Luther 2.0

.

The Reformation of the sixteenth century raised fundamental questions about the Christian faith. Can we keep the moral law with the help of grace? Is sacred tradition a reliable guide? What role should reason play in Christian life and theology? Is the Mass a sacred sacrifice offered to God? Is Christian marriage a sacrament? Is marriage indissoluble under all circumstances? Is the Church a visible society with a concrete, juridical structure, objectively continuous through time?

.

These questions sprang from deep frustration with early modern Church life. Luther did not create opposition to the Church. He was a product of it. Ignorance, corruption, and superstition were commonplace among the clergy. Many Catholics felt that the hierarchy was unresponsive to their spiritual needs. Luther was not alone in experiencing the faith as a source of neurotic frustration. Reformers before Luther had complained that the Church law, governance, and worship were no longer signs of transcendence, but had become the chains of an oppressive, corrupt hierarchy.

.

Many fifteenth-century reformers had been content to leave the major architecture of the faith untouched. Instead, they emphasized preaching, teaching, and efforts to root out corruption. Luther viewed this approach as entirely insufficient. For Luther, reform required rethinking the Christian faith from the ground up. Luther laid bare the fundamental structure of Catholic faith and rejected it.

.

Can we keep the law with the help of Grace?  Luther said no.  Is tradition reliable? Luther denied it.  Is theology a science? The product of rigorous definition, analysis, and subject to logic? Absolutely not. Luther taught that reason was “the worst enemy of faith.” Is the Mass a sacrifice, offered to God? Emphatically not. Rather, Luther saw the Eucharist as a testament of God’s unconditional love displayed towards sinners. Luther retained the doctrine of the real presence. He rejected the sacrifice. For Luther, the Eucharist is something God offers us gratuitously. It is not something we offer back to God.

.

And marriage? The Reformation tradition wholeheartedly repudiated Catholic teaching. The Reformers saw marriage as a civil contract, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Church. Furthermore, they allowed for divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances, particularly adultery or abandonment.

Finally, Luther saw the Church as a kind of spontaneous effervescence, emerging whenever and wherever men and women accepted the message of Christ’s free justification. He clearly denied the institutional continuity central to Catholic ecclesiology.  

.

Why did Luther take these radical positions? It was because of his experience of human weakness. He thought nature was so vitiated that moral cure would be impossible in this life. For Luther, both our reason and our moral striving are doomed to frustration. Spirituality and conscience must be separated from the world of reason, law, and the objective moral order.

.

The Council of Trent rejected Luther’s positions and reaffirmed traditional doctrine. Trent said that nature is wounded but can be healed by grace. Grace can elevate human life to truth, beauty, and goodness. Reason can know the truth about God and the moral life. The Mass is a sublime sacrifice offered to God. Marriage must be pure and indissoluble. The saints are proof that the life of holiness is possible. Vatican II repeated and deepened this teaching. The whole Church is a visible sign of transcendence. The call to holiness is universal.

.

.

The questions Luther raised will always plague the Church and will need to be answered in every age. Marriage is hard. Church government is hard. Reasoning well is difficult. Corruption and incompetence abound. Many people fail to experience the grace offered in the sacraments. Luther’s response to these challenges was to sever conscience from the objective moral order. This response is tempting. But it is a temptation the Church and the saints have taught us to resist.

.

These age-old questions are recurring today in a new form. Cardinal Caffarra recently remarked that only a blind man could fail to notice the controversy. Can we really expect people to keep the moral law of marriage with the help of grace? Is tradition a reliable guide in this matter, or should it be “emended?” Can logic and reason hold in theology? (Or, can 2+2=5, as Spadaro thinks?) Is the Eucharist a sublime sacrifice offered to God or simply a spiritual palliative given to the incurably wounded? And finally, is subjective conscience to be severed from the objective moral order? As I read the news today, I can’t help but think, “We’ve been here before.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to top

Discover more from Dr. David Anders

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading