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!

Another Fake Luther Quote Cited by Catholics Exposed: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know"

There's a popular Luther quote that's been online for many years claiming Martin Luther believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary. The quote states: 

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith."

Sometimes after citing the quote, the commentary is given that "Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it."

I've been through this quote many times before. I've had the primary source context for a long time, as well as a solid English translation. When I've tried to match up the Roman Catholic version with the English translation of the context... they just don't fit together nicely. The context sort of says what the Catholic version says but spread out over a much wider context. Either Roman Catholics have haphazardly translated Luther's German, or the English version I have was poorly translated. 

It's neither.

I have solved this mystery! Luther did not write the exact quote Roman Catholics say he did. Rather, the quote is not from Luther, but from William Tappolet, author of the book, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. The quote is actually Tappolet summarizing his personal view of Luther on the Assumption, or rather, providing a summary of (what he thinks is) Luther’s view. Then he cites Luther's sermon for proof (the one I've had for many years). Tappolet writes on page 55:

The italicized words which begin the paragraph are Tappolet's words, not Luther's (Throughout his book, Tappolet italicizes his own words).  Tappolet wrote,  

Daß die Jungfrau Maria im Himmel ist, daran kann nicht gezweifelt werden. Wie das geschehen ist, wissen wir nicht. Und da die Heilige Schrift nichts darüber aussagt, sollen wir uns darüber keine Glaubensartikel machen. Wir sollen, uns daran genügen lassen zu wissen, daß ‘die Mutter Gottes lebt, wie denn auch die Erzväter und alle Heiligen leben. Im „Sermon von der Himmelfahrt Mariä” vom 15. August 1522 lesen wir...

Or in English:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. We don't know how this happened. And since the Holy Scripture says nothing about it, we should not make any articles of faith about it. We should be satisfied with knowing that the Mother of God lives, just as the patriarchs and all the saints live. In the “Sermon of the Assumption of Mary” from August 15, 1522 we read...:

Tappolet then goes on to cite Luther's sermon. Roman Catholics began utilizing the English version of this quote by taking it from William Cole's article, Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?. Cole uses the quote as follows:

For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it. It is in this sense that Walter Tappolet interprets the Reformer's sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption. Luther had said: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith ."... and then explained the significance for him: "It is enough to know that she lives in Christ, as God is not the God of the dead, but of the living..." [William J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), p. 123].

Cole miscited Tappolet. Tappolet didn't write "Holy Spirit," he wrote "Holy Scripture" (Heilige Schrift). What's most important though, Cole references WA 10.3:268-269 (the sermon from 1522) and also... Tappolet, 55. So there's great probability Roman Catholics took this quote from Cole who originally took it from Tappolet. Roman Catholics are citing Tappolet, not Luther!

Conclusion

I suspect now may occur, at least on some Roman Catholic webpages, the disappearing Luther quote act, which has different variations.

Drumroll please.

Edited. Poof! Gone.

Or: Nope, we never cited this as a Luther quote. See.. it's not on our webpage anymore, so it never happened.

Or: the documentation will be fixed: yep, we're just great Roman Catholic researchers that figured out all of this stuff on our own. 

Or perhaps, William Cole will be thrown under the bus: Cole said it, he's an expert. It's his fault, not ours.

I've demonstrated above, Cole made two errors: wrongly attributing the quote to Luther and mistranslating Tappolet. A third error I pointed out years ago is that Cole also miscited Max Thurian in the same section. Cole says "... as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it." Thurian never says Luther simply affirmed the Assumption. He says Luther was content to make an assertion in 1522: "On the issue of the Assumption Luther does not speak precisely but is content to assert on August 15th, 1522..." There's nothing necessarily wrong with citing Cole, I've found useful information in his article. However, there is something wrong with not checking his references! Almost anyone can do this now. No excuses Roman Catholic apologists! Do your homework!

The obvious question remains... does the Luther sermon Cole and Tappolet cite prove Luther believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary? I've been over that before also. Read the context for yourself, either by visiting my old blog entry, Baseley's English rendering of the sermon from Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, or the German text. The Bodily Assumption of Mary is being read into the context by Roman Catholics. 

A careful reader will notice nowhere in the context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, nor does he admit he's celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. He's simply mentioning the liturgical day, and that the "Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven."  "It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God." "We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn't rest squarely on Scriptures." "Those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else." There is no Luther-an affirmation of the Assumption here.

Addendum: Eric Gritsch, The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue

In an ecumenical dialog even the Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch made the passing remark that "Luther affirmed Mary's Assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of any benefit to others or accomplished in any special way" [H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess (editors) The One Mediator, The Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), p. 241] Gritsch's main proof? This 1522 sermon. Keep your eye on the ball. Notice how careful Gritsch is: Luther is said to affirm Mary's Assumption into heaven but it was not "accomplished in any special way." In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be "Assumed" into heaven. What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, for being Assumed into heaven by its very nature is a special way of arriving in heaven!

The Value of Roman Catholic Information Dump Apologetics

I don't keep up with the dynamics of Rome's defenders... however, these comments from a former staff apologist at Catholic Answers caught my attention. She writes about the method of excessive information that some apologists utilize when making their arguments: 

From the way a lot of Catholic apologists present evidence for the arguments they make, you’d think they have either facts or precedent on their side. A cursory skim of their materials will turn up a lot of references to Scripture, canon law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I did apologetics reviews during my years as a professional apologist, I always knew I could safely allow my eyes to glaze over and read on autopilot when I got to the huge chunks of quotations from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and papal documents.

Why? Because apologists who used this method of arguing were not actually trying to persuade anyone to accept their conclusions. Rather, they were engaging in an information dump, intended to overwhelm audiences into accepting Catholic teaching on the sheer volume of evidence presented.

Occasionally, these information dumps backfired. Once, I was tasked with providing an alternative viewpoint to an essay that had “gone viral” on social media, igniting a firestorm of outrage at the position the author defended. When I dug into the piece, fact-checking its references, I was amused to note that the author had cited the Catechism incorrectly, and I took full advantage of that oversight in my rejoinder.

When apologists rely on information dumps to persuade their listeners, it’s all too easy for them to get lost in the weeds they’ve sown.

When I first began interacting with Rome's defenders, this method was often utilized in their presentations of Martin Luther or the Reformation. I remember specifically dealing with webpages that were filled with excessive despariging citations of either Luther or secondary sources buttressing their negative evaluations.  An interesting facet of these webpages was that often the material was pulled entirely from secondary sources... "Luther said x or y..." (in English) then a reference to either a German or Latin source was provided (if at all), and in some instances, the actual secondary source was given.  Perhaps the most egregious webpage I have ever encountered is Luther, Exposing the Myth. I spent quite a while looking up every quote and every reference (my results found here).  It was obvious many of Rome's defenders did not actually read the contexts of the works they were citing. 

This ex-Catholic Answers apologist makes a good point: some apologists use excessive information dumps intended to overwhelm a reader into accepting their arguments.  I would only add that while Rome's defenders are often guilty of this, I've seen the same method utilized on both sides of the Tiber. In a weird twist of irony, recently I came across someone on my side of the Tiber doing a "Luther was awful" information dump... and then was informed the content was cut-and-pasted from a Roman Catholic website! 

Granted, I suspect I have engaged in information dumps from time to time. However, I say the majority of what I've posted over the years is simply untangling the mess that Rome's defenders make with historical data. Looking up all the references they spew out takes much time, energy, and sometimes... money. 

I suspect this former staff apologist from Catholic Answers is still Roman Catholic (her comments cited above are now over two years old). I do though appreciate her candor in evaluating those on her own side. 

Departed Defender of Rome, Scott Windsor

In searching for something on this blog I came across comments left by Roman Catholic apologist Scott Windsor. I hadn't seen any online statements from Scott in a long time. Out of curiosity I checked his websites to see what he was up to. Scott ran the website, American Catholic Truth Society (Acts). He also had a few social media accounts. If I recall, Scott's claim to fame was being one of the first online defenders of Rome, arguing for her using a Bulletin Board Service (BBS) in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I'm not sure if he was the first Roman Catholic apologist online, but he certainly was one of the earliest, and he continued defending Rome through the following decades.  

Scott's website had not been updated since the fall of 2023. His website included Twitter (X) feed from early September 2023 in which he explains going though chemotherapy for cancer. My next search was for his obituary. Scott Windsor died October 23, 2023 according to this website. I say "according to" because it was the only obituary I located. I'm not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me that Google limits my searches and doesn't always give me helpful results, especially name searches. If it's not the fault of Google, Scott's death appears to have gone unnoticed by the Roman Catholic apologetics community, which I find both odd and sad. I suspect somewhere out there in the infinity of cyberspace, there are Roman Catholics friends that were saddened by his loss. 

Out of the numerous Roman Catholic apologists I've sparred with over the years, some well-known, some anonymous, I always found Scott Windsor to be a nice guy. Being on opposite sides of the Tiber, we had very few instances of theological agreement (tied with the fact that I believe Rome is a false church with significant truth rather than a true church with significant error). Sure, Scott and I sparred from time to time in a heated way via the written format, but as I mentioned to him many years ago, if we ever met in a coffee shop and had a discussion, the results of our discourse would be much different.  To hear Scott in action, he did a live "on air debate" with Dr. James White back in 2001. The blurb for this debate states, "Dr. White has been dialoguing with Scott Windsor for 15 years already..." If I recall, Scott was one of the first Roman Catholic apologists to interact with Dr. White.

One area of respect I have for Mr. Windsor is that, as far as I know, he did not claim to be a full-time Roman Catholic apologist. I don't know if he ever asked for donations, I don't recall him ever doing that. According to his obituary, he was a well-educated hard-working guy that did apologetics in his spare time. From my perspective, generally speaking, there certainly are some people that are meaningful professional apologists, but the overwhelming majority of people with an internet connection claiming to be professional apologists, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, should go out and get jobs. Scott demonstrated that one can still defend their beliefs and be a productive member of society. 

If by some chance Scott's friends or family come across this blog entry, I've written it for you. I only knew Scott by his online interactions. He was brought into my life by God's providence... and the older I get, the more aware I am of the brevity of life.  I will miss Scott!

Catholic Answers vs. Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on Peter's Marriage

Here's an interesting compare and contrast between Catholic Answers and Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on whether or not Peter was married. The biblical text which fuels this comparison is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul says that the Apostles have particular "rights," and one such right is taking a wife along when ministering... just as the Apostle Peter did! Here is the passage from the NAS:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

Out of curiosity, I consulted the North American magisterium, Catholic Answers, to find out what this verse really means (read: sarcasm). What intrigued me about their answer was that they included a quote from Clement of Alexandria to substantiate their answer. Here's what Catholic Answers stated, 

...[T]he apostles [were] accompanied by 'sister women' who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function. Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6). In short, I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed. 

With as much dripping sarcasm as I can muster through the printed word: The Fathers! The Fathers! The Fathers! So... I then went off to see what Clement of Alexandria said in context, and well... he didn't say what Catholic Answers asserts. In fact, he says the opposite, and none other than Eusebius backs Clement up on it! Here's the text from Clement (bolding mine):

Clement of Alexandria:

52. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food.  And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. "He who does not eat," then, "let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him." Moreover, the Lord says of himself: "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner." Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

53. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?"  But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy. Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that "the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink," not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, "but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."  Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John's gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.

Granted, there is some ambiguity because the English word for wife being used is, "consort." Nor do I know which Clement source Catholic Answers used.  Could it be that I'm simply misreading Clement? Could it be that I'm demonstrating "Protestant" bias? Nope. Check out what Eusebius wrote, reading the same context: 

Eusebius: Chapter 30 The Apostles That Were Married

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

Conclusion
Frankly, I appreciate the writings of the church fathers, but I do not hold them to be that which is the final voice that determines what a Biblical passage means. On the other hand, Rome's defenders do claim the church fathers are of key importance to establish the validity of Roman Catholicism. This text from Clement and its use by Catholic Answers demonstrates a severe disconnect. When they cite something... look it up!