Monday, October 31, 2011

Luther, Satan, and the Inkwell

"Doctor Luther sat at the Wartburg translating the Bible. The Devil did not like this and wanted to disturb the sacred work, but when he tried to tempt him, Luther grabbed the ink pot from which he was writing, and threw it at the Evil One’s head. Still today they show the room and the chair where Luther was sitting."- Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, Doktor Luther zu Wartburg, Deutsche Sagen (German Legends), vol. 2 (1818), no. 562.

Luther hurled an inkwell at Satan? This tale first appeared towards the end of the sixteenth century, and is said to have been told by a former Wittenberg student. In this early version, the Devil in the guise of a monk threw an inkwell at Luther while he was secluded in the Wartburg. By 1650, the story shifted to Luther throwing the inkwell at Satan. Like any bizarre legend, the story morphed, and houses where Luther stayed had spots on the walls, and these were also said to be inkwells that Luther threw at the Devil. The tale still makes the rounds thanks to the Internet:
"Saint Martin Luther threw an inkwell at the devil!! This is where the famous incident with the inkwell took place. Luther had just begun his memorable translation of the Bible into German. Satan saw the handwriting on the wall and was furious. His demons gave him no rest day or night. . . . At last Luther took his inkwell and threw it at the devil! The mark is still to be seen on the wall. God's Word translated into German gave the devil a fatal wound" [source]
Of course, the Internet being the new wild west, one can typically find anything being put forth as true. It's just another reminder to choose web-sources with discretion. On the other hand, I was recently at a church service in which the minster brought up Luther and this story, and gave a look over to me for approval. I cringed. Ah well, I think by my look he realized this was a story to be told as a fictitious story, if mentioned at all. No harm done, the sermon remained intact.

Historical Studies Using the Ink Well Myth
But there are contexts in which this story should be identified immediately as apocryphal: historical studies. Recently I was sent a link to some Luther information taken from the book A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance By historian William Manchester. As I read this page,  the ink well myth is used as historical fact: 


Manchester doesn't document any of this. The phrase "vulgar Catholic polemics" refers to Harnack's charge against the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar's work on Luther in regard to the tower experience (mentioned by Manchester preceding the above quote). Yes, there have been people who've told the ink well story with enjoyment.  Manchester's point though is simply to highlight Luther's use of scatological language. Where Manchester fails is with his the validity he gives to this story.

Melanchthon's Version?
Since Manchester doesn't document his claim, I can only speculate where he took it from. Here are a few other sources below with versions of this tale, from Melanchthon as the alleged source.
Melancthon relates, that there came a monk to Luther's house, and with great violence knocked at the door: the servant opened it, and inquired what he wanted? He asked, if Luther was at home? Luther being informed, bade him come in; for he had not seen a monk of a long time. He told him that he had some papistical errors, about which he desired some conference with him; and propounded some syllogisms, which Luther having solved with ease, he offered others that were not so easily answered. Luther somewhat angry, broke into these words: "You give me a great deal of trouble; for I have other business in hand that I should dispatch." And withal rising from his seat, he shewed the explication of that point which was urged by the monk; and in this conference perceiving that the monk's hands were like the claws of a bird, "Art thou he, then?" said he; "listen to that sentence which is pronounced against thee." And straight Luther shewed him that place in Genesis, The seed of the woman shall break the head of the serpent; and then added," nor shalt thou devour them all." The devil, overcome with this saying, angry, and murmuring to himself, departed, letting a huge fart, the stink of which nasty smell continued in the room for some days after" Wier. de Praestig. Daemon. c. 17. p.54 - (20.) [source].

Melancthon, however, in a very serious strain, gives the following account of a real visit, a visit in which his Satanic majesty condescended to speak, and hold a conference with the reformer. This time he was disguised in a monk's garb. It would appear, first, that he was polite enough to knock at Luther's street door, which, having been opened by a servant, he requested an interview with the master of the house. Luther bade him come in, and inquired his business. He told him that he had some papistical errors, about which he desired some conference with him, and propounded some syllogisms, which Luther having solved with ease, he offered others, which were not so easily solved. Luther, somewhat angry, broke out in these words: " You give mo a great deal of trouble, for I have other business in hand which I should dispatch," and withal rising from his seat, he showed the explication of that point which was urged by the monk; and in this conference perceiving that the monk's hands were like the claws of a bird: "Art thou he, then?" said he; "listen to that sentence which is pronounced against thee;" and straightway Luther showed him that passage in Genesis, "the seed of the woman shall break the head of the serpent," and then added, "nor shalt thou devour them all." The devil, angry at this saying, departed" [source].

The same Melancthon relates that a monk came one day and rapped loudly at the door of Luther's dwelling, asking to speak to him; he entered and said, " I entertained some popish errors upon which I shall be very glad to confer with you." " Speak," said Luther. He at first proposed to him several syllogisms, to which he easily replied; he then proposed others, that were more difficult. Luther, being annoyed, answered him hastily, " Go, you embarrass me; I have something else to do just now besides answering you." However, he rose and replied to his arguments. At the same time, having remarked that the pretended monk had hands like the claws of a bird, ho said to him, "Art not thou he of whom it is said, in Genesis, ' He who shall be born of woman shall break the head of the serpent?'" The demon added, "But thou shalt engulf them all." At these words the confused demon retired angrily and with much fracas; he left the room infested with a very bad smell, which was perceptible for some days[source].


In those instances in which documentation is provided, that documentation is not a Melanchthon primary source. Rather the source given is to:
"Jean Wier, or Weyer, was a Belgian physician, who was born in 1515 in Brabant, and died in Westphalia in 1588. He was one of the earliest to recognise the folly of many of the beliefs associated with witchcraft and demonology, and his treatise, " De Praestigiis Dicmonum," published in 1564, is still valued for the evidence it affords of the beliefs of his contemporaries. He holds a position of honour in the history of medicine" [source].
De Praestigiis Dicmonum can be found here. Information about Wier can be found here. The section in question can be found here and below:





Johann Georg Godelmann Account
Then there is said to be the account by Johann Georg Godelmann (and also, another description). Here you can see an early version of the ink well:

The Devil appeared to MARTIN LUTHER in the form of a monk with bird claw hands, according to an account written by Georgius Godelmannus in 1591. Godelmannus relates that while he was studying law at the University of Wittenberg, Germany, he heard a story from several of his teachers about a monk who appeared and knocked hard upon the door of Luther. He was invited in and began to speak of papist errors and other theological matters. Luther grew impatient and said his time was being wasted, and the monk should consult a Bible for answers. At that point, he noticed that the monk’s hands were like bird claws. Luther showed the monk a passage in Genesis that says, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent.” Exposed, the Devil went into a rage, threw about Luther’s ink and writing materials, and fled, leaving behind him a stench that lasted for days[source].
The 1591 date probably refers to Disputatio de magis, veneficis, et maleficis lamiis. The pages in question can be found here.

Conclusion
From these brief excerpts one can see how the story developed and changed. While Luther did indeed take the existence of Satan quite seriously, the ink well story lacks an authentic pedigree. Historians like William Machester should have known better.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Compare and Contrast: The Old vs. the New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Martin Luther


When I first began looking into Luther-related issues, it was not uncommon for Roman Catholics to direct me to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1905-1914). An encyclopedia has the connotation of being a reliable source of information complied by credible scholars. If one simply skims through the Luther entry from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, one finds a scholarly well-documented submission explaining that, historically considered, Luther was wild-tempered, depressed, mentally ill, and lustful. He ended up abandoned by most of his friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit. There you have it: a credible scholarly encyclopedia has spoken (read: sarcasm).

The Meaning of "Encyclopedia"
Most people probably don't even stop to consider what the concept of an encyclopedia means. It was during the nineteenth century (particularly with German thinkers), that the notion of encyclopedia became a pursuit. The idea was to present information on what is known through the various sciences and how the information has an organic interconnected relationship.  During this time period the notion of a theological encyclopedia also became popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia was thus a product of its time period:  
The need of a Catholic Encyclopedia in English was manifest for many years before it was decided to publish one. Editors of various general Encyclopedias had attempted to make them satisfactory from a Catholic point of view, but without success, partly because they could not afford the space, but chiefly because in matters of dispute their contributors were too often permitted to be partial, if not erroneous, in their statements [source].
The text cited above goes on to point out that at the time, the Catholic Encyclopedia attempted to present the best Roman Catholic Scholarship available:
The editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject. Contributors have been chosen for their special knowledge and skill in presenting the subject, and they assume the responsibility for what they have written.
Indeed, there is a lot of helpful information in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. But during the time period it was put together, Roman Catholic research into the life and work of Martin Luther was still engaged in a period of destructive criticism. Historian James Atkinson explains,
It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come around to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther's person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists (Atkinson, James. Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, p. 3].
This general statement in no way implies Luther research wasn't pursued in-depth  by some Roman Catholic scholars during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One need only to do a cursory skim through Jesuit historian Hartmann Grisar's massive multi-volume set on Luther or see the appeal to primary sources put forth by Heinrich Denifle.  But despite the scholarly work by these Roman Catholic historians,  their overall ideal was to attack Luther the person rather than consider his work as the output of an honest theologian.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Luther
The Luther entry in the old Catholic Encyclopedia was written by George Ganns (1855 – 1912). He was a priest of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  He may have influenced American Catholic attitudes towards Luther more than any other Roman Catholic scholar. I've provided He relied heavily on the tradition of Roman Catholic destructive Luther criticism (Denifle, Grisar, Dollinger, Janssen, etc.). For Ganss, Luther was ultimately a liar and a psychotic.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Luther
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) comes decades after the paradigm shift in the Roman Catholic approach to Martin Luther and shortly after the ecumenical pursuits of Vatican II. During the first five hundred years of Roman Catholic evaluations of Luther, a strong emphasis on vilifying Luther’s character as a means of discrediting the Reformation was the normal Roman Catholic approach. The emphasis shifted in the twentieth century: Roman Catholic historians began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian and admit the failure of their sixteenth century church. 

The New Catholic Encyclopedia presents an almost completely different image of Luther than that of the old Catholic Encyclopedia. This Luther entry was written by Roman Catholic Reformation scholar John P. Dolan. Dolan's approach to Luther is quite different. He argues:
...[N]o evidence existed for prior Catholic assertions that Luther's family's poverty "created an abnormal atmosphere" for his early development. It was absolutely absurd, moreover, to contend that Luther was a "crass ignoramus," and it was no longer tenable to hold, as Denifle did, that Luther was an "ossified Ockhamite." To question Luther's religious motives for entering the monastery, furthermore, did Luther a Fundamental injustice. Dolan instead focused upon Luther’s religious and theological discoveries and admitted the scandalous and immoral simoniacal acts associated with the sale of indulgences. Dolan’s article recognizes precisely what religious and doctrinal issues were at stake in the Reformation, a view that was not evident in the earlier twentieth or nineteenth century views of Luther" [Patrick W. Carey, “Luther in an American Catholic Context,” found in: Timothy Maschke, Franz Posset, and Joan Skocir (eds.), Ad Fontes Lutheri: Toward the Recovery of the Real Luther: Essays in Honor of Kenneth Hagen’s Sixty-Fifth Birthday, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), pp. 52-53.]
Here is the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Luther in its entirety. I have included the entire entry below in the Addendum. Simply compare it to the old entry, and it's as if two different people are being described. Sometimes it's not what's said, but what isn't said. Luther the person is not subjected to personal attack by Dolan. He most often simply states the facts.  Lest anyone think though Dolan does not concisely locate Luther on the wrong side of the Roman church, in discussing justification Dolan states Luther "rejected the traditional teaching of the Church."

Conclusion
I offer this simple compare and contrast for any of you that have been accosted with the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Martin Luther. If you find yourself in such a situation, ask the following questions:

1. Are you aware of the history of Roman Catholic interpretation on Luther?

2. Are you aware that there is no unified Roman Catholic interpretation of Martin Luther (or the Reformation)?

3. Do you believe that historical research ended in 1914?

4. Have you ever read the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Luther?

5. If you have read the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Martin Luther, can you explain why it describes an almost completely different person than the old Catholic Encyclopedia does?

6. On what basis does one decide which Encyclopedia article to use?


Addendum: The New Catholic Encyclopedia Entry on Martin Luther

New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 8 (1967), pp. 1085-1091.

LUTHER, MARTIN
German Reformer; b. Eisleben, village in Thuringia, Nov. 10, 1483; d. there, Feb. 18, 1546. His parents, Hans Luder and Margaret Ziegler, had recently emigrated from the farming community of Möhra, where the Luder family had lived for many generations. As was the practice of the time, the child was baptized the following day by the pastor, Bartholomew Rennebecher; and since it was the feast of St. Martin of Tours, he was named after the sainted Roman soldier.

Early Years. Within a year after his birth the family moved to Mansfield, where the father was employed as a laborer in the copper mines. Luther's father was a strict disciplinarian and in his early childhood the family was beset by poverty. There is little evidence to argue, as Erik Erikson once did, that the atmosphere of the household was abnormal. By the turn of the 16th century his father's financial situation had improved, and in 1511 he became owner in a number of mines and foundries in the area. He had been elected to the city council in 1491. Young Martin was enrolled in the local Latin day school in 1488 and there began the traditional study of Latin grammar. In 1496 he was sent to Magdeburg, where he remained until Easter of the following year at a school conducted by the brethren of the common life. The next semester he transferred to Eisenach because he had relatives there.

Student at Erfurt. In April 1501 Luther matriculated at the University of Erfurt and enrolled in the bursa of St. George. Two of his professors, Jodocus Trutvetter and Bartholomew Arnold von Usingen, were followers of the via moderna. Whether Luther was deeply influenced by nominalism is still disputed. The picture drawn by Heinrich denifle, OP, that portrays Luther as an ossified Ockhamite is no longer tenable. Although Luther, in his later life, remarked that he belonged to the school of William of Ockham, he did not, on other occasions, hesitate to refer to the nominalists as"hoggish theologians." Nor was Luther, as his Dominican biographer contends, a "crass ignoramus." He received his baccalaureate in 1502 and immediately began the required studies for a master's degree. In January 1505 he passed the examinations after the shortest period of study possible, standing second in his class. Although the young Luther had but a slight knowledge of Greek, he was well acquainted with the classical Latin authors. Ovid, Vergil, Plautus, and Horace were well known to him. He was also fairly well acquainted with humanism. The humanist Hieronymus emser had lectured at Erfurt during the summer of 1504; and Luther was familiar with the Eclogues of the Latin humanist Baptista Mantuanus. Grotius Rubeanus, a close friend of young Luther, was painfully shocked at his decision to enter the monastery.

The Call to Religion. In the summer of 1505 Luther, influenced no doubt by his father, began the study of law. Sometime in July of the same year, while returning to Erfurt from a visit to Mansfield, he encountered a severe thunderstorm near the village of Stotternheim; as a lightning bolt threw him to the ground, he vowed to St. Anne in a sudden panic that he would become a monk. To assume that the decision to enter the monastery was as impromptu as it is often depicted does Luther an injustice. His strict religious upbringing, his natural bent toward piety, and above all the experiences of the last few years at the university were unquestionably factors of his move. In 1503 he had severely wounded himself by accidentally cutting the artery in his thigh and had spent many weeks in meditative recuperation. In the same year one of his closest friends, a fellow student, had died suddenly. The plague that struck the city of Erfurt in 1505 made him keenly aware of the preeminence of death. All of this indicates that a call to religion was something that had been in his thoughts for a long period.

Nor is it without significance that he chose to enter the monastery of the Hermits of St. Augustine. The city of Erfurt boasted a Dominican, a Franciscan, and a Servite monastery in addition to the Black Cloister, a member of the Observant, or stricter Augustinian, congregation of Saxony, which was by far the most severe religious house in the city. On July 16, 1505, much to the chagrin of his parents, who were already selecting a bride for the student of law, Luther entered the novitiate. Soon after his profession, the exact date of which is not known, he was told to prepare himself for the reception of Holy Orders. He was ordained a deacon by the suffragan bishop, Johann von Laasphe of Erfurt, on Feb. 27, 1507; he received the priesthood in the Erfurt cathedral on the following April 4th.

Professor at Wittenberg. Soon after ordination, Luther was sent to wittenberg, where the order held two professorships at the Elector Frederick's newly founded university. Johann von staupitz, vicar-general of the Saxon congregation of the Augustinians, held the chair of scriptural theology; Luther was given the chair of moral philosophy in the arts faculty. In addition to lecturing on the Nicomachean Ethics, Luther was also obliged to continue his theological studies. He received his baccalaureate in theology in the spring of 1509. The following autumn he returned again to Erfurt, where he continued with his study of the Sentences of Peter of Lombard and lectured on philosophy to the Augustinian students there. Luther's studies were interrupted in 1510, when he was chosen to accompany Staupitz to Rome. The vicargeneral had for years been identified with the reform group in the order who sought to unite both the observant, or stricter, group in the order with the more numerous conventuals. Luther probably spent a month in Rome, visiting its shrines and churches. He was not edified with the horde of unlettered clergy whom he encountered there, many of whom were unable to hear confessions. He later observed that the priests said Mass in such an irreverent fashion that it reminded him of a juggling act. Yet there is little evidence that the scandals of Rome had any bearing on the gradual religious transformation that was taking place in his mind.

After his return to Erfurt he was again sent to Wittenberg in the late summer of 1511. In October of 1512 he received the doctorate in theology and was assigned to the theological faculty succeeding Staupitz as professor of Scripture. The next five years were of vital importance in the development of Luther's theological ideas. During this period he lectured on the Psalms (1513–15), on the Epistle to the Romans (1515–16), the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (1517–18). One gains some idea of the competence of the man in considering that in addition to following a monastic and academic schedule, he also preached at the castle church and held the office of Augustinian vicar of the district of Meissen and Thuringia.

Inner Conflict. If Luther had sought peace of mind in entering religion, he found it illusory. He gradually grew aware of the vast abyss between what he felt himself to be in his innermost self and the demands of God. He was increasingly conscious of the power of sin, and repeated confession brought him no peace. Further, the complacency that he felt at doing good seemed, as he said, "to poison his soul as the frost nips flowers in the bud." There were times when he felt on the brink of hell and the verge of despair. He tells us that while contemplating the righteousness of God in the monastery tower, probably in 1512, a new concept, a new illumination came to him, and "the gates of paradise were opened."

The study of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans had convinced him that the justice of God before which he trembled is not exacting, does not condemn, but is wholly beneficent. It is a justice that reinstates the sinner qua sinner in the eyes of God, in virtue of Christ's redemption. In explaining how this phenomenon is produced, Luther logically rejected the traditional teaching of the Church. For justification, no longer an objective transformation, is produced by the word of God, the Gospel. It is in, with, and through the Gospel that God works upon the soul through His Spirit. The soul remains passive and receptive. Thus Luther made an extremely personal experience the center of a new theory of salvation that was no longer in harmony with the one traditionally taught by the Church. These ideas were only gradually formed, but a study of the glosses and the notes kept by Luther's students during the years 1513 to 1518 leaves no doubt that they had formed the basis of his religious thought. They would probably have remained within the depths of his own inner spiritual struggle and never spread beyond the confines of the classroom where he lectured were it not for a series of events that brought the focus of all Christendom on the Wittenberg monk and changed the course of history.

The St. Peter's Indulgence. albrecht of brandenburg, brother of the elector Joachim, at the age of 23 was elected archbishop of Magdeburg and was, at the same time, given the administration of the diocese of Halberstadt. Both his age and the accumulation of two bishoprics were in direct violation of Canon Law; nor was his personal life beyond reproach. The Holy See condoned the appointment and a year later the same pluralist was elected archbishop of Mainz, a position that automatically made him prince elector, Reich-chancellor, and primate of all Germany. The move was undeniably inspired by political aspirations since it gave the Hohenzollerns two votes in the electoral college. Yet the price was incredibly high. For the dispensation to hold benefices in three dioceses Albrecht had to pay the Curia a sum of 10,000 golden ducats. Another 14,000 was demanded to pay up the arrears in pallium taxes for the See of Mainz. An agreement was made with the Curia whereby, for allowing the Peter's Indulgence to be preached in his episcopal territories, the bishop would receive one half of the income and the other half would go toward the construction of St. Peter's.

As principal agent for this sordid simoniacal act, the Fuggers chose the well-known indulgence preacher Dominican Johann tetzel. Of the indulgence agreement between the House of fugger, the Curia, and the archbishop of Mainz, Luther knew nothing. It was only when Tetzel began to preach the indulgence in the towns of Jüterbog and Zerbst on the northern boundary of Saxon territory that Luther felt it his duty to admonish his electoral highness, the archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, regarding the difficulties Tetzel was causing. He wrote him on October 31, 1517: "Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are hawked about under your illustrious sanction. I am not denouncing the sermons of the preachers who advertise them, for I have not seen them, but I regret that the faithful have conceived some erroneous notions about them. These unhappy souls believe that if they buy a letter of pardon they are sure of their salvation; also that souls fly out of purgatory as soon as money is cast into the chest, in short, that the grace conferred is so great that there is no sin whatever which cannot be absolved thereby, even if, as they say, taking an impossible example, a man should violate the mother of God. They also believe that indulgences free them from all guilt of sin."

The Ninety-five Theses. At the same time as Luther approached Tetzel with his criticisms he also wrote and circulated his attack upon indulgences, the so-called 95 theses, and announced his intention to hold a debate on their value. What had been for years a question in the mind of Luther, a matter of theology, now became a matter of reform. Most of the theses were not opposed to traditional Catholic doctrine.

Tetzel, who was in Berlin at the time the theses were published, was supported by the members of his order, and to confirm their confidence in his theological competence they later gave him an honorary degree in theology from their Roman college. Luther's own attitude toward his antagonist was anything but hostile. Later, when he heard that Tetzel was stricken with a fatal illness, he wrote him a consoling letter stating that the unfortunate affair was in no way the Dominican's responsibility. The roots of the controversy lay much deeper.

In early February 1518, Luther presented the bishop of Brandenburg with a series of Resolutiones on the theses, requesting that the bishop strike out whatever he found displeasing. He wrote, "I know that Christ does not need me. He will show His Church what is good for her without me. Nothing is so difficult to state as the true teaching of the Church, especially when one is a serious sinner as I am." He ended his letter of explanation by urging reform of the Church and pointing out that, as recent events proved, namely, the Lateran Council, the reform is the concern not of the pope alone or of the Cardinals but of the entire Christian world. The bishop answered Luther, informing him that he found no error in the Resolutiones and that in fact he thoroughly objected to the manner in which indulgences were being sold.

Denunciation from Rome. Rome had already been alerted to the dangers contained in Luther's novel doctrine by the archbishop of Mainz. In view of the recent negotiations between Albrecht and the Curia, it is understandable that his protest was interpreted in terms of declining revenues rather than threatened dogma. However, with the powerful Dominican Order now denouncing the Wittenberg professor, Rome had no alternative but to act. Following an established pattern, the Roman authorities, having failed to silence Luther through his own order, instigated a formal canonical process against him. The provincial of the Saxon province of the Dominicans, Herman Rab, induced the fiscal procurator, Marius de Perusco, to have the pope instigate charges against Luther. At the procurator's request, an auditor of the Curia, Girolamo Ghinucci, was entrusted with the preliminary investigation, and a Dominican, Sylvestro Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace and censor librorum of Rome, was commissioned to draw up a theological opinion on Luther's doctrinal writings.

A thorough Thomist, Prierias handled Luther's writings as if he were conducting a scholastic disputation. His Dialogus was nothing more than a polemic tagging the various theses as erroneous, false, presumptuous, or heretical. A citation, which reached Luther on August 7, 1518, was drawn up demanding that he appear personally in Rome within 60 days to defend himself. The citation and the dialogue were dispatched to the general of the Dominican Order, Tommaso de Vio, commonly known as cajetan, probably the outstanding theologian of the century.

The Meeting with Cajetan. During the same month, the pope, now informed of Emperor Maximilian's willingness to prosecute Luther, instructed Cajetan, whom he had appointed as his legate to the Diet of Augsburg, to cite the accused to appear before him. An order of extradition was also sent to Frederick the Wise, Luther's territorial sovereign, and also to his provincial, Gerhard Hecker, who was commanded to arrest him. Upon receipt of the citation, Luther immediately moved to forestall his appearance before what he considered anything but an impartial tribunal. Supported by Frederick the Wise, he demanded that his case be tried in Germany and by a group of competent scholars. Frederick managed to obtain a promise from Cajetan of a fair hearing and pledged safe-conduct to the young monk. On October 12, Luther appeared before the Dominican cardinal and his entourage of Italian jurists. It was Cajetan's hope to obtain recantation by paternal exhortations, but Luther obstinately refused to make an act of revocation, maintaining that he would not do so as long as he was not convinced of his errors on a basis of scriptural proof. He flatly denied the validity of Pope Clement VI's decretal on indulgences, Unigenitus. When Luther suggested that the decretal be submitted to the opinion of a Council, Catejan accused him of being a Gersonist. (see gerson, jean; conciliarism, history of.)

On October 16, Luther informed the cardinal of his willingness to stop commenting on indulgences and his readiness to listen to the Church. He apologized for his violent outbursts against the pope. Yet there was not a word of recantation. To his brethren at Wittenberg he wrote: "The Cardinal may be an able Thomist, but he is not a clear Christian thinker, and so he is about as fit to deal with this matter as an ass is to play the harp." Cajetan, thwarted in his attempt to reconcile Luther, demanded that the Elector Frederick extradite Luther and send him to Rome for trial. On November 28, Luther appealed to a general council. The appeal was actually a legal device intended to stay the civil effects of the excommunication that was now imminent.

Rome and the Impending Imperial Election. The delay of the excommunication of Luther was not a result so much of this legal maneuver as it was of a developing political situation that involved the papacy once again in the affairs of Germany. The Emperor Maximilian had since 1513 been planning the election of his grandson, Charles, Duke of Burgundy and King of Castile and Aragon, as Holy roman emperor. The election of Charles would have constituted a threat to the territorial independence of the pope because of the latter's sovereignty over Naples. Hence the Curia, favoring an election of either Francis I of France or, preferably, Frederick, Luther's sovereign, made efforts to delay any move that would antagonize the elector. To win the support of Frederick, Karl von miltitz, a swaggering, alcoholic Saxon, holding the office of papal notary in the Rome court, was sent to the elector with a plan to have Luther tried in a German ecclesiastical court, preferably in Trier. In addition he was to present the elector with the Golden Rose, as well as a letter of legitimization for Frederick's two children. None of the supporters of Luther were, however, deceived by the boastful Saxon. In fact, his presence in Germany supported their conviction that politics, not theology, was behind Rome's denunciation of Luther.

Leo X's Bull of Excommunication. A bull of excommunication, Exsurge Domine, was issued in Rome on June 15, 1520, and Johann eck, Luther's opponent in his debates with karlstadt at Leipzig in July 1519, was commissioned to promulgate it throughout the empire. In September he published the bull in the diocese of Brandenburg and in the diocese of Saxony. Before the 60-day time limit, within which he had to submit, Luther again appealed to a general council. The appeal did not delay, however, the final bull of excommunication, Decet Romanum Pontificem, which pronounced sentence on Luther on January 3, 1521. In April of that year he appeared before the Diet in Worms; and although protected by a writ of safe-conduct, he was declared henceforth a criminal in the Empire.

It is one of the strange turns of history that Luther was never officially prosecuted in his own country, although excommunication, by labeling him a heretic, made him liable to the death penalty in the Empire. A number of circumstances combined to render the ecclesiastical and civil penalties ineffective. In the first place there was strong public reaction that rebelled at the prospect of condemning a man who had become the outright spokesman for their own grievances against corruption in the Church. The conviction that until a council had actually pronounced against him, he and his followers were not definitely cut off from the Catholic Church was widespread. Finally, the majority of the German bishops, still influenced by conciliarism, were hardly inclined to stand in the way of a man whose attacks on papal claims to ecclesiastical supremacy expressed their own opposition to Romanism.

Almost everywhere the publication of the bull met with strong opposition. In Luther's home diocese of Brandenburg, the local ordinary, Hieronymus Schulz, did not dare to publish it. The University of Wittenberg brushed it aside as a further example of Eck's skullduggery. There, on Dec. 10, 1520, before an assembly of students, Luther had consigned the bull to the flames together with a copy of Canon Law. In Erfurt the document was cast into the river, and in Leipzig a riot of the students at the University forced the executor to flee the city.

Writings of 1520. During the summer and fall of 1520, Luther wrote what many consider, after the translation of the Bible, to be the most important of his works. In a series of pamphlets, An Appeal to the Nobility of the German Nation, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and the Liberty of a Christian Man, he outlined what he felt would be a program for reforming and revitalizing the Church. The first edition (some 4,000 copies) of the Appeal to the Nobility was sold out between August 18 and 23. In this work he pointed out the three walls the Romanists have built about themselves that constitute the main obstacles to true reform and are responsible for the decline of Christianity: the claim that civil government has no rights over them, the superiority of papal decrees over Scripture, and, finally, the superiority of the pope over a council.

In early October Luther penned his second famous work, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. While the first had been an attack on the century-old abuses of the Church and contained little that was novel, this next work openly struck a blow at the sacramental system and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Written in Latin, it was intended for theologians and scholars and opened the eyes of many, for the first time, to the radical elements in his new doctrines. Erasmus declared that it precluded all possibility of peace with the papacy. The third great work of this period, On Christian Liberty, continued to strike out at the roots of papal Christianity by emphasizing the primacy of Scripture, the priesthood of the laity, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In emphasizing Christian liberty, Luther stresses the freedom expressed in obedience to God and service to one's neighbor. He traces the religious implications of justification by faith and impugns the idea that good works are the mechanical performance of ecclesiastical laws. Rather, they are the fruit of faith from which they flow. Although these three writings in a certain sense epitomize the salient features of the early Lutheran movement, it would be unjust to say that they are the very heart and soul of Luther's doctrine. Neither would it be correct to assert that Luther or his followers felt that they had in any way separated themselves from the Catholic Church by condemning the abuses within it. But the three treatises of 1520, widely circulated in the next decade, did win large numbers of converts for the evangelical movement.

Progress of the Lutheran Reform. While returning from Worms Luther was kidnapped by the agents of Frederick the Wise and placed in hiding at Wartburg, where he continued to pour forth his scriptural and reformatory writings. The years between 1521 and 1525 were the most decisive period in the growth of Lutheranism. Since neither the bull of excommunication nor the Edict of Worms were actually put into effect in the empire, the reform movement continued to flourish. A number of events, however, caused a loss in its original momentum. As a popular uprising it was thwarted by the very forces that Luther had originally hoped to liberate. For several generations the peasants in the south and west of Germany had threatened local governments with grievances arising out of the economic and sociological changes of this transitional period. The doctrines of Luther, particularly his teaching on Christian liberty, were quickly transformed into demands for social reform. Eventually, peasant uprisings broke out in the Black Forest region in June 1524 and spread throughout Swabia, Franconia, Thuringia, and parts of the Rhineland. Luther firmly opposed the revolt, asserting that rebellion would stir up more ills than it would cure. The subsequent failure of the revolt and the urging of Luther that the civil authorities step in to stop the political anarchy that was threatening large areas of the Empire gave a definite impetus to the formation of territorial or state churches. see peasants' war (1524–25).

In the fall of 1526 philip of hesse summoned a synod in Homberg. There, under the direction of former Franciscan Franz Lambert of Avignon, a new church ordinance was imposed on the territory of Hesse. Monasteries and other ecclesiastical properties were confiscated, Catholic pastors were removed, and the Lutheran adaptation of the Mass was introduced. The following year in Saxony a commission of lawyers and theologians, after a series of visitations to the parishes in the area, published regulations governing divine service and the establishment of schools to instruct the faithful in the new gospel teaching.

To implement the new state church regulations Luther wrote his Large Catechism—a manual of instruction for pastors—and his Small Catechism—both a devotional work and an instruction for the faithful in the fundamentals of the Christian religion.

A loss of humanist support inflicted on the cause of Lutheranism a blow even more severe than that incurred with the disaffection of the peasants. Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, an attack upon free will, heightened the difference between his own position and that of his earlier humanist sympathizers. In denying freedom of the will it must not be assumed that Luther intended to deny individual responsibility. Throughout his life, beginning with the theses, his appeal to the Church had been one of repentance. A denial of responsibility would have completely nullified this call.

The Confessio Augustana. The break with humanism and the growing interference of German political leaders turned the attention of the reformer to the more practical implementations of his design. The controversy on the Eucharist that arose at the same time that Luther wrote his De Servo Arbitrio made it obvious that some strong clarification of doctrinal position was necessary if the movement was not to dissolve into warring parties. Doctrinal divisions within the reform movement accentuated by the Eucharistic controversy at Marburg in 1529 had their counterpart in the political sphere. Between 1524 and 1529 the political leadership of the Lutheran movement gradually passed from the Saxon electors to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse. At the Diet of Speyer (1526) it was already apparent that a division between the Catholic and the Lutheran princes within the empire was taking shape. In 1530 at Augsburg, Luther's closest associate at Wittenberg, Melanchthon, who had already attempted to systematize Luther's teachings in his Loci communes in 1521, drew up the Confessio Augustana, the final embodiment of the basic Lutheran, or reformed, doctrine. An examination of the document gives some insight into the perplexities of the religious situation as it stood after almost 12 years of religious controversy. It also demonstrated the ambivalence that invested the expression "reform" long after the Edict of Worms. Melanchthon maintained the conviction that he had not departed from the teaching of the Catholic Church in a single dogma, and Elector John of Saxony strongly rejected the accusation that the signers of the Confession had separated themselves from the Church. The Confession addressed to the emperor laid down the fundamental points of the new doctrine and repudiated all rival doctrines.

After the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which Luther was not permitted to attend (being refused safe-conduct by the emperor), he tended to remain more and more aloof from the political developments that continued to detract from the religious aspect of the reform movement. The Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg had become secularized and was finally deeded to Luther in 1532. With few interruptions Luther continued to teach at the university until his death.

Luther's Marriage and Later Years. In 1525 Luther married Katherina von Bora, some 16 years his junior. She came from the town of Lippendorf, near Leipzig, and at the age of five she had been sent to the Benedictine nuns near Brehana. Four years later she transferred to a Cistercian cloister near Grimma, where her aunt was abbess and an older sister, a nun. She took her vows here in 1515 but during the generally troubled times in 1523 joined in the exodus from her convent. Wittenberg had become a refuge for hundreds of monks and nuns who left their monasteries during these years, and it was there that she met Luther. Their marriage caused a great stir in Europe. erasmus, in correspondence with Luther at that time on the Diatribe, attributed the failure of Luther to answer his letters to his marriage, He wittily remarked that in comedies troubles are wont to end in marriage with peace to all. He added that he felt the marriage was timely as he heard that a child was born ten days afterward. It was his hope that Luther would be milder in his attacks on the Church since even the fiercest beasts can be tamed by their female mates. Later on he apologized for his inference about the child, remarking that he had always been skeptical about the old legend that the antichrist would be born of a monk and a nun. Were this true, there would have been too many antichrists in the world already. The Luther household became a gathering place for needy priests, poor relatives, and indigent students. In addition to his own six children, four of whom survived their parents, Luther brought up eleven orphaned children. Luther's almost reckless hospitality and generosity to friends necessitated income greater than his professor's salary provided. He constantly refused the honorarium demanded of students in the German universities and turned down frequent offers for the sale of his manuscripts.

During these years Luther continued his commentaries on the New Testament and revised many of his earlier writings. During his lifetime he published more than 400 works, which fill more than 100 volumes. With the possible exception of Goethe, no single writer influenced the development of German literature as did Luther.

Luther's support of Philip of Hesse in the celebrated case of bigamy did little to enhance the reformer's cause. He had approved the marriage on March 4, 1540, of the duke to Margaret von der Saal, even though Philip was married to Christina, daughter of Duke George of Saxony. Luther's recommendations to Philip of Hesse were virtually the same as those he had made to Henry VIII of England: he should take a mistress rather than divorce. They were also consonant with the arguments he had made about marriage as early as The Babylonian Captivity of the Church in 1520. There he had argued that divorce and annulment were contrary to divine law, but that the problems of a barren marriage might be resolved in the manner of the Old Testament Patriarchs, that is, through the employment of a concubine. In so arguing he was not entirely at variance with many contemporary Catholic theologians, including Cajetan. The convocation of the Council of Trent gave him little hope that any reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics would result. In one of his final works against the papacy he refers to the Council as a juggling contest. Luther died of a stroke on the morning of Feb. 16, 1546, at Eisleben, where he had been attempting to arbitrate a disagreement between the courts of Mansfield.

Evaluation. It is an exaggeration to identify the Reformation solely with the person of Luther and to equate all of Protestantism with his doctrines. Nevertheless, one must admit the enormous influence that he exercised upon the movement. The survival of Luther's own brand of evangelicalism was greatly aided by the rise of numerous reformers elsewhere in Northern Europe, that is, by the rise of figures like Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, and a host of others. Lutheranism's success as a protest against the Church's dominant teachings concerning salvation, and its later growth as a church independent of Rome, is also in part attributable to Luther's long and productive life. He continued to exert his stamp upon the evangelical cause for a quarter century after the movements birth. And upon his death in 1546, he had trained large numbers of pastors and theologian who were prepared to carry on his legacy.

Bibliography: His writings are found in several large collections. Wittenberg ed., 19 v. (12 v. in German, 7 v. in Latin; 1539–59); j. g. walch ed., 24 v. (Halle 1740–53); Erlangen ed., 105 v. (67 v. in German, 38 v. in Latin; 1826–86); Weimar ed. by j. k. f. knaake et al. (1883–); Luthers Werke in Auswahl, ed. o. clemen et al. (5th ed. Berlin 1959–); an Engish ed. by j. pelikan and h. p. lehmann (St. Louis-Philadelphia 1955–). Career of the Reformer, v.31, ed. h. j. grimm, v.32, ed. g. forell, arranges his writings about his life in chronological order. k. aland et al., Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium (Gütersloh 1957), an analytical listing of all Luther's writings. Literature. k. scottenloher, Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 1517–85, 6 v. (Leipzig 1933–40) 1:458–629. h. jedin, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. j. hofer and k. rahner, 10 v. (2d, new ed. Freiburg 1957–65); suppl., Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Dokumente und kommentare, ed. h. s. brechter et al., pt. 1 (1966) 6:1223–30, bibliog. h. bornkamm and h. volz, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 7 v. (3d ed. Tübingen 1957–65) 480–495, 520–523, bibliog. j. pacquier, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant, 15 v. (Paris 1903–50; Tables générales 1951–) 9.1:1146–1335, bibliog. g. ritter, Luther, Gestalt und Tat (Munich 1959). k. a. meissinger, Der katholische Luther (Munich 1952). e.g. rupp, The Righteousness of God: Luther Studies (New York 1954). h. bÖhmer, Road to Reformation, tr. j. w. doberstein and t. g. tappert (Philadelphia 1946). h. s. denifle, Luther und Luthertum, 2 v. (Mainz 1904–09), Eng. Luther and Lutherdom, tr. r. volz (Somerset, Ohio 1917–), a polemical, unsympathetic view. h. grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, ed. f. j. eble and a. preuss (2d ed. St. Louis 1935; repr. Westminster, MD 1950), a psychological study. p. j. reiter, Martin Luthers Umwelt, Charakter und Psychose, 2 v. (Copenhagen 1937–41). r. h. fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York 1957). e. h. erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York 1959). e. w. zeeden, Martin Luther und die Reformation im Urteil des deutschen Luthertums, 2 v. (Freiburg 1950–52) v.1 tr. r. m. bethell, The Legacy of Luther (Westminster, Md. 1954). a. herte, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus, 3 v. (Münster 1943). j. lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland, 2 v. (Freiburg 1949). r. bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York 1950). j. m. todd, Martin Luther (London 1964). j. p. dolan, History of the Reformation (New York 1965). m. brecht, Martin Luther, j. l. schaaf, trans. (Philadelphia 1985). g. ebeling, Luther, r. a. wilson, trans. (London 1970). h.a. oberman, Luther, e. walliser-schwarzbart, Trans. (New Haven 1989). d. steinmetz, Luther and Staupitz (Durham, NC 1980). d. steinmetz, Luther in Context (Bloomington, IN 1986).

Revised entry, March 2026

Friday, October 28, 2011

The 95 Theses: Nailed to the Church Door or Mailed to Ecclesiastical Authorities?

In the 1960's a Roman Catholic scholar took aim at one of the generally accepted facts of the Reformation: the nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church door. Erwin Iserloh's book The Theses Were Not Posted: Luther Between Reform and Reformation challenges this dramatic aspect of Luther's story. He held the 95 Theses weren't nailed to the Wittenberg church door, but rather mailed to particular ecclesiastical superiors."Luther did not post the Theses but only sent them to Archbishop Albert of Mainz and Bishop Jerome Schulz of Brandenburg, the appropriate representatives of the church, for their approval" [LW 31:23].

Some of the Facts: Nailed or Mailed?
The genesis of Luther and the Wittenberg door story appears to have come from Melanchthon's Memoirs / Preface to the second volume of Luther's collected works (Wittenberg edition, 1546) [English, Latin]:
When Luther was in this course of study, venal Indulgences were circulated in these regions by Tecelius the Dominican, a most shameless Deceiver. Luther, angered by Tecelius' impious and execrable debates and, burning with the eagerness of piety, published Propositions concerning Indulgences, which are extant in the first volume of his writings, and he publicly attached these to the Temple, which is next to Witteberg Castle, on the day before the feast of all Saints, 1517.
Notice the Theses were "publicly attached" (or affixed). There's nothing at all about hammering a document to a door.  One other source from a few years before Melanchthon's text actually does though mention "doors", not "a door." Georg Rorer in 1540 mentioned "on the folding-doors of the churches" in a private note (see Franz Posset, The Real Luther, p. 23). Neither Melanchthon or Rorer were in Wittenberg in 1517, so whatever the origin of this story, it certainly wasn't an eyewitness account.

Luther himself never mentions anything about nailing the 95 Theses to the church door but rather explains how they were sent out to particular ecclesiastical authorities. The first bit of evidence is Luther's letter (or cover letter) to Albrecht from October 31, 1517 (LW 48:43) sent with a copy of the 95 Theses. Then in a letter dated March 5, 1518 to Christopher Scheurl, he states, "... As you are surprised that I did not send them [The 95 Theses] to you, I reply that my purpose was not to publish them, but first to consult a few of my neighbors about them, that thus I might either destroy them if condemned or edit them with the approbation of others. But now that they are printed and circulated far beyond my expectation." In a letter dated May 30, 1518 to Pope Leo he states, "So I published some propositions for debate, inviting only the more learned to discuss them with me, as ought to be plain to my opponents from the preface to my Theses." In a letter dated November [21?], 1518 to Elector Frederick,Luther states, "...[S]ome liars among ourselves falsely assert that I undertook the disputation on the Indulgences by your Grace’s advice, when the fact is, that not even my dearest friends were aware of it."He also states that previous to the 95 Theses becoming public, he sent two letters (to the Archbishop of Magdeburg / Mainz and the Bishop of Brandenburg). So from Luther's own accounts, he never mentions nailing the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg door. William Pauck notes,"...Luther, who had a tendency to speak freely about his career and who, in his later years,
loved to reminisce, never mentioned the incident. Moreover, there are no other contemporary sources which support the old story" [Olin, John (ed.) Luther, Erasmus and the Reformation (Massachusetts: Fordham University Press, 1969, p. 52].


The Aftermath of Iserloh
Eugene Klug from Concordia Theological Seminary argued:
Someone has observed that it is in the nature of German university life that a professor’s claim to fame, the ability to excite and to attract students to his lecture hall, often lies in his capacity to spin the web of awe and mystique over his audience, or to strike new lode by coming up with some novel, unique, controversial, often “way-out” position. This appears to have been the case with Erwin Iserloh’s widely read and disputed The Theses Were Not Posted [Word And Scripture In Luther Studies Since World War II (Trinity Journal Volume 5:16)].
Klug then recommends Kurt Aland's response to Iserloh: Kurt Aland, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967). Klug affirms "Aland shows that there is no solid evidence to throw into doubt Luther’s own rehearsal of the event as occurring on October 31, 1517, with the posting on the Castle Church doors" (p.16). On the other hand, Roman Catholic writer Franz Posset says "Kurt Aland... tried to defuse the presented source material and digressed from the essential problem" [The Real Luther, p. 23]. The basic response to Iserloh can be summed up as follows:

1. There's nothing in any of Luther's statements that rules out a posting of the 95 Theses.

2. Melanchthon is to be considered a reliable source of information (as is Rorer) because of their close relationship with Luther. Even though Melanchthon's memoirs have minor errors, it is nonetheless reliable.

3. Wouldn't a contemporary of Melanchthon have questioned such a blaring historical error?

Argument #1 is an argument from silence. Argument #3 is weak, because (as far as I know) no contemporary of Melanchthon's stepped up to correct any of Melanchthon's minor errors. As far as I can navigate this controversy, the entire thing rests on whether or not one trusts the account of Philip Melanchthon. Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset has recently written quite convincingly that Melanchthon's memoirs of Luther are to be trusted more or less, but yet states, "Did Rorer and Melanchthon concoct the Posting in good faith? It looks like it" [The Real Luther, p. 23]. I'm not so sure though that "it looks like it" settles anything.

Richard Marius rightly points out that "Luther always claimed to have gone through channels, and Iserloh takes him seriously, concluding that the Theses were not posted" (Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death, p. 138). Marius then asserts that "Protestant scholars have reacted with dismay at the shattering of an icon" which is indeed overstating the case. In an earlier work Marius calls this controversy a "furious scholarly debate" and Iserloh "succeeded in raising a bellow of outrage from those current disciples of Luther who cannot bear to lose a single glitter of their idol's glamour" [Luther, a Biography (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1974) p. 70]. Marius has given this controversy more importance than it actually has.

Conclusion
It should be mentioned that even though a Roman Catholic, Iserloh was sympathetic to Luther. Otto Pesch points out that,
Iserloh's booklet of a few years ago on Luther's 95 Theses drew considerable attention. Even the treatment of this question from church history is characterized by a concern to present a true picture of the man Luther, and Iserloh was happy about the findings in his booklet, which rejects the story of Luther's nailing his theses onto the church door, not least because they succeeded in minimizing the picture of Luther as an angry revolutionary and placed the event which started the Reformation, stripped of all theatrical sensationalism, back into the form of a sober academic dispute [Otto Pesch, “Twenty Years of Catholic Luther Research” Lutheran World, 13, 1966, p. 305].
While I'm not any sort of scholar, I wouldn't be at all dismayed to find out the nails going into the Wittenberg door is the stuff of legend. Someone may say: "Who cares if the 95 Theses were nailed or mailed?" I can understand such a response.  What interests me about this is that to be consistent, I can't simply focus on the many Roman Catholic myths without taking a closer look at some of their charges of Protestant myth making from time to time. It is indeed the case that Luther's 95 Theses went 16th Century viral rather quickly. It is indeed plausible that the 95 Theses were posted as Melanchthon asserts.

The only real question in this controversy: is Melanchthon to be trusted? Unless someone can definitively prove that he cannot be on this point, Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door will remain part of the Luther story. If one reads Melanchthon's account, he doesn't appear to make it an outstanding central fact to Luther's story. That is, I see no reason why Luther's dramatic history needed to be embellished or concocted by Melanchthon with Rorer.

Addendum: Rorer's Note
This is from Cyberbrethren:
In 2006, Martin Treu from the Luther Memorials Foundation of Saxony- Anhalt rediscovered a handwritten comment by Luther’s secretary Georg Rörer (1492-1557) in the Jena University and State Library, which although printed, had so far played no role in research. Right at the end of the desk copy for the revision of the New Testament in 1540, Rörer made the following note: „On the evening before All Saints’ Day in the year of our Lord 1517, theses about letters of indulgence were nailed to the doors of the Wittenberg churches by Doctor Martin Luther.”

Now Rörer was also not an eye-witness, but he was one of Luther’s closest staff. The copy of the New Testament, in which he made his note, contains many entries in Luther’s own hand. The note right at the end of the volume leads us to assume that it was made at the conclusion of the revision work in November 1544. Directly beside it is another note, according to which Philipp Melanchthon arrived in Wittenberg on August 20, 1518, at ten o’ clock in the morning. This information is not to be found anywhere else and presumably came directly from Melanchthon himself. Rörer’s reference to the Wittenberg churches in the plural must be emphasized, as it corresponds to the statutes of the university. According to these, all public announcements had to be nailed to the doors of the churches.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

LCMS: On Martin Luther's anti-Semitic statements

This is an interesting read: LCMS: On Martin Luther's anti-Semitic statements.
"While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jewish people."
I would certainly agree. The entire statement is thoughtful and well-articulated... with the exception of one point:
Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).
There's actually an ambiguity here. These words probably are not from Luther’s last sermon, but rather from his An Admonition Against The Jews (1546), which was added to his last sermon.

Luther’s last sermon has been said to contain his last blast of anti-Jewish writing: “Luther's last sermon, preached just days before his death, was brimming over with biting condemnation and vulgarities for the Jews” [source]. The editors of Luther’s Works though note this probably did not happen:
In Luther’s sermon of February 7, 1546 (WA 51, 173 ff.) no “blunt” statements against the Jews can be found. This sermon has been preserved in notes and was published later. At the end of this first edition the Admonition Against the Jews (WA 51, 195 f.), which has been ascribed to Luther, was added; this writing seems to fit the description Luther outlines [in his letters]—though this judgment may be debated—but it does not fit the one made[to his wife in a letter], since Luther does not “outlaw” or “expel” the Jews in this document. It is, of course, possible (as is suggested in WA, Br 11, 288, n. 15) that the editor of the sermon and of the Admonition “polished” the text somewhat and perhaps eliminated passages that sounded too harsh. Even though there is some evidence that the Admonition could have been a part of Luther’s last sermon preached in Eisleben and thus would be dated February 14/15, the arguments and the material presented in Rückert, LB, p. 429, n. 9, are sufficiently strong to suggest the Admonition was a part of Luther’s February 7 sermon [LW 50:303, footnote 19].
Luther's Works includes Luther’s last sermon preached at Eisleben February 15, 1546 and it does not contain anti-Jewish material.

Even the respected scholar Gordon Rupp refers to Luther’s last sermon and its material against the Jews: “Probably Luther preached his last sermon within hours of his death. It is the rambling, repetitious sermon of an old, tired man and we can almost hear the pauses for breath. But it is in the main a moving and simple exposition of the great evangelical mandate "Come unto me . . ." Yet at the end of it, he spoke about the Jews” [Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 20]. Many reputable scholars refer to anti-Jewish sentiment in Luther’s last sermon. Mark U. Edwards: “…[T]he intense antagonism Luther bore the Jews continued to the end of his life and even found violent expression in his last public sermon” [Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 134]. James Mackinnon: “His last sermon delivered at Eisleben a few days before his death (15th February 1546) concluded with a fiery summons to drive [the Jews] bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians” [James Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation Vol. IV, (New York: Russell & Russell inc. 1962) 204].

Rupp provides this citation from Luther’s sermon:
"Now I am going home, and perhaps I will never preach to you again, and I have blessed you and prayed you to stay always close to God's Word ... I see the Jews are still among you. Now we have to deal with them in a Christian manner and try to bring them to the Christian faith that they may receive the true Messiah who is their flesh and blood and of the seed of Abraham—though I am afraid Jewish blood has got watery and wild these days. Yet they must be invited to turn to the Messiah and be baptized in him ... If not then we must not suffer them to remain for they daily abuse and blaspheme Christ. I must not, you must not be a partaker of the sins of others. God knows I have enough to do with sins of my own, but if they will give up usury and receive Christ we will willingly receive them as our brethren . . . but if they call Mary a whore and Jesus her bastard still we must exercise Christian love towards them that they may be converted and receive our Lord . . . this I tell you as your Landeskind not to be partakers of the sins of others. If they turn from their blasphemies we must gladly forgive them, but if not we must not suffer them to remain!"[WA. 51. 195-6 as cited in: Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther and the Jews (London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 1972), 21].
Interestingly, the last published volume of Luther's Works (vol. 58), includes a translation of this Admonition. Indeed, it does say what the LCMS statement says it does. However, Luther still is quite harsh against the Jews, requesting that if the Jews don't convert, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the Lords to "drive them away." It's an odd document. It's obvious he wasn't calling for the Jews to be killed, but he certainly would only tolerate them in society if they converted. Otherwise, they were to be banished. Here again, Luther was not against Jews as "people" but rather he was quite intolerant of their religion.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

How to set your own date for the end of the world

Have you ever wondered how Harold Camping and his followers figure out the date for the end of the world? One of Camping's closest followers provides this link: Numbers in the Bible. I know, that's not that impressive. Here's what is: they also have developed a computer program to do their Bible math:

Bible Calculator: The Bible Calculator is a computer tool for researching numbers and time intervals found in God's Word, the Bible

Bible Calculator (Java)


I wonder if any of the people who developed this program had anything to do with Windows Vista.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Blog-spotting: Fides Quaerens Intellectum by Frank Ramirez

I have to be really honest here: I don't read a lot of blogs. There are though a few that I check in on regularly. Frank Ramirez is one of the bloggers on Fides Quaerens Intellectum. While I might not agree with everything posted on this blog, I always find Frank's content quite interesting. For instance, note the following comment from Frank:
There is no work that I am aware of that deals with the subject of divine revelation understood in the papal church traditionally and contemporarily, let alone specific aspects of it such as the practical out workings of these two understandings of divine revelation.

In my own research it was the dogmatic status of the belief in the Blessed Mother’s bodily assumption that revealed the practical out workings of both views. It was my firm belief as a papal catholic that although this divinely revealed event was not in Scripture, we knew it to have happened by the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, which they then handed down to the subsequent Church. I believed, in other words, that the papal catholic apologetic use of 2 Thess 2:15 applied to the belief of the bodily assumption of the Blessed Mother perfectly.

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (ESV; emphasis mine)

What I discovered was what the papal church discovered from the 19th century into the 20th in her battles with Modernism and Liberalism, namely, that, unlike the Resurrection of Jesus, there is no eyewitness testimony or 1st century literature recording this event. In fact, there is nothing about the end of the Blessed Mother’s life for over 300 years. Operating within Tridentine theology, which again was the view of the papal church from the 16th century well into the 20th century, I logically began to ask the question, “Well, if Scripture and oral Apostolic Tradition (the two sources of divine revelation) do not deliver this belief to the saints, then how do we know this event happened?”
Insightful!

Monday, October 24, 2011

A Roman Catholic Scholar Looks at Causes of the Reformation

Originally posted 5/20/10

Joseph Lortz was a German Roman Catholic theologian. He's best known for his work on Martin Luther and the Reformation. In his book The Reformation: A Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), he has a chapter entitled "The Causes of the Reformation." One particular "cause" caught my attention. He states,

"When Luther asserted that the pope in Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined" (p. 37).

This type of sentiment is far different than that usually expressed by Roman Catholics. Typically, Luther is the grand innovator that tore the church asunder. Lortz though does something many don't bother to do- he sees a flow to history. In his chapter preceding this statement, he lists a number of ways in which the West was more than ready to grant that the pope in Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy. Here's how Lortz explains this comment:

The significance of the break-up of medieval unity in the thirteenth century, but even more during the Avignon period, is evident in the most distinctive historical consequence of the Avignon Papacy: the Great Western Schism. The real meaning of this event may not be immediately apparent. It can be somewhat superficially described as a period when there were two popes, each with his own Curia, one residing in Rome, the other in Avignon. This situation in which both contenders claimed to be pope (at one time the number increased so that many spoke of the "cursed trinity") was in the main corrected by the efforts of the German Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance in 1414. These statements are true, but the account they give is sketchy and superficial; they tell us nothing of the real significance of the Schism.

The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution.

The split caused by the Western Schism was far from being merely the concern of theologians; no area of public or private life remained untouched; even the economic sphere was affected, mainly because of disputes in regard to the possession of benefices. Provinces of the Church, religious orders, universities, even individual monasteries and parish houses were divided. For decades, all experienced this profound division in all sectors of daily life. Good people on both sides, even saints, were not only unable to bring about unity, but in their allegiance to one or the other of the contenders they themselves were in sharp opposition. We find, for example, St. Catherine of Siena on the Roman side and St. Vincent Ferrer on that of Avignon. Furthermore, the settlement of the Schism at the Council of Constance did not really solve the problem. The triumph of the Conciliar Theory at Constance, and even more at Basel, extended the life span of the Schism from 1378 to 1448, when it finally came to an end in the person of the Antipope Felix V. The confusion and uncertainty about the valid pope and the true Church is manifest in the amazing twists in the allegiance of Nicolaus of Cusa and Aeneas Silvio dei Piccolomini, later to become Pius II, both of whom had begun by defending the Conciliar Theory in its most radical form.

This was an experience shared by the entire West — one which would leave its imprint in Western consciousness for a long time to come. The memory of this experience was still fresh a century later. It is not too difficult to see the effects of the Western Schism in preparing the way for the doctrines of the Reformation. When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined (pp. 35-37).

Quotes on the Internet


ht:SamWi.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Myth #11: Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church

The title of this post comes from a comment left by religious explorer David Waltz, under my blog entry, Ten Martin Luther Myths. Mr. Waltz felt it appropriate to add his myth #11 (Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church) to my entry. For documentation, he left a Luther quote from a secondary source, and also provided an old link back to his blog from 2009. Thus ensued a brief futile interaction. I had actually offered some comments on this quote (after Mr. Waltz used it back in 2009): Luther: I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy and Luther: A Church With Corrupt Leadership Can Still Be a True Church. Mr. Waltz has recently offered a new post to this discussion: Martin Luther on the Roman Church.

Mr. Waltz is accurate: the particular quote he utilized does point out that Luther did not deny the Roman church was a Christian church: "I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy." I would have no problem including his myth #11 as a Luther myth, but I would only do so with a brief explanation of what Luther meant. Without any sort of explanation, the notion that Luther thought the Roman church was a Christian church  seems rather strange, doesn't it? Luther spent a great portion of his career in fierce conflict with the Roman Church. He went as far as claiming the pope was the Antichrist. When Luther spoke of the Roman Church, he had something much different in mind than most people do today. Luther made a sharp distinction between the Roman Church and the Papacy. Of Rome's leadership, Luther states:
Can anything be said that is more horrible than that the kingdom of the papists is the kingdom of those who spit upon and recrucify Christ, the Son of God? Christ, who once was crucified and rose again—Him they crucify in themselves and in the church, that is, in the hearts of the faithful. With their rebukes, slanders, and insults they spit at Him; and with their false opinions they pierce Him through, so that He dies most miserably in them. And in His place they erect a beautiful bewitchment, by which men are so demented that they do not acknowledge Christ as the Justifier, Propitiator, and Savior but think of Him as a minister of sin, an accuser, a judge, and a condemner, who must be placated by our works and merit. [LW 26:199-200].

Therefore let anyone who is seriously concerned about godliness flee this Babylon as quickly as possible, and let him be horrified at the very hearing of the name of the papacy. For its wickedness and abomination are so great that no one can describe them in words or evaluate them except with spiritual eyes [LW 26:201].
Luther's opinion appears to be in part that since the Roman Church was given the Scriptures, Sacraments, etc., that in that sense it is a Christan church. However, these elements functions quite independently from the Roman magisterium. No analogy is perfect, but if I had to describe Luther's position I would do so like this: The Roman church is like a pristine ship that's been commandeered by pirates. The ship still functions, but it's crew is in bondage to her captors. Perhaps some of the crew mutinies and joins the pirates. Others though, maintain allegiance to her rightful captain.

Now, Mr. Waltz, an ex-Roman Catholic apologist, originally showed up on this blog with this little nugget, offering no such explanation. He is apparently befuddled as to why "a nerve" was struck. It's not difficult to figure out: The quote, as Mr. Waltz cited it, has more polemical value out of context than in context.  My concerns with Mr. Waltz are not so much with what he posted, but what he didn't post. Quite early on in our interaction I stated, "For clarification, you need to emphasize the distinctions Luther did. Otherwise, your blog post is simply a bit of propaganda." Thus ensued a futile discussion between us. I engaged in a repetitive effort to convince Mr. Waltz that his efforts needed clarification to be useful. He on the other hand, defended his ambiguous posts, for what reason? I'm not quite sure. As far as I can tell, he doesn't really explain why he had such reluctance to bring this simple distinction to light. He then created a new entry, providing a number of comments from Luther in which the distinction I asked him for all along was readily visible. 

Philip Schaff and Von der Wiedertaufe
In his recent blog post  this very distinction I argued for was included in a quote Mr. Waltz utilized from Philip Schaff:
"How far, we must ask here, did Luther recognize the dominion of the papacy as a part of the true catholic church? He did not look upon the Pope in the historical and legal light as the legitimate head of the Roman Church; but he ought him to the end of his life as the antagonist of the gospel, as the veritable Antichrist, and the papacy as an apostasy. He could not have otherwise justified his separation, and the burning of the papal bull and law books. He assumed a position to the Pope and his church similar to that of the apostles to Caiaphas and the synagogue."
In the same section from Schaff (not quoted by Mr. Waltz) is this insightful comment on how Luther understood the term "universal church" as the "totality of the elect":
"Luther developed this idea in his own way, and modified it in application to the visible church. He started from the article of the Creed, “I believe in the holy catholic church,” but identified this article with the “communion of saints,” as a definition of the catholic church. He explained the communion (Gemeinschaft) to mean the community or congregation (Gemeinde) of saints. He also substituted, in his Catechism, the word “Christian” for “catholic,” in order to include in it all believers in Christ. Hence the term “catholic” became, or remained, identical in Germany with “Roman Catholic” or “papal;” while the English Protestant churches very properly retained the word “catholic” in, its true original sense of “universal,” which admits of no sectarian limitation. The Romanists have no claim to the exclusive use of that title; they are too sectarian and exclusive to be truly catholic.

Luther held that the holy church in its relation to God is an article of faith, not of sight, and therefore invisible. But as existing among men the true church is visible, and can be recognized by the right preaching of the gospel or the purity of doctrine, and by the right administration of the sacraments (i.e., baptism and the Lord’s Supper). These are the two essential marks of a pure church. The first he emphasized against the Romanists, the second against what he called Enthusiasts (Schwarmgeister) and Sacramentarians (in the sense of anti-sacramentarians)"[Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 7.527-528].
So even Schaff makes the necessary distinction. In his citation of Schaff, Mr. Waltz bolded this particular Luther quote from 1528 (p. 530):
In his controversy with the Anabaptists (1528), Luther makes the striking admission: "We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to us. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord s Prayer. ... I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very élite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints."[1]

[1] "Ich sage, dass unter dem Papst die rechte Christenheit ist, ja der rechte Ausbund der Christenheit, und viel frommmer, gorsser Heiligen." (Von der Wiedertaufe, (Erl. cd. XXVI. 257 sq.)
This Luther quote from Von der Wiedertaufe (Erl. 26) is found in LW 40:231. Luther is arguing against (primarily) anabaptists in response to a request for help from some Roman Catholics (LW 40:227). He begins by briefly chastising them, comparing the errors of the papacy and the anabaptists. In a sarcastic thrust he states he's not going to detail papal errors "but rather help you by appearing to be a papist again and flattering the pope" (LW 40:231). He then states,
In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible. Then, also, we would have to disavow the Old Testament, so that we would be under no obligation to the unbelieving Jews. And why the daily use of gold and goods which have been used by bad people, papists, Turks, and heretics? This, too, should be surrendered, if they are not to have anything good from evil persons.

The whole thing is nonsense. Christ himself came upon the errors of scribes and Pharisees among the Jewish people, but he did not on that account reject everything they had and thought (Matt. 23[:3]). We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed. Similarly, the pope admits that we too, though condemned by him as heretics, and likewise all heretics, have the holy Scriptures, baptism, the keys, the catechism, etc. O how do you dissemble? How then do I dissemble? I speak of what the pope and we have in common. He on his part dissembles toward us and heretics and plainly admits what we and he have in common. I will continue to so dissemble, though it does me no good. I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. Shall I cease to make this pretense? [LW 40:231-232].
That's a form of the same distinction from Luther I've presented before, and it's in harmony with what I've presented here and elsewhere to Mr. Waltz. Then Luther explains:
Listen to what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians [II Thess. 2:4]: “The Antichrist takes his seat in the temple of God.” If now the pope is (and I cannot believe otherwise) the veritable Antichrist, he will not sit or reign in the devil’s stall, but in the temple of God. No, he will not sit where there are only devils and unbelievers, or where no Christ or Christendom exist. For he is an Antichrist and must thus be among Christians. And since he is to sit and reign there it is necessary that there be Christians under him. God’s temple is not the description for a pile of stones, but for the holy Christendom (I Cor. 3[:17]), in which he is to reign. The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures.

As a veritable Antichrist must conduct himself against Christendom, so the pope acts toward us: he persecutes us, curses us, bans us, pursues us, burns us, puts us to death. Christians need indeed to be truly baptized and right members of Christ if they are to win the victory in death over against the Antichrist. We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would east out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. But when we oppose and reject the pope it is because he does not keep to these treasures of Christendom which he has inherited from the apostles. Instead he makes additions of the devil and does not use these treasures for the improvement of the temple. Rather he works toward its destruction, in setting his commandments and ordinances above the ordinance of Christ. But Christ preserves his Christendom even in the midst of such destruction, just as he rescued Lot at Sodom, as St. Peter recounts (I Pet. 2 [II Pet. 2:6]). In fact both remain, the Antichrist sits in the temple of God through the action of the devil, while the temple still is and remains the temple of God through the power of Christ. If the pope will suffer and accept this dissembling of mine, then I am and will be, to be sure, an obedient son and devoted papist, with a truly joyful heart, and take back everything that I have done to harm him.

So it is of no consequence when these Anabaptists and enthusiasts say, “Whatever is of the pope is wrong,” or, “Whatever is in the papacy we must have and do differently,” thinking thereby to prove themselves the foremost enemy of Antichrist. Not realizing that they thus give him most help, they hurt Christendom most and deceive themselves. For they should help us to reject abuse and accretion, but they would not get much credit for this because they realize they were not first to do this. So they attack what no one yet has attacked in the hope that here perchance they might have the honor of being first. But the honor turns to disgrace, for they attack the temple of God and miss the Antichrist who sits therein, just as the blind, who grope after water, take hold of fire [LW 40:232-233].
Luther's Letter to Pope Leo
Mr. Waltz also offers some other citations from Luther. He appears to be quite smitten by Luther's letter to Pope Leo (May 30, 1518). Mr. Waltz appears to think that somehow when Luther here stated "Wherefore, most blessed Father, I cast myself at the feet of your Holiness, with all that I have and all that I am. Quicken, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove, as you will. In your voice I shall recognize the voice of Christ directing you and speaking in you," that somehow, this negates Luther's distinction between the Roman church and the papacy. Mr. Waltz apparently doesn't realize that only a few months after this letter, one finds Luther making hostile comments towards the Pope. By December of the same year, Luther stating that the Pope may be the true Antichrist, and that the Pope is "worse than the Turks." What Mr. Waltz also appears to not be aware of is "the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome (for more on this, see this post).

Luther's Letter to Pope Leo X  January 5 or 6, 1519
Mr. Waltz then cites another of Luther's letters to the pope, again highlighting Luther's respect for the pope and the Roman church. Though he mentions it was a draft, Mr. Waltz doesn't seem to be aware this letter was never sent. The letter written that day was the result of Luther’s meeting with the Papal nuncio Miltitz. Miltitz was somewhat attempting to reconcile Luther with the Pope. He spoke of how favorably the pope felt toward Luther, and how angry he was with Tetzel. He attempted to make this deal with Luther: Luther would cease with his part of this controversy- and he promised those who opposed Luther would also be silent. He also requested Luther write a letter to the pope. The letter was written and presented to Miltitz, but Luther absolutely refused to recant. Miltitz then dropped the whole idea of the letter (for more on this, see this blog entry). Once again as well, this letter was written in the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome.

Various Sermon Quotes
Mr. Waltz  then goes on to provide a few other quotes from Luther basically saying the same thing, which make the same distinctions I asked him for all along. He puts in bold lettering anything from Luther that remotely admits Rome being a valid church, or the papacy having divine rule. He doesn't bold though statements from Luther like these in his own citations:
30.It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches : One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled ; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations : The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, though it may occupy the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment.

31. The reason for the difference in the two Churches is contained in Christ's saying: "Because they have not known the Father nor me;" that is, the false Church regards itself as superior to the teachings of Christ, when a knowledge of Christ is the very basis of distinction between the true and false Church. It is not enough merely to have the name and the office of the Church since these could be unlawfully assumed and abused; the second commandment and the second petition of the Lord's Prayer indicate that the name of God is often abused, not hallowed but blasphemed and dishonored. Hence, we must not be too ready to endorse the declaration : I say or do this in the name of God or of Christ, and at the command and by the authority of the Church. But we should reply thus: I accept the name of God and of the Church as they are dear and precious to me ; but I do not concede to you that in this name you should prescribe and sell whatever you please.

32. Thus we say to the papists : We grant you, indeed, the name and office, and regard these as holy and precious, for the office is not yours, but has been established by Christ and given to the Church without regard for and distinction of the persons who occupy it. Therefore, whatever is exercised through this office as the institution of Christ, and in his name and that of the Church, is at all times right and proper, even though ungodly and unbelieving men may participate. We must distinguish between the office and the person exercising it, between rightful use and abuse. The name of God and of Christ is always holy in itself ; but it may be abused and blasphemed. So also, the office of the Church is holy and precious, but the person occupying it may be accursed and belong to the devil. Therefore, we cannot decide according to the office who are true or false Christians, and which is the true or false Church.

Sermons on the Gospel of St. John - Chapters 14-16
Mr. Waltz cited one of the most popular polemical Luther quotes, probably without realizing it:
"Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them."
I wrote about this quote some years back: Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture? Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the Church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in. The visible church indeed promulgated the Scriptures and Christian doctrine.

Conclusion
Mr. Waltz ends his entry stating, "I have attempted, with the above quotations, to convince James (and all others who may read this thread), that my original brief quote from Luther was any but, "misleading", rather, that it represented Luther's mature thought on the Roman church, namely, that it remained a Christian church." Well, he hasn't convinced me his earlier sparse comments were not misleading. If anything, by the length of his blog post and the amount of quotes utilized he proved the very opposite. He has now provided a post that included the very distinctions I asked for, which strongly indicates his earlier posts were indeed just that: misleading. I asked him early on to make the necessary clarifications, emphasizing the distinctions Luther did in order to avoid propaganda. Any out-of-context "shocking" quote from Luther followed by the lack of any sort of brief explanation of what Luther meant is indeed less than helpful, serving only to confuse issues. As Mr. Waltz's original material on this subject stood, most people would have no idea why Luther was saying what he was saying about the Roman church, hence creating dissonance. I thank Mr. Waltz for taking my admonitions seriously, and revising his material with his recent blog entry.