Luther: We Germans are now the...shame of all the countries

Here's another obscure Luther quote typically used by Rome's defenders:

"We Germans are now the...shame of all the countries" (in Denifle, ibid., 22 Luther quote from Werke, Erlangen edition, 8, 295). [link]

From various web-pages, I've come across Rome's defenders using this quote three different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism."

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Heinrich Denifle's "Luther and Lutherdom, (vol. 1, part 1, tr. from 2nd rev. ed. of German by Raymund Volz, Somerset, England: Torch Press, 1917, 22. Luther quote from Werke, Erlangen edition, 8, 295." On page 22 Denifle says:

But did not the father of the new movement himself acknowledge that "our (people) are now seven times worse than they ever were before. We steal, lie, cheat, cram, and swill and commit all manner of vices"(Er. 36, 411).  "We Germans are now the laughing-stock and the shame of all the countries, they hold us as shameful, nasty swine."(Erl. 8, 295)" The same one that said this regrets to have been born a German, to have written and spoken German, and longs to fly from there, that he may not witness God's judgment breaking over Germany." (Erl. 20, 43)

I used black lettering to highlight how Rome's defender edited down this sentence from Denifle. Why Rome's defenders cited this quote (leaving out particular words in a short sentence) is anyone's guess. The point appears to be that Germans=Protestants, and their behavior was so immoral, that the rest of the world looked on them as shameful. Of course, without a context, this quote means... whatever someone wants it to mean. Denifle doesn't do much better.

Denifle cites "Erl. 8, 295." This would be the eighth volume of the Erlangen edition of Luther's Works, Page 295 states:

The text of Erl 8 is in German, based on Aurifaber's printed version (published sometime after 1542). The more complete and pure text of this sermon is a compilation found in WA 47: 757-772. WA 47 provides three simultaneous texts ("Rörer’s transcript, Stoltz’s transcript, and the printed version which is Aurifaber’s based on Rörer’s notes" (LW 51:291). LW relied on Rörer's version (referencing the other two when necessary) from WA 47 when it translated this sermon into English ( LW 51:289-299). The sermon was entitled "Sermon on Soberness and Moderation against Gluttony and Drunkenness, 1 Peter 4:7-11, May 18, 1539." As is typical of many of Luther's sermons, he did not write the text. The text is based on notes of those who heard Luther preach the sermon.

Context
The title of the sermon says it all: "Sermon on Soberness and Moderation against Gluttony and Drunkenness." Luther preached a powerful sermon against drunkenness and gluttony. Luther begins the sermon by addressing the popular caricature of his day: the Germans were known as drunkards. Luther states:

This gluttony and swilling is inundating us like an ocean and among the Spaniards, Italians, and English it is reprehended. We are the laughingstock of all other countries, who look upon us as filthy pigs; and not only upon private persons, but upon nobles and princes also, as if that were the reason why they bear the coat of arms. We would not forbid this; it is possible to tolerate a little elevation, when a man takes a drink or two too much after working hard and when he is feeling low. This must be called a frolic. But to sit day and night, pouring it in and pouring it out again, is piggish. This is not a human way of living, not to say Christian, but rather a pig’s life. 

What, therefore, shall we do? The secular government does not forbid it, the princes do nothing about it, and the rulers in the cities do nothing at all but wink at it and do the same themselves. We preach and the Holy Scriptures teach us otherwise; but you want to evade what is taught. Eating and drinking are not forbidden, but rather all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one’s pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19–21]. It is no wonder that all of you are beggars. How much money might not be saved! Twenty years ago this was considered among the princes to be a shameful vice. If we do not watch out, it will become common among virgins and women. Therefore I am utterly terrified by that word of the Lord concerning gluttony: [“Take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare” (Luke 21:34)].

Listen to the Word of God, which says, “Keep sane and sober,” that it may not be said to you in vain. You must not be pigs; neither do such belong among Christians. So also in I Cor. 6 [:9–10]: No drunkard, whoremonger, or adulterer can be saved. Do not think that you are saved if you are a drunken pig day and night. This is a great sin, and everybody should know that this is such a great iniquity, that it makes you guilty and excludes you from eternal life. Everybody should know that such a sin is contrary to his baptism and hinders his faith and his salvation.

Therefore, if you wish to be a Christian, take care that you control yourself. If you do not wish to be saved, go ahead and steal, rob, profiteer as long as you can, but fear Jack Ketch and the magistrates. But if you do want to be saved, then listen to this: just as adultery and idolatry close up heaven, so does gluttony; for Christ says very clearly: Take heed “lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly” [Luke 21:34], “as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west” [Matt. 24:27]. Therefore be watchful and sober. That is what is preached to us, who want to be Christians. (LW 51:292-294)

Conclusion
Luther then goes on to preach moderation with food and drink. Is Luther agonizing over the state of early Protestantism? No. He's preaching a sermon to his fellow German people on a very common topic.

One of the ironies of the quote in question is that it is from a sermon about moderation when it comes to alcohol. One of Denifle's gripes against Luther is that he was a drunkard (see Denifle's discussion starting at the bottom of page 109. When Denifle used the quote in question, he left ouf the fact of the sermon it came from.  The historical record nowhere documents Luther ever being drunk. It does provide evidence that he did drink alcohol, and that he enjoyed drinking. One needs only to survey the massive output of work (both written and physical) that Luther produced. Had he been the alcoholic Denifle paints him to be, it is curious how he accomplished so much.


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

Luther: They accuse us of being rebels, of having destroyed the unity of the Church

Here's another obscure Luther quote typically used by Rome's defenders:

'They accuse us of being rebels, of having destroyed the unity of the Church, and of being the authors of all the evils of the day . . . Many are saying, "Religion is going to the dogs; there is no reverence for God . . . What good has come out of the Gospel. Everything was formerly in a far better state."'(in Janssen, ibid., vol. 5, 284-285)[link]

I came across a defender of Rome using this quote two different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, as proof of "The Unpopularity of Luther and Other Protestant Revolutionaries" and "The attachment of the people to Luther's doctrine was no greater than to his person..." We'll see that this quote isn't one quote but actually two quotes from two different sources.

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 5. On pages 284-285, Janssen states:

The attachment of the people to Luther's doctrine was no greater than to his person. 'They say nowadays,' wrote Luther in the year before the Augsburg Diet, "Ah yes, the monks used to sing, and pray, and fast a great deal; and they did all this for the honour and glory of God. That sort of thing pleases the common people hugely. They cannot restrain themselves from applauding it."' but the people went much further than this. 'They accuse us of being rebels,' exclaimed Luther, 'of having destroyed the unity of the Church, and of being the authors of all the evils of the day. 'Formerly, under the papacy,' so went the popular cry, 'things were not so bad. But now, since these teachers have come, there is nothing but disaster — famine, war, and the Turk.' 'Many are saying, Peace is at an end; the world is topsy-turvy; men are confused and bewildered in spirit; religion is going to the dogs; there is no reverence for God; obedience to law is a thing of the past. What good has come out of the Gospel? Everything was formerly in far better state.' Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg Luther made the avowal: 'Everybody is now complaining and crying out that the Gospel has brought much discontent, wrangling, and disorderly living into the world, and that everything is in worse condition since its introduction than before, when things ran smoothly and there was no persecution, and people lived peacefully together, like good friends and neighbors.' The people would willingly drive him, 'together with the Gospel' — to wit, his peculiar tenets — 'sheer out of the country, or else starve him to death.' On the other hand the people clung so tenaciously to the ways of the old Church that Luther declared: 'Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses.' 'I know for certain that here in Wittenberg you shall scarcely find ten men whom I could not seduce if I returned to practice the sanctity which I practiced in popery when I was a monk.' (Collected Works vi. 280; xliii. 63, 279, 316. Compare ix 336, vi 106).

For a similar version of this quote, see William Stang's Life of Luther. He similarly says the quote is from "Sammtliche Werke 6, 280; 43, 63, 279, 316; 9, 336; 6, 106" (He also appears to have blatantly plagiarized a large amount of this exact text from Janssen).  The tricky part about this extended quote, is it isn't one quote. It's multiple quotes from different sources. It appears to me that some of  Janssen's references are not documented. It  also appears to me there are seven different quotes put forth by Janssen, and they should be divided like this:

1) The attachment of the people to Luther's doctrine was no greater than to his person. 'They say nowadays,' wrote Luther in the year before the Augsburg Diet, "Ah yes, the monks used to sing, and pray, and fast a great deal; and they did all this for the honour and glory of God. That sort of thing pleases the common people hugely. [Sammtliche Werke 6, 280; English: Festival of Christ's Nativity, Third Sermon, Isaiah 9:1-7, December 26, 1532, House Postil, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 7:233] 

2) But the people went much further than this. 'They accuse us of being rebels,' exclaimed Luther, 'of having destroyed the unity of the Church, and of being the authors of all the evils of the day.' Formerly, under the papacy,' so went the popular cry, 'things were not so bad. But now, since these teachers have come, there is nothing but disaster — famine, war, and the Turk.' [WA 37:403f, Erl. 5:187; Walch (St Loius) 13b:2058; English: Holy Pentecost, First Sermon, Acts 2:1-3, Pentecost Day 1534, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6: 162-163].

3) 'Many are saying, Peace is at an end; the world is topsy-turvy; men are confused and bewildered in spirit; religion is going to the dogs; there is no reverence for God; obedience to law is a thing of the past. What good has come out of the Gospel? Everything was formerly in far better state.'

4. Shortly after the close of the Diet of Augsburg Luther made the avowal: 'Everybody is now complaining and crying out that the Gospel has brought much discontent, wrangling, and disorderly living into the world, and that everything is in worse condition since its introduction than before, when things ran smoothly and there was no persecution, and people lived peacefully together, like good friends and neighbors.' [Collected Works; xliii. 63,LW 21:51] 

5. The people would willingly drive him, 'together with the Gospel' — to wit, his peculiar tenets — 'sheer out of the country, or else starve him to death.' [Collected Works xliii. 279; LW 21:224]

6.  On the other hand the people clung so tenaciously to the ways of the old Church that Luther declared: 'Were I so disposed I am confident that with two or three sermons I could easily preach my people back into popery and re-establish pilgrimages and Masses.' [Collected Works xliii 316;  LW 21:253]

7. 'I know for certain that here in Wittenberg you shall scarcely find ten men whom I could not seduce if I returned to practice the sanctity which I practiced in popery when I was a monk.

Of these seven quotes, only five are documented (1,2,4,5,6). #3 and #7 are not. When Janssen states, "Compare ix 336, vi 106," neither of these refer to #3 or #7.  In English ix 336 corresponds to The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4, 2: 343-344. In English vi 106 refers to  The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 7: 74-75.

The Luther citation which began this entry is a combination of #2 and #3, which are two different sources (even though there is no reference provided for #3 to verify). Because only quote #2 and #3 were cited in the opening entry, below is the context of quote #2 (I could not locale a context for quote #3).


Context
Quote #2 is from Luther's first Holy Pentecost Sermon, preached at the parish church on Pentecost Day, May 24, 1534. Ewald Plass records the quote as follows:

3807 History Repeats Itself

People accuse us of being seditionists, as they accused the apostles (Acts 17:6) and of breaking the unity of the church. Every evil that happens, happens because of us, they say. Formerly under the papacy, the situation was not so bad, our slanderers cry, but now that these teachers have arisen, all the trouble has come: famine, war, the Turk. All this blamed on our preaching. If they could burden us with the fall of the devil from heaven, nay with the Crucifixion and death of Christ, they would not fail to do so (Weimar edition 37:, 403 f, Erlangen 5:187; Walch (St Loius) 13b:2058).[Ewald Plass, What Luther Says Volume 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 1195-1196]

The sermon Luther preached is available in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 151-165. The text of the sermon was Acts 2:1-13. Luther was expounding on the courage given by Holy Spirit to the early Christians, despite all the adversity they faced. The early Christan's would speak the truth, even if it meant their death (like Stephen). All the world will be against the Gospel. Luther then states:

22. That's the kind of mettle the apostles and disciples required then, and that's also the kind of spirit we need today. People accuse us of being revolutionaries, just as they accused the apostles.They accuse us of dividing the unity of the church, and they blame us for whatever else goes wrong. Our detractors claim that when we were still under the papacy, things weren't so bad; but now that these teachers have come, we've had nothing but bad luck, hard times, war, and the Turks. All these things they blame on the message we preach. If they could blame us for the devil being kicked out of heaven, they'd do that too. As a matter of fact, if they could accuse us of having crucified and killed Christ, they'd also do that. That is why we need the Holy Spirit's Pentecost sermon so desperately to help us remain content and cheerfully to disregard such slander.

23.The apostles and disciples needed that message in their day; for what we are experiencing today is what they experienced in their day. They were told that the whole world stood against them. This is the way the accusations against them went: Since these people came and started preaching, the kingdom of the Jews has been divided and the whole world is in an uproar. If anyone doubts this, let him read the Book of Acts and he'll find that it's true. When they preached among the Jews, the latter shouted, These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here. Away with them, kill them! (Acts 17:6). And when they preached among the heathen (non-Jews), the Gentiles shouted, These men are leading our people astray, and they are Jews, and they're advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice (Acts 16:10-21). In short, every bad thing that happened was blamed on the apostles and disciples.

24. But theirs was a self-fulfilling prophecy, for what they said is exactly what happened to them. About Paul, the Jews shouted, "This is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place" (Acts 21:28), that is, he teaches what is contrary to God and contrary to his worship. "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live!" (Acts 22:22). But theirs was a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as in the case of the high priest Caiaphas (John 11:49-52). What they claimed is what happened to them. Also the Romans shouted, These men are leading our people astray and dividing the Roman Empire. Exactly what they said is what happened to them: the Roman Empire was eventually divided and destroyed.

25.Our own aristocratic landowners, the godless bishops a princes, are today shouting about us, that we are leading Germany astray and turning everything topsy-turvy. But their prophecies will also be self-fulfilling. For they know very well that what they're saying is nothing but lies by which they are slandering our teaching. That is why the same thing will happen to them as happened to the rogue of whom the Lord says (Luke 19:22): "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant!" They claim that we are their destroyers, and that is exactly the way it'll turn out; not that it will be our fault or the fault of our teaching, but their own fault, because they are so hard-hearted and stubborn, refusing to accept the message we are proclaiming.

26. We desperately need this Pentecost sermon of the Holy Spirit, so that he may give us a courageous heart, so that we, too, may persevere, regardless of who is offended, regardless of how much people may slander us. And even if cults and sects arise, we will also ignore that. That's the kind of courage we need, a courage that remains undisturbed by any of these things and simply continues fearlessly to confess and publicly proclaim Christ, who was so grossly misjudged, condemned, and killed.

27. You see, it is in the nature and character of the gospel to be a foolish, offensive message, and almost universally rejected and condemned. If the gospel didn't upset citizens and peasants, bishops and princes, it would be a nice, sweet message, easy to proclaim, and the public would gladly accept it. But because it is a message that offends people, especially the high and mighty, therefore it takes great courage and the help of the Holy Spirit to proclaim it. The fact is that the poor beggars and fishermen come forward and preach in such a way that they rouse and bring down upon themselves the anger of the whole council at Jerusalem, the wrath of the whole government, the ire of the spiritual rulers, and, on top of that, also the hatred of the Roman emperor. What's more, they dare to accuse all of the above of being traitors and murderers, fully expecting to get their teeth knocked out. None of this could have happened without the Holy Spirit. That is why the Holy Spirit's Pentecost message is our comfort and joy, because we, too, can ignore the anger and slander of the world. It is this same message that produces such joy-filled people in Christ, people who are willing to undertake anything in behalf of Christ, willing also to suffer anything for his sake. (pp.162-163)

Conclusion
Now compare this context to the points made by Rome's defenders. Luther argues the world hates the Gospel, and this is to be expected. Rome's apologists argue Luther "agonized" over the state of early Protestantism. If he did, this text doesn't prove it. Rome's defenders also state this quote proves people were in general, unhappy with Luther, and his doctrine. According to Luther, if this is a valid argument, the apostles likewise fall to it. As Luther stated, "it is in the nature and character of the gospel to be a foolish, offensive message, and almost universally rejected and condemned."

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

Sola Scriptura Debate with DavidW - Index

My formal written debate against Eastern Orthodox blogger DavidW on the statement:
Resolved: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience."

is now complete. I have indexed out the posts in chronological order so that anyone interested may easily follow its flow.


My opening statement
DavidW's opening statement (written without responding to my opener, as is proper)

My first rebuttal
DavidW's first rebuttal

My second rebuttal
DavidW's second rebuttal

Cross-examination
My first question to DavidW
His answer

DavidW's first question to me
My answer

My second question to DavidW
His answer

DavidW's second question to me
My answer

My third question to DavidW
His answer

DavidW's third question to me
My answer

Final Statements - posted simultaneously
Mine
DavidW's

(Link to comment repository)

Luther: Under the Evangel, no one will give a penny... Under The Papacy it snowed alms

Here's another obscure Luther quote typically used by Rome's defenders:

Under the papacy it snowed alms, foundations, legacies. Under the Evangel, on the contrary, no one will give a farthing. (in Janssen, ibid., vol. 15,465) (link)

I came across a defender of Rome using this quote three different ways. First, it was used as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Second, it was used as proof of the "immediate ill effects of Protestantism on morality" and thirdly, "Luther's Disgust at the State of Protestant Morality."

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 15. On page 465, Janssen states:

This decrease of benevolence to the poor and of contributions in general to all good objects, and the increase of an insatiable greed of gain were matters of standing complaint among the Protestants. Nobody spoke more strongly and more frequently on the subject than Luther. 'Under the papacy' he said, 'it snowed alms, foundations, legacies. Under the Evangel, on the contrary, no one will give a farthing.'

Janssen says the quote comes from "Collected works xliii, 164."This would be the forty-third volume of the Erlangen edition of Luther's Works, which contains his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Here is page 164:

A more legible copy of this text can be found here. The text can also be found in WA 32:408-409. The text in question is Luther's commentary on Matthew 6:1-4. This text is based on sermonic material. Technically speaking, Luther did not write the text cited above. It is the result of those who heard Luther preach and took notes, then transcribing the material into a written form. LW 21 states that there is uncertainty as to exactly who took down the notes to these sermons from Luther. Note the caution expressed by the English edition of Luther's Works:

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

Luther's sermons on Matthew 6 can be found translated into English in LW 21. An alternate earlier translation by Charles Hay from 1892 can be found here (the quote in question is found on pages 231-232). Luther is commenting on the following words of Scripture: 

1. Beware of practicing your charity before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

2. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward.

3. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

4. So that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Context
Luther is discussing the practice of alms giving, and how the Lord denounced those who do good works in order to bring glory to themselves. Giving alms is indeed a good thing, but most people can't help but want glory from their outward good deeds. Luther states:

It is incredible how common this blasphemy and vice is in the world, especially among the best people, and how few people there really are who do good works without seeking the honor or favor of the world this way. Take all the alms ever given in the whole papacy, and just count how many you will be able to find that were not given with this intention in mind. Alas, the world will never learn what real almsgiving is. That is how we are all inclined. If the praise of the people, their honor, gratitude, and favor were not forthcoming, every one of us would soon pull his hand back. What if the pope had said to the princes and the donors, “Gentlemen, I will not give you a heller for all your foundations and alms”? How much do you imagine they would have donated for churches and other institutions then? Not a stone would have been hauled or laid in place. We can see that now. We are teaching correctly and urging these works on the basis that they should be given for God’s sake, out of a pure and simple heart, and not for the sake of increasing our own honor or merit. Therefore nobody wants to give a heller nowadays. In former days, when they had praise and honor for it, the alms, endowments, and wills came down like snow. Of course, their notion that they were earning heaven by this did have a great deal to do with it. Still this was not the main reason; but as Christ says here, the main reason was the fact that this was something great and praiseworthy in the eyes of the people. Otherwise they would have paid no attention to it, and they would not have done it for the sake of God and the kingdom of heaven (LW 21:132).

Alternate English translation (Charles Hay):

But who believes that this vice and fault is so common in the world, and especially in the case of the best, and how few there are of those who without this seeking for worldly honor or favor are doing good works? Take all the alms given in the whole papacy, and count up as many as you can find, that are not given with this intention. Yes, the world will never get to understand what it really means to give alms. For we are all inclined that way, if the people would not begin to praise us, or to show us honor, gratitude or favor, everyone would soon draw back his hand. For if the pope had said to the princes and founders [of monasteries, etc.]: Gentlemen, I will not give you a penny for all your foundations and alms, etc., what do you suppose they would have given for churches and other institutions? They would not have had a stone hauled or laid in position; as we now see, because we teach correctly and exhort to these works, so that we are to give for God's sake, from a pure, simple heart, without any seeking for our own honor or merit, etc., now nobody wants to give a cent. But hitherto, when they had praise and lienor for doing it, it snowed with alms, endowments and wills; and yet this had something to do with it, that men believed they were meriting heaven thereby; nevertheless, that was not the real reason, but it was just what Christ here says, that it was a great thing in the eyes of the people, and was praised. Otherwise they would not have cared for it, so as to do it for the sake of God and the kingdom of heaven.

Conclusion
Does this quote prove the "agony of Luther" over "the state of early Protestantism," or, is Luther simply expounding on a general truth common to all men? It appears to me, the problem of doing a good work in a godly way predated the Reformation. The "agony" Luther had was for the plight of all men. Is this quote describing the immediate ill effects of Protestantism on morality? No, because as Luther points out, "the world will never get to understand what it really means to give alms." Simply because under the papacy "it snowed alms" doesn't mean these were moral alms. Does this quote prove Luther had disgust for the state of Protestant morality? Recall, he begins by stating, "how few people there really are who do good works without seeking the honor or favor of the world this way."

From the context, you can see how both Janssen and Rome's apologists have misused this quote. Their point was that Protestantism caused people to hardly give a farthing, while under the papacy, it "snowed alms." However, Luther's point is not about the amount of alms, but the heart of alms. It doesn't matter that under Protestantism there was "less." The point is that if the heart does or gives from the wrong motivation, it isn't God pleasing.

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

Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

Here's another obscure Luther quote primarily used by Rome's defenders:

Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But . .. they preach not the truth . . . When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. (in Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145) [link]

The quote as presented above is a truncated presentation of a larger context in which a few words are cited and some are skipped over in order to serve as an example of "The Agony of Luther" over "the State of Early Protestantism." Luther's actual point made in context is completely ignored by such methodology.

One Roman apologist used the quote to show the Reformers "not only failed to purify Christ’s one Church, they failed at producing a superior Christian." It isn't just the defenders of Rome who reference this quote. Heiko Oberman has pointed out that this statement has been found objectionable "through the ages" by Luther's "contemporaries and today's Catholics and Protestants alike."  I found a curious usage of this quote by a nineteenth century pacifist, Edwin D. Mead who says that the quote points out a "reckless inconsistency" in Luther's thought. This Lutheran site  references the quote in a discourse on contemporary Lutheranism ("the more we gassed on about family values and conservative politics, the worse life became among us"). Then there are those from secular academia referencing it as well. Such usage points to the popularity of this quote across differing worldviews.

Documentation

The documentation provided refers to "Giorgio de Santillana, The Age of Adventure, New York: Mentor, 1956, 145." This secondary source refers to a work authored by Giorgio de Santillana, a historian and philosopher. He contributed The Age of Adventure: the Renaissance Philosophers / Selected, with Introduction and Interpretive Commentary to the Mentor Philosophers series. On pages 144-145,  The Age of Adventure states,

There is in Luther a colossal simplicity and directness. "I am inspired by anger. Those who condemn the movement of anger against antagonists are theologians who deal in mere speculations." This made him, like Savonarola, into a great tribune, but unlike the Italian, he was addressing a people ready to explode. He does not waste his time preaching abstinence and moral betterment; he is a political mind: "Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. But what I affirm roundly and plainly is that they preach not the truth. To this I am called: I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife in its throat. When I can show that the papists' doctrine is false, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil."

Giorgio de Santillana does not document this quote. In his "Recommended Further Reading" section (p. 277), he points to four possibilities as to where he took this quote from. I'll demonstrate below he may have taken it from this source he recommends on page 279:

The Table Talk of Martin Luther, translated and edited by W. Hazlitt. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1878. (Bohn's Standard Library.)

 The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often appears to fall on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written.

This Table Talk statement was recorded by Veit Dietrich in the Fall of 1533. It can be found in WA BR 1:294-297. The text reads, 

WA goes on to present variations on this utterance which accounts for some of the differences in the way this text has been translated into English. For instance,

The first version is a mixture of Latin and German, the second purely German [WA refers to "FB. 2, 414 (22,104)"]. LW states that the older manuscripts of the Table Talk are those with the Latin / German mixture (LW 54, introduction, III). In other words, the more reliable version is the former, with the pure German being a later rendering. Older English editions of the Table Talk have included the utterance in question (example #1, example #2), apparently relying on the pure German text. Luther's Works (English edition) though used the Latin / German text (LW 54:110). I mention this because I have come across the argument that LW's rendering of this Table Talk statement is an example of "toned down references to immorality in Protestantism" and that "Translation bias is seemingly alive and well." It appears this charge arises because in LW the word "bad" is used rather than "evil" in the beginning of the utterance and throughout (LW 54:110).  The second Latin / German sentence states, "Vita est mala apud nos sicut apud papistas; non igitur de vita dimicamus et damnamus eos." The word "mala" can be rendered either way, so using either "evil" or "bad" does not change the main point or comparison throughout the entry. Some of the older English translations (like thse reference above) apparently used the pure German version, and the German does use the word böse (evil). It is simply an unwarranted conjecture to assert LW had a "bias" when translating Table Talk statement 624.  

Context
Here are three different versions of the quotes rendered in English:

Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. Wickliffe and Huss assailed the immoral conduct of papists; but I chiefly oppose and resist their doctrine; I affirm roundly and plainly, that they preach not the truth. To this am I called; I take the goose by the neck, and set the knife to its throat. When I can show that the papist's doctrine is false, which I have shown, then I can easily prove that their manner of life is evil. For when the word remains pure, the manner of life, though something therein be amiss, will be pure also. The pope has taken away the pure word and doctrine, and brought in another word and doctrine, which he has hanged upon the church. I shook all Popedom with this one point, that I teach uprightly, and mix up nothing else. We must press the doctrine onwards, for that breaks the neck of the pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured the pope, that he would be a king that would do according to his own will, that is, would regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but say roundly: Thus and thus will I have it. For the pope derives his institution neither from divine nor from human right; but is a self-chosen human creature and intruder. Therefore the pope must needs confess, that he governs neither by divine nor human command. Daniel calls him a god, Maosim; he had almost spoken it plainly out, and said Mass, which word is written, Deut. xxvi. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and uses nearly his words, where he says: The son of perdition will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, &c., 2 Thes. ii. [source]

Luther's Opposition to the Popish Doctrine. "The manner of life," said Luther, " is as evil among us as among the Papists; wherefore we strive not with them by reason of the manner of life, but for and about the doctrine. Wickliffe and Huss opposed and assaulted the manner of life and conversation in Popedom. But I (chiefly) do oppose and resist their doctrine : I affirm, soundly and plainly, that they teach not aright;—thereunto am I called. I take the goose by the neck," said Luther, " and set the knife to the throat. When I can maintain that the Pope's doctrine is false (which I have proved and maintained), then will I easily prove that their manner of life is evil. The Pope hath taken away the pure word and doctrine, and hath brought another word and doctrine, and hanged the same upon the church. I startled whole Popedom only with this one point, in that I teach uprightly, and meddle with nothing else. We must press upon the doctrine, for that breaketh the neck of the Pope. Therefore the prophet Daniel rightly pictured out the Pope, that he will be such a king as shall do according to his will; that is, he will regard neither spirituality nor temporality, but will, short and roundly, say, ' Thus and thus will I have it.' For the Pope is instituted and ordained neither by divine or human right; but is a self-chosen human creature, who hath intruded himself. St. Paul read Daniel thoroughly, and useth nearly his words, where he saith, ' And he will exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.' " 2 Thess. ii. [link]

No. 624: The Central Issue Is Doctrine, Not Life Fall, 1533
“Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don’t fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wycliffe and Huss didn’t know this and attacked [the papacy] for its life. I don’t scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked—this has never before happened. This is my calling. Others have censured only life, but to treat doctrine is to strike at the most sensitive point, for surely the government and the ministry of the papists are bad. Once we’ve asserted this, it’s easy to say and declare that the life is also bad. “When the Word remains pure, then the life (even if there is something lacking in it) can be molded properly. Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about. It’s the teaching that breaks the pope’s neck. Therefore Daniel pictured the pope rightly when he stated that there will be a kingdom in which the king will act according to his will, that he will pay attention to neither civil nor spiritual matters but will simply say, ‘I want that,’ without offering any reason, even a natural one. When you ask, ‘Is the papacy established by natural, divine, or human right?’ you get the answer, ‘No, it is a worship of the will.’ So the pope must say, ‘Nobody has commanded us.’ It is simply a religion of free will. Daniel calls God a god of ‘maozim’—I almost said ‘masses.’ ” [LW 54:110]

Conclusion
The point being in made is that in whichever translation one uses, Luther was concerned with proving Roman doctrine wrong. He believed his method of combating the papacy was superior to the earlier assaults of  Wycliffe and Hus. Does this quote prove Luther was in "agony" over "the state of early Protestantism"? No, it doesn't. In fact, Luther's comment applies well to the particular assaults made by Rome's defenders: they attack a way of life as if this is a valid ultimate argument against doctrine. The argument amounts to saying had Luther's teaching been true, Protestants would be outwardly less "evil"  or less "bad" than those adhering to Rome's teachings. But look what Luther goes on to state (in LW's rendering): "Everything depends on the Word, and the pope has abolished the Word and created another one. With this I have won, and I have won nothing else than that I teach aright. Although we are better morally, this isn’t anything to fight about."


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

Luther: I Have Given Up on Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

To Anthony Lauterbach at Pirna

(Wittenberg,) November 10, 1541.

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

Yours, Martin Luther

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

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

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

Luther: Protestants Have Contempt of the Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Answers Pilgrimage

Here's a recent letter from Karl Keating:

Where the Virgin Mary's house stopped for a rest

Angelic house movers sometimes need a rest too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's work through some of the sources cited. The documentation given is "Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], XVI, 13; from EA, vol. 50, 74; in 1538." This refers to nineteenth century Roman Catholic historian Johannes Janssen's History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages Volume 16. Janssen's work belongs to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. Janssen viewed Luther and the Reformation as destroying German culture and piety (see, Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet, p. 22-23). Janssen states, Here is Janssen 16:13. Janssen states,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Index of recent argumentation regarding the Real Presence as monophysitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

TurretinFan had One More Response to Edward Reiss.

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

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