Luther's Canon According to Roman Apologist, Mark Shea

There's a certain script that most Roman evaluations of the canon of Scripture follow. One scene will typically feature Luther. The scene has slight variations. Luther is portrayed as a radical who either removed books from the Bible, or wanted to remove books from the Bible. Sometimes Melanchthon is brought in in a supporting role restraining Luther from any moves against the canon. In the version below, Roman apologist Mark Shea gives his particular version:

At the Reformation, of course, the deuterocanon, both OT and NT, gets challenged. Luther wanted to chuck, not just the OT deuterocanon, but the NT deutercanon (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation) as well. (He remarks of James that it is an “epistle of straw” and says of Revelation something that many modern readers can empathize with: “A Revelation ought to reveal.”)[A reader puzzles about the deuterocanon]

Mr. Shea should have had a historian check his script.

1. Luther was simply one of a number of theologians that questioned the canonicty of certain books during the 16th Century. His Roman Catholic contemporaries Cajetan and Erasmus did the same, as did some of the representatives at the Council of Trent. It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books, even the Apocrypha (or Deutercanon).

2. Mr. Shea is in error that Luther had significant issues with 2 Peter. Luther's Preface to St. Peter, both the 1522 and 1546 versions do not indicate in any way that Luther thought this writing non-canonical.

3. In regard to Hebrews, Luther's opinion as to canonicty is not certain.The editors of Luther’s Works note  Luther’s opinion fluctuated throughout his career: “… Luther was never consistent in either accepting or rejecting the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews but spoke of Paul as its author even when he had set forth the bold and brilliant suggestion that it was written by Apollos.”

4. Mr. Shea is correct that Luther held a negative view in regard to James, but has presented a caricature of the actual facts. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison in regard to the presentation of the Gospel. That's why Luther would also praise James and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Luther clearly values the law of God, but the Gospel, as presented elsewhere in the New Testament, stands as the "true kernel and marrow of all the books."  An interesting fact  that Shea may not know is that "the epistle of straw" comment only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

5. Mr. Shea states Luther "says of Revelation something that many modern readers can empathize with: 'A Revelation ought to reveal'." This negative assessment from Shea intrigued me because elsewhere Shea affirms what Luther's alleges to have said:

"Anybody who says that Revelation is 'perspicuous' is simply a fool. Calvin was smart enough to not attempt a commentary on it because he knew it would give the lie to the notion of the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther, with his characteristic bluntness, sized the book up by remarking “A Revelation ought to reveal.” He tried to solve the problem by just excising it from the New Testament."

Regardless of whether Shea agrees with what Luther is alleged to have said in regard to the perspicuity of Revelation, this quote is all over cyber-space typically without any sort of documentation. As far as I can tell it isn't in either of Luther's prefaces to the Book of Revelation.  A few books (found via Google) use this quote. This book uses it and documents it by referring to another book which gives a short (and helpful) overview on Luther's view of Revelation. Scott Hahn uses it here. He provides a helpful clue, documenting it by referring back to Bainton's Here I Stand.

Bainton states, "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing'" (Bainton, 261). Bainton documents it as "CF. Fullerton" which refers to Fullerton, Kemper. "Luther's Doctrine and Criticism of Scripture," Bibliotheca Sacra, LXIII (1906), 1-34, 284-99. I found it odd that Bainton doesn't give a page number reference. I found Fullerton's articles. Part one (pages 1-34) can be found here; part two (pages 284-99) can be found here. After quickly going through these pages, I didn't find anything resembling that which Bainton cites. The closest thing I found was a discussion on pages 21-22. Fullerton states, "His chief objection to the book is its obscurity... the apostles prophesy with clear words, as it is proper to the apostolic office to speak clearly and without figure, of Christ's person and work." Unless I've missed it in Fullerton's articles, Bainton appears to be the popular source for Mr. Shea's Luther quote, and Bainton has either mis-documented the quote, or summarized Fullerton in such a way as to create a Luther quote. [See the pertinent section from Fullerton's article below].

Luther actually shares his own view of Revelation in his 1530 /1546 preface revision. In other words, contrary to Mr. Shea, Luther's solution was not to "chuck" the book. Even in the earlier 1522 version, Luther explains that his opinion is not to be binding: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and also, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”  By 1530, Luther took the opportunity to interpret Revelation. He begins by stating:

There are many different kinds of prophecy in Christendom. One is prophecy which interprets the writings of the prophets. Paul speaks of this in I Corinthians 12 and 14, and in other places as well. This is the most necessary kind and we must have it every day, because it teaches the Word of God, lays the foundation of Christendom, and defends the faith. In a word, it rules, preserves, establishes, and performs the preaching ministry. Another kind foretells things to come which are not previously contained in Scripture, and this prophecy is of three types. The first expresses itself simply in words, without images and figures—as Moses, David, and others of the prophets prophesy about Christ, and as Christ and the apostles prophesy about Antichrist, false teachers, etc. The second type does this with images, but alongside them it supplies their interpretation in specific words—as Joseph interprets dreams, and Daniel both dreams and images. The third type does it without either words or interpretations, exclusively with images and figures, like this book of Revelation and like the dreams, visions, and images that many holy people have had from the Holy Spirit—as Peter in Acts 2[:17] preaches from Joel [2:28], “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” So long as this kind of prophecy remains without explanation and gets no sure interpretation, it is a concealed and mute prophecy and has not yet come to the profit and fruit which it is to give to Christendom. This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it, but until this very day they have attained no certainty. Some have even brewed it into many stupid things out of their own heads. Because its interpretation is uncertain and its meaning hidden, we have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held that it was not the work of St. John, the Apostle—as is stated in The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 25. For our part, we still share this doubt. By that, however, no one should be prevented from regarding this as the work of St. John the Apostle, or of whomever else he chooses. Since we would nonetheless like to be sure of its meaning or interpretation, we will give other and higher minds something to think about by stating our own views. Since it is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future, and especially of tribulations and disasters that were to come upon Christendom, we consider that the first and surest step toward finding its interpretation is to take from history the events and disasters that have come upon Christendom till now, and hold them up alongside of these images, and so compare them very carefully. If, then, the two perfectly coincided and squared with one another, we could build on that as a sure, or at least an unobjectionable, interpretation. [Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 35: Luther's works, vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (35:399). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

Addendum
Here is the only pertinent section from Fullerton on Luther's view of Revelation:

While the historical arguments are chiefly influential with Luther in the case of Jude and Hebrews, though the argument from contents is by no means ignored, the latter is the conclusive reason for his very unfavorable opinion of Revelation. He will not force others to adopt his opinions, but he proposes to say what he feels. His chief objection to the book is its obscurity (recall what has been said upon Luther's demand for a perspicuous Bible). The apostles prophesy without figure, of Christ's person and work. Not even in the Old Testament is there a prophet who deals so much in figures. The Apocalypse is more like Fourth Ezra [the same comparison is also made elsewhere], and Luther cannot discover that it is by the Holy Spirit. He finds fault with its threats and promises with regard to those who respectively add to or take from the book, or who keep its words when nobody knows what it means, and, as far as we are concerned, it need never have been written. In fine, his spirit cannot adjust itself to the book (Mein Geist kann sich in das Bitch nicht schicken), though he will let others think what they please about it. He notices also the doubts of the book in the early church, but this difficulty is entirely subordinate to the difficulties raised by the contents. It is enough reason for him to think little of the book because Christ is neither taught nor recognized in it, though that is the chief work of an apostle. In a sermon of the same year (1522) he actually classes the Apocalypse with the prophecies of Lichtenberger. 

When it is remembered how hostile Luther was to Fourth Ezra (he would not even translate it), and to Lichtenberger, these comparisons are all the more surprising. But, as in the case of Jude and Hebrews, we must recognize here also the assumption of a much more conservative attitude in Luther's later writings. In a subsequent edition of the sermon just mentioned, the reference to the Apocalypse as being on the same plane with Lichtenberger is left out, and in the edition of his works in 1545 a new and much more moderate preface was substituted for the old one. He still finds trouble with the obscurity of the book. On account of this he had formerly let it alone, and especially because of the doubt of it in the early church, as attested by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25). Many have attempted to explain it, but up to the present time have bought out nothing certain from it, but have read into it much inappropriate stuff out of their own heads (a timely warning still). But Luther will now make an earnest effort to give it an interpretation. It is noticeable how the emphasis now falls on the testimony of Eusebius, an historical argument as contrasted with the earlier emphasis upon the content.

After going through Fullerton's article a second time, I'm of the opinion that the exact quote used by Bainton, "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing'" is a summary statement created by Bainton rather than a direct quote from Luther. This is how the quote came about:

Luther (1522) :"First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions." .

Fullerton: "His chief objection to the book is its obscurity (recall what has been said upon Luther's demand for a perspicuous Bible). The apostles prophesy without figure, of Christ's person and work."

Bainton: "He mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. 'A revelation,' said he, 'should be revealing.'"

Mark Shea's " excellent and well-researched blog-post"....

...well, so said a comment left on Mr. Shea's recent: The Immaculate Conception: Enter the Subtle Doctor: Duns Scotus. Unfortunately, Mr. Shea keeps repeating the same bogus stuff about Luther:

After this, there wasn’t much of a quarrel in the Church. Most people happily celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (promulgated in 1476) and the controversy died down (although there were holdouts among some Dominicans, who stuck with Thomas’ theology on Mary’s holiness right up until 1854). But for the average Catholic it was a settled matter that the Church had arrived at a clearer understanding of Scripture by seeing just how full of charis Mary really was when the mysterious angelic greeting “Kaire, Kecharitomene!” gave her a title as pregnant with meaning as her womb (Luke 1:28). Indeed, even early Reformers like Martin Luther had no problem with the doctrine:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin. (Martin Luther, “Sermon on the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527)

It really is amazing how self-proclaimed e-pologists put out stuff they've never actually bothered to look up.

Recently from the Best Blog Refuting Roman Catholic Apologetics...

...From the Roman Catholic blog that knows it's better to give than receive: More Mark Shea Nonsense: False Compassion:

"As I have pointed out before, I would not recommend learning your faith from Shea. Here is another reason why."

The "reason" has to do with Mr. Shea's endorsement of "a gay guy who lived here in Seattle." Robert Sungenis has also commented on this: Mark Shea: Coming Out of the Theological Closet.

Once again, a very well-deserved hat-tip to the Catholic Champion for his efforts.

Addendum

From Robert Sungenis:

"Mr. Shea is not only wrong about this, he is causing a scandal. It’s one thing not to know the facts, but when one begins his evaluation by purposely avoiding the facts, we have a serious problem. Mr. Shea chose his title “A Gay Man I Consider a Saint” and he broadcast the title and his article to the whole world. Not coincidentally, Mr. Shea positions himself as a teacher of Catholic faith and morals. One only need look at his long list of self-authored books dotting the margins of his blog; or watch him on EWTN to know that disseminating the Catholic religion is not merely his hobby. As such Mr. Shea does not have the privilege to play ignorant, especially when it concerns one of the most heinous sins known to mankind. Before Mr. Shea starts canonizing people on his blog, he better make darn sure he knows the pertinent facts concerning the person, especially if someone else has evidence that the person in question lived with another male and most likely committed the act in question."

The Roman Catholic Interpretation of Private Revelation

Here's Mark Shea's personal interpretation of privte revelation:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-question-about-private-revelation/

Regarding private revelation, the good news is that the Church binds you to none of it. You can use that as a shield against the pressure and expectation some Catholics (not all or even most, thank God) try to put on you to sign off on their particular fave rave private revelation. The great thing about the Church is that it’s full of all kinds and is, well, catholic. If some private revelation does not help you, feel free to drop it. Don’t own the pressure friends may put on you, but also don’t feel like you have to fight back. Practice a certain detachment, nodding your head politely as you might if you were a tourist in a foreign country when one of the locals regales you with the legend of a local saint.
That’s not, by the way, to say that all claims of private revelation are fictional, mythic, or otherwise untrue. For example, I think that a dispassionate look at the evidence for, say, the apparations at Fatima reveals a very solid factual case to be made that Mary did, in fact, appear there. I contrarily think a dispassionate look at the evidence (or rather lack of evidence, not to mention counter-evidence) against the claim of Medugorje make it highly unlikely Our Lady appeared there. But even with well-established cases like Fatima or Lourdes, the Church *still* doesn’t bind our conscience. If it helps your devotion to Christ, then great. If not, or if it gives you trouble, just stick with the public revelation and it will be fine.

-snip-

As a general rule, if the Church approves a private revelation, that’s good reason to suppose there’s something in it, but even then you have to remember that you are not looking at the same thing as doctrinal development or public revelation. So, for instance, St. Catherine of Siena gives us spiritually fruitful insights in her Dialogues with God the Father—but she also delivers herself of the opinion that God the Father personally told her that Mary was not immaculately conceived. Sorry, Kate, but that was just your Dominican team spirit siding with St. Thomas, who was as wrong as you were. That doesn’t mean Catherine’s mysticism is worthless. It means that Catherine was human and private revelation requires discernment subject to the Church.

Roman Catholic Confusion on Contraception in the Bible

You can't make this stuff up: Two defenders of Rome, two different Biblical views:

Genesis 38 is about contraception:

Bottom line is that God killed Onan for some reason. The only plausible reason we have from the text itself is contraception. A straightforward reading of the text lends itself readily to that interpretation (though not absolutely of logical necessity).[source]

Genesis 38 is not about contraception:

"In the case of Onan, you are right that the common Catholic reliance on this passage as a proof text against contraception or masturbation is a weak one and wrong-headed" [Source: Mark Shea. What Does it Mean to Say Jesus has Fulfilled the Old Covenant?].

Hat tip: Catholic Champion. Good catch Matthew!

Why do we have a hymn of heretic Martin Luther (“A Mighty Fortress”) in our Catholic hymnal?

From defender of Rome, Mark Shea's blog:

...."We have the hymn presumably because the people who compiled the hymnal think it’s a good hymn–which it is. The Church has always had the habit of taking the best of whatever we humans come up with and pressing it into the worship of God. It has never been afraid to borrow from Protestants..."


And tho this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph thru us.
The prince of darkness grim --
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo! his doom is sure --
One little word shall fell him.

I find the irony here being that Luther spent the majority of his life arguing Satan controlled the papacy.

From a commenter on Mark Shea's blog:

"Speaking of theologically dubious things, when one looks at A Mighty Fortress as it is written by Luther, you see a hymn about how Christ is our defense (fortress) against the powers of sin, death, and the devil. Yet the version of A Mighty Fortress in my Catholic hymnal has thoroughly cleansed this underlining thematic material. No mention of sin or the diabolical. That is, the hymn is much more properly Catholic in its original Lutheran version, and dubiously so in the watered down ‘Catholic’ version that made the hymnal in my parish. Weird, no?"

No, that makes sense to me.



Addendum
This is an interesting link: "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God": Hymns As Poetry

“Just trust us on this one … wink wink”

There is something fundamentally dishonest with Roman Catholic apologetics. And it comes out in the recent ruckus over the de-conversion of Addison Hart. One of the bigger questions is, ”didn’t you know what you were getting into when you ‘'poped’?”

It’s quite possible that he did not. There is a somewhat famous statement by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, (famous in Roman Catholic circles) to the effect that, “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

One of the reasons why people misunderstand Roman Catholicism is because, for centuries, the Roman Catholic apologetic has not been one of honesty and clarity, but it’s one of deflection. It’s a classic bait-and switch, which I would argue, is fundamentally dishonest, on a regular basis. Hart allowed in his comment that he had “high ideals.” Roman apologists are constantly these days appealing to “unity” and “antiquity” and even to equate “the Roman Catholic Church” with “the ongoing Incarnation of Christ” [“you will be like God”] – appeals to high ideals. But one thing they don’t lead off with – in fact, they hide from public view what their true doctrines actually are. What the Roman Catholic apologetic appeals to is … “just trust us on this one … wink wink”.

First of all, what is a good apologetic? Francis Turretin described the Reformation method for understanding and instructing “the faith”:

Although an examination of faith and doctrine could not be made without study and labor, it does not follow that it is impossible or dangerous to the ignorant and uninstructed … the doctrines necessary to salvation … are contained in Scripture with sufficient clearness so as to be perceived by any believers furnished with the spirit of discretion. Hence Paul appeals to the judgment of believers and orders them to prove all things and to hold fast what is good (1 Thess 5:21). John wishes believers to try the spirits whether they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1). Surely this could not be said if this examination were either impossible or dangerous to them (Francis Turretin, “Institutes of Elenctic Theology, translated by George Musgrave Giger; edited by James T. Dennison, Jr.: Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R Publishing, ©1997, Vol. 3, pg 5).

So, in Turretin’s method, apologetics means you state your doctrines, openly and honestly; but don’t just rely on that. Allow, no, challenge your disciples to search the Scriptures, “try the spirits,” prove all things, and hold fast to what is good. But even in Turretin’s day, he encountered something different from that:

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine. (Vol 3. pg 2)

At the time of the Reformation, Luther was met by assertions of authority. In preparation for his 1519 debate with Luther, Eck asserted, “We deny that before the time of Silvester [I, 314-335] the Roman church was subordinate to the other churches. We have always known that the one who occupies the See of Saint Peter and the faith is the successor of Peter and the universal representative of Christ” (quoted by Bernhard Lohse in “Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development,” translated and edited by Roy A. Harrisville, ©1999 Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pg.119). Such assertions had always worked in the past; consider the case of John Huss.

[But even in Eck’s statement, note that he does not properly characterize what Luther had said. Luther did not say, as Eck claimed, “the Roman church was subordinate to the other churches.” Luther only said, in his 95 Theses, that “at the time of Gregory I (590-604) the Roman church was not yet ranked over the other churches.” This is a digression, but an important one.]

Roman apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) “Where was your religion before the year 1517?” This appeal was characterized by the Roman Catholic claim, “Semper Eadem,” “always the same.” By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted:

The Church’s doctrine is always the same….The Gospel is never different from what it was before. Hence, if at any time someone says that the faith includes something which yesterday was not said to be of the faith, it is always heterodoxy, which is any doctrine different from orthodoxy. There is no difficulty about recognizing false doctrine: there is no argument about it: it is recognized at once, whenever it appears, merely because it is new….

If by such proofs they show us the least unconstancy, or the least variation in the dogmata of the Catholic Church from her first origin down to us, that is from Christianity’s first foundation; readily will I own to them that they are in the right, and I myself will suppress this my whole history (cited by Owen Chadwick, “From Bossuet to Newman,” Second Edition, ©1987 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pgs 17, 20).

But as it turns out, Rome, however, cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a “theory of Development” that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated.

Which goes back to the high-minded appeal to authority. A prime example of this methodology is provided by Mark Shea in his book, “By What Authority”? Shea’s book is a long look at why “Evangelicalism” cannot adequately respond to such challenges to orthodox Christianity by such efforts as “The Jesus Seminar,” and why we need an infallible authority to properly respond to such challenges.

At the end of his work, Shea posits for himself this dilemma:

According to Catholic belief, the very doctrines which irk most Protestant believers (such as Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, and so forth) are doctrines which cannot be set aside since they are squarely located under the Big “T” heading by the Catholic Church and are therefore immovable features of Sacred Tradition -- the very same Tradition which tells us what is and is not in our Bible and does so in a coherent voice of authority sounding down to the centuries through a line of bishops leading inexorably back to Jesus Christ himself. In other words, I was (and you by extension, good reader, are) obliged to either:

1. Find out if the whole Catholic Tradition was truly coherent; or,

2. Arbitrarily reject the bits I was [and therefore you are] uncomfortable with, but simultaneously exploit Catholic Tradition’s authority (where it was useful against modernism)--all the while hoping that both Evangelicals and modernist (not to mention the Holy Spirit) would not laugh at my [i.e., your] inconsistency. [Mark Shea, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, pgs 174-175.]

But this comes at the end of this work, where Shea declines to say just what that “whole, truly coherent” Big-“T” Tradition actually was. He says, “I discovered (in a journey I will not recount here) that, in the final analysis, there is not a single solitary aspect of Catholic Sacred Tradition that is anti-biblical” (Shea’s emphasis). What the reader is left with is, “Rome has the authority … “just trust me on this one … wink wink”.

It’s really a classic bait-and-switch. I have two thoughts on this: First, there is very much in “Catholic Sacred Tradition” that is quite “anti-biblical”. Beginning with an apologetic that says, “you can’t understand what the Bible is or says without an infallible interpreter.” [In fact, conservative Biblical scholarship is decimating “The Jesus Seminar,” for example.] Second, I know that Shea has written other books, which I haven’t read, which may provide some of that “final analysis.” But these are at a point at which he’s “preaching to the choir,” selling books as a convert-celebrity, to fellow Roman Catholics, and not, as Turretin said, proving his doctrines from the Scriptures. I’m happy to discuss any Roman doctrine on a point-by-point basis – from Scripture AND history – but this post isn’t about individual doctrines, or even the sum total of “Big-‘T’ Tradition”. It’s about the Roman Catholic Apologetic Method.

Michael Liccione puts it this way:

How to locate and identify “the Church,” and what kind of teaching authority she has, are questions to be answered by divine revelation. Following Aquinas, Newman, and others, the thesis I’ve long argued for is that in order to distinguish “the propositional content of divine revelation from mere human opinions about the data taken as sources,” disputes about how Scripture and Tradition answer the above questions [can] only be settled by a living, dominically instituted authority that is divinely protected from error under certain conditions. Otherwise all we’re left with is opinions, such as yours and countless other, different ones.

First find “the Church,” “the Authority,” and all else will fall into place. ”Just trust us on this one … wink wink”

In the last 20 or 30 years, plenty of ecumenically-minded statements have come out that seek to find “unity” not by clarifying issues, but by blurring the differences. It takes not only a theologian, but a lawyer, to understand some of the “Joint Declarations” – and to understand just precisely what is being given away, and by whom.

I’ll reiterate, I don’t know Addison Hart other than that I recognized his name from Touchstone Magazine, and I stopped reading Touchstone because it leaned too far toward Rome. Rome doesn’t sell its own doctrines. It sells an image. And like Hart, too many people buy the image before reading the fine print.

It is quite likely Addison Hart did not know what he was getting into when he "poped". But he knows it better now, and he knows why he must leave. I'm grateful that he has come to his senses, and that he chooses to tell people about it.

Trueman, Newman, and Discernment

Somehow, in the flurry of comments and emails, amidst this discussion of how inconsistent it is to appreciate some part of the works of a particular theologian, without accepting the whole of his works (or even his "presuppositions") as divinely inspired, or not, Pilgrimsarbour had the presence of mind to post this link to this Carl Trueman article (and to send me an email reminder of it) which outlines how to do that very thing. (For those of you who don't know, Carl Trueman is a Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.)

Of course, broadly speaking, there have been historically, and are still, at least two approaches to discerning and understanding the truth within in Christianity. The first, of course, as evidenced by Dr. Trueman's fine appreciation for a broad range of Christian heroes:

Luther is a hero of mine, along with Nazianzus, Augustine, Aquinas, Owen, and Newman. It does not mean I agree with him (or them) on all points or even in some cases many points; it does not mean he would even have regarded me as a Christian; but it does mean he is an exceptional person from whom I have learned an enormous amount; and in reading him (and them) my own theology has been sharpened, and my understanding of the grace and beauty of God in Christ has been deepened. There is a heroic quality to the thought of men who are willing to tackle the greatest themes relating to God, creation, salvation, and the church: even when they make mistakes, they make magnificent mistakes from which we can all learn. In a day of small men and small minds, we should be grateful that the Lord is truly good, and has provided such brilliant men to inform the great traditions of the church and to provide us with immense resources of theology and devotion...

Dr. Trueman, of course is adhering to the advice of such like St. Paul ("Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" and "test everything; hold fast what is good") and Francis Turretin ("examination of faith and knowledge ought to precede the knowledge of the church" -- that is, examine the Scriptures to discern the doctrines, and locate the church where such doctrines are held and practiced). We've heard this called "the pick-and-choose" approach, but, we'd rather go with Paul's thoughts and advice on these things.

The second, we’ll call it a philosophy or mindset, is one of something like swallowing the whole pig.* This method may or may not be unique to Roman Catholicism. But for Roman Catholics, it is an article of faith for them. Roman Catholics must receive with docility everything that the Roman Church teaches them. Mark Shea describes this second method in a particularly striking way. JB note: my comments are set below in [square brackets], whereas that which is (in parenthesis) is an original Mark Shea comment within the text:

For no part of Sacred Tradition, written or unwritten, can be set above (or below) the authority of the Church with which it is seamlessly woven together, or else the whole Tradition (and therefore the written Tradition which is the Bible – and therefore all Christianity) unravels. The authority of his Church, like Christ’s robe, is seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

This is not to say that all aspects of Catholic Tradition are equally important. The Church itself acknowledges the reality of the hierarchy of truth and is quite matter-of-fact in saying that some Tradition (such as the Trinity) is irreformable big “T” Tradition, while other tradition (for example, the Friday abstinence from meat or some other delectable) is small “t” tradition. The latter can be altered or even set aside by the Church and has been on occasion, for it is a mere discipline and not a cornerstone of what must be believed always, everywhere, and by all. But the big “T” stuff cannot be altered without striking at the very heart of the Faith.

Which left me (as it leaves you, good reader) with a challenge. [A footnote here says that this is “A challenge which, if you wish to take it up, can be pursued with the help of some of the handy materials offered in the appendix.”] According to Catholic belief, the very doctrines which irk most Protestant believers (such as Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, and so forth) are doctrines which cannot be set aside since they are squarely located under the Big "T" heading by the Catholic Church and are therefore immovable features of Sacred Tradition -- the very same Tradition which tells us what is and is not in our Bible and does so in a coherent voice of authority sounding down to the centuries through a line of bishops leading inexorably back to Jesus Christ himself. In other words, I was (and you by extension, good reader, are) obliged to either:

1. Find out if the whole Catholic Tradition was truly coherent; or,

2. Arbitrarily reject the bits I was [and therefore you are] uncomfortable with, but simultaneously exploit Catholic Tradition's authority (where it was useful against modernism)--all the while hoping that both Evangelicals and modernist (not to mention the Holy Spirit) would not laugh at my [i.e., your] inconsistency. [Mark Shea, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, pgs 174-175.]

So you can be Roman Catholic and swallow the whole pig, or you can be Protestant, and be discerning, and use the faculty of discernment, as Paul has suggested that we do.

Of course, where the outside edges of this “Big ‘T’ Tradition” lie, now that's a different question, and the “living Magisterium,” will, uh, “pick-and-choose” for you, what it is that you are to hold and not to hold as a binding doctrine of the faith. They "discern" the difference between what's irreformable and what's merely "small 't' tradition" for you. The important thing is that you listen to them about what the pig is and only swallow that. So long as you hold to the definitions themselves, then the discussions of where those edges are is very much open to question.

As an example of this, the Blessed Newman himself rejected the concept that there was ever a time when something might be “believed always, everywhere, and by all.” He said:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.

So we can see that, while it is not possible for Roman Catholics to be good Catholics and not swallow the whole pig, it is possible to disagree about what defines the edges of that pig, as Roman apologist Scott Windsor so ably describes here.

So the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants comes down to whether you hold that you must swallow the whole pig, or that you just eat the bacon and ribs and throw away the rest of it. Be that as it may, I’m going to follow the path of Dr. Trueman and continue to affirm that I deeply appreciate the thorough work of Peter Lampe in providing a very clear analysis of the church at Rome in the first two centuries. Whether or not he believes that Paul actually wrote the letters to Timothy.

* Note: This video is shown here merely to illustrate the process of "accepting the whole cloth of Roman Catholic authority." We would not have the whole "Tradition" to unravel. But the author does not wish to imply that Mark Shea could be adequately illustrated by a Komodo dragon, nor that the whole of Roman Catholic dogma could be illustrated as “a whole pig.” We, here, at Beggars All, do not attempt to “bind the conscience,” and we advise that the dear reader should form his or her own opinions on such matters.

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch & Clash of the Titans Update

Here's a person who thinks the "I swam the Tiber" apologetic method is troubling:

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch
Of course, there's another side of the story:

Patrick Madrid is Evil

Without any guidelines from Rome, I guess they'll just have to fight it out.

Here's an update on the Sungenis vs. Shea struggle for apologetic dominion- The Catholic Answers folks are weighing in:

"I like Sungenis. I think that it's become something of the "in" thing to do to make swipes at more conservative members of the faith such as him. But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?"

"Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him."

"I like Mark Shea and Robert Sunngenis. They've both done good work for the church. I think they both have their character flaws (who doesn't?) that show up every so often. I'm disappointed in both of them that they can't conduct this discussion in a charitable way without resorting to fifth-grade antics."

"Sungenis is a crackpot who never paid the money he owed to all the people who whipped his bottom in his "geocentrism challenge" years ago. He had actual, for-real NASA guys wiping the floor with his ignorant self. We all watched it go down. He's a weirdo. Ally yourself with weirdoes and crackpots at your own risk."

Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him.- Good Lord, you're serious, aren't you? We need MORE geocentrist, crackpot apologists? Just exactly what do you think the mission of an apologist is? To bring derision upon the Church by confirming the most outlandish suspicions and worst prejudices of non-Catholics in secular society?

"People don't take swipes at [Sungenis]because it's the "in" thing. They take swipes at him because they think he's wrong, or even crazy, or even (in my admittedly non-Catholic perspective) the proponent of revoltingly evil beliefs (no, I'm not talking about geocentrism--that's somewhere between wrong and crazy!)."

But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?- "The fact that he doesn't have anything better to do than argue with a self-important, cold-hearted Reformed pontificator is hardly to his credit. (Just as the fact that I spend so much time on this website is not exactly to mine--though there are many people on this website much more worth spending time with than either White or Sungenis.)"

"If Mark Shea tempts [Sungenis] to sin, he should not be reading or responding to his blogs."

Sungenis Vs Shea Revisited

A long time ago in a Roman Catholic galaxy far away, Mark Shea actually contributed material to a book put together by Robert Sungenis. Now....

Mark Shea: Some Evangelicals think they have found Noah's Ark. This is the sort of story that gets nine-day-wonder play in the MSM, is trumpeted as "proof" of the Bible by Fundamentalists whether Evangelical or Conservative Catholic (you watch, it will show up on Bob Sungenis' site along with "Dinosaurs lived alongside man" and "Pyramids prove the flood" articles.


R. Sungenis: John, what can you expect from someone like Mark Shea? I mean, here’s a guy that actually advertises his ignorance and indiscretion right on the top of his own blog with the inane banner: “Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!” Do I need to say more? He thinks he’s being funny but behind every joke there is a pertinent truth. Mark Shea is actually telling us how his mind works. Most of his comments are just knee-jerk reactions that first pass through the “I must be as endearing and accommodating to the world as possible” grid in his brain, which are then spiced up for sale with his usual dose of sarcasm and off-color wit. So I’ll just follow Mr. Shea’s suggestion that what he says about me this time is just another one of his “stupid” comments.

As for the issue itself, Mark Shea, if you don’t already know, is of the school of thought that tries to divest Genesis of as much historically accurate material as possible. You’ll see this in his book Making Senses of Scripture in which Shea tries to tell us that we can minimize biblical history by turning it into little more than spiritual platitudes. Basically, Mark Shea is ashamed of much of what the Bible regareds as historical. Thus, he dismisses most of what occurred in the narratives of Genesis as fanciful accretions. Mark Shea wants his history to be palatable to what the world believes occurred in the past. Additionally, Mark Shea has made no in depth study of “Dinosaurs.

Source

Lessons in the Use of Language from Mark Shea and Luther

Here are a few lessons from Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea and Martin Luther on how to use the Bible to say what you really mean:


Mark Shea:

That reminds me. Periodically, I will use a... coarse word when it seems to me to be apt. My profound moral guidance in this is St. Paul who, in the course of majoring in majors in the his battle with the Circumcision Party, opted not to major in minors by fretting that he wrote the Greek equivalent of "s**t" when he said "Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 4:8) The word politely translated "refuse" has an earthier and more organic meaning. He also recommended that the Circumcision guys go all the way and castrate themselves (Gal 5:12). Strong language that. But nobody wrings their hands about how Paul is "a bad witness". RHIP, I guess. [Source]

Martin Luther:

“Was [Jesus] abusive when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.”

My boast is that I have injured no one’s life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the Baptist [Luke 3:7] and Christ after him [Matt. 23:33] called the Pharisees the “offspring of vipers.” So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon [John 7:20]. If in this instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been! Elsewhere Christ calls them “blind”[Matt.23:16], “crooked,” “liars,” “sons of the devil” [John 8:44, 55]. Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1:8] who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls “dogs” [Phil. 3:2], “empty talkers” [Tit. 1:10], “deceivers” [Col. 2:4, 8]. Further, he accused to his face the magician Elymas with being a “son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy [Acts 13:10].” [Source]

My own 2 cents: I don't use the language Shea argues for. Our culture still has a remnant of taboo placed upon particular words. Further, I don't wish to offend a weaker Christian by a particular language liberty. Finally, I don't enjoy the use or overuse of particular scatological words, so I avoid them. Maybe when I was 15, I thought I was cool saying a bad word. Now, those who perpetually use profanity remind me of a junior high school child with a vocabulary lacking maturity.

I got myself banned

So in this I guess I stand in the footsteps of many better men before me.
I've been putting in some time at Mark Shea's blog, and I guess I made it as long as I did before the ban is because he was out of town the last 4 days of last week. I thought he'd be happy to have me, since I drove his combox to just under 160 comments. That kind of pub don't come easy, you know. But it all started to crumble when I compared his behavior and unnecessarily insulting language (in fact, I was just agreeing, as did another commenter, with a different commenter) to that of Art Sippo and Tim Staples. Although, he's probably right to censure me for that. I mean, with such irenic comments as:

Liar. You intend war on Holy Church.

what other conclusion would anyone (like Ben Douglass - thanks for trying, Ben) draw?

(BTW, hopefully Mark appreciates the traffic I'm thus driving to his site. One can only wish he'd present arguments worthy thereof.)
(It's also very interesting that Mark got all bent out of shape by my comparisons of him to Art Sippo and Tim Staples. One can only wonder why that is...)

Anyway, the long combox for the primary conversation I was engaged in might be worth the read, at least somewhat. Let me draw out two of the primary points I was making, the former of which never saw a rebuttal and the latter of which I was, amazingly, dealing with the entire time.

1) Mark Shea had said in the OP:

The whole "Scripture is perspicuous" thing is a classic case of elevating human tradition to the level of equality with the word of God. It works like this: the enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripure" reasons "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."

(You can play that game with anything you like, by the way: "God always does what is best. Having the gift of tongues is best. Therefore, God grants all believers the gift of tongues." "God always does what is best. Health and wealth are best. Therefore, God will all believers to be healthy and wealthy.")

I kicked it off with:

Y'all in the RCC argue that way, though, all the time for the Marian dogmas. Come now, don't forget your own legacy, where you've been. You're ripping your own strategy now.

I got one irrelevant rebuttal, then a request for specifics, which I provided:

Specifically, here are a few:
One
Two (here citing Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus in the 7th century)
Matatics vs White on the Marian Dogmas

Then, later:

My point is that this exact argument was lambasted by Mark Shea when used to support the perspicuity of Scr. I point out that RCs use it for one of Shea's pet doctrines, and people get all upset.

And finally:

In fact, on his own Catechism, interestingly:

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love...

Not to mention the fact that I don't know of anyone who's ever used that type of argumentation, as TurretinFan also pointed out.


2) People and their agreement as standard of truth.
I suppose it's what one should expect from a man-centered religion like Rome's, but it gets a little tiresome after a while. For example, from commenters sympathetic to the Roman side of things, with my responses below them:

-Of course, this begs the question of how a former Protestant like myself became convinced that the RC church does possess apostolic authority and hence a valid magesterium.
and
-If it's so simple, why do you disagree with so many people?

There's that fallacy again! Why do you keep trying to make PEOPLE the standard of truth? You think Jesus did that or sthg?

From Vatican Council I (1870), on the primacy of Peter and Papal Infallibility:

"This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church....To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction."

Yet many ppl, even RCs, don't hold to this. If it's so simple, so ancient, unchanging, absolutely manifest, always understood by the catholic church, and if the opposition is distorted opinions, why do you disagree with so many people?
The answer is clear - people's agreement is not the standard of truth. Remember what Jesus said about the narrow and wide gates?

-Why do so many people disagree about Calvinism if its supposedly the truest form of Christianity, based solely on perspicuous Sacred Scripture?

Why do so many people disagree about RC dogma if it's supposedly the truest form of Christianity, based on the living-voice infallible Magisterial authority, who can step in and clear up doctrine disputes?
How many times do I have to say this? People are not the standard of truth. Wide gate vs narrow gate. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. Let me add to that 1 Cor 11:
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

-Whereas both you and the United Methodists (who ordained my friend) think you're entirely right and fully Christian with no consciousness of rebellion to God or his church.

Same goes for the women priests. THEY think THEY'RE right. They think they're rightfully dissenting from the oppressive patriarchal structure of RCC, but they are the heirs to the true church.
Once again, you're trying to make people the standard of truth.

All in all, a very satisfying excursion across the Tiber. It's often comforting to know things haven't changed over yonder.

Catholic Marketing 101

Mark Shea's living up to his blog subtitle: "Mark Shea's Blog: So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!" in regard to his new three volume opus-

I'm happy to report that I have not yet seen a single negative review! Catholic response has been uniformly thumbs up, which makes Papa proud of his baby. (Of course, there will *be* negative reviews from guys like James White, Eric Svendsen, James Swan and the other nattering nabobs of anti-Catholicism, whose *job* is to give a negative review to stuff like this.) But once you get away from the anti-Catholic fever swamps, I will be interested to see how the book fares in place like Christianity Today, where you have honest Evangelicals who are serious about trying to engage Catholics, well, honestly.

Luther: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture"

Over the years, I've written about the charge that Luther advocated polygamy. One popular Luther quote, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture" has been oft used (particularly by Rome's defenders) to indict Luther as advocating unrestrained polygamy. For instance, Luther, Exposing the Myth cites it as, "It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives ( De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459)." Mark Shea cites the quote (but blunders with the historical context by attributing it the "Philip of Hesse" bigamy incident which occurred around 16 years later). It's too late to fix this for Shea, he's published this misinformation in his book, By What Authority? He states,

In his old magnum opus (updated with a disclaimer that I probably provoked), Another of Rome's defenders states, "Luther believed that polygamy was sanctioned in Scripture: I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. (De Wette, vol. 2, 459)." For this cyber-apologist, Luther saying "contradict" means "sanctioned."

Documentation

The quote as it appears in most webpages probably was extracted from Patrick O'Hare's Facts About Luther:

Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy. To say that he did not "counsel" polygamy, or that he advised that it should be kept secret as a sort of matter of "conscience," is utterly beside the facts. When Bruck, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimer, heard that Carlstadt in 1524 advocated polygamy he consulted Luther on the new and pernicious teaching. The Reformer, not in the least abashed, openly and distinctly stated: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459.) Many other clear statements wherein Luther sanctions polygamy might be reproduced here, but the one given above will suffice for the present.

The most popular reference is "De Wette II, 459." Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette was a Protestant scholar well known for putting together an extensive collection of Luther's letters. Volume II:459 can be found here. The text reads,

This is the opening paragraph of a letter Luther wrote to Chancellor Gregory Brück on Jan. 27, 1524. Brück was a political figure-head (and supporter of the Reformation) in Electoral Saxony (LW 49:50). According to Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar,

A man, who, owing to his wife's illness was prevented from matrimonial intercourse, wished, on the strength of Carlstadt's advice, to take a second wife. Luther thereupon wrote to Chancellor Bruck, on Jan. 27, 1524, telling him the Prince should reply as follows...

To my knowledge, there is no complete English translation of this short letter, but extended sections are available.

Context

The husband must be sure and convinced in his own conscience by means of the Word of God that it is lawful in his case. Therefore let him seek out such men as may convince him by the Word of God, whether Carlstadt, or some other, matters not at all to the Prince. For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned. I, for my part, admit I can raise no objection if a man wishes to take several wives since Holy Scripture does not forbid this; but I should not like to see this example introduced amongst Christians. ... It does not beseem Christians to seize greedily and for their own advantage on every thing to which their freedom gives them a right. . . . No Christian surely is so God-forsaken as not to be able to practice continence when his partner, owing to the Divine dispensation, proves unfit for matrimony. Still, we may well let things take their course" [To Chancellor Bruck, "Brief wechsel," 4, p. 282: " Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac cerium per verbum Dei, sibi hcec licere."] [Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. 5 p.72]

Here is an alternate translation of the Luther quote:

The prince ought to ask the bigamist, 'Have you obeyed your conscience directed by God's word?' If he replies: 'It is by Carlstadt,' or some other, the prince has nothing more to object; for he has no right to disquiet or hush the inward voice of that man, or decide in a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of him who, according to Zacharias, is commissioned to explain the divine law. For my part, I confess that I do not see how I can prevent polygamy; there is not in the sacred texts the least word against those who take several wives at one time; but there are many things permissible that ought not becomingly to be done: of these is bigamy [source].

Here is another explanation of the context and English translation:

When in 1524 Carlstadt, then at Orlamünde, advocated polygamy, Brück, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, consulted Luther on this point. The reply was that such a thing could not be considered as forbidden in the new Law. Let the prince answer: "The husband must, by the word of God, be sure and certain in his own conscience, that it is lawful to him. Let him enquire of those who can make him sure through the word of God; whether this be done by Carlstadt or by anyone else this matters not to the prince. For if the man is uncertain, he cannot become certain through the consent of the prince, who in a matter of this sort cannot decide anything. It is the duty of the priests, to answer with the word of  God . . .I confess that if a man wishes to marry several wives, I cannot forbid it, nor is it in opposition to the Holy Scriptures; but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go. Perhaps they will even introduce circumcision at Orlamünde and will become Jews entirely."

Conclusion
As is typical, putting a context and explanation to such quotes takes a lot more time and effort to sort through than the time and effort of those who use such quotes against Luther. This quote, as cited by O'Hare and Shea, isn't exactly what Luther said. Here is some interesting background commentary:

Some of the radical Anabaptists undertook to introduce polygamy, appealing to the patriarchal order of society in justification of their position. Even among Luther's followers and associates there was no little uncertainty about the matter, as was not altogether surprising when the old order of things was undergoing revision at so many points, including the marriage of monks, priests, and near relatives. But Luther himself was unalterably opposed to any such revolution. Monogamy he considered, under ordinary circumstances, alone tolerable in a Christian community, and held that no Christian ruler has any moral right to legalize polygamy. At the same time, finding no explicit prohibition in the Bible, he believed exceptions might be allowed in certain extreme cases such as are now generally recognized in Protestant countries as justifying divorce. Writing Chancellor Bruck about the matter in 1524, he said: I confess I am not able to forbid anybody to take more than one wife if he wishes to do so, nor do the sacred Scriptures forbid him. But I do not want this custom introduced among Christians, for it behooves them to give up things which are permitted, that scandal may be avoided and honorable living promoted, as Paul everywhere demands. [source]

It's interesting that the extended context cited above (with background and alternate translation) is what Luther goes on to say (not typically cited by Luther's detractors):

"...but I should not like to see this example introduced amongst Christians.

[but there are many things permissible that ought not becomingly to be done: of these is bigamy]

[for it behooves them to give up things which are permitted, that scandal may be avoided and honorable living promoted, as Paul everywhere demands]

... It does not beseem Christians to seize greedily and for their own advantage on every thing to which their freedom gives them a right. . . . No Christian surely is so God-forsaken as not to be able to practise continence when his partner, owing to the Divine dispensation, proves unfit for matrimony."

When O'Hare states, "Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy" and Shea concludes, "Luther (together with Philip Melanchthon) concluded that monogamy was no necessary part of the Christian revelation and that polygamy was a legitimate practice for a Christian" these two defenders of Rome either grossly ignored the context, or perhaps never saw the context.

As Grisar explained, the situation which provoked the letter was the sickness of a wife preventing "matrimonial intercourse." One must not immediately place this situation in a 21st century context. Offspring in the sixtennth century were of vital importance. Luther's response was not an all out anything goes. Rather, the comment was directed to an exception (For more on the "exception," see my earlier blog article). It is true Luther allowed for polygamy, but only in a very narrow sense. Luther scholar Heinrich Boehmer points out that it was only to be in cases of

...severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony… (Luther And The Reformation in Light of Modern Research, 213-214).

This radical comment from Luther appears to have been prompted by Luther's ex-colleague, Carlstadt. Carlstadt condoned a man taking a second wife. Von Ranke says of Carlstadt,

His rash and confused mind led him entirely to confound the national with the religious element of the Old Testament. Luther expected that before long circumcision would be introduced at Orlamunde [where Carlstadt was preaching], and thought it necessary seriously to warn the elector against attempts of this nature [source].

After Carlstadt had become increasingly radical, he left Wittenberg's faculty. Carlstadt went to Orlamunde in the Thuringian countryside, right around the time this letter from Luther was written (Jan. 27, 1524). The interesting thing about the quote in question is that by this time, Luther had a grave distrust of Carlstadt, yet in this letter Luther states, "it is the priests business to expound the Word of God." The way I read it, Luther is saying that secular authorities are not to interpret the Bible on this point. Rather, it is the job of spiritual authorities. For better or for worse, Carlstadt was the spiritual authority in Orlamunde. Early in 1524 the Wittenberg faculty took steps in attempting to recall Carlstadt from Orlamunde in order to try to curb his radical nature. They still held out some sort of hope that he wasn't too far gone in his radical leanings. The bigger point for Luther was not bigamy as such, but that secular authorities didn't have jurisdiction to interpret the Bible.

Carlstadt is reported to have stated something like, "As neither you nor I have found a text in the sacred book against bigamy, let us be bigamists and trigamists .... let us take as many wives as we can maintain. Increase and multiply. Do you understand? Accomplish the order of heaven." Sometimes this quote is put forth as addressed to Luther, but I haven't been able to document the date or the recipient, or if it was written in or around January 1524, or if it has anything to do with the Luther quote in question.


Addendum
In a 1526 letter, Luther stated:

As regards the other matter, my faithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offense would be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but most diligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we have no word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a belief that such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Let heathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers had many wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham and Jacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtained the wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as an inheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument to convince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word that makes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For where there was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more than one wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason I cannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularly since you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as, for instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived of her for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people such marriages I know not" (21a, 900 f.) This letter effected that the Landgrave did not carry out his intention, but failing, nevertheless, to lead a chaste life, he did not commune, except once in extreme illness, because of his accusing conscience." ( Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917, 103-104).

W.H.T. Dau points out that Catholics should use caution in this charge against Luther:

Ought not this remark of the Landgrave caution Luther's Catholic critics to be very careful in what they say about the heinousness of Luther's offense in granting a dispensation from a moral precept? Have they really no such thing as a "dispensation" at Rome? Has not the married relationship come up for "dispensation" in the chancelleries of the Vatican innumerable times? Has not one of the canonized saints of Rome, St. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife was sterile? Was not concubinage still recognized by law in the sixteenth century in Ireland? Did not King Diarmid have two legitimate wives and two concubines? And he was a Catholic. What have Catholics to say in rejoinder to Sir Henry Maine's assertion that the Canon Law of their Church brought about numerous sexual inequalities? Or to Joseph MacCabe's statement that not until 1060 was there any authoritative mandate of the Church against polygamy, and that even after this prohibition there were numerous instances of concubinage and polygamic marriages in Christian communities? Or to Hallam in his Middle Ages, where he reports concubinage in Europe? Or to Lea, who proves that this evil was not confined to the laity? (See Gallighan, Women under Polygamy, pp. 43. 292. 295. 303. 330. 339.) ( Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation (St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917, 106)

Rome's defenders chastising Luther with this quote tend to make it mean more than was intended. Luther was not an "out-and-out believer in polygamy." For Luther, it was an exception. Do I agree with Luther? not at all, I would argue that even his exception is wrong, and that a case for monogamy can be made from the Bible. Once again, we find Rome's defenders taking a very minor point made by Luther and blowing it out proportion. Roman Catholics though (well, at least Mark Shea) seem to think that monogamy is the product of Sacred Tradition. He states,

Regarding “fundamental Christian doctrines,” however, Evangelicals unconsciously function exactly like Catholics and read their Bibles in light of Sacred Tradition, which has percolated down to them from pre-Reformation Catholic Tradition. Thus, Evangelicals do not declare monogamy to be optional, even though Scripture alone is far more ambiguous about monogamy vs. polygamy than it is about Purgatory or the Real Presence—a fact recognized by Martin Luther and his colleague Philip Melancthon.

This apologist however, proves monogamy by the Scriptures, "On the contrary, Jesus Christ (Matt 19:6-9) and St. Paul (Rom 7:3; I Cor 7:2; Eph 5:32-33) presupposed monogamy as normative for the Christian. " Shea's understanding would appear to coincide with Dau's point (which I have not checked) that "not until 1060 was there any authoritative mandate of the Church against polygamy." That is, according to a Roman paradigm, up until 1060, polygamy was open to speculation. This would explain Dau's statement that "St. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife was sterile." So, perhaps Roman Catholics are left with monogamy because Rome finally said so in 1060. It would be interesting to find this declaration- if it exists.

The Return of Mr X

Here's a recent tidbit from Catholic apologist Mark Shea:

Probably the most dangerous thing that goes with it is a curious sort of idolatry that can arise. The other day, for example, I got a letter from somebody which read, in part:

Recently I came across a protestant web site of a Mr. X. He is extremely well educated regarding the writings of Martin Luther. He has convincingly shown how our Catholic Apologists have taken quotes of Martin Luther out of context to try to show that he was a nutcase. It has really opened my eyes and it has got me wondering where else our Catholic Apologists have erred. Today on his blog, he posted an article which refutes your assertion that St Jerome, before he died, accepted the apocrypha as canonical. I am posting it below to give you a chance to respond. I hope you can. This blog site has deeply disturbed me because Mr. X has shown many times where the Catholic Apologists that I have come to admire and learn from have been making serious errors in scholarship resulting in faulty conclusions. I have written Robert Sungenis, Scott Hahn, Art Sippo et al to visit this blog and form some refutations if possible. I do not know if they have done so and it is really bugging me. Would you please take a look at Mr. X’s blog because Catholic Apologists will be hearing from this guy soon and you had better be ready for him.

A number of things concern me about this note. But the first and foremost is that somebody’s faith could be disturbed by the fact that a Catholic apologist has erred. Sadly, it’s not the first time I’ve encountered the tendency to anoint me or some other apologist as a sort of Alternative Magisterium to the real Magisterium by a “fan base” that is somewhere between a school of disciples and a cheer squad. Indeed, I have found that, in an era where laity have been taught to mistrust their bishops–not only by the media and the culture, but by the shocking incompetence and perfidy of the bishops in the abuse scandal–it’s very easy for laity to hive off and anoint new ersatz Magisteria in the form of whatever faction they happen to fancy. For some, the New Magisterium is the advocates for women priests. For others, it’s Catholics for a Free Choice. For still others, it’s whatever Richard McBrien says is the consensus of Thinking Catholics in the Academy. For some, it’s Dan Brown.

I checked in with Mr X about Mark Shea's comments. The letter he quotes must've been written some time back. He also reminded me of the blog entry, "Luther: The Assumption was a Settled Fact?". Mr Shea has argued Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary because Luther's burial vault had a particular sculpture of Mary on it. But the sculpture is actually for another tomb, not Luther's.

Luther: The Assumption Was a Settled Fact?

I listened to a few of Catholic apologist Mark Shea's webcasts on the Assumption of Mary. Mark made one statement that I would be very interested in having documentation for:

"For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin."

First and foremost, I would be extremely interested in which primary references Shea can provide from Luther in which Luther explicitly confirms a lifelong belief in Mary's Assumption. Saying "settled fact" requires proof. A quote with a context would be nice (and I would hope not to get one of those sparse English translations from a German source that no one has, particularly the person making such a claim). I have done a lot of research into this, so if Shea can pull the assumption out of a Luther-hat, this I'd like to see.

Secondly, as to Luther's burial vault, Shea explains in an old blog entry (edit: no longer available, but found here, and here):

"And, of course, problems with it constituted no difficulty for the Reformers, which is why Luther's tomb is decorated with a bas-relief of the Assumption. Indeed, objections to Mary are johnny-come-latelies on the stage of Protestant theology, as is demonstrated by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Mary and the Fundamentalist Challenge."

This is the claim made by Peter Stravinskas:

"Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian."

This website makes an interesting counter-claim:

"If one believes Peter Stravinskas, it would seem that this inscription on [Luther's] heart is reflected in the inscription on his tomb. Stravinskas published a generally good article on 'The Place of Mary in Classical Fundamentalism', but I'm afraid he made one pious mistake: He maintains that the sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin and inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger which is to be found in the Wittenberger Schlosskirche, where Luther is burried, goes with Luther's tomb. I wish it were so, but I'm afraid it belongs to one of the other tombs in the church. If you google for images of Luther's tomb (or Luthers' Grabmal), you'll see that it is the simplest little slab of stone rising a little out of the floor of the main church, a good distance away from the walls - no "burial chamber" at all. The German tour guide "Baedekkers Allianz Reisefuehrer Deutschland, 1991" mentions that "in the Schlosskirche there is a piece of art by Peter Vischer the Younger, who also created the tombs of Sir Hans Hundt and Prior Henning Gode." So if somebody out there could go by the church and let us know to which tomb this obscure "piece of art" belongs, I would much appreciate it."

And this website states:

"2. Epitaph for Henning Goeden
Directly to the right is located "The Coronation of Mary", a bronze plate created in 1521 by Peter Fischer the Younger, a founder from Nuremburg. A work of great aesthetic merit, the plate is the tombstone for Henning Goden, Jurist and last Catholic Provost of the Castle Church."

But, ok, let's for a moment grant that Luther's burial chamber has this particular sculpture. How in the world does this serve as proof Luther held a lifelong belief in the assumption as a settled fact? Mark, if you read this, please try an understand, lack of proof does not mean "proof". You must do better than a burial tomb, or stating something like Luther never spoke against it. Take these words to heart:

"But an argument from silence is recognized by all to be quite weak. It implies that one must have almost total evidence before demonstration is possible. If this is the case, one could argue cogently that there may have been airplanes in the time of Christ." Dewey M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 178.