Thursday, February 19, 2015

Recent Reformation / Luther Postings


Here's a few things I came across over the last few days from a few different perspectives:

Luther on God's "Hardening" and "Softening" of Human Hearts (reformation 21)- An interesting comparison of the Synod of Dort and Luther's Bondage of the Will. (Reformed)

Martin Luther Was A Calvinist! (From Geneva to Wittenberg)- A bit of sarcasm from a Lutheran pointing out that many Reformed folks don't read past Luther's Bondage of the Will.

The "Obdurate Jews" (Jewish Currents)- A short post in which the comments delve into Luther's final statement on the Jews.

Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done A Free for all from our friends on the Catholic Answers "Non-Catholic Religions" forum. A poll asks, "If Luther could do it all over again, would he?" Here are the poll results thus far.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Dividing Line on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2015 - keep your balance !

Dr. White keeps a good balance between the power of prayer and the power of the gospel for Muslims;
and
supporting just war/ self-defense principles against the evils of Islamic terrorism/Jihadism.

It is discouraging to see some Christians and conservatives to just have a response to Islam as "Bomb them all!"

We must keep our balance:

1.  Pray for Muslims.  Pray for God to make more and more Muslims disillusioned with Islam and all the violence and evil of the Global Jihadism, and that more and more regular Muslims will be drawn to the true Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy 2:1 says  "first of all" = our first priority should be to pray.  "pray for all men" " 'υπερ παντων ανθρωπων" means "for all kinds of men/people".  (see samples of videos below of prayer for different nations and countries and cultures.)   We usually jump to the praying for leaders and those in authority, but first it says, "pray for all kinds of people".

Matthew 9:36-38 - Jesus' insides turned with compassion for the masses of people that were like sheep without a shepherd; and He exhorted us to pray for God, the Sovereign Lord of the harvest, to send forth more laborers (evangelists, pastors, missionaries, teachers, etc.) into the harvest.

2.  We can be patriotic and desire justice and support just war principles against evil Muslim Jihadist types.

3.  But the gospel is still powerful to reach Muslims, even some who are Jihadist types (though it rarely happens; as their hearts are very hardended; but Dr. White pointed out the guy named Saul in Acts 8-9 who was watching the coats and watching Stephen get stoned.); but more importantly the gospel is powerful to reach other Muslims who are not the Jihadist types; so don't avoid all Muslims and don't think they are all like the Jihadi types.

4.  Don't let fear or anger or prejudice lead you into a heart attitude of "Bomb them all" and hatred and never being willing to reach out to a Muslim.   Remember Matthew 5:21-26 - "If you have anger and hatred in your heart, you are guilty of murder, and liable to go to hell."  "the anger of man does not achieve the justice/ righteousness of God" - James 1:20

"perfect love casts out fear" - 1 John 4:18



In order to understand Dr. White's points, one also needs to read his previous very thoughtful article here.

By the way, it was Marie Harf who said the root cause of the violent Jihad is lack of jobs.  That is not the root cause, (maybe a symptom of why some others join in with them, as in Iraq, the Sunnis were alientated and lost lots of jobs by the Malaki Shiite government, but is the not the root of the leadership of Jihadism, as many Jihadist leaders were rich people - like Ben Laden, Al Zawahiri, the doctors and engineers, who commit suicide bombings, etc.) but liberals in our USA government like to use it as a way of avoiding the religious motivations of people.

Some examples of prayer for other nations by national believers: It is neat to hear people from those countries praying for their own land.   The point is to develop a burden and heart for people and praying for these nations held in bondage by Islamic culture.

Egypt  (there are some Evangelical Coptic Christians)



Iran - many Iranians are disillusioned with Islam today.



Saudi Arabia



See here for many other videos of other countries and prayer for them.

You can pray for places like North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Lybia, Israel, Palestinians, Kurds, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Nigeria, Somolia, Afghanistan, etc. in the same way.


See also the listing of countries and text information about each country for information for fuel for prayer. 

Turkey




Monday, February 16, 2015

The Beggars All Insultapalooza Post

I meant to put this up for Valentines Day: I've ignored a lot of negative comments over the past few years. Here were some recent love notes from Rome's defenders.

"Swan is an obsessive-compulsive pest situated somewhere on the autistic spectrum whose mania is to the search the Internet for poorly understood religious odds and ends that, he imagines, bolster his idiosyncratic Fundamentalist delusions. He periodically does data dumps on his blog. No one needs Swan. We all have search engines of our own."

"I realize that you write for James White, and must at all times keep the name of Lord Luther, the Second Coming of Christ, out of the mud - more like out of toilet but we won't quibble ..."

"James Swine dumped me overboard last week end."

"Swanny, Why not do a write up on Luther and his obsession with poop? I will be lurking to see how you explain it. Art Sippo does a masterful job of revealing Luther's sick mind in his video, "Martin Luther and the death of Charity". PS, get a wife or girlfriend. A prissy, fuddy duddy, single man and his cat looks bad."

"James Swan Bolsters His Reputation as a Dense Amateur Church Historian and Hypocritical Nitpicker Yet Again."

"[Luther] was a nasty pig of a man. Your infatuation with Luther goes beyond any Lutheran minister I have ever known."

"Last week it was some guy named Shoebat. Before that Devin Rose. now this piece of nothingness. You split hairs over an i not being dotted or a T crossed. Pathetic. Your nonstop white washing of Luther and insistence on Catholics quoting only primary sources is so corny."

"What a waste of a life. Why not read up on something that will save your soul?"

"So let Swan play his games and spend his time on trifles and stupid stuff."

"But a raving anti-Catholic like Swan has no such interest in unity and finding common ground. He can''t even figure out that Catholics are fellow Christians."

"I think this guy is too filled with church hate. Let him act crazy to the point he gets himself committed to an asylum."

"I just meant let him be. He's clearly not open to seeking the full truth of the Catholic Church in his state, so why not go Biblical and shake the dust off our sandals and move on and let him stew and he'll behave how he wants within reason and civil/criminal law"

"Occasionally I expose him for what he is: an inveterate liar when it comes to Catholicism and Catholic apologists"

"I still interact with him and his on occasion because the misrepresentations of what the Church teaches are read by others and cause real spiritual harm to those who do not yet have the acuity and theological formation to test the accuracy of their assertions against our faith. The Church is a bulwark against Satan only if her soldiers are willing to man the walls and defend it."

"Since being 'anonymous' is a bad thing in your estimation, let's be sure that everyone knows that you, TertiumQuid, are James Swan, host of the Beggars All blog - one of the...um...less Catholic-friendly sites on the web. In your recent posting there, you mention that you have been banned from posting on Catholic websites by Patrick Madrid and the Coming Home Network in the past (you probably consider that a badge of honor), but now you have decided to discontinue the comments on your blog. Does that account for your re-appearance here? Are you looking for some folks to talk with now that you are no longer chatting with folks on your own blog?"

"I'm sure he is looking to convert to Catholicism soon and is seeking answers on CAF. Some of our best witnesses to the Faith are converts that were "once upon a time" not so Catholic friendly."


Addendum
... and Rome's support keeps coming in:

"James, you must be in hog heaven (swine heaven) with all these sycophants telling you how great you are. 100% positive feedback. How do you manage to get such high ratings? One would get the impression you screen out non worshipers."

" Swan does not regard us as Christians, and regularly lies about us personally and about our belief system. That calls for some necessary firmness and harshness in reply (this is the background), just as Jesus did with the Pharisees and Paul did with various errors and those who promulgated them, and with liars and those with wild tongues."

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Who is Authorized to Interpret the Reformation?

Here's something recent from the Catholic Answers Forums. An anonymous defender of Rome is on a mission to set the record straight about Luther and the Reformation:

...that is EXACTLY what I am dealing with on this forum. Not too long ago we had a thread here which was receiving 40 posts per day but over 1000 views per day. There are TONS of people here who are coming to CA to investigate whether the Truth is to be found in the Catholic Church. Granted, all the ‘old hands’ here know SOME of the negative things about Luther, but for every one of them, there are dozens who know virtually nothing. They are invisible because they never post anything. They just read along. And if all they ever read here on CA is the ‘version’ of Luther presented here by Protestants, they are going to STILL be unaware of Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions. 

Plus, if everybody here already knows about all of this Luther ‘stuff’ then there really shouldn’t be any problem with me ‘reintroducing’ it should there? If that were true then there wouldn’t be this huge outcry and offensive remarks. But there is apparently a HUGE problem with my posting these things. If ‘everybody already knows’, then it would make sense that those ‘in the know’ would not bother to take the time to read my posts. In fact, just the opposite is true. They RUSH to cover them over with spin rather than comment on their content.


But yet, this is one personal and fallible Roman Catholic opinion of Luther, given by an anonymous person with no credentials or authority to speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I can tell, this anonymous person has not been commissioned to provide a magisterial or authoritative opinion of Luther or the Reformation. Currently in front of me I have a book that has researched contemporary Roman Catholic magisterial views of Luther since the Second Vatican Council. Would it not be a more consistent for Roman Catholics to learn about Luther from actual authoritative sources within their own church hierarchy rather than a web-discussion board providing a platform for anonymous people to present their fallible findings? Or at the very least, shouldn't there be some sort of balance in which these anonymous people say, "these are statements from current Roman Catholic authorities" and "these are my personal interpretations of Luther and the Reformation"? The same goes for Rome's bloggers. Why should anyone care what you think, about anything? What you should at least be doing is listening everyday to what is being put out by the magisterium either fallible or infallible, and then faithfully reporting it on your blogs. At least Jimmy Akin attempts to do this on his blog. For most Roman Catholic bloggers, what we get are their opinions on this or that, or their interpretations of the Bible, history, and tradition.

I've been at this topic a long time. Roman Catholic opinions about Luther and the Reformation on discussion boards are all over the spectrum, but there is a strong tendency for those opinions to veer towards the negative assessment of old Roman Catholic scholarship that attacked Luther the person (Grisar, Denifle, O'Hare, etc.) at the expense of more recent assessments (Lortz, Wicks, Tavard, etc.). John Paul II and Benedict XVI treated Luther far differently than many of the folks on the Catholic Answers forums.

For an interesting look at Roman Catholic scholarship in regard to Luther, see:

Gregory Sobolewski: Martin Luther, Roman Catholic Prophet. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001. 187 pp. Paper, ISBN 0-87462-649-8.

See a review, here. It appears to me that the author is Roman Catholic. Here's an interesting article from a Roman Catholic scholarly perspective: Martin Luther: the Separated "Son" of Augustine. The author (Michael J. Scanlon) states in part,
Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.
Compare this to what a person on the Catholic Answers Forums said:

He was either right or he was wrong. There are no shades of gray here as many would like to have us think. Either Luther was led by God to ‘do what he did’ or he was not. If he was, then Protestantism is a legitimate expression of Christianity. If he was not, then it is a heresy, which is exactly the way it is described by Catholic Answers in their tract: “The Great Heresies” .

On what basis are the folks on the Catholic Answers forums more authoritative or trustworthy as compared to Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A., S.T.D., '60 (Scanlon was a past President of the Catholic Theological Society of America)? The former are often anonymous people who champions exposing "Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions." The later says, "Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal." I find it fascinating that if I were Roman Catholic, I could say either "Luther, there is no ounce of godliness in you" (Denifle) or I could say equally, "At the core of Luther's religious experience we find God" (Lortz).
Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture.- Benedict XVI
See also:The Pope, Martin Luther, and Our Time which provides a short review of Pope Benedict XVI and Luther.


Addendum
I recommended Gregory Sobolewski: Martin Luther, Roman Catholic Prophet. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001) to the folks on Catholic Answers. Here was a response:

Feb 12, '15, 10:05 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: October 25, 2013
Posts: 766
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

Hi Jon, I read how you intend to purchase this book which supposedly documents how ‘modern Catholic Scholars’ are so much more generous towards him.

“Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet” (Marquette Studies in Theology) Paperback – January, 2002, by Gregory Sobolewski.

As it turns out the book is 14 years old. So, if it is such a ‘contribution’ to Luther studies, how did it stay that far under the radar for all this time? Anyway, I got out my credit card and went to Amazon to order it.

There were three reviews, one of them was a three star recommendation (out of five stars). The other two were one star, which I have not seen all that much. Those rtwo scathing reviews are as follows:

“Intellectually dishonest, academically irresponsible By A Customeron January 5, 2003Format: PaperbackI should have heeded the words of the previous reviewer. This is a pathetic book indeed. It is poorly organized. The writing style is incoherent, and the tone is pompous and pretentious. I truly feel sorry for his readers, even more for his students.”

And then the next review:

“This book by Gregory Sobolewski is virtually unreadable.

It is a classic example of a work by a college professor attempting to impress his colleagues with how many references he can cram into a document. Perhaps he is attempting to fulfull a requirement to "be published" for purposes of either a doctorate degree or tenure within his institution.

This book "jumps from one thought to another" without giving the reader any meaningful opportunity to discern or in any way understand the cohesion of thought.
My recommendation -- Don't waste your money on this pathetic attempt.”

(Topper here again) Needless to say I saved my money, even though I could have bought a used copy for $4.99. The terms “Intellectually dishonest, academically irresponsible” gave me pause. I hope that you have not yet made the investment.



I bought my copy of Sobolewski's Martin Luther, Roman Catholic Prophet via Amazon, used. According to Amazon records, I bought the book in 2010. I don't recall how I came across the book (it was probably via a footnote in another book). I saw the same 2 negative reviews on Amazon (review 1, review 2)  before my purchase, but for a few bucks, they didn't really matter. Three reviews of a product really don't matter to me. Once my car broke down while on vacation in Maine. I looked online for a mechanic, and found a local guy with only a few reviews. One reviewer said the guy was a criminal, and then gave a passionate account of an ordeal. I used this mechanic, and had a great experience. I actually asked him about the review, and he gave me his side of the story which was quite different.

Contrary to the Amazon reviews, the book is actually quite readable. For anyone who wants a helpful and concise overview of the Catholic interpretation of Luther, the book has one of the best I've come across.The other popular book available in English that attempted to do what Sobolewski has done was Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967). If asked which one is more helpful, I'd say Sobolewski (Stauffer though is good as well). And, for the purposes of the Catholic Answers Forums, I think Sobolewski is a Roman Catholic.

The documentation is good. There's an extensive bibliography showing how vast this topic is. In some instances, I would quibble that the author should have consistently cited primary sources instead of secondary sources. For instance, the author cites Cochlaeus via Lortz, rather than just citing Cochlaeus. It could very well be the author didn't have access to the primary sources. I know when I did my initial study into Catholic interpretations of Luther in 2003, there wasn't much I could get my hands on in regard to some of the early Roman Catholic interpreters of Luther, so I had to rely on secondary materials.

The opening chapters on the history of Roman Catholic scholarship on Luther are most interesting, and if one disagrees with the author's ecumenical thrust towards the later part of the book, the first part tracing Roman Catholic interpreters of Luther is worth the 5 bucks.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Devin Rose on Catholic Answers

Dr. White reviewed the interview with Devin Rose on Catholic Answers.  Devin, please take the time to listen to Dr. White's comments on your book and your interview.





Addendum 2/14/15

Sadly, Mr. Rose has stated the following:

Devin Rose Yeah I actually did notice this yesterday afternoon, but only because White tweeted at me and I happened to check my twitter notifications. I have not responded. I watched a few minutes where he begins to try to rebut what I said, but he says something nonsensical about apostolic succession and I didn't waste anymore time on it

Devin Rose I've gone back and forth in my mind, thinking similar things to Paul H., Paul T., and Justin. I do hope to make a blog post rebutting the arguments that White makes in this video. But it requires listening to it (time), clearly formulating the rebuttal (time), and blogging about it (more time). I've got a full time job--sometimes more than full-time, and the rest I try to spend with my family. I have to consider carefully whether it is worth my time to respond to him. Clearly it isn't for his benefit, as he is hardened against the truth of the Catholic Church, but it would be for the benefit of readers/listeners.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Beggars All Banned List

Have you ever been banned off a website? I've been booted off two. I was kicked off Patrick Madrid's Envoy forums after I noted the unstated fact that Madrid had his forum set up to block any hyperlinks to aomin.org.  You can read about it here. I was also banned from the Coming Home Network's discussion forums before I even made one post. You can read about that here. Other than these two times, I don't recall ever being banned. Of course, I've been chastised by the Catholic Answers moderators a few times. You can read about it here and here. I've learned at Catholic Answers not to use the alert system when someone insults me. The alert system at C.A. does not work for Protestants.

Comments left here on this blog have been helpful and hurtful, kind and rude. I've met some wonderful folks over the years that have stopped by and left a comment. I've also come across some folks that have a difficult time expressing themselves without being offensive or ridiculous. I do enjoy getting comments here on the blog, but I don't live for them. I usually don't post an entry in order to get attention or feedback (I mean, simply look at some of my posts). I post what I post because the blog helps me keep a record of my own theological journey, and it gives me a chance to write about what I like to write about. I've seen many blogs from Christians who say their motives in blogging are "ministry." Well, maybe in some cases it is, but I think most people with blogs have them for selfish reasons. We are all idolaters on some level: the most cherished idol is yourself. I don't think of this blog as "ministry," but from a Reformed perspective, everything we do should be done to the glory of God- whether it's taking out the trash, going to our jobs, or enjoying the hobby of having a blog. If someone searching the Internet benefits from a blog post I put up, that's great, but I wrote it because primarily I enjoyed writing it, not because I was hoping someone out there would benefit from it and thus pat me on the back  and think of me as a blogging superstar.

Up until recently I've kept the comments here open and mostly un-moderated.  Those days appear to be over. My apologies to those of you who respectfully leave comments (both Protestant and Roman Catholic). As is the case with most things, it takes only a few people to make a mess of an otherwise good thing. I don't sit glued to a computer monitor during the day, so if you leave a comment, it may take awhile for it to post.

Yes, there was a "banned" list as part of this post, but most of the folks on it were anonymous. so it really didn't matter.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Francis de Sales: Missionary to the Calvinists?

Over the years I've come across various versions of the following:

"Little by little, Francis gained himself a hearing among the Calvinists and eventually converted them by the thousands. His success was so great that he was later elevated to the post of Bishop of Geneva." [source]

"His defense of the Faith was so clear and thorough that at the end of four years nearly the entire population of 72,000 had returned to the Catholic Faith." [source]

"People read his writings and soon 40,000 had converted back to Christianity, perhaps showing us all, for the first time, the 'power of the pen.'" [source]

"Shortly after his ordination to the priesthood, St. Francis was elected provost of the Diocese of Geneva, meaning he was second in charge to the Bishop. This was the era of the Reformation, and Geneva was the headquarters of the Calvinists. In other words, it wasn’t a very friendly place for Catholics, especially Catholic priests. But St. Francis was undeterred. In fact, he decided to convert the some 60,000 Calvinists in the area back to the Catholic faith." [source]

"Through his work in this region over the course of four years (from 1594 to 1598), 72,000 Calvinists were brought back into the Catholic Church." [source]

"St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) is one of the most well-rounded Saints in Church history, and he played a major role in returning tens of thousands of Calvinists to the Catholic Church." [source]



de Sales: Converting Calvinists?
While going through a bibliography I came across a book entitled, Saint François de Sales and the Protestants by Ruth Kleinman. I don't recall ever coming across a full-length historical treatment of de Sales and his interactions with Protestants, so I tried to track this book down. While I found a few French copies, I could not locate an English copy for sale (yet).

An interesting review of Kleinman's book can be found here.  The reviewer states in part:


Now, I know a bit from my Luther studies that a review of book that attempts to paint a historical picture isn't a proper source to form a conclusion, nor is it prudent to use only one historical source (like Kleinman) to form an historical conclusion. The sentiment expressed here though would be an interesting explanation within the realm of possibility for some of the success of de Sales.

I did find an article by Ruth Kleinman entitled, The Ecumenism of St. Francis de Sales (Salesian Studies 5/2 (Spring 1968): 42-49). This article states:
The form of the Reformation Francis de Sales knew best was Calvinism, as he met it in Geneva and the surrounding provinces of France and Savoy. With Lutheranism he seems to have had little if any personal acquaintance, nor did he have anything to say about the Anglican Church. The differences between the Protestant denominations did not concern him greatly. He tended to lump them together, as when he wrote, “We speak indifferently of Luther and Calvin, because we do not believe that their teachings are widely divergent.” As far as he was concerned,Protestantism was heresy, and heresy was rebellion against God, the Church, and usually also the lawful authority of princes. His position on Catholic doctrine was equally uncompromising. He accepted the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent as final, never entertaining the thought that the articles of belief or discipline should be changed in any way to make it easier for Protestants to return. If they returned, as he hoped they would do, it must be on Catholic terms. Moreover, insofar as the existence of Protestantism involved the authority and interests of Catholic princes, he believed it proper that they should intervene to hasten the progress of conversions by any means of pressure short of physical violence.
-snip-
He himself was far from satisfied with the results of two years’ work, and attributed the continuing resistance of the majority as much to political and secular considerations as to stubborn religious conviction. The status of Chaplais remained uncertain until the Peace of Vervins in 1598, when it was finally recognized as the possession of Savoy. Meanwhile the inhabitants hesitated to commit themselves, claiming to fear reprisals for conversion if the province should again fall into the hands of the Swiss. Francis de Sales accordingly recommended to Charles-Emmanuel various actions designed to weight the choice of religion on the Catholic side: grants of pensions or tax relief to converts, deprivation of judicial or public office for persistent Calvinists, removal of the Calvinist minister and schoolmaster from Thonon, the capital of Chablais, and eventually exile for all those who refused to submit to Catholic instruction.
The duke attended the ceremonies concluding the mission, in October 1598, and on that occasion issued a series of edicts in line with Francis de Sales’ requests. Only in the matter of monetary benefits was the duke niggardly, because his treasury was empty and military expenditures had first call. Several thousand people appeared to make their abjuration, though whether they were moved by conscience, fear, interest, or a combination of the three, no one can say. Not all the inhabitants were as yet converted. As late as 1601, Francis de Sales complained to the duke that Calvinists still existed who had not gone on from Catholic instruction to profession. As far as he saw, “ No other way remains to have done with them, unless Your Highness, by a peaceable edict commands all his subjects to make profession of the Catholic faith and take oath on it within two months, in the hands of those who shall be deputed, or to leave the state, with permission to sell their goods.” Just as the mission to Chablais had originated in a mixture of religious and political motives, so its success rested on the cooperation of church and state. Francis de Sales indeed never considered the use of physical violence; there were no dragonnades in Chablais. But political and economic pressures were legitimate weapons, not to force consciences, but to open them to receive what he firmly believed was the only truth.
I commend the reading of the entire article. I do not want to be understood as arguing (via Kleinman) that I think de Sales converted people to Roman Catholicism by forceful means only, or at all.  The article goes on to point out that de Sales "was said to have a special gift for the conversion of individual souls," and that his book, Introduction to the Devout Life, played a role in converting Protestants. It wouldn't surprise me though to discover that Kleinman is onto something in regard to the overall success of de Sales, particularly since the conversion of an entire region still had political dimensions during the time period in which de Sales lived.

I certainly am open to seeing contrary evidence to the picture of de Sales presented by Kleinman or any later arguments that her historical portrayal of de sales is inaccurate. I'm still in search of Kleinman's book to see her full compilation of the evidence. Till then, it would probably be the responsibility of the defenders of de Sales that make claims like those that began this entry to historically verify those claims.

Monday, February 09, 2015

Don't Be a Nitpicker

A Facebook comment states,

I agree that Swan is nit-picking, but best stay away from Will Durant. His footnotes are impressive looking, but I remember trying to follow up some dubious claim Durant made about Bucer and finding it hard to do. Part of the problem is that just because he's an older source himself, his secondary sources are hard to find. That doesn't make him wrong. (I don't remember what the claim was about Bucer, but I remember finding it completely unbelievable as a Bucer specialist.) It seems to me that Durant impresses people just because no one else has really done what he did. But someone ought to, because it should be done better.

This was a reaction from an Anglican to my recent entry, Melanchthon: Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches. According to his general information at Catholic Answers, this Anglican is "seeking admission to the Catholic Church." Despite his swimming of the Tiber, I've read a number of comments from this person over the years in regard to Reformation-related issues, many of which I've found helpful. Even his very Facebook comment verifies that my finding on Durant aren't so outrageous. Frankly though, this criticism that I've engaged in "nit-picking" is bogus, and leads me to believe that either my entry wasn't read carefully (if at all), or that perhaps I didn't explain the background of the post well enough.

First, my scrutiny of the Melanchthon quote was primarily in regard to a comment in a recent CARM post which used the Melanchthon quote. If you follow this CARM discussion,  notice that a Lutheran challenged the quote here saying, "I am not familiar with Durant, is there something online about his citation or works?" The same Lutheran also stated, "After doing a little checking it seems that Will Durant is problematic where appeals are concerned. James Swan Beggarsallreformation blogspot, just go to the main page and search Will Durant for a number of examples. Thanks again for the citation, but can you offer another perhaps more reliable source for the same claim?" To Which the CARM Roman Catholic responded in part, "That is my only source. I'm sure you could study Melanchthon's works and letters and see for yourself. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't. The history of Germany after the Reformation speaks volumes. I don't need further evidence." The Lutheran responded, "I'm not familiar with this caricature of Melancthon. I'm neither denying nor affirming and your source is suspect." And so, I took a look at the quote, demonstrating in my blog post that the polemical point being made originally was inaccurate and the Melanchthon quote used not only didn't support his point, but was itself of a bogus construction. This isn't "nitpicking," it's checking out the facts put forth to substantiate a polemical point.

Second, I did eventually reply on CARM in regard to this issue. The person who initially posted the quote had claimed he got the quote directly from Durant. I demonstrated that he cut-and-pasted it from a webpage, and that webpage constructed the Melanchthon quote from two different pages in Durant's book (which would be enough to demonstrate the quote was spurious). I then demonstrated Durant probably didn't read Melanchthon, but took it from two different volumes in Janssen's set on Germany. In checking Janssen, it became obvious Durant wasn't even correctly quoting Melanchthon. This isn't "nitpicking," it's checking out the documentation put forth to substantiate a polemical point.

Third, I recently read a statement by Robert W. Jenson who inadvertently described how the Reformers are often quoted by both Protestants and Roman Catholics:
Active participants in the continuing theological argument are inevitably and properly cannibals of their predecessors. They dismember predecessors’ systems or structures of intuition, and use bits and pieces for their own purposes.
We're all guilty of this, for better or for worse. Some people are able to use those "bits and pieces" in a more fair and honest way than others. Some people take those "bits and pieces" and put them into their own theological worldview without at least trying to understand how they fit in the theological system in which they live to their fullest. Roman Catholics do this with the Reformers, Protestants do this with aspects of Roman Catholic theology as well. What I've found is that many of Rome's defenders create historical caricatures when they read books on the Reformation, as was the case with the Melanchthon quote. Rome's defenders have a popular notion that the Reformers were saddened by the Reformation at best, or at worst regretted it and their role in reform. This is a caricature. Neither Melanchthon or Luther (or Calvin and Zwingli for that matter) regretted the reform of the church. They were not gleefully ecstatic over every facet of change brought on by the reform movement, but they certainly were not always longing for the days previous to their reform work. So when I demonstrate that one of Rome's defenders "dismembered" and "cannibalized" Melanchthon's words, this is not nitpicking, It's demonstrating the shoddy work of those putting forth propaganda.


Addendum
Here's what one of Rome's defenders thinks of all this:

Swan is an obsessive-compulsive pest situated somewhere on the autistic spectrum whose mania is to the search the Internet for poorly understood religious odds and ends that, he imagines, bolster his idiosyncratic Fundamentalist delusions. He periodically does data dumps on his blog. No one needs Swan. We all have search engines of our own.

There is one thing I agree with here: Rome's cyber-defenders also have search engines. With these modern marvels of technology like Google and Bing they should be able to put forth accurate citations.

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?


Jan 25, '15, 3:29 pm
Regular Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 683
Religion: Catholic
Default Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?

It has recently been suggested that the Catholic Church conspired or indirectly authorized the immediate murder of Martin Luther after the Diet of Worms in 1521. However, I haven't been able to substantiate that anywhere on the interwebs. Poster 'benjohnson' submitted in this post on another thread that the wording at the beginning of the Edict of Worms points to this conclusion, but further examination seems to contradict the rest of the edict, which clearly states:
"For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work." (wiki link)
Am I missing something? Please discuss.

Thanks in advance. 


Is There a "Catholic Answer" as to Whether Rome Wanted Luther Killed?
"Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?" This is one of the recent questions the Catholic Answers Forums folks have been addressing. By scrolling through this discussion you'll find a variety of "Catholic" answers (and a few non-Catholic answers) presented. It's always interesting to read fallible interpretations of history and theology put forth by Rome's defenders. I've contended for years that Roman Catholics are functionally Protestant: everything they say and believe, whether stated personally or put forth by their Magisterium is open to interpretation, or is itself an interpretation. Here were some interesting comments from this discussion. As far as I could tell, each of these comments comes from those committed to the supremacy of Rome:

[In regard to the declaration of the Diet of Worms], "...[T]he call was from Emperor Charles V not the Bishops of Worms. Second, it was for Fr. Martin's apprehension and detention not execution." [Source]

"I didn't know he was murdered. I thought he died a natural death." [source]

"[P]ersecution of heretics was done by the state not the Church. Lets use truth." [source]

"Again it is so EASY to blame the ONE HOLY CHURCH, for mistakes made by human leaders of its time. Just like we can blame the Pope for the Priest today who caved into evil, and of course Jesus for the sins of Judas. It all comes back to blaming Christ or his Church does it not?" [source]

"[T]he word 'outlaw' does not appear in the edict [of Worms] anywhere." [source]

"[T]he Edict called for the arrest and punishment of Luther and his followers as heretics, and only after an exhaustive attempt at the Diet of Worms to get him to soften his position. That isn't the same as the Catholic Chuch calling for the 'immediate murder' of Luther." [source]

"....[A]pproval of the Holy Office, is not EX CATHEDRA." [source]

"He was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God. He had no authority to speak in the name of the Spirit. Rather he was correct or incorrect, is not the question, he was condemned for claiming to know the mind of the Spirit of God, no one can do this unless they have authority from God to speak in his name. Only the Pope can do it, without the others." [source]

The last comment was the most fascinating. Another person commented on it stating that the argument Luther "was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God" was actually an argument possibly made by Jimmy Akin. I took a few minutes to try and find this alleged argument from Akin, but have yet to find it (if anyone comes across it, please let me know- it may not be Akin's at all). Well, whoever coined this argument, the person challenging it rightly noted its inherent anachronism.


Decret Romanum Pontificem
While the most popular declaration from Rome against Luther was Exsurge Domine (June 15, 1520), Luther was formally excommunicated via the bull Decret Romanum Pontificem (January 3, 1521, executed on January 28) by Pope Leo X (although there is some ambiguity here- see Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, His Road To Reformation, p. 442). This bull declares Luther to be a heretic and subject to punishment, as well as those who are "followers of Martin's pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help." The bull refers to the church's treatment of Luther, "We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones." The Bull states also:
On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.
According to Gregory Sobolewski, Pope Leo X "wrote Charles V requesting enforcement of the excommunication according to imperial law" [Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001), 68-69. Once Luther was deemed an official heretic, he could be immediately arrested and tried.  Heiko Oberman says,
By signing the bull of excommunication, Decet Romanum Pontifcem, the pope had finally settled the Luther question- or so it appeared. After the conclusion of the ecclesiastical trial, only the administrative sequel remained: Luther was to be turned over to the secular authorities and subsequently executed.  
Hans Hillerbrand points out that what should have happened was that Elector Frederick of Saxony   was to execute the ecclesiastical verdict, but the Luther affair ended up being directed to the upcoming imperial diet. Behind the scenes one of Luther's most vocal critics was the papal nuncio Aleander. He sought to hold the Emperor to the general understanding that a condemned heretic was not to have a further trial or hearing (Hillerbrand, p.56). The hearing was held though, and the Edict produced by it stated in part,

For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work - The Edict of Worms [English translation]

Conclusion
The good news for today's ecumenically minded Roman Catholic is there is no authoritative or infallible statement from the Magisterium I'm aware of (either then or now) stating: "We want Luther killed," or, "Luther should be executed as a heretic." It was genuinely though within the realm of possibility that once Luther was declared a heretic by Rome, his sentence carried out by the Emperor could very well have been death, for Luther was then considered an enemy of the Empire. One of the strongest bits of propaganda circulating was that Luther was reviving the Bohemian heresy of Hus. Martin Brecht attempts to give some insight into Luther's thinking during the period in which he was summoned to Worms, "He was not unaware that his bloodthirsty opponents would not rest until they had killed him. But he was more concerned now that the responsibility for his death should be borne by the papists, not by the emperor" (Brecht, p. 461).

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Melanchthon: Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches

Here's one from the CARM boards. It seems simple enough- a short quote from Melanchthon was offered to make a polemical point:

Luther turned power over to the princes who leaped at the opportunity to cut ties with the Church and solidify their own. Things went down hill fast from there. Melanchthon, the right hand man of Luther, lamented about the outcome of the Reformation: “They do not care in the least about religion; they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of bishops . . . Under cover of the Gospel, the princes were only intent on the plunder of the Churches.”(Durant, 438, 440)

This is typical of Rome's defenders— to blame an entire period of political and social history on the theological concerns of a man who stood defiantly against the papacy. It's debatable if things "went downhill" when "Luther turned power over to the princes who leaped at the opportunity to cut ties with the Church and solidify their own." I'm sure from this defender of Rome's perspective, the loss of social and religious power of the Roman church is negative.  While he was influential, Luther was not the Emperor, nor did he have any legal authority to turn "power" over to any of the German princes. The Reformation was a complex series of events that can't be so easily pigeonholed as this CARM Roman Catholic did. It wasn't as if all was well with the empire until Luther came along and "turned power over to the princes." There were political power struggles with the papacy and empire long before Luther came on the scene. This defender of Rome would do well to study "centralization," or perhaps read the book he (?) claims to have (Durant).

This would be enough of a response, but along with the point about Luther was a quote from Melanchthon. Tracking down Melanchthon quotes isn't as easy as finding the contexts of Luther's words. Below you'll see the tedious detail that one must at times go through because of the sloppy work of Rome's cyber-apologists. Here's the quick version: The person from CARM cut-and-pasted a Melanchthon quote taken from an anti-Reformation web page. That web page took the quote from a secondary source that had the quote on two separate pages. That secondary source took the quote(s) from another secondary source in which the quote is from two different volumes. Part of the quote from one of these volumes isn't even the direct words of Melanchthon. Conclusion: the quote is bogus.  


Will Durant, The Reformation
Two things jumped out to me out about this quote: 1) the source was Will Durant, a secondary source; 2) the quote was from two different pages in Durant's book. The defender of Rome claims he (?) got the quote from Durant: "That is my only source. I'm sure you could study Melanchthon's works and letters and see for yourself. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't. The history of Germany after the Reformation speaks volumes." Most likely, he didn't pull this quote from Durant's book, but rather took it from a polemical anti-Reformation web page that cites it like this:


The quote as presented is a typical method of citation by Rome's defenders: the creation of a single quote from two different pages, taken from a secondary source, and that secondary source took the quotes from a secondary source (Janssen). This again, displays Rome's apologists at their best. As we'll see below, part of this quote isn't even a direct citation of Melanchthon.

 Here's what Durant says:
438: But by 1527 the Lutheran "heresy" had become orthodoxy in half of Germany. The cities found Protestantism profitable; "they do not care in the least about religion," mourned Melanchthon; "they are only anxious to get dominion into their hands, to be free from the control of the bishops"; (1) for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property. (2) Yet an honest desire for a simpler and sincerer religion seems to have moved many citizens. At Magdeburg the members of St. Ulrich's parish met in the churchyard and chose eight men who were to select the preacher and manage the affairs of the church (1524); soon all churches in
439: the city were administering the Lord's Supper in the Lutheran mode. Augsburg was so fervently Protestant that when Campeggio came there as papal legate the populace dubbed hirn Antichrist (1524). Most of Strasbourg acccpted the new theology from Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1523), and Martin Bucer, who succeeded him there, also converted Ulm. In Nuremberg great business leaders like Lazarus Spengler and Hieronymus Baumgärtner won the city coündil to the Lutheran creed (1526); the Sebalduskirähe and the Lorenzkirche transformed their ritual accordingly, while keeping their Catholic art. In Brunswick the writings of Luther were widely circulated; his hymns were publicly Sung; his version of the New Testament was so earnestly studied that when a priest misquoted it he was corrected by the congregation; finally the city council ordered all clergymen to preach only what could be found in the Scriptures, to baptize in German, and to serve the sacrament in both forms (1528). By 1530 the new faith had won Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock, Lübeck, Stralsund, Danzig, Dorpat, Riga, Reval, and almost all the Imperial cities of Swabia. Iconoclastic riots broke out in Augsburg, Hamburg, Brunswick, Stralsund. Probab!y some of this violence was a reaction against the ecclesiastical use of statues and paintings to inculcate ridiculous and lucrative legends. 
The princes, gladly adopting Roman law— which made the secular ruler omnipotent as delegate of the "sovereign people"—saw in Protestantism a religion that not only exalted the state but obeyed it; now they could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs to administer or enjoy. John the Steadfast, who succeeded Frederick the Wise as Elector of Saxony (1525); definitely accepted the Lutheran faith, which Frederick had never done; and when John died (1532) his son John Frederick kept Electoral Saxony firmly Protestant. Philip the Magnanimous, Landgrave of Hesse, formed with John the League of Gotha and Törgau (1526) to protect and extend Lutheranism. Other princes fell in line: Ernest of Lüneburg, Otto and Francis of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Henry of Mecklenburg, Ulrich of Württemberg. Albert of Prussia, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, following Luther's advice, abandoned his monastic vows, married, secularized the lands of his order, and made himself Duke of Prussia (1525). Luther saw himself, apparently by the mere force of his personality and eloquence, winning half of Germany.  
Since many monks and nuns now left their convents, and the public seemed unwilling to support the remainder, the Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith. The princes agreed to share the confiscated properties and revenues with the nobles, the cities, and some universities, but this pledge was very laxly redeemed. Luther inveighed against the application of ecclesiastical wealth to any but religious or educational purposes, and condemned
440: the precipitate seizure of church buildings and lands by the nobility. A modest part of the spoils was yielded to schools and poor relief; the princes and nobles kept the rest. "Under cover of the Gospel," wrote Melancthon (1530), "The princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches." (3)
Footnotes
1. Janssen IV, 62,
2.  CF. Camb. Mod. Hy, II, 159.
3. Janssen VI, 534.

Before addressing the bogus cyberspace construction of the Melanchthon quote in question, was Melanchthon lamenting the outcome of the Reformation? Durant does say Melanchthon "mourned" in regard to the first sentence in the quote. Of the second sentence in the quote this author says that Melanchthon "complained," as does this author. Even  Dave Hunt checked in saying that Melanchthon "sadly declared..." (No, I don't trust Mr. Hunt either). Why quibble over one word? Rome's defenders have a popular notion that the Reformers were saddened by the Reformation at best, or at worst regretted it and their role in reform. From the actual primary source from which Melanchthon's words were taken, it doesn't appear to me to be either mourning or lamenting, but rather frustration during the proceedings of the complicated Diet of Augsburg (1530). One thing though is certain, neither Melanchthon or Luther (or Calvin and Zwingli for that matter) regretted the reform of the church. They were not gleefully ecstatic over every facet of change brought on by the reform movement, but they certainly were not longing for the days previous to their reform work.


Johannes Janssen: History of the German People
It would not surprise me to discover that Will Durant had actually never read the primary sources for Melanchthon's words. His footnotes are to a polemical Roman Catholic source, Johannes Janssen, not the primary sources for Melanchthon's words. Janssen's work belongs to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. Janssen viewed Luther and the Reformation as destroying German culture and piety (see, Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 22-23). Janssen's bias does not mean he didn't record the facts correctly. One simply needs to keep in mind the framework an author like Janssen puts his facts into.

The quote in question is from two different pages in two different volumes of Janssen's History of the German People. Notice in the second citation below that "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches" are not the words of Melanchthon proper, but are  probably Janssen's description of what Melanchthon is purported to have said.

Janssen IV, 62
In order to establish the 'pure and clear Gospel' it was above all things necessary to effect a change in the existing constitution of the Church, and to transfer ecclesiastical jurisdiction from spiritual to secular authorities. Roman jurists had already advocated a measure of this sort in the fifteenth century. The town magistrates, and the princes also, aimed a strengthening their own territorial might by the establishment of a secular Church government, independent of ecclesiastical power, which should control Church property, appoint and depose 'preachers of the Gospel ' — in short, treat the clergy generally as much as possible as subservient officials of the commonwealth. 'The imperial cities do not care in the least about religion,' said Melanchthon; ' they are only anxious to get dominion into their own hands and to be free from the control of the bishops.' 1

1. 'Maxime oderunt illam dominationem [of the bishops] civitates imperii. De doctrina religionis nihil laborant; tantum de regno ct libertate sunt solliciti' (letter to Luther in the Corp. Reform. ii. 328).

Janssen VI, 534
Melanchthon had been the first and the most vehement in complaining that the princes and municipal authorities who had taken the church management into their own hands had no real interest in religion or in the promotion of Christian discipline.  The imperial cities,' he wrote, 'do not trouble themselves about religion: all they care for is emancipation from the dominion of the bishops.' 'The princes do not concern themselves at all about these matters; one creed is as good in their eyes as another.' Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits. 'What state of things shall we bequeath to posterity if the authority of the bishops is abolished? Even were it allowable to overthrow the organization of the Church, it would be scarcely salutary. What will become of the parishes if the old customs and usages are done away with, and no more regular church overseers appointed? '
Melanchthon was now witnessing the fulfillment of these words of his written in 1530, and all that he saw grieved him so deeply that in his confidential letters he spoke of a strong yearning for death. And yet he was the foremost among those theologians who in May 1554, at a religious convention at Naumburg, planned by the Elector Augustus of Saxony, declared the transference of church management to the civil authorities to be not only an unavoidable necessity, as Luther had long maintained, but a divine command. In his memorandum of advice, which had been approved by the other theologians, he said that the rite of ordination and the juridical powers claimed for the bishops both by themselves and by great potentates, could not be conceded to them because they were persecutors of the Gospel. The gates of the temples are the gates of the princes. Secular lords are the 'feeders of the churches,' and it was their business to provide for right doctrine and Christian discipline; this exalted and divine task belongs to their office. This religious assembly was ruled by the selfsame spirit which two years later inspired a synod at Greifswald to petition the ruling prince 'to remain, next to Christ, the supreme head of the church and the clergy.'
Janssen provides documentation on page 62 of volume IV. In the English edition, he does not provide documentation for Melanchthon's words on page 534 of Volume VI.  One thing is certain: the partial sentence "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches" is not a sentence from Melanchthon proper, but are probably Janssen's description of what Melanchthon is purported to have said. and, as we'll see below, wherever this description of Melanchthon comes from, this description does not come from the same primary source as cited in volume IV, 62 (letter to Luther in the Corp. Reform. ii. 328). The corresponding German version of this text from Janssen VI (p. 725) reads as follows:


The last sentence in the paragraph in question does provide a reference: "vergl die stellen oben s 180. 183. 494-495." These are references to previous pages in Janssen's book. Page 180 refers to the English page here; 183, here. 494, here; 495, here. After looking over these pages, still missing is any actual reference to Janssen's description of Melanchthon's words, "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits."


Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 2
Here is the actual primary source for Melannchthon's letter to Luther, August 29, 1530. Janssen used this as a reference for the first sentence in the quote. The sentence in question appears toward the end ('Maxime oderunt illam dominationem civitates imperii. De doctrina religionis nihil laborant; tantum de regno ct libertate sunt solliciti):




One will notice there's nothing in this short letter that says, "Under cover of the Gospel the princes were only intent on the plunder of the churches, on gambling, drinking, and other degrading pursuits." But perhaps Janssen is summarizing Melanchthon. He's not directly citing Melanchthon  as Rome's cyber-defenders say. Where is it from? Janssen doesn't say. It's probably from another 1530 letter related to Melanchthon's involvement at Ausburg.


Conclusion
Yes, tracking all this down took some time. If "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant," I guess Rome's defenders must have a different notion as to what "deep into history" actually means. For them, it must mean creating bogus quotes. I welcome Rome's cyber-defenders to take these bibliographical facts above and figure out exactly what Melanchthon said and where he said it. I've done a lot of the work for you already. Till then, would you folks please document your historical arguments better? Quoting a secondary source who quotes a secondary source only serves to obfuscate whatever points you think you're making.


Addendum  (2/6/15)
Interestingly, the exact form of the questionable Melanchthon quote was published in this book: Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 96. This book includes the quote under the heading of what Melanchthon was purported to have said in 1545. How did the author determine the year was 1545 for these words from Melanchthon?