Thomas Cranmer on Martin Luther: "It is he who is insane!... oh, the arrogance of a most wicked man!"

Rome's defenders fail again to go deep into history. In a recent video attack against Martin Luther, a defender of Rome argues Martin Luther was a "delusional narcissist," and even the allies of Luther thought so. The proof presented comes in the form of harsh comment made by Protestant Reformer Thomas Cranmer. Rome's defender states,

That basically everybody besides Luther was either stupid or ignorant or evil. And they often don’t realize that this view of the world comes largely from Martin Luther himself, who is by all appearances from his own writings, something of a delusional narcissist. Now, look, that’s a big claim. So let me back it up. By even appealing to his allies, even people like Thomas Cranmer who would go on to lead the Church of England, into schism from the Catholic Church, Cranmer responded upon reading Martin Luther’s writings, "Luther Wantonly attacks and raves against the pontiff..." That’s the Pope. "He accuses a whole counsel of madness; It is he who is insane!... oh, the arrogance of a most wicked man!" And so it wasn’t just that Luther thought that the pope was the antichrist or that he lightly dismissed, ecumenical counsel is that throughout so many of his writings, we come away with this idea that he thinks everyone besides him is evil and wrong."

The quote from Thomas Cranmer caught my attention because the screen shot of the text used in the video goes on to say, "Yet thirty-three years later, this man went through the martyr’s flames for his Protestant faith, embracing Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone. The man was Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)." This sentence, though presented in the video screenshot at around 8:07, was not mentioned by the narrating defender of Rome. This provoked my curiosity: how it that fellow Reformer Thomas Cranmer thought Luther was "insane" and "wicked" and later was burned at the stake for believing the same thing Luther did? Why would another Reformer be against negative statements about the authority of the popes and councils? Something doesn't add up. 

I'll demonstrate below that Thomas Cranmer wasn't "reading Martin Luther’s writings" when he made these comments, nor was he Luther's ally. Once again, Rome's defenders are playing fast and loose with the facts of church history!

Documentation
Given that material presented comes from a video meant to provoke "hits" and "likes," I fully realize that documentation suffers in visual presentations like these. Fortunately, from the screen shot presented, it looks like this is the webpage being utilized: The Legacy of Thomas Cranmer. The webpage is actually an edited version of this article: Factitive or Forensic? Thomas Cranmer and the Doctrine of Justification. 

From this article we find the source for the quote: Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), 27. It is in this book we discover the quote from Cranmer comes from a comment he scribbled in the margin of a book: John Fisher's Assertionis Lutheraneae Confutatio (1523). This book is an attack on Luther written by a Roman Catholic (not a book from Luther!). According to the analysis of Diarmaid MacCulloch, there is not a precise dating of Cranmer's marginal notes. Obviously they cannot be earlier than 1523, but the author says they cannot be later than 1532. Says the author, "these are no emotional jottings of a youth, but the thoughts of a man who is at least thirty-four and more probably in his late thirties."

Conclusion

Lest someone think I explore bibliographic tedium for the sake of nitpicking, when these marginal notes were written is the key to explaining the Cranmer quote from the video. The dating explains why Cranmer was reading a Roman Catholic book against Luther and scribbled down that Luther was "insane" and "wicked" about popes and councils.  After mentioning these negative comments about Luther from Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch writes, "So here is Cranmer, the papalist." The reason why Cranmer wrote so negatively about Luther was.. he was still a Roman Catholic when he wrote those words!

General historical inquiries will explain that Cranmer was originally critical of Luther and only later came to embrace distinctively Protestant doctrines. Rome's defender though completely neglected this important historical nuance in his video. Why? Only he can answer this question. The lesson to learn is ALWAYS look up the references Roman Catholic apologists use. 

Addendum #1

Here is the text from Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), 27. 

Addendum 2

This is a page showing a sampling of Cranmer's marginal notes found in John Fisher's Assertionis Lutheraneae Confutatio (1523).

The Three-legged Stool of Roman Catholicism Adds Up to: Sola Ecclesia

I've seen a few cyber-buzzing's about the Protestant use of the term, sola ecclesia. The phrase is said to be inaccurate because Roman Catholicism holds to the "three-legged stool" model. As someone who has utilized the phrase "sola ecclesia" when evaluating Roman Catholicism, here is why I do so:  

Sacred Scripture: the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decided what books are in the Bible

Sacred Tradition: the Roman Catholic Church infallibly decides which traditions are authentic "Tradition"

Magisterium: the Roman Catholic Church claims to have an infallible Magisterium that serves as an infallible teaching authority.

Each of the legs of "three-legged stool" all boil down to the same infallible authority: the Roman Catholic Church. If Roman Catholics want to use the "three-legged stool" analogy. I suggest that it would be more accurate to say, "upside-down three-legged stool." 

If you are a Roman Catholic using the "three-legged stool" analogy, would you be please let me know where this analogy originated? From a cursory search, its origin is murky, with one website claiming a version of it originated in Anglicanism ("holy scripture, sacred tradition, and our God-given gift of reason"). I spent a few minutes on the Vatican website searching the phrase "three-legged stool" and did not get any meaningful hits. 

Google AI isn't always accurate, but if it it's correct, it would be rather ironic that the analogy was taken from... Protestantism!

Roman Catholic Hostility Over Luther's View of Aristotle

I was sent a link to one of Rome's defenders using a less-than-typical angle of attack against Protestantism: Martin Luther's view of the philosopher Aristotle. As explained in this short You Tube video: Martin Luther's Narcissistic War on Philosophy, this Roman Catholic apologist claims Luther's view of this pagan philosopher serves as evidence of his mental instability. Allegedly nefarious proofs from Luther's writings denigrating Saint Aristotle (read: sarcasm) are presented in the video, coupled with the final coup de grâce: Luther's utter narcissism impacted his view of church history... Luther believed everyone before him was wrong on everything, and only he was right. The same revered Reformer that was deluded about Aristotle was also deluded about the church of his day. If you're a Protestant, you're in a tradition that was begun by a delusional narcissist. 

 I've broken the complaints from the video down into four broad groupings:

1. Luther Despised Aristotle, Philosophy, and Logic: "Luther had a long-standing hatred of Aristotle as early as 1517." Luther went as far as saying that a man cannot become a theologian unless he ignores Aristotle. Luther referred to Aristotle as a "damned conceited rascally heathen whose false words have deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians." Luther believed that "[C]ompared with the study of theology, the whole of Aristotle is as darkness is to light, as well as arguing that logic and syllogisms have no place when reasoning about God." Luther wrongly thinks "Christians have nothing to learn from Aristotle."

2.Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books:  Luther said many of Aristotle's best books should be banned from the university by the secular authorities, especially his Physics, Metaphysics, On the Soul, and Ethics. Particularly grievous is Luther's disdain for Aristotle's work on ethics because the recent scholarship of Brad Inwood from Yale has shown its profound significance on the history of the philosophy of ethics.  This is also substantiated by the online declarations of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They also have made statements of the importance of Aristotle to the philosophy of ethics. Contrary to Luther disdain, this defender of Rome claims "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians...".    

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  Luther first said no one can understand Aristotle (which necessarily means Luther admitted even he himself cannot understand Aristotle). Contradictorily, Luther also claimed he understood Aristotle better than anyone else, including Saint Thomas Aquinas. With this assertion, Luther had made an "implausible claim" about how well he knew Aristotle. "[H]e thought of himself as the greatest expert on Aristotle who ever lived." This is disproved by a scholar named Ralph McInerny and also the use of ChatGPT. They both deemed Thomas Aquinas to be "the greatest Aristotelian in the history of at least Western philosophy." Luther, is therefore in error in regard to his abilities, and qualifies as "a delusional narcissist."  This is also proved by a Protestant source: Thomas Cranmer. This contemporary of Luther's thought he was "insane" and "wicked."

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: Beside Luther claiming Aristotle was in error, Luther also thought everyone in Church History before him was in error, "...including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old." Luther also thought "everyone besides him is evil and wrong."  Luther compared himself to Noah against the world; "[Luther] sees the Christian Church for the 1500 years preceding him as if it were the same as the wicked and godless men of Noah’s day." "So if you’re a Protestant and you believe that you’re practicing the original real form of Christianity, this should absolutely give you pause. The first Protestant reformer knows he’s breaking away from the early Christian religion, and he’s fine with that."

These are only a sampling of the charges presented, but I think they capture the gist of this particular video. Sincere kudos to this defender of Rome for putting so much content into a short video and communicating it in a clever and well executed manner! As a point of general criticism though, I think the video suffers from painting with too broad a brush. The issues raised could (and have) filled entire books. Hopefully, this response will likewise paint with a broad brush in a clever and well executed manner.  Let's first take a look at the documentation used and then provide a response to the charges. 

Documentation

Three primary sources of Luther evidence are offered in the video. Based on screen shots of book pages, the first appears to be James Atkinson (ed.), Luther: Early Theological Works (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 269-270 (Disputation against Scholastic Theology, 1517). The second appears to be The Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1943), 146-147 (An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, 1520). The third appears to be John Nicholas Lenker (Trans.) Martin Luther's Commentary on Genesis vol. 2 (Minneapolis: The Luther Press, 1910), 182. Oddly, these writings are also contained in the standard contemporary English source: Luther's Works (Concordia Publishing House) with superior translations, yet this apologist chose to utilize out-of-print sources. For someone seemingly well-versed in Luther's writings, these choices are suspicious to me. I've found in the past that when old primary sources are heavily relied upon, there's a hidden secondary source the quotes were taken from. As my cursory searches though came up empty, I'll assume these out-of-print references are solely from the investigation of this Roman Catholic apologist, and for whatever unknow reason, the most current English editions of Luther's writings were not utilized.

Analysis of the Charges

  

1. Luther hated Aristotle: This defender of Rome says Luther "curses Aristotle as a damned conceited, rascally heathen, whose false words have diluted and made fools of so many of the best Christians. He even goes so far as to say that God has sent him as a plague upon us for our sins." Yes, it's true, Luther did insult Aristotle in this context using these words. Did he curse him? Not necessarily. If it's true Aristotle was a pagan outside of the Christian faith (which I believe he was), then he was indeed damned. It's never been hidden that Luther disapproved of Aristotle, but it wasn't a crude disapproval devoid of reason. Luther's disdain was provoked by the upper educational systems in place during the period in which he lived. In the universities which produced Christian theologians, Aristotle was heavily utilized in theology. The editors of Luther's Works point out Luther was not alone in chastising the heavy use of Aristotle: "Scholars other than Luther were and had been against the Aristotelian domination in the medieval universities, e.g., Roger Bacon and Erasmus" (LW 44:200, fn. 211).  Luther actually provided an example to substantiate his disdain for Aristotle in An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (ironically included in the zooming screen shot in the video at 1:42 but not mentioned):

Why, this wretched man, in his best book, On the Soul, teaches that the soul dies with the body, although many have tried with vain words to save his reputation. As though we had not the Holy Scriptures, in which we are abundantly instructed about all things, and of them Aristotle had not the faintest inkling! And yet this dead heathen has conquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living God, so that when I think of this miserable business I can believe nothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of Aristotle.  (Works of Martin Luther, 146-147).

The editors of Luther's Works also point out that in Aristotle's ethics, a person becomes good by doing good (LW 44:200, fn. 211). Such is fundamentally antithetical to the Gospel... in essence... darkness. It's here where we discover why Luther had such disdain for Aristotle's ethics.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther chastises Aristotle: "Again, his book on Ethics is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books!" (Works of Martin Luther, 47). For Luther, mixing Aristotle in to explain grace was tantamount to pouring poison into Christian theology. 

2. Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books: Yes, Luther does ask the Christian Nobility to ban Aristotle's books, but that banning is specific to "the universities" (LW 44:199). But, even more egregious, the defender of Rome selectively cited An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility. At 4:23 in the video, page 147 from this treatise is shown, but it neglects to show the text that reads, "I should be glad to see Aristotle's books on Logic, Rhetoric and Poetics retained or used in an abridged form; as textbooks for the profitable training of young people in speaking and preaching." In fact, Melanchthon was tasked with placing Aristotle in the curriculum in the territories of Lutheran reform, and this was done during Luther's lifetime.

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  In regard to Luther's mental capabilities in understanding Aristotle, the type of argument presented in the video is a version of, "My dad is smarter than your dad." Aquinas is put forth as the Grand Master of Aristotle, Luther is presented as a boisterous narcissistic madman claiming he understood Aristotle better than Thomas Aquinas. I take a different position: Luther probably did speak bombastically in regard to his expertise in Aristotle, but it does not necessarily follow that he was "a delusional narcissist." He actually did show a knowledgeable and meaningful understanding of Aristotle. See for instance, Theodor Dieter, Der junge Luther und Aristoteles. Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Philosophie (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). A helpful English review of this book was put together by a Roman Catholic scholar: Jared Wicks, Luther and "This Damned, Conceited, Rascally Heathen" Aristotle: An Encounter More Complicated Than Many Think. As these authors demonstrate, Luther's understanding of Aristotle is a complicated and layered subject. Using one of the same methods of determining truth as presented in the video, The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually includes an entire section on Luther and Aristotle, and their discussion does not conclude "Luther was a narcissist." Rather, theirs is a meaningful exploration. They state, 

As with Luther’s critique of reason, however, some of his more notoriously negative judgements—such as his claim in the Disputation Against Scholastic Theology that "the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light” (1517, WA 1:226/LW 31:12)—need to be balanced against other more positive judgements, and set in context.

Why is it that they looked at the same subject and did not conclude Luther was delusional? I suspect it's because they actually explored the subject in depth rather than just spouting out their emotional opinion based on their presuppositions. The video never proves Luther was deficient in his understanding of Aristotle.  If it's true Luther was clueless about Aristotle, prove it, don't just say it. 

I will grant this concession: generally speaking, Thomas Aquinas is now considered the leading synthesizer of Aristotle into Christian theology. But I, like Luther, do not consider this a positive thing. It is a tragedy. The video states "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians..." Maybe they're "massively important" to Roman Catholicism, but they were not at all important to the human authors of the Old and New Testament or the Divine author, the Holy Spirit. Nor were they important to Christians previous to their reintroduction into literary history.  Many Christians lived and died without ever hearing about Aristotle. They experienced a full and robust faith.  Aristotle is therefore... not necessary to the Christian faith! If there were times in which his influence was absent and the Christian faith flourished, he's not "massively important." Roman Catholics often claim the early church proves their pedigree of authenticity. If this is so, then anything Aristotle wrote is not "massively important." He was not utilized in the early church. 

The video also seems to think that unless one embraces and incorporates Aristotelianism into Christianity, one is denying faith and reason working together, hence embracing irrationalism. If this defender of Rome thinks Luther completely denied the use of reason, this shows a deep ignorance of Luther's basic understanding. It is true Luther rejected the Thomistic scholastic dialectical method, but he did not deny the use of reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning. Luther valued reason as the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther denigrated or did not understand the use of reason, it is simply that reason must be kept in its place, particularly in theological matters.    

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: The fourth charge is a conclusion from the previous three. If one grants that Luther was a madman on his perspective of Aristotle, then he was also a madman in regard to the church history that preceded him. According to the video, Luther claimed only he was right and everyone else was wrong. This may be the most ridiculous aspect of the video. It demonstrates this defender of Rome may not have actually read Luther writings in a meaningful way. This is proved by picking up virtually any volume of Luther's writings. One will find him interacting, positively and negatively with those who came before him. Luther did not believe that everyone on everything before him was necessarily wrong or necessarily right. He did not jettison all the centuries of previous Christianity and create something new like Joseph Smith's Mormonism. There's also a severe irony at this juncture because there have been a countless number of Roman Catholic apologists claiming Luther did not reject Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's bodily assumption, Mary's status as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and many other distinctly Roman Catholic beliefs. It's pathetic that Rome's defenders will claim on the one hand that Luther jettisoned all of church history and tradition claiming he alone was right, and then on the other hand utilize Luther when he seemingly agrees with anything distinctive of Roman Catholicism.   

Nor did Luther think he was right and everyone else was wrong on everything... even in his own lifetime.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther begins this treatise by asking a friend "to pass judgment on it, and if necessary, improve it" (62). A number of other similar examples could be provided, but one of the most revealing about Luther's opinion of his own writings can be found towards the end of his life. Luther, looked back over his work and spoke negatively of the desire his associates had to collect them and republish them.  He also said to use caution with his earlier writings because they contained error. These are hardly the words of a narcissist, thinking his words were the only correct and right words.

In regard to Luther comparing himself to Noah: The idea from the video is that Noah stood alone against the entire world. The world thought Noah was wrong, but Noah alone was the only one correct, and the world was destroyed. Similarly, Luther saw himself in the same way, standing against Papal authority and all of Christian tradition: "Luther saw himself as the new Noah, the lone righteous man in an evil world, come to save his followers." The video cites Luther's comments on Genesis 6, and from what the video portrays, one would expect opening up this context and finding Luther going on page after page expounding on his importance in God's divine plan for the world, like an apocalyptic cult leader. Rather though, all you'll find is this brief statement from the context: 

The wretched Papists press us today with this one argument: Do you believe that all the fathers have been in error, It seems hard so to believe, especially of the worthier ones, such as Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard and that whole throng of the best men who have governed Churches with the Word and have been adorned with the august name of the Church. The labors of such we both laud and admire.

That's odd... that someone portrayed as having such a deep narcissism would only mention himself in passing and spend the overwhelming majority of the time exegeting the Biblical text about Noah! Maybe it's because.... Luther was not a "delusional narcissist"??? He was not! Luther was a theologian and a biblical expositor, preaching and shepherding a congregation. Notice importantly in this brief snippet of context, Luther specifically uses the plural word "us." He does not say "I" or "me." The video would have its viewers believe the context is entirely Luther talking about himself as the sole correct interpreter of Christian truth. The video states, "Catholics were making those arguments to him asking Luther if he really believes that all the church fathers had been an error, including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old, and that only Luther himself is wise." Roman Catholics may have been making those arguments and Luther may have compared himself to Noah, but this context is not expounding on it in the detail explained in the video.  

This defender of Rome though has substantiated his interpretation of this particular context by an appeal to (non-Roman Catholic!) authorities: Michael Parsons and Eric Gritsch. It appears to me this apologist only accessed this article by Parsons which also mentions Gritsch. What I found fascinating is that Parsons appears to be expressing a minority opinion about Luther thinking he was Noah: 

It is interesting that several Luther scholars write on the subject of Luther’s apocalypticism, but only one directly mentions his interest in Noah within that context. Eric Gritsch says that, “Although Luther’s friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world . . . The world began to look to him like the world before the flood.”

So, of the survey of scholars done by Parsons, he came up with exactly one that held the view Luther considered himself a type of Noah! But what of that scholar? I looked the reference up to see what was said (Gritsch, “The Cultural Context of Luther’s Interpretation” 276.). I expected to find an in-depth detailed study exegetically proving Luther thought he was a type of Noah. Here is the extent of what Eric Gritsch says:

Although Luther's friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world, even though he was haunted by doubts, "Are you alone wise?" (Bist du allein klug?) (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54). He even figured out that the chronological distance between Adam's death and Noah's birth was the same as between himself and John Hus — one hundred and twenty-six years (WA 53,40). The world began to look to him like the world before the flood. 

This is the extent of Gritsch's research presented in this article about this topic. True he does reference Luther's comments on Genesis 6 (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54) but offers no meaningful exegesis. The reference to WA 53:40 in regard to a Noah- Hus - Luther parallel is found in a footnote, not the text proper. I think the text proper is actually a chart, not an exegetical treatise. The footnote does say, "126, annos... natum] ante natum Noha 126 mortuus, tanquam si loh. Hus ante Lutherum feurit 126," though I'm not sure how this note factors into the chart. If Luther saw himself as Noah in this chart, this would be a more interesting proof, but again it lacks a detailed explanation. I don't deny Luther may have paralleled his life to Noah, but it does not appear to me to be as narcissistic as the video expresses. The parallel would probably factor more into Luther's belief that the end of the world was imminent.   

Conclusion

The general argument in this video is not new. It has a long history, falling under the "Luther had psychological problems" rubric. As the theory goes, Luther had mental problems, Protestantism was founded by a mentally unstable man, therefore one should abandon fallible Protestantism and embrace the infallible authority of Rome. While the Vatican does not follow this line of attack, this fallible Roman Catholic commentator readily uses social media to share his personal opinion, an opinion which he appears to think is more meaningful than anything the Vatican is now ecumenically saying about Luther. I find it to be one of the greatest of all ironies that Roman Catholic laymen make their own fallible pronouncements on issues the Vatican currently ignores or says the opposite of. Rome rarely mentions Luther now, and when they do, usually in papal addresses, it's a much different Luther than what Roman Catholic laymen with an internet connection are communicating through social media. To borrow a phrase from the video, what "utter hubris"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

Alternate English Translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate English translation: 

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

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

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-snip-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIX. Against Thesis 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*English translation from this source. 

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

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

Luther vs. Calvin on the Sign of the Cross

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Calvin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: The Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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