CATHOLIC QUESTIONS: How might Luther have become St. Martin of Wittenberg?

So I listened to a lecture on Martin Luther by Warren Carroll, former president of the Catholic liberal arts institution Christendom College. Dr. Carroll doesn't mince any words when it comes the Protestant "Revolution," as he terms it. Most of his lecture is actually focused on the life and times of Martin Luther, for whom he expresses particular disdain, although Dr. Carroll does grant Luther one good: that his railing against monetary payment for indulgences resulted in the condemnation of this abuse by the Council of Trent.

Ever since I decided to openly pursue the claims of Catholicism, I've been troubled by this particular episode in history. Though there is some degree of Catholic-Protestant detente in our day, Luther nevertheless remain one of the most divisive figures in history. Specifically, the Diet of Worms has troubled me non-stop. It remains of one of my own personal "roadblocks" because no other moment so exemplifies the Protestant "paradigm" that I've believed all my life to be correct.

For Dr. Carroll, Emperor Charles V is the hero of the Diet of Worms, standing strong as a defender of the faith. Up until now, Charles V has only appeared to me as an incidental figure who did not understand Luther and commanded him to recant on the truth (though at this point I of course don't necessarily agree with Luther on all the truths he was standing for).

I guess the question that really bugs me is this: What should Martin Luther have done? Was the problem with Luther that he was wrong about his interpretation of scripture, or that he went about his objections in the wrong way, or both? Should Luther have quietly backed down at the Diet of Worms and agreed to pursue the matters in a different manner? When must a good Catholic stop objecting and simply accept the teaching of the church?

These are complicated issues, I know, but for all the questions I ask, let me re-frame my question this way: How might this troubled Augustinian monk have become a Catholic saint rather than a Catholic heretic?

Currently listening to: Thurston Moore, Trees Outside the Academy

INTERESTING FACT: St. Paul's Prayer for the Dead

Thanks to Kevin Branson for posting something that brought this to my attention.

St. Paul mentions his dear friend Onesiphorus, or rather his household, twice in his second letter to St. Timothy. On the first occasion, 2 Timothy 1:18, he commends Onesiphorus, and then asks mercy for both his household and for Onesiphorus himself.

Later, in 2 Timothy 4, the apostle sends his greetings to "Prisca, Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus." From this, it is possible to infer that Onesiphorus was dead at the time the letter was written, since he does not send his greetings personally to Onesiphorus himself (as he does with Prisca and Aquila).

While it's not necessarily an ace in the hole, it's at least interesting to realize that we may very well have an apostolic endorsement of prayers for the dead in the Bible after all.

Currently listening to: Gillian Welch, "My Morphine"

I'M DIGGIN: Conan on the Tonight Show

Ah Conan, how I missed thee and longed for thee during thy quarter-year absence...

The Conan-ator is back, and as far as I'm concerned, better than ever. Sure, there was a bunch of talk about the first episode not meeting expectations, but we're talking about a guy that has based an entire successful career on an awkward appearance and self-deprecating humor. A bad show is simply the next night's hilarious punchline. And he's gotten better every night since the first.

The one letdown for me has been the sense that he is playing it a bit safe on his intros, trying to seem a little more mature for the Tonight Show faithful. At least we've gotten some hip puppetry. Other than that minor complaint, its great to have America's nightly goofball back on TV.

And btw, that Twitter bit on Tuesday night was hilarious.

Currently listening to: M. Ward, Post-War

HECK YES! Over the Rhine, Live From Nowhere Volume IV

Currently listening to: TORTOISE, It's All Around You

Just read that one of the greatest little bands in the land, Over the Rhine, will indeed be releasing a fourth volume of their live yearbook Live from Nowhere sometime later this year. Even better: IT'S A DOUBLE WHAMMY! That's right, since the band celebrated its 20th Anniversary last year with all kinds of epic live shows, I guess they have an extra plethora of great material on hand.

I would link to my source, but apparently it came through via some new fangled technology called Tweeter or something, and given my track record, I probably won't be using that until we achieve faster than light technology.

Buenos Noches.

HECK YES! Josh Ritter, Live & Free

Opened up my e-mail to a pleasant surprise this morning. Josh Ritter, who has released a string of four great folk-rock albums in the last several years, will be setting out soon on a lengthy summer tour of North America. The surprise? He'll be playing a FREE concert at the beautiful Waterfront Park in my hometown of Louisville, a mere two hours away. This is all courtesy to the great local radio station, WFPK.

I have yet to see Josh live, so you can imagine how stoked I am about this. If you haven't heard Josh yet, start with the Animal Years. It's one of the best albums of this CENTURY.

Good Article: Music and Passions

Currently listening to: EXIT CLOV, Respond Respond (EP)

I ran across this excellent discussion of musical merit the other day on the blog ALIVE AND YOUNG. It's worth reading the whole thing, and it's challenging for a music snob like myself to hear some of the things he likes to say. I'm pretty sure a lot of the music I listen to would be classified as ugly according to the criteria he lays out. I'm glad to say, though, that I'm pretty sure more of it would be considered beautiful.

Anyway, great article!

TO ROME OR NOT TO ROME I, Why I Am A Christian

Currently listening to: NEU! 75

Well, I'll open up a gigantic can of worms and begin to deal with the topic of why I am considering converting to the Roman Catholic Church. This might very well be the primary reason I have begun blogging again, and so it warrants a bit of an introduction.

About two or three months ago I broke the news to my wife, parents, Pastor, and a few close friends that I felt like I was being pulled toward the Catholic Church and that I could no longer in good faith keep it all to myself. I wasn't sure of all the answers to my questions and curiosities, but I did know that I felt like Christ was urging me to declare a sort of temporary denominational agnosticism in order to follow where He led.

To be sure, I have been more or less "Reformed" for as long as I knew what "Reformed" meant, but in the last few years, I have found myself having trouble refuting many of the arguments put forth by Catholic apologists against Protestant and Evangelical Christianity and for the Roman Catholic Church. For the longest time I just assumed this was mostly due to the fact that I was not a professionally trained theologian and that I was dealing with arguments from those who were. It was easy to brush aside the intellectual quandries and just sort of grin and bear it for a long time.

But over the past year, I also went through a deep and often dark spiritual crisis. This is the hardest part of my story to share, and I don't plan to dive into too much detail on it, because I have been able to attain for myself a sort of truce with it all for the last several months. Yet this same spiritual crisis was ultimately, I believe, the catalyst for the courage to step out of my comfort zone like I have.

With the darkness of my spiritual crisis came many temptations, but the most obviously deviant was the temptation to just drop the whole thing and give up on Christ. Praise be to the living God that as a young man He had stirred up a desire in me to not only hold the truths of the faith in the secret of my heart, but also to be able to give a well-reasoned account for the hope that is within me.

I have always felt a deep love for the person of Jesus, the empathetic God-man Who was willing to suffer agony upon agony for me. And I have always known His story was true because of the martyrdoms of the Apostles and other witnesses of the risen Christ, for though one man may be deceived by himself, for dozens to willingly lay down their lives over a lie they know to be a lie is simply ridiculous and unreasonable. If Peter and John and Stephen and countless others all bore witness to the risen Lord, if they ate and spoke with Him, if they touched His wounds and witnessed His ascension, and then laid down their lives, then what other testament to the "historicity", the REALITY, of the resurrection can we possibly need? Christ is Risen. I would be a fool to cut and run when the king has already been installed upon His throne of victory.

So I have always held to an historical faith just as much as I have held to a personal faith. Knowing this, one may easily understand the basic difficulty that led me question not Christ, but wherein He might properly be found. Notionally, every Christian should understand that the Bible is testament to all that we believe and hold dear. For Protestants, the Bible is the ultimate arbiter of truth, and as a child this was easy enough to accept.

Yet for years, the question of why and how bugged me about the Bible, not because I doubted, but because I knew in my heart of hearts that these questions mattered...

NEXT: The Bible's story