TISCHREDEN OVER SUBSTANTIATION

[There are numerous references to Martin Luther all over the place, but the present entry finally makes him its centerpiece. Should I have done this in the Religion section rather than here? Perhaps, I need to expand his presence there in my next round, but obviously this would not be a good enough reason to diminish, in any way, his rightful position in this section.]

***

By any standard, friend’s or foe’s, Martin Luther (1483-1546) was an exceptional personality. When Pope Gregory XV calls him ‘the foulest of monsters,’ his use of a superlative constitutes a clear endorsement of Luther’s world-historical prominence, and, considering the conflict of interest between Protestantism and Catholicism, the Pope’s negativism can be ascribed to that overarching reason. On the other hand, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the famous English poet and critic, and, of course, a Protestant (1772-1834), says about him that the only fit commentator on Paul was Luther: not by any means such a gentleman as the Apostle, but almost as great a genius. Our old acquaintance Thomas Carlyle sings in fine unison with Coleridge: A rude plebeian face (not a gentleman, just as Coleridge says); with his huge crag-like brows and bones, the emblem of rugged energy; at first, almost a repulsive face. Yet, in the eyes especially there is a wild silent sorrow; an unnamable melancholy, the element of all gentle and fine affections; giving to the rest the true stamp of nobleness. Laughter was in this Luther; but tears also were there.

There can be no doubt that, far from an ideal picture, Luther was a highly controversial man, by no means a pleasant man to deal with. As I have remarked before, Erasmus was appalled by Luther’s basic coarseness, and a propensity for violence. This relationship between Luther and Erasmus shows the vile, vengeful side of Luther’s nature. Admiring Erasmus at first, as long as he hoped to find him useful for his cause, Luther completely reversed himself as soon as he realized that Erasmus was not going to march under his banner: Erasmus is the enemy to true religion, the open adversary of Christ, the complete and faithful picture and image of Epicurus and of Lucian. (Need I remind the reader that Luther is referring to the caricatures of both Epicurus and Lucian, particularly unfair and distorted in Epicurus’s case) (Tischreden, # DCLXXX, 1569.)

Luther’s importance as a philosopher can be best seen in his in-depth theological innovations, particularly in his new treatment of substantiation. The conflicting theology of Catholic transubstantiation versus Lutheran consubstantiation has been frequently ridiculed as so much hairsplitting nonsense, but if we take the same argument to, say, Dèscartes’ cogito ergo sum, or to Kant’s synthetic aprioris, we shall find these classical staple treasures as nonsensical and hairsplitting as Luther’s Tischreden over substantiation, as I am calling one of his most salient theological arguments. This discussion immediately transposes us into the realm of sheer mysticism, very much to Nietzsche’s liking, to find in a genuine philosopher. In my future expansion of this entry, I intend to dwell on this issue in some considerable detail.

Amazingly, Luther represents two virtually incompatible extremes in his person. On the one hand, he is a true revolutionary in theology and religious politics, an incredibly smart, sharp, and insightful man. But, on the other hand, his philosophical outlook is medieval, a reversion to the worst elements of St. Augustine’s theology. This theological backwardness of Luther has led to the modern pitiful state of Protestant thought, particularly, in America, where the worst of Luther’s retrograde dogmas have become the established faith and practice of the American Evangelicals.

But no matter what, Luther was a true, undeniable genius, whose terrific impact on the course of our Western civilization was second to none. Much of his historical legacy is yet to be rediscovered and reassessed, freed from the extremes of both kinds: the hostile animosity of his enemies and the homiletic reverence of his friends and followers.