Melanchthon: Luther was so immoral "that he wished they would remove him from the office of preaching”

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

“He was so well aware of his immorality,” we are informed by Melanchthon, “that he wished they would remove him from the office of preaching.” (Sleidan, Book II, 1520).

With this snippet, alleged testimony from Melanchton is brought forth indicting Luther not only of immorality, but of being so sinful that Luther wanted to be removed "from the office of preaching." Melanchthon was one of Luther's closest friends, so here would be compelling testimony not only of Luther's depravity, but also a demonstration that he was in no way qualified to usher in a reformation of the church.  A closer look at this quote though will show Melanchthon never said or wrote this. Further, we'll see that the quote ultimately amounts to propaganda: the historical context of the quote is being ignored in order to perpetuate a false historical paradigm.

Plagiarism
The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation ("Sleidan, Book II, 1520"). Such obscurity usually indicates that the material was not taken from an actual straight reading of text written by Luther . This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the Catholic Answers discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of the content of these posts is blatant plagiarism. For this quote particularly, this web-page appears to be that which was plagiarized.

Even if he (she?) did compose this web page (or one of the others), I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther, most likely, the quote above under scrutiny as well. The quote appears in a similar form in Father O'Hare's book on page 319. O'Hare states, "He was so well aware of his immorality," as we are informed by his favorite disciple, "that he wished they would remove him from the office of preaching." (Sleidan, Book II, 1520)." It appears Father O'Hare himself plagiarized this sentence. The earliest I've traced it  back is to the English translation of Jean François Marie Trévern's Amicable Discussion (1828). Trévern's original French can be found here:

Trévern similarly documents the quote as "Sleid. liv. II, an 1520." What was posted on the Catholic Answers discussion forum (and this web-page also) is an obvious plagiarism of something Father O'Hare published over one hundred years ago, and something Father O'Hare took from something published long before him. Whether the person at Catholic Answers took the quote from O'Hare's book or not, someone at some point did, and that's why it's on the Internet (now being disseminated by cut-and-paste plagiarism). To borrow from this Catholic Answers participant: today many people will read a biased and poorly researched web-page or book about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

Documentation

The documentation refers to "Sleidan, Book II, 1520." No explanation from O'Hare or Trévern is provided as to what this reference means. I searched a number of texts using the quote under scrutiny, and I found no explanation as to what the reference is pointing to.

The reference appears to be to the author Johann Sleidan (Johannes Sleidanus), a sixteenth-century Reformation historian (1506–56). Sleidan put together "a chronological narrative of the reformation from 1517 until 1555." It was a series of twenty-five books. "Book II" therefore is just that: the second volume of the series.  "1520" is not a page number. It refers to the content of Book II: the year 1520. The series was entitled, De Statu Religionis Et Reipublicae, Carolo Quinto, Caesare, Commentarii: Cum Indice luculentissimo. pars altera. Volume 2 can be found here. The relevant text reads as follows:

This entirety of Sleiden's series was translated into English by Edward Bohun:

The general history of the Reformation of the Church from the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, begun in Germany by Martin Luther with the progress thereof in all parts of Christendom from the year 1517 to the year 1556 / written in Latin by John Sleidan ; and faithfully englished. To which is added A continuation to the Council of Trent in the year 1562 / by Edward Bohun.

Published in English in 1689, the whole series is available online here in English and here . Book Two is available here and here. Amazon sells a reprint of the English translation. It's probable that Trévern relied on a French translation of Sleidan, the relevant text can be found here. Below is the English translation of the text in question.


Context

To the same effect, on the same day, Luther writes to the Bishop of Mersburgh, that as to his Doctrin, his Conscience bore him witness that it was the same that Christ and his Apostles had taught:* But because his Life and manners were not in all things answerable to the Purity of his Profession, he could even wish that he were silenc'd from Preaching, as being unworthy to exercise that Sacred Function: That he was not moved either by the hopes of Gain or Vain-glory; but that the End to which all his Endeavours were directed, was to imprint a-fresh in the minds of Men those eternal Truths, which were now almost utterly defaced, or else obscured by a gross and wilful stupidity; That those who condemn his Writings, were hurried on by the violence of their Passions; and promoted their own ambitious designs, under the specious pretence of upholding the Authority of the Bishop of Rome: That a great many Foreigners, famous both for Parts and Learning, had by their Letters approved of his Works, and thanked him for his obliging the Publick with them: That this confirm'd him in his Opinion, that his Doctrin was Orthodox: He beseeches him therefore to shew some Fatherly tenderness towards him; and if he had hitherto erred, to guide him now into the right way: That he could not as yet get his Cause to be heard, although he had been importunate in requesting it: That he should think it a great happiness to be convinced of any of his Errours, and they should find he had been mis∣represented by those who had possessed the World with a belief of his Obstinacy.

Conclusion
The immediate thing to notice first is that the very source being cited (Sleidan), does not say Melanchthon said or wrote what's purported. Patrick O'Hare and Jean François Marie Trévern are also wrong when they stated, "as we are informed by his favorite disciple." According to Sleidan, the comment was written by Luther in a letter to "the Bishop of Mersburgh." It wasn't being reported by anyone.  Even if it was the bishop's comment, that bishop was no disciple of Luther, but rather a high-ranking Roman Catholic bishop. The second thing to notice is that Sleidan doesn't mention sexual immorality. He says specifically "life and manners" in comparison to the "Purity of his Profession." Given Luther's meticulous conscience of his own sin and his awareness of the office of minister of the Gospel, this comment need not mean anything as outrageous as Luther's detractors speculate.

A third aspect is to determine if Luther actually wrote a letter admitting his immorality and his wish to be removed from the office of preaching. On February 4, 1520 Luther wrote two similar letters: one to Albrecht, archbishop of Mayence, and another to Adolphus, bishop of Merseburg. These letters can be found in WAbr 2:398-403. While a lengthy section of the letter to Albrecht was translated into English, the letter to Adolphus has not (as far as I can determine). In the letter to Bishop Adolphus, Luther says in part:

One notices that the letter opens with a fair amount of zealous flattery, as if one were addressing royalty. He then mentions all the charges being brought against him by his detractors, and they should not be believed.  Luther eventually says:"usque hodie opto a publicj moveri, relicto docendi negotio,... Scio, quod non vivo, quae doceo, ideoque taedet me officii hujus: tantum abest, ut gloriam quaeram, ut multi mihi imponunt." The immediate question that should come to mind is: why would Luther write a letter to a Roman Catholic bishop, a bishop that was hostile to Luther's plight, and say this? It doesn't make any sense.

The answer comes in understanding this historical context of February 1520. Luther was stirring up a reformed movement in a number of ways, and not all of his ideas were met with approval. For instance, at the time he was arguing that the cup should be given to the laity in the Lord's Supper. Heinrich Boehmer explains,

His suggestion regarding the restoration of the cup to the laity caused such offense at the Dresden court that Duke George denounced him to the Elector on December 27 as a secret Hussite. Moreover, Duke George immediately mobilized the bishops of Meissen and Merseberg against the "very Pragueish" Treatise on the Lord's Supper.  The bishop of Meissen responded by issuing a mandate of his own against the sermon on January 24 [Martin Luther: Road to Reformation, p. 303].

Boehmer says that the Elector found all this "exceedingly disagreeable" and asked Luther to write an "immediate pacifying explanation to the archbishop of Mainz and the bishop Merseberg and probably several other prelates." Before sending the letters, the Elector wanted to look over what Luther had written. After a series of other events that further complicated the relationship between Luther and the bishop of Meissen, "on February 22, Luther brought himself to the point of signing the letters to the archbishop of Mainz and the bishop of Merseburg" (Boehmer, p.304).  An excerpt from one of these letters can be found here.  When Luther writes that "his Life and manners were not in all things answerable to the Purity of his Profession, he could even wish that he were silenc'd from Preaching," he's not making bold personal confessions to his friends, he's attempting to smooth over the bishop by humbling himself (at the order of the Elector). Boehmer explains the response Luther received:

The two prelates were apparently surprised beyond measure at Luther's wholly unexpected readiness to be corrected by them. The bishop of Merseburg could not keep from imparting a sort of censure in his response, but in the conclusion he was very friendly and suggested a personal meeting with Luther [Boehmer, p.304-305].

For a slightly different explanation of the historical context, see Martin Brecht's discussion in Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521, pp. 357-358. Brecht thinks it may have been  Karl von Miltitz acting "on behalf of Electoral Saxony" who contacted Bishop Adolf of Mersburg to see if it was he who was complaining about Luther to the Pope. Brecht says "Luther was instructed by the court to write letters to bishop Adolf of Mersburg and Albrecht of Mainz about the accusations raised against him." Brecht says the letter "would scarcely mollify the bishop of Mersburg." Miltitz was a papal nuncio and active in attempting to reconcile Luther with the Papacy during this time period. Miltitz was also responsible in getting Luther to write a letter to the Pope, in "the conventional, curialistic style," but the letter was not sent.

Despite the clarity of this historical information, the quote has been used, whole or in part, by those who typically who hold an untenable historical view of Luther. This view paints Luther as grossly antinomian. Those espousing this view are often defenders of the Roman church (but not limited to them).  Historically, such shocking quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. The champion of this view was Heinrich Denifle (1844-1905), an Austrian Roman Catholic historian. For Denifle, one of Luther's major problems was lust and immorality. It was Luther's craving for sex that led him to not only break his monastic vows, but to revolt against the established Roman church.   Denifle would use statements like this to prove Luther invented the doctrine of justification to excuse his gross immorality.  Denifle's Luther was an immoral, lust, and sex crazed monk. A section of the very quote in question makes it into Denifle's analysis: 

“As I knew,” says Solomon, “that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it, * * * I went to the Lord and besought him." The Church opposes a spiritual to the carnal “uri.” “Burn, O Lord, with the fire of the Holy Ghost, our reins and our heart, that we may serve thee with a chaste body and please with a clean heart,'' is the prayer in the "Missa in tentatione carnis." Our Saviour Himself counsels watching and constant prayer as a means of not succumbing to temptation. Indeed, Luther a short time before knew this well too. As the strongest weapon against evil desire, he recommends "prayer, contemplation of the Passion of Jesus Christ, as well as the word of God," and a few years earlier he holds up watching and fervor of spirit as an unfailing remedy against carnal lust. I have said that he then still knew this, but not that he still put it into practice. From and after 1516, on his own confession, he seldom found time to acquit himself of the prescribed prayers, the hours, and to celebrate Mass. What he acknowledged in 1520 was even then already verified of himself: "I know that I do not live according to what I teach." ["Scio quod non vivo quae doceo." To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, February 4, 1520, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 312].

Notice for Denifle, there's not any sort of mention about either the context or the historical situation that provoked the letter. Rather, Denifle rips it from its context and uses it to propel his predetermined interpretation of Luther. Another Roman Catholic historian, Hartmann Grisar, fair only a little better:

Yet Luther speaks ably enough in 1517 of the urgent necessity of spiritual exercises, more particularly meditation on the Scriptures, to which the recitation of the Office in Choir was an introduction: " As we are attacked by countless distractions from without, impeded by cares and engrossed by business, and as all this leads us away from purity of heart, only one remedy remains for us, viz. with great zeal to 'exhort each other' (Heb. iii. 13), rouse our slumbering spirit by the Word of God, reading the same continually, and hearing it as the Apostle exhorts." Not long after he is, however, compelled to write: "I know right well that I do not live in accordance with my teaching." ["Scio quod non vivo quae doceo." To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, February 4, 1520, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 312].

One could easily dismiss the comments from the Catholic Answers discussion forum which opened this blog post, for the Internet is filled with unsubstantiated nonsense. One could even go so far as to give Father O'Hare a pass. He was a popular priest living in a time period in which anti-Reformation polemic was standard. He was a pop-apologist before there was such a thing as Catholic Answers. Denifle and Grisar though were trained historians. They should have been able to navigate correctly through the facts. Their use of the quote demonstrates that for all of us, worldview determines interpretation, sometimes at the expense of accuracy.  

Luther's Imaginary Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." (Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)

This truncated Luther quote bouncing around cyberspace has been used in a number of ways. I've seen it used as purporting to show Luther's "contradiction and vacillation" and "doublespeak." Ex-Westminster Seminary graduate / Roman Catholic convert Dr. Taylor Marshall says it "showes [sic] that even over a year after the Wittenburg incident, Luther still saw himself as a Roman Catholic opposed to schism." Rome's defender Steve Ray published an extended version of the quote in his book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church and a truncated version in Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. In an old web article Ray includes it as an example of one of "a few of the quotations that rocked my world and [made] me stand up and take notice and eventually contributed to my decision to become Catholic. " Here's how he cites it:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.” Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356. [link]

We'll see below that this quote that "rocked" Steve Ray's world isn't one quote from a letter to Pope Leo written on January 6, 1519. It's actually two different quotes from two different documents and neither is a letter, nor is either a letter to Pope Leo. One part of the quote, "I never approved of a schism" is not something Luther actually wrote, but is actually something he is reported to have said, and he wasn't saying it about the "schism" he caused.


Documentation
Rome's defenders typically cite the source as Luther's letter to Pope Leo, January 6, 1519. Yes, there was a letter written by Luther on that day to Pope Leo, but it was never sent. The letter written that day was the result of Luther’s meeting with the Papal nuncio Karl von Miltitz. Miltitz was attempting to reconcile Luther with the Pope. He spoke of how favorably the pope felt toward Luther and how angry he was with Tetzel. He attempted to make this deal with Luther: Luther would cease with his part of the indulgence controversy- and he promised those who opposed Luther would also be silent. He also requested Luther write a letter to the Pope. Heinrich Boehmer notes Miltitz specifically requested that Luther’s letter contain a confession

…that [Luther] had been too vehement and sharp although he had never thought of injuring the Roman Church, but was aiming only at the disgraceful preaching [of indulgences]…he would have a note sent out, exhorting everyone to be obedient to the Roman Church and also confessing that he had expressed the truth in an all too heated and, perhaps untimely fashion….The letter [was to] close with the characteristic words: ‘I am willing to do anything, provided I am not made to renounce anything more, for nothing will come of the recantation.’” [Heinrich Boehmer, Road To Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p.254].

Boehmer notes the letter was written and presented to Miltitz, but Luther “absolutely refused to recant.” Miltitz then dropped the whole idea of the letter. Luther was under the impression that Miltitz would set up a meeting in which a learned bishop would evaluate Luther’s points. Luther writing to elector Frederic says, “Miltitz will write the Pope at once, informing him how things stand, and asking him to recommend the matter to some learned bishop, who will hear me and point out the errors I am to recant. For when I have learned my mistakes, I will gladly withdraw them, and do nothing to impair the honor and power of the Roman Church.” Miltitz did write the Pope, informing him Luther was ready to recant everything, but this never happened. As I pointed out previously, Roman Catholic apologists ignore what Boehmer calls "the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome. Rome's defenders often miss the politics of the Reformation.

Context
I actually found the draft of the letter (and note). It is completely different in content than that being cited by Rome's defenders above. Nowhere in this letter will one find "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity" etc.

Draft of the letter to the Lord Pope

Most Holy Father: Necessity again forces me, the lowest of all men and dust of the earth, to address myself to Your Holiness and August Majesty. May Your Holiness therefore be most gracious and deign to lend your ears in a fatherly fashion for a short time, and willingly listen to the bleating of this, your little sheep, for you truly stand in the place of Christ.

The honorable Sir Charles Miltitz, chamber secretary to Your Holiness, has been with us. In the presence of the Most Illustrious Sovereign Frederick he very harshly accused me in the name of Your Holiness of lacking respect for and being rash toward the Roman church and Your Holiness, and demanded satisfaction for this. Hearing this, I was deeply grieved that my most loyal service has had such an unhappy outcome and that what I had undertaken-to guard the honor of the Roman church-had resulted in disgrace and was suspected of all wickedness, even so far as the head of the church was concerned. But what am I to do, Most Holy Father? I do not know what to do further: I cannot bear the power of your wrath, and I do not know of any means to escape it. The demand is made that I recant my theses. If such a revocation could accomplish what I was attempting to do with my theses, I would issue it without hesitation. Now, however, through the antagonism and pressure of enemies, my writings are spread farther than I ever had expected and are so deeply rooted in the hearts of so many people that I am not in the position to revoke them. In addition since our Germany prospers wonderfully today with men of talent, learning, and judgment, I realize that I cannot, under any circumstances, recant anything if I want to honor the Roman church-and this has to be my primary concern. Such a recanting would accomplish nothing but to defile the Roman church more and more and bring it into the mouths of the people as something that should be accused. See, Father, those whom I have opposed have inflicted this injury and virtual ignominy on the Roman church among us. With their most insipid sermons, preached in the name of Your Holiness, they have cultivated only the most shameful avarice and have substituted for sanctification the vile and abominable Egyptian scandal. And as if that had not been bad enough, they accuse me before Your Holiness-me, who opposed their tremendous monstrosities-of being the author of the temerity which is theirs.

Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church and of Your Holiness or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all-nor should Your Holiness believe the schemers who claim otherwise, plotting evil against this Martin.

Since in this case I can do only one thing, I shall most willingly promise Your Holiness that in the future I shall leave this matter of indulgences alone, and will be completely silent concerning it (if [my enemies] also stop their vain and bombastic speeches). In addition I shall publish something for the common people to make them understand that they should truly honor the Roman church, and influence them to do so. [I shall tell them] not to blame the church for the rashness of [those indulgence preachers], nor to imitate my sharp words against the Roman church, which I have used-or rather misused-against those clowns, and with which I have gone too far. Perhaps by the grace of God the discord which has arisen may finally be quieted by such an effort. I strive for only one thing: that the Roman church, our Mother, be not polluted by the filth of unsuitable avarice, and that the people be not led astray into error and taught to prefer indulgences to works of love. All the other things I consider of less importance, since they are matters of indifference. If I can do anything else, or if I discover that there is something else I can do, I will certainly be most ready to do it [LW 48:100-102].

Where Does The Bogus Quote Come from?
I think I can account for some of the reasons why Rome's defenders cite and document this quote the way they do. Notice above that Steve Ray states, "quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356." This refers to Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, a Reformation-hostile book written in the early twentieth century by a Roman Catholic Priest. O'Hare states:

To help all who are anxious to come to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus and His Church, it may be well to recall that Luther before he formally separated himself from obedience to Rome and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X. and quoted in the History of the Reformation by that partisan Merle D'Aubigne, he says, "That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St.Peter and St. Paul, forty-six popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman Church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things and nothing is difficult to those who are united." (See De Wette, I, 233 ff.)

This appears to be the source that Rome's defenders mined for their quote. Yes, O'Hare mentions a 1519 letter written to the Pope, he even provides a primary reference to one of Luther's letters written to the Pope, De Wette I, 233 ff. This letter though is not from January 6, 1519 but rather March 3, 1519. As has been demonstrated above, none of the content cited by O'Hare and used by Rome's defenders comes from the January 6, 1519 letter.

The first part, "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity" appears to be from the Leipzig debate. Reformation historian Merle D'Aubigne (cited by O'Hare) documents the interaction between Luther and Johann Eck. Bringing up the controversy of the church with Jan Huss:

Luther.—" I do not like and I never shall like a schism. Since on their own authority the Bohemians have separated from our unity, they have done wrong, even if the Divine right had pronounced in favour of their doctrines; for the supreme Divine right is charity and oneness of mind."

Nunquam mihi placuit, nec in aeternnm placebit quod-cunque schisma—Cum supremum jus divinum sit charitas et unitas spiritus. Ibid.

Other sources document this as well (including the Latin), see for instance, J. Verras, Luther: An Historical Portrait, p.77. Verras states,

The proceedings of the day on which Luther made the above mentioned remark (5. July) served greatly to clear up the situation. In the morning he strongly protested against the supposition that he was favourable to the schism of the Hussites. May God forgive him (Eck) for representing me as their patron . . . The Bohemians do wrong, that by their own authority they separate themselves from our unity, even if they should have divine right on their side."

The "schism" technically in question was that caused by Jan Huss and the Bohemians, not Luther's schism. The text comes from WA 2:275-276:

The second part O'Hare says is from a letter: " In a letter written by him in 1519 to the then reigning Pontiff Leo X...". This is incorrect. Daubigne' (cited by O'Hare) does not say it's from a letter:

Yet he still felt esteem for the ancient Church of Rome, and had no thought of separating from it. “That the Roman Church,” said he in the explanation which he had promised Miltitz to publish, “is honored by God above all others, is what we cannot doubt. Saint Peter, Saint Paul, forty-six popes, many hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have shed their blood in its bosom, and have overcome hell and the world, so that God’s eye regards it with especial favor. Although everything is now in a very wretched state there, this is not a sufficient reason for separating from it. On the contrary, the worse things are going on within it, the more should we cling to it; for it is not by separation that we shall make it better. We must not desert God on account of the devil; or abandon the children of God who are still in the Roman communion, because of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, there is no evil that should destroy charity or break the bond of union. For charity can do all things, and to unity nothing is difficult.

The source for this particular Luther quote is from Luthers Unterricht auf etliche Artikel, die ihn von seinen Abgönnern aufgelegt und zugemessen werden  (Luther's report on the articles attributed to him by his enemies) (1519) found in WA 2:69-73. The quote can be found on page 72-73:

This text is scheduled to be translated into English in a forthcoming volume of Luther's Works (LW). A partial translation and explanation of the text can be found here:

In the Instructions concerning Some Articles, published almost cotemporaneously with the writing of this letter [to Pope Leo, March 3, 1519] he makes a statement on some of the topics concerning which his teaching had been misrepresented. It is interesting to observe how gradual is his progress towards the position he ultimately attained. The invocation of saints, Purgatory, even indulgences, with certain qualifications, are approved. Miracles, he thinks, are still performed at the tombs of saints. The great abuse, against which he warns, is that of seeking only temporal and bodily blessings instead of spiritual by their intercession. "Who now invokes them for patience, faith, love, chastity?" Nor should they be invoked as though they had the power, of themselves, to bestow these things; they secure them only by their intercession with God. Indulgences are entirely matters of freedom. No one sins who does not procure them; nor does one obtain merit through their purchase. He who withholds needed help from a poor man in order to purchase an indulgence, mocks God. God's commandments are to be esteemed above those of the Church, as gold and precious stones are to be preferred to wood and stubble.

"A man who swears, curses, slanders, or refuses his neighbour needed assistance is much worse than one who eats meat or does not fast on Friday. Nevertheless both classes of commandments are to be observed; only it is advisable that to prevent their being placed upon an equal footing, some of the ecclesiastical requirements be abolished in a General Council. That the Roman Church is honoured by God above all others is a matter of no doubt, for there Sts. Peter and Paul and forty-six popes, besides many hundred thousand martyrs, have shed their blood. Even though matters might be better at Rome, nevertheless no reason can justify one in separating from this Church. Nay, the worse it is the more should one adhere to it. No sin or evil can be imagined, for the sake of which the bonds of love should be sundered and spiritual unity divided. But as to the power and sovereignty of the Roman See, and as to how far it extends, the learned must decide."

Such was the presentation of the case made by Luther in fulfillment of his promise to Miltitz. But the efforts of the papal nuncio were fruitless.

Conclusion
The quote that "rocked" Steve Ray and pushed him over the Tiber is actually an inauthentic concoction of two bonafide quotes from two different documents. Luther did not actually write "I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity." Rather, this was something he was recorded as saying in his debate against Eck at Leipzig, and it was in regard to Hus and the Bohemian schism. Does the second part of the quote demonstrate Luther's doublespeak? I can see how someone holding to a Roman worldview may think so. A much more plausible explanation though is how I've explained elsewhere. Rome's defenders often miss what Heinrich Boehmer calls "the conventional, curialistic style" and the accepted means of dialog with Rome. Granted, this second quote is not from a letter, but it does demonstrate that early on Luther was willing to negotiate and interact with Rome in this writing. Luther's view of the heresy of the Roman church was in development. If Rome's defenders can claim, "development of doctrine," I'll simply claim, development of Luther.

Addendum (2017)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2008. 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, other than that in the original I did not expound on the actual sources of the bogus quote because at the time, I only determined the documentation of the quote was bogus and that there were two quotes in question. Part of the revision was prompted by comments left in this blog entry by Turretinfan who provided information in regard to determining where some of the Luther comments came from. 

In revisiting this entry I did a quick search for "I never approved of a schism" to see what's happened since 2008 or what I may have missed the first time around. I found it being miscited by a Lutheran pastor (2012).  This blogger, who appears to be one of the original perpetrators disseminating this bogus quote, has since added some disclaimers about the faulty information. This disclaimer though does not stop a number of bloggers keeping the miscitation alive: CatholicFidelity.com, CatholicSistas, Communio, Protoevangelium, Matt 1618, etc.

The Real Story of the Reformation? Catholic Answers Explains Luther's Issue With Indulgences

This is a follow-up to my earlier post on the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Previously I noted how Professor Weidenkopf began his interview by changing the term Reformation to "revolution." Along the same lines he goes on to consider Luther to be a revolutionary bent on overthrowing the Roman Church. He implied that the indulgence controversy was the issue in which this could be achieved.

 Weidenkopf  appears to defend the concept of indulgences, particularly the rebuilding of St. Peter's by the giving of "charitable contributions" towards its rebuilding through the selling of indulgences, thus downplaying the whole scandal behind indulgences. St. Peter's was falling apart, and needed to be rebuilt. The revenue from the indulgences helped fund this papal project. Weidenkopf doesn't appear to be interested in some of the more scandalous facts- like how some of the indulgence money for St. Peter's made its way to Leo X's private treasury, "...for he needed enormous sums for his private pleasures, especially his passion for cards, which he played every day" (Heinrich Bohemer, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 175). The Catholic Answers listeners didn't get any those sort of facts.

Professor Weidenkopf  does mention quickly in passing "the less than forthcoming" methods of some of the indulgence preachers, noting in half a breath that "Luther kind of latched on to that," but the explanation as to why Luther was bothered by indulgences was more economic than anything else. According to Weidenkopf, Luther was influenced by and part of a nationalist movement seeking economic and political freedom from Rome. What caused Luther's reaction to the selling of indulgences? For Professor Weidenkopf the main factors provoking Luther were economical:

...He was upset that this revenue from Germany was going to be sent down to Rome to build up St. Peter's... Luther had previously visited Rome earlier in his life as a monk and he was just kind of horrified at the excess and the immorality that he saw in Rome, even among unfortunately, some of the clergy there, and so when this indulgence preaching came about in his diocese that was kind of the spark so to speak that moved him to act.(listen starting at 6 min)

The picture of Luther put forth by Professor Weidenkopf is of a man who began by challenging papal power and whose cause against indulgences was based on financial exploitation. This picture of Luther would make perfect sense if indeed Luther was primarily a nationalist revolutionary. Certainly national and financial factors did matter to Luther, but were they the earliest factors which provoked Luther? Was Luther primarily concerned about German money going to Rome?

Luther's biographer Heinrich Boehmer points out that early on, it was largely pastoral concern which motivated Luther. In his book, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), Bohemer states, "But as early as 1515 Luther was troubled more by the evil effects of indulgence preaching and the indulgence traffic upon the religious and moral life of the indulgence purchaser than by the base motives for granting indulgences (p. 176). Bohemer goes through two of the earliest sermons from Luther in which he mentions indulgences.

The first was delivered on a day that was especially appropriate for such instruction, namely on the eve of the great indulgence festival in the castle church on October 31, 1516. The indulgence, he already argued here, is nothing more than the remission of the canonical penalties imposed upon the penitent by the priest at confession. However, it is to be feared that it often militates directly against true repentance, that is, the inner penitence of the heart which should pervade the whole life of the believer; for one who feels real remorse for his sins does not try to evade punishment, but rather actually longs for punishment. "Nevertheless, I affirm emphatically that the purpose which the pope has in view is good- at least as far can be ascertained from the wording of the indulgence Bulls" (pp. 176-177).

The second sermon of note was from February 24, 1517:

Here he charged that the wholesale distribution of indulgences results only in causing the people to fight shy of punishment All too little of the blessings of indulgences is to be observed; rather there is a sense of security from punishment and a tendency to take sin lightly. Hence, he said, indulgences are well named, for they indulge the sinner. At best, absolution is suitable for people who are weak in the faith and who are easily frightened by punishment into doing penance. With the rest it has only the effect of preventing them from ever receiving the true absolution- divine forgiveness of sins- and hence they never come to Christ. "O how great are the perils of our times! How fast asleep are the priests! O what worse than Egyptian darkness are we in! How safety and securely we go on living in the midst of the most grievous sins!" (p. 177).

The first sermon doesn't appear to have been translated into English yet (it can be found in WA 1:94). It's possible as well that Bohemer is wrong on the 1516 date (see note #76 here. Brecht posits it may be from early March, 1517. See his full discussion on pages 186-188; 522). Regardless of the dates these sermons were previous to the posting of the 95 Theses. The February 24 sermon is available in LW 51:26 ( WA 1:138–142). Luther closes the sermon saying,

Then in addition, the very profusion of indulgences astonishingly fills up the measure of servile righteousness. Through these nothing is accomplished except that the people learn to fear and flee and dread the penalty of sins, but not the sins themselves. Therefore, the results of indulgences are too little seen but we do see a great sense of self-security and licentious sinning; so much so that, if it were not for the fear of the punishment of sins, nobody would want these indulgences, even if they were free; whereas the people ought rather to be exhorted to love the punishment and embrace the cross. Would that I were a liar when I say that indulgences are rightly so called, for to indulge means to permit, and indulgence is equivalent to impunity, permission to sin, and license to nullify the cross of Christ. Or, if indulgences are to be permitted, they should be given only to those who are weak in faith, that those who seek to attain gentleness and lowliness through suffering, as the Lord here says, may not be offended. For, not through indulgences, but through gentleness and lowliness, so says he, is rest for your souls found. But gentleness is present only in punishment and suffering, from which these indulgences absolve us. They teach us to dread the cross and suffering and the result is that we never become gentle and lowly, and that means that we never receive indulgence nor come to Christ. Oh, the dangers of our time! Oh, you snoring priests! Oh, darkness deeper than Egyptian! How secure we are in the midst of the worst of all our evils! (LW 51:31-33).

I realize that Professor Weidenkopf was being interviewed and speaking "off the cuff." But it appears to me that he's picking and choosing what sort of Luther fits his preconceived paradigms of revolution and revolutionary, and this is the sort of Luther that those listening to Catholic Answers want to hear about. This isn't the way accurate history should be done.

Should You Insult Those You disagree With?

When we get involved in online theological discussions, it's all too easy to get personal. Sometimes it may be the person we're in discussion with is unreasonable, silly, or trolling.  As I've experienced it, there is often an unavoidable level of ad hominem polemic. For me, I bathe in sarcasm daily, so I consciously try to tone it down. I do not always succeed!  

For Martin Luther and those writing in the Sixteenth Century (both Roman Catholic and Protestant), using personal attack was a typical tactic. Here is a partial list of Luther's "pet" names for his opponents.

Dr. Emser: because he has a goat in his coat-of-arms, at once becomes himself the Leipzig goat.

Johannes Cochlaeus: (cochlea == snail; cochlear = spoon) appears suddenly as Rotzloffel (snotty)

Dr. Eck: Dr. Geek (fool) or Dreck (muck)

The Ritter Schwenckfeld: as Herr von Stenkfeld (stinkfield)

Dr. Usingen: as Dr. Unsingen

Dr.Crotus: as Dr. Krote (toad)

The Franciscan Schatzgeyer : Master Schatzfresser (treasure-eater)

The Franciscan Alveld: as the miller's grey ass that always cries "Ika, Ika"

Duke Heinrich of Brunswick- Wolfenbiittel as Jack Pudding, as sausage-devil, as a cow on a walnut-tree, as a sow twangling on a harp

The Jurists: ignorists, nequists, plank-doctors— for they cure everything with gallows-wood

Dr. N.Buch : a poodle whose coat is crawling and swarming with fleas, his "book" being full, not of printing-errors, but thinking-errors.

Source: Heinrich Boehmer, Luther & the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research (London: G. Bell and Sons, LTD., 1930) pp. 181-182.

Boehmer explains:

But the reformer has a very special preference for bringing "her serene highness the white beast," the sow, on to the scene. How the dear creature gorges itself, licks its chops and scrapes in the muck, how it snorts and grunts, how it spends its mild, safe, quiet life snoring away on its " down feather bed," how it laughs through its nose at the piglets— all this he observes very prettily; but for polemical purposes he sometimes teaches the sow special tricks. It appears like a clown now with a lemon in its mouth, now with a string of pearls round its neck, now wearing a coat of mail, now with a spinning-wheel, now with a harp.

Luther the polemical writer cannot therefore be understood at all unless one has a feeling for the humour of the sixteenth century. This humour was not a subtle humour. In Luther's hands it often turns very rudely against his own person, for often enough he mocks at himself unsparingly as " fat Doctor," "lazy stinking carcase," and "sack full of rotten flesh." But in spite of all its wild somersaults it never, in his case, takes the form of obscenity for its own sake as it does with Emser, Cochlaeus and Lemnius. Luther may indeed be cited as a proof that a German can be coarse and vulgar to the point of grossness, without ever becoming wantonly licentious.

Revised, February 2026