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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Did Martin Luther Miscite Saint Augustine?

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

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

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

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

Documentation
Here was Montgomery's documentation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context (Augustine)

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

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

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

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

Eck responded: 

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

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

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

And also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther goes on to state later: 

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wittenberg Concord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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.