Luther Broke His Solemn Religious Vows and Got Married?

Here's a snippet from the Catholic Answers forums discussion, "Did Martin Luther allow divorce?":

Well, considering [Luther] broke his solemn Religious vows and induced a consecrated nun to break her solemn Religious vows to ‘marry’ him I would presume that he did not take serious the ‘vows’ of sacramental marriage.

Rome's defenders have discussed Luther rejecting his vows for years. The Catholic Answers folks went through this some years back, as did the Defenders of the Catholic Faith. Under the heading, "Luther Perverts Morality," the Catholic Family News blog states, "Luther, an ordained priest and consecrated Augustinian religious, broke his vow of celibacy and married a nun, also under the vow of celibacy. Luther encouraged many other priests and religious to break their vows and marry." Going beyond contemporary online banter, Father William Most (via EWTN) stated,

Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) 5.4-5: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill it." Luther broke all his vows. 

Father Patrick O'Hare stated long ago, "...we cannot forget that Luther, in order to wed, had to commit an act of infidelity towards God and disregard his vow of celibacy. No excuse can be offered to palliate or condone his infidelity." Denifle stated, Luther had "broken his vows and misled others." A letter to the Catholic Magazine from 1831 stated, "An Augustinian monk, broke his vow of chastity made to God, seduced Catherine Boren, a nun, who was under the same vow, and lived with her to the end of his life." Many more examples could be provided, from either laymen or published Roman Catholic works, spanning the centuries.

During the recent Catholic Answers discussion, this bit of Luther-bashing was answered cleverly by a Lutheran participant here. He stated in part,

Luther was released from his religious vows by his father confessor, Johann von Staupitz, who did so in order to protect both himself and Father Martin. Had Luther remained under his charge, Staupitz would’ve been both responsible for Luther’s future actions and required to turn him over to the authorities. No father would want any part in the (what was then assumed to be imminent) death of his son.

From a broad Protestant worldview, Luther abandoned an unbiblical illegitimate vow, so Rome's defenders can cry foul all they want to.  But, If indeed Staupitz released Luther from his religious vows, then according to their own worldview,  Rome's defenders have no grounds against Luther for marrying. Let's explore this and look at the proof for the assertion that Luther was released from his vows.

Documentation

I did ask for documentation. I was directed to Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, page 197. Oberman states, 

Oberman documents this, "Cf. Th. Kolde, Augustiner-Congregation, 321. Cf. Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f." "Kolde" refers to German Protestant theologian,  Theodor von Kolde (1850-1913). "Augustiner-Congregation" refers to his book, Die deutsche Augustiner-Congregation und Johann von Staupitz; ein Beitrag zur Ordens- und Reformationsgeschichte nach meistens ungedruckten Quellen. Here is page 321. Kolde states,

Kolde here doesn't add anything all that different than Oberman. The second reference, "Staupitz's letter to Elector Frederick on 15, Oct. 1518; supplement 16, pp. 443f" refers to page 443 of Kolde's book which provides the Staupitz letter being alluded to. The letter has been translated into English by Preserved Smith and can be found here. There is nothing in this letter that specifically states Staupitz release Luther from his vows.

I was also informed, "Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. " So, let's take a look at two of the most popular Luther biographies in English. Let's look first at Here I Stand by Roland Bainton. On page 96, Bainton states:

Staupitz released Luther from his vow of obedience to the order. He may have wished to relieve the Augustinians of the onus, or he may have sought to unfetter the friar, but Luther felt that he had been disclaimed. "I was excommunicated three times," he said later, "first by Staupitz, secondly by the pope, and thirdly by the emperor."

Bainton provides two references: "Koestlin-Kaweru, 211" and "TR, 225, 409." The first refers to
"Kostlin, Julius and Kawerau, Georg. Martin Luther. I and II (1903)." Here is page 211 from volume I. This source states,

This information is basically the same as that reported by Oberman. The paragraph ends with the Staupitz release, "Ich absolviere Dich von meiner Obedienz und befehle Dich Gott dem Herrn" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God). There are a number of footnotes. BR 1, 541 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz, January 14, 1521, but nothing in that letter says that Staupitz absolved Luther. "Diet. 158" refers to Veit Dietrich's collection of Table Talk utterances (this will be discussed below). "St Kr 1878" refers to Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1878, page 705, in which footnote 1 refers to Veit Dietrich's Table Talk statement of Staupitz's absolution of Luther "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God) (see below).

Bainton's second reference, "TR, 225, 409" refers to two of Luther's Table Talk comments. The first is entry 225 in WATR 1. This entry has been included in LW 54:30,

No. 225: Luther “Excommunicated” Three Times Between April 7 and 15, 1532
 “Three times have I been excommunicated. The first time was by Dr. Staupitz, who absolved me from the observance and rule of the Augustinian Order so that, if the pope pressed him to imprison me or command me to be silent, he could excuse himself on the ground that I was not under his obedience. The second time was by the pope and the third time was by the emperor. Consequently I cannot be accused of laying aside my habit, and I am now silent by divine authority alone.”

The second entry, 409, from WATR 1, 177, is another accounting of the same information, but includes the words from Staupitz, "Absolvo te ab oboedientia mea et commendo te Domino Deo" (I absolve you of obedience to me and commend you to the Lord God):

Second, let's look at Martin Brecht's massive biography of Luther. He states,

Brecht cites "Kolde 443" (explained above), and "WA, TR 1, nos. 884, 1203." These also refer to Table Talk utterances. Here is 884 and 1203. Both of these repeat the same sentiment documented in the previously mentioned Table Talk quotes.  "Scheuris Briejbuch 2:52" refers to a letter and can be found here. Nothing on this page mentions the release of Luther from his monastic vows. WA Br 2:245 refers to Luther's letter to Staupitz January 14, 1521 (explained above).

Conclusion
Granted, I only checked three popular English sources. Of these three, the consensus is that Luther was released from his monastic vows as documented by the Table Talk. Unfortunately, the Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written, or some probable historical fact mentioned elsewhere. In this instance, it does seem quite likely that Staupitz probably did release Luther from his monastic vows, but none of the references I checked above verify this other than via the Table Talk. Even LW 31 says,  "When Staupitz heard a rumor to the effect that Cajetan was planning to arrest Luther and him, he absolved Luther of his monastic vow and left Augsburg without bidding the cardinal farewell" (LW 31:257). That rumor is verified by a letter from Staupitz himself: "He says also that there is in the land a letter of the General against Luther. Dr. Peutinger has heard that it is also against me, with the purpose of throwing us in prison and using force against us. God be our guard!" Unfortunately, the letter does not say anything about releasing Luther from his vows.  The fact though of this release from Staupitz seems generally accepted, even by those unfavorable Luther. For instance, Hartmann Grisar stated,

Staupitz, who had stood by him at Augsburg, dispensed him for the journey from any part of the Rule which might have proved to his disadvantage, even from the wearing of the Augustinian habit. This Superior had again shown himself at Augsburg as a man of half-measures who allowed his prejudice for Luther to outweigh the demands of the Church and of his Order.  

And also:

It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther "from the observance" has nothing whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says : "me absolvit ab observantia et regula ordinis." (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. 96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken thus of his having been absolved from the " observance." It may be that Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit.

I'm not exactly sure how Grisar arrived at the interpretation he did based one quote from the Table Talk , that Staupitz meant only to release Luther "from dressing as a monk, etc." This seems to be a reading into the sparse historical facts. Regardless of Grisar's spin, his comments demonstrate that the Table Talk is generally accepted on this issue. 

Echoing Grisar, Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset says we should not be so quick to think Luther no longer considered himself an Augustinian after his release from Staupitz:

If in fact Staupitz did release Luther from his vows, whether or not Luther considered himself an Augustinian is besides the point. There's one other aspect to this that should also be mentioned in closing. I know of no instances in which Luther argued his marriage was legitimate because he was released from his vows.

I've chastised Rome's defenders for a number of years for putting the wrong value on the Table Talk. Unless I find some other historical evidence beyond that source arguing Luther was released from his vows, I would only use such reasoning tentatively in applying it to Luther's later marriage. On the other hand, since many of Rome's defenders put the wrong historical value on the Table Talk, why not use the argument? Using the argument would be reasoning according to their worldview!

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

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

Some of the Facts: Nailed or Mailed?
The genesis of Luther and the Wittenberg door story appears to have come from Melanchthon's Memoirs / Preface to the second volume of Luther's collected works (Wittenberg edition, 1546) [English, Latin]:

When Luther was in this course of study, venal Indulgences were circulated in these regions by Tecelius the Dominican, a most shameless Deceiver. Luther, angered by Tecelius' impious and execrable debates and, burning with the eagerness of piety, published Propositions concerning Indulgences, which are extant in the first volume of his writings, and he publicly attached these to the Temple, which is next to Witteberg Castle, on the day before the feast of all Saints, 1517.

Notice the Theses were "publicly attached" (or affixed). There's nothing at all about hammering a document to a door.  One other source from a few years before Melanchthon's text actually does though mention "doors", not "a door." Georg Rorer in 1540 mentioned "on the folding-doors of the churches" in a private note (see Franz Posset, The Real Luther, p. 23). Neither Melanchthon or Rorer were in Wittenberg in 1517, so whatever the origin of this story, it certainly wasn't an eyewitness account.

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


The Aftermath of Iserloh
Eugene Klug from Concordia Theological Seminary argued:

Someone has observed that it is in the nature of German university life that a professor’s claim to fame, the ability to excite and to attract students to his lecture hall, often lies in his capacity to spin the web of awe and mystique over his audience, or to strike new lode by coming up with some novel, unique, controversial, often “way-out” position. This appears to have been the case with Erwin Iserloh’s widely read and disputed The Theses Were Not Posted [Word And Scripture In Luther Studies Since World War II (Trinity Journal Volume 5:16)].

Klug then recommends Kurt Aland's response to Iserloh: Kurt Aland, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (St. Louis: Concordia, 1967). Klug affirms "Aland shows that there is no solid evidence to throw into doubt Luther’s own rehearsal of the event as occurring on October 31, 1517, with the posting on the Castle Church doors" (p.16). On the other hand, Roman Catholic writer Franz Posset says "Kurt Aland... tried to defuse the presented source material and digressed from the essential problem" [The Real Luther, p. 23]. The basic response to Iserloh can be summed up as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
It should be mentioned that even though a Roman Catholic, Iserloh was sympathetic to Luther. Otto Pesch points out that,

Iserloh's booklet of a few years ago on Luther's 95 Theses drew considerable attention. Even the treatment of this question from church history is characterized by a concern to present a true picture of the man Luther, and Iserloh was happy about the findings in his booklet, which rejects the story of Luther's nailing his theses onto the church door, not least because they succeeded in minimizing the picture of Luther as an angry revolutionary and placed the event which started the Reformation, stripped of all theatrical sensationalism, back into the form of a sober academic dispute [Otto Pesch, “Twenty Years of Catholic Luther Research” Lutheran World, 13, 1966, p. 305].

While I'm not any sort of scholar, I wouldn't be at all dismayed to find out the nails going into the Wittenberg door is the stuff of legend. Someone may say: "Who cares if the 95 Theses were nailed or mailed?" I can understand such a response.  What interests me about this is that to be consistent, I can't simply focus on the many Roman Catholic myths without taking a closer look at some of their charges of Protestant myth making from time to time. It is indeed the case that Luther's 95 Theses went 16th Century viral rather quickly. It is indeed plausible that the 95 Theses were posted as Melanchthon asserts.

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

Addendum: Rorer's Note
This is from Cyberbrethren:

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

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

Bernard of Clairvaux and Luther on the Gospel

Who believed in "Luther's version of the Gospel" before Luther? That's the question repeatedly asked by Roman Catholics. According to Romanism, the correct answer is supposed to be "nobody." Here's a switch though, a Roman Catholic scholar is now positively answering this question. Perhaps he's motivated by ecumenical concerns, or perhaps he's actually on to something.

A few months back I posted a two-part review of The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part one, Part two). Posset is a Roman Catholic Luther scholar. It is Posset's conclusion that "the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard" (p.127). His argumentation spans many pages. Here's a brief overview. If you're interested, I suggest buying the book. This may be one of the most interesting Luther books I've read in years.

Posset argues that in the Augustinian friary Luther became acquainted the writings of  Bernard of Clairvaux, particularly how Bernard interpreted Paul (p. 93).  Posset begins with Melanchthon's memoirs of Luther:

And [Luther] told that he was often encouraged by the conversations of a certain old man in the Augustinian College at Erphord, to whom when he set forth his worries. He heard the old man discuss much about faith, and he said that he was lead to the Creed, in which it is said, "I believe in the forgiveness of sinners." That old man had interpreted this Article so that it should be believed not only in general, i.e. forgiven by some persons or others, as they believe Demons are forgiven by David or Peter, but that is was a commandment of God that we believe that the sins of individual men are forgiven by us. And he said that this interpretation was confirmed by a saying of Bernard, and then he pointed to a place in his sermon on the Annunciation, where there are these words, But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given TO YOU individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith. [source]

The capitalization of "TO YOU" of the Bernard citation was actually placed there by Melanchthon. Posset notes,

Melanchthon reported that Luther told him that this quotation was Pauline teaching as it is incorporated within Saint Bernard's sermon: "For thus the apostle concludes that 'a person is justified gratis by faith." This is a contraction of Rom. 3:24 and 28. Thus it was the young Luther at Erfurt who was told that this is Saint Bernard's teaching. And, as such this teaching would become Luther's center piece of his "reception of Paul" as it is the central locus of the Apostle's entire Letter to the Romans and as Luther would say later it is the central theological point of all of Scripture. (p. 98)

Posset identifies the Bernard writings in question as Bernard's Sermons on the Annunciation, with an emphasis on  Sermo in annunitiatione domine "Saint Bernard's First Sermon on the Annunciation" (Ann 1).  He states, "Ann 1 is the one text from Bernard's biblical theology that led Luther to what we customarily call his Reformational insight of salvation by grace alone through faith alone" (p. 104). Luther went on to either quote or hint at Bernard more than 500 times (p.94). Posset states:

It remains amazing that contemporary Luther biographies are still being written without ever mentioning the name and significance of Bernard of Clairvaux, or with just a hint at him in passing as if it were a chose negligeable. From now on, Luther biographies, if they want to present the authentic, historical Luther, can be convincing only if the Bernard factor is properly figured in, because the center piece of the historical Luther's doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard. (p. 127).

Posset also notes Melanchthon included a conflated  Bernard quote in his Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

Therefore let pious consciences know that God commands them to believe that they are forgiven freely on account of Christ and not on account of our works. Let them sustain themselves with this command of God against despair and against the terrors of sin and death. Let them know that this position has been extant among the saints in the church since the beginning of the world. For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and the writings of the apostles bear witness that they hold the same position. Nor do we lack testimonies from the Fathers. For Bernard says the same thing in words that are not at all obscure: "For it is necessary first to believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sins except through God's indulgence; second, that you cannot claim any good work whatever unless He himself grants it to you; finally, that you cannot merit eternal life by any works of yours, unless it too is given to you gratis [Ann 1.1]; but add to this that you also believe that through him [Christ] your sins are forgiven you [tibi]. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives in your heart [Rom 8:16], saying, `your sins are forgiven you' [Mt 9:5]. For in this way the Apostle concludes that `a person is gratis justified through faith' [Rom 3:24, 281" [Ann 1.3]. Bernard's words wonderfully shed light on our position, because he not only requires that we believe in a general way that sins are remitted through mercy, but he urges that we add personal faith by which we believe that our own sins have been forgiven. Moreover, he teaches us how we may be certain about the forgiveness of sins, namely, when by faith our hearts are uplifted and find rest through the Holy Spirit. What more do our opponents need? Do they still dare to deny that we receive the forgiveness of sins by faith or that faith is a part of repentance? (p. 136-137)

Posset includes a relevant section of Ann 1 in his book, Two-Fold Knowledge: Readings on the Knowledge of Self and the Knowledge of God-Selected & Translated From The Works Of Saint Bernard Of Clairvaux (pp. 118-120):

A Sola Scriptura Tidbit

I posted this a few days ago as part of my review of Franz Posset's book, The Real Luther. By the way, Posset is a Roman Catholic scholar.

The most interesting section of this book so far has been Posset's treatment of Luther and the Scriptures. He mentions in passing, "As an aside, on the eve of the 'Reformation' there was a canonistic tradition supporting the assertion of the supreme authority of Scripture over councils or ecclesiastical authorities"(p. 63). He then argues that the reformed friary Luther joined had Constitutions (this document is still extant). In Chapter 17 of the Augutinian's Constitutions "the following directive is given which suggests the meaning of the maxim Scripture Alone,"


[A friar] is to read the Sacred Scripture avidly, listen to it devoutly, and learn it fervently. Sacram scripturam avide legat, devote audiat et ardenter addiscat.

Posset provides a footnote for his "aside" which I plan on exploring.

Book Review: The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part Two)

Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset. This is the second instalment of my review (the first can be found here).

Posset is a Roman Catholic scholar. Yes, that's right, the Lutherans published a book by a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure if there is anything reciprocal going on (I assume it's within the realm of possibility for a Roman Catholic publisher to release a book written by a Lutheran scholar).

As I mentioned previously, there's a lot to be thankful for with this book. As I've worked through over half of it now, it's very easy to forget the book was written by a Catholic scholar. That is, it isn't pro-Roman polemical.  It really is a work of scholarship rather than a work of polemic. I would have no problem recommending this book for anyone seeking to go deeper into Luther studies.  I can understand why Concordia published it.

Part Two: Philip Melanchthon's Memoirs as Guide
In order to get to the "real Luther" Posset uses Melanchthon's short biography of Luther. Who better to know Luther than his closest friend? Posset considers this "the best available source for biographical data" (p. 44). Keep in mind, what's focused on here is Luther pre (and including) 1517. What this means is that Posset considers Melanchthon an honest biographer.

One interesting fact in this section is in regard to Luther's entering the monastery. True to his use of sources, Posset considers Luther's thunderstorm vow to St. Anne an unreliable Table Talk entry "thirty-four years removed from Luther's decision to join the friars at Erfurt" (p.53).

Sola Scriptura?
The most interesting section of this book so far has been Posset's treatment of Luther and the Scriptures. He mentions in passing, "As an aside, on the eve of the 'Reformation' there was a canonistic tradition supporting the assertion of the supreme authority of Scripture over councils or ecclesiastical authorities"(p. 63). He then argues that  the reformed friary Luther joined had Constitutions, and this document is still extant. In Chapter 17 of the Augutinian's Constitutions "the following directive is given which suggests the meaning of the maxim Scripture Alone"

[A friar] is to read the Sacred Scripture avidly, listen to it devoutly, and learn it fervently. Sacram scripturam avide legat, devote audiat et ardenter addiscat.

Posset states,

The notions "Scripture principle" and "Scripture alone" are often used as watchwords to distinguish Protestants from Catholics. However, the notion "Scripture principle" is an invention of the nineteenth century and "Scripture alone" as a fundamental concept is much older than Luther, although known primarily as a post-Reformation slogan. As to Luther's biblical theology that follows from the focus given by his order's Constitutions, one should not get trapped in the later theological debate about Scripture and Tradition at the Council of Trent. For the historical Luther the issue was not so much Scripture versus Tradition, but biblical theology versus philosophical theology.


The expression "Scripture Alone" is not found verbatim anywhere in the historical Luther's vocabulary. The young friar simply faithfully obeyed the directive that was given him through the Constitutions. The priority of the Scriptures has a long pre-Lutheran tradition inside and outside of his order. What was new with the developing Reformer is his determination and also his radicalism in the handling and employing of the Scripture principle which he had inherited from the tradition in his religious order, with its practice of Scripture meditation to which any young novice was introduced.


The real Luther wanted to read the Bible without philosophical (Scholastic) filters, and thus without a specific hermeneutics: "Luther demanded for the interpretation of the Scriptures quite a special theory of understanding—namely none." Luther wanted to read the Bible "with closed eyes" (clausis oculis), i.e., closed to any philosophical speculation or other influences such as private revelations, etc., in strictly following the monastic tradition of reading the Sacred Page in the prayerful way of lectio divina, reading it "avidly, listening to it devoutly, and learning it fervently."


He was convinced that Scripture can interpret itself. The eminent Lutheran theologian Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001) clarified what Luther meant by "Scripture alone" (even as it is not verbatim Luther's own slogan). He meant to express with this concept the self-sufficiency and clarity of the biblical message that brings us life as it is the living, spoken Word of God.


He did not want a "rational" but an "orational approach," praying over the Scriptures instead of reasoning about them (ratio). Luther himself used the paradoxical expression of "reading" the Scriptures clausis oculis and to chew (ruminare, ruminate) on the Word of God alone. Luther was thinking of Saint John, his favorite evangelist, and declared that with closed eyes Saint John sees farther than we do as he remains with the Word of God alone. (p. 67-68).

Perhaps in this early period Luther was indeed more concerned with freeing Biblical interpretation from philosophy, yet not long after that, "Tradition" was indeed an issue.

Subjectivism?
One final point of interest is the debate over Luther's subjectivism. Catholic historian Joseph Lortz criticized Luther for his subjectivism, individualism, and one-sidedness. Posset though argues "Luther's drive to reforming Bible studies and pastoral care was not caused by 'subjectivism,' a typical Catholic charge..." (p.73). He notes "The issue deserves to be discussed in terms of hermeneutic, but not of psychology" (.73).

These are only a few issues that jumped out at me, particularly since the author is Roman Catholic. Posset cover a lot more territory in this second section than these particular issues. Again, one may think such statements coming from a Roman Catholic theologian are outrageous, but that simply means you've read too much of the Catholic Answers type stuff. A lot of Roman Catholic scholarship is far removed from the simplistic hostile polemic.

-Continued-   

Book Review: The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part One)

Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset. There is a not-so-subtle irony at play here. I am a staunchly Reformed person reviewing a Luther book written by a Roman Catholic published by Lutherans. This is indeed ecumenicism with irony.

Why would a conservative Lutheran publishing company release a book by a Roman Catholic scholar? This was the first question that popped into my mind when Reverend McCain announced the forthcoming book.  Reverend McCain responded they did so because it is "a very fine book" and I'd have to see so for myself.

Dr. Posset appears to be strongly motivated by underlying ecumenical concerns. He points out early in the book that the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification promoted Christian unity between Lutherans and Catholics who together confess salvation is "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part" (p. xiv). In an older blog entry, Reverend McCain echoes many of the same concerns I have for this document, noting that the precise formula is rather "justification by grace alone through faith alone" and this "is the only way to avoid obscuring the glory and merit of Christ" that the Joint Declaration betrayed.


Part One: Toward the Anniversary in 2017 (pp. 5-42)
Simply because Dr. Posset affirms this slippery ecumenical formulation doesn't mean he's not able to write an accurate and helpful book on Luther. It's very obvious from his credentials that he's well learned in Luther, being himself the associate editor of Luther Digest. If one were to simply rely on the Internet-anti-Luther polemic put forth by Roman Catholic apologists, one would think it impossible for a Catholic to write a fair or helpful book on Luther. Posset though is one of a number of modern Catholic writers that avoid and decry the vilifying caricature of Luther presented in generations past. These recent Catholic scholars have gone far beyond attacking Luther the person by seeking to truly understand him as an honest theologian. One hundred years ago a book entitled The Real Luther from a Roman Catholic would have attempted to prove Luther to be the spawn of Satan. Today, Catholic Luther scholarship often functions very similar to Protestant scholarship: Luther had his faults, but Luther was also a theologian of the highest rank; a profoundly religious man, a true Christian who lived by a deep faith in Jesus Christ.

Challenging The Reformation Day Story
There's a lot to be thankful for with this book. First of all, it's not simply revisiting the Luther story outlining his life from birth to death. That book has been written thousands of times. If someone is looking for a straight nuts and bolts biography of Luther's life, this isn't the book for you. This book is for someone familiar with Luther's story. Perhaps you've read Bainton or Oberman's biography, or perhaps have seen one of the Luther movies.  You know the basic outline of Luther's life, and you know who some of the key players were. If that's the case, you'll find this book interesting. It will challenge some of the basic historical facts, but not in a confrontational way in which a Roman Catholic author attempts to tear Luther apart in order to have Rome triumph in the end.

The first section of the book scrutinizes the facts and myths of Luther's early years, but not with tedium and dryness. Older Catholic sources have attempted to do the same, but their accounts are often top heavy, droning on for what feels like a small eternity. One need only compare Posset's book to say, anything on Luther written by Hartmann Grisar. Posset sifts the data in a concise reader-friendly manner.

For instance, one tedious Luther debate handled aptly is that made popular by Erwin Iserloh's The Theses Were Not Posted: Luther Between Reform and Reformation. Here Posset concisely sifts through the evidence to determine if the Luther of legend heroically posted his Ninety-Five Theses to the Wittenberg door. Posset also inquires as to how exactly the document disseminated across the land, and what exactly was its correct title? Posset notes the differences between Melanchthon's account and Luther's written statements, but not with indicting either Reformer of fraud. Posset though presents Melanchthon as following hear-say in perpetuating the "door" story, when in fact it would be prudent to simply accept Luther's own account of what transpired October- November, 1517. Posset also brings out the interesting fact that Luther never referred to this document as the Ninety-Five Theses, and the popular commemoration of "Reformation Day" wasn't even celebrated on October 31 but rather on June 25. This lasted up until the 19th Century.

Posset's Use of Primary Sources
His handling of the historical sources is also refreshing. Pointing out how difficult it is to actually handle the primary sources correctly is not mentioned enough by scholars! I can think of very few books that so openly describe what a scholar must really know in order to read Luther as purely as possible. I've had many people over the years suggest I write a book on Luther, but when one reads Posset's overview of what one needs to know to do so, you'll understand why I've refrained. Let's put it this way: It's a lot more complicated than simply learning German.

In many Luther related historical treatments one typically will find references to Luther's Table Talk. With this source one can supplement the historical record with juicy tidbits. These tidbits are often portrayed as a glimpse of the real Luther.  While earlier Catholic writers like Grisar pointed out that they aren't certain fact, he went on to heavily use them, and in the end the reader of his books probably considered them fact. Posset though does no such thing.  It's refreshing therefore to read a Catholic scholar turn away from heavy reliance on Luther's Table Talk, a trait Old Catholic sources gravitated to. Probably half of my Catholic Luther studies involve tracking down obscure Luther quotes, and more often than not, they find their way back to the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. The statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther.  Posset though rightfully argues that the Table Talk does not qualify unconditionally as a primary source (p. 1, 30-31). With insight he states "the real distortion of the Luther image occurred with the Table Talk" (p.30) and that the Table Talk should be read for entertainment rather than as a serious historical guide. Posset himself seems to have undergone a transformation on this score. In an earlier work  he appears to have accepted the truthfulness of the legend of Luther killing a man in a duel found in the Table Talk. This episode is said to have provoked Luther to become a monk. With his current book,  Posset leaves it as an ambiguity (p. 51) and I've been assured he no longer believes it. Posset's emphasis on using the Table Talk without any corroborating historical evidence is a point his fellow Roman Catholics need to hear. While it's true scholarly Catholics have realized this for quite a while, in practice many Catholic laymen still gravitate to this unreliable source exclusively.

The Protestant Sainthood of Luther
Posset argues for dismantling the image of Luther "without the halo" saying "If we want to get to know the historical Luther, present-day 'Protestant triumphalism' needs to be toned down" (p. 35). That's true enough, particularly as he locates the genesis of this image in medieval Catholic iconography.  In doing some research a few years ago, I came across perhaps the height of this image (Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany). Scribner documents the way that many turned Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of Luther refused to burn (Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility). It's here though where some sort of ecumenically fair comment from Posset would have been most appropriate. The same sort of disclaimer should be applied to those Roman Catholics likewise consider to be saints. Some sort of statement leveling the playing field would have been a certain sign that underlying commitments were not formulating his view of "The Real Luther." I would have liked to know exactly what presuppositions served to inform his view. Is this Catholic scholar of the opinion that determining the "real Luther" is the same process one should use with all canonized saints? Or, does Roman Catholicism get a free pass in which the saints are not to be scrutinized in the same way? Are stories verifying the saints taken as fact when they may indeed by myth? I would've appreciated a brief discussion of his Roman Catholic presuppositions on this matter.

Catholic Scholar Hubert Jedin pointed out long ago, Roman Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent. He argued no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. If I'm going to read a book on Luther by a Roman Catholic, I'd like to know exactly where he thinks Luther stands. Posset argues, "We come closer to the real Luther if we keep the following things in mind: First, let us employ the working hypothesis that Luther is neither exclusively and consistently a rebel or heretic nor exclusively and consistently a saint" (p. 36).  Rather than simply choosing one, Posset includes them all. Was he deliberately vague? Here would have been a useful spot where the author could have expressed his view on Luther precisely. For instance, Catholic scholar Jospeh Lortz said many insightful and kind things about Luther, but also said he was rightly condemned as a heretic. Is Luther a heretic or not in this author's mind? Some pop-Catholic apologists have no problem locating Luther in hell. Others don't know. Others think he's at least in purgatory. Here the author could have shown us how far (or not) his ecumenicism goes.

-Continued-