Zwingli: "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow"

Over the years I've worked through a Roman Catholic pop-apologetic webpage documenting the Mariology of the Reformers. This propaganda is sometimes entitled, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary."  It highlights Marian quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, specifically with the intention of showing the early Reformers were either devoted to Mary, venerated her, or retained specifically Roman Catholic Marian dogmas. 

"The Protestant Reformers on Mary" webpage is usually set in the form of one-sided information which will only present quotes from the Reformers that coincide (or can be misconstrued) to support Roman Catholic Mariology. Anything the Reformers said that does not bolster Roman Catholic Mariology is often ignored. It is blatant propaganda: Consider how often Roman Catholic apologists vilify the Protestant Reformation, yet if the Reformers say something that sounds like their version of Mariology, the original Reformers become the staunch supporters of Mary... leaders that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from!

This quote from Ulrich Zwingli is typically cited in "The Protestant Reformers on Mary": 

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow" [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.]

For an example of the most general popular usage of this quote, the anonymous authors over at Wikipedia use it and state, "Some early Protestant Reformers venerated and honored Mary." Most of the other usages of the quote I checked (typically by Roman Catholics) imply the same thing. It's easy to see why Rome's defenders would cherry-pick this quote. Zwingli appears to be placing Mary in a high place of divine importance.  Zwingli doesn't say, "the more you love Christ, the more you should honor Paul or Abraham." He specifically places Mary in a unique category of honor, perhaps using the moral imperative, or normative, "should." The gist possibly being communicated with the use of this quote, is that... if you honor and love Christ, one has the moral obligation to grow in their esteem and honor of Mary. 

Was Zwingli venerating and honoring Mary... just like Roman Catholics do? Was he implying people have a duty to esteem and honor Mary?  Let's take a closer look at this quote and see what's going on.  We'll see with this quote, first, the word "should" is not what Zwingli originally meant. Second, this quote was only partially translated. The end of the sentence was left off, allowing Rome's defenders the needed ambiguity to make Zwingli appear to be venerating Mary... just like they do!

Documentation and Historical Background

Before even attempting to search the primary source out, one of the first questions I consider is the origin of the English translation. Ulrich Zwingli did not write in English, so someone, at some time in the past, did the work of translating his German into English. Then, someone lifted the English quote from this secondary source and put it on the Internet. As far as I can tell, this quote, in this English form, has been multiplying throughout cyberspace for at least twenty years!

It's very likely this quote comes from Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), p.144. Over the years, I've noticed quotes from the Reformers about Mary originating from this book. I'm not entirely certain that O'Meara did the English translation, but it seems likely. I have not found this specific English translation in any other book previous to O'Meara's publication. 

If the quote came from O'Meara, whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally mined this quote out of Mary In Protestant and Catholic Theology may have let their zealous worldview get in the way. Notice how O'Meara frames the quote:

According to O'Meara, even though Zwingli wrote something nice about Mary, "...he denied any special merit or work to Mary and was strongly opposed to any invocation to her." On the same page he mentions Zwingli's rejection of any mention of Mary in prayer as a "more drastic departure from Catholic tradition than Luther's" and that for Zwingli, images of Mary do not belong "in places of worship." For O'Meara, Zwingli had a Mariology, but there were significant deviations from the popular Marian piety of the sixteenth century. Rome's cyber-defenders don't mention that! 

A simple web search of this quote reveals extensive cut-and-pasting, including it being featured in published books. If documentation is given, it's similar to what's been provided above. Going with the assumption that O'Meara is the English source for this Zwingli quote, let's closely look at it: "Zwingli, Opera, CR 1, 427-428." What's being cited is the Corpus Reformatorum, specifically a volume dedicated to Zwingli's writings. "CR 1" is the first volume presenting Zwingli's writings (the actual volume in the overall set is 88). This volume (from 1905) has been digitized. 

In O'Meara's bibliography for "Reformation Marian Theology" many of the sources are in German. He lists a few German articles on Zwingli, and includes Tappolet's influential book, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren. I mention this because it could very well be that O'Meara did not actually consult a primary Zwingli source for this quote. This does not mean the secondary source he may have taken the quote from was necessarily inaccurate. It means there is more of a possibility for tedious and contextual errors. For instance, Either O'Meara got the page numbers wrong for this quote, or he was working with a different edition: I did not locate the quote on pages 427-428. Rather, the quote is on page 426. I have not located any edition yet in which the quote is on pages 427-428.

The quote comes from, "Ein predig von der reinen gotzgebärerin Maria," Sept. 17, 1522 ("Sermon on Mary, the Pure Mother of God").  This date is in interesting because technically, Zwingli was still a Roman Catholic when he preached the sermon on Mary. Shortly after the sermon (October 10, 1522), Zwingli gave up being a priest. This source states, 

After this sermon Zwingli made his break with the Roman Catholic Church. On October 10, 1522 the Zurich council released him from his priestly duties by creating a preaching office. This was not the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates, but it marked Zwingli's definitive break with the Catholic priesthood.

An edited excerpt of the sermon has been partly translated into English here. An interesting sectional overview can be found here. For English speakers, this overview gives a fair and helpful overview of the entire sermon... and it was done by a Roman Catholic scholar. 

According to this source, the sermon was prompted by a disputation Zwingli was earlier involved in which he critiqued traditional Mariology. This source mentions, "For four hours they disputed on prayers to the Virgin Mary and the saints, with Zwingli convincing [French preacher Francis] Lambert [of Avignon] that such prayers were unscriptural." An overview:

After this disputation, rumors spread that Zwingli had denigrated Mary. Zwingli's later sermon on Mary is therefore a "defense against those accusations which charged him with having defamed the Mother of God in public and lowered her prominence" (source). This author continues about the sermon:  

He clearly recognizes the term "Mother of God" as well as her permanent and unblemished virginity. However, he definitely rejects Mary's mediatorship and the religious veneration accorded her person. Faith in Christ is diminished when in the confessional the reciting of the Ave Maria (cf. Luke 1:28) is ordered. The right veneration of Mary is to see in her an example of strict morals, modesty, and firmness in faith: "If you seek to honor Mary especially, follow her in her purity, innocence and firm faith" (z 1, 426, 22f).

Context

Hierumb so wüsse ein ieder, das dis die höchst eer ist, die man Marie mag thủn, das man die gůthat' ires suns, uns armen sünderen bewisen, recht erkenne, recht ere, zů imm louffe umb alle gnad; denn gott hat inn gesetzt ein gnädigung für unser sünd durch sin eigen blüt, ja so wir sölchen glouben zů imm habend Rom. 3. 25. Denn er ein einiger mitler ist zwüschend got und den menschen, in dem, das er sich ein rantzung oder loßgelt ußgeben hatt für alle menschen 1. Tim. 2. 31. Ja, der die zůversicht und vertruwen zů dem sun Marie hat, der hat sy am höchsten geeret; denn all ir eer ist ir sun. Und so ich ieman fragte: Was ist das gröst ding ann Marien, weyß ich wol, er mußte antwurten: Das sy uns den sun gottes, der uns erlößt, geboren hat. Ist nun ir gröste eer ir sun, so ist ouch ir gröste eer, das man den recht erkenne, inn ob allen dingen lieb hab, imm ewenklich danckbar sy umb die gúthat, uns bewisen. Dann ie me die eer und liebe Christi Jesu wachßt under den menschen, ie me das werd und eer Marie wachßt, das sy uns den so grossen doch gnädigen herren und erlöser geborn hat. Wiltu aber Mariam besunderlich eeren, so volg nach irer reinigkeit, unschuld und vestem glouben, und so du ein Ave Maria bettest und bedacht hast zum ersten den fürnemen handel unserer erlösung, wie obstat, gedenck darnach, das die, so großer gnaden und eeren von got begabet, ist nüt deß minder arm xin, hat durchächtung, schmertzen und ellend müssen lyden, in den dingen sy aber allen unabgewendt bliben ist. Und tröst darnach din armůt und widerwertigkeit mit iro, das sölche iamer so gewüß den menschen gegnen? 

Textual Issues

One will notice that the context given above is in German... but in actuality, it's in a type of German / Swiss dialect. Checking independently with a few friends, I can safely provide this updated English translation of the quote in question:

"The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus grows among the people, as it grows, also the honor of Mary grows because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior."

or:

"The more honor and love for Jesus Christ grows among the people, the more worth and honor for Mary grows for bearing us the great yet benevolent Lord and Savior." 

George Tavard likewise translates the text similarly, and includes more of the context:

The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus has increased among humans, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased, since she has born for us such a great and gracious Lord and redeemer. But if you wish especially to honor Mary, follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith. And when you say an Ave Maria and you have first thought what a great thing, as was said above, it is for our redemption, think also secondly that, with this great grace and honor given her by God, she has not become less poor herself and she has had to bear persecution, pain, and misery, in which however she has remained with a strong heart. And therefore may you, with your poverty and your weariness, find an example in her: This misery that is so well known to humans must be born, since the Holy Mother of God was not sheltered from it...

Compare all of this with what's been floating around the Internet for twenty years:

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."

First, O'Meara says Marian honor should grow among people. The word "should" being used sounds like it may be being used as a moral imperative (a moral action that must be done). The use of the word "should" leads to questions as to whether the sentence is descriptive or normative. Is the sentence describing something that is the case (descriptive), or is it describing something that ought to happen (normative)? Whichever the translator intended, of the three alternate translations above, none include "should."  One source told me the word "should" isn't in the original text. 

The solution as to descriptive or normative is solved by the context. Notice O'Meara's English version didn't translate the entire sentence! He left out, "...because she has born for us the very great and gracious Lord and Savior." Zwingli is being descriptive.  Zwingli wasn't saying honor Christ and increase your honor of Mary. Zwingli was stating a historical fact: The more the honor and love of Christ Jesus increased throughout church history, the more has the honor and appreciation of Mary increased as well. 

Zwingli then explains the correct way to "especially honor Mary": "follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith." One does not honor Mary for her intrinsic qualities of greatness or intercession. George Tavard (a Roman Catholic scholar) interprets Zwingli's notion of correct devotion:

Conclusion

In summary: the quote, "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow," has significant difficulties. First, it's often documented incorrectly. Second, it was actually written while Zwingli was still technically a Roman Catholic and also previous to the introduction of the Reformation in Zurich ("... the introduction of the Reformation, that was still over two years away, and the breaking of the Lenten fast and public criticism of saints and images in the churches remained contrary to the will of the magistrates..."). Third, the word translated "should" is not in the original text. The use of "should" without a context makes the quote at best ambiguous, at worst incorrectly either an imperative or a normative statement. Fourth, Zwingli explains the correct way to "especially honor Mary": "follow her purity, her innocence, and her strong faith." The honor is for one to modify their behavior by mirroring Mary's behavior. Zwingli reserves worshipful honor to Christ.  

I realize Rome's apologists read this blog. I can visualize some of them tapping away a rebuttal. Before they do this, I would respectfully ask they keep the following point in mind.

1. Zwingli had a Mariology

I believe that Ulrich Zwingli had a Mariology, in fact, I would agree with George Tavard when he said Zwingli was "the most Marian figure of the Reformation" among the early Reformers.  Yes, Zwingli said things about Mary modern Protestants would not say. He believed things about Mary that modern Protestants would not. Rome's defenders need to balance this though with the historical truth that Zwingli's Mariology also differed with the Roman Catholic Mariology of his day, particularly popular beliefs about Mary.

2.  Zwingli said nice things about Mary

There's no denying Zwingli said nice things about Mary. A point I've often made in regard to Luther, applies to Zwingli as well: saying nice things about Mary is not the same thing as Roman Catholic Marian devotion and honor, both then and now. The question that needs to be asked is what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Zwingli to be devoted, honor, or venerate Mary? Rome's defenders should not be allowed to equivocate. Zwingli saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion. I do not deny that Zwingli spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “venerate,” they mean something different than Zwingli, as demonstrated above.

3.The transitional early Reformers

Like Luther, there are quotes about Mary from Zwingli peppered throughout his writings that may "surprise" a reader. I suspect the quotes would be most surprising to someone ignorant of church history, particularly those unaware of the ebb and flow of trends and traditions, both within Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. It's true that the early Reformers made comments about Mary that current Protestants would not make. But similarly, there are comments made by Protestants today that would probably surprise the early Reformers. This isn't, to use the cliché, rocket science. The Marian climate of the early Protestant world is not the Marian climate of the current theological landscape. When the Reformers broke with Rome, they were, in some regard, transitional figures. To steal a concept from Alister McGrath: the Reformers demonstrated both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be at all surprising then to discover elements of the Reformer's Mariology that echoed the medieval theological worldview. Contrarily, it should also not be surprising to discover there were elements of their understanding of Mary that broke with the medieval theological worldview. Such is the case with this Zwingli quote. 

Addendum: Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary

By far, the best Zwingli blog is Zwinglius Redivivus by Jim West. He has posted, Zwingli's Opposition to the Worship of Mary.  He located this section from
The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli (Vol. 2):

II. From this, most gracious King, you see clearly that we do not dismiss the saints nor the sacraments, nor move them from their place, as some men say that we do, but that we keep and guard them in their proper place and dignity, that no man may use them wrongly. We do not insult Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, when we forbid that she be adored with divine honors; but when we would attribute to her the majesty and power of the Creator, she herself would not permit such adoration. For true piety has one and the same character among all men and is the same in all, because it originates by one and the same Spirit. It cannot even be imagined, therefore, that any created being should at the same time be pious and suffer the worship due the Deity to be offered to himself. So also the Virgin Mother of God will as much the less accept the worship due the Deity as she is high above all created beings and reverently devoted to God, her Son. It is a mark of insanity in godless men and demons when they allow divine honors to be paid to them. This is proved by the images of demons and the arrogance of Herod, of whom the first, by teaching worship of themselves, deceived the world to its destruction, and the second, not refusing the divine honors offered him, was struck with phthiriasis, that he might learn to recognize the feebleness of man.

Did Luther Believe Justification is a Process?

An anonymous participant left this comment: "Luther believed justification is an ongoing process and not a one-time-event like most Protestants today hold to as part of their interpretation of faith alone." In support of this claim, the following citations were provided:

Luther said: “We perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness,” - Disputation on Justification, thesis 23, in Luther’s Works 34:152.

“Our justification is not yet complete.... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead.” - D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausabe (Weimar, 1883), 39I:252 (cited in Althaus, 237 n. 63).

With these citations, Luther is put forth as an advocate of the process of justification... which is notoriously a Roman Catholic theological construct. Let's take a closer look at these quotes and see where they come from and what they are actually saying. We'll discover that the lines between what Luther and Rome are saying about Justification and the final judgment are being obfuscated. 

Documentation

The immediate red flag that this may be a blatant drive-by cut-and-paste are the English citations of Luther and accompanying German references. The cut-and-paste of these quotes is suspiciously similar to an old article by Rome's defender, Jimmy Akin, but more precisely material from Akin's later book, The Drama of Salvation, p. 29.  

It looks like Mr. Akin recycled his old article and made additions and corrections when he published his book (for instance, the first Luther quote is expanded in the book form and the documentation was corrected).  Mr. Akin has relied heavily on a section from Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, (particularly page 226) in this presentation of Luther, with both quotes cited by Althaus on page 237 (Althaus translation of the first quote is slightly different than LW 34). Akin uses this material drawn from Althaus to conclude that "a number of recent Protestant scholars" recognize that Justification is a process and "in doing so they are retrieving a concept that was present in the thought of some of the early Reformers" (p.28). 

Mr. Akin argues for the Roman Catholic "process" of justification rather than the imputation of Christ's righteousness. For Akin, it's only "the final, consummating declaration of our righteousness" done in the future that will be the deciding factor if one is actually justified before God or not.  

Quote #1 "We perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness"

This quote comes from a series of disputation statements based on Romanns 3:28, While this is the extent of the statement (it is point #23), the explanation of what Luther means in regard to justification is contained in the surrounding theses and subsequent explanations. In Theses #4, Luther says, "A man is truly justified by faith in the sight of God, even if he finds only disgrace before man and in his own self" (LW 34:151). For Luther, this is profound, for it is human nature to expect to earn salvation by works.  For Luther, our works do not contribute to standing before God as justified. In the same set of Theses, Luther says, "Therefore, whoever is justified is still a sinner; and yet he is considered fully and perfectly righteous by God who pardons and is merciful" (Theses #24).  Luther says the righteousness of Christ "cannot be laid hold of by our works" (Theses # 27) and that "faith alone justifies without our works " because one cannot say "I produce Christ or the righteousness of Christ" (Theses #28).

Luther says that God, in essence, tolerates sin in people until they enter his heavenly eternal kingdom. It is there he states, "For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness." Is Luther saying that justification is a journey of the "process" of gaining righteousness toward some sort of eventual justification to stand before a holy God? Not at all. Luther says that good works done by the regenerate are the "start of a new creature" "in the battle against the sin of the flesh" (Theses #35).

Quote #2 “Our justification is not yet complete.... It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead.” 

The document this quote comes from (Die Promotionsdisputation von Palladius und Tilemann [Rom 3:28] On the Works of the Law and of Grace [1537]) is scheduled to be released in a future volume of Luther's Works for English readers. The original text can be found here. Similar to the first quote, when Luther speaks of justification as "under construction" and then "completed in the resurrection of the dead," the emphasis is not on process-journey of gaining righteousness to stand before a holy God. The earthly existence is only the mere beginning of intrinsic personal righteousness.  As Paul Althaus explains of Luther, "The condition of being righteous in ourselves can be described in the present tense only as having begun, but its completion lies only in the future; we are only becoming righteous" (Althaus, 237). 

Conclusion

This blog entry is one of those keep your eyes on the ball exercises. For Luther, it's the one-time event in a person's life, in which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a sinner that allows one into the saving presence of the Holy God, and to savingly remain forever in the presence of Holy God. In the final court room scene in each person's life, God declares a person righteous because the righteousness of Christ entirely covers that person.

The confusion that the anonymous commenter seized and applied to Romanism is that, according to Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus, "Luther used the term 'to justify' in [iustificare] and 'justification' [justificatio] in more than one sense" (Althaus, 226). Sometimes Luther used it to mean that sense in which a sinner stands before God and is judged according to the righteousness of Christ, imputed by faith. Other times he uses it to mean a person actually intrinsically becoming righteous. Althaus explains, "Justification in that sense remains incomplete on this earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete justification in this sense is an eschatological reality" (Althaus, 226).     By being made "perfectly righteous" Luther means being given a glorified body. Althaus later says of Luther's view, "This already present righteousness is both a complete and a partial righteousness, depending on the way in which it is viewed. It is complete when viewed as acceptance by God and as a participation in Christ's righteousness; Christ's righteousness is a totality and the believer participates in that totality. It is partial as man's new being and new obedience" (Althaus, 236). That new obedience culminates in the future: For Luther, in the final court room scene, a person is given a new existence: "Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous" (LW 34:166).

For Rome, in the eternal state, God will look at person and judge whether or not that person is completely righteous. If that person is not completely infused with personal righteousness, that person is not given a glorified body, but is sent off to purgatory until personal righteousness is complete. In this world, therefore, a strong emphasis is placed on participating in the sacraments and gathering up as much righteousness as one can. Note Jimmy Akin's comment from his old article: 

[T]he ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So we may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life.

In Luther's view, it is the righteousness of Christ given to a person that allows a sinner to enter into God's holy presence... and stay there. There is no need to be sent off to purgatory to be made righteous. In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther comments on the view of Erasmus that captures some of the nuances under scrutiny here: 

By faith we are justified and by faith we receive forgiveness of sins and the beginning of obedience, as Erasmus also argues. He distinguishes between faith and works in this way. Faith alone begins the forgiveness of sins, but works obtain salvation or merit and the kingdom of heaven or eternal life. He says that faith in this life removes sins and gives remission of sins, afterward he ascribes salvation to works. This is most excellent and plausible, and this argument pleases reason. For reason rushes in blindly and thinks thus: Eternal salvation is something else than Christian righteousness. It concludes that it can by its own works merit eternal salvation, as if we obtained justification through faith and salvation through works. So it seems plausible enough, since the text clearly said, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. But this is absurd in the first place, because then Christ must be an incomplete and not a perfect savior. They wish thereby to make us more perfect than our Savior, because they attribute that which is the greatest to works and that which is least to Christ and faith. Even if Christ merits forgiveness of sins for us, we must still save ourselves. Likewise, we need Christ for justification, as if for the least important reason, afterward we need obedience for our salvation, as if for the most important reason. Who says such things? Beware of these arguments and of such men, since this now makes Christ less highly esteemed a savior, but detracts from his honor, that he has made us righteous by his death, since we ourselves can obtain eternal life by our works. These absurdities bring darkness into the minds of men. For they assume that Christ must not be the Savior, that he made us safe from original sin, and that we must later become perfect by ourselves. [LW 34:163]

In this life, if works are done, they are not done to gain favor with God.  In the Disputation in which the first quote was extracted, Luther repeatedly argues,

Works only reveal faith, just as fruits only show the tree, whether it is a good tree. I say, therefore, that works justify, that is, they show that we have been justified, just as his fruits show that a man is a Christian and believes in Christ, since he does not have a feigned faith and life before men. For the works indicate whether I have faith. I conclude, therefore, that he is righteous, when I see that he does good works. In God’s eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not. [LW 34:161].

Addendum

“Official Roman Catholic theology includes sanctification in the definition of justification, which it sees as a process rather than a single decisive event and affirms that while faith contributes to our acceptance with God, our works of satisfaction and merit contribute too. Rome sees baptism, viewed as a channel of sanctifying grace, as the primary instrumental cause of justification, and the sacrament of penance, whereby congruous merit is achieved through works of satisfaction, as the supplementary restorative cause whenever the grace of God’s initial acceptance is lost through mortal sin. Congruous, as distinct from condign, merit means merit that it is fitting, though not absolutely necessary, for God to reward by a fresh flow of sanctifying grace. On the Roman Catholic view, therefore, believers save themselves with the help of the grace that flows from Christ through the church’s sacramental system, and in this life no sense of confidence in God’s grace can ordinarily be had. Such teaching is a far cry from that of Paul.” (J.I. Packer Concise Theology)

Calvin's Antisemitism: "Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”

 Here's a hostile quote against the Jews from John Calvin circulating cyberspace:

John Calvin: (Speaking of the Jewish people) Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”

This John Calvin quote seems to be saying the "rotten" Jews should be actively oppressed to the point of death. While it's true that the sixteenth century (and all centuries!) have been hostile to the Jewish people, I was unfamiliar with strong antisemitic statements like this from the pen of John Calvin. We'll see with this quote, while John Calvin was not ecumenical towards the Jews (nor was he sympathetic to them), he was not advocating killing them. The quote appears to be a mistranslation of the original Latin source.   

Documentation

There are a number of websites using this quote without any documentation (I found one website misattributing the quote to Calvin's Commentary on Daniel). There are also a few Christian and Jewish apologetic sites that use the quote as part of a cumulative case argument demonstrating antisemitism by important personages of the Christian church. The quote made its way to the ever-popular disseminator of context-less factoids, Wikiquote. They correctly identify the quote as originating from Calvin's Response to questions and Objections of a Certain Jew (in its original Latin, Ad Questiones et Obiecta Iudaei cuisdam Responsio). They do not provide where this source can be found, nor a page number.

If the original written source is in Latin, who translated this quote into English? The earliest usage I could find of this English rendering comes from a book entitled, The Jew in Christian Theology, by Gerhard Falk (McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1992), p. 84 (some websites use this book for documentation without a page number and incorrectly date the book "1931" ...the year Falk was born). Falk, in essence, admits to not using the original source. He documents the quote coming from a secondary German source: Rudolf Pfisterer, Im Schatten des Kreuzes (Hamburg, Evangeliscer Verlag, 1966), p. 72. (At the time of writing this entry, I do not have a copy of this secondary source). Falk documents that while he took the quote from Pfisterer's book, Pfisterer was actually quoting Jacques Courvoisier's article, "Calvin et les Juifs"! That article is from an old scholarly periodical: Judaica Beitrage zum Verständnis des jüdischen. Schidcsals in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 2 (1946): 203-8. That periodical can be found here. The Latin text this quote is based on is found on page 206:

Without having Pfisterer's book, it seems likely that Falk either translated Courvoisier's Latin Calvin quote into English, or perhaps Pfisterer translated Calvin's Latin into German, and then Falk translated the quote into English. Either way, it seems that it's likely Falk provided the English translation currently circulating in cyberspace. 

The Latin treatise the quote comes from is found in CR 37:653–74 (The Corpus Reformatorum ).  The popular English version this quote appears to be based on can be found in the last paragraph in the right hand column on page 674.  The text is a fictional dialog between a Jewish apologist and John Calvin. Calvin did not publish it (it was put out 11 years after he died). It is also incomplete (source). The treatise begins and ends abruptly.

To my knowledge, there are only two complete English translations of this treatise available, from two very different people. The most scholarly was done by Rabbi Susan Frank in M. Sweetland Laver, “Calvin, Jews, and Intra-Christian Polemics” (PhD diss, Temple University, Philadelphia, 1987), 220–61. Her complete translation is included as an appendix toward the end of this dissertation. Up until recently, this appears to be the only complete English translation in circulation. That translation is available here for purchase.   

The other translation is self-published and freely available on the Internet Archive. While this translation may be accurate, the author appears to be blatantly and approvingly antisemitic. How ironic: the previous translation was done by a scholarly Rabbi and is accessible for purchase, the other by an antisemite (seemingly without meaningful publishing credentials)... for free. What I found curious about this antisemitic translator was that he suspected Rabbi Frank's earlier translation would not be accurate because she was a Rabbi! He concluded though it was:

I must admit that the fact that a rabbi was responsible for this translation led me to suspect its accuracy. However, I have closely compared the Frank translation to my own, and while it differs in some very minor points, the Frank translation is on the whole quite accurate. 

I mention this antisemitic translator because he actually includes a section of his translation dedicated to the Calvin quote in question: 

There is a quote about the Jews attributed to Calvin that is found on several different websites (for an example, see the John Calvin page on Wikiquote). The quote is as follows: "Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." The Wikiquote page, as well as other online postings, claim that this quote comes from the Response. However, this exact quote is not found in the text. It seems to be a mistranslation of a sentence that appears in the twenty-third section of the work. Below is the original Latin and my translation of this sentence:

"Primo meretur eorum perdita obstinatio et indomabilis, ut immensa miseriarum congerie sine fine et modo oppressi omnes exhilarent suis malis, nemo autem eorum misereatur."

"First of all, their depraved and indomitable obstinacy merits that none of them be pitied, as they all delight in their evils while being oppressed by a great mass of miseries without end or measure."

In the popular online version, it sounds as if Calvin is saying that the Jews should be oppressed and that they deserve to die, while the actual text says that the Jews are foolish to persist in their rejection of the Messiah in the face of the oppression that they have experienced. The sentiment that the Jews should not be pitied certainly is found in Calvin's original words, and while the mistranslation does not in the least stray from the overall tenor of the Response, it is still desirable to correct an inaccurate rendering that has been repeated so many times.

 

Context

Conclusion

In context, the Jewish apologist asks Calvin, why are the Jews in exile because they killed Jesus when Jesus himself prayed that those killing him be forgiven, since they didn't know what they were doing? It is to this question Calvin claims the Jews have "indomitable obstinacy" delighting in evil, even while being subjected to years of misery in exile. It is to this Calvin claims the hardship of the Jews should not provoke pity. While he is not advocating murdering Jews (as the quote in question insinuates), it is nonetheless hostile to the Jews and promotes typical sixteenth century antisemitic views. 

It appears the popular English rendering of this quote includes elements of mistranslation. Note that Falk used the word, "rotten" for the Latin word "perdita." The meaning "rotten" appears to be a severe translating choice at best (or erroneous at worst) of the adjective "perditus" (Calvin did not use the word "putridum"). "Meretur" is a deponent verb that's passive but translated as active, so, while "deserves" is a proper English translation, it's meaning is not that people should actively oppress the Jews, but that what is happening to them is "deserved" because of past actions.  The part of Falk's translation that takes it a step a further is "that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." I'm not entirely sure how he arrived at this from the Latin text, but taken as a whole, Falk's version has Calvin instructing his readers to oppress the Jews to the point of death.  Calvin is not saying this. 

In the same context of the Calvin quote Falk translated, he says, 

Calvin wrote very little about the Jews because he could not have ever met Jews in Geneva... It is true Calvin accepted common Christian teachings concerning the Jews as outsiders, enemies of God and Christ killers. But compared to the excesses of hatred which Luther spewed forth for years, Calvin's attitudes toward the only non-Christians permitted to live in Christian Europe seemed mild and ordinary (p. 83-84).

Whoever originally mined the Calvin quote out of this text appears to have missed these remarks from Falk.  In fact, there is debate as to exactly how one should interpret Calvin's attitude toward the Jews    ranging from those who say Calvin was not antisemitic, to typically antisemitic for his time period, to harshly antisemitic. Falk's analysis falls in the middle category (as does mine). True, Falk does present a mistranslated Calvin quote to make him seem worse than he was. Why did he do this? My take is he might have needed to do this for the overall argument of his book: Calvin may not have been bad enough, especially after Falk previously documented the things Luther had said about the Jews. There is also the question as to whether or not using an unfinished and unpublished work by Calvin himself is fair. Certainly the unpublished remarks Calvin made have meaning, but do they have precedent over his other published remarks? 

Luther: Mary is the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ..."

 

This picture / quote is circulating cyberspace. It's a quote I've gone over before in tedious detail here.  In summary of this earlier blog post:

1) This is not one quote. It's two quotes from two different pages (separated by an entire page). The English version of this quote appears to have been taken from William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). Whoever put this quote / picture together probably never consulted the source, but rather did the typical cut-and-paste.

2) In my tedious detail post back in 2015, I did not see the phrase "wisdom and holiness personified" in the text. It could be in the original and I missed it. The primary source is a mixture of Latin and German, not written by Luther, but by someone who took notes on what he preached. See my original post for more details.

3) In context, Luther chastised the papacy for its treatment of Mary:

We should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone!

4) There's no denying Luther said nice things about Mary. Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia. If you search out all the times Luther used the word “veneration,” you will find almost an entirely negative meaning applied to the term by the Reformer. The question that needs to be asked is what exactly is Marian devotion and veneration? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to or venerate Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to or venerate Mary?  Rome's defenders should not be allowed to equivocate. Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion,” they mean something different than Luther.

Luther: "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church"

 Through a Facebook discussion comes this shocking Martin Luther quote:

Do Protestants believe in the Papacy? They sure do; they just don't believe in the Catholic Papacy! Ken Hensley as a Protestant writes, Luther wrote, "to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and church" (Wierke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35). This, in part is why Ken isn’t Protestant anymore!

This is a standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic argument: without Rome's infallible interpreter governing the meaning of Scripture, each person functions as their own interpreter of Scripture.  This Facebook post goes on to say, "As one Protestant minister convert put it, when he became Catholic, 'I am glad I don’t have to be the Pope anymore.' I must admit, there are some honest Protestants out there!" This is old-school Roman Catholic apologetics in which a seemingly outrageous quote from Luther is utilized (along with a reference to an obscure source) to justify Roman Catholicism. Why would Luther say or write such a thing? Why would he affirm that without the Roman Catholic papacy, each person becomes a Pope? It seems like a bizarre admission from the Reformer. 

We'll see from the context, Luther was not saying what this argument purports.  

Documentation

The documentation offered is first to Roman convert Ken Hensley's article, Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? Mr. Hensley writes, 

We’ve been talking about the “foundation” upon which Protestantism as a worldview is built: sola Scriptura. What is involved in a commitment to sola Scriptura? It’s often summarized simply as the belief that the inspired Scriptures are to function as the “sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the individual Christian and for the Christian Church.” But actually, sola Scriptura includes within it another key commitment: the right of each Christian to study the Bible and decide for himself what it is teaching. Protestants commonly refer to this as the “right of private judgment,” and it’s understood as following inescapably from a belief in sola Scriptura. “In these matters of faith,” Luther wrote, “to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church” (Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35).

Mr. Hensley presents a Luther quote in English, but if the documentation is checked, the source is in Latin. This is standard pop-apologetic Roman Catholic methodology: give off the appearance of credible scholarship by using obscure sources. Luther said x, here is a reference to a source that casual English readers will not know how to look up, and even if they do know how to look it up, they will only understand the source if they can read German or Latin!   

I suspect Mr. Hensley actually did not translate Latin into English, nor did he actually utilize "Werke, Weimar: 1898, 5:407, p. 35." It is more likely he cut-and-pasted this quote from elsewhere. Perhaps he used the Robert Sungenis driven anthology, Not By Scripture Alone. This book uses the same English rendering and documentation:  

Luther, the grand champion of sola scriptura, ultimately was forced to set his own authority above Scripture when the Bible contradicted his own position...This appeal to his own authority was consistent with his conviction that "in these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself Pope and Church" (in his enim, quae sunt fidei, quilibet Christianus est sibi Papa et Ecclesia). [D Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: 1898; 5:407, 35]. 

The primary source cited by Mr. Hensely is "WA 5:407, p. 35." Someone trying to figure out this reference first needs to figure out why Mr. Hensley presented two different page numbers: 407 and 35. Maybe whatever secondary source he utilized added the "p," or perhaps if the Sungenis anthology was used, he added the "p" himself.  The page is 407. "35" refers to the line being cited on the page: 

This volume contains Luther's comments on Psalms 1-22,1519-1521. The comment comes from Luther's insights into Psalm 14. This text has been translated into English, Martin Luther's complete commentary on the first Twenty-Two Psalms (vol. 2). The quote can be found on page 64.

Context 

And to this we ought to be moved by the consideration, that this knowledge of ours renders us safe, so that the works of ceremonies cannot hurt us when we know that we are justified by faith. And again, we ought to be moved to this, by the knowing that we have good things in Christ, and have no longer to labour under considerations and thoughts about the manner in which we may be justified. And therefore, all our life from henceforth should be lived to the benefit of our neighbour: as Christ lived for us; and, as we do all other things for their good, much more should we attend to these indifferent ceremonies for their good. And therefore, we owe no man any thing but to love one another: and by this love it comes to pass that all things whatsoever we do are good; and yet, we seek not to be justified by our works; and this is to be a Christian.

I will now only add one thing, and bring these observations to an end. — If any one shall perceive that he has a confidence or trust in the works of ceremonies, let him be bold, and at length cast them off: and in this let him not wait for any dispensation or power from the Pope: for in these matters every Christian is a pope and a church to himself: nor should any thing be decreed concerning him, nor should he abide by any thing that is decreed, which can in any way lead his faith into peril. But if he shall wish to communicate with his neighbour upon this matter, in order that he may be rendered the more certain by his word, (according to that scripture, "If any two of you shall agree upon earth concerning any thing," &c. Matt, xviii.) he does well.

Conclusion

The above context is a conclusion to a lengthy argument Luther was making in regard to justification by faith alone and justification by works, with a discission on the role of church ceremonies. Do church ceremonies play a part in justification before a holy God? Does going to or participating in a church ceremony have any effect on one's standing before God? In Luther's day, a church ceremony was a "good work" that could play a part in a person's justification. Therefore, one could place their confidence in the work of a ceremony. for Luther, this would be a denial of faith alone and would be placing one's confidence in something other than the work of Christ. In context, Luther says to cast off placing confidence in the work of a church ceremony. Cast away any infallible declarations of the church in regard to justification. The pope and church does not justify a person before God, the work of Christ does. 

It's also obvious from the context that sola scriptura was not being discussed. Rome's defenders have created a context and placed a Luther quote in that created context... this is a pure example of taking something out of context! Over the years, I've been chastised by Rome's defenders for being "anti-Catholic." What they fail to realize is that their blatant carelessness with the details of their arguments demonstrates to me they are the true anti-catholics. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. 

Bad Arguments Against Roman Catholicism

Have you ever considered the cogency of your argumentation? I began this blog back in late 2005. It served primarily as a place in which to keep track of my interactions with Roman Catholicism and my theological endeavors. Now almost two decades later, here is a reflection on those lines of reasoning I think are the least meaningful in engaging Rome's defenders. They are in no particular order, nor is this list exhaustive. 

1. The Pope is the Antichrist, or Rome is the "Whore of Babylon" etc.

I was raised in a period when many took Hal Lindey's The Late Great Planet Earth seriously. This also coincided with Jack Chick tracts and comic books ("Alberto"). It wasn't all that long ago that Dave Hunt released his opus, The Woman Rides The Beast. The belief that the Pope is the antichrist and the Roman church plays prominently in Revelation may seem like the meanderings of the Schwärmerei, but it was also included originally in the Westminster Confession of Faith and some of the Reformers were convinced of it (the Reformers were not the first but were preceded by the Joachimites). Generally, Protestants in the historicist tradition of end times interpretation identified the papacy in Revelation. My two cents: First, arguing that the Papacy is embedded in eschatology is speculative. There is no certain way to know that it fulfills prophecy... until prophecy is fulfilled. Second, the exact interpretation of the culmination of the events of the world, while important, is not the main issue of division between Roman Catholic theology and the church of Jesus Christ... the Gospel is. 

2. Abuse Scandals
Abuse scandals can certainly serve as good examples of hierarchical subterfuge in any organization that claims a lofty pedigree of divine favor. The Reformers had no problem using scandal and abuse as arguments against Rome. The scandals pointed to greater doctrinal issues that played a key role in perpetuating ecclesiastical abuse. My two cents: The problem is that using abuse scandals as an apologetic argument against Rome forces one to explain abuse scandals within various Protestant churches. If it is argued that an abuse scandal proves that Rome is not the ultimate infallible authority, how does one avoid this contrary: abuse scandals within Protestantism prove that the Bible cannot function as an infallible authority? If the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well. Simply saying "Well, they've got more than us" is not a logically good response: truth is not determined by a head count. 

3. Executing Heretics

Similar to abuse scandals, it is true that many have lost their lives at the hands of the Roman church. Some of Rome's defenders are simply waiting for the inquisition or some similar horror to be mentioned so they can then mention the intolerance of the early Reformers or the Salem Witch trials. To complicate it more, Rome's defenders and Protestants have to grapple with the violence recorded in the historical sections of the Bible.  My two cents: like abuse scandals, ff the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well. Simply saying "Well, they've got more than us" is not a logically good response: truth is not determined by a head count. 

4. Theotokos: Mother of God
Some of the silliest dialogues with Rome's defenders is over the phrase, "Mother of God." Rome's defenders may employee a method of attempting to back people into affirming Christological heresies if the title "Mother of God" is denied. My Two Cents: The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a sweeping venerating praise to Mary. One should affirm the former and deny the excessive veneration of the later, reclaiming the etymological essence of "Mother of God." 

5. Big Ornate Buildings

As the argument goes, the Papacy has a lot of money... rather than helping the poor with all their resources, they waste their finances constructing large ornate buildings, therefore, Rome is a false church.  My two cents:  Similarly, some Protestant churches have big buildings and a lot of money (this has provoked the house church movement). Unless one is personally willing to embrace absolute asceticism and only be part of religious organizations doing similarly, I don't see how one can consistently make the argument that Rome is a false church because of excessive wealth.  

6. Church history previous to the Reformation was "Roman Catholic"

Some of Rome's defenders think all of church history previous to the sixteenth century was completely "catholic" and then Protestantism was born, having their first day of church history on October 31, 1517. Similarly, some non-Roman Catholics think that all of church history between the closing of the New Testament canon and the sixteenth century Reformation was the history of apostate Roman Catholicism and should be thrown out. In its place, only the Bible should be cited against Romanism. My two cents: While responding to Rome's claims with the Bible has precedent, the history of the church from its inception to the Reformation period is not the sole property of Rome's defenders. It is the history of the church, not the Roman church. Understanding how earlier generations of Christians understood and applied the Bible can be a valuable tool in taking apart Rome's claims to having a pure apostolic "Tradition."  

7. Arguing against a particular Roman apologist rather than an official statement

It can be invigorating dismantling a Roman Catholic apologist, sifting through their arguments and stopping their shell game of hiding their ultimate authority. Therefore, when one defeats a Roman Catholic apologist, one has defeated Rome. My two cents: Many (if not most) of Rome's defenders are self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologists: the Pope has not sanctioned them to venture into cyberspace and tap away on their keyboards to defend the Roman church. Therefore, if you are engaging in a dialog with a defender of Rome, you are not necessarily doing apologetics against Roman Catholicism, but rather, an interpretation of Roman Catholicism.  Whenever possible, ask Rome's defenders to document their points with official dogmatic pronouncements from the magisterium. If they attempt to interact with you over the Bible, make sure to challenge them to document their use of the Bible with Rome's official dogmatic interpretation of the passage being utilized.  Similarly with history: say a defender of Rome makes a declaration about Martin Luther, make sure to inquire if it's their opinion, or an official historical conclusion of the Magisterium.

8. Honoring other Christians

Rome's defenders have developed an excessive system of honoring specific people (i.e., people from the Bible and those from church history deemed, "saints"). Seeing the excessive nature of their honoring system and its tie to the Treasury of merit, some react by throwing out "honor" all together.  My two cents: "Honor" does not necessarily have to mean "praying to" or utilizing the Treasury of merit. One can honor those who came before us, whether in the Bible or in subsequent church history. I have no problem saying Mary deserves honor as an important person in the Bible... and so does Moses, Abraham, Noah, Peter, Paul, Stephen, etc. I honor the life and work of Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon... and, Dr. R.C. Sproul! I also am keenly aware of honoring those still active in defending the church.   

9. Anything written by a Roman Catholic is wrong

Rome's defenders have written something so it must be wrong or not utilized... even if it is being put out by Catholic Answers or some of the lowest hanging fruit of Roman Catholic apologetics. My two cents: While difficult to do (and I've failed many times), the arguments Rome's defenders are putting forth should be evaluated first before engaging in personal polemic. Recently I read an article from Catholic Answers defending the immaculate conception of Mary. While I disagreed with their premise of Mary's immaculate conception and their conclusion of how it answers a modern theological dilemma of a young girl becoming pregnant with the Messiah, I was challenged by their question of how one should respond when Mary's conception of the Messiah is placed in the same realm as Muhammed having seven-year-old girls as wives. In other words, I did not dismiss the article entirely because it positively argued for the immaculate conception of Mary. 

10. Protestants believe in justification by faith, Roman Catholics believe they are saved by works

This may be the most important bad argument presented.  It is paralleled by Roman Catholics who think Protestants believe they are saved by faith, and works do not matter at all (antinomianism). My two cents: Roman Catholics do not deny the role of faith in salvation, nor do Protestants deny the role of works in salvation. The debate is over their relationship. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe in justification by faith... which is why I rarely say "justification by faith." Rather, I say "justification by faith... alone." "Alone" is the sine qua non of the phrase, placing justification in the complete works of Jesus Christ. 

Catholic Answers on Luther's View of the Immaculate Conception

Catholic Answers posted an article defending their belief that Mary was entirely without sin, particularly when detractors question the impregnation of a teenage girl. While Martin Luther's view of the immaculate conception was only a passing comment, it represents a change in typical Roman Catholic cyber-treatments of the Reformer's Mariology. Apologist Trent Horn writes,  

Some Protestants might say that at best, this proves only that Mary was free from sin at the Annunciation, not necessarily since her conception. Martin Luther, for example, moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception, but even in 1540, he said with regard to the Annunciation, “The flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.” In response, I would just say that it seems arbitrary to say God chose this moment to give Mary grace rather than at any other moment and that the angel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace,” signifies that her being full of grace was a part of her identity even before the announcement about the Incarnation.

Let's take a look at the citation used and conclusion reached by Mr. Horn of Catholic Answers.

Documentation
Other than the date 1540, no meaningful documentation is provided. The quote is from an English rendering of Luther's Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ (February 27, 1540). The Latin text can be found in WA 39.2:107.

This writing has been available online for many years via Project Wittenberg. This disputation has been included in LW 73, with the quote found at LW 73:267-268 (utilized below). The English translation in LW 73 was done by the same person who did the web version on Project Wittenberg.  

Context

Argument 10

Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person, as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in [his] conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth" [Isa. 53:9]; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.

Conclusion

Mr. Horn rightly says that Luther "moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception." I would qualify this though by saying: Luther didn't just "move away" from it, he ceased believing it. It appears earlier in his life he accepted it, later in his life he did not.

If the sands of cyber time were reversed, this same quote, and others, were used by some of Rome's defenders to prove Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception of Mary!  It would be interesting to know what sources Mr. Horn used on Luther's view of the immaculate conception. Back in the early 2000's, it was common to find Roman Catholic webpages using Luther's statements about Mary as an apologetic tool against Protestants. I do not find the same amount of these webpages today. It seems to me the newer generation of Rome's defenders have learned from the errors of the older generation... of perhaps... they are better at using Google! 

St. John Chrysostom: “If you knew how quickly people would forget you after your death, you would not seek in your life to please anyone but God”... or Allah?

This quote from John Chrysostom has been making the cyber-rounds. I suspect most people rightly resonate with the profound depth of the words. My first reaction though was.... great quote... where exactly did John Chrysostom write this? What source does this quote come from?

Documentation
A cursory search produced a seemingly complete absence of documentation of the quote in this particular English form. The quote in this form seems recent to the last few years. 

 A curious version also circulating states, "If you knew how fast people would forget you after death, you would not live your life to please anyone but Allah." This English version seems to predate the Chrysostom English version, but not by all that many years. It also appears to be cited much more by those devoted to Islam.

Conclusion
Without finding any meaningful documentation, the quote may be someone's commentary of what either John Chrysostom wrote or what Islam teaches. It is within the realm of possibility that both quotes developed independently of each other, but that the English versions are so similar points towards a common source.  Someone borrowed from someone! 

For my friends familiar with the extant writings of John Chrysostom, I would be interested in any leads as to anything sounding vaguely familiar in his writings (for instance, note some of the similarities in this quote). For those of you knowledgeable of Islam: where do you think the quote comes from?  Do you think a Christian plagiarized an Islamic source? 

Peter Kreeft: Luther Was Simply Right About Faith Alone?

I've come across this quote from Roman Catholic author Peter Kreeft a number of times over the years:

"How do I resolve the Reformation? ​ Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works?​ Very simple. No tricks.​ On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. ​ As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel.​ Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children."​

It is interesting to find a Roman Catholic author saying anything nice about either the Reformation or Martin Luther... but the quote just seems too good to be true. Based on the context below, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft because... it is too good to be true. There are indeed "tricks" going on. 

 
Documentation
The version above was cut-and-pasted from an Internet discussion forum. It was posted without any documentation. Kreeft's comment appears in a published book: Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics (San Fransico: Ignatius Press, 1998). Via Google books, the quote can be found here and here. 

Context

The fourth issue is the most crucial of all. It is the issue that sparked the Reformation, and it is the issue that must spark reunion too. It is, of course, the issue of faith, of faith and works, of justification by faith. 

This is the root issue because the essence of the gospel is at stake here. How do I get right with God? This was the issue of the first century church at Galatia, a church Protestants see as making the same essential mistake as the Catholics-preaching the gospel of good works. Protestants dare not compromise on this issue or they would be turning to what Paul calls "another gospel". Thus his harsh words to the Galatians, the only church for which he has not one word of praise: 

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." 

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed-indispensable to union between all sinners and God and to union between God's separated Catholic and Protestant children. 

Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and, for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two "other gospels": the gospel of old-fashioned legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with "other gospels" is simply that they are not true: they don't work, they don't unite man with God, they don't justify.

No failing could be more serious; but on the Catholic side, as distinct from the liberal Protestant side, it is a failing in practice, not doctrine. When this happens, the Catholic Church fails to preach its own gospel. It is sitting on a dynamite keg and watering the fuse; it is keeping a million dollar bank account and drawing out only pennies. Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven. 

But there are two important verbal misunderstandings in the Reformation controversy over faith and works. First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation. 

Second, Catholic and Protestant theologians mean different things by the word faith. Protestants usually follow biblical usage: faith means saving faith, the heart or will accepting Christ. Catholics usually follow a more technical philosophical and theological usage: faith means the act of the mind, prompted by the will, which accepts Christ's teachings as true. In Protestant language, faith means heart faith, or whole-person faith; in Catholic language, faith means mind faith. Thus, Catholic theologians are right to deny justification by faith alone in that sense (which of course was not Luther's sense). For "the devils also believe, and tremble." in this narrower sense faith can exist without the works of love; as James writes, "Faith without works is dead." In the larger sense, faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms.

Conclusion

I see only one positive aspects of this quote: Kreeft espouses 20th Century ecumenism embracing (a position taken by a number of Roman Catholic scholars) not placing the entirety of blame for the Reformation on Luther. Rome's laymen often say the opposite: Luther was completely responsible for everything. Other than that, I would caution Protestants from utilizing this quote from Peter Kreeft. Here are my reasons. 

1. Peter Kreft is putting forth theological confusion by inferring the Protestant Reformers had the same Gospel, but Rome's error was that they were not preaching this agreed upon Gospel in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. I've mentioned a number of times on this blog over the years, Rome did not have an official dogmatic pronouncement on justification previous to the Council of Trent: 

Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification. [Jaraslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation [New York: Harper and Row, 1964, 51-52].

All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].

2. Kreeft puts forth an ecumenical hodge podge statement attempting to portray an agreement between Rome and Luther: "Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven." What exactly is Kreeft saying?  Further down he clarifies he's putting forth pure Romanism: 

First, when the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant by salvation not just getting to heaven but the whole process of being transformed and becoming incorporated into the life of God. In other words, salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation.

This is not Reformation theology! In Luther's thought, being justified before God was on the basis of a perfect righteousness (Christ's) that is not one's own. One is not sanctified to eventual justification finally completed after being purified in purgatory. 

3. Kreeft then launches into a discussion of the term "faith" positing that Protestants use the word as defined by the Bible, while Roman Catholics use the word defined by philosophy and theology! I can only speculate he added "theology" as some sort of jab at Protestants clinging to Sola Scriptura while Rome's defenders have more than one infallible authority to "theologize" from (Tradition and the Magisterium). 

4. It's true that Trent says that faith is needed to be justified, but Trent did not affirm that faith alone justifies. The Protestant Reformers held that faith is placed in the works of another: Christ's works, and only those works serve as a basis for a right standing before God. In Protestant theology, the fruit of works are a response of gratitude that one has been justified. One's works are not done in the process of being eventually justified. 

5. Kreeft says "Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within." That seems "Protestant" enough until one reads his eventual clarification. He mentions James writing "faith without works is dead" and adds, "faith cannot exist without works, for it includes works as a plant includes its own blossoms." Using his own analogy, in Roman Catholic theology, one is a plant growing into an eventual justified blossom! 

Addendum
Here's an interesting YouTube link in which Scott Hahn wrote Peter Kreeft about this very issue. In the letter, Kreeft says (at around 1:40) that he "confused the truth in Luther, sola gratia, with the untruth, sola fide."