Washington D.C., Oct 30, 2017 / 04:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- One fated Halloween, 500 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle in a dramatic act of defiance against the Catholic Church.
Or, he may have just hung it on the doorknob. Or mailed out copies.
Or, if he did nail it, the act of the nailing itself would not have been all that significant, because the door may have been used as a bulletin board where everyone was nailing announcements.
And he probably wasn’t all that defiant; he likely had the attitude of a scholar trying to raise questions and concerns. At that point, Luther didn’t know how defiant he would eventually become, or that his act, and his subsequent theological work, would lead to one of the greatest disruptions of unity in the Church’s history.
“This was not a declaration of war against the Catholic Church, nor was it a break,” Dr. Alan Schreck with Franciscan University of Steubenville told CNA.
“It was a concerned, Augustinian monk and biblical scholar correcting an abuse, and it was really a call for a dialogue.”
However, it took fewer than five years for this call for dialogue to transform into schism, rejection of the authority of the Church’s tradition and bishops and most of the sacraments, and a growing number of Protestant communities, united only by their rejection of the Catholic Church.
While historians debate just how dramatic was the actual posting of the 95 theses, its anniversary is an occasion to look back at what the role of the most popular Protestant was in the movement that ultimately split Western Christendom in two.
Who was Martin Luther?
Martin Luther was born on November 10, 1483, the oldest son of Hans and Margarethe Luther. His father, a successful business and civic leader, had grand visions for his eldest son’s life and sent him to school with the hopes he would become a lawyer.
While Luther completed his bachelor’s and master’s degree according to his father’s plan, he dropped out of law school, finding himself increasingly drawn to the subjects of philosophy and theology.
Soon after leaving law school, Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, a decision he would later attribute to a vow he made during a precarious horseback ride, when he was nearly struck by lightning in the midst of a storm. Terrified that he was about to die, the 21-year-old Luther cried out to St. Anne, promising that he would become a monk if he survived. He felt it was a vow he could not break; his father felt it was a waste of his education.
By all accounts, Luther was a Catholic success story before he became the leading figure of the Reformation. He joined the monastery in 1505, and by 1507 he was ordained a priest. He became a renowned theologian and biblical scholar within the order, as well as a powerful and popular preacher and lecturer at the University of Wittenberg in Germany.
During his years of study and growing popularity, Luther began developing the groundwork of his theology on salvation and scripture that would ultimately become deal-breakers in his relationship with the Catholic Church.
The offense of selling indulgences
But it wasn’t strictly theological ideas that first drove Luther to the ranks of reformation ringleader – it was his critique of the practice of selling indulgences, the central subject of his 95 theses, that catapulted him into the limelight.
According to Catholic teaching, an indulgence is the remission of all or part of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven, and can be applied either to the person performing the prescribed act or to a soul in Purgatory.
To obtain an indulgence, one must complete certain spiritual requirements, such as going to the sacraments of Confession and Communion, in addition to some other act or good work, such as making a pilgrimage or doing a work of mercy.
But even years before Martin Luther, abuses of indulgences were rampant in the Church.
Instead of prescribing an act of prayer or a work of mercy as a way to obtain an indulgence, clerics began also authorizing a “donation” to the Church as a good work needed to remit the temporal punishment due to sin.
Increasingly, people grew critical of the sale of indulgences, as they watched money gleaned from people’s afterlife anxiety go to fund the extravagant lives of some of the clergy. The money was also often used to buy clerical offices, the sin of simony.
During Martin Luther’s time, in northern Germany, the young and ambitious prince-Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg was offered the position of the Archbishop of Mainz, but was unwilling to relinquish any of his previously-held power.
Meanwhile in Rome, Pope Leo X was demanding a considerable fee from Albrecht for his new position, as well as from the people of his dioceses for the fund to build St. Peter’s Basilica. Albrecht took out a loan and promised Rome 50 percent of the funds extracted from – as critics would describe it – preying on people’s fear of Purgatory.
For the St. Peter’s fund, the Pope had employed Dominican friar Johann Tetzel to be the Grand Commissioner for Indulgences for the country of Germany.
According to historians, Tetzel liberally preached the indulgence, over-promising remission of sins, extending it to include even future sins one might commit, rather than sins that had already been repented of and confessed. He even allegedly coined the gimmicky indulgence phrase: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from Purgatory springs.”
It was Tetzel’s activities that ultimately pushed Luther to protest by publishing his 95 theses.
The 95 theses and the seeds of reform
“When he posted the 95 theses, he wasn’t a Lutheran yet,” said Michael Root, professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America.
“In some ways they get things rolling, but what’s important is what happens after the 95 theses when Luther gets pushed into a more radical position.”
Regardless of how dramatically they were posted to the door of Wittenberg Castle on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed not only his theses but the feelings of many faithful at the time who were also frustrated with the corruption and abuse they saw in the Church.
Christian humanists such as Erasmus and St. Thomas More were contemporaries of Luther who also objected to abuses within Church while not breaking from it.
Meanwhile, Luther’s already-established reputation as a respected professor, as well as access to the printing press, allowed his theses and ideas to spread at a rate previously unmatched by previous reformers who had similar critiques of the Church.
“Clearly there was a kind of symbiosis between Luther and the development of the printing press,” Root said. “What he was writing was able to engage lots of people. Many of them were short pamphlets that could be printed up quickly, they sold well…so he was on the cutting edge of technology and he fit what the technology needed – short, energetic things people wanted to read.”
Most historians agree that Luther’s original intent was not to start a new ecclesial community – that idea would have been “unthinkable at the time,” Root noted. ??“So that’s too much to say; however, it’s too little to say all he want to do was reform abuses.”
By 1518, his theses spread throughout Germany and intellectual Europe. Luther also continued writing prolifically, engaging in disputes with Tetzel and other Catholic critics and further developing his own ideas.
For its part, the Church did not issue an official response for several years, while attempts at discussions dissolved into defensive disputations rather than constructive dialogue. As a result, early opportunities to engage Luther’s criticisms on indulgences instead turned into arguments about Church authority as a whole.
Swatting flies with a sledgehammer – Luther becomes a Lutheran
One of Luther’s most well-known critics was Catholic theologian Johann Eck, who declared Luther’s theses heretical and ordered them to be burned in public.
In 1519, the two sparred in a disputation that pushed Luther to his more extreme view that scripture was the only valid Christian authority, rather than tradition and the bishops.
“The Catholic critics quickly changed the subject from indulgences to the question of the Church’s authority in relation to indulgences, which was a more dangerous issue,” Root said. “Now you’re getting onto a touchy subject. But there was also an internal dynamic of Luther’s own thought,” that can be seen in his subsequent writings.
In 1520, Luther published three of his most renowned treatises: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, On the Freedom of a Christian Man, and To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
By that time, it was clear that what Luther thought was wrong in the Church was not just the abuse of indulgences, but the understanding of the message of Christianity on some basic levels. Besides denouncing the Pope as a legitimate authority, Luther also declared that faith alone, sola fide, was all that was necessary for salvation, rather than faith and good works.
“Luther was definitely trying to fix what was a legitimate problem, which was pelagian tendencies, or people trying to work their way into heaven,” said Dr. Paul Hilliard, Assistant Professor and Chair of Church History at Mundelein Seminary. It had created a “mercantile attitude” in some people at the time of Luther – “if I do this, God will do this.”
“So Luther was trying to correct these things, but the phrase I sometimes say is that Luther swatted the fly of pelagianism with a sledgehammer. In order to keep any trace of humans earning salvation out of the system, he changed the system.”
Luther’s distrust of human beings did not particularly spring from his criticisms of indulgences and the subsequent pushback from the Church – it was in line with most anthropological thought at the time, which tended toward a very negative view of human nature. Therefore, in his Protestant views, he sought to get rid of any human involvement wherever possible – particularly when it came to interpreting scripture and salvation.
“On the scale of beasts to angels, most people (at the time) would have us a lot closer to beasts,” Hilliard noted.
The Catholic Church officially condemned Luther’s theses in a papal bull, Exsurge Domine, promulgated in June 1520, and in part authored by Eck. The declaration afforded Luther a 60-day window to recant his positions, lest he be excommunicated.
But by the time the papal bull was issued, Luther had not only denounced the authority of the Pope, but had declared him an anti-Christ. The window for reconciling views was all but closed.
The popular and political reforms
Despite Luther’s increasingly radical claims against the Pope and the Church, his popularity spread, due to his compelling and prolific writings and, to Luther’s dismay, his populist appeal.
Luther popularized the idea of a “priesthood of all believers” to the exclusion of an ordained, ministerial priesthood. Rather than bearing an indelible mark on their soul, in Luther’s view ministerial priests did not differ from the “priesthood of believers” except in office and work. This, along with his personality and background, appealed to the poor and working class of the time who were frustrated with the lavish lives of Church hierarchy, which typically came at the expense of the poor in rural areas.
“Luther was very much a populist, he was a man of the people, he was scruff, he came from sort of peasant stock, he spoke the language of the people, so I think a lot of the common people identified with him,” Shreck said.
“He was one of them, he wasn’t far away in Rome or a seemingly wealthy bishop or archbishop…so he appealed particularly to Germans because he wanted a German liturgy and a German bible, and the people said, ‘we want a faith that is close to us and accessible’.”
But Luther balked when his religious ideals spurred the Peasant’s War of 1525, as peasants in rural areas of German revolted, motivated by Luther’s religious language of equality. The year or so of subsequent bloody war seemed to justify those who dismissed Luther as nothing more than a social movement rather than a serious religious reformer.
In order to maintain the esteem of those higher up, Luther disavowed the unruly peasants as not part of the official reform movement, laying the groundwork for the Anabaptists to fill in the religious gaps for the peasants in the future.
However, the Peasant’s War wasn’t the only time the Reformation got political – or lethal. Because of the vacuum of authority that now existed in Luther’s pope-less, emerging ecclesial community, authority was handed over to the local princes, who took advantage of the reformation to break from the fee-demanding Pope.
Much of Germany had embraced Lutheranism by the mid 1500s, though some parts, such as Bavaria, retained their Catholic faith.
For his part, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V officially condemned Luther’s theology at the 1521 Diet of Worms, a meeting of German princes, during which Luther famously refused to recant his position with the words: “Here I stand. God help me. I can do no other.”
Despite Charles V’s opposition to Luther’s views, he allowed for Luther’s safe passage from the diet, rather than enforcing the customary execution of heretics, and thus forfeited his best chance for stomping out the Reformation at its roots.
Historians speculate that while Charles V personally opposed Luther’s views, he let him live because he also saw the decentralizing of power from the Vatican as something of which he could take political advantage.
Reformation fever was also catching throughout Europe, and soon Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and England were all following Germany’s example of breaking from the Catholic Church and establishing state-run, Protestant ecclesial communities.
“I like to think of the story with the little Dutch boy with his the finger in the dyke,” Shreck said. “Once the breach was made, others follows his example. Once Luther did it, it was like the domino effect.”
“In a book by Owen Chadwick, he said the Reformation came not because Europe was irreligious, but because it was fervently religious,” Shreck added. “This was after the black death and a lot of social turmoil – people really wanted to turn to God and seek solace in faith.”
But the reformers were not all agreed on their beliefs, which led to the rise of numerous sects of Protestantism, including Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Anabaptism.
“Protestantism became very divided, though they all claimed to be doing the right thing because they believed they were maintaining the purity of the faith,” Schreck said.
Root noted that once the Protestant-Catholic divide “got embedded in political differences, between southern Europe and northern Europe, between Spain and England, and so the religious differences also became national differences, that just made matters far worse.”
“Once you have the wars of religion in 1546, then attitudes become very harsh. Once you start killing each other, it’s hard to sit down and talk,” he added.
The wars over religion would become especially pronounced in the 30 Years War of the 1600s, though at that point, religion had become more of a political tool for the state, Hilliard said.
“The 30 Years War is a really good indication that while religion was important, it was not the most important thing – it was a war between different competing princes to gain greater control of territories, during which religion was thrown into the mix,” Hilliard noted.
Could the Reformation have been avoided?
The million-dollar question at the center of Reformation history is whether the Reformation and the splitting of Western Christendom could have been avoided.
“Some would say by two years into the Reformation, the theological differences already ran very deep and there was no way you were going to get reconciliation,” Root said.
“But there are others who would argue that as late as the 1540s it was still possible that perhaps the right set of historical circumstances could have brought people together, and there’s no way of knowing, because you can’t run history again and change the variables.”
“Whether one could have settled it all then short of war, there were missed opportunities for reconciliation, that’s clear,” he added.
Luther’s fiery and rebellious personality, matched with the defiant and defensive stance that the Catholic Church took in response to his ideas, created a perfect storm that cemented the Protestant-Catholic divide.
Much of Luther’s thinking remained Catholic throughout his life, Schreck noted, including his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“I think if there had been a sincere effort on the part of the Catholic hierarchy that his concerns were legitimate, history might have gone in a different direction.”
It wasn’t until Pope Paul III (1534–1549), 17 years after the fated theses first made their rounds, that the Catholic Church as a whole took a serious and official look at its own need for reform, and its need to respond to the Protestant Reformation.
This is Part 1 in a three-part series on the Reformation. Part 2 will discuss the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. Part 3 will discuss ecumenism today.
[…]
No listening to … several cardinals who wanted to chat some years ago about Amoris letitia.
No listening to … folks who, wanting clarity on Church teaching, are called hypocrites and pharisees.
No listening to … Catholics who want more financial transparency from the Vatican.
No listening to … Catholics who find it scandalous that a pro-abortion US Catholic president or Speaker of the House can still receive communion.
No listening to … Chinese Catholics who have suffered persecution for decades.
No listening to … a Cardinal who knows the government of China far better than Parolin.
No listening to … people who disagree with suicidal western European progressivism.
And, as you mention, no listening to people who want the Tridentine Mass.
Yeah right, let’s listen with the heart … whatever that means. I guess it means first decide to whom you are going to listen and to whom you will not. Synodality. What a joke.
By the way, “who is he to judge” that we need “synodality?”
The Vaticans amazing willingness to let the CCP do anything it wants can easily be explained. Chinese intelligence has eavesdropped on the many homosexuals that Pope Francis brought into the Vatican, and the Chinese have the goods on all of them.
Excellent questions, John. You put the whole exercise in perspective.
The very word, “synodality,” reeks of bureaucracy. Regular people say, “cooperation” or “collaboration” or “unity.”
In fact, I think I can honestly say I have never had a conversation in which the word, “synodality” was uttered.
Which is, I think, telling. It reinforces Mr. Altieri’s point that Rome is increasingly remote, detached and irrelevant.
And, considering this immature, hectoring papacy we are suffering through, that may not be an entirely bad thing.
So what is CDW?
Congregation for Divine Worship. It’s the Vatican organ that legislates on the Liturgy.
We read, “why all the fuss [and of] “a prelate, who wanted to suggest they bring out something from the International Theological Commission.”
So, a comment here about long-term history, and about amnesia…
On the first question, part of the fuss might be about fostering a more synodal form in the West as a step toward reunification with patriarchal churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. Who knows what might happen in another thousand years?
On the second point,the International Theological Commission (ITC) introduced the synodal dimension of the Church in the 2018 document “Synodality in the life and mission of the Church”. How closely the new synodal guidelines respect this already-existing and balanced presentation, or not, is one question raised in my critical opinion piece carried on these pages less than two weeks ago: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/10/02/opinion-making-sense-of-synodal-steps-during-precarious-times
The ITC also issued a document, “Sensus Fidea” in 2014. Worth a look, it allows that a ‘sense of the faith’ exists in every level of the church. Of course, the interpretation of ‘sense’ swings in more than one direction.
***
“MyChinaConnection.com” offers insight into the Chinese proverb Altieri quotes:
“Late in the Yuan Dynasty, corruption was rampant. Local officials known as Mandarins, would misuse large amounts of tax revenues with profligate spending.
The treasury was facing bankruptcy，so the ineptitude of these leaders led to all sorts of new schemes to separate hard working people from their money. Those unable to pay these new taxes were arrested and beaten.
It was not uncommon for bribes to be paid to purchase a position of power. Those who took these positions were inclined to taking property and victimizing the people. All this abuse lead to discontent in the populace and eventual rebellion.
In Zhejiang province, a rhyme was composed to show the frustration that the common people felt regarding their plight.
Heaven is high and the emperor is far away, the people are few yet officials abound.
Three times each day we are beaten! We have to rebel — it is now or never!”
From across the sea the mountains are negligible. Altieri’s exercise in futility impression is wellmade. And it’s true not that many even care to penetrate the inscrutable nature of a Synod on synodality. Many of us just wish to remain Catholic in faith and in what we do. Although some of us, priests who by commission must care need to assess what effect a never ending Journey as described by Francis will take. Altieri ‘hints’ by the Pope’s descriptive wording of those who have issues, struggle, simply seek acceptance rather than be judged wishing to be fully accepted despite [by suggestion of Francis’ Words] being practicing homosexuals, or living in irregular unions. Emperor Francis is not so distant that events don’t transpire as he wishes. An emperor rules by command, nowadays simply by suggestion. What will and what can result in ongoing discussion on the Church when there’ll always be competing opinions? And nothing is really binding? Something decisive. Effectively it will impress Church and world that nothing Catholicism teaches has permanence, that Christ’s revelation was simply an historical, not an eschatological event. His Holiness like water will find a way.
These synod participants seem to live in a place that has yet to hear of the first coming of Christ.
It appears Chris that underlying doubt may well explain the overall absence of firm, convinced faith. If we are convinced of the truth of his commandments we put them in practice. It also may be many admit to the truth inwardly but refuse to comply, rife homosexuality within clerical ranks a factor this pontificate seemingly supportive. We pray Christ will purify his Church.
I suspect the synod will succeed in manifesting apostasy for those with eyes to see. The angel of light will display his smoke and mirrors in technicolor. Christ and His following sheep will not accept the deception. They will choose everlasting martyrdom, following Christ. The goats will meanwhile glee and laugh at the cliff the martyrs took…until the realization dawns for some. The cliff is the one and only exit.
Meiron, during his address on the Synod on synodality Pope Francis in apparent response to criticism quoted Yves Congar on reform, which the Dominican presupposed would be to change the Church, not to create a new one. Eduardo Echeverria, a notable professor of philosophy and sacred theology [a contributor to CWR] posted an informative article in TCT. “Synodality runs the risk of treating a listening and dialogical Church as an end in itself. An open ended series of discussions about the normative content of Christianity, rather than as an instrument in the service of the teaching Church” (Echeverria). Echeverria went on to quote Congar’s rules for a legitimate reform, “ 2. Only through communion with the whole body, which itself is subject to the guidance of the magisterium [see Lumen Gentium, no. 12], can someone grasp a truth in its totality. It is clearly impossible that individual persons might know and profess the whole truth by themselves” (Yves Congar). This rule summarizes the remaining. To date I haven’t seen reference to Congar’s prescription. This raises concern that the “forever” Pope Francis Synod really has no determinate purpose except to recreate the Church into a forum for endless indeterminate discussion. An image comes to mind of a papal Diogenes, lantern in hand leading the Church, with the accompaniment of Protestants, non Christians, atheist camp followers into the dark corners of the world in search of a purpose.
Your image of ‘a papal Diogenes, lantern in hand leading the Church,…’ is totally apt. I had a good laugh at seeing it. Or like Sisyphus, all in the days’ lifetime of work, all for the glory of dare-we-say-what.
There is more on Francis’ conforming to Congar at National Catholic Reporter, 2013. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/why-yves-congar-relevant-today. If the glove fits…
Quote from NCR, 2013, on Congar on reform:
There is a risk “that the ecclesiastical apparatus [of the church] might overshadow the action of the Spirit and of grace in people’s lives.” {MEIRON’S INTERPOSITION: The idea that the Church can somehow ‘overshadow’ or blunt the work of the Holy Spirit in an individual strikes me as EXCEEDINGLY strange.} This, he says is the “temptation of Pharisaism,” a deep attachment to habitual forms of religious expression than to the spirit of life they aim to express….
“The church needs reform, and this is not the task of one single person, the sovereign pontiff or a certain number of cardinals … but the task of the entire world.” New ideas and movements arise in response to regional and local opportunities, he says. “They need both the freedom to develop and the approval of the authorities.”
The synodality of the synod seems to be an exercise in self-absorption by this pope and the bishops. Unless and until they can stand firmly for Church teaching, I don’t see the synod as anything except a waste of time. Pope Francis opines that bishops need to be “pastoral” in discussing support for abortion joined with the reception of the Holy Eucharist, but he doesn’t seem to understand that the most pastoral act of any bishop or priest is to correct the thinking of a presumed believer when it comes to Church teaching. I hope he “pastorally” told Nancy Pelosi when they met last Saturday that her position supporting and funding abortion is a direct threat to her salvation. To do otherwise would be to “politically” avoid the elephant in the room. Stop meeting to discuss the “synodality of synods” and do the pastoral work Jesus has called you to do.
K. I got CDW figured out. It would have helped to spell it out. (Hint: I’ve reached my lifetime quota of acronyms).
Trying to keep an open mind on this Synod on Synodality but reading the names of some of the promoters does not inspire confidence.
I, for one, will be very glad when the Catholic church has a Pope again.
I wonder what the chances of that happening might be, given the current Pope’s appointees of Cardinal-electors?
The synod of all synods is shaping up to schism. The remnant won’t participate in the one world religion. The End.
“stench”
“Fish rots from the head, down.”
“navel-gazing”
This article uses all those to describe the governance of Pope Francis. Hmmm.
I am nobody.
But, even so, I think Catholics need and want Catholic journalists, theologians, and homilists who can help us make sense of what’s happening in a way that gives hope, builds faith, inspires optimism, fosters complete trust in the Good Shepherd, stimulates hard work for the good, and cultivates compassion for all.
Gus, I’d like to see all of those things as well myself. But a the moment, I’m having a very hard time finding any reason for optimism or anything in Rome that will “build faith.”
What is so complicated about being Catholic that some people constantly try to reinvent the Church? Believe and live what the Church has always taught. As a wise Monsignor once said to me, give a theologian or bishop an opportunity to talk about the Church and God, and he’ll complicate the issues to the point of confusing himself and everyone else. If we love Him, we’ll keep His commandments, Jesus says. I am so glad and thankful to God for leading me to a community of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter. There is no confusion about who and what we are as Catholics, which is ironic. A bunch of Anglicans – i.e., separated brethren – coming back into the Church have more to teach Catholics about being Catholic than most of the current generation of cradle Catholics, bishops and cardinals who seem eager to soft soap the message and mission of Jesus Christ rather than speak the hard (and saving and merciful) truth of the Holy Gospel.