Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:06:04.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Eyn Mercklich Underscheyd’: Catholic Reactions to Luther’s Doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers, 1520–25

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

David Bagchi
David Bagchi*
Affiliation:
Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After the great Reformation principles of ‘faith alone’ and ‘Scripture alone’, probably the most revolutionary doctrine commonly associated with Martin Luther is that of the priesthood of all believers. It is well known that, as it appears in his address ‘to the Christian nobility of the German nation’ of 1520, he intended this doctrine to bring down the walls of the new Jericho by striking at the heart of the distinction between clergy and laity on which the medieval Church was based. What is less well known is the reaction to this doctrine of Luther’s contemporaries, and in particular his critics. I propose to look at how they regarded the reformer’s conception of the universal priesthood, and what they thought its implications were, in the hope of shedding more light on its contemporary significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 26: The Ministry: Clerical and Lay , 1989 , pp. 155 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christlichen Standes besserning (1520), in WA 6, esp. pp, 406–10.

2 In 1523, Luther would use the doctrine of the universal priesthood to encourage the evangelicals at Leisnig to appoint their own minister: see Doss eine christliche Versammlung oder Gemeine Recht und Mach habe, alle Lehre zu urteilen und Lehrer zu berufen, ein-und abzusetzen. Grund und ursach aus der Schrift (1523), WA 11, pp. 408–16. For a discussion of this treatise in its context, see Haendler, G., Luther on Ministerial Office and Congregational Function (Philadelphia, 1981)Google Scholar.

3 Ein Sermon vom Sakrament der Busse (1519), WA 2, p. 722, line 33, and Ein Sermon von dem Neuen Testament, das ist von der heiligen Messe (1520), WA 6, p. 370, lines 24–7.

4 An den Grossmechtigsten und Durchlüchtigslen adel tütscher nation das sye den christlichen glauben beschirmen / wyder den zerstorer des glaubeins christi / Martinum Luther eine vetfierer der einfeltigen christen ([Strasbourg], 1520). For Murncr’s background, and an account of his literary activity against Luther, Kawerau, W., Thomas Mumer und die Kirche des Mittelalters, Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte 30 (Halle, 1890)Google Scholar, and idem, Thomas Murner und die deutsche Reformation, SVRG 32 (1891), are still invaluable. More recent studies include Schiitte, J., ‘Schympf red’: Frühformen bürgerlicher Agitation in Thomas Mumers “Grossen Lutlterischen Narren” (1522), Germanistische Abhandlungen 41 (Stuttgart, 1973) and Beumer, J., ‘Der Minorit Thomas Murner und seine Polemik gegen die deutsche Messe Luthers’, FStn 54 (1974), pp. 192–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Wider das unchristliche Buck Martini Luthers Augustiners an den Teutschen Adel ausgangen Vorlegung Hieronymi Emser an gemeyne Hochlöbliche Teutsche Nation (Leipzig, 1521). Emser’s life has been documented in Kawerau, G., Hieronymus Emser. Ein Lebensbild aus der Reformationsgeschichte, SVRG 61 (1903)Google Scholar, now supplemented by Smolinsky, H., Augustin von Alveidt und Hieronymus Emser. Eine Untersuchung zur Kontroverstheologie der frühen Reformationszeit im Herzogtum Sachsen, Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 122 (Munster, 1983)Google Scholar.

6 Murner, Tütscher nation, Ciiir-v

7 Emser, Vorlegung, Aivr.

8 Ibid., Ciiir, Civv.

9 In his confession manual commonly known as the Sylvcstrina, the Dominican Sylvester Prierias came down against it (Summa summarum (Strasbourg: J. Grüninger, 1518), de confessore, I, i, fol. 82rv). The Franciscan Caspar Schatzgeycr was firmly opposed to it (Ecclesiasticorum sacramenlorum asserito (Tübingen, 1530), fols. 86v—87r). Henry VIII, on the other hand, accepted it (Assertio seplem sacramenlorum advenus Marti. Lutherum, aedita ab invictissimo Angliae et Franciae rege et dom. Hybemiae Henrico eius nominis octavo (Rome, 1521), Miiir). For the relevant canon (De consecratione, distinctio 4, canon 36) see Gratian 1374. For the history of lay absolution in theory and practice see Gromer, G., Die Laienbeicht im Mittelalter. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Ceschichte, Veröffentlichen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Miinchen 3, no. 7 (Munich, 1909 Google Scholar).

10 Emser, Vorlegung, Diiiv-ivr.

11 Murner, Tütscher nation, Div; Emser, Vorlegung, Diiiv .

12 Ibid., Diiir.

13 Murner, Tütscher nation. Diir.

14 Ibid., Dir-v

15 Emser, Vorlegung, Ciiir.

16 Ibid., Eir. Chrysostom, De sactrdotio. III, i (PG 48, col. 641).

17 Emser, Vorlegung, Eiv. Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, III, ii (PG 48, col. 643).

18 Emser, Vorlegung, Dir, Eiir.

19 Ibid., Eir . Chrysostom, De sacerdotio, III, v (PC 48, col. 643).

20 Emser, Vorlegung, Divv: ‘nicht alleyn Christen, ssonder ouch Sewln unnd fundament der Christenheit gewest’. Compare Murner, Tütscher nation, Aivv.

21 Emser, Vorltgung, Eir.

22 Murner, Tütscher nation. Dir-v.

23 Henry, Asserito, Riiiv.

24 Cochlaeus, , Glos und Comment Doc. Johannes Dobneck Cochlaeus von Wendelslein / uff CLIIII Artikeln gezogen uss einem Sermon Doc. Mar. Luterss von der heiligen mess und nüem Testament (Strasbourg, 1523 Google Scholar), Giir, Oiiir, Qivr.

25 Fisher, Sacri sacerdotii defensio contra Lutherum (1525), in Opera omnia (Wurzburg, 1597), col. 1298; Sichem, Sacramentorum brevis elucidatio (Antwerp, 1523), iiiv; Eck, , Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (1525), edited by Fraenkel, P., Corpus Catholicorum 34 (1979), p. 199 Google Scholar.

26 Henry, Assertio, Riv. Compare Powell, Propugnaculum summi sacerdotii (London, 1523), fos. 120r.

27 Eck, who can hardly be described as moderate, claimed that he fully accepted justification by faith alone. His opposition was prompted solely by the thought that the common people would misunderstand it and neglect virtuous actions. Johannes Fabri (later to become bishop of Vienna) made die extraordinary confession as late as the summer of 1520 that he agreed with almost everything that Luther said, and regretted only tbat more people were not ‘real’ Lutherans. (See E. Iserloh’s article on Eck and H. Immenkotter’s on Fabri in Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit 1, Karholisches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 44 (Münster, 1974) at p. 70 and p. 90.) Another hard-line controversialist, the Louvain theologian Jacobus Latomus, who drew from Luther his most scholarly exposition of sola gratia-sola fide, argued only that this doctrine was heretical ‘in sensu quem haber et explicat Ludieras ‘, that is, with apparent prejudice to morality. (Latomus, De quaestionum generibus (1525), in Opera omnia (Louvain: B. Gravius, 1579), fol. 87v.)

28 e.g. Eck, Commentaria de mystica theologica D. Dionysii Areopagitae (Augsburg, 1519), Aviv. Clichtoveus, Cochlaeus, Krerz, Marcello, Fisher, Wimpina, Dietenberger, Campester, Rhadinus and Fabri also explicitly accepted the Pseudo-Areopagite’s authenticity.

29 For references to Pseudo-Dionysius’s authority on the sacraments and other rites, see Fisher, Assertionum Regis advenus Lutheri Babylonicam Captivitatem defensio (1522), in Opera omnia, cols 181 and 192; Cochlacus, De gratia sacramentaram (Strasbourg, 1522), Lir, Liiiv; Kretz, , Ain Sermon inhaltend etlich spruch der schrifft von dem fegfewr (No place, 1524 Google Scholar), Aiv; Clichtoveus, Antilutherus tres libros complectens (Paris, 1524), 1, fols 10r, 53v; De veneratione sanctorum (Cologne, 1525), Civ; Fabri, Malleus in haeresim Lutheranam (1524), in CCath 23/4(1941/52), pp. 272–6. For his testimony to the sacramentality of ordination, see Fisher, Defensio sacri sacerdotii, col. 1239;Emser, Vorlegung, Civv, Divr, Kiiiv; Clichtoveus, Antilutherus 2, fol. 63v; Marcello, De authortate summi Pontifias (Florence, 1521), fols 39v-40r; Dietenberger, Contra temerarium Martini Luteri de votis monastica iudicium (Cologne, 1524), 1, Nvvff.

30 Powell, Propugnaculum, III, fol. 154v. The quotation is from the Vulgate.

31 Ibid., III, fol. 155v.

32 Fisher, Defensio sacri sacerdotii, col. 1248.

33 Marcello, De aulhorilate, fols 39v-40r; Rhadinus, Thome Rhadini Todeschi Piacentini ord. pre. adillustrisi, et invictiss. Principes et populos Germanie in Martinum Lutherum Wittenbergensem or. here. Nationis gloriam violantem: Oratio (Leipzig, 1520), Hir.

34 Clichtoveus, Antilutherus, 2, fols 57r-8r; Campester, Heptacolon in Summam scripturae sacrilegae Martini Lutheri in Apologia eius contentam (Paris, 1523), Giiir.

35 Rhadinus, Oratio, Hir. See also, for example, Clichtoveus, Antilutherus, 2, fols 55v, 57r, 59r-v Powell, Propugnaculum, fol. 136; Dungersheim, Multilocus de codiata seditione ex dictis Lutherirecollectus (No place, 1525), fol. 10r.

36 Dietenberger, Widerlegung des Lutherischen buchlins/da er schreibt von menschen leren üc meiden &c.([Strasbourg], 1524), Eir; Cochlaeus, Adversus cucullatum minotaurum Wittenbergensem. Desacramenlorum gratia iterum (Cologne, 1523), edited by J. Schweizer, CCath 3 (1920), p. 17; idem, Glas und Comment auff den xiii. Artikel von rechtem Mess hallen (Strasbourg. 1523), Biir-iiir; Blich, Verierhe uni Schaie der Lande und Leuthen (Leipzig, 1524), Civ; Campester, Heptacolon, Eiiiv When Cocbiaeus came to write his literary biography of Luther in 1547, it is significant that he chose to conclude it with the text of the Edict of Worms and not, for example, the papal bull of excommunication. See Cochlaeus, Commentaria Iohannis Cochlaei, de actis et scriptis Martini Lutheri (Mainz, 1549), pp. 327–30.

37 See the letter from the faculty to the duke of 26 December 1518 (Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, ed. F. Gess, 2 vols (Leipzig, 100s & 1907), I, no. 63).

38 See, for example, Ambrosius Pelargus’s preface to Dietenberger’s De votis monasticis, aiv.

39 On this sec especially Emser, De disputatione Lipsicensi (1519). in CCath 4 (1921), p. 41; Murner, Tütscher nation. Fiv; Dietenberger, Der leye. Obe der gclaub allein selig macht (Strasbourg, 1524), Biiiv-ivv; Cochlaeus, Ein Christliche vermanung der heyligen stai Rom an das Teütschlandt yr Tochter im Christlichen glauben ([Tübingen, 1924]), Fivr; Fisher, Adv. Babyl., cols 232–54.

40 For example, Modestus, Oratio ad Carolem Caesarem (Strasbourg, 1521), Aiiiv, and Sylvius, , Eyn Missive ader Sendbrieff an die Cliristliche Versammlunge und ssonderlich an die oberkeit Deutzscher Nation (No place, 1525 Google Scholar), Aivr.

41 Sylvius, Deutzscher Nation, Ciiv.

42 Dungersheim, Multilocus, fol. 7: ‘Seditionis crimen contra charitatem directe pugnare’; fol. 26: ‘Nihil rebuspublicis perniciosius sedinone (presertim heretica) esse potest.’ Behind this interpretation might have lain Aquinas’ classification of the sin against charity into the sin of thought (discordia), of word (contentici) and of deed (seditio). See Sumtna theologiae. IIa Ilae, qu. 39.

43 Cochlaeus, Christliche vermanung, Eiiv-ivr.

44 Murner, Tütscher nation, Diiiv.

45 See Gewirth, A. , Marsilius of Padua: The Defender of the Peace, 2 vols (New York, 1951), 1 Google Scholar: Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy, p. 9.

46 For the text of the 1302 bull, see Decretales, 1245. It was revived by Leo X’s bull Pastor aetemus gregem, 19 December 1516 (Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, eds J. Alberigo et al. (Bologna, 1973), esp. pp. 643, line 38 and 644, line 6).