![\"DonQuixote3\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/DonQuixote3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Illustration of the famous windmill scene from\u00a0Miguel de Cervantes\u2019s Don Quixote<\/em>, by Gustave Dore (1832-1883)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n James Swan is a Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist, who does a lot of research on Martin Luther: the founder of Protestantism. His confessed specialty or great interest is in observing how Catholic apologists approach Luther and analyzing that in extreme detail. One of his favorite sub<\/em>-topics in that vein is the Catholic apologetic regarding Luther\u2019s Mariology<\/em>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He basically started this \u201cpastime\u201d or \u201chobby\u201d of his, in reaction to me<\/em>. This is a matter of historical record. We had a huge debate on Luther\u2019s Mariology in 2003. He\u2019s been writing about Luther ever since (on his blog affectionately known as\u00a0Boors All<\/em>; aka Beggar\u2019s All<\/em>), with the constant opinion that Catholic apologists (above all, yours truly) are relentlessly nefarious and dishonest, when it comes to anything about Luther. I made a massive three-part reply to his paper on this topic, in April 2003<\/span> (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>). \u00a0He responded to that, and I made another lengthy\u00a0rebuttal in<\/span> June 2003<\/a>. His ego and pride simply couldn\u2019t handle the latter, since he thought his massive tome, with 201 footnotes or so, was supposedly unanswerable. <\/span><\/p>\n Ever since then, our relations have been on a rock-bottom level (I tried to reconcile several times, to no avail whatever). Swan hit his lowest point (tiring of losing in debate after debate) when he maintained with a straight face that<\/span> I am a psychotic<\/a>. He has lobbed<\/span> an almost infinite variety of insults <\/a>my way these past 13 years. Mostly, his implication is that I am a dishonest, incompetent researcher, \u201cself-appointed\u201d pseudo-apologist and hack, whom no one should take seriously (despite the fact that he devoted \u2014 in 2003 \u2014 two huge<\/em> papers to my opinions on Luther\u2019s Mariology, and literally scores and scores of nearly obsessed articles about me since then).<\/span><\/p>\n Since 2003 he has picked over virtually anything I write about Luther. Sometimes I replied; much more often,\u00a0I tired of his sophistical nonsense and ignored it. Recently, I hav<\/span>e compiled most of our past exchanges<\/a>, if anyone is interested in perusing that. It makes for extremely tedious reading, because of Swan\u2019s anti-Catholicism and personal hostility. But someone may enjoy one or two of \u2019em. Who knows?<\/span><\/p>\n Tonight, bored, I wandered over to his site. I hadn\u2019t been there in months. But sure enough, here he was<\/span> writing about one Luther quote<\/a>, and as usual, cited my<\/em> dealing with it (though not by name; this is the game he has played for some time now: I am the Valdemort-like He Who Shall Not be Named). I\u2019d like to take a little time to demonstrate\u00a0how shoddy his own Luther research is, and how he misrepresents mine. This has happened hundreds of times. What you see here is entirely representative<\/em> and altogether typical<\/em> of his pathetic and atrocious method.<\/span><\/p>\n First, I\u2019ll go back to his earlier article on the same topic,<\/span> from 19 October 2008<\/a>. Swan\u2019s words will be in<\/span> green<\/span>. Both articles were about a citation attributed to Martin Luther: \u201cThe veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.\u201d Swan opines:<\/span><\/p>\n So where did this quote come from? This quote was probably first brought into cyberspace by a Catholic apologist: <\/span><\/p>\n Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language: <\/span><\/p>\n The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522)<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cCatholic apologist\u201d is, of course, yours truly. The quotation is\u00a0from my article entitled,<\/span> \u201cMartin Luther\u2019s Devotion to Mary\u201d<\/a>: now hosted on the Catholic Culture<\/em> site. It was originally published (on paper) in\u00a0The Coming Home Journal<\/em><\/span>\u00a0(January-March 1998, 12-13<\/a>; scroll down a bit for my article). That is the origin of the full quote above. But I had also included the Luther quote in my very first published article (three years before I went on the Internet):<\/span> \u201cThe Real Martin Luther\u201d<\/a> (The Catholic Answer<\/em>, Jan\/Feb 1993, 32-37).<\/span><\/p>\n Swan then (very typically) goes on to speculate as to where I found<\/em> this quote. He guesses wrongly in this 2008 article. But in his 2016 article he locates the correct source I drew from (still not realizing that it was<\/em> my source):\u00a0William Cole,<\/span> \u201cWas Luther a Devotee of Mary<\/i>?\u201d<\/a> (Marian Studies<\/em>, Volume XXI, 1970, p.131 [entire article: pages 94-202] ). Through the years, Swan has been a stickler for the most minute documentation: quite often with a double standard: everyone else<\/em> has to document to a tee; while he does not<\/em>. I was, in fact, highly concerned with full bibliographical documentation in my first book,<\/span> A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/a><\/em>, completed in 1996, but largely written initially in the early 1990s (and published by Sophia Institute Press in 2003). It has 275 footnotes in 297 pages.<\/span><\/p>\n But when I had my first article published in print, I specifically asked the editor, the prominent Catholic apologist, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, if I needed to document the primary sources for every Luther citation. He said that it wasn\u2019t necessary<\/em> in an article of this sort. So Swan can blame him<\/em> for my not mentioning Cole. I just did what I was told, as a green rookie Catholic apologist, thrilled about my debut\u00a0in print.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, anyone can see in that book, that I use the same citation, prefaced by \u201cLuther also thought it altogether proper to venerate Mary\u201d: on page 205. On that page, in footnote 213 is the full source information from Cole (just as you see it above). This could have been accessed on Amazon since June 2003, in the \u201cLook Inside\u201d feature. It was also in my first, self-published version of my book, which came out in 2001 (p. 148, footnote 40). I know from my records of<\/span> my earliest Catholic apologetics<\/a>, that this chapter was completed on 10 April 1993, almost four years before I started my website, and ten years before Swan and I clashed over Luther\u2019s Mariology.<\/span><\/p>\n Those are the actual facts of my use of the quotation, where I got it from, and it\u2019s history of publication on paper in 1993, 1998, 2001 and 2003 (but the latter two actually having been written<\/em> in 1993). Yet here is Swan picking at it in<\/span> April 2016<\/a>: 23 years after I first used it. This article is a revision of an<\/span> earlier one from 19 April 2012<\/a>, so he has basically written three times about one quote from Luther (the first from<\/span> 19 October 2008<\/a>). He\u2019s still wondering and speculating about where I got the quote almost 13 years after I included it in my first book. Swan prides himself on digging into obscure, outdated past versions of papers. Yet he couldn\u2019t figure this out.<\/span><\/p>\n He also always makes a big deal about using secondary sources without consulting the original (even arguing at times that one must read Luther\u2019s original German \u2014 which he himself doesn\u2019t know \u2014 to properly cite him). This is hogwash. Secondary sources are fine, as long as they are from reputable scholars. An article in<\/span> Marian Studies<\/a><\/em> is certainly trustworthy. <\/span><\/p>\n Swan himself, for example, loves a book called<\/span> What Luther Say<\/a>s<\/em>, by Ewald M. Plass, a 1667-page goldmine of Luther information. I have the book in my library, as well as the 55-volume set of Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> and many other primary and secondary Luther books. Unfortunately, Plass wouldn\u2019t help anyone seeking to understand Luther\u2019s Mariology, since (for some inexplicable reason) among the 200 subjects, \u201cMary\u201d never appears. I guess ol\u2019 Plass thought topics like \u201cDreams\u201d, \u201cDrink\u201d and \u201cMusic\u201d were more important than the Mother of God.<\/span><\/p>\n But anyway,<\/span> Swan loves this book<\/a>. But it\u2019s a secondary source<\/em>: no different from Cole or Hartmann Grisar: the Catholic biographer of Luther, whom I often draw from, or a famous, often used book like Paul Althaus\u2019 Theology of Luther<\/em>. According to his almost constant double standard in these matters, he condemns me for using a secondary source, while he does so himself and it;s fine and dandy. A primary source would be the German editions (esp. Weimar), or the English Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>, or the older six-volume set from Philadelphia in the 1930s.<\/span> Swan agrees<\/a>. It\u2019s not even clear who translated the tidbits in Plass into English.<\/span><\/p>\n Swan\u2019s illegitimate complaints (beyond this primary \/ secondary business), which he drones endlessly on about, amount to three things:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Catholic apologists invariably cite Luther out of context<\/em> and thus distort his meaning, out of a party and apologetics bias.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. If Luther gives a warning about excesses<\/em> of a doctrine or practice (e.g., Mariology), then he also rejects the thing itself<\/em>: throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thus, if Luther warns about excesses in Marian veneration (our topic), he must therefore be against it altogether.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. If a Catholic apologist cites Luther in some degree of agreement<\/em>, Swan erroneously assumes that the apologist must<\/em> be arguing for exact equivalency<\/em> of Luther\u2019s views with Catholic ones.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I shall now show how Swan commits all three of these egregious errors in connection with the present topic. The first is a factual statement, and must be refuted on a case-by-case basis (some<\/em> apologists may<\/em> be guilty of it; others, like myself, are not<\/em>). The second and third are simply basic (and rather stupid) logical fallacies. Swan thus falls short both in his facts (in my case and in his analyses of Luther\u2019s overall theological views) and in his lack of fundamental logical skills (very<\/em> strange for one who majored in philosophy).<\/span><\/p>\n #1 Context<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Do you think this apologist actually had more of the context of this quote when he wrote this? I think not.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n I say, go ahead, and look at Luther\u2019s statements about Mary (the few and sparse that they are), but read them in context, and don\u2019t allow Catholic apologists to spin the facts to fit their worldview. If they had historical truth on their side, the Luther quotes they use, when placed in a context, wouldn\u2019t make them look so incompetent.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n Recently I took part in small discussion on Luther\u2019s Mariology, a subject that\u00a0fascinates\u00a0me, not so much because I either care about learning Mariology, or even what Luther thought about it. Rather, my\u00a0fascination is the way in which Roman Catholics appeal to Luther in support of Mariology, often at the expense of research and a context. \u00a0Sometimes if you track down the context for a quote being put forth showing Luther\u2019s profound defense of Roman Catholic Mariology or veneration, the context says something different.<\/span> (2012)<\/p>\n We\u2019ll see that this quote in context doesn\u2019t substantiate any of these things. Rather, the quote serves as an excellent example of why context matters. While Rome\u2019s defenders use the quote as positive proof that Luther was devoted to Mary, in context the quote is actually saying something negative about\u00a0the veneration of Mary being inscribed in the very depths of the human heart<\/i>.<\/span> (2016)<\/p>\n It\u2019s typical of Rome\u2019s cyber defenders that when they cut-and-paste quotes like this, even when the secondary source they\u2019re utilizing provides accurate documentation, they often don\u2019t bother to look up the context. This is not being \u201cdeep into history\u201d as they so often claim.<\/span> (2016)<\/p>\n #2 Excesses \/ Baby & Bathwater<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Some see 1522 as one of the major transitional years in Luther\u2019s Mariology, particularly as he was quickly heading towards the denial of prayer to the saints.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n Luther\u2019s point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the Church collectively had gone far beyond it.<\/span> Note Luther\u2019s qualifier: . . .<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n . . .\u00a0a passage in which Luther chastises the church of his day for excessive Mary worship . . .<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n Luther says it\u2019s the \u201cthe priests and monks\u201d who were directly responsible for rampant Mariolatry. Luther is noting the Roman Church of his day collectively dishonored Mary by their entanglement of veneration and intercession. Such is the case today as well.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n [T]his Luther quote that says \u201cThe veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart\u201d is actually part of a collection of sermons intended to wean people away from venerating saints! Amazing.<\/span> (2012)<\/p>\n [T]his sentence placed back in its context is in regard to excessive Marian devotion.<\/span> (2012)<\/p>\n The \u201cveneration\u201d rooted so deeply in the hearts of Luther\u2019s hearers was not a positive thing, but rather the result of excessive Marian piety.<\/span> (2012)<\/p>\n #3 Common Ground vs. Exact Equivalence\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n . . .\u00a0the quote is cited by a Catholic apologists to prove Luther held to similar devotional practices of today\u2019s Roman Catholic.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n One wonders if any sort of comparison between Luther\u2019s \u201cnice\u201d and honoring statements about Mary, and Roman Catholic statements about Mary can be put forth. One cannot read Luther\u2019s writings as if he\u2019s speaking the same language as Roman Catholic Marian \u201cveneration.\u201d He isn\u2019t, and 16th Century Roman Catholics knew it.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n His \u201cMariology\u201d was not Roman Catholic Mariology, and as his career went on, he moved further away from the idolatry present in his day.\u00a0I\u2019ve spent a lot of time on Luther\u2019s Mariology over the years. I have done so because Roman Catholics are misusing history when they claim Luther should be looked to as a Protestant champion of Mary.<\/span> (2008)<\/p>\n I\u2019ll take the third fallacy first. My research was repeatedly cited and disparaged (not by name; but many of Swan\u2019s sycophants know who he is talking about), so it is natural to determine whether I was arguing for an exact equivalence of Luther\u2019s views on Marian veneration with a Catholic Mariology. I don\u2019t deny that Luther became progressively less robust in his Mariology as time went on (though not in all respects). He certainly stressed veneration less as time went on.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaking for myself, I have never argued that his Mariology and Catholic Mariology were one and the same. Swan simply assumes this without any basis<\/em>. I stated in my 1998 article, cited by Swan: \u201cLuther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary.\u201d This is not saying that he held to the full, complete, entire<\/em> Catholic Mariology; simply that he did teach veneration of Mary. It\u2019s common ground. <\/span><\/p>\n The central thesis of my first published article (about Luther, in January 1993) was that Luther was simultaneously orthodox in some ways and heterodox in others, according to the Catholic outlook. I wrote: \u201cThere exists in \u2018the Father of the Reformation\u2019 a curious mix of orthodoxy and heterodoxy . . .\u201d And when introducing the present disputed quote, I used this mild description: \u201cLuther uttered many praises of Our Lady in several contexts:\u201d. That\u2019s hardly a claim that he held to a full<\/em> Catholic theology of veneration. Good grief! Any Protestant could praise Mary for any number of things. I\u2019ve heard many do so.<\/span><\/p>\n And in my first book (portion written in 1993 and published in 2001 and 2003), I wrote:\u00a0\u201cLuther also thought it altogether proper to venerate Mary\u201d. None of this proves what Swan claims. He is exaggerating his opponents\u2019 arguments, and then knocking them down, which is another famous fallacy: that of the straw man.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Swan himself also quoted my words that plainly qualified<\/em> what I was trying to argue:<\/span><\/p>\n Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lastly, I wrote in the Introduction<\/a> of my book, The \u201cCatholic\u201d Luther:\u00a0An Ecumenical Collection of His \u201cTraditional\u201d Utterances<\/a><\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m simply citing the portions of Luther\u2019s writings that a Catholic would agree with. Often it will be a partial agreement, later nuanced and qualified by Luther, and sometimes contradicted by Luther, as his thought is not always necessarily logically consistent or coherent.<\/span><\/p>\n It should go without saying also, that Luther\u2019s views in a number of areas develop and sometimes change over time. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n I cite portions of his writing that particularly appeal to Catholics, since we fully agree with them, with the understanding that Luther and Catholics don\u2019t agree on every jot and tittle. This is not quoting \u201cout of context.\u201d It\u2019s partial<\/i> quotation of one truth that Luther asserts, while not necessarily always noting (as is impossible<\/i> to do in a quotations book) other truths that he places alongside these. The two things are different. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n The ecumenical endeavor is devoted to finding things that Christians have in common. This book will do exactly that. My aim is not to exaggerate or distort anything in Luther, in order to make out that it is something it is not, or that he is different than he was.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now, citing Swan\u2019s lengthy \u201ccontext\u201d portions of Luther\u2019s sermon (correct date: 8 September 1522, rather than Cole\u2019s 1 September: which may hearken back to different German collections, which have discrepancies), will illustrate (quite strikingly, I think) how my citation from Cole is neither out of context (#1), nor\u00a0contrary to Luther\u2019s condemnation of Marian devotional excesses in the same sermon (#2).<\/span><\/p>\n Ironically, his lengthy citation in his 2008 paper never provides the reader with source information. It is some unknown English translation that Swan never identifies. This is passing strange, in an article that nitpicks and falsely accuses others of insufficient documentation. I tried mightily to locate this version, with no success. Luther\u2019s sermons are particularly disjointed and scattershot in collections of his works, and most are not<\/em> included in Luther\u2019s Works<\/em>. Swan identifies this one as \u201c\u2018Sermon on the Day of Mary\u2019s Birth\u2019\u00a0. . .\u00a0part of Luther\u2019s Kirchenpostille<\/i> (festival sermons). . . .<\/span> [also known as] \u2018The Day of the Nativity of Mary (Matthew 1)<\/i>.'\u201d<\/span> But he never tells us where he got his 2008 version of his citation from<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n What I will do is highlight in<\/span> blue<\/span> the portions where Luther positively praises \/ endorses veneration or honor of Mary, and highlight in<\/span> red<\/span> the parts where he criticizes excesses of same. The<\/span> purple<\/span> portion is the equivalent of my one sentence cited. Remember the \u201cbaby \/ bathwater\u201d fallacy described in #2 above. The two things (red and blue portions) are perfectly consistent. They are no more inconsistent than a Christian loving the Bible while sadly acknowledging that many folks distort its teachings and even butcher it for their own ends. A distortion of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore, Luther can support veneration while simultaneously condemning Marian excess (as he deems it to be).<\/span><\/p>\n Highlighting in this way will also demonstrate that the one sentence I cited is not at all out of context with the rest of the citation. Luther really did<\/em> believe in veneration of Mary: just not as much<\/em> as Catholics do.<\/span><\/p>\n You know, my friends, that<\/span> deep in the heart of men<\/strong> is inscribed the honor<\/strong> with which one honors the mother of God<\/strong><\/span>; yes, it is even so deep<\/strong> that no one willingly hears anything against it, but extols her more and more<\/strong><\/span>. Now we grant that she should be honored<\/strong> since we are enjoined by the Scripture to receive one another with honor<\/strong>, as Paul says<\/span> (Romans 12:10<\/a> The other result is the harm done to the common folk; for when the Mother of God and her service are held in such high esteem, poor, indigent Christians are forgotten<\/span>. I gladly allow you to hold her in high respect<\/strong>, to praise her greatly<\/strong>,<\/span> but<\/span> only insofar as there is no law made about it.<\/span> Thus the Holy Scripture itself has described nothing about her birth so that no one should set his heart on her. But now the priests and monks wish to extol the honor of women and have so highly extolled Mary that they have made out of this humble servant a goddess after the manner of the heathens. To arrive at such a position they have to use lies and to turn Scripture around to say things which do not belong to it. You see that the gospel which was read today refers to Christ\u2019s birth and not to Mary\u2019s<\/span> \u2026 yes I willingly allow that one honors her<\/strong><\/span>, but I ask that those who honor her should not make lies out of Scripture!<\/span> WA 10 (3) 313, 15 to 315, 16 [my bolding and colored emphases]<\/span><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Don_Quijote_Illustration_by_Gustave_Dore_VII.jpg\" "\\"Open")
<\/a>); so man must also honor her<\/strong><\/span>. Above all she must be rightly honored, but the people have \u201cfallen\u201d so deeply in this honor that she is more highly honored than is right and there are two harmful results of all of this: a rupture with Christ inasmuch as the hearts of men are more directed to her than to Christ himself. Christ is put behind in darkness and entirely forgotten!<\/span><\/p>\n