Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Four)

Those of you stopping by here regularly realize I enjoy trying to document obscure Luther quotes as I come across them. The ones I come across are typically being used for polemical purposes. I do this first as an interest and hobby. It certainly is fascinating to see the history around a particular quote. Second, its an historical apologetic endeavor. If I can point people to a context, they can read it for themselves and make up their own minds as to what any particular quote means in the scheme of church history.

Even I have to search my blog for particular quotes. Recently I came across a Luther quote that sounded familiar, but yet did not sound familiar. I searched my own blog and discovered I did three specific entries on one particular quote back in 2008 very similar to what I was looking for:

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Two)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities  "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

I came across another version of this quote being used on the CARM boards which was very similar:

After Hieronymus Emser advised Luther to be judicious in his challenge to the Church, that is not to go at it too strong. The advise evoked a strange and vicious response from Luther, “The devil take it! The affair was not begun on God’s account; neither shall it end on God’s account!” (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957), pp. 350-351, c. 403) Then we can just read his intent and mutinous frame of mind one of his flyers, "on the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520: 

"Now farewell, you unhappy, lost, and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you at last, as you have merited, for in spite of all prayer that have been said for you , you have become worse each day. We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. . .If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why should we not all the more assail with arms these master of perdition, these cardinals, these Popes, the whole dregs of the Roman Sodom. . ." 

What do we make of this, are the princes of peace are to be put to the attacked, put to the sword, and burned at the stake? As I said before, Christ freely spilt his own blood for His Church; Luther spilt the blood of Europe to ransack Christ's Church.

Documentation
The quote is said to be from a "flyer" of Luther's entitled "On the Papacy at Rome, June 25, 1520." I've already documented this is a bogus reference. "On the Papacy at Rome" is probably a reference to the title of a book by the Dominican Sylvester Prierias in which Luther responded to. Unfortunately, Roman Catholic apologetics has been so sloppy with this quote, they often mis-document it. The exact title from which the quote comes from is Epitoma Responsionis ad Marinum Lutherum, and is found in WA, vol. 6, beginning on page 325 and ending on page 348. Luther's Works state:

Luther wrote these words in 1520 in the margin of a work written against him by Sylvester Prierias (ca. 1456–1523), a Dominican monk and official theological adviser to Pope Leo X. Luther did not formally reply to Prierias, but only reprinted the treatise, adding his own comments in the margin. Luther’s version was entitled Responsio ad Martinum Luther (per Fratrem Silvestrum de Prierto). Cf. WA 6, 329.[Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The first part of the quote is found on page 329 near the beginning of the treatise. The second part of the quote appears on page 347 as part of Luther's postscript (Ad Lectorem). The writing is scheduled to be translated for a forthcoming edition of Luther's Works [Early Works 1509-ca. 1521 (2 volumes)].

It's hard to determine who stuck these two quotes together, as both have been floating around the Internet separately. Sometimes the quotes are documented as -"Martin Luther, 'On the Papacy at Rome' June 25, 1520 and 'To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.'" This leads me to believe someone compiled the quote from Warren H. Carroll's The Cleaving of Christendom, a History of Christendom Vol. 4, page 1, where Carroll cites both quotes.

Context
I refer anyone interested in the second half of the quote to one of my earlier entries. In regard to the first half, a source hostile to Luther provided an interesting overview of the context, Herbert Rix, Martin Luther: The Man and the Image, beginning on page 84, and citing both quotes.It should be obvious that Luther presented a highly polemical and rhetorical treatise. Rix mentions that Luther was predicting "he will go into schism if his conditions are not met and- by anticipation- bids farewell in a grand rhetorical flourish laced with scriptural illusions" (p.86), and then Rix cites the first quote.

Luther's Works likewise cites the first quote and states,

More and more he was convinced that the papacy could not be regarded as a neutral institution, but that it was Antichrist, a demonic institution striking at the Godgiven ordinances of the spiritual and temporal power. Nonetheless, Luther admitted that there had been true Christians in the Roman church in every generation: if the pope would and could go back to being the bishop of the church in Rome, he might still have his place within the Christian church. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

The Doctrine of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is a Rule of Faith above Scripture?

In the recent edition of Luther's works (vol. 60) I came across the following statement from Luther's Preface to Johann Kymaeus, An Ancient Christian Council, Held in Gangra in Paphlagonia [ca. 340], Against the Sublime (So-Called) Sanctity of the Monks and Anabaptists (1537):

But I do praise the most holy Papists for their ability to rage so steadfastly and constantly against the Spirit of God. When such testimonies of the genuine councils and fathers are cited, they do not care about them at all, but let out their mighty fart against it: "The pope is above all councils and is unable to err—moreover, he is above the entirety of holy Christendom throughout the world " And so that he need endure no equal, but he may instead exalt himself even above God, he bellows in his Decretum, the chapter Cuncta: (15) `All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." Yes, indeed, Luther says, all Christendom throughout the world knows it: hellfire [be] upon your head, your throne, and your idol, the devil! [LW 60:137]

I wondered if Luther perhaps exaggerated, was being sarcastic, or simply misquoted the source he refers to when he wrote "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." LW 60 gives this accompanying footnote. It first states,

(15) Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 reads: "The whole church throughout the world knows that the Roman church has the right to judge concerning all matters [de omnibus], and that no one is permitted to pass judgment on her verdict" (Friedberg 1:611).

"Decretum" refers to Decretum Magistri Gratiani:

The Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine canonist at the law school of the University of Bologna. It originated in ca. 1140 and represents the first part of Roman Catholic canon law (CIC 1), accepted as such by Pope Gregory IX (1228–1241) in 1234, whose Decretalium became the second part of canon law (CIC 2). Luther studied it during his stay in Erfurt and in preparation for the Leipzig Debate in 1519 [LW 41:20, fn 19].

"C. 9 q. 3 c. 17" can be found here:

C. XVII. De eodem.
Idem omnibus Episcopis.
Cuncta per mundum nouit ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana ecclesia fas de omnibus habet iudicandi, neque cuiquam de eius liceat iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est: ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus. §. 1. Sed nec illa preterimus, quod apostolica sedes sine ulla precedente sinodo et soluendi quos sinodus iniqua
dampnauerat, et dampnandi, nulla existente sinodo, quos oportuit habuerit facultatem, et hoc nimirum pro suo principatu, quem B. Petrus apostolus Domini uoce et tenuit semper et tenebit.

One will note C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 does not say "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see."  If taken as a literal citation, Luther misquoted the Decretum. On the other hand, it does say "all matters", and that would indeed cover Luther's interpretation. Why would Luther present such an interpretation of this text? The LW 60 footnote goes on to say:

The specific application to Scripture, claiming that "the doctrine of the Roman church and of the Roman pontiff [is] a rule of faith.. . from which even holy Scripture draws or has drawn its power;' was made by the papal theologian Sylvester Prierias; see Peter Fabisch and Erwin Iserloh; eds., Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521), 2 vols. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1988-91), 1:55; see Luther, preface, notes, and afterword to Prierias, Response (1520), WA 6:341 (LW 71); cf. Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned (1520), LW 31:392.

As I understand it, what the footnote here says is that the application of this statement was made by one of Luther's papal opponents, Sylvester Prierias. Prierias was not simply the equivalent of today's Roman Catholic bloggers. "Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a Dominican priest and professor, was the pope s counselor in matters of faith. He had been influential in securing the condemnation of Reuchlin and had been commissioned to examine Luther’s writings" (LW 44:118 fn.8).

Prierias was one of Luther's earliest opponents.  Since he was Master of the Sacred Palace, he was asked to assess the Ninety-five Theses.  He composed his response in three days (ironically, this quick response is not unlike the careless speed of some of Rome's blogging apologists). Some speculate his fast response was due to his considering Luther a nuisance, a distraction from his work on his commentary of selections of Thomistic texts. His twenty-seven page response was entitled In presumptuosas Martini Luther conclusiones de potesate pape dialogus (1518), popularly referred to as the Dialogus.  In this work, Prierias made four points and a conclusion:

1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals; however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.


2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith and morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result—and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.


3. He who does not hold the teaching of the Roman Church and the Pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.


4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.


Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic (Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, p.111).

There has been considerable scholarly debate as to the competence of these points against Luther, particularly statement three (For an overview of this scholarly debate see the work cited above,  Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, pp.104-115).  What I can't discern from my cursory investigation is whether or not Prierias based statement three on  Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17. If he did, then Luther may have had this in mind in his comment above (or perhaps one of Rome's other apologists made this connection for him?). Regardless of whether or not Luther's interpretation of  "de omnibus" is warranted, the selection from Prierias certainly shows what sort of argumentation Luther was up against from Rome's apologists (for a detailed account see David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).

Luther's Roman Catholic Opponent Prierias

Here's an example of the type of Roman Catholic apologetic Luther was up against.

Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio, called Prierias was a Dominican. He was a leading Thomist and was appointed by Leo X to teach Thomist theology at the Latin School in Rome. Here are his fundamental presuppositions that informed his argumentation against Luther. As you read through them, try to imagine a Roman Catholic apologist defending these statements today.

"Without having an inkling that it was a religious question with Luther, Prierias, in order to draw out Luther's fundamentals, set forth in four theses the most extreme views on the infallibility of the Church, concluding that any one asserting that the Church could not do what she did (specifically regarding indulgences) must be adjudged a heretic." (Schaff)

1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals, however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.

2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith or morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result - and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.

3. He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman Church and the pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.

4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.

Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic. [source]

Catholic Encyclopdia: Sylvester PRIERIAS

Sylvester Mazzolini

(MOZOLINI, also PRIERIAS)

Theologian, b. at Priero, Piedmont, 1460; d. at Rome, 1523—sometimes confounded with Sylvester Ferrariensis (d. 1526). At the age of fifteen he entered the Order of St. Dominic. Passing brilliantly through a course of studies he taught theology at Bologna, Pavia (by invitation of the senate of Venice), and in Rome, whither he was called by Julius II in 1511. In 1515 he was appointed Master of the Sacred Palace, filling that office until his death. His writings cover a vast range, including treatises on the planets, the power of the demons, history, homiletics, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the primacy of the popes. He is credited with being the first theologian who by his writings attacked publicly the subversive errors of Martin Luther. John Tetzel's productions against the arch-reformer are called by Echard scattered pages (folia volitantia), and Mazzolini stands forth as the first champion of Roman Pontiffs against Luther. The heresiarch replied to Mazzolini's arguments; the latter published rejoinders, and there was a regular controversy between the innovator and the defender of the ancient Faith. The necessity of promptness in attack and defence will account for defects of style in some of his writings. His principal works are: "De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanæ Ecclesiæ Romanique Pontificis" (Rome, 1520); "Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum" (Perugia, 1519); "Errata et argumenta M. Lutheri" (Rome, 1520); "Summa Summarum, quæ Sylvestrina dicitur" (Rome, 1516), reprinted forty times; an alphabetical encyclopedia of theological questions; "Rosa aurea" (Bologna, 1510) an exposition of the Gospels of the year; "In theoricas planetarum" (Venice, 1513).
Sources

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, SS. Ord. Præd. II, 55; TOURON, Hommes illust. de l'Ordre de S. Dominique, III, 716; MICHALSKI, De Sylv. Prieratis … vita et scripta (Munster, 1892).
About this page

APA citation. Kennedy, D. (1911). Sylvester Mazzolini. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10095b.htm

MLA citation. Kennedy, Daniel. "Sylvester Mazzolini." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 12 Oct. 2008 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.