I’m guessing a few you aren’t sure what Mary’s Immaculate Conception is- it is the Roman Catholic dogma that Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin. In other words, Mary was born without the stain of original sin, and hence committed no personal sin. This isn’t a debatable point for Roman Catholics- “To think otherwise than has been defined by [The Roman Catholic Church], let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the church.”
On a blog back, Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong stopped by to “refresh my memory” on his opinion of this subject (remember Dave’s “loophole” allows him to interact with me, a notorious auntie-catholic).
I’m tempted to say a great way for me to eliminate blog readers would be to launch into a deep analysis of Martin Luther’s understanding of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. I’ve always felt that probably the only two people who even care about this subject is me and Dave, and I really only find the subject interesting because Roman Catholics frequently bring it up. If they didn’t bring it up, I would probably not even have bothered to research it.
But why do they bring it up? Protestants should be somewhat familiar with Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. But when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.
In the same blog back, John Mark commenting on the Roman Catholic Luther quiz said, “What's interesting is that [the Roman Catholic author of the Luther quiz] wants to paint Luther as a bad guy as to the RCC. At the same time in the same context she wants to portray Luther as agreeing with the RCC so she could then argue that we should hold to certain doctrines since Luther did. That's playing both sides against the middle.”
As a Roman Catholic would say John Mark, “Bingo.”
This is exactly what I see Dave Armstrong doing- though in fairness to Dave, his opinion of Luther has gotten better over the years. His original papers though on Luther definitely went in the direction John Mark suggests.
I have a strong level of certainty that the main reason in cyber-space that Luther’s “opinion” on the Immaculate Conception is even mentioned is because of Armstrong’s website. About 5 or 6 years ago I came across this Luther quote:
"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"
(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527")
Now if you were to try to track down this quote 5 or 6 years ago you would have a tough time. I know I did. The sermon it comes from isn’t available in English. It’s main source back then seemed to be Armstrong’s website. Had Dave actually went out and read Luther’s sermon in German and then posted this quote? No, he didn’t. He found it in the work of Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar.
Grisar though points out that “As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.” Now Dave left this information out. Oops.
Hence the debate between myself and Armstrong. After I went out and got a hold of Grisar’s book, Armstrong was forced to actually research this topic since the very source he used denied Luther’s lifelong commitment to the Immaculate Conception. The content of Dave’s recent blog back is just that- his defense of Luther’s lifelong belief in the Immaculate Conception.
My analysis of Luther’s understanding of the Immaculate Conception is found here:
Luther’s Theology of Mary
Luther’s Theology of Mary: A Response To Dave Armstrong
Dave Armstrong’s version of this subject can be found here:
Counter-Reply: Martin Luther's Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception): Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the "Reformational" Heritage of Classical Protestant Mariology?
Second Reply Concerning Martin Luther's Mariology
Since I want to keep readers, not eliminate them, I would rather any of you actually interested in this subject simply read the above links. If you read through this material and have any questions, or you can find a point from Armstrong that really begs to be responded to, let me know. Dave says he re-posted his material in my blog back to “refresh my memory”. Again, after perusing through it, I’m reminded of what I wrote to him:
“I have taken a fair amount of time to compare and contrast [Armstrong’s] comments to my paper, check his references, and cite the same sources he utilized…. Since I do not plan on writing any further responses to Armstrong’s material on Luther and Mary, I tried to be as thorough as possible…. my only desire is to exhaust the topic, and move on... Unless Mr. Armstrong presents some compelling relevant information, this will be my only response.”
By the way, the key word is “compelling”.
“I'm so glad we had this time together, Just to have a laugh, or sing a song...Seems we just get started and before you Know it...Comes the time we have to say, 'So long'.”
Goodnight Dave Armstrong.
Posts
5 comments:
Hi James,
You utterly ignored the point, repeated the same thing that I just refuted, as if that makes it less untrue, and appealed to lack of time and readers' boredom because you had no rational answer to my reply which was required by your misinformation.
And you wonder why I stopped dialoguing with anti-Catholics? You're about the best I ever found, and I still have to endure all this silliness and nonsense about a simple point of fact.
Now, knowing how you always react to these things (personally), I hasten to add: sure; you're a nice guy. I would have dinner with you. I have many Protestant friends. I even have anti-Catholic personal friends. That has never been an issue for me, and it never will be.
Now that is out of the way (I saved you the trouble). But none of that (personal elements, supposed emotions, etc.) has anything to do with whether arguments are lousy or not and whether facts of history (and of the consensus view of scholars)have been botched.
You say I have grown in my understanding or appreciation of Luther. Absolutely. I would hope so, after studying him as a Protestant, and more intensely as a Catholic for fifteen years. I have been a harsh critic of his; yes, certainly.
But I didn't EVER think he was a "bad" man, or insincere, or no Christian, as is often made out (and I can prove that even in the earliest papers I wrote as a Catholic, if you challenge it). He was simply wrong on some things, and terribly wrong, which was made worse by his great influence on his times.
Lastly, anyone who knows you knows that you write a great deal about Luther, so why do you worry now about "tedium"? Just because I blew one of your false contentions out of the water? Now it is time to talk about "tedium," after you have written 20 or so articles, mostly about Luther and Calvin?
Whoever likes your writing won't leave because you wrote what you usually write. That's a non-issue. It's just a very bad smokescreen to cover your inability (and/or unwillingness) to answer my reply.
You're only acting differently now, and hemming and hawing, because I corrected you on your own blog (about a particular fact and opinion of mine that we have debated regarding Luther's beliefs), and it makes you uncomfortable. It all goes real smoothly till the other guy gives a response, huh James? :-) :-)
I think those who like your writing would like to see you refute what I have written, or concede the point. Either way, you would only further gain their (and my) respect. But squirming and rationalizing, doing neither, doesn't impress anyone, I dare say.
Or if they just say you shouldn't interact with me at all because I am supposedly an idiot with nothing at all of any worth to offer, and so forth (the James White, Eric Svendsen, Frank Turk approach to "apologetics"), then that merely confirms my decision to stop attempting dialogue with anti-Catholics, doesn't it?
Either way, my standpoint on that is spectacularly confirmed!:
1) no true replies are given (in which case there is no dialogue)
or:
2) insults are made instead of any answers (in which case there is no dialogue)
Therefore, it is ridiculous to try dialogue when there is none to be had.
It ain't rocket science . . .
But you're a nice guy (and to let out a huge "secret": so am I, according to most folks who meet me and actually get to know me as a person and as a Christian) . . .
Dave-
I responded to in detail on Luther's view of the immaculate conception.
In fairness to your view, I posted links to your replies to me, as well as linking to your recent blogback, in which you made the same arguments.
Obviously I have a particular opinion about my work on Luther's view of the immaculate conception compared to yours, which is why I don't mind posting links to your material. All links pertaining to our discussion are available for anyone reading this blog to check out, and decide for themselves.
The point is not merely that we disagreed (big wow), but how you cynically presented my opinion on the subject, as if I was unaware of Grisar's own opinion on the later Luther, and as if I was so silly and foolish I didn't even read my own source material.
This is unethical. You obviously wanted to leave an impression with your Protestant readers of how supposedly ignorant I was on the subject: so much so that I couldn't even see what Grisar said in the same context.
Since you know full well that I provided a huge amount of scholarly data later on the same subject (since it was in a debate with you), it is underhanded of you to simply present Grisar as if that were all I had.
THAT is what needs to be corrected and acknowledged as unfair to the person you are citing in a roundabout way (you don't name me, but anyone who has been reading your papers knows who you were talking about, especially after your more recent post, where there is no doubt at all). You continue the same sort of asinine treatment in this current post:
"Now Dave left this information out. Oops.
"Hence the debate between myself and Armstrong. After I went out and got a hold of Grisar’s book, Armstrong was forced to actually research this topic since the very source he used denied Luther’s lifelong commitment to the Immaculate Conception."
SIGH. You just don't get it, James, do you? You would love to think that because of you, I reached a rudimentary level of amateur scholarship with regard to Luther. Previous to my encounter with you, according to you, I was out to sea, clueless about Luther historiography, and hopelessly biased because I was a Catholic with an ax to grind.
The truth is far different. You didn't teach me anything I didn't know about Grisar and his opinion on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. I already knew this in late 1990 or early 1991, when I first researched it. In fact, in my first published article (Jan/Feb 1993, The Catholic Answer), on Luther (that's 13 years ago, by my math), I cited the LUTHERAN Arthur Carl Piepkorn, as confirming Luther's lifelong acceptance of the doctrine.
Later, in debate with you, and tired of your false claims about this, I produced many more Lutheran scholars who agreed with Piepkorn. But I knew the truth of the matter 15 years ago.
Furthermore, in the Internet paper I made of basically this same article, "The Orthodox vs. the Heterodox Luther," you can see this fact for yourself, in the oldest copy I could find on the Internet Archive (Dec. 1998):
http://web.archive.org/web/19981202072634/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ269.HTM
I simply cited Luther's words, from Grisar. Later, I backed all that up from many other sources, but the original citation is valid and not inaccurate. Having more research does not make the original second-hand citation erroneous. It was not.
I was not obligated in that context to state the technical, academic information that Grisar believed Luther later changed his mind, because it wasn't required by scholarly demands, the subject matter, or ethics. I simply cited a Lutheran scholar, which carries more weight with non-Catholics.
The fact that Grisar thought Luther changed his mind has nothing whatsoever to do with the words of Luther from 1527. They remain his words. The only dispute is whether he believed this his whole life or not. I showed that the overwhelming majority of both Catholic and Protestant scholars who have studied the issue believe Luther DID retain the belief his entire life. But no one would have the slightest clue about any of that by reading your distorted, jaded account of how I proved my contentions, would they?
All of this is, of course, also highly ironic and quite ridiculous, since you continue to unjustly criticize me for the same exact faults (laxity in research, quoting out of context, party bias amounting to virtual inability to treat a subject like Luther, etc.). This is your constant motif in dealing with me. Nothing seems to be able to disabuse you of it.
Yet you showed yourself quite capable of severely butchering context altogether (indeed, not giving it the slightest consideration whatsoever) when dealing with a figure like St. Alphonsus, and trying to make out that he taught Mariolatry, as I have documented (I'll spare readers the link to that paper, only out of courtesy to you).
You can do better than this, James. I know you can. Be fair to your dialogical opponents. No one will fault you for that. No one objects to fairness and fair play in dialogue. But plenty of folks object to unfairness, when dealing with the words and arguments of others. And that has been my only gripe here.
This other person you have been citing, with her "Luther quiz" may have all kinds of things wrong, for all I know. But kindly don't project that onto me, as if there is no difference, and I am like all the rest of the so-called "anti-Luther" crowd that you specialize in.
Thank you, and good night, James.
Your brother in Christ,
Dave Armstrong
Dave,
If we go back and review your older material on Luther/Mary/immaculate conception, your substantiation was originally the Luther/Grisar citation, and a little paragraph mentioning Arthur Carl Piepkorn. I don’t think you deliberately went out of your way to suppress Grisar’s contrary explanation a few years back- I think you simply missed it. I can only conclude this, because I don’t really think you would want to send your readers to a book that would deny the very thing you’re trying to prove. I’m sorry if you think this is unethical. If indeed you were fully aware of Grisar’s explanation, but yet still sent your readers to that source- you play in a much different research ballpark than I. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute Dave- If I had done this, you would find it rather curious as well- If James White or Eric Svendsen did this- you’d have a field day with countless blogs and webpages, pointing out a misuse of a source.
In my comments, I noted you then went and researched your position. I recall you even saying this at the time- that in your response to me it sent you to the library- or something to that effect. I find no shame in someone doing research to substantiate one’s opinion- be it before of after a botched citation. I’ve had to do this as well at times.
On the other hand, as you have grown in your appreciation of Luther- I have grown in my appreciation of Hartmann Grisar. I still consider his bias inherent in his work pitiful, but even Protestant scholars recognize he had a unique gift for gathering facts. While I think at times he can spin a Luther citation in an incorrect way, he still reports history well. I point this out to ask you, what do you make of this “fact” noted by Grisar:
“The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the immaculate conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.”
Just a note of tedium I’ve always wanted to clear up- my “dealing with a figure like St. Alphonsus” that you’ve mentioned every so often was originally a CARM post that I threw up on the boards to provoke discussion. It wasn’t a detailed look at Alphonsus. In fact, I think I took the quotes from Boettner’s book. I did that frequently on CARM- I’d post something entirely provocative to see what would happen. In retrospect, I should have cited my sources more carefully- but it wasn’t meant to be an exposition of my work on “Alphonsus”- it was intended to stimulate discussion. Now, I realize this is somewhat of a double standard- I frequently criticize people for mishandling sources- and yet I posted that Alphonsus thing on CARM, and I don’t have the post anymore, but if I recall, I don’t think I listed any sources. This was not fair of me, nor should I have done it. In retrospect, while my intention may have been to provoke discussion, my means were not worthy.
Hi James,
>If we go back and review your older material on Luther/Mary/immaculate conception, your substantiation was originally the Luther/Grisar citation, and a little paragraph mentioning Arthur Carl Piepkorn. I don’t think you deliberately went out of your way to suppress Grisar’s contrary explanation a few years back- I think you simply missed it. I can only conclude this, because I don’t really think you would want to send your readers to a book that would deny the very thing you’re trying to prove. I’m sorry if you think this is unethical. If indeed you were fully aware of Grisar’s explanation, but yet still sent your readers to that source- you play in a much different research ballpark than I.
I think it is, rather, that I play in a different "logic" ballpark than you do, because you continue to seem to miss basic and crucial distinctions. I was not setting out to prove the following proposition:
A) Hartmann Grisar believed that Luther held to the Immaculate Conception over his entire life.
Rather, I was dealing with the subject matter:
B) Did Luther accept the Immaculate Conception?
Originally, I cited Grisar, himself citing the 1527 sermon, because that is the information I had at the time. The citation is perfectly valid (which I have already gone over; why must I always repeat myself?). This showed that he certainly believed it in 1527. Whether he did later, was a different topic that I did not deal with at first. Instead, I cited a Lutheran scholar, who I figured knew much more about it than I did, or ever would. The original article was a short, summarizing one for a magazine; not an exhaustive treatise. One doesn't cover every jot and tittle. In in-depth debates, such as ours, that is appropriate.
How that is construed as shoddy research is simply beyond me, I confess. I did nothing questionable or unethical at all. I covered up nothing. Just because not everything is dealt with, it doesn't automaticaly equate to a "cover-up" or shoddy research.
Later I dealt with the subject of whether he changed his mind, with you. I showed how the consensus of Lutheran and Catholic scholars was that he did not. Grisar was an exception to the rule. He also wrote 100 years ago. I think (and I believe you would agree) historians and those who write about Church history learn a few things in 100 years.
>Put yourself in my shoes for a minute Dave- If I had done this, you would find it rather curious as well- If James White or Eric Svendsen did this- you’d have a field day with countless blogs and webpages, pointing out a misuse of a source.
I only do that when they make ridiculous claims that cannot be substantiated. And whenever I do that, they run like scared little kitty-cats. In my case, I made no claim that was ridiculous. I made no claim at all about what Grisar believed on the subject. I simply affirmed that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception. That has been amply confirmed with a ton of corroborating scholarly data since that time (thanks to your challenging it).
Nor did I "misuse" a source at all. How is simply citing the words of Luther from a biographer who wrote a huge, six-volume biography of him, misusing a source, pray tell? If the citation could be shown to be bogus, then you might have a point. But it is not. It is simply difficult to locate the sermon in question, in English. So, not knowing German, I had to find it in English works (in this case, translated from German themselves). That doesn't show any incompetence on my part in research ability (though it does in knowledge of German, no doubt).
>In my comments, I noted you then went and researched your position. I recall you even saying this at the time- that in your response to me it sent you to the library- or something to that effect. I find no shame in someone doing research to substantiate one’s opinion- be it before of after a botched citation. I’ve had to do this as well at times.
Exactly; when challenged, I went out and produced the goods to blow your counter-claim out of the water. It doesn't follow that I "botched" any citation or unethically "hid things" from my readers. These charges are completely ridiculous and groundless.
>On the other hand, as you have grown in your appreciation of Luther- I have grown in my appreciation of Hartmann Grisar. I still consider his bias inherent in his work pitiful, but even Protestant scholars recognize he had a unique gift for gathering facts. While I think at times he can spin a Luther citation in an incorrect way, he still reports history well.
I'm delighted to hear that. I agree with you that the man has an undue bias, though we would probably disagree on the extent of it. Both sides are much more ecumenical than they were 100 years ago.
>I point this out to ask you, what do you make of this “fact” noted by Grisar:
“The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the immaculate conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.”
Why do you ask me when I have already answered this several times, even in comments below on this very blog? Don't you read my replies? Grisar thought Luther changed his mind (though possibly he only meant that the statements disappeared; technically, one might suspect that they could do that for other reasons without Luther changing his mind). Most scholars today who write about Luther's Mariology disagree with Grisar. I accept their research findings. You don't. That's fine, but it is not unreasonable for me to follow the findings of Lutheran scholars, rather than accept your word, when you are neither a Lutheran, nor (by your own words) an "expert" on Luther. I'd be pretty silly to put your "authority" above theirs, wouldn't I?
I'm also delighted to see your statement about St. Alphonsus. I would say somewhat the same about SOME of my earlier remarks about Luther, when I first wrote, criticizing him (not including the present subject). We all learn and grow over time. It still remains true that I never thought Luther was a scoundrel or madman or essentially a "bad, wicked" person, per Cochlaeus and the other Catholic propagandists.
In my own case (regarding my writing about Luther) as in the man Luther himself, the truth is a lot more complex than the caricatures of both. I get a lot of nonsense written about me by people who don't take the time to read what I wrote and to understand it as something different from boilerplate Catholic-Protestant polemics. I understand why this is, but it doesn't make it right or less frustrating.
And I am writing now about others on the Internet who do this, not you. I just think you have been mistaken on this little point.
Post a Comment