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!

Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg? No!

Some of Rome's defenders think Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg. Here are some examples:

Even Martin Luther, despite criticizing the Catholic doctrines of Mary's intercession and mediation, insisted on venerating Mary... In his last sermon at Wittenberg, in January 1546, Luther preached: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us, [Mary]. For your Son denies you nothing [Luther, Works, LI:128-29]. (link) (link)

But even Martin Luther had nice things to say about Mary: Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing. (Luther's Works, Weimar Edition, Volume 51) (link)

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. (link)

Martin Luther, tragically, was devoted to Mary, shown by some splendid work in her honor. But during his break with Rome, his fundamental idea of Deus solus, more of an angry reaction to Rome rather than a theological stand, relegated Mary’s help not only to a minimum but to almost nil. Instead of going to Mary and vowing perpetual chastity, he went to Scriptures and married. Yet in his last sermon on 17 January 1546, as death was approaching, he spoke, revealing what was ingrained in his soul: “Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored. This is the woman who crushed the serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing;” then his talk gradually reverted to his Deus solus. It was a sad picture of a man who had to deny what he deeply believes in simply out of spite for the papacy that he learned to detest. (link)

The reluctance by some to acknowledge Mary’s unique role seems to be more about distancing ones self from the Catholic Church than a search for truth. All too often evidence takes a back seat to personal preference. Martin Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation and I think it is safe to say that he was not the least bit shy when it came to distancing himself from the Catholic Church. And yet he wrote in a prologue to the Magnificat: "May the tender mother of God herself procure for me the Spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers." Also, in his last sermon at Wittenberg he said: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." (link)

These are only a few examples. Many more could be given. The picture being put forth is that in his last Wittenberg sermon Luther "venerated Mary," "had nice things to say about Mary," "was devoted to Mary," and Luther had Mary "ingrained in his soul." Let's take a closer look to see if the actual context supports these interpretations. The context does not support these assertions.

Documentation

A curious feature of all the differing uses of Luther's last Wittenberg sermon is that the same form of the quote is put forth. Where did it come from? Did these defenders of Rome actually read WA 51 and translate this quote into English?  No, I don't think so. The oldest form of the quote (matching the translation offered above) I could locate was from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1982), page 228. Notice in this rendering, "as death was approaching, he could thus recall the [Marian] piety of his early years":

And in this last sermon, on 17 January, 1546, as death was approaching, he could thus recall the piety of his early years: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us.  For your Son denies you nothing. Bernard said too much on the gospel 'an angel was sent'... For of Christ alone, it was said 'Hear him.' Likewise, 'Behold the Lamb of God' etc. Not of Mary, or angels, or Gabriel" [WA 51, 128-129]. (link)

I don't have certainty that this was the source used, but I would not be surprised.  Another popular English citation is from Roman Catholic writer William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970), p. 98. Cole presents it as:

Is Christ alone to be venerated?

Rather is not the Mother of God, too, to be honored?

She is the woman who crushed the serpents head.

Listen to us, Mary.

Your son honors you.

He refuses you nothing.

This poetic rendering is not the work of William Cole, but rather from Bishop Daly of Ardagh as presented in The Irish Catholic, May 1969 in an article entitled, "Luther Loved Mary." Cole indicates that Daly’s study was an example of a “simplistic, uncritical, one-sided evaluation[s] of Luther’s Marian stance…” (p 98-99). Such could similarly be applied to Rome's cyber-defenders who mis-read Luther's last Wittenberg sermon.  William Cole goes on to cite more of Luther's comments from this very sermon and agrees with those who conclude Luther forbids praying to Mary, he denied the intercession of Mary, and he "dissuaded or excluded her invocation" (Cole, p. 158).

The quotes above do reference WA 51:128-129. WA 51 includes two versions: a Latin version with some German words mixed in and a full German version (both on the same pages). The name of this sermon is Die letzte predigt Doctoris Martini Lutheri heiliger gedechtnis, So ehr gethan hat zu Wittenberg, am andern Sontag nach Epiphanias Domini, den xvij. Januarij. Im M. D. xlvj. Jhar. In English the title is rendered, The Last Sermon in Wittenberg, Rom. 12:3, January 17, 1546. Technically, Luther did not write this sermon text. The printed words are from the notes of Georg Rörer who heard and took notes on Luther's sermon. The sermon was published not long after Luther's death in 1549 (See LW 51:371).   The English rendering of the entire sermon is in LW 51: 375-376.

Context

Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” “You will find him in a manger”. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us? Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘ Missus est Angelus .’ ”  God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher. No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him [LW 51:375-376].

Original text #1  ic Paulus: quando praedicamus fidem, quod nihil nisi Deus adorandus pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut dicimus: Credo in Deum patrem et in Iesum Christum. Illi manent bey dem Tempel zu Jerusalem. Item ‘hic est filius meus dilectus, Hunc audite’. ‘Invenietis eum in praesepi.’ Der sols allein thun. Quid nos? Num solum Christus adorandus? Ey sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Haec est mulier, quae contrivit caput serpentis. Audi nos. Nam filius te honorat, tibi nihil negat. Bernardus hat im zuviel gethan uber das Evangelium: “Missus est Angelus.” Deus mandavit parentes colendos. Invocabo Mariam, ea pro me orabit filium, et filius patrem, qui audit filium, ut pictura de Deo irato et Christo iudice, cui monstrat mater ubera, Christus ostendit patri irato vulnera. Maria Christo ubera. Das treibt die hübsche Braut sapientia rationis: Maria est mater Christi. Certe Christus eam audiet. Christus iudex, possem Georgium, Christophorum invocare. Non, Nos baptisati in nomine patris, filii et Spiritus sancti. Ut Iudaei mandante Deo circumcisi. Sed ut ipsi instituerunt electitios cultus per totam regionem quasi Hierusalem angustior, Ita nos. Ideo ut iuvenis libidini, natu grandior avaritiae mus wehren, Sic ratio naturaliter est meretrix. Aber sie sol mir nicht schaden, si repugnem. Sed sie ist zu schon und gleisset. Da sollen prediger sein et homines weisen auff den Kinderglauben: Credo in Iesum Christum, qui conceptus etc. ‘qui tollit peccata mundi’. Nos: in Georgium, Christophorum credo. Minime. Quia de solo Christo dictum: ‘Hunc audite’. Item ‘Ecce Agnus Dei’ etc. Non de Maria, Angelis, Gabriele (WA 51:128-129).  

Original text #2: Also wenn wir vom glauben predigen, das man nichts sol anbeten denn allein Gott, der da ist ein Vatter unsers Herren Jhesu Christi, wie wir im glauben sprechen: Ich gleube in Gott den Vatter, almechtigen unnd in Jhesum Christum, da bleiben wir bey dem Tempel zu Hierusalem, ‘Dis ist mein geliebter Son, den höret’, ‘Ihr werdet ihn finden in der Krippen’, der sols allein thun. Aber die vernunfft sagt hie das widderspiel: Sol man denn allein Christum anbeten? Ei sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Die ist das weib, welches der Schlangen hat den kopff zutretten, Erhöre uns, Maria. Denn dein Son ehret dich also, das ehr dir nichts kan versagen. Hie hat ihm Bernhardus zuviel gethan im Evangelio ‘Missus est Angelus’ etc. Gott hat befohlen, man sol die Eltern ehren. Ich wil Mariam anruffen, die wirt für [Bl. B4] mich den Son bitten, und derselbige den Vatter, welcher den Son wirt erhören. Daher ist das gemeld, wie Gott zürnet und Christus dem Vatter die wunden, Maria aber Christo ihr brüste zeiget. Das treibt die hübsche Braut, der vernunfft weisheit, Maria ist des HERRn Christi Mutter, vorwar so wird sie Christus erhören, Christus ist ein gestrenger richter, Ich will S. Georgen, S. Christoffel anruffen, Nein, wir sind aus Gottes befehl getauffet im namen des Vaters, des Sons und des heiligen Geists, gleich wie die Jüden beschnitten. Darumb wie die Jüden durchs gantze land von ihnen selbst erwelete Gottesdienst haben angerichtet, gleich ob were Hierusalem zu enge, Also haben wir auch gethan, Derhalben wie ein junger Gesel mus der bösen lust wehren, ein Alter dem Geitz, Also ist die vernunfft von art und natur ein schedliche hure, aber sie soll mir nicht schaden, wenn ich allein ihr widderstrebe. Ja, sie ist aber schöne, sie gleisset uber die massen fein. Da sollen Prediger sein unnd die leute weissen auff den Kinder glauben: Ich gleube in Jhesum Christum, nicht in S. Georgen odder S. Christoffel. denn alleine von Christo wirt gesagt: 'Sihe das Lamb GOTTES, welchs die sünde der Welt hinweg nimpt', nicht von Maria odder Engeln. Der Vatter schreiet vom Himel herab: 'Diesen höret', nicht vom Gabriel etc. Darumb sol ich bey dem Kinder glauben bleiben, da kan ich mich der vernunfft erwehren, wenn die widderteuffer geifferen: Die Tauff ist wasser, was kans ausrichten? O der Geist mus es thun. Hörestu es, du schebichte, ausssetzige hure, du heilige vernunfft, das geschrieben stehet: 'Diesen höret', der da sagt: 'gehet hin und teuffet alle Heiden', 'wer gleubt und getaufft wirt"...(WA 51:128-129). 

Conclusion
In this sermon, Martin Luther did not say or imply that “Mary should be honored.” His main point is that Jesus Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Jesus Christ through Mary do so by the use of “reason,” and “reason is by nature a harmful whore. It is foolish reason that states:

...shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing.

Foolish reason also states:

God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.

This context shows the importance of checking facts. In context, Luther isn't speaking about venerating Mary, honoring Mary, being devoted to Mary, showing that Mary was "ingrained in his soul," or recalling the Marian piety of his younger days before he died. Nor is he explaining the difference between the veneration and worship of Mary. Lest one think I am attacking only Roman Catholics with this sort of contextual tedium, I would similarly say the great scholar Heiko Oberman nodded. Oberman alludes to this text and says,

The warm praise which Luther has for the Mother of God throughout his life, his last sermon on 17 January 1546 included, is not based upon the great qualities of Mary herself but upon the grace granted to her. As a person, Luther can say, the Virgin Mary is not greater than Mary Magdalene, the sinner, since through faith all Christians are equal[Heiko A. Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1994), 242].

I don't see any sort of "warm praise" in "his last sermon on 17 January 1546." Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic and mocking. One of Rome's defenders thinks the actual negativity expressed by Luther is simply addressed to Bernard: "... in context, this sermon is actually critical of 'Bernard's' use of honor - Bernard, in Luther’s opinion went too far. Luther still supports honoring Mary, just not so far as Bernard went" (link no longer available). There are no comments from Luther in this context supporting the "honor" of Mary... whatever that means... saying nice things about Mary is not quite what Rome means by honoring Mary! I could just as easily describe Mary as the "Mother of God" without any inkling of veneration. In context, Luther accuses human reason and then goes on to give the example of Bernard's reasoning specifically.  He then returns to criticizing reason generally. When Luther asks, "shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ?" the implied answer is: NO!

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2007. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Revised March 2026

Heiko Oberman Says Luther Should Not Have Become a Monk?

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Forums:

Heiko Oberman states: “Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity. A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today.” Pg, 177

-snip-

Obviously Martin was not the picture of mental stability during his days in the monastery. As Reformed Biographer Heiko Oberman points out, he should not have become a monk.

Is this what Oberman says? Here's the full quote from Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (note the sentence in bold):

“Even the earliest sources demonstrate Luther's awareness of God's holiness and His wrath against sin. Luther’s reminiscences permit one to conclude that he was the very sort of person to fall into the fearful self-doubt the handbooks describe as the sickness of scrupulosity. A man with these proclivities should not have become a monk and certainly not an Observant mendicant monk, one would assume today. But in Luther's time the contrary was the case: so unsettled a person, it was thought, should chose the safe path and enter a monastery. Luther was really able to try out the salutary and salvational methods of his time, to the point of desperation. He endeavored to observe the Augustinian rule by means of extreme self-discipline, fasting, prayer, study, and vigils. When he had done what he could to be a worthy recipient of the sacraments of penance and the Lord's Supper, God would not deny him grace" (p.178).

The sentence in bold was left out when presented via the Catholic Answers Forums. I asked for some clarification on this, but was ignored.

Reformers Before the Reformers #1, The Supremacy of Scripture

“As long as it seems to me that the pope or theologians or any school assert a position contradicting the truth of Scripture, my concern for scriptural truth obliges me to give it first place, and after that I am bound to examine the evidence on both sides of the question, since it is unlikely the majority would err. But in every case I owe more respect to canonical Scripture than to human assertions, regardless of who holds them."- Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966),99-100].

No Christian ought "to subscribe to any statement of an assembly against his conscience, so long as it seems to him to assert anything contrary to Scripture." Wessel Gansfort (1419-1489) [Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 64].

"Wessel does not deny ... that apostolic traditions not contained in the canon can be part of the 'rule of faith'- but only if they make explicit what is contained in the Sacred Canon. Wessel is therefore willing to say that sacramental confession falls into this category of apostolic Tradition and is part of the rule of faith, but only 'since indeed it is confirmed by the general statements of John and by the more specific words of James. Therefore[!] I admit that in this rule of faith I ought to depend on the authority of the Church...'"[Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 64-65].

Addendum
Life and Writings of Wessel Gansfort vol. 1

Life and Writings of Wessel Gansfort vol. 2

Tradition Ambiguities Revisited

Over the years I've mentioned the ambiguity surrounding what Roman Catholics mean by "Tradition." I've read others doing the same thing, with most of us mentioning the ambiguity surrounding exactly what Trent meant by holding the gospel truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions. There doesn't appear to be a consensus opinion as to the exact content of Tradition, the precise relationship between scripture and Tradition, and exactly how the vehicle of Tradition functions and becomes known by the church. Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth.

Recently I came across a discussion of this very issue in regard to Trent by Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966) pp.53-54. Lest anyone think those of us who mention this are making this up, I offer the following excerpt from Oberman simply as documentation of the dispute as it was stated in 1966.

The recent concern with the problem of Tradition in the field of medieval studies can be traced back to the publications of a German systematic theologian, Josef Rupert Geiselmann, who suggested that the traditional interpretation of the Tridentine decree on Scripture and Tradition should be reconsidered. Whereas heretofore it had been assumed that the Council had taught that there are two complementary sources of revelation, part of the truth being derived from Scripture and part from extrascriptural Tradition, Geiselmann suggests that closer consideration of the relevant documents proves the Council to have abstained from determining whether or not all truths are contained in Holy Scripture. Notwithstanding this abstention, Geiselmann argues, in the light of the previous history of this issue, one should interpret the conciliar decree to mean that all Catholic truth is contained simultaneously in Holy Scripture and in the Holy Church. Thus interpreted, the Tridentine formulation is much closer to the central doctrine of the Reformation, and leaves the door open for further development, that the whole revelation is contained in Holy Scripture—the so-called "material sufficiency" of Holy Scripture. In the discussion that ensued concerning the validity of Geiselmann's thesis it became increasingly clear that an understanding of the medieval antecedents of the conciliar debates was essential. The result has been an ever-growing number of articles and books on this topic.