Luther 1517-2017… Five Hundred Years Of Heresy And Doctrinal Confusion

By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM

Part 7

(Editor’s Note: This is the sixth installment in a series by Wanderer contributor Raymond de Souza on Henry VIII’s book defending the seven sacraments against Martin Luther. De Souza edited this updated version of Henry’s work, which is presented to readers in this series.
(This series will appear on a regular basis, as space allows.)

+ + +

Of The Pope’s Authority

By Henry VIII

Papatus est robusta Venatio Romani Pontificis (“The Papacy is the strong Game of the Roman Pontiff” — Luther)

+ + +

INDEED IT IS no ridiculous desire of Luther that the things he wrote previously should be burned, because many of them deserved it.
Yet much more should this new proposition of his be destroyed by fire, which he desires to be preserved after the rest are burned, as though it were worthy of eternity.
What man, if he had not known his malice, would not be startled at his inconstancy in this matter?
In the first place, he denied the Pope’s Supremacy to be of divine right or Law and allowed it to be of human right. (11)
But now, contradicting himself, he affirms it to be of neither of them, but rather that the Papacy has assumed and usurped tyranny by mere force.
Formerly he was of the opinion that power over the Universal Church was given to Roman Bishops by human consent, and for the public good.
He was so much of that opinion that he detested the schism of the Bohemians — who denied any obedience to the See of Rome — saying that “they sinned damnably who did not obey the Pope.”
Shortly after having written these things, Luther embraces now what he detested then.
The same stability he has in this: after he preached in a sermon to the people that “excommunication is a medicine, and to be suffered with patience and obedience”; he himself, a while after being justly excommunicated, was so impatient of that sentence that, mad with rage, he broke forth into intolerable quarrels, reproaches, and blasphemies.
So, by his fury, it plainly appears that those who are driven from the bosom of their Holy Mother Church are immediately seized, possessed with furies, and tormented by devils.
But I ask this: since he saw these things such a short while ago, how is it that he is now of the opinion that he saw nothing at all?
What new eyes has he got? Is his sight sharper, after he has joined anger to his wonted pride and added hatred to both? Does he see further with such excellent spectacles?
I will not offend the Bishop of Rome so much as to troublesomely or closely dispute his right, as if it were a doubtful matter.
It is sufficient for my present task to show that the enemy is led by so much fury, that he destroys his own credit.
He clearly demonstrates that, being so blinded by mere malice, he neither sees nor knows what he says himself.
He cannot deny that all the faithful honour and acknowledge the sacred Roman See as their Mother and Supreme; nor does distance of place or dangers in the way hinder access to Her. (12)
For example: if those who come hither from the Indies tell us the truth, the Indians — who themselves are separated from us by such a vast distance, both of land and sea — do submit to the See of Rome. (13)
If the Bishop of Rome wields this great power, neither by command of God nor the will of man, but by sheer force, I would fain ask of Luther: when did the Pope rush into the possession of such great privileges?
So vast a power cannot have had an obscure origin, especially if its beginning is remembered by man.
But perhaps Luther will say that it is above one or two ages since: then let him point out the exact time by historical records.
Otherwise, if the beginning of so great a thing is so ancient that it is quite forgotten; let him know that, by all man’s standards, we must believe that it had a lawful beginning and are not allowed to think otherwise. This beginning so far surpasses the memory of man that its origin is not known.
It is certain that by the unanimous consent of all nations, it is forbidden to change or move the things which have been immoveable for a long time.
Truly, if any one will look upon ancient monuments, or read the History of former times, one may easily find that all Churches in Christendom have been obedient to the See of Rome since the conversion of the world.
We find that, though the Empire was transferred to the Greeks, they still held and obeyed the Supremacy of the Church and the See of Rome, except when they were in turbulent schism.
St. Jerome, though not a Roman himself, demonstrates admirably well his good esteem for the Roman See, when he openly declared that “it was sufficient for him that the Pope of Rome approved his Faith, whoever else should disapprove it.”
Luther, going against his former sentence, impudently asserts that “the Pope has no right of any kind over the Catholic Church; no, not so much as human; but has by mere force tyrannically usurped it.”
I am astonished that he should expect his readers to be so easily induced to believe his words.
Who would be so blockish as to think that a priest could ever expect or hope to obtain so great a power over so many of his fellow Bishops in so many different and diverse nations before he enjoyed that right which Luther says he usurped?
And this without any right or title, weapon or company to defend him, as the Pope doubtlessly was. How, I say, could Luther expect anybody to believe that all nations and cities — nay, all kingdoms and provinces — were so prodigal of their rights and liberties, as to acknowledge the superiority of a strange priest, to whom they should owe no subjection?
I do not know how he could desire they should.
But what does it mean to know Luther’s opinion in this case, when, through anger and malice he is ignorant of his own opinion, or of what he thinks himself?
In doing and saying such inconsistent things he manifestly uncovers the darkness of his understanding and knowledge, and the folly and blindness of his heart, abandoned as it is to a reprobate sense.
How true is that saying of the Apostle? “If I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).
By perishing himself through fury, Luther not only shows how void of this charity he is, and even more by endeavouring to draw all others with him into destruction, he strives to dissuade them from their obedience to the Pope, whom, in a three-fold manner, he himself is bound to obey, viz., as a Christian, as a priest, and as a religious brother.
His disobedience also deserves to be punished in a treble manner:
He does not remember how much “obedience is better than sacrifice” (1 Kings 15:22);
He does not consider how it is ordained in Deuteronomy, that “he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministers at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel” (Deut. 17:12);
He does not consider, I say, what cruel punishment he deserves, who will not obey the High Priest and Supreme Judge upon earth.
This poor brother, being cited to appear before the Pope — who offered to pay his expenses and a promise of safe conduct — refused to go without a guard, troubling the whole Church as much as he could and exciting the whole Body to rebel against the Head.
To do this is like the sin of witchcraft, and to concur, is as the sin of idolatry (1 Kings 15:22).
Moved by hatred, Luther runs head-long on to destruction and refuses to submit to the Law of God, desiring to establish a law of his own.
Thus, it behoves all Christians to beware lest, as the Apostle says, “by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners” (Romans 5:19).
On the contrary, by hating and detesting his wickedness, we may sing with the Prophet, “I have hated the unjust, and have loved Thy Law” (Psalm 118:113).

+ + +

FOOTNOTES

11. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Saint Peter, is the perpetual, visible source and foundation of the unity of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ, the head of the College of Bishops and pastor of the universal Church over which he has by divine institution full, supreme, immediate, and universal power (Compendium, n. 182).
12. The Church is catholic, that is, universal, insofar as Christ is present in her: “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church” (St. Ignatius of Antioch). The Church proclaims the fullness and the totality of the faith; she bears and administers the fullness of the means of salvation; she is sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race (Compendium, n. 166).
13. The Church, although made up of persons who have diverse languages, cultures, and rites, nonetheless professes with a united voice the one faith that was received from the one Lord and that was passed on by the one Apostolic Tradition. She confesses one God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and points to one way of salvation. Therefore we believe with one heart and one soul all that is contained in the Word of God, handed down or written, and which is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed (Compendium, n. 32).

+ + +

Next article: Henry VIII refutes Luther on the issue of the Eucharist — Introduction.

+ + +

The book is accompanied by two talks on CD: 1) The De-Christianization of the Western World and 2) The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It is available to Wanderer readers at $33.00 (shipping and handling free in the United States). Please make your check payable to: Sacred Heart Media, LLC and mail it to: P.O. Box 1144, Rochester, MN 55903.

http://raymonddesouza.com/henry-viii-book

+ + +

(Raymond de Souza KM is available to speak at Catholic events anywhere in the free world in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Please contact Chevalierdemalta@outlook.com or phone 507-450-4196.)