More discussion of the title of "heretic" for early writers

My opponent in my recently-concluded debate on Sola Scriptura, DavidW, has had some interesting things to say afterwards, and it has provoked some (what I hope are) helpful thoughts, which I'd like to share here.

I thought I'd sort of broken his spirit and will to debate any more, but it doesn't appear that is completely true, so oh well.
(That's mostly a joke, about me breaking his spirit, just FYI.)

OK, so DavidW likes to assert that I hold to some kind of great apostasy in the early church not long after the apostles died, and that I think the early church 'fathers' were heretics. I wrote this post to correct him, and then Viisaus made some very good comments in the combox and PilgrimsArbour a good one as well.
DavidW lastly left a thought-provoking comment, trying to bring the discussion to a concrete level and then accusing me of "distorting and ignoring the evidence and the historical facts".
So, here is my answer.

But were they points of controversy with respect to what the biblical position actually is? Was the biblical position represented? That's the big question.
As we've discussed numerous times before, I don't grant that "Augustinianism" didn't exist before Augustine. Paul, Peter, and Jesus all taught what I teach today with respect to soteriology, predestination, hamartiology, etc. But at least some of it was forgotten by at least some people in the early church. Since this is a difficult thing for you to remember, apparently, please note that "some" does not mean "all". Got that?

Now, as for your three:
1) A. So they were proto-monophysites, is what you're saying. That's a problem. (For you.)
B. I don't know why you think that I think that a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist is heresy. Do you think I consider Presbyterians or Lutherans heretical?
C. You know, there's plenty of reason not to grant that point to you at all. But even if I did grant it, I'd have to ask whether the writers whose writings are still extant ever wrestled with the issue as it is defined biblically. Did he have an opportunity to be corrected by someone correctly interpreting the Scripture? Remember how I made resistance to correction a big deal in the post?
D. To say nothing of the question-begging nature of such appeals to "the early church" on your part, as if you knew anything about said early church masses beyond what a handful of people said that they themselves believed and, less commonly, said what others of their time believed. If you want to substantiate your claims that "the early church" believed what you believe, show me the polling data.

2) James White has admitted that all of the Fathers held to Baptismal Regeneration

I'd like to see that quote, actually.
And obviously Clement of Rome didn't, as he held to sola fide. Further, there's reason to think that Mathetes, Polycarp, and Tertullian didn't hold to such.
It occurs to me that quoting these early writers against your assertion that they "all... held to Baptismal Regen" actually weakens my point in the post, though it's worth it as it is just one more example of how wrecked and untenable your "early church consensus" position is.

3) Not holding to Calvinistic predestination is not heresy.

OK, moving on:

and you still claim that Calvinism isn't Gnosticism?

Yes, I still claim that it is not, unless you're willing to claim that EOdoxy is Muslim, since both hold to monotheism, prophets and supernatural revelation, angels, etc. Just waiting for some non-fallacious inferences from you. Apparently I'll be waiting a while.


which would be that you are condemning yourself, your Scriptures, and the Apostles in the process?

The idea that you or I could "condemn" the Scripture or Apostles is laughable.
This further begs the question at hand, both that the early extant church writings do in fact represent unbroken and uncorrupted DOCTRINAL transmission from the apostles, and that the Scripture does a worse job than those other writings of teaching us apostolic doctrine.


The Fathers of the early Church largely sorted the Apostolic from the apocryphal in their collation of the New Testament by deciding based on whether or not it agreed with their Faith.

1) Taken in isolation, that's certainly quite commendable. Reminds me of some town in Acts 17 that begins with "Bere" and ends in "a".
2) This raises an interesting point.
Let's say I grant that the extant early church writings express more or less EO doctrine.
Given other facts, such as that the Scripture is God-inspired and sufficiently clear to communicate what it intends to communicate, and that the Scr does not teach more or less EO doctrine on these points of contention between us, I don't see why I wouldn't be fully justified in positing with certainty either that either the entire church of the time was in serious, serious error or that these men didn't properly represent the beliefs of the church at large. In the absence of any data to the contrary (such as polling data from the laity and other church leaders from the time periods in question which I've repeatedly requested and you've repeatedly been unable to provide), my position has logical consistency in affirming the latter.
Yes, I know you'd dispute the statements about the Scripture, but as we've seen over and over again, your position just can't get there, sorry. And I think you know that, which is why you slip in these little jabs at Scr's reliability, whether in affirming its errancy when you want to, or in moving away from it towards early church writers, or in doubting its clarity and ability to communicate sufficiently. Or I could be wrong; as we saw in our debate, your exegesis of most every Scr text you tried to deal with was horrific, so I guess that could be it too.


They did not have access to the same historical and archaeological methods as we do, and so this was the rule of which they made use.

1) And so much the worse for them. I thought you'd want to make arguments that help your position...
2) Though my own arguments for the Canon to which I subscribe are primarily theological.


If the Faith of the early Church was as deeply flawed as you allege that it is, your New Testament is also apparently deeply flawed.

Back to the old myth that I hold to some universal apostasy after the 1st century.


Error does not produce truth.

This is equivocation between the TEACHING and the TEACHER. We need to be more careful than that.

Let's Make Up Rules and then Apply Them 500 Years Later

Here's a primitive outline, thrown together in about 2 minutes, of typical rule inventing of a Romanista soldier as compared to Romanist Worldview Headquarters. The following is based on an argument against my position on Luther and the canon.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Trent infallibly declared the contents of the Canon. Previous to that, there was freedom to express opinions on canonicty. See, we're not so bad. Previous to infallible declaration, enjoy your speculations.

Romanista response: Luther taught sola fide, which is a false gospel, so he was a heretic, and wasn't allowed like Cajetan the freedom to express an opinion on the canon.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Justification was defined at Trent, so Luther can't be chastised for sola fide.

Romanista response: C'mon, Luther was declared a heretic, so he didn't have any right at all.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Romanism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

Romanista response: Luther is still a heretic, and took books out of the Bible.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: We don't have a rule that says heretics should be chastised for doctrines not yet infallibly defined, or that we can take a later rule and apply it to them to declare their opinion heresy.

Romanista response: I don't care, I'm protecting you, so stop giving me a hard time. Don't you remember Exsurge Domine?

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Was Exsurge Domine an infallible document?

Romanista response: Well no... but... Luther took books out of the Bible! Do something about it!

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Would you like a rule that says: Luther was a heretic, and even if he did what our leading sixteenth century Romanista Cajetan did, Cajetan was OK, and Luther was not?

Romanista response: Yes! Perfect! Please, declare that rule!

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Our infallible council meets on and off and every few hundred years. If you can wait, maybe we'll put something together.


Update: Here's another 2 minutes of thoughts on this issue:

As far as I can recall, none of the Reformers are named in Trent's infallible declaration.

It was Hubert Jedin, the German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn, a specialist on the history of the Council of Trent that pointed out Roman Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

This makes the "What to do with Luther" rather interesting from a Roman Catholic perspective. Gregory Sobolewski has compiled quite a book addressing this issue: Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001). Sobolewski traces more recent Roman Catholic scholarship and their positive attitudes toward Luther. It was interesting to read how many Roman Catholic scholars don't think Luther was a heretic. Some go as far to point out how spiritual and necessary Luther was to the Roman church.

It's true Trent didn't declare Luther a heretic in their statement. However, in 1564 the Tridentine Index of Books condemned Luther's writings. Here's the closest you get to the goods on Luther. Still, this doesn't help the Romanista that tries to argue Luther's can't comment on the canon while Cajetan and Erasmus can. Why Romanistas try to make up there own rules is just another example of how people reason from their heart, not history, or even consistently with their own worldview.

Jared Wicks: Luther and His Spiritual Legacy

I recently picked up a copy of Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy (Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1983). Wicks is a Roman Catholic scholar, and I've referred to him before. The book came with this little insert:



Well, of course Michael Glazier could probably care less what I think, and I'm about twenty seven years late with a review. However, when I read a helpful Roman Catholic book written with fairness and insight, I think it's worth mentioning. If you think that Roman Catholics are Reformation-clueless, and only rely on 100 - 200 year old secondary sources, you should know that Roman Catholic scholarship tends to be light years away from the books like these written by Catholic laymen.

Wicks has read Luther extensively, quoting primary sources accurately. In most cases, he refers to the English edition of Luther's Works, otherwise it's Weimar. Helpful also are the bibliographies throughout the book, and also extensively at the end. For each topic Wicks covers, he makes sure to send you off in the right direction for more information. The book is short, under 200 pages, and the seven chapters are spaced nicely. Used copies can be found here (the copies listed will probably change week to week). The magic of the Internet never ceases- I found the entire book in PDF format:

Title, Contents, Foreword
Ch. 1 - Images of Luther
Ch. 2 - The Eve of the Reformation
Ch. 3 - Luther’s Life and Career to 1512
Ch. 4 - Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 1513-1518
Ch. 5 - Luther’s Reformation Decisions, 1518-25
Ch. 6 - Luther’s Later Life and Works, 1526-46
Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching
General Bibliography and Index

The chapters don't need to be read in order. Each is sufficient in itself. Chapter one is a helpful overview of interpreters of Luther. He focuses primarily on Roman Catholic interpretations, tracing the trend from destructive criticism to the kinder evaluations that began in the twentieth century. Cochlaeus, Bellarmine, Janssen, Denifle, Grisar: these are Roman Catholic authors from the destructive period, and oddly enough, their works are easy enough to find on the Internet. Merkle, Lortz, Iserloh, Pesch, these are but a few of recent Roman Catholic scholars. Their works are not as easy to find on the Internet. Whatever progress they made in scholarship hasn't quite filtered down to the Internet layman level.

Wicks presents his image of Luther, and these are motivated by his ecumenical leanings:

Luther can be a forceful teacher of lived religion. He can be a resource for the enrichment of personal spirituality for members of all Christian confessions. In many of Luther's works, one does not have to read far before touching on the subject of conversion from proud self-reliance to trusting acceptance of God's grace. Luther's accounts of conversion bear numerous marks of their own time, as accounts written between 1509 and 1546…. One thinks here of Luther's The Freedom of a Christian, of his exposition of the Miserere (Psalm 51), and of his preface to the Epistle to the Romans.” (p. 26).

"Luther can lead the spiritually dedicated person to the retrieval of easily forgotten central truths. Like Ignatius, Luther is skeptical about enthusiastic claims of having the Spirit. Luther leads the believer back to the word of Scripture, to baptism, and to the words of absolution and eucharistic institution. There faith can take hold of reliable communications from God. Above all, Luther sought to help people be struck personally by the word and work of Christ. Both Ignatius and Luther teach that Christmas is a time to marvel that God became man for me and for my salvation." (p. 26)

"As one reads the Gospels and prays over them along lines suggested by Luther, a leitmotif will inevitably be the line, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13). Luther is a dedicated foe of any proud satisfaction over having arrived spiritually at a point of rest. Penance for him is a lifelong concern, which is as well the message of the annual observance of Lent in the church year." (p.26)

“…[C]ertain concerns of contemporary theology especially in Catholic circles, suggest that Luther can provide enrichment. For instance, he insisted on occasion on integrating experience into his interpretation of Scripture and his teaching of Christian truth. This gave many of his expositions, especially on sin and grace, a tone of profound, even anguished, feeling. For him, sin and guilt were terrifying, grace and union with Christ liberating and filled with delight. Faith, for Luther, brings an experience of strength and courage become imperturbable and of trust and joy deep in the heart. In Luther's day, academic theology in the universities had long been divorced from the Christian insights of the monastic and mystical traditions. Luther was one who brought the academic, that is, systematic and exegetical, concerns into renewed connection with Christian experience.” (p.26)

“Christology is clearly the place of the central theological ferment of our day. Catholic theologians are producing a host of new presentations of the person, message, and meaning of Christ the Lord. Luther can serve here as a forceful reminder that soteriology, the doctrine of Christ's saving work, is the center of all Christian words and teaching. Faith, for Luther, focuses sharply on the redemptive mystery, on Jesus' life and death for us and for our salvation…. For Luther, the cross of Christ is the most illuminating revelation of God. The heart of the Father is shown us in his Son, and faith in the Father is always through the Son. Focused as he is on salvation, Luther stresses how Christ brings grace and forgiveness to the fearful and saddened hearts of sinners. Luther does offer a relational Christology closely based on Scripture.” (pp. 27-28)

“Another concern of contemporary theology is biblical hermeneutics. One senses an increasing dissatisfaction with contributions to theological work by the practice of the critical-historical method on Scripture. Biblical scholarship at times uses methods that atomize the texts into tiny particles. Other analyses so stress the special individuality of a particular biblical author as to leave us no single message from the New Testament. Another kind of interpretation seems needed, that goes beyond the initial phase of work with the text. Above all, a method is needed which does not lose sight of the perspective arising from the faith which prompts us to pick up the Bible in the first place. Now Luther did practice theological and religious interpretation of Scripture. Taking his stand on Paul's form of the Gospel of grace, Luther moved out confidently to point out what was going on in the prayers, narratives, and sermons recorded throughout the Bible. His Old Testament interpretations focus on faith and the trials besetting the lives of God's servants. Luther explains the Psalms as Christian prayer. He comes to the gospel narratives quite aware of the mission of Christ to bring salvation to sinners. Thus Luther provides a model of interpretation of the biblical text that is focused on the religious core of revelation.”(pp. 28-29).

But for Wicks, there's also negative aspects of Luther. He lists three central points of doctrine that he finds erroneous:

“Luther's doctrine of conversion did resolutely exclude the free assent of compliance by which the human person ratifies and appropriates the grace of God. This assent, the Catholic tradition rightly holds, could be dissent or refusal in a given case. A mystery of freedom, human freedom, penetrates conversion under grace. But Luther projected a mystical passivity into this area.” (p. 29)

"Second, there are Luther's polemics against the sacrifice of the mass. History shows the many reasons why a reform movement had to take up the mass in the sixteenth century. Protestant reformers did do away with abuses connected with stipends, the vast number of masses without the people, lay passivity or attention to other devotions during mass, withholding the chalice, celebration in a tongue alien to many, and neglect of preaching at mass. But Luther went on to teach a purely receptive posture of faith in the central moment of worship. Receptivity is right, but Luther's exclusion is not right. Eucharist is a prayer of praise and dedication addressed to the Father in the Holy Spirit. It is intrinsic to the action to give all honor and glory to the Father through, with, and in Christ. A sacrificial movement of self-offering by the church is essential here. Luther's passion to display the grace of God in the Supper led to an exclusion of this movement toward God by the community united with Christ.”(pp. 28-29)

"Lastly, and most fundamentally, Luther believed that Scripture had a power of self-interpretation based on the content of its central message. Luther felt that the norms for understanding all biblical texts arose from the Pauline gospel. Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres is the basic Reformation tenet asserting this self-interpreting power. There is, of course, more than a grain of truth here, but alone the tenet does not suffice. Scripture does provide important motifs and assertions that should inform interpretive work. But still the Bible only comes to us because it was made canonical by the church, and this Bible is first of all an element in the life of this church. Ultimately, an adequate interpretation, the stimulus of developing Christian doctrine, arises out of the interplay of the biblical message and this church." (p 30).

Despite these criticisms, it's refreshing to read them rather than personal attack or pseudo- psychological evaluations. Wicks is Roman Catholic, and he's not giving away the store. Wicks is ecumenical, but not to the point of denying central aspects of Romanism.

The chapter entitled "On the Eve of the Reformation" (chapter 2) is probably the most dry, Yet given that this topic is prone to different interpretation (i.e., Janssen vs. Lortz), Wicks does a fair job explaining the tensions and problems that gave birth to the Reformation.

The mid chapters in the book are brief historical sketches of Luther's career. The earlier chapters show how fluent Wicks is with Luther's earlier writings. He traces Luther's unfolding understanding of grace and justification, particularly from his early lectures on the Psalms and Romans . The later chapters skip through the bulk of Luther's career, minus the typical Roman Catholic invective. For instance, his review of the Peasant's Revolt is fair and balanced. When describing Luther's translation of the New Testament, Wicks calls it a "linguistic masterpiece filled with the uncanny power of God's living word" (p.97). He doesn't waste time with silly arguments about adding words to Romans 3, or destroying the canon.

The most significant chapter is Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching. Here, Wicks describes the insight Luther made as a theologian. It's really a chapter explaining what Luther meant by sola fide. Any Roman Catholic wishing to go beyond the simple basics or slogan shouting will find a helpful overview here. Sola fide isn't the license to sin it's regularly made out to be.

Other writings from Jared Wicks can be found here.

Bellisario admits he's a troll

If any of our Romanist friends should care to object, I really could care less about what any of you think about anything. I just like to post the obvious about Bellisario to yank your chains so I can watch all of you fly off the handle.
It's all about provoking Bellisario to see what dumb comment he will make next. 

 So this post is very simple.  TurretinFan says about Bellisario: 

That's the very definition of a troll.

Bellisario responds:

An (sic) your point is?

No point, man.  Just yanking your chain. 

the Catholic Champion Says: No More Pop-Apologetics

Let's send Matthew a little blog traffic. His recent post takes a jab at the Roman Catholic pop-apologetic empire:

In recent years the popular Catholic apologetics industry has been relatively stalled with material aimed at the neophyte or those who have little knowledge about the Catholic faith. Most of the books that are marketed these days that are classified as being "apologetic" in nature are usually of this type. They are usually very elementary and do not penetrate the Catholic faith or tradition far beyond the surface.

-snip-

In order to bring Catholic apologetics to a new level, it will take each individual Catholic who is willing to put in the time and effort to doing their own research. We have to go back to the Church sources ourselves, and return to reading real Catholic scholars and theologians, instead of relying on the same shallow arguments and regurgitated interpretations of the same material that has been presented over and over by the same circle of laymen over the past 15 to 20 years.

Well, as difficult as Matthew can be when he stops by over here, I've got to give him a thumbs up for not running with the pack. Attacking an entire industry, and also questioning the worth of the work of his fellow Roman Catholics is indeed bold.

He's right on. I can look on my bookshelf at a number of such Roman Catholic books that fit his description. Some of the stuff is... awful. I'd like to ask Matthew to do a new post, a follow up, of which books he thinks fit his description above. On my list would be, almost all of Patrick Madrid's books, Karl Keating's books, and definitely Steve Ray's books. I'd also be interested in knowing which apologetics books he recommends.... my guess would be those produced by Mr. Sungenis.

Luther's Works 69, Logos Version

Over on CyberBrethren, Rev. Paul McCain announced the newest volume of Luther's Works will soon be available in Logos format. I did purchase the book last year, and I recall asking around if and when the book would be available in a digital format. I didn't get any answers- perhaps I didn't ask the right sources. It wasn't necessarily a bad thing that I picked up the book, but given a choice, I probably would've bought the Logos version only.

I wonder how much $$ is it going to be?

I hope there isn’t going to be an action figure or a lunch box, I can only afford so much.

The CARM Boards & Discussion Extermination

I've been an on and off member of the CARM discussion boards for over 10 years. CARM stands for "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry." I signed on in the late 1990's to discuss aspects of Reformed theology. I think I was running on a 28.8 modem back then using a prehistoric windows program.

It was there I began engaging Roman Catholicism, I don't remember exactly why, but I do recall the first time a Roman Catholic quoted Luther to me, and I actually had the book in question, looked up the reference, and said... "Hey, wait a minute, that's not what was being said, in context."

I'm not sure why, but every so often the CARM management decides to delete all the forums, and start over with new software. In this age of techno-geekery, I can't believe there isn't a software that will update the discussion boards without going tabula rasa. This has always been my main gripe against CARM. I'm typically too lazy to go and save whatever I've posted, and I discovered that the archives already have an automatic delete set up.

So this morning I spent a few minutes trying to retrieve some of the posts before extermination. I've been busy elsewhere, and I hadn't visited CARM for a while. Here were a few parting chuckles I found:

"Swan and Keating. They are conjoined twins with only a theological membrane separating them. The debating tactics and modestly self-deprecating "victory speeches" of both are too cute to be taken seriously."

Ah, well, now that was mean! The sad part is I think the RC saying this confused me with another guy named James. I rarely give a vistory speech, because facts are facts. Here's the other great tidbit of Romanist kindness:

I understand how difficult this question is for you. After all, it is exactly this question which two weeks ago or so caused James Swan to “drop out” of this dialogue. He also was accused of not being willing to admit to his personal opinions about the NT Canon. Are you willing to “fess up”, and then face the subsequent pesky “follow-up” questions?

It was the follow-up questions that James was so terrified of and I understand why. Are you more bold than James? He at least understands that he cannot reveal his personal opinions on the matter and retain any credibility. He has thought out his position and does not want it to be scrutinized. Have you thought out yours several moves ahead as well?

I registered for the new CARM boards a month or so ago, but after 10- 15 years of watching everything get dumped every 2 or 3 years, I'm tempted to simply say goodbye.

Luther on Mary's Sinlessness...Revisited

One of the subjects in Luther studies that I've addressed over the years is Luther's view on Mary's Sinlessness. Sure, dull stuff to most. It's the Roman Catholic side that finds this a subject worthy of study: anything that even looks like a pro-Mary Romanist quote is fine, with or without a context.

Even Wikipedia is weighing in the issue:

In the course of his life Luther made contradictory statements about Mary's immaculate conception. For example, in 1532 Luther says that Mary was conceived in sin, in 1544 he says: 'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.'[17] Elsewhere, "All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin]."[18] When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God's singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity.

"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."[19]

[17] Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 61 vols., (Weimar: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nochfolger, 1883-1983), 52:39 [hereinafter: WA]
[18] WA, 39, II:107.
[19] Sermons of Martin Luther, 291

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to determine who, or whom writes articles like this. It would be interesting to know. It is true Luther did make puzzling comments about Mary's sinlessness or lack thereof throughout his life. I've put up a lot of blog entries on Luther's Mariology in the past. Overall, Wiki made the right conclusion, though footnote #19 should have been: Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291.

Recently though I came across a number of statements from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) to add to the list. Luther makes a number of comments on Luke 2, when the parents of Jesus lost him. I've documented one these sermons before. Here are some other quotes (with contexts that can be produced!) to add to the list:

13. The words of Luke "and they understood not the saying which he spake unto them" are especially to be noted here. With these words he silenced the idle talk of those who exalted and praised the Virgin Mary too highly, asserting that she knew everything and could not err. For you see here how the Lord permits her to seek her child for a long time in vain, till she finds him in the temple after three days. In addition to this, Jesus seems to reprimand her when he says: "How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?" She understood not the saying which he spake to her. Consequently all the idle talk to which we have referred is nothing but falsehood, and the Virgin Mary does not need this fabricated and mendacious praise. God concealed much from her and led her through many trials, so that she might remain humble and not think herself better than others. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.23]

18. Therefore we should reply to this from the Gospel, as I said: Even if Mary, the Holy Virgin, had done this, it would not be surprising if she had erred. She was the mother of God, and yet she did not know where to find Christ; she sought him among her kinsfolk and acquaintance and failed to find him. Now if she did not succeed in finding Christ among her kinsfolk, but had finally to come to the temple, how shall we expect to find him outside of the Word of God in human doctrines, in the decrees of the councils or the teachings of the scholastics? Bishops and councils have undoubtedly not possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit in as large a measure as Mary. If she erred, why should not they also be mistaken who fancy to find Christ elsewhere but in his Father's house, that is in the Word of God? [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.25]

22. But, they say, the Christian church is always led by the Holy Spirit, who will not permit the church to err or go wrong. To this we answer with what we said before: However good the church may be, it has never possessed the Spirit in as large a measure as Mary, who although she was led by the Spirit, erred nevertheless, so that we might learn from her experience. If she herself is uncertain, how can you make me certain? Whither should we then go? We must also come into the temple, that is to say we must cling to the Word of God, which is secure and will not fail us and where we will certainly find Christ. I must therefore always be with the Word, if I cleave to it. If the Word of God goes conquering through death and remains alive, I must also pass through death to life, and nothing can hinder or destroy me, neither sin nor death, nor the devil. The comfort and boldness I derive from the Word of God cannot be engendered by any other doctrine, for none can be compared with it. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.27]

27. There are many similar examples and types elsewhere in the Gospel which point out the same truth, namely, that nothing should be taught but the Word of God and no other doctrine should be accepted, because Christ can be found only in the Scriptures. Thus we read in the Gospel for Christmas, Lk 2, 12, where the angel, who announced the birth of Christ, said to the shepherds: "And this is the sign unto you: Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger." Why does he not direct them to Mary and Joseph, but only points them to the swaddling clothes and the manger? The reason is that God will not point us to any saint, not even to the holy mother herself, for they may all err. Therefore a special place must be pointed out where Christ is, namely the manger, where he surely may be found, even if Joseph and Mary were not present. This signifies that Christ is completely wrapped in the Scriptures, just as the body is wrapped in the clothes. The manger is the preaching of the Gospel, where he is lying and where he is apprehended, and from which we take our food. Now it would indeed appear that the child should lie where Joseph and Mary are, these great and holy people. Yet the angel points only to the manger, which he will not have overlooked or dishonored. It is an insignificant and simple expression, but Christ is found in it. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.29]

30. Let us then be prepared for their representations and expostulations to the effect that the Christian church can not err, so that we may know how to meet them, and say: Here is not the word of man, but the Word of God. We read in this Gospel that his mother, Mary, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and yet she erred. Likewise we read in the Acts that there was a Christian council of such who believed and who had the Spirit, and yet they stumbled and would have established an unchristian law, if others had not protested. We should therefore not believe any council or ;saint, if they come without the Word of God. This is then the sum total of this Gospel, and if anything else is to be said on it, we will let those explain it who have leisure; but he who studies it faithfully, will easily understand it.[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.30]

8. The affliction and suffering she was compelled to endure were not of a nature that they had occurred without her fault, but her conscience forced her to remember how God had entrusted the child to her and that no one else was accountable for him, and hence storms burst and thundered in her heart: Behold, thou hast lost the child. This is no one's fault but thine own; for thou shouldst have waited on him and looked after him, and not permitted him for` a moment to go out of thy sight. How wilt thou give an account of this before God, since thou hast failed to watch over him? This is the result of sin and thou art no longer worthy to be his mother; yea, thou hast deserved to be condemned by him before all people, inasmuch as he has conferred on thee the great honor and favor of choosing thee for his mother.

9. Should not her heart have failed and fainted here from anxiety, for two reasons? First, because she lost her son and was unable to find him; secondly, which was the most severe of all and which could not happen to other mothers, making the pain all the more severe, because she must abhor herself before God, the only Father of the child, that he would no longer have or regard her as his mother, and hence she must be more sorrowful and sad at heart than any other woman on earth. In her own heart she regards herself guilty of the same sin as Eve, the first mother, who brought the whole human race to ruin. For what are all sins compared with this one, that she has neglected and lost this child, the Son of God and the Saviour of the World? And if he should not be found, or, since he could not be lost, if God should have taken him back to himself, she would be the cause of preventing the completion of the work of the redemption of the world. Such and doubtless many other thoughts filled her heart with great fear, especially since she, as a pious child of God, had a very tender heart and conscience. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.35-36]

32. This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err; for you can see here how they err and falter, not only in this that they seek Christ and know not where to find him until they accidentally come to the temple, but also that they could not understand these words with which he censured their ignorance and is compelled to say to them: “Knew ye not, that I must be in the things of my Father?” The Evangelist has pointed this out with great diligence, in order that men should not give credence to such falsehoods as ignorant, inexperienced and conceited teachers of works righteousness present in exalting the saints, even setting them up as idols. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.45]

34. Examples like this are useful and necessary to show us that even the saints, who are the children of God and highly favored above others, still have weaknesses so that they frequently err and blunder, yea, retain many faults, at times even commit great sins; yet not intentionally and willfully, but from weakness and ignorance, as we see again and again in the lives of the apostles. This happens in order that we may learn neither to build nor depend on any man; but, as this Gospel teaches, to cling to the Word of God only; and in order that we may find comfort in such examples and be not led to despair, although we may be weak and ignorant; and yet that we should not become bold and carnally secure on account of such grace as the haughty and pretended saints are wont to do.[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.46]

35. In a word, you have in this Gospel a strong example with which to overthrow the common cry both of the false saints and the great critics, which they still keep up, in order that contrary to the Word of God they may continue in their trifling; to wit, that they may reproach us with the writings and teachings of the fathers and the decrees of the church and councils; for, they say, these had the Holy Spirit, therefore they could not err, etc. In this way they desire to mislead us concerning the Scriptures and the true place to which Christ himself points and where he can surely be found; in order that what happened to Mary the mother, and to Joseph may happen also to us, namely, that we seek Christ everywhere and yet find him nowhere except at the place where he is to be found. The same thing has been carried on with great power in Christendom through the cursed government of the pope, who has striven both by his teachings and actions, threats and punishments to cause men to fail in seeking or finding Christ in the Scriptures. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.46]


38. ...[T]hey have abandoned Holy Scripture; yet so as to attach it to some of the writings and expositions of the fathers, nevertheless not any farther than it pleased the pope and would not prove contrary to his law, and that no one should use Scripture except in accordance with the pleasure of the pope, to whom alone pertains the interpretations of Scripture and whose knowledge and judgments every one is bound to accept. Yet, in spite of this, they so far honor the fathers as to demand that their interpretations and explanations should be followed. All the world accepted this and so received all that the fathers said, as if they could not err, and shouted again: Aye, how could it be possible that so many holy, learned and highly intelligent men should not have understood the Scriptures?

39. To this we should reply as is taught in this Gospel: Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture.[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.48]

46. You say further: Yea, the church and the fathers were endowed with the Holy Spirit, who kept them from error. The answer to this is not difficult: The church and councils may have been ever so holy, they did not have the Holy Spirit in greater measure than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member, yea, at the time, the most eminent member of the Church. And although she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; yet he permitted her at times to err, even in the important matters of faith. From this it does not follow, that the saints, who were endowed with the Spirit, could on this account not err, nor that everything they said would have to be correct. Great weakness and ignorance may be found to exist even in the most eminent people and hence we cannot judge concerning doctrines and matters of faith on the basis of personal holiness, for all this can fail. But here you come to the Word of God which is sure and infallible, where you shall certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirit, and can be and remain firmly fortified against sin, death, and the devil.[Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.50]

49. This is also given for our admonition, in order that we may endeavor to keep the Word of God in our hearts, as the blessed Virgin did, who, seeing she had erred and lacked understanding, became all the more diligent to keep in her heart all she heard from Christ. She furnishes another example, that above all things we should adhere to the Word and not permit it to go out of our hearts, but constantly use it, learn to gain strength from it, find comfort in it, and increase in it, as is indeed necessary for all of us. For when we come to the point where we shall be tried and tempted, we are liable to be. forgotten or dropped even by those who are diligent. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.52-53]

Ratzinger on Luther, the Church Fathers, & Allegory

I found this tidbit from the Catholic Answers Forum (give credit where credit is due). Cardinal Ratzinger discussed briefly Luther's attitude toward the church fathers and allegory in his book, Principles of Catholic Theology (pp. 141-142):

The quote is said to come from Luther's Sermons on the Second Book of Moses (Alleg. I, Wittenberger Ausgabe, 16.67). I don't doubt the validity of the quote being used (which was taken by Ratzinger from a secondary source. Luther preached on Exodus in 1524, and I think the reference is to a sermon on Exodus 1). While Luther said both positive and negative things about the church fathers throughout his career, this description of Luther's view is accurate.

As to discrediting the fathers because of their use of allegory, Luther likewise would often provide an allegorical interpretation of a passage of Scripture. Examples of this can be found in his sermons. I can recall my surprise reading a sermon from Luther's Church Postil and coming upon a section entitled, "The spiritual interpretation of this gospel." It wasn't that allegory automatically discredited the church fathers. Using allegorical interpretations as primary proofs was the issue. Luther complained that the papists and fanatics did this. Luther also fought against allegorizing as an accepted and recommended method of biblical interpretation prevalent in his day and previously. The primary proofs of the faith must be based on the clear exposition of scripture. Luther goes on in the very sermon Ratizinger cited to say of allegorical interpretation:

I too know well that hidden meanings do not have convincing power and should not be the ground on which we base ourselves. For we should and must rely on the clear, express, and plain word of God, such as that referring us to faith in Christ and love toward our neighbor. Thus one is saved. Other teachings and allegories you disregard. Such is also the allegory of St. Paul concerning Abraham, according to which his two sons signify the two testaments. For if this allegory were not grounded on this passage in Paul, my heart would doubt and constantly ask how I may be sure of it. For one would say: Who knows whether it be so? The heart must doubt in that case and cannot be sure. It dare not rest or rely on allegories. I must have the plain text and page of Holy Scripture (WA 16:72 cited in What Luther Says, 1:100-101).

Ratzinger then goes to make quite an interesting claim a short while later on the use of the church fathers as biblical interpreters and his earlier summation of Luther's view, that Luther's "historical instinct is clearly proving itself right" and also that "there is nothing to be proved or disproved" by referring to their interpretations of Scripture:

The Dogmatic Closing of the Roman Catholic Canon

When did the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically settle the contents of the canon? Here's a quick mp3 clip from Dr. White on the Bible Answer Man show with Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

Tim Staples Dogmatically Closes the Canon.

Staples dogmatically closes the canon in 1442, while Dr. White says Rome closed it in 1546. Most of the Roman Catholics I've interacted with dogmatically close the canon in the 4th century.

Anyone interested in this entire discussion can purchase the mp3 here for a few bucks.

The Catholic Catechism Against Heretics

x
x

Here's fun little document I found over on the Catholic Answers forum. The Catechism from (1846) itself can be found here. This may be one the most fun documents I've found in a long time.
Here are some choice questions and answers:

Q. Did Luther obey this command of God by keeping his vows?
A. No; he violated all the three; he apostatized,—he married Catherine de Boré, a nun, like himself under vows, and he utterly disobeyed every ecclesiastical authority.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion of Christ; because, if the Church of Christ required reformation, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character—an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer—for that purpose.

Q. What induced Luther to attack the ancient Catholic faith and invent a new creed?
A. Pride and jealousy. Pride. Leo having granted an Indulgence, Luther's pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.

Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven by this pride and jealousy?
A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences itself.

Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or avarice of individual Catholics?
A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that under pretence of reprehending abuses, he assailed the true faith on the subject of Indulgences.

Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther make in 1517, during these disputes?
A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing but what was conformable to Scripture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the Holy See.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That he was either a hypocrite who did not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which he impugned, since otherwise he could not conscientiously promise silence and obedience.

Q. What other consequences do you draw?
A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, jealousy—a disobedient hypocrite—was not the person to be chosen by God to reform abuses if any such existed.

Q. What was the effect of these works, in which he spoke of nothing but "evangelical liberty?"
A. These works produced disturbances, sedition, and amongst other evils, the German War of the Peasants, who committed every sort of excess, declaring that the rich had no exclusive right to their property, that every thing should be held in common, because in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all property was common amongst the first Christians.

Q. What lesson do you learn from this portion of Luther's conduct?
A. That the man who wantonly disobeys all authority, both ecclesiastical and civil—the man who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the purpose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and propagating evident heresy and schism—cannot possibly be the ambassador of heaven.

Q. Did Luther hearken to the paternal advice of his sable director?
A. He listened so well, that he allowed himself to be persuaded that the devil was right and he was wrong, so that the enemy of man came off victor; and though Luther in the same book calls the devil the most artful and lying deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice rather than that of the Church.

Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the change in religion brought about by Luther is the work of God?
A. No one can believe it, unless he be utterly ignorant of the true nature of religion, and very unlearned in the matters of history.

Q. Why do you make this answer?
A. Because, in the first place, the author of the Reformation is not a man of God; secondly, because his work is not the work of God; thirdly, because the means which he used in effecting his purpose are not of God.

Q. Why do you say Luther is not a man of God?
A. Because he has left us in his works abundant proof, that if God saw a need for any reformation in his Church, such a man as Luther would not be selected to carry God's will into effect.

Q. What have you to blame in Luther's works?
A. They are full of indecencies very offensive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoonery well calculated to bring religion into contempt, and interlarded with very many gross insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian charity and humility, to individuals of dignity and worth.

Q. If neither the author of Protestantism, nor his work itself, nor the means he adopted to effect his purpose, are from God, what are his followers obliged to?
A. They are obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the true Church, which seduced by Luther, they abandoned: If they be sincere, God will aid them in their inquiry.

Q. What is the situation of the man who does not at once acquit himself of this obligation?
A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and schism; the thing he calls a church has no pastors lawfully sent or ordained; hence, he can receive none of the Sacraments declared in Scripture to be so necessary to salvation.

Mark Shea vs. the Catholic Champion

Entertaining stuff.

Highlights:

Shea: Seriously, Matthew. Put up or shut up. If you seriously *believe* the nonsense you are defending then hie thee to your bishop make sure I am never allowed into your diocese. But you have to be honest about it. Don't just pass along "Shea is so *mean*!" whines.

Bellisario: You want to talk about "putting up or shutting up," why don't you act in a moral manner and give Robert the chance to address your personal accusations in public forum? He is willing to pay for it!

Palm: Again, Matthew, I wonder if your moral outrage is balanced enough to take Father to task on your blog for his own treatment of his opponents?

Shea: As to my alleged foul mouth, I think offering defenses of torture is much more filthy than stating clearly that terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" or claims like "waterboarding is not torture" are Orwellian bu******t (or, if you prefer the biblical term "skubala").

Bellisario: You would ultimately be a much more effective voice for the Catholic apologetics world if you got your temper under control before you started blogging.

Palm: If you are prepared to defend Sungenis in his attacks on Bishop Rhoades, Jewish converts such as Roy Schoeman, and the Jewish people as a whole then by all means do so. But if not then it would seem, as I suggested above, that your moral outrage is seriously out of balance.

Bellisario: Palm, also in case you haven't noticed, the original blog post is not primarily about Sungenis. It is about Shea's poor example of Catholic charity and his repeated personal attacks on fellow Catholics including priests.

Shea: At any rate, I'm done here. If you feel the need to actually act on your conviction that I am a disgrace to the Church, I really would urge you to contact your bishop and put your money where your mouth is. If possible, please make an audio or video file of that interview and post it, cuz I would *love* to see you explain to him what Sungenis has said, Fr. Harrison has defended, and you are so passionate to defend as well. Not too surprising that you keep all this stuff bottled up on a blog. Actually saying it out loud to competent ecclesial authorities might force you to step outside the hothouse and watch your defenses of this stuff get blown away by a gust of laughter.

John Hus: They will roast a goose now (for ‘Huss’ means ‘a goose’), but after a hundred years they will hear a swan sing, and him they will endure

Here's a typical account of the last moments of John Hus, before being burned by the Roman Catholic Council of Constance:

On July 6, 1415, as John Hus (whose name means "goose" in his native Czech) made his way to the place of execution, the authorities made him pass by a bonfire where his books were burning. Hus was unafraid and predicted the Protestant Reformation with almost uncanny accuracy. Some of his last words were: You are going to burn a goose but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil. [source]

This "Swan" of this statement has popularly been interpreted to be Martin Luther, not to mention, even by Luther himself:

However, I, Dr. Martinus, have been called to this work and was compelled to become a doctor, without any initiative of my own, but out of pure obedience. Then I had to accept the office of doctor and swear a vow to my most beloved Holy Scriptures that I would preach and teach them faithfully and purely. While engaged in this kind of teaching, the papacy crossed my path and wanted to hinder me in it. How it has fared is obvious to all, and it will fare still worse. It shall not hinder me. In God’s name and call I shall walk on the lion and the adder, and tread on the young lion and dragon with my feet. And this which has been begun during my lifetime will be completed after my death. St. John Huss prophesied of me when he wrote from his prison in Bohemia, “They will roast a goose now (for ‘Huss’ means ‘a goose’), but after a hundred years they will hear a swan sing, and him they will endure.” And that is the way it will be, if God wills. [LW 34:103]

I hadn't really thought much of the statement from Hus, other than the irony that indeed, a century later a lone monk began the Protestant Reformation. It's a popular quote. In my mind coincidence, nothing more. While reading in another area, I came across an article by Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany. Google Books offers a limited preview of this article with some missing pages, so I went ahead and ordered the book.

This is an incredibly interesting article. It documents the way that many turned Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of him refused to burn. Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility. The picture above in this entry is said to be a painting from 1689 that refused to burn, though it isn't certain. It's indeed the stuff of legends and fantasy. If you get a chance, read through Scribner's article, or at least what Google Books makes available. Note the similarities between the Luther myth and the typical Romanist saint myths.

Scribner's article takes an interesting look at a variety of the Luther legends, even those attributed to him while still living. Among those he covers is the quote from Hus:

A truly interesting find. Even Luther produced a botched quote, and did so to promote himself.

Wrap Up- Obscure Luther Quotes from Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

I have some closing comments as I wrap up this project. With the exception of a few quotes, I've provided contexts for obscure Martin Luther quotes as published in Roman Catholic apologist's book Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2007), Appendix Two, pp. 92-94. There is a particular irony to the subtitle of the book, "Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic" since more often than not the editorial comments made by the author are not supported by the Luther quotes being used.


The Non-Response
The Luther quotes used simply don't prove the editorial comments he put to them in his books or web pages: agony, sense of guilt and failure, the unpopularity of Protestantism, that the people didn't like Luther as a person or his doctrine, that true Protestant Christians were as morally bankrupt as Romanists, the general moral climate of the time became worse due to Lutheran doctrine, that Luther was not a champion of religious freedom, etc. These were all editorial comments the author attached to those quotes. One could argue perhaps that his editorial comments were too vague to scrutinize, but I had to consider how the average reader would see them. They would definitely be steered in the direction the author would want them to go. I would assume most of the author's supporters buying his book wouldn't have the access or the means to trace the quotes back by using the bibliographic information he provided. Those references were primarily to secondary sources, or German Luther texts. The quotes were thus isolated from scrutiny.

Along with these blog posts I've compiled, a discussion (or probably better... shouting match) also happened. So far, the author chose not to evaluate the contexts I provided: "If you have provided 'context' for 15 of my citations, why is there any remaining need for me to do so, anyway?" He did though put up a few blog posts as a response. Remember, a few months back he promised: "I have already stated that I'm leaving this place forever after this thread is done," "And I won't be reading [Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics] anymore, either, after I leave this place." So, it appears he still does read this blog.

One blog entry in particular he claims is his knock out punch to the contexts I've compiled. He compiled a list of authors that likewise attribute Luther with a negative view of the church and the world toward the end of his life. It's quite true that Luther was despondent over the world and the church, I've never denied that. In fact, his entire life was plagued by depression and illness. This though is far more complicated than the author explains or argues. It wasn't simply a depression over the alleged failure of the Reformation, or that he mourned how God had let him down as a preacher.

The Roman Catholic Perspective: The Failure of the Reformation
The caricature that the author and many of the earlier pre-1930 Romanist controversialists put forth is that the Reformation was a failure: it didn't produce any real fruit, and Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it. The author isn't nearly as overt as say, someone like Denifle was. But the approach, though the author is tamer, is still the same: Protestantism isn't a movement of the church. It is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness.

It's one thing to argue Luther suffered from depression or had a despondency over the state of things, it's quite another to use his words to prove he had a sense of "failure and guilt" over the preaching of the Gospel, or that he was in agony over the Gospel going forth into the world and the trouble he admitted and expected it would cause. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. The Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel.

If anyone is presenting shoddy review of history, it's the author and those like him. He simply regurgitates much of the work of these men on this subject in a more palatable form. One need only read those sources the author primarily relied on for the quotes I reviewed (Denifle and Janssen). Give a look over the chapters from Denifle and Janssen that the author took his quotes from. If the well is tainted, whatever water you pull up won't be good. Denifle and Janssen used the quotes they did for a purpose. As Jared Wicks (a Roman Catholic Luther scholar) points out, Janssen's Luther was "depicted as the destroyer of the true and good." Wicks says of Denifle, he "chose not to understand Luther but to demolish him."

This is what's lurking in the background, the big picture so to speak in a Romanist mind: the Reformation was a failure and was morally bankrupt. It didn't produce good fruit, nor were its result any better than those of the corrupt church Luther and the Reformers fought against. Luther knew this, and admitted it. He died despondent over the mess he created. Heretics never lead good lives, nor produce good fruit. Since Rome is the true church and the Reformation was a failure, we as separated brethren must reunite with her. Trent cleaned up the situation as well, so what are Protestants waiting for? It's only by being in the true church that someone can attain true holiness. Simply read through Janssen and Denifle. this sentiment jumps off every page.

I stand firmly committed to the Gospel, and I'm not in way motivated to ecumenical dialog with those who oppose it. Romanist apologists like the author have the goal of helping poor misguided sola fide Christians back into fellowship with Rome. They aren't looking for a compromise or true ecumenical dialog. The author actively argues against the Reformation precisely for the reason of helping misguided wayward sheep back to the true fold of Romanism. One should never lose sight of this. While Denifle and Janssen would beat you over the head with it, the author's poison is much more subtle. The goals though are very much the same.

Ecumenical Romanism? Not Really.
Questions to ask Romanists arguing against the Reformation in such a way are as follows: would it be true to say that their view of history is that the Reformation was not a good thing, it was not a movement of the Holy Spirit, it is the result of heresy, and heresy never leads anyone to true holiness? It didn't produce any real fruit, and Luther's own words and the state of Protestantism at the time prove it? Do Romanists using these quotes against Luther do so to expose the evils of the Reformation for the purpose of defending the "True" church? Would they say that such Luther quotes prove such an interpretation of history? If they don't why would someone cite from Janssen and Denifle, who did use the quotes in such a way? A Romanist like the author in question claims to be ecumenical, so these questions have to be pressed.

If an ecumenical Roman Catholic does use the quotes to prove the moral and spiritual failure and heresy of the Reformation, how do they explain any positive results of the Reformation (if indeed they think there were any)? How do they explain the facts that after the Reformation, there have been millions of people who have sought holiness while clinging to the distinctive doctrine of sola fide and sola scriptura? Or, would they say that it isn't true and pure holiness apart from communion with the Roman church? All sorts of books have been written documenting the good and bad that the Reformation produced. The use of fifteen context-less Luther quotes attempting to prove Luther's failure really only show one color of the spectrum.

Did The Reformation Fail?
Someone over on the author's blog commented that I defended Luther on this because I have a stake in this matter, even though I'm not a Lutheran. In a sense, that's entirely true. My Christian life and experience has a direct tie to the Reformation. My life has been changed because of what the Reformers did. It wasn't a failure, and I know a great number of people that similarly claim Reformation roots that live their lives soli deo gloria. True holiness apart from Romanism? Yes indeed: first an imputed pure holiness, and then a process of sanctification.

I took the time I did on these quotes not to simply attack the person of this Catholic author, but because of the Gospel. Luther and the Reformers did not fail. Perhaps the Reformation hasn't overcome society to a large extent, but like Luther, I don't really expect it to. I expect the great majority of people to consider the main ideas of the Reformation to be foolishness: sola fide and sola scriptura. I expect a great number of people to simply live their lives giving lip service to these doctrines, even some of those who claim to adhere to them. Does this mean the Gospel has failed? Not in the least.

Luther: There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads

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

There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads.(in Will Durant, The Reformation, [volume 6 of 10-volume The Story of Civilization, 1967], New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957, 441)

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." Second, it's an example of a need for universal Church-wide belief. Third, it proves "It is a farce to view Protestantism as in any way 'universal.'" Fourth, it proves "Without the authoritative guidance of the Church, men will always differ." Fifth, in the book More Biblical Evidence For Catholicism (2007) p. 45- 46, it proves Luther's recognition of the "scandalous nature of sectarianism" with the use of complaining with "dripping disdain."

Documentation
The quote is said to come from Will Durant's volume on The Reformation, page 441:

As internal liberty varies (other things equal) with external security, Protestantism, during its safe period, indulged in the sectarian fragmentation that seemed inherent in the principles of private judgment and the supremacy of conscience. Already in 1525 Luther wrote: "There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads." Melanchthon was kept grievously busy moderating his master and finding ambiguous formulas for reconciling contradictory certitudes. Catholics pointed gleefully to the mutually recriminating Protestant factions, and predicted that freedom of interpretation and belief would lead to religious anarchy-, moral disintegration, and a skepticism abominable to Protestants as well as Catholics. In 1525 three artists were banished from Protestant Nuremberg for questioning the divine authorship of the Bible, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and the divinty of Christ.

Durant cites Janssen's fourth volume of The History of the German People,  page 199 as the source:

All that had come to pass formerly in Bohemia as a result of this teaching, the terrible want of unity in religion, of which eye-witnesses at the beginning of the sixteenth century testify, would now, it was prophesied, happen in Germany also. Just as Luther had written of Germany in 1525, 'There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads,' so Bohuslav Hassenstein had written of Bohemia: 'Nobody is hindered from setting up a new religion. Not to mention the Wickliffites and Picards, there are also those who deny the divinity of our Saviour, those who maintain that the soul dies with the body, those who think every religion equally profitable to salvation, yea, verily, those who think that even hell is an invention of man. I pass over here innumerable opinions of this sort. And these sectarians do not keep their opinions to themselves, but preach them openly. Old men and boys, young men and women dispute about matters of faith, and expound the Holy Scriptures, which all the while they have not studied. Each sect finds its adherents, so great is the craving after something new.

Janssen uses the quote as a passing editorial comment and doesn't provide a primary reference to Luther's writings, or even a secondary source (at least in the English version). Durant uses it as proof of Protestant fragmentation. Neither men appear to have used a primary source. I've explored this quote before, so I know the reference is  to De Wette, op. cit., III, 61 or Erl. ed 53, p. 342 or WA 18:547. The text reads:

This text is from Sendschreiben an die Christen zu Antwerpen,  The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (April, [25?] 1525). The letter was written to warn Antwerp of radical leaders and groups during the peasant uprising. The peasants had sporadic outbursts of violence previous to their great uprising in the spring of 1525. Luther was very aware of the peasant situation. He had personally visited some of the peasants, and was almost killed by them. Charismatic leaders spurred them on, using religion as part of the motivation to violently revolt against the establishment. Luther was aware of these charismatic peasant leaders, and wrote against them, and also to warn Antwerp.

This letter is not contained in LW, yet. It appears to be scheduled for an upcoming volume of Luther's Works.  however, a partial English translation is available in Michelet's Life of Luther, Gathered From His Own Writings, pages 91-92 (alternate link).

Context

We believed, during the reign of the pope, that the spirits which make a noise and disturbance in the night, were those of the souls of men, who after death, return and wander about in expiation of their sins. This error, thank God, has been discovered by the Gospel, and it is known at present, that they are not the souls of men, but nothing else than those malicious devils who used to deceive men by false answers. It is they that have brought so much idolatry into the world.

The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment ; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God ; some say this, others that ; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits. There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther; they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing! The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that lie was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all. At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. I asked for a sign in confirmation of this order, ' It is,' said he, ' written in the gospel of St. John.' By this time I had heard enough, and I told him, to come again, for that we should not have time, just now, to read the books of Moses. . . .I have plenty to do in the course of the year with these poor people: the devil could not have found a better pretext for tormenting me. As yet the world had been full of those clamorous spirits without bodies, who oppressed the souls of men; now they have bodies, and give themselves out for living angels . . .

When the pope reigned we heard nothing of these troubles. The strong one (the devil) was in peace in his fortress; but now that a stronger one than he is come, and prevails against him and drives him out, as the Gospel says, he storms and comes forth with noise and fury.

Dear friends, one of these spirits of disorder has come amongst you in flesh and blood; he would lead you astray with the inventions of his pride: beware of him.
First, he tells you that all men have the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than our reason and our understanding. Thirdly, that all men have faith. Fourthly, that there is no hell, that at least the flesh only will be damned. Fifthly, that all souls will enjoy eternal life. Sixthly, that nature itself teaches us to do to our neighbour what we would he should do to us ; this he calls faith. Seventhly, that the law is not violated by concupiscence, so long as we are not consenting to the pleasure. Eighthly, that he that has not the Holy Ghost, is also without sin, for he is destitute of reason.

All these are audacious propositions, vain imaginations; if we except the seventh, the others are not worthy of reply. . . .

It is sufficient for us to know that God wills no sin. As to his sufferance of sin, we ought not to approach the question. The servant is not to know his master's secrets, simply his master's orders: how much less should a poor creature attempt to scrutinize or sound the mysteries and the majesty of the Creator ? . . ."

To learn the law of God, and to know his soul Jesus Christ, is sufficient to absorb the whole of life. . . . A.D. 1525." (Luth. Werke, tom. ii. p. 61,sqq.)

Conclusion
Is this quote describing Luther's agony over the state of early Protestantism? No, it's describing Luther's agony over radical leaders misusing the Scriptures and misleading the people. In fact, he says these radicals were sent by the Devil to torment him. He describes the devastating effect of the Devil, who, Luther says, was at peace in his papal fortress, but now with the gospel being loudly proclaimed, must find a different way to keep men enslaved to sin and darkness. Similarly, this quote doesn't prove Luther's recognition of the "scandalous nature of sectarianism" with the use of complaining with "dripping disdain." Had Luther considered any of these sects in question in this letter anything other the work of the Devil, perhaps then one could argue Luther was in agony over the state of early Protestantism.

As to this quote proving a "farce to view Protestantism as in any way 'universal'," Luther didn't even consider the sects in question as Christian or Protestant. Does this quote prove "Without the authoritative guidance of the Church, men will always differ"? By capital "C" the Catholic apologist appears to mean the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, Luther comments elsewhere:

There is no other place in the world where there are so many sects, schisms, and errors as in the papal church. For the papacy, because it builds the church upon a city and person, has become the head and fountain of all sects which have followed it and have characterized Christian life in terms of eating and drinking, clothes and shoes, tonsures and hair, city and place, day and hour. For the spirituality and holiness of the papal church lives by such things, as was said above.  This order fasts at this time, another order fasts at another time; this one does not eat meat, the other one does not eat eggs; this one wears black, the other one white; this one is Carthusian,  the other Benedictine;  and so they continue to create innumerable sects and habits, while faith and true Christian life go to pieces. All this is the result of the blindness which desires to see rather than believe the Christian church and to seek devout Christian life not in faith but in works, of which St. Paul writes so much in Colossians [2]. These things have invaded the church and blindness has confirmed the government of the pope.” [LW 39:220-221].

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.