew how to communicate well with the church.
ReplyDeleteElise Ariens
Martin Luther provides three main points which he is determined to disprove explain why all of them are contradictory to Christ's message and teaching. He calls these three points his three "walls." This terminology is very interesting for walls are referred to in this sense as the walls to the Catholic Church and papal doctrine. He is creating a picture of himself knocking through these three walls and reforming the church into not a new faith but a better structured and more fulfilling faith.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther's methods are not always seen as satisfactory, however, his determination to make sure that the truth is being taught is admirable.
Though I don't directly include my feelings about most of the readings, I think it's interesting that I enjoyed Luther's reading though it directly attacks the Church. I find his criticism insightful and even valid even now.
ReplyDeleteThere was one small problem that I noticed, however. That was his criticism of indelible marks as separators of humans by spiritual estate. To argue that there is no such marks unique to clergy and not on laypeople is fine as long as all such marks are challenged. That is, that there is such a mark on Christians from baptism must also be questioned as a result. There is, I think, no way to really prove the existence of these marks either way.
Before reading An Address of German Nobility, I knew very little of Martin Luther except that he rebelled against the church by posting the Ninety- Five Thesis, and he eventually lead to the Protestant reformation. After reading this article, it puts me in a more difficult place with Protestant Christianity that I was originally. I am protestant Methodist and follow many of his beliefs, such as equality between the temporal estates and the spiritual estates, yet I do not believe salvation relies on just faith. I think its important to not that the Catholic Church as well as the newly formed Lutheran Church of the time were battling with their beliefs as a church, which is why we have so many different forms of Catholicism as well as protestant teachings. If one keeps that idea in mind, then this reading can be viewed as a point of change and an acceptance of new ideas that let many more people follow Christ's teachings worldwide despite of individual practices.
ReplyDelete-Jay Garrick
Before this week, I had not known much about Martin Luther. Upon completing this reading I am rather fascinated by his intellect. The idea of the Three Walls of The Romanists as concerning the temporal power, the interpretation of the Scriptures, and the Pope calling the councils has a lot of deep meanings behind it. That Martin Luther thought long and hard upon these claims is quite evident. I find myself giving respect to Martin Luther. I mean, even though he wasn't directly in line with the Catholic Church of his day, I felt there were grains of truth in the words he wrote.
ReplyDelete~Caitlin Gorecki
I knew a bit of information about Martin Luther prior to this reading, and that he had a huge influence on the Catholic church. I was not aware of the "Three Walls", or aspects of the church that he saw should be reformed. He refutes and attacks the church so powerfully it is hard not to take a certain interest in these reading and what he really has to say on his view of the Catholic church.
ReplyDelete-Kate Shannon
Before reading about Martin Luther, I knew that he challenged parts of Christianity and was the advocate leader of the Protestant reformation. He believes that we are all equal and spiritual beings. He does not think that there is a difference between a priest, a teacher, or a pope. We all become priests when we are baptized. This signifies us as members of the Church and workers for God. He wanted to reform the Church and knock down "walls" to create a new faith. His terminology and the ideas of the time were changing how the Church was run. The views were changed but the main faith of believing in God was the same. The way the teachings were presented and the practices were done is the main debate that Martin Luther was changing.
ReplyDelete-Katelyn Bockin
Like many others, I didn't realize how little I knew about Martin Luther before I read Martin Luther's "Address to the German Nobility". All I had previously known about Martin Luther involved him starting the Protestant Reformation by posting his "Ninety-Five Theses". In this writing, Luther attacks the corruptions of the Church and the abuse of its authority. Luther divides his criticism into three "walls", and is orderly in his attacks. These "walls" are walls that he claims the Romanists use to protect themselves from reformation. He takes the Church's three "walls" and breaks them down.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as though I didnt know much about Martin Luther before reading this excerpt, I'll tell you about what I now know about Martin Luther. It seems as though he is a knowledgeable man and almost as if he comes from a democratic area where people believe that they should have a say in the grand scheme of things (even though we are not dealing with government issues here). He was basically questionning the authority of the Church and thought what better of a time to question all of this power that they hold than during the time when they are reforming. He asked these from the view of those who follow the church and the pope. He is trying to get the Church as an authoritative state to open up to people and pull the wool off their eyes and let them see whats going on and have a say in daily matters that involve the Church and this so called faith that they believe in and follow.
ReplyDelete--Nicholas Darin
I had read some Luther before and it seemed to me that he identified some problems with various functions of the Church but he and his movement took it way too far. They threw out several babies with the bathwater and used rhetoric that often was simply ad hominem and haughty. His facts are sometimes not even correct, and it seems apparent to me that his use of scriptural quotes is usually not in accordance with correct scriptural interpretation. In other words, he takes things out of context to serve his points, which in themselves do not conform with scripture.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading this article about Martin Luther i had minor background knowledge on him through studying him in my AP European History class in 10th grade where i had learned of his 95 thesis of which he nailed to the door of the church. i knew that he had wished to one day reform the church after viewing its corruption while on a trip to rome, but i did not truly know to what extent. after reading about the "3 walls" or aspects of the church he wished to reform and how adamant he was on how the church was running it self it puts what i had previously learned into a new perspective.
ReplyDelete-John Girardi
Prior to the reading, I saw Martin Luther as a revolutionary who had some pretty good accusations against a then corrupt Church. Now I am even more convinced of that, and I think he helped the Church to grow. However, someone like this is relevant to his time, not neccesarily as far as the Protestant movement has been taken today.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read this text, I only associated Martin Luther with the Protestant Reformation. Now I know that he was also a very influential person in improving the Catholic Church. He provided it with a wake-up call, although not completely true in context, so that the Church could clean up its act.
ReplyDelete-Sophia Pileggi
Before the reading, I knew that Martin Luther was one of the main perpetrators of the Protestant Reformation, and I typically associated him with some of his more violent and heretical quotations and viewpoints. While I still associate him with all of this ultimately, I realized that he did have some legitimate concerns, he just either went about rectifying the problems in the wrong way or seemed to not quite grasp the Church's teaching on these issues. The class discussion today really helped bring this out for me in a way that the reading itself started to, but didn't completely 'finish off'.
ReplyDeleteChelsey Sterling