“If we took away
ninety-nine parts of the Pope's Court and only left one hundredth, it would
still be large enough to answer questions on matters of belief. Now there is
such a swarm of vermin at Rome, all called papal, that Babylon itself never saw
the like. There are more than three thousand papal secretaries alone; but who
shall count the other office-bearers, since there are so many offices that we
can scarcely count them, and all waiting for German benefices, as wolves wait
for a flock of sheep? I think Germany now pays more to the Pope than it
formerly paid the emperors; nay, some think more than three hundred thousand
guilders are sent from Germany to Rome every year, for nothing whatever; and in
return we are scoffed at and put to shame. Do we still wonder why princes,
noblemen, cities, foundations, convents, and people grow poor? We should rather
wonder that we have anything left to eat.”—German theologian and Protestant
Reformation leader Martin Luther (1483-1546), Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate
(1520)
The argument advanced by Martin Luther in this passage will elicit nods of agreement not just for millions
of those who followed his lead in leaving the Roman Catholicism Church, but
also theologians who have remained in the hope that the central teaching
authority of the Church would eventually accept their thinking.
The vast bureaucracy
underlying the Church has been the subject of both humor (Pope John XXIII,
asked how many people worked at the Vatican, joked, “About half”) to
lamentation (“The Curia does its best to stifle criticism in the episcopate and
in the church as a whole and to discredit critics with all the means at its
disposal,” German theologian Hans Kung charged in a 2010 “Open Letter to Catholic Bishops”).
But few have matched the
extraordinary vigor of the questioning by Luther. It cites striking statistics
(those “three thousand papal secretaries”!), historical allusion (sinful
ancient Babylon), animal imagery, and tying it all to the condition of his
native Germany.
In contrast to another
pillar of the Protestant Reformation, John Calvin, whose presentation and style
often reflected his early training as a lawyer, Luther’s prose burned with
passion and invective.
Address to the Christian
Nobility, issued 500 years ago this month, was the first of three tracts in 1520 that propelled the
rebellious monk further towards irrevocable defiance of the Pope. In The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he called for reducing the number of
sacraments instituted by the Roman Catholic Church from seven to two. In The
Freedom of a Christian, he continued to attack abuses of the Vatican, only
this time he began to explore, with greater eloquence, the essential equality
of all believers: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to
none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”
But Address to the
Christian Nobility especially fell on fertile ground. It helped that Luther
wrote it in German rather than the Latin common to theological explication of
the time. Communicating in the vernacular, coupled with the rise of the
printing press (particularly in Luther’s own Wittenberg), meant that his
attacks on the papacy found a far wider audience of lay readers than just his
own community of theologians.
Within this wider lay
community, Luther reached two receptive groups. The first—more important in ensuring
he would not be executed like an earlier Church dissident, the Bohemian cleric Jan
Huss—was the German nobility.
Jealous of their prerogatives, they resented especially
what Luther called the “three walls” used to safeguard the papacy’s absolute
sway: the elevation of spiritual power above secular; the claim that nobody but
the pope could interpret scripture; and the assertion that only he could convene
a council of the Church.
In this environment, Luther’s
call for secular princes to assert their proper temporal authority (“Oh noble
princes and gentlemen, how long will you suffer your lands and your people to
be the prey of these ravening wolves?”) furnished them with intellectual and theological
justification for defying the papacy.
The second lay audience
for Luther’s tract—those outside the nobility—was far more problematic for him.
He predicted that Germany would suffer the same fate as Italy, where, to create
and maintain cardinals of the Church, “the convents are destroyed, the sees
consumed, the revenues of the prelacies and of all the churches drawn to Rome;
towns are decayed, the country and the people ruined.”
This baleful prophecy fed
anger not only among merchants who might have read his tracts themselves but
also German peasants who, though illiterate, would have heard his thoughts spread
through the network of preachers already flocking to his standard.
Five years
later, when the “Peasants’ Revolt” erupted and spread in southern Germany, Luther—angry
at insinuations that he had provoked the disorder, alarmed that he might lose
the protection of powerful princes against the papacy—reacted with another
tract whose title conveys better than any commentary the intensity of his
feelings: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants.
Luther’s appeal to
secular authority and his frequent, revolutionary use of the German language
arose from his intense identification as a German—an instinct all the more
remarkable because that land was still a motley collection of states within the Holy Roman Emperor, not the united nation-state it became after
the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.
(For a searching discussion of the consequences of this, please see William Castro’s “Luther and German Nationalism” in the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ “Reformation21.”)
No comments:
Post a Comment