Luther vs. Calvin on the Sign of the Cross

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Calvin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: The Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Did Martin Luther Miscite Saint Augustine?

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

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

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

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

Documentation
Here was Montgomery's documentation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context (Augustine)

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

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

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

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

Eck responded: 

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

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

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

And also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther goes on to state later: 

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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