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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author James Atkinson echoes this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is confirmed in a letter from Cardinal Alessandro Farnese:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixteenth Century

Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius X (1903-1914)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

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

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

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

Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)

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

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

Pope John Paul II also stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-First Century

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Francis (2013-2025)

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

 Pope Francis Celebrates the Reformation with a Martin Luther Statue? 

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

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

The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?” This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the concept “by grace alone”, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.

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

Which private interpretive opinion of Roman Catholicism do you hold? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

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

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

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

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

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

 

Addendum #2: The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther

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

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One)

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

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

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

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

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

 

Sproul and MacArthur on Roman Catholicism, praying to Mary, Trent and justification by faith alone, and the Mass

The Roman Catholic Canon and the Book of Esdras (Part One)

I've been challenged to revisit the controversy about Rome's canonical decrees and the book of 1 Esdras because "This question keeps popping up due to the fans of James Swan, James White, etc... parroting the same erroneous assertion." The controversy involves one of the books of Esdras, the decrees of Hippo and Carthage, and the infallible pronouncement on the canon by the Council of Trent. Did the earlier councils canonize a book that Trent did not? Do the councils contradict each other? The person challenging me says they didn't, and claims an article from 1907 by Father Hugh Pope proves it: The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Council. Pope's basic argument is that when Hippo and Carthage referred to the two books of Esdras in their canon, they meant Ezra - Nehemiah, not the spurious book of 1 Esdras and a second book comprising Ezra - Nehemiah.

What's interesting about Father Pope's article is that in regard to literature about this issue, his work appears to have had little impact on scholarship, either when it was written, or now. It's generally accepted by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship that the early church utilized the spurious book of 1 Esdras, and it's highly likely the Hippo and Carthage did indeed have the spurious book of 1 Esdras in mind when it considered the Biblical canon. As I've surveyed some of the available literature, Pope's article is not typically referred to as any sort of definitive apologetic setting the record straight. A few of Rome's bloggers have certainly picked it up (like this blog for instance), and I have my suspicions that this article may have also used it, but scholarship itself appears to have generally ignored it. In the early 1900's I came across a few mentions of the article, but not meaningful mentions, typically just announcements of the article. Some of Pope's arguments are found elsewhere in credible sources. It seems likely that some sources since 1907 positively utilized Pope's article, but I've yet to find them. Of course, scholarship is not infallible, so it's certainly possible that Hugh Pope is the voice of truth crying in the wilderness of scholarship.

In order to evaluate Pope's article, I'd like to first present some background as to the way this controversy has recently played out. In a future blog entry, Hugh Pope's arguments will be laid out. To try and keep things cogent throughout these articles, I will refer to the disputed book of Esdras as "1 Esdras," though there may be times that "3 Esdras" is used to refer to the same book.

William Webster: The Different Canons of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent
I wrote about the 1 Esdras dilemma in 2006 when I briefly outlined the problem as presented by William Webster in his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. 2 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), p. 346-348 [Webster's material from his book can be found in this link]. In terms of Internet apologetics and cyber-battles with Rome's defenders, I would posit that it was probably Mr. Webster that popularized the argument about contradictory Councils and the canon with 1 Esdras acting as the grenade. The basic gist is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage had a different 1 Esdras than Trent did. Mr. Webster argues in part,

Roman Catholic apologists argue that the canon was authoritatively settled for the universal Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. However, the canon decreed by the North African Councils differed from that decreed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on one important point. Hippo and Carthage stated that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras were canonical, referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Bible their Latin version was based upon. In that version, 1 Esdras was the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah not found in the Hebrew Bible, while 2 Esdras was the canonical Jewish version of Ezra-Nehemiah. The Jews only acknowledged Ezra and Nehemiah which they combined into one book. This was 2 Esdras in the Septuagint version. It was Jerome (in his Latin Vulgate) who separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, calling them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively. This became standard for the Vulgate and the basis upon which Trent declared the Septuagint I Esdras to be noncanonical. 1 Esdras in the Septuagint then became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the other Apocryphal apocalyptic work of 3 Esdras became 4 Esdras in the Vulgate.

According to Webster, the North African church relied on the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contained the spurious 1 Esdras. There does not appear to be much dispute about this. It's generally recognized that the spurious 1 Esdras was included in the LXX, by both Roman Catholic scholarship and Protestant scholarship. It's not sinister at all: Roger Beckwith notes that Josephus and "the Fathers of the first four centuries" appear to have preferred 1 Esdras over "the corresponding part of Esdras B (Ezra–Nehemiah)," not because they considered it a different book, but because "they regarded it as an alternative (and fuller) Greek translation of the same book" [Beckwith, R. T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985) p. 340]. Brill's Commentary on 1 Esdras states,

1 Esdras is found in a number of early Christian manuscripts and extant in various translations of ancient Christian Bibles. for a case in point, the presence of 1 Esdras in Codex Vaticanus means that it was copied, read, studied, and preached by Christians and for Christians [link].

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of  "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." This basic point of manuscript existence and church usage is important because Hugh Pope argues that "the oldest LXX MSS which we possess.. came into existence a few years before the African councils [of Hippo and Carthage], as if there is a serious possibility that the extant LXX manuscripts contained the spurious 1 Esdras as a novelty! Pope refers to this as "the one positive argument alleged for identifying Esdras I and II of the African Councils." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras. Pope attempts to downplay these basic facts because granting their truth collapses the rest of his argumentation.


James White vs. Gary Michuta vs. William Webster 

In 2004, Dr. White debated Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. He raised this very issue (fast forward in the video to 1:39:15). Responding to Dr. White,  Mr. Michuta says, "William Webster is wrong" because Trent chose to pass over 1 Esdras "in silence" and not make a decision one way or the other in regard to the canonicity of the book. A few years later Mr. Michuta published Why Catholic Bible Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) and used the same argument. I wrote about Mr. Michuta's argument a number of times when his book came out (see for instance, this link).

This may seem like a reasonable solution to keep the integrity of Rome's decrees in unison. Unfortunately, while one problem may be solved (the councils do not contradict each other), others surface. Let’s grant that Trent "passed over in silence" on ruling on the book of 1 Esdras. This means the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. Their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles according to their own worldview. It would also mean, the canon is still open. Even more troubling for Michuta’s position are the statements put forth on the closed canon from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism states, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.” Notice the words, complete list. If a book is passed over in silence, and may in fact be canonical, the list is not complete. On a theological level, what does it say about Rome's version of the Holy Spirit for an infallible council to pass over something that may be Holy-Spirit inspired Scripture? 

If Mr. Michuta is correct about Trent "passing over in silence" on 1 Esdras, then yes, there is a narrow sense in which William Webster could be wrong that the councils contradict each other. That is, if 1 Esdras is in some sort of conciliar holding pen waiting to be ruled on, the only option to keep Rome's councils from contradicting each other is to deem the book to be sacred Scripture. Will this happen? I doubt it. Rome doesn't appear these days to care about 1 Esdras. Webster's argument has been placed in a conciliar holding pen that's long since been forgotten by Rome's magisterium. If they know where this holding pen is, they don't appear to care.  

Mr. Webster responded to Mr. Michuta by saying, "Trent has spoken quite clearly. 1 Esdras is not canonical. Nowhere in the official list of canonical books is 1 Esdras to be found. The only books that are canonical are those listed by Trent." On Webster's side is the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states of 1 Esdras, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." Also in editions of the Vulgate after Trent's decree 1 Esdras placement is tenuous. The 1590 Vulgate omits it, while the 1593 Vulgate places it in an appendix with a preface that says, 

Porro in hac editione nihil non canonicum, nihil adscititium, nihil extraneum apponere visum est: atque ea causa fuit, cur libri tertius et quartus Esdrae inscripti, quos inter canonicos libros sacra Tridentina Synodus non annumeravit, ipsa etiam Manassae regis Oratio, quae neque hebraice, neque graece quidem exstat, neque in manuscriptis antiquioribus invenitur, neque pars est ullius canonici libri, extra canonicae scripturae seriem posita sunt.[link]

 Also on Webster's side is that Trent's canon is held to be definitive by Roman Catholic sources, and in fact, other than Mr. Michuta, I've not yet come across any of Rome's defenders saying the canon is theoretically still open because of Trent's silence on 1 Esdras. No, quite the contrary: Rome's defenders typically battle with the understanding that the canon was settled once and for all by their infallible magisterium. 

Is Gary Michuta Making Up "Passed Over in Silence"?  

What can be said about Mr. Michuta's claims that 1 Esdras was "passed over in silence"? Did he make it up? No, I don't believe he did. In his book, he states the following:

The question was (and still is) 'is Esdras a separate book that happened to use an awful lot of canonical material,' or 'is it an early recension of Scripture with some additional non-canonical material added?' No one knows. The only thing certain about Esdras' canonical pedigree is that it is uncertain.

Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don't know for certain. Esdras may be an individual book or it may be a recension. No one knows. A few Church Fathers may have used Esdras as a canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although it remained in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint. By the time of Trent, the exact nature of the Esdras, both its form and its canonical status, was open to doubt. The best move for Trent was not to move at all.

The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books. In post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate, Esdras and the others were moved to an appendix in the back.

Those who claim then, that Trent" rejected Esdras are mistaken. It did not. In fact, any rejection or affirmation was purposefully withheld. If there was no decision, then Trent cannot be said to have contradicted Carthage. The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open. [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), p. 240-241].

The information from Mr. Michuta that's most important to this discussion is Trent's vote. Gary documents the information as coming from Peter G. Duncker, The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 1953), p. 293-294]. The pertinent section from Duncker isn't that long:

The difficulties made against the wording of the decree, that concern us, are expressed in the following of the 14 “capita dubitationum”:

4. Whether the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices of the Bible with the sacred books, are to be “nominatim” rejected by this decree, or to be silently omitted.

We may be very brief here. This point arose as a result of an observation of some of the Fathers about such books as 3-4 Esd and 3 Mc; but there was no question that they should be regarded as Sacred Books. The term “apocryphal״ has here undoubtedly the sense, as we Catholics understand the word, applied to the books that non-Catholics call “pseudepigraphic.” The result of the vote indicated that only three Fathers wanted the books to be rejected expressly, eight did not express themselves, forty-two preferred that nothing be said about them. In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books.

The point to keep in mind here is that Duncker states that Trent debated "the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices." Trent recognized that 3 Esdras (remember- also known as 1 Esdras!) was in the earlier Vulgate. Where does this information come from? Duncker utilized Societas Goerresiana, Concilium Tridentinum (CT). Throughout  the article he relied on reliable primary sources (p.277).

My conclusion? I think that the vote did occur and Trent passed over 1 Esdras in silence. It was probably a pragmatic solution for an issue that Trent's participants didn't really care that much about. It appears to me that Trent's participants were aware of the spurious nature of 1 Esdras, and this can be verified that after Trent, as Duncker states, "In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books." Does this "silence" on 1 Esdras mean William Webster was wrong? No. If Carthage and Hippo really had 1 Esdras in their canon, then most certainly Trent does not officially have it in its canon... yet.

All of this tedium about William Webster, Gary Michuta, and Trent's vote on 1 Esdras demonstrates that Trent recognized there was a problem with 1 Esdras, and that 1 Esdras had been around in the church's usage and manuscripts. While this excursion does not definitively interpret what Hippo and Carthage meant by the two books of Esdras, it does speak to the fact that 1 Esdras was not definitively renounced by the pre-African Council church. If Hugh Pope's paradigm were true, there should not have been any sort of debate at Trent in regard to the book. Pope would have his readers believe that 1 Esdras was rejected previous to the North African Councils, yet Trent demonstrates the book was never definitively rejected, and if Michuta is correct, it hasn't been rejected to this day.

Was 1 Esdras Considered Canonical Previous to the Vulgate?
Was 1 Esdras actually the book in view by Carthage and Hippo? If it was, then all bets are off for Rome's defenders. Mr. Michuta does not deny that the book the Council of Carthage canonized was the spurious 1 Esdras. He says, "Carthage did, indeed, accept 'Esdras, two books" and the identity of these two books seems straightforward enough" (p.238). Gary asks, "[W]hat did the Council of Carthage mean when it called for a canon with 'Esdras two books'? Did it mean Nehemiah alone, or did it mean Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras proper? It is difficult to tell. It appears that Carthage would have more likely included Esdras, not omitted it. However, neither case is certain" (p.239). Mr. Michuta documents this by referring to Francis Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1900), p. 121. Gigot  is far more certain than Mr. Michuta. He states,

The Third Book of Esdras.

The second apocryphal writing now placed at the end of the authorized editions of the Latin Version, is the third book of Esdras, thus called in the Vulgate because our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias are known respectively as the first and the second book of Esdras. In the old Latin, Syriac and Septuagint versions, it was named the first book of Esdras from its position immediately before our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias. This latter name has great historical importance, inasmuch as when early Councils and writers of the Church speak of the first book of Esdras they have in view our third book of  that name, and when in their lists of sacred books they mention only two books of Esdras, the first to which they allude is our third book, while their second corresponds to our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias counted together as one work.  

The nomenclature just referred to is found in the African councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the writings of St. Augustine, Pope Innocent I and Cassiodorus, and proves beyond doubt that at a given time the canonicity of the third book of Esdras was officially recognized, at least in the Western churches. About the same period, the sacred character of this book was taken for granted by the leading writers of the East, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, who agree with St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others in the West, in quoting as Holy Writ passages found nowhere except in the third book of Esdras. It is not therefore surprising to find that in presence of such unanimity of the East and of the West, up to the fifth century of our era, some writers should have affirmed that this work is truly canonical and inspired. They remark that the Catholic Church, far from rejecting it positively as apocryphal, has allowed its use and inserted it in its official edition of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint ; that by far the largest part of its contents is simply a duplicate of canonical passages in the second book of Paralipomenon and in the first and second of Esdras ; and that, finally, it is difficult to see how the fact that the writing in question has ceased to be in use since the fifth century of our era, can invalidate the earlier positive testimony in its favor. (p. 121-122)

Utilizing Gigot, Mr. Michuta provides a helpful breakdown of exactly what is contained in 1 Esdras. It is a nine chapter book that takes sections from Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah and also adds in approximately two chapter of unique material, 1 Esdras 3-5:6  (Michuta, p.239; Gigot, p.122). The text of 1 Esdras can be found here.

Gigot is an older source, yet similar findings were noted in Brill's Septuagint Commentary on 1 Esdras by Michael F. Bird. He states:

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras.


Addendum: A Breakdown of 1 Esdras (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Although not belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, this book is usually found, ne prorsus intereat, in an appendix to the editions of the Vulgate. It is made up almost entirely from materials existing in canonical books. The following scheme will show sufficiently the contents and point out the canonical parallels:

-III Esdras, i and 2 Chronicles 35, 36 — History of the Kingdom of Juda from the great Passover of Josias to the Captivity.
-III Esdras, ii, 1-15 (Greek text, 14) and I Esdras, i — Cyrus's decree. Return of Sassabasar.
-III Esdras, ii, 16 (Gr. 15)-31 (Gr. 25) and I Esdras, iv, 6-24 — Opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple.
-III Esdras, iii, 1-v, 6 — Original portion. Story of the three pages. Return of Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 7-46 (Gr. 45) and I Esdras, ii — List of those returning with Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 47 (Gr. 46)-73 (Gr. 70) and I Esdras, iii, 1-iv, 5 — Altar of holocausts. Foundation of the Temple laid. Opposition.
-III Esdras, vi, vii and I Esdras, v, vi — Completion of the Temple.
-III Esdras, viii, 1-ix, 36 and I Esdras, vii-x — Return of Esdras.
-III Esdras, ix, 37-56 (Gr. 55) and II Esdras, vii, 73-viii, 12 — Reading of the Law by Esdras.

The book is incomplete, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence. True, the Latin version completes the broken phrase of the Greek; but the book in its entirety probably contained also the narrative of the feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8). A very strange feature in the work is its absolute disregard of chronological order; thehistory, indeed, runs directly backwards, mentioning first Artaxerxes (ii, 16-31), then Darius (iii-v, 6), finally Cyrus (v, 7-73). All this makes it difficult to detect the real object of the book and the purpose of the compiler. It has been suggested that we possess here a history of the Temple from the time of Josias down to Nehemias, and this view is well supported by the subscription of the old Latin version. Others suppose that, in the main, the book is rather an early translation of the chronicler's work, made at a time when Paralipomenon, Esdras, and Neh. still formed one continuous volume. Be this as it may, there seems to have been, up to St. Jerome, some hesitation with regard to the reception of the book into the Canon; it was freely quoted by the early Fathers, and included in Origen's "Hexapla". This might be accounted for by the fact that III Esd. may be considered as another recension of canonical Scriptures. Unquestionably our book cannot claim to be Esdras's work. From certain particulars, such as the close resemblance of the Greek with that of the translation of Daniel, some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that IIIEsd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C. Of the author nothing can be said except, perhaps, that the above-noted resemblance of style to Dan. might incline one to conclude that both works are possibly from the same hand.

An Abolitionist's Open Letter to Pro-Life Roman Catholics

A message to our friends throwing rocks from across the Tiber,

You don't know where we've been.

We were lost. We were blind. We were dead. 

We were hopeless. We didn't care that we were hopeless, yet in some twisted and horrible way, we did care. 

And then a man with pierced hands and feet offered His help. He said we were blind and dead, and that He could save us. He told us to repent of our hopelessness, our lack of trust in our Creator, our evil and wicked deeds. He told us He had accomplished what needed to be done to bring us to our Creator, Whom we had denied so many times. 

This man saved us. This man, God Himself, clothed in human flesh, did it all. He alone bore the punishment, weight, and guilt of our sin. He alone provided the sacrifice to perfect us for all time. He told us we receive the benefits He offers, a slate wiped clean, perfect righteousness accounted to us as an entire gift, on the basis of repentance and faith alone, by His sufficient grace alone and the grace of no other. 

And He gave us the grace and strength to turn away from our former deeds and to do what is right, and we discovered more joy, peace, purpose, and wonder in doing what He told us to do than in anything we had thought we could find before, on our own path. So we started doing those things. And we fell more and more in love with this wonderful man, this wonderful God, that we wanted to do even more of them, and to share them with others, and to make sure that as many people as possible knew about this wondrous Creator, this amazing, loving, merciful, and powerful King. 

Then we discovered that there would be opposition.

The opposition takes many forms, but let me focus on only one example as a representative sample. Apparently, we who desire to obey the Lord Jesus Christ in all areas of life are "scary" and worthy of denigration and contempt.

As I read this article by Katrina Fernandez/The Crescat and was reflecting on the recent flurry of criticism directed our way by Roman Catholics, one saying of our great King came to my mind.

Matthew 5:11-12 - "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Based on this passage, I'd like to comment on The Crescat's statements and on the larger context. 

Blessed are you...

First and foremost, we'd like to say to all of you who have been criticising us: Thank you!

You have given us many opportunities to proclaim the Gospel and obey our Lord and repeat the proclamation that saved us from Hell. This is an enormous blessing and this whole thing, including blogposts like this one, has given us the chance to do so.

...when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say...

Why do I apply the word "falsely" here?

The title of the article includes the word "scary", but the author never explains what was scary about Toby's comment.  Further, what is scary about saying "...that does not mean we hate Catholic people; we love them. Everyone at AHA loves them. We also believe that in large  part Western Protesantism is dead, very dead as well"?

Does The Crescat believe love is scary?
Does she believe that self-directed criticism is scary?
Do scary bigots typically exhibit a powerful bent toward reformation within their own circles, as we have consistently called for?

The Crescat compares us to Jack Chick.

But:

-We don't make gratuitous dubious connections between mystery pagan religions and various parts of the Roman liturgy like Jack Chick frequently does.

-We are not King-James-Only. (We think the KJV is somewhere in the Top 5 or so.)

-We don't think demons are cute or stupid.

-We would never picture God the Father in an image.

-Our tone is very different. We are focused on the Gospel. (Not that Jack Chick never preaches the Gospel, but he often chooses to go a different direction in many of his tracts targeting Roman Catholicism.)

Let me share with you, dear reader, some more about this situation:

Recently we have been sharing status updates on our very busy Facebook page of a very general nature. Here are two examples:

So many prolifers love our posters yet reject our ideology...
What they don't understand is that our ideology creates our posters and causes us to share them in the first place. (Source)

We are frequently rebuked for acknowledging theological divisions between us and other anti-abortion groups and advised to stop talking about those divisions for the sake of focusing on what we all have in common: saving babies. The primary problem with that presupposition is that AHA's primary goal is actually revival through the preaching of the gospel, which, we believe, will change the mindset of a culture that approves of abortion in the first place. We will work alongside those with a different gospel or with no gospel to engage in various actions against abortion, but we will not stop evangelizing those who proclaim a false gospel that cannot save or who proclaim no gospel at all. If that is seen as divisive, so be it. The gospel of Jesus Christ always has been. (Source)

It has gotten so bad that even a poster that was created by Bryan Kemper, a Roman Catholic pro-life leader, and shared from his page on our page, attracted a flurry of criticisms against us for being "anti-Catholic".

These had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, but they attracted a great deal of attention and criticism. We are, according to these critics, "anti-Catholic". Even Bryan Kemper's poster got that treatment. Nobody thinks he meant only the Roman Catholic Church; he no doubt meant all churches, which is what we mean when we call churches to repent and stop wasting their time.

See, clearly there are many Roman Catholics in the world who are hypersensitive to any criticism of their church. And this raises some serious questions about their hearts. It's impossible for us to know this for sure, of course, but it certainly appears to us as if they are more interested in defending their church than proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus.

Why are they coming on to pick fights about us being anti-Catholic? We can't answer that; only they know. But the explanation that many of these critics are at least flirting with idolatry, as evidenced by their defending their church at any cost, is not something we're prepared to rule out. We've seen very little evidence against the proposition and a great deal in favor. So hopefully we can be forgiven for coming to the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence so far.  

...all kinds of evil against you...

To quote a recent Roman Catholic Facebook critic, we have victimised people with "vicious religious intolerance". This is entirely unfair and we reject it outright.

The Crescat calls our reasons for criticising the Roman Catholic Church "stupid" (without evidence or supporting argumentation).

How's this for evil from The Crescat? 

Luke 6:45 - "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." 

Those who call us "anti-Catholic" are entirely misled, and in using that label reveal that they have very little understanding of the actual issues at hand. Labeling someone in a bigoted and careless way is evil.

A "Catholic" is an individual human being. To accuse us of being "anti-Catholic" is to say that we want the worst for individual Roman Catholic persons. It is to say that we want them to end up in Hell.

Yet, that is the very last thing we want for any individual of any faith. 

And here's the other thing about that. Saying "anti-Catholic" is entirely hypocritical, as we have never expressed a desire for Roman Catholics to end up in Hell. Yes, our theologies differ. They differ so much that we actually have different gospels. Don't believe me? We certainly affirm that's true. The Council of Trent affirmed it too, and the Roman Catholic Church has never taken it back. The Roman Magisterium has officially anathematised, cut off from fellowship and access to (in its view) the grace-infusing sacraments, those who profess the Gospel that we profess.

If we are to use the standard of judgment that these critics of ours are using, then simply by virtue of being a faithful Roman Catholic, these critics are "anti-evangelical" and "anti-Protestant". Yet when have we ever thrown those terms around?

We profess different gospels. The Roman Magisterium, a much higher authority than any individual Roman Catholic layman, has said so. We certainly say so.

If we have different gospels, that is a very, very serious matter:

Galatians 1:6-9 - I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed (anathema)! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (anathema)!

And see, if you're all upset about our having used the word "satanic", reason with me a moment. A candidate for the esteemed position of "The Gospel" has two possible sources - God, or Satan.

The Council of Trent, which is, again, a higher authority than mere Roman Catholic laypeople, has said that the Gospel we proclaim is anathema. The enemy of God and the enemy of human souls is Satan. One does not cry out Exsurge Domine to take action against a work that God initiated. Let's not play hypocritical games here. Our positions are fundamentally incompatible, and both sides accept that. Criticisms that we are anti-Catholic entirely miss the point and are far more a product of postmodern political correctness and a victim mentality than a sober, rational consideration of history and of comparative soteriology.

If Trent felt the freedom to call our Gospel a work of the devil, we will not apologise for returning the favor the other direction.

One of us has biblical justification for saying what we say, and the other does not. And since there is absolutely no way to properly interpret the Scripture and conclude that it teaches there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin, that anyone other than Jesus the Messiah is a source of merit, that grace is infused rather than imputed, that justification and sanctification are not entirely separate categories, that sola fide is untrue, and that anyone who ends up in Heaven can die with sin remaining on his record such that he must suffer for its purgation after death, we abolitionists are entirely confident in our eternal destiny and in the need to proclaim this graceful Gospel to others who do not believe it.

...because of Me...

And let us make no mistake. We do not affirm the same gospel as the Roman Catholic Church.

Our good news proclamation is this: We were born dead in trespasses and sins, entirely unable and entirely unwilling to reach God. Then by God's grace, we must repent of our sin. By God's grace, we must put our full trust in the atoning work of Jesus the Messiah on the cross. By His one-time single sacrifice, He has perfected His people for all eternity. He reckons/imputes/accounts all of His infinite righteousness to those who receive it by faith alone as a free gift. He wipes away all sin of all degree of gravity at the cross. The believer is entirely unable to merit anything good. The believer has merited evil. Jesus the Messiah has merited all righteousness and exchanges His righteousness to the believer, and the believer's evil to Himself. He births us anew apart from anything we do, entirely apart from any action on the believer's part. This Gospel is revealed and authoritatively proclaimed in His Word, which is the only final and sole infallible rule of faith for believers.

The Crescat and other Roman Catholics see fit to criticise us for this stance. We are unapologetic. This is our lifeblood and our final answer. By God's grace, we will never waver from this proclamation.

...in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you...

This hypocritical Roman Catholic attitude has been around a long time.
We are not the first, nor will we be the last, people to be Gospel-focused and doing our best to proclaim the glorious Gospel of grace to people who by their own admission have a different Gospel, and to be called "anti-Catholic".

Being called "anti-Catholic" for proclaiming the Gospel, being evangelical, and arguing against various points of Roman theology is just wrong.  We are proud to join the ranks of those who have gone before in engaging in evangelical outreach to those who belong to a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel we proclaim.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great...

We are actually rejoicing over this whole episode because we have had the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel in an area of American political and moral life that has been sadly devoid of the Gospel for decades. The pro-life movement has been dumbing down its theology for a long time and has not embraced the Gospel as the solution.

The pro-life movement has been not been focusing on the Gospel but on other things - scientific facts about fetal development, voting blocs, pragmatic political considerations, even things like Mary's rosary. Many of these things are well and good and even necessary to a well-rounded denunciation of the arguments against abortion, but there has been a distinct non-reliance on the power of the Gospel to transform sinners into repentant saints by the grace and forgiveness of Christ.

The Lord is using us to bring light to this dark place. Where the Gospel is not present, darkness is present. We are bringing the Gospel to bear on the question of and in the arena of pro-life.

That's why we don't call ourselves "pro-life"; we are abolitionists of human abortion.
When others have let the Gospel fall by the wayside, we are taking it up and placing it at its rightful place.

While the above is a rebuke, yes, it is a rebuke offered in love. This fight is far from over and our friends in the pro-life movement have, we pray, plenty of time to take up the good fight, to retake up the best weapon in our arsenal - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - consistently, firmly, foundationally, and in the foremost position. Take it up, wield it, use it.

If abortion is to be brought to an end in this country, it will be because of the Gospel of Jesus. 

As abolitionists of human abortion, we will not turn away from this means, nor this end.

We will not rest and we will not be silent until we have effected its abolition.