Katie Luther Inspires Martin to Write The Bondage of the Will

ht: Thank you Katie Luther

"In the first months of their marriage, when she insisted that her husband could not leave Erasmus unanswered, she had been pushed into the forefront by Camerarius, as we know. Camerarius was driven by objective reasons. The diatribe that Erasmus had published was the Humanists’ declaration of war on the Reformer. And with the prominence of both men, the battle had to be taken up and fought until there was an honorable accord or one of the combatants was defeated. Katie maybe had little understanding of such deliberations, but she understood that the opponents could easily see her husband’s stubborn silence as conceding defeat—a concern which Luther himself shared otherwise—and she didn’t stop assailing him with urgent pleas until, after he had indignantly procrastinated almost a year, he finally overcame his reluctance and wrote his reply in a few weeks."

I've never heard this before. The quote above is said to come from Ernst Kroker, The Mother of the Reformation: The Amazing Life and Story of Katharine Luther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 2013). A preview of the book can be found here.

Special thanks to the Heavenly Springs blog for the information.

Luther: I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is Holy

Some time back (2009) I went through this quote from Luther:

I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy. (Martin Luther, from his sermon on Matt. 21:42, D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Vol. 47.425* – also know as the Weimar edition; English trans. from What Luther Says, p. 126.)

I mentioned in 2009 that this quote was scheduled to be part of a new volume of Luther's Works... and that volume arrived in my mailbox a few days ago. Here is the context of this quote:

Thus we hear which is the true Church, namely, the one that is built upon the cornerstone and becomes a spiritual house—those who are baptized, believe in Christ, praise and thank Him. The false church, however, are those who do nothing according to the Word of God, reject the cornerstone—Christ—and persecute His teaching, for example, the Roman court. In the höstel in Rome there is a German church. It is the best and has a German Pastor. But what does the pope do? He sits in his palace and makes people kiss his feet. Therefore, he is the devil's bishop. I respect the Roman Church. It is good, has God's Word and Baptism, and is holy. But the Roman court, [or] the pope, who is bishop in the court, he is the devil's bishop and the devil himself. Yes, he is the crap that the devil has s*** into the Church, for he does nothing other than that which serves worldly pride and pleasure, that he might become emperor and king and clean all the money out of the coffers. (LW  68:127)

When Luther spoke of the Roman Church, he had something much different in mind than most people do today. Luther made a sharp distinction between the Roman Church and the Papacy. For Luther, the Papacy was something from which one should flee. Luther's opinion appears to be in part that since the Roman Church was given the scriptures, sacraments, etc., in that sense she is a Christian church. However, these elements functions quite independently from the Roman magisterium. No analogy is perfect, but if I had to describe Luther's position I would do so like this: The Roman church is like a pristine ship that's been commandeered by pirates. The ship still functions, but it's crew is in bondage to her captors. Some of the crew mutinies and joins the pirates. Others though, maintain allegiance to her rightful captain.

What are the ramifications of Luther's view for Protestants today? Luther considering the Roman church to be basically Christian in some respects is not the same thing as Luther considering zealous defenders of Rome to be basically Christian. In other words, if a zealous defender of Rome selectively uses Luther's words as a basis to promote inter-faith dialog between Romanism and Protestantism, Luther would consider such a person to be a papist, and in danger of hell.

Addendum
My previous discussions of this quote are here:

Luther: I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy (2009)

Luther: A Church With Corrupt Leadership Can Still Be a True Church (2009)

Myth #11: Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church (2011)

Luther: The Roman Church is Basically Christian? (2013)

Buddhist Incorruptibles vs. Rome's Incorruptibles

When it comes to incorruptibles, Rome isn't the only game in town:

Scientists try to solve mystery of Hambo Lama Itigilov in Buryatia

Luther: Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him

Recently on the CARM boards, a defender of Rome did a cut-and-paste of a typical selection of Luther quotes about Mary. This cut-and-paste begins as many of them do: with proof that Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. I did a basic overview on this some years back, but in reviewing the cut-and-paste I noticed I had never presented the context for some of these quotes. I offer them here for those searching them out looking to see the broader context.

Here's the first set of quotes presented from the CARM board:

Christ. .was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.. .This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

God says... "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).

Documentation
Whoever compiled these quotes did a substandard job of documenting them. If you look closely, you'll notice no actual page numbers are given, and no helpful edition of the text is specified. In fairness, some of the versions of this cut-and paste do have better documentation. It's interesting though that the popular version of this cut-and-paste has the substandard references. Some Roman apologists have their articles published without any documentation- consider this apologist who included a good chunk of this quote (along with others) with no references at all.   It turns out that these quotes are from LW 22.

Christ. .was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).

This one is found on page 214. Note how whoever compiled this quote used severe editing:

Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ’s brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives. In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan, whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some. But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ’s cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph. In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. We may infer from this text that they were a poor little group. After Joseph’s death they probably found it impossible to support themselves in Nazareth and for this reason left and moved to Capernaum. But just how and why this happened is a moot question. Christ was born in Bethlehem and reared in Nazareth, and now He is residing as a pastor in Capernaum. This town is His parish. He chose it as the place where He was to reside as bishop and as burgher, just as our pastor dwells here and is our bishop. Christ did not remain in Capernaum permanently. No, He wandered about. He returned to Nazareth and journeyed through all of Galilee, preaching and performing miracles; and then He would return to His abode in Capernaum. The other prophets did the same. Samuel lived in Ramah, and from there he “went on a circuit” to preach in the adjacent countryside (1 Sam. 7:16–17). 

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.. .This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)

This second quote is found almost 200 pages before on page 22:

The devil is doing his worst against this article of the divinity and the humanity of Christ, which he finds intolerable. Christ must be true God, in accord with the powerful testimony of Scripture and particularly of St. Paul, who declares that in Him the whole fullness of the Deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9); otherwise we are damned forever. But in His humanity He must also be a true and natural son of the Virgin Mary, from whom He inherited flesh and blood as any other child does from its mother. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, who came upon her and overshadowed her with the power of the Most High, according to Luke 1:35. However, Mary, the pure virgin, had to contribute of her seed and of the natural blood that coursed from her heart. From her He derived everything, except sin, that a child naturally and normally receives from its mother. This we must believe if we are not to be lost. If, as the Manichaeans allege, He is not a real and natural man, born of Mary, then He is not of our flesh and blood. Then He has nothing in common with us; then we can derive no comfort from Him. However, we do not let ourselves be troubled by the blasphemies which the devil, through the mouths of his lying servants, speaks against Christ the Lord—now against His divinity, now against His humanity—and by the attacks which he then makes against Christ’s office and work. But we cling to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Their testimony about Christ is clear. He is our Brother; we are members of His body, flesh and bone of His flesh and bone. According to His humanity, He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb (of which Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to her in Luke 1:42: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb!”). This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. Everything else that a mother imparts to a child was imparted by Mary, the mother of God’s eternal Son. Even the milk He sucked had no other source than the breasts of this holy and pure mother. 

God says... "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).

For the last part of the quote, jump about 300 pages further into the text to page 323:

We must hold to this faith in opposition to the heretics. The Turk contends that Mary was not the mother of the Son of God. The Nestorians said that Mary was not the mother of God but only of the man Jesus, who by nature was only her son. They made two sons out of one. But there is only one Son; and yet there are two natures, which gave Mary the right to say: “This Son Jesus, whom I bore and suckled on my breasts, is the eternal God, born of the Father in eternity, and also my Son.” And God says likewise: “Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the mother of God. And Christ, together with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, is very God from eternity who became man in time. So God the Father does not have a son apart from Mary’s, nor does Mary have a son apart from God the Father’s. This is the foundation on which our faith rests: that Jesus Christ has two natures even though He is one indivisible Person. There are not two sons and two persons; there is one Son and one Person.

Conclusion
The last quote appears to be highlighting the use of the phrase "mother of God." Luther did not shy away from using this phrase, and he was fully cognizant of its correct theological usage. The question to be asked is if Luther used the term for the same purpose the defenders of Rome use it. For instance, in regard to "mother of God," the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ...differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

Yet if one goes through the same volume of Luther's Works all the above quotes come from, Luther repeatedly denies that one should seek Mary for safety. Luther states,

“I believe in the Son, who was given into death for me.” The papists, to be sure, hear these words too; for they possess the Bible as we do. But they slumber and snore over them; they have eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear. They say: “Oh, if only I had done what St. Augustine or St. Francis commanded!” The laity call upon the Virgin Mary to intercede for them with her Son. (LW 22:368)

The devil is very assiduous in trying to divert us from Christ. To invoke the Virgin Mary and the saints may make a beautiful show of holiness; but we must stay together under the Head, or we are eternally damned. What will become of those who rely on St. Barbara and St. George, or those who crawl for shelter under Mary’s cloak? To be sure, such people present a fine semblance of worship, but they transform the Son and His love into a judge. Why, then, did God grant Him to us as Mediator and High Priest? The pope has definitely endorsed the invocation of the saints, and by means of false teachers and evil temptations the devil does not cease to rob us of consolation. (LW 22:490-491)

The other quotes are geared toward perpetual virginity. It's certainly true that Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, and there's no need to be embarrassed by such an historical fact. Luther never appears to waver on Mary's perpetual virginity. Note though these strong words from Luther as to the intent of perpetual virginity:

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act. Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin. (LW 45:205-206).

In my opinion, Roman apologetic use of Luther's Mariology doesn't have the same popularity it once did. I can recall the regular occurrence on discussion boards and blog entries where a defender of Rome would present Luther's comments about Mary as proof that he was devoted to her, and then it was suggested that Protestants have either ignored, forgotten, didn't know, or covered up this revealing information.  Over the years I've sought out the context of these quotes, and it's often been the case that the contexts don't support what's being presented. Such is not the case for Luther's belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary or that he used the phrase "mother of God." however, I would argue that Luther didn't have the same thing in mind that many of Rome's defenders do.

The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther

Here's a post from the Catholic Answers forums that actually makes sense: The Wisdom of Personal Attacks on Martin Luther.  The entire thing is worth reading, but here is the snippet that caught my attention:

I wonder at the idea that if they show that Martin Luther is so bad, they will then become Catholic. This is certainly a negative tactic that suggests that those pursuing this agenda really have no better arguments for Catholicism than that Luther was bad, so therefore Lutherans should become Catholic. I find this extremely unconvincing. Isn't there anything good in Catholicism? Did these Luther-bashers really become Catholic because they took a dislike to Luther? That is like preferring God to Satan because you don't like Satan - never mind what God is like. Faint praise, there.


Addendum:
I've had this post in draft since Sept. 14. By September 16 the thread was shut down for "lack of charity."

Above: One of Luther’s first Roman Catholic biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus best expressed his campaign against Luther by portraying him as a seven-headed monster. Cochlaeus divided up the life of Luther into seven distinct periods, each represented by one of the heads on the monster. Each head held a contradictory opinion to the other. He explains what each head represents:

“Thus all brothers emerge from the womb of one and the same cowl by a birth so monstrous, that none is like the other in either behavior, shape, face or character. The elder brothers, Doctor and Martinus, come closest to the opinion of the Church, and they are to be believed above all the others, if anything anywhere in Luther's books can be believed with any certainty at all. Lutherus, however, according to his surname, plays a wicked game just like Ismael. Ecclesiastes tells the people who are always keen on novelties, pleasant things. Svermerns rages furiously and errs in the manner of Phaeton throughout the skies. Barrabas is looking for violence and sedition everywhere. And at the last, Visitator, adorned with a new mitre and ambitious for a new papacy, prescribes new laws of ceremonies, and many old ones which he had previously abolished—revokes, removes, reduces.”

Pope Francis Says, " Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs"

Red Alert for Rome's apologists:

Pope Francis says:
Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. "We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing."

This story has been around for a while. I found it represented here:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htm

http://www.catholicregister.org/faith/item/18548-pope-francis-reveals-top-10-secrets-to-happiness

I really like this Pope!

Harold Camping's Most Dedicated Followers Predict the End: October 7, 2015

Back when Mr. Camping was predicting the end of the world, a group called eBible fellowship was right in step with his eschatological conclusions. One of the eBible folks was actually a featured speaker on Family Radio during the end of the world countdown.

 I still visit their site from time to time.  These folks are convinced that on May 21, 2011, God "shut the door of Heaven" and since then no one else can be saved. And therefore: "There is a strong likelihood that the spiritual judgment now upon the world will continue for 1600 days and then conclude with the literal destruction of all unsaved people and the end of the world on October 7, 2015." (source)

Luther Threw Books out of the Bible, His Church Elders Put Them Back In

Here's one from the CARM boards:

I think you might want to re-check your history resources.. it is an historical fact that Martin Luther threw out four or five books... and after his death his church elders put them back in....

This is interesting to me because it's a new spin on an old myth. The usual myth is that Melanchthon stopped him from removing certain books, not that "church elders put them back in." Note the argument from Rome's defender, Steve Ray:

Martin Luther understood the place of the Church in establishing the canon... He realized that if he could jettison the Church, or at least redefine it as “invisible” and “intangible”, he was free to reevaluate and regulate the content of the canon for himself. He actually began to function as his own pope and council. If it weren’t for his theologian Philip Melanchthon, Protestants would no longer consider James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude and a few other books as inspired Scripture. - Steve Ray: Who Has the Correct Bible: Catholics or Protestants?

When Martin Luther rejected “popes and councils” he also realized that the canon was again up for grabs. He didn’t like James as we know, but he also placed Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the book, not with the inspired books. It was only later that Philipp Melanchthon convinced him to defer to long tradition and place the books back in the New Testament, back in the recognized order. How did Luther fail to recognize the self-authenticating writings?- Steve Ray, Are the Books of the New Testament “Self-Authenticating” or was the Catholic Church Necessary to Define the Canon of Scripture?

I went through these two quotes some years back: Steve Ray and Melanchthon on Keeping Books in the New Testament Canon. I've never come across any meaningful evidence that Melanchthon did this, nor have I ever heard that Luther's "church elders" put books back into Luther's Bible.

The Books Luther Recommended

I came across an interesting blog post about which books Martin Luther recommended.  The post gave some helpful secondary source information. Here's what Luther said (or is purported to have said) based on the secondary references given in the blog entry:

Regarding [the plan] to collect my writings in volumes, I am quite cool and not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured. For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism. (LW 50:172-173)

If anybody wishes to become a theologian, he has a great advantage, first of all, in having the Bible. This is now so clear that he can read it without any trouble. Afterward he should read Philip’s Loci Communes. This he should read diligently and well, until he has its contents fixed in his head. If he has these two he is a theologian, and neither the devil nor a heretic can shake him. The whole of theology is open to him, and afterward he can read whatever he wishes for edification. If he wishes, he can read, in addition, Melanchthon’s Romans71 and my Galatians and Deuteronomy. These will give him the art of speaking and a copious vocabulary. “There’s no book under the sun in which the whole of theology is so compactly presented as in the Loci Communes. If you read all the fathers and sententiaries you have nothing. No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical. “If my advice were taken, only the books of mine that contain doctrine would be printed, such as my Galatians, Deuteronomy, and John. The rest [of my books] should be read merely for the history, in order to see how it all began, for it was not so easy at first as it is now.” (LW 54:439-440 Tabletalk) 

Indeed, you say so much less, and attribute so much more to free choice than the Sophists have hitherto done (a point on which I shall have more to say later) that it really seemed superfluous to answer the arguments you use. They have been refuted already so often by me, and beaten down and completely pulverized in Philip Melanchthon’s Commonplaces—an unanswerable little book which in my judgment deserves not only to be immortalized but even canonized. Compared with it, your book struck me as so cheap and paltry that I felt profoundly sorry for you, defiling as you were your very elegant and ingenious style with such trash, and quite disgusted at the utterly unworthy matter that was being conveyed in such rich ornaments of eloquence, like refuse or ordure being carried in gold and silver vases. (LW 33:16)

Luther praised the fables of Aesop highly: “They are worthy of translation and of being put into a proper order and arrangement. It is not a book that was written by one man only, but it was diligently assembled by many men in different centuries. It would be very useful therefore if somebody would translate the book well and put it into proper order. The important fables that are pithy, smack of antiquity, and are useful to the commonwealth ought to be gathered into a first book; then those that are more elegant ought to be placed apart in a second book, and the rest ought to be reserved for a third. “It is a result of God’s providence that the writings of Cato and Aesop have remained in the schools, for both are significant books. Cato contains the most useful sayings and precepts. Aesop contains the most delightful stories and descriptions. Moral teachings, if offered to young people, will contribute much to their edification. In short, next to the Bible the writings of Cato and Aesop are in my opinion the best, better than the mangled utterances of all the philosophers and jurists, just as Donatus is the best grammarian.” (LW 54:210-211, Tabletalk)

While all these are interesting to see what Luther valued (there are probably more comments like this), this comment was not referenced by the blog post, and I think it's the most telling. Looking over his life's work, Luther said:

“I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board. Among other reasons, I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides the Holy Scriptures, and especially since they have stored up, without discrimination, all sorts of writings by the church fathers, the councils, and teachers. Through this practice not only is precious time lost, which could be used for studying the Scriptures, but in the end the pure knowledge of the divine Word is also lost, so that the Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench (as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah)…

I cannot, however, prevent them from wanting to collect and publish my works through the press (small honor to me), although it is not my will. I have no choice but to let them risk the labor and the expense of this project. My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good. Non ere melior Patribus meis.  He who comes second should indeed be the first one forgotten. Inasmuch as they have been capable of leaving the Bible itself lying under the bench, and have also forgotten the fathers and the councils—the better ones all the faster—accordingly there is a good hope, once the overzealousness of this time has abeted, that my books also will not last long. There is especially good hope of this, since it has begun to rain and snow books and teachers, many of which already lie there forgotten and moldering. Even their names are not remembered any more, despite their confident hope that they would eternally be on sale in the market and rule churches.” (LW 34:283-284).

Plagiarizing O'Hare to Give an Opinion on Luther

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Forums in which a person who often claimed to be doing research presented a plagiarized rewording of  Patrick O'Hare's Facts About Luther (and also two sentences from John Osborne's play on Luther).  The person claims to have not read O'Hare's book, but says it was taken from a source that can no longer be found (so this unknown source plagiarized The Facts About Luther). I post it here in the event of tracking down the real culprit.

In school Luther met with the same severity that was meted out at home.

O'Hare: In school he met with the same severity that was meted out to him at home (36)

The schoolmaster of that time was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in his pupils, which was difficult to remove afterwards.

O'Hare: The schoolmaster of that day was generally a harsh disciplinarian and inspired a fear in pupils which was difficult to remove ever afterward. (36)

Under this harsh environment Luther said" It shattered his nervous system for life."

O'Hare: "This severity," he says later on, ''shattered his nervous system for life." (37)

When Luther entered the Augustinian Order, he decided to work out his salvation , making this decision, without due consideration of his disposition.

O'Hare: He was on his way to become an excellent professor and an accomplished advocate, when, unfortunately for himself he resolved, without due consideration of his natural disposition, to become a friar. (42)

His closest friends tried to persuade him to reconsider (incomplete sentence)

O'Hare: His guests, knowing how unfitted he seemed for the monastic career, and sorry to lose a jovial companion, pleaded with him to reconsider his decision (43)

his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and sudden mood swings.

O'Hare: From his earliest days he was subject to fits of depression and melancholy. (46)

He fell victim to excessive scrupulosity, and he was self-opinionated and stubborn minded and he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trusted in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

O'Hare: He fell a victim to excessive scrupulousness, and, as he was self-opinionated and stubborn-minded, he relied altogether too much on his own righteousness and disregarded the remedies most effectual for his spiritual condition. Like all those who trust in themselves, he rushed from extreme timidity to excessive rashness.

Luther saw himself, nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by trying any works of penance.

O'Hare: He saw in himself nothing but sin, more sin than he felt he could atone for by any works of penance. (57-58)

In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of mercy.

O'Hare: In all his prayers and fastings the conception of God he placed before his mind was very much that of a God of avenging justice and very little that of a God of'mercy. (58)

The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help.

O'Hare: The fear of the divine wrath made him abnormally apprehensive and prevented him from experiencing comfort and help in the performance of religious exercises. (58)

Instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and the merits of Christ, as the CC always exhorted the sourly tried to do, he gave himself to black despair.

O'Hare: His sorrow for sin was devoid of humble charity and instead of trusting with childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and in the merits of Christ, as the Church always exhorted the sorely tried to do, he gave himself up to black despair. (58)

His singularity brought on distress of his soul, and his anxiety increased on the verge of madness.

O'Hare: His singularity brought on distress of soul and his anxiety increased until wakefulness became a confirmed habit. His condition became so sad that at times his fellow-monks feared he was on the verge of madness. (58)

All of these troubles may have been due to his having chosen the religious state of life, especially inasmuch as he entered upon it without due consideration.

O'Hare: He was on his way to become an excellent professor and an accomplished advocate, when, un- fortunately for himself he resolved, without due consideration of his natural disposition, to become a friar. (42)

More importantly it is felt that if he had not disregarded the monastic regulations by those of his own devising, and had put into practice the wise directions of his spiritual directors, his troubles would have been greatly mitigated and considerably surmounted.

O'Hare: But passing this consideration over, we feel that had he not disregarded the monastic regulations for those of his own devising and had he put into practise the wise directions of his spiritual guides, his troubles of soul would certainly have been much mitigated and considerably surmounted. (58)

Like most victims of scrupulosity he saw nothing in himself but wickidness and corruption.

O'Hare: Like most victims of scrupulosity he saw nothing in himself but wickedness and corruption.(58)

Since Luther was not content with the ordinary spiritual exercises prescribed by the Rule of St. Augustine, he set out on an independent path of righteousness. Luther decided he was going to do it his own way, which is usual for all stubborn minds, instead of by accepted means by those who could give him the help he needed by those who had experience and knowledge. Luther in his attempt to relieve his situation by his own means, the condition only worsened. Luther said that" I prescribed special tasks to myself and had my own ways. My superiors fought against this singularity."

O'Hare: Not content with the ordinary spiritual exercises prescribed by the rule of the Order, he marked out for himself an independent path of righteousness. He wanted to have his own way, and, as is usual in the case of all stubborn minds, the arbitrary means he resorted to for relief only made his condition worse.I prescribed," he says, "special tasks to myself and had my own ways. My superiors fought against this singularity and they did so rightly. (58-59)

His extreme behavior continued, passing from timidity to rashness. So from one absurdity he passed to another with the greatest ease.

O'Hare: From extreme timidity he passed to excessive rashness. (60)

Luther's scrupulosity and arrogance led one to say" I beg you Martin not to believe that you, and you alone, understand the meaning of the Gospels. Don't rate your own opinions so highly, so far beyond that of many other sincere and eminent men."

This one is not from O'Hare- it's from John Osborne's play about Luther (Act Three, 103). "I beg you, Martin, not to believe that you, and you alone, understand the meaning of the Gospels. Don't rate your own opinion so highly, so far beyond that of many other sincere and eminent men."

Luther's writings make it quite clear and obvious in his arguments that he believes that only he had the true interpretation of Scripture.

Unknown

It has been long considered among the ill-informed that Luther inaugurated his movement against the CC from a desire to reform.

O'Hare: It has long been considered amongst the ill-informed that Luther inaugurated his movement against the Church of his forefathers from a desire of reform. (60)

This view is not borne out by facts when one examines the nature of Luther. External causes played little or no part in his change of religion. The impelling motive centered in his own nature, which demanded a teaching able to assure his tormented mind of pardon of sin and the ultimate salvation.

O'Hare: This view-point is not borne out by the facts in the case. External causes played little or no part in his change of religion. The impelling motive centered in his own nature, which demanded a teaching able to assure his tormented soul of pardon of sin and ultimate salvation. (60-61)

Troubled by doubts as to his vocation and oppressed by violent elements of hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride, his singular self-esteem and self- reliance would not suffer him to make intelligent and enlightened use of the remedies most effectual for the cure of his abnormal spiritual life.

O'Hare: Troubled with doubts as to his vocation and oppressed by "violent movements of hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride," his singular self-esteem and self-reliance would not suffer him to make intelligent and enlightened use of the remedies most effectual for the cure of his abnormal spiritual maladies.(61)

He formulated and proclaimed pronouncements that the CC was unable to by her teachings and sacramental system to reconcile souls with God and bring comfort to those thirsting after salvation.

O'Hare: Led on by a spirit that was not of God, he formulated and proclaimed the blasphemous pronouncement that the Catholic Church was unable by her teaching and sacramental system to reconcile souls with God and bring comfort to those thirsting after salvation. (64)

Luther passed from error to error in quick succession. Luther came by degrees to believe that by reason on inherited sin, man had become totally depraved and possessed no liberty of the will.

O'Hare: From error to error he passed in quick succession until we find him unblushingly upholding the utter corruption of human nature because of original sin, denying the freedom of the will, defending the rights of reason against dogmatic authority and declaring that "reason speaks nothing but madness and foolishness." (64)

He then concluded that all human action whatsoever, even that which is directed towards good, being an amanation from our corrupt nature, is in the sight of God, nothing more or less than deadly sin. Therefore one's actions have no influence on one's salvation, and one is saved by faith alone without good works.

O'Hare: He then concluded that all human action whatever, even that which is directed towards good, being an emanation from our corrupt nature, is, in the sight of God, nothing more or less than deadly sin: therefore our actions have no influence on our salvation; we are saved "by faith alone without good works." (60)

Where Are Luther's Miracles?

To the left: "The "Incombustible Luther" of 1689. A number of printed images of Luther were thought to be impervious to destruction by fire. This one was found in the house where Luther had been born after it was badly damaged by fire in 1689. The earliest examples of the belief in incombustible Luther images date back to the earliest years of the Reformation. They are testimony both to the profound influence of the Reformation on the image culture of the late Middle Ages and to the persistence of pre-Reformation beliefs and religious practices in Protestant lands (source)."

Where are the Miracles of Luther?
Over on the Catholic Answers forums someone asked this about Luther, "Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?”

This is an argument that has been used by the defenders of Rome for quite a long time (I've tackled it before: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God). The argument is old. For example, Francis de Sales made the argument in The Catholic Controversy. A 1622 pamphlet Lutheri Manes, das ist D. Martin Luthers abgeleibter Geist Amno raised the issue to confront the 1617 celebration of Luther. Here's an interesting excerpt from the late 1800's:

At the time of Martin Luther, a certain man, named William, was drowned. Luther was requested to raise him again to life as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. He commanded him repeatedly to rise from the dead. It was all in vain. (Bredenbach, L. vii., c. 1.) Calvin wished to prove the truth of his doctrine by a miracle. So he begged a man to feign death and have himself carried as a corpse to the church, and then rise at his bidding, so that the people might believe he had been raised again to life by the prayer of Calvin, as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. That man complied with Calvin's request. He was carried to the church, apparently dead. Calvin approached the coffin and said in a loud voice: I command you to rise in the name of Christ, whose Gospel I preach. But alas! the man never arose again. He was dead. God had punished him, and by the sudden death of this deceiver God manifested his detestation of Calvin's heresies, and the truth of the Catholic religion. (Franc-Torrianus, L. i. De Dogmatibus.) Thus Almighty God has never permitted, and will never permit, a real miracle in confirmation of an heretical doctrine; should he bestow the gift of miracles even on an impious man, yet he will never permit him to use this gift in confirmation of a false doctrine. Were god to perform a real miracle in support of an heretical doctrine he would thereby lead the people into error, and become guilty of the sin of wilful lying and deception.

In more recent times, one can find things like this traditionalist website that goes into great detail with this argument (using deSales): ProtestantErrors.com.  And finally, here's a modern example from pop-Roman defender Taylor Marshall:

You can start with Martin Luther. Did Luther perform any miracles? Did he make prophecies that came to pass. No, not at all. Yet at the same time period, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a public miracle) did occur to St Juan Diego and millions of Aztecs. Also during this time period, the Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier was miraculously preaching to the people of India, Indonesia, etc. in their native tongues without study.


The Miracles of Luther?
Interestingly, there is actually a tradition of alleged miracles and prophecies attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, "Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany" (Much of this chapter is available via a free preview, but reading the chapter in its entirety is well worth it).

Scribner points out that the quality of incombustibility is rooted in the Roman cult of the saints myths (Scribner, 328). The notion of the incombustible Luther comes from 18th century stories of multiple fires in the 17th Century in which paintings of Luther were found in the ashes intact and unharmed. The actual genesis of Luther and fire appears to go back to a pamphlet from 1521 (Scribner, 324), and it picked up various other Luther miracles as the years progressed.  Scribner mentions that in 1583 Antonius Probus made the very argument our friend from Catholic Answers is making, that "God did not send great prophets and doctors of the church unless miracles accompanied them" (Scribner, 336), and then Scribner documents a number of 17th Century miraculous Luther stories (Scribner, 336-338).  Scribner also mentions that seven years before Probus, Johann Lapaeus produced a list of Luther's prophecies and miracles (Scribner, 349).

No, I don't believe the miracles attributed to Luther are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study. There are guidelines set up as to how to become a saint in Romanism, so perhaps if someone wanted to play with Rome's rules, you could make a case for Luther. Rome's defenders have a seemingly countless number of official and unofficial miracles, so someone with creativity could argue for the beatification of Saint Luther. The flaw though in going in this direction is that it assumes Rome's worldview is true.

I'm always a bit surprised when this argument is raised because based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Then also there's the problem that those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle include non-Christian religions. Let us never forget the sobering words of  Matthew 7:21-23:

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

But if someone really wanted to turn the tables on Rome's argument, place the argument in a Protestant, Biblical, and sola scriptura worldview. Yes, miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them "where are your miracles to prove your message?" A good way for them to respond would be to say: "Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21."

Luther's Test
What's interesting to me about all this is Luther and the early magisterial Reformers faced a very similar problem with a dissident group of people they called the Schwärmer. These were the radicals that were made up of the peasants, Anabaptists, spiritualists, and all the others that couldn't be classified as papists or Lutherans. Early in the 1520's, Luther and the Wittenbergers came into conflict with some men claiming to be modern-day prophets, known as the Zwickau Prophets. What characterized these men was that the authority of Scripture was second to their private revelations from the Holy Spirit. Their subjective experience trumped the testimony of the scriptures, and it was no wonder to Luther that their ideas led to societal and political unrest and rebellion.

There was a difference between the Reformers and those like the  Zwickau Prophets- the Reformers found their doctrines in the Scriptures, relying on exegesis and devout study. The modern-day prophets came with a message not from the Scriptures, but from the inner revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, when Luther discussed these prophets via correspondence with Melanchthon, he asked the same question about their miracles... did they have them to establish their new revelation? He also wanted to know that if they really were prophets in the Biblical sense, did they demonstrate the fear and suffering similar to what the Biblical prophets experienced?:

Now let me deal with the “prophets.” Before I say anything else, I do not approve of your timidity, since you are stronger in spirit and learning than I. First of all, since they bear witness to themselves, one need not immediately accept them; according to John’s counsel, the spirits are to be tested. If you cannot test them, then you have the advice of Gamaliel that you postpone judgment. Thus far I hear of nothing said or done by them that Satan could not also do or imitate. Yet find out for me whether they can prove [that they are called by God], for God has never sent anyone, not even the Son himself, unless he was called through men or attested by signs. In the old days the prophets had their authority from the Law and the prophetic order, as we now receive authority through men. I definitely do not want the “prophets” to be accepted if they state that they were called by mere revelation, since God did not even wish to speak to Samuel except through the authority and knowledge of Eli. This is the first thing that belongs to teaching in public.

In order to explore their individual spirit, too, you should inquire whether they have experienced spiritual distress and the divine birth, death, and hell. If you should hear that all [their experiences] are pleasant, quiet, devout (as they say), and spiritual, then don’t approve of them, even if they should say that they were caught up to the third heaven. The sign of the Son of Man is then missing, which is the only touchstone of Christians and a certain differentiator between the spirits. Do you want to know the place, time, and manner of [true] conversations with God? Listen: “Like a lion has he broken all my bones”; “I am cast out from before your eyes”: “My soul is filled with grief, and my life has approached hell.” The [Divine] Majesty (as they call it) does not speak in such a direct way to man that man could [actually] see it; but rather, “Man shall not see me and live.” [Our] nature cannot bear even a small glimmer of God’s [direct] speaking. As a result God speaks through men [indirectly], because not all can endure his speaking. The angel frightened even the Virgin, and also Daniel. And Jeremiah pleads, “Correct me [O Lord] but in just measure,” and, “Be not a terror to me.” Why should I say more? As if the [Divine] Majesty could speak familiarly with the Old Adam without first killing him and drying him out so that his horrible stench would not be so foul, since God is a consuming fire! The dreams and visions of the saints are horrifying, too, at least after they are understood. Therefore examine [them] and do not even listen if they speak of the glorified Jesus, unless you have first heard of the crucified Jesus. (LW 48:365-367)

A few years later writing to Duke John of Saxony Luther stated,

Now it is an especial joy that our followers did not begin this heresy, as the sectaries themselves boast that they did not learn it from us, but directly from Heaven, and that they hear God speak to them immediately as to the angels. It is a simple fact that at Wittenberg only faith, love, and the Cross of Christ are taught. God's voice, they say, you must hear yourself, and suffer and feel God's work in you to know your own weight; aye, they make nothing of the Scripture, which they call "Bible-bubble-Babel." To judge by what they say their cross and passion is greater than Christ's and more to be prized. . . .

Secondly, their boasting about the spirit counts for nothing, for we have the saying of St. John, bidding us "prove the spirits, whether they be of God." Now this spirit has not yet been proved, and goes about with turbulence and makes a disturbance according to his own sweet will. If he were a good spirit he would first humbly submit to be proved and Judged, as does the Spirit of Christ. It would be a fine fruit of the spirit, by which he could be proved, if he did not creep into the corners and flee the light, but would stand out publicly before his enemies and opponents and make his confession and give his answers. But the spirit of Allstedt shuns that sort of thing as the devil shuns the Cross, and yet in his own nest he speaks the most unterrified language, as though he were full of three Holy Ghosts, and this unseemly boasting is a fine proof of who this spirit is. For in his book he offers to make answer in the presence of a harmless assembly, and to stake life and soul upon it, but not in a corner, but in the presence of two or three persons. Tell me, who is this bold and confident Holy Spirit who sets himself such narrow limits and will not appear except before a "harmless assembly," and will not make answer in a corner before two or three persons? What kind of a spirit is that who is afraid of two or three people and cannot endure an assembly that may do him harm? I shall tell you. He smells the roast; he has been with me once or twice in my cloister at Wittenberg and has had his nose punched; so he does not like the soup and will not appear except where his own followers are present who will say Yes to his swelling words. If I, who have no spirit and hear no heavenly voices, had used such words against my papists, how they would have shouted Victory, and stopped my mouth!

In the same letter Luther states that these prophets should submit in a proper manner, even if it's to "the papists":

I have said these things to your Graces, so that your Graces may not be afraid of this spirit or delay action, but enjoin them strictly to refrain from violence and stop their destroying of monasteries and churches and their burning of saints, commanding them, if they wish to prove their spirit, to do so in a proper manner, and first submit to investigation, either by us or by the papists, for, thank God! they consider us worse enemies than the papists.

I'm not going to speculate too much on this comment, other than saying that I think Luther realized these prophets wouldn't submit to anybody's scrutiny, and even if they did get scrutinized by "the papists" they would fail their test as well.

Heiko Oberman Says Luther Should Not Have Become a Monk?

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Forums:

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

-snip-

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

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

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

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

Could Luther Be Convinced the Lord's Supper Was Just Bread and Wine?

Here's an interesting comparison of two English translations of a section from an open letter Luther wrote to the Christians at Strassburg (Dec. 1524). The letter was primarily about Luther ex-colleague Karlstadt and his radical theology. Note the difference in the second translation. Luther's words are far more revealing- in which Luther was tempted to think of the Sacrament as "but mere bread and wine."

Luther's Works vol. 40 states:

I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy. There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions. But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly. But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. [LW 40:68]

Now compare this translation to that to this done by Preserved Smith in Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary letters vol. 2:

I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service. I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so, for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy. I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defence of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination. But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument. But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!) But Dr. Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief.

Luther's Works 40 relies on WA 15, 391-397 for their translation. The translation was done by Conrad Bergendoff. The quote can be found on page 394.  Smith cites Enders v, 83; DeWette, ii, 574, German. As far as I can tell,  WA 15 and DeWette ii are the same German text.

The LW 40 version doesn't flow in a coherent way.  One odd thing I found was that if one compares the two translations up to the point in question, they compliment each other nicely.  They both say basically the same thing. Then, at the point in question comes two different sets of train tracks:


LW: I confess that if Dr. Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service.

Smith: I freely confess that if Carlstadt or any other could have convinced me five years ago that there was nothing in the sacrament but mere bread and wine, he would have done me a great service

LW: At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them.

Smith: I was sorely tempted on this point, and wrestled with myself and strove to believe that it was so

LW: I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy.

Smith: for I saw that I could thereby give the hardest rap to the papacy.

LW: There were two who then wrote me, with much more skill than Dr. Karlstadt has, and who did not torture the Word with their own preconceived notions.

Smith: I read treatises by two men who wrote more ably in defense of the theory than Dr. Carlstadt and who did not so torture the Word to their own imagination.

LW: But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage.

Smith: But I am bound, I cannot believe as they do; the text is too powerful and will not let Itself be wrenched from the plain sense by argument

LW: Even if someone in these days might try more persuasively to prove that only bread and wine are present, it would not be necessary that he attack me in bitter spirit—which I, unfortunately, am altogether inclined to do, if I assess the nature of the old Adam in me correctly.

Smith: But even if it could happen that today anyone should prove on reasonable grounds that the sacrament was mere bread and wine, he would not much anger me. (Alas, I am too much inclined that way myself when I feel the old Adam!)

LW: But the way Dr. Karlstadt carries on in this question affects me so little that my position is only fortified the more by him. 

Smith: But Carlstadt's ranting only confirms me in the opposite belief 

LW: If I had not previously been of this opinion, such loose, lame, empty talk, set forth on the basis of his own reason and idiosyncrasy without scriptural foundation, would lead me to believe first of all that his opinions amount to nothing. 

Smith: if I had no opinion on the subject to start with, his light, unstable buffoonery, without any appeal to Scripture, would give my reason a prejudice against whatever he urged.


I'm not into conspiracies, but, Smith's translation makes a lot more sense. Obviously, Luther consistently held that the sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, so no, Luther could not be convinced otherwise. I do find it interesting that if Smith's translation is more accurate, this would be one of the first significant examples I've found that a translator of LW took liberties with a text to downplay what it was actually saying.


Addendum
For an interesting look  at the significance of the life and work of Conrad  Bergendoff, see this long pdf file that reminisces over his long career. A short bio page mentions he "was above all an ecumenicist." Now, I don't know his opinion on Rome, but I did find this other omission interesting- that he left out "Antichrist" which is clearly in the German text, and it's not too far of a stretch that Luther meant the papacy:

Smith: Dearest brethren, I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of all mercy for His rich grace in calling you to His wonderful light and to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ For now through His wholesome Word you know Him and joyously call Him Father Who has freed us from the horrible darkness of the Antichrist and from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and has led us into a large, safe, free, good and promised land.

LW 40(Bergendoff):Dear sirs and brethren. I greatly rejoice and thank God the Father of mercy for the riches of his grace bestowed upon you, in that he has called you into his wonderful light and let you come into the participation of all the treasures of his Son, Jesus Christ. Now through his salutary Word you can recognize and acknowledge with joyful hearts the true Father, who has redeemed us from the iron furnace of Egyptian sin and death and brought us into the broad, secure, free and veritable Promised Land.

Martin Brecht: Tetzel did not say, " As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"?

Here's one from the Catholic Answers forums that demonstrates why it's important to read out of the meaning of a text rather than reading something in to the text.

Scholars have debated for quite a while as to whether or not Tetzel preached something like, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings,  the soul from purgatory springs." The better scholarship says there's no proof from Tetzel's extant writings that he either coined this phrase or used this phrase (see here for more information). On the other hand, it does appear that he did teach something like the sentiment of this during his indulgence preaching.  In the following excerpt, note how the historical discussion as to whether Tetzel said "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs" is read into a section from Martin Brecht's first volume on Luther, whereas Brecht is talking about something entirely different:

First of all, how, specifically and exactly (of course), did Tetzel actually ‘provoke’ Luther? A few pages earlier Brecht reviews, in general, the 95 Theses. He mentions Thesis # 27, which is as follows: “27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.” Luther, “95 Theses” “The phrase ‘as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs’ is also extremely questionable.” Brecht, pg. 194 Here Brecht admits what virtually every reputable Scholar (Protestant and otherwise) now understands, that Tetzel never said ‘as soon as the coin…….”. This means that Luther was mistaken about how Tetzel was preaching the Indulgence. Had he not gone off half-cocked but had bothered to actually make sure of the facts of the matter, he would not have made this mistake, and maybe, just maybe, without the misperception [sic] of a ‘provocation’ by Tetzel, possibly Luther might not have started the ‘Reformation’.


This is a mis-reading of page 194. Brecht isn't saying this at all. He isn't discussing whether or not Tetzel said, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings,  the soul from purgatory springs." Rather, Brecht is describing what Luther is saying in Theses 27-29 of the 95 Theses.  Luther states:

27.There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).

Brecht is describing Luther's points section by section in the 95 Theses. It's Luther saying that the phrase " the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest" is questionable.

 On page 182 Brecht explains that the phrase, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" had been around as early as 1482. I don't recall a discussion from Brecht in this section exactly as to whether Tetzel said it or not. Regardless, while Tetzel may not have coined the phrase, he taught it's sentiment.

Rix on Eric Erikson's "Young Man Luther"

I hadn't visited Art Sippo's blog in some time. He posted the following entry some time ago: The best book on Martin Luther now available on Google Play Books!  He then links to and reviews the book, Martin Luther: The Man and the Image By Herbert David Rix. Some years back I interacted with Sippo on various Luther biographies, particularly those having to do with psychological explanations (Sippo said, "These are not just my conclusions. Fr. Denifle, Fr. Grisar, Preserved Smith, Reiter, Ericcson [sic], Marius, and Rix all are in agreement that Luther was mentally ill and that this contributed to his theology").  At the time, I did not have access to the book by Rix, so I passed over interacting with Sippo on it.

From what I remember of my interaction with Sippo, he basically defended all the books that presented a psychological interpretation of Luther. What's interesting is that there simply isn't one psychological approach, there are quite few, and they contradict each other. In the preview of the Rix book available, the author takes the opportunity to point out the flaws in some of those psychological approaches that came before his.   I found Rix's short overview on Eric Erikson's Young Man Luther to be quite interesting.

One could argue that Rix is simply eliminating the competition to his view. On the other hand, one of the most significant and consistent critiques of Erikson is his poor use of the source material. Rix, with whatever his view will turn out to be (I have not read the book beyond the preview), is on the right track if his approach includes scrutinizing primary sources.

To my knowledge, Erikson refused to answer his many critics of Young Man Luther, in print.  

Suspended From Catholic Answers

Well, it only took me 10 years to get suspended.

Today, 7:52 pm

TertiumQuid  Suspended Join Date: May 19, 2004 Posts: 799 Religion: Reformed

Re: Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated? Quote: Originally Posted by spina1953  I think that I am smart enough to know the difference between facts and uncouth remarks and spin. If this is about me, which I think it is, I am not the subject of this discussion, nor have I made any of you the subject of this discussion. Rather, I've asked factual questions about the material being posted, and a lot of these factual questions I've raised, if not most of them, have been ignored.

Yes, I'm sure you all think it was some sort of anti-catholic rant I went on to receive this badge of honor. Nope, I got it for asking the moderator about 3 or 4 times why he allowed personal attacks against me that were off-topic to the actual discussion. He never responded, unless of course you count being suspended.

 Here's one of the notes I sent him:

Since I've contacted you now a few times about these personal attacks, am I going to get another infraction for abusing the alert system?

I would hope not. Frankly, if you have a moment, I would appreciate you letting me know why you allow personal negative comments about me to be posted. Perhaps you have a good reason, or perhaps I don't understand the rules. An explanation from you would probably cut down on me sending you these alerts. I know I've pointed out 3 previous posts that were about me personally, and not the subject matter of the topic at hand. All are still visible on the forums.

Elsewhere on CA I found the following:

"It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, "To whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can."

I can  understand Catholic Answers suspending me for some severe violation of the rules, but what it really comes down to is that they don't quite know what to do with someone who plays by their rules that they don't like. They'll allow someone they don't like to get lynched by their Lord of the Flies mob mentality.

Roman Catholic Books and Articles About the Reformation and Luther

I entitled this blog Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics because the emphasis of what's posted is geared toward presenting a defense of the Protestant Reformation. When I come across an argument, often I end up tracing it back to books or articles written by the defenders of Rome. Below is a list of Roman Catholics books (and a few articles) that are available on-line, as well as some others that I refer to (perhaps they'll be online someday). The majority of the Roman Catholic authors below I would classify as hostile to Luther particularly and the Reformation in general, many of them belonging to the pre-Lortz period of Roman Catholic scholarship.

Many of these sources below are written by very able historians, and not everything presented is erroneous. Most often it is not the facts that are wrong but rather the interpretation of the facts. A particular worldview and underlying presuppositions will determine the interpretation of history. I've found valuable information in many of the books listed below. The list will be updated as I come across more resources.

Why would I post this? Because these are the sources I often use, so I like to have them readily available.

Exsurge Domine (June 15, 1520)

Decet Romanum Pontificem (Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521)

The Edict of Worms (May 25, 1521)

Belloc, Hilaire (1870-1953)
The Great Heresies
What Was the Reformation?

Bossuet, Jacques-Benigne (1627-1704)
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches (1688)

Cochlaeus, Johannes (1479-1552)
The Deeds and Writings of Martin Luther 1517-1546 (pdf)

Cobbett, William
A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (New edition, nd)

Cole, William
Was Luther a Marian Devotee?

Denifle, Heinrich (1844-1905)
Luther and Lutherdom  Part 1(1917)
Luther und Lutherdom, vol. 1 (1904) (German)
Luther und Luthertum vol. 2 (1906) (German)

deSales, Francis (1567-1622)
The Catholic Controversy

Döllinger , Johann Joseph Ignaz von (1799-1890)
A History of the Church vol. I (1840)
A History of the Church vol. II (1840)
A History of the Church vol. III (1841)
A History of the Church vol. IV (1842)
Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekentnisses (vol. 1) (1846)
Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekentnisses (vol. 1) (1851)
Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekentnisses (vol. 2) (1842)
Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekentnisses (vol. 3) (1848)

Dublin Review
The Reformation Described by the Reformers (Sept. 1848)

Eck, Johann (1486-1543)
Enchiridion of Commonplaces of John Eck Against Martin Luther and His Followers
Johann Eck's 404 Theses, 1530

Emser, Jerome (1477-1527)
Hieronymous Emser, To the Bull in Wittenberg

Erasmus, Desiderius (1466-1536)
Discourse on Free Will
Hyperaspistes 2, Vol. 2

Franca, Leonel
A igreja, a reforma e a civilização (1958) (blog version)

Ganss, George (1855-1912)
Catholic Encyclopedia article on Luther
Lutheranism entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Graham, Henry
Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church


Grisar, Hartmann (1845-1932)
Luther Vol. I (London, 1914) (English)
Luther Vol. II (London, 1913) (English)
Luther Vol. III (London, 1914) (English)
Luther Vol. IV (London, 1915) (English) (alternate html)
Luther Vol. V (London, 1916) (English)
Luther Vol. VI (London, 1917) (English)

Martin Luther, His Life and His Work (Newman Press, 1950) [Search Engine]

Luther Vol. 1 (1911) (German)
Luther Vol. 2 (1911) (German)
Luther Vol. 3 (1912) (German)

Henry VIII (1491-1547)
Defense of the Seven Sacraments (1521)

Hughes, Philip (1985-1967)
A History of the Church vol. I
A History of the Church Vol. III The Revolt Against the Church

Janssen, Johannes (1829-1891)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 1)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 2)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 3)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 4)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 5)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 6)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 7)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 8)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 9)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 10)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 11)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 12)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 13)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 14)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 15)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Volume 16)
History of the German people at the close of the Middle Ages (Index)

Jedin, Hubert
Reformation and Counter Reformation

Kirsch, Johann Peter (1861-1941)
Reformation entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Lagrange, M.J. (1855-1938)
Luther on the Eve of His Revolt (1917)
The Meaning of Christianity According to Luther (1920)

Maritain, Jacques (1882-1973)
Three Reformers (1936)

MacCaffery, James
History of the Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution (vol. 1)

History of the Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution (vol. 2)

O'Connor, Henry

Luther's own statements concerning his teaching and its results: Taken exclusively from the earliest and best editions of Luther's German and Latin works (1884)

Luther's own statements concerning his teaching and its results: Taken exclusively from the earliest and best editions of Luther's German and Latin works (1885) (Third Edition)

O'Hare, Patrick (1848-1926)
The Facts About Luther (1916)

Pope Leo X (1475-1521)
Exurge Domine (1520)

Rumble, Leslie (1892-1975)
Radio Replies vol. I (1938)
Radio Replies vol. II (1940)
Radio Replies vol. III (1942)
Radio Replies vol. IV (1954)
Radio Replies vol. V (1972)

Spalding, M.J.
The History of the Protestant reformation in Germany and Switzerland vol 1 (1865)

Tetzel, Johann (1465-1519)
Rebuttal Against Luther's Sermon on Indulgences and Grace (Vorlegung wider einen vermessenen Sermon)

Wilhelm, J
Protestantism entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia