Reformation Day

Protestants all over the world celebrate “Reformation Day” of October 31. I don’t. Last year, on the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s revolt, I wrote a lengthy essay on exactly why not, and I think it’s worth reprinting in its entirety.

---

Five Hundred Years

Today is the five hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. It is fitting that this day is commemorated on the eve of All Saints Day, because Martin Luther began by doing the work of the saints.

Ultimately, though, he chose another path. He chose the path of deciding that he knew better than Scripture, Tradition, the combined wisdom and teaching of the saints of 1,500 years, and ultimately that he knew better than Christ Himself.

This is not a day to celebrate. This is a day to mourn. Perhaps I should explain.

This is going to be a little lengthy; it’s not your typical 400-word blog post. It can’t be helped, I’m sorry.

Also – and I can’t stress this enough – in no way do I condemn the people today who follow Protestantism because it is the faith of their family or their culture. Or, for that matter, the Post-Protestant forms of Christianity that have sprung up in the past decade or two.

Few Protestants today are Protestants because they personally rose up and repudiated the Catholic Church. They did not choose schism or heresy, and they cannot be held culpable for it.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.

(Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

They love the Lord, and often they seek truth with all their heart. And had they grown up in the Catholic Church, they would no doubt be strong and faithful Catholics.

Not so Martin Luther.

Luther’s Repudiation of Scripture and Tradition

We’ll start with the obvious. Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament ¹ and parts of four others². Why?

Ostensibly, it was because these books – known as the Deuterocanonical books³ – are not found in the Hebrew Canon, the books that the Jews count as canonical scripture. There are a couple of weird things about this assertion, however.

The first is that the Jews themselves did not fix their Canon of the Old Testament until after the Christians had set theirs⁴ The Jews chose to restrict their canon to those works for which they had Hebrew originals. When setting their canon, however, they did not repudiate the other books. For example, Jews throughout the world continue to celebrate Hanukkah even though the event commemorated occurs in the books of the Maccabees, for which the oldest version is a Greek language text.

One should also note that the New Testament constantly references these books, so even if the Jews later decided they weren’t part of scripture, the Jews of Jesus’ day – and Jesus Himself – referred to them as though they were.

The second weird thing is this: why would you allow non-Christians to set the canon of Christian scripture? Particularly after the fact?

No, Luther’s historical argument falls apart pretty quickly when you look at it in any critical light. It’s further compounded by the fact that he advocated for removing the Book of Esther in its entirety.

And then there are the books he wanted to be removed from the New Testament.

These are known as the Antilegomena. Luther advocated removing Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament. To this day, German language Lutheran Bibles have these four books grouped together at the end of the Bible.

There is no possible historical excuse for removing these books. Their provenance as writings from the apostles was not seriously challenged until Luther’s time. No, his argument against these books of the Bible was purely doctrinal.

If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. … However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon.

(Luther’s Treatment of the ‘Disputed Books’ of the New Testament)

Luther thought that these books contradicted his shiny new Protestant theology, particularly the doctrines of sola gratia (by Grace alone) and sola fide (by Faith alone) – doctrines that themselves do not appear anywhere in scripture and are unattested in Christian theology from the time of the Apostles until Luther.

These books do, however, support some of the very Catholic doctrines that Luther was rebelling against; e.g. Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on works and serves as a direct Scriptural condemnation of sola fide.

So much for Luther’s other big sola, sola scriptura (by scripture alone). For Luther, if scripture contradicts your theology, the solution is to throw out the troublesome scripture.

And this gets us back to the real reason for removing the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament. They did not support his theology. The most glaring example is 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, which supports the idea of praying for the dead and therefore the doctrine of purgatory, but there are plenty of others.

And honestly, even his assertion of sola scriptura is itself contradicted by scripture. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read:

And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Canda′ce the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

(Acts 8:27b-31)

Sacred Scripture itself says that Sacred Scripture is insufficient. You also require Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium to understand its true meaning.

Luther’s Repudiation of 1,500 Years – Sacramental Economy and the Saints

Martin Luther was a Monk of the Augustinan Order, and he left his order without dispensation. Now this violation of his solemn promise to the Lord is traditionally held to be a mortal sin, but this is a matter between Brother Martin and his confessor.

But he preached his non-Biblical theology and caused a revolution which “deprived billions of souls of Sacramental life”⁵. This is a matter altogether more grave.

For his followers, effectively Luther abolished five⁶ of the seven sacraments, downgrading them to mere “rites” and in many cases changing them and their meaning until they would be unrecognizable to the ancient Church. He retained only two: Baptism and Eucharist. He thereby removed the sacraments of healing and of service, which makes perfect sense in his theology of sola gratia, but is antithecal to the teaching of Christians since the time of the apostles.

Compare and contrast Luther with Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers on just the first of his abolished sacraments, Confirmation:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samar′ia had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 8:14-17⁷)

“Are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God.” (To Autolycus 1:12, Saint Theophilus of Antioch [A.D. 181])

“It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so that by his having received chrism, that is, the anointing, he can be the anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ.” (Letters 7:2, Saint Cyprian of Carthage [A.D. 253])

“[David says,] ‘You have anointed my head with oil.’ With oil he anointed your head, your forehead, in the God-given sign of the cross, so that you may become that which is engraved on the seal, ‘a holy thing of the Lord’.” (Catechetical Lectures 22:7, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem [A.D. 350])

“[T]hose who have been illuminated are, after baptism, to be anointed with celestial chrism and thus become partakers in the kingdom of Christ.” (Canon 48 of the Council of Laodicea [A.D. 360])

“I would allow people to observe confirmation in this way: that they are aware that God has said nothing about it, and therefore knows nothing of it, and that what the bishops attribute to Confirmation is just a pack of lies.” (Treatise on Marriage, Martin Luther [A.D. 1522])

One of these things is not like the others. And we could go on and on with each of the other sacraments in turn.

Even in the Eucharist, which Luther ostensibly retained, he abolished the offeratory and changed the intention of the Canon – the actual Eucharistic prayer – and so effectively retained only the image of the Mass and none of its substance.

He deprived his followers, and their children to this day, of the Sacraments – the ordinary means of grace on this world. How can you preach sola gratia – grace alone – and then deprive people of the most basic ways of seeking God’s grace?

Luther’s Repudiation of Christ and His Church

During Luther’s time, the Church was desperately in need of reform, and that work had already begun. The reforming Fifth Lateran Council met between 1512 and 1517. Indeed, the work of reform was ongoing by people like Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Farnese⁸, Bishop Carafa⁹, Saint Francis of Paola, and Matteo de Bascio.

Later on, in the depths of the Protestant revolt, came the reforming Council of Trent. Other saintly reformers stepped up, too: Saints Philip Neri, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross, and others too numerous to name.

Yet none of these reformers did what Martin Luther did. For Luther, unlike these saints, did not reform the Church, he repudiated it entirely. He wrote again and again against the Church and especially against the various Popes.

“I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist. As Christ is God incarnate, so the Antichrist is the devil incarnate. … The kingdom of the pope really signifies the terrible wrath of God, namely, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.” (Luther’s Works, vol.54, Table Talks, No.4487, p.346)

“Since the papal church not only neglects the command of Christ but even compels the people to ignore it and to act against it, it is certain that it is not Christ’s church but the synagogue of Satan which prescribes sin and prohibits righteousness. It clearly and indisputably follows that it must be the abomination of Antichrist and the furious harlot of the devil.” (What Luther Says, II: 1019)

Indeed, Luther’s last published work was titled “Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil” (1546). Let us contrast this against Holy Scripture and the teachings of the saints throughout the previous fifteen centuries:

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17-19¹⁰)

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty”. (The Shepherd 2:4:3, Hermas [A.D. 80])

“Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1, Saint Ignatius of Antioch [A.D. 110])

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 Saint Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 189]).

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith].” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10, Tertullian [A.D. 211])

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner.” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2, Saint Opatus of Milevis [A.D. 367])

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2, Saint Jerome [A.D. 396])

And so on, century by century, decade by decade, through 1,500 years – until the revolt of Martin Luther.

The Fruits of Protestantism

You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

(Matthew 7:16-20)

So what are the fruits of Master Martin Luther’s rebellion? Nothing less than the shattering of the unity of the Church.

For its first thousand years, Holy Mother Church stood in unity. Oh, there were heresies and schisms throughout, but these were at the margins. At its core, the Church remained unified as Christ had prayed¹¹.

The Catholic/Orthodox Schism of A.D. 1054 was the first major wound in the Body of Christ. That it remains largely unresolved is a scandal.

But the divisions of Protestantism (and the myriad post-Protestant communities) is something else again. Unity in the Church was not wounded; it was shattered. For reference, here’s a handy chart.

Thanks to Martin Luther, who prefered to shatter the Church rather than reform Her, we have a zillion denominations, many of which are actively opposed to Christ’s Church or simply unaware that they were once part of Her.

Conclusion: Repudiation Not Reform

Whatever his original intentions, Martin Luther did not restore Christianity or reform the Church. Instead, he repudiated Sacred Scripture, he discared Holy Tradition, he taught against the teaching of the Church and Her saints of 1,500 years, he deprived generations of the graces of the Sacraments and the sacramental life, and ultimately he shattered the unity of the Church that Christ Himself established. And for what?

“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

(Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82 “Letter to Melanchthon”, August 1, 1521)

So, no. I will not celebrate today, the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Revolt which brought so much misery and death into the world.

Let us instead mourn our loss and pray the prayer of Jesus Christ for His Church:

And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.

But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

(John 17:11-23)

Amen.

1. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.
2. Daniel, Esther, Jeremiah.
3. Many Protestants, convinced of their inauthenticity, refer to them as Apocrypha.
4. See The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.
5. Quoting the felicitous phrasing of Rorate Caeli.
6. Confirmation, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.
7. cf. Acts 9:17, 19:6, and and especially Hebrews 6:2, which lists Confirmation among the doctrines of the Church.
8. Later elected Pope Paul III (1534-1549), first of the Counter-Reformation Popes and convoker of the Council of Trent.
9. Later elected Pope Paul IV (1555-1559).
10. Already I can hear Protestant apologists sharpening their knives. There simply isn’t time or space to argue about this, which has been accepted even amongst the Eastern Orthodox as proof of Peter’s primacy (even if they will argue about what that primacy means) from the Apostolic era until Martin Luther. Catholic Answers provides a strong rebuttal to the Protestant assertions.
11. John 17.