![\"Luther-5\"](\"http:\/\/wp.production.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/files\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-yz4ns7I2MTM\/Tojeo0lNHvI\/AAAAAAAADoM\/FCQpE5O9PkI\/s1600\/LutherUpside+Down.gif\")
<\/a><\/div>\nNow let\u2019s examine the claims made about myself and my research on the combox cited above:<\/span><\/p>\n Webmaster Gene Veith opined:<\/span><\/p>\n It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary\u2019s soul was effected without original sin;<\/b> so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God\u2019s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin<\/b>\u201c<\/i> Martin Luther<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sermon: \u201cOn the Day of the Conception<\/span> of the Mother of God,\u201d December 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S. J., from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer,<\/span><\/span>(9-28-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n (87) Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought though not as an article of faith . . . (p. 54)<\/p>\n (89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.<\/p>\n (p. 55)<\/p>\n (101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form.<\/p>\n With regard to the Immaculate Conception, Luther taught that Mary had been conceived in sin but her soul had been purified by infusion after conception. Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception<\/span>, 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille<\/span>). WA 17\/2:288.17-34. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also: Michael O\u2019Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary<\/span>, Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982, 226-228.<\/span><\/span> \u00a0<\/p>\n You\u2019re copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you\u2019re getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from \u2014 perhaps because it would embarrass both of us.<\/span> (9-29-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n I mean, we\u2019re interested in correcting the record when someone posts obvious falsehoods about Luther \u2014 but only in the interest of facts, not because we subscribe to everything the man wrote.<\/span> (9-29-11<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/span> . . . regurgitating half-fabricated, contextless quotes from a website that is poorly researched but quoted from for the sole reason that it has the same bias as the person quoting.<\/span> (9-29-11<\/a>) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . you flit from one Luther-bashing quote-mangling to another as you see fit. You clearly have no defense for your accusations against Luther, nor for the spurious quotes with which you hope to back them up. <\/span>(9-29-11<\/a>) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, you\u2019ll have to explain why your quotes don\u2019t actually seem to match up with the original texts \u2014 while they do, ever-so-curiously, line up word-for-word with the quotes found on those hack pages. Because it certainly looks for all the world like you\u2019re relying on extremely shoddy sources for your Luther attacks. But please, go ahead, prove me wrong. Point me to the original sources. I\u2019ll wait.<\/span> (9-29-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . you\u2019re much more adept at quoting from shoddily-researched anti-Lutheran websi\u2026 I\u2019m sorry, I mean from relatively obscure works of Martin Luther than you are at quoting from the actual document that defines Lutheranism. <\/span>(10-2-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cOne should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God\u2019s grace. Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ. Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.\u201d<\/b> <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Martin Luther (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)<\/span> (9-28-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn\u2019t have the courtesy to let me know about what they were saying. This is precisely why I do such searches, because critics rarely let one know they are being criticized. The unwillingness to make such a communication is usually directly proportionate to the ignorance and cluelessness of the criticism (as presently). <\/span> \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I am not \u201canti-Luther.\u201d I am opposed to tenets of Luther\u2019s theology<\/i> that I deem to be erroneous from a Catholic perspective. Catholics argue for Catholic theology; Lutherans for Lutheran theology. That\u2019s not rocket science. But honest differences do not equate to being \u201canti-\u201c. On my Luther and Lutheranism web page I have two sections of papers where I was either neutral on some view of Luther\u2019s, or defended him against calumnies.\u00a0<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>There is a current lively discussion (in the combox of\u00a0 \u201cThe Pope on Luther\u201d<\/a>) on a Lutheran blog: Cranach: The Blog of Veith<\/i><\/a>, about Luther and Mary. I was criticized (I thought, unjustly), but after I replied, things became surprisingly pleasant and constructive discussion ensued. I am simply interested in Luther\u2019s Mariology as a question of historic theology and comparative theology, because I am greatly interested in 1) Luther, 2) Mariology, and 3) the history and development of Christian theology and doctrine. I note where he agrees with Catholics and where he disagrees.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Of course<\/i> he has some strong disagreements, but he also agrees on many things, such as calling Mary \u201cMother of God\u201d (Theotokos<\/i>), her perpetual virginity, and (interestingly) in his espousal of her immaculate conception<\/i> in a manner only slightly different from the Catholic dogmatic belief on that score. I\u2019ve written four papers on the latter issue, and have done some very in-depth research on it.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/span>As far as I can tell, I introduced this particular quote, or some version thereof, to the Internet in 1997, from my reading of Grisar. A portion of it was included in my first published article in February, 1993 (The Catholic Answer<\/i>), and the entire citation as given above, in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/i> (completed in May 1996; self-published in 2001, pp. 202-203; Sophia Institute Press edition, 2003, pp. 205-206). It\u2019s controversial because this particular sermon is not included in the 55-volume English collection Luther\u2019s Works<\/i>. But it is a genuine citation.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I discussed the source in my first lengthy article on Luther\u2019s Mariology. The primary source is from the Weimar edition of Luther\u2019s works (German standard collection): 17, II, 287-289 (German title: Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes<\/span>)<\/span>. This source was cited by Thomas A. O\u2019Meara, O. P., in his book, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology<\/i> (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966, pp. 117-118). It was cited at length by the Catholic Archbishop William Ullathorne, in his book, The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God<\/span>, revised by Canon Iles, Westminster: Art and Book Co., 1905 (pp. 132-134).<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set of the works of Luther, also mentioned it <\/span>in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII<\/span> (edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992): footnote 22 on page 381: \u201cSermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8?) 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17\/2:288.17-34.\u201d)<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>This book is one of an ongoing series of works detailing ecumenical Catholic-Lutheran efforts. Twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their \u201cCommon Statement\u201d (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Footnote 20 for this section, on pp. 340-341, is very informative:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>\n
\n
\n<\/span>. . . you keep quoting from what appears to be one of a handful of anti-Lutheran websites \u2014 the quotes from which are apparently partially spurious . . .<\/span> (<\/span>9-29-11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>We have seen how my citation was quite genuine. If Todd wishes to spar with Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch about that (or the Reformed apologist), it would be fun to see. Anyone who reads German can consult the Weimar edition and verify it for themselves.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I claim that Luther agreed<\/i> with Catholics in some<\/i> ways regarding Mary and disagreed<\/i> with others<\/i>. If that is too subtle and nuanced for Todd or others to grasp, that\u2019s their<\/i> problem, not mine or my readers\u2019. Luther did have a far more robust Marian theology than most Lutherans today, for sure (as many Lutheran scholars have noted). Nor is my goal to slander Luther. In these particular papers I am mostly in agreement with him, so it is hardly \u201cslander\u201d from my viewpoint. How is it \u201cslander\u201d to note that Luther accepted a version of the Immaculate Conception that is almost identical to my own Catholic view? That is an absurd notion.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Grace also cited another Luther utterance that originally (on the Internet) came from me:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>This drawn word-for-word from my paper, Martin Luther\u2019s Devotion to Mary<\/i>: a paper that is at least as old (online) as Nov. 1999, and which was written in 1994. It is no longer even online, on my site (I removed most or all of my older Luther papers as I learned more in my research and wrote newer, fuller papers).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>In any event (I need to clarify and make clear, given the hysteria and alarmism in this thread, and accusations against my research), I never used this quote, myself, as any sort of defense of Luther believing that Mary was a mediatrix<\/i> or channel of grace. I have never argued at any time that Luther believed that. It\u2019s simply a devotional statement in which Luther expresses Mary\u2019s extraordinary humility and Christocentric behavior: something with which we Catholics would heartily agree.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/span>Who\u2019s defending Grace? I was defending myself<\/i> against the charges made by Todd and [so-and-so], that I engage in research so bad that I fabricate quotations, and all with an \u201canti-Luther\u201d motivation. She didn\u2019t misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther, because I <\/i>didn\u2019t misrepresent Luther. I didn\u2019t even read 90% of her comments in this thread. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I don\u2019t know what she does or doesn\u2019t do. I don\u2019t know who she is at all. This is all irrelevant to my reply. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>How is it at all relevant what the blog is devoted to or who runs it? My name was brought up (in a venue that was public) and associated with atrocious research. If my name hadn\u2019t been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Since my name and research have been dragged through the mud, I have every intellectual right to come and give my side of it. And you want to quibble that it is a Lutheran blog? I don\u2019t care if it is a red-headed, green-eyed Rastafarian blog. It has absolutely nothing to do with a public claim being made about person x<\/i>, and x<\/i> being able to respond publicly in the same venue, and face his accusers.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Yes it sure does, and you are contributing to that with these weird, odd comments that show but a dim comprehension of why I commented here at all.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>Tom keeps it up in another comment<\/a>, and I counter-respond<\/a> again:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n<\/span>I figured you would make an issue of one word interpreted with little regard for context. Like I said, I know nothing about Grace. But let\u2019s play your game. I also wrote: \u201cShe didn\u2019t misrepresent him insofar<\/b> as she cited my quotes from Luther . . .\u201d My only concern for Grace\u2019s position in this situation is how she cited my words (and caught flak for it, simply because folks didn\u2019t like some of Luther\u2019s own words). I have expressed no opinion on anything else she has argued here. Like I said, I didn\u2019t even read<\/i> most of it. Yet you are convinced I have some profound bias towards her expressed opinions.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Absolutely. I am very biased towards my own work and am willing to defend it, or retract where that necessity arises out of discussion and correction. I\u2019m weird that way.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Again (read this real slowly . . .), I commented on her only insofar as she had anything to do with me<\/b><\/i>. She did by using a quote that appeared in my book, and a second from one of my Internet papers.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Then you need to get a life, if that is what you think you smell. I\u2019m trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you<\/i>, judging from our present \u201cdiscussion.\u201d But four out of five ain\u2019t bad. I\u2019ll take it!<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n