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. 

Fake 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.

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, thus provoking a new edition, hence the deletion. 

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! 

Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”?

I came across an interesting John Calvin article written by one of the apologists from Catholic Answers: Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”. Let's take a look at their first surprising fact: "Calvin Implicitly Concedes that the Deuterocanon Supports Catholic Teachings."

Quoting a section from Calvin's Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto), the author explains Calvin believed the Apocryphal books clearly taught: purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms. Calvin of course, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. Despite this rejection, Rome's defender states Calvin realized the clarity of these doctrine in the Apocrypha. He states, "John Calvin: Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants." Therefore, this implies:

...if Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then we’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on. That’s pretty huge.

Let's take a closer look at Calvin's text to see if he admits the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) validates Rome's unique doctrines. I contend that the context demonstrates no such thing. Rather, Calvin was of the opinion that the Papacy would read into any portion of the Bible (canonical or not) to make it say what they wanted it to say. The passage below from Calvin is lengthy, and only slightly edited. 

Context

First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others... Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge...for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...

...they devise a most excellent remedy, when they adjudge to themselves the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Who can now imagine any improvidence in them? By one article they have obtained the means of proving what they please out of Scripture, and escaping from every passage that might be urged against them. If Confession is to be proved, they are ready with — “Show yourselves to the priests.” If it be asked, Whether recourse should be had to the intercession of the dead? the passage will immediately occur, “Turn to some one of the saints;” also, “For this every holy man will pray to thee.” Nor will Purgatory be left without a sure foundation, for it is written, “He shall not come out thence till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, anything may be made of anything! When they formerly produced such passages they made themselves ridiculous even to children. Now, if credit is given them, the right of authorized interpretation will remove every doubt. For what passage can be objected to them so clear and strong that they shall not evade it? Any kind of quibble will at once relieve them from difficulty. Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall — Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. If postulates of this kind were given to mathematicians, they would not only make an ell an inch, but prove a mile shorter than an ell, till they had thrown everything into confusion.

What, then, are we to do with this victorious and now, as it were, triumphal Session? Just stand and let the smoke clear away. In regard to Traditions, I am aware that not unfrequent mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it. They only say that certain customs were received from the Apostles. Some of them appear to have that origin, but others are unworthy of it. These touch only upon a few points, and such as might be tolerated. But now we are called to believe, that whatever the Romanists are pleased to obtrude upon us, flowed by tradition from the Apostles; and so shameless are they, that without observing any distinction, they bring into this class things which crept in not long ago, during the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa, (unwritten,) than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, “Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.”

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit! [source]

Conclusion

Granted, Calvin's main argument against the Apocrypha rests on the fact of its spurious canonicity in church history; but the context demonstrates Calvin thought the Council of Trent was interpreting the passages of the Bible the way it needed to in order to substantiate their unique doctrines. Why would Calvin be admitting the Deuterocanon proved Trent's unique doctrines, and then go on to say that Trent treated the text of the Bible like a wax nose ("Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes") bending a passage any way it wanted to? It isn't consistent. 

But maybe Calvin was inconsistent... maybe he really did think the Apocrypha taught purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms, etc.? Let's take one example, Purgatory, by popping over to Calvin's magnum opus (and that which ultimately defines his theology): The Institutes of Christian Religion. There we find Calvin going through all the popular Roman Catholic Biblical proof texts for purgatory. In his treatment of 2 Maccabees 12, Calvin writes of what the passage is actually addressing... and it isn't Rome's doctrine of purgatory:

...[T]he piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem [2 Macc. 12:43]. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased. [Institutes III.5.8].

While Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, he did not write commentaries on the Apocrypha.  Therefore, extracting out Calvin's interpretations of passages from the Apocrypha will be slim. What we find though in the rare instance in which Calvin exegetes an Apocryphal passage, he denies Trent's interpretation.  Thus, the first "surprising fact about John Calvin and the Apocrypha" turns out not to be a fact, and therefore not surprising.

Addendum

Many years ago, I picked up a "four views" book on hell. The person defending the Roman Catholic view ("The Purgatorial view") was Zachary J. Hayes. As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Hayes says modern Roman Catholic exegetes conclude:  

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

Catholic or Roman Catholic? Microaggression?

Back in 2013 I received an "infraction" from a Catholic Answers moderator for using the phrases, "Roman church" and "Joining Rome":

"Although [your]post does not reach the level of contempt for Catholicism, it does show a general disrespect... I would highly suggest you change your tone to be in accordance with CAF rules in the future."

I was having a casual interaction with a Roman Catholic participant (details here). You can see the interaction and how innocuous it was... in fact I was actually defending Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples! I was told, "The terms 'Roman church' and 'joining Rome' are highly offensive. What Staples joined was the Catholic Church." Using a Catholic Answers web page link I responded:

"Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite."

My Roman Catholic friend responded, 

Nice dodge. You didn't say "Roman Rite." You said "Roman church" and "joining Rome." You're not talking to a cradle Catholic whose never darkened the door of a Protestant church. I am very much aware of the code words you use and why you use them.

And also:

All one has to do is read your blog to see your true feelings and motivations for coming here. You're not fooling anyone.

Conclusion

Upon reflecting on this old encounter, it occurred to me that we have since been inundated by the concept of language microaggression. Here I was back in 2013, being accused of microaggression!

Over the years I've been conflicted with how exactly to refer to those folks over on the other side of the Tiber River. With this blog, I began by simply referring to them as "Catholic." Then, I realized they could potentially make a big deal if I forgot to capitalize the "C." Then I went through a period in which I realized... as much as they make a claim to it, they do not own the word "catholic."  This was in part due to my reading of Luther and reciting the Apostles Creed each week at church. Luther made a strong distinction between the "papists" and the church. He was vigorously against those people defending the Papacy. Embracing Luther's distinction, for many years I've used "defenders of Rome" (which I think Luther would approve of). 

I'm not attempting to insult anyone on the other side of the Tiber River. If we want to play the "my feeling are hurt" game, my feelings are hurt every time they insist the Roman Catholic church is the true church and I should be under the authority of the papacy. So as part of my continual disdain for politically correct language and the accusation of microaggression, you folks that are aligned with the Papacy are: defenders of the Papacy that resides in Rome, and my shorthand for that is: defenders of Rome.  This does not mean I hate you or look down upon you or think you are stupid. Rather, as the Apostles Creed states, I believe in the holy catholic church, and as Luther is purported to have stated, "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

Addendum 

Here was me crossing the Tiber, first by taxi, then by foot:

 

Which Catholic is Correct About Martin Luther?

This picture was taken from a recent Facebook discussion group. The picture was augmented with a long diatribe explaining how awful Luther was, from a Catholic perspective. Here was my response:

What you've provided is your personal opinion about Martin Luther. If I'm going to pick personal Catholic opinions, I think an actual Pope's opinion is more relevant than yours:

In 2016 Pope Francis said that Luther was part of a movement giving “greater centrality to Sacred Scripture in the Church’s life.”

Pope Francis has also said: “The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart from God we can do nothing. ‘How can I get a propitious God?’ This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the concept ‘by grace alone’, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.”

Check out this Catholic response: 

"The pope is only infallible when it comes to dogma and only when he sits on the chair of authority."

Wow, that is a complete disconnect! I never mentioned anything about papal infallibility. My point was to highlight how this Catholic Facebook participant and Pope Francis have drastically different personal opinions about Luther. Why should I accept what some random person on the Internet claims and not the opinion of a Pope? 

When you're interacting with Roman Catholics about Martin Luther, you are interacting with their personal opinions about Martin Luther. 

Luther: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic article that "documents" the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included:

Mary the Mother of God. Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."[Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107].

If you're puzzled as to why this quote is supposed to be shocking to Protestant eyes, it means you're probably not a garden variety fundamentalist that has theological spasms whenever you come upon the phrase "Mother of God." Luther used this phrase occasionally, but did not use it as a term of invocation or worship. When he used it, it was either an expression of the common vernacular of the sixteenth century, a term of respect for her as someone profoundly used by God in a significant way, or it was primarily to say something about Jesus, not Mary. The context below will bear this out. 

Documentation

As is often the case with Roman Catholic propaganda, the documentation is spurious. Someone mixed together the English and German / Latin editions of Luther's writings. This quote isn't from WA 24 in the Weimar edition, it's from volume 24 of the English edition. 

The origin of this quote may be from a 1992 Catholic Answers article by Father Mateo, CRI's Attack on Mary: Part 1. The article states, 

Throughout his life Luther used and defended Mary’s title “Mother of God” against all comers. “She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”(Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia), vol. 24, 107.) (I wonder about CRI’s consistent failure throughout to mention Protestant sources in praise of Mary.)

It's possible Father Mateo actually mined out this quote. It looks like someone took Mateo's words, changed them a little bit, adding Weimar to the documentation.

Context
We say of every human being that he eats, drinks, digests, sleeps, wakes, walks, stands, works, etc., although the soul participates in none of these activities, but only the body. And yet this is said of the entire person, who has a body and a soul. For it is one person, by reason not only of the body but of both the body and the soul. Again, we say that man thinks, deliberates, and learns. According to his reason or soul, he can become a teacher or master, a judge, councilor, or ruler. Neither the body nor any one of its members gives him this competence. And yet we say: “He has a clever head; he is sensible, learned, eloquent, artistic.” Thus it is said of a woman that a mother carries, bears, and suckles a child, although it is not her soul but only her body that makes her a mother. And still we ascribe this to the entire woman. Or if someone strikes a person on the head, we say: “He has struck Hans or Greta.” Or if a member of the body is injured or wounded, we think of the whole person as being wounded.

I am using these simple illustrations to demonstrate how two distinct natures must be differentiated in the Person of Christ and yet how this still leaves the Person a whole and undivided entity. Whatever Christ says and does, both God and man say and do; yet each word and action is in accord with the one or the other nature. He who observes this distinction is safe and on the right path. He will not be led astray by the erroneous ideas of heretics, ideas which come into being solely because they do not properly join what belongs together and is united, or because they do not properly separate and distinguish what must be distinguished.

Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life." (LW 24:106-107).

Conclusion
Here, Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos (Mother of God) when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. I and conservative Protestant theology would agree with him.  This quote may be a "shocker" to fundamentalist types, but not to the Lutheran or Reformed. Notice that Luther mentions the Nestorians. I guess if Roman Catholic apologists are interacting with modern Nestorians that are fond of Luther, using this Luther quote could be useful.

When Rome's defenders bring up the phrase, "Mother of God," they have gone beyond what Luther usually means by it, attaching excessive veneration. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise to Mary. If you agree to use this term in dialog with a Roman Catholic apologist, use it like Luther did. Use it to say something about Jesus Christ.   

Catholics Botch Another Luther Quote: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins"

 Here's one from Facebook: 

This is screen shot is from a Facebook Reel. The speaker states, 

"Even Martin Luther... the father of the Protestant Reformation, he believed in the Immaculate Conception... here's a quote from him, 'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and born the Lord Jesus'... Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception. I did not know that as a Protestant growing up, when I found that out it rocked my world."

The Luther quote being used is a fine example of how poorly some of Rome's defenders are when it comes to going deep into history. I debunked this back in 2010 with a blog entry titled with this exact quote. Even if this defender of Rome avoided this blog, he could have easily located the context to see the quote is being grossly taken out of context. Luther isn't affirming the immaculate Conception, at all. 

Documentation
The speaker did not document the quote. Back when I explored this quote in 2010, it was popular for Rome's defenders to claim the quote was from a 1544 sermon. This year is important to them because it would mean Luther affirmed the Immaculate conception shortly before he died (1546). However, the sermon actually dates back to the early 1530's (1532,1533, or possibly 1534).  They get the date wrong because the sermon the quote comes from was from a 1544 edition of Luther's House Postil (WA 52). The quote can be found in WA 52:39.

 There are a few different English translations of the sermon available. It is entitled, "First Sermon for Christmas" or "Holy Christmas Day." I've chosen this accessible online version for anyone wishing to read the entire sermon in English.

Context

In the papacy they used to tell a story: The devil once came to church to mass, and when in the confession of the Christian faith, which they called the Patrem, they sang the words: "Et homo factum est"— the Son of God was made man—and the people did not kneel down but stood, he struck one on the mouth, rebuked him and said: You ruffian, are you not ashamed that you stand here like a stock, and do not fall down for joy? If the Son of God had become our brother, like yours, we would not know what to do for joy.

I do not think that this is true; for the devil is too decided in his enmity to us and the Lord Jesus; but this is true, that he who conceived this story had the right spirit, and well understood how great an honor was conferred upon us in that the Son of God became man; not like Eve nor Adam, who was made of the earth; but He is still more nearly related to us, since He was born of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, like other men, except that the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit. In other respects He is like unto us, and a natural Son of a woman.

Adam and Eve were not born, but created. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and the woman of his rib. How much nearer is Christ to us than Eve to her husband Adam, since He is truly our flesh and blood. Such honor we should highly esteem and well take to heart, that the Son of God became flesh, and that there is no difference at all between His and our flesh, only that His flesh is without sin. For He was so conceived of the Holy Ghost, and God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus.  Aside from this, in all other respects, He was like other men; He ate, drank, was hungry, thirsty, cold like other men. Such and similar natural infirmities, which have descended upon us by reason of sin, He, who was without sin, bore and had like unto us, as St. Paul says: "He was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man." [source]

Alternate English translation:

You see, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and God so filled the flesh, body, and soul of the Virgin Mary with the Holy Spirit in such a way, that no sin was present in her conception and carrying of the Lord Jesus (Klug (ed.), The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Baker books, 2000), 135.

Conclusion
In context, is Luther stating he believed Mary was conceived without sin... or is the subject the conception of Christ and Mary's purification at that event? The later. 

I have no idea who the speaker in the Facebook Reel is. If anyone knows who he is, please let me know...  I would love to have the pleasure of un-rocking his world.

Fabricated Quote? Did Hitler Say Luther was a Great Man That Wanted to Destroy the Jews?

Disclaimer: this blog entry does not support antisemitism in any form. The author of this blog post believes Luther did make harsh antisemitic comments. Also, in citing Hitler, the citations below are not intended to support Hitler or Naziism, but rather to demonstrate those comments linking Luther to Hitler are fabricated.

Here's a snippet that's circulated the Internet for many years linking Luther directly to Hitler, said to prove Luther was the main inspiration of Hitler's horrific murdering of the Jews:

In 1924 at a Christian gathering in Berlin, Adolf Hitler, a professed Christian, stood before thousands of Christians, and with a standing ovation said:"I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on." Hitler followed to the letter, Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews. Martin Luther preached his last sermon avidly against the Jews and died four days later. Indeed, Nazi leader Striker at his Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say."

We'll see that none of the Hitler quotes included above are entirely legitimate in the context in which they are placed. One of them is loosely a statement from Mein Kampf, another comes from an unverifiable second-hand recollection, and a few of the sentences are possible fabrications. Let's take a closer look.

 
Documentation

If the entirety of this quote is documented at all, it often links back to an article by Phyllis Petty, “Christian Hatred and Persecution of the Jews.” I located a version of this article from 2004. This version includes no documentation but does include a link to what appears to be an even earlier version. This version includes sparse documentation, noting at the very end of this paragraph, "Hocking, David, Why Jews Don't Become Christians, tape 1997." I was unable to locate this old tape. It would not surprise me if the entire content was lifted from a transcription of this tape. As an aside, this tape appears to be from the same pastor caught up in a scandal in the early 1990's.

There are at least two blaring errors present. First, I checked a number of collections documenting Hitler's speeches, and none of them mention a speech by him in Berlin in 1924. This means I could locate no proof that Hitler stood "before thousands of Christians" "with a standing ovation" in Berlin in 1924 saying what the quote purports. Second, I could locate only one instance of Hitler referencing Luther in any of his speeches, and it was a passing comment, had nothing to do with Jews, completely different from what's purported above.

The Hitler quotes appear to be at least two separate statements joined together. First: 

"I believe that today I am acting in accordance with the will of Almighty God. As I announce the most important work that Christians could undertake and that is to be against the Jews and get rid of them once and for all. We are doing the work of the Lord and let's get on with it." 

This sentence is so strongly similar to a passage from Mein Kampf, it must have been taken from it: "Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." 

 The second quote:

Hitler stated, "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life. Luther was a great man. He was a giant. Within one blow he heralded the coming of the new dawn and the new age. He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on."

I could locate no meaningful documentation for "Martin Luther has been the greatest encouragement of my life." If in fact Hitler said this, one would think scholars would have been all over it. They are not. I could locate no significant (or insignificant!) historian mentioning it. Weird. 

The second and third sentences are almost legitimate, almost. They also do not come from a speech, nor are they verifiable words written by Hitler. They come from a second-hand comment recorded by Dietrich Eckart found in his posthumous work Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: Dialogue Between Hitler and Me (Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin: Zwiegespräch zwischen Hitler und mir), 35-36. Scholars are divided as to whether this book accurately represents the information contained as originating from Hitler. 

The final sentence "He saw clearly that the Jews need to be destroyed and we're only beginning to see that we need to carry this work on" appears to be a complete fabrication. I could not locate any meaningful source document for this sentence.

Serving as the context below, we will use the second-hand comment attributed to Hitler recorded by Dietrich Eckart found in his posthumous work Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin: Zwiegespräch zwischen Hitler und mir, 35-36. 

Context

Nevertheless, Luther was a great man, a giant. With a shock which pierced the twilight he saw the Jews as we have only begun to see them today. But, unfortunately, too late, and even then not there, where he had done the most damage—in Christianity. Oh, had he only seen them there; had he only seen them in his youth! Then he would not have attacked Catholicism, but, rather, the Jews behind it! Instead of a wholesale condemnation of the Church, he would have let his whole, passionate impetus fall on the true villains. Instead of glorifying the Old Testament, he would have branded it as the arsenal of the Antichrist. And the Jew—the Jew would have stood there in his abominable nakedness, as an eternal warning. 

He would have been obliged to get out of the Church, out of society, out of the halls of the princes, out of the castles of the knights and the houses of the citizens. For Luther had the strength and the courage and the overpowering will. It would never have come to the splitting of the Church or to the war which, in accordance with the wishes of the Hebrews, spilled Aryan blood in torrents for thirty long years.  (source)

German text:

Luther war ein großer Mann, ein Riese. Mit einem Ruck durchbrach der die Dämmerung; sah er den Juden, wie wir ihn erst heute zu sehen beginnen, Nur leider zu spät, und auch dann noch nicht da, wo er mit am schädlichsten wirkt: im Christentum, Ach, hätte er ihn da gesehen, in der Jugend gesehen! Nicht den Katholizismus hätte er angegriffen, sondern den Juden dahinter! Statt die Kirche in Bausch und Bogen zu verwerfen, hätte er seine ganze leidenschaftliche Wucht auf die wahren 'Dunkelmänner' fallen lassen. Statt das Alte Testament zu verklären, hätte er es als die Rüstkammer des Antichristen gebrandmarkt. Und der Jude, der Jude wäre in seiner scheußlichen Nacktheit dagestanden, zur ewigen Warnung.

Aus der Kirche hätte er herausmüssen, aus der Gesellschaft, aus den Hallen der Fürsten, aus den Burgen der Ritter, aus den Häusern der Bürgen Denn Luther hatte die Kraft und den Mut und den hinreißenden Willen, Nie wäre es zur Kirchenspaltung gekommen, nie zu dem Krieg, der nach Wunsch der Hebräer dreissig Jahre lang arisches Blut in Strömen vergoß.

Conclusion
The basic errors of the Hitler quote are described above in the documentation. There are other errors though in this quote. It purports, "Hitler followed to the letter, Luther's treatise on how to exterminate the Jews." But... Luther never said to exterminate the Jews. In fact, in his writing, On the Jews and Their Lies, he states not to "harm their persons": "They should not curse them or harm their persons" (LW 47:274). While Luther may be acquitted from advocating murder, he is not vindicated for his antisemitism later in his life. He did make sinful comments against the Jews, some of which did advocate violence and oppression.

The quote also purports, "Martin Luther preached his last sermon avidly against the Jews and died four days later." Luther's last sermon was on February 15, 1546. He died February 18. That's three days not four. The last sermon was not preached against the Jews (see LW 51:383-392). What appears be being referred to is an written addendum that was probably attached to his final sermon preached at Eisleben, February 15, 1546. True, this addendum does speak about the Jews, but it says much more than being "avidly" against the Jews. Luther expressed his desire that Jews should be treated in a "Christian manner" offering them the "Christian faith" to "receive the Messiah" and to "invite them to the Messiah and be baptized" to "exercise Christian love toward them and pray for them to convert and receive the Lord" (LW 58:458-459). However, even in this addendum, he considered the Jews to be blasphemers and enemies that should be driven away if they do not convert. What he gave with one hand, he took away with the other. 

The quote also states, "Indeed, Nazi leader Striker at his Nuremberg trial stated, "I have never said anything that Martin Luther did not say." A quick Google search of this quote seems to link back to all the same pages that contain the entirety of this quote we've been scrutinizing above. This quote may be a rendering of the following:

DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...

If this is where this quote was taken from, Streicher has misread Luther. Luther never said to "destroy" the Jews. 

Addendum

This blog post has a few loose ends. I've reached out to the ministry of David Hocking to get a copy of his 1997 tape, Why Jews Don't Become Christians, with no response. I've also attempted to contact Phyllis Petty, the author of “Christian Hatred and Persecution of the Jews.” The e-mail I sent her was returned undelivered (her listed e-mail is over 20 years old). My theory of this entire quote is that it is probably a transcript of what David Hocking said on his tape, put on the Internet unverified by Phyllis Petty. I welcome anyone else to delve into this lengthy quote and verify it. While I can maneuver my way around the primary sources of Luther's writings, I'm not as fluent in World War II documentation. 

Roman Catholics Botch Another Luther quote: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin...Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

It's laughable: Roman Catholic apologists sometimes struggle to even quote Martin Luther correctly when he's on their side! Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic article that "documents" the Mariology of the Reformers. The article is sometimes called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." Here is a Martin Luther quote that's usually included:

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we Believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, this quote is still bogus... partly in its documentation and partly in its English rendering. What it amounts to is a Roman Catholic scholar utilized another Roman Catholic scholar without checking the references, and then one of Rome's defenders did their typical cut-and-paste propaganda, making two quotes (from two different sources) one quote, and now this deceptive citation is splattered all over the Internet. 

Documentation
Please resist the temptation to skip over the tedium of documentation, for it will demonstrate how poorly some Roman Catholic apologists can handle primary sources when it comes to Luther's view of Mary.  

The reference is partly spurious. Whoever put it together combined the Weimar (not "Weimer") edition of Luther's works (German and Latin) and then added in a mention of the English edition. In the English edition there is no such quote in volume 11 on pages 319-320. Nor is there a page 510 in volume 6 of the English version.  "Pelikan" and "Concordia" had nothing to do with either of these volumes of the Weimar edition. 

The reference to the first sentence should simply be to WA 11:319-320. "V.6 p.510" refers to the second sentence ("Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact"). That quote comes from WA 6:510.

The reason both these references were put together is that whichever Roman Catholic apologist first put this quote online probably utilized Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Notice, O'Carroll uses the same English rendering:

Likewise, L. was true to Catholic tradition on the virginity. “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.” “Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319-320; WA 6,510].

But wait.... O'Carroll isn't directly quoting WA 11 or WA 6! He's quoting another Roman Catholic author, Thomas O'Meara. O'Carroll refers to O'Meara in a nearby reference as a general source for Luther's Mariology. O'Meara uses the same English rendering and documentation:

It is an article of faith that Mary is the mother of the Lord and still a virgin.

Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. [WA 11, 319, 320; WA 6, 510].

O'Meara claimed to be providing a "summary in Luther's own words." Is he summarizing Luther "in his own words" but not directly quoting him? It appears so... maybe this is why nowhere on pages 319-320 does Luther say, "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin."  The closest thing to it is on page 320:

This text reads in English, "But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin" (LW 45:206). If this is the text O'Meara is summarizing, he's done a poor job. 

O'Meara's English rendering of the second quote is closer to the Latin original but still problematic. WA 6:510 states,

O'Meara gave this sentence a little more "umph" by summarizing Luther as saying "Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Rather, the quote reads, "Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother" (WA 36:32).

The context of both sentences are fascinating. Notice below what Rome's defenders leave out in the context of the first sentence: "Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." Notice with the second sentence, the context has nothing to do with the virginity of Mary. She's used as a passing rhetorical argument concerning transubstantiation. 

Contexts

Sentence #1

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin (LW 45:205-206).

Sentence #2

Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their “forms or accidents”? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would still not be right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.

Moreover, the church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years. During this time many things have been wrongly defined, as for example, that the divine essence is neither begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body. These and like assertions are made without any reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambrai himself admits.

Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that the bread and wine should not be really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them. Besides, there is the same danger in the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. If they do not worship the accidents, but the Christ hidden under them, why should they worship the [substance of the] bread, which they do not see?

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread?

What will they reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulchre, through which he went in and out without disturbing them (LW 36:31-32).

Conclusion

While Luther believed in the perpetual virginity, this quote has been botched by Rome's defenders in a number of ways:

1. As I've demonstrated, the reference popularly used online was the result of a sloppy confusing cut-and-paste (from a secondary source) melding together the German / Latin by including a mention of the English edition. 

2. This quote is two separate sentences from two different treatises, joined together for the sake of propaganda.

3. In context, Luther does not say perpetual virginity is an "article of faith that Mary is mother of the Lord," or "we believe." These phrases appear to be the renderings of Roman Catholic author Thomas O'Meara, summarizing Luther. Hence, the first sentence is not a quote from Luther and the second sentence includes a mistranslation. 

4. While the context of the first sentence addresses perpetual virginity, the context of the second sentence does not; Luther is using it to make a rhetorical argument about transubstantiation. 

5. Rome's defenders do not mention in their propaganda treatments of Luther's Mariology that from the very context one of these sentences is alleged to come from, Luther refers to such defenders as "perverse lauders of the mother of God" and "stupid idolaters" that "extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her." They tend to leave such comments out to make it look like they are on the same page as Luther. They are not.

Some Protestants may be bemused that Luther accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. Don't be. I realize Rome's defenders love to point it out. If you are in a discussion with a Roman Catholic apologist and they bring it up, point out the irony: they believe Luther was wrong about almost everything, a diabolical heretic... unless the subject is Mary... then everyone should listen to him.

During the Reformation period, Mariolatry was out of control, especially early on. it does not surprise me at all that the early Reformers maintained some of it, while later generations did not. My contention is they embraced the error of perpetual virginity because they were engulfed in a world of excessive Mariolatry, caused by those Luther referred to as, "papists." While the early Reformers did not shed all of it during their lifetimes, those that came after them eventually did.  The early Reformers were transitional. In all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity with the period which preceded it and comes after it. It does not surprise me at all they retained certain things later generations would reject. They were in a unique place in history, a place drenched in obsessive Mariolatry infecting folk piety and elite belief.

Also ask Rome's defenders why they allow themselves the magic formula of "development of doctrine" but deny it to the early Reformers and later generations of Protestants. For instance, it is obvious Luther's Mariology was more pronounced than Calvin's (Calvin's career overlapped with Luther but significantly went on after Luther's death). While Luther would cling to Mary as perpetually virgin, Calvin takes an almost agnostic view, barely mentioning it, and when he does, he downplays it (it's interesting that Rome's defenders perpetually quote the same sparse quotes from Calvin). The Protestant theologians which came after Calvin typically continue to move away from perpetual virginity (with a few exceptions).

Addendum: Must Lutherans believe the perpetual virginity of Mary is an article of faith?

But what about Luther saying Mary's perpetual virginity is an article of faith? Besides the fact that he didn't say it at least in the quote under scrutiny in this entry, isn't it part of the official Lutheran Book of Concord? Here's an interesting tidbit from the WELS web entry, Subscribing to the Lutheran Confessions in which they respond to the question, "The confessions speak of Mary as Semper Virgo (always-virgin) in the Smalcald Articles [24]. What defense do we have of this? Can I be a called worker if I don't agree with this portion of the Book of Concord?" They answer in part:

The Latin refers to Mary as pure, holy, and always-virgin. It is noteworthy that the German simply refers to the pure, holy Virgin Mary. If the confession was concerned to assert perpetual virginity for Mary, the author of the German version bungled the job totally because no reference to always-virgin appears in the German. It seems that the Latin sempervirgine was simply a stock phrase for describing the virginity of Mary. The article is not concerned to make any assertion about Mary beyond the fact that she bore a child without any participation by a human father.

And also:

Scripture makes no assertion that Jesus was born without the normal physical effects of childbirth on the body of his mother. It makes no assertion that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus. Already in the ancient church there were three theories about Jesus’ brothers and sisters who are mentioned in the gospels. One theory is that these were actually Jesus’ cousins. Another is that these were children of Joseph, whose first wife had died before he married Mary. Both of these theories were motivated at least in part by the desire to preserve Mary’s virginity even after Christ’s birth. There is no direct evidence to support them in Scripture. The third idea is that these ‘brothers’ were children of Mary and Joseph born in a natural way after Christ’s birth. This third view is the most natural understanding of the passages in which Jesus, Mary, and these brothers and sisters appear together. See, for example, Matthew 12:46 and 13:55. Luther and many of his contemporaries seem to have retained the opinion that Mary had no other children besides Jesus, but most recent Lutheran theologians lean toward the third view. In the quotation from his ‘Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper’ which is cited in FC, TD, VII, Luther refers to the belief that Mary bore Jesus ‘with a closed womb’ as a possibility believed by some. Pieper treats both matters as open questions (III, p. 307-309). Our subscription to the confessions makes no assertion about the duration of the virginity of Mary because neither Scripture nor the confessions make any such assertion.” [Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concord, pages 7-8]

A Concocted Roman Catholic Luther Quote: "Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures."

This picture has circulated Facebook for a few years... typically posted by Roman Catholics. I've been through this quote before, but it deserves a fresh look.  I now believe this quote is comprised of words from different sources... and some of the words presented in this picture are not a direct citation of Luther, but rather are from a secondary source, thus rendering this quote a concocted Roman Catholic hodgepodge at best or a fabrication and propaganda at worst. 

This one is a little tricky to work through.  

What is this Quote Saying?
While not present in the picture above, this quote usually consists of four sentences from Luther, not three:

1. Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ.

2. She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified.

3. We can never honor her enough.

4. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

When this quote is broken down into individual sentences, it demonstrates an over-the-top expression of Roman Catholic Mariology... said to come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther begins by calling Mary the "noblest gem" in Christianity, to then referring to her as the personification of nobility wisdom and holiness, then calling for her excessive honor... then weirdly qualifying all of this by preaching: do not go too far with these Marian facts. 

Not go too far? Think about it: Luther's just claimed Mary is almost as great as Jesus Christ, and like him, she's nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified! Luther also implies one should be in a perpetual state of honoring her... but... don't go too far in your honor and praise or you may injure Christ and the Bible! 

If you're skeptical that Luther actually said this in this order (or at all) or he's been taken out of context... then kudos to you for your discernment!

I contend that only sentences #1 and #3 are possibly based on Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531 (often documented as WA 34, 2, 497 and 499). Sentence #2 appears to be from a 1537 sermon. I've yet to discover a meaningful primary source for sentence #4. What complicates this even more is that in this typical English rendering, I believe sentences 2, 3, and 4 were not originally a direct citation of Luther, but rather a summary statement from a secondary English source. In essence, Roman Catholics have concocted a Luther quote to promote their version of Mariology.

Documentation & Partial Contexts
In my previous entries I determined the English version of this quote circulating the Internet appears to have been directly taken from William Cole’s article "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). Cole states:

In a Christmas sermon of 1531, Luther speaks of Mary as the "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." He goes on to claim that "she is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures” (WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).

For years I've taken William Cole at his word that he utilized WA 34.2:497; 499 to construct the entirety of this quote (from two different pages separated by an entire page!). Back in 2015 though I discovered a curiosity of this Luther quote from Cole: there are phrases missing from WA 34.2:497; 499. "She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified" and "Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures" are not present on either of these pages in WA 34.2 cited by Cole. Now I think I know why. 

William Cole appears to have concocted this quote, at least in part, from possibly utilizing another secondary Roman Catholic source: Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (Cole cites O'Meara multiple times in his article).  In O'Meara's text (which predates Cole) we find the following: 

By the 1530’s Luther was stern in his condemnations. "The Salve Regina says too much." "The Papists have made Mary an idol." "We will keep celebrating the feast [of the Visitation] to remind us that they taught us apostasy." Yet, in Luther’s Christmas sermon of 1531, Mary is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.

Notice the words in bold type: these are almost the exact words cited by Cole as coming from Luther via WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (except Cole says "praise" while O'Meara says "prayer"). Notice particularly: O'Meara does not document these assertions, nor is he directly quoting Luther from the Christmas sermon of 1531 (he does not contain Luther's words using quotation marks). It looks suspiciously like Cole lifted the quote from O'Meara. He then added the word "still" and botched the word "prayer" by using the word, "praise." 

Back in 2015 I thought maybe I was missing something Cole saw in WA 34.2:497,499. The primary source is confusing. It contains two different versions of Luther's sermon on the same page, and both versions are a mixture of German and Latin. As I've been revisiting this source, I've yet to discover the entirety of what Cole or O'Meara are claiming is actually there. True, there are aspects of this quote that appear to be from WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (actually, 500). For instance, Cole says "Luther speaks of Mary as the 'highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ.'" This sentence may be based on WA 34.2:497, 

Here's a broader context from the English translation:

17. Ah, Lord God, everyone ought open his hands here, take hold of and joyfully receive this child, whom this mother, the Virgin Mary, bears, suckles, cares for, and tends. Now, indeed, I have become lord and master and the noble mother, who was born of royal lineage, becomes my maid and servant! Ah! for shame, that I do not exult and glory in this, that the prophet says, This child is mine, it was for my sake and for the sake of us all that he has been born, to be my Savior and the Savior of us all! That is the way in which this mother serves me and us all with her own body.  Really we all ought to be ashamed with all our hearts. For what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! It is about this that this beautiful festival preaches and sings: "To you this night is born a child Of Mary, chosen virgin mild; This little child, of lowly birth, Shall be the joy of all the earth. This is the Christ, our God and Lord, Who in all need shall aid afford; He will himself your Savor be From all your sins to set you free."

 Cole also quotes Luther saying, "We can never honor her enough." This sentence appears to be based on WA 34.2:500, not WA 34.2:499 (this documentation issue is yet another error perpetuated by contemporary Roman Catholics),

Here's a broader context from the English translation:

24. Under the papacy only the mother has been praised and extolled. True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child. Nevertheless, We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone!

It looks to me like Cole tried to document O'Meara's summary words with WA 34, 2, 497 and 499 (since O'Meara wrote, "Christmas sermon of 1531"). The problem though is O'Meara made errors. First, it's doubtful Luther told anyone in 1531-532 to pray to Mary. Second, the phrase "She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified" may possibly be based on an entirely different sermon from 1537 found in WA 45:105 where Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" Curiously, O'Meara does directly cite this phrase from Luther on page 80 of his book: "No woman is like unto thee! you are more than an empress or a queen! you are more than Eve or Sarah; blessed above- all nobility, wisdom or saintliness!" William Cole also cites this quote in his article (132), seemingly unaware of the odd similarity to the other quote and that WA 34.2:497, 499 doesn't say anything about Mary being the personification of these virtues.  

I have yet to directly locate "Honor and praise [prayer] must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." If, as I believe, O'Meara is responsible for this sentence, and merely intended it to be summary statement, he says as much in his book:

Luther’s principle for Marian theology appears in a final sermon on the Feast of the Assumption. If Mary detracts from Christ and God (and Luther is becoming more convinced that she has done so in the past), then we must practice christocentric moderation. Mary must be honored, but Christ must be the matrix of this veneration. Mary exists for Christ alone, and this is the view of the Bible.

The "final sermon" being referenced is from 1522... but Luther does not say what O'Meara says he does. You can see the context here. There isn't anything about honoring Mary by practicing "christocentric moderation." Maybe O'Meara was simply summarizing the quote above from WA 34.2:500 ("We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother"...etc.)? Could this be what O'Meara summarized as "Still honor and prayer must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures"? If it is, it's a terrible synopsis!

Conclusion

Let's first recount the tedious errors.

1. Luther isn't being directly cited by contemporary Roman Catholic apologists. They are citing William Cole's article, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?"

2. Many Roman Catholics claim to be using one linear quote, yet their own documentation demonstrates the quote comes from three pages of text shrunk down to four sentences.  

3. Of the four sentences in the quote, only two of them can possibly be construed to come from the same primary source (WA 34.2).

4. Three of the English sentences are a summary statement from a secondary source (Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology). That source isn't quoting Luther, and it doesn't provide meaningful documentation.

5. William Cole miscited O'Meara by using the English word "praise" (O'Meara used "prayer"). Contemporary Roman Catholics perpetuate this error.

6. Quote #3 is from a completely different sermon (WA 45:105). There is nothing in WA 34.2:497,499 about Mary being the personification of nobility, wisdom, and holiness.

7. WA 34.2:499 is not where quote #3 is potentially located. If it's in this text at all, it's on page 500.

8. Quote #4 is either a poor summary statement of WA 34.2:500, an unrelated summary statement to WA 34.2:500, or is a Luther quote from some other source. 

Ultimately, this botched citation appears to originate from Thomas O'Meara, then picking up momentum from William Cole. There is a sense in which I cut these old writers some slack. They composed their material by utilizing physical books and typewriters. They did not have the digital technology available now. They were scholars often much more competent than we are. They had to work much harder in presenting their material. I'm more amazed by the work they did rather than the errors they made!

Now though, a number of contemporary Roman Catholic webpages and books are freely utilizing this quote... none apparently taking the time to verify it. This unfortunately, is typical of contemporary Roman Catholic apologetics. I don't cut any of them slack. They have the same digital technology I have. If I can figure it out, they can also.

A reputable English translation of this sermon can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 209-220. The sermon is entitled, "Festival of Christ's Nativity" (first sermon), based on Isaiah 9:1-7. I've had this information available online since 2015. Many of the English citations above were taken from this source. This English translation appears to have combined both versions of the sermon found in WA 34.2 along with the footnotes.

I mention this source for those of you who've made it to this point in this entry and think: well, Luther did say Mary is "the noblest woman on earth" and "after Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom." I urge you: track this sermon down. Luther barely mentions Mary. She is not the focus of the sermon, at all. Roman Catholics have culled content together (from multiple sources) to create a caricature. They will ignore the entire point of this sermon in order to elevate Mary and bring Luther in as their supporter. 

As I've stated in the past, there's no denying Luther said nice things about Mary. Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia. If you search out all the times Luther used the word “veneration,” you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term. The question that needs to be asked is: what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to or venerate Mary? If you look closely at the text that begins with point 24 above, Luther chastised the papacy for its treatment of Mary. So, challenge Roman Catholic apologists to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion.  I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Catholics say "honor" or “devotion,” they mean something quite different than Luther!