Luther: I Have Given Up on Germany

Here's another obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Rome:

"I have well nigh given up all hope for Germany, for . . . the whole host of dishonesty, wickedness, and roguery are reigning everywhere . . . and added to all else contempt of the Word and ingratitude." (in Janssen, ibid., vol.16, 19. From Wilhelm M. L. De Wette, Letters of Luther, Berlin, 1828, vol. 5, 398, 407; Letter to Anton Lauterbach, November, 1541) [link]

I came across a defender of Rome using this quote five different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself." Third, it was used as proof Luther was not a "champion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience." Fourth, it was used to prove Luther "lamented often about the actual course of his 'Reformation' in Germany, thus perhaps revealing a sense of failure and guilt." Fifth, it was used as proof the Reformation caused the "decline of morals" and that Luther was disgusted by the "state of Protestant morality." That's one quote, five different applications!

Documentation
There are multiple items of documentation provided. The first item refers to Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 16. On page 19 Janssen states:

The older Luther grew the more frequent were his complaints of the moral anarchy in social life, and of the increase of vice even in his own immediate neighbourhood. On September 8, 1541, he wrote to Link at Nuremberg, who had complained of the 'contempt of the Word' in that town, that he might comfort himself with the thought that the worst of all evils was now reigning, unbridled licentiousness of life without law or religion: 'Our people will now neither hear nor heed the Word of God, a state of things which cannot fail to produce vice.' Two months later he sent a wail to the preacher Anton Lauterbach in Pirna: 'I have well nigh given up all hope for Germany, for greed, usury, tyranny, discord, and the whole host of dishonesty, wickedness, and roguery are reigning everywhere — at the courts, in the towns and villages, and added to all else contempt of the Word and ingratitude.'

The next tidbit of documentation refers to "From Wilhelm M. L. De Wette, Letters of Luther, Berlin, 1828, vol. 5, 398, 407; Letter to Anton Lauterbach, November, 1541." This information has been sifted from Janssen. Working backwards, "Letter to Anton Lauterbach, November, 1541" appears to be based on Janssen providing the date "September 8, 1541" and then saying, "Two months later he sent a wail to the preacher Anton Lauterbach in Pirna." Janssen then documents the quote, "De Wette, v. 398, 407."

It's here where Rome's defender has botched the documentation by not checking the sources. De Wette v. 398 refers to a letter cited by Janssen but not cited by Rome's cyber-defender (September 8, 1541). Page 407 is the only text that's being cited. Also, by actually checking the source an actual fixed date is found: November 10, 1541. The letter states, 

This letter was not included in Luther's Works, English edition (LW). However, a translation is included in  The Life and Letters of Martin Luther By Preserved Smith (p. 411 - 412).

Context

To Anthony Lauterbach at Pirna

(Wittenberg,) November 10, 1541.

Grace and peace. Although I have nothing to write, dear Antony, yet I prefer to write that I have nothing to write rather than leave your letter unanswered. May God strengthen Duke Maurice in the true faith and in sound policy. Perhaps you have heard all the news of the Turk. I almost despair of Germany since she has received within her walls those true Turks or rather those true devils, avarice, usury, tyranny, discord, and that whole cesspool of perfidy, malice, and iniquity, in the nobles, the palaces, the courts of justice, the towns and the villages; worst of all is contempt of the Word and unexampled ingratitude. With these Turks ruling us savagely and cruelly, what success can we hope against the human Turks? May God have mercy upon us and make the light of his countenance to shine upon us. For while we pray against our enemies the Turks, it is to be feared that the Holy Ghost will understand us to pray against ourselves and yet for our good. For I see that it will come to pass that unless the tyranny of the Turk terrifies and humbles our nobles, we shall have to bear worse tyranny from them than from the Turks. Verily the nobles think to put chains on our princes and fetters on the burghers and peasants, and most of all on books and authors. Thus they avenge the papal slavery by subjecting the people to a new slavery under the nobles. But enough. My Katie sends her greetings to you and to your wife and daughter, as do we all, and we all pray and beseech the Lord together to give us the pestilence instead of the Turkish scourge, for without the special help of God our arms and armies can do nothing.

Yours, Martin Luther

Conclusion
Preserved Smith says this letter displays Luther's "despair at the moral conditions of the people" in strong terms (p.411). While the general population of Germany is included in this letter, the primary charge against Germany from Luther was against its leadership. While it's true (as I've stated in previous entries) Luther was displeased over the general morality of his times, this letter is specific to Luther's displeasure over Germany's rulers and their morality. Luther laments that "avarice, usury, tyranny, discord, and that whole cesspool of perfidy, malice, and iniquity" rule over the world, and were ruling the political world. This was true then, and it's true now. For Luther, the mastermind of this evil was the Devil. For Luther, it was very near the end of the world, and he expected such to be the case.

When Rome's defenders claim the quote proves the agony of Luther over the state of early Protestantism, the lament of Luther is directed towards the rulers of Germany, not Protestantism in general. Perhaps it would be better stated that Luther lamented over the rulers of Protestant territories.
As to this quote proving "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than Lutherans," the actual comparison should be directed towards rulers. As to this quote disproving Luther was a champion of religious freedom, it actually says quite the opposite. Note Luther's complaint: "Verily the nobles think to put chains on our princes and fetters on the burghers and peasants, and most of all on books and authors. Thus they avenge the papal slavery by subjecting the people to a new slavery under the nobles." Does this quote serve as an example of Luther admitting his failure and guilt over the Reformation? No. Does this quote prove Luther was disgusted over the decline of Protestant morality? I find it quite interesting that Luther made virtually the same charges against the morality of his times throughout his career.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: Protestants Have Contempt of the Gospel

Here's another obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Rome:

Worse still than avarice, whoring and immorality, which had the upper hand everywhere nowadays, was the general contempt of the gospel. (in Janssen, ibid., vol. 16, from L. Enders, Dr. Martin Luther's Correspondence, Frankfurt, 1862, vol. 4, 6. From the year 1532) [link].

The defender of Rome in question uses this quote in two different ways. First, it is used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself."

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 16, page 16. There Janssen states,

But worse still than avarice, whoring, and immorality, which had the upper hand everywhere nowadays,' wrote Luther in 1532, 'was the general contempt of the Gospel .' 'Avarice, whoring, and immorality are great and terrible sins, and our Lord God punishes them with famine and pestilence; but all the same the land and the people are left standing. But this sin of contempt of the Gospel is not a human but a devilish sin, so fearful is it to despise, laugh at and mock the great mercy of the fatherly visitation of God.' (Collected Works, Frankfort edition, iv.6] [link]

Note that the cyber-apologist places this quote in Dr. Martin Luther's Correspondence, By this, it appears the quote is from a letter. Janssen though only states it was from Luther's Collected Works. Even though this set does include 18 volumes of Luther's letters, the quote in question is not from a letter.

The quote can be found in Erl iv, p.6 (here is the complete Erl. 3-4). The text being cited is from Luther's Housepostil. It's a 1532 sermon on Matthew 21:1-9 (First Sunday in Advent, First Sermon). The text reads:

Technically, Luther did not write this text. These printed words are from the notes of Georg Rörer who heard and took notes on Luther's sermon. The current English edition of Luther's Works does not include the House Postil (nor are there plans to include it as far as I know). However, an English translation of Rörer's version is available via a multi-volume Baker Books edition (1996) edited by Eugene F. A. Klug. This version is included in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000). Using this set, this sermon can be found in English in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 17-24.


Context
In the first part of the sermon, Luther explains those who are Christians are not so because of birth, but because they were "baptized and washed clean with Christ's blood" (p.18). It is by belief in Christ that one is given eternal life (p.19). In the second part of the sermon, Luther discusses Christ's weeping over Jerusalem because of their rejection of Him and His Gospel. As a correlation to his day, Luther states:

The gospel is presently being preached, too, in copious measure for all to hear what sort of King Christ is and how he is to be perceived. But townspeople, peasants and nobility trample their pastors and preachers under foot; the high and mighty of this world persecute the gospel. What will come out of this? Christ seeks to be gracious to them, brings the market to their door, and they strike him dead. What can be more irrational than to bring a man silver and gold, right to his house, and say to him that this is all his, if he will only put out his hand and receive it, but he rebuffs and strikes dead the one who seeks to deliver it right into his lap? Anyone witnessing this would say that the man is crazy, and he would be right. Well, now, here it is not a bag of gold but another kind of treasure announcing that when it comes time for you to die you have Christ's help and assurance that you will have eternal life, and then, irrationally, in spite of his offering you such a treasure, you push him away and scorn him! That is the reason why he here weeps.

We need to consider this well. This King's entry and coming overflow with mercy and with very great comfort. But when he is despised, in fact persecuted and rejected in unbelief, he then sheds tears. I have often said that a plague must come upon Germany. Our rulers and leaders are guilty before God of so great a folly that a terrible bloodbath is bound to come, so that nobody will know where to run. And then the King will say to you, I came to your house, offered you everlasting life, but you turned away, swilled yourself full, did as you pleased, and, to top it all off, persecuted my gospel. This calamity will be added to your judgment (p.20).

Luther states, "That's the way things went at Jerusalem." Indeed, judgment did come upon Jerusalem in AD 70. Then Luther makes a plea to those who think they have time to call on the Lord at some later time:

Therefore, my dear children, young and old, big and small, don't ever let yourselves come to such a pass that you think and say, The gospel is something I can have any day, something I eventually will want to learn. Seize the opportunity now, while the Lord is near, as the prophet says (Isa. 55:6), "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." If we fail to see that he closes the door, there is no way to get in; for he will let us cry and knock in vain, as he did the foolish virgins who came after the door was closed, crying, "Lord, Lord, open to us." Thereupon he answered, `Verily, I say unto you, I know you not" (Matt. 25:11-12). So with us, too, if we fail to watch (p.21).

Luther also points out that the Gospel was now being preached with a great clarity, making people even more guilty of rejecting it: "But now that this is all clearly and thoroughly preached, people don't know how to scorn it enough!"(p.21). Then comes the immediate context of the obscure quote:

For this reason I urge you young folks to be on guard; perchance you will see and experience the impending doom upon Germany. A storm will overtake Germany and not skip by. God could not unleash it upon Jerusalem as long as so many pious people, David and the prophets, lived there and lay buried there, yes, even God himself lived there. Jerusalem was his own dear fortress and dwelling place of which he himself said, "Here do I dwell, my heaven is here." Nevertheless, because of her sin, because she did not know the time of her visitation, God punished Jerusalem terribly and laid her waste. That is why I am not as much disturbed by people's greed, harlotry, fornication, so prevalent now everywhere, as I am by the despising of the gospel. Avarice, harlotry, and unchastity are indeed great terrible sins, sins which the Lord God punishes severely with plague and famine, though land and people still survive. But this sin is not adultery or harlotry; it is not even of human origin but of the devil, causing God's fatherly visitation of grace to be so terribly despised laughed to scorn, and mocked. Such sin, you may be sure, prompts God's severest judgment to WIPE IT CLEAN! (pp.21-22).

Conclusion
Once again, the context doesn't bear out the assertions of Rome's apologists. Luther wasn't agonizing over early Protestantism, he was preaching judgment on an unrepentant Germany. Of course the large mass of people reject and ridicule the Gospel. They have done so in each generation. Recall, Paul says that unbelievers consider the Gospel to be nothing more than foolishness. Nor is Luther describing the ignorant, impious or wicked Lutherans. He's describing the overall population of unrepentant Germany.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Catholic Answers Pilgrimage

Here's a recent letter from Karl Keating:

Where the Virgin Mary's house stopped for a rest

Angelic house movers sometimes need a rest too

You probably have heard of the Holy House of Loreto. It’s said to be the house in Nazareth where the Virgin Mary grew up and where the Annunciation occurred. The story is that, to protect it from invading Turks, angels lifted the house in 1291 and flew it toward Italy.

You may know that part. What you probably don’t know is that the angels tired on the way. (Houses are heavy, after all!) They rested—for three years—on a hilltop in Croatia, before carrying the house the rest of the way to Loreto.

Where they rested you now will find the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Trsat. It’s just one of three key pilgrimage sites we’ll visit on this autumn’s “Catholic Croatia” tour.

Since I’m partly of Croatian extraction, on my mother’s side, I’m looking forward to visiting Trsat and the two other pilgrimage sites: the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Snows at Marija Bistrica (Croatia’s top Marian shrine) and the Sanctuary of the Trinity in Ludbreg, where a Eucharistic miracle occurred in 1414, with the wine turning into visible blood.

Luther: We Have To Pay for the Disasters of My Preaching

Here's another obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Rome:

"Who would have wanted to begin preaching, had we known beforehand that so much disaster, riotousness, scandal, sacrilege, ingratitude [i.e., towards himself], and wickedness were to follow. But now . . . we have to pay for it." (Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], XVI, 13; from EA, vol. 50, 74; in 1538. "EA" = Erlangen Ausgabe edition of Luther's Works [Werke] in German, 1868, 67 volumes), Denifle, ibid., 26. (link)

The defender of Rome in question uses this quote three different ways. First, he uses it as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself." Third, he uses it to prove "Luther, in later years, lamented often about the actual course of his 'Reformation' in Germany, thus perhaps revealing a sense of failure and guilt."

Documentation
There are a number of sources provided as documentation. Some of Rome's current cyber-defenders do not appear to even bother to make sure the quote being used proves the points being made when it's placed back in its original context. It's like magic: without a context, the quote can be made to prove three different disparaging things! All the documentation given comes off as a smokescreen for the fact that the author has no idea what the actual context says. But it looks impressive, doesn't it? He mentions what "EA" means, and gives the number of volumes is the German set.

Let's work through some of the sources cited. The documentation given is "Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], XVI, 13; from EA, vol. 50, 74; in 1538." This refers to nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 16. 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 states, Here is Janssen 16:13. Janssen states,

While Luther speaks here of the anarchy and demoralisation as transitory and accidental, he is forced in other places to confess that: 'Had I foreseen all this abomination, I should never have begun to teach the evangel.' "Who indeed would have set about to preach,' he said in 1538, 'had he known beforehand that so much disaster, riotousness, offence, sacrilege, ingratitude, wickedness, would be the result? But now we are in the midst of it, we must go through with it, and recognise that it is not man's strength and doing but the Holy Spirit Himself that can help us through ; or else we shall not be fit people for the work.' (Dollinger 1, 304-305).

An interesting observation about Janssen is that he does not cite a primary writing from Luther. He cites another Roman Catholic historian, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger (Die Reformation : ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekenntnisses Volume 1, p. 304-305... see though top of p. 306). So, the documentation originally provided is embellished by citing Luther's writings ("from EA, vol. 50, 74; in 1538. "EA" = Erlangen Ausgabe edition of Luther's Works [Werke] in German, 1868, 67 volumes"). Another point of interest is that the quote as cited by Rome's cyber-defender does not quite match up to Janssen's citation.

The documentation also includes Heinrich Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom. Denifle states:

The condition was indeed such that, as early as 1527, Luther expressed a doubt whether he would have begun, had he foreseen all the great scandals and disorders." "Yes, who would have wanted to begin preaching, "said he eleven years later, "had we known beforehand that so much misfortune, factiousness, scandal, calumny, ingratitude and wickedness were to follow. But now that we are in it, we have to pay for it" (Erl. 50, 74) [link]

The Roman Catholic apologist's quote cited at the beginning of this entry doesn't quite match up to Denifle. When comparing it to Denifle, note that Rome's defender inserted the two words "towards himself." That is, without actually consulting the original context, he knew that the "ingratitude" mentioned was directed toward Luther. That's indeed possible, but without a context... who knows? Luther could've meant ingratitude toward the Gospel, or ingratitude toward each other, or ingratitude toward God. Rome's defender also left out the words, "that we are in it." Why? I have no idea.

One interesting difference between Denifle's rendering and Janssen's is "we have to pay for it" versus "we must go through with it." The former could suggest regret and punishment, while the later suggests weathering a necessary storm. Which is correct?

As noted, a primary source is cited: "EA, vol. 50, 74." This reference is to the Erlangen edition of Luther's works. It is usually referred to as EA. 1826-1857. Sometimes this set is referred to as "Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke" or "E". The set includes German and Latin writings from Luther. Volume 50 can be found here. Here is page 74, and the paragraph the quote comes from:

This paragraph contains some of  Luther's comments on John 16:13. Rome's defeneder says the quote is from 1538, LW says Luther lectured on John 14-16 in 1537 and the material on John 16 was published in 1539 (LW 24:preface). Technically, Luther did not write this text. These printed words are from the notes of Caspar Cruciger "who acted as the amanuensis for Luther's sermons" (LW 24, preface). Because of Cruciger's editing, getting a specific date as to the exact date of Luther's sermons for this material is not possible. Cruciger turned the sermons into a commentary. Luther was fine with this. He spoke of it as the best book he had written, adding, "of course I did not write it" (LW 24:preface).

This text has been translated into English in LW 24. The quote in question can be found on pages 357-358.

Context

13. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth.

Christ calls the Holy Spirit a Spirit of truth in contrast with the spirit of lies. He also spoke about this in the fourteenth chapter (v. 17). The Holy Spirit will teach the disciples and show them that everything Christ told them is the truth; for He is a Spirit who confirms the truth in one’s heart and makes one sure of it. In 1 John 2:27 we read: “As His anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie.” Therefore the purport of what He says here is: “Even though you have already heard much about this, you will never understand or believe by your own strength that it will and must be as I have just told you and that what is to be proclaimed about Me through you is true and right. And you would never have the courage to begin such preaching and to persist in it if the Holy Spirit Himself did not come to guide and preserve you in this truth. For at present this is far beyond your power to bear. And when you see this suffering beginning with Me, you will all be offended because of it and will fall away from Me.”

Who would ever have thought or believed that the precious message of the Gospel would fare as the apostles experienced and saw, and as our own experience shows us today? Yes, who of us would have begun to preach if we had known in advance that so much misery, sectarianism, offense, blasphemy, ingratitude, and malice would ensue? But now that we are preaching, we must take the consequences and remember that this is not a human venture and that it does not depend on human power, but that the Holy Spirit Himself must do and preserve it. Otherwise we could not bear this and carry it out.

In 1 Cor. 4:9–13 St. Paul himself points out that after preaching a great deal and for a long time he, too, has had to learn and experience that the apostles must not only be a mockery and a spectacle to the whole world but must be a curse and an offscouring, and be regarded as the most pernicious pestilence and plague on earth. An additional suffering he must bear is the dispersion and, at the same time, the extermination and destruction of the little flock of Christians it has taken him a long time to plant and care for. If one were to consult reason about this and to speak of it on the basis of human wisdom, who would call such happenings truth or the work of the Christian Church and the Holy Spirit? But this is what Christ says to Paul: “Dear Paul, in this way you have to become acquainted with My power” (2 Cor. 12:9). And to Ananias—whom He sends to Paul—Christ says of Paul: “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of My name” (Acts 9:16).

Thus all Christendom is a small group that must submit to, suffer, and bear more than all other people whatever grief the devil and the world can inflict on it. Now who, in view of what they appear to be and are subjected to, will recognize and learn that they are genuine Christians? Reason will surely not show this. The Holy Spirit must do so. He is called “the Spirit of truth” because in spite of what they appear to be and are subjected to—according to which this message seems to amount to nothing and to be a pack of lies—He strengthens and preserves hearts in the faith. Otherwise no one would have believed for any length of time, or would still believe, that this Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father forever, He who was so shamefully crucified as a malefactor by His own people, is true God? Or how could we conclude with certainty of our own accord that we, who believe in this crucified Christ and are condemned, cursed, and executed by the whole world as God’s enemies and the devil’s own, are actually God’s dear children and saints? After all, we ourselves do not feel this. In fact, our heart tells us something far different, because we are still sinners full of weakness. But this is the work of the Holy Spirit; it is His power; He confirms this in our heart. Therefore we can accept it as true in accord with His Word. He enables us to live and to die by this truth.

Or who could believe that we unfortunate people, who are executed and die like the most miserable human beings on earth, who are buried in the ground, consumed by maggots and worms or are burned alive and reduced to ashes and dust, will all emerge from this stench, from ashes and dust, in the twinkling of an eye, with whole, clean, and shining bodies more radiant than all heaven, than the sun and the moon, more beautiful and precious than all gold and jewels, purer and more fragrant than all balsam, gardens, and Paradise? Of course, no one would ever get to the bottom of this on the basis of reason; for it is altogether too farfetched and entirely too unreasonable to suppose that a being as poor and miserable as is now evident should be destined for the greatness concerning which Scripture says that we shall be eternal heirs of God in heaven and shall live and be saved solely through faith and Baptism, even though we now still have sin and death in us (LW 24:357-359).

Conclusion
The context clearly shows that this quote is not an example of  "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism," or that during the Reformation "Catholics were no more ignorant or impious or wicked than, for example, Lutherans, according to the descriptions of Luther himself," or that "Luther, in later years, lamented often about the actual course of his 'Reformation' in Germany, thus perhaps revealing a sense of failure and guilt." No, the quote is about the offense of the Gospel. Luther expected the Gospel to incite the activity of the Devil, particularly among those who did not embrace it. He expected the Gospel to cause division and trouble, and to infuriate the world against the true church. What should one do when facing such trouble? Regret preaching the Gospel? Countless statements from Luther could be provided proving Luther never regretted the Gospel or proclaiming the Gospel.

The context explains the proper course of action a preacher of the Gospel takes when he finds himself in midst of trouble: "we must take the consequences and remember that this is not a human venture and that it does not depend on human power, but that the Holy Spirit Himself must do and preserve it. Otherwise we could not bear this and carry it out." Who would want to preach the Gospel if they knew beforehand of all the trouble it was bring into one's life? No one, for that is the conclusion of human reason. But as the context states, The Holy Spirit is able to see one through, as he did with the early apostles, who likewise faced dire circumstances brought on by the Gospel. The Holy Spirit makes one fit for such work.


Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a significant revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks.  Back in 2010, I was not able to locate the exact context for this quote, so there have been significant changes to this entry from that presented in the former.

Index of recent argumentation regarding the Real Presence as monophysitism

I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to provoke a lot of anger and vexation over my recent post: Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine? But it was so much fun to write! And it's been even more fun to watch:
1) how fired up certain interlocutors became
2) how bad their arguments generally were
3) how little they actually interacted with the fundamental point - that Jesus, as both God AND man, is not multilocational but is, rather, always in one place at one time
4) how it made bedfellows out of practitioners of otherwise fairly hostile systems, such as Scott Windsor, loyal son of Rome, and Edward Reiss, fairly conservative Lutheran.

This index post is to serve as a collective reference point to see all the conversation that has gone down over this point.
First came Steve Hays' Anti-Incarnational sacramentalism.
I'd had my post written for some time but was waiting for a good time to post it, and figured that I should go ahead and strike while the iron was hot. So then came my post, which has accumulated more than 120 comments.

Scott Windsor added Transubstantiation Question, and I interacted a lot there.
Later he posted Transubstantiation Question II, and I interacted some there as well. Read these if you want a lot of strawmen and a failure on Windsor's part to even understand what I was saying.

And then you can see Matthew Bellisario post barely-relevant quotations from Thomas Aquinas over at his post: For Those Confused About Transubstantiation..., in which combox I interacted some.
As one philosopher (apocryphally) said: if you speak nonsense in Latin, you can write many books; if you speak nonsense in Saxon, you are found out at once.

Perry Robinson aka Acolyte4236 interacted extensively with me in the combox of my post, starting here.

Edward Reiss jumped in with How Jesus' body--even before the resurrection, is not "Just like ours", then Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed, as if I appealed to Calvin or care particularly what he had to say about this issue if it's irrelevant. Find a great deal of interaction there between us.
Later, Jesus as a "Spiritual reality", since it really seems that the monophysitism proponents in this discussion have a hard time admitting that the spiritual is real. Strange for someone who confesses to be a Christian, but you know.
Later, If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man..., in which he attempts to assert that Jesus' status as God-man makes Him more buoyant, more cooperative with the surface tension of water than my status as regular man makes me.

TurretinFan had One More Response to Edward Reiss.

Finally, Steve Hays had numerous helpful things to say in his posts:
The Styrofoam Jesus, in which he mocks the buoyancy argument.
A Lutheran's unresponsive response
Lutheran cartoons
The Heisenberg compensator
The Real Presence of the Big Mac, a specific response to some of the comments from Perry Robinson, Acolyte4236 in the combox of my post.
Why Lutherans deny the empty tomb, a reductio on the Lutheran view Edward Reiss has been defending (and by extension, the Roman view).

Overall, a very interesting and satisfying exchange. It's good to be Reformed. Sort of funny how I'll be teaching through Eric Svendsen's curriculum on the Lord's Table starting pretty soon in my Sunday School class.

Luther: The Gospel Made Things Worse Than Before

Here's an obscure Luther quote used by a defender of Roman Catholicism. It is used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism":

Everyone now complains that the gospel causes much unrest, . . . and since it has come up, everything is worse than ever before. (In Denifle, ibid., 25. Luther quote from Werke, Erlangen edition, 43, 63)(link).

The quote is documented to Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle. Denifle uses this quote to show Luther considered his followers had become worse due to his preaching and teaching. Denifle cites Luther stating: "Therefore it is that everyone now complains that the gospel causes much unrest, bickering and disordered conduct, and, since it has come up, everything is worse than ever before," etc. [link]. Why Denifle's Luther quote was cited with the removal of "bickering and disordered conduct" is anyone's guess. Note this other difference as well: For the defender of Rome the quote serves as proof Luther agonized over the state of Protestantism. For Denifle, the quote proves Luther thought those who accepted his teaching were morally worse (two Roman Catholics, two different interpretations of a historical source).

Another old Roman Catholic writer also cites this quote, Johannes Janssen, in History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, Volume 5. It appears among a variety of quotes strung together from two different sources (and different pages!) to present yet another picture of Luther:

The attachment of the people to Luther's doctrine was no greater than to his person. 'They say nowadays,' wrote Luther in the year before the Augsburg Diet,'"Ah, yes, the monks used to sing, and pray, and fast a great deal; and they did all this for the honour and glory of God. That sort of thing pleases the common people hugely. They cannot restrain themselves from applauding it."' But the people went much further than this. ' They accuse us of being rebels,' exclaimed Luther, 'of having destroyed the unity of the Church, and of being the authors of all the evils of the day.' 'Formerly, under the papacy,' so went the popular cry, 'things were not so bad. But now, since these teachers have come, there is nothing but disaster —famine, war, and the Turk.' 'Many are saying, Peace is at an end; the world is topsy-turvy; men are confused and bewildered in spirit; religion is going to the dogs; there is no reverence for God; obedience to law is a thing of the past. What good has come out of the Gospel? Everything was formerly in far better state.' Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg Luther made the avowal: 'Everybody is now complaining and crying out that the Gospel has brought much discontent, wrangling, and disorderly living into the world, and that everything is in worse condition since its introduction than before, when things ran smoothly and there was no persecution, and people lived peacefully together, like good friends and neighbours.' The people would willingly drive him, 'together with the Gospel'— to wit, his peculiar tenets— 'sheer out of the country, or else starve him to death.' On the other hand the people clung so tenaciously to the ways of the old Church that Luther declared : 'Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses.' ' I know for certain that here in Wittenberg you shall scarcely find ten men whom I could not seduce if I returned to practise the sanctity "which I practised in popery when I was a monk.' [link]

For Janssen, the quote serves to show the people were angry with Luther, and this provoked Luther to sarcastically say, "Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses." Thus, three different Roman Catholics, three different pictures of Luther!

Documentation
The documentation provied is "Werke, Erlangen edition, 43, 63." This reference is to the Erlangen edition of Luther's works. It is usually referred to as EA. 1826-1857. Sometimes this set is referred to as "Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke" or "E". The set includes German and Latin writings from Luther. Volume 43 can be found here.  Here is page 63, and the paragraph the quote comes from:

This text is from Luther's comments on the Sermon on the Mount (found also in WA 32: 299-544). The clue given by Janssen is that Luther made the statement in question "Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg." This would place the statement around 1530. Luther was continually writing and preaching. Around this time he was preaching from the book of Matthew, and it's from a sermon this quote was taken from. Technically speaking, Luther did not write the paragraph cited above. It is the result of those who heard Luther preach and took notes, then transcribing the material into a written form. LW 21 states that there is uncertainty as to exactly who took down the notes to these sermons from Luther.  Note the caution expressed by the English edition of Luther's works:

Because the evolution of the work from the pulpit to the appearance of the finished commentary is so completely obscure, a certain amount of caution is necessary in referring to it as a source for our understanding of Luther’s thought. We cannot be sure whether the editor or editors, whoever they may have been, took certain liberties with the text of Luther’s sermons as delivered. We know that this happened with other works (cf. Introduction to Vol. 1 of Luther’s Works). At the same time, there seems to be no warrant for the extreme skepticism of certain scholars regarding the reliability of this commentary. There are many parallels throughout Luther’s works for most of the ideas and many of the terms that appear here. (LW 21: xx-xxi)

Luther's sermons on Matthew 5 can be found translated into English in LW 21.The quote comes from Luther's comments on 5:11-12 (particularly verse 12), "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." See for yourself if the context justifies the conclusions of the Roman apologist, Denifle, and Janssen.


Context

These are really sweet and comforting words. They should gladden and encourage our hearts against all kinds of persecution. Should not the dear Lord’s Word and comfort be dearer and more important to us than that which comes from a helpless bag of worms, or the rage, threats, excommunication, curses, and lightning of the miserable pope, even though he deluged us with the very dregs and the whole hell of his wrath and cursing? For I hear my Lord Christ telling me that He is truly delighted, and commanding me to be happy about it. In addition, He promises me such a wonderful reward: the kingdom of heaven shall be mine and everything that Christ has, together with all the saints and all Christendom—in short, such a treasure and comfort that I should not trade it for all the possessions, joy, and music in the whole world, even though all the leaves and all the blades of grass were tongues singing my praises. This is not a Christian calling me “blessed,” nor even an angel, but the Lord of all the angels, before whom they and all the creatures must kneel and adore. With all the other creatures, therefore, with the leaves and the grass, they must cheerfully sing and dance in my honor and praise.

And those who slander and curse me, what are they by comparison but nits and lousy paunches—if you will pardon the expression—so shameful that there is no name for them. If every creature, the leaves and the blades of grass in the forest and the sand on the shore, were all tongues to accuse and destroy them, what would all that be in comparison with a single word of this Man? His voice sounds clear enough to fill heaven and earth and to echo through them, silencing the slobbering coughs and the hoarse scratching of His enemies.

You see, that is how we should learn something about using these words for our benefit. They are not put here for nothing, but were spoken and written for our strengthening and comfort. By them our dear Master and faithful Shepherd, or Bishop, arms us. Then we shall be unafraid and ready to suffer if for His sake they lay all kinds of torment and trouble upon us in both words and deeds, and we shall despise whatever is offensive to us, even though contrary to our own reason and heart.

For if we cling to our own thoughts and feelings, we are dismayed and hurt to learn that for our service, help, counsel, and kindness to the world and to everyone we should get no thanks except the deepest and bitterest hatred and cursed, poisonous tongues. If flesh and blood were in charge here, it would soon say: “If I am to get nothing else out of this, then let anyone who wants to, stick with the Gospel and be a Christian! The world can go to the devil for help if that is what it wants!” This is the reason for the general complaint and cry that the Gospel is causing so much conflict, strife, and disturbance in the world and that everything is worse since it came than it was before, when things moved along smoothly, when there was no persecution, and when the people lived together like good friends and neighbors.

But here is what it says: “If you do not want to have the Gospel or be a Christian, then go out and take the world’s side. Then you will be its friend, and no one will persecute you. But if you want to have the Gospel and Christ, then you must count on having trouble, conflict, and persecution wherever you go.” Reason: because the devil cannot bear it otherwise, nor will he stop egging people on against the Gospel, so that all the world is incensed against it. Thus at the present time peasants, city people, nobles, princes, and lords oppose the Gospel from sheer cussedness, and they themselves do not know why.

So this is what I say in reply to these idle talkers and grumblers: “Things neither can nor should run peacefully and smoothly. How could things run smoothly, when the devil is in charge and is a mortal enemy of the Gospel? There is good reason for this, too, since it hurts him in his kingdom, where he can feel it. If he were to let it go ahead unhindered, it would soon be all over and his kingdom would be utterly destroyed. But if he is to resist it and hinder it, he must rally all his art and power and arouse everything in his might against it. So do not hope for any peace and quiet so long as Christ and His Gospel are in the midst of the devil’s kingdom. And woe upon the peaceful and smooth situation that used to be, and upon those who would like to have it back! This is a sure sign that the devil is ruling with all his might and that no Christ is there. I am worried that it may be this way again and that the Gospel may be taken away from us Germans all too soon, which is just what these rioters are struggling for now.”

But we have the assurance that it is not our fault when there is trouble. It would give us heartfelt joy if everything went right. We have done our share. We have been teaching, warning, pleading, beseeching, and giving in, even to our enemies, offering them peace, and doing everything we should do. We have given help and counsel with all our might, at our own risk and disadvantage, tolerating what we should. Yet all we accomplish is shameful and poisonous persecution, slander, and abuse from men who will not stop till they have cooled their rage in our blood. Since the situation will never be different, we let them go ahead with their threatenings, fury, and blasphemy, and hold on to the comfort we have heard. We are sure that they cannot accomplish what they desire until they first topple Christ from heaven and make a liar out of Him, with all that He has said. [LW 21:50-52].

Conclusion
Once again, the context doesn't validate anything any of these three Roman Catholic writers claim: The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism," that Luther thought those who accepted his teaching were morally worse,  that the quote serves to show the people were angry with Luther. Rather, Luther's comments are in regard to persecution. Luther understood that the Gospel would cause societal and personal hardship and strife. Contrary to Rome's interpreters, what we find is something quite different when the quote is put back into its context. Remember, truth never fears a context, only propaganda does.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2010. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy

Here's a point about the evils of the Reformation substantiated by a quote from Luther. The following is found in Catholic apologist Steve Ray's book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, footnote #97 on page 65-66:

According to Mr. Ray, Luther admitted his teaching made people worse, not provoking anyone to holiness. This is a typical charge. It is argued by many of Rome's defenders that Luther was vexed and agonized that his teaching made things worse. If Luther's teachings really were from God, wouldn't truth make people better? Another defender pf Rome cites it on his blog and also in his book Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), p. 92. He uses it as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism."

Documentation and Sources
Mr. Ray and friends cited Luther via Heinrich Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom.  Volume 1 is being cited, not volume 2 (this may be a scan error). To my knowledge, volume 2 has never been translated into English. Also, unless it's a different edition used by Mr Ray, the quote does not appear on page 47, but on page 25. Also note the quote Denifle's use of the quote is longe than that cited by Mr. Ray:

Even in 1523, he had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly, This he later repeats. "The world by this teaching becomes only the worse, the longer it exists; that is the work and business of the malign devil. As one sees, the people are more avaricious, less merciful, more immodest, bolder and worse than before under the Papacy." (p.25)

Denifle uses this quote to prove Luther "had to acknowledge that he and his followers were become worse than they had been formerly." Out of all the quotes I've looked at over the years, this one has a rich history of usage, and appears to have been very popular with older Roman Catholic apologetic works. I found at least a dozen or more older Roman Catholic authors using it, with many differing English translations.

This quote is available from two primary English sources. It's from a 1533 sermon (not 1523) that was written down by two people who heard it: Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer. Dietrich's account can be found in Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil, in the First Sunday in Advent sermon (Matthew 21:1-9). Roerer's version can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 25-30. Both accounts are very similar, except that Dietrich's is longer, containing additional material at the end. Scholars say Roerer's transcriptions are more exact and trustworthy (see p.15 of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5 for more information).

This sermon wasn't preached at church to the general public. It was preached to his close circle of friends, family, and a few others at Luther's residence. The text of the sermon was Matthew 21:1-9. If you haven't read any of Luther's sermons, this would be a good one to begin with.

Context
Luther first explains how the Jews expected a grand powerful king, not a meek man riding on a donkey. They expected a man of might and power like all earthly rulers. A king who could provide earthly riches and power, thrusting the Jews to a powerful place over all the nations. Rather, this man on a donkey had a different power: the forgiveness of sin and everlasting life:

For we are all poor sinners, but in baptism, and afterwards in our whole life, if we turn unto Christ, He comforts us, and says: Give me your sins and take my righteousness and holiness; let your death be taken from you, and put on my life. This is, properly speaking, the Lord Jesus' government. For all His office and work is this, that He daily takes away our sin and death, and clothes us with His righteousness and life.

Luther explains that a king with such extraordinary gifts should be most coveted, yet it is not:

"This announcement we should indeed hear with great joy, and every one should thereby be bettered and made more holy. But alas, the contrary is true, and the world grows worse as it grows older, becoming the very Satan himself, as we see that the people are now more dissolute, avaricious, unmerciful, impure and wicked than previously under the papacy." [Dietrich''s version]

"We must certainly receive this message eagerly and gratefully, by it becoming more pious and godly. Unfortunately there's the opposite side, that by this teaching the world becomes more and more hostile, wicked, and malicious; yet not through the fault of the teaching but of the people, thanks to the pernicious devil and death. Today people are possessed by seven devils, whereas before it was only one. The devil now bulldozes the people so that even under the bright light of the gospel they become greedier, slyer, more covetous, crueler, lewder, more insolent and ill-tempered than before under the papacy." [Roerer's version]

Notice in Roerer's version, Luther doesn't blame his teaching, but the people and ultimately Satan.
Luther goes on to say:

What causes this? Nothing else than that the people disregard this preaching, do not use it aright for their own conversion and amendment, that is, for the comfort of their conscience, and thankfulness for the grace and benefit of God in Christ; but every one is more concerned for money and goods, or other worldly matters, than for this precious treasure which Christ brings us. For the most of us, when we do not feel our misery, the fear of sin and death, would rather, like the Jews, have such a king in Christ as would give us riches and ease here on earth, than that we should comfort ourselves in Him in the midst of poverty, crosses, wretchedness, fear and death. The world takes no delight in this, and because the gospel and Christ do not give it what it desires, it will have nothing to do with Christ and the gospel.[Dietrich's version]

"Why so? Not through fault of the teaching but because the message is not met with thankful acceptance; people cast it to the wind and pay more attention to money and goods than to the blessed treasure which our Lord Christ brings to us." [Roerer's version]

In harmony with his earlier points, he explains people seek after earthly riches, not heavenly riches. Most people want the same powerful king the Jews expected, not the foolishness of Christ. With a pastoral heart, Luther warns:

Therefore our Lord in turn rebukes this world and says: Do you not rejoice in this, nor thank me, that through the sufferings and death of my only begotten Son, I take away your sins and death? Then I will give you sin and death enough, since you want it so; and where you were possessed of and tormented by only one devil, you shall now be tormented by seven that are worse. We see farmers, citizens and all orders, from the highest to the lowest, guilty of shameful avarice, inordinate life, impurity and other vices. Therefore let every one who would be a Christian be hereby warned as of God himself, joyfully and thankfully to hear and receive this announcement, and also pray to God to give him a strong faith, that he may hold fast this doctrine; then surely the fruit will follow, that he will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people.

Luther states those who accept this gospel will have fruit follow and "will daily become more humble, obedient, gentle, chaste and pious. For this doctrine is of a character to make godly, chaste, obedient, pious people." Then there are those who will not accept the gospel:

But those who will not gladly receive it, become seven times worse than they were before they heard it, as we see everywhere. And the hour will surely come when God will punish this unthankfulness. Then it will appear what the world has merited by it. Now, since the Jews would not obey the prophet, it is told to us that our King comes meek and lowly, in order that we may learn wisdom from their sad experience, and not be offended by His poverty, nor look for worldly pomp and riches, like the Jews; but learn that in Christ we have a King who is the Just One and Savior, and willing to help us from sin and eternal death. This announcement, I say, we should receive with joy, and with hearty thanks to God, else we must take the devil, with walling, weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Conclusion
I have to question exactly what Denifle was reading when he concluded that Luther's followers were worse because of the gospel. In context, it's the world which grows worse because of the gospel being preached. Those who accept the gospel are transformed by the gospel. Luther consistently held that the gospel would find great opposition, and would be attacked from all sides. The gospel would be used by the world as a license to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The gospel would indeed make those of the world worse.

Steve Ray butchered the citation by leaving out the fact that Luther blamed the devil for people being worse. He actually took a quote being misused by Denifle, and added his own error to it. Why would there be an outbreak of holiness by those who hate the gospel already?

Was this quote an example of Luther agonizing over the state of early Protestantism as the Romanist claims in a published book? Hardly. Once again, these guys should read something in context before publishing.

Steve Ray Sells Luther?

Here's an irony that TurretinFan and I put together. Steve Ray was selling the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggested a few days ago perhaps Steve Ray buy this product from himself and at least cite Luther accurately. Tfan added, "It's amusing the Leo X tried to stop Luther's work from being sold and Steve Ray actively promotes it - yet claims to be on the "same side" as Leo X."

Lo and behold.... now Steve Ray isn't selling it anymore, unless I've got my URL's wrong, or he moved it around. See for yourself:

http://www.steveraysstore.com/collected-works-of-martin-luther.html

Whoops, our bad....The page you requested was not found, and we have a fine
guess why.
•If you typed the URL directly, please make sure the spelling is
correct.
•If you clicked on a link to get here, the link is outdated.
What can you do?Have no fear, help is near! There are many ways you can get
back on track.•Go back to the previous page.•Use the search bar at the top of
the page to search for your products.•Follow these links to get you back on
track!

Was this just a coincidence? I think not. It appears while traveling the world, Mr. Ray had a sudden change of heart about selling the works of Martin Luther. Luther's Works was also removed from his page of software for sale. Also the store search page returned no hits for "Luther".

Thanks for reading Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics, Mr. Ray.

Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine?

CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog.
CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement:

The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory.

I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology.
So Christ's nature is exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious.

Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not; John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.

Luther: Women were made either to be wives or prostitutes

Over on the CARM boards, we find the following:

I'm hoping that someone with a complete works set, can authenticate and contextualize the following luther quote, it is all over the web, but I can't locate the source anywhere online. "The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes." Works 12.94 From the volume number, it appears to be coming from a commentary on the psalms.

The Source
The quote isn't bogus. It is from Weimar 12 on page 94, and also in Erl. 51:6. It isn't from Luther's commentary on the Psalms either. In the English version of Luther's Works, it can be found in LW 28 in Luther's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7.

It's interesting to see how far this quote (out of context) has traveled in cyber space by a simple Google search. It is yet again, another blunder by Peter F Wiener: "Nothing sacred about marriage Luther knows of. But what he has to say about women is still worse. 'The word and work of God is quite clear, viz. That women were made either to be wives or prostitutes' (W12, 94). [Peter F Wiener, Martin Luther, Hitler's spiritual Ancestor].

You know something like this is being taken out of context, when even one of Luther's most severe critics, Hartmann Grisar defends him on it:

One sentence of Luther's, which, as it stands, scarcely does honour to the female sex, runs as follows : "The Word and work of God is quite clear, viz. that women were made to be either wives or prostitutes." By this statement, which so easily lends itself to misunderstanding, Luther does not mean to put women in the alternative of choosing either marriage or vice. In another passage of the same writing he says distinctly, what he repeats also elsewhere: " It is certain that He [God] does not create any woman to be a prostitute." [source]

The Context
This comment from Luther was written in 1523, in a treatise designed to defend Christian marriage against celibacy, and to promote the freedom to marry or not marry. Luther went through 1 Corinthians 7, one of the primary proof-texts used by those in favor of priestly celibacy. In fact, the treatise was dedicated to a friend's wedding, a wedding that Luther himself performed. Luther states his intention:

I have taken it upon myself to interpret the seventh chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians—this I do as a service to you and as an aid to all those who take a liking to it. My reason for this choice is that this very chapter, more than all the other writings of the entire Bible, has been twisted back and forth to condemn the married state and at the same time to give a strong appearance of sanctity to the dangerous and peculiar state of celibacy. And to tell the truth, none have given themselves such airs with this chapter as the very people who have been least chaste. I, too, once considered chastity as ordinary as they pretend it to be. But, thank God, the last three years have taught me how little chastity there is in the world outside marriage, both in convents and monasteries. But God has laid it upon me to preach about marriage and to tear the veil from the chastity which is of the devil, so that there may be less fornication and our poor youth may not be so pitiably and dangerously misled by falsely glorified chastity. Therefore I must take particular care that this chapter, which is their principal defense, no longer remain to cover their shame but be understood according to the true meaning of St. Paul. [LW 28:1]

Luther presents the view he's critiquing:

These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispense with and do without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. Then they fill the world with their foolish and blasphemous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel—and abundantly demonstrate by their actions—that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night.. [LW 28:5]

Then Luther identifies the specific person he's writing against: John Faber’s 1521 Opus adversus nova quaedam eta christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata Martini Lutheri:

Of this kind is that arch-fool, Johann Schmid of Constance, that renowned whoremonger, who has written an immense book, recently printed in Leipzig, against the state of matrimony. He tries to talk everyone out of it but says nothing more than that there is much effort and labor connected with it, as though this were not sufficiently known throughout the world and as if this ass must first teach us what every village peasant knows. If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage who prefer to see men married; and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and though they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state.. [LW 28:5]

Luther then argues that God intended there to be marriage. God didn't simply create women in order for sex:

They are rascals, not only on the surface but in the bottom of their hearts, and they are unworthy of an answer. And what matter if the whole world were to complain about the state of matrimony? We see right before our eyes that God daily creates not only men but also women and maintains their lives; and yet it is certain that he does not create any woman for the purpose of fornication. [LW 28:5]

Then comes the obscure quote:

But since God’s work and Word stare us in the face, declaring that women must be used either for marriage or for fornication, these heathenish pretenders should shut their blasphemous mouths and leave God’s Word and work uncriticized and unhampered; unless perhaps they would like to teach us according to their own famed sagacity and contrary to God that all women should be strangled or banished. This would make a fine fool of God: what He does is no good; what we do is well done. [LW 28:5]

The point is that biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. In fact, "God's work and Word" prove this, and this desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). Then in a hyperbolic argument, Luther suggests those who argue for celibacy might as well argue that women should be strangled or banished in order to maintain a celibate life because the desire for sex is so strong. This would be the only way to avoid un-chastity.

Luther continues:

Now therefore since God created woman that she should and must be with man, it should suffice us that God is on our side, and we should honor the married state as a divine and noble institution. And if the wiseacres do not want to enter it, then let them continue in their heathenish blindness to practice rascality and fornication so long as God may allow it. We have God’s Word on our side; that will remain and not be moved by such blundering Smiths, though they were more numerous than the sands of the sea. Still it is a great sin and shame that we Christians have become such great fools that we first have to ponder and decide whether women ought to be married or not, just as though someone should ask whether he ought to eat and drink in this life. [LW 28:5]

Luther: There are now as many doctrines as there are heads

TurretinFan is much more gracious than I am. He's been going through Steve Ray's 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (PDF alert). TurretinFan came upon #30:

30) If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?

TFan did a great job of locating a very similar Luther quote, via a book by Joseph Lortz:

The whole history of philosophy and religion, of Christian heresies, and finally of the Reformation itself, is convincing proof of a statement that Luther himself affirmed in his First Lecture on the Psalms: “Unless doctrine is authoritatively promulgated by a living human being endowed with the authority to teach, there will be as many doctrines as there are heads.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 246

In his lecture on the Psalms (about 1512), he had said: “Unless doctrine can be authoritatively guaranteed by one living man, there will be as many doctrines as there are men.” Joseph Lortz, The Reformation: a problem for today‎ (Newman Press, 1964), p. 149

I say TFan is more gracious, because he says, "I'm quite sure Steve Ray cannot give an accurate citation for that alleged quotation from Luther." I'd go a bit further, and say Steve Ray probably doesn't even know what a "Lortz" is. In fact, I'd speculate that Ray (or David Palm, if it was his question) actually was using a different Luther quote, but cited it incorrectly (see this link also).

As TFan points out, if indeed these men are using the same quote Lortz is referring to, it's a pre-Reformation quote, not a quote from the end of his life, and it has nothing to do with Luther being "frustrated." But if my suspicion is correct, the botched quote they are using is from 1525: not the end of his life either. So, when Ray says,"frustrated at the end of his life," this was just added on for propaganda purposes. Either scenario demonstrates the question is bogus.

It is true that Luther lamented the rise of sects, as well as sects within Romanism. But Luther doesn't blame the perspicuity of Scripture, nor does his blame sola scriptura. He blames Satan and sin. He fully expected the Gospel to cause divisions. He fully expected the preaching of the Scriptures to be attacked by those misusing it.

If any of you haven't read TFan's critique of Ray's 35 Loaded Questions, I strongly suggest you begin doing so. The questions are loaded alright: their loaded with errors, and I doubt we'll see any serious responses by Mr. Ray to TFan's analysis.

One final irony: Steve Ray sells the Collected Works of Martin Luther on his website, I kid you not. I suggest perhaps he buy this product from himself and at least cite things accurately.

Luther's Drinking (Part One)

Through the centuries, one of the popular personal charges against Luther was alcoholism. I've written about this before, and probably elsewhere if you search through the blog. Of course, the majority of those making this charge were (and are) Roman Catholics.

The most detailed look at Luther's drinking I've ever seen is found in Hartmann Grisar's Luther III. Grisar was a Roman Catholic scholar. His work is typically classified with the earlier Roman Catholic destructive criticism of Luther. While Grisar is indeed a hostile critic whose approach is no longer followed by Roman Catholic scholars, his six volumes on Luther are indeed valuable research tools. If there's one thing that can be said about Grisar, his work on Luther was thorough, and his documentation and use of primary sources is good. He didn't simply cite works that cited Luther. In fact, he was bold enough to actually correct insinuations and errors in Heinrich Denfile's (another Roman Catholic scholar) work on Luther. Grisar worked with primary sources. For the topic of Luther's drinking, Grisar's analysis spans twenty five pages. Reading it depends on how well one can handle tedium.

Some of the most facinating (yet tedious!) material is Grisar's exploration of earlier Roman Catholics that charged Luther with alcoholism. Grisar basically did what I've been doing: looking up obscure quotes, and putting them in a context. He states, "Luther's enemies must resign themselves to abandon some of the proofs formerly adduced for his excessive addiction to drink" Here are some of his Luther quotes and analysis. Time allowing, I'd like to work through all twenty five pages.

1. "If I have a can of beer, I want the beer-barrel as well."

...the fact being overlooked, that he only made use of this expression in order to illustrate, by a very common example, the idea expressed in the heading of the chapter in which it occurs, viz. that "No one is ever satisfied." Everyone, he continues, desires to go one step higher, everyone wants to attain to something more, and, then, with other examples, he gives that mentioned above, where,for "I," we might equally well substitute "we," which indeed we find employed elsewhere in this same connection : "If we have one Gulden, we want a hundred.


2."We eat ourselves to death, and drink ourselves to death; we eat and drink ourselves into poverty and down to hell."

Here Luther is merely speaking against the habit of drinking which had become so prevalent, and dominated some to such an extent that death and hell were the lamentable consequences to be feared.

3. Luther says that he is not "drunk," but is writing "in the morning hours."

Must we infer, then, that he was in the habit of writing when drunk, or that in the afternoon he was not usually sober? Must he be considered drunk whenever he does not state plainly that he is sober? The truth is that such expressions were merely his way of speaking. In the important passage here under consideration he writes: "Possibly it may be asserted later that I did not sufficiently weigh what I say here against those who deny the presence of Christ in the Sacrament; but I am not drunk or giddy; I know what I am saying and what it will mean to me on Judgment Day and at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Thus he is speaking most seriously and uses this curious verbal artifice simply to emphasise his earnestness. Were additional proof necessary it might be found in other passages ; for instance: "Christ was not drunk when He said this," viz. the Eucharistic words of consecration, the literal meaning of which Luther is upholding against the Strasburg Sacramentarians.

4. In a letter to his wife, Luther says that he preferred the beer and wine he was used to at home to what he was having at Dessau, and "Yesterday I had some poor stuff to drink so that I had to begin singing: 'If I can't drink deep then I am sad, for a good deep drink ever makes me so glad".

It is quite unnecessary to take this as a song sung by a "tipsy man"; it is simply a jesting reference to a popular ditty which quite possibly he had actually struck up to get rid of his annoyance at the quality of the liquor. "You would do well," he continues in the same jocular vein, "to send me over the whole cellar full of my usual wine, and a bottle of your beer as often as you can, else I shall not turn up any more for the new brew."

5. Luther calls himself, "The corpulent Doctor"

No one who is familiar with his homely mode of speech will take offence at his calling himself on one occasion the "corpulent Doctor," and in any case this involves neither gluttony nor drunkenness. Moreover, the words occur in a serious connection, for we shall hear it from him during the last days of his life: " When I return again to Wittenberg I shall lay myself in my coffin and give the worms a corpulent doctor to feast on," referring, of course, to his natural stoutness. Offence has also been taken at a sentence met with in Luther's Table-Talk, where he says of his contemporaries of fifty years before : "How thin they [i.e. their ranks] have become" ; from which it was inferred that he wished them a luxurious life and corpulence, and that he "regarded pot bellies as an ornament and a thing to be desired." From its context, however, the meaning of the word "thin" is clear. What Luther means is : How few of them remain in the land of the living.

6. Luther says he would like to be more frequently in the company of those "good fellows, the students," "the beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty, the lads friendly."

Such is one of the statements brought forward against him to show his inordinate love of drink. Yet, when examined, the letter is found to say nothing of any yearning of Luther's to join in the drinking-bouts of the students or of any interest of his in the maid. "Two honest students" had been recommended to Luther, and the letter informs its addressee, the Mansfeld Chancellor Miiller at Eisleben, of the rumour that "too much was being consumed without any necessity by the pair"; the Chancellor was to inform the Count of Mansfeld of the fact in order that he (whose proteges they may have been) "might keep an eye on them." Then come the words: "What harm would friendly supervision do? The beer is good, the parlour-maid pretty and the lads young; the students really behave very well, and my only regret is that owing to my weak health, I am unable to be oftener with them." This letter surely does Luther credit. It testifies to his solicitude for the two youths committed to his care; seeing they are still " good and pious," he is anxious to preserve them from intemperance and other dangers, and regrets that, owing to his poor state of health, he is unable to have the pleasure of visiting these young fellows more often.

7. Lemnius (a contemporary of Luther)is reported to have said: "His excessive indulgence in wine and beer made Luther at times so ill that he quite expected to die."

No such statement occurs in the works of Lemnius... The above words are a modern invention, though one author, strange to say, actually tacked them on to the authentic passage in Lemnius as though they had belonged to the latter.

8. Excessive indulgence in some Malvasian wine was, on Luther's own admission, the cause of a malady which troubled him for a considerable time in 1529.

Luther's letter in question speaks, however, of a "severe and almost fatal catarrh," which lasted for a long time and almost deprived him of his voice; others, too, says Luther, had suffered from the catarrh (no great wonder in the month of March or April), but not to the same extent as he. He had imprudently aggravated the trouble possibly by preaching too energetically or and here comes the incriminating passage " by drinking some adulterated Malvasian to the health of Amsdorf." Such were his words to his confidential friend Jonas. The fact is that a wine so expensive as Malvasian was then very liable to being adulterated, the demand far exceeding the supply of this beverage, which was always expected to figure on the table on great occasions. At any rate, there is no mention here of Luther's illness having arisen from continuous and excessive indulgence. in wine.