Thursday, December 23, 2010

Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor (Part Two)

Updated 12/23/10 (10:00 PM)

I. Introduction
This is a continuation of my discussion with Scott Windsor on Luther and the immaculate conception. As stated previously, whether Luther did or did not hold to a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception really doesn't matter to me. Rather, this exercise is a demonstration of the method of historical inquires. How does one approach history? How are sources utilized, cited, and interpreted? Roman Catholics and Protestants both appeal to the testimony of history, yet often arrive at different conclusions. With Luther's Mariology, it's often the case that the image of Luther created by both Protestants and Roman Catholics after such an historical inquiry is ... quite different! Why is that? I think one of the reasons has to do with research methods.

II. Sources Revisited
Previously I documented the sources Mr. Windsor used for his historical inquiry into this matter. It appears initially that I was one his primary sources. That is, Mr. Windsor used the evidence from my blog entries and papers to form his historical conclusions. I've pointed out to Scott that typically those from his perspective don't actually read Luther in context. Scott considers such a comment as condescending. He says for this current discussion on Luther and the immaculate conception, he's read Luther in context.

Well has he? Has he read Luther's sermons on the quotes in question? They aren't long. Has he read Luther's 1527 sermon on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God? Has he read The Explanation of the 95 Theses from LW 31? Has he read the Defense and explanation of all the Articles from LW 32? Did he read Luther's short sermon from 1538 which he cited as "Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 45:51 quoted in Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. I, 152"? Did he read LW 7?

These are documents he cited in his response to me. Did he actually read any of them? Or, Did he simply rely on what I posted? How does Mr. Windsor know if I cited Luther correctly? How does he know the next line in any of these sources doesn't say, "I Martin Luther will believe in the Immaculate Conception till the day I die"? It appears to me, Mr. Windsor hasn't actually read any of these documents. I can understand not reading the entire contexts from LW 31 and 32, but Luther's sermons are short reads, and typically play a crucial role in determining one's view on this issue. If Scott hasn't read any of the sermons, he hasn't read the contexts.

Mr. Windsor states:

One frustration I have had with James in the IC series is that he has, more than once, referred to "online sources" but does not provide a link, as if he wants me to "work" at it. This could, however, be perceived as him not wishing to share these sources because perhaps I (or others) will find things in these sources which may not be in James' favor and he's deliberately not sharing sources for that reason. Whatever the reason - I've found sufficient sources and cited them as I go.

I've been in countless discussions with people disagreeing with me or challenging me that want me to do all the grunt work for them of looking up sources and extracting quotes. My blog has two search engines, and each will provide a lot of the material in question. My Reformation research / hobby goes beyond the Internet. I purchase sources when I need to. If someone wants to challenge me, they shouldn't expect me to hand over the materials I've paid for so they can be used to challenge my position. They should simply go buy them, read them, then challenge my position. I simply refuse to do work for someone else.

As to not wanting to share sources so as not to have information exposed that will deliberately contradict my opinions, nonsense. I look forward to any quotes from Luther or the Reformers Roman Catholics can pull out from his writings. But, as is often the case, those from Scott's perspective don't read Luther in context. Or, Luther is only read if a web page is available. That's not the way I do things. In fact, I typically buy more Roman Catholic books than Protestant. If I'm going to challenge some aspect of Romanism, I invest time and money.

Scott states:
My only real complaint would be when you mention something and don't quote or cite the source (like Luther removing from later documents - that was a vague reference which did not show us the same document minus IC references in later publications). If you're going to make claims, all I ask is that they be validly documented claims; undocumented assertions may be (and typically will be) dismissed.

As to my "vague reference" about Luther removing the ending of the 1527 sermon, I'm sure I've already recently linked Scott to my extensive blog article on this. If he's chosen not to read it, that's not my problem. He also now has Grisar's Luther IV, and he mentions the same thing, providing a reference for Scott to look up. In fact, on Scott's recent entry he states: "This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works." I took Grisar's reference, and looked it up. He was right. I then read Luther's revised sermon, it wasn't there and had the ending re-written where the IC quote in question would've been.

Scott also points out that it is my responsibility to document my assertions. Which ones? Scott needs to let me know which of my assertions lack documentation. Recently I cited LW 58 and LW 7, and I also provided links to other entries in which I tediously document certain things. In a recent comment response Mr. Windsor, I cited a lengthy excerpt from LW 7. If he thinks I've taken Luther out of context, I would say, it's his responsibility to track down LW 7. How much more does Scott want? Am I supposed to send him the entirety of these treatises so he can evaluate them? I don't recall any Roman Catholic ever sending me a primary source so I could formulate a response to them.

Conclusion
I would like Mr. Windsor to explain to me exactly how he's conducting his research on this. I can explain how I've done mine: I've sought out the primary sources, read them, and formulated my view. It appears to me Scott is avoiding the work of reading Luther in context. Why? I can only speculate. It could be he's too busy to track down Luther's sermons. It could be he doesn't want to purchase the sources when they're not available on-line.

Mr. Windsor has been doing apologetics for a long time. If I'm correct, and he hasn't actually read Luther in context by consulting the primary sources, why should we assume he reads the church fathers in context? Why should we assume his articles on say, Augustine, are the result of actually reading Augustine?

Mr Windsor and I appear to "do" history very differently. I allow a historical figure to simply say everything he said, wherever it leads, by actually looking up the contexts and reading them. This interaction with Mr. Windsor shows once again that Roman Catholics do not really go deep into history.


Addendum
Scott Windsor provided some responses to the thrust of this blog entry. Scott states:

The fact of the matter is though that your initial challenge to me on this subject was indeed that you believed Luther did NOT hold to a lifelong belief in the IC. You're changing your tune and moving the focus from a discussion of Luther to an attack on methodology. This second topic may be of interest to you, but it is not what you initially challenged me with. As for the initial challenge, it has been quite sufficiently answered.

No, I haven't changed any tunes. In my initial response to Scott Windsor I began by looking at the sources he utilized. I do this with many of my Luther-related blog posts. I want to know why Mr. Windsor arrived at the position he did. I arrived at my position by reading the quotes in question in context and doing some historical background studies. Scott appears to have simply read the quotes I cited and determined an interpretive way of making them say what he wanted them to, based on a section of a sermon Luther deleted and then revised.

Responding to my comment, "It appears initially that I was one his primary sources" Scott states:

I do not consider your work to be a "primary source" - however you do have many "primary sources" within your work. If I quote from your research I cite the actual primary source AND credit you for the work provided - linking back to where the quote came from. Does this displease you?

As for the rest of your challenges here, I'm not interested in getting into a testosterone battle with you and try to show who's library is bigger or who's spent more money buying the other's primary sources. In this discussion alone I purchased one of Grisar's volumes - I'm not afraid to spend a little myself, but why does this really matter in the long run? The more important aspect here is the BOTTOM LINE and that is that the TRUTH BE KNOWN. As for me, I don't care if you have purchased every volume there is on Luther - or if the Luther Fairy descended upon you and bestowed upon you all the resources you'll ever need. What does it REALLY matter if someone has paid for a primary source or if he's found it online for free? Does that change the validity of the primary source? You should move from this "me vs. you" approach and simply go for what is TRUTH. This goes for the condescending comment too, maybe you're not even aware of how condescending you are. You seem to be constantly puffing up yourself and your work and your library that you've spent money on... I've tried very hard NOT to make this about you or me, but about what LUTHER said. On the other hand, you are constantly trying to make this about me and/or my methods as if "to heck with the truth" - if you can make your OPPONENT appear to be lacking then you somehow "win" something, but truth may or may not "win" at all.

1. The content of Scott's remarks aside, such a comment speaks volumes about the difficulty of written discourse. I read such statements as slightly hostile or agitated. Scott reads some of my comments as condescending or insulting. The simple fact of the matter is however wonderful some may think written dialogs are, this is one of their weaknesses. I think if Scott and I were to discuss the content of this blog post at the local coffee shop, the result would be quite different.

2. From Scott's statement above, I think it's fair to conclude he hasn't read any of the contexts of the statements from Luther in question. I can't stress enough how important it is to read Luther's entire sermon when formulating an opinion. Basing one's opinion merely on a paragraph or a line or two from a sermon isn't a proper way to do historical studies. In a future response to Scott, I'll be going more into the contexts of some of the quotes in question. I wish Scott would join me in this aspect of research and discussion, but it appears it's a one way street. I do the work, then Scott comments on my findings.

3. Scott thinks that I believe a free resource on-line isn't as good as buying a book. I never said this. My point is that certain sources are not available on the Internet. When formulating one's view on a historical subject, it is necessary to do what's needed to strive for accuracy. If this means buying a book that's not yet free on the Internet, that's part of striving for truth.

4. Scott appears to be describing his research method as determining truth without context and primary sources. That is, complete contexts and primary sources aren't necessary for determining historical truth. If that's the case, then I say he's wrong on Luther and I'm right. Who cares what the contexts say?

Scott also states:

Back to James, he claims to have read later copies of this sermon which have the part which explicitly mentions the IC removed, but he does not quote us that sermon nor does he cite a source of that sermon or provide a link to that alleged version of the sermon. I'm not saying it doesn't exist and/or that James is making this up - but such an unsupported statement coming from me would be utterly rejected, and thus the objective reader here must also reject James' unscholarly approach here. He claims he doesn't want to do all my work for me - but HE is the one who asserts the existence of this later publication of the sermon so it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to adequately and validly document his claim or withdraw it from consideration. He should not expect us to do his homework for him. (And yes, I do not diminish the fact that he has already done a lot of work here - but in regard to THIS assertion his work, thus far, is deficient).

I'm trying to be a charitable as possible over this. I did indeed provide Scott with a link to this material in my initial response to him. I also provided the same link for him in this blog entry. I also provided the same link on his blog in his comment box. I think I also left him the same link on another one of my blog entries. I'm not posting it any more for him. It appears he's not reading my entries carefully.

27 comments:

steelikat said...

Luther clearly did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, and Scott is implicitly admitting as much, by describing Luther's beliefs on Mary's sinlessness as being similar to Aquinas, who explicitly denied the immaculate conception. Scott has effectively conceded the argument, while insisting that Luther's views are similar to the "1854 definition." I guess from the perspective of someone who denies Mary's actual sinlessness during her life they may seem like "similar" views, but that does not change the truism that denying the doctrine of the immaculate conception is denying the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

CathApol said...

First off, I'm not sure why James posted this article - most, if not all of it, is repeated statements from earlier discussions which have already been answered.

Secondly, to steelikat, James himself refers us to a Lutheran pastor who also affirms Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception. As I stated in previous responses - there is room to make an argument that later in life Luther was moving away from his belief in the IC, but earlier in his Catholic days and even into his early Protestant days he was still professing an orthodox expression of the IC. Later in his life he speaks less of it, but as I argued (and the Lutheran pastor did too) he was not silent about it.

Back to James, he claims to have read later copies of this sermon which have the part which explicitly mentions the IC removed, but he does not quote us that sermon nor does he cite a source of that sermon or provide a link to that alleged version of the sermon. I'm not saying it doesn't exist and/or that James is making this up - but such an unsupported statement coming from me would be utterly rejected, and thus the objective reader here must also reject James' unscholarly approach here. He claims he doesn't want to do all my work for me - but HE is the one who asserts the existence of this later publication of the sermon so it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to adequately and validly document his claim or withdraw it from consideration. He should not expect us to do his homework for him. (And yes, I do not diminish the fact that he has already done a lot of work here - but in regard to THIS assertion his work, thus far, is deficient).

steelikat said...

Scott,

You are describing something that is not an expression of the Immaculate Conception, and that is essentially the same as Aquinas's denial of the Immaculate Conception, and perversely labeling it "an orthodox expression of the IC." If I were James I would have said "thank you for conceding my main point." a long time ago.

CathApol said...

JS: As stated previously, whether Luther did or did not hold to a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception really doesn't matter to me.

The fact of the matter is though that your initial challenge to me on this subject was indeed that you believed Luther did NOT hold to a lifelong belief in the IC. You're changing your tune and moving the focus from a discussion of Luther to an attack on methodology. This second topic may be of interest to you, but it is not what you initially challenged me with. As for the initial challenge, it has been quite sufficiently answered.

JS: It appears initially that I was one his primary sources.

I do not consider your work to be a "primary source" - however you do have many "primary sources" within your work. If I quote from your research I cite the actual primary source AND credit you for the work provided - linking back to where the quote came from. Does this displease you?

As for the rest of your challenges here, I'm not interested in getting into a testosterone battle with you and try to show who's library is bigger or who's spent more money buying the other's primary sources. In this discussion alone I purchased one of Grisar's volumes - I'm not afraid to spend a little myself, but why does this really matter in the long run? The more important aspect here is the BOTTOM LINE and that is that the TRUTH BE KNOWN. As for me, I don't care if you have purchased every volume there is on Luther - or if the Luther Fairy descended upon you and bestowed upon you all the resources you'll ever need. What does it REALLY matter if someone has paid for a primary source or if he's found it online for free? Does that change the validity of the primary source? You should move from this "me vs. you" approach and simply go for what is TRUTH. This goes for the condescending comment too, maybe you're not even aware of how condescending you are. You seem to be constantly puffing up yourself and your work and your library that you've spent money on... I've tried very hard NOT to make this about you or me, but about what LUTHER said. On the other hand, you are constantly trying to make this about me and/or my methods as if "to heck with the truth" - if you can make your OPPONENT appear to be lacking then you somehow "win" something, but truth may or may not "win" at all.

CathApol said...

steelikat, rather than me reinvent the wheel here, are you open to reading a bit more on the subject?

http://www.the-pope.com/stThomas.html

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q052.htm

http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/01/st-thomas-aquinas-on-immaculate.html

steelikat said...

Why is the immaculate conception problematic? Is it Mary's sinlessness that is the problem? No. No orthodox Protestant doubts that God made Mary sinless, just as He has or will make every one of the elect sinless at his death if not before. Christ died to save us from sin and if he didnt make anyone sinless what would be the point of his coming? The timing of when He saved Mary completely from sin and filled her with his holy spirit is not a critical issue. What makes the doctrine problematic is that if Mary had not inherited original sin she would not need a savior, she would not need to be made sinless at all!

steelikat said...

Scott,

The question is not whether or not Aquinas believed in the immaculate conception, the question is whether Luther did and whether you implicitly admitted he did not while bizarrely labeling his disbelief in the immaculate conception as the "1854 definition."

Just change the wording of everything I've said from something like "Scott's description of Luther's beliefs is the same as Aquinas's" to something like "Scott's description of Luther's beliefs is the same as the description those who believe Aquinas denied the Immaculate conception give of Aquinas's beliefs" if that helps you to understand.

steelikat said...

Maybe this will help. Luther said that Mary was telling the truth when she called christ her savior, and that at some point in time God purified her flesh. Whether Luther thought that occured at her conception but logically posterior to it or many years after (at the Incarnation) is the secondary point you and James have debated.

The primary point is whether The flesh Mary inherited from Adam needed to be purified in the first place. You and James essentially agree on that question, and you have implicitly conceded that James is right, as far as I can tell, but you label Luther's disagreement with the IC as agreement.

CathApol said...

The primary point is whether The flesh Mary inherited from Adam needed to be purified in the first place. You and James essentially agree on that question, and you have implicitly conceded that James is right, as far as I can tell, but you label Luther's disagreement with the IC as agreement.

Actually, that was NOT the primary point in the discussion between Swan and I. The primary point was whether or not Luther held a lifelong belief in the IC.

That being said, to answer your other points - Catholicism does not deny that Mary too required a redeemer! The SIDE-POINT about Mary being purified from the STAIN of Original Sin, but still inherited the PENALTY of it is the teaching of the Catholic Church. So yes, Jesus is Mary's Redeemer too in the Catholic Faith. You're attacking in ignorance here, and the same can be said of your statements regarding St. Thomas Aquinas and the IC.

steelikat said...

"The primary point was whether or not Luther held a lifelong belief in the IC."

1. What I've described IS the doctrine of the immaculate conception. If you say Luther believed in the immaculate conception, you are saying that Luther believed that she was conceived without original sin.

2. What you said, on the contrary, is that Luther believed that Mary's flesh was puriefied from original sin. You say furthermore that Luther believed that was done while she was in her mothers womb, at the time of what you call the 2nd conception. Regardless of when you say Luther believed that happened, you are saying that he did not believe in the immaculate conception.

If you tell us now that you were saying the former (the paragraph Ive labeled "1") Rather than the latter I will suspect you are vacillating. If you say you cannot tell the difference between the two, one must conclude that you cannot tell whether Luther believed in the Immaculate conception or not.

steelikat said...

Scott,

"Catholicism does not deny that Mary too required a redeemer"

No Christian can deny that. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception creates a problem that RCs must explain in order to affirm Mary's need of a redeemer without seeming to contradict themselves, however.

"The SIDE-POINT about Mary being purified from the STAIN of Original Sin"

Side Point!? You see this is what you are not getting. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was NOT purified from the stain of original sin, that she did not need to be because she was prevented from ever inheriting the stain of original sin in the first place. If you say that Luther believed that Mary was purified from original sin you are essentially saying that he does not believe in the doctrine of the immaculate conception. The Side Point is when Luther says this happened: immediately upon her conception, at her "second conception", at the Incarnation, or at the Nativity (wasn't the christmas purification one of James's possible theories?)

I'm not ignorant and i'm not yelling at you I'm trying to help you understand what the bone of contention is.

CathApol said...

steelikat writes: 1. What I've described IS the doctrine of the immaculate conception. If you say Luther believed in the immaculate conception, you are saying that Luther believed that she was conceived without original sin.

You've missed the teaching in the definition again - the definition does NOT say she was born without Original Sin, only that upon the moment of her conception she was preserved by God from the STAIN of Original Sin. I am trying to help you to not misrepresent the Catholic teaching on this matter.

CathApol said...

steelikat continues: 2. What you said, on the contrary, is that Luther believed that Mary's flesh was puriefied from original sin. You say furthermore that Luther believed that was done while she was in her mothers womb, at the time of what you call the 2nd conception. Regardless of when you say Luther believed that happened, you are saying that he did not believe in the immaculate conception.

This "second conception" verbage is from Luther himself, not me. I said this "second conception" concept fits well with the definition of the Immaculate Conception. The "second conception," in his view, was when God animates the flesh - that is, gives it life, gives it a soul - and Luther said it was at this conception that she was purified. The debate between Swan and I was as to whether or not Luther held this view to the end of his life.

CathApol said...

steelikat, take a deep breath, slow down and READ the actual definition of the Immaculate Conception, emphasis added by me:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

It was at the first moment of her conception that she was preserved from the STAIN of Original Sin, not wholly from Original Sin itself - just the stain or corruption of it. She was conceived in the natural human way, and in that first moment of he conception - she was purified from all stain. She did still inherit OS and she did die (which is one of the temporal punishments of OS). So yes, if you continue along the arguments you've been making, then you're arguing from a position of willful ignorance. You're arguing what you THINK is the teaching of the IC, but even after being shown your interpretation is a bit off, you insist upon it.

Kyrie eleison.

James Swan said...

As for the rest of your challenges here, I'm not interested in getting into a testosterone battle with you and try to show who's library is bigger or who's spent more money buying the other's primary sources.

Scott, unless you state otherwise, I'll take your recent comments here as confirmation that you have not read the quotes in question in context.

More later.... Thanks for your response.

Brigitte said...

If someone, or everyone, were to read the sermon carefully, he, or they, would note, that Luther is only presenting various prevailing views. He is trying to calm the water and allow people their pious opinions which they are not to make into dogma since there is no scripture to go on.

Secondly, he is trying to get everyone to think about their own original sin, which sticks to them even though they are redeemed Christians, and to battle their sinful flesh daily by sticking with their prayers, the creed and the Lord's prayer.(This would be more useful than speculations.)

Thirdly, he wants everyone to focus on the clear words of scripture about Christ and give up this useless dissension regrarding the flesh and the praise of Mary.

In the course of all this he does not give his own opinion in IM, but rather tries to steer away from useless strife--which indeed we are having here again.

James Swan said...

Brigitte said...

Well said my friend. Your comments are most welcome!

Yesterday I re-read Luther's 1532 sermon "The Day of Annunciation to Mary" because it has one of the quotes in question in it about Luther's view on the immaculate concpetion.

I was struck by the context of this short sermon, and how at odds it is with Mr. Windsor's current view. I realized yet again why reading an entire context is so important to formulating one's view.

natamllc said...

Amen to Brigitte!

Amen to James too. This only goes to prove your reading comprehension skills leave little doubt!

Scott, you would be wise to humbly accept the corrections offered for your edification!

Oh, Scott, do you embrace the admonitions of Scripture, like these?

Pro 16:20 Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
Pro 16:21 The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
Pro 16:22 Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly.

James Swan said...

I added an addendum to this blog entry to respond to some of Scott's comments.

Thanks to Scott and also those of you reading and commenting on this post.

I realize a blog post on sources isn't thrilling, but I think it shows why Mr. Windsor and I have such different conclusions on this topic.

CathApol said...

James,
Why is it I feel like one of your goals is to refine your skills in backhanded compliments?

As I told you, I believe numerous times now, I am not opposed to spending money when I need to and can justify the expense. I have recently acquired a couple LW volumes (for my Kindle) I could not find online and am going through them. Your method and mine are not so different, you just have, I'm assuming, more references at your fingertips than I do on this subject - and probably always will (I have no plans of acquiring an exhaustive library on Luther). Like I said, I do have a more than passing interest in the subject, so I don't mind spending a bit here and there (most of my family is still officially Lutheran, though some of them don't go to church anymore except on special occasions - and I believe I was always into my faith more than the others, with the exception of my mother - but that's a whole 'nother story). The bottom line here is, I am respectfully asking you to knock off the backhanded compliments and/or a compliment followed by outright jabs. There's no call for a Christian to be trying to puff ones self up over another. I believe we've BOTH learned from this discussion - would you not admit to that as well?

Scott<<<

CathApol said...

natmllc wrote: Scott, you would be wise to humbly accept the corrections offered for your edification!

When correction has been validly proved, I am more than willing to humbly accept such - and have.

nat continues: Oh, Scott, do you embrace the admonitions of Scripture, like these?

Pro 16:20 Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
Pro 16:21 The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
Pro 16:22 Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly.


Oh nat... Oh why the condescending "Oh Scott...?" Of course I accept such, but please don't start a war of snippet quotes, I can play that game too, but typically choose not to...

(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (NAS)

James Swan said...

I believe we've BOTH learned from this discussion - would you not admit to that as well?

Let's put it this way: I haven't learned anything about Luther & the immaculate conception from your part of this discussion. Since you won't read and exegete the sources, the chances of you actually uncovering something of historical interest on this subject are fairly slim.

On the other hand, you've confimrmed once again, those from your "ken" don't go deep into history.

You may conclude this is a mean comment, but consider it an honest comment instead.

Turretinfan said...

CathApol wrote: You've missed the teaching in the definition again - the definition does NOT say she was born without Original Sin, only that upon the moment of her conception she was preserved by God from the STAIN of Original Sin. I am trying to help you to not misrepresent the Catholic teaching on this matter.

This fallacy of emphasis has been shot out of the water (Most Recently Here).

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

CathApol wrote: "That being said, to answer your other points - Catholicism does not deny that Mary too required a redeemer!"

A Redeemer is needed to redeem someone from something. It is not official Roman theology that Mary needed to be redeemed.

Roman theology teaches that Mary had God has a Saviour, but this is usually through the sophistry of saying that God preserved her from sin, not that he redeemed her from it.

CathApol again: "The SIDE-POINT about Mary being purified from the STAIN of Original Sin, but still inherited the PENALTY of it is the teaching of the Catholic Church."

No, the teaching of the Roman church is that she was preserved from it, not that she was purified from it. One has to have it to be purified of it.

And some Roman theologian say she received the temporal penalties - but others treat Mary's suffering and (if she died, which they can't definitively say) death as being similar to Christ's - and call Mary a redemptrix.

CathApol again: "So yes, Jesus is Mary's Redeemer too in the Catholic Faith."

It would be an interesting to see CathApol produce even one official statement that says that "Jesus is Mary's Redeemer" dating after the definition of the IC.

CathApol: "You're attacking in ignorance here, and the same can be said of your statements regarding St. Thomas Aquinas and the IC."

Thomas Aquinas didn't hold to the Immaculate Conception, as has been demonstrated from his writings (here is one example).

-TurretinFan

steelikat said...

Scott,

Turretinfan is correct. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia online. You have implicitly admitted that Luther never professed a belief in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, even early on. The STAIN of original sin is exactly what is at question here--did she inherit it or not? The doctrine of IC says that, unlike the rest of mankind, she did not. Luther (and Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux and many others) said she did inherit the STAIN of original sin but she was cleansed from that STAIN. As for the various penalties of original sin, especially death, RCs who believe in the IC find various vague unsatisfactory ways to explain why she died in spite of the fact that their own logic implies she should have been immortal, or they say that she did not die at all.

Thank God that we can be cleansed from that stain, by the way. Mary is in heaven and we should be concerned about our own salvation and that of our neighbors on this side of death.

Turretinfan,

Thank you for giving that fallacy a name for me, "the fallacy of emphasis." I've seen silly things like that before and have been driven to banging my head against the wall (well, not really but almost). I think it might be fun to try to program my computer to always change the word "STAIN" to all capital letters.

steelikat said...

Turretinfan,

I just read your Dec 23 article and the comments. Maybe I shouldn't have suggested Scott read the Catholic Encyclopedia after all, since he apparently has been reading it and apparently has not been understanding what he is reading. Thanks, anyway.

steelikat said...

If you are going to make a distinction between the phrase "original sin" and "stain of original sin," the distinction is this: Original sin is eating the fruit, the stain of original sin is that which we inherited from the man who ate that fruit.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary STAIN with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

I added the emphasis, which I have resolved to do every time I use the word "STAIN."

So you wouldn't say anybody "inherited" original sin in sense 1, since only Adam and Eve committed that particular sin; but unless you believe in the IC you would say that all except Christ inherited original sin in sense 2 (the STAIN). If you believe in the IC you would say we all inherited original sin (in sense 2) except for Mary and Christ.