LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

concordiasem.ab.ca
from concordiasem.ab.ca More from this publisher
20.03.2013 Views

46 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII competing models of reform and renewal will be recognized as “the Reformation”. On close inspection sharp fissures show up even within these six patterns of reformation themselves. Two parties, high and low respectively, are clearly discernible in the Church of England by the death of the first Elizabeth. The unity of the Lutheran pattern of reformation was almost wrecked by the tensions between the Reformer and Melanchthon, and Philipp and his followers have never accepted the divisive quality of the line drawn by Luther at Marburg in 1529. Moreover, there was nothing monolithic about the internal Roman renewal which got under way in the 1530s. Gasparo Contarini (1483-1542), whose affinity for Luther on the matter of justification was pointed out by Karl Barth, 4 may not be confused with Giampetro Caraffa, the gruesome father of the Roman Inquisition who reigned as Paul IV from 1555 till 1559. Nor did the Radicals agree among themselves. Furthermore, even though the second through the sixth patterns of reformation produced distinct and distinctive church bodies, we may not overlook the existence between the six patterns of a certain crossfertilization which refused to respect neat confessional boundaries. While ostensibly heavily defeated by all the patterns of reformation which displaced his own, Erasmus also succeeded in leaving his mark on these subsequent models which took off in directions he would not go. Melanchthon’s refusal to break with Erasmus at the time of the great humanist’s dispute with Luther precipitated both the Formula of Concord in the 16 th century and later Lutheran orthodoxy’s slippage from the Reformer and Chemnitz in the next. The English Reformation was genetically modified by every other pattern of reform except the Roman and the Radical. Erasmus’ hand was felt throughout the process that lasted from Henry through Elizabeth, and the early 20 th -century Anglican Modernist H. D. A. Major was right to remark on the fusion of an essentially Lutheran liturgy with Calvinist articles of religion and traditional polity in the shaping of the English Church. On 31 October we fitly focus on the pattern of reformation which developed almost overnight shortly after an obscure professor in a remote German university town proposed 95 Theses for disputation on this day 483 years ago. Imagination exercised on all sides of the Reformation divide has inaccurately pictured the posting of the Theses as a deliberate act of revolt. Yet while in the celebrated 95 Theses Luther showed considerable courage in tackling a sensitive matter of pastoral practice and made some barbed remarks in rebuke of the ecclesiastical powers that be, he nevertheless here 4 See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1; The Doctrine of Reconciliation, eds. G. W. Bromiley & T. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956): 624.

STEPHENSON: THE ROOTS OF THE REFORMATION 47 stayed within the parameters of late mediaeval Catholic orthodoxy, and he certainly had no intention of flinging down the gauntlet before the whole religious system then presided over by the first Medici Pope. As a matter of fact, the young professor had already issued a bold and deliberate challenge to the school of theology in which he had been raised in a series of theses announced at the beginning of the previous month. On 4 September 1517 Luther posted and sent out his 97 Theses Against Scholastic Theology. 5 The title of this pungent document is flatly misleading, since the target of the Reformer’s attack was not the whole tradition of theology begun back in the 12 th century by Anselm, Abelard, and Peter Lombard, but rather the anthropology of the school founded by William of Ockham, who died in 1349, the year of the Black Death. 6 Taking in second place Luther’s blistering attack of 4 September 1517 on the Pelagian tendencies of the via moderna, I beg your leave to name the fivefold root system of the second pattern of 16 th -century reformation before examining the nature of the tree itself and reflecting on the fruits it continues to bear. (1) No theologian, however gifted, could have triggered off the events that so drastically altered the ecclesiastical geography of 16 th -century Europe if Western Christendom had not at that time been, so to say, a giant keg of gunpowder awaiting the lighting of a match. Writing before the Second Vatican Council, Karl Adam admitted that the 16 th century would not have turned out as it did apart from an infamous document penned by Pope Gregory VII in 1075. 7 The monk Hildebrand ascended the papal throne in 1073 determined to implement the goals of the so-called Cluniac Reform, which wanted to clean up the upper echelons of ecclesiastical power, chiefly by rendering them wholly independent of the secular authorities. The 27 propositions of the Dictatus papae signed by Gregory two years after his accession were a declaration of war on Emperor Henry IV and all his works and all his ways. At the cornerstone of Gregory’s programme stood the veritable deification of the papal office and its holder. All bishops are but his vicars in the spiritual realm, as are all secular rulers in their own sphere. Thesis 8 indicates that the pope is the actual emperor, thesis 23 hints at his impeccability (i.e., his personal sinlessness!), and thesis 22 articulates a claim which would be brandished against Luther in the early months of 1518: “That the Roman church has never erred and will never err to all eternity, according to the testimony of the holy scriptures.” 5 AE 34:9-16. 6 The same point can be made about Luther’s remarks in SA III.i:3, to which compare Melanchthon’s nuanced treatment in Ap II:27-30! 7 For a translation of Gregory’s Dictatus papae, see Donald A. White, Medieval History; A Source Book (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1965) 311f.

STEPHENSON: THE ROOTS OF THE REFORMATION 47<br />

stayed within the parameters of late mediaeval Catholic orthodoxy, and he<br />

certainly had no intention of flinging down the gauntlet before the whole<br />

religious system then presided over by the first Medici Pope.<br />

As a matter of fact, the young professor had already issued a bold and<br />

deliberate challenge to the school of theology in which he had been raised in<br />

a series of theses announced at the beginning of the previous month. On 4<br />

September 1517 Luther posted and sent out his 97 Theses Against Scholastic<br />

Theology. 5 The title of this pungent document is flatly misleading, since the<br />

target of the Reformer’s attack was not the whole tradition of theology<br />

begun back in the 12 th century by Anselm, Abelard, and Peter Lombard, but<br />

rather the anthropology of the school founded by William of Ockham, who<br />

died in 1349, the year of the Black Death. 6 Taking in second place Luther’s<br />

blistering attack of 4 September 1517 on the Pelagian tendencies of the via<br />

moderna, I beg your leave to name the fivefold root system of the second<br />

pattern of 16 th -century reformation before examining the nature of the tree<br />

itself and reflecting on the fruits it continues to bear.<br />

(1) No theologian, however gifted, could have triggered off the events<br />

that so drastically altered the ecclesiastical geography of 16 th -century Europe<br />

if Western Christendom had not at that time been, so to say, a giant keg of<br />

gunpowder awaiting the lighting of a match. Writing before the Second<br />

Vatican Council, Karl Adam admitted that the 16 th century would not have<br />

turned out as it did apart from an infamous document penned by Pope<br />

Gregory VII in 1075. 7 The monk Hildebrand ascended the papal throne in<br />

1073 determined to implement the goals of the so-called Cluniac Reform,<br />

which wanted to clean up the upper echelons of ecclesiastical power, chiefly<br />

by rendering them wholly independent of the secular authorities. The 27<br />

propositions of the Dictatus papae signed by Gregory two years after his<br />

accession were a declaration of war on Emperor Henry IV and all his works<br />

and all his ways. At the cornerstone of Gregory’s programme stood the<br />

veritable deification of the papal office and its holder. All bishops are but his<br />

vicars in the spiritual realm, as are all secular rulers in their own sphere.<br />

Thesis 8 indicates that the pope is the actual emperor, thesis 23 hints at his<br />

impeccability (i.e., his personal sinlessness!), and thesis 22 articulates a<br />

claim which would be brandished against Luther in the early months of<br />

1518: “That the Roman church has never erred and will never err to all<br />

eternity, according to the testimony of the holy scriptures.”<br />

5 AE 34:9-16.<br />

6 The same point can be made about Luther’s remarks in SA III.i:3, to which compare<br />

Melanchthon’s nuanced treatment in Ap II:27-30!<br />

7 For a translation of Gregory’s Dictatus papae, see Donald A. White, Medieval History; A<br />

Source Book (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1965) 311f.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!