Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

I've been working through obscure Luther quotes bneing used by a Roman Catholic apologist. Here's another:

Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But . . . they preach not the truth . . . When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. (in Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145)

He uses this quote as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." In this rare instance, he actually did the work of locating the quote via a blog entry: Martin Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists" .

The quote is from the Table Talk. There are different versions of the quote that all say roughly the same thing:

Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. Wickliffe and Huss assailed the immoral conduct of papists; but I chiefly oppose and resist their doctrine; I affirm roundly and plainly, that they preach not the truth. To this am I called; I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife to its throat. When I can show that the papist's doctrine is false, which I have shown, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. For when the word remains pure, the manner of life, though something therein be amiss, will be pure also. The pope has taken away the pure word and doctrine, and brought in another word and doctrine, which he has hanged upon the church. I shook all Popedom with this one point, that I teach uprightly, and mix up nothing else. We must press the doctrine onwards, for that breaks the neck of fhe pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured the pope, that he would be a king that would do according to his own will, that is, would regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but say roundly: Thus and thus will I have it. For the pope derives his institution neither from divine nor from human right; but is a self-chosen human creature and intrader. Therefore the pope must needs confess, that he governs neither by divine nor human command. Daniel calls him a god, Maosim; he had almost spoken it plainly out, and said Mass, which word is written, Deut. xxvi. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and uses nearly his words, where he says: The son of perdition will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, &c., 2 Thes. ii. [source]

Luther's Opposition to the Popish Doctrine.
" The manner of life," said Luther, " is as evil among us as among the Papists; wherefore we strive not with them by reason of the manner of life, but for and about the doctrine. Wickliffe and Huss opposed and assaulted the manner of life and conversation in Popedom. But I (chiefly) do oppose and resist their doctrine : I affirm, soundly and plainly, that they teach not aright;—thereunto am I called. I take the goose by the neck," said Luther, " and set the knife to the throat. When I can maintain that the Pope's doctrine is false (which I have proved and maintained), then will I easily prove that their manner of life is evil. The Pope hath taken away the pure word and doctrine, and hath brought another word and doctrine, and hanged the same upon the church. I startled whole Popedom only with this one point, in that I teach uprightly, and meddle with nothing else. We must press upon the doctrine, for that breaketh the neck of the Pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured out the Pope, that he will be such a king as shall do according to his will; that is, he will regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but will, short and roundly, say, ' Thus and thus will I have it.' For the Pope is instituted and ordained neither by divine or human right; but is a self-chosen human creature, who hath intruded himself. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and useth nearly his words, where he saith, ' And he will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.' " 2 Thess. ii. [source]

No. 624: The Central Issue Is Doctrine, Not Life Fall, 1533
“Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don’t fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wycliffe and Huss didn’t know this and attacked [the papacy] for its life. I don’t scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked—this has never before happened. This is my calling. Others have censured only life, but to treat doctrine is to strike at the most sensitive point, for surely the government and the ministry of the papists are bad. Once we’ve asserted this, it’s easy to say and declare that the life is also bad. “When the Word remains pure, then the life (even if there is something lacking in it) can be molded properly. Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about. It’s the teaching that breaks the pope’s neck. Therefore Daniel pictured the pope rightly when he stated that there will be a kingdom in which the king will act according to his will, that he will pay attention to neither civil nor spiritual matters but will simply say, ‘I want that,’ without offering any reason, even a natural one. When you ask, ‘Is the papacy established by natural, divine, or human right?’ you get the answer, ‘No, it is a worship of the will.’ So the pope must say, ‘Nobody has commanded us.’ It is simply a religion of free will. Daniel calls God a god of ‘maozim’—I almost said ‘masses.’ ” [LW 54:110]

The point of course being in made, in whichever translation one uses, is that Luther was concerned with proving Romanist doctrine wrong. Anyone can point at anyone and find sin or fault, but this doesn't necessarily mean what they believe is false. If it did, each time a Christian sins, it would serve as proof that Christianity was false. In fact, I tend to stay away from arguing against Romanism by pointing to the sins of priests, etc. I'd much rather get to the root issue: a faulty interpretation of the Bible and history.

Does this quote prove Luther was in "agony" over "the state of early Protestantism"? No, it doesn't. In fact, Luther's comment applies well to the particular assaults made by Armstrong: he attacks way of life as if this is a valid argument against doctrine.

In his blog entry, the Catholic apologist makes a big deal over LW's translation "Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists." He sees this as "translation bias." That is, the translators of LW should have used the word "evil." Keep in mind, the Catholic apologist isn't a translator, so he has no idea if the translation is faulty. On the other hand, the point is clear in either translation. The contrast is between attacking doctrine or attacking way of life. Luther saw the later as not as beneficial as the former. The Catholic apologist though needs to have the word "evil", because he's attacking way of life. "Bad" isn't bad enough.