Roman Catholic Obfuscation: Martin Luther Believed in Mary's "Immaculate Purification"

A Roman Catholic explained to me recently that Martin Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception was better explained as an immaculate purification. This person provided this term as if it was an accepted scholarly usage and Luther was somehow still on the Roman Catholic side on Mary's sinlessness.

Immaculate purification isn't a scholarly term, and Martin Luther is not on the Roman Catholic side regarding Mary and her alleged sinlessness. At least two false obfuscations are committed by Romes's defenders using the term immaculate purification to describe Luther's view. 

The first obfuscation: Cursory Google searches indiscriminately explain Luther's immaculate purification view:  he believed at the conception of Jesus, Mary was immaculately purified. There's a strong sense in which this is representative of Luther's view. I've made a similar point since at least 2003: Luther believed that at the conception of Jesus, the Holy Spirit sanctified / purified Mary so that the savior would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood (this purification / sanctification did not happen at Mary's birth, hence a denial of the Immaculate Conception).

But there's an obfuscation: I've yet to come across any meaningful historian, reputable scholar, or bonafide theologian describing Luther's view with the phrase immaculate purification. If there is one, I question their ability to do discriminating research. The phrase seems to have popped up online over the last ten to fifteen years or so, filtering down popularly to the masses, especially now through A.I. searches. Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception as immaculate purification appears to be the work of online Roman Catholic lay apologists.  One Roman Catholic lay apologist claims its origin: "I have coined a new term: Immaculate Purification..." to describe Luther's view. I do think it's within the realm of possibility that a lay apologist, either Roman Catholic or Protestant, can discover or create something otherwise unheard of, yet it troubles me that A.I. technology cannot distinguish between reputable scholarship and online polemics, influencers / personalities, and lay apologetics. A.I. needs to learn to distinguish levels of credibility. It's fine that A.I. provides lay research, but it should be upfront about it. Many people just grab information and don't bother to check the pedigree of what they're using.

The second obfuscation: The phrase immaculate purification leads to an important overlooked question in explaining Luther's mature view: if Mary was purified and made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did Luther think she then went on to live a completely sinless life? Is Luther saying that Mary was a sinner up until the conception of Jesus and then after his birth she lived sinlessly? The immaculate purification doesn't seem to address this problem. As a gift to Roman Catholic laymen from Beggars All to help them refine their immaculate purification theory, here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus. These are comments he made in a 1532 sermon on Luke 2:41-52:

This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding  and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202; WA 17.2:26).

German text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26). 

Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204; WA 17.2:28).

German text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).

You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206; WA 17.2:30).

German text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30). 

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. If these quotes authentically stand, Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. This can be further substantiated from Luther's 1535 comments on Galatians 5:19. He presents a fascinating overview on the depths of sin in relation to those popularly considered to be saints. Galatians 5:19 states, "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality..."  First, Luther includes quotes showing sin universally infected everyone, even those considered to be saints. Second, Luther includes Mary among the saints. 

There was never yet (as I have said already) any of the saints whom the flesh hath not often in his lifetime provoked to impatiency, anger, etc. Paul therefore speaking here of the saints, saith that the flesh lusteth in them against the Spirit, etc. (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1 p.331; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:100).

Latin text: Quia supra dixi, nullum fuisse unquam Sanctum, quem non saepius in vita solicitaverit Caro ad impacientiam, iram etc. Hinc Paulus de Sanctis hic loquens dicit, Carnem in ipsis concupiscere adversus Spiritum etc. (WA 40.2:100). 

Notwithstanding sometimes it happeneth that the saints also do fall and perform the desires of the flesh: as David fell horribly into adultery. Also he was the cause of the slaughter of many men, when he caused Uriah to be slain in the forefront of the battle: and thereby also he gave occasion to the enemies to glory and triumph over the people of God, to worship their idol, and to blaspheme the God of Israel. Peter also fell most grievously and horribly when he denied Christ. But although these sins were great and heinous, yet were they not committed upon any contempt of God or of a willful and obstinate mind, but through infirmity and weakness. Again, when they were admonished, they did not obstinately continue in their sins, but repented. Such he willeth afterwards in the sixth chapter to be received, instructed, and restored, saying: ‘If a man be fallen by occasion’ etc. To those therefore which sin and fall through infirmity, pardon is not denied, so that they rise again and continue not in their sin: for of all things continuance in sin is the worst. But if they repent not, but still obstinately continue in their wickedness and perform the desires of the flesh, it is a certain token that there is deceit in their spirit (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p. 331-332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).

Latin text: Imo quandoque etiam accidit, ut Sancti labantur et desideria ipsius carnis perficiant. Sicut David grandi et horribili lapsu cecidit in adulterium, Item autor fuit caedis multorum, dum volebat Uriam in acie perire. Qua re hostibus etiam occasionem dedit gloriandi contra populum Dei, adorandi idolum suum et blasphemandi Deum Israel. Lapsus est horribiliter et Petrus, cum negaret Christum. Sed quamlibet illa peccata grandia sint, tamen non data opera, sed ex infirmitate commissa sunt. Deinde admoniti non perseveraverunt obstinati in peccatis, sed resipuerunt etc. Tales infra Cap. 6. iubet recipi, instrui et instaurari, dicens: 'Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo' etc. Ideo qui ex infirmitate peccant, etiam saepius, illis non denegatur venia, modo rursum resurgant et in peccatis non perseverent, perseverantia autem pessima est etc. Si autem non resipiscunt, sed porro obstinati perficiunt desideria carnis, certissimum signum est, quod dolus sit in Spiritu ipsorum (WA 40.2:101).  

No man therefore shall be without [lusts and] desires so long as he liveth in the flesh, and therefore no man shall be free from temptations (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).

Latin text: Desideriis igitur nemo carebit, quousque in carne vivit, ideoque nemo liber erit a tentationibus (WA 40.2:101).  

Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam (WA 40.2:101-102). 

WHO BE RIGHTLY CALLED SAINTS, AND BE SO INDEED
This place (as I have also forewarned you by the way) containeth in it a singular consolation: for it teacheth us that the saints live not without concupiscence and temptations of the flesh, nor yet without sins. It warneth us therefore to take heed that we do not as some did, of whom Gerson writeth, which labored to attain [to such perfection], that they might be without all feeling of temptations or sins: that is to say, very stocks and stones. The like imagination the monks and schoolmen had of their saints, as though they had been very senseless blocks and without all affections. Assuredly Mary felt great grief and sorrow of heart when she missed her son (Luke 2). David in the Psalms complaineth that he is almost swallowed up with excessive sorrow for the greatness of his temptations and sins. Paul also complaineth that he hath battles without, and terrors within (2 Corinthians 7:5), and that in his flesh he serveth the law of sin. He saith that he is careful for all the churches (Corinthians 11:28), and that God showed great mercy towards him, in that he delivered Epaphroditus being at the point of death, to life again, lest he should have had sorrow upon sorrow (Philippians 2:27). Therefore the saints of the Papists are like to the Stoics, who imagined such wise men, as in the world were never yet to be found. And by this foolish and wicked persuasion, which proceedeth from the ignorance of this doctrine of Paul, the schoolmen brought both themselves and others without number into [horrible]desperation (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332-333; LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102-103).

Latin text: Et hic locus, ut etiam supra obiter monui, gravissimam consolationem nobis affert, quia admonet, quod sine concupiscentia et tentationibus carnis, imo etiam sine peccatis vivere non possimus. Admonet igitur nos, ne faciamus, ut quidam, de quibus Gerson scribit, qui eo nitebantur, ut prorsus nihil tentationum et peccatorum sentirent, hoc est, ut plane saxa essent. Talem imaginationem habuerunt Sophistae et Monachi de Sanctis, quasi fuerint meri stipites et trunci et plane caruerint omnibus affectibus. Certe Maria sensit maximum dolorem animi amisso filio, Luc. 2. Conqueritur David passim in Psalmis, se immodica tristicia propter magnitudinem tentationum et peccatorum suorum concepta pene absorberi. Conqueritur et Paulus se 'foris pugnas, intus pavores' sentire, Se 'carne servire legi peccati', Ait se 'solicitum esse pro omnibus Ecclesiis', Et 'Deum misertum esse sui, quod Epaphroditum vicinum morti restituerit vitae, ne dolorem super dolorem haberet'. Itaque Sophistarum Sancti similes sunt Sapientibus Stoicorum qui tales finxerunt sapientes, qualis nullus unquam fuit in rerum natura. Et hac stulta et impia persuasione, quae nata est ex inscitia huius Paulinae doctrinae, adegerunt Sophistae seipsos et alios infinitos ad desperationem.  (WA 40.2:102-103). 

Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam. sed hec scientia: non ambulare post ea; qui perfecit desideria, sciat se non Christianum. ideo consolatio doctrinae, quod impossibile nos non habere peccatum.

Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos homines, sed eum, qui abstineret a cibo, potu, tabula, in deserto. Is sanctus vir et mulier, qui baptisatus credit et abstinet propter Christum ab vitiis etc. Si curat domum, obsequitur viro, Ista salvatur per etc. Sic multae Sanctae mulieres, viri in hac carne, quia vivunt serio secundum Euangelium; quod interim offenditur a viro, sind desideria, commotiones; sed non ideo volunt nocere, impedire proximum; si etiam craus [graus] fert [fert] ein fluch, in remissionem peccatorum gehört et est lapsus. Et tales müssen wir heilige lassen, quia deus reputat salvos per remissionem peccatorum( WA 40.2:101-103).   

These English excerpts were taken from the Select Works of Martin Luther vol.1, p. 331-333. This was a popular English translation released in the nineteenth century by Henry Cole. Another English translation of this last quote can be found in LW 27:81,

As I have already indicated briefly, this passage provides us with the greatest possible comfort when it tells us that it is impossible to live without any desires and temptations of the flesh, in fact, without sin. It admonishes us not to act like the men of whom Gerson writes, who labored to rid themselves of any awareness of temptation or sin, in other words, to become nothing but stones. The sophists and monks had the notion about the saints that they were merely logs and blocks, utterly lacking in any feeling. Surely Mary felt a great sorrow in her mind when her Son was lost (Luke 2:48) (LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102).

Latin text: Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos (WA 40.2:102). 

Finally, in Christianity death is the result of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23; Jam. 1:15; 1 Cor. 15:56). In Luther's writings on Genesis towards the end of his career, he discusses how the Scriptures do not record the death of many Biblical women, including Mary. He assumes Mary died:

Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God (LW 4:189).

Latin text: Aliarum Patriarcharum ne mortem quidem annotavit scriptura: ut de Eva nihil meminit, quot annis vixerit, ubi mortua sit. Rachel scribitur laboribus partus extincta esse. Reliquas omnes praeterit et involvit silentio, adeo ut nec Mariae, matris Christi, mortem cognitam habeamus. Sola Sara hanc gloriam habet, quod annorum numerus certus, tempus mortis et locus sepulchri describitur. Magna igitur laus est, et certissimum argumentum fuisse eam preciosam in oculis Dei (WA 43:272).

Conclusion

To recap: there are two obfuscations Roman Catholics fall into when they describe Luther's view of Mary's sinlessness as immaculate purification. First, it's a term concocted by online pop-Roman Catholic apologists. It does not have a pedigree of scholarship behind it.  When A.I. indiscriminately offers it as correct information, it is seemingly not yet capable to distinguish between scholarship and online pop-apologetics. Second, the Roman Catholic version of Luther's immaculate purification view fails to address the question of whether or not Luther thought Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life. There are explicit statements from him in which he does classify Mary as a sinner after the birth of Jesus. According to Luther, Mary eventually died. Death is the result of sin.

If my goal was to eliminate readers of Beggars All, entries like this are certainly a means to that end! In the polemics between Roman Catholics and Protestants, this topic is like a fly buzzing around other theological issues. It does not have a strong degree of importance. Why then bother? Luther's view of Mary is frequently utilized by Roman Catholics. They argue that Luther believed in distinctly Roman Catholic Mariology, and so should you! It's a weird game of using an authority that the majority of Protestants don't adhere to or recognize. When the topic though is probed and scrutinized, it demonstrates Roman Catholics often use propaganda rather than going deep into history.   

Addendum #1 Luther said "The Virgin Mary has fallen into error"

Contrary to modern defenders of Roman Catholicism, their predecessors would not have utilized Luther's immaculate purification theory and would have agreed that he placed Mary among sinners.  

Tommaso Bozio (1548–1610) was an Italian Roman Catholic priest and Counter-Reformation historian. In 1591, he wrote a two-volume book entitled De signis ecclesiae Dei libri XXIV (24 Books about the Signs of the Church of God). He cites both Martin Luther and John Calvin negatively. In volume one, he documents that Luther Calvin and their followers are "impious" (impius Caluinus, ac Lutherus) in rejecting Papal authority and that by extension, they reject the authority of the saints, Church Councils, and the Apostles because these are capable of error, therefore sinning. He states,

Secundus gradus. Immo sancti omnes errarunt. iidem locis iisdem. quin ait spurcissimus Lutherus, sanctos istos, nisi ante mortem reducti sint, neque sanctos fuisse, neque ad Ecclesiam pertinere.

The second degree [of the error of the Reformers]. Nay rather, all the saints have erred. They [say this] in the same places. Indeed, the most filthy Luther says that those saints, unless they were brought back before death, were neither saints nor belonged to the Church (Google A.I. English translation).

Note the phrase "Spurcissimus Lutherus" (the most filthy Luther). He then contemptuously refers to the following statement from Martin Luther (turpissimus Lutherus), and it has a direct mention of Mary... that Luther taught she fell into error and faltered in faith: 

Quintus gradus. Ipsa virgo Maria lapsa est in errorem, quippe quae aliquando nutauerit in fide, aiunt turpissimus Lutherus cum suis, ille in postilla Euangelij Dominicae tertiae post Epiphaniam, & in Euangelio Centurionis. Centuriatores Centur.

The fifth stage. The Virgin Mary herself has fallen into error, in as much as she once faltered in faith, say the most filthy Luther with his [followers], in his postil on the Gospel for the third Sunday after Epiphany, and in the Gospel of the Centurion..(Google A.I. English translation).

The Luther texts this Roman Catholic priest is citing is the Gospel for the Third Sunday After Epiphany (Matthew 8:1-23. These verses in Matthew contain the account of the faith of the Centurion. Luther preached, 

So it should be understood that at the time He preached He did not find such faith either in His mother or in the apostles, whether or not He previously of afterward found great faith in His mother and the apostles and in many others. It may well be that He gave His mother great faith at the time she conceived and bore Him, and afterward not or rarely so great, and sometimes let [her faith] diminish, as He did when she lost Him for three days (Luke 2:46]), as He does with all His saints. If He did not do that, the saints would certainly fall into arrogance and make themselves into idols- or we would make idols out of them, and look more at their worthiness and person than at God's grace (LW 76:255-256).

German text:  Also soll auch hie verstanden werden, das er zur zeyt seyner predigt solchen glauben nicht funden habe widder ynn der mutter noch Aposteln, ob es gleich sey odder nicht sey, das er zuvor odder hernach grossern glauben funden habe ynn der mutter und Aposteln und viel andern. Denn es mag wol seyn, das er seyner mutter zur zeyt, da sie yhn empfieng und gebar, grossen glauben hab geben und dar nach nicht odder selten mehr so gros und zu weylen den selben hab lassen sincken. Wie er thet, da sie yhn drey tage verloren hatte, Luce 2., wie er auch mit allen seynen heyligen thut. Und wo ers nicht thet, sollten wol die heyligen fallen ynn vermessenheyt und sich zu abgotter machen, odder wyr worden abgotter dar aus machen und mehr auff yhre wirdickeyt und person sehen, denn auff Gottis gnaden (WA 17.2:77 ).

Another sixteenth century defender of Rome utilized the same passage against Luther. Peter Canisius (Dutch Jesuit priest and anti-Reformation polemicist) wrote in 1577 that Luther tried to obscure the faith of Mary and she lacked faith:

Quanta verò Lutheri est impudentia, quum hoc Euangelij loco MARIAE fidem obscurare conatur, adeoque in vniuersum definit, Christum prædicationis suæ tempore neque in Matre, neque in Apostolis tantam fidem, quantam in hoc vno Centurione, reperisse? Ac de MARIA quidem isthæc subiicit: Fieri potest, vt Matri suæ, dum se gestabat in vtero, & dum peperit, magnam fidem donarit, & postea nunquam, vel rarò tantam, imò etiam vt eius fidem identidem passus sit nutare: vti ei vsu venit, quando triduo ipsum amiserat. Verùm de hoc posteriore nos alibi viderimus, vt omnes intelligant, MARIAM cum amissum triduò filium quæreret, haudquaquam in fide vacillasse. Quod ad reliqua pertinet, omnium piorum consensus in eo conspirat, certóque confirmat, quòd MARIA non solùm gestans vterum, & partus sui tempore, vti concedit Lutherus, sed etiam post partum, ac in omni vita fidem integram perfectámque seruarit, in eáque fide tantò magis profecerit, quantò pluribus & maioribus confirmandæ fidei argumentis abundaret.

How shameless is Luther, when in this place of the Gospel he tries to obscure the faith of Mary, and thus concludes in general that Christ, in the time of his preaching, found neither in his Mother nor in the Apostles so much faith as in this one Centurion? And concerning Mary he subjoins these words: It is possible that he granted his Mother great faith while she was carrying him in her womb and while she was giving birth, and afterward never, or only rarely, so much faith, and indeed that he allowed her faith to waver from time to time, as happened when she had lost him for three days. But we will examine this latter point elsewhere, so that all may understand that Mary, when she was searching for her son who had been lost for three days, did not at all waver in her faith. As for the rest, the consensus of all the pious agrees on this, and confirms for certain that Mary, not only while carrying the womb and at the time of her childbirth, as Luther concedes, but also after the birth, and throughout her entire life, preserved a complete and perfect faith, and in that faith progressed all the more, as she abounded in more and greater arguments for the confirmation of her faith (DeepL English translation).

Addendum #2 Ineffabilis Deus, the Roman Catholic Dogmatic Decree on the Immaculate Conception of Mary vs. Luther
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church released its dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Ineffabilis Deus. This dogmatic pronouncement states,

 “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

There have been defenders of Rome claiming Luther's view of the Immaculate Conception was substantially the same as the 1854 dogmatic pronouncement. These Roman Catholics are in error as I demonstrated back in 2003. 

True, in Roman Catholic theology, this 1854 declaration of condemnation to those saying something different does not work backward. In a Roman Catholic system, Luther was free to hold the position he did on Mary and her relation to sin. He lived a long time before 1854! This was even Standard Operating Procedure in Luther's lifetime. He stated in 1518:

Second, even if the pope along with a large part of the church should feel thus and so, and even if it were true that he does not err, it is still not a sin, nor is it heresy, to take the opposite position, especially in something which is not necessary for salvation, until the one position has been rejected by a general council and the other approved. But, lest I become too involved, let me state that my position is proved in this one instance, namely, that the Roman church along with the general council at Basel and almost with the whole church feels that the Holy Virgin was conceived without sin. Yet those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics, since their opinion has not been disproved (LW 31:172-173; WA 1:583).

Latin text:  Secondo. Etiam si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret nec etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum aut haeresis, contrarium sentire, presertim in re non necessaria ad salutem, donec fuerit per Concilium universale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum. Quod, ne multis agam, illo unico probatur, quod Ecclesia Romana etiam cum Concilio universali Basiliensi ac tota ferme Ecclesia sentit, B. Virginem sine peccato conceptam Et tamen, quia altera pars non est reprobata, non sunt haeretici qui con trarium sapiunt (WA 1:583).

It's curious that any contemporary defender of Rome would positively put forth Martin Luther's view of immaculate purification in light of Ineffabilis Deus. It can certainly be treated as an oddity of their history from a Roman Catholic perspective. But, for a contemporary Roman Catholic layman to positively utilize Luthers view of Mary here seems to smack in the face of Ineffabilis Deus. Should Roman Catholics have the freedom to positively use Luther's immaculate purification view as somehow a defense of Roman Catholicism? To do so would be, as Ineffabilis Deus states, daring to think otherwise than what has been infallibly defined.   

Addendum #3 Magisterium A.I.

I hesitate to mention this.  Rome's defenders now have their own A.I.: Magisterium. Supposedly, it only utilizes official Roman Catholic documents and generally accepted sources like the old Catholic Encyclopedia. You know how A.I. is supposed to eliminate human jobs? Well.... look out professional Roman Catholic apologists! 

I asked Magisterium A.I. the following: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary never sinned? It replied: 

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary never sinned. This doctrine encompasses two key aspects affirmed in magisterial teaching: her preservation from original sin through the Immaculate Conception—a defined dogma—and her lifelong freedom from all personal sin (both mortal and venial) by a singular grace from God.

-snip-

Lifelong Freedom from Personal Sin

Beyond original sin, the Church teaches that Mary remained free from every personal sin throughout her life.

-snip-

Development of Doctrine: While the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, Mary's full sinlessness was taught earlier by the ordinary Magisterium and liturgy, with Trent explicitly exempting her.

-snip-

In summary, Catholic doctrine holds Mary as the sole exception among humans (after Christ) to be entirely sinless, redeemed preemptively and preserved perfectly—a flawless model of the Church's hope for holiness.

Martin Luther: "I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing"

A defender of Rome did just enough reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia to conclude Martin Luther was "extremely demonic" based on... his prayer life! Did this papal warrior survey Luther's vast writings and examine his statements on prayer? No, it was enough to pull one shocking quote out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. He posted the following:

If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic, at least at certain times of his life. He is recorded as saying that he could not pray without cursing. Where did Jesus tell us to curse our enemies in prayer? I must have missed that in the Gospels. The Catholic Encyclopedia records Luther's words as, "For I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing. If I am prompted to say: 'hallowed be Thy name', I must add: 'cursed, damned, outraged be the name of the papists.' If I am prompted to say: 'Thy Kingdom come', I must perforce add: 'cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy.' Indeed I pray thus orally every day and in my heart without intermission" (Sammtl. W., XXV, 108)

This Roman Catholic layman isn't alone using this quote to denigrate Martin Luther. Secular psychologist Erik Erikson used the quote in his popular book, Young Man Luther. Erikson doesn't use it to prove Luther was "extremely demonic" in prayer. Rather, he uses Freudian psychology and determines statements like these "...are an attempt to find a safety-valve when unrelenting inner pressure threatened to make devotion unbearable and sublimity hateful- that is, when he was again about to repudiate God in supreme rebellion, and himself in malignant melancholy."

This defender of Rome though has followed the lead of the Catholic Encyclopedia. This resource infers statements like these were part of his "sinister moods." They refer to one of Luther's "old admirers" stating,"with his shameless, ungovernable tongue, [Luther] must have lapsed into insanity or been inspired by the Evil Spirit." The author of the Luther entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss, presented a wild tempered Martin Luther, depressed and mentally ill, abandoned by most of his friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit. 

Documentation

The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 9 cites "Sammtl. W., XXV, 108." This page can be found here. Erikson cites a different source: "L.W. W.A. XXX, 3, 470." This page can be found here. Both are correct references from editions of Luther's works. This quote was taken from the 1531 treatise, Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. In English, the title is Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden or sometimes referred to as Against the Traitor at Dresden. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes this treatise can be found in Walch, op. cit., XVI 2062-2086. The treatise, to my knowledge, has not yet been translated into English.

There is debate as to who the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden was. Some older sources refer to Franz Arnold (or Pranz Arnold). The sparse information about Arnold identifies him as "a Roman Catholic priest at Cologne, [who] was one of the most violent, though not one of the most distinguished opponents of Luther." Franz is said to have penned "Der unpartheyische Laye" which was "a violent attack on Luther." Luther is said to have responded with "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden." More often though, the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden is thought to be Duke George. 

Duke George was a sworn enemy of Luther's. He stands out as a ruler vigorous in maintaining a campaign of propaganda against him. He kept a team of writers busy against Luther. The writings were quite hostile. Duke George actually sought to have Luther's works censured and reviewed, while his work and those under him who wrote just as intensely were allowed to print whatever they wanted. Interestingly, Duke George used one of the most virulent critics of Martin Luther whose impact on Roman Catholic scholarship lasted for centuries:  Johann Cochlaeus. Duke George also used his ruling power to obstruct Reformation printing, as well as promoting wholesale burnings and confiscation of Luther's books. If one was caught printing pro-Reformation materials, it was quite possible Duke George would have that person arrested (which actually did happen). Duke George was part of a secret Roman Catholic alliance seeking to restore Roman Catholicism within Electoral Saxony by having Luther and other Protestants handed over to the authorities. After Luther published "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden," "Duke George expelled a number of evangelically minded persons from Leipzig and Oschatz" [LW 38:142]. Interestingly, Duke George was one of the leaders responsible for actually slaughtering the peasants during their revolt.

In 1531, things became heated between Duke George and Luther. The Duke campaigned that Luther was attempting to incite rebellion against the empire. Duke George wrote an anonymous work (published at Dresden) responding to Luther's "Warning to His Dear Germans" entitled, "Against Luther's Warning to the Germans That They Should Not Be Obedient To the Emperor, Another Warning That They Should Not Allow Themselves To Be Misled By It Nor To Be Moved To Disobedience." Franz Arnold wrote a short afterword to the second edition of this treatise. Luther entitled his response "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden" because Duke George published his attack against Luther anonymously. 

In his counter treatise, Luther said it was the papists who were really against the empire, not the Lutherans. He listed twelve pieces of evidence proving that Roman Catholic authorities were seeking the physical destruction of Protestants. The quote in question comes from the end of the treatise. It's a response to Duke George's assertion that Luther's writings were filled with evil words and devil references.

Context

It should be my fame and honor, [and] so I also wish to have it, that one should say of me from now on how full I am of evil words, abuse, and cursing for the papists. For more than ten years I have often humbled myself and have used the very fairest words with the result that the longer [I have done so] the worse I have made them. . . . Now, however, since they are impenitent [and] have decided to do simply no good but rather nothing but evil so that there is no hope [for them], I also wish from now on to occupy myself with cursing and rebuking those rogues to my grave [wil jch auch hinfurt mich mil den bosewichten zu fluchen und zu schelten bis jnn meine gruben], and no good word more should be heard from me. I wish to ring them into the grave with my thunder and lightning.

For I cannot pray without thereby having to curse. If I say: "Holy be Thy name," I must in addition say: "Cursed, damned, and disgraced must be the papists' name and all who slander Thy name." If I say: "Thy kingdom come," then I have to add: "Cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy with all kingdoms on earth that are opposed to Thy kingdom." If I say: "Thy will be done," then I must add: "Cursed, damned, disgraced, and to nothing must be all thoughts and plots of the papists and all who strive against Thy will and advice." In truth, I pray thusly daily without fail [both] orally and in my heart, and with me [pray in the same manner] all who believe on Christ, and I also feel indeed that it will be heard. . . . Still I hold a good, friendly, peaceful, and Christian heart towards everyone. Even my greatest enemies know that [English translation from Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 50-51. An alternate English rendering can be found in Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, pp. 151-152].

German text: ...das soll mein Ruhm und Ehre sein, wills auch so haben, daß man von mir hinfurt sagen solle, wie ich voll böser Wort, Scheltens und Fluchens über die Papisten sei. Ich hab länger denn zehen Jahr mich oft gedemüthigt, und die allerbesten Wort gegeben, damit ich sie je länger je ärger gemacht habe... Nu aber, weil sie verstockt, schlecht kein Gutes, sondern eitel Böses zu thun beschlossen haben, daß keine Hoffnung da ist, will ich auch hinfurt mich mit den Bösewichten zusuchen und zuschelten bis in meine Grube, und sollen kein gut Wort mehr von mir hören. Ich will ihn mit meinem Donnern und Blitzen also zum Grabe läuten.

Denn ich kann nicht beten, ich muß dabei fluchen. Soll ich sagen: Geheiligt werde dein Name; muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet müsse werden der Papisten Namen, und aller, die deinen Namen lästern. Soll ich sagen: dein Reich komme; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, verstöret müsse werden das Papstthum, sampt allen Reichen auf Erden, die deinem Reich wider sind. Soll ich sagen: Dein Wille geschehe; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet und zunichte müsse werden alle Gedanken und Anschläge der Papisten, und aller, die wider deinen Willen und Rath streben. Wahrlich, so bete ich alle Tage mündlich, und mit dem Herzen ohn Unterlaß, und mit mir alle, die an Christum glauben, und fühle auch wohl, daß es erhöret wird...Er argumentiert, dass sein Zorn sich gegen das System (das Papsttum) richtet, das er als gottlos ansieht, er aber als Christ dennoch Nächstenliebe gegenüber jedem einzelnen Menschen empfindet (WA 30.3:470).

Conclusion
The historical context demonstrates that this writing from Luther was not set in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. Rather, the quote rests in a period of societal conflict with detrimental physical implications to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. In essence, this was a writing set in a war zone. Both sides were in a war of who had the right to be the true church. Extreme circumstances often lead to extreme behaviors. 

But does the historical context acquit Luther of such harsh language directed against his enemies? Note that last line above, "Nevertheless I have a kind, friendly, peaceable, and Christian heart toward everyone, as even my worst enemies know." This is a tip off that Luther was admitting to using highly rhetorical and inflammatory language. Secular historian Will Durant's volume on the Reformation uses the same quote as an example of Luther's use of unrestrained language, often to a fault. He also adds the following disclaimer immediately after citing the quote:

Such rhetorical passion was in the temper of the times."Some of the preachers and pamphlet writers on the orthodox side," confessed the learned Cardinal Gasquet, "were Luther's match in this respect." Vituperation was expected of intellectual gladiators, and relished by their audiences; politeness was suspected cowardice (Durant, The Reformation, p.418-419).

Both sides, Papist and Lutheran, felt justified in such abusive language because they considered the other to be in league with the devil. Again, this identification of the devil's leadership was not arrived at in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. These sixteenth century people took the devil's authority seriously and needed to be vigorously opposed. Historian Mark U. Edwards makes an insightful point that the use of harsh language may primarily have been used to inspire those on the side of the author rather than it serving as a direct attack against the opposition: 

Given such opposed convictions, it is not surprising that the language and form of argumentation employed by the publicists—Luther, Duke Georg, Cochlaeus—suggest that each was speaking more to his own party than to one another. Expressions of righteous indignation, liberal use of insult and name-calling, lengthy recitals of old grievances, rehashing of past disputes, repetition of familiar arguments—such material may appeal to the converted and may reinforce convictions already held. But it is unlikely to move the unconverted. And it will only enrage the opponent [Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 38-39].

Delving deeply into history like this typically never satisfies Roman Catholics that flippantly interpret history with conclusions like, "If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic." This quote is yet another example of Roman Catholic bias, perceiving one's enemies in the worst possible way. It would be interesting to find out if this Roman Catholic critic would conclude David was also demonic in Psalm 109 when he wrote the following about his enemies: 

8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance [e]far from their ruined homes. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder the product of his labor. 12 Let there be none to  extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out.

Also, the facts of Luther's theology on prayer don't bear out the conclusion he was demonic. For Luther, prayer was a weapon we have to call down the power of God against the power of the devil. We call down God’s power against every evil the devil tries to bring upon our lives. Prayer is a weapon in our fight against the devil on the battlefield of the lives of those around us. We call down the power of God against the devil for those we love. For Luther, the devil was the mastermind behind the Papacy. Hence, his prayer above reflected this. 

This entry at this point could succumb to text overload with Luther quotes. Anyone interested in a concise overview on Luther's theology of prayer should seek out the entry on "Prayer" in the anthology compiled by Lutheran theologian Ewald Plass, What Luther Says. An overwhelming amount of evidence could be put forth to demonstrate the conclusion Luther's prayer life proved him demonic is spurious and slanderous.    

In a final point of irony, Roman Catholic historian Anton Fischer argued Martin Luther was an admirable man of prayer, a man to be appreciated by Roman Catholics:

However rich a Church may be in truly great Christian men of prayer, it would still have room for the distinctives of the praying Luther; it should not pass carelessly over this great man of prayer and his precious utterances on prayer and his excellent instruction on prayer (English translation by Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, p. 55).

German text: Mag eine Kirche noch so reich an wahrhaft großen christlichen Beter-Persönlichkeiten sein, sie sollte doch auch noch Raum haben für die Eigenart des betenden Luther; sie sollte nicht achtlos an diesem großen Beter und an seinen köstlichen Aussprüchen über das Gebet und seinen trefflichen Anweisungen zum Gebete vorübergehen! (Luther in okumenischer Sicht, pp. 187-188).

Richard Stauffer explains:

Fischer makes a distinction in Luther between the fighter and the man of prayer. The former, to his mind, is the concern of only a part of Christianity; all Christian denominations can, however, lay a claim to the second. In so far as he was a man of prayer, Luther was truly ecumenical. Even a Church rich in believers who are devoted to prayer (he means the Roman Church, of course) has much to learn from him.

And what can Luther teach all Christians about prayer? Two essential truths. The first is that prayer has only one valid criterion—the Word and the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself through Scripture. Luther drew all his strength from the Bible and took all his instruction about prayer from the Bible. In the same way, all believers are exhorted to nourish themselves on the Old and New Testaments, if they wish to pray effectively; there they too will meet with God. The second truth is that the Pater noster constitutes the very heart of the Christian life, and for this reason should be pronounced with the reverence and fervour due to Christ's own words. If it is said in the spirit of the great masters of prayer like St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther (so Fischer ends his article), the Lord's Prayer can bridge the gap which really separates Roman Catholics and Protestants.” [Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, pp. 38-39].

 

Addendum: Lutheran scholar Julius Köstlin on the Historical Background 

Luther gave open vent to his indignation at the Recess of the Diet and the violent attacks of the Catholics in two publications, early in 1531, one entitled 'Gloss on the supposed Edict of the Emperor,' and the other, 'Warning to his beloved Germans.' In the former here viewed the contents of the Edict and the calumnies it heaped upon the Evangelical doctrines, not intending, as he said, to attack his Imperial Majesty, but only the traitors and villains, be they princes or bishops, who sought to work their own wicked will, and chief of all the arch-rogue, the so-called Vicegerent of God, and his legates. The other treatise contemplates the 'very worst evil' of all that then threatened them, namely, a war resulting from the coercive measures of the Emperor and the resistance of the Protestants. As a spiritual pastor and preacher he wished to counsel not war, but peace, as all the world must testify he had always been the most diligent in doing. But he now openly declared that if, which God forbid, it came to war, he would not have those who defended themselves against the bloodthirsty Papists censured as rebellious, but would have it called an act of necessary defence,and justify it by referring to the law and the lawyers.These publications occasioned fresh dealings with Duke George, who again complained to the Elector about them, and also about certain letters falsely ascribed to Luther, and then published a reply,under an assumed name, to his first pamphlet. Luther answered this 'libel' with a tract entitled 'Against the Assassin at Dresden,' not intended, as many have supposed, to impute murderous designs to the Duke, but referring to the calumnies and anonymous attacks in his book. The tone employed by Luther in this tract reminds us of his saying that 'a rough wedge is wanted for a rough log.' It brought down upon him a fresh admonition from his prince, in reply to which he simply begged that George might for the future leave him in peace (Köstlin, Life of Luther, pp. 431-432).

 This entry is a rewrite of a post from 2009. The original can be found here.

Why is a Hymn of Martin Luther (“A Mighty Fortress”) in Roman Catholic hymnals?

Back in 2012 I came upon a Roman Catholic asking a popular apologist,

Why do we have a hymn of heretic Martin Luther (“A Mighty Fortress”) in our Catholic hymnal? My protestant father sees this inclusion as implying that Holy Mother Church thinks Luther wasn’t “that bad.”

Documentation
Yes, it's true. There are a few distinctly Roman Catholic hymnals that have been used in Roman Catholic parishes containing A Mighty Fortress is Our God. This link claims A Mighty Fortress is "found in the Roman Catholic We Celebrate hymnal." When I searched for We Celebrate, I found a link to the 2017-2020 edition which appears not to contain A Mighty Fortress. Some searches indicate this particular hymnal is updated every three years, so it appears to have been removed?

However, I did locate the 1979 We Celebrate with Song, Companion Hymnal to We Celebrate, Seasonal Missalette. The preface states this compendium is for   

...appropriate issues of the WE CELEBRATE SEASONAL MISSALETTE, which, together with this hymnal, provides a total congregational worship aid. The missalette also provides all necessary service music. These two worship resources offer a treasury of songs unsurpassed in breadth, variety and propriety for liturgical and paraliturgical use.

As this link correctly points out, "... the melody is Luther’s, but only his first two lines and the last line of stanza one are in the lyric. The rest of the hymn (also a paraphrase of Psalm 46) was written by the 20th century Roman Catholic hymnwriter Omer Westendorf (1916-1997)."  In some of the hymnals, it explicitly and transparently says, "Lines 1 and 2, Martin Luther, 1483-1546" or "Opening lines: Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Remainder of hymn text: Omer Westendorf." However, these admissions neglect that the last line of stanza one is also Luther's ("On earth is found no equal"). Westendorf published his rendering of A Mighty Fortress in 1964:

 

Also interesting to note, the Roman Catholic version contains only three stanzas (not four). 

Context 

A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (Omer Westendorf adaptation)

1

A mighty fortress is our God, 

A bulwark never failing;

Protecting us with staff and rod,

In power all prevailing.

What if the nations rage

And surging seas rampage;

What though the mountains fall,

The Lord is God of all—

On earth is found no equal.

2

The waters of God’s goodness flow

Throughout the holy city,

And gladden hearts of those who know

Great tenderness and pity.

Though nations stand unsure,

God’s kingdom shall endure;

In power shall remain,

In peace shall ever reign,

God’s truth is everlasting.

3

God dwells with us and is our strength,

Our refuge in all danger;

When wars and tumults rage at length,

God’s kingdom knows no changer.

Be still, for God is near;

Be calm and do not fear;

Lift up your eyes above,

For God is Lord of love—

On earth is found no equal.

What's the difference between Luther and the Roman Catholic Rendering?
Beyond the fact that Luther's original words have been almost entirely scrubbed away by Omer Westendorf, what are the most significant differences? The most blatant differences are Luther's reference to the Devil and Christ victorious over the devil and Westendorf's lack thereof:

Luther, stanza 1: "For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal."

Westendorf, stanza 1:"What if the nations rage, And surging seas rampage; What though the mountains fall, The Lord is God of all—On earth is found no equal."

Luther, stanza 2: Jesus Christ as victor on our side wins the battle against the devil.

Westendorf, stanza 2: Jesus Christ as victor on our side winning the battle against the devil is completely eliminated.

Luther, stanza 3: Jesus Christ as victor on our side wins the battle against the devil. Tedium: "one little word shall fell him," or "One word can overturn him" (LW 53:285); German text: "Ein wörtlein kan jn fellen" (WA 35:457). The "little word" according to Luther is "devil you lie" (LW 41:186).

Westendorf, stanza 3: Jesus Christ as victor on our side winning the battle against the devil is completely eliminated.

Luther, stanza 4: The Word and Spirit are proclaimed as complete victors, giving a Christian pilgrim this side of eternity the strength to endure the Devil's battle against them.

Westendorf, stanza 4: Stanza four is eliminated.

Conclusion: Which Version is Biblical? Luther's or Westendorf's?

 A debate between the renderings of Luther and Westendorf could be had over who is interpreting and rendering Psalm 46 correctly.

 A Mighty Fortress is our God was intended by Luther to be a reflection of Psalm 46. LW 53 says, "[Luther] did not write it to express his own feelings, but to interpret and apply the 46th Psalm to the church of his own time and its struggles" (LW 53:283). In Luther's defense, his interpretation certainly can be anchored from Psalm 46 and applied in a sixteenth century interpretative form describing the fortress of God as a refuge in the ultimate cosmic battle between the devil and Jesus Christ. This is expressly described in the New Testament (Eph. 6:12, 1 Pet. 5:8-9; John 8:44; Jam. 4:7; Matt. 16:23; Rom. 16:20; Eph. 6:11-16; 2 Cor. 5:10-11; Matt. 4:1-11; the Book of Revelation, etc.). While the devil is not overtly mentioned in Psalm 46, Luther rightly interpreted the devil as being behind trouble, the natural ravages of the earth, and the raging of heathens and their kingdoms. Psalm 46 responds that God wins. He will be exalted in the earth. He is refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble...  the God of Jacob is our fortress, an eternal fortress. 

Omer Westendorf primarily pulled his lyrics directly from the words of Psalm 46. Since Psalm 46 does not mention the devil, neither did Westendorf.  He does use "staff and rod" from Psalm 23. Other than that, I don't see any significant deviation from the words of Psalm 46. His rendering of Psalm 46 could easily find a home in those churches dedicated to the primary use of Psalm singing. My opinion is surprisingly quite contrary to this Lutheran:

This [third] stanza is weird in its interpretation of Psalm 46, in its deviation from the spiritual warfare of the original hymn, and in its forced and trite language about nuclear disarmament and gun control.  Of course, the entire hymn never mentions Satan, the devils, or spiritual warfare.  It also never mentions Christ.  Unlike the powerful and defiant tone of Luther in the face of the loss of his daughter, this hymn sounds like a bloodless cerebral exercise: a college assignment in English Lit gone bad because of a looming deadline and the want of facility with language, not to mention a lack of life experience.

Luther’s A Mighty Fortress is a confessional and lyrical masterpiece that will continue to stand the test of time. Westendorf’s is an embarrassing dud: a clunker that will not likely survive until the next century.  Our Roman Catholic brothers would do better to either simply eliminate A Mighty Fortress all together, or just suck it up and include Luther’s original by way of appropriation.  Publishing this one was the worst of both worlds: keeping the name of the “arch-heretic” in their hymn.

Which version is right? Contrary to the Lutheran opinion above, I think both are  allowable! Martin Luther sought to apply Psalm 46 whereas Omer Westendorf sought to put the text of Psalm 46 to English lyrics. I've not come across any information suggesting that Westendorf had polemical motivations against Luther, although it's no secret Luther saw the papacy as being run by the devil. Was this the reason Westendorf changed Luther's words? I don't know. Perhaps Westendorf had ecumenical Leanings? His publishing date (1964) does fall between the years of the activity of Vatican II (1962-1965). It is curious that Westendorf commandeered Luther's hymn. I can understand the concerns of Roman Catholics finding it ironically or shockingly odd singing a tune penned by Martin Luther. On the other hand, Omer Westendorf's use of Luther's hymn may very well be an example of Thou shalt not steal.

Addendum #1: "One Little Word Shall Fell Him"

Question: Why does Luther say in this hymn, "One little word shall fell him" and then explain elsewhere the one little word is three words: "'Devil, you lie"? It's a figurative explanation. Picture Luther pointing at the devil and saying: "Liar!" 

"For all such books, even if there were as many as thousands of them written every day and every hour as von Wolfenbüttel has vices and lies, are very easily refuted with the single word, 'Devil, you lie,' just as that haughty beggar Dr. Luther sings so proudly and boldly in those words of his hymn, 'One little word shall fell him'" (LW 41:185-186).

"Denn solche Bücher alle, wenn derselben so viel tausend wären, als der zu Wolfenbüttel Lügen und Untugend an sich hat, und alle Tage und ſtunde ſo viel geſchrieben würden, ſind ſie doch leichtlich zuverantworten¹ mit einem wortlin, das heißt: Teuffel, du leugeſt, wie denn der hochmutige Bettler Doct. Luther in ſeinem liedlin ſtöltzlich und verdrießlich ſinget: 'Ein wörtlin kan jn fellen' (WA 51:469-470).

"This world’s prince accurst, Let him rage his worst, No hurt brings about; His doom it is gone out, One word can overturn him" (LW 53:285).

"Der Fürſt dieſer welt,wie ſaur er ſich ſtelt, thut er uns doch nicht, das macht er iſt gericht, Ein wörtlein kan jn fellen" (WA 35:456-457).

Addendum #2 The Main English Translations of A Mighty Fortress is Our God

Currently, there are two popular English translations of A Mighty Fortress is Our God (Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott). 

The first was put forth by Frederic Henry Hedge (Dec. 12, 1805 – Aug. 21, 1890). Hedge was not a Lutheran, but rather a Unitarian minister and heavily interested in Transcendentalism in the 1830's. His English rendering of A Mighty Fortress was released in 1853. This version can be found not only in some older Lutheran hymnals, but in many popular hymnals across denominations and non-denominations.

1. A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing; Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing: For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe; His craft and pow'r are great, and, armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal.

2. Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing; Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing: Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He; Lord Sabaoth, His name, from age to age the same, And He must win the battle.

3. And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us: The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him; His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure, One little word shall fell him.

4. That word above all earthly pow'rs, no thanks to them, abideth; The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him who with us sideth: Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also; The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever.

The second rendering is used primarily in Lutheran churches. It is a composite translation, that is, a translation done by multiple people rather than a single person. This composite version was published in 1868 in the Church Book for the use of Evangelical Lutheran Congregations. This composite rendering is based on the 1831 English translation done by Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) entitled, "A safe stronghold our God is still."

1. A mighty fortress is our God, A trusty shield and weapon; He helps us free from ev'ry need That hath us now o'ertaken. The old evil foe Now means deadly woe; Deep guile and great might Are his dread arms in fight; On earth is not his equal.

2. With might of ours can naught be done, Soon were our loss effected; But for us fights the valiant One, Whom God Himself elected. Ask ye, Who is this? Jesus Christ it is, Of Sabaoth Lord, And there's none other God; He holds the field forever.

3. Though devils all the world should fill, All eager to devour us, We tremble not, we fear no ill; They shall not overpow'r us. This world's prince may still Scowl fierce as he will, He can harm us none. He's judged; the deed is done; One little word can fell him.

4. The Word they still shall let remain Nor any thanks have for it; He's by our side upon the plain With His good gifts and Spirit. And take they our life, Goods, fame, child, and wife, Though these all be gone, our vict'ry has been won; The Kingdom ours remaineth.  

I have seen estimates that there are at least seventy English translations, but I could not verify this. It may come from this older source which provides a review of a number of English translations up to the twentieth century adding up to 68. 

Addendum #3 Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (WA 35:455-457) and “Our God He Is a Castle Strong” (LW 53:283-285)

Here is a comparison of Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott from WA 35:455-457 and “Our God He Is a Castle Strong” from Luther's Works 53:283-285.

Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (WA 35:455-457) 

1. Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, ein gute Wehr und Waffen. Er hilft uns frei aus aller Not, die uns jetzt hat betroffen. Der alt böse Feind, mit Ernst er's jetzt meint; groß Macht und viel List sein grausam Rüstung ist,auf Erd ist nicht seinsgleichen.

2. Mit unsrer Macht ist nichts getan, wir sind gar bald verloren; es streit' für uns der rechte Mann, den Gott hat selbst erkoren. Fragst du, wer der ist? Er heißt Jesus Christ, der Herr Zebaoth, und ist kein andrer Gott; das Feld muß er behalten.

3. Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär und wollt uns gar verschlingen, so fürchten wir uns nicht so sehr, es soll uns doch gelingen. Der Fürst dieser Welt, wie sau'r er sich stellt, tut er uns doch nicht; das macht, er ist gericht': ein Wörtlein kann ihn fällen.

4. Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn und kein' Dank dazu haben; er ist bei uns wohl auf dem Plan mit seinem Geist und Gaben. Nehmen sie den Leib, Gut, Ehr, Kind und Weib: laß fahren dahin, sie haben's kein Gewinn, das Reich muß uns doch bleiben.

 

“Our God He Is a Castle Strong” (LW 53:283-285)

1. Our God he is a castle strong, A good mail coat and weapon; He sets us free from every wrong that wickedness would heap upon, The old knavish foe, He means earnest now; Force and cunning sly His horid policy, on earth there's nothing like him. 

2. ’Tis all in vain, do what we can, Our strength is soon dejected. But He fights for us, the right man, By God himself elected. Ask’st thou who is this? Jesus Christ it is, Lord of Hosts alone, And God but him is none, So he must win the battle.

3. And did the world with devils swarm, All gaping to devour us, We fear not the smallest harm, Success is yet before us. This world’s prince accurst, Let him rage his worst, No hurt brings about; His doom it is gone out, One word can overturn him. 

 4. The word they shall allow to stand, Nor any thanks have for it; He is with us, at our right hand, With the gifts of his spirit. If they take our life, Wealth, name, child and wife—Let everything go:  They have no profit so; The kingdom ours remaineth.

Which Roman Catholic Interpretation of Martin Luther and the Reformation is Correct?

The stained-glass image to the left depicts Thomas Aquinas stepping on the neck of Martin Luther and vanquishing him. Or, to quote the defender of Rome that posted this picture, 

A beautiful mosaic of the Angelic Doctor St Thomas Aquinas stepping on the neck of Luther the heretic. The Church will always prevail over protestantism. In 100 years, your protestant sect will be extinct and forgotten, but the Church will still be here. Because we were founded by God and we are invincible.

This harsh bravado is typical of low-hanging fruit online Roman Catholic fodder. For those of you actively engaged in social media, this may seem hard to believe... but this rage-bait sentiment does not reflect the entirety of modern-day Roman Catholicism. Frankly, Roman Catholics are not unified in their analysis of Martin Luther and the Reformation. They have a spectrum of conservative to liberal, from cafeteria Roman catholic to informed (in some sense), from harsh polemic to kind encounter. 

Why are there a variety of personal opinions put forth by Rome's defenders on Luther and the Reformation?

Martin Luther Was Not Named by the Decrees of the Council of Trent

The answer is that there is no official Roman Catholic interpretation on Martin Luther and the Reformation which binds them. Note this statement from Roman Catholic theologian Irwin Iserloh describing that Luther was not named in the decrees of the Council of Trent and its significance: 

[No] Reformers were condemned. Only teachings which were ascribed to them were struck with an anathema, without their being themselves individually named. This procedure of the Council was based on an instruction from the highest authority. Already in his instruction of December 31, 1546, the cardinal nephew, Alessandro Farnese, had laid down the principle that heretical teachings and not individually named persons were to be condemned. That would facilitate the procedure, but also leave open for Protestants the way to Trent. This principle was once more confirmed in February, 1547, and remained normative for the practice of all three periods.

It was clear that Trent was in this regard out of step with most of the earlier councils. Joachim of Flora had been condemned by name at the Fourth Lateran Council, and Wyclif and Hus at Constance. To the contrary, the Council of Trent, as Hubert Jedin wrote, "was not to become a tribunal." Errors would be rejected and with a view to bringing clarity to doctrinal confusion, no persons would be condemned. The rejections also related not just to teachings ascribed to the Reformers. No less opposition, as is evident, for example, in the first three canons on justification, was directed against the Pelagian currents in late medieval nominalistic theology. Canon 1 reads: "Whoever maintains that man through his own works, which are accomplished by the power of human nature or in accord with the teaching of the Law, without divine grace, which here is through Jesus Christ, can become justified before God, let him be anathema" (DS 1551). In this statement of teaching, to be sure, no Protestants are condemned. On the contrary, the endeavor here is related to doing justice to the basic concern of the Reformation.

Author James Atkinson echoes this point:

[Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner] reminds us of [Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin’s] point, that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. He says that Catholicism may reject a certain aspect of Luther’s teaching, but that Roman Catholic the¬ ology has much to learn from him today nonetheless. These are heartening and hopeful words (James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, [p. 30). 

Roman Catholic scholar Hubert Jedin documents that the debate over officially making a pronouncement on Luther and the Reformers officially heretics was an issue for Roman Catholic authorities in the sixteenth century. There were those in attendance at the Council of Trent that wanted to condemn individuals Protestants like they did in the old days. For instance:

Claramontanus. Heretics should be summoned to a council to account for their assertions or, if they repent, to confess their error, as has been done in other councils. He holds that the articles condemned by the holy fathers and judged worthy of condemnation should be anathematized; those that are doubtful will be dealt with at another time (DeepL English translation).

Original text: Claramontanus. Oportet vocari ad concilium haereticos, qui de suis assertionibus rationem redderent, vel resipiscentes errorem suum faterentur, ut in aliis conciliis factum est. Censet articulos damnatos a sanctis patribus et damnandos iudicatos damnarí sub anathemate; de iis, qui dubii sunt, alias agetur. 

Also as an example, on the Sacraments, the Bishop of Astorga stated, "let the Council condemn specific articles extracted from the writings of the Protestants, and with the indication of the names of their authors." Jedin continues:

However, a change such as this, which would have turned the Council into a tribunal, did not materialise, but the legates took the proposals of the two Spaniards, which were supported by several Italians (for instance by the Bishops of Bertinoro and Alife), so seriously, that they reported on them to Rome and asked for instructions. The Pope upheld the earlier policy, namely, a clear differentiation between the Catholic and Protestant doctrinal position, but there was to be no condemnation by name of Protestant authors.

This is confirmed in a letter from Cardinal Alessandro Farnese:

As for the mention made in congregation about condemning the authors of heresies by name, I believe that until last year this point was doubted and finally resolved that it should not be done, so as not to enter into the lengths and intricacies of citations and processes (Google translate).

Original text: Quanto alla mentione fatta in congregatione, di condennare nominatamente li autori delle heresie, credo, che insino l'anno passato fusse dubitato di questo punto et resoluto all' ultimo, che non si facesse per non entrar' in lunghezze et intrighi di citationi et. processi.

 It is true that some of the theological positions Martin Luther and the Reformers were blatantly condemned by the Council of Trent as heretical. However, in choosing to not name them, the Council of Trent thrust Luther and the Reformers into a sort of undefined linguistic limbo.  They are not dogmatically personally heretics, but some of what they held was heretical. This allows Rome's defenders to have the freedom to choose whichever path out of linguistic limbo they want. For those defenders of Rome that long for the good 'ol days of pin the tail on the heretic, they can point to what Luther and the Reformers wrote and classify them at least as holding heretical opinions, therefore they are heretics. On the other hand, those Roman Catholics that have deep streaks of modern-day ecumenism running through their veins can look for the positive aspects of Luther and the Reformation as a means to bring separated brethren back into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.  

How did this all come about? The answer lies in first presenting the conflicting opinions of popes and then seeing the development of ecumenical Reformation Roman Catholic scholarship.

The Popes, Luther and the Reformation
Currently, Roman Catholic authorities seem kind to Martin Luther and the Reformation while in previous centuries they were excessively hostile. Which Popes are right about Luther, those from the sixteenth century or those from the twentieth / twenty-first century? The former says he's a heretical wild boar. Those infected by Luther's errors are in eternal danger. Those in the twentieth / twenty-first centuries say Luther was honestly pursuing God, and those following along with him are the unfortunate sufferers of being separated brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic church, lacking the fullness of the truth.  

Let's take a closer look at some papal comments about Martin Luther and the Reformation to demonstrate the severe disconnect between the ways the earlier popes understood Luther and the Reformation and those that came in the twentieth / twenty-first centuries. They once held Luther and his followers were damnable heretic needed to be exterminated, but then centuries later they said the exact opposite.

Sixteenth Century

Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

...foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. When you were about to ascend to your Father, you committed the care, rule, and administration of the vineyard, an image of the triumphant church, to Peter, as the head and your vicar and his successors. The wild boar from the forest seeks to destroy it and every wild beast feeds upon it (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Against the Roman Church, you [Peter] warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

...a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

[Luther] is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished” (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520). 

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors [of Luther's] are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord’s field as harmful thornbushes (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church...  For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

 ...we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…. (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures (Pope Leo X Exsurge Domine 1520).

Nevertheless Martin himself—and it gives us grievous sorrow and perplexity to say this—the slave of a depraved mind, has scorned to revoke his errors within the prescribed interval and to send us word of such revocation, or to come to us himself; nay, like a stone of stumbling, he has feared not to write and preach worse things than before against us and this Holy See and the Catholic faith, and to lead others on to do the same.

He has now been declared a heretic; and so also others, whatever their authority and rank, who have cared nought of their own salvation but publicly and in all men’s eyes become followers of Martin’s pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help, counsel and favour, encouraging him in their midst in his disobedience and obstinacy, or hindering the publication of our said missive: such men have incurred the punishments set out in that missive, and are to be treated rightfully as heretics and avoided by all faithful Christians, as the Apostle says (Titus iii. 10-11). (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521).

We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones (Pope Leo X, Decet Romanum 1521). 

Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523)

...the greatest sorrow by which we are afflicted from the prosperity of the Lutheran sect, chiefly for this reason: because we see innumerable souls, redeemed by the blood of Christ and committed to our pastoral care, being turned away on that occasion from the true faith and religion and going into perdition (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Fourth, let the injury move them which is inflicted by Luther upon them and their parents and ancestors; for since their parents and ancestors and they themselves have always held the faith which the Roman and Catholic Church approves, and Luther and his followers hold a far different faith—asserting many things not to be of faith which they nevertheless held to be of faith—it is manifest that they are condemned by Luther as infidels and heretics. Consequently, according to Luther, all their ancestors who died in our faith are in hell, since error in faith makes men guilty of damnation (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Seventh, let them consider that Luther uses nearly the same way to seduce the Christian people that the most filthy Muhammad used to deceive so many thousands of souls: namely, by permitting those things to which carnal men are inclined, and thereafter exempting them from those things which seem more grave in our law; except that Luther seems to act a little more modestly, so that he may deceive more effectively. Muhammad granted the license of having many wives and of repelling them at will and marrying others; this man [Luther], so that he may conciliate to himself the favors of monks and virgins dedicated to God and of priests eager for the lewdness of the flesh, preaches that vows of perpetual continence are even illicit, much less not obligatory. Therefore, he says it is lawful for them by evangelical liberty to marry, unmindful of the word of the Apostle when he says concerning younger widows that when they have become wanton against Christ, they wish to marry, having damnation because they have made void their first faith (1 Timothy 5:11). With these things having been set forth by you, and many others which [you may] collect partly from the examples of our letters, partly from your own prudence you will be able to devise [further arguments]. You shall exhort, in our name, the said princes, prelates, and peoples, that they may finally wake up and be stirred to resist both such a great injury, which the Lutherans are known to inflict upon God and His sacred religion, and the greatest ignominy, which they inflict upon your entire German nation—and upon the princes themselves—and the greatest disgrace and insult, which they inflict upon their ancestors whom (as we have said) they in effect condemn to hell. Let them proceed entirely to the execution of the Apostolic sentence and the aforementioned Imperial Edict [the Edict of Worms] (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

But if anyone should perchance say that Luther was condemned by the Apostolic See without being heard and without a defense, and that therefore he ought to be heard and should not be condemned before being convicted, you shall respond: that those things which belong to faith must be believed on account of divine authority, not proved. "Away with arguments," says Ambrose, "where faith is sought; the fishermen are believed, not the dialecticians." And certainly we confess that a defense ought not to be denied to him in matters of fact—that is, whether he said [something] or not, whether he preached or wrote it or not, etc. But concerning divine law and the matter of the sacraments, one must stand by the authority of the saints and the Church (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Since, therefore, Luther and his followers condemn the councils of the holy fathers, burn the sacred canons, and confuse all things according to their own whim and disturb the whole world, it is manifest that they, as public enemies and disturbers of the peace, ought to be exterminated by all lovers of that same peace (Instruktion des Papstes Adrian VI, Google translate).

Twentieth Century
The twentieth century popes began with echoing that of the sixteenth century popes.

Pope Pius X (1903-1914)

Fast forward to the beginning of the twentieth century. Pope Pius X (1903-1914)  stated:  

"Protestantism as proudly called by its founders, is the sum of all the heresies, that have been before it, after it, and that could still be born to slaughter the souls." 

Original text:  Il protestantesimo o religione riformata, come orgogliosamente la chiamarono i suoi fondatori, è la somma di tutte le eresie, che furono prima di esso, che sono state dopo, e che potranno nascere ancora a fare strage delle anime. 

Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists).

Pope Pius X was not tolerant of ecumenism towards Protestants. He lumped all Protestants in with modernism, that movement of liberalism within theology that infiltrated the ivory towers of academia (philosophy, history, sciences), for him most particularly, Roman Catholic scholarship. Protestantism, according to Pius X, was that movement that ushered in the destruction of religion. Pius also called modernism the "sum" or "synthesis" of all heresies.  

Another twentieth century Pope Pius echoed this sentiment in honoring the memory of anti-Protestant polemicist Francis de Sales, Pope Pius XI (1922- 1939). He spoke of the "heresies begotten by the Reformation."

In 1959, Pope John XXIII began the shift towards a friendly approach to Protestants. Let's pick up with Pope John XXIII statement that Protestants are not the sum of all heresies and soul killers, but are rather, "separater brethren."classifying Protestants as "separated brethren" led to a different kinder approach from the later popes toward Martin Luther.

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

79. We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See. May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished, as well as the prayers and entreaties with which she begs God for unity, stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest. 80. May We, in fond anticipation, address you as sons and brethren? May We hope with a father's love for your return? (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

86. We address, then, as brethren all who are separated from Us, using the words of Saint Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when they stop saying 'Our Father'" (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

Wherefore, to all Our brethren and sons who are separated from the Chair of Blessed Peter, We say again: "I am . . . Joseph, your brother." Come, "make room for us."  We want nothing else, desire nothing else, pray God for nothing else but your salvation, your eternal happiness (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

96. We pray earnestly to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whose Immaculate Heart Our predecessor, Pius XII, consecrated the entire human race. May she seek and obtain from God this harmonious unity, this true, active, and militant peace, on behalf of Our children in Christ and all those who, though separated from Us, cannot help loving truth, unity and peace (Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical of Pope John xxiii on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity, June 29, 1959).

Unhappily, however, the entire Christian family has not as yet fully and perfectly attained to this visible unity in the truth. But the Catholic Church considers it her duty to work actively for the fulfillment of that great mystery of unity for which Christ prayed so earnestly to His heavenly Father on the eve of His great sacrifice. The knowledge that she is so intimately associated with that prayer is for her an occasion of ineffable peace and joy. And why should she not rejoice sincerely when she sees Christ's prayer extending its salvific and ever increasing efficacy even over those who are not of her fold? (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

There is also a unity of prayer and ardent longing prompting Christians separated from this Apostolic See to aspire to union with us. And finally there is a unity, which consists in the esteem and respect shown for the Catholic Church by members of various non-Christian religions. (Solemn Opening of Vatican Ecumenical Council ii gaudet mater ecclesia opening address of the holy father pope john xxiii,11 October 1962).

Nor do We wish to forget Our separated brethren for whom Our prayers rise unceasingly to Heaven so that the promise of Christ may be fulfilled: one Shepherd and one flock (Christmas Message of Pope John XXIII, December 23, 1959).

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio).

Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to truly change the magisterial opinion on Martin Luther.  He rereferred to Luther as a man of "profound piety." 

Consequently Luther's profound piety that, with burning passion, was driven by questioning on eternal salvation, is clearly delineated.

Pope John Paul II also stated:

The deep religiosity of Luther, who was driven by a burning passion for the question of eternal salvation, has become convincingly visible. Of course, it has also become clear that the rupture of church unity can be traced back neither to a lack of understanding on the part of the pastors of the Catholic Church nor to a lack of understanding of true Catholicism on the part of Luther alone, however much this may have played a role. The decisions at stake went deeper. In the dispute over the relationship between faith and tradition, fundamental questions of the correct interpretation and appropriation of the Christian faith were at play, the church-dividing effect of which cannot be overcome by mere historical understanding (botschaft von johannes paul ii. an kard. johannes willebrands, präsident des sekretariats für die einheit der christen, 1983, Google English translation).

Original text: Jahrhunderts geführt. Überzeugend sichtbar geworden ist dabei die tiefe Religiosität Luthers, der von der brennenden Leidenschaft für die Frage nach dem ewigen Heil getrieben war. Deutlich geworden ist freilich auch, daß sich der Bruch der Kircheneinheit weder auf Unverständnis seitens der Hirten der katholischen Kirche noch auf mangelndes Verstehen des wahren Katholizismus auf seiten Luthers allein zurückführen läßt, so sehr solches mitgespielt haben mag. Die Entscheide, um die es ging, reichten tiefer. Bei dem Streit um das Verhältnis von Glaube und Überlieferung waren Grundfragen der rechten Auslegung und Aneignung des christlichen Glaubens im Spiel, deren kirchentrennende Wirkung durch bloßes historisches Verstehen nicht zu überwinden ist. 

First of all, it is important to proceed with careful historical work. The aim is to gain a fair picture of the Reformer as well as of the entire epoch of the Reformation and the persons working in it through unbiased research guided solely by the search for truth. Where there is guilt, it must be acknowledged, no matter which side it hits; where polemics have distorted the view, it must be corrected, again regardless of which side it is. In doing so, we cannot be guided by the intention of setting ourselves up as judges of history, but the goal must only be to recognize better and thus to become more capable of truth (botschaft von johannes paul ii. an kard. johannes willebrands, präsident des sekretariats für die einheit der christen, 1983, Google English translation).

Original text: Zunächst ist das Fortgehen sorgfältiger historischer Arbeit wichtig. Es geht darum, durch unvoreingenommene, allein von der Suche nach Wahrheit geleitete Forschung ein gerechtes Bild des Reformators wie der ganzen Epoche der Reformation und der in ihr wirkenden Personen zu gewinnen. Wo Schuld ist, muß sie anerkannt werden, gleich welche Seite sie trifft; wo Polemik die Sicht verzerrt hat, muß sie richtiggestellt werden, wiederum unabhängig davon, um welche Seite es sich handelt. Dabei kann uns nicht die Absicht leiten, uns zu Richtern der Geschichte aufzuwerfen, sondern das Ziel darf einzig sein, besser zu erkennen und damit wahrheitsfähiger zu werden.  

Pope John Paul II didn't view Martin Luther as still excommunicated. He stated: "According to Roman Catholic doctrine, any excommunication expires with the person's death. It only applies during a person's lifetime." This appears to be an inference made from the Code of Canon Law that states excommunication is a medical penalty enacted upon someone who is living (Code of Canon Law, can. 1312). 

In a letter from October 31, 1983, Pope John Paul II also wrote of the "profound religiousness of Luther who, with burning passion, was driven by the examination of eternal salvation."

Twenty-First Century

Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) (2005-2013) 

 “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God. “How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me... The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther. (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).

Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life  (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).

It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. For me, the great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground, that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our inalienable, shared foundation (Meeting with the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany Friday, 23 September 2011).

 ...I firmly hoped for an ecumenical experience in Erfurt, for it was in this very city that Martin Luther entered the Augustinian community and was ordained a priest. I was therefore deeply cheered by the meeting with the members of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany and by the ecumenical event in the former Augustinian Convent. It was a cordial meeting which, in dialogue and prayer, brought us more deeply to Christ. We saw once again how important our common witness to faith in Jesus Christ is in today’s world, which all too often takes no notice of God or is not interested in him (General Audience, St. Peter's Square, Wednesday, 28 September 2011).

Pope Francis (2013-2025)

I think that Martin Luther’s intentions were not mistaken; he was a reformer. Perhaps some of his methods were not right, although at that time, if you read Pastor’s history, for example – Pastor was a German Lutheran who experienced a conversion when he studied the facts of that period; he became a Catholic – we see that the Church was not exactly a model to emulate. There was corruption and worldliness in the Church; there was attachment to money and power. That was the basis of his protest. He was also intelligent, and he went ahead, justifying his reasons for it. Nowadays, Lutherans and Catholics, and all Protestants, are in agreement on the doctrine of justification: on this very important point he was not mistaken. He offered a “remedy” for the Church, and then this remedy rigidified in a state of affairs, a discipline, a way of believing, a way of acting, a mode of liturgy.  (In Flight Press Conference of His Holiness Pope Francis from Armedia to Rome, Sunday, 26 June 2016).

 Pope Francis Celebrates the Reformation with a Martin Luther Statue? 

One of the most bizarre official Roman Catholic reclassifications of Martin Luther happened in 2016. Bonafide pictures circulated online showing Pope Francis standing next to the Vatican's statue of Martin Luther. Some reports say the Pope also received the gift of a jumbo edition of the Ninety-Five Theses. Luther's statue appears to be holding the New Testament. Here's an excerpt from the Pope's address:

Jesus reminds us: “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (v. 5). He is the one who sustains us and spurs us on to find ways to make our unity ever more visible. Certainly, our separation has been an immense source of suffering and misunderstanding, yet it has also led us to recognize honestly that without him we can do nothing; in this way it has enabled us to understand better some aspects of our faith. With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life. Through shared hearing of the word of God in the Scriptures, important steps forward have been taken in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation, whose fiftieth anniversary we are presently celebrating. Let us ask the Lord that his word may keep us united, for it is a source of nourishment and life; without its inspiration we can do nothing.

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.

Conclusion
This excursion into papal comments is intended to demonstrate the significant differences in interacting with Roman Catholics considering Protestants to be separated brethren and those that think Protestants are headed toward eternal damnation. Both types of Roman Catholics online, but the latter category presents itself as an overwhelming expansive swarm. If you're conversing with a member of the swarm, challenge them to be transparent as to which pope they agree with:

Which private interpretive opinion of Roman Catholicism do you hold? 

Also ask: Why is your opinion of Martin Luther, the Reformation, and Protestants more authoritative or meaningful than a pope?

 The founder of the popular North American pop-apologetics website Catholic Answers commented on the statements of Pope Francis above. Compare and contrast Keating's Reformation-hostile remarks to those of Pope Francis:  

I see nothing to celebrate in the Protestant Reformation. It was the greatest disaster the West suffered over the last millennium. It brought theological confusion, political turmoil, and decades of war. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries killed about three percent of the world’s population, the same proportion that died in World War II. The religious wars would not have occurred had the Reformation not occurred.

Keating's rhetoric finds many noisy allies in cyberspace. For instance, just recently a defender of Rome called me a "slimy Anti-Christ heretic." Another comment stated, "death to prots" (though hours later this comment was edited out). This is not official Roman Catholic language post-Vatican II! For those of you involved in online Reformation dialogs, the overwhelming majority of noisy Roman Catholics have no idea that the way the papacy understood Luther in the sixteenth century is not the way the papacy understands him currently. I haven't found many that care or see it as a dilemma. They have no interest in parsing out the extreme conflicting opinions of the Papacy. 

Addendum #1: Old School Roman Catholics vs. New School Ecumenism

In interacting with Rome's defenders, I have come across more than a few people that rejects the ecumenically driven Vatican II type of authority and ecumenism of the modern papacy. They seem flatly against the view that Protestants are separated brethren and viewing Martin Luther favorably. These cyber-defenders of Rome cling to an older interpretation of the papacy that was hostile to Protestants and consider them lost heretics. For instance, take a look at this Roman Catholic work from the nineteenth century:

Q. Does the Lord make use of apostate Catholics, such as Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII., King of England, to reform the manners of the people?

A. The thought is absurd. The lives of those men were evil, and it is only the devil that makes use of them to pervert the people still more. The Lord makes use of His saints, such as a St. Francis of Assisium, a St. Dominick, a St. Ignatius, a St. Alphonsus, to convert the people and reform their evil manners by explaining to them the truths of faith, the commandments, and the necessity of receiving the sacraments with proper dispositions, and by setting them in their own lives the loftiest example of faith, purity, and all Christian virtues.

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

A. There are several. They cannot be saved, because

1. They have no divine faith.
2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.
3. They have no faith in Christ.
4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.
5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can obtain heaven.
7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
8. They die in their sins.
9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His saints.
10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ —:the Catholic Church.

Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?

A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures —as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

 

Addendum #2: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther

One of my earliest online projects was tracing Roman Catholic views of Martin Luther through the centuries (2003). Back then, I stumbled upon the change from their harsh polemic to kind evaluation... seemingly by accident!  The information in the links below was primarily gathered from my deep dives in the library at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. 

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One)

• The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part Two)

To explain this as simply as possible: Roman Catholic scholarship was generally hostile to Martin Luther up until the early twentieth century. Then, there was a shift toward from destructive criticism of Luther to respectful encounter. This Roman Catholic scholarship eventually filtered into the papacy. 

It seems to me that while the harsh polemic was avoided by Roman Catholic scholarship in the twentieth century, it did not filter down that well to the masses. Then, the Internet hit. The old polemic was revived and given new life in the twenty-first century by anyone with an online dial-up connection! If you're interacting with Roman Catholicism on Martin Luther, you'll benefit greatly by understanding this flow of their history.

Addendum #3: Video- History of Roman Catholic Treatments of Martin Luther

In February 2024 I was invited to do a YouTube interview on the History of Roman Catholic Treatments of Martin Luther for Javier Perdomo's channel. I provided a cursory trace of Roman Catholic opinions on Martin Luther through the centuries. For those of you interested in the issues between Protestants and Roman Catholics, I highly recommend Javier Perdomo's channel!