Dr. White responds to William Lane Craig's perspective on Roman Catholicism and the "Mere Christianity" paradigm

I wish I had time to write up an article on this, but I just don't have the time.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/dr-white-responds-to-william-lane-craigs-perspective-on-roman-catholicism-and-the-mere-christianity-paradigm/

Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg? No!

Some of Rome's defenders think Martin Luther praised Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg. Here are some examples:

Even Martin Luther, despite criticizing the Catholic doctrines of Mary's intercession and mediation, insisted on venerating Mary... In his last sermon at Wittenberg, in January 1546, Luther preached: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us, [Mary]. For your Son denies you nothing [Luther, Works, LI:128-29]. (link) (link)

But even Martin Luther had nice things to say about Mary: Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing. (Luther's Works, Weimar Edition, Volume 51) (link)

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. (link)

Martin Luther, tragically, was devoted to Mary, shown by some splendid work in her honor. But during his break with Rome, his fundamental idea of Deus solus, more of an angry reaction to Rome rather than a theological stand, relegated Mary’s help not only to a minimum but to almost nil. Instead of going to Mary and vowing perpetual chastity, he went to Scriptures and married. Yet in his last sermon on 17 January 1546, as death was approaching, he spoke, revealing what was ingrained in his soul: “Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored. This is the woman who crushed the serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing;” then his talk gradually reverted to his Deus solus. It was a sad picture of a man who had to deny what he deeply believes in simply out of spite for the papacy that he learned to detest. (link)

The reluctance by some to acknowledge Mary’s unique role seems to be more about distancing ones self from the Catholic Church than a search for truth. All too often evidence takes a back seat to personal preference. Martin Luther was the father of the Protestant Reformation and I think it is safe to say that he was not the least bit shy when it came to distancing himself from the Catholic Church. And yet he wrote in a prologue to the Magnificat: "May the tender mother of God herself procure for me the Spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers." Also, in his last sermon at Wittenberg he said: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." (link)

These are only a few examples. Many more could be given. The picture being put forth is that in his last Wittenberg sermon Luther "venerated Mary," "had nice things to say about Mary," "was devoted to Mary," and Luther had Mary "ingrained in his soul." Let's take a closer look to see if the actual context supports these interpretations. The context does not support these assertions.

Documentation

A curious feature of all the differing uses of Luther's last Wittenberg sermon is that the same form of the quote is put forth. Where did it come from? Did these defenders of Rome actually read WA 51 and translate this quote into English?  No, I don't think so. The oldest form of the quote (matching the translation offered above) I could locate was from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1982), page 228. Notice in this rendering, "as death was approaching, he could thus recall the [Marian] piety of his early years":

And in this last sermon, on 17 January, 1546, as death was approaching, he could thus recall the piety of his early years: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the Holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpents head. Hear us.  For your Son denies you nothing. Bernard said too much on the gospel 'an angel was sent'... For of Christ alone, it was said 'Hear him.' Likewise, 'Behold the Lamb of God' etc. Not of Mary, or angels, or Gabriel" [WA 51, 128-129]. (link)

I don't have certainty that this was the source used, but I would not be surprised.  Another popular English citation is from Roman Catholic writer William Cole's article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970), p. 98. Cole presents it as:

Is Christ alone to be venerated?

Rather is not the Mother of God, too, to be honored?

She is the woman who crushed the serpents head.

Listen to us, Mary.

Your son honors you.

He refuses you nothing.

This poetic rendering is not the work of William Cole, but rather from Bishop Daly of Ardagh as presented in The Irish Catholic, May 1969 in an article entitled, "Luther Loved Mary." Cole indicates that Daly’s study was an example of a “simplistic, uncritical, one-sided evaluation[s] of Luther’s Marian stance…” (p 98-99). Such could similarly be applied to Rome's cyber-defenders who mis-read Luther's last Wittenberg sermon.  William Cole goes on to cite more of Luther's comments from this very sermon and agrees with those who conclude Luther forbids praying to Mary, he denied the intercession of Mary, and he "dissuaded or excluded her invocation" (Cole, p. 158).

The quotes above do reference WA 51:128-129. WA 51 includes two versions: a Latin version with some German words mixed in and a full German version (both on the same pages). The name of this sermon is Die letzte predigt Doctoris Martini Lutheri heiliger gedechtnis, So ehr gethan hat zu Wittenberg, am andern Sontag nach Epiphanias Domini, den xvij. Januarij. Im M. D. xlvj. Jhar. In English the title is rendered, The Last Sermon in Wittenberg, Rom. 12:3, January 17, 1546. Technically, Luther did not write this sermon text. The printed words are from the notes of Georg Rörer who heard and took notes on Luther's sermon. The sermon was published not long after Luther's death in 1549 (See LW 51:371).   The English rendering of the entire sermon is in LW 51: 375-376.

Context

Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” “You will find him in a manger”. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us? Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘ Missus est Angelus .’ ”  God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher. No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him [LW 51:375-376].

Original text #1  ic Paulus: quando praedicamus fidem, quod nihil nisi Deus adorandus pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut dicimus: Credo in Deum patrem et in Iesum Christum. Illi manent bey dem Tempel zu Jerusalem. Item ‘hic est filius meus dilectus, Hunc audite’. ‘Invenietis eum in praesepi.’ Der sols allein thun. Quid nos? Num solum Christus adorandus? Ey sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Haec est mulier, quae contrivit caput serpentis. Audi nos. Nam filius te honorat, tibi nihil negat. Bernardus hat im zuviel gethan uber das Evangelium: “Missus est Angelus.” Deus mandavit parentes colendos. Invocabo Mariam, ea pro me orabit filium, et filius patrem, qui audit filium, ut pictura de Deo irato et Christo iudice, cui monstrat mater ubera, Christus ostendit patri irato vulnera. Maria Christo ubera. Das treibt die hübsche Braut sapientia rationis: Maria est mater Christi. Certe Christus eam audiet. Christus iudex, possem Georgium, Christophorum invocare. Non, Nos baptisati in nomine patris, filii et Spiritus sancti. Ut Iudaei mandante Deo circumcisi. Sed ut ipsi instituerunt electitios cultus per totam regionem quasi Hierusalem angustior, Ita nos. Ideo ut iuvenis libidini, natu grandior avaritiae mus wehren, Sic ratio naturaliter est meretrix. Aber sie sol mir nicht schaden, si repugnem. Sed sie ist zu schon und gleisset. Da sollen prediger sein et homines weisen auff den Kinderglauben: Credo in Iesum Christum, qui conceptus etc. ‘qui tollit peccata mundi’. Nos: in Georgium, Christophorum credo. Minime. Quia de solo Christo dictum: ‘Hunc audite’. Item ‘Ecce Agnus Dei’ etc. Non de Maria, Angelis, Gabriele (WA 51:128-129).  

Original text #2: Also wenn wir vom glauben predigen, das man nichts sol anbeten denn allein Gott, der da ist ein Vatter unsers Herren Jhesu Christi, wie wir im glauben sprechen: Ich gleube in Gott den Vatter, almechtigen unnd in Jhesum Christum, da bleiben wir bey dem Tempel zu Hierusalem, ‘Dis ist mein geliebter Son, den höret’, ‘Ihr werdet ihn finden in der Krippen’, der sols allein thun. Aber die vernunfft sagt hie das widderspiel: Sol man denn allein Christum anbeten? Ei sol man die heilige Mutter Christi nicht auch ehren? Die ist das weib, welches der Schlangen hat den kopff zutretten, Erhöre uns, Maria. Denn dein Son ehret dich also, das ehr dir nichts kan versagen. Hie hat ihm Bernhardus zuviel gethan im Evangelio ‘Missus est Angelus’ etc. Gott hat befohlen, man sol die Eltern ehren. Ich wil Mariam anruffen, die wirt für [Bl. B4] mich den Son bitten, und derselbige den Vatter, welcher den Son wirt erhören. Daher ist das gemeld, wie Gott zürnet und Christus dem Vatter die wunden, Maria aber Christo ihr brüste zeiget. Das treibt die hübsche Braut, der vernunfft weisheit, Maria ist des HERRn Christi Mutter, vorwar so wird sie Christus erhören, Christus ist ein gestrenger richter, Ich will S. Georgen, S. Christoffel anruffen, Nein, wir sind aus Gottes befehl getauffet im namen des Vaters, des Sons und des heiligen Geists, gleich wie die Jüden beschnitten. Darumb wie die Jüden durchs gantze land von ihnen selbst erwelete Gottesdienst haben angerichtet, gleich ob were Hierusalem zu enge, Also haben wir auch gethan, Derhalben wie ein junger Gesel mus der bösen lust wehren, ein Alter dem Geitz, Also ist die vernunfft von art und natur ein schedliche hure, aber sie soll mir nicht schaden, wenn ich allein ihr widderstrebe. Ja, sie ist aber schöne, sie gleisset uber die massen fein. Da sollen Prediger sein unnd die leute weissen auff den Kinder glauben: Ich gleube in Jhesum Christum, nicht in S. Georgen odder S. Christoffel. denn alleine von Christo wirt gesagt: 'Sihe das Lamb GOTTES, welchs die sünde der Welt hinweg nimpt', nicht von Maria odder Engeln. Der Vatter schreiet vom Himel herab: 'Diesen höret', nicht vom Gabriel etc. Darumb sol ich bey dem Kinder glauben bleiben, da kan ich mich der vernunfft erwehren, wenn die widderteuffer geifferen: Die Tauff ist wasser, was kans ausrichten? O der Geist mus es thun. Hörestu es, du schebichte, ausssetzige hure, du heilige vernunfft, das geschrieben stehet: 'Diesen höret', der da sagt: 'gehet hin und teuffet alle Heiden', 'wer gleubt und getaufft wirt"...(WA 51:128-129). 

Conclusion
In this sermon, Martin Luther did not say or imply that “Mary should be honored.” His main point is that Jesus Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Jesus Christ through Mary do so by the use of “reason,” and “reason is by nature a harmful whore. It is foolish reason that states:

...shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent.  Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing.

Foolish reason also states:

God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.

This context shows the importance of checking facts. In context, Luther isn't speaking about venerating Mary, honoring Mary, being devoted to Mary, showing that Mary was "ingrained in his soul," or recalling the Marian piety of his younger days before he died. Nor is he explaining the difference between the veneration and worship of Mary. Lest one think I am attacking only Roman Catholics with this sort of contextual tedium, I would similarly say the great scholar Heiko Oberman nodded. Oberman alludes to this text and says,

The warm praise which Luther has for the Mother of God throughout his life, his last sermon on 17 January 1546 included, is not based upon the great qualities of Mary herself but upon the grace granted to her. As a person, Luther can say, the Virgin Mary is not greater than Mary Magdalene, the sinner, since through faith all Christians are equal[Heiko A. Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1994), 242].

I don't see any sort of "warm praise" in "his last sermon on 17 January 1546." Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic and mocking. One of Rome's defenders thinks the actual negativity expressed by Luther is simply addressed to Bernard: "... in context, this sermon is actually critical of 'Bernard's' use of honor - Bernard, in Luther’s opinion went too far. Luther still supports honoring Mary, just not so far as Bernard went" (link no longer available). There are no comments from Luther in this context supporting the "honor" of Mary... whatever that means... saying nice things about Mary is not quite what Rome means by honoring Mary! I could just as easily describe Mary as the "Mother of God" without any inkling of veneration. In context, Luther accuses human reason and then goes on to give the example of Bernard's reasoning specifically.  He then returns to criticizing reason generally. When Luther asks, "shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ?" the implied answer is: NO!

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2007. 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.

Revised March 2026

Catholic Answers Discussion Asks: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???

Here's an interesting read from the Catholic Answers "Non-Catholic Religions" forum: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Normally in a cyber-discussion like this in a Roman Catholic cyber-venue, the typical answer is "No, because Luther was a Nazi, killed the peasants, was a drunkard, believed one could sin a thousand times a day, and taught that Christ committed adultery with Mary Magdalene, he took books out of the Bible..." and so on...  Some of that sort of thing does pop up in this discussion. What fascinated me was that a retired Roman Catholic priest with a strong ecumenical approach defended Rome's more recent kindness towards Luther (see any of the posts in the discussion by Don Ruggero).  I sat back and kept out if it for a while, and then posted the following:

Jul 25, '16, 11:14 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 908 Religion: Reformed

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I'm grateful for the opinions expressed. I've been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here's what I've encountered: 1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther. 2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther. 3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther. 4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz). The reason why I think there's such a variety of Catholic opinions toward Luther is that at Trent, Luther was never condemned by name, so there is no dogmatic judgment by which Catholics are bound in regard to him personally. Some time back, Jimmy Akin went through Exsurge Domine (the bull condemning Luther's teachings). Akin pointed out that the bull was not infallible, so there's no help there in establishing an official position. So basically: you all have the freedom within Catholicism to express yourselves about Martin Luther. Enjoy that freedom.

And then, the following took place:

Jul 25, '16, 11:47 pm

Peter J  Forum Master   Join Date: April 7, 2008 Location: Constitution Party Posts: 14,596 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I'm grateful for the opinions expressed. I've been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here's what I've encountered: 1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther. 2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther. 3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther. 4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz). The reason why I think there's such a variety of Catholic opinions toward Luther is that at Trent, Luther was never condemned by name, so there is no dogmatic judgment by which Catholics are bound in regard to him personally. Some time back, Jimmy Akin went through Exsurge Domine (the bull condemning Luther's teachings). Akin pointed out that the bull was not infallible, so there's no help there in establishing an official position. So basically: you all have the freedom within Catholicism to express yourselves about Martin Luther. Enjoy that freedom. But why would it be about Luther to begin with? It's really about teachings. Anyhow, I trust the magisterium.

xx

Jul 25, '16, 11:54 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 908 Religion: Reformed

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by Peter J  But why would it be about Luther to begin with? It's really about teachings. Anyhow, I trust the magisterium.  This thread is entitled, "Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???" By its mere existence, it demonstrates the overwhelming obvious: that Catholics have opinions about Martin Luther, and even yours is an opinion (that the teachings rather than the person should be discussed). Enjoy your freedom.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 12:07 am

Peter J  Forum Master   Join Date: April 7, 2008 Location: Constitution Party Posts: 14,596 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  This thread is entitled, "Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???" By its mere existence, it demonstrates the overwhelming obvious: that Catholics have opinions about Martin Luther, and even yours is an opinion (that the teachings rather than the person should be discussed). Enjoy your freedom. Fair enough: a thread on the internet does have the aforementioned title. (Bang gavel.)  But seriously, I'm not really saying Don't talk about him. Just that he isn't "what it's all about". Heck, you pointed out that even the 16th century condemnations don't mention him.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 8:49 am

Son of Niall  Regular Member   Join Date: June 2, 2013 Posts: 1,672 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I'm grateful for the opinions expressed. I've been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here's what I've encountered: 1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther. 2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther. 3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther. 4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz). It would be wise to move beyond 'online discussions' to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther. What you oftentimes encounter here are Trad Catholics and non-Trad Catholics. 2PT3 was a case in point.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 9:49 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 908 Religion: Reformed

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by Son of Niall  It would be wise to move beyond 'online discussions' to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther. What you oftentimes encounter here are Trad Catholics and non-Trad Catholics. 2PT3 was a case in point. To clarify: by "online discussions" these interactions with Catholics (specifically on Luther) have included pro-Catholic forums, anti-Catholic forums, blogs, e-mail exchanges, etc. I've interacted with anonymous laymen as well as more well-known Catholic apologists. Exactly how do you propose I move beyond these interactions "to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther"? What is the method you suggest in this path of wisdom you're describing?

xx

Jul 26, '16, 10:49 am

Son of Niall  Regular Member   Join Date: June 2, 2013 Posts: 1,672 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Exactly how do you propose I move beyond these interactions "to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther"? What is the method you suggest in this path of wisdom you're describing? Turn off the computer. Walk outside without a device (first, get out your pajamas). Talk to people (you'll spot them right away, they have bodies like ours). End of lesson.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 10:58 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 908 Religion: Reformed

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by Son of Niall  Turn off the computer. Walk outside without a device (first, get out your pajamas). Talk to people (you'll spot them right away, they have bodies like ours). End of lesson. Interesting conundrum that someone without a body is giving me advice to speak to someone with a body in order to arrive at the correct conclusion on a particular issue. Keep in mind: I do talk to Catholics in person- but these cyber-discussions attract people who want to talk about certain issues and can at times have knowledge on certain issues (like Luther and the Reformation). On the other hand, I have typically not come across the same with Catholic "bodied" people. Perhaps that's your point: most (or many) Catholic people out in the tangible world don't have an opinion or care about Luther one way or other.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 11:07 am

Son of Niall  Regular Member   Join Date: June 2, 2013 Posts: 1,672 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Interesting conundrum that someone without a body is giving me advice to speak to someone with a body. Keep in mind: I do talk to Catholics in person- but these cyber-discussions attract people who want to talk about certain issues and have knowledge on certain issues. On the other hand, I have typically not come across the same with Catholic "bodied" people. Perhaps that's your point: most Catholic people out in the tangible world don't have an opinion or care about Luther one way or other. ....or is it perhaps a guy with an anti-Catholic blog (followed by what? Five people?) needs to keep coming back to CAF trying to portray himself as something he is not? Many Protestants, Lutherans included "in the tangible world" also don't have an opinion about Luther. Why? Perhaps because it is not 1517 anymore. I would rather listen to an old retired priest like Don Ruggero, who has far more experience in the 'tangible world' than someone trying to gather a cyber-crowd.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 11:10 am

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 908 Religion: Reformed

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by Son of Niall  ....or is it perhaps a guy with an anti-Catholic blog (followed by what? Five people?) needs to keep coming back to CAF trying to portray himself as something he is not? Many Protestants, Lutherans included "in the tangible world" also don't have an opinion about Luther. Why? Perhaps because it is not 1517 anymore. I would rather listen to an old retired priest like Don Ruggero, who has far more experience in the 'tangible world' than someone trying to gather a cyber-crowd. Ah, OK, now I get it. It's personal for you... against me. I wondered what was going on. You may have the last word.... or feel free to insult me again. Edited to add: I've had over a million hits to my blog, and I don't advertise, or sell anything. Frankly, I write for me, so if those 5 people move on, that's fine with me.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 11:13 am

Son of Niall  Regular Member   Join Date: June 2, 2013 Posts: 1,672 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? Quote: Originally Posted by TertiumQuid  Ah, OK, now I get it. It's personal for you... against me. I wondered what was going on. You may have the last word.... or feel free to insult me again. No ones insulting you dude. But if you wish to interact with Catholics, maybe you should not spend so much time insulting them on your 'blog'. Just sayin'.

xx

Jul 26, '16, 11:15 am

Eric Hilbert  Moderator   Join Date: September 30, 2009 Location: Non-Catholic Religions Posts: 7,751 Religion: Catholic

Re: Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther??? The OP please. __________________ Forum Rules and guidelines

The comments were indeed personal. Now, with Catholic Answers, I've learned to not use the alert system (I've gotten infractions for doing that, and I've been suspended for doing that). Had I defended myself, I could have also easily been giving an infraction or a suspension. I'm not exactly sure how the moderation works over at CA, but I know many of the rules do not apply to me.

Luther: People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil

Here's a Luther quote from the book, Henry O'Connor, Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works (1884), p. 55.

"People are now possessed with seven Devils, whereas formerly they were possessed with one Devil; the Devil now enters into the people in crowds, so that men are now more avaricious, unmerciful, impure, insolent........ than formerly under the Pope." [Walch. XIII. 10]

This quote pops up every once in a while. It's typically used by Rome's defenders as proof of the failure of the Reformation (or something like Luther's regrets or concession to the failure of the Reformation, etc. example #1, example #2). One old Roman Catholic publication uses it to describe how the authors of the Reformation "described the results of their labours" under the sub-heading, "By their fruits ye shall know them."  O'Connor uses it to describe the "Results of Luther's Teaching," specifically, the "Moral Results" that there was a "Lower State of General Morality."

Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results is an old small anthology of Luther quotes peppered with vilifying commentary from O’Connor. In an early edition of this work, the author was so sure of his effort he originally titled the book, "The Only Reliable Evidence Concerning Martin Luther." The author claims to have compiled the quotes from the original sources: “Nearly two-thirds of the matter contained in this pamphlet is taken from the original editions of Luther’s own Works, as published in Wittenberg, under the very eye of the Reformer of Germany himself”(p. 3) He says “I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context”(p.5).


Documentation
The footnote "Walch. XIII" refers to the thirteenth volume in a set of Luther's works published between 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch (Die Hauspostille Teil 2, Lutherpredigten für ein Jahr, zusammengestellt von Georg Rörer). Page 10 can be found here (see top of second column, note "XIII, 8-11" on the top right). It appears to me though there may be a printers glitch in some of the versions of O'Connor's book. His documentation appears like this:

All the on-line versions of this book I checked use this same image. Even my hard copy of the book has the same sort of printing. If you look closely, it is not page 10 being referenced, but actually page 19 from Walch XIII. Page 19 can be found here. The pertinent text in question reads:

This paragraph is from Luther's House Postil sermon on Matthew 21:1-9 (First Sunday in Advent, Second Sermon, 1533).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). The quote in question can be found in Vol. 5, p. 29-30.

There is another version of this sermon that was compiled by another person taking notes on Luther's sermon, Veit Dietrich. His version can be found here. The quote in question can be found on pages 8-9. O'Connor's footnote refers to Rörer's version, so that's the one I'll primarily refer to below.


Context

Georg Rörer's version 

10. That is our King, our dear Lord Jesus Christ, and this is his kingdom and office. Dollars, crowns, castles, and vast kingdoms don't constitute his mission. For if we depended on that and died, our life would be nothing. But it is his office and work that we know that through his suffering and death we are redeemed. On this we rest and can say: through the righteousness of my King, the Lord Jesus Christ, I am justified. For that purpose he became poor and wretched, let himself be nailed to the cross, to make me holy and to drown sin and death in me. Whoever believes what the gospel declares has what it says. For that purpose Christ instituted holy baptism, thereby to clothe you with his righteousness. It is tantamount to his saying, My righteousness shall be your righteousness; my innocence, your innocence. Your sins indeed are great, but by baptism I bestow on you my righteousness; I strip death from you and clothe you with my life. That's Christ's true regimen; his office and mission are summed up in this, that he daily strips away our sin and death and clothes us with his righteousness and life. 

11. 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 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. 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. Hence our Lord God scolds again, saying, Have you no appreciation for this—that through the suffering and death of my only begotten Son I have removed your sin and death? Well, then, if that's the way you want it, I will multiply sin and death sevenfold for you. And whereas before one devil possessed and troubled you, now seven worse devils will afflict you. No station in life—peasant, burgher, aristocrat—is spared, from highest to lowest, as they give their lives shamelessly, carelessly to greed, gluttony, drunkenness, immorality, and all manner shameful depravity.

 12. Therefore I exhort that you listen eagerly and lovingly to Word, receive it with deep gratitude, and beseech the Lord from the bottom of your heart for a firm faith to cling to this teaching. You may be certain that this will bear fruit day by day, as you become more humble, obedient, loving, chaste, and godly, for it is in the nature and art of this teaching to create godly, decent, obedient and pious people. But if people refuse to receive it with loving ready hearts, they will become seven times more wicked than before they came to know this teaching, as experience shows. Be forewarned therefore; the hour is coming—it cannot be avoided—the ingrates will be afflicted and punished. They will then recieve what now they have earned. God will certainly find them out [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 5, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000).  p. 29-30.

Veit Dietrich's Version

This now is our King, the dear Lord Jesus Christ, and this is His kingdom and office. It deals not with golden crowns and kingdoms, or with great worldly pomp ; no, but when we must die, and cannot retain this life any longer, then it is His office and work to deliver us from sin, death and the power of hell; and through the preaching of the gospel He announces to us that we shall certainly receive this gift or benefit from Him, so that when we are in trouble on account of our sins, or in danger of death, we can comfort ourselves by faith and say: Now help is afforded me through my dear King, Jesus Christ, the Just One and Savior; to this end He came, so lowly and poor, and suffered Himself to be nailed to the cross, that He might justify and sanctify me; in Himself He hath destroyed my sin and death, gives me His own righteousness and victory over death and hell, and gives me also His Holy Spirit, that I might have in my heart a sure seal and witness of His help. See now, whoever believes this as he hears it, and as it is preached in the gospel, he also has it. For to this end holy baptism was instituted by our Savior that He might clothe you with His righteousness, and that His holiness and innocence should be yours. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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 [link].

Conclusion
Notice in Georg Rörer's version Luther doesn't blame his teaching for the current state of affairs, but rather the people and ultimately Satan. Veit Dietrich's version shows Luther also states those who accept the 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." Those who do not receive it are those who become seven times worse.  For Luther, mankind will always oppose God's truth en masse and rebel against it, for that's what Satan and sin have always done in battle against God's word. 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 licence to sin and all sorts of evil because of Satan. The Gospel would indeed make those of the world worse. But on the flip-side, the Gospel would also transform those whom God intended to redeem, and they are those who comprise the church. 

Addendum

Some years back I covered this same quote as used by Rome's defender Steve Ray and Rome's historian Heinrich Denifle. The entry can be found here: Luther: People are Worse Than They Were Under The Papacy. 

Luther: Those who follow the Gospel should be worse after receiving the Gospel than they had been before

Here's a Luther quote from the book, Henry O'Connor, Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results: Taken Exclusively from the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works (1884), p. 55.

"I think it must needs be the case, that those who follow the Gospel (literally 'who become evangelical'), should be worse after (receiving) the Gospel than they had been before, not on account of the Gospel, but on account of the people who so abuse the Gospel" (Walch. XIII. 2193).

This quote pops up every once in a while. It's typically used by Rome's defenders as proof of the failure of the Reformation (or something like Luther's regrets or concession to the failure of the Reformation, etc. example #1, example #2).

Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results is an old small anthology of Luther quotes peppered with vilifying commentary from O’Connor. The author claims to have compiled the quotes from the original sources: “Nearly two-thirds of the matter contained in this pamphlet is taken from the original editions of Luther’s own Works, as published in Wittenberg, under the very eye of the Reformer of Germany himself”(p. 3) He says “I have taken special care not to quote anything, that would have a different meaning, if read with the full context”(p.5).

According to O'Connor's translation, people who "follow the Gospel" are worse after "receiving the Gospel." That part makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that this state of being "worse" isn't the fault of the Gospel, but rather the fault of those who "abuse the Gospel." We'll see below that the reason this doesn't make sense is because in his translation, O'Connor did not capture the essence of the context. Despite his attempted "special care," he missed the mark with this quote.

Documentation
The footnote "Walch. XIII" refers to the thirteenth volume in a set of Luther's works published between 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch (Die Hauspostille Teil 2, Lutherpredigten für ein Jahr, zusammengestellt von Georg Rörer). Page 2193 can be found here (see top of second column, note "XIII, 2193-2196" on the top right). The specific German text O'Connor appears to have taken his quote from is here:

This paragraph is from Luther's House Postil sermon on Matthew 18:21-25 (Twenty Second Sunday After Trinity, 1530).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).


Context

28. The nature of the gospel is such, that those who misuse it, become more wicked than they were before. Christ himself says (Matt. 12:43-45): "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." There you have it, black on white! Any person to whom the gospel is proclaimed and who then misuses that gospel, becomes seven times more wicked than he was to begin with, and it would have been better for him if he had never heard the gospel. That is why I have often said that if I could accomplish things by wishing, I would wish that peasants, burghers, and nobles, who now horribly misuse the gospel, might still be under the papacy, for they are nothing but a hindrance, a shame and a disgrace to the gospel. 

29. You see that illustrated here in this wicked servant too. After having experienced such great mercy, this scoundrel leaves and becomes more wicked than he had been before. This is not just my own personal judgment or opinion; it is the judgment of our Lord Christ himself, In crystal clear words he asserts that those who become evangelicals turn out to be more wicked than they were before. Experience, too, teaches us that this is so. Sad to say, we daily experience the fact that people who are under the gospel now bear greater and more bitter hatred and envy in their hearts; they are more greedy and to materialistic now than when they were still under the papacy. As Christ says, The reason for this is that they have again opened their heart's door to Satan, and he has brought with himself seven other spirits more wicked than he himself is. We, who proclaim the gospel, must simply put up with the fact that under the gospel people become more wicked than they were before. But it is not the fault of the gospel, but of the devil and those people who return to serving Satan, allowing him to reenter their hearts and rule there along with sew other, more wicked spirits. This really depresses and angers the rest of the servants, so they come and report to the king the sordid conduct of their fellow servant. We, too, experience the same kind of disappointment when those who have the reputation of being "evangelical" conduct themselves so disgracefully and abominably that we really wish they were still under the papacy. But here we follow the example of these fellow servants by bringing their disgraceful abuse of the gospel to the attention of God and of the public [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 141-142].

Conclusion
The people who become worse because of the Gospel is not an all-inclusive statement as O'Connor insinuates. The people in view here are not Christians.  Luther has in mind "wicked people" of the "godless world." He says of these people, "For such people there is not forgiveness" (p. 140-141). "[T]he gospel is a message for the depressed, for people with a guilty conscience, not for those who deliberately sin against a gracious God" (p. 141).  Like the judgment of the wicked servant in Matthew 18, "the Lord God will soon bring down upon our false 'evangelicals' plagues, hard times, and war" (p. 142-143). "[Y]ou who are misusing the gospel so shamefully will meet a different fate from the one that is reserved for us, whom you are mistreating and depressing so severely" (p. 143-144).

What provoked O'Connor to so abuse the context? Speculating, I would suggest it's his zeal to defend Rome at all costs. For O'Connor, "Luther can only have been a Reformer chosen by Almighty God, if his teaching caused an increase of virtue and a decrease of vice" (O'Connor, p. 50). This is an unproven assumption, and it isn't even Biblical: many of the prophets of the Old Testament demonstrate that in their attempts to reform Israel by proclaiming the truth of God, they often were not heeded and the nation of Israel grew worse.