You are quoting a Luther worshiper’s website who quotes a Catholic medical doctor who is not qualified in theology nor apologetics.
I have been quoting Luther directly and providing you with a source to them.
As I said, you are are not fooling anyone.
Oh, puh-leaze. You've provided nothing as for source from where you copied/pasted from, but instead directed me to Amazon.com.
A great deal of Luther's writings are available, online FOR FREE in English translation.
Yet, that is not so regarding critical commentary in regards to Martin Luther, and regarding historical treatments of Luther.
It is yourself who is not fooling anyone, save perhaps yourself.(?)
Sippo is "not qualified"...but you are? Like, enough to offhandedly pass judgement upon Sippo in this matter? Nice try, but no dice. Nobody should buy your arguments unless they were critically short of sailboat fuel, and desperate. So far there nothing there but "wind". Hot air. Not to be confused with 'black gold... Texas-T'...
You dismiss Sippo... blow hot air all over the guy, well, alrighty then. What about Roman Catholic historians who are qualified, and in places very much agree with much of what Swan has to say about Luther, and the historical treatment of the man, from Roman Catholics?
Will I need to spoon-feed that listing of commentary to you -- or will you read it, yourself?
I've noticed that you never directly answer those sort of questions previously posed to yourself here, save but to answer in pure insolence.
You want to argue, do you?
Here ya' go, go argue with a long list of Catholic historians which Swam many years ago took the trouble to read, cite, and provide footnotes for precisely where among those historian's writings he was quoting them.
From internet Wayback;
highlighting portions of Catholic scholarship, and discussions among Catholic and Protestant scholars concerning other 'Catholic' scholar's written works) concerning Martin Luther, including how he'd been widely, and generally misrepresented/mistreated by Roman Catholics since Cochlaeus, as outlined in what James Swan cites from a variety of scholars. Here below, an example of that, in discussion of;
Adolf Herte was a German Catholic historian that did an in-depth study on Catholic approaches to Luther up until the Twentieth Century. In his work, he proved that all biographies of Luther (with very few exceptions) simply echoed the vilification of the Sixteenth Century Catholic author Cochlaeus. Herte went on to trace the influence of Cochlaeus on Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritan. After reading Herte’s work, the Roman Catholic review Theologie und Seelsorge stated, “One finishes reading these volumes with the discovery that the atmosphere of Reformation studies has changed.”[57]An evaluation of Herte:
“Very different from Lortz but just as important in the changing attitude toward Luther was Adolf Herte's Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Luther-kommentare des Cochlaeus. Probably because of its great size-three large volumes-and technical scholarly character it has never been translated into English, a fact which also helps to explain the relative tardiness of the Luther re-evaluation among English-speaking Catholics. Herte's purpose was simple-to examine the influence of Cochlaeus on Catholic literature through the centuries and to evaluate Cochlaeus' portrayal. On the former point he showed that almost all Catholic biographies of Luther (including Denifle, Grisar, Maritain, and many others) leaned very heavily on Cochlaeus' evidence and interpretation. In regard to Cochlaeus' reliability he concluded that the whole portrayal was a caricature reflecting the author's own deep aversion to and hatred of Luther. Not that Cochlaeus was completely false. He knew the extant Luther literature as no one else of his time. He helped to preserve some valuable original materials. He admitted that Luther's New Testament translation stimulated the religious hunger for the Word of God among the people. Yet, the composite picture of Luther was thoroughly unreliable because of Cochlaeus' deep personal antipathy which predetermined what he could see in Luther. Herte's careful scholarship has helped to free modern Catholic historians from bondage to the traditional picture and given great impetus to the modem search for a more accurate understanding of Luther. It will take considerable time, however, for Herte's influence to purge Catholic consciousness and literature of the assumptions that have been building up for centuries.”[58]