Pragmatic theologian Luther

The read of 95 thesis of Martin Luther(1483-1546), written in 1517 and affixed to door of church of castle to Wittenberg, without his knowledge, it amazing to their nearness to Catholicism; it is could absurd, because Luther is founder of Protestantism, but we must consider that he was a Augustinian monk and in convent he studied theologian, hence the Catholic believe was in him very much and during writing of these thesis he was Catholic; but we must read some steps very contradictory: number 2: “The pain is so until is continue the depreciate of himself(this is the very interior penance) this is until we are going to go in the reign of heaven”, the Catholicism said same but more moderate, but the confession is the repentance, but during confession the faithful must repentance, and he must confess every sin, and alone after the repentance the priest gives the absolution. But if we consider the theological practice, and abolition of confession it is a pragmatic valuation, this is Luther allowed to protestant every sin; without a confessor you could make every sin, after your death you are going confess to God, certainly, but the faithful lives on the earth and now; thereupon it is very pragmatic way to major liberty; it today is normal but in 1517 it was very strange. Number 5 The pope will not  can pardon sin except these ordered from precise bond fro him or canonical right”, it is very surprising, because the pope and the Church make it from centuries. Number 6: “The pope can’t pardon nothing sin if he not declares that it is given from God, or condemns these guilt that alone to him are reserved…”; it is normal costume of Church during 1517-1518 and from centuries. The seven thesis is acme of laughing because is palmar contradictory, but after we can understand because  this contradiction: “God not pardon the guilt for nobody without that he is subjected, and deeply humiliated to priest, his vicar”; it is very right, but the vicar of God is priest and clergy; without the confession that Luther clergy and the mess that Luther has deleted the faithful has his sins always, on stead the priest asks the repentance. The number 8 is same: “The canonical penance the Church hasn’t ordered the penance to dying, contrary has given the saint oil to pardon of sins, thereby it absolves and not condemns. The vicar of thesis seven isn’t the priest, but the prince, or princes, it is means that Luther just has though that the princes could helped this Reform; in fact some years after the thesis, he although accepted the protest of peasantries to excess of tax, he asked the submission to orders of princes, why? Because they are helping the Reform. Luther as Calvin to his thesis played between two field, one papal and other reformist while he attended the develop of events; the princes took profit and he become a convinced reformer; therefore the politic guaranteed the Reform, as the politic guaranteed the Catholic reform.10.“The priest that give the penitence to dying that they are going to expiate to purgatory, they work very bad”; a priest give alone the pardon of sins to dying and no certainly the penitence, because alone God is going to judge, and no the priest that is a man. Number 12. Once it ordered the satisfaction of penitence not after but before the absolution, it was a true proof of contrition”; today is same, before the confession and after the absolution.17. The Protestantism doesn’t believes the purgatory…”; but we must consider that in this time Luther was Catholic again, hence he is speaking as Catholic. “Number 18. It isn’t appears not where in holy Gospel that the soul can’t grows his merit”; when the soul has gone to paradise, nothing merit can grows his merit and thereby because he arrived to Paradise and the climb the corporate ladder isn’t to Paradise; but we can think that the Protestanism hasn’t the canonical priests, but pastors that must gain faithful, and for this carrier is; and we can consider that Luther has had just though to his Reform when he has written these thesis, or rather when he was Catholic. Number 19. Neither it appears that they are sure of their beatitude, although we are very certain”; the last judgement is alone of God, thereupon we can’t sure that a soul is beat. Number 20. “For this the pope, with remission of every sin, he doesn’t thinks every blame but alone those that he has ordered”; it is normal, because the pope is human, and he can pardon the human sins, God, after the death, is going to give his judgement. Number 21. “They mistake the preachers of indulgences, tell that to indulgences of pope the man is freedom from every penitence”, it is true; but among these preachers was also a guy with name Martin Luther, that 10 days before of affixation of these thesis he was preaching in favor of indulgence; therefore he should written that he was one monk favorable to indulgence, but this particular isn’t. Number 22. Actually to Purgatory souls the pope doesn’t give other penitence, that they should expire during their life”; alone God can grow the penitence and not certainly the pope. We can consider these errors of Luther as ignorance, but it isn’t, because the hide truth is that Luther wanted an religious  independence from Rome, thereupon the theologian was very less present. The adherence of Luther to Gospel is principal motive to argue to Rome, because in the reality both religious and political more things must change, but it is necessary to Luther to creation of a politic state in Germany, and hence to exclude the Roman power; the words of saint Paul: “Although I was free, I become servant of everybody”, the comment of Luther: “The Christian is completely free, he is lord od everything, he isn’t subject to nobody”; it is can seems alone an interpretation of saint Paul, but it hide something more relevant, this is in Germany you are going free, above all the tax or indulgences, this is motive to protest against the indulgences; but when the tax has ordered from some German prince it is more bearable, because these princes are German; further the Protestantsm foresees the predestination, this almost a salvation, thereby more salvific than Christianism; but this theological solution why? Simple because who is adherent to Protestantism and is German automatically he is going to save; naturally it isn’t not declared, also because very much peoples in Europe would be excluded; and the marketed distinction from Catholicism is the absence of well works to Protestant; Christ said about the well works as consequence of interior light of Holy Spirit, but absence of well works in Luther because predominant is alone the interior light is contradictory in theologian concept, but no certainly in politic think of Luther, why? Because to work to other state as Rome is useless, instead you, Protestant faithful must work to a German state, alone so the tax and work is bearable, because these tax are going to be in Germany alone. The words of saint Paul(Letter to Corinthians 9-20): “I become the slave to gain the major number; and I become Jew to J, to who are subjected to law as I was under the law instead I am not so, and who is without law I become almost without law…”; it is alone a step of Gospel, hence without importance; but we must consider the politic sake of Luther, and interpreted so all is clear, because, the uniformity of behavior to different person and religion or communities, guarantees the diffusion of Protestantism, and the following words of same Paul: “You have not duties toward somebody except love one together”; we can object that is normal in Christian religion, and protestant are Christian, thereupon nothing of relevant, yes certainly but if this step is though politically we can understand that this step of saint Paul is very useful to Luther to his sake, because also you are Protestant or Catholic you are before German, and it is important. These words of Gospel are used by Luther and in politic translated sense we can interpret other way and we can arrive to truth; the step of Matthew(5,17) is a  political declaration of Luther but under the Gospel step: “You don’t believe that I am here to abolish the law or Prophets: I am here not to abolish but to complete them…”, and other step: “If you want fulfill the law as it demands, you must make it: you must believe to Christ, to him are promised to you grace, justification, peace, freedom, and if you believe you are going to have everything, otherwise nothing”, it is other step of Gospel, but interpreted with hide political sense, we can translated it so: If you believe to the German state you are going to have everything, peace, freedom(above all from the Catholic Church). Other step but not evangelic, but from a book of Luther(The freedom of Christian), are meaningful to the politic sense: “Since these words of God are saint words, true, right, free, peaceful and full of goodness, occurs that the souls that adhere with faith indestructible, it is absorbed until the first moment and so it takes part…”; it is enough substitute the God with State and the political read is fulfilled; and the following step pursues the precedent sense: “If the simple touch of Christ healed, so this spiritual penetration of word of God is going to communicate to soul every its virtues. So the soul is justified, sanctified, peaceful, freed, to alone the faithful, without the works, thank to word of God, and it is filled of every goodness and become daughter of God”, same think above expressed; it is enough that God become the State. The Evangelical step is in John(1-12) “He given the power of become son of God to who believe to his name”; this is to who believe in the State. The step of Paul(letter to Corinthian 4,1): “The man is going to consider us as ministers and manages of mysteries of God”. This division of duties has originated, today to show of richness and power and so fearful dominion, as the laics were different from Christian…”; it is rational think, but in effect is other, and we can understand because Luther has abolished that priest figure, and has laicized the religious figures; the priests in fact has had a  power, of suggestion above all rather than politic, thereupon with secularization of every citizen, the State has power on everybody. Always saint Paul is used to other step: “Apostle Paul, in fact, says that we work with hands fro give to whom needs he could say “because so we feed ourselves”, but he has said, so that we can give to whom needs. Thereupon it is Christian have cure of our body, and keeping it to health, so that we can work, and we can produce to others…” it is seems the true Christian message, but it is alone a message to peasants that, as occurred in years 1524-1525, were rebels to lords to tax too, in meridional Germany; evidently he has foreseen some rebellion or some riot, and he searched stopped it with a religion justification; the riots occurred alike; but important was give a religious justification to creation of a State, and: “…but to humility, anybody consider other superior, and he don’t will his interest, but cure that other…”; it is mere utopian but Luther aware of it thinks that the other interest is those of lords. On other step of Luther is justification of predestination that God has given: “So the Christian that is satisfied from faith is happy to divine condition that God has given to him…”; mere issue of human law that become divine so that nothing was modified, above all the politic power, through we can understand it? Simple Luther could solicit the owners of lands, after the riots, to give major economic income to peasants, because also the owners are men, but he made the contrary, why? Because they guarantee the Reform, I repeat. The contradiction is manifest in other step: “The free Christian, in fact, will say so: “I will fast, pray I will make it and other because it is ordered by men, not certainly because it is going to be useful to me, but because it is I obey to pope, to bishop, and community, to my superior or my near, and I will offer an example, and as Christ made suffering to me…”; it is evident that Luther consider in this step the humanity of faithful, of bishop, of pope; but these are Catholic clergy, and distinct and distant from reform confession, thereby that is always a pope and a bishop, hence obey to them is adherence to Catholic Church. In 1519, after two years posting of 95 rules, Luther written the About Babylonian imprisonment of the Church, that he begun so: “I want of not will I am constrict become every day more sapient…Two years ago I written about the indulgences in my 95 thesis, but I treated this argument with way that today I am not satisfy, then in fact I was adherent to an idea deeply mistake because diffused from tyrannical power of Rome, for this I considered that the indulgences we don’t must refuse all, that I seen accepted through very much consent…but after thank the benefic aid of Sylvester and the monks that has defensed it, I understood that are alone the cheating of worshippers of Rome…”; it we can interpret as alone a compel of a protestant, but we can pick two motives of this compel and judgement, the first is that by now the Reform was diffused, also in conscience of German people, therefore this consideration were become common, and the second is that German State being born, thereupon the fair to the 95 thesis was not, the step, that I repeat because important: “Then, in fact I was adherent to an idea deeply mistake…”; it is meaningful because also Luther was faired from suggestion of Roman power; but evidently in 1519 the Reform was very wide and the Catholic Church didn’t scare. Regard to the Catholic answers to 95 thesis Luther mentioned two religious, one Italian from Modena and other German, nothing of interesting certainly, bur reading the judgement that Luther given twice the difference is to the adjectives, that are ironical certainly, but to Italian he said that the monk didn’t write his name instead the German he said: “The monk of Leipzig, instead, as is opportune to a proud German has listed the titles, life, sanctity, doctrine and his glory…”; ironical certainly, but the names used from Luther are much and positive; we can consider that this judgement hides the contempt to Rome, certainly but it is comparable to proud that Luther has expressed to German religious; why? Because the process of union Germany was active. Regard to mess Luther was right to a side but other he is contradict herself, nay he denies it, because he said: “The first thing we must refuse the Gospel of John because it didn’t hide to neither a syllabi to this sacrament, and not only that because it not was issued…”, the words: “but not only that”, this lack is because this sacrament then was not, it is enough; an example if we to a miracle were transfer during Middle Age, and while we going in to a house we ask the electrical light, the owner looks us with stupor, because the electrical light in Middle Age was not, and the owner would ask to us what is the electrical light, it is normal because I can’t use the phone during the Renaissance, 15^th and 16^th centuries, if the phone was patented by Anthony Meucci in 1871; I think that isn’t necessary a great intelligence to understand that if something not exists it is impossible use. Other historical contradiction: “We fake that I am in front of to papist lords and I give this question: in the dinner of Lord, the complete sacrament, this is two species, he has given alone the priests or to laic? If it has had alone the priests, in their opinion, therefore it we can given to laic”; the first is that the Church has never deny the sacrament of two natures, to laic, the Church allowed from 12^th century, and during the last dinner the priests weren’t, because the Church not was founded; hence it is alone a fake justification to issue a German religion to a German State. During the last dinner Christ has said: “Accipite and manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim cerpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testament”, Take it and eat it, this is my body, that to us is to you given. Take it and drink it, this is calix of my blood to new and eternal alliance”; thereby the sacramental under two species has had issued from Christ.  During the last dinner Christ has said: “Accipite and manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim cerpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testament”, Take it and eat it, this is my body, that to us is to you given. Take it and drink it, this is calix of my blood to new and eternal alliance”; thereby the sacramental under two species has had issued from Christ. Further proof that the discourse of Luther is alone politic, is the following step: “If somebody is to call heretic or schismatic, it aren’t certainly the Bohemians and neither the Greeks, that founded their religion, but heretics are you in Rome…”, the comment is natural and it tells: “it is normal because capital of Catholic religion is Rome”, certainly, but during the 1520, also the French, Spanish, British, Ireland, Holland and Europe was catholic, why alone Rome? Because Rome was capital of Catholic power. A note very remarkable of freedom on religion is in a step: “…nobody has fear of to be chargeable of heresy if he believes that on altar is true wine and true braid, he knows, instead, the he has freedom, without danger to his soul, of think and believe one or other thing, because here isn’t bond to faith…”; it is very commendable, for time of Luther, and we must stress it, but the political motive is distinguish the Reform from Catholic Church, and no certainly theological think; and this freedom is alone formal, because during 16^th and 17^th centuries the capital condemns to witchcraft were very much, although the freedom was a formal conquest of Reform, but evidently the popular religion wanted his corpses, and these were both in Catholic and Protestant Germany; therefore the freedom of Luther is alone propaganda to Reform. The last note, the difference between catholic and Anglican certainly is in the theologian field but the liturgy is almost same, why? Because the British union during the 16^th century the Union of Reign of British was, therefore unite something that yet was united was useless.

Alessandro Lusana