PROBABLY no single 'reformer' is so often quoted with approval by fundamentalist Protestant preachers as Martin Luther.

Echoes of the much publicised refusal of the former Augustinian monk and Catholic priest who became founder of a new religion 'Lutheranism' to submit to the 'tyranny' of papal authority, and his denunciation of alleged abuses in the Church, are still reverberating.

Martin Luther and his teaching are praised on street corners, in public meetings, and on the door-steps of Catholic homes, by dedicated fundamentalists and sectaries for whom the Pope and the Catholic Church personify all that is evil and diabolical.

A Bible 'Handbook' written by Henry H. Halley and much praised by American evangelists, (and offered to Catholics who unwittingly attend their 'Bible Study' courses) describes Martin Luther as 'next to Jesus and Paul, the Greatest Man of all ages'.

Needless to say, not all anti-Catholic evangelists are raving table thumpers, and patently mad. It is because some are dressed in business suits, have their popular radio and TV shows, and look and sound for all the world like your regular Joe Square, that their distorted 'bible' of hate and half-truths finds such ready acceptance.

Wild-eyed or soberly mannered, all such polemicists fuel their prurient anti-Catholicism and corroborate their prejudices, by raking around the dust-bin legend and lies for instances of Catholic 'anti-bible' teaching, and 'sins'.

Were Luther only being held up as 'the most determined and successful enemies of popery' and his reformation described as 'the battle that shook the papal throne and jostled the triple crown upon the pontiff's head,' (as he is by the paradigm of anti-Catholicism, Ellen White, the Seventh Day Adventists' prophetess, and author of the classic anti-Catholic handbook The Great Controversy) one might be inclined to smile at the pretensions of such writing, and pass on to matters of more consequence.

Were Luther not hailed as the 'Beacon' of the Reformation; were he not the founder and chief prophet of the first Protestant denomination which took his name; had he not claimed to be God's instrument for 'restoring' the Church to its 'original' state after 1500 years of 'Babylonian Captivity,' we might continue to draw a veil of discreet silence over this words and actions, and offer a prayer for his soul.

Prayers for his soul we can, undoubtedly offer, but the sad fact has to be faced that Luther's break with the Catholic Church, led to a probably irreparable tear in the seamless garment of Christ that remains to this day; and his writings continue to do incalculable harm to souls exposed to them.

Most of the myriad sects that infest our contemporary scene, are spiritual and psychological off-shoots of the original Lutheran revolt, and not a few have wandered far down the path that leads to madness and delusion.

Despite vociferous claims to the contrary, their roots are not to be found in the bible; they are true sons and daughters of Martin Luther whose doctrines were described by a contemporary thus:

'What plague so pernicious did ever so infect the flock of Christ? What serpent so venomous has crept in, as he who wrote of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, who twists Holy Scripture according to his own understanding, against the Sacraments of Christ; who abolishes the ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies left by the Father of the Church and puts no value on the holy and ancient interpreters of Scripture if they don't agree with his opinions; calls the most Holy See of Rome, Babylon, and the authority of the Pope, Tyranny; considers the decrees of the Catholic Church to be Captivity; and calls the most Holy Bishop of Rome, Antichrist. How infectious must be the soul of him who brings back to life opinions and schisms long buried; who adds new schisms to the old, and brings to the light of day, like Cerberus from Hell, heresies that ought to lie buried in eternal darkness; who thinks himself worthy to govern all things by his word, against the judgement of all ancient peoples, even if this means the ruin of the Church of God."

The contemporary of Luther who described so perceptively a situation in 1521 that is not all that different from ours in 1992, was none other than the young king of England, Henry VIII.

Henry, in later life, was to find that he - like all of us - had his own private 'Luther' within, with a seductive voice that could summon religious and political storms and winds of a destructive power unimaginable in 1521.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (June 15, 1992) the author - a 'reformed' evangelical – in a cri de coeur to which no Catholic can be indifferent - appeals for a rejection of 'the liberal camp,' and a 'wholesale rediscovery by (the Protestant) church and society of the principles of Luther's 16th-century Reformation'. The author praises Luther's 'famous decision to take a stand in opposition to the established European Church in the early 1500s,' in which 'Luther regarded the authority of the Bible as being of such importance that it took precedence over any human authority, even the visible church of the day'.

Leaving aside the fact that the author begs the question of the nature of the Catholic Church's authority by assuming that it is 'human,' and while noting that nowhere in the article can the author find the courage to utter the dreaded word 'Catholic,' we can only agree that the situation in which Protestantism finds itself is dire.

With the foundations of biblical fundamentalism under attack by the 'liberals,' there is no cover left for the frightened evangelicals. No cover, that is, unless they do the unthinkable, and turn for assistance to the Barque of Peter, out of which Luther jumped so energetically more than 400 years ago with what the author, Kim Hawtrey, describes as 'far-reaching consequences'.

But the modern 'reformed" evangelical has no intention of heading Rome-wards. Quite the contrary. In a call to spiritual arms, Hawtrey assures SMH readers that 'it is almost as if Martin Luther is alive and well in Australia in 1992, presenting his 95 theses anew for fresh consideration.'

Yet all the chickens of nineteenth century liberal Protestantism have come home to roost in the empty churches vacated by the spiritual descendants of Martin Luther. Biblical and evangelical fundamentalist Christians have no response to make to the agnostics and atheists that infect the liberal camp's benches, beyond an emotional appeal to accept 'the the Bible is indeed divinely inspired'.

Without attachment to Catholic Tradition, of which the NT is for all its importance, but a part, faith in what the Bible teaches, based on Bible teaching, is the crudest form of illogic that soon degenerates into Bibliolatry. And in fact the 'faith' of devout evangelicals is revealed to be based on what they fear almost as much as they fear Catholicism: human speculation. Even King Henry VIII could see this. In his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, (Defence of the Seven Sacraments) the young king Harry ably defended the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope against the novel doctrines of Luther, and for his pains was granted the title 'Defender of the Faith,' by Pope Leo X in October I521.

Catholics confronted by fundamentalists mouthing their preposterous accusations against the Church and peddling their 'Made in America' Take-Away religion need at least to know whence these ideas and accusations come.

All who quote Luther approvingly, should know that his mind and emotions were seriously disturbed. In modern terms we would call him a split personality. There were at least two Luthers - one of them was Catholic, and the other hated Catholicism, against which he rebelled, as he did against all authority (except that of the State). Eventually he rejected the authority of Reason, as we shall see.

The charge that the Catholic Church forbade people to read the bible, is directly connected with the legend that Martin Luther came upon a copy of the bible (chained, of course, to the lectern) in the library of the University at Erfurt, and because 'the bible was a rare book in Germany, he devoured it night and day. The world assumed a new aspect for him'.

This nonsense, worthy of Ellen White, referred to above, is to be found in a series of lectures on the Council of Trent, given by none other than the Regius Professor of History at Oxford, James Froude who surely cannot have been unaware that between the invention of printing and 1901, the date that Luther began his studies, there were more than 100 editions of (he bible published, most of them in Germany. (See W.A. Copinger, in Incunabula Biblica).

Herbert Thurston, the Jesuit scholar, writes of this alleged incident:

'When Brother Martin (he was a student for the priesthood) having entered the Augustinian Monastery began his ecclesiastical studies (at Erfurt) we learn from himself that a bible was given to him for his own private use, and there is no reason to believe that he was exceptionally treated. But the legend beloved by Protestant tradition tells us that when he first discovered that rare work, an entire copy of the Vulgate, he found it chained, so that the normal reader is left lo infer that it was kept as a precious curiosity which was to be gazed at, not studied.' (No Popery! London. 1930. p.l69.)

The Catholic Church, to modify the old gibe, has been accused of 'murdering three men and a dog'. Here Father Thurston has triumphantly produced the dog alive and well. The happy bark of the resurrected dog may bring some joy to Catholic readers, but what are we to say about the three dead men?

Life is too short to respond to every claim and slander. Instead of attempting the impossible task of digging up the dead, and performing an autopsy, and then still having to conduct a trial and find a jury that is unbiased, what we counsel is a common-sensed and realistic look at the chief witness against Catholics in the sixteenth century, and even modern-day Catholics: Martin Luther.

As a witness against the Church, the ex-monk is, at the very least, biased and, at worst, totally unreliable. We have no intention of discounting the witness's credibility because of allegations about his private life. God alone knows the truth and He and Luther must surely have sorted it out to the satisfaction of both by now. We do not assume him to have been insincere or a 'bad' person; but basing ourselves on Luther's public utterances, we suggest that he is a frail reed upon which to lean when sniping at Catholics.

It is generally agreed among impartial commentators that the collapse of traditional Christian moral and social values throughout Luther's Germany, was largely a consequence of his teachings, and especially his disdain for Reason.

In 1525 he wrote:

'You owe God nothing more than to believe, and to confess. In everything else he gives you your freedom,- you can do what you wish without any peril to your conscience. He who believes that Christ has taken away his sins is as sinless as Christ.'

It is not hard to see why such 'doctrine' found, and still finds, ready acceptance amongst simple people. Luther, who never succeeded in refuting the rational arguments for the claims of the Catholic Church, and who never produced a rational foundation for the claims of Lutheranism, described Reason as the 'most atrocious enemy of God' ('rationern atrocissimum Dei hostem' and 'the devils whore (that can only) blaspheme and dishonour everything that God has said or done'.

In the last sermon he preached at Wittenberg towards the end of his life, he abandoned all restraint as he described Reason thus:

'Reason is the devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute and the devil's appointed whore; a whore eaten by scab and leeprosy who ought to be trodden underfoot and destroyed, and her wisdom. Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is, and she ought to be, drowned in baptism. She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the water closets.'

It is demonstrable that Luther's teaching about morality did incalculable harm among his followers.

'God condemns us all. We are all whoremongers, if not openly in the eyes of the world at least in our hearts; if we had room, time, place and opportunity, we should all commit adultery."

If, as Luther maintained, the Catholic Church was Antichrist, then he and others could not logically be blamed for repudiating their vows. Luther embarked on a systematic campaign to induce priests, monks and nuns to leave the Church:

'There is only a moment of shame," he wrote, 'then will come the good years full of honour. May Christ give you his grace that by his spirit these words may become life and power in your heart.'

Arnold Lunn, in his The Revolt Against Reason, comments:

'Surely we have crossed the frontier, not between Catholicism and Protestantism, but between decency and blasphemy when Luther can introduce his incitement to break the vow of chastity by words such as "Receive not the Grace of God in vain".' (London, 1950, p.58)

After nuns were raped on the night of Holy Saturday 1525, Luther described Koppe, a burgher of Torgau who led the mob, as a 'blessed robber' and went on,

'Like Christ, you have rescued these poor souls from the prison of human tyranny; you have done this at an epoc providentially indicated: at Easter'.

Henri Suso Denifle, admitted by all to have been one of the greatest authorities in his time on the Middle Ages, quotes from a letter written by one of the apostate priests who organised a trade in profaned nuns:

'Nine have come to us. They are beautiful, fine and of noble birth. Not one that is fifty years old. I have kept the oldest for you, dearest brother, for an honourable wife. If you would prefer a younger one, you can take your choice of the loveliest.'

Luther's leaching that if a husband wasn't able to provide his wife with children, then he was duty bound to provide her with someone else who could, disgusted not only a saint like Thomas More, but a man of the world like Duke George of Saxony. The latter protested to Luther

'When were there more adulteries than when you wrote: "If a woman cannot bear children to her husband, she should go to another and bear him children which the husband must support."?'

None of these matters is quoted by fundamentalists because, generally, they are as ignorant of the life and writings of the founder of Lutheranism, as they are of Catholicism.

'Whenever the devil vexes you,' wrote Luther, 'immediately seek the company of men, or drink more deeply, or make jokes or sport, and behave more cheerfully. From time to time one must drink more deeply, joke or commit stupidities, and commit some sin out of hatred and contempt for the devil, in order that we may not give him any room and have qualms of conscience over the smallest matters, for otherwise we shall be conquered if we are too anxious not to sin. Therefore, if the devil says, "don't drink," I shall answer, "Precisely for this very reason I shall drink more deeply, speak with less restraint, carouse the more often, to mock and vex the devil who has set about trying to vex and mock me." Oh, if I could only designate some quite remarkable sin, to mock the devil, so that he should learn that I recognise no sin, and am conscious of no sin, we whom the devil so threatens and vexes must strike out of our eyes and understanding the whole ten commandments.'

Arnold Lunn comments, 'When we compare this with the traditional advice to meet temptation by prayer and spiritual meditation and asceticism, we realise the length of the road that Luther has travelled.'

Luther's form of Christianity is a subjective one. Rather than being justified by faith, he taught justification by feeling. If you feel good, if you feel sinless, then you are good; you are without sin.

The apostate priest, and former Franciscan Heinrich von Kettenback exclaimed in 1525:

'Many people behave now as if all sins, all wickedness, were permitted; as if there were no devil, no hell and no God; and are worse than they ever were'.

Part of the reason for the modern proliferation of fundamentalists 'bible' sects is the almost institutionalised ignorance of the history of the 'reformation,' and the 'enlightenment,' as well as of the revolutions in thought, morality and politics that these spawned. Revolutions which had in common a profound hatred of Catholicism and papal authority.

Ironically, the contrast between Protestantism at the time of Luther and a later, more structured and 'pious' kind of Lutheranism, is often explained by historians by the fact that Germany, like England, never ceased entirely to be Catholic and the old Catholic instincts revived and influenced later Lutheranism. What was not Catholic was the repudiation of Tradition, the Sacraments and Papal authority, and also the servile attitude of Luther and subsequent Lutheranism, to the State.

History shows that Luther started by reforming the Church, and ended by offering his followers a view of Christianity that owed more to newly emerging political and nationalist forces with their sixteenth century version of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, than to 'Primitive Christianity' and its alleged dependence on the 'bible'.

Luther preached individual freedom, and he and his followers were shackled to the German princes whose creature he was. His doctrines led to a belief in the divine right of kings and dictators. He freed the people of Germany from the soft yoke of the Church, and preached a doctrine of the all powerful state whose citizens must serve the will of the secular Lord as if he were God.

The great light of the 'reformation' finally flickers out, when one reads Luther's Table Talk. Here we find the reformer's mind and thought laid bare, written down by secretaries almost at his dictation. In the Weimer edition, vol. ii, p.107 we find Luther mouthing blasphemies against our Lord, the child Jesus, the Sacraments, the Pope.

Pierre Bayle, in the seventeenth century regretted that these were published, because he was disgusted by their coarseness and vulgarity to say nothing of their blasphemy. But he never called their authenticity into doubt.

Instances of Luther's coarseness, lavatory invective and blasphemy are not, alone and unsupported, any argument against the truth of Luther's allegations against the Catholic Church. But together with the matters raised above they raise serious doubts about his credibility as an instrument chosen by God to restore the Church to its pristine innocence after 1500 years of 'Babylonian Captivity' under the Catholics.

The first pope to be called the 'Scarlet Woman', and the 'Whore of Babylon' by Martin Luther was Leo X (1475-1521) whom Luther hated with a mighty hatred.

Yet the great Erasmus of Rotterdam considered the reign of Leo X (1513-1521) to usher in a Golden Age: 'Leo was the greatest of them all - the perfect man of Plato, gold tried in the fire - born to triumph over difficulties. When Leo was raised to the throne of Peter the iron became golden.' (Epistle clxxiii).

Erasmus said elsewhere, 'We have a Leo X for pope, a French king content to make peace for the sake of religion when he has the means to continue the war; an Emperor in Maximilian, old and eager for peace; Henry VIII of England, also eager for peace... learning is springing up all around, out of the soil; languages, physics, mathematics - each department is thriving. Even theology is showing signs of improvement. All looks brighter now.' (Epistle ccvii).

Within a few months of this optimistic judgement, Martin Luther had declared war on the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformation had begun.

Knowing Luther's well-known capacity for alcohol, the Pope commented: 'When he has slept off his wine he will know better'.

How wrong he and Erasmus proved to be is borne out most eloquently by the history of the past four hundred and sixty years.

It is instructive to ponder the reaction of the great Kabbalist Abraham ha-Levi, the brother-in-law of Abraham Sacuto (the astronomer who provided Columbus with the navigational tables for his first voyage), to the rise of Martin Luther.

As soon as news of Luther's rebellion against Rome reached the Ottoman Empire, Abraham ha-Levi saw in him a divine herald who would split the Catholic Church asunder from within, and fulfil the prophecy of Daniel about the fall of the fourth kingdom, interpreted by Jews as referring to the Catholic Church and Christendom.

Sadly, ha-Levi and Jews in Central Europe who keenly supported the destruction of the unity of Christendom were in turn to be the objects of the hated unleashed against them by the same Luther who after failing to convert them to his new brand of Christianity, revived ancient libels and portrayed them as the greatest exploiters of poor Christians.

If as Kim Hawtrey alleged in 1992, 'Luther is alive' in Protestantism, then all is far from well with those who espouse the principles of 'Luther's 16th-century Reformation'.

If evangelical preachers would stop digging up the bones of his polemic, and reviving the fears that troubled his spirit so long ago, the ghost of Martin Luther might cease haunting the Barque of Peter and troubling the Church of God; and finally be laid to rest. And the 'Reformation' may be seen for the ever-deepening 'Deformation' of Christianity that it truly has been.

The answer to the threat from the 'liberal camp,' is to be found not in a return to Luther's bible-based religion, but to the Apostolic and Catholic Tradition that he dared to trivialise, and to set aside so lightly; and that his follower despise and fear because he did.

From "Annals Australasia," formerly "Annals Australia" - March 1996
Chevalier Press, Kensington, NSW, Australia.