Luther: "misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness" was the result of the Reformation?

 Kudos to the Three Pillars blog for debunking this Luther quote utilized by Catholic Answers:

Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther would bemoan the religious indifference wrought by the movement he began:

Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it? Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot! I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement.

This is another of many quotes typically used by Rome's defenders claiming Luther regretted the Reformation. I don't recall seeing the bulk of this particular quote before. The Three Pillars blog was able to determine that Catholic Answers mined it out of either Warren Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom or Johannes Janssen, History of the German People 6: 276-277. Janssen was a nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian heavily fueled with anti-Luther sentiment.   The quote appears to be a hodgepodge of Luther quotes strung together. Catholic Answers haphazardly cut-and-pasted from one of these sources without checking it first.  

It looks to me that the first sentence was not documented by Janssen: "Who among us could have foreseen how much misery, corruption, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have resulted from it?" I suspect this may be from Luther's comments on John 13 which I covered here. The Three Pillars blog was able to determine the origins of the second and third sentences. Sentence #2 was taken from the Table Talk: "Only see how the nobles, the burghers, and the peasants are trampling religion underfoot!" The last sentence then comes from a completely different page in the Table Talk, "I have had no greater or severer subject of assault than my preaching, when the thought arose in me: thou art the sole author of this movement." Janssen presented a cumulative case of Luther quotes from different places, Catholic Answers appears to have simply assumed it was one quote Luther said.... somewhere!

I greatly appreciate the work on this quote done by Scott Cooper, and will add his post to my series, Did Luther Regret the Reformation? Many of Rome's defenders have notoriously used secondary hostile sources without checking the quotes they're utilizing. I concur with Mr. Cooper: 

It’s surprising that a non-profit, extremely popular apologetics empire with an annual budget over $10 million doesn’t have basic editorial standards minimally requiring direct quotes to have a citation. What’s more concerning is this doesn’t appear to be a simple oversight on a web page. Catholic Answers is apparently selling a book with this false quote and the author of the article is “a Lecturer in Church History at the Christendom College Graduate School of Theology.”

Catholic Answers Asks: Reformers or Revolutionaries?

As we draw nearer to the anniversary landmark of the Reformation, cyber-space is a flutter. The Catholic News Herald in North Carolina posted recently, "Luther’s concern was the gospel of the glory of God’s grace. While he was a reform-minded person, it was not his intention to become the founder of a separate Reform church. His goal was the renewal of the Catholic Church from the perspective of the Gospel." On the other hand, the North American Magisterium, Catholic Answers, has published a brief article entitled, Reformers or Revolutionaries? by Steve Weidenkopf. Once again, yet another article states its purpose is to give "the real story." It's not hard to guess that Catholic Answers still holds the old Roman Catholic view of Luther and will deem him a revolutionary by the end of the article.

The author starts out with the "Luther-was-an-abused-child" myth: "Martin Luther had a difficult childhood, owing to his overbearing and sometimes abusive parents."  A few paragraphs later this blossoms into, 

Luther’s extremely negative image of God, which may have reflected that of his abusive father, influenced his theology and his conflicts with authority. To Luther, God was not a loving father, as revealed by Christ, but rather a tyrannical and wrathful judge who delights in tormenting sinners.

I've written previously about this mythology. Why use the word mythology? The sparse bits of information about Luther's childhood fueling such claims stem from, if not almost entirely, the Table Talk. A few strands of second-hand comments have blossomed into ridiculous studies, like Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther.  Further, the conclusion that Luther's image of God proper (and Jesus Christ) was that of an angry judge, because of Luther's parents is erroneous based on actual historical information. Throughout his explicit writings, Luther did not blame his parents for his early understanding of God, but rather the medieval church. He said the culture he lived in viewed God as an angry judge, and the way to appease the angry judge was through the Virgin Mary and the saints. 

The author continues by describing some of Luther's early treatises as "revolutionary writings." These writings had the effect of causing societal unrest: 

Luther’s revolutionary writings led to outbreaks of violence throughout Germany. By 1525, mobs had destroyed churches, burned sacred art, and profaned the Eucharist. Nobles sympathetic to Luther’s teachings appealed to him for help ending the violence. In response, Luther wrote a pamphlet titled Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, in which he called on the nobility to suppress the rebellion with all necessary violence, which they did with ferocious efficiency, killing 130,000 peasants.

I would never argue Luther's early writings were insignificant, but the author here is engaging in post hoc erog propter hoc thinking. The peasants had been in active revolt even previous to Luther. The book the author refers to, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred on by Luther's words. They were spurred on by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

But not only did Luther cause societal havoc resulting in the death of 130,000 peasants, the author then takes it back to a more personal level showing that Luther also attacked the very foundation of society: Luther was a revolutionary against marriage:

Several years later, Luther’s break with Christian teaching on marriage was made complete when he advised one Philip, landgrave of Hesse, that he could enter into a bigamous marriage so long as he kept it secret. When word of it leaked out, Luther advised Philip to deny it, writing, “What harm is there in telling a good bold lie for the sake of making things better and for the good of the Christian Church?”

Ignored are the countless statements from Luther's pen on the beauty and importance of marriage. Rather, one particular situation (with political ramifications) that Luther was involved with, one which he not soon thereafter regretted, becomes his standard operating procedure for marriage. 

And what Luther hit-piece would be complete without including Luther's views of the Jews? "Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a treatise in which he put forth an eight-point plan to rid Germany of its Jews." There's anachronism at play here. The author leaves out that in reality, the story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society's negativity towards the Jews.

Weidenkopf isn't being historical, he's being polemical. Reformation or Revolution? This has been one of his reoccurring themes for a number of years. The switching of "Reformation" to "Revolution" isn't the result of the historical creativity of Mr. Weidenkopf. This is standard procedure for Roman Catholic polemicists. E.G. Schweibert described it back in 1950 as typical of the defenders of Rome and secularists:

E.G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), p. 8.

For a fascinating treatment of this switching of terms, see Reformation or Revolt or Revolution by Dr. Paul Peters (of whose article I'm indebted for referring me to Schweibert). Peters explains how complicated this subject actually is. I recommend a careful reading of this old article as there's a lot to chew on. I found the section "But Luther Answers his Roman Catholic Critics" well-constructed. Dr. Peters presents an overview from many of Luther's writings as to how Luther himself would respond to those who said he had caused a revolt.

 

Addendum
I've covered  Steve Weidenkopf's perspective before:

Reformation or Revolution?

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

The Real Story of the Reformation? Guest on Catholic Answers Says Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura Not Invented by Luther

The Real Story of the Reformation? Guest on Catholic Answers Says Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura Not Invented by Luther

This is another follow-up to my earlier post (and this 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.

Here's an odd occurrence in this broadcast. For those of you involved with Roman Catholicism, you've probably heard the oft-repeated sentiment that Luther created sola fide and sola scriptura and that these doctrines did not exist previous to his alleged invention of them. For instance, Catholic Answers states, "The Bible nowhere uses the expressions 'justification by faith alone' or 'salvation by faith alone.' The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine." And also Catholic Answers has stated:

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

So there you have it from two offerings from official pages from the Catholic Answers website. If you were to venture over to their discussion boards, it wouldn't be hard to multiply examples like this. Now here's where the odd occurrence comes in. At around 35 minutes into the broadcast, Professor Weidenkopf takes a question regarding the origins of sola fide and sola scriptura and if these were "Martin Luther creations." Based on his first 35 minutes of answers, I expected he would say Luther invented sola fide and sola scriptura.  At 36:21 minutes Professor Weidenkopf though gives the following answer:

And so, he wasn't the first individual who actually, uh, furthered these, er, proposed these doctrines. There were what we like to call in history the proto-Protestants. There were heretics before him, one in England by the name of John Wycliffe who lived in the 14th century and then also Jan Hus who was ah, a Bohemian heretic. Both of those individuals, John Wycliffe and John Hus also advocated sola fide and  sola scriptura, and railed against the church, and ah, advocated the changing of church teaching and even the getting rid of the church in many aspects in their own individual writings. So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well, but why they come to be mostly associated with Luther is because he's the most vocal proponent of them. It's through his works and his writings and I should mention that Luther was a prodigious author, he wrote well over 400 500 some odd treatises in his lifetime, so many many many books, many many many pamphlets, he utilized the invention of printing by meta-movable type, and so his works were just, you know, um, published, printed, and spread all throughout Christendom, so that's why he again gets most of the credit, but they did do predate him, sola scriptura sola fide also brought further on by John Calvin in his work the Institutes of the Christian Religion where he attempts to try to systematize Protestant theology and give it some kind of form and give it more organization than what Luther had, but uh, but again, those doctrine... not his creation but he's definitely the main proponent of them.

Now I found this answer fascinating, especially when he stated, "So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well." I don't recall ever interacting with one of Rome's defenders willing to admit there were people previous to Luther advocating sola scriptura and sola fide. It just goes to show that when it comes to Roman Catholicism and history, Rome's defenders can pick and choose which version of history one wants.

For a look at the Reformers before the Reformers, see my earlier posts:

Reformers Before the Reformers #1, The Supremacy of Scripture

Reformers Before the Reformers #2, The Marriage Analogy of Johann von Staupitz

Reformers Before the Reformers #3: The Sole Infallible Authority of the Scriptures


Addendum
I'm trying to decide whether or not to purchase Steve Weidenkopf's mp3 from Catholic Answers on The Reformation. Catholic Answers wants $9.95 for a 90 minute mp3 which appears to me to be overpriced (as are many of the products offered by Catholic Answers).  I also found an online blog interview with Steve Weidenkopf: Reformation: Myths and Revolution with the same sort of material as that presented on Catholic Answers.

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.

Reformation or Revolution?

I finally had a chance to listen to 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. Early on in the broadcast Mr. Weidenkopf decided to change the term "Reformation" to "revolution." He stated,

I like the term and I use the term "Protestant revolution" rather than "Reformation," and I use that term, because, you know again, words obviously have meaning, and ah, they convey, you know a sense, a meaning... when we use them, and so we need to be accurate in our historical presentation, and for most of us in the English speaking world, particularly in the United States, our history has been presented from a predominantly English Protestant perspective, and so, even the terms that are used to describe this historical event follow along from that perspective, and so often, more often than not, you always hear of this time period and these events in the sixteenth century in Europe referred to as the "Protestant Reformation" when the Protestants like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others, so called "reformed" the church. But what I contend is that if you actually read the writings of these reformers (so-called "Reformers") and look at their lives, they really weren't about reforming the church, but they really wanted to overthrow it, and destroy it, and replace it with something different... and that's a revolution.

Mr. Weidenkopf goes on to use the term "revolution" throughout the broadcast. While I know the presentation of history is far from "neutral," I'm suspicious of anyone claiming to be an historian that sees fit to redefine popular and accepted historical terms. It would be like me refusing to use the word "catholic" when speaking of the Roman church. "Catholic" is the historical term used in the phrase, "Roman Catholic Church." From my perspective, Rome has officially anathematized the gospel, and is no longer doctrinally in the set of "catholic." Yet, I know fully well that when I use the term "catholic" most folks think of "Roman Catholic Church."  Ironically, when I visit Catholic Answers, I usually avoid using the word "Roman" because I was chastised once by a moderator for referring to the "Roman church" even though Catholic Answers themselves use the word. I guess if I had my own discussion forums, I could chastise Rome's defenders for using the word "revolt" or "revolution" rather than the term "Reformation."

The switching of "Reformation" to "revolution" isn't the result of the historical creativity of Mr. Weidenkopf. This is standard procedure for Roman Catholic polemicists. E.G. Schweibert described it back in 1950 as typical of the defenders of Rome and secularists:

E.G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times (St. Louis: Concordia, 1950), p. 8.

For a fascinating treatment of this switching of terms, see Reformation or Revolt or Revolution by Dr. Paul Peters (of whose article I'm indebted for referring me to Schweibert). Peters explains how complicated this subject actually is. I recommend a careful reading of this old article as there's a lot to chew on. I found the section "But Luther Answers his Roman Catholic Critics" well-constructed. Dr. Peters presents an overview from many of Luther's writings as to how Luther himself would respond to those who said he had caused a revolt.

Weidenkopf isn't being historical, he's being polemical. You can tell when he says that if you "actually read the writings of these reformers (so-called 'Reformers') and look at their lives, they really weren't about reforming the church, but they really wanted to overthrow it, and destroy it, and replace it with something different." This is old-school Roman Catholic polemics, pre-Lortz.

There are at least two major benefits to being aware of Weidenkopf's term switching. First, the polemics presented by Weidenkopf demonstrate how out of touch the Catholic Answers sort of person is with the trends in the magisterium and contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship in regard to the Reformation and Rome's version of ecumenism.  When it comes to history, Rome's defenders are their own "blueprint for anarchy." Second, for the folks who visit and support Catholic Answers, the Reformation is still important and is a battle still to fight (this contrary to Mark Noll's theory the Reformation is over). We can be pleased to see the "Catholic Answers" type of people are still engaging in a centuries-old theological battle. Are these folks the remnant of older generations of Rome's defenders? Yes, I think they are.  In an ironic way, they actually help the Gospel by continually fighting against it. It's much easier to present truth to people who actually think someone is right and someone is wrong.