Victor R. Claveau, MJ
Many people believe the final tearing of the fabric of Church teaching began when Martin Luther supposedly nailed his ninety-five theses to the castle church door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. In actuality, according to noted historian Hubert Jedin, Luther sent the ninety-fire theses to the bishops concerned on that date, the eve of All Saints. Only when these prelates did not reply, or replied in an unsatisfactory manner, did he, as he maintained throughout his life, distribute them to learned men in and outside Wittenberg.
A posting of the theses at the Wittenberg castle church is incompatible with the statements of Luther. Neither Luther himself nor any other of the numerous contemporary sources refers to such a move.[1] From that time on, until the final break with the Church of Rome, Luther protested over and over again that he was loyal to the See of Peter.
Modern historian John Mulloy writes:
“In order to justify separation from the Papacy and the tearing apart of the unity of Christendom, the Protestant Reformers and their disciples developed a new conception of Church history in which the cardinal article of faith was the identification of the Pope as Antichrist; and the Middle Ages were seen as the time when his power over mankind was at its greatest. This was of course a revolutionary attitude involving a great deal of bitterness and hostility against the Catholic Church.”[2]
Luther’s basic doctrine was a denial of free will. Man’s nature, he said, had been corrupted by the fall of Adam and we are quite incapable of willing, except as guided by God. Our works, good or bad, are not our own; we are puppets, God is the puppeteer.
As an Augustinian friar, Luther studied the writings of the order’s namesake. Augustine’s writings against Mani[3] (AD 397), the famous Faustus[4] (AD 400), Secundinus[5] (AD 405) and the fatalistic Priscillianists and astrologers[6] (c. AD 415) contain his unquestionable views on the eternal problem of evil, proclaiming that every work of God is good and the only source of moral evil is the liberty of creatures. Augustine takes up the defense of free will with such enthusiasm that his works against the Manichæns are an inexhaustible storehouse of arguments in this controversy.
The Reformers appealed so confidently to St. Augustine’s volumes that it seems only fair to note the real difference, which exists between his doctrine and theirs. John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert to Catholicism, summed it up in the following comparison:
“The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification; — Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; — Augustine, that it is imparted; Luther, that it is only imputed; — Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God’s commandments are impossible to man; Augustine adds, impossible without His grace, — Luther, that the Gospel consists of promises only; Augustine, that it is also a law; — Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law; Augustine says instead, to know and keep it; — Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart; Augustine says, that the Law is Christ; — Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience; — Luther says, that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; — Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God.”[7]
Luther’s belief evidently evolved out of his own fruitless struggle against temptation and sin. He was a victim of his own scrupulosity and strong passions that he failed to control.
According to James H. Vanderveldt, O.F.M., Ph.D., and Robert P. Odenwald, M.D., F.A.P.A., in their book, Psychiatry and Catholicism: “Scrupulosity can be understood only by those who believe in the reality of the supernatural, of sin, and of moral conscience. Etymologically, the term ‘scruple’ derives from the Latin. Scrupulus means, literally, a small, sharp pebble which in a shoe causes discomfort in walking, and in its neutral form, scrupulum, was a Roman weight unit, a little more than our present gram (1.137-gram). Applying these two meanings in a metaphorical sense, one may identify a scrupulous person as one who allows minute, insignificant moral considerations to hamper his progress on the road to spiritual perfection.[8]
[1] Jedin, Hubert, and Dolan, John, eds., History of the Church: Reformation and Counter Reformation, Vol. 5(New York: Crossroad, 1990), pp. 47-48.
[2] Mulloy, John J., Christianity and the Challenge of History, (Front Royal: Christendom Press, 1995), p. 144.
[3] Schaff, De Natura Boni Contra Manichæos, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. IV, p. 357.
[4] Contra Faustum Manichæum, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, Vol. 42 ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1864, pp.287-518.
[5] Contra Secundinum Manichæum, Series Latina, Vol. 42 ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1864, pp. 577-602.
[6] Contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas, Series Latina, Vol. 42 ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1864, pp. 669-678.
[7] Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification (New York: Longmans, Green and Co. 1900), p. 58.
[8] Vanderveldt, James H,. O.F.M., Ph.D. and Robert P. Odenwald, M.D., F.A.P.A., Psychiatry and Catholicism (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1952), p. 330.