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!
 

 

Luther: The Bible is clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings

What is the easiest book to understand? According to an advocate of Eastern Orthodoxy I've been interacting with, Luther claimed it was the Bible.  He points to Luther stating,  

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5 

5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

This person argued Luther was absolutely wrong that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any other writing.  On the face of it, it does certainly seem like Martin Luther made a logical blunder. Isn't a children's book much "simpler" than the Bible? I suspect there are many books in my own personal library that are "clearer" than the Bible as well.  Did the great Martin Luther have a misguided zeal in his claims about the Bible?  Sure, the Bible is a great book, but is it "clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings"? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

Even though the quote is found precisely in LW 32:11-12, this does not necessarily mean the person using it read LW 32 and mined it out; a simple Google search of the formatted reference ("5") suggests this quote was probably taken from R. Scott Clark's blog article, Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine?  Also, the bolding in the quote does not appear in Clark's blog article, nor in LW 32. 

The quote comes from Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, 1521 (Defense and Explanation of All the Articles). While this treatise is found in its original German from Luther's actual manuscript in WA 7, 308- 457 (with the quote appearing on page 317), the English translation this particular quote is based on primarily comes from O. Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 11.  In Clemen, the quote is found on page 64: 

The English rendering of LW 32 is a revision of this treatise found in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works vol. 3 (with the quote occurring on p. 16, found below).  Ewald Plass also includes an English translation of the quote in What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 74 (see below). 

Context

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the teachers of the Church. I do not reject them; but everyone knows that they have erred at times, as men will, I am willing to put confidence in them only so far as they give me proofs for their opinions out of the Scriptures, which never yet have erred. This St Paul commands me in 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter, where he says, “First prove and confirm all doctrines; hold fast that which is good.” St Augustine writes to St Jerome to the same effect: “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has erred; all others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth, unless they prove it to me by the Holy Scriptures or by clear reason.”

The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker; therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.

Conclusion

As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is partly in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities, particularly "all the teachers of the Church." In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer, able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority of sacred scripture.

In this early period of Luther's fight with Rome, when the papists cited decrees, councils, fathers, etc. against him, his response was to counter with Scripture. As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answers in the entirety of the Defense and Explanation of All the Articles demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on issues that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying. 

Luther did not adhere to Scriptura Nuda. Luther says specifically in the introduction of the work cited that he does not reject "all the holy teachers of the church." He says, "...everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." He then goes on to cite 1 Thes 5:21 and... Jerome! Luther therefore did not reject all authority of the church or tradition. He rejected the church and tradition as... infallible ultimate authorities. Luther's point is that one must take all theological documents and church tradition and judge them by their adherence to the Scriptures.

Addendum #1 Other English Renderings

Other English versions of this quote can be found here and here, Ewald Plass translates the quote as follows: 

"Holy Scripture must certainly be clearer, plainer, and more explicit than the writings of all others, because by it, as by a writing clearer and more reliable, all teachers prove their statements; and they want their writing to be confirmed and clarified by it. But surely no one can prove an obscure statement with a more obscure statement, Therefore we must needs turn to Scripture with the writings of all teachers and from that source get our judgments and verdict concerning them. For Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writing and teaching on earth. If this is not to be. of what use is Scripture to us? Then we had better reject it and be satisfied with men's books and human teachers."

Addendum #2 Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar

In his massive biography of Luther, Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar says, 

Thus the Bible, according to a further statement, is "clearer, easier and more certain than any other writing." "It is in itself quite certain, quite easy and quite plain; it is its own explanation; it is the universal argument, judge and enlightener, and makes all clear to all." 

Later, however, the idea that Holy Scripture was obscure preponderated with him. Two days before his death Luther wrote in Latin on a piece of paper, which was subsequently found on his table, his thoughts on the difficulty of understanding Scripture : "No one can understand the Bucolics of Virgil who has not been a herdsman for five years; nor his Georgics unless he has laboured five years in the fields. In order to understand aright the epistles of Cicero a man must have been full twenty years in the public service of a great State. No one need fancy he has tasted Holy Scripture who has not ruled Churches for a hundred years with prophets like Elias and Eliseus, with John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles." In all likelihood his experiences with the sectarians in his own camp led him towards the end of his life to lay more stress on the difficulty of understanding the Bible.

A first response to Grisar is based on a textual consideration. What's being cited from Luther (that the Scriptures are "obscure") is not something Luther actually wrote. Grisar is citing Table Talk utterance 5677. Second, this second-hand comment from Luther does not say that the Bible is obscure. The text says, "Let nobody suppose he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years (LW 54:476). The Table Talk also records Luther saying that since the Bible is the word of the Holy Spirit it's depth cannot be completely plumbed (utterance 1205, cf. What Luther Says, entry 212).  This sentiment makes more sense in regard to "tasting" the Scriptures rather than a despondent Luther declaring the Scriptures obscure two days before he died.

Addendum #3 William Whitiker 

In his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,

William Whitiker uses Luther's argument here. 

Our eighth argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenæus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. “The words of scripture,” says he, are more obscure than the words of the fathers.” Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all necessary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by any commentaries of the fathers.

Luther: The Soul is Not Immortal?

Did Luther deny the immortality of the soul? Here's the "go to" Luther quote proving he did:

"But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as [1]The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. [2] The essence of God neither generates, nor is generated. [3] The soul is the substantial form of the human body. [4] The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. [5] The soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and the dish, a cover worthy of it."

This sort of historical polemic is typical of Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA). According to this group, at death, a person enters "soul sleep."  The soul sleeps in a state of hibernation until the resurrection.  When awakened, it is reunited with its body. The soul is either sent off to eternity or permanently annihilated. Therefore, the immortality of the soul is denied. Seventh-Day Adventists apologetics often claim Luther as a representative of this entire eschatological paradigm.

In the quote, Luther says "the Pope" declared it an article of faith that "the soul was immortal."  This article of faith, according to Luther, is found "in the Roman dunghill of decretals." A plain reading of this quote does blatantly appear to prove Luther denied the immortality of the soul.  Contrarily, this entry will argue against this plain reading: Luther did not deny the immortality of the soul. There's an ambiguity in the quote that only make sense in the light of Luther's harsh criticism of the "articles of faith" of Fifth Lateran Council, a council that took place only a short time before he made this statement.

Documentation
This Luther quote is a popular cut-and-paste.  The form used above includes bracketed numbers, very similar to the version found in the pro-Seventh Day Adventist book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers Vol. 2 (1955), by Le Roy Edwin Froom.  On Page 73 Froom articulates the typical SDA interpretation of the quote:

The implication is clear: These were distinctive Catholic doctrines, expressing the Roman faith, and consequently consistent with Catholic dogmas. But they were at variance with the Protestant scripturalism proclaimed by Luther, for the Biblical concept of the nature and the destiny of man had been woefully warped by the Papacy.

Froom probably did not sift out this Luther statement himself. A cursory search demonstrates a lengthy history of use of this anglicized quote. The form can be found as far back as 1772. Interestingly, in both Froom and the 1772 text, both authors capitalize Luther saying, "THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL." What are the odds of that? Whoever translated this quote into English from the Latin did so at least over two hundred years ago and it's been cut-and-pasted in roughly this same form ever since, first in books, now in cyber-space.

Froom and many SDA writings correctly say the quote is from Luther's response to the papal bull Exsurge Domine, in particular, Luther's Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull, November 29, 1520. What they often don't tell you is Luther actually penned four responses in rapid fire to Exsurge Domine. The one being cited is the third: Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per bummam Leonis X.  To my knowledge, no complete English translation exists. The text can be found in WA 7: 131-132.

Context

Probo hunc sic: i. Corint, iii. Fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est, quod est Iesus Christus”. Hic habes fundamentum ab Apostolis positum. At omnis articulus fidei est pars huius fundamenti, quare poni alius articulus quam positus est nullus potest, Superaedificari autem potest, ut idem dicit. Et ideo Papa debet nobiscum poni et super aedificari, non autem ponere: omnia enim credenda sunt in scripturis exposita plene.

 Permitto tamen, quod Papa condat articulos suae fidei et suis fidelibus, quales sunt, panem et vinum transsubstantiari in sacramento, Essentiam dei nec generare nec generari, Animam esse formam substantialem corporis humani, Se esse Imperatorem mundi et regem coeli et deum terrenum, Animam esse immortalem, Et omnia illa infinita portenta in Romano sterquilinio Decretorum, ut, qualis est eius fides, tale sit Euangelium, tales et fideles, talis et Ecclesia, et habeant similem labra lactucam et dignum patella sit operculum.

Nos vero, qui non Papani sed Christiani sumus, scimus, quod nihil est fidei et bonorum morum, quod non abunde in literis sacris sit expositum, ut neque ius neque locus sit alia statuendi ullis hominibus.

Conclusion
It's obvious how someone would arrive at the conclusion from this text that Luther denied the immortality of the soul. Luther does blatantly say it is found "in the Roman dunghill of decretals." This obvious interpretation though is faulty. The quote has to be understood in light of Luther's criticism of the Fifth Lateran Council, particularly it's decree that the soul is immortal formulated at the eighth session of December 1513 under the jurisdiction of Pope Leo X. 

The Latin text above comes from Luther's third response to Exsurge Domine from late 1520. He went on only a few months later to write a fourth, Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind (March, 1521), in English known as Defense and explanation of All the Articles.  According to LW 32, Luther considered the fourth "'smoother and simpler' than the preceding efforts" (LW 32:5; cf. Smith, 442-443). In the fourth version, Luther addresses the issue:

Hence the experts in Rome have recently pronounced a holy decree which establishes that the soul of man is immortal, acting as if we did not all say in our common Creed, “I believe in the life everlasting.” And, with the assistance of the mastermind Aristotle, they decreed further that the soul is “essentially the form of the human body,” and many other splendid articles of a similar nature. These decrees are, indeed, most appropriate to the papal church, for they make it possible for them to hold fast to human dreams and the doctrines of devils while they trample upon and destroy faith and the teaching of Christ (LW 32: 77–78). 

The "experts in Rome" refers to the recent pronouncement by the Fifth Lateran Council.  Luther's Works contains an interesting footnote at this point which states, "Luther objects to the substitution of philosophical ideas concerning the immortality of the soul for the biblical teaching of the resurrection and the life everlasting." According to LW, Luther is condemning philosophical speculation in the guise of infallible church pronouncements. He’s not denying the immortality of the soul. He makes this clear in the use of comparison to the "common creed." and the biblical doctrine of "life everlasting." Lest this interpretation seem post hoc, consider Luther's similar statements on the Fifth Lateran Council and the immortality of the soul found elsewhere in his written corpus:

Whoever has been in Rome knows that conditions are unfortunately worse there than anyone can say or believe. When the last Lateran council was to be concluded in Rome under Pope Leo, among other articles it was decreed that one must believe the soul to be immortal. From this one may gather that they make eternal life an object of sheer mockery and contempt. In this way they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life, but that they now wish to proclaim this by means of a bull (LW 47:37-38).

The Roman See should do away with the officia, and cut down the creeping, crawling swarm of vermin at Rome, so that the pope’s household can be supported out of the pope’s own pocket. The pope should not allow his court to surpass the courts of all kings in pomp and extravagance, because this kind of thing not only has never been of any use to the cause of the Christian faith, but has kept the courtesans from study and prayer until they are hardly able to speak about the faith at all. This they proved quite flagrantly at this last Roman council, in which, among many other childish and frivolous things, they decreed that the soul of man is immortal and that every priest must say his prayers once a month unless he wants to lose his benefice. How can the affairs of Christendom and matters of faith be settled by men who are hardened and blinded by gross avarice, wealth, and worldly splendor, and who now for the first time decree that the soul is immortal? It is no small shame to the whole of Christendom that they deal so disgracefully with the faith at Rome. If they had less wealth and pomp, they could pray and study more diligently to be worthy and diligent in dealing with matters of faith, as was the case in ancient times when bishops did not presume to be the kings of kings (LW 44:163).

Notice in the first quote, Luther charges the papists,  "they confess that it is a common belief among them that there is no eternal life," and then in the second, he says, "now for the first time decree that the soul is immortal."  Why would Luther make such statements about the Fifth Lateran Council?  He explains in various places that the papists of his day did not believe in the resurrection:

And the Turks perform the same holy works as some of our monks and hope for everlasting life at the Judgment Day, for, holy people that they are, they believe in the resurrection of the dead, though few of the papists believe in it (LW 46:177).

But so as to not erase everything [decreed in the Fifth Lateran Council], [Pope Leo X] left in that sweetest decree, namely that one must henceforth believe, or at least teach, that the soul is immortal. With this decree it was not their intention to provide for themselves, but for the wretched Church of God. For neither Leo himself nor his Curia believed this; and still today they do not believe it. Rather, they consider those who believe and confess it to be fools (LW 60:306). [footnote #19, "...[I]t has been argued that he rejected the doctrine of the soul's immortality to which he opposed belief in the resurrection of the body. Luther however, did not see the two teachings in opposition, and his argument here suggests that materially he accepts the council's position on this point while being doubtful of the faith of the Roman prelates."]

Just as the Sadducees believed, so do the Papists believe that there is no resurrection of the dead (LW 58:247). [Footnote: Luther argued that the need to dogmatize the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the bull Apostolici regiminis of the Fifth Lateran Council was an indication that the Roman theologians did not believe in eternal life].

Luther did actually affirm the immortality of the soul in his writings. In "the philosophers, like Socrates and others," Luther says they rightly believed the soul was immortal, even though the proofs they used were done "so coldly that they seem to be setting forth mere fables"  (LW 15:59). Luther maintained attempting to prove its immortality simply by "human reason" was folly because "it is not a thing 'under the sun' to believe that the soul is immortal. In the world it is neither seen nor understood as certain that souls are immortal" (LW 15:59).

In regard to the biblical testimony, Luther says the Genesis account has it in the resting of God on the seventh day: "this also implies the immortality of the human race" (LW 1:80). When commenting on Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 that at death all go back to dust, Luther says,

This passage cannot be twisted to refer to the mortality of the soul, for he is speaking about things under the sun. The world, of course, cannot understand or believe that the soul is immortal. (LW 15:59).

SDA apologists do not deny that some souls go on into eternity. Their contention is that some souls do not, and are annihilated at the final judgment. In fairness to them, Luther does use the phrase "eternal death" liberally and often ambiguously.  For instance, "Those who do not believe, then, who do not receive Him, will be punished with eternal death" (LW 12:57). Does he mean annihilation or eternal conscious punishment? 

A survey of his writings suggests the later. In LW 76:412, Luther said that "the godless goes from life and feels death eternally." In commenting on 1 Thes. 4:13-18, he says that those without hope "must expect that after this life they will receive eternal death and the wrath of God in hell and must fear to go there" (LW 53:325-326). In expounding on the death of Jesus, he had to "taste" eternal death in the place of sinners, "He must suffer everything that a condemned sinner has deserved and must suffer eternally" (LW 12:127). By implication, Luther was not presenting a Christology in which Christ ceases to exist!  One of the most explicit passages from Luther on conscious eternal torment occurs in his treatment of Psalm 21:9 (cf. WA 5:590-591):

Ver. 9. — Thou shalt put them into an oven of fire in the time of thy countenance : the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

The prophet here beautifully sets the circumstances themselves before our eyes : for this is exactly how it is with the wicked when the hand of God finds them out on a sudden, and visits them: for then they are taken, and find themselves in the midst of their straits, so that they would, if they could, flee from the sight of his wrath, or from this revelation of a just and angry God; but they cannot flee from it; and therefore, they call like them in Hosea x. 8, 'Ye mountains, fall oh us, and ye hills, cover us." But all is in vain; for they are compelled to endure that day and that revelation of eternal wrath; and then there begins fear, trembling, flight, and intolerable horror, which makes them to burn in that unspeakable eternal fire. All external fire is nothing when compared with this eternal fire: and therefore, David very appropriately describes them as being made like unto an oven of fire ; or, as we say in Latin, a fiery oven; which has not only fire all around it, but scorches and burns within. And thus Abraham, Gen. xix. saw Sodom and Gomorrah burning, and the smoke of them going up as from a furnace.

And this mighty and intolerable punishment God brings on men by his "countenance" only: that is, by the revelation of his wrath; as David here says, " Thou shalt make them like unto a fiery oven in the time of thy countenance." And 2 Thess. i. 9, "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." And Psalm xxxiv. 16, " But the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." In a word, this is that punishment which none can understand, nor have any idea of, but the damned who feel it: so that it is even awful to meditate upon the words of this verse, so appropriately and descriptively does David set the whole forth. — This oven is set on fire by the intolerable sight of God only, and is to burn to all eternity. For the day of Judgment will not endure for a moment only, but will remain for ever: it will never set: the wicked will be judged for ever and ever, and will be tormented for ever and ever, and the oven will burn for ever and ever: that is, the wicked will be tormented inwardly with the extreme of all straits and tribulation.

Did Luther deny the immortality of the soul? Not at all. True, Luther did at times advocate "soul sleep." He did so in somewhat undogmatic terms, at times cautioning his readers that we don’t have full understanding of this subject. Some times he advocates it clearly,  other times he says things that contradict it (see my entry here). This is only a cursory glimpse into his writings. Much more could be added, but what is presented is enough to demonstrate that some Seventh-Day Adventist apologetics are not presenting a clear picture of the historical record.