Southern California actress Laurel Kelsh Jones brought Martin Luther’s wife, “Katie” to life in the sanctuary of Napa Valley Lutheran Church on the afternoon of Oct. 8.
Clothed in Renaissance dress, Jones declared to the 30 mostly elderly attendees, “This is the day the Lord has made! Not bad for 507 years old, is it?”
She colorfully described incidents in Katie’s life, such as her time in a convent, saying, “I’ll tell you how I got into the habit” and “we prayed and we prayed and we prayed.” Katie told of secretly reading Martin Luther’s pamphlets in her cell and being smuggled out of the convent on Easter eve in empty herring barrels.
Finally, she passionately spoke of her courtship and marriage to Martin Luther. She said, “He was 42, I was 26. He was an ex-monk; I was an ex-nun. … We had six kids in eight years.”
When Jones ended the performance, she said, “You’ve had a Martin Luther in your life. Think about your Martin Luther, who loves you unconditionally. … I know it’s not cool to be Lutheran. Shouldn’t you go to the non-denominational church? Luther transformed the foundation of all Christianity. … God put you here for a reason. God chose you, is that not wonderful?”
The audience applauded enthusiastically. Afterwards, at the pie social, Jones answered questions and passed out “Reformation red” pencils.
Jones has played Katie Luther for a decade, performing at nearly 30 churches a year. Originally, her pastor asked her to do a 15-minute sermon called “The Reformation according to Katie.” Now, she has sold 650 recordings of her hour long, one-woman show.
In an interview, she said, “God is working through me. … Incredible things have happened in my life because of Katie. Blessings continue to unfold. What (Martin and Katherine Luther) did for the Christian Church is astounding.”
Jones described the Luthers’ marriage, saying, “Katie felt there was something she needed to do; something was missing. She had too many unanswered questions. How she and Martin came together could only be God-inspired because they didn’t start as lovers, but with respect. Martin and Katie had a marriage of our day; they enjoyed sexual relations, they desperately loved their children, they were a working father and working mother, they taught their children at home.” She said they were “partners in the Gospel and in life.”
On the Reformation, she observed, “Martin wasn’t out to destroy the Church, but restore the Church and go back to basics. In the Catholic Church, Mother Mary still has a prominent position, you have to go through the saints; in Protestantism, you go directly to Jesus. (In the Catholic Church) there are certain prayers, using Rosary beads, and following specific liturgies; it’s more formulated and scripted. Every Protestant church is different, more free. Everybody wants freedom, that’s what we have with God.”
You would think that she would know of Martin Luther’s devotion to Mary such as one of his sermons when he preached "[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." Martin Luther also believed in the Communion of Saints. The Mass Luther celebrated in the church he created was essentially the Mass with some changes. I wonder if she knows about the growing number of Protestants and especially Lutherans who pray the Rosary?
What I find interesting is the thought of how every church being different is seen as a good thing. That what the doctrine one church holds is dismissed by another. Or even the doctrines two churches might share will have radically different interpretations. Jesus prayed that they may be one, not that they may be divided. On my way into the Church it was my introduction to the variance of Protestant theology and how on Protestant radio I listened to the doctrines changed from hour to hour depending on who was preaching. Not that the message preached from those in the Church is always consistent, but it isn’t hard to discover whether they preached what the Church taught or not. I can easily understand a Lutheran defending Lutheranism and the Reformation, just not a defense of all of the splits and calling them freedom.
11 comments
Protestantism was/is/will be a heresy. There are good things in Prostestantism as there are in Hindu or Islam. The disunity of the Church is a scandal and is continued by those who hold onto the heresy of Protestantism. If this lady is still doing this sort of thing then it’s a further scandal and sin. She teaches untruths and foments dischord. Sometimes these things must be said. Full disclosure: I have many protestant friends of many years standing. However, the truth is the truth. Protestantism is not from God. Protestants are.
Some Lutherans even pray the rosary as we do, not even in a “Lutheran Rosary” format like was on that link!
It’s my understanding that Luther’s marriage was not a happy one. He was sort of forced into it by his cronies who wanted him to make a strong “statement in action” against celibacy.
Katie was smuggled out of the convent in a herring barrel; I always knew their was something fishy about her.
“this may be taught with sound and safe defence;
But mark how sandy is your own pretence,
Who, setting Councils, Pope, and Church aside,
Are evrey man his own presuming guide.
The Sacred Books, you say, are full and plain,
And every needful point of truth contain:
All who can read interpreters may be:
Thus, though your several churches disagree,
Yet every saint has to himself alone
The secret of his philosophic stone.
These principles your jarring sects unite,
When differing doctors and disciples fight.
Though Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, holy cheifs,
Have made a battle royal of beliefs;
Or, like wild horses, several ways have whirl’d
the tortured text about the Christian world;
Each Jehu lashing out with furious force,
The Turk or Jew could not have used it worse;
No matter what dissension leaders make,
Where every private man may save a stake:
Ruled by the Scriptures and his own advice,
Each has a blind by-path to paradise;
Where, driving in a circle, slow or fast,
Opposing sects are sure to meet at last.
A wonderous charity you have in store
For all reformed to pass the narrow door:”
From THE HIND AND THE PANTHER part two, by John Dreyden.
Since becoming Catholic I have realized that EVERY single good thing that I had as a Protestant is available to me in the Catholic Church –(1)– It took me a few years to get to that realization but I can safely now say that is the case. No Protestant would defend his faith against the secular attack that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stodgy rules without recourse to a common retort also used by Catholics to defend the teachings of the Church as being nothing more than a series of rules that are difficult to keep. Most readers of the Bible come quickly to the conclusion that grace is the avenue by which we are all moved to salvation, and further to conform ourselves more perfectly to the will of our Lord. External eyes see “rules” but a man of faith realizes that the rules are to protect us from things that really bind and hinder us from achieving the final end for which we are all intended — that is — eternal life. It is our faith that this grace will be provided that allows us to assent to difficult teachings in order to find far greater freedom than we could have ever imagined.
(1) — meaning I can STILL pray extemporanously. I GAIN the rosary.
I keep reading the Catholic church is unified, that it teaches the same thing, etc but then you compare bishops like Mahoney to Chaput – and I don’t see ANY unity at ALL!
How do you explain that?
The Church “Teaches” the same thing… not all of the “teachers” eminate that teaching.
Chaput is the man.
Mahoney should retire now so he has enough time to repent for leading people astray in LA (whoa that rhymed) before passing on. We need to pray for him and that the Pope sends a fantastic replacement once he’s gone.
Angela,
You have a very superficial understanding of unity. To play off the errors (alledged or real) of one bishop- which have more to do with discipline and liturgical practice rather than with doctrine-with the practice of another bishop does not effect the essential unity of the Church.
Even if a bishop were to embrace formal heresy and lead many with him into his error the unity of the Church would remain. They left that unity but it still exists and can be returned to by repentance.
You say you keep reading that the Catholic Church is unified, but do you understand what the Chruch’s theology of unity is.
Easily, Angela.
There will always be tares besides the wheat in Christ’s Church (remember that parable?), but the True Church Itself always teaches Truth.
Individual members = tares. Not everyone who is in the Church of truth will be orthodox, but the teachings of that church will be.
This becomes especially apparent to me when you consider that Martin Luther believed in:
1) deep devotion to Mary
2) the literal presence of the Eucharist
3) salvation by faith alone *through baptismal regeneration* (Protestants cringe when they read Luther’s post-Protestant statements on baptism)
4) the evils of birth control, comparing those who use it to sodomites
5) polygamy, and
6) auricular confession.
These were all post-reformation views by Luther.
Now, how many Lutherans, much less any of the thousands of Christian churches formed off of Luther’s revolution, believe in ANY of those things today? Does the Lutheran church (WELS, ELS, LCMS or ELCA) formally teach any of those things other than (maybe) # 2?
By contrast, the Catholic Church holds and has always taught:
1) salvation by grace through faith but not faith alone
2) true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
3) baptismal regeneration
4) infant baptism
5) devotion to the Mother of God
6) confession of sins
7) evils of birth control and on and on.
Mahoney may not believe in any of these (or maybe he does… I can’t say) but the Church Herself has always and consistently taught them. Her followers haven’t changed those beliefs because She is founded by Christ and cannot change.
Those who have ears to hear can hear the Church’s timeless teachings because Christ is the author of harmony, not confusion.
I hope this helps!
Orthros
Orthros,
Martin Luther’s view of the Eucharist was not of transubstantiation, but of Consubstantiation where the elements of bread and wine where mixed with the Body and Blood of Christ. He also believed that the presence did not remain which is why they don’t have Eucharistic adoration. Which I guess is a good thing since they don’t have the Eucharist either.
Jeff,
I don’t think Orthros actually claimed that the Lutheran view of the Eucharist was transubstantiation, but the real presence. And that is an accurate statement of Luther’s beliefs.
And it isn’t quite accurate to regard consubstantiation as “mixing” of the elements with the Body and Blood. The Lutheran view is that the Body and Blood are present “in, with, and under” the elements. The distinction is a fine, though, I think, a real one.
And lest I be misunderstood, I’m a Catholic and consequently disagree strongly with the Lutheran view. 🙂
Comments are closed.