Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Luther Was counseled by the Devil to Stop Celebrating Holy Mass?

A participant on the Catholic Answers Forums asked about Martin Luther's interaction with the Devil:
Hello, does anybody have Luther's book “De missa privata et unctione sacerdotum” (1521) in english? I read here and in another source (a book about Holy Mass written by a Bishop in 1899) that Luther wrote about how he was counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass. I want to use this argument in a conversation with a protestant, however I don’t want to use argument which might be fake. Therefore I would be really glad if someone could look it up. If it was there then I would love to have a photo of that page.Thanks a lot!
Despite the fact this Roman Catholic wants to "use this argument in a conversation with a protestant," one can appreciate the caution that the story may be "fake." There are two basic affirmatives to answer this historical question.  Yes, there is a recorded conversation between Luther and the Devil about the Mass (documented and described by Luther himself), particularly, private masses, and yes, the dialog is in essence, fake.

Let's start with the clues given in the Catholic Answers discussion, particularly the link provided. When I first visited the link, there was little content, now it has magically reappeared (if it disappears again, try accessing it via Google Cache). The link is to an article written by Anne Barbeau Gardiner, "A Colloquy with Satan, or The Spirit of Martin Luther" found in the July 14, 2016 issue of The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition. Gardiner's article is not an actual reading of Luther, but rather someone else's reading of Luther. Gardiner presents a review of a section from an old pro-Roman Catholic book, Abraham Woodhead's, Two discourses: the first concerning the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation; the second, concerning the celibacy of the clergy (1687).  Summarizing Woodhead, Gardiner says,
The core of The Spirit of Martin Luther is Woodhead's analysis of Luther's colloquy with Satan in 1522. It is unforgettable. Luther had engaged in many previous "negotiations" and "familiar disputes and conferences" with the "Enemy of mankind," but this one was crucial. In De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), he wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him, but the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass.  On that occasion, Satan in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded him that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore, "naked bread and wine."
The phrases "negotiations," "familiar disputes and conferences," "Enemy of mankind," and  "arts and practices," are not Luther's words, but rather, Woodhead's. The phrases "many a sad and bitter night," "grave and strong voice," and "naked bread and wine" are ascribed by Woodhead directly to Luther.  Gardiner has created confusion with her dates, mingling both 1522 and 1533 together. As far as I can tell, everything cited in the paragraph above appears to refer only to Luther's 1533 treatise, De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione. Furthering the confusion, I have not ascertained why the person at Catholic Answers ascribes the incorrect date 1521 to this treatise.

The Catholic Answers participant asked for the actual sources. De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione is the Latin version of Luther's 1533 treatise, Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weyhe (WA 38: 195-256). Yes, this treatise is available in English: The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests. It can be found in LW 38:139-214.

Here is an excerpt from LW 38. The entire story of Luther's conversation with devil goes on for multiple pages and is too long to post. I placed phrases used by Gardiner / Woodhead in bolded text:
I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers. Grant me a good absolution which will not be injurious to yourselves. Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart (for he is able to make many a night bitter and troublesome for me): “Listen, you very learned fellow, do you know that you said private masses for fifteen years almost daily? Did you not in reality commit sheer idolatry with such a mass and did you not worship there simply bread and wine, rather than Christ’s body and blood, and enjoin others to worship them?” I reply: “But I am a consecrated cleric; I have received chrism and consecration from the bishop, and, in addition, have done all this because of the command to do so and in obedience to it. Why have I not performed the consecration validly, since I have spoken the words in earnest and said mass with all possible devotion? You certainly know this.” “Yes,” he said, “that is true; but the Turks and the heathen also perform everything in their churches because of the command to do so and in earnest obedience to it. The priests of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba performed everything perhaps with greater devotion than the true priests at Jerusalem [I Kings 13:33]. What if your consecration, chrism, and consecrating are also unchristian and false like those of the Turks and the Samaritans?
At this point I truly broke into a sweat and my heart began to tremble and throb. The devil knows how to muster his arguments well and to make an impression with them, and he possesses a convincing, powerful way of speaking. Such disputations do not permit time for lengthy and numerous deliberations, but the answers come in quick succession. At such times I have seen it happen that one finds people dead in bed in the morning. He can kill the body. This is one thing; but he can also scare the soul with disputes so that it almost departs from the body, as he has quite often very nearly done to me. Now he had challenged me in this dispute, and I did not really want to be guilty of such a great number of abominations in the presence of God but wanted to defend my innocence. So I listened to him to hear the grounds on which he opposed my consecration and my consecrating.
First, he said, you know that you did not rightly believe in Christ and as far as your faith was concerned you were no better than a Turk; for the Turk and I myself, along with all devils, also believe everything which is written about Christ (James 3 [2:19]), that is, that he was born, died, and ascended into heaven. However, none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior; but we fear him as a stern judge. This kind of faith and no other is the one you also had when you were consecrated a priest and said mass; and all the others, both the consecrating bishop and his ordinands, also believed this. For this reason, too, all of you turned away from Christ and depended on Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need rather than Christ. This you cannot deny, nor can any pope. That is why you were consecrated and have celebrated mass like heathen and not like Christians. How then were you able to effect conversion? For you were not the kind of persons who were to bring about this change [LW 38:149-150].
So it's true that Luther recorded a conversation with the Devil. But was it a real conversation? First, Luther says, "I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers." In context, Luther's words are directed at his Roman Catholic detractors. He's making a sarcastic jab. Second, notice above, Luther says the conversation took place internally: "Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart." Third, the actual conversation goes on for multiple pages in detailed arguments. How was Luther was able to transcribe such a lengthy internal conversation? None of these aspects of the dialog add up. I suspect Rome's defenders would say Luther was either deranged, a liar, or both. Woodhead's argument is that Satan deceived Luther into attacking the Roman Catholic Church. Case closed.

Perhaps though there is a much less dramatic solution. The editors of Luther's Works point out that three draft versions of  The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests are preserved.  They explain, 
The idea of a disputation with the devil occurred to Luther while he was working on this third draft. This verbal exchange with the devil does not reflect his personal experience but is employed as an effective literary device in the first part of the book. The fact that Luther’s plan for the book changed as he developed these three outlines in succession is reflected in the rather abrupt way in which he concluded his writing as well as the remark that the book had become longer than he had originally intended it to be [LW 38:144].
Martin Brecht also points out:

And also:

This banal solution may not convince Rome's defenders. Gardiner and Woodhead don't mention it all. Their solution is far more complicated and dramatic: Woodhead says that in 1522 Luther had a disputation with Satan, based on Luther's statement in 1533 that Satan confronted Luther after he had been a priest for fifteen years (Luther was ordained a priest in 1507). In 1523, Luther released a treatise entitled, de Abominatione Missae privata, quam Canonem vocant (Of the Abomination of Private Mass, commonly called the Canon). Gardiner and Woodhead say this book was inspired by Luther's encounter with Satan (only later admitted by Luther in 1533). According to these authors, once the world found out that the earlier book was inspired by Satan, a scandal ensued among the Protestants causing some of them to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. I've yet to find any evidence though that Luther claimed that the 1533 recorded dialog with the devil was the impetus for the 1523 book. It appears to be the connecting of dots to produce a conspiracy. Gardiner sums up the conspiracy aptly:
Woodhead reflects that it was surely by the "merciful providence of God" that Luther showed the world by his "own confession" in 1533 who was "the original Founder and Abetter of the Reformation."
One other aspect of this topic should not go without mention. The topic of Luther's 1523 and 1533 treatises was the private Mass. The Catholic Answers participant asked specifically about Luther being "counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass." They are not the same thing. Another participant on the Catholic Answers forums pointed out the obvious: "Luther celebrated the mass throughout his life." Another stated, "He called his liturgical reform the 'German Mass'."  Gardiner appears to miss this: "...the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass." 


PeaceByJesus said...

Diligent work, and thus once again a RC charge is spurious. And if it was the devil then while he sought to destroy Luther with guilt, yet failing that, he most likely would want Luther to offer the magic Catholic mass, since by that sin-offering of a false Christ multitudes are deceived and comforted.

Supposing that (if they even understand it) at the words of consecration by (only)a validly ordained Catholic priest (only) unleavened (only) wheat bread and (only)fermented wine (only) from the juice of grapes cease to exist having become the "true body" and blood of Christ, "being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical 'reality'” in each and every particle down to the smallest visible (emphasis on visible) one. Consequently,eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally” though via "a supernatural mode of existence."

Which is offered as a sacrifice "in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead, which "sacrifice is truly propitiatory." And which is to be consumed by the adherent as the "medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ."

Until that is, the non-existent bread and wine, respectively, manifests (emphasis on visibility) decay/corruption, at which point the Eucharistic christ also ceases to exist under that form,

Yet this is called the "literal" understanding of "take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you," blood "shed for you," which literally would mean that what was consumed would be the manifestly physically incarnated Christ that was crucified, shedding His sinless blood.

And which manifest physicality Scripture emphasizes (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 5:6) in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He materially was. As is the case with the Eucharistic Catholic contrived christ.

Sources and more http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html , by the grace of God.

Another factor that your post relates to is that of the proper intent being required for a sacrament to be valid. For while that is to be assumed unless there is "serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does," (PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM), yet what constitutes serious ground is subject to interpretation. Many reject Francis as even being Catholic.

Simplicio said...

Except it is not necessary for Luther to test the Papacy with such a configuration. There has never before been a saint who used the arguments of god to test christ. And otherwise to claim that Luther is the only saint is nothing short of defying him who was a pervert and a drunkard.

Secondly, there is this assumption that god, in establishing the Papal line, made a fundamental mistake that contradicts his omnipotence.

That is, Luther, knowing more than god, knew that he must create a reformation to return to the proper worship of God. But this all presupposes that God did not actually establish the church in such a manner from the beginning. Which if God is omnipotent and we are ultimately lacking in free will, means that it is *inevitable* by his own reasoning, that the Papacy is right and cannot be contradicted. After all, god in his omnipotence cannot make a mistake.

This means that Luther, by his own reasoning on the nature of free will was wrong in his rebellion.

Secondly, even if we prove Luther wrong. Does that mean that free will of man means we *can* destroy the church and therefore drive it away from god, necessitating a reformation?

While the answer is a technical yes but actually no. The reality is that unless you are willing to call god himself a liar, it is not true. God said Mat 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Since God in his perfection has no need to lie because he has nothing more he could possibly gain by doing so, and with perfect power, he could simply make it the truth such that he could only ever speak the truth. That is, god *cannot* lie.

Meaning, again, luther was wrong, and guided by satan to go against the church with the reformation.

This means more or less that his arguments which are put through the voice of the devil, are more than likely the devil. The major part of why is that the words he uses are not filled with light, holiness, peace or goodness. All of which are the spiritual fruits of gods presence and holy word. But rather, are filled with agitations, doubts, skepticism towards the sensitivity, love and relationship that god would form with the soul whom does his commandments. In essence, a doubt to gods promise.

To claim this is some magical roundabout 4D chess move against the church is utterly absurd and far beyond Luthers abilities. More than likely after discovering that he was being scandalized he came up with a rationalization after the fact.

after all and I quote "what is wrong with saying a lusty lie for the sake of a righteous cause for the church".

James Swan said...

Simplicio said...

Wow, that was a unique piece of creative writing. Next.