Discussion of My Luther Research in a Lutheran Blog Combox (Luther, the Immaculate Conception, and His Other Marian Views)

I am not "anti-Luther." I am opposed to tenets of Luther's theology that I deem to be erroneous from a Catholic perspective. Catholics argue for Catholic theology; Lutherans for Lutheran theology. That's not rocket science. But honest differences do not equate to being "anti-". On my Luther and Lutheranism web page I have two sections of papers where I was either neutral on some view of Luther's, or defended him against calumnies. Examples of the latter:

The Supreme Importance of Interpreting Martin Luther in Context (E.g., His Views on Marriage and Sexuality)

Was Luther Primarily Responsible For Hitler?

Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius Said Martin Luther and Lutherans Weren't Christians

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene and Others? (vs. "BJ Bear" and "Bonnie" + EL Hamilton)

Martin Luther Despised the Widespread Antinomian Distortions of His Teaching on Faith Alone and Did Not Reject Mosaic Law

Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt (1524-1525) [partially a defense]
"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of James White: How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition?

And here are examples where I agreed with Luther's positions or took a neutral stance:
 

Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith

The "Catholic-Sounding" Utterances of Martin Luther: Concise Overview of 25 Areas of Agreement

My Luther Book Blasted For Being Far Too Kind and Charitable to Luther / Pre-Vatican II Popes' Use of the Description "Separated Brethren"

The Ghost of Martin Luther Interviews Bishop James White About Dastardly, Wascally Luther-Basher Dave Armstrong [portrays Luther as saved and in heaven]

Martin Luther Refutes Zwingli and Other Deniers of the Real Presence

The Protestant Sacramentarian Controversies (Calvin vs. Luther vs. Zwingli)

Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross

Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?!

Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and Others on Contraception

Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis and Transformational Sanctification Closely Allied with Justification

Martin Luther's Condemnation of the "Secret Sin" of Masturbation and Acceptance of Celibacy if One is Indeed Called to It By God

There is a current lively discussion (in the combox of  "The Pope on Luther") on a Lutheran blog: Cranach: The Blog of Veith , 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's 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.

Of course he has some strong disagreements, but he also agrees on many things, such as calling Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos), her perpetual virginity, and (interestingly) in his espousal of her immaculate conception in a manner only slightly different from the Catholic dogmatic belief on that score. I've written four papers on the latter issue, and have done some very in-depth research on it:

Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception)

Luther's Belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception: Game-Playing and Head-in-the-Sand Delusions (John Q. Doe and Tim Enloe vs. Much Lutheran Scholarship)

Luther and the Immaculate Conception: More Opinion From (Mostly or All) Non-Catholic Historians and Other Scholars

Luther and the "Immaculate Purification"

Now let's examine the claims made about myself and my research on the combox cited above:

Webmaster Gene Veith opined:

Yes, Grace, this is NOTHING like the Roman Catholic approach to Mary as an intermediary in heaven, even as a "co-redemptrix." Luther is saying in this quotation that we should learn from her humility, her faith, and her trust in the grace (Grace!) of God. He is even alluding to the Roman Catholic views and turning them upside down. They portray her as exalted; Luther and Mary herself stress her "low estate." We don't go "through her to God" in the sense of praying to her and doing Marian rituals, but only "thus": to marvel at the exceeding abundant grace of God Who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal." (9-28-11)

I agree with this, for the most part. Luther certainly didn't believe that Mary was a mediatrix, or in the invocation of saints, including the Blessed Virgin Mary. Grace wrote:

Luther believed Mary to be sinless which she was not. Of course one can make excues for that as well.

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" Martin Luther

Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," December 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S. J., from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, (9-28-11)

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 Febuary, 1993 (The Catholic Answer), and the entire citation as given above, in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in May 1996; self-published in 2001, pp. 202-203; Sophia Institute Press edition, 2003, pp. 205-206). It's controversial because this particular sermon is not included in the 55-volume English collection Luther's Works. But it is a genuine citation.

I discussed the source in my first lengthy article on Luther's Mariology. The primary source is from the Weimar edition of Luther's works (German standard collection): 17, II, 287-289 (German title: Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes). This source was cited by Thomas A. O'Meara, O. P., in his book, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (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, revised by Canon Iles, Westminster: Art and Book Co., 1905 (pp. 132-134).

Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set of the works of Luther, also mentioned it in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII (edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992): footnote 22 on page 381: "Sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8?) 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.")  

This book is one of an ongoing series of works detailing ecumenical Catholic-Lutheran efforts. Twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their "Common Statement" (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed: 

(87) Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought though not as an article of faith . . .

(p. 54)

(89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.

(p. 55)

(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.

Footnote 20 for this section, on pp. 340-341, is very informative:

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, 1527. Festival Postil (Festpostille). WA 17/2:288.17-34.

See also: Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982, 226-228.

If there is still any doubt in Protestant minds that this is a genuine sermon of Luther's, I would direct such skeptics to an extremely in-depth article by a Reformed apologist and frequent defender of Luther: Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin (11-14-10). Luther did modify his view somewhat in later years, and it is a bit complex to explain the differences. I go through all that in my four papers on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. But his Mariology, even in its final, most developed form, is still more robust than virtually any Lutherans' views today.


Todd (henceforth in blue) wrote, replying to Grace:

You're copying-and-pasting sentences you neither understand nor have even read in context. And you refuse to tell us where you're getting these (apparently partially fabricated) quotes from — perhaps because it would embarrass both of us. (9-29-11)

I mean, we're interested in correcting the record when someone posts obvious falsehoods about Luther — but only in the interest of facts, not because we subscribe to everything the man wrote. (9-29-11) 


. . . you keep quoting from what appears to be one of a handful of anti-Lutheran websites — the quotes from which are apparently partially spurious . . . (9-29-11)

. . . 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. (9-29-11)

. . . 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. (9-29-11)

Of course, you'll have to explain why your quotes don't actually seem to match up with the original texts — 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're relying on extremely shoddy sources for your Luther attacks. But please, go ahead, prove me wrong. Point me to the original sources. I'll wait. (9-29-11)

. . . you're much more adept at quoting from shoddily-researched anti-Lutheran websi… I'm sorry, I mean from relatively obscure works of Martin Luther than you are at quoting from the actual document that defines Lutheranism. (10-2-11)

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.

Dan Kempin then chimes in:

As I recall, Grace is pulling these quotes from a shameless Roman Catholic article in which the author tries to claim Luther as a proponent of Marian theology. It's rather laughable, as I remember, but it explains why Grace has no grasp beyond the pull quotes. It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering Luther. Does this reliance on papistic resources mean that Grace, also, is now "coming home" to the Roman Catholic church? (9-29-11)

Dave Armstrong was the author, by the way, since the link from the previous conversation seems to be dead. (9-29-11)

I claim that Luther agreed with Catholics in some ways regarding Mary and disagreed with others. If that is too subtle and nuanced for Dan or Todd to grasp, that's their problem, not mine or my readers'. 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 "slander" from my viewpoint. How is it "slander" 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.

Grace also cited another Luther utterance that originally (on the Internet) came from me:

"One 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's 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."

Martin Luther (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521) (9-28-11)

This drawn word-for-word from my paper, Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary : 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).

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 or channel of grace. I have never argued at any time that Luther believed that. It's simply a devotional statement in which Luther expresses Mary's extraordinary humility and Christocentric behavior: something with which we Catholics would heartily agree.

Tom Hering (words in red) then joined in the fun (10-2-11), and I replied (10-3-11 in the wee hours):

I'm not sure what to make of a Roman Catholic apologist defending a non-denominational Evangelical
Who's defending Grace? I was defending myself against the charges made by Todd and Dan, that I engage in research so bad that I fabricate quotations, and all with an "anti-Luther" motivation. She didn't misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther, because I didn't misrepresent Luther. I didn't even read 90% of her comments in this thread.

who likes to regularly slander Luther, Lutherans, and Lutheranism
I don't know what she does or doesn't do. I don't know who she is at all. This is all irrelevant to my reply.

– and this on a blog that's authored by a Lutheran, and frequented by Lutherans.
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't been mentioned as a source I would never have found this (I discovered it in a Google blog search that I run regularly).

As usual, the folks who want to run me down didn't 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).

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't 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, and x being able to respond publicly in the same venue, and face his accusers.

The world gets weirder every day.
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.

Tom keeps it up in another comment, and I counter-respond again:

Dave, the very first words out of your mouth here (@ 101) were, "You gotta love it when two people … chide Grace for supposedly misrepresenting Luther …" (emphasis added). 
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's play your game. I also wrote: "She didn't misrepresent him insofar as she cited my quotes from Luther . . ." My only concern for Grace's position in this situation is how she cited my words (and caught flak for it, simply because folks didn't like some of Luther's own words). I have expressed no opinion on anything else she has argued here. Like I said, I didn't even read most of it. Yet you are convinced I have some profound bias towards her expressed opinions.

You kind of established your sympathies right off the bat, don't you think?
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'm weird that way.

And I wonder how, if you "didn't even read 90% of her comments in this thread," you can say anything at all on the subject of Grace misrepresenting Luther.
Again (read this real slowly . . .), I commented on her only insofar as she had anything to do with me. She did by using a quote that appeared in my book, and a second from one of my Internet papers.

I love the smell of offended RC apologists in the morning.
Then you need to get a life, if that is what you think you smell. I'm trying to have a rational discussion. I think it is possible with some here; probably not with you, judging from our present "discussion." But four out of five ain't bad. I'll take it!

Todd then commented, and I replied" (one / two):
Dave, I had to re-read my comments to see if I had even mentioned your name that you would feel the need to respond to me. I hadn't (Dan did, @59), but I did, somewhat unfortunately, link (@61) to a site that contains an article of yours.
It was a situation of allegedly "shoddy" research being bashed (complete with "fabricated" words); it turned out that the two Luther citations were drawn from my work (alas, without attribution); then my name was indeed mentioned (by Dan). If one person only is named, then for those reading, that person is associated with all the charges being slung around. And that is a scenario where the person has the right to respond and defend his work.

I say "somewhat unfortunately" because I wasn't really paying close attention to the sites I offhandedly referred to.
Luther quotes are often used in an irresponsible manner; I agree. I've learned many things about Luther myself, the more I have studied him through the years. My own quotes, I find, are too often used in a manner that I would not sanction, myself.

But I would say that inaccuracy is not guaranteed simply because a site is Catholic. I've had bigwig Lutherans (at good ol' Concordia this or that) tell me that Luther never sanctioned capital punishment for heresy, when it is well-known that he did. I knew this in 1984 as a Protestant, when I read Bainton's Here I Stand (he documents it). Yet Lutherans who supposedly are informed will vigorously deny this. So there is enough bias to go around.

And, indeed, if you peruse the first two sites, you'll see what I mean. A collection of random quotes with no explanation, much less context. It was especially the "Martin Loser" site, which I listed first, that I had in mind. Honestly, give it a look. Quality stuff, that.
I know that happens a lot, so I'll take your word for it.

Or, heck, type in the quotes (of yours) that Grace pasted and see on what sites they're found. Tell me if you disagree that such sites are not, in fact, "poorly researched".
Oftentimes, yes. I know because citations that I originated on the Internet are usually used without noting where they came from (my books or papers). So the secondary source (myself) was eliminated, so that folks can't check the context where I presented the quote.

But, like I said, your article on CatholicCulture.org was in the first three results I found, and I included it without much noticing that you actually included explanatory comments along with the Luther quotes. I certainly had no idea that yours was (apparently) the source for all those other slapdash websites. So for including you in my links, I apologize.
I understand. Thanks. My Luther research has been bashed many times before, so you'll understand that I get a little tired of that. It's refreshing to be able to talk and make the point that I am not like every site that cites Luther's one-liners, etc. I appreciate the opportunity.
That said, my comment (@53) probably best explains my criticism of the alleged "Magnificat" quote that Grace offered up (@16):

At the very least, the quote you offered (@16) is a piecemeal quote that should have ellipses in it, but doesn't. But I can't even find most of it in Luther's explanation of the Magnificat.

Possibly. The problem, I've found, in some of these Luther quotes that float around, is that there are many different sets of Luther's works, and also translations of same into English. Before 1883 and the 1930s (German [Weimar] and English [Philadelphia] sets of Luther's works), it was a lot more chaotic than it is now. I've entered into huge debates about single lines. Almost always it is a variable primary source or translation issue. Occasionally, it is a botched citation, where someone was irresponsible.

And this is true, though I notice now that the omission of the ellipses (which I still consider to be misrepresentative and shoddy work) is apparently unique to Grace's sort-of quotation of your citation.
I will check back to see where that came from originally, and what else I can find out about it.

Still, it's true that I can't find most of what you say is in Luther's "Magnificat". Perhaps you can help me out here. As I have already said, I can find the bit about "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God", though I have also already shown that this sentence in no way means what Grace would have us believe. What I can't find are the preceding two bits:

One 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's grace … Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ.

I'll do some further research and see what I can find out. I'm sure I can find where I got the quote. Then if there is a problem, it would be in that person's work. If I made a mistake, I'll be happy to publicly retract it.

I've already pointed to the place I'm reading Luther's "Magnificat", which, though poorly formatted, is itself taken from Muhlenberg Press' Works of Martin Luther. I have searched and searched that online version, and I can't find any quotes similar to those bits above which were in your original article.
Okay; well I think it is fun to go on these little "detective" searches. I enjoy it. Google Books and Internet Archive make it easy to do.

You seem to say that this quote (again, a piecemeal collection from "Magnificat") "probably came from Grisar, too, though I'd have to check back on that." Could you? Because, while I'm fully ready to believe that the online source I'm browsing isn't perfect, it is all I have to go off at this point.
Will do.

As to your Immaculate Conception quote, I do not believe I addressed either you or your research.
I think you can see that that has a solid pedigree of documentation. I think many comments here were mocking the very notion that Luther might have thought Mary was sinless at any point of her life. But he did hold that in some sense. Luther and early Lutherans even still discussed Mary's Assumption, though in a sub-dogmatic or optional sense. But they did, and they sure don't do so now very often, do they? This is why I find history of doctrine an intriguing and fascinating study.

kerner wrote, and I responded:

You might print the apologies, responses, retractions and/or modifications that Todd and Dan posted in response to your protestations . . . I'm not sure they were ultimately as unfair to you as you imply here. . . .

I don't blame you for being irritated in the first instance, but give give Todd and Dan their due. You might give it some thought.

Yes, I think we are making good progress and having a constructive discussion now. I'm in the process of replying to all comments made here today. Then I will post them and my replies in my paper, so all clarifications, apologies, etc., will be included in that. I do greatly appreciate the thoughtful replies, including your own.

I also changed the title of my blog paper to make it less polemical and more neutral. So I am quite flexible myself in these matters, and love to find common ground wherever I can. I'm delighted at the present discussion and the irenic tone that is dominating it.

Then Dan Kempin made two comments (one / two) and I responded (one / two):
And now Dave Armstrong is here to comment! Truly the internet is a wondrous place. I'm glad I checked back, as I almost missed it.
Yes, it is a wonder that a "papist" (your term) is allowed to comment and is actually approached as a human being rather than some kind of mindless imbecilic idolater (as is the case on countless anti-Catholic sites: usually Reformed; not Lutheran).

First, Dave, I want to thank you for checking in here personally. My opinion of you has risen significantly, since I value debate between those who disagree more than the echo chamber debate of "yeah, that's right."
Cool! My pleasure. I am a great lover of true dialogue as well. I have more than 650 of them posted on my site.

Next, let me own up to my own comment. I believe I evaluated you as a "shameless" Roman Catholic author. (#58) I'm not sure you would disagree with that. I rather suspect you would take it as a compliment. Let me acknowledge here that I am a shameless lutheran.
Fair enough, if it was intended in that non-objectionable sense.

More to the point, though, the issue under discussion on this thread was not your work, but citations. Your research was apparently being cited, without giving credit to you, in a way that made it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to find the specific quotes cited. This is not your fault, but your name was brought up here as the apparent source of research that was being laid down as original by someone else. Even so, you have cleared that up to a large degree by revealing that you, in turn, were quoting another author's research.
Duly noted. I think proper attribution ought to be given to any citation, and I object as much as you do, when it is not done, because (in this case) I am implicated because I originally introduced these Luther quotes to the Internet.

For clearing that up and for the other citations, we are thankful. I would enjoy the further opportunity to exchange with you directly and thus avoid the opportunity to "misrepresent" one another.
I think that would be helpful, yes, and even enjoyable, if the present pleasant "tone" is continued.

As an afterthought, I suppose I should also own up to the word "slander" that appears in my post #58. As I re-read, I may have given the impression that I was accusing you of slandering Luther. Not necessarily. (In all fairness, we have not had the debate.) I was pointing out the irony that commenter "grace," rather anti-Catholic in her sentiments, was using a very Catholic source for her research. (Anonymously, of course.)

Yes; your exact words were: "It is ironic that she joins forces with a papist in the goal of slandering Luther." If indeed she is anti-Catholic (meaning, she doesn't think Catholicism is a Christian system, that teaches a saving theology), it would be very ironic. But then, Lutherans are notorious for downplaying aspects of Luther that appear too "Catholic" or objectionable to them (many of Luther's works in German remain untranslated to this day; there is now an "official" effort to bring more of those out), so it makes sense that these would tend to be found on Catholic sites, since we have no compulsion or self-interested motivation to "hide" anything to be found in Luther.

If Grace is trying to make out that Luther was some goofball, the irony I see is that all Protestants are derived from Luther in the sense of being "contra-Catholic" and believing in certain bedrock tenets: sola Scriptura (I just completed a second book on that topic), sola fide, private judgment, a non-infallible Church, frowning on apostolic tradition and succession, two sacraments rather than seven, etc. She is as much a child of Luther as any Lutheran, in the sense of historic descent. She just happens to be in a different branch of Protestantism.
 
So the comment was directed at you, grace, and I admit now that it was uncalled for. I apologize to you both, and like Augustine offer a "retraction" of the word "slander.
I gratefully accept the apology. Thank you.

I instead use the phrase "wilfully intractable" to describe grace's insistence on proclaiming what lutherans believe, to the consternation of the actual lutherans trying to correct her.
If she did that, I can see why it would be annoying. We Catholics are constantly confronted with Protestant apologists who are absolutely convinced that they know what our Church teaches even better than apologists like myself who have been defending the Catholic Church full-time for almost ten years, and altogether for now 21 years.

I can perceive full well when someone is uninformed or underinformed, when they encroach upon an area of my relative expertise (playing on "my turf," so to speak), but if they can't see it, little can be done, and it is intensely frustrating; so I perfectly understand that outlook, if it is happening to you as Lutherans.



***