though they are ignorant even of themselves, and on occasion do not see
the ditch or the stone lying across their path, because many of them are
blear eyed or absent minded; yet they proclaim that they perceive ideas,
universals forms without matter, primary substances, quiddities, and ecceities;
things so tenuous (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 67).”
Without formally speaking out against the Pope, Erasmus implies that the Pope put on a facade as an all-knowing, all-powerful mortal. Erasmus states here that the Pope has no true knowledge as to what God expects from his worshipers. He cannot believe that “these lucky scientists find people to believe them (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 67).” With this last statement, he calls to the people of the church to not accept everything that is told to them from corrupt authority figures.
Erasmus attacks theologians through the voice of Folly when he says that they will not waste haste to proclaim heresy in order to “terrify any toward whom they are ill-disposed (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 67).” Erasmus does not accept the word of theologians as religious law, and therefore is not intimidated by their accusations of blasphemy upon his questioning of authority. They are condescending beings who forget that they err as every mortal does. Their notion that they “already inhabit the third heaven they look down from” is proof that they have lost their humility in front of Christ (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 67). They have protected themselves with “scholastic definitions, arguments, corollaries, implicit and explicit propositions” and created immunity to any sin they may commit (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 67).
To the Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops, Erasmus questions why they feel that they have the knowledge to answer any and all existential questions concerning human origin and human destiny. How is it that to err is human nature, but the Pope can lead a life without trespass or blame? Is he not human? These figures of religious authority are more concerned with their roles of authority than they are about their religious duties. The title “Bishop” literally translates to “labor” (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, in Workbook, 71). Still, when works of charity need to be done, he is fast to delegate responsibility. However, when the issue is money, he is more than willing to play the role he has been appointed to play. These “religious” beings have made a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice for us.
“To make miracles is primitive and old-fashioned, hardly suited to our times;
to instruct the people is irksome; to interpret the Holy Scriptures is pedantry;
to pray is otiose; to shed tears is distressing and womanish; to live in poverty
is sordid; to be beaten in war is dishonorable and less than worthy of one who
will hardly admit kings, however great, to kiss his sacred foot; and finally, to
die is unpleasant, to die on the cross is a disgrace (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly,
in Workbook, 71).”
Martin Luther entered the monastery against his father’s will. He was obsessed with bettering his relationship with God, and he dedicated his life to it. Still, he felt as though no works of charity were good enough for God. This discerning impression led Luther to believe that the only road to salvation is faith alone (Luther, Luther as Monk, in Workbook 84). Luther, like Erasmus, was concerned with the corruption of religious officials in the Catholic Church. He felt that indulgences were not valid in the eyes of God; one could not simply buy forgiveness of sins. The only way to achieve salvation was through faith, and to repent for wrong doings (Luther, The Ninety-Five Theses, in Workbook 86). Luther wrote ninety-five theses in which he spoke out against the Pope. Within these theses Luther stated his beliefs that indulgences were insignificant. Also, the only way to Heaven was through faith, and a lifetime of repentance. He went so far as to state that the Pope has no authority whatsoever concerning the forgiveness of sins (Luther, The Ninety-Five Theses, in Workbook 86). These beliefs led to Luther’s leadership during the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was the movement between 1520 and 1530 in which people questioned the authority of the Pope. The term “Protestant” came to refer to all non-Catholic Christians (McKay, 462).
Luther exposed the “three walls of protection” that he felt the Romanists had built around them. First, Luther pointed out that “when the attempt is made to reprove them (the Romanists) with the Scriptures, they (the Romanists) raise the objection that only the Pope may interpret the Scriptures. And if threatened with a council, their story is that no one may summon a council but the Pope (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 87).” Luther held that the suppression of Christians by the Romanist resulted in the “abdominal fall of Christendom (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 87).” The Romanists separated and placed themselves ahead of all other Christians; that is unjust. “It follows from this argument that there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 87).” Luther argued that every Christian is of the spiritual estate, and in that sense, they are all Priests, Bishops, and Popes in their own right.
Second, Luther exposed the unjust claim that “the Romanists wanted to be the only masters of Holy Scripture, although they never learn a thing from the Bible in all their life long (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 88).” He thought it unjust that the Pope felt that it was impossible for him to err, despite whether he was “righteous or wicked (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 88).” The Romanists used their positions of authority to make the rules up for their own conveniences. If Romanists’ word alone mattered, what was the point in having Holy Scripture? And furthermore, if people were forced to follow the interpretations of the Scripture by the Pope, again, what point is there in reading Holy Scripture at all? Lastly, when the Pope does not follow the word of the Scripture, it is the duty of all Christians to defend the word of God. For Luther, like Erasmus, the word of the Romanists was not enough. The only argument that he would accept would be directly from the Scriptures (Luther, Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, in Workbook 88).”
Though Erasmus and Luther criticized some of the same religious aspects, that is not to say that they agreed on everything. The fact that the two did not get along because of many of their religious beliefs is sufficient evidence to disprove the statement, “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.” Yes, both parties believed that reform must take place in the Catholic Church. Both parties we troubled by the corruption among religious officers. The main issue that separates the two individuals is the way each reformist communicated their arguments to the public. Erasmus was afraid that to speak out directly against the Pope would lead to religious and social anarchy. Luther used this very notion to his advantage. He utilized religious disorder as a way of showing the Romanists as well as the Christian public that change must be made. While Erasmus always pushed the envelope, he never stepped over his boundaries. He wrote with a satirical pen, and made his points through insinuations. Luther, on the other hand, knew no boundaries. He put his life on the line in order to stand up for the word of God and the Scriptures. The statement, “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched” implies that both parties had the same religious beliefs through and through. The suggestion is that for whatever reason, Erasmus was not able to complete his reformation mission, and Luther picked up where Erasmus left off. This is not the case. Each individual had similar thoughts, but they did not express them in the same manner. If it were possible to interview both parties, what would their reactions to the statement be? During their lifetimes they did not get along. In death they would not change their beliefs.
