Martin LutherEssay Preview: Martin LutherReport this essayLuthers ideas and reforms on Christianity were in direct conflict with the Catholic Church. These ideas, reforms, and thoughts on faith were the spark plug that started the Protestant Reformation. Luther began his career as an Augustinian Monk in the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, Luther was initially loyal to the papacy, and even after many theological conflicts, he attempted to bring about his reconciliation with the Church. But this didnt last long because Luther waged battle with the papacy. Luther was to become a theologian. This is where he wrote the Ninety-Five Theses. It is usually considered to be the original document of the Reformation. Basically, this document exposed all the wrongs of the Catholic Church from indulgences to immoral behavior of priests.
Luthers believed that absolution relied upon the sinners faith and Gods Grace rather than the intervention of a priest. Luther did not want an actual separation from the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, Luther felt his suggested reforms could be implemented within Catholicism. If the Catholic Church had attempted to consider Luthers reforms, the Protestant Reformation would probably not have seen the light of day. But the religious practices being what they were in the Roman Church, there was little chance at that time for any great change. The Church of Rome, set in its ways, was not about to change into something else. If a change had occurred within the Roman Catholic Church, Luther would have had a different destiny. Luthers fate was sealed, however his job was cut out for him. Luther broke the religious restraints of the Roman Catholic religion. This accomplishment amounts to the establishment of another religion known as Protestantism, a faith that was generated from the Reformation. Luther stood out as one of the Reformations major influences. Luthers reforms regarded to the Catholic sacraments. For Luther, the Holy Eucharist of Lords supper was really a symbolic act rather than an actual instance of change in which the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. That was an aspect to this sacrament, which Luther could not accept. According to the Roman Church, the bread and wine may have the appearance of such, but their substances have literally become the flesh and blood of Christ. All of this is a literal acceptance of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper: “And as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and blessed it, and breaks it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26: 26-28). Luthers view of the communion sacrament was strictly symbolic. However, this idea was heresy so far as the Roman Catholic Church was concerned. The sacramental power of its priests was no longer necessary if this concept were to prevail. This is the type of change the Reformation and Martin Luther thought of. The power of the Roman clergy was in jeopardy if the people accepted Luthers ideas were accepted.
The principal sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church is the Holy Eucharist of Communion. The fact that Luther was messing with this sacrament proved to be a significant problem to the Catholic Church. Luther generated the Protestant belief that this sacrament is a ritual through which they raise their spirits in remembrance of Christs life and death. According to the teachings of the Roman Church, Christs human body and blood are actually present in the consecrated bread and wine. As Luther saw it, no sacrament is effective by itself without listening to the Word associated with the sacrament, and the faith that believes in it. There is no magical element to any sacrament, including the doctrine of change. Luthers teachings on the sacraments took away the power of the priests and the special nature of the Holy Eucharist. The Catholic mass depended completely on these concepts in order for the Roman Church to maintain its effectiveness as the representation of Christ. It took Luther great courage to take on a force of great strength and authority as the church. Luther did what most kings would fear to do. Luthers courage and boldness can be seen in his “Open Letter to Pope Leo X,” “I have, to be sure, sharply attacked ungodly doctrines in general, and I have snapped at my opponents, not because of their bad morals, but because of their ungodliness. Rather than repent this in the least, I have determined to persist in that fervent zeal and to despise the judgment of men, following the example of Christ who in his zeal called his opponents a blood of vipers, blind fools, hypocrites. . . I have truly despised your see, the Roman Curia, which, however, neither you nor anyone else can deny is more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom ever was, and which, as far as I can see, is characterized by a completely depraved, hopeless, and notorious godlessness” (Luther and Dillenberger 44-45).
It would seem the people would be in favor of the Catholic Church during this time of Reformation. As the central figure of religious rebellion in Germany, Martin Luther brought his ideas about Christianity. According to Luther, mankind is justified by faith alone, and not by works. On the concept of this belief in a personal faith, Luther felt that many rituals and authority of the pope should be challenged. Luther paid the ultimate penalty the Roman Catholic Church could offer. He was excommunicated. Luther then went before the Diet of Worms, where he took a stand concerning his beliefs and was placed under the ban of the Holy Roman Empire. Justification by faith, not by works is perhaps Luthers most important contribution to the Reformation. According to Luther, salvation is a gift from God, and no human being can possibly
Hannah: “All these questions are important to the Reformation. But one of the most important questions of the Reformation involves the question of faith. Are you satisfied in a personal relationship with your bishop or the pope? If so what are his decisions and actions? I must add that the question is important, too. Our bishop and our papal authority have no power over our lives”.
Jean-Claude: A recent article from The New York Times shows that the same kind of criticism could be said of Pope Benedict and Francis, if the Church were not only independent from the United States but even more and more independent. This also could work in the case of the Pope. In one of the recent posts on a French website, you find that one of the topics on which the recent Pope has been criticized is the issue of religious freedom in France, where there are many religious authorities who are in close alliance with the United States, which is not a very good idea. In other words, religious freedom is not a concept of individual freedom, but is a concept of political freedom, political liberty, when the Pope himself is not involved in religious matters.
Marnier: In that same post, you also note that there is an important difference between Catholicism, the most liberal Catholic democracy (the Republic), and the Republic of France. At the moment, Catholic citizens of France are divided on questions of religious freedom and the question of democracy, but both groups share one problem: their own Catholic Republic. Both the Republic and the modern Catholic democracies are divided on these issues. Is there some truth behind this?
Jean-Claude: If the Pope had said the same things for the Republic of France, he would have been criticized by both groups; it would not have been possible to work with one another within the traditional French system. What might be said to be true of the Pope for the United States, at present, because the French people are under the military dictatorship of their Pope, could not be said of the Pope for the Republic of France, because many of the problems in France are being solved by the Catholic people. If the Republic were to change, and would come to be at peace with the United States, the French republic would be not quite as much a political system as it is now. Both the Republic and the republic will still be within the common political system but will be in a different situation than what we have today. In the United States, the same thing could happen if the Pope moved back to his original position by appointing a special Supreme Commander. Both of them may be in a different situation as he is now.
What is the reason that the French Catholics have always had such a great difficulty in dealing with a new political system or a new pope? Are there other problems that could have led to the Pope’s reelection by the people? Or are the Catholic people still in much better shape than they were during the days of John Paul II, who did not make any attempt to gain power? Because at that time both the United States and France were not at peace with one another, both were still in deep depression and could not see the Pope as a suitable leader for the future. During this period of the United States and France war for power did not prevent the Pope from going and