Qui Locutus

Blessed Christ Mass is Nearly Here!

Well, today is Christmas Eve, the eve of the Christ Mass! I plan to be at midnight Mass this evening to bring in the Christmas season (which has not yet begun folks!) with the First Mass of Christmas.

I wish for all who are of goodwill to have peace and happiness as Advent 2010 draws to a close and Christmas begins tonight - and then a Merry and Blessed Christmas!

We go from singing, "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" to "Hark the Herald, Angels Sing, GLORY to the newborn King!"

Yours in JMJ,
Scott<<<

TF Chimes in on the Luther and the IC Discussion

An apologist who goes by the pseudonym of "TurretinFan" (TF) responded to my recent response to James Swan on Luther and the Immaculate Conception. I now respond to him...

6) I was aware of Mr. Windsor's novel interpretation of Ineffabilis Deus, and I had asked him previously to tell me where he got his ideas from - whether from some official source or from his own creativity. He didn't respond then (that I'm aware of), and I don't suppose he'll respond now, although he has the opportunity to respond in the comment box.

I'll begin with #6 - My explanation is not new. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam (aka Original Sin) — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death." The article actually dates back to 1910 - before even my parents were born.

I trust this will silence the false allegation that this was somehow my "novel interpretation." I have also posted this part of my response to TF's blog. Now, on to the rest...

1) Mr. Windsor's allegation of fallacy of etymology is unsupported. In fact, the argument that Mr. Windsor offers doesn't begin to address what a supporting argument for such an assertion would need to address. Mr. Windsor doesn't, for example, identify a word that has had its meaning determined etymologically and then explain what the correct meaning should be.

It is not up to me to point out what the supporting argument should be when I pointed out the use of the etymological fallacy. TF ignores the fact that I challenged the very use of Greek here - Luther didn't write in Greek! He understood it, he could translate from it, but he wrote in German and Latin. The introduction of Greek here itself is a fallacy - THEN to attempt some sort of etymon goose chase - as if that would support anything in the current discussion of the Immaculate Conception! That being said, I followed that chase a bit... I looked up the word and found it means "from the womb" and "brother." Keeping in mind, we're still talking about the displaced Greek here, when Luther is referring to "the Virgin's conception" is he talking about her giving birth a "brother?" At this point, even if we accept the off-topic comment and false assertion (also contrary to Luther's position, which would be a bit more on-topic from the original post in this series) that Jesus had brothers and sisters from that same womb - at THIS conception He would have been an ONLY CHILD! Adelphos just doesn't work here in the sense of a "brother."

For more on the etymological fallacy, here's a starting point.

2) Mr. Windsor's allegation about what an "ACCURATE" (his caps) translation would be just reflect his apparently weak knowledge of the English language. The expression, in English, "the virgin's conception" can (standing by itself) refer to one of two things: (1) the action of the virgin (a virgin shall conceive) or (2) the action on the virgin (Mary's mother's conception of Mary). It's perfectly accurate to say "the virgin's conception" with respect to either of those two meanings.

Notice that basically right out of the chute, TF lays into ad hominem - and has abandoned his Greek argument. He has also ignored the fact that in my discussions with Swan I have stated there are places where one who rejects the IC "MAY" impose their paradigm upon Luther here and interpret him to be speaking of Jesus' conception as opposed to Mary's conception. Again, my use of "ACCURATE" refers to the misplaced insertion of Greek into this discussion as if to confuse the reader.

3) Mr. Windsor's claim "if Swan and TF are correct here, then every translator of this passage to English has it wrong" is based on his apparently inadequate grasp of English, as explained above. It is also somewhat strange, because it is not like there are hundreds or even dozens of English translators of this particular passage of Luther's works. Mr. Windsor doesn't even identify two such translators (at least not anywhere near this discussion), though perhaps there are two.

I find it a bit ironic that TF introduces a Greek word here without citing a single Greek original of Luther's work here and then tries to pawn off on me the responsibility of providing sources! That being said, I'm not going to go digging for English translations of the passage to prove an unrelated tangent here. If TF agrees there are at least two translators, then amend my word "every" to be "both" - it matters not to me.

4) The comment about Jesus ἀδελφοὶ also whizzes over Mr. Windsor's head. There was a primary point and a secondary point to the comment. The primary point was that an expression like "Mary's conception" (standing alone) could refer to her conception of any of the children she brought forth. Of course, in this instance it refers to Jesus' conception, not James' or any of the Lord's other ἀδελφοὶ. The second point was that Jesus, according to Scripture, had ἀδελφοὶ - those who were from the same womb as him - that includes brothers and what Scripture refers to as "αδελφαι" which refers to sisters. That secondary point is not really relevant to the issue of what Luther's talking about, at all. It's just a point that needs to be made against those who mistakenly hold to the idea that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin was NOT the subject of the discussion between Swan and myself at this point. Here we're focused on the Immaculate Conception. Let us not be distracted by side-topics - especially one where TF is alleging Luther used Greek in his writings. Apparently TF has an agenda here and wants to insert this propaganda where ever he can. Again, going back to the original article - the PV was discussed, and Luther (remember too, we're discussing LUTHER'S position on these matters) maintained the belief in the PV - as the source Mr. Swan cited "The Problem of Mary" - written by a Lutheran pastor - also clearly affirms. To bring up an argument that Mary had other children would also be contra-Luther and misplaced in this discussion. TF is free to disagree with Luther and the Catholic Church on this matter - but that argument does not belong in THIS debate.

5) Mr. Windsor's attempt to separate the "STAIN" (his bold and caps) from the sin is not something he can support from the official teachings of his church. Read the document that defined the dogma, and you'll see that the "stain" and the "sin" are used essentially interchangeably.
Notice, in the following series how "taint," "stain," and "sin" are used interchangeably and how it is repeatedly affirmed that Mary was free from original sin (in order of appearance, numbers just for ease of reference, in case you should wish to check/correct me)

"absolutely free of all stain of sin"

"free from all taint of original sin"

"conceived without the stain of original sin"

"preserved free from all stain of original sin"

"preserved from original sin"

"preserved from original sin"

"was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint,"

"all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree and in the general extension of its definition."

"free from the original stain"

"the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin"

"her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin"

"free from all contagion of sin"

"the worm of sin had never corrupted"

"when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned"

"to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely"

"entirely free from every stain of sin"

"she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin"

"holy and removed from every stain of sin"

"conceived without original stain"

"preserved free from all stain of original sin"

"conceived without original sin"

So, unless Mr. Windsor has more than simply his own say-so, we must respectfully insist that it is he, not us, who is unfamiliar with Roman dogma on the subject. He is committing the fallacy of emphasis by assuming that "stain of original sin" is supposed to be different in its sense than "original sin."

First off, TF has misrepresented Catholic teaching here. The whole document, Ineffabilis Deus, does not define the Immaculate Conception - only one paragraph in it does and here it is for the reader:

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.

That's it - the rest of the document is Pope Pius IX's explanations - but the only part which can be called "infallible" is the definition itself.

Secondly, the definition makes no mention of the temporal punishments due to Original Sin, and we believe she did suffer and die - which are part of these temporal punishments. Some may maintain that she didn't die - and was taken up just prior to her death - THAT definition only specifies "having completed the course of earthly life...":

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. [Munificentissimus Deus]

So, the definition of the Assumption does not explicitly state she died and thus leaves room for those to believe she did not and remain faithful Catholics. But I digress - again, the discussion TF joined into was on Luther's position on the Immaculate Conception. Whether or not Swan or TF agrees with me or not, I believe I've shown adequate argumentation to demonstrate that Luther did, to some level or another, believe in the Immaculate Conception throughout his life and that fact was also testified to in the "Problem of Mary" written by a Lutheran pastor and provided to us by James Swan. His comment is in the "combox" section of his blog and he says: "Luther himself mentions the every virginity and immaculate conception even to the very end of his life."

Lastly, TF's assertion that I don't know or understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is simply ludicrous and I answered his objection in my response to #6, (I responded to first in this article). It is also not I who is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the dogma - when he (TF) implies that all those other references were part of the dogma. Yes, they were part of the document which ALSO CONTAINS the dogmatic definition, but most of those citations of "stain" and "sin" were not part of the definition.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Armstrong on Recent IC Discussion

Dave Armstrong has commented on the tactics of "John Q. Doe" regarding the recent Immaculate Conception discussion between James Swan and myself. (Dave's article from Dec. 2010 is no longer available).

Dave writes:

DA: Another tactic is presently being used by Doe. The game is to set one Catholic apologist over another with empty flattery and bogus praise: that Catholic Apologist A is so vastly superior to Catholic Apologist B, who is a dishonest rogue (it's sort of related to the famous "good cop bad cop" ploy). Thus, in this instance (Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor), I am cast in the worst possible light, as the villain, and Windsor is praised as the hero:

JS: I have no doubt that Scott is a man of integrity, and that he'll make the necessary corrections to his entries. I don't find him to be anything like the other apologist, who, when confronted with this information, has simply kept calling me names while benefiting from my research.

I can see Dave's point, and I did see James comments as him pitting me against "the other apologist" - whom I suspected was Dave, but wasn't sure (Swan refers to a few other Catholic apologists he's responded to on this topic). In the "If the shoe fits" analogy, Dave just put that shoe on. That being said - I did not see Dave's responses as "simply calling (James) names," in fact Dave reached many of the same conclusions I did in my responses. James also claimed Dave finally conceded he (James) was correct on the matter of the Immaculate Conception; I never saw that concession.

Dave continues:

DA: What is far more interesting to me is the cynical use of lying and distorting past history in order to suck up to Scott Windsor now. I highly doubt the sincerity of this present vast change of mind of Doe with regard to Windsor, because I know of past encounters between the two that suggest quite a different state of affairs.

Well, I have to agree with Dave here, at least to a point. Yes, James in the past has been quite critical of me personally, going off on me personally and not responding to what I've actually said. Again, Dave cites some examples in his article. I am trusting of my fellow man, and perhaps to a fault (which I'm sure is what Dave is getting at here). From my perspective, what James was saying about me was true - I did not resort to namecalling and I have shown the willingness to correct the web page/article on my site. I did not see the need to make a comparison to me and "the other apologist" - and until now, I really haven't commented on James' comparison. Perhaps James truly appreciated my approach? Fine, he did not need to draw Dave into this. Perhaps James deliberately made this comparison to either draw Dave into the discussion again - or he was trying to play me against Dave for some other purpose - which I won't speculate on. Regardless - we should ALL refrain from going personal as such discussion end up looking quite petty to an objective onlooker.

My desire and goal is to present the TRUTH. I have no desire of making this a battle of testosterone. Frankly, it does not matter who finds something first - so long as the TRUTH is being posted. Now, is it common courtesy and scholarship to credit one's sources? Sure thing! We should strive to do that all the time. One frustration I have had with James in the IC series is that he has, more than once, referred to "online sources" but does not provide a link, as if he wants me to "work" at it. This could, however, be perceived as him not wishing to share these sources because perhaps I (or others) will find things in these sources which may not be in James' favor and he's deliberately not sharing sources for that reason. Whatever the reason - I've found sufficient sources and cited them as I go. Some I found on my own, some came from Dave's site - and some came from James' blog(s). Again, if the TRUTH is coming out - who said it first is immaterial; WHAT was said is what we should be our primary concern.

Enough said?

Scott<<<

Luther on the Immaculate Conception (2)

OK, James Swan and I have been going back and forth regarding Luther’s belief in the Immaculate Conception (IC). Now, I have conceded that there IS ROOM for the anti-IC believer to believe that Luther in his later life rejected the IC - but there can be no denying in his earlier life as a Catholic and well into the time he schismed from the Catholic Faith - that he did indeed believe and profess a belief in the IC compatible with the 1854 dogmatic definition. James includes in his commentary a link to a Lutheran pastor who echos what I've been saying here regarding Luther continuing to mention the Immaculate Conception right up till the time of his death.

Now it seems we’re repeating ourselves, so unless something significant comes up, I expect this to be my last posting to him on this matter. Swan accuses me of not looking at all the context he’s provided, which is a false accusation. For this response I will quote everything from his recent comments which includes the context he believes I am either not seeing or ignoring.

James Swan said...

sw: James, why make a point of how I have not resorted to calling you names - which is true, I have not done so - and then you have to throw in "Romanists" which you know to be a slur against Catholics?

Scott, I consider any people under the authority of Rome as Romanists. I've used this term for years, and never apologized for it. I reluctantly use the words "Roman Catholic," as that word "Catholic" no longer applies to the Roman sect.

My response to the above was posted in a comment at BA:

When it comes to the True Christian Faith, it is truly the Catholic Faith which is universal (throughout the world) and is not a schismatic faith. You (James) can use what ever justifications you want - you're still deliberately using insulting terminology.

Now, on to the more on-topic responses:

sw: I have openly stated that Luther contradicts himself - and yes, I would say within this same context he does so. Even if, for the sake of argument, we give you the 1544 statement - in 1538, just six years prior, he's still affirming the possibility of his earlier "two conceptions" concept.

So you'll give me the 1544 statement from LW 7? LOL.

Context James, context! I said “Even IF, for the sake of argument...” That “IF” is a pretty big word there.

Let's now gain more years by comparing statements. In 1544, which you now will give me, Luther stated,

"But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin."

I still believe you have missed the point here... Luther speaks of “the Virgin’s conception” not of Jesus’ conception. You seem to gloss over this point, repeatedly (though later in this series you do address it, or let someone else (TF) make an argument for you). It is at “the Virgin’s conception” that the Holy Ghost purged and sanctified Mary. This was my point for saying that even in 1544, where in the same document he makes seemingly contradictory remarks, he’s still affirming just, just two years prior to his death, that the Blessed Virgin was purified at HER conception. I reiterate, I do not “give you” the 1544 statement, I said IF we gave you that one, then the 1538 statement still affirms that the Blessed Virgin is purified at some point prior to Jesus’ conception.

Now compare that to Luther in 1540:

"all that flesh and blood of Mary's has been purified in conception, so that nothing sinful remains."

I’d like to see more context here - but at face value Mr. Swan has just provided a 1540 affirmation of Mary being purified in what appears to be HER conception. In our discussions I believe this is the first time a citation from 1540 has come up and it is not a validly cited source.

Now compare that to Luther in 1538:

"But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them."

Again, this is not a denial of Luther’s earlier “two conceptions” theory and still allows for the concept of the Blessed Virgin being purified in the “second conception” (the infusion of the soul, that is when “life” begins - according to Luther).

Now, read LW 7:

The flesh of Christ comes forth from an incestuous union; likewise, the flesh of the Virgin, His mother, and of all the descendants of Judah, in such a way that the ineffable plan of God’s mercy may be pointed out, because He assumed the flesh or the human nature from flesh that was contaminated and horribly polluted.

Again, this statement does not deny the “two conceptions” theory Luther explicitly espoused earlier. Even a 21st century Catholic can accept that the Blessed Virgin inherited Original Sin in her flesh (for she died, though some will argue she did not), as the 1854 definition does not say she did not inherit Original Sin, only that “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.” I repeat, Luther’s belief in “two conceptions” really does not detract from the 1854 definition.

The scholastic doctors argue about whether Christ was born from sinful or clean flesh, or whether from the foundation of the world God preserved a pure bit of flesh from which Christ was to be born. I reply, therefore, that Christ was truly born from true and natural flesh and human blood which was corrupted by original sin in Adam, but in such a way that it could be healed. Thus we, who are encompassed by sinful flesh, believe and hope that on the day of our redemption the flesh will be purged of and separated from all infirmities, from death, and from disgrace; for sin and death are separable evils. Accordingly, when it came to the Virgin and that drop of virginal blood, what the angel said was fulfilled: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). To be sure, the Messiah was not born by the power of flesh and blood, as is stated in John ( cf. 1:13): “Not of blood nor of the will of a man, etc.” Nevertheless, He wanted to be born from the mass of the flesh and from that corrupted blood. But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us. And Christ is the Son of Adam and of his seed and flesh, but, as has been stated, with the Holy Spirit overshadowing it, active in it, and purging it, in order that it might be fit for this most innocent conception and the pure and holy birth by which we were to be purged and freed from sin. [LW 7:12]

Notice the ambiguity as to which conception is being referred to is no longer... an ambiguity! TurretinFan has rightly commented on this:

"As you can see, context is key. "Mary's conception," or "the conception of Mary" (or replace "Mary" with "Virgin") can refer to two very different things: it can refer to the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, and it can refer to the conception of Jesus (or any of his ἀδελφοὶ - look up its etymology). In the latter case, Mary is doing the conceiving, in the former case she is receiving the conceiving. The difference in meaning is significant and - in English - the difference can only be determined by looking at the context." [source]

So now Mr. Swan, via the pseudonymic “TurretinFan” (TF) delves into the etymological fallacy. IF the word in question were intended to mean what they say, then an ACCURATE translation would have been, “in the moment of the Virgin’s conception of the Son...” - so if Swan and TF are correct here, then every translator of this passage to English has it wrong. Now, before continuing, let us also consider the fact that this word TF throws at us is a GREEK word... I am unaware of Luther’s Works being in Greek as he primarily wrote in German or Latin, not Greek. Why the Greek here?

Now, the word he cites here is transliterated “adelphos” which is literally “a” (from) “delphus” (the womb) - and further means “a brother.” [source] It is simply illogical that we’re talking about a “brother” here in “the Virgin’s conception.” TF even states it COULD mean the conception of the Virgin - so we’ll take that argument and leave the irrational one behind.

Now add to the fact that the later Luther states, "Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ" (1540). "Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh" (1544).

Again, this statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. The definition does not say that the Blessed Virgin did not inherit the “sin of the flesh,” only that she was preserved from the STAIN of that sin in the moment of her conception. Will Mr. Swan admit to this fact?

sw: "could it be" James that though he didn't speak of the IC in as forceful terms as he did earlier in his, that he still maintained a belief in it?

Again Scott, even what you consider Luther speaking in forecful terms wasn't so. But, you've never bothered to track down Luther's revised sermon, so how would you know? If you had some sort of similar statement about two conceptions from Luther, then you'd have something. I've never seen any such statement after the 1527 sermon. I have though seen Luther agree that the immaculate conception is a fraud, but the date is uncertain.

My use of “forceful” is a relevant term... in later works he may not have been as explicit as in his Catholic and early Protestant days - you’re missing the point. The later works do not come out and say, “I was wrong in 1527 and earlier and I whole-heartedly renounce all belief in the Immaculate Conception.” There is no such retraction that I am aware of, and I’m sure if one existed that you would quote it and validly cite your source. Your statement that you have “seen” Luther agree that it is a fraud without quote and citation is meaningless to this debate. Though I’m sure it has meaning in your mind, without valid documentation/citation it cannot be accepted.

sw: I said in one of my initial responses to you though that I could see how those who reject the IC could impute their belief into Luther's "thence."

Scott, you're reading Luther with immaculate conception glasses on. The context from the 1538 quote is about the conception of Christ, in fact each line is about the conception of Christ:

“In our Christian Creed we confess that Christ was conceived and became man or was incarnate (if I may so speak),that He became a real human being by assuming a body"- about the conception of Christ

"We confess that He assumed genuine flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary that He did not pass through her as the sun shines through a glass but brought her virgin flesh and blood with Him."- about the conception of Christ

"If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure."- about the conception of Christ

But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God.- about the conception of Christ

This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost."- about the conception of Christ

Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.”- about the conception of Christ

I will not deny that there are references to Jesus’ conception - that is wholly irrelevant to the FACT that “But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them;” is about MARY, not Jesus! Why the smokescreen approach? I have never denied that I am seeing the Immaculate Conception in places where one could possibly come up with a contrary opinion and as I stated above and Swan quotes, and even in this response from Swan, he’s responding to me saying “I said in one of my initial responses to you that though I could see how those who reject the IC could impute their belief into Luther’s ‘thence’.” I have been quite up-front about my “glasses” - whereas Mr. Swan appears to think he’s not wearing anti-IC glasses and that his responses are wholly without bias (though I am impressed with his inclusion of his "By the way" comment at the end of this series).

sw: I am content to "let Luther be Luther," and accept his word that at Mary's second conception, at the infusion of her soul, that she was made clean from sin.

So, he has a section he may not haveeven written deteled, and you want to hold him to it? That's letting Luther be Luther? C'mon Scott, you can't really be serious.

Again, as you have already conceded, James, deletion of something is an argument from silence - the LACK of saying something cannot be equivocated to denying it, in fact in logic silence lends itself to consent - not negation. I’m totally serious here, and again I do not negate your anti-IC glasses - you too have admitted that Luther is hard to pin down at times, and I agree with that! I believe the IC is one of those times in his later life as he does, as I have agreed, say some contradictory things about it even while in the same context it can be read he’s not denying it.

sw: Unless you have an explicit statement from Luther saying, "I was wrong in 1527, the Virgin Mary was not preserved from sin at her second conception, and while this did happen, it only happened at the conception of Jesus."

That's a shoddy way of doing history, and I stand by my statement that "this little interaction proves that Romanists read history the way they need it to be." I've given you evidence of Luther's later view, and he's not contradicting himself, even with his 1527 revised sermon (where' he leaves the "two conception stuff in the realm of speculation).

Well, again I beg to differ and here is where we’ll likely have to agree to disagree. Making an argument from Luther’s silence or an unsubstantiated statement (essentially “hearsay” at this point) is “a shoddy way of doing history.” You’re not “letting Luther be Luther.” You’re assuming by his silence (the alleged removal of this from later works) that he negates his earlier statements, but you’re the one left making an assumption which is contrary to logic - remember, in logic silence lends itself to consent, not negation.

I still say Scott that you are a man of integrity. I've seen that you will look at evidence and change your mind, as you did with at least some of our recent exchanges. The excuse "Luther contradicts himself" doesn't work here. In his post 1527 writings, he says the same thing, over and over again.

Well, I’ve changed the wording of what was found on my website (not on the site itself just yet, I’m reformatting that page and making sure “all my ducks are in a row” before republishing it) but my “mind” was not “made up” on the earlier accounts. As I said, I took someone else at their word. What I am quite open to doing is correcting anything proven to be in error, and I believe we’ve found some errors - hence my site is changing. As I also said, prior to this discussion between you and me, I would have to plead ignorance on Luther’s position on the Immaculate Conception. I am still thankful for this discussion. Now, I will say if you have explicit and verifiable evidence of Luther expressly denying the Immaculate Conception in any way at all, then I will change my mind on this matter. Until such a time, I’m letting Luther be Luther in what HE SAID and not relying on what HE DIDN’T SAY.

By the way, for the three people interested in Luther's Mariology (LOL)- here's a very interesting one year old discussion from a Lutheran blog:

The Problem of Mary

There's a man commenting on this post, Carl Vehse, who mops up the place. I don't know who he is, but he appears to know the subject of Luther's Mariology.

Thank you for including this - the Lutheran pastor, Pastor Peters, echos the very sentiment I have, that Luther refers to the Immaculate Conception right up to the end of his life. He criticizes Catholics for over-honoring Mary but in the same breath condemns Protestantism in general and even somewhat Lutherans (who give lip-service to honoring Mary, but “don’t have their heart in it”) for not giving enough honor to Mary.
May each of us continue to seek wisdom and guidance in the spirit of the Holy Family (in JMJ),

Scott<<<

Chuck Norris and Christmas

A friend of mine passed this article by Chuck Norris on to me, it's worth reading, here's an excerpt:

A few months ago, when I was filming my six T-Mobile Christmas commercials at Prague in the Czech Republic, my wife, Gena, and I discovered a Christmas tradition they have that we wish was a part of our tradition in America. They still call Christmas "Christmas," not "Happy Holidays." And on Christmas morning they tell their children that Jesus brings the Christmas tree and Jesus brings the gifts. It really brought a great amount of joy to our hearts when we heard about that tradition. That is when we knew going there to film those commercials was a great decision.
Therefore, it was no surprise to us, when we heard that their neighbor Poland unveiled in November the tallest statue in the world of Jesus at 167-feet. (By comparison, the statue in Brazil's Rio is 125 feet tall.) Rev. Sylwester Zawadzki, the 78-year-old priest who created the statue, said the actual figure of Jesus (without the platform on which it stands) rises 108 feet, or 33 meters – one meter for every year that Jesus lived. No wonder President Reagan once called Poland, "a land of deep religious faith."

Poland's Jesus statue, source: News 24

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the Fed is trying to strip small-town America's local banks of any Christmas decorations and meaning. And our president's speech writers are trying to figure out how to refer enough to the birth of Christ in his Christmas addresses that others don't think he's a Muslim, but not smack of being too Christian, that they alienate the president's progressive, Islamic and atheistic followers.

You can read the rest of the article here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=241529

Luther on the Immaculate Conception

When I first set out on this endeavor my attitude was pretty much, "who cares about what Luther thought about the Immaculate Conception? He was a heretic anyway." This is true, he was a heretic - but not on the grounds of the Immaculate Conception (which would be an anachronism in itself since it was not dogmatically defined in Luther's day). The main reason I am doing this now is because James Swan confronted me with my article on "The Reformers and Mary" citing I got virtually everything wrong with the Luther quotes. I'll deal with the broader accusation against the full article later. In this article, I will be answering to Swan's denial that Luther held a life-long belief in the Immaculate Conception (IC). Swan acknowledges that early on in Luther's life he accepted the teaching of the Immaculate Conception (IC) but later in life, Swan believes, Luther rejected the IC. Swan has spent a good deal of time on this subject already in answering Dave Armstrong, so I will utilize some of his research and add some of my own. I am also putting the citations in chronological order (which Swan intermixes the order of events/citations) in order to see more clearly the flow of Luther's thoughts, plus interjecting a timeline of outside events which likely affected Luther's attitude and thoughts.

Let us look at the 1854 definition before we proceed:

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. [http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/pix_ineffabilis_deus.htm]

This is the only anachronism in my article, but I wanted to present the definition to have in our minds before comparing this to Luther's teachings some 300+ years prior to the definition.

1483	Luther born in Eisleben (November 10)
1484	Luther family moves to Mansfeld
1497	Luther attends school in Magdeberg
1498	Luther attends parish school in Eisenach, staying with relatives
1501	Luther begins study at University of Erfurt
1502	Receives Baccalaureate in the Liberal Arts
1505	Receives Master of Arts; plans for law school
1505	Caught in a thunderstorm, pledges to become a monk (July 2)
1505	Enters Augustinian monastery at Erfurt
1506	Takes monastic vows
1507	Ordained priest
1507	Begins study of theology at University of Erfurt
1512	Luther receives doctorate in Theology
1512	Begins work as Professor of Theology at U of Wittenburg
1514	Becomes priest of Wittenberg's City Church
1514-15	Lectures on the Psalms
1515-16	Lectures on Romans
1516-17	Lectures on Galatians

October 31, 1517 - Luther nails the 95 Theses to the Castle Church door at Wittenberg.

Swan quotes:

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.]

So, while completely agreeing with the Church's view on the IC, Luther stated that those who hold the opposite opinion should not be considered heretics - and at the time of this writing, and for over 300 years after it, this is true! Until the dogma was defined, faithful Catholics could hold to a contrary opinion on this matter and not be counted as a heretic. Also keep in mind, this was 1518, and it was just October 31, 1517 that Luther posted his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. Luther is still considered a Catholic at this time.

1517-18	Lectures on Hebrews
1518	Inquisition on Luther begins in Rome
1519	Death of Emperor Maximillian - Rome distracted from Luther
1520-21	Freedom of a Christian, Babylonian Captivity, Address to German Nation
1520	Inquisition on Luther taken up again
1520	Papal bull Exsurge Domine issued (June 15)
1520	Luther burns bull and canon law with students (December 10)

January 3, 1521 - Luther is excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Swan continues with another quote:

1521:
“In regard to the conception of our Lady they have admitted that, since this article is not necessary to salvation, it is neither heresy nor error when some hold that she was conceived in sin, although in this case council, pope, and the majority hold a different view. Why should we poor Christians be forced to believe whatever the pope and his papists think, even when it is not necessary to salvation? Has papal authority the power to make unnecessary matters necessary articles of faith, and can it make heretics of people in matters which are not necessary for salvation?”[LW 32:79-80.]

In this 1521 citation Luther is a bit more bitter towards Catholicism and specifically the pope, and has not denied the IC - but repeated the sentiment from 1518, (along with challenging papal authority, that's a whole different topic). Also keep in mind, just recently Luther was officially excommunicated from the Catholic Church - which may account for his more bitter approach here.

1521	Arrives at Diet of Worms (April 16)
1521	Departs Worms (April 25)
1521	Kidnapped by Frederick, taken to Wartburg Castle (May 4)
1523	On Secular Authority
1524-25	The Peasants' War
1525	Bondage of the Will and Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants

1525

June 13, Married Katherine von Bora

The 1527 sermon by Luther on "The Day of Conception of the Mother of God" can be found in English here (the applet will take you to page 124, he actually starts the discussion of Luther on 122, and you can scroll back and forth through it) - or read the text version I post right after this*:

Here is the text version:

Let us now turn to Martin Luther.

In a sermon on the Gospel from the eleventh chapter of St. Luke, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee," and preached on the day of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, Luther has put forth the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in so clear and solid a way, that one may almost forgive him the fling at the Religious Orders with which he opens his discourse. After speaking on original sin, and of the birth of Christ from the Blessed Virgin, he says :—

"But as the Virgin Mary was herself born of a father and mother in the natural way, many have been disposed to assert that she was also born in original sin, though all with one mouth affirm that she was sanctified in the maternal womb, and conceived without concupiscence. But some have been disposed to take a middle way, and have said that man's conception is two-fold;—that the one is from the parents,—but that the other takes place when the little body is prepared, and the soul infused by God, its Creator. Of the first conception we shall say nothing. Nor does it much concern us, so that the Virgin Mary be conceived in such manner after the common way, that Christ may still be excepted, as alone conceived in the- way peculiar to Himself, that ie, without man. For it must so have been, that Christ, God and man, would be conceived in all His members perfect; wherefore it was necessary that His should be the most spiritual and most holy of all conceptions. But in the conception of the Virgin Mary, whose body was formed with progress of time, and after the manner of other children, until the infusion of the soul there was no need of such conception, for it could be preserved from original sin until the soul was to be infused. And the other conception, that is to say, the infusion of the soul, is piously believed to have been accomplished without original sin. So that, in that very infusing of the soul, the body was simultaneously purified from original sin, and endowed with divine gifts to receive that holy soul which was infused into it from God. And thus in the first moment it began to live, it was exempt from all sin. For before it could begin to live, perhaps it maybe said that there was neither absence nor presence of sin, for that only belongs to the soul and to the living man. Thus the Virgin Mary holds as it were, a middle position between Christ and other men. For if indeed Christ, when he was conceived, was both living, and at that very moment was full of grace; whilst other men are without grace, both in their first and in their second conception ; so the Virgin Mary was, according to the first conception, without grace, yet, according to the second conception, she was full of grace. Nor was this without reason. For she was the midway between all nativities, being born of a father and mother, but bringing forth without a father, and being made the mother of a Son who was partly of the flesh, and partly of the Spirit. For Christ was conceived -partly of her flesh and partly of the Holy Ghost. Moreover, Christ is the father of many children, without a carnal father, and without a carnal mother. But as the Virgin Mary is properly the midway between the carnal and the spiritual nativity, the end of the carnal but the beginning of the spiritual, so she justly holds the midway in her conception. For as the rest of mankind are, both in soul and in body, conceived in sin, whilst Christ is conceived without sin, as well in body as in soul, so the Virgin Mary was conceived, according to the body, indeed, without grace, but according to the soul, full of grace. This is signified by those words which the angel Gabriel said to her, 'Blessed art thou amongst women.' For it could not be said to her, Blessed art thou, if at any time she had been obnoxious to the curse. Again, it was just and meet that that person should be preserved from original sin, from whom Christ received the flesh 'by which he overcame all sins. And that, indeed, is properly called blessed which is endowed with divine grace, that is, which is free -from sin. Concerning this subject, others have written far more things, and have alleged beautiful reasons, but it would lead us to too great lengths if we repeated them in this place."*

Such is the testimony which the founder of Protestantism has left on record, concerning the Immaculate Conception.

* Martini Lutheri Postilse. In die Conceptionis Mariffl Matria J)ei. p. 360-1. Argentorati apud Georgium Ulricum Adlanum. •anno. xxx.

So Luther's view was that of "two conceptions" - the "second conception" does align quite well to the 1854 definition of the dogmatic definition. Swan does acknowledge this view from the 1527 sermon in section "V(5).H" of his article/response to Armstrong stating "I grant this is probably what Luther held to in 1527, yet his later statements prove he abandoned it." Well, two things here:

Abandoning the statements cannot be equivocated to denying the statements.
As we will see below, Luther doesn't really abandon the statements either!

1530	Edict of Worms (Luther declared an outlaw by the Emperor)
1531	Smalkaldian Alliance formed

Continuing, James Swan documents in the same article (mentioned above) on this subject:

In (a) 1538 sermon, Luther explains:
“In our Christian Creed we confess that Christ was conceived and became man or was incarnate (if I may so speak), that He became a real human being by assuming a body. We confess that He assumed genuine flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary that He did not pass through her as the sun shines through a glass but brought her virgin flesh and blood with Him. If this had taken place only with the co-operation of Mary, the Babe would not have been pure. But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them; and thence He creates the body of the Son of God. This is why it is said that "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost." Thus He assumed a genuine body from His mother Mary, but this body was cleansed from sin by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case, we could not be saved.”[Martin Luther, D.Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke 45:51 quoted in Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Vol. I, 152.]

This view, "But though Mary has been conceived in sin, the Holy Spirit takes her flesh and blood and purifies them" can be compared to Luther's belief, documented previously, in the two conceptions of Mary - one physical and one spiritual. Luther believed the physical conception still inherited original sin, but upon Mary's second conception, wherein the soul is conceived and life is given, that at the moment of spiritual conception Mary was cleansed from all stain of original sin. Bearing that in mind, Luther here has not denied his earlier teaching on the two conceptions - nor does this reference explicitly state when Mary was purified. It can still be maintained that he has not denied the Immaculate Conception. Being that this is a bit vague in this sermon as to exactly when Mary was purified - we can see how those who deny the IC impute their interpretation into this citation, and if this citation alone was all we had, they may have a point, but let us continue. Likewise, it can still be maintained that he did not abandon the "two conceptions" concept he taught earlier.

1543 On the Jews and Their Lies

Swan writes:

These comments are from his Genesis Commentary, toward the end of his life in 1544:

But in the moment of the Virgin’s conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin. Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person.

1546 Death of Luther in Eisleben on February 18

Swan prefaces that citation with "Rather she was purified at the conception of Christ." I believe he has misread the citation. What Swan has quoted from Luther in 1544 is "in the moment of the Virgin's conception..." (that's Mary's conception, not Jesus') "...the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful mass and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin." Remember, Luther has already posited that Jesus' conception was preserved from all sin, even in His physical conception so Luther could not have been referring to Jesus' conception here. As we saw above, Luther adhered to a concept of a dual conception - one physical and one spiritual. The Catholic definition does not make such a distinction, so Luther's view of the "second conception" fits quite perfectly with the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception which was so defined over 300 years after 1546, the year of Luther's death, but more to the point here, just two years before his death he expresses belief that "in the moment of the Virgin's conception the Holy Spirit purged and sanctified the sinful Mass (the product of the "first conception" in Luther's theology) and wiped out the poison of the devil and death, which is sin." So what we have seen here, even using Mr. Swan's own citations, is that Luther did indeed have a life-long belief in the Immaculate Conception. Was it identical to the 1854 definition? That is debatable, but also unnecessary as the precision of the definition comes with the 1854 ex cathedra decree from Pope Pius IX. Thus Luther's belief in the "two conceptions" was an acceptable understanding of the Immaculate Conception for his day and this belief does not seem to have changed throughout Luther's life. Mr. Swan's harsh criticism of Catholic apologists who have affirmed Luther's life-long belief in the Immaculate Conception is therefore unwarranted.

Now, to directly answer the statements Mr. Swan made in his BeggarsAll article:

"Is Concordia Publishing arguing from silence as well?" Citing "Concordia Publishing" supports that others argue as you do - but it does not present a primary source citation of Luther denying the Immaculate Conception! As I have demonstrated above, not only was he not silent - just 2 years before he died and nearly 20 years after Mr. Swan affirms Luther DID believe in the IC, Luther affirms it again.
I'll not be following all the rabbit trails where Mr. Swan claims other Catholic apologists have conceded this argument to him, namely because I do not concede it to him!
Addendum 1.1: (Not on the IC) - We agree with each other that Luther refers to Mary as "Mother of God."
Addendum 1.2: (Not on the IC) - On the perpetual virginity of Mary, the original article allegedly quotes Luther saying "it is an article of faith," and then he presents context of the reference which does not include those words - however Swan concludes: "we could probably infer here that for Luther "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" from "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ." I'm OK with that! I'll fix the original article.
Addendum 1.3 - (there isn't such an entry, Swan skips 1.3)
Addendum 1.4: "First error: William J. Cole didn't translate Volume 10 of Luther's Works." I've corrected that on the blog version of the article and will be adjusting the original article (taking Mr. Swan at his word here).
Addendum 1.4 (continued): The volume from which Scott's assumption quote comes from has all sorts of feast day sermons, some to various saints. In each instance, Luther says things like "what this person did isn't in Scripture, so we aren't going to talk about it." How is this "we aren't going to talk about it" not an "argument from silence?"
Addendum 1.5: William Cole didn't have anything to do with WA 10 (3), The reference otherwise is accurate. I fixed the blog version of the citation, will fix the original article shortly. Again, taking Swan at his word here. The rest of Addendum 1.5, I agree with Swan (and Luther) that over-emphasis on Mary to the point of losing focus on Christ is to be avoided.
Addendum 1.6: I have already conceded that this citation is taken out of context in the original article which was given to me by someone else. The explanation is already on my blog entry, I will be removing this entirely from the original article on the website.
Addendum 2.1: "Scott, define and explain Luther's "honoring the Blessed Virgin in a very 'Catholic" sense.' " Here you'll need to investigate Luther's "honoring." Then you need to revise that part of your blog article "Honor to Mary." Since I've already agreed that Luther's honoring of the Blessed Virgin later in Luther's life is either flatly denied or disappeared into silence, I do not see the need to exegete Luther's view of "honoring."
Addendum 2.2: (Quoting me) "Therefore, contextually speaking I can only support that Luther held these views in his Catholic and early Protestant days - but not through to the end of his life."
Then you contradict your posted article "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death." Pick one. The matter of the Immaculate Conception, as shown above, is not denied and in fact reinforced within 2 years of his death. I stand by my statement on the IC. The statement you've quoted is a truncated sentence which ended with "...with a few exceptions." Those four words change the meaning of the sentence! I did not end with the period where Swan puts one, thus this quotation of me is not accurate nor an honest representation of what I DID say. There is no "contradiction" when one considers I explicitly stated "with a few exceptions."
Addendum 2.3: (Quoting me) "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence."
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read the links of the work I've done on this. Even the latest volume of Luther's Works supports my conclusion. Explain to me why my links are "arguments from silence." That is, go through my material, and show me where the "silence" is. This has been done in the article above - and there is no "silence" really - for Luther expressed an acceptable "Catholic" view of the Immaculate Conception throughout his life including up to within two years of his death. So, I amend my statement, Mr. Swan does not argue from silence - he's just wrong on this account.
Addendum 2.4: (Quoting me) "I am still looking for where the "J. Pelikan" citation originates, if it does not turn up, I will delete it entirely and stick with wholly valid sources I have found."
Do you really think Pelikan had anything to do with a volume of Luther's writings published in the 1800's? The Latin text Ben M. found was published quite a long time ago. I stated what I was doing, patience padawan! This is not a matter of what I think, it is whether or not this citation is accurate at all. I have assured that when all is said and done here the citation will be either verified, corrected or removed. Based on the quotes and citations from this article, I will likely just remove the "Pelikan" citation entirely - it is not needed.
Addendum 2.5-2.7: Just Swan's commentary.
Addendum 2.8: (Quoting me) "Quote 1: The citation was inaccurate, according to his research (based on his mistake regarding quote 6, I'm not so sure, but we'll get to that in a moment." What mistake did I make in quote six? You then said a few paragraphs later of quote six "On this quote it would appear Mr. Swan is correct and the original citation was taken out of context." I misspoke, I should have said "based on the fact that Vol. 4, 694 refers to the Latin citation" he claimed there was no page 694 in volume 4 - and there indeed is such a citation - AND - the quote was correct. I still have not found reference to "Pelikan" for that citation and like I said earlier, with the research I have done I don't need that citation at all anymore and will replace it with what I've found.
Addendum 2.9: (Quoting me) "Swan agrees that this can be seen as an "article of faith" since Luther said, "Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ." Actually, my position is it's the only thing I found in the context that was remotely possible, and I'm being generous. It's up to you to prove that the quote you're citing is correct. This takes work Scott. you know how long looking up these quotes takes? A long time. As it stands, the context doesn't say anything about "article of faith." It's up to you to prove the citation accurate, not me. As it stands, the quote isn't in the context cited. I showed you the context, now you show me where it says "article of faith." If you can't prove "article of faith"- I suggest you use the quote I provided instead. I am in agreement with Swan on this count.
Addendum 2.10: I am not nor did I ask Mr. Swan to "spoon feed" me on this, and as this relates to the quote regarding Luther's position on the Immaculate Conception the article above is my response to this.
Addendum 2.11: Quote 4 does not assert that it is definitive proof of Luther believing in the Assumption - it allows for speculation that he did based on the statement "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."
Addendum 2.12: Regarding quote 5, Swan provides further context from the sermon Luther preached on September 8, 1522, which I will be including in my corrected "original article" and has been included on my blog entry already.
Addendum 2:13-2.14: Just commentary from Swan which is addressed in this blog entry (above).

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Notes:
This blog article is largely a response to:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/12/scott-windsor-weighs-in-on-luthers.html
Most of the "Timeline" was taken from:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/luther/timeline.htm
Swan's quotes taken from his response to Dave Armstrong (which he directed me to):
http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_mary2.htm

* Minor edit to the commentary here.

Pages