Voices and Verdicts: The Contest for Authority from Renaissance Rome to Reformation Wittenberg

Reflective Commentary (2025)

Composed during the course of my doctoral research, this essay is presented as an original scholarly inquiry into the nuanced negotiations of faith, authority, and the hermeneutics of tradition. As with Underhill’s steady regard for the interior life and Ackroyd's measured historicism, my approach aspires neither to polemic nor to hagiography, but to a kind of rigorous, contemplative engagement worthy of the Bodleian’s long shadow. Let it be clear that the piece before you is not offered as a finished verdict but as an invitation to dialogue, to scrutiny, and, if it must be so, to productive disagreement.

You are encouraged to attend closely to the interplay of personalities and philosophies populating these pages. Figures such as Leo X and Luther are treated not as mere types, but as the living touchstones of an epochal shift—representatives of those fateful moments when institutions reveal both the possibilities and the perils of their reach, and when the judgements of conscience unsettle orthodoxies once thought unassailable.

Above all, my aim is to provoke a deeper reckoning: to see in these episodes not relics, but the antecedents of our own questions regarding the limits and obligations of tradition, and the contested terrain of authority in the shaping of belief. Should this essay elicit thoughtful argument over dinner tables and in seminar rooms, it will have more than fulfilled its purpose.

With that orientation, I invite you to proceed to the essay itself. Consider what follows as an exploration and a provocation, a tracing of how scripture, tradition, and the voice of authority collide and coalesce in moments of crisis. These discussions invite us, still today, to question received wisdom and re-examine the architecture of belief. Let us now turn to the unfolding drama at the heart of this inquiry.

May this piece serve as a vehicle for dialogue and thoughtful engagement as you consider the enduring questions at the heart of religious and intellectual life.

From Sacred Office to Sacred Text: Power, Conscience, and Reform in Renaissance Christendom

Writing for the Gifford Lectures in 1947, Christopher Dawson concluded that "Religion is the key to history."[1]Religion seasoned by centuries of intellectual growth gave rise to expanding philosophies of church in society. These philosophies matured as plausibility structures that informed the ideology of a cognitive minority within the larger Catholic Church. Peter Berger states,

By contrast, man's relationship to his environment is characterized by world-openness. Not only has man succeeded in establishing himself over the greater part of the earth's surface, his relationship to the surrounding environment is everywhere very imperfectly structured by his own biological constitution.[2]

For Teilhard de Chardin, revelation was not an episodic narrative delivered by a few select authors, rather revelation was an ongoing "natural process which drives human action from ideal to ideal and towards objects ever more internally coherent and comprehensive in their embrace, reaches— thanks to the support of Revelation—it's fullest expansion."[3]His worldview was firmly embedded in evolutionary theory in the context of his philosophy, culture, and society.

Bruni developed the ideas of the Florentines as people of greatness and the glory of Florence by embracing the cultural milieu of his day.  Florence, as seen through the eyes of Bruni, was a city-state influenced by its relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. The church was a factor in the definition of Florence. Florence, the city that became the great center of humanism, would have had a different outcome without the influence of the church upon its history. While the Bruni texts chart the history of Florence from the establishment of Rome until his pen was laid to rest in 1444, the history of Pope Leo X and Martin Luther illustrate the sharp distinction between the church's use of the sacred in order to wield power on the populace. In Bruni's History, empire, as contrasted with the church, did not have the appeal to spiritual matters to secure the loyalty of the people. The popes sought material gain for the church and self by use of the sacred as a tool. This tool was repeatedly used as a weapon throughout history. The conflict between Leo and Luther transpired nearly a century after the events of Bruni's history. The value of this conflict to the Bruni discussion is to explore the course of events between Leo and Luther as the culmination of years of conflicting philosophies among men. Their conflict was a natural progression of the vortex of evil that became the nexus of Bruni's History. Bruni concluded that the papal office was used as a tool of political maneuvering. Sacred Text and Tradition had a definite position in the era of Pope Leo X. However, the history of the papal office was one overwhelmingly dictated by the use of the Petrine authority as a political weapon. Too often ex cathedra and Sacred Magisterium were engaged political agendas rather than for the quest to further the presence of the infallible, divine word of God.

The ideological clash that occurred a millennium ago set the course for the birth of humanist ideology of the Renaissance. The issue of who had communication from God and what by what authority was the message to be delivered to the recipients became the topic for debate. Three modes of delivery were under consideration: Scripture as an accepted source of God's word delivered to man (Sacred Text), the interpretation of God's word (Sacred Tradition both written and oral), and the Sacred Magisterium (the personal ability to speak "ex cathedra" the utterances of God). The idea of these three methods—Sacred Text, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium—of receiving God's revealed word and/or applying the message of God was not a new innovation of the Catholic church.

Leo and Luther:  Lineage of Ex Cathedra as Sacred Magisterium?

Men have arisen through the centuries who believed their words to be the words of God. The pope believed his words were the words of God. The scholastic theologian,[4] Martin Luther, took it upon himself to modify Scripture. He believed his divine connection provided special knowledge delivered to him.

Scholastic theology supposed that knowledge was gained through dialectical reasoning. While Luther argued against ex cathedra, he edited the New Testament to reflect his judgement as to what should be included in Scripture. In a sense, he sat in his own ex cathedra while practicing Sacred Magisterium upon the Sacred Text influenced by Sacred Tradition.

Luther's work resulted in linguistic redaction, theological reformation, and alteration of the Scripture. Pope Leo X and Martin Luther became vehemently opposed to one another. The Gregorians exalted papal authority while "Luther repudiated the papacy all together. The Gregorians cited the ancient canons as warrant for their reforms; Luther hurled the book of canon law into the flames."[5] Luther by "a spiritual declaration of independence...boldly cast off, once and forever, the ecclesiastical authority of Rome."[6]

Luther denounced a works religion by concluding that "the more we seek salvation, the more God gives damnation."[7] Erasmus, the "apostle of humanism," himself a translator of the New Testament, "was not a man to break with the traditional ecclesiastical system."[8] Erasmus was an advocate of the "new theology of the Renaissance" era encapsulated as the philosophy of humanism.

The premise of Luther's work entitled Concerning Christian Liberty[9] was founded on what he believed the Bible taught on the subject. For Luther, Scripture was God's revealed word to mankind not subject to the innovations of man. He matured his views of sola scriptura based upon this idea. Yet, Luther is a strange dichotomy in this regard. He believed in sola scriptura, but he changed the New Testament to suit his own theology. Martin Luther and Pope Leo each were believed to speak on behalf of God.[10] Yet, their messages were distinctly different.

The Catholic Church considered the Bible to be Sacred Text. Sacred Tradition consisted of that body of truth handed down from generation to generation including interpretations of Scripture and organizational structure within the Church. Sacred Magisterium consisted of papal words equally authoritative with Holy Scripture held to be God's divine word. Both Luther (theologian) and Pope Leo (Holy See) considered his own interpretation of Scripture as ordained by God and thus the word of truth: Luther as guardian of truth and the church as enforcer of truth. 

Conceptually, magisterium refers to the office of the teacher. Functionally, it refers to the duty of instruction. Sacred Magisterium resides in the office of the Holy See. The pope was said to be a conduit for the infallible, divinely revealed word of God. When the pope sat ex cathedra he was said to possess infallibility. In essence, his utterances in ex cathedra were understood to be of divine origin. 

When he spoke ex cathedra (from the chair) his utterances were binding and infallible (Sacred Magisterium). Ex Cathedra papal utterances reflected Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The infallible papal teachings must not contradict Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. In practice, this was not the result. The pope spoke ex cathedra as the voice of God's will. In this tradition, papal utterances were the inspired words of the Holy Spirit expressed with the same force of ancient Holy Scripture provided to man by inspiration of God. Too often ex cathedra became the tool of the conqueror.

In Concerning Christian Liberty, Luther rejected not only Pope Leo's ex cathedra utterances but the office of the papacy as God's institution on earth. He denied the pope's claim to be the Vicar of Christ. Each man was positioned so that his utterances would carry authority as the ordained words of God: The pope as the Vicar of Christ; Luther as the prophet of God.

The Catholic Church saw Christians as patrons of the Court of Rome. Luther believed that Christians had liberty in Christ from the Court of Rome. Scripture allowed for Christian liberty based solely on the "word of truth" independent of any ecclesiastical legislation in the form of papal authority. The power of the Catholic Church that included the infallibility of the pope and political structures of the institution was corrupt. Luther argued that the Catholic Church, more aptly termed the "Court of Rome," was more corrupt than Babylon and Sodom. His passionate rhetoric crested in polemic that "not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness."[11] 

The term "antichrist" is the strongest antithesis to the name of Christ. The conclusion that "for the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken away" have been attributed to the papal office.[12] This Scripture has been applied to the five references of "antichrist" in 1 and 2 John. This sentiment was already in a fever during the time of Luther.

Luther applied this rather fervent word to impart disgust upon the Catholic institution. The Church of Rome "has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death and hell"[13]Luther referred to papal authority as "monstrous evils of this age" and the Court of Rome marked by Luther as a "foolish tyranny."[14]

From a careful read of Bruni's History, numerous historical markers show the Catholic Church's strategic intent for universal expansion of the papal empire.  

Pope Leo X, Martin Luther and the Leipsic Disputation                                          

The plot thickened when Pope Leo X came into such ill repute with Luther that Luther referred to him as being "among those monstrous evils of this age."[15] Luther referred to their ideological conflict as "waging war" and likened the rule of Leo to that of the foolish tyranny of Pius and Julius.[16] Luther admitted that he was born "to contend on the field of battle with factions and with wicked spirits. This is the reason that my writings abound so much with war and tempests." Michelet wrote,

It is in vain to deny that Luther was at times somewhat coarse in his communications with others; and to ascribe it, after the usual fashion, to the spirit of the age, though it shows that he was not alone in that sort of indulgence, does not make such language refined, nor reconcile it with the purest taste.[17]

He stated that "It is my task to uproot the stock and the stem, to clear away the briars and the underwood, to fill up the pools and the marshes. I am the rough woodman who has to prepare the way and smooth the road."[18]

In his monologue against the "Court of Rome," Luther argued that the Roman Church was "lost, desperate, and [a] hopeless impiety" having once been "the most holy of all Churches."[19] Further, the Church of Rome "has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness."[20] All this was done in  preparation for the indictment against Leo.

Charles Miltitz asked Luther to recant and to keep silence on these matters.[21] Luther stated that he had been prepared to yield to the great name of Leo and keep silent, but a greater enemy appeared in the form of Johann Eck (Eccius), a defender of papal doctrine, who took up the cause to attack Luther. This resulted in the Leipsic disputation[22]in which Dr. Andreas Karlstadt engaged in the debate over allegations against papal authority.[23] The Leipsic debate took place in 1519. Among the core tenets forming the intellectual arena for debate were questions surrounding the necessity of a pope and papal supremacy.

 Luther excluded man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, man as a participant in the authority of the traditional canonical writings of the Holy Bible, and man as a participant in extra-canonical revelations of God to man. The Catholic Church included man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, accepted the apocryphal writings in addition to the canonical writings of the Bible, and accepted infallibility in extra-canonical revelations of God to the Pope.

 At the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, Luther wrote "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" (commonly know as the 95 theses). Within a short time this work became widely distributed and the center of controversy. Nearly three years after the publication of Luther's 95 theses, Pope Leo X issued a rebuttal entitled "Arise, O Lord." Of importance to this present study is the evolving of a theological view among those who had separated themselves from the Catholic Church. That is, the belief that the Bible was the only source of knowledge (sola scriptura) pertaining to the salvific work of God. The singular idea that the Bible contained all truth related to doctrinal matters was of paramount importance to the structure of change in both the Reformation and in the time of Bruni.

Luther: Transition from Ecclesiolatry to Bibliolatry

According to Melancthon "we ought not to interpret Scripture by the Fathers, but the Fathers by Scripture."[24]Melancthon believed "there is but one Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, and pure and true in all things." Further, he stated "the meaning of Scripture is to be obtained by comparing Scripture with Scripture."[25] The Reformation ushered in a change in man's demeanor toward the Bible. Luther is said to have "substituted bibliolatry for ecclesiolatry."[26] Not only did Luther embrace sola scriptura, "he began work on the German Bible, which for more than twenty years was his constant occupation."  Melanchthon was a champion of the infallibility of Scripture. He placed "the truth of Scripture above reason" concluding that "spiritual things can only be understood by the direct help of the Spirit."[27] John Calvin "was the real founder of the extreme doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture."[28] All together forming a long progression of scholars who believed the Bible to be the only source of truth for man. This resulted in the emergence of a more clearly articulated ideas about God's revealed will to man. These ideas stood in opposition to years of dogma espoused by the church.

The evolution of thought challenged much of the supposed conclusions of Catholic belief of Sacred Text, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Magisterium. When viewed from this point in time the division is much more readily seen. Yet, at the time of Pope Leo and Martin Luther the issue was fresh, having not had time for minds to vet through the relevant issues with the theological positions held by each man. Sacred Scripture is historically considered by the Catholic Church as being infallible. That is, an error-free message. Catholic theology recognizes three authoritative sources of divine truth: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium. That is, the text of the Bible, the traditions held by the church, and the words of the Pope.

Martin Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty

If Pope Leo had direct connectivity to God, it would appear that his infallibility would be unquestioned by those embracing the Christian faith. Luther and others vehemently rejected the idea that the office of the pope was God's institution on earth and the pope's ex cathedra utterances were from God. The most disruptive sectarian breach in the history of the Christian church erupted between Catholic and Protestant believers whose bitter strife, from the early days of the Great Schism, became the Great Chasm of Christendom. The study of these events shed light on the Bruni texts.

To understand the argument made by Luther in his work Concerning Christian Liberty, a review of epistemological and hermeneutical foundations is helpful to grasp the tension between the philosophical orientation of both parties to the discussion. The epistemological framework was the underlying issue igniting Luther's strong verbiage against the Catholic institution. The Catholic epistemology was the foundation of power for the Court of Rome vis-à-vis the Holy Catholic Church. Pope Leo's perceived sources of power were presumed by Catholic constituents to originate in Scripture culminating in political power.

Luther saw the Christian as possessing liberty in Christ and free of the Court of Rome. The church saw Christians as patrons of the Court of Rome and thus subjects of both the church and papal infallibility. The power of the Catholic Church, the infallibility of the Pope, and the political structures of the institution all created a model for corruption of the Court of Rome.

The Catholic, or universal, Church was so named due to the strategic intent for universal expansion of the papal empire. The early internal division took place between the Eastern (Orthodox) Church and the Western (Roman) Church. Eventually the Protestant Reformation Movement emerged due to protests of Christians against the alleged corruption of the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation was borne as a battle cry to reform the decaying Catholic Church. This resulted in the birth of worldwide sectarian denominations taking exception to the dogma and practices of Catholicism. In simplistic terms, Protestantism was borne in reaction to the political power base of the Catholic Church. Protestants refused to succumb to the overt pressure applied by the Court of Rome, a term Luther associated with the Catholic Church.

While the "most holy of all Churches" is a religious organization, Martin Luther argued that the Catholic Church was more aptly termed the "Court of Rome" that had become more corrupt than Babylon and Sodom.[29] Luther's passionate rhetoric crested in his polemic that "not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness."[30] Antichrist is the strongest antithesis to the name of Christ in theological discussion. Luther's choice of this word likely incited disgust upon the Catholic institution. The Church of Rome "has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell."[31]

Luther's idea of Christian liberty and Pope Leo's idea of ex cathedra both appeal to the Scriptures. Both believed their interpretation was ordained of God and thus the word of truth. Luther positioned himself as the guardian of truth and the church held itself as enforcer of truth.

Luther embraced Scripture as the final received Word of God not subject to the innovations of man. For Luther, the Bible was God's final revealed word to mankind. Luther's hermeneutical perspective on Holy Scripture allowed for Christian Liberty based solely on the "word of truth" independent of any ecclesiastical legislation in the form of papal authority.[32] Luther admitted to having "inveighed sharply against impious doctrines" with his guiding principle as "according to the example of Christ." Luther's polemic concisely stated: "no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth." Luther referred to papal authority as "the monstrous evils of this age."[33] Politically, Luther called the Court of Rome a "foolish tyranny."[34]

The church held Scripture to be a portion of the received Word of God; however, papal infallibility admitted that the pope spoke from his papal seat (ex cathedra) as the conduit through which flowed the voice of God. Papal utterances were the presumed inspired words of the Holy Spirit with the same force of ancient Scripture provided to man by inspiration of God.[35] Luther abhorred this dogma as corrupt error against the word of truth.

Luther espoused the epistemological foundation that excludes man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, the authority of the traditional canonical writings of Holy Bible, and extra-canonical revelations of God to man. The Catholic Church endorsed the epistemological foundation that included man as a participant in adjudicating matters of God, the authority of the apocryphal writings in addition to the canonical writings of the Holy Bible, and accepting papal infallibility in extra-canonical revelations of God to the pope.

Luther's discussion of Christian liberty was an attempt to strengthen individual autonomy as a matter of faith. Luther was opposed to the institutional power that oppressed the individual autonomous Christian. Luther considered the church to be a lawless group of bandits.

This foundation was at best presumptive for the individual (according to Luther's interpretation) entitled to Christian liberty and for the institution (according to the church) entitled to be an oppressive papal authority. The Crusades were tools for acquisition of power, land, and debt-relief rather than a religious holy war to spread Christianity. The Crusades were driven more by empire motives than Kingdom of heaven motives. Luther argues God's favor and Pope Leo's Church argues God's voice. Both argue that their hermeneutic originated in God's book. In the end, they each argued for a special connection for divine revelation. Luther held that the Court of Rome was the keeper of "vexatious tyranny" that historically slaughtered those who resist the will of the Church. Luther assumed God's favor toward his person "since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force."[36]

Footnotes

[1] Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 37. 

[2] Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City: Anchor, 1967), 47.

[3] Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 9..

[4] Preserved Smith, "Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only," The Harvard Theological Review 6, no. 4 (October 1913): 465.

[5]John W. O'Malley, Four Cultures of the West (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 59.

[6] William Bishop, "Erasmus," The Sewanee Review 14, no. 2 (April 1906): 135.  

[7] Smith., 422. "The righteousness of God which he puts in or imputes to man without any merit or even effort of the latter."

[8] Howard Savage, "The First Visit of Erasmus to England," PMLA 37, no. 1 (1922): 112.

[9]Martin Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 3.

[10] Arthur Herman, The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization (New York: Random House, 2014), 564. 

[11] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 8.

[12] 2 Thess 2:7.

[13] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid. The first section of the little book is called "Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X." Here Luther equates the dogma of ex cathedra as corrupt error against the word of truth.

[16] Ibid.

[17] M Michelet, "The Life of Martin Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings," The North American Review 63, no. 133 (1846): 436.

[18] Philip Melancthon," The Catholic Layman 6, no. 66 (June 1857): 61.

[19] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 4.

[20] Ibid, 4.

[21] "Religious Toleration at Rome," The Catholic Layman 4, no. 46 (October 1855): 61. "We appoint and ordain that for all future times no one shall print, or cause to be printed, in our city (Rome) any book or other writing, of whatever kind, unless they be first diligently examined in this city by our Vicar and Master of the Sacred Palace by subscription of their own hand." To further authenticate this statement, "This law was made by Pope Leo X., in the Fifth General Council of Latean, A.D. 1515." This is only a few years after the entreaty of Miltitz to Luther and the Leipsic debate.

[22] Robert Kolb, Martin Luther (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3. 

[23] John W. Horsch, "Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Principle of Liberty of Conscience," The American Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (April 1907): 309. Dr. Karlstadt, the former dean of Wittenberg University, was banished from Saxony because "he proceeded with the introduction of reforms independently of Martin Luther."

[24] "Philip Melancthon, 62.

[25] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 62.

[26] Preserved Smith, "The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible," The Biblical Word 38, no. 4 (October 1911): 235-44. According to Smith, Luther "was the real founder of the extreme doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture."

[27] Ibid, 243.

[28] Ibid, 244.

[29] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 2.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, 3.

[32] Ibid., 2. 

[33] Ibid., 1.

[34] Ibid.

[35] W.J. Bradnock, editor. H KAINH DIAQHKH  (Great Britain: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1960), 646. The Koine Greek text of the New Testament strictly translated reads "all Scripture is breathed out by God" or in our modern syntax "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The word "inspiration" is crucial to an understanding of power in the theological world of Luther and Leo. The question is simply did God inspire (breath the words) into the psyche of Pope Leo and his constituents to allow the Holy Church to act as the Court of Rome in the name of God?

[36] Ibid., 5.

Bibliography

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1967.

Bishop, William. "Erasmus." The Sewanee Review 14, no. 2 (April 1906): 125–41.

Bradnock, W. J., editor. H Kainh Diaqhkh. Great Britain: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1960.

Dawson, Christopher. Religion and Culture. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

Herman, Arthur. The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization. New York: Random House, 2014.

Horsch, John W. "Martin Luther's Attitude Toward the Principle of Liberty of Conscience." The American Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (April 1907): 309–23.

Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Luther, Martin. Concerning Christian Liberty. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Melancthon, Philip. "The Catholic Layman" 6, no. 66 (June 1857): 61–64.

Michelet, M. "The Life of Martin Luther, Gathered from His Own Writings." The North American Review 63, no. 133 (1846): 423–46.

O'Malley, John W. Four Cultures of the West. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Savage, Howard. "The First Visit of Erasmus to England." PMLA 37, no. 1 (1922): 108–19.

Smith, Preserved. "Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only." The Harvard Theological Review 6, no. 4 (October 1913): 404–69.

Smith, Preserved. "The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible." The Biblical World 38, no. 4 (October 1911): 235–44.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Divine Milieu. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.