Martin and Me (Part II)

'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus’

Martin Luther

Since the earliest days of the Reformation, there have been various attempts at reunification between Catholics and Lutherans. In 1534 Pope Paul III invited the Lutherans to a general council and even Emperor Charles V arranged conferences between Catholic and Lutheran theologians in 1541, 1546, and 1547. Ordinary churchmen, such as the Lutheran Frederick Staphylus and Father Contzen, worked for much for the same goal but sadly all of these initiatives ended in failure.

Even the horrors of the Thirty Years War, led many on both sides to pursue reconciliation between our two churches. Yet another conference was held at Thorn by Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist theologians in in 1645, but again nothing was achieved. Even the proposal of the Lutheran theologian, George Calixtus that the two confessions organise themselves into one church with the consensus of the first five centuries as a common basis caused a storm of protest.

Equally, in 1861, Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler of Mainz forcefully advocated for reconciliation between Catholics and Lutherans in Germany through the establishment of a prayer society for the Reunion of Christendom called ‘Ut Omnes Unum’, ‘that all may be one’, which in turn led to the creation of the Una Sancta Brotherhood by Fr. Max Josef Metzger.

Later in 1940 when the great figure of the German resistance Cardinal Konrad Von Preysing of Berlin insisted that prayers at Sunday Mass be offered for 30 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ‘Confessing Church’ Pastors who had been arrested by the Nazis, then in 1943, three Catholic priests and a Lutheran Pastor, known as the Lübeck Martyrs, were beheaded together. It’s said that their blood ran from the guillotine and mingled on the ground and for many; the Sacramental aspect to this image of brutality came to symbolise the awakening of a new spirit of ecumenism.

The overtures towards unity weren’t all on the Catholic side, the ‘Bund für evangelisch-katholische Wiedervereinigung’ (League for Evangelical-Catholic Reunion) created by the Lutheran Pastor Max Lackmann, another clergyman whose ecumenism was forged in the Priest-Block of Dachau concentration camp, sought to form a separate Lutheran Church, analogous to the Ukrainian-Byzantine Churches, in communion with Rome.

To be honest, I’ve always found Lutherans to be much like ourselves in that they have their hardliners, whose entire religious identity is rooted in opposition to, rather than in concert with, Rome. They also have their moderates who have managed to accommodate the Lutheran doctrine of ‘justification’ with a Catholic understanding of salvation, as laid out in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification from 1999 in which the two Communions agreed on the essential aspects of the doctrine of salvation and on the Church’s role within it.

The foundations for this agreement were established way back in the 1960s when the controversial dissident theologian Fr Hans Kung, in response to the famous Protestant theologian Karl Barth, stated that Luther had overreacted and that the differences between us were not fundamental or warranted a division. Barth, who was invited to attend the Second Vatican Council, agreed with Fr Kung’s conclusion.

It’s been said that Karl Barth had been hostile to Rome before Vatican II, whereas after the council he became less entrenched and more open to the entire ‘catholic’ Church beyond confessional boundaries. Like Fr Kung, Barth became convinced that our remaining differences were no longer matters of substance.

Like many people, I’ve always thought things might have turned out differently if Martin Luther had been present at the Council of Trent, just as Barth was changed through his presence at Vatican II. We might have ended up with Lutherans in the Church alongside Benedictines, Franciscans, Augustinians and Dominicans. Either way, few of us now believe that separation was meant to be a rupture for all time.

Sure, many Catholics still consider Martin Luther to be a diabolic heretic who wrecked the Church. But, to be honest, I find it very difficult to think of all these decent Lutherans as apostates, even if that’s what many within the Wisconsin and Missouri Lutheran Synods think of us, some of whom even still identify the Pope as being the Anti-Christ.

The fact that some of them still consider our Holy Father to be the Anti-Christ is, of course, deeply shocking. Well, it’s only shocking until you remember that some of our own so-called ‘ultra-traditionalists’ frequently attack our own Pope Francis in much the same manner, often employing equally offensive language.

Nonetheless, it’s still tough for me to think of Lutherans as somehow demonic, especially since they are essentially my own people: my great, great grandfather Berdhardt-Diedrich Ahlfeld was baptised in the Lutheran church in the village of Lemwerder and in my own travels through Germany I’ve only ever encountered hospitality and fellowship from Lutheran Christians from Bremen to Lubeck.

It’s also worth noting that in Germany, Lutherans and Catholics came together after the war to establish a political party in the CDU and they even share churches in places like Bautzen in Saxony for example, where St Peter’s Cathedral has been shared since 1530. It seems clear, even to the German Bishops, that Catholics and Lutherans in Germany are expressing a growing desire for shared communion, which many commentators feel will eventually come, especially since so few ordinary Catholics or Protestants profess to even understand the differences between consubstantiation and transubstantiation. At the end of the day, both parties believe that the body of Christ is entirely present in the bread and wine and that it is truly our Lord’s body and blood.

One other point I’d like to make is this – Some Catholics have claimed that Traditionis Custodes, the recent apostolic letter issued by Pope Francis, restricting the Tridentine Mass, will ferment the prospect of schism in the Church.

Frankly, they are wrong and the exact opposite is true, Traditionis Custodes actually lessens the possibility of a schism with those of us who would find it impossible to remain within a parish or a diocese which had come to be entirely dominated by traditionalist priests and laity, as appeared to be (increasingly) the case in some parishes before the Pope issued this letter.

This is because many traditionalists were not purely concerned only with matters liturgical or the preservation of the Tridentine Mass. In reality, many Traditional Latin Mass adherents stood in sharp opposition to ALL the reforms which had come with the Second Vatican Council.

A significant number of traditionalists have consistently rejected all those legitimate grievances of Martin Luther which we finally accepted following Vatican II.

It is exactly those reforms which many Tridentine Catholics, Lefebvrists and other ultra-traditionalists are now seeking to reverse, as well as seeking to restore the excessive over-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

For me, the Pope has simply ended the possibility of whole parishes being lost to the Extraordinary Form alone, and also removed any threat to the equality of Mass in the vernacular, the continuation of Communion for the laity under both auspices (both bread and wine) and communal singing without the need for a specialist choir.

For example, I’ve always been deeply impressed with the Gregorian Chant and beautiful choral singing of traditionalist choirs such as Schola Benedicta, especially as part of the old Mass but I also think the full congregation must continue to play an active role in singing (another of Luther’s grievances).

Again, it is bad enough for the laity to be reduced, almost, to the role of spectators at the traditional Mass but the prospect of the congregation in some parishes being no longer permitted or able to sing at Mass would have been a bridge too far for many of us.

The red line for me however is not the importance of communal singing, or language or liturgy but the aforementioned reference to the Church’s previous teachings on suicide.

Today, based on our better understanding of mental health, the Church has long since reoriented its teaching on suicide towards a more nuanced and empathetic position.

Meanwhile, for some traditionalists however, the Church’s original damnation of all those who tragically take their own lives, is yet another ‘traditional’ teaching to be restored.

One need only look at the various traditionalist Catholic forums and media outlets to see how enthusiastically proponents of pre-Vatican II Catholicism continue to insist on the eternal torment in hell for all the victims of suicides.

Again, it would be impossible for me and many others to remain within a Church which might ever seek to restore (or give prominence to) such a cruel understanding of mental illness.

And so, to conclude, how then do we begin to reconcile the very worst of Luther with the best of Luther? Well, how do we do that with any public figure or faith leader? There’s certainly something to be said for approaching any Christian writer, leader or thinker as a deeply flawed sinner as our starting point, rather than building them up as saints. 

Only to be later bitterly disappointed, as was the case with the with the revelations and allegations concerning the personality cults which sprung up around the likes of Father Joseph Kentenich, John Howard Yoder, Jean Vanier, Father Werenfried van Straaten and so on. Were these men used by God to spread the Gospel or where they corrupt sinners?

The truth is that they were both and if believing that we are all sinners (beggars all) in need of God’s grace, makes me an ‘Evangelical-Catholic’ or an ‘Augustana-Catholic’ in communion with Rome, then yes, I am guilty, here I stand, I can do no other.