Apologetics Course . . . The Personality Of Luther
By RAYMOND DE SOUZA, KM
Part 26
It is not possible to understand the current divisions among Christians — these many thousands of “denominations” holding contradictory beliefs regarding faith, morals, and behavior — unless we understand something of the personality of the founder of Protestantism. In previous articles in The Wanderer I cited several affirmations of Luther that shocked many people, and whenever I speak to a sincere Lutheran I recommend to him the attentive reading of Luther’s own writings and sayings copied by his faithful secretary, Melanchthon. That will be enough to persuade him to become Catholic.
But let us know the man a bit more, in order to understand his work.
Luther was not a fool. He was a man of great intelligence and natural ability. He studied theology, and was well versed in Latin and Greek. If he had been able to distinguish the use from the abuse in the Church, that is, what the Catholic Church preaches and the misbehavior of her children, he might have been a great reformer — in the true sense of the word, like St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Vincent Ferrer, to name but two.
But unfortunately, he used his abilities and God-given gifts to become a populist, a demagogue. Coarse language, insulting manners, and belligerent sarcasm became the marks of his style. He could quote the Bible according to his preference, but ignored the faith of the early Christians, as if there had been no history before him and the Bible was just given to him, and to him alone. Only he knew the word of God’s true meaning, and nobody else. That vainglory placed him above the rest of common mortals in his own mind, and he came to believe himself a kind of prophet, so that whatever he said was God’s saying.
Fanaticism was the natural result of self-indulgence and pride. Always confusing the use with the abuse, in 1517 he openly opposed the indulgences given to those who contributed to the building of St. Peter’s Basilica. The use was perfectly normal: Just as the Jews contributed to the Temple, Catholics were called to contribute to St. Peter’s in Rome, under the normal conditions, that is, Confession, Communion, and almsgiving. The alms were to help build the great basilica.
But — and there is often a “but” — in every human endeavor you will find abuses. That is precisely what happened and we do not cover up for it. Some of the people proclaiming the indulgences abused their privileges to make money, just as many priests and Protestant pastors do today. The Pope inherited a bad taste in the mouths of Catholics because his Predecessors had committed abuses in the collection and misapplication of Church monies. These abuses happen today in many places — but we do not form a new church in every diocese where abuses happen. We work to correct the abuse and restore the proper use. This is to act as a sensible human being.
But Luther thought differently. At the beginning of his revolution, he did count on the support of many good Catholics who also condemned the abuses perpetrated by the alms-collectors, but soon that support ended, as those well-meaning people realized that what Luther wanted was not reformation, it was revolution.
His revolution spread throughout Europe, happily assisted by the corrupted state of many princes and church ministers, who were more interested in lust and money rather than in the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Italy, Spain, and Portugal remained firmly with Rome, whereas most of Europe succumbed to the deformation, either in whole or in part. In many instances, whoever disagreed with the new regime was either persecuted or martyred.
In order to carry out a true reformation, the Church called the Council of Trent. The missionaries spread the true reformation in most of Europe, and maintained the Catholic faith in many places until it was spread to the Americas, Africa, and Asia. But the fact remains that the main element that helped Luther was precisely the corruption he claimed to denounce. Men and women had given themselves to evil customs, pride leading them to refuse any authority over themselves, and sensuality leading them to refuse anything that might put brakes on their lifestyle choices.
Luther’s doctrines were few and simple: a) Sola Scriptura: The sole rule of faith is the Bible interpreted by the individual believer. It sounded good in the beginning, but when other believers decided to interpret it differently from Luther, they suffered persecution. Believers had to interpret the Bible as Luther did. (b) Because of sin, man is unable to achieve holiness by fulfilling the Commandments. His soul is always in a state of sin, and nothing can save him except his faith in the atonement made by Christ on the cross. But that faith does not remove sin; it only hides it in the eyes of God. Consequently, man’s will is not free. Sin has to be committed because such is the nature of man. Pecca fortiter, sed crede fortius, he wrote. Sin on bravely, but believe even more strongly. Anyone can see how such doctrines were very appealing to proud and lustful people.
Contrary to the Gospel teaching, the church of Christ — according to Luther — is not visible, but invisible (?!) consisting of the saved alone. The individual congregations of believers may be visible, but the real Church is not.
There is no real need for priests and bishops, Luther claimed, because all Christians are priests already. Here the various Lutheran churches today disagree with their founder, but that’s OK. Authority is not necessary either, since every Christian can receive the Holy Spirit and interpret the Bible correctly — however contradictory their interpretations may be.
There are only three sacraments, really: Baptism, Eucharist, and — Penance! Yes, Luther believed in the Sacrament of Confession — why not? Since everything is up for grabs, one can believe whatever one wants to believe, since everyone is inspired by the “Holy Spirit,” but it does not confer any grace in the Catholic sense. It is basically a kind of ceremony.
John Calvin agreed with Luther on the issue of the Bible alone, but disagreed with him on other matters, such as absolute predestination. Every man is already destined to go to Heaven or to Hell, regardless of his good or bad deeds. God has decided it from eternity, and there is nothing you can do about it. Whether you lead a life of sin or of virtue, your fate is already sealed.
Calvin also disagreed with Luther about the exclusive invisibility of the Church, and said that there are two aspects, one visible and one invisible. Presbyters are elected by the people and can become bishops, against Luther’s idea that all Christians are already priests. Finally, Calvin eliminated Penance as a sacrament.
But the differences did not stop there, as we can see today in the World Council of Churches, how doctrinal and moral cacophony reign supreme. The so-called reformation of Luther became a catastrophic deformation, destroying the unity of Christ’s Church.
+ + +
Next article: Protestantism is not a “church,” but a loose network of loosely related denominations holding contradictory teachings: Therefore, it is not the Church of Christ.
