|
A recent Pew research study found that many Catholics in the United States do not believe in Real Presence, the fact that the living Jesus Christ is fully present in holy communion. This study has caused much consternation in the Church. In our first Reformation post of 2020, we will focus on Martin Luther’s understanding of Real Presence.
Although the development of the Eucharistic rites extended over several centuries, it is safe to say that for the first millennium of Christianity the teaching of St. Augustine in the fifth century on Real Presence summed up Church belief: “Once the bread that you see on the altar is sanctified by the Word of God, it is the body of Christ. And once the chalice is sanctified by the word of God, what the chalice contains is the blood of Christ.” [Sermons 227] It is easy to overlook, though, how the guarantee for this miracle is “the Word of God,” i.e., Scripture, specifically John 6, the famous Breads Narrative. Strange as it may seem today, Martin Luther held precisely the same belief. In 1000 A.D., had he been alive, Luther would have taught in full harmony with the Church. [I am painting here with a broad brush; a richer history of Eucharistic theological development is found, for example, in Doors to the Sacred [2014, pp. 239-315] Late in the Dark Ages a monk theologian named Radbertus put forward the first metaphysical definition of the process of Eucharistic consecration, what we know today as “transubstantiation.” The term describes how the presence of Christ enters the bread and wine, namely, by displacing them. The appearance of bread and wine remains; in the early medieval philosophy of the day, the appearance, taste, and texture of communion remains. As my first communion class was taught in 1956, “the substance of the bread becomes Christ; the accidents-odor, taste, shape, weight-remain the same.” Ask an old Catholic about “substance and accidents.” By the year 1000 A.D. a theologian, Berengar of Tours, put forward a novel formulation of the Eucharistic food. Berengar was a consummate realist; if communion looked like bread and wine to the human senses, then bread and wine it must be. When one received communion, he argued, one was receiving actual bread and wine. Receiving was not an empty act for Berengar; in his line of thinking, a faithful believer received Christ spiritually. There was a true change in the bread and wine during the consecration, but the change was spiritual while the substance of bread and wine remained to be eaten. Berengar posed the first major threat to the Catholic doctrine of Real Presence, and as could be expected, the great minds of Catholic universities addressed the changes in the bread and wine with increasing precision. St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274 A.D.] spoke for many when he stated that the Mass itself was not a sacrament, but rather a sacred action that produced a sacrament, i.e., the consecrated species.] Using the terminology of Aristotle, Thomas provided the language for the change in the bread and wine. He used the substance-accidents formulary: that while the sacred food may appear to be bread and wine, its essence was the full presence of Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity. The transubstantiation formulary was promulgated for the whole Church at the Council of Trent [1545-1563] To believe that these simple elements of food hid the eternal presence of God became not only a bedrock doctrine of belief, but an inspiration for a Eucharistic piety that continues to this day, such as Eucharistic adoration, benediction, etc. A product of this era is the Eucharistic hymn Adoro te, devote, written by St. Thomas himself. Note the emphasis upon faith in what cannot be seen, and trust in the Word of God that Christ is indeed present: I devoutly adore you, O hidden Deity, Truly hidden beneath these appearances. My whole heart submits to you, And in contemplating you, It surrenders itself completely. Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you, But hearing suffices firmly to believe. I believe all that the Son of God has spoken; There is nothing truer than this word of truth. On the cross only the divinity was hidden, But here the humanity is also hidden. Yet believing and confessing both, I ask for what the repentant thief asked. I do not see the wounds as Thomas did, But I confess that you are my God. Make me believe more and more in you, Hope in you, and love you. O memorial of our Lord's death! Living bread that gives life to man, Grant my soul to live on you, And always to savor your sweetness. Martin Luther would not appear on the scene until the early 1500’s, and as we saw in earlier posts, he believed that many of the beliefs and practices of the Church were wrong, primarily in their distance from Sacred Scripture, which he believed to be the final arbiter of God’s revelation. Regarding the Eucharist and Christ’s Real Presence, Luther brought into the discussion his distaste for the philosophical system of St. Thomas Aquinas and the linguistics of describing reality, a system known as “scholasticism.” Luther was troubled that scholasticism, as defined in his day, “boxed” Christian faith into certainties that could not be clearly substantiated by Scripture. The Indulgence controversy, which thrust him into the public eye, is just one example. As a Catholic academic and Augustinian monk, Luther shared belief in Real Presence, though not in the accepted formula of a St. Thomas Aquinas. In the process of transubstantiation as defined by scholastics, the substance or reality of bread and wine was obliterated [my word] and replaced by the reality of Christ himself. Luther—a scripture scholar—returned to the bible, specifically John 6, and derived his understanding that the correct doctrinal understanding of communion is the eating and drinking of Christ as bread and wine. To say, as the scholastics did, that the consecrated bread and wine no longer existed, was to contradict Jesus’ very words, “I am the living bread…he who feeds on me will live forever….” Luther maintained that the essence of bread and wine was not removed in transubstantiation and argued that the communion meal was both bread and wine and the actual divine Lord. Here he makes an intriguing analogy, based upon one of Christianity’s most basic doctrines, the Incarnation, in which the eternal Lord became human, born a man. Put simply, the Church has taught definitively since the Councils of Ephesus [432 A.D.] and Chalcedon [451 A.D.] that the divinity of Christ never diminished the humanity of Christ, despite several attempts of heretical communities to assert otherwise. If the humanity of Christ is not diminished by his divine identity, why would the bread and wine need to be evacuated at the time of consecration? Following this path of reasoning, Luther saw no reason to claim that the bread and wine at Mass lost its identity at the words of the consecration. Rather, he saw the Mass as a celebration of God’s love expressed in a reenactment of the Incarnation. The scholastic argument that the bread and wine ceased to exist at the time of the consecration seemed to Luther to run contradictory to God’s immersion in the world. Later Protestant thinkers applied the term consubstantiation to Luther’s thinking, after his death, the coexistence of bread/wine with the divine presence in the communion sacrament. Luther’s theorizing on the sacraments in general was considered heretical by the Church, and the Council of Trent [1545-1563] reinforced the scholastic formulations of Catholic truths. St. Thomas Aquinas would eventually be declared the official theologian of the Church. Para. 1376 of the Catechism [1993] employs the scholastic terminology to describe Real Presence in the context of the Mass, specifically consecration. By the time of the Council of Trent [1545], Protestant reformers were running far ahead of the aging Luther in their theology and practices of reform. Huldrych Zwingli, for example, stripped the Mass of much of its traditional meaning, speaking of the Catholic worship rite as a symbolic action only; this concept deeply upset Luther who believed strongly in Real Presence despite his objections to its doctrinal linguistics. Luther died in 1546, just as the Church’s reform Council of Trent was working toward an opening quorum. Trent wished to clearly define Church doctrine in its traditional language in an age where Protestantism was splitting off in multiple directions, and it was not likely to have much patience with the speculations of Luther, Zwingli, or John Calvin, to name a few reform thinkers of the sixteenth century. Vatican II [1962-1965], by contrast, was called to address the postwar world and, among other things, to heal divisions between the churches [i.e., ecumenism]. Regarding Real Presence, the Church continues to use the scholastic/Thomistic formulation, but Vatican II called for greater respect of separated churches whose understanding of Eucharist differs from the Roman Catholic belief. Although interfaith communion is generally not permitted in Canon Law [though there are a few exceptions], Catholics are called upon to believe that Protestant communities which celebrate communion rites in good faith, are not devoid of a true spiritual communion with Jesus and should be respected for that fact.
0 Comments
Luther penned his third and final major letter in seclusion in November 1520. Hidden from Church arrest and trial by his friend Frederick the Elector of Saxony, Luther had already issued An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, a letter invoking the German princes to step forward and oversee the reform of the Catholic Church. His second letter, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Catholic Church, outlined those Church entities and practices he believed to be unbiblical and thus to be pruned from the practice of the Church itself. [I will cite several examples below.] His final letter, entitled Christian Freedom, puts forth his doctrine of personal salvation and the rights of believers to seek redemption and forgiveness directly from God, without resort to human intervention. This radical teaching is the product of his intense study of St. Paul and his personal awakening to redemption.
There was some element of haste to Luther’s letters. The former monk, now dispensed from his Augustinian vows, had intended these letters as a formal response to the edict of excommunication issued by Pope Leo X, who had given Luther a limited amount of time to recant before the excommunication was finalized. Luther could have ignored the deadline for a response, but there were several compelling reasons to make his case. In the first instance, Luther never felt that he had received his “day in court,” so to speak. The debates prior to his seclusion with papal authorities in Germany had been little more than demands that he recant his errors; in one debate, his opponent succeeded in connecting Luther to the heretic Jan Hus of the 1400’s. Second, excommunication once formalized would bring his friends into considerable danger. Harboring a heretic carried severe penalties. Pope Leo, if he chose, could have punished Frederick the Elector by placing all of Frederick’s subjects under the ban of interdict—i.e., withdrawal of all opportunities to receive the sacraments, including the deathbed sacraments for penitents deeply fearful of going to hell. Many a prince had lost his place due to the onus of interdict. A third reason is Luther’s own fear of dying. He had resigned himself to martyrdom at the hands of the Church. This he could live with; what troubled him was the idea that his full vision of the reform of the Church and how it might come about would never be adequately, systematically, and forcefully laid out for his German countrymen. During Luther’s year in protective solitude, virtually no one knew where he was, and some citizens thought he had died. The worst outcome for Luther would have been his death—natural or otherwise—before he had the opportunity to lay out a full deposition of his theology of reform. Had he died in 1520, his organized thought unfinished, he would have simply taken his place as the most recent of a line of late medieval/early renaissance of famous if failed reformers such as John Wycliffe of the fourteenth century and Jan Hus of the fifteenth. The Reformation historian Carlos M.N. Eire, whose 2016 assessment of the various stages of the Reformation is well worth a read of at least this lengthy review of his treatment, summarizes the major changes in the Church that Luther was advocating by the time his 1520 seclusion was drawing to a close: [1] The creation of a German national church, proposing that all clerical appointments, including those of bishops, be taken away from Rome, and that the pope be stripped of the right to interfere in German church affairs. [2] Clergy should be allowed to marry, on the grounds that all vows, including that of celibacy, were wrong and marriage was a natural right of every man and woman. [3] Masses for the dead should be eliminated. [4] The calendar should be stripped of all feast days; the only proper celebration was the Sunday Eucharist. [5] All rural shrines and places of pilgrimage should be destroyed, along with the abolition and cult of the saints. [6] University curricula should be reformed such that the study of the Bible would become central, and scholastic philosophy would be driven out. [Eire, Reformations, p. 171] There can be no doubt that Luther avoided the fates of Wycliffe and Hus thanks to the new technology of the day, i.e., printing and publishing en masse. Luther was a prodigious author and sent drafts of his writing to his friends. It is known that Luther was aghast over the mass publications of many of his most radical ideas by his friends, who did so without the writer’s permission. Consequently, even with Luther out of the public view, Luther’s ideas were disseminated in the new institution of bookstores and in the time-honored custom of university debate, students and faculty alike. The printing and publishing industry was utilized by the reformer to provide his country with “tools” for implementing Church reform, Along with his pastoral and theological treatises, Luther also published a German hymnal for use in worship, and to be expected, he translated the Bible itself into German with the expressed purpose that every baptized Christian might have direct access to the Word of God without interference of later Church invention. It is often believed today that Luther’s ideas and writings were directed toward creating a new church separated from the existing Roman Catholic Church. After all, a new “Lutheran Church” did emerge from the actions that Lutheran set into motion. Perhaps the division and the “new church” [or, more correctly, “churches’] were inevitable. But even the radical nature of Luther’s reforms as Eire lists them above, are not a clear statement that Luther began his mission with the expressed idea of leaving the Catholic Church or even destroying it. From the distance of history, his ideas appear stark and foreign to the Catholic mind. One of my fellow parishioners told me recently that Luther did not believe in Real Presence of the Eucharist. I replied that Luther rejected the scholastic philosophy system used then [and now] to explain it, but he never denied that Christ was present in the reception of communion. Looking back, a cataclysmic age of the Church was centuries in the making. Three centuries before Luther, a young Francis of Assisi received a vision from a crucifix telling him to “rebuild my house,” and against all odds, the powerful Pope Innocent III embraced the ideal of the simple Gospel life advocated by Francis. Innocent died prematurely, and the men who followed him were consumed by power more than poverty. It is a matter of great sadness that the Church could not reform itself until it had split into a number of fractured pieces. Ironically, once the dam broke, the reformers themselves could not agree on the road to be taken, which is why Eire titled his book “Reformations.” Even the “Lutheran tradition” could not stay together. Future posts will continue to follow the struggles to redefine Christ’s Church, from the later Luther till the end of the bloody “religious wars” that extended for a century and a half. A few weeks back I described Martin Luther’s year in seclusion, as the formal bull of excommunication by Leo X was issued on June 15, 1520. Typically, a public censure of excommunication rendered the accused subject to immediate arrest, trial, and probable excommunication if the accused heretic did not recant. Moreover, the capture of a heretic was considered the responsibility of church and civil authorities; the idea of separation of the two entities of Church and State was not yet firmly crystalized, and it was Luther’s first letter in seclusion, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, that helped to nudge the separation along. Simply put, he was calling upon German nobility to take up what he saw as its Christian duty to reform the Church, by protecting those like himself to speak out against a tyranny of Church tradition divorced from the teaching of Sacred Scripture. One can easily imagine the discomfort of these princes, particularly the Elector Frederick of Saxony who, as much as anyone, saved Luther’s life at the time of his excommunication. Frederick is one of the most interesting characters in the saga of Luther, and his own dilemma provides enlightenment on what the times were like. Frederick respected Luther, though not quite for the reasons one might expect. Frederick had issue with the indulgence crusades pouring forth from Rome—the very issue which led Luther to post his 95 theses in 1517—but Frederick’s ire was aroused because these Roman forays were cutting into Frederick’s relic business. Books differ on precise numbers, but the Elector was said to possess about 15,000 relics, which he displayed for veneration and curiosity for an admission fee. But beyond that, Frederick shared a resentment with other German nobility over Roman Church taxation in the structure of the Holy Roman Empire. [Two centuries later, the French philosopher Voltaire would say that “the Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”] Frederick was immensely proud of the University of Wittenberg which he had founded, a school under his protection where Luther had lectured with distinction and enjoyed great popularity. In the city square students routinely burned Church documents condemning Luther’s teachings and writings. Frederick died in 1524, during a bloody peasants’ uprising inspired in part by Luther’s reform crusade, and his funeral was conducted without much Roman trapping in the Cathedral of Wittenberg. For interested students of the Reformation, Frederick the Wise [2015] is available in several formats, including Kindle. It was to men such as Frederick that Luther addressed the first of his three letters during his year’s sabbatical-in-hiding [1520-1521]. The first letter [the previous Thursday Reformation post] devotes considerable attention to the princes’ right and duty to step in and enforce Church reform. But what kind of reforms did Luther specifically hope to effect, and were they compatible with the sixteen-century body traced to Christ and the Apostles? For starters, Luther traced all sound Church belief and practice to the Sacred Scripture, and those he could not find in Scripture—or at least in his analysis of Scripture—he considered the product of mere men, even popes. In the post of Tuesday, September 24, I discussed at some length how the composition and selection of books of the New Testament Canon was a long and complex work of the Church extending several centuries after the death of Christ. [The Jewish Canon or Old Testament was produced in something of the same fashion.] While it is true that Scripture is the sourcebook of the Church, it is also true that Scripture is the product of the Church, which enjoys the Holy Spirit’s guidance in defining its books and guaranteeing that the Church would never err to the degree that it loses its Apostolic identity. The technical theological term is Magisterium [teacher]. The Wikipedia discussion of Magisterium is surprisingly good as an overview. A full treatment can be found in By What Authority: Foundations for Understanding Authority in the Church [2018, second edition] by Richard Gaillardetz. Luther seemed to opt for a fundamental reading of Scripture fully dependent upon text alone. If a Church practice could not be found in Scripture, or directly instituted by Christ, such a practice was considered man-made and a baggage placed unnecessarily upon the lives of Christians, distracting them from the freedom of God’s justification and mercy outlined in St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Scripture was the final forum of authority. What he denies here is the power of the Church to interpret Scripture over the progression of time, the idea that the Spirit has a dynamic life within the ecclesial community. There is something to remember in deciphering Luther’s thought. The first is that Luther, to 1520, had spent his adult life as something of a “super-monk,” living an austere and stressful life to receive forgiveness for his sins. Biographers agree that he carried a strain of scrupulosity; I have treated patients in my lifetime with severe scruples, and it is a grim cross to carry. It should not come as a surprise, then, that having found relief in the text of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, he would develop an ecclesiology in which the Gospel was preached directly and with a limit to human invention. Consequently, Luther’s second letter is On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church [1520] in which he addresses the sacramental/worship structure of the Catholic Church. He determined that only three sacraments could be traced to scripture—Baptism, Eucharist, and Penance. Later he dropped Penance, perhaps not surprisingly given his own quest for forgiveness which came with his reading of Romans. Luther argued that the proper way to receive the Eucharist was under the form of bread and cup. He was not wrong on this point, but for the next four centuries Catholicism would associate receiving under both kinds with “Protestantism.” Vatican II restored the ancient practice with the new rite of the Mass in 1970. I need to add here that reception from the cup became something of a political and social issue in Luther’s Germany. The denial of the chalice came to be a sign of societal caste, i.e., that only a special privileged few were admitted to the cup while the peasants and working class were excluded. Luther believed that medieval academics had substituted philosophy for faith. He came to deny the language of Transubstantiation, i.e., the essential change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, because the language had been derived from a philosophical system known as scholasticism, not from Scripture. However, he did maintain belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This letter is sometimes regarded as the “breaking point” for Luther and the Church. Pope Leo X was penning his bull of excommunication while Luther was addressing the office of the papacy as the Antichrist. Certainly, this letter cost Luther one of his closest Catholic friends, the esteemed man of letters Erasmus. The Dutch scholar shared Luther’s passion for reform, but he could not embrace The Babylonian Captivity. If you think the sale of indulgences is an old retired problem, or that no one "buys salvation" anymore, you might be intrigued by this news report from Christianity Today involving my old neighbor Pastor Benny Hinn.
During my years in the ministry I owned only subcompact cars, Dodge Colts to be precise. When I came into my 40's I discovered that leasing a 1992 Honda Accord cost the same as my monthly loan payment on a Colt, so approaching midlife I finally leased a basic Accord. For the first week I was almost too nervous to drive it. I had never owned a sedan before. So I was carefully driving down the road, starting to feel at home with my car, and listening to the local news on the car radio. It seems that Pastor Benny, living in Orlando then, was coming under media attack for his high living. So Benny took to the microphone and made a statement: "I am an important man of God. Do you think a man in my position should be seen driving around town in a Honda?" + + + + + Installment 41 of The Reformation is in preparation now. After several encounters with Church officials in multiple German settings in 1518 and 1519 led to his being declared a heretic by the pope on January 3, 1521, Luther was formally designated an enemy of the Holy Roman Empire and subject to seizure and remand to Rome for execution by fire. In practice, any European civilian prince or authority was empowered—indeed, obligated—to capture this traitor of the Faith for the good of the Church. However, the monk remained enormously popular in his home regions of Germany among both the peasantry and local princes, both populations fatigued with Roman taxes and costly indulgence crusades, among other complaints. Consequently, his influential friends arranged for Luther to take a “sabbatical” in a secret and isolated castle, Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, where he remained for about one year.
During this period of isolation necessitated by his fugitive status, Luther composed three works which provide us today with the theological nature of his break from Rome and the roots of what we would call today Protestantism in the historical sense. Many churchmen in future years would take Luther’s writings in different and much more radical directions than Luther intended; there is significant difference between Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Evangelical bodies today. But Luther’s writings provided justification for breaking free from Rome and new insights into the primacy of the Bible, the process of salvation, and ecclesiastical governance. Eric Metaxas makes the point [p. 220] that Rome’s responses to his call for reform brought about something of an apocalyptic mood in Luther: none of the Church’s responses to his various concerns for reform mentioned a word of Scripture. For Luther, this was a very ominous sign that all power and all judgment in the Church was drawn from the raw human authority of the pope, and none from the Word of God. Taking this fear to its extreme, Luther saw a Church drifting from its lifeline, and thus the pressure for reform took on something of a lifesaving desperation. This outlook led him to pen To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation [1520]. As Wikipedia summarizes its contents, Luther “attacked what he regarded as the "three walls of the Romanists": (1) that secular authority has no jurisdiction over them; (2) that only the pope is able to explain Scripture; (3) that nobody but the Pope himself can call a general church council. Put another way, the Letter to Christian Nobility of the German Nation is a call to the civic leaders of the region to assume responsibility for the reform of the Church. Metaxas and others refer to this letter as one of the most significant statements in Western Civilization, on a par with the Magna Carta, a paradigm shift in the ways that mankind thought of itself. Luther was introducing a type of equality within the Church, with laity enjoying the same rank as clergy by virtue of Baptism. Later reformers would take these concepts much further, for Luther’s Letter, for all its shock value, was not as radical as some make it out to be. In the first instance, Luther is not calling for a new church; he believed then—and to some degree for his entire life—that implied in Baptism is the reality of one family in a Scripture purified Church. As will subsequently be seen, Luther maintained hope for some years that the Roman Catholic Church, reformed in this manner, would remain the mother church of Christendom. Second, Luther’s own conversion experience of some years past came directly through his reading of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans on justification by faith. Luther believed—correctly for his time—that the role of Scripture in the Church had been diminished to source texting for expansion of Church practices, at best, and in many cases, Scripture provided no support for such innovations as indulgences. Of particular concern was the gulf between the printed Word of Scripture and the judgments and operations of popes. Luther was cutting new ground here, the idea that the bible was a living document piercing the heart of each believer and commanding an ultimate obedience in conscience. Our term “freedom of conscience” is not appropriate here, for Luther was not advocating a “do your own thing” in matters religious and moral. Rather, he argued that every baptized person was obedient to the Word of God and would be judged by this obedience, and not by what Luther saw as the human inventions of the Church. He believed that in the case of indulgences, for which he could find no Scriptural reference, the Church was wrong to extract belief in the practice. Luther has been called “the disobedient monk” by his detractors, but in truth he advocated obedience to the Scriptures as the primary responsibility of a believer. It was his faith and allegiance to the Scripture that led him to put his life on the line when he rejected papal commands to recant his preaching and writing on the need for reform, beginning with the office of the papacy itself. In the 1500’s the idea that the formation of the New Testament collection was put together by the Church over four centuries after Christ was not known by Luther and his contemporaries. The sharp distinction he made between the Scripture and the Church would not stand up in the scholarship of most Christian denominations today, including Catholicism. The Letter makes its case for civil or princely intervention in Church reform by undermining three “errors” identified by Luther in his present-day perception of the Church’s condition. [Specifically, he refers to the process as “breaking down three Roman walls.”] His first identified wall/error reads that “secular authority has no jurisdiction over them [the clerical state.]” Luther did not deny the need for priests and bishops, but he interpreted that need as a function, not as an elevated state. He goes further to argue that in religious matters all the baptized laity should have power of vote or input. In Luther’s theology Baptism is the primary sacrament of identity. By virtue of baptism the natural order of society—individually and collectively—has input on good Church order. Hence, the civil authority of princes has a vital and natural role to step in when internal Church abuse damaged the lives of the faithful. The “second wall” is the contention that only the pope can explain Scripture. Luther’s attack upon this tenet reflects his belief that all believers have the right to study and find the directive word of God in their own circumstances. But Luther may also have had in mind the growing contention that some of the most cherished documents buttressing Roman authority and power, notably the Donation of Constantine, were found to be hoaxes. Possibly the most famous of these historical investigators was Lorenzo Valla [1407-1457], whose works were published, ironically, in 1517, the year that Luther came into prominence. The third and final Roman wall is the contention that nobody but the Pope himself can call a general church council. By Luther’s day the papacy was very skittish about reform councils. It was a mere century earlier that the Council of Constance [1414-1418] had been summoned by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to depose three claimants to the papacy and end the Great Schism. This Council had mandated regular reform councils at specified periods in the future, but once a valid pope was restored to the Throne of Peter, he and his successors were able to achieve a good measure of previous power in governing exclusively. Under civil and ecclesiastical pressure from France, Pope Julius II convoked the Council Lateran V [1512-1517], but its five-year run was marked by political jockeying between the major national powers of Europe and internal bickering and housekeeping. That this Council ended in the same year as Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses is evidence enough that Lateran V had done nothing of substance to address the concerns of many Catholics across Europe regarding a true spiritual reform of the Church in capite et membris, i.e., in head and members. Luther’s letter argues that kings and princes, exercising their baptismal priesthood, should step in and summon clerics to councils when popes fail to summon such meetings or do not push agendas of true reform. Luther’s To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation is seen today as one of the first documents of the modern era to advocate what in practice is a break between church and state, though others would later make this more explicit. Luther, fixated on reform in this work, probably set in motion more radical thinking than he anticipated. And, separated from the world as he was in hiding from church agents, he could not gauge the impact—good and bad—of his text as thousands of copies were marketed throughout Europe. He would pen two more extraordinary letters in his seclusion, and when he began to speak openly on the German landscape after a year, he would discover reform and regrets. After their much publicized meeting, Luther’s failure to make an oath of submission—and rejection of his call for reform and a council to address the indulgence question—left the papal representative Cardinal Cajetan with nothing to present to Pope Leo X in terms of quelling Luther’s writings and speaking, which thanks to the printing press, were available and often well received by readers across Western European society. The next inevitable step would be a papal pronouncement of excommunication. Upon its declaration, Luther would become subject to arrest, deportation to Rome, imprisonment, probably torture, and summary excommunication by fire.
From his own writings it seems clear that by the time of the meeting with Cardinal Cajetan in Augsburg in 1518, Luther had come to peace with the possibility that his calls for reform might very well lead to his martyrdom. But by the end of the Augsburg meeting, Luther was no longer a “voice crying in the wilderness.” Throughout Germany and much of Europe, thanks to the printing press, Luther had admirers as well as enemies. Some of these were German princes chafing under the taxes of the Holy Roman Empire. Others genuinely worried for the Church and appreciated the reform spirit of the Augustinian monk. At some stage along the way Luther’s pastoral instincts came into play: his mission was not simply to save his own soul, even with a glorious martyrdom. He was now responsible for an outline of a purified Church. The encounter with Cajetan jarred Luther in the sense that he came to see more clearly the heart of we call today “the Reformation.” In the heat of debate with Cajetan, the Cardinal cited several papal pronouncements on indulgences from centuries past. He banked on Luther’s lack of historical familiarity with previous papal documents on the subject. [Looking back, Cajetan’s was an odd strategy given that indulgences had been the issue that roused Luther in the first place.] Luther knew the passages quite well, in fact, and used counterarguments to fluster Cajetan to the degree that the latter became quite flustered and to object of amusement to the audience. With Luther piling up debate points, Cajetan resorted to consistent demands that Luther recant and submit to the pope, regardless of what Scripture did or didn’t say. As Eric Metaxas records, “And yet in all of this, Luther’s greatest fears were realized. He saw that the cardinal cared not a fig for the Holy Scriptures, and quite seriously maintained that church decrees superseded them…that the greatest minds of the church were genuinely unaware of having become unmoored from the rock of the Scriptures and were even indifferent to this.” [p. 150] Luther, of course, had found in the words of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans the understanding of justification and a new hope he would be saved; he could not understand how the Church would deny the saving words of the Bible in favor of erroneous teachings of churchmen, even the pope. From our vantage point, we can see the errors of both sides of the question. Luther did not appreciate the origins of sacred scripture, how sacred books were written by members of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and how the Church fathers selected which books embodied the full message of salvation, a gradual process that lasted at least till 300 A.D. This selection process produced a canon or collection we know today as the New Testament. [For a deeper study of how the New Testament came to be written and determined, F.F. Bruce’s venerable 1990 book, The Canon of Scripture, is still a valuable source.] Four centuries of research stand between Luther’s era and today; he would not have had access to the research detailing the development of the Gospels, Epistles, etc. While it is true that God is the author of sacred scripture, it is the Spirit working in the Church that makes our bibles what they are today, the “words of life.” The New Testament lays the groundwork for a “petrine ministry,” a position of leadership we attribute today to the pope. However, it is very reasonable to expect that (1) anyone holding the office preaches the Scriptures and the wisdom of the Church in interpreting the sacred Word, and (2) exercises his office with vigilance for reform in capite et membris, i.e., in head and members. The bane of many popes in the medieval and Renaissance era was hubris and worldliness. Luther would have been correct in his assertion that the pope cannot govern exclusive of the Bible, since the petrine ministry is derived from the Bible, i.e., the Holy Spirit through the Church. In 1518 Luther’s advocacy of the Bible created a conundrum of bible vs. papacy. Several of Luther’s “guardians” realized his need for protection, even if Luther was a bit naïve of the full danger. Even in his home region, he was vulnerable to seizure by papal agents; the separation of church and state was a long time in the future, and the German states were members of the Holy Roman Empire. Moreover, those who harbored him or gave him comfort could become liable to a charge of heresy themselves. It is even more remarkable, then, that Luther’s Augustinian Superior released him from his vow of obedience so that Rome could not order the superior to silence him. Luther could continue to preach, write, and present his case as events unfolded. Finally realizing his danger, Luther decided to leave Augsburg and return to his home turf, Wittenberg. On October 20, 1518, he fled the city, though all the gates of the town were locked, presumably to keep Luther within arm’s reach for arrest. It is unclear precisely how he escaped, but a horse and guide were ready for him on the other side of the wall. Luther rode 44 miles that night, and 45 the next, and he soon reached Wittenberg safely, though he would be saddle sore for days after. Luther had left none too soon. Cardinal Cajetan wrote to the Elector Frederick, Luther’s strongest civil protector, demanding that Luther be turned over to Rome. Metaxas observes that Frederick’s protection of Luther is hard to fathom, given that the Elector was a well-known trafficker in relics and indulgences. The best guess is that his university theologians, supporters of Luther, encouraged Frederick to protect him. But Luther was wise enough to know that his continuing public presence in Wittenberg was creating problems for Frederick, and that he would need to go into hiding, to protect himself and more importantly, to write the foundational texts for a reform of Western Christendom. We left off at the last Reformation post [37] in 1518 with Luther’s long-awaited meeting with an official papal representative, Cardinal Cajetan, one of the major theologians of the day. The meeting in Augsburg, Germany [a home court advantage for Luther negotiated by his protector Frederick the Wise of Saxony] was not simply an unsatisfactory standoff, but it illustrated for anyone with eyes to see that the two men, Luther and Cajetan, held to major differences in the area of ecclesiology [the theology of Church purpose and structure.] For Cajetan, the issues were less Luther’s thinking and writing, and more about the monk’s simple refusal to reject his writing and renew his obedience to the pope.
Luther would not give Cajetan the satisfaction, a point that would cause the Cardinal much frustration and embarrassment when he returned to Rome. [“You only had one job….”] Specifically, Cajetan sought an admission from Luther that the pope’s authority was the last word on indulgences, and thus Luther must stop demanding academic and theological examination of the practice. The Cardinal laid out several papal directives composed throughout the medieval era defending the practice of indulgences. Luther countered that these documents depended solely on the authority of the popes, without the ultimate authority of the bible. Cajetan retorted that the pope enjoyed ultimate authority, even in matters of biblical interpretation. Luther was astounded by this line of argument. As a theologian, he was quick to see that if all serious matters of faith and practice were circumscribed by the pope acting independently, what was the point of Church universities and academies, the very places Luther wished to take the indulgence question for study and debate? But Cajetan’s position raised two more significant points—one might call them the heart of the Reformation. First, from the Cardinal’s argument, what is implied about the role of the Bible itself as an authoritative source in Catholic life? Was the Bible simply a source for cherry picking isolated statements to support ecclesiastical disputes of the day? Or was the Bible to be understood as in the words of Hebrews 12:4, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”? The second of Luther’s takeaways from his encounter with Cajetan was the latter’s seeming denial of human participation in Church governance. Cajetan’s demand called for Luther to pledge obedience to the pope, and only the pope. Luther countered that the Church lived as an organism of leaders and faithful. He did not deny a papal or Petrine ministry, but again his mastery of the Scripture included the history of the early Church as recorded in St. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles and the letters of St. Paul, in which Paul, according to Galatians 11ff, met Cephas [i.e., Peter] and “withstood him to his face” for Peter’s indecisiveness over the matter of accepting Gentiles into the Church of Christ. Let us take the long view of what was happening at this critical junction in history. Luther’s own history reveals a man of religious neurosis who found salvation in the pages of sacred scripture. His personal encounters with the Bible proved to be the guiding direction of his life. He assumed, then, that the reading of the Bible was both the privilege and the obligation of all the baptized. Put another way, he came to appreciate what we might call individual spirituality, with an attendant freedom of conscience. The issue of freedom of conscience and the lawful demands of Church authority were not resolved in Luther’s day, and Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” would bring the issue to contemporary consideration in 1965. On the other side of the ledger was the pressure upon the Church from inside and outside sources—good and bad—to provide leadership in the Western Roman Church when events began spinning out of control. A century before Luther, the Council of Constance deposed three men claiming to be rightful popes at the same time and legislated that in the future a pope was obligated to call a reform council every five to ten years. For a time, the world’s bishops were, hypothetically at least, equal to if not superior to a sitting pope. Geographic impracticality as much as anything restored the supreme influence back to the papacy. But consequently, future popes were loath to convoke reform councils, such that there was no concentrated effort to address critical issues arising in the late Medieval and Renaissance period. Luther was not the first nor the only academic to address the need for reform. He was, however, among the first to profit from new technology, notably the printing press; from a growing sense of regional patriotism and a resentment of outside imposition of taxes; from a growth of spiritual communities made up of individuals who cultivated intense personal experiences of meditation, independent of the larger Church structure. The famous religious classic The Imitation of Christ developed in this milieu, known today as the Devotio Moderna. By the end of the unproductive meeting of Luther and Cajetan, it became clear to all involved that a serious and dangerous feud was developing. Again, Luther profited from his timing; his religious order, his university, his countrymen, and his protector Frederick saved him from being seized by Cajetan’s soldiers and dispatched to Rome for trial and burning. Perhaps feeling invulnerable to threat, Luther engaged in another public debate, this time with a fellow German scholar, Johann Eck, who proved to be a much better opponent than Cajetan [Eck spoke German, for starters.] Eck put the question to Luther, is the papacy of divine or human origin? Eck was able to position Luther’s answers with those of previous heretics, notably Jan Hus, who had been burned at the stake at the above-mentioned Council of Constance. Luther now understood his precarious situation. As Carlos M.N. Eire writes in Reformations, “Luther was aware that in the eyes of the church he kept attacking, he had become a rebel and a heretic.” Again, from Eire, “Everyone now prepared for the inevitable bull of excommunication from Pope Leo X, the flames, and the stench of Luther’s roasting flesh.” [p. 157] A year after Luther’s inaugural statement of theological grievances in 1517, he was finally summoned to Rome to recant his errors. This would not be the academic colloquium that Luther had demanded in his 95 theses, but rather, something akin to an ecclesiastical trial. His failure to recant before Pope Leo X or his representative could very well cost him his life. A century earlier, the Czech reformer Jan Hus was granted a safe-conduct protection to expound his theology before the Council of Constance, but the pledge was not honored, and Hus was imprisoned, tried, and burned at the stake during the Council in 1415.
But Luther was more fortunate in that he enjoyed the protection of Elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony, who put forward a somewhat safer scenario for Luther’s major encounter with Rome. In the fall of 1518, a general meeting [or “diet”] of the Holy Roman Empire was scheduled to take place in Augsburg, a German city in Bavaria. It was well known that one of the most powerful Cardinals in Rome, Thomas Cajetan, would address the assembly, most urgently on matters of financial support for wars against the Turks in eastern Europe. Frederick reasoned that Luther’s personal safety would be best assured in German lands where Cajetan, so to speak, would prosecute away from his home field. Luther’s confrontation would take place under the protection of his friends. It is remarkable that this plan was approved by all parties, some with more reluctance than others. The Emperor Maximilian regarded Luther a trouble-making heretic, but he, like the many German princes, believed that holding the trial in Augsburg was a way of asserting power against the Italians. Resentment against Roman taxes is an undercurrent of the Reformation that should not be overlooked. Frederick the Wise shared the tax resentment, but he also seemed to have some affinity for Luther the person and protected him to the degree his was able. The Diet of Augsburg did not go well for Cardinal Cajetan, whose ecclesiastical hubris may have blinded him to the problems he would face on German soil. The Diet itself addressed the “Turkish tax” issue, with German unanimity that no funds would be forthcoming. Moreover, the full extent of German animus poured forth; one representative protested how “German money in violation of nature flies over the Alps.” The Diet used the opportunity to complain about the poor quality of priests being sent to Germany, and the meeting ended with the Diet pleading “Let the Holy Pope stop these abuses.” [Metaxas, 143] Having failed miserably at his first task, Cajetan then turned his attention to Luther. It is my conjecture that, having seen the depths of German resentment toward Vatican practices, Cajetan saw greater urgency in bringing Luther to his knees in submission. Frederick arranged for a private meeting between Luther and Cajetan, but he worried that Cajetan might have Luther kidnapped and spirited in chains to Rome. When Luther arrived in Augsburg, he was not invited to see Cajetan immediately, but met instead with Vatican officials who labored to convince him of the importance of his recanting his arguments from the 95 Theses. Luther, who had longed for the opportunity to bring his reforms to Church life, made it clear that having arrived before the highest authorities of the Church, he was not going away until his arguments had been addressed. Luther’s ire was raised by his treatment from the Cardinal’s representatives, and he was more determined than ever to face off with Cajetan. He was angered that Cajetan’s entourage boiled down the conflict to what they considered a sole issue: disobedience to the pope, Leo X. Luther’s theses, by contrast, were a comprehensive treatment of multiple subjects on the matter of forgiveness, indulgences, religious disposition, and the pure intentions of the Bishop of Rome. He was further annoyed at thinly veiled personal threats, such as his potential loss of the protection provided by Frederick. If anything, his pre-Cajetan briefings had solidified his determination to have it out here and now; he was, at this point in his life, ready to die on principle. Finally, on October 12, 1518, the two men met face to face for the first time. Luther could not know that Cajetan carried no portfolio from Leo to debate Luther’s theses; his one task was obtaining a recant from the Augustinian monk. Cajetan attempted to treat Luther as a wayward son whose mischief was causing more trouble than he realized. But as Luther pressed for specific examples of his errors, Cajetan went beyond his mandate and highlighted this one, that Luther denied the pope’s right to access the merits of Christ and the saints and utilize them for the sale of indulgences. Luther replied, and in doing so he shone the light on the issue probably most to the heart of the Reformation, the power of Sacred Scripture. Luther agreed with Cajetan’s formulation, but then he asked the Cardinal where in the Bible were these privileges of the pope to be found in the first place. [Thus, the central question was posed: what is the ultimate authority by which all earthly religious matters are to be judged.] Luther believed in the collective holiness of the Church, but he could not countenance what the Church was doing with indulgences. Cajetan from the start had badly underestimated Luther’s academic acumen, and with no intention of conducting a long debate, he sprung a surprise on his opponent by producing an obscure 1343 papal bull from Clement VI, an authorization for the practice of indulgences to which Luther objected. He waved it about with repeated cries of “Do you believe this or don’t you?” Cajetan was certain he had thrown his knockout punch. Unfortunately for Cajetan, Luther was familiar with the 1343 document, probably more so than the Cardinal. More to the point, Luther was growing conscious of the influence and direction of his arguments for the future of the Church. He would not give Cajetan a yes-or-no answer, but instead he asked for time to consider a nuanced response. This was not the response Cajetan had hoped for. His mandate from Rome called for the eliciting a yes-or-no on the question of obedience to the pope. Frustrated, the Cardinal waited for several days until Luther resumed their meeting. In this second encounter, Luther pointed out that the 1347 papal bull did not say what the Cardinal claimed it did. Luther later wrote that “Cajetan was all of a sudden confused, and since he did not want to appear confused, he pushed on to other things and shrewdly wanted to bypass this subject.” But as they continued, Luther came to a shocking realization. Metaxas records it this way: “And yet in all of this, Luther’s greatest fears were realized. He saw that the Cardinal cared not a fig for the Holy Scriptures, and quite seriously maintained that church decrees superseded them. The theological foolishness of this, and the disturbing evidence of it, were horrifying to Luther. He saw now what he had deep down feared but desperately hoped could not be true: that the greatest minds of the church were genuinely unaware of having become unmoored from the rock of the Scriptures and were even indifferent to this.” [p. 150] Cajetan’s second point of contention with Luther in this meeting was Luther’s contention that it was one’s faith that produced God’s forgiveness. Luther had begun his reform with the idea that forgiveness and redemption could not be purchased; now he was progressing to more radical examination of the redemptive process within the sacrament of Penance. The Church taught, and still teaches, that forgiveness is rendered by the mediating absolution of the priest. Luther contended “it was the faith that mattered more than the priest’s actions,” [p. 151], basing his argument on Romans 1:17. If Caesar had crossed the Rubicon, Luther was now crossing the Tiber…in the opposite direction. Thanks to wholesale and generally unauthorized publication of Luther’s 95 theses of 1517—which, thanks to the printing press, had reached as far as the attention of Henry VIII in England and Erasmus of Rotterdam within a year—the authorities in Rome became aware of its “German problem” and began to generate a response. The actual date remains unknown. Technically speaking, the Curia was formally notified of Luther’s writings by his local bishop, Albrecht of Mainz, who sought papal advice when his own university advisors stepped back from the controversial issues in play. But it is very likely that Johannes Tetzel, the Dominican whose indulgence crusade had stirred the ire of Luther in the first place, was reporting circumstances to Rome in a fashion certainly unfavorable to Luther. Tetzel, in fact, had already published his own retort to Luther, arguing that his foe was simply a disobedient cleric.
Rome, eventually apprised, took the simple position that Luther must recant his theses, and assigned the response to a Dominican curial official, Sylvester Prierias. His response, which he bragged he had written in three days, is an excellent template of the most unfortunate miscommunication that would mark all of Luther’s subsequent dealings with Rome. Prierias did not address any of Luther’s theological concerns but focused instead upon the simple question of obedience. The Dominican wrote “He who does not accept the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and pontiff of Rome, as an infallible rule of faith, from which the Holy Scriptures, too, draw their strength and authority, is a heretic.” (Metaxas, pp. 133ff) Over three centuries later the council Vatican I (1869-1870) would define the precise workings of papal authority and declare the pope infallible in certain prescribed circumstances. Theologians of the twentieth century would judge Prierias’ working definition of papal authority as “creeping infallibility” or the tendency to regard everything spoken by the pope to be infallible. (The “creeping infallibility” debate evidently continues to this day.) Luther never denied the power of the pope, and early in the Reformation he hoped that the pope himself would hear his case. The Vatican, time and again, would avoid direct discussion of the issues of reform and identify Luther as a disobedient son who needed to bring his thinking into conformity with the office of the papacy. Prierias dashed off his rebuttal to Luther with a summons to appear in Rome in 60 days. Luther found Prierias’ arguments [or better, argument, since obedience seemed to be the only agenda] dumbfounding, almost humorous. He eventually responded to his Dominican opponent, and in doing so, he introduced Scripture into his defense for the first time. “Like an insidious devil you pervert the Scriptures. You say that the Church consists virtually in the pope.” [p. 134] It is easy to look back with the hindsight of history and postulate that history might have evolved differently had a more civil and academic approach been taken by Rome, for in 1518 this was exactly what Luther wanted to do, plead his case before the pope and his academics. Had this controversy occurred two centuries earlier {John Wycliffe) or even one century earlier (Jan Hus), the matter would have been relatively easily solved—Rome would instruct the civil ruler of the place to seize a suspected heretic and deliver him or her to appropriate trial and possible imprisonment or death. But the playing field in 1518 was more complex; Luther concluded his hard correspondence with Prierias with a not-so-subtle reminder: “You make the pope into an emperor in power and violence. The Emperor Maximilian and the Germans will not tolerate this.” [p. 134] Luther, to his good fortune, enjoyed a reasonably good relationship with the most powerful civil ruler in his region, the elector Frederick III of Saxony (1463-1525), known as “Frederick the Wise.” Luther’s story cannot be told without Frederick, who respected Luther as a scholar. It is ironic that Frederick agreed with Luther’s position on indulgences; the elector possessed a large collection of relics (thousands, according to various sources) for which he charged visitors and tourists fees for access, and he believed that the indulgence crusades were cutting into his profit margins. The papal court, in its dealings with Luther, was careful to tread lightly with Frederick, who with other princes in German lands was growing fatigued of papal taxes, particularly a levy to raise an army to halt the advance of the Turks in Eastern Europe. Moreover, Frederick held a vote in an upcoming congress to elect a new emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, an election with vital papal interests, and there was concern in Rome to curry favor with Frederick for his vote. Frederick himself, in his dealings with Luther and Rome, seems to have understood his dilemma (as well as the reasons his university advisors had shied away from going on record, one way or the other.) Under demand to appear in Rome, Luther feared that he would not get a fair hearing, and more to the point that he might be arrested and burned at the stake. On the other hand, he welcomed the opportunity to put forward his belief in the act of dive justification, the preeminence of Scripture, and the need for reform. Metaxas believes that at this juncture of his life Luther came to grips with the idea that he might become a martyr for his reform mission and made spiritual peace in trusting God, ready to accept whatever fate lie ahead in God’s providence. In August 1518 Frederick decided to keep Luther safe in Saxony and successfully lobbied the Emperor Maximilian to cancel the order for Luther to appear in Rome. Luther would be judged in his homeland. Maximilian was not enamored with Luther, but he was favorable to the request on the grounds that it was advisable to remind Italians that there were limits on their power. As it happened, a regional meeting (or “diet”) was scheduled for September 1518 at Augsburg. Cardinal Cajetan would be participating as Vatican representative, and the Emperor Maximilian (no less opposed to Luther) determined that the Augsburg gathering would be an ideal time for Luther to face the Vatican directly for assessment and judgment. He ordered that Luther attend the Diet of Augsburg and address the full force of Church authority for the first time. Despite contemporary popular belief to the contrary, Martin Luther was not “spoiling for a fight” when in 1517 he sent his 95 theses to his bishop, Albrecht of Mainz. He was requesting an orderly discussion of many Church practices, notably the sale of indulgences. Albrecht was not pleased to receive the correspondence; as noted in the last post, he himself was compromised by debt which he hoped to repay with a portion of the profits. However, he sympathized with certain of Luther’s points, even more surprising since Albrecht had purchased the bishop’s chair in Mainz, a sin known as simony. While Luther was well informed of the indulgence abuses, it is not clear if he knew that Albrecht had indulged in a purchase of his office.
While Luther’s passions were driven by concerns for the universal Church, discussion of them began as a local attempt. It took Albrecht some time to respond, primarily because of his conflicted feelings. Luther at the time was a popular and gifted Scripture scholar, head of theological studies at the University of Wittenberg and the vicar general of eleven monasteries in the region. The bishop could hardly ignore the public work and influence of this Augustinian monk, but for conflicting reasons he was confused about how to proceed, and he passed the letter and theses to the theology faculty of the University of Mainz, which also deliberated for quite some time. It would be June of 1518 before true organized discussion took place, and by this time passions had been inflamed such that “debate” suffered at the hands of polemic. [The actual 95 theses conflicted just about everyone who read them. If you have never read them yourself, here is the list of propositions, and ask yourself how you would have responded if you were a catechist or church officer at that time.] In the year following the October 1517 local release, Luther corresponded with friends, passing along copies of the theses. One of its readers, a Humanist and printer Christopher Scheurl, was impressed and set about to reprint the theses in for bulk distribution “without the fussy legality of needing to obtain copyright permissions.” [Metaxas, p. 123f] Translated from Latin into German, more printers in Germany produced volumes that eventually spread to diverse readers and populations throughout Europe. The invention of the printing press less than a century before had made possible a sixteenth century version of “going viral.” From our own time, we know that social media reaches friend, foe, and the indifferent alike. Luther would write to Scheurl later stating that the printer’s taking of matters in his own hand had put Luther at a disadvantage, as the theological issues of the theses had outraced Luther’s opportunity to define them or develop them further. By March 1518, Erasmus of Rotterdam, one of the greatest of the Renaissance thinkers, had come to possess a copy. Another made its way to [St.] Thomas More, future Chancellor of England at the service of Henry VIII prior to England’s break from Rome. Henry himself read the theses and was angered and disturbed; in 1521 the king was awarded the title “Defender of the Faith” for his writings against Luther. Closer to home, a copy made its way to Johannes Tetzel, the Dominican friar and promoter of the sale of indulgences that had so enraged Luther in the first place. Predictably, Tetzel was enraged. His work was not progressing well. As he and Bishop Albrecht were discovering to their chagrin, the cities of Mainz and Wittenberg had been “played out” by a series of indulgence sales prior to Tetzel’s. In truth, there was a growing popular cynicism in Luther’s region to the degree that the elector Frederick of Saxony refused to permit Tetzel to engage his region for fear of troubling his citizenry. But Tetzel discovered another indicator of trouble with the threat of more serious upset of the Church. Observing how Luther’s theses had been promulgated by printed pamphlets, Tetzel decided to fight fire with fire with a rebuttal pamphlet of his own. When he sought printers to contract for the work in Luther’s town of Wittenberg, none would take the offer, an indication that Luther enjoyed the support of the printers’ guild—in fact, university students there burned 800 copies of Tetzel’s work printed elsewhere in a city square public bonfire. Luther correctly ascertained that the act would be blamed upon him; in truth, he was quite unprepared—academically and personally—for what was shaping up as a major confrontation with the Church. Meanwhile, Luther’s bishop Albrecht finally received a report on the theses from the faculty of the University of Mainz, which by now had come to realize what a hot potato it was asked to evaluate. With more than an abundance of caution, the faculty stated that the Wittenberg University faculty was within its rights to discuss and debate the matters of the 95 theses. But as to the questions raised by the theses, it was best to let the pope decide. Albrecht, upon their advice, wrote to Rome [and no doubt Tetzel communicated as well]. The mind and apparatus of the papacy would now begin serious involvement in what we refer to today as the Reformation. |
Church HistoryArchives
November 2022
|
RSS Feed