Martin Luther in his Own Words

Modernity ignores theology.  It snubs its nose at ontology.  Your modern man thinks that the mental landscape he inhabits is something objective and obvious, which becomes readily apparent once the phantasms of faith are removed.  He views faith and reason as enemies, believing that God is somehow incompatible with science, computers, and evolution.  If only the rest of the world could abandon God, then surely his war-free paradise will be the result.  He spouts these ideas as if they’re first principles, never realizing that his idols are the children of faith.  He expects morality to exist without God, he desires reason without ontology – and then he’s surprised to see the world dissolve into pure subjectivity, and the aggressions of slave-like ideologies.  He’s shocked that abandoning the cup caused the wine to lose its shape.

The modern world is the European world.  And the European world is a product of the Catholic faith.  Without Christ, we have no reason to prefer Aristotle to Epicurus.  Without Christ there is no distinction between Just War and bellicose conquest.  The modern man might think that theology is nothing but debates over angels dancing on the head of a pin, but the reality is far more immediate.  Heresy is not a matter of opinion or preference.  Heresies – incorrect statements about the nature of reality, man, God, and the relations between all three – lead to the collapse of societies and the damnation of souls as certainly as false mathematical statements lead to the collapse of bridges.

It was with this in mind that I recently sat down to read Fr. Henry O’Conner, S.J.’s 1885 book Luther’s Own Statements Concerning his Teaching and its Results.  That Martin Luther was a scandalous heretic, whose activism led to the fragmentation of Christendom, leaving us vulnerable to enemies within and without, is self evident to the casual scholar; what stands out to the modern reader, is how consistent his errors are with the errors of his followers, even unto the present day.  It reads like the words of a modern fool, shocked and uncomprehending that his folly brings disaster upon himself.  It is that which I wish to highlight in this article: the ongoing follies of Luther and his followers.

First is his love of mockery.

Mockery is vicious.  It pollutes public discord, and hardens the opposition, making them deaf to your words.  One of the first rules of argument is to never corner your opponent: if you corner them, “You must admit my position is correct, otherwise you’re worse than Hitler!” then you have weaponized their ego against reason.  You deny them the chance to consider your words privately, instead you demand a public prostration.  Even if they realize that your reasoning is correct, the price of admitting it becomes far too high.

Martin Luther’s argument was mainly about the corruption surrounding the sale of indulgences.  Nobody today would disagree with him on that point – in fact, very few people at the time would have disagreed with him, either.  But rather than address this issue with dignity and decorum, Luther claims that the Pope is a devilish Antichrist, and describes Rome as “…nothing else but a stable full of big, coarse, stupid, disgraceful donkeys.”  As to Catholics in general, “Nobody can be a Papist, without at least being a murderer, a robber, a persecutor…” These are not the words of a reformer.  These are the sort of vicious statements issued by a rebel.  Speaking and writing in such a manner ensures an increase in discord, not a correction of past errors.

And what do we see in modern culture?  Every talking head is trying to out do one-another in coming up with new, vicious metaphors to mock their opponents.  Reason and facts matter less than rhetoric, and even if the critic is technically correct, the nastiness underlying their words makes resolution impossible, ensuring that the gulf between positions only widens.  Fr. O’Conner aptly describes the language as Satanical, and it’s the dominant form of discourse we see today.

Second, his self-righteous arrogance and hypocrisy.

Martin Luther condemns Papal infallibility, but grants himself more authority than any of the Popes.  Papal infallibility is far less substantial than most people realize: it doesn’t mean that the Pope can never be wrong; he can be wrong about mathematical formulas, he can even make theological errors.  The essence of Papal infallibility is that when there is a matter of great disagreement, which has been discussed at length, and Christendom needs an answer – then we can trust the Seat of Peter to make a pronouncement with divine guidance.  It is seldom used, and it can’t contradict anything that’s gone before.  But what sort of authority did Martin Luther think he possessed? “I will not allow [my doctrine] to be judged by anybody, not even by any of the Angels.” He even took on the authority to erase and rewrite the parts of the Bible that disagreed with him.

The first fruit of this tree is the endless splintering of Protestantism into new and varied sects – after all, if Martin Luther can rewrite Christianity for his own purposes, why shouldn’t anyone else?  But it’s the second fruit I want to focus on.  Martin Luther not only rewrote the Bible for his own purposes, he also ignored vows made to God; he himself married a nun, and gave his blessing to the bigamous marriage of Prince Philip I of Hesse.  Here goes the great crusader, describing the Pope as a donkey due to institutional corruption – only to engage in institutional corruption for his own sake!

What argument is constantly raised against the Faith by the Atheist Left?  And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?  Modern churches – and modern societies – are very selective about which parts of the moral code they emphasize.  The choose the parts that allow self-aggrandizement and the condemning of others.  This is true for the Westboro Baptists (who hate fags, but have nothing to say about charity), the New Age Humanists (who love Jesus’ message about peace, but ignore his admonishments to prepare for war), and our modern ‘liberated’ societies (who condemn Islam for their treatment of women, while training our girls to become infertile corporate slaves).  Instead of approaching spirituality – and life – holistically, the Luther-inspired modern man uses morality as a weapon against others, never questioning his own shortcomings.

Third, his schizophrenic attitude to the Jews.

This is a notorious subject – so notorious that the whole matter is shortened to the “JQ” in modern parlance (the Jewish Question), and there is no safe or reasonable statement to make on this matter.  No matter what you say, you’ll be condemned by both sides.  This is yet another modern idiosyncrasy that finds its root in Luther’s writings.

The attitude of the Church, from the earliest days, and formally established in 1120 with Sicut Judaeis was that no Christian has a right to harm a Jew, and that Jews do not have the right to attack or corrupt the Christian societies which host them.  For centuries Jews and Christians lived side-by-side because of this policy of tempered tolerance.

And then, Martin Luther writes a treatise on the matter.  Set their synagogues on fire… break down their homes… take their prayer books… forbid their Rabbis from teaching… deny them legal protection on the roads… and seize all their silver and gold.  But despite all this, we know that the Jews were instrumental in helping spread his heresy, smuggling copies of his vulgate Bible into Catholic countries, and that most modern Protestants worship the Jews.  How do we square this circle?

The answer is the hate/idolize dichotomy: that which somebody hates often becomes that which they worship, and the act of hating strengthens both sides in the dynamic.  We can see this in men who suffer the Madonna/Whore complex; their hatred of women hides their worship of and desire for femininity.  Their female counterparts, the feminists, hate men in return, but secretly envy them, equating virtue to masculine virtue.  Both sides justify the other, and help the other become even more extreme.  In the case of Martin Luther and the Jews, his hatred of them serves as a Schelling point; a justification for them to unite.  Martin Luther provides the justification for the Rothchilds to unite against Christendom, which in turn justifies an opposition to Jewish banking cartels.  It’s not unlike the effects of ridicule in arguments; calling somebody a donkey is only going to cause them to double down on their positions.

Luther’s anti-Jewish vitriol justified Jewish anti-Christian vitriol, while simultaneously driving Christians to try and emulate Jewish Kabbalah through Freemasonry.  We’re living in the fallout from that.

Fourth, his surprise at the consequences.

One of the core divides between Protestantism and Catholicism is “Faith versus Works.” Catholics believe that good works, inspired by faith, sanctify the sinner.  Thus – in acknowledgement of our own sinful nature – we Catholics try and perform works of charity for the sake of others.  When Luther managed to convince his flock that they were justified through Faith alone, he was utterly shocked to find out that they stopped helping out the needy, and became atomized individualists.  When you see demands for a greater and greater welfare state, think of moderns who are good people just because they believe they are good people – their goodness doesn’t obligate them to help out their neighbours.

Martin Luther was dismayed at how his theological experiment turned out.  Somehow – after writing dozens of treatises describing all his opponents in the vilest terms he could imagine, while stating that armed insurrection was more than justified – he was surprised when his followers engaged in violent uprisings.

Then there was the lack of Godliness in general. “Because after having learnt the Gospel [meaning his heresy], we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.” A year before his death he wrote, “We are living in Sodom and Babylon… everything is daily getting worse.”

He even admitted regret over what his actions had wrought. “If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had forseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.”

But he never repented.

This is another behaviour that seems rampant in our modern, Protestant societies.  Take the American worship of Freedom of Speech; the belief that one ought to be able to say whatever they want, without taking responsibility for what sort of behaviour results from that speech.  Or the American imperialism – utterly shocked when a foreign group takes exception to their political meddling, and decides to strike back with a terrorist attack.  Or the general dismay you hear from Protestant ministers over the decline of society in general – but the refusal to hold themselves or their flock to a higher moral standard.

The most you can hope for is that a Protestant will ‘own’ their mistakes… but they won’t repent of them.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea magnum culpa.

Protestantism is frustrating, because it’s so obviously wrong from a practical standpoint (it bears foul fruits) from a moral standpoint (it’s nothing but Pharisee-style posturing) and from an intellectual standpoint (the theology only makes sense to black-and-white thinkers).  It lacks holistic understanding, and the Spirit of Charity.  And yet, it is rampant in our world.  Fr. O’Conner’s book illustrates that these problems weren’t the result of later corruptions from dreary men like John Calvin, they were present from its very inception; that the arrogance and folly of Martin Luther infused his congregation with shameful attitudes, which persist to this day.  It’s well worth reading, as you’ll recognize all those flavours of heretical Christian thought which are currently rampant, and it will reaffirm the True Faith (so often even we Catholics make the mistake of thinking God is that hateful hypocrite Martin Luther describes).  And on the off chance that any Protestants read this, familiarizing yourself with the words of your founder might just be the thing to break you away from his sect, and help you embrace the Holy Spirit in its fullness.

Link.

Deus Vult.