Martin Luther, Heretic

One of the most controversial figures of the last thousand years is Martin Luther. In a time when the Church was nearly completely united, he introduced chaos and schism. Martin Luther single-handedly destroyed fifteen centuries of Christian unity. I doubt there would be the several thousand Christian denominations we have today without Luther's betrayal.

And yet we seem to have forgotten those simple facts. The popular history of Martin Luther, the one taught in public schools, is a puree of truth and myth. Martin Luther is lauded, yes, even by Catholics, for his "spirit of renewal."

Martin Luther was not a hero. He was an arrogant man who broke with Rome. He was a heretic.

The late middle ages were a glorious time for the Catholic Church. Education continued to improve with the support of monasteries. New monastic orders like the Franciscans, Trappists, and Dominicans emerged, each dedicated to serving a particular need within Christendom. St. Thomas Aquinas successfully adapted Aristotelian philosophy to Christian theology, a monumental triumph. Clerical celibacy was reinforced, ensuring that priests remained models of chastity for their flock. Thirty years before Luther's act of disobedience, Pope Sixtus IV restored the Sistine Chapel, adorning God's house with the works of Renaissance masters. Hospitals, schools, and institutions that cared for the poor were all run by the Church. The idea that the Catholic Church was corrupt and decayed in the time of Luther is a lie of Protestant revisionism.

That is not to say that there were no challenges for the Church. Anticlericalism encouraged dissent. This was most fully expressed in the teachings of the heretic, John Huss, who claimed among other falsities that sacraments were only valid if the priest was sufficiently "holy." Catharism promoted a primitive dualistic theology where Satan was nearly equal to God in power. While not widespread, there were cases of corruption. The sale of indulgences did occur. What began as a way of rewarding the noble sacrifices of Crusaders was occasionally twisted into a source of funds without concern for the salvation of souls.

Into this fray stepped an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther. The facts of his early life are obscured by Protestant hero-worship. What we do know about Martin Luther is that he was of a temperament wholly unsuited to the monastic lifestyle.  He alternated between neglecting the Breviary and engaging in extreme ascetical practices our of guilt. This instability suggests a possible explanation for his "faith alone" doctrine.

We've all heard the next part of this story. Luther learns about Tetzel's abuse of indulgences. He drafts a condemnation of this practice and dramatically nails it to the doors of the Wittenberg cathedral. Well, not quite so dramatically. In those days, cathedral doors were bulletin boards of sorts.

Even in this early work, Luther's heresy is evident. Catholics should note that in this document of "renewal," he suggests the inefficacy of Confession writing, "When our Lord and Master Jesus said, 'Repent' (Matthew 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance..." (95 Theses, 1-2). I hope that our Protestant brothers and sisters likewise notice his belief in purgatory even while rejecting the authority of the pope, "The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them" (26).

When his theological errors came to the attention of the Vatican, Luther was summoned to Rome. Despite his monastic requirement of obedience, he refused on the grounds that he worried for his safety. Since he would not go to Rome, Rome went to him. Johann Eck, an esteemed theologian, who had identified 18 heretical statements in the Theses, invited Luther to join the Leipzig Debate. Luther was woefully outmatched; Eck was the greatest debater of his day. He maneuvered Luther into admitting his heretical views which ranged from denying the legitimacy of the pope to sola scriptura. Conveniently, Luther denied the authority of ecumenical councils to interpret Scripture while affirming his own. Eck answered his vain appeals to his personal interpretation by observing, "Martin, there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of Scripture."

Luther's statements during the Leipzig Debate led Pope Leo X to censor his teachings and threaten him with excommunication. Luther responded by becoming even more radical. About a year after the Leipzig Debate, Luther published his Address to the German Nobility. If the lies of his Theses were often subtle, the errors of the Address are blatant and inflammatory.

He rejects the priesthood in the strongest terms: "Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary," "Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism." He also encourages priests to break their vows of chastity, "It is not every priest who can do without a woman." Of course, Luther subsequently took a wife of his own. What he should have said is that not every man (especially not Luther) can be a priest! Perhaps appealing to the German princes, Luther denounces the political power of the Church, "Let it be decreed that no temporal matter shall be submitted to Rome, but all shall be left to the jurisdiction of temporal authorities." The Address to the German Nobility is the raving of an anarchist; Luther wanted to overthrow the authority of the Church and the very foundations of Christendom.

Luther went on to found his own church, and thus Protestantism was born. He reduced the number of sacraments to two, encouraged the neglect of ascetical practices, and promoted personal interpretation of Scripture instead of relying on the authority of ecumenical councils.

No man, not Arius, Huss, or Erasmus, did as much damage to the Church as the heretic, Martin Luther. He lead millions into separation from Christ's Church. He put their souls at risk by preaching falsity. Truly it is he whom Christ condemns when He says, "It is impossible that scandals should not come. But woe to him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones" (Luke 17:1-2).

Martin Luther was not a reformer. He was an obstinate heretic who refused to reconsider his own personal interpretations of Scripture when faced with centuries of tradition. Every one of the several thousand Christian denominations has some link to his lies. The almost universal Protestant hatred of the pope can be traced back to Luther's personal squabbles.

Martin Luther is not someone to be lionized. He is not a saint of orthodoxy but of the "dictatorship of relativism" as Pope Benedict XVI called it. He championed personal interpretation of the Bible, a mere step away from personal interpretations of objective moral realities.

Brothers and sisters, we cannot allow historical revisionism to make us forget what Luther did. The Church should never, not even in an ecumenical spirit, honor him. Rather, we must remain steadfast in our rejection of his heretical doctrines, even if it doesn't make us any Protestant friends.

Deus Vult!

Meet Arius

This is not a story about a saint. This is a story about a man who defied both Scripture and the Magisterium and plunged the Church into strife for decades.

            Arius was born in the year 250 A.D. in modern-day Libya. He was a Catholic priest under the bishop of Alexandria. Now, Arius was a troublemaker. Prior to his ordination, he had been involved in schismatic activities. But St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, was a forgiving man and overlooked Arius’ past mistakes. St. Alexander would come to regret his clemency. 

            Arius received theological instruction from Lucian of Antioch who, though venerated for his personal holiness and martyrdom, proposed a heretical Christological system (the relationship between God the Son and God the Father). Lucian suggested that the Son was not unified with the Father and was created instead of begotten. This undermines the very nature of the Trinity! Under Lucian’s system, which Arius adopted, Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but not one with God. Arius argued (in a manner eerily like the Protestants) that because Sacred Scripture never explicitly says that Jesus is of the same substance as God, He must have been created.

            Once he began preaching this heresy, Arius was quickly condemned by the authorities of his diocese. In 321, Arius was excommunicated. Unfortunately, what is known as the Arian Heresy did not end there. Though orthodox members of the Church quickly pointed out his error, there were others who encouraged it, several of them high-ranking members of the clergy. The most prominent among these was Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, another former protégé of Lucian. Eusebius petitioned for the reinstatement of Arius. This created a rift in the early Church: Arians against orthodox.

            Three years after Arius’ excommunication, Constantine became Emperor of Rome after a bloody civil war. This was a turning point in the history of Christianity. Before going into battle against the far superior forces of Roman Emperor Maxentius, the pagan Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky and heard the words “In hoc signo vinces” – “In this sign you will conquer.” Constantine had his soldiers paint the chi-rho symbol on their shields and engaged Maxentius in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Constantine’s significantly smaller force routed Maxentius. Crediting Jesus Christ for his victory, Constantine immediately issued the Edict of Milan which protected the practice of Christianity. To answer claims that Constantine merely converted as a political move, I find it unlikely that a pagan warlord fighting for control over a pagan empire would suddenly embrace a religion that had been marginalized and persecuted for three centuries.

            Soon enough, the Arian Heresy came to the attention of Emperor Constantine. He attempted to resolve their differences himself. In a letter to both Arius and St. Alexander, Constantine wrote that he saw the theological differences between the Christians and Arians to be of “a truly insignificant character,” and that he wanted Christianity to return to “settled uniformity.” Clearly, Constantine did not appreciate the importance of Christology. He was a soldier, not a theologian. When Constantine could not facilitate a reconciliation on his own, he worked with Pope Sylvester I to convene the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

            The Council of Nicaea was one of the most significant gatherings in Church history. It was the first ecumenical council and brought together 318 bishops. This council was not an exercise of authoritarianism. The orthodox bishops and Arian bishops discussed their mutual differences. One of the stars of the council was St. Athanasius. He personally debated Arius on the question of Christ’s unity with God and earned his reputation as the “Father of Orthodoxy” for his stalwart defense of the faith against Arianism.

            The most interesting legend to have been passed down to us about the Council of Nicaea concerns a certain St. Nicholas. Though largely unsubstantiated, it is said that St. Nicholas punched Arius in the face when the latter said something especially heretical. This is certainly an interesting contrast to Santa, St. Nicholas’ modern persona.

            After several months of deliberation, the council came to its decision. Arianism was formally condemned, and the homoousios formula was adopted. Homoousios means “one in being.”  The creed from the first Council of Nicaea, the forerunner of the Nicene Creed we recite today, states, “We believe in one God the Father Almighty… and in one Lord Jesus Christ… begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri]” and ends with, “Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance, or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.” This is consistent with the beginning of the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Every bishop present signed the formula except for two who were exiled and anathematized.

            Despite this agreement and the authority of the Council of Nicaea, the Arians continued to be a problem. They were led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Though he had signed the creed, Eusebius strove to overturn the condemnation of Arianism. He was aided by the weak emperors who succeeded Constantine, many of them advised by heretics. The orthodox bishops, St. Athanasius chief among them, were therefore persecuted for many years as they maintained the validity of the homoousios formula.

            This controversy lasted for almost sixty years until the First Council of Constantinople was held in 381. The canons of this council strongly condemned Arianism and several other heresies. The Semi-Arians were subsequently reconciled with the Catholic Church, finally defeating the lies of Arius.

            The story of Arianism is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is an important chapter in the history of the Catholic Church. Arianism coincided with the end of the Roman persecution and demonstrated the ability of the Church to solve doctrinal disputes. This is painfully timely with the controversy of Amoris Laetitia and the dubia.

 Secondly, it highlights the importance of details when it comes to theology. The dispute revolved around the use of a single word to describe the relationship between the Father and Son. That one word led to decades of conflict. For that word, St. Nicholas was willing to punch Arius in the face and St. Athanasius was willing to suffer years of persecution and exile. Why? Because of the Church’s commitment to the Truth. The nature of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is of the utmost importance to our faith. The saints would rather die than allow Christ to be reduced to a creature.

We need that same zeal today! Forget about one heresy, our age has thousands. Instead of just worrying about Arians, we contend with a never-ending number of Protestant denominations, militant atheists, Islam, the assorted New Age spiritualities, and progressive members of our own Church.

Many of these heresies are, just like Arianism, of a Christological nature. Self-styled intellectuals like to think of Jesus as a good moral teacher who was nonetheless not the Son of God. Islam makes the same mistake. They lower Christ to the rank of a prophet. They claim that He was not the Son of God. In other words, Jesus Christ, who said that He was the Son of God - “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son” (John 3:16) - and never corrected those who called Him the Son of God on several occasions, said some good things but was just wrong about that little detail.

This is a logically untenable position. You cannot call Jesus a moral teacher while denying His claim to being the Son of God. Why? C.S. Lewis has the perfect answer in Mere Christianity:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Arianism is important because we face many of the same theological challenges today. We must stand firm in the Truth of Christ. We must not cede a single inch to the modern-day Arians, heretics, and schismatics.

Christ Jesus, one in being with Your Most Heavenly Father, have mercy on us.

Deus Vult!