recent historical scholarship? You mean changes to the history we were taught all our lives.
Because you’re only giving it superficial consideration?
Superficial? So, a person who is excommunicated and his teachings anathematized, is now considered a hero. And the contrast between the two conflicting attitudes towards the same fellow is considered, superficial? The answer is that recent historical scholarship has uncovered the hidden truth that this guy was really, a saint.
Hard pill to swallow. You’ll have to do more than accuse me of not staying abreast of changes made to the history which I have always been taught, by the Catholic Church, was true.
The gist here is that Catholics and Protestants alike have caricatured the whole sad affair: Luther was a buffoon; the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Luther always desired a break from the Church; the Church wallowed in its sin.
In the past 500 years, Popes and many highly praised theologians, clerics and laymen, have earnestly told us that Luther turned against the Catholic Church and started the revolution which ripped the Christian fabric in half. Yet, you are saying that these people were distorting the truth?
And yet, we work with fellows, the followers of Luther and they teach distinctively different gospels which conflict with the Catholic Gospel and they despise the Church and speak of her in the same disparaging fashion as Luther spoke of her in the historical documents that many of us have read.
What do you expect us to believe? That which we were taught our whole lives and which is verified and confirmed by the witness of living followers of Luther?
Or that which is written by people who live in white castles far away from real life and have decided that they don’t like the history which has been previously accepted.
The real, historical, honest truth is a lot more complicated than that.
Not according to the new history. The new history says that Luther is a hero and should be celebrated. That doesn’t sound like real, historical, honest truth to me.
Luther lit a match to kindling that the Church had contributed to creating; secular forces
That sounds simplistic. That doesn’t sound like real, historical truth.
(Christian and pagan, ruler and peasant) fanned the flames for the sake of their own particular goals.
Says you. For the sake of your own particular goal.
The bottom line is this. The infallible council of Trent declared his error anathema. Now, somebody has decided that the man who pronounced these errors which were adopted by a large faction of christendom and which tore the Church asunder, is to be celebrated as a hero.
Your simplistic explanation does nothing to resolve that dilemma.