Quotes that Prove Augustine Believed in an Infallible Church? #1

Rome's defenders often miss that an infallible authority does not extinguish other lesser important authorities.  It's perfectly reasonable for Saint Augustine to mention other authorities, be it a council, pope or tradition, and even agree with or obey them. This does not mean Augustine believed these other authorities carried their own power of infallibility or that the Roman church and her popes specifically had infallible authority.  

Are there explicit quotes from Augustine in which he claims councils, popes and extra-biblical Tradition are infallible along with the Scriptures? Are there explicit quotes from Augustine in which he claims the Roman church and her popes specifically had infallible authority? One such line of argument claims because Augustine alluded to apostolic succession, this serves as proof for the extrabiblical infallibility of the Roman church.  Here is one such Augustine quote utilized by Rome's defenders:

If now you seem to yourself to have been tossed to and fro enough, and wish to put an end to labors of this kind, follow the pathway of Catholic teaching, which has flowed down from Christ Himself through the Apostles even unto us, and will hereafter flow down to posterity. (On the Usefulness of Believing, 20)

While the word "infallible" isn't mentioned, it appears Rome's defenders think because Augustine says "Catholic teaching" flowed down from Christ to the Apostles, and then to "us" and then to those who come afterward, this proves the existence of the infallible authority of the Roman church. Let's take a look at this quote. 

Documentation
The documentation provided is to Augustine's book, "On the Usefulness of Believing, 20." "20" does not refer to a page number, but rather a chapter delineation. A better reference would be NPNF (first series), vol. 3, 356. De Utilitate Credendi is often rendered in English as "On the Profit of Believing." The English translation being utilized appears to be that from NPNF by Rev. C.L. Cornish M.A. A fresher English translation is found in On Christian Belief (Vol. I/8), The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, 107-148, "The Advantage of Believing." 

Augustine explains why he wrote this book here. He points out, "...I wrote a book on the Profit of Believing, to a friend of mine who had been taken in by the Manichees, and whom I knew to be still held in that error, and to deride the Catholic school of Faith, in that men were bid believe, but not taught what was truth by a most certain method." This was one of the first books Augustine wrote after being ordained. 

This book is not a complete refutation of Manicheanism nor a thorough exposition of Christianity. Augustine explains to his Manichean friend why he should leave it and become a Christian. In the passage in question, Augustine explains how he desires his friend to leave that sect like he did. 

Context

Thus there met me a wood, out of which there was no way, which I was very loath to be involved in: and amid these things, without any rest, my mind was agitated through desire of finding the truth. However, I continued to unsew myself more and more from those whom now I had proposed to leave. But there remained nothing else, in so great dangers, than with words full of tears and sorrow to entreat the Divine Providence to help me. And this I was content to do: and now certain disputations of the Bishop of Milan had almost moved me to desire, not without some hope, to enquire into many things concerning the Old Testament itself, which, as you know, we used to view as accursed, having been ill commended to us. And I had decided to be a Catechumen in the Church, unto which I had been delivered by my parents, until such time as I should either find what I wished, or should persuade myself that it needed not to be sought. Therefore had there been one who could teach me, he would find me at a very critical moment most fervently disposed and very apt to learn. If you see that you too have been long affected in this way, therefore, and with a like care for thy soul, and if now you seem to yourself to have been tossed to and fro enough, and wish to put an end to labors of this kind, follow the pathway of Catholic teaching, which hath flowed down from Christ Himself through the Apostles even unto us, and will hereafter flow down to posterity.

Alternate English Translation:

So there was a bewildering forest, and it had finally become intolerable to be planted in it. At the same time the desire for truth continued to drive my mind on without respite. I had already decided to leave them, and I was becoming more and more convinced I should do so. In the midst of such great dangers there was nothing left for me except with tearful, piteous cries to implore divine providence to give me strength; and I did that earnestly. Already some arguments of the Bishop of Milan had almost persuaded me it would not be unproductive if I chose to look at a large number of matters concerning the Old Testament that, as you know, we blasphemed against because they were misrepresented to us. I had also decided to be a catechumen in the Church to which I had been presented by my parents, for as long as it took either to find what I wanted or to become convinced it was not to be found. At that time, therefore, anyone able to teach me would have found me ready and very receptive. Your soul should be in a similar state of concern now. You too are aware that you have been unsettled for a long time. If you now think you have been tossed around enough and want to put an end to these struggles, then follow the path of the Catholic teaching, which has flowed down to us from Christ himself through his apostles and will continue to flow down to our descendants.

Conclusion
The concept of an infallible council, pope extra-Biblical Tradition, or the passing down of infallible authority is not found in this context, nor is it found anywhere in this treatise. The closest Augustine comes is when he writes, 

33. For these reasons, even though I am not empowered to teach, I do not

cease to advise. Since many want to appear wise, and it is not easy for the unwise to tell whether they really are, if your heart is set on a happy life, then with total commitment and every kind of offering, with sighs and even in tears if possible, pray to God to deliver you from the evil of error. This will be more readily accomplished if you give willing obedience to his commandments, which he chose to support with the great authority of the Catholic Church. The wise person is so united in mind to God that nothing can come between to separate them, for God is truth and it is not possible for anyone to be wise whose mind is not in contact with the truth. Hence we cannot deny that human wisdom is interposed as a kind of intermediary between human foolish ness and God's absolute truth.

Even here, Augustine does not say, great infallible authority of the Roman Church. It's perfectly reasonable for Saint Augustine to mention other authorities, be it a council, pope or tradition, and even agree with or obey them. This does not mean Augustine believed these other authorities were also infallible. An authority can be great and authorized, yet it doesn't follow that authority must also be infallible. But what about the infallible authority of Scripture? Does Augustine mention that? He does! Augustine writes: 

Believe me, everything in that scripture is profound and from God. There is absolute truth there, and teaching finely adapted to the renewal and restoration of souls and clearly presented in such a way that there is no one who cannot draw from it. This is all anyone needs, provided he comes to draw from it in a spirit of devout respect, as true religion requires (Section 13).

Alternate English translation: 

All that is in these Scriptures, believe me, is profound and divine. All truth is there, and learning suited to refresh and restore souls, but in such a form that there is no one who may not draw thence all he needs, provided he comes to draw in a spirit of piety and devotion such as true religion demands. John H. S. Burleigh, trans., The Library of Christian Classics, Augustine: Earlier Writings, The Usefulness of Belief, vi, 13 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 302.

Latin text: Quidquid est, mihi crede, in Scripturis illis, altum et divinum est: inest omnino veritas, et reficiendis instaurandisque animis accommodatissima disciplina; et plane ita modificata, ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est, si modo ad hauriendum devote ac pie, ut vera religio poscit, accedat. De Utilitate Credendi ad Honoratum, Caput VI, §13, PL 42:74.

Addendum

A unique aspect of this book is that Augustine refers to Scripture often and explains the correct way to interpret it. Does he say that the infallible interpretation of Scripture comes from the Roman Pope? No. He explains to his friend what he believes is the correct way to interpret Scripture. The introductory comments from the newer English translation of the treatise point out:  

Augustine says, there are four ways of interpreting scriptural passages. Historical exegesis aims at ascertaining the content of a text or story; etiological exegesis brings to light the basis of an event or saying; analogical exegesis establishes the agreement between the two Testaments; and allegorical exegesis looks for the figurative meaning of a text, whenever it becomes clear that the text is not to be understood literally. Augustine used this theory from the Greek tradition about two years later in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, but after that it is not used again in his writings. Consequently, Augustine's thoughts on the subject represent only a transitional phase. Only later on, in Teaching Christianity, will he develop his own self-contained theory of interpretation (110).

This method of interpreting Scripture does not come from an infallible declaration from the Roman Church.  Notice as well, Augustine goes on to abandon this method and develops "his own self-contained theory of interpretation"!

Martin Luther's Hymn: Great God What Do I See and Hear... Not Written by Luther?

My church uses the Trinity Psalter Hymnal. Recently, we sang, Great God, What Do I See and Hear! While singing, I noticed the hymn was credited to Martin Luther (even also alternatively titled, "Luther's Hymn"). What struck me about the hymn was the eschatological language:

Great God, what do I see and hear! The end of things created! The Judge of mankind doth appear on clouds of glory seated! The trumpet sounds; the graves restore the dead which they contained before: prepare, my soul, to meet him.

The dead in Christ shall first arise, at the last trumpet’s sounding, caught up to meet him in the skies, with joy their Lord surrounding; no gloomy fears their souls dismay; his presence sheds eternal day on those prepared to meet him.

But sinners, filled with guilty fears, behold his wrath prevailing; for they shall rise, and find their tears and sighs are unavailing: the day of grace is past and gone; trembling, they stand before the throne, all unprepared to meet him.

Great God, what do I see and hear! The end of things created! The Judge of mankind doth appear on clouds of glory seated! Beneath his cross I view the day when heav’n and earth shall pass away, and thus prepare to meet him.

Certainly as Luther's career progressed, his eschatological expectations did as well. For Luther, the world was on the verge of its end. However, this hymn just didn't sound like Luther to me. I had a brief discussion with a person after the service, and she posited Luther wrote the tune and someone else wrote the words, William B. Collyer. A cursory internet search reveals Collyer was partially the translator and partially the lyricist. 

Websites attribute the tune to Luther. While sometimes the words are attributed to Luther, they appear rather to have been partially penned by Lutheran pastor Bartholomäus Ringwaldt (1530-1599) and then later Collyer. This source explains:

"Great God, What Do I See and Hear?"
The history of this hymn is somewhat indefinite, though common consent now attributes to Ringwaldt the stanza beginning with the above line. The imitation of the "Dies Irae" in German which was first in use was printed in Jacob Klug's "Gesangbuch" in 1535. Ringwaldt's hymn of the Last Day, also inspired from the ancient Latin original, appears in his Handbuchlin of 1586, but does not contain this stanza. The first line is, "The awful Day will surely come," (Es ist gewisslich an der Zeit). Nevertheless through the more than two hundred years that the hymn has been translated and re-translated, and gone through inevitable revisions, some vital identity in the spirit and tone of the one seven-line stanza has steadily connected it with Ringwaldt's name. Apparently it is the single survivor of a great lost hymn-edited and altered out of recognition. But its power evidently inspired the added verses, as we have them. Dr. Collyer found it, and, regretting that it was too short to sing in public service, composed stanzas 2d, 3d and 4th. It is likely that Collyer first met with it in Psalms and Hymns for Public and Private Devotion, Sheffield 1802, where it appeared anonymously.

-snip-

Batholomew Ringwaldt, pastor of the Lutheran Church of Longfeld, Prussia, was born in 1531, and died in 1599. His hymns appear in a collection entitled Hymns for the Sundays and Festivals of the Whole Year.

Rev. William Bengo Collyer D.D., was born at Blackheath near London, April 14, 1782, educated at Homerton College and settled over a Congregational Church in Peckham. In 1812 he published a book of hymns, and in 1837 a Service Book to which he contributed eighty-nine hymns. He died Jan. 9, 1854.

THE TUNE.
Probably it was the customary singing of Ringwaldt's hymn (in Germany) to Luther's tune that gave it for some time the designation of "Luther's Hymn," the title by which the music is still known -an air either composed or adapted by Luther, and rendered perhaps unisonously or with extempore chords. It was not until early in the last century that Vincent Novello wrote to it the noble arrangement now in use. It is a strong, even-time harmony with lofty tenor range, and very impressive with full choir and organ or the vocal volume of a congregation. In Cheetham's Psalmody is it written with a trumpet obligato.

Vincent Novello, born in London, Sept. 6, 1781, the intimate friend of Lamb, Shelley, Keats, Hunt and Hazlitt, was a professor of music who attained great eminence as an organist and composer of hymn-tunes and sacred pieces. He was the founder of the publishing house of Novello and Ewer, and father of a famous musical family. Died at Nice, Aug. 9, 1861.

Conclusion
A closer look at the Trinity Psalter hymnal demonstrates careful documentation.  Stanza one is documented as "anon." (anonymous), though as explained above, Stanza one is probably from Ringwaldt. Stanza 2-4 are rightly attributed to Collyer. "Joseph Klug, Geistliche Lieder," is also referenced. Linking Klug with this German title is a reference to a hymnal of Luther's definitive hymns printed during his lifetime. Here's a 1535 edition. Note the similarities to this Lutheran hymnbook.

Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?

Did Martin Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? Roman Catholics use this comment to demonstrate Luther's abandonment and utter disdain of it. There are at least two sources I'm aware of in which Luther is said to have wanted to throw James, in some sense, into the fire. Let's take a closer look at each statement. 

The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542).
One example comes from a 1542 writing entitled, The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542). The text is in the form of disputation, set in the form of a scholarly dialog between the participants. The text reads: 

XIX. Against Thesis 21

James [2:22] says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith.

Master Heinrich [Schmedenstede] responds: James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause.

Dr. Martin Luther: That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did. (LW 34:317; WA 39.2:199).

In this brief context, Luther says he has been interpreting the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures." While he doesn't expound on what he meant, an obvious fact emerges, that Luther found a way to harmonize it with the rest of the Scriptures. Here we find that in practice, Luther admits to weighing it as Scripture. He then speaks of his papal detractors: "Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it." That is, Luther was prepared to reject the canonicity of the Epistle of James in disputes with Roman Catholic controversialists rather than present reasoning for interpreting it according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures (as Heinrich Schmedenstede was doing in his response). 

Luther finishes his response with an anecdotal sarcastic comment: "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." The editors of Luther’s Works explain, 

The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm (LW 34:317).

An aspect of this explanation that's lost on modern readers is that Luther is not recounting an historical event (See for instance Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn who misses this: "Luther was referring to an episode in the German village of Kalenberg, where a priest burned wooden statues of the apostles in order to provide warmth for a visiting duchess"). The priest in Kalenberg is a fictional Character: Der Pfaffe vom Kalenberg by Philipp Frankfurter (1473). A helpful overview of this work can be found here and here. In the farcical tale, the duchess visits Kalenberg and watches the sly priest burn statues of the apostles, commenting on them as they're put into the fire, James being the last. Is Luther saying here he hated the Epistle of James so much that he wanted to burn it in the stove? No. Luther’s comment is an expression of frustration with Roman Catholic polemicists and his use of a fictional character augments this. 

Table Talk 5854
The second statement is a Table Talk comment "believed to have come from the pen of Jerome Besold" (LW 54:465). Besold recorded Luther's remarks in 1544, though LW includes a pinch of doubt that while the comments are said to have been recorded by Besold, "there is no compelling evidence that the particular pieces that follow originate with him" (LW 54:467). Utterance 5854 is not included in the English edition of Luther's Works. The comment can be found in WA Tr 5:382.

The Latin text records Luther's disagreement with his Roman Catholic critics over the Epistle of James. It begins by saying Roman Catholics accept the epistle because it teaches righteousness by works, and because of this, Luther is recorded as saying it therefore cannot be the writing of an apostle ("Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle"*). He then comments on James 2:26 as being absurd and contrary to Scripture ("For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also"), though no explanation is provided. Then the utterance states in German, "Ich werde einmal mit dem Jekel den offen hitzen" ("Some day I will use James to fire my stove"*). Finally, the text states in Latin "Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter" that reconciling the Epistle of James with Scripture is difficult.

*English translation from this source. 

Conclusion
Did Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? I can see how Rome's defenders take this sparse evidence and say yes. They will though have a poor basis of proof if they rely only on the first quote from The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede. In context, that quote shows Luther viewed the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures," and then made a sarcastic comment with Luther's papal opponents in mind. While the second comment is more direct, it's not something Luther wrote, but is purported to have said. Roman Catholics have a history of gravitating to the Table Talk, so this second-hand context-less comment may be their best proof that Luther wanted to burn the Epistle of James in the stove. 

Certainly, both comments demonstrate Luther held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. One thing that I've noticed over the years though is those doubts are almost always against the backdrop of his Roman Catholic critics, otherwise, he doesn't raise any fuss over James. He positively quoted from it and occasionally preached from the book. There are even instances in which he accepts the typical Protestant harmonizing solution of James and Paul (see my old entry here). The point: Roman Catholics can explain or at least excessively highlight Luther's negative comments about the Epistle of James, because he certainly made multiple comments, and he certainly had "papists" in mind. They are correct in noticing them because papalism spurned him on to make those comments! But what I challenge my Roman Catholic readers to grapple with is... why did Luther positively quote from the Epistle of James and occasionally preach from it? If he was such an enemy of James as noncanonical, why these positive instances throughout his career? The best explanations make sense of all the pertinent facts. I challenge Rome's apologists to explain Luther by evaluating all the evidence, not just picking and choosing what fits their narrative.  

Luther vs. Calvin on the Sign of the Cross

According to Wikipedia, "Making the sign of the cross, also known as blessing oneself or crossing oneself, is a ritual blessing made by members of some branches of Christianity." So... you're not Roman Catholic... should you make the sign of the cross? Should you bless yourself?  The two branches of the church that have the most weight in my world are the Lutheran and Reformed traditions (not the liberal twigs in each tradition!). How they have worked out how the Christian faith is expressed will significantly influence whether or not I embrace something. With the sign of the cross, each tradition has taken a different approach. 

Martin Luther
It's common knowledge that Martin Luther did not reject making the sign of the cross. The most popular piece of evidence is found in his Small Catechism. Under the heading "How the Head of the Family Shall Teach His Household to Say Morning and Evening Prayers," Luther writes:

In the morning, when you rise, make the sign of the cross and say, “In the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen” (BOC, 352).

 In the evening, when you retire, make the sign of the cross and say, “In the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen” (BOC 353).

A cogent contemporary Lutheran explanation of this ritual can be found here. This explanation ends with this citation from the book, Lutheranism 101 Worship:

Again, to make the sign of the cross is a matter of Christian freedom. You may or may not feel comfortable doing it yourself, or you may not do it as often as your neighbor. That’s okay. But when the sign of the cross is made, whether by pastor or people, let this be the proclamation: Christ has died for your sins upon the cross; in Baptism he shares that cross with you; because you share in His cross, you are a child of God and are precious in His sight (232).

John Calvin

There are a number of online claims that John Calvin rejected making the sign of the cross. For instance: 

As the Reformation gained momentum, John Calvin began distancing his movement from long-held Catholic beliefs and practices, including the use of images and art, citing them as idolatrous. By extension, the sign of the cross was condemned as a superstitious physical manifestation of the spiritual reality of the Cross and, therefore, forbidden by Calvin (source).

The sign of the cross was routinely done by all Christian believers up to the time of the Protestant Reformation.  John Calvin called it "a superstitious rite" (Institutes 4.17.28). The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 27, calls it a mere "custom in the ancient church." The Protestants tossed the idea just like they did with the Holy Water, Confessions, and Books In The Bible.  At this point maybe some of the reformers or protestors should have read from their own King James Version of the Bible  "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4, KJV). Since Calvin was not God and since Calvin was the man the only logical conclusion is that he was lying according to Paul who wrote the Epistle to the Romans (source).

John Calvin himself called the sign of the cross "a vain and superstitious rite", which fits right in with his idea that a church service should be "four bare walls and a sermon" (source).

Similar Examples could be multiplied. You'll notice that in two of the examples above, Calvin is called out for saying the sign of the cross is a "superstitious rite."  Here is what Calvin actually wrote:

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, Augustine says, “You have Christ through the sign of the cross, through the sacrament of Baptism, through the food and drink of the altar.” I am not discussing how correctly he reckons a superstitious rite among the symbols of the presence of Christ. But when he compares the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross he sufficiently shows that he does not conceive of a Christ with two bodies, so that he who sits visible in heaven may lie hidden in secret under bread. But if a clearer explanation is needed, he adds immediately thereafter, "With regard to the presence of majesty we always have Christ; with regard to the presence of the flesh it has been rightly said, ‘You will not always have me’" [Matthew 26:11, Cf. Vg.]. (Institutes 4.17.28, Battles translation)

As far as I can determine, this passing reference is the major prooftext used to delineate Calvin's view of the sign of the cross. A careful reading demonstrates Calvin was discussing a citation of Augustine, not expounding on the sign of the cross.  Kudos to this webpage that at least states, "While Calvin did not openly oppose the sign of the cross, his disdainful attitude would in time develop into outright opposition by his followers." Karl Barth makes a curious comment that "It is at least historical that in Italy, and in Savoy in particular, people later made the sign of the cross when the Genevan reformer was in view." If I'm understanding Barth correctly, people had (mistakenly) thought Calvin escaped the Inquisition and were not making the sign of the cross as a form of reverence toward him... they were doing it as a form of protection against him as a hated fugitive!  

There is evidence that Calvin was part of a movement actively seeking to eliminate making the sign of the cross.  The Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the time of Calvin 1542-1544 records that a woman "does not make the sign of the cross any more" (127) and that a man was accused of saying "the Pater, the Ave Maria and the Benedicite in Latin, with the sign of the cross" (294). Another man "was summoned before the Consistory in 1546 for having supported the Mass and having persisted in saying his rosary, in giving the sign of the cross at the sermon and in praying for the dead and to the Virgin Mary" (148, fn. 572). It's undisputed that the Reformed tradition did not look favorably at retaining or reinterpreting the sign of the cross. 

Conclusion

At times I occupy a middle sort of ground between these two traditions. On the one hand, I can appreciate the freedom of the Lutheran tradition on this issue, taking something papal and pouring significant Christian meaning into it. On the other hand, I can also appreciate the Reformed tradition that wants to guard anything that hints at being anti-biblical and pro-papal.  

I take the Reformed side, but not with any sort of disdain or disapproval toward the Lutheran position. I appreciate taking any aspect of reality and reclaiming it with the Gospel and a Christ centered perspective! The emphasis of the early Reformed tradition was attempting to remove superstition from Christian worship. Even when reading through the The Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the time of Calvin 1542-1544, it's obvious that many people in Geneva were going through the motions. They were engaging in Roman behaviors without any understanding of what they were doing. In my extended relationships with Roman Catholic friends and family, I've witnessed the same thing: people living as pagans and then going into Roman Catholic "ritual mode" at funerals, masses, saying grace at dinner, etc. 

Luther: "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow"

Here's a Martin Luther quote from the book, Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works (1884), p. 55.

"The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow." Walch XII. 2120.

This quote pops up every once in a while. It's typically used by Rome's defenders as proof of the failure of the Reformation (or something like Luther's regret or concession of the failure of the Reformation).

The author, Henry O'Connor, includes this quote under the heading, "Lower State of General Morality."According to O'Connor, this quote proves Luther admitted his preaching made "matters worse." How odd. Luther preached an extraordinary number of sermons and continued to do so after he made this statement. O'Connor's interpretation of Luther is that of a person purposefully and knowingly making the world worse by his preaching! Something doesn't quite add up... so let's take a closer look at this quote.  

Documentation
Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results is an old small anthology of Luther quotes peppered with vilifying commentary from O’Connor. The author claims to have compiled the quotes from the original sources: “Nearly two-thirds of the matter contained in this pamphlet is taken from the original editions of Luther’s own Works, as published in Wittenberg, under the very eye of the Reformer of Germany himself”(p. 3) He says “I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context”(p.5). We'll see though he interpolated this quote to make it say something beyond what Luther actually said.  

The reference "Walch. XII" refers to the twelfth volume in a set of Luther's works published between 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. Page 2120 can be found here (see top of second column, note "XII, 2118-2121" on the top right, not to be confused with the 1645 page number). This is a 1530 sermon on Romans 13:11-14.  It can also be found in WA 32:219. The quote in German is: "Aber je mehr und länger es gepredigt wird, je ärger wirds." It can be found in this paragraph:

There does not appear to be an official English translation of the complete context of this sermon. However, there is an unauthorized English translation of the entire Walch set on the Internet Archive put together using DeepL Translate (utilized below). While a computer-generated translation is obviously inferior, it will at least provide access to the gist of what Luther was preaching.  If you work your way through the entire DeepL translation of the sermon, a clear picture emerges of what Luther's main points are in the sermon, and they're contrary to that sour image created by Rome's defenders.  

Context

(10) And this is the reason why great plagues always come upon the gospel, such as famine, war, pestilence, etc., as St. Paul says of those who abused the sacrament, 1 Cor. 11; then God came among them with pestilence, so that they blasphemed the name of God with their shameful lives. So we do the same, as if it were not a sin against our baptism and against the gospel. Even if we remain silent and despise it, God will not despise it in this way, but will come upon us with war, pestilence and evil time, or will send all three upon us at the same time. But the more and longer it is preached, the worse it becomes. Now that the ban has been lifted, each one does as he pleases; and now that his name is blasphemed, he will blaspheme and desecrate your name again. Therefore let us not so despise his name and word. One can see his sorrow in it. If I did not preach for the love of our Lord God, I would not preach a word; for those who want to be most evangelical despise him, and do with his word as they will. Go in the name of all devils, if you do not want to go in the name of God. Enough has been said for those who need to be told. Therefore give thanks to God that you have the light and know what you should and should not do, and do not be so lukewarm and indolent, but admonish yourselves and strive to adorn this teaching in all things.

Conclusion

A closer look at the context demonstrates Luther's Roman Catholic critics find only what they want in a text: they want to find Luther lamenting the failure of his preaching and the Reformation. What the context actually shows is an example of Christianity 101: exhorting believers to live consistently with the faith they claim to have and a rebuke of those who are double-minded and a call to repentance.

Luther uses this sermon on Romans 13:11-14 as an exhortation to believers to live a godly life; that those who claim to have faith in Christ demonstrate it by the way they live: "Paul wants to prevent trouble and admonishes them to live in a way that is in accordance with the faith, that is, to live outwardly in the way that faith teaches them inwardly" (6). If someone claims to be a Christian, but lives an immoral life, that person is guilty of blaspheming the name of God: "For to live otherwise is to profane the gospel, to blaspheme the word, and to dishonor the name of God" (6). If a person thinks they are getting away with living this sort of double minded life, Luther says, "If you are not punished here, you will certainly be punished there in the hellish fire" (9).

In the context in which the quote occurs (10), Luther explains that Christians living improperly (inconsistent with the Gospel) can bring severe consequences from God in this life. He cites 1 Corinthians 11 for proof, that for those partaking in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner "God came among them with pestilence." A Christian person living in an unholy way sins against the Gospel and their own baptism, leading to judgment in this life. 

The quote Rome's defenders cite out of context is simply saying: the more the Gospel is preached, the worse God's wrath will be against those that do not live a godly life. Luther concludes of this particular type of double-minded person: "Enough has been said for those who need to be told." Certainly, there have always been (and still are!) the type of double-minded people Luther describes and exhorts.

Notice also, O'Connor translates the German sentence, "The more and the longer we preach, the worse matters grow." However, the sentence literally reads, "the more and longer it is preached, the worse it becomes." O'Connor has made Luther (and his fellow preachers) the subject of the sentence!  Luther (and his fellow preachers) are not the subject of the sentence, the Gospel is. For the Gospel to continually be preached while people live sinful lives, they were bringing greater judgment upon themselves.  

Addendum: The Ban

In the context above, Luther singles out those people that were no longer under "the ban" and were living lives blatantly against Christian morality. I suspect Luther was referring to church discipline in the medieval church ("the ban"). Luther explains elsewhere, "A bishop or pope may exclude someone from this fellowship and forbid it to him because of his sins. This is called putting someone under the ban" (LW 39:8). Around this time in Wittenberg, the ban consisted in denying someone the Lord's Supper if they were found guilty of public sin (LW 50:61; 39:7). In the sermon in question, Luther appears to be chastising those people taking advantage of a lighter form of church discipline than what was occurring under the authority of the papal church: "Now that the ban has been lifted, each one does as he pleases." 

What began as a means of church discipline actually turned into a practice in which people were penalized for not paying their tithe to the church. These people could be denied access to the sacraments, attending marriages, baptisms, funerals, be excommunicated, etc. (see Boehmer's discussion in his Road to Reformation, 223-225). Being placed under the ban by the medieval church could severely complicate one's daily life and livelihood. Luther states, "But the ban goes even further and forbids burial, buying and selling, trading, a certain kind of life and fellowship among men, and finally even (as they say) water and fire" (LW 39:8). As the Reformation progressed, the early Reformers had to restructure the entire concept of church discipline. As Luther stated in 1520, 

Since we have already heard that the sacrament of the holy body of Christ is a sign of the community of all saints, we must now learn what the ban is which is exercised through the power of the spiritual estate in Christendom. For its principal, real function and power is to deprive a sinful Christian of the holy sacrament and to forbid it to him (LW 39:7).

Zwingli: "It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the Mariology of the Reformers. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary."  It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. 

"The Protestant Reformers on Mary" webpage is usually set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!

This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in versions of The Protestant Reformers on Mary:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God" [Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639]

A simple Goggle search of this quote demonstrates excessive cut-and-pastes. From a conservative Protestant perspective, there isn't anything outrageous about this quote. It's true: Mary was uniquely chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ. Why then do Roman Catholics use this quote? Before answering this question, let's take a closer look at where the quote came from.

Documentation
The reference "Evang. Luc., Opera Completa" is accurate, but I have doubts modern Roman Catholic apologists found this old text and mined out this quote, translating it into English. A Roman Catholic apologist at some point in the past came across a secondary source citing it and cut-and-pasted the quote into cyberspace. For instance, an exact early Roman Catholic English usage can be found in Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (from1982):

The Swiss Reformer expressed views somewhat similar to Luther’s; but there were certain differences due to his singular outlook. His ideas on Mary are found mostly in a Marienpredigt and in his commentary on Lk and the controversial writings. The sermon is praise of the divine motherhood and perpetual virginity: “it was given to her,” he says, “what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God." (In Evang. Luc., Op. compl., 6.1,639)

I suspect this is the probable source of the English translation. This entry / source probably relied on Walter Tappolet's Das Marienlob der Reformatoren for this quote (Tappolet is cited generally for Zwingli's Mariology). Tappolet wrote,  

Maria ist heilig, ja sie ist nach Zwinglis Worten das hei= ligste aller Geschöpfe, aber nicht aus sich selber und nicht an sich; ihre Heiligkeit stammt aus der Heiligkeit Christi: Diese Worte (Luk. ı, 42) sind nicht so zu verstehen, als ob Maria irgend welche Seligkeit Christo gegeben, oder sie selber in sich eine solche Seligkeit besessen hätte, sondern beziehen sich mehr auf das Lob Christi. Dies wird nicht dazu gesagt, als ob wir damit meinten, Maria sei nicht ganz selig gewesen: denn es ist ihr gegeben, was keiner Kreatur (sonst) zukommt, daß sie im Fleische den Sohn Gottes gebar, was aber nicht der Kreatur zugeschrieben werden kann, weil es einzig Gottes ist. Die Frau sagt also dies: Ihr Pharisäer schmäht das Werk Christi und ihr schreibt diese Macht den Dämonen zu. Ich aber verkündige gegen euch, er sei der heiligste von allen, daher selig, so daß auch seine Mutter und ihr Schoß selig sind. Die Heiligkeit der Maria stammt also aus der Heiligkeit Christi, nicht umgekehrt! (6; 639)

Mary is holy, indeed, according to Zwingli, she is the holiest of all creatures, but not by herself and not in itself; her holiness comes from the holiness of Christ: These words (Luk. ı, 42) are not to be understood as if Mary had given any kind of blessedness to Christ, or as if she herself had such blessedness within herself, but rather refer to the praise of Christ. This is not said as if we meant that Mary was not entirely blessed: for it was given to her which is not due to any creature, that she gave birth to the Son of God in the flesh, but which cannot be attributed to the creature, because it is only God's. So the woman says this: You Pharisees revile the work of Christ and you attribute this power to demons. But I declare against you that he is the holiest of all, and therefore blessed, so that his mother and her womb are also blessed. The holiness of Mary comes from the holiness of Christ, not the other way around! (6; 639)

Tappolet's put his own words purposefully in italics. He took this quote from Huldrici Zuinglii Opera, Voluminis Sexti Tomus Primus, 639:

Beatus venter qui te.) Haec ergo verba non sic intelligi debent, quasi Maria Christo aliquam beatitatem dederit, aut quod ipsa in se talem beatitudinem habuerit, sed potius pertinent ad laudem Christi. Haec non in hoc dicuntur, quasi diceremus Mariam non fuisse beatis- simam: datum est enim ei quod nulli creaturae contigit, ut in carne generaret filium dei; sed quod non debet tribui creaturae quod solius est dei. Mulier ergo sic dicit,: Vos pharisaei calumniamini factum Christi, et daemoni adscribitis hanc virtutem. Ego autem contra vos pronuncio ipsum esse sanctissimum omnium, adeoque beatum, ut etiam mater eius et uterus beata sint. Sanctitas ergo Mariae ex sanctitate nascitur Christi, non contra. Dona dei sic habent: hominibus dantur et donantur ad usum aliquem et laudem dei et salutem proximi dei vero sunt; usus datus est nobis non possessio. 

(Blessed is the womb that has thee.) These words, then, are not to be understood as if Mary gave some holiness to Christ, or that she herself had such holiness in herself, but rather belong to the praise of Christ. These things are not said in this, as if we were to say that Mary was not the most blessed: for it was given to her that which has happened to no creature, that she should bring forth the Son of God in the flesh; but that it is not to be attributed to a creature that belongs only to God. The woman therefore says thus: You Pharisees slander the deed of Christ, and ascribe this virtue to the devil. But I declare against you that he is the most holy of all, and so blessed that his mother and womb are also blessed. The sanctity of Mary, then, is born from the sanctity of Christ, not against it. God's gifts have this way: they are given and given to men for some use, and they are truly the praise of God and the salvation of God's neighbor; use is given to us, not possession.

Conclusion

In context, Zwingli is saying Mary has been blessed by being chosen to give birth to Jesus Christ. Outrageous? No. Why then are Roman Catholics utilizing this quote? In a version of The Protestant Reformers on Mary from 2000, no explanation is given, and this is typical of many of the pages using the quote.  From my cursory exploration it appears many think the quote simply substantiates their usage of Theotokos (Mother of God), even though Zwingli doesn't use the term in this quote!

If you come across a defender of Rome using this quote, ask... why? What is the quote supposed to prove? Notice what Zwingli also says in the same context: "These words, then, are not to be understood as if Mary gave some holiness to Christ, or that she herself had such holiness in herself... The sanctity of Mary, then, is born from the sanctity of Christ...".  

Did Martin Luther Miscite Saint Augustine?

I came across this Martin Luther quote while revisiting an article by John Warwick Montgomery:

I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way: I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.

In context, Montgomery was discussing the Old Testament Apocrypha and Luther's rejection of it as canonical scripture. This quote seemed vaguely familiar. It was pointed out to me that it strongly resembled a quote from Saint Augustine. Upon checking the context, Luther was indeed quoting Saint Augustine (Montgomery left that out). Mystery solved! 

No... the mystery was not solved because then I wanted to see if Luther was quoting and interpreting Augustine accurately. For those of you involved in Roman Catholic vs. Protestant discourse, both sides utilize Augustine to make their case. Here's a great quote to use to determine which side gets it right. Was Augustine referring to the canon debate, or was it something else? Let's take a look.  

Documentation
Here was Montgomery's documentation:

WA, 2, 618 (Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium … Martini Lutheri defensio [1519]). The early date of this affirmation is noteworthy: two years after the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses.

Montgomery, J. W. (1973). Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ’s. Westminster Theological Journal, 36(3), 300.

Either John Warwick Montgomery utilized a different edition of WA 2, or he got the page number wrong. I suspect the later (WA 2:618 is to a completely different treatise from Luther. The quote actually occurs on page 626).  Luther's text reads:

Tu vero, lector, illud Augustini utrinque adhibeto fidelissimum documentum, quo dicit: Ego solis eis libris, qui canonici appellantur, hunc honorem deferre didici, ut nullum scriptorem eorum errasse firmissime credam, ceteros vero, quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, ita lego, ut non ideo verum existimem, quia ipsi sic senserunt, sed si canonicorum librorum autoritate, vel probabili atione mihi persuadere potuerunt. Hoc est, quod B. Paulus quoque dicit: Omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete. 

To my knowledge, Luther's treatise, "Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium … Martini Lutheri defensio (1519)" has not been officially translated into English. 

Luther explicitly states he was citing Saint Augustine. Augustine's quote comes from a letter he wrote to Jerome (NPNF 1, letter LXXXII NPNF1, 1:350, 3) (405 A.D.).

Context (Augustine)

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, "Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!"

Conclusion
Comparing Luther to Augustine demonstrates the former cited him accurately (although Montgomery included the word, "infallibility," whereas Luther's Latin text simply says "hunc honorem." Montgomery appears to have added the word in; however, it is implied from the text). From checking the context of Luther's words, he was not using this Augustine quote to give his opinion on the Old Testament Apocrypha. I'm not attempting to disparage Dr. Montgomery. I can see how the quote fits in his article (which is in regard to Biblical inerrancy). Nor was Augustine discussing the Apocryphal books.   

In context, Luther was using this Augustine quote specifically against his Roman Catholic adversary, John Eck. He used the quote to exhort his readers to consider both his and Eck's arguments in light of the infallible authority of the Bible. Luther is also recorded as using this quote directly against Eck during the Leipzig Debate of 1519

Nor can a believing Christian be forced to go beyond the sacred Scriptures, which are actually the divine law, unless a new and proven revelation is added. Yes, according to divine law, we are forbidden to believe anything unless it is proved either by divine Scripture or by a clear revelation, as also Gerson, though belonging to the newer ones, teaches in many places, and St. Augustine, who is older, observes as a special rule when he writes to St. Jerome: I have learned to pay this honor only to those books which are called canonical; but the others I read in such a way that, however rich they may be in doctrine and holiness, I do not consider it truth for the sake of it, because they have held so, but if they have been able to convince me either by the canonical books or by some acceptable reason (English source; Walch 15:942).

Eck responded: 

I am not moved by what is introduced from Augustine about the reading of the canonical writings, because he does not exclude the decrees of the conciliar and popes (English source; Walch 15:949).

Eck's response has been echoed by current defenders of Rome. From their perspective, it seems Luther may have been misciting Augustine. For instance, this particular defender states:

That Augustine yields respect and honour to “the canonical books of Scripture” alone, in this context, does not mean he sees only the Scriptures as free from error above any other form of church authority, but that, when it comes to Jerome’s opinion on Scripture, or that of any other commentator, Augustine will side with the Scriptures being error free and Jerome, or any other commentator, as being mistaken.

And also:

Nothing in his statement seems to intend the laying out of an authority structure; nothing suggests he is placing Scripture above the authoritative ruling of a council; in fact, such an appeal would make no sense within the context of the letter at all. Instead, this statement is couched in the context of a series of letters traded back and forth between two theologians debating the nature of mistakes in the Bible, in translation, and the nature of biblical commentary. 

Rome's defenders, past and present, put forth an interesting argument. They limit Augustine's comment to his referring only to books: some books are infallible and others are not. Augustine is not addressing the limits of infallible authority! From their perspective, there are other infallible authorities: councils, popes and Tradition.   I'm willing to concede that if limited solely to the context of this letter from Augustine (and the other letters leading to this letter) Rome's defenders have a point... though they are assuming Augustine's infallible authority structure was the same as theirs... that is an unproven assumption from the context.  

What Rome's defenders often miss is that something being an infallible authority does not extinguish other lesser authorities. It's perfectly reasonable for Augustine to mention other authorities, be it a council, pope or tradition, and even agree with or obey them. This does not mean Augustine believed these other authorities were infallible. What would be useful information from Rome's defenders are explicit quotes from Augustine (similar to the one in question in this entry) in which he does claim councils, popes and Tradition are infallible along with the Scriptures. From the other side of the Tiber, we can produce quite a number of interesting Augustine quotes. For instance, can Ecumenical councils be corrected? According to Augustine, they can:

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary (ecumenical) Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? NPNF1: Vol. IV, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book II, Chapter 3, 427.

There are also a number of quotes from Augustine appealing to the infallible authority of the Scriptures. The burden of proof for Rome's defenders is to demonstrate their current version of infallible authority was the same as Augustine's. Did Luther miscite Augustine? Unless they can demonstrate Augustine had other infallible authorities, no, he didn't. Augustine had the same infallible authority as Luther!

Addendum
Luther mentions elsewhere this interpretation of Augustine was not his, but rather that taught by his former professor, Jodocus Trutfetter.  In a letter from May 9, 1518 to Trutfetter, Luther stated, 

I have learned from you first of all that one must believe only the canonical books, but judge all others, as St. Augustine, yes, Paul and John command. (source)

ex te primo omnium didici, solis canonicis libris deberi fidem, caeteris omnibus iudicium, ut B. Augustinus, imo Paulus et Iohannes praecipiunt. (WABr 1:109) 

Luther: Roman Catholicism is "truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith..."

Some of Rome's defenders claim Martin Luther believed Roman Catholicism is a part of the "true" church. Luther is said to have stated Roman Catholicism is "...truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith." The argument appears to be that if someone today thinks Roman Catholicism adheres to a false gospel (therefore not a part of the "true" church), then that person is going beyond what the original Reformer himself believed. According to these defenders of Rome, Luther was not an anti-catholic. If you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches a different gospel, you are going beyond Luther and can rightly be labeled an "anti-catholic."

I suspect those of you with even a cursory understanding of the Reformation may be puzzled by this argument. Didn't Luther believe in "faith alone," something explicitly contrary to Roman Catholicism? If Luther believed the Roman Catholic Church had the "true spirit, gospel, faith," why was there such a devastating theological conflict in the sixteenth century?  Wasn't Luther himself... anti-catholic? Let's take a look at this quote and find out.

Documentation
This quote comes from the treatise Concerning Rebaptism (1528) [LW 40:225-262; WA 26:144-174]. WA 26:147 states, 

Context
The overarching context concerns the Anabaptists and their doctrine of rebaptism. Curiously, this treatise was a reply to two pastors from a Roman Catholic diocese asking Luther what to do about the Anabaptists and rebaptism!  Check out Luther's introductory sarcasm: "...I have not, for my part, given much thought to these baptizers. But it serves you right as papists (I must call you such, as long as you are under your tyrants). You will not suffer the gospel, so you will have to endure these devil’s rebels..." (LW 40:230). Right from the beginning of this treatise, Luther says the "papists" will not suffer (tolerate) the Gospel!

To rightly understand Luther's comment that Roman Catholicism is "...truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith," keep a few things in mind. First, the statement occurs in the form of a sarcastic argument. Second, Luther is arguing that the anabaptists should not flatly reject everything found in the Roman Catholic Church. 

Luther's sarcastic argument comes in the form of his "appearing to be a papist again and flattering the pope" (LW 40:231).  He will "dissemble" his position.  To dissemble is to conceal one's true position. He does this by mentioning what he says the Lutherans and the Pope (papists) have in common. He lists a number of things: Scripture, baptism, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc. He even states, "I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. Shall I cease to make this pretense?"(LW 40:232). This is pure sarcasm. This is demonstrated next where the quote in question occurs:

Listen to what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians [2 Thess. 2:4]: “The Antichrist takes his seat in the temple of God.” If now the pope is (and I cannot believe otherwise) the veritable Antichrist, he will not sit or reign in the devil’s stall, but in the temple of God. No, he will not sit where there are only devils and unbelievers, or where no Christ or Christendom exist. For he is an Antichrist and must thus be among Christians. And since he is to sit and reign there it is necessary that there be Christians under him. God’s temple is not the description for a pile of stones, but for the holy Christendom (1 Cor. 3[:17]), in which he is to reign. The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures.

As a veritable Antichrist must conduct himself against Christendom, so the pope acts toward us: he persecutes us, curses us, bans us, pursues us, burns us, puts us to death. Christians need indeed to be truly baptized and right members of Christ if they are to win the victory in death over against the Antichrist. We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. But when we oppose and reject the pope it is because he does not keep to these treasures of Christendom which he has inherited from the apostles. Instead he makes additions of the devil and does not use these treasures for the improvement of the temple. Rather he works toward its destruction, in setting his commandments and ordinances above the ordinance of Christ. But Christ preserves his Christendom even in the midst of such destruction, just as he rescued Lot at Sodom, as St. Peter recounts (1 Pet. 2 [2 Pet. 2:6]). In fact both remain, the Antichrist sits in the temple of God through the action of the devil, while the temple still is and remains the temple of God through the power of Christ. [LW 40:232-233].

Luther goes on to say that Christendom is in the grip of the Antichrist and is torturing it (LW 40:233). He says those under the papacy are in grave danger of losing their souls (LW 40:233-234). If the Anabaptists were successful in removing the Sacraments from the papal church, what the papacy teaches does not save. If salvation came to those in the Roman church of Luther's day, it was despite the papacy. Luther goes on to point out that the papacy was a persecutor of the Gospel and Christians:

[The papacy / pope] is not a work of God. For he exercises no office to the welfare of his subjects. Indeed, he persecutes the gospel and Christians, let alone that he ought to be a teacher and guardian. He only teaches his filth and poison as human notions, discards the gospel, even persecutes it, though without avail. He makes a sacrifice out of the sacrament, faith out of works, work out of faith. He forbids marriage, [and issues prohibitions concerning] food, seasons, clothes, and places, tie perverts and abuses all Christian treasures to the injury of souls, as we have sufficiently proved elsewhere. Since on all three counts the papacy is deficient, we must judge it as a pure human invention, which is not worthy of belief and is in no way comparable to the institutions of parenthood and government [LW 40:238-239].

Luther goes on to state later: 

For where we see the work of God we should yield and believe in the same way as when we hear his Word, unless the plain Scripture tells us otherwise. I indeed am ready to let the papacy be considered as a work of God. But since Scripture is against it, I consider it as a work of God but not as a work of grace. It is a work of wrath from which to flee, as other plagues also are works of God, but works of wrath and displeasure [LW 40:266].

Conclusion

When Luther spoke of the Catholic Church, he had something much different in mind than most people do today. Luther made a sharp distinction between the catholic church and the Papacy. For Luther, the papacy was something from which one should flee. Luther's opinion appears to be in part that since the Roman church was given the scriptures, sacraments, the Gospel, etc., in that sense she is a Christian church. However, these elements function quite independently from the Roman magisterium. No analogy is perfect, but if I had to describe Luther's position I would do so like this: The Roman church is like a pristine ship that's been commandeered by pirates. The ship still functions, but its crew is in bondage to her captors. Some of the crew mutinies and joins the pirates. Others though, maintain allegiance to her rightful captain.

Sometimes we forget that our sharp distinction of Roman Catholic vs. Protestant was not as severe in the sixteenth century.  I can certainly understand why Luther, looking at the church of his day thought Protestants and the Roman church still had common ground, especially before the Council of Trent. On the other hand, Luther certainly considered those who defended papalism as apostates. As Luther's career went on, he became more hostile to papalism (see my entry here).

What are the ramifications of Luther's view for Protestants today? Luther considering the Roman church to be basically Christian in some respects is not the same thing as Luther considering today's zealous defenders of Rome to be Christian. If a zealous defender of Rome selectively uses Luther's words as a basis to promote inter-faith dialog between Romanism and Protestantism, Luther would consider such a person to be a papist, and in danger of hell.

I've been asked from time to time if I think Roman Catholics are Christians. It certainly is possible that God has preserved a remnant of believers within the Roman church despite Trent's anathematizing the Gospel.  On the other hand, of those who zealously defend Rome, I do not consider these people to be Christians.  I think such people are those who need to be either evangelized or refuted. Luther refers to Rome's defenders as a "breed of men condemned long ago, with corrupted minds [1 Tim. 6:5]" (LW 60:216). 

While I've been maligned as an "anti-catholic," this label has been given to me by those who are committed to defending the papacy... they are those I consider to be the true anti-catholics. Luther would agree. 

Addendum

Here is a helpful overview of Luther's treatise, Concerning Rebaptism. Notice, the Roman Catholic Church is not the main subject!

Luther Accepted the Reformed view of the Eucharist? It was not a Dividing issue?

 Here's a Luther quote sent to me recently, said to be Luther's positive response to the Reformed on the Eucharist:

"We have now heard your answer and confession, viz., that you believe and teach, that in the Holy Eucharist, the true body and true blood of Christ are given and received, and not alone bread and wine: also, that this giving and receiving take place truly and not in imagination. Although you take offense in regard to the wicked, yet you confess with St. Paul that the unworthy receive the Lord's body, where the institution and word of the Lord are not perverted: - about this we will not contend. Hence, as you are thus minded, we are one, and we acknowledge ~and receive you as our dear brethren in the Lord." Martin Luther, Said at Wittenberg Concord

First, let's take a look at this quote to find out where it comes from. Second, let's briefly look to see if this is an example of Lutherans and Reformed together.

Documentation
The person sending me this quote was gracious enough to provide meaningful documentation. This English text comes from James William Richard, Philip Melanchthon, the Protestant Preceptor of Germany, 1497-1560, 253. This source took the quote from Julius Kostlin, Martin Luther, Sein Leben und Seine Schriften II, 349. Unfortunately, Kostlin doesn't document what source he was using, other than referring to a report by Myconius. The text Kostlin may have used was Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften 20: 2111 (17:2555-2557).

This text is an account of the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. An odd sort of AI generated English translation can be found here. 

The Wittenberg Concord

Many historical accounts and scholarly opinions of the Wittenberg Concord exist online documenting the tedious details. Briefly, what you need to know: the parties involved were the Wittenberg theologians and those from upper Germany, represented primarily by Martin Bucer (of Strassburg).   A statement of agreement produced by the Concord on the Lord's Supper can be found here. 

Amy Nelson Burnett, trans., “The Wittenberg Concord 1536,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 25–26.

Bucer's side held the Lord's Supper was only for the spiritual nourishment of the soul and that it was not intended for the wicked. For the former issue, Luther wrote to Bucer a few years earlier: "We give thanks to God that we agree at least, as you write, insofar as we both confess that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Lord’s Supper, and that together with the Words [of Institution] they are distributed as food of the soul" (LW 50:7). Luther's contention was with the later point. In the same earlier letter, Luther wrote:

If, then, we confess that the body of Christ is truly distributed to the soul as food, and if there is no reason for us not to say that the body of Christ is also distributed in this way to the unbelieving soul, although the unbelieving soul does not receive it—just as the light of the sun is offered equally to the seeing and to the blind—I am wondering why it bothers you people to confess also that the body of Christ is offered, together with the bread, externally to the mouth of the believer and unbeliever alike; for through the concession that the body of Christ is distributed to individual souls it is, of course, necessarily granted that the body is present and can be distributed in many places at the same time. If this thought has not yet matured among you people, however, then I think this matter should be postponed and further divine grace should be awaited. I am unable to abandon this position, and if, as you write, you do not think that this position is demanded by Christ’s words, my conscience nevertheless holds that it is required. Therefore I am unable to confess with you that total unity exists between us, if I do not wish to harm my conscience, [or] rather, if I do not wish to sow among us the seed of far worse turmoil for our congregations, and of more dreadful future dissension among us (LW 50:7-8).

You can see in the Wittenberg Concord statement above, the issue appeared to have been settled. Without getting lost in the tedious details, both sides were pouring their own meaning into the category of people described as "unworthy." As Gordon A. Jensen explains:   

For the Lutherans, the “unworthy” covered all believers who were simul iustus et peccator. One’s piety does not determine Christ’s presence in the meal, but it could affect whether Christ’s body brought life or judgment. Bucer, however, considered the unworthy as a distinct third category. For him, the unworthy included only those who were struggling with their faith, not unbelievers. He thus insisted that Christ’s presence in the meal depended on the faith of the recipient, while the Lutherans focused on the one who gave the sacrament, taking an objective approach to the sacrament. The Word of forgiveness and grace comes from outside of the communicant (extra nos), in the person of Christ, present in the bread.

The issue of contention for Bucer was Christ being physically present in the elements even if they were received by a faithless person. For Bucer, an ungodly person is simply ingesting bread and wine. His emphasis was to avoid Romanism. For the Lutherans, "If the validity of the sacrament depended on the faith of the recipient, then it became a works-righteousness, leading to self-justification" (Jensen, 102).

Conclusion

It appears to me the two sides in essence, agreed to disagree, perhaps while thinking they both agreed? You'll find ample statements though that this unity was not maintained. Even the source which began this entry stated, "The Wittenberg Concord, as it is known in history, failed to effect a lasting union...".

Lutherans and Reformed together? As far as the statement goes, I would be keener on it if the statement actually explained the areas of disagreement more carefully, yet agreed to disagree for the sake of unity. 

Spurious Luther Quote: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin..."

 

This image above was pulled off Facebook. In the first quote, Luther supposedly said,  

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." -Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

If you're thinking, "that really doesn't sound like Luther," then kudos to you for your discernment skills! This was one of the first weird Roman Catholic Luther quotes I investigated. It just didn't sound right. Eventually I compiled this entry documenting my journey with this quote. Since the quote still circulates online, here's what you need to know:

1. Where does the quote come from? The English version of this quote probably comes from a translation of Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther, IV. Whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally cut-and-pasted it from the book to the Internet neglected to mention Grisar states, 

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther's approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in the later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear. 

and also: 

As Luther's intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

2. Who deleted this quote? Luther did, or an editor authorized by Luther.

3. Why did Luther delete this quote? The sermon collection it appeared in was put together by Stephen Roth. Roth actually added in material not from Luther. Luther was highly displeased with what Roth put together. 

4. Did Luther write this quote? He probably did not. The editors of Luther's Works point out: 

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception... (LW 58:434-435, fn. 10).

Conclusion
It amazes me that this quote still circulates as Roman Catholic propaganda on the Internet. We've been given this incredible ability to have immediate information, yet, Roman Catholic propagandists don't do the basic work of a looking up a quote before splattering it all over the Internet. These are the same people that claim reading the church fathers will make one become Roman Catholic!