LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary
LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary
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.
- Page 1: LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
- Page 4 and 5: 4 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII S
- Page 6 and 7: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
- Page 8 and 9: 8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII W
- Page 10 and 11: 10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 12 and 13: 12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 14 and 15: 14 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 16 and 17: 16 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 18 and 19: 18 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 20 and 21: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
- Page 22 and 23: 22 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 24 and 25: 24 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 26 and 27: 26 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 28 and 29: 28 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 30 and 31: 30 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 32 and 33: 32 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 34 and 35: 34 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 36 and 37: 36 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 38 and 39: 38 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 40 and 41: 40 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 42 and 43: 42 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 44 and 45: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
- Page 48 and 49: 48 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 50 and 51: 50 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 52 and 53: 52 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 54 and 55: 54 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 56 and 57: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
- Page 58 and 59: 58 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 60 and 61: 60 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 62 and 63: 62 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 64 and 65: 64 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 66 and 67: 66 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 68 and 69: 68 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 70 and 71: 70 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 72 and 73: 72 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 74 and 75: 74 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 76 and 77: 76 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 78 and 79: 78 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 80 and 81: 80 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 82 and 83: 82 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 84 and 85: 84 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 86 and 87: 86 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 88 and 89: 88 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 90 and 91: 90 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 92 and 93: 92 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
- Page 94 and 95: 94 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
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.