Immaculate purification isn't a scholarly term, and Martin Luther is not on the Roman Catholic side regarding Mary and her alleged sinlessness. At least two false obfuscations are committed by Romes's defenders using the term immaculate purification to describe Luther's view.
Addendum #1 Luther said "The Virgin Mary has fallen into error"
Another sixteenth century defender of Rome utilized the same passage against Luther. Peter Canisius (Dutch Jesuit priest and anti-Reformation polemicist) wrote in 1577 that Luther tried to obscure the faith of Mary and she lacked faith:
Addendum #2 Ineffabilis Deus, the Roman Catholic Dogmatic Decree on the Immaculate Conception of Mary vs. Luther
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church released its dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Ineffabilis Deus. This dogmatic pronouncement states,
The first obfuscation: Cursory Google searches indiscriminately explain Luther's immaculate purification view: he believed at the conception of Jesus, Mary was immaculately purified. There's a strong sense in which this is representative of Luther's view. I've made a similar point since at least 2003: Luther believed that at the conception of Jesus, the Holy Spirit sanctified / purified Mary so that the savior would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood (this purification / sanctification did not happen at Mary's birth, hence a denial of the Immaculate Conception).
But there's an obfuscation: I've yet to come across any meaningful historian, reputable scholar, or bonafide theologian describing Luther's view with the phrase immaculate purification. If there is one, I question their ability to do discriminating research. The phrase seems to have popped up online over the last ten to fifteen years or so, filtering down popularly to the masses, especially now through A.I. searches. Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception as immaculate purification appears to be the work of online Roman Catholic lay apologists. One Roman Catholic lay apologist claims its origin: "I have coined a new term: Immaculate Purification..." to describe Luther's view. I do think it's within the realm of possibility that a lay apologist, either Roman Catholic or Protestant, can discover or create something otherwise unheard of, yet it troubles me that A.I. technology cannot distinguish between reputable scholarship and online polemics, influencers / personalities, and lay apologetics. A.I. needs to learn to distinguish levels of credibility. It's fine that A.I. provides lay research, but it should be upfront about it. Many people just grab information and don't bother to check the pedigree of what they're using.
The second obfuscation: The phrase immaculate purification leads to an important overlooked question in explaining Luther's mature view: if Mary was purified and made sinless at the conception of Jesus, did Luther think she then went on to live a completely sinless life? Is Luther saying that Mary was a sinner up until the conception of Jesus and then after his birth she lived sinlessly? The immaculate purification doesn't seem to address this problem. As a gift to Roman Catholic laymen from Beggars All to help them refine their immaculate purification theory, here are some statements from Luther in which he places her among sinful humanity after the birth of Jesus. These are comments he made in a 1532 sermon on Luke 2:41-52:
This should shut the mouths of vain babblers who too highly exalt the holy Virgin Mary and other saints as if they knew everything and could not err. In this place you hear that they err and blunder, not only by seeking Christ everywhere and not knowing where to find Him until they happen to come into the temple, but also by not understanding these words, with which He rebukes their lack of understanding and says to them: "Did you not know that I must be in that which is My Father's?" The evangelist has intentionally pointed this out and will not conceal it, so that we will not allow such lying speech from foolish, inexperienced, and inflated teachers of works, who brag about the saints and even make them into idols (LW 76:202; WA 17.2:26).
German text: Hie mit ist den unnützen Schwetzern das maul gestopfft, so die Heilige Jungfraw Maria und andere Heiligen gar zu hoch heben, als haben sie alles gewust und nie nicht können jrren. Denn hie hörestu, wie sie jrren und straucheln nicht allein in dem, das sie Christum allenthalben suchen und nicht wissen zu finden, Bis sie ongefehr in Tempel komen, Sondern das sie auch dis Wort nicht verstehen, damit er jren unverstand straffet und zu jnen sagen mus: "Wisset jr nicht, das ich sein mus in dem, das meines Vaters ist". Das hat der Euangelist mit grossem vleis angezeigt und nicht wollen verschweigen, Auff das man solchen Lügenteidingen nicht stattgebe, so unverstendige, unerfarene und auffgeblasene Wercklerer von den Heiligen rhuymen und sie gar zu Abgöttern machen (WA 17.2:26).
Whether they are called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or whatever else- it does not for that reason follow that they could not have erred and been wrong. Here we find that the mother of Christ, who had great understanding and enlightenment, was ignorant, since she did not think or know where to find Christ, and for that reason was rebuked by Him because she did not know what she should have known. If she blundered and through her ignorance came into such anxiety and sorrow that she even thought she had lost Christ, is it any wonder that other saints have often erred and stumbled when they went outside of Scripture and followed their own thoughts or dragged them into Scripture? (LW 76:204; WA 17.2:28).
German text: Hie wider sol man antworten, wie gesagt ist, aus disem Euangelio. Es heisse Heilig, Gelert, Veter, Concilia, oder was es sein mag, Wenn es gleich Maria, Joseph und alle Heiligen miteinander weren, So folget darumb nicht, das sie nicht haben können jrren und feilen. Denn hie hörestu, das die Mutter Christi, Welche doch hohen verstand und erleuchtung hat, in die unwissenheit kompt, das sie nicht weis noch dencket, wo sie Christum finden sol, Und darumb von im gestrafft wird, das sie solchs nicht weis, das sie doch wissen solte. Hat nu sie gefeilet und durch jre unwissenheit ist in solch angst und betrubnis komen, das sie meinet, sie habe Christum gar verloren, Was ists wunder, ob andere Heiligen offt geirret und gestrauchelt haben, wenn sie ausser der Schrifft gegangen und jren gedancken gefolget oder die selben in die Schrifft gezogen haben? (WA 17.2:28).
You say further: "Yes the church and the fathers had the Holy Spirit, who did not let them err." That can easily be answered from what has been said: No matter how holy the Church or the councils may be, they had no more of the Holy Spirit than Mary, the mother of Christ, who was also a member [of the Church], even at that time the most distinguished part of the Church. Even though she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, yet He sometimes let her err, even in the high matters of faith. For that reason it does not follow that the saints who have the Spirit cannot err and that everything they say must be correct. There still remains much weakness and ignorance even among the highest people. For that reason we must not judge doctrine and the matters of faith which come from the Holy Spirit according to personal holiness, for that can be all wrong. Rather, here you must come where God's Word is, for that is certain and does not err; there you certainly find Christ and the Holy Spirirt; there you can take your stand and remain against sin, death, and the devil (LW 76:206; WA 17.2:30).
German text: So sprichstu weiter: Ja, die Kirche und Veter haben den Heiligen Geist gehabt. Der lesst sie ja nicht jrren. Darauff ist leicht zu antworten aus dem, so gesagt ist, die Kirche oder Concilia sind so heilig als sie wollen, so haben sie den heiligen Geist nicht mehr denn Maria, die Mutter Christi, welche ist ja auch ein Gelied, ja, zu der zeit das furnemeste stück der Kirchen gewest. Und wiewol sie durch den heiligen Geist geheiliget ist, noch lesset er sie zu weilen auch jrren, auch in den hohen sachen des Glaubens. Darumb folget nicht, das die Heiligen, so den Geist haben, darumb nicht jrren können und alles muste recht sein, was sie sagen. Es bleibet noch viel schwacheit und unwissenheit auch in den höhesten Leuten, das man nicht nach personlicher Heiligkeit mus urteilen von der Lere und des Glaubens sachen, was aus dem heiligen Geist sey. Denn das kan alles feilen. Sondern hieher mustu komen, da Gottes wort ist, das ist gewis und feilet nicht, da findestu Christum und den heiligen Geist gewislich Und kanst darauff bestehen und bleiben wider Sunde, Tod und Teuffel (WA 17.2:30).
I first mentioned these quotes as far back as 2006. If these quotes authentically stand, Luther may have held to Mary's immaculate purification, but he did not hold that Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life after the birth of Jesus. This can be further substantiated from Luther's 1535 comments on Galatians 5:19. He presents a fascinating overview on the depths of sin in relation to those popularly considered to be saints. Galatians 5:19 states, "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality..." First, Luther includes quotes showing sin universally infected everyone, even those considered to be saints. Second, Luther includes Mary among the saints.
There was never yet (as I have said already) any of the saints whom the flesh hath not often in his lifetime provoked to impatiency, anger, etc. Paul therefore speaking here of the saints, saith that the flesh lusteth in them against the Spirit, etc. (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1 p.331; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:100).
Latin text: Quia supra dixi, nullum fuisse unquam Sanctum, quem non saepius in vita solicitaverit Caro ad impacientiam, iram etc. Hinc Paulus de Sanctis hic loquens dicit, Carnem in ipsis concupiscere adversus Spiritum etc. (WA 40.2:100).
Notwithstanding sometimes it happeneth that the saints also do fall and perform the desires of the flesh: as David fell horribly into adultery. Also he was the cause of the slaughter of many men, when he caused Uriah to be slain in the forefront of the battle: and thereby also he gave occasion to the enemies to glory and triumph over the people of God, to worship their idol, and to blaspheme the God of Israel. Peter also fell most grievously and horribly when he denied Christ. But although these sins were great and heinous, yet were they not committed upon any contempt of God or of a willful and obstinate mind, but through infirmity and weakness. Again, when they were admonished, they did not obstinately continue in their sins, but repented. Such he willeth afterwards in the sixth chapter to be received, instructed, and restored, saying: ‘If a man be fallen by occasion’ etc. To those therefore which sin and fall through infirmity, pardon is not denied, so that they rise again and continue not in their sin: for of all things continuance in sin is the worst. But if they repent not, but still obstinately continue in their wickedness and perform the desires of the flesh, it is a certain token that there is deceit in their spirit (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p. 331-332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).
Latin text: Imo quandoque etiam accidit, ut Sancti labantur et desideria ipsius carnis perficiant. Sicut David grandi et horribili lapsu cecidit in adulterium, Item autor fuit caedis multorum, dum volebat Uriam in acie perire. Qua re hostibus etiam occasionem dedit gloriandi contra populum Dei, adorandi idolum suum et blasphemandi Deum Israel. Lapsus est horribiliter et Petrus, cum negaret Christum. Sed quamlibet illa peccata grandia sint, tamen non data opera, sed ex infirmitate commissa sunt. Deinde admoniti non perseveraverunt obstinati in peccatis, sed resipuerunt etc. Tales infra Cap. 6. iubet recipi, instrui et instaurari, dicens: 'Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo' etc. Ideo qui ex infirmitate peccant, etiam saepius, illis non denegatur venia, modo rursum resurgant et in peccatis non perseverent, perseverantia autem pessima est etc. Si autem non resipiscunt, sed porro obstinati perficiunt desideria carnis, certissimum signum est, quod dolus sit in Spiritu ipsorum (WA 40.2:101).
No man therefore shall be without [lusts and] desires so long as he liveth in the flesh, and therefore no man shall be free from temptations (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332; LW 27:80; WA 40.2:101).
Latin text: Desideriis igitur nemo carebit, quousque in carne vivit, ideoque nemo liber erit a tentationibus (WA 40.2:101).
Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam (WA 40.2:101-102).
WHO BE RIGHTLY CALLED SAINTS, AND BE SO INDEED
This place (as I have also forewarned you by the way) containeth in it a singular consolation: for it teacheth us that the saints live not without concupiscence and temptations of the flesh, nor yet without sins. It warneth us therefore to take heed that we do not as some did, of whom Gerson writeth, which labored to attain [to such perfection], that they might be without all feeling of temptations or sins: that is to say, very stocks and stones. The like imagination the monks and schoolmen had of their saints, as though they had been very senseless blocks and without all affections. Assuredly Mary felt great grief and sorrow of heart when she missed her son (Luke 2). David in the Psalms complaineth that he is almost swallowed up with excessive sorrow for the greatness of his temptations and sins. Paul also complaineth that he hath battles without, and terrors within (2 Corinthians 7:5), and that in his flesh he serveth the law of sin. He saith that he is careful for all the churches (Corinthians 11:28), and that God showed great mercy towards him, in that he delivered Epaphroditus being at the point of death, to life again, lest he should have had sorrow upon sorrow (Philippians 2:27). Therefore the saints of the Papists are like to the Stoics, who imagined such wise men, as in the world were never yet to be found. And by this foolish and wicked persuasion, which proceedeth from the ignorance of this doctrine of Paul, the schoolmen brought both themselves and others without number into [horrible]desperation (Select Works of Martin Luther vol. 1, p.332-333; LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102-103).
Latin text: Et hic locus, ut etiam supra obiter monui, gravissimam consolationem nobis affert, quia admonet, quod sine concupiscentia et tentationibus carnis, imo etiam sine peccatis vivere non possimus. Admonet igitur nos, ne faciamus, ut quidam, de quibus Gerson scribit, qui eo nitebantur, ut prorsus nihil tentationum et peccatorum sentirent, hoc est, ut plane saxa essent. Talem imaginationem habuerunt Sophistae et Monachi de Sanctis, quasi fuerint meri stipites et trunci et plane caruerint omnibus affectibus. Certe Maria sensit maximum dolorem animi amisso filio, Luc. 2. Conqueritur David passim in Psalmis, se immodica tristicia propter magnitudinem tentationum et peccatorum suorum concepta pene absorberi. Conqueritur et Paulus se 'foris pugnas, intus pavores' sentire, Se 'carne servire legi peccati', Ait se 'solicitum esse pro omnibus Ecclesiis', Et 'Deum misertum esse sui, quod Epaphroditum vicinum morti restituerit vitae, ne dolorem super dolorem haberet'. Itaque Sophistarum Sancti similes sunt Sapientibus Stoicorum qui tales finxerunt sapientes, qualis nullus unquam fuit in rerum natura. Et hac stulta et impia persuasione, quae nata est ex inscitia huius Paulinae doctrinae, adegerunt Sophistae seipsos et alios infinitos ad desperationem. (WA 40.2:102-103).
Alternate Latin text: Desideriis nemo et tentationibus caret, quia habemus carnem, unus sic, alter sic; secundum differentias, complexionem et spiritum quidam alias tentationes habet: tristitiam, desperationem, diffidentiam. sed hec scientia: non ambulare post ea; qui perfecit desideria, sciat se non Christianum. ideo consolatio doctrinae, quod impossibile nos non habere peccatum.
Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos homines, sed eum, qui abstineret a cibo, potu, tabula, in deserto. Is sanctus vir et mulier, qui baptisatus credit et abstinet propter Christum ab vitiis etc. Si curat domum, obsequitur viro, Ista salvatur per etc. Sic multae Sanctae mulieres, viri in hac carne, quia vivunt serio secundum Euangelium; quod interim offenditur a viro, sind desideria, commotiones; sed non ideo volunt nocere, impedire proximum; si etiam craus [graus] fert [fert] ein fluch, in remissionem peccatorum gehört et est lapsus. Et tales müssen wir heilige lassen, quia deus reputat salvos per remissionem peccatorum( WA 40.2:101-103).
These English excerpts were taken from the Select Works of Martin Luther vol.1, p. 331-333. This was a popular English translation released in the nineteenth century by Henry Cole. Another English translation of this last quote can be found in LW 27:81,
As I have already indicated briefly, this passage provides us with the greatest possible comfort when it tells us that it is impossible to live without any desires and temptations of the flesh, in fact, without sin. It admonishes us not to act like the men of whom Gerson writes, who labored to rid themselves of any awareness of temptation or sin, in other words, to become nothing but stones. The sophists and monks had the notion about the saints that they were merely logs and blocks, utterly lacking in any feeling. Surely Mary felt a great sorrow in her mind when her Son was lost (Luke 2:48) (LW 27:81; WA 40.2:102).
Latin text: Quidam nitebantur eo, ut plane essent saxa, ut nihil sentirent de peccato, ut Gerson scribit. Sic Sanctos depinxerunt et Mariam, sed quando amisit filium. Nos fuimus tales Sancti, quod ad desperationem adegimus. Sed veri Sancti fuerunt peccatores, et utinam hoc solum, nisi etiam seducti; Gregorius, Bernardus fuerunt seducti et liberandi ab impiis doctrinis. Fingunt Sanctos ut stoici sapientes quam nunquam viderunt et experti. Ego etiam libenter vidissem Sanctos (WA 40.2:102).
Finally, in Christianity death is the result of sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23; Jam. 1:15; 1 Cor. 15:56). In Luther's writings on Genesis towards the end of his career, he discusses how the Scriptures do not record the death of many Biblical women, including Mary. He assumes Mary died:
Scripture has no comments even on the death of other matriarchs, just as it makes no mention of how many years Eve lived and of where she died. Of Rachel it is recorded that she died in childbirth (Gen. 35:16–19). All the other women it passes over and covers with silence, with the result that we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God (LW 4:189).
Latin text: Aliarum Patriarcharum ne mortem quidem annotavit scriptura: ut de Eva nihil meminit, quot annis vixerit, ubi mortua sit. Rachel scribitur laboribus partus extincta esse. Reliquas omnes praeterit et involvit silentio, adeo ut nec Mariae, matris Christi, mortem cognitam habeamus. Sola Sara hanc gloriam habet, quod annorum numerus certus, tempus mortis et locus sepulchri describitur. Magna igitur laus est, et certissimum argumentum fuisse eam preciosam in oculis Dei (WA 43:272).
Conclusion
To recap: there are two obfuscations Roman Catholics fall into when they describe Luther's view of Mary's sinlessness as immaculate purification. First, it's a term concocted by online pop-Roman Catholic apologists. It does not have a pedigree of scholarship behind it. When A.I. indiscriminately offers it as correct information, it is seemingly not yet capable to distinguish between scholarship and online pop-apologetics. Second, the Roman Catholic version of Luther's immaculate purification view fails to address the question of whether or not Luther thought Mary remained sinless for the rest of her life. There are explicit statements from him in which he does classify Mary as a sinner after the birth of Jesus. According to Luther, Mary eventually died. Death is the result of sin.
If my goal was to eliminate readers of Beggars All, entries like this are certainly a means to that end! In the polemics between Roman Catholics and Protestants, this topic is like a fly buzzing around other theological issues. It does not have a strong degree of importance. Why then bother? Luther's view of Mary is frequently utilized by Roman Catholics. They argue that Luther believed in distinctly Roman Catholic Mariology, and so should you! It's a weird game of using an authority that the majority of Protestants don't adhere to or recognize. When the topic though is probed and scrutinized, it demonstrates Roman Catholics often use propaganda rather than going deep into history.
Contrary to modern defenders of Roman Catholicism, their predecessors would not have utilized Luther's immaculate purification theory and would have agreed that he placed Mary among sinners.
Tommaso Bozio (1548–1610) was an Italian Roman Catholic priest and Counter-Reformation historian. In 1591, he wrote a two-volume book entitled De signis ecclesiae Dei libri XXIV (24 Books about the Signs of the Church of God). He cites both Martin Luther and John Calvin negatively. In volume one, he documents that Luther Calvin and their followers are "impious" (impius Caluinus, ac Lutherus) in rejecting Papal authority and that by extension, they reject the authority of the saints, Church Councils, and the Apostles because these are capable of error, therefore sinning. He states,
Secundus gradus. Immo sancti omnes errarunt. iidem locis iisdem. quin ait spurcissimus Lutherus, sanctos istos, nisi ante mortem reducti sint, neque sanctos fuisse, neque ad Ecclesiam pertinere.
The second degree [of the error of the Reformers]. Nay rather, all the saints have erred. They [say this] in the same places. Indeed, the most filthy Luther says that those saints, unless they were brought back before death, were neither saints nor belonged to the Church (Google A.I. English translation).
Note the phrase "Spurcissimus Lutherus" (the most filthy Luther). He then contemptuously refers to the following statement from Martin Luther (turpissimus Lutherus), and it has a direct mention of Mary... that Luther taught she fell into error and faltered in faith:
Quintus gradus. Ipsa virgo Maria lapsa est in errorem, quippe quae aliquando nutauerit in fide, aiunt turpissimus Lutherus cum suis, ille in postilla Euangelij Dominicae tertiae post Epiphaniam, & in Euangelio Centurionis. Centuriatores Centur.
The fifth stage. The Virgin Mary herself has fallen into error, in as much as she once faltered in faith, say the most filthy Luther with his [followers], in his postil on the Gospel for the third Sunday after Epiphany, and in the Gospel of the Centurion..(Google A.I. English translation).
The Luther texts this Roman Catholic priest is citing is the Gospel for the Third Sunday After Epiphany (Matthew 8:1-23. These verses in Matthew contain the account of the faith of the Centurion. Luther preached,
So it should be understood that at the time He preached He did not find such faith either in His mother or in the apostles, whether or not He previously of afterward found great faith in His mother and the apostles and in many others. It may well be that He gave His mother great faith at the time she conceived and bore Him, and afterward not or rarely so great, and sometimes let [her faith] diminish, as He did when she lost Him for three days (Luke 2:46]), as He does with all His saints. If He did not do that, the saints would certainly fall into arrogance and make themselves into idols- or we would make idols out of them, and look more at their worthiness and person than at God's grace (LW 76:255-256).
German text: Also soll auch hie verstanden werden, das er zur zeyt seyner predigt solchen glauben nicht funden habe widder ynn der mutter noch Aposteln, ob es gleich sey odder nicht sey, das er zuvor odder hernach grossern glauben funden habe ynn der mutter und Aposteln und viel andern. Denn es mag wol seyn, das er seyner mutter zur zeyt, da sie yhn empfieng und gebar, grossen glauben hab geben und dar nach nicht odder selten mehr so gros und zu weylen den selben hab lassen sincken. Wie er thet, da sie yhn drey tage verloren hatte, Luce 2., wie er auch mit allen seynen heyligen thut. Und wo ers nicht thet, sollten wol die heyligen fallen ynn vermessenheyt und sich zu abgotter machen, odder wyr worden abgotter dar aus machen und mehr auff yhre wirdickeyt und person sehen, denn auff Gottis gnaden (WA 17.2:77 ).
Quanta verò Lutheri est impudentia, quum hoc Euangelij loco MARIAE fidem obscurare conatur, adeoque in vniuersum definit, Christum prædicationis suæ tempore neque in Matre, neque in Apostolis tantam fidem, quantam in hoc vno Centurione, reperisse? Ac de MARIA quidem isthæc subiicit: Fieri potest, vt Matri suæ, dum se gestabat in vtero, & dum peperit, magnam fidem donarit, & postea nunquam, vel rarò tantam, imò etiam vt eius fidem identidem passus sit nutare: vti ei vsu venit, quando triduo ipsum amiserat. Verùm de hoc posteriore nos alibi viderimus, vt omnes intelligant, MARIAM cum amissum triduò filium quæreret, haudquaquam in fide vacillasse. Quod ad reliqua pertinet, omnium piorum consensus in eo conspirat, certóque confirmat, quòd MARIA non solùm gestans vterum, & partus sui tempore, vti concedit Lutherus, sed etiam post partum, ac in omni vita fidem integram perfectámque seruarit, in eáque fide tantò magis profecerit, quantò pluribus & maioribus confirmandæ fidei argumentis abundaret.
How shameless is Luther, when in this place of the Gospel he tries to obscure the faith of Mary, and thus concludes in general that Christ, in the time of his preaching, found neither in his Mother nor in the Apostles so much faith as in this one Centurion? And concerning Mary he subjoins these words: It is possible that he granted his Mother great faith while she was carrying him in her womb and while she was giving birth, and afterward never, or only rarely, so much faith, and indeed that he allowed her faith to waver from time to time, as happened when she had lost him for three days. But we will examine this latter point elsewhere, so that all may understand that Mary, when she was searching for her son who had been lost for three days, did not at all waver in her faith. As for the rest, the consensus of all the pious agrees on this, and confirms for certain that Mary, not only while carrying the womb and at the time of her childbirth, as Luther concedes, but also after the birth, and throughout her entire life, preserved a complete and perfect faith, and in that faith progressed all the more, as she abounded in more and greater arguments for the confirmation of her faith (DeepL English translation).
In 1854 the Roman Catholic Church released its dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Ineffabilis Deus. This dogmatic pronouncement states,
“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.”
Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, 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; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
There have been defenders of Rome claiming Luther's view of the Immaculate Conception was substantially the same as the 1854 dogmatic pronouncement. These Roman Catholics are in error as I demonstrated back in 2003.
True, in Roman Catholic theology, this 1854 declaration of condemnation to those saying something different does not work backward. In a Roman Catholic system, Luther was free to hold the position he did on Mary and her relation to sin. He lived a long time before 1854! This was even Standard Operating Procedure in Luther's lifetime. He stated in 1518:
Second, even if the pope along with a large part of the church should feel thus and so, and even if it were true that he does not err, it is still not a sin, nor is it heresy, to take the opposite position, especially in something which is not necessary for salvation, until the one position has been rejected by a general council and the other approved. But, lest I become too involved, let me state that my position is proved in this one instance, namely, that the Roman church along with the general council at Basel and almost with the whole church feels that the Holy Virgin was conceived without sin. Yet those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics, since their opinion has not been disproved (LW 31:172-173; WA 1:583).
Latin text: Secondo. Etiam si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret nec etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum aut haeresis, contrarium sentire, presertim in re non necessaria ad salutem, donec fuerit per Concilium universale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum. Quod, ne multis agam, illo unico probatur, quod Ecclesia Romana etiam cum Concilio universali Basiliensi ac tota ferme Ecclesia sentit, B. Virginem sine peccato conceptam Et tamen, quia altera pars non est reprobata, non sunt haeretici qui con trarium sapiunt (WA 1:583).
It's curious that any contemporary defender of Rome would positively put forth Martin Luther's view of immaculate purification in light of Ineffabilis Deus. It can certainly be treated as an oddity of their history from a Roman Catholic perspective. But, for a contemporary Roman Catholic layman to positively utilize Luthers view of Mary here seems to smack in the face of Ineffabilis Deus. Should Roman Catholics have the freedom to positively use Luther's immaculate purification view as somehow a defense of Roman Catholicism? To do so would be, as Ineffabilis Deus states, daring to think otherwise than what has been infallibly defined.
Addendum #3 Magisterium A.I.
I hesitate to mention this. Rome's defenders now have their own A.I.: Magisterium. Supposedly, it only utilizes official Roman Catholic documents and generally accepted sources like the old Catholic Encyclopedia. You know how A.I. is supposed to eliminate human jobs? Well.... look out professional Roman Catholic apologists!
I asked Magisterium A.I. the following: Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary never sinned? It replied:
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary never sinned. This doctrine encompasses two key aspects affirmed in magisterial teaching: her preservation from original sin through the Immaculate Conception—a defined dogma—and her lifelong freedom from all personal sin (both mortal and venial) by a singular grace from God.
-snip-
-snip-
Lifelong Freedom from Personal Sin
Beyond original sin, the Church teaches that Mary remained free from every personal sin throughout her life.
-snip-
Development of Doctrine: While the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, Mary's full sinlessness was taught earlier by the ordinary Magisterium and liturgy, with Trent explicitly exempting her.
-snip-
In summary, Catholic doctrine holds Mary as the sole exception among humans (after Christ) to be entirely sinless, redeemed preemptively and preserved perfectly—a flawless model of the Church's hope for holiness.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment