Luther’s “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”
DiscussionsReformation Era: History and Literature
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
1geoffreymeadows
I’ve just finished reading Luther’s, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520). It’s not a long book. It’s much more clear than I imagined it would be.
First, there were “3 walls”, that according to Luther protected the papacy, and made it impossible to reform the Papacy and the Church.
1) the pope, the bishops, and the priests are said to be of the “spiritual estate” and were not subject to secular authority;
2) only the pope had the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures; and,
3) only the pope could call a council. Councils, at that time, were thought to be the only way to balance the power of the pope. Those who proposed to reform the papacy (or provide a check on its power) through councils were known as the conciliarists. These conciliarists predated Luther’s attempts at reforms, and originally dealt with the two-popes schism. (There are 4 conciliarist writings given in Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus, edited by Matthew Spinka. Another book on my list. For more information on the conciliarists see MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History).
Then, there is a section on 3 ways the Church was out of step with the spirit of the Scriptures: the pomp and luxury of the pope, the financial diversions of the cardinals, and the bloated papal court.
Then come Luther’s 27 proposals for reforming papal power and the Church. These are all very specific and concrete ideas. The notes in this edition also help a lot here, making understandable what might be obscure.
Luther paints a pretty dire picture of the Roman Church at this point. His attitude is fairly combative, which is obvious. Even some of Luther’s biographers admit that Luther was pretty combative - by nature, perhaps. But it appears to me, judging from the responses of the Church to Luther’s attempts at reform, that possibly no other approach could have had as great an impact. When you look at Erasmus’ writings, the biting satire that is there, you can see public sentiments changing. But would Erasmus’ writings alone have reformed the Church? On the other hand, if Luther had not been so combative, would the Church possibly have changed without the schism that took place?
First, there were “3 walls”, that according to Luther protected the papacy, and made it impossible to reform the Papacy and the Church.
1) the pope, the bishops, and the priests are said to be of the “spiritual estate” and were not subject to secular authority;
2) only the pope had the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures; and,
3) only the pope could call a council. Councils, at that time, were thought to be the only way to balance the power of the pope. Those who proposed to reform the papacy (or provide a check on its power) through councils were known as the conciliarists. These conciliarists predated Luther’s attempts at reforms, and originally dealt with the two-popes schism. (There are 4 conciliarist writings given in Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus, edited by Matthew Spinka. Another book on my list. For more information on the conciliarists see MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History).
Then, there is a section on 3 ways the Church was out of step with the spirit of the Scriptures: the pomp and luxury of the pope, the financial diversions of the cardinals, and the bloated papal court.
Then come Luther’s 27 proposals for reforming papal power and the Church. These are all very specific and concrete ideas. The notes in this edition also help a lot here, making understandable what might be obscure.
Luther paints a pretty dire picture of the Roman Church at this point. His attitude is fairly combative, which is obvious. Even some of Luther’s biographers admit that Luther was pretty combative - by nature, perhaps. But it appears to me, judging from the responses of the Church to Luther’s attempts at reform, that possibly no other approach could have had as great an impact. When you look at Erasmus’ writings, the biting satire that is there, you can see public sentiments changing. But would Erasmus’ writings alone have reformed the Church? On the other hand, if Luther had not been so combative, would the Church possibly have changed without the schism that took place?
