Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #6: The Protestant Dilemma, Luther and Mary's Sinlessness

 Here's a Martin Luther meme found on Facebook:

How to respond:

1. Identify the argument: This is a typical Roman Catholic argument that if Martin Luther restored "Biblical Christianity" to its pure state, then all subsequent Protestants are obligated to follow everything he said in regard to Christianity. They argue that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, so this is contrary to modern Protestants that believe "all have sinned" including Mary. 

2. Locate the source: No source is given in the meme for the Martin Luther quote.  For this quote, Rome's defenders often cite either Luther's "Personal Prayer Book" or "Little Prayer Book" 1522.  This is old-school Roman Catholic Internet documentation that's vague enough to not be helpful. This text is easy enough to find: it has been translated into English in LW 43:40.

3. Present More Clarifying Information. At times Martin Luther's view of Mary was in flux, and this quote is a good example of it. Leading up to 1522, it can be documented that Luther wavered on making a definite conclusion on Mary's sinlessness. In 1521-1522, he seems to have finally concluded Mary was sinless. After this, his position changed. The best one can speculate is that for the majority of his career as a Reformer, he believed that at the conception of Jesus Christ, Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit. At Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. This means that at least up until the conception of Christ, Luther believed that Mary was not sinless. His mature position is not the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus). After Mary's conception of Christ, Luther places Mary among sinners (documented below). 

A question arises for Luther's later view: If Mary was purified or made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did she then go on to live a completely sinless life? Here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. For further discussion, see this link. 

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #3 Luther- "If a woman does not perform her duties, she should be whipped and beaten just like the church treats heretics"

Here's a bogus meme posted by a Roman Catholic on Facebook. Martin Luther is purported to have stated,"If a woman does not perform her duties, she should be whipped and beaten just like the church treats heretics." This shocking Luther quote is juxtaposed with a statement from Pope Paul III, "Let women be honored in the church, for they have been given to us as models of virtue, just as the Blessed Virgin Mary was the first among them." There you have it: Luther says to beat women, a 16th Century pope says to honor women... with Mary thrown in at the end to seal the deal (Rome's defenders never miss an opportunity to mention Mary!).  What could be clearer in demonstrating Luther was evil and Roman Catholicism is glorious? 

Actually... both quotes will be demonstrated to be clearly bogus! The evil being perpetuated is falsely attributing both of these quotes to people that never made the purported statements. Leaving Luther for a moment, even if one disagrees with Roman Catholicism, false quotes attributed to the papacy should not be tolerated either by anyone claiming accountability to "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16).

Let's dive in.

Documentation: Martin Luther
The Luther documentation provided is "Martin Luther, On the Estate of Marriage (1522). This refers to the treatise entitled, Uom Eelichen Lebe. In English, the title is rendered The Estate of Marriage. The entire treatise in English can be found here (this link appears to be the exact same English translation that is found in LW 45).

Go ahead and search the provided link: there is no such Luther quote "If a woman does not perform her duties, she should be whipped and beaten just like the church treats heretics." While I'm not a big fan of ChatGPT, even it states:

Documentation: Pope Paul III
The Pope Paul III documentation provided is "Pope Paul III, Apostolic Letter on the Role of Women in the Church, 1545." So far, I've not located any such named 1545 apostolic letter with this title. Nor have I located any such quote stating, "Let women be honored in the church, for they have been given to us as models of virtue, just as the Blessed Virgin Mary was the first among them" either from Pope Paul III or anyone else! Once again, ChatGPT states,

The question though is... even if the quote can't be verified as originating from Pope Paul III, where does this quote come from? Did one of Rome's defenders make it up? Is it the result of A.I.? I don't know. Charity provokes me to assume the later. As of the writing of this entry, the only relevant Google hit I was provided was to someone seeming to be Roman Catholic posting the meme on a Filipino Seventh-day Adventist Around the World Facebook page.

I invite my readers, especially Roman Catholic readers, to participate in this particular papal quote snipe hunt. If you're a Roman Catholic reading this, I assume you pour over Papal statements for hours every day and have a much wider knowledge base than I do (read: friendly sarcasm). There is interesting information about Pope Paul III's Involvement with various religious females like the Ursulines. If he made this purported statement in 1545 (or any date), I assume that Rome's defenders are the true experts at going deep into history to locate the quote (read: more friendly sarcasm).

Conclusion
First, I've never come across any comments from Martin Luther saying that women should be beaten or a woman should be beaten if she "does not perform her duties."  By the way...Which duties? are these "duties" domestic work or is the insinuation conjugal... or both? The meme doesn't say. Regardless, the quote from Luther in the meme is a slanderous lie. A refutation of the meme comes from Luther himself:

Men should govern their wives not with great cudgels, flails, or drawn knives, but rather with friendly words and gestures and with all gentleness so that they do not become shy... and take fright such that they afterward do not know what to do. Thus, men should rule their wives with reason and not unreason, and honor the feminine sex as the weakest vessel and also as coheirs of the grace of life... (Luther on Woman, a Sourcebook, p. 95; WA 17.1:24).

Second, as to the alleged quote from Pope Paul III: kudos to Roman Catholicism broadly that the meme overtly says to honor women... even if the quote is fictitious! However, I see a negative aspect to this bogus quote. The quote links honoring women to "the blessed Virgin Mary." Why is she needed? Because... in Roman Catholicism, the definitive woman is Mary. Pope John Paul II wrote that Mary is an "exceptional link" between her "and the whole human family." She holds a "special place." This Pope necessarily places Mary in the role of the ultimate woman in the entire human experience. Mary is therefore the model of what it means to be a woman. The infallible Lumen Gentium states:

But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.

-snip- 

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.

Here's what the Roman Catholic half of this meme is saying via this fabricated quote: honor women because you must honor Mary. She is the quintessential standard for all human beings. She is preeminent among the saints. She is the sine qua non model for all Christians to follow. Mary is your main reason to honor women! She is the virtuous standard of piety that all Christians are to aspire to. 

Contrary to Rome's alleged infallible authority, Mary is not the definite standard for all women Biblically. The Holy Scriptures speak about the definitive woman (see for example, Proverbs 31:10-31). Or, consider the means of progressive sanctification by the method of negation: where in the Bible does it say to first conform to the image of Mary to then be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29)?  Why isn't the presence of Mary found somewhere in the explanation of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5? There is nowhere in Scripture in which Mary is presented as the necessary model of virtue. 

Notice I bolded and underlined the word necessary. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater! Exegeting Marian passages like Luke 1:46-55 can tell the church wonderful and useful things about Mary's Christian experience. However, this can be done without placing Mary in the quintessential role that Rome has placed her in. This is what Luther actually did in his exposition of the Magnificat (see Addendum #4 below).

David, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Mary Magdalene, and the like, are examples to strengthen our trust in God and our faith, by reason of the great grace bestowed on them without their worthiness, for the comforting of all men (LW 21:323).

 

 Addendum #1 Revised Meme: Fake Quotes!

If you come upon this bogus meme, feel free to reply with my revised memes below. I've added, "Fake Quotes!"

Addendum #2: Luther Against Sixteenth Century Misogynists   

Luther was not a feminist. He was medieval man, born into the zeitgeist of sixteenth century German culture. One of the most helpful overviews on this is found in the book, Luther on Women, a Sourcebook. The book argues Luther retained the medieval worldview that women were inferior to men. However, the book also mentions that Luther was against "the misogynist aphorisms collected and published... by Sebastian Franck" (p.16). Luther found the collection offensive.  Here are some of Franck's offensive aphorisms:

“Once you put out the light, all women are the same”—Franck’s list included such sayings as “Woman’s beauty is a covering for filth” (cf. Ecclus. 25:21; 9:8); “Do not believe any woman, even if she is dead”; “All wickedness is a joke compared with a woman’s wickedness” (cf. Ecclus. 25:19); “It is better to bury a woman than to marry one”; “No one takes a wife unless he has lost his mind.” Franck added his own comments: “Women are by nature devoted to deception”; “It has been debated whether they should be classified as rational or irrational animals”; “When it comes to urgent tasks, one man is more valuable than a thousand women (LW 60:339).

The editors of Luther's works point out:

Luther saw Franck’s general attitude of contempt manifest particularly in the misogynistic proverbs he had published. Johann Mathesius (1504–65), who was Luther’s table companion in 1541, reported that Luther “was extremely angry at Sebastian Franck … for having published many disgraceful proverbs to dishonor the estate of marriage and the female sex.” Luther’s image of the sneering, scandalmongering Franck as an “outhouse fly” who fouls himself buzzing around the privy before trying to settle on people’s faces and smear his filth there is a reminder that Luther’s scatology, though vivid and coarse, is seldom gratuitous. The reader’s natural squeamishness at a situation that will be readily familiar to those who have spent any summer time away from indoor plumbing is aptly and effectively directed against those who seek to malign and befoul the creatures and ordinance of God—women and marriage—that God Himself has blessed and pronounced good. Anyone who delights in the scurrilous slanders Franck has published, Luther says, “cannot possibly have a gracious God” (LW 60:340-341).

Luther commended a refutation of Franck in 1545 written by Johann Freder. In his commendation Luther states:

I want to point out only one thing, in order to attest that I have read his books and am not his enemy without reason. Pray tell me, is it seemly for a writer of histories to say, “Once you put out the light, all women are the same”? Even if he had perhaps heard such a saying from some wanton man, should he therefore have written it in his book and affirmed it with such delight and amusement? Even if he had forgotten about the holy women and virgins, shouldn’t he at least have thought of his own mother or his own wife and, if he had even a spark of reason or honor or an honest drop of blood in his body, been ashamed in his heart? Or why aren’t men, too, all the same once you put out the light? (LW 60:345).

Addendum #3 WA 17.1:24, Luther on Fairly Treating Women

The Luther text mentioned above from WA 17.1:24 is worth citing at length (English offered via a rough Goggle Translate). This text is from A Sermon on Marriage, January 15,1525:

Secondly, a man should love his wife as his own body. Paul speaks to the Ephesians in chapter 5: Husbands love your wives like his own body; he who loves his wife loves himself. Listen, you hear how finely the Apostle teaches how a man should treat his wife: he should not regard her as if she were a footstool, for she was not created from a foot, but from the man's flesh in the middle of his body. A man should not treat her otherwise, as if she were his own body or flesh. And however tenderly and kindly he treats and acts with his body—if he is slovenly, he does not destroy or neglect her; if he is prudent, he cares for and looks after her; and even if he does not always do so equally, it is all for his good. So should a man do with his wife. And even if another woman is more beautiful, better eloquent, more skilled, wiser, and more capable than your wife, you should not love her as much as your own body. Purely, no, but you should love your wife as your own body, and even if she cannot always make it equal to you, bear with her patience as with your own body. And do as the vintner does with his strong vine-bearer, as the holy [Seft?] in the 128th psalm chapter calls a woman a vine-bearer when one wants to bind him who is weak in the flesh, like a woman he is supposed to bear and produce fruit. Thus, the vintner does not take a large, zealous scale chain or a rough heap of straw, but a finely nimble little thong, with which he binds him.

Thus, women should also be treated not with great rudeness, boorishness, or rudeness, but with friendly words, friendly gestures, and with all humility, so that they do not become shrewish, as Peter says in chapter 3, and frightened, so that afterwards they do not know what to do. Therefore, women must be governed with reason and not with unreason, and the female sex, as the weakest of men, should be given its brothers, also as co-heirs of the grace of life, so that our prayer may not be hindered. And this means, as St. Paul says to Ephesians in chapter 5: "Men, love your wives, just as Jesus Christ loved his church." 

 Addendum #4: Selections from Luther's Exposition of the Magnificat

[...S]he does take it amiss that the vain chatterers preach and write so many things about her merits. They are set on proving their own skill and fail to see how they spoil the Magnificat, make the Mother of God a liar, and diminish the grace of God. For, in proportion as we ascribe merit and worthiness to her, we lower the grace of God and diminish the truth of the Magnificat. The angel salutes her only as highly favored of God, and because the Lord is with her (Luke 1:28), which is why she is blessed among women. Hence all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her, as though she were concerned that men should honor her and look to her for good things, when in truth she thrusts this from her and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace (LW 21:322).

 What do you think? David, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Mary Magdalene, and the like, are examples to strengthen our trust in God and our faith, by reason of the great grace bestowed on them without their worthiness, for the comforting of all men (LW 21:323).

As the wood had no other merit or worthiness than that it was suited to be made into a cross and was appointed by God for that purpose, so her sole worthiness to become the Mother of God lay in her being fit and appointed for it; so that it might be pure grace and not a reward, that we might not take away from God’s grace, worship, and honor by ascribing too great things to her (LW 21:327).

It is necessary also to keep within bounds and not make too much of calling her “Queen of Heaven,” which is a true-enough name and yet does not make her a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God. She gives nothing, God gives all... (LW 21:327-328).

Therefore she adds, “And holy is His name.” That is to say: “As I lay no claim to the work, neither do I to the name and fame. For the name and fame belong to Him alone who does the work. It is not proper that one should do the work and another have the fame and take the glory. I am but the workshop in which He performs His work; I had nothing to do with the work itself. No one should praise me or give me the glory for becoming the Mother of God, but God alone and His work are to be honored and praised in me. It is enough to congratulate me and call me blessed, because God used me and did His works in me.” Behold, how completely she traces all to God, lays claim to no works, no honor, no fame. She conducts herself as before, when she still had nothing of all this; she demands no higher honors than before. She is not puffed up, does not vaunt herself or proclaim with a loud voice that she is become the Mother of God. She seeks not any glory, but goes about her usual household duties, milking the cows, cooking the meals, washing pots and kettles, sweeping out the rooms, and performing the work of maidservant or housemother in lowly and despised tasks, as though she cared nothing for such great gifts and graces (LW 21:329).

Alas, the word “service of God” has nowadays taken on so strange a meaning and usage that whoever hears it thinks not of these works of God, but rather of the ringing of bells, the wood and stone of churches, the incense pot, the flicker of candles, the mumbling in the churches, the gold, silver, and precious stones in the vestments of choirboys and celebrants, of chalices and monstrances, of organs and images, processions and churchgoing, and, most of all, the babbling of lips and the rattling of rosaries. This, alas, is what the service of God means now. Of such service God knows nothing at all, while we know nothing but this. We chant the Magnificat daily, to a special tone and with gorgeous pomp; and yet the oftener we sing it, the more we silence its true music and meaning. Yet the text stands firm. Unless we learn and experience these works of God, there will be no service of God, no Israel, no grace, no mercy, no God, though we kill ourselves with singing and ringing in the churches and drag into them all the goods in all the world. God has not commanded any of these things; undoubtedly, therefore, He takes no pleasure in them (LW 21:350).

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #2 "Protestantism didn't get rid of the Papacy. It made every man his own Pope"

One of Rome's defenders posted this picture of Martin Luther pointing to a passage of Scripture attached with the typical Roman Catholic argument: "Protestantism didn't get rid of the Papacy. It made every man his own Pope." If I were to ever fall victim to rage baiting, this meme would do it! This meme is a demonstration that Rome's defenders have no idea how inconsistent they are with this argument. Let's poke around a little at the origins of this catchline and then demonstrate Rome's defenders using this argument refute themselves.

Documentation
It's blatantly obvious this quote is not from Martin Luther. Google A.I. says, "The quote, attributed to English essayist and critic Matthew Arnold (1822–1888)." If you come across a Google search using the word "attributed" to this or that person... stop your search! I've done a few of these "attributed to" searches, and they typically end in frustration and failure. Whichever Google programmer added "attributed to," kudos to you on the one hand, and thanks for wasting my time on the other. 

If you limit your search to "every man his own pope," old results do appear. One interesting result comes from the popular Roman Catholic book, The Faith of Our Fathers by Cardinal James Gibbons. The line occurs in a chapter dedicated to defending the "Infallibly of the Popes": 

A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, recently used the following language: "For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require." This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism. Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope. If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible, - and this is a privilege you do not claim, - then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective Infallibility of the Bible, without an infallible interpreter?

There are older search results than Gibbons. For instance, this 1829 excerpt,

And with respect to Luther; it is an historical fact, we are told, that he set aside the ancient method of instructing the Christian laity by the authoritative teaching of their pastors, and laid down the rule of establishing by each man's private judgment, what are the doctrines and institutions of Christ, and what are the conditions of salvation. Now every one, who has the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Reformation, must know that both these assertions are absolutely groundless. But, perhaps, the Bishop means, that Luther, though he did not formally abolish the ministerial office, virtually dispensed with it, by establishing the principle, which made every man his own pope, and taught him that the doctrines, precepts and institutions of Christ, and the conditions of salvation, were just what his own judgment might determine them to be.

I suspect "every man his own pope" goes back even further, I would not be surprised to find it floating around in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries (example here, 1768, 1774). Will the originator of the statement be found? Well, it probably won't be me unless it pops up on its own or one you find it for me. I'm content with simply documenting that this type of Roman Catholic polemical argument has been around for hundreds of years. Let that sink in!

How to Respond: Expose Roman Catholic Double Standards
In the reasoning of Rome's defenders, they are blatantly saying Protestantism rejected the authority of the papacy in regard to Biblical interpretation, ushering in wild eyed private interpretations, leading to utter interpretive lawlessness. Their blame is often (if not solely) placed on Martin Luther. If he had not ushered in this anarchy, then the catholic church would be unified in its understanding of the Bible. Their unstated solution in the meme: present a covert appeal to the infallibility of the pope as the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture. If Protestants placed the Pope in his rightful place, there would certainly be a unified understanding of Scripture!

There are at least four major ironies with this solution. 

First, the Papacy has had 2000 years to infallibly interpret the Bible. They claim this is their job:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him  [Catechism of the Catholic Church].

As I see it, they're a little behind in getting the project finished before the end of the world. Don't take it from me, consider these statements from reputable Roman Catholic sources: 

"To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible" (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, 40).

"Very few texts have in fact been authoritatively determined and ‘there consequently remain many important matters in the explanation of which sagacity and ingenuity of Catholic interpreters can and should be freely exercised'" (Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 60).

If these Roman Catholic scholars are correct, when Rome's defenders choose to use a passage from the Bible, aren't they necessarily engaged in the process of... personally interpreting Scripture? There are many issues in the Bible that could use some infallible clarity... for instance, the age of the earth and the definitive view on human evolution. Catholic Answers states, "What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief." I don't get it... why can't the Pope settle it? Doesn't anyone care to bring him a Bible and open it up to the first chapters of Genesis and get it settled? 

This Roman Catholic fallible uncertainty also extends to their favorite doctrinal distinctives. Here's an example I came across back in 2007. I purchased The New Catholic Answer Bible. This Bible has detailed verse by verse commentary on the bottom of the page and also includes 88 pages of insert apologetic material placed throughout this Bible. These are to equip Roman Catholics to “better respond when challenged about the Catholic Church and its teachings.”

I noticed the inserts and verse commentary were sometimes mismatched in their interpretive answers. For instance, the verse commentary on Luke 1:28 says nothing about Mary being immaculately conceived, while the insert uses it as its prime proof-text. The text of the Bible used (NAB) translates kecharitomene “Hail, favored one!” and the verse commentary explains it simply as an announcement paralleling that given to Zechariah about the birth of John. The insert though translates kecharitomene as “highly graced” or “full of grace,” and is an “…indication of an unparalleled grace given by God to our Lady: She was conceived without the defect of original sin” (Insert R-1).

Commenting on Matthew 1:25, the verse commentary states, “The Greek word translated ‘until’ does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it,” while insert Q-1 defending the perpetual virginity of Mary, says, “[W]hen St. Matthew in his gospel says that Joseph ‘had no relations with [Mary] until she bore a son’ (1:25), he does not necessarily imply that such relations followed afterward.” Notice what’s different between the two answers? The insert leaves out anything that would suggest “nor does it exclude it.” The insert goes on to argue that “until” should be understood to give credence to perpetual virginity.

Insert H-2 asks “Is Purgatory in the Bible?” It immediately cites 2 Maccabees 12:38-42 as scriptural proof. The verse commentary though points out only that what is being mentioned is similar to the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, “…but not quite the same.” Well, is the verse teaching about Purgatory or not?

I've also come across popular Roman Catholics commentators disagreeing with each other on the Bible passages and statistical proof that a majority of Roman Catholics don't understand such quintessential Roman Catholic teachings like the Eucharist. For example, here, here, and here to point out only a few examples from a much larger pool (see for instance my old blog entries, Blueprint for Anarchy). Since the Papacy has not done the work of infallibly interpreting Scripture, Rome's defenders by necessity are using their own private interpretation on the Bible and... on just about everything! A.A. Hodge pointed out long ago:

22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self–asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.

Second, compounding their problem, Rome's defenders also have to interpret all of Roman Catholicism, (dogmatic statements, papal encyclicals, Tradition, etc.). Here's but one example: Consider the debate surrounding this infallible statement from Vatican II;  

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore ALL that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." [Vatican II DV 11]

This statement itself is prone to multiple interpretations within Roman Catholicism. Conservative Roman Catholic apologists see this as a clear statement that the entirety of Scripture is without error. Some significant Roman Catholic scholars though (like R.A.F. MacKenzie and Raymond Brown) see the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” as limiting inerrancy to only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation. Which is it my Roman Catholic friends? You can't know for sure because your papacy hasn't told you! How much effort would it take the "infallible" Pope to answer this basic question? Why wouldn't it be on the Vatican "to do" list of one of the most important issues that needs resolution? I just don't get it. 

Third, the problem for Roman Catholics is compounded yet again because their church also says that a doctrine can be infallibly defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the Church’s theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibleness is in the decree, not in the reasoning or Bible passages supporting that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

…[T]he validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

Note also the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler:

Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined.” (Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, p. 59-60. 

 Fourth, Never assume an individual defender of Rome represents official Roman Catholicism. They do not. They're typically random people on the Internet with no official standing within the church. One of the most bizarre online experiences I witnessed was watching the members of the now defunct Catholic Answers discussion forums verbally contradict and chastise a member claiming to be a retired Roman Catholic priest. So much for respecting authority!

Challenge Rome's online defenders to at least quote and utilize their infallible statements (especially on Bible verses) rather than giving their personal opinions. Do not let them functionally get rid of the papacy. The bare truth is that Rome's online defenders cannot escape themselves. They are privately interpreting Roman Catholicism without having any meaningful authority granted to them by the Vatican. I highly doubt many of their webpages, Facebook posts and tweets, etc., have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Even many of those that publish books don't always have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. They are themselves.. their own pope.

Conclusion
The bottom line as I see it, is that if you make an argument against a position, you better not be able to apply the argument to your own position. For this meme, Roman Catholicism does not pass the sniff test.  For my Roman Catholic readers, before you chastise Protestants for interpreting the Bible, clean your own house first! Where is the social media Roman Catholic outrage that the Papacy has barely done what they claim to be able to do? Where are the sarcastic memes pointing it out?

Addendum: Making Up an Answer Bible?
I hadn't thought about The New Catholic Answer Bible in many years. It was only recently on social

media in which I saw a post from a person saying it was their "favorite Bible." Back in 2007 I had the privilege of submitting articles to aomin.org. I did two entries on The New Catholic Answer Bible:

The New Catholic Answer Bible (Part One)

The New Catholic Answer Bible (Part Two)

Looking back now on these old entries, I would now construct them in such a way that they were less personally polemical against the authors. However, also now as I look back on these entries, I realize even more how dangerous it is to mess around with the Bible, either publishing an "Answer Bible" or even flippantly quoting the Bible on social media or a web page. 

I've not done any new deep dives into the New Catholic Answer Bible. Perhaps now, twenty years later, the notes and inserts match in content. If I recall, the verse-by-verse study notes were compiled by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The translation and notes have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. In bold letters on the documentation / copyright page it states, 

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

As far as I can tell from my 2005 copy of The New Catholic Answer Bible, the colorful apologetic inserts are not part of the material deemed "free of doctrinal or moral error." Maybe they are now?  While this may seem like nitpicking, I intend it to be an example of holding Rome's defenders to their own standards. In essence, I see many of Rome's defenders functioning in the way they criticize. They are authorities unto themselves.

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #1

Here's a Spanish Martin Luther meme sent in to Beggars All:

  And here's the English translation (as per Google):

"¡El mundo es ahora siete veces peor que antes bajo el papado! ¡La gente es más avara, más orgullosa, más envidiosa, más cruel!"

"The world is now seven times worse than it was under the papacy! People are now more avaricious, more proud, more envious, more cruel!" 

How to respond: 

1. Identify the Argument: This is an example of those quotes categorically classified as "Did Luther Regret the Reformation?" They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church. Their argument is that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit.  Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness. With this quote, the implication is that previously the state of Christian piety was much better and Luther knew it. His Gospel was a failure in producing good works among those who followed his teaching. Luther is presented as admitting that a return to the prior state of things would produce the much-needed good works missing in German society. 

2. Locate the Source: Ask for further documentation. What is presented is vague.  This meme cites "Luther. Sermon on Matthew 21; 1537." The date of 1537 is suspicious. In 1538 Luther began preaching extensively on Matthew 21, but this quote is not found in LW 68's publication of those sermons on this chapter. Without specifics, the reference of 1537 is potentially spurious. One possible source for the quote is a 1533 House Postil sermon written down by Veit Dietrich. The sermon is the First Sunday in Advent on Matthew 21:1-9. Many of the elements of the quote are contained in this sermon, though not in the order presented by the meme. There's either a mystery 1537 sermon somewhere out there, or someone at some point has done severe editing to this 1533 sermon (I suspect the later).

3. Present the Possible Context.  

This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and everyone should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy. What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but everyone is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel. Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let everyone who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people. But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth. (p. 8-10).

Conclusion

Was the world getting worse because of Luther's "Reformation"? Yes! The world grows worse because of the Gospel being preached. Those though who accept the Gospel are transformed by it. Luther consistently held that the Gospel would find great opposition and would be attacked from all sides. The Gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The Gospel would indeed make those of the world worse by those who ignore it, while changing the lives of those who accept it. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

Addendum #1 The 1533 Vice List 

An interesting facet of the multiple versions of this quote is the list of results Luther gives to his preaching.

  

The Spanish meme version: más avara, más orgullosa, más envidiosa, más cruel (greed, pride, envy, cruelty)

 

The English version (from the above context): more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked, inordinate life, impurity and other vices, unthanfulness

There are similarities. Both mention greed. Some of the other results from the Spanish list though do not seem to immediately coincide with the English, unless one assimilates them all into "other vices." The German text can be found here. It is possible that the Spanish text is based on Georg Rörer's version of this sermon. That version states: 

We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy.

Georg Rörer's list: more hostile, wicked, and malicious, greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered

This list does seem to coincide more with the Spanish version. It lists greed, cruelty, covetous (envy?). There is though not a direct correspondence with all four. Unless a missing 1537 sermon appears, it seems to me the Spanish meme version is loosely based on is based on the 1533 sermon.

Addendum #2 The 1523 Vice List

There is a similar "seven times worse" comment from Luther popularized by Rome's defenders:

We deserve that our Evangelicals (the followers of the new Gospel) should now be seven times worse than they were before. Because after having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink (to excess), and practice all manner of vices.

I have an old overview of this quote found here: Luther: Evangelicals are now seven times worse than they were before..having learnt the Gospel, we steal, tell lies, deceive, eat and drink to excess. An AI English translation of the quote (and sermon) can be found here. The quote is ultimately based on a comparison between the sinful actions of the Jews in the wilderness and the German people now free from the theological slavery of the papacy. Begin reading the context here.