Roman Catholic Obfuscation: Martin Luther Believed in Mary's "Immaculate Purification"

A Roman Catholic explained to me recently that Martin Luther's view of Mary's Immaculate Conception was better explained as an immaculate purification. This person provided this term as if it was an accepted scholarly usage and Luther was somehow still on the Roman Catholic side on Mary's sinlessness.

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. 

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.   

Addendum #1 Luther said "The Virgin Mary has fallen into error"

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 ).

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:

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).

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,

 “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-

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.

Spurious Martin Luther Quote: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin..."

 

This image above was pulled off Facebook. In the first quote, Luther supposedly said,  

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." -Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

If you're thinking, "that really doesn't sound like Luther," then kudos to you for your discernment skills! This was one of the first weird Roman Catholic Martin Luther quotes I investigated. It just didn't sound right. Eventually I compiled this entry documenting my journey with this quote. Since the quote still circulates online, here's what you need to know:

1. Where does the quote come from? The English version of this quote comes from an English translation of Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther, IV. Whichever Roman Catholic apologist originally cut-and-pasted it from the book to the Internet neglected to mention Grisar also states in the same context, 

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 the later editions which appeared during Luther's lifetime they disappear. 

and also: 

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.

2. Who deleted this quote? Martin Luther did or an editor he authorized.

3. Why did Martin Luther delete this quote? The sermon collection it appeared in was put together by Stephen Roth. Roth actually added in material not from Luther. Luther was highly displeased with what Roth put together and revised the material, releasing an updated version of this sermon collection. 

4. Did Martin Luther really write this quote? He probably did not. The editors of Luther's Works point out: 

Originally, Luther may have held something similar to the Thomist position, put forward in the Festival Postil (1527), sermon on the conception of Mary, WA 17/2:287-288, though the material in question seems to be solely the responsibility of its editor, Stephan Roth (d.1546), and was removed from the 1528 and subsequent editions: see StL 11:959-961; Baseley 1:50-51. In his later preaching, Luther affirmed that Mary had been both conceived and born in sin and connected her purification from sin with the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ's conception... (LW 58:434-435, fn. 10).

I've not found anything in Luther's written corpus at all similar to this 1527 statement. It's like a Luther hapax legomenon!

Conclusion
It amazes me that this quote still circulates as Roman Catholic propaganda on the Internet. We've been given this incredible ability to have immediate information, yet, Roman Catholic propagandists don't do the basic work of a looking up a quote before splattering it all over the Internet. These are the same people that claim reading the church fathers will make one become Roman Catholic! 

Roman Catholics Botch Another Luther Quote: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins"

 Here's a Mariological Martin Luther quote utilized in a Facebook reel: 

In this Facebook Reel, the speaker states, 

"Even Martin Luther... the father of the Protestant Reformation, he believed in the Immaculate Conception... here's a quote from him, 'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and born the Lord Jesus'... Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception. I did not know that as a Protestant growing up, when I found that out it rocked my world."

This Luther quote being used is a fine example of how poorly some of Rome's defenders are when it comes to going deep into history. Beggars All debunked this quote back in 2010.  Even if this defender of Rome didn't see this old entry, he could have easily located the context to see if the quote is being taken out of context. It is! Luther isn't affirming Mary's Immaculate Conception, at all. 

Documentation

The Facebook Reel speaker did not document the quote. Back when I explored this quote in 2010, it was popular for Rome's defenders to claim the quote was from a 1544 sermon. This year is important to them because it would mean Luther affirmed the Immaculate Conception shortly before he died (1546). However, the sermon actually dates back to the early 1530's (1532,1533, or possibly 1534). Even in the early 1530's though, Luther did not adhere to Mary's Immaculate Conception. Rome's defenders get the date wrong because the sermon the quote comes from was from a 1544 edition of Luther's House Postil (WA 52). The quote can be found in WA 52:39.

While not yet available in the English edition of Luther's Works, there are a few different English translations of the sermon available. The sermon is entitled, "First Sermon for Christmas" or "Holy Christmas Day." I've chosen to utilize this accessible online version. 

Context

In the papacy they used to tell a story: The devil once came to church to mass, and when in the confession of the Christian faith, which they called the Patrem, they sang the words: "Et homo factum est"— the Son of God was made man—and the people did not kneel down but stood, he struck one on the mouth, rebuked him and said: You ruffian, are you not ashamed that you stand here like a stock, and do not fall down for joy? If the Son of God had become our brother, like yours, we would not know what to do for joy.

I do not think that this is true; for the devil is too decided in his enmity to us and the Lord Jesus; but this is true, that he who conceived this story had the right spirit, and well understood how great an honor was conferred upon us in that the Son of God became man; not like Eve nor Adam, who was made of the earth; but He is still more nearly related to us, since He was born of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, like other men, except that the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit. In other respects He is like unto us, and a natural Son of a woman.

Adam and Eve were not born, but created. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and the woman of his rib. How much nearer is Christ to us than Eve to her husband Adam, since He is truly our flesh and blood. Such honor we should highly esteem and well take to heart, that the Son of God became flesh, and that there is no difference at all between His and our flesh, only that His flesh is without sin. For He was so conceived of the Holy Ghost, and God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus.  Aside from this, in all other respects, He was like other men; He ate, drank, was hungry, thirsty, cold like other men. Such and similar natural infirmities, which have descended upon us by reason of sin, He, who was without sin, bore and had like unto us, as St. Paul says: "He was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man." [source]

Alternate English translation:

You see, he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and God so filled the flesh, body, and soul of the Virgin Mary with the Holy Spirit in such a way, that no sin was present in her conception and carrying of the Lord Jesus (Klug (ed.), The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Baker books, 2000), 135.

Original text: Im Papstthumb hat man ein Histori gesagt, Es sey der Teuffel ein mal in ein kirch zur Messe kommen, unnd da man im Patrem die wort gesungen hab: Et homo factus est. Er ist mensch worden, und die leüt gestanden, und nicht haben nider kniet, hab er einen auff das maul geschlagen unnd in gescholten und gesagt: Du grober schelm, schemest du dich nicht, das du so stehest wie ein stock und nicht für freuden niderfellest? Wenn Gottes Son unser brüder worden wer wie der ewr, so westen wir nicht, wo wir für freuden bleiben solten. Es mag war sein oder, so es gedicht ist, so ists gedicht von eim menschen, der ein hohen geist gehabt und die grosse ehr wol verstanden hat, die uns in dem ist widerfaren, das Gottes Son ist mensch worden, Nicht wie Eva noch wie Adam, der auß erden ist gemacht worden, Sonder ist uns noch neher gefreundet², sintemal er auß dem fleisch unnd blüt der Junckfraw Maria geborn ist wie andere menschen, on das sie, die Junckfraw, allein³ gewest, und er one sünd vom heiligen Geyst empfangen ist, sonst heyst er ein rechter, natürlicher weibes son.

Adam und Eva sind nicht geboren, sondern geschaffen, Denn Adam hat Gott auß der erden gemacht und das weib auß seiner rippen. Wie vil aber ist Christus uns neher, denn die Eva ihrem Man Adam, sintemal er unser fleisch und blut ist? Solche ehr solten wir hoch achten und wol in unsere herzen bilden, das der Son Gottes ist fleisch worden, und gar kein unterschid zwischen seinem und unserm fleisch ist, denn das sein fleisch one sünd ist. Denn er ist auß dem heyligen geist empfangen, und Gott hat die seel und den leyb der Jundkfrawen Marie vol heyliges Geystes gegossen, das sie on alle sünd gewesen ist, da sie den Herrn Jesum empfangen und getragen hat. Ausser desselben ist es alles natürlich an jhm gewest wie an andern menschen, Das er geessen, truncken, jn gehungert, gedurst, gefroren hat wie andern menschen. Solche und dergleichen natürliche gebrechen hat er gehabt wie wir, wie Paulus sagt, er sey erfunden in allem ein mensch wie wir, der geessen, truncken, frölich unnd trawrig gewest ist (WA 52:39).

Conclusion
In context, is Luther stating he believed Mary was conceived without sin... or is the subject the conception of Christ and Mary's purification at that event? The later! Read this quote in context and ask yourself if it's stating Luther believed Mary was conceived without sin, or if the subject is the conception of Christ and Mary's purification at that event. Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood.

I have no idea who the speaker in this Facebook Reel is. If anyone knows who he is, please let me know...  I would love to have the pleasure of un-rocking his world by showing him the quote in context.

Revised March 2026

Catholic Answers on Luther's View of the Immaculate Conception

Catholic Answers posted an article defending their belief that Mary was entirely without sin, particularly when detractors question the impregnation of a teenage girl. While Martin Luther's view of the immaculate conception was only a passing comment, it represents a change in typical Roman Catholic cyber-treatments of the Reformer's Mariology. Apologist Trent Horn writes,  

Some Protestants might say that at best, this proves only that Mary was free from sin at the Annunciation, not necessarily since her conception. Martin Luther, for example, moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception, but even in 1540, he said with regard to the Annunciation, “The flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained.” In response, I would just say that it seems arbitrary to say God chose this moment to give Mary grace rather than at any other moment and that the angel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace,” signifies that her being full of grace was a part of her identity even before the announcement about the Incarnation.

Let's take a look at the citation used and conclusion reached by Mr. Horn of Catholic Answers.

Documentation
Other than the date 1540, no meaningful documentation is provided. The quote is from an English rendering of Luther's Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ (February 27, 1540). The Latin text can be found in WA 39.2:107.

This writing has been available online for many years via Project Wittenberg. This disputation has been included in LW 73, with the quote found at LW 73:267-268 (utilized below). The English translation in LW 73 was done by the same person who did the web version on Project Wittenberg.  

Context

Argument 10

Every man is corrupted by original sin and has concupiscence. Christ had neither concupiscence nor original sin. Therefore he is not a man.

Response: I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person, as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in [his] conception the flesh and blood of Mary were entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile found in his mouth" [Isa. 53:9]; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted.

Conclusion

Mr. Horn rightly says that Luther "moved away from belief in the Immaculate Conception." I would qualify this though by saying: Luther didn't just "move away" from it, he ceased believing it. It appears earlier in his life he accepted it, later in his life he did not.

If the sands of cyber time were reversed, this same quote, and others, were used by some of Rome's defenders to prove Luther held a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception of Mary!  It would be interesting to know what sources Mr. Horn used on Luther's view of the immaculate conception. Back in the early 2000's, it was common to find Roman Catholic webpages using Luther's statements about Mary as an apologetic tool against Protestants. I do not find the same amount of these webpages today. It seems to me the newer generation of Rome's defenders have learned from the errors of the older generation... of perhaps... they are better at using Google! 

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #2

Hello, this is Algo.

In my previous post I began sharing my recent visit to the Catholic Answers Forum.

I will now continue the discussion:

Dec 3, '11, 8:20 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 And who's words am I twisting? First, I do not trust your quotes, your sources, or (particularly) your contexts. Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down. Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying? Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them. Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right? You are clearly not here to learn. __________________ Notice how po18guy expresses his mistrust of my quotes, my sources and (particularly) my context. This is truly ironic in light of the fact that in this same thread he seems to affirm an alleged quote by Augustine:

Dec 5, '11, 2:47 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Odell You like to quote Augustine "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" Augustine (Sermon 131:10) Ouch! Touche. __________________ Now anyone that has watched the White v. Stravinskas Debate on Purgatory will recall this famous exchange: "Roma Locuta Est" See also:

Augustine’s Sermon 131

I continue with my response to po18guy:

"First, I do not trust your quotes or your sources. " Well, at least I posted my sources unlike some folks that post at CAF. "Second, not one of your sources was laying doctrine down." That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was). "Since all were members of the unified Catholic Church, do you even realize what you are saying?" I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. "Either they were stupid to remain in the Church, or the Church was stupid to keep them" No comment. "Instead of tilting at windmills, why not, for once in your life, consider that the Church whose council and Pope authorized every single word in your bible, just might be right?" Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent. "You are clearly not here to learn." Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do.

continued: Augustine (354-430 AD): Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin apart from the flesh of the one who came without sin in the likeness of sinful flesh. He says that the one who cried out, I was conceived in iniquities (Ps 51:7), “was born from a sinful origin and under the law of sin. Saint Ambrose says that “the little ones who have been baptized are changed from their wickedness back to the original state of their nature.” He says that “by reason of his immaculate birth the Holy Lord Jesus alone of those born of a woman experienced no infection from earthly corruption. He says that we all die in Adam, because through one man sin entered the world (Rom 5:12) and his sin is the death of all. He says that in his wound “the whole human race would have died, if that Samaritan had not come down and healed his grave wounds.” He says that Adam existed and all existed in him, that Adam perished and all perished in him. He says that we are stained with infection before we were born and that a human being is not conceived free of iniquity, because, as he says, we are “conceived in the sin of our parents and we are born in their transgressions. Birth itself has its own infections, and nature itself does not have only one infection.” He says that the devil is a money lender to whom sinful Eve “put the whole human race in debt with succeeding generations subject to usury.” He says that Eve was deceived by the devil “in order to trip up her husband and place their descendants in debt.” He says that Adam was so wounded by the bite of the serpent “that we all limp because of that wound.” He says that through the union of the bodies of the man and the woman no one is immune from transgression, but that “the one who is immune from transgression,” that is, Christ the Lord, “is also immune from that manner of conception.” See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 290-291. Augustine (354-430 AD): Say to this man [i.e., Ambrose] if you dare, that he makes the devil the creator of human beings who are born from the union of both sexes. He, after all, exempted Christ alone from the bonds of the guilty race, because he was born of a virgin. All the others coming after Adam are born under the debt of sin, the sin which the devil, of course, planted in them. Refute this man for condemning marriage, for he says that only the son of the virgin was born without sin. Charge this man with denying the attainment of virtue, since he says that vices are implanted in the human race at the very beginning of conception. See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book II:2, 4, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 306. Augustine (354-430 AD): Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: “It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth ; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin. This same citation of Ambrose is likewise found in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Ssaint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91; and again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), pp. 272 and 290. Augustine (354-430 AD) in answer to the charge of Julian that he had handed over Mary herself by the condition of her being born, said: We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her birth, but we do not do this precisely because that condition is removed by the grace of rebirth. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book 4:122, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 487. Huh? Did Augustine just say that Mary had a Rebirth? What did she need that for? continued:

Augustine (354-430 AD): See, here is Ambrose; see what he says about what you are attacking. He says, “He could not alone be righteous, since the whole human race went astray, if it were not that, because he was born of a virgin, he was not held by the law of the guilty race.” Listen further; listen and stop the impudent tongue of your effrontery by shedding tears: “For intercourse with a man did not open the gates of the Virgin’s womb; rather, the Holy Spirit poured spotless seed into that inviolable womb. For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth; rather, he shrugged it off by his celestial majesty.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 91. See also this approval of Ambrose cited again later in the same work, 4:121, p. 485; as well as in His Answer to Julian, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Answer to the Pelagians III, Answer to Julian, Book I:4, 11, 7, 32, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 272 and 290. Augustine (354-430): In a similar way we can speak of our Lord’s “sin,” meaning what sin brought about, because he assumed his flesh from that very stock that by sin had deserved death. To put it briefly: Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of sin, and the Lord’s flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins. Works of Saint Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Expositions of the Psalms 33-50, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), Exposition 2 of Psalm 34 (35), p. 62. Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335. Latin text: Sic ergo peccatum Domini, quod factum est de peccato, quia inde carnem assumpsit, de massa ipsa quae mortem meruerat ex peccato. Etenim ut celerius dicam, Maria [Note: [Col. 0335] Ita Lov. et maxima pars Mss. At Er., Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum Adae, Adam mortuus est propter peccatum, etc. Duo Mss. Vatic. et Colb., Maria ex Adam, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, etc. Flor., denique, Maria ex Adam primo, Adam secundus ortus ex Maria propter delenda peccata.] ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata. In Psalmum XXXIV, Sermo II, §3, PL 36:335. Augustine (354-430): In the advice and admonition he gives that I rather apply my effort to stamping out this deadly heresy from the Churches, he refers to that same Pelagian heresy which I urge you, my brother, with all my strength, to avoid with the utmost care, whenever you either think or argue about the origin of souls, so that the belief may not steal upon you that any soul at all, save that of the unique Mediator, was free from inheritance of Adam, that original sin under which we are bound when we are begotten but from which we are freed by our second birth. FC, Vol. 30, Saint Augustine Letters 165-203, Letter 202A, To Optatus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1955), p. 420. Latin text: Quod vero admonet et hortatur, ut magis demus operam, ut perniciosissima haeresis de Ecclesiis auferatur; illam ipsam Pelagianam haeresim dicit, quam cautissime ut devites, quantum possum, frater, admoneo, cum de animarum origine sive cogitas, sive jam disputas; ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum. Epistola CCII, Caput VIII, §20, PL 33:937-38. Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532): For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, was the flesh of sin which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin... For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181. Latin Text: Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. Epistola XVII, Cap. VI, §13, PL 65:458. John of Damascus (652-750): But God made him by nature sinless, and endowed him with free will. By sinless, I mean not that sin could find no place in him (for that is the case with Deity alone), but that sin is the result of the free volition he enjoys rather than an integral part of his nature165 ; that is to say, he has the power to continue and go forward in the path of goodness, by co-operating with the divine grace, and likewise to turn from good and take to wickedness, for God has conceded this by conferring freedom of will upon him. NPNF2: Vol. IX, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 12. Then it gets a bit emotional and rather odd:

Dec 3, '11, 10:28 pm

pablope Regular Member Join Date: September 29, 2010 Posts: 2,382 Religion: catholic

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? [quote=Algo1;8650101] Quote: Oh, so Tertullian is now blessed. I was almost certain that you were going to call him a heritic and throw him under the bus. And who's words am I twisting? And who are you that we are supposed to believe you? So is quoting the Church fathers...without taking the proper context and determining what they are really are writing about is supposed to prove something? And what does denigrating the very mother of God is supposed to accomplish? The church has always believed that Mary was sinless in her earthly life....so what is your problem with it? Do you think saying these things agains Mary is endearing you to her Son? Don't you think Jesus does not see what you are doing here? Don't you think attacking Mary is also not hurting her Son? Quote: Once again I will demonstrate that numerous Early Church Writers and Early Church Fathers claimed that "God alone is without sin." continued: The Bible actually says there is a couple who were also sinless...righteous in the eyes of God.....from Luke 1... 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. So, if both Zechariah and Elizabeth could both be righteous and blameless....here you have an example who were blameless....don't you think Mary could also be righteous and blameless...with the grace she was tasked to carry...the saviour of the world?

And one more from my friend po18guy:

Dec 3, '11, 11:27 pm

po18guy Forum Master Prayer Warrior Radio Club Member Join Date: April 18, 2007 Posts: 13,717 Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.

Re: Imaculate conception of Mary or Jesus needing to be saved/redeemed; which is correct? Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] That's because the idea of Mary's sinlessness was not a doctrine at the time of these writers. And in fact the notion of Mary's Immaculate Conception as defined by Ineffabilis Deus was nowhere taught in the early church (though Pope Pius IX claimed it was). First of all, dogma is declared in response to heresy. When a sudden challenge to Mary's state appeared on earth, the Church answered it. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] I agree, they were members of unified (c)atholic church, not the Roman Catholic Church. Its headquarters were in Rome the minute that the Apostle Peter arrived there. That was sealed when Peter was martyred in 67. You clearly believe in division over unity. It's your choice, like believing or not. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] Actually I have considered that and concluded that every word in my Bible was authorized by HE that breathed out every word. Long before their was a 'single' monarchial bishop in Rome or an official canon was defined at Trent. And, where did the Sacred Table of Contents come from? Study a little more history. Quote: Originally Posted by Algo1 [b] Actually I have learned a lot. Many of the questions and challenges here have compelled me to study more vigorously than I normally do. All you have learned is to entrench yourself in a belief system that is systematically falling apart day by day. I do not believe that, for one minute, the Church that you have been taught to hate was open to your serious inquiry. That is a tragedy. __________________ And then I got this:

Forum Message

Your account has been locked for the following reason: Contempt for Catholicism and proselytizing This change will be lifted: Never

My private interpretation of this message is:

"How Dare You Quote Our Fathers"

There are several more interesting quotes in that thread. In particular several from a poster named Cat Herder.

I hope to continue this series drawing from other threads of different topics that I attempted to interact with over the past year.