Friday, December 10, 2010

Reformers on Mary

I have restored this blog entry back to the original web page.  The current "updated" page is found here:  http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/01/reformers-on-mary-update.html
 
“Reformers” on Mary
An Assembly of Quotes
By: Kara Lynn Teresa Turton
(Originally posted on BattleACTS on 4/25/2004)
Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of God
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1
Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3
Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4
Honor to Mary
Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin:
It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

Ulrich Zwingli:
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

NOTES
1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.
2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.
3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,
English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.
Louis], Volume 4, 694.
4 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.
5 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works(Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.
6 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.
7 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.
8 Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
9 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.
10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.
11 Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639
12 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.
13 E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.
17 David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

Original Source of Quotes from 2004: http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20040405023855/http://www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html.

37 comments:

  1. Let's start with #1

    1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

    This quote isn't from WA 24 (Weimar).It's from LW 24 (Luther's Works).

    "Therefore we must adhere to the speech and expressions of Holy Writ and retain and confess the doctrine that this Christ is true God, through whom all things are created and exist, and at the same time that this same Christ, God’s Son, is born of the Virgin, dies on the cross, etc. Furthermore, Mary, the mother, does not carry, give birth to, suckle, and nourish only the man, only flesh and blood—for that would be dividing the Person—but she carries and nourishes a son who is God’s Son. Therefore she is rightly called not only the mother of the man but also the Mother of God. This the old fathers taught in opposition to the Nestorians, who objected to calling Mary “Mother of God” and refused to say that she had given birth to God’s Son.

    Here we must again confess with our Creed: “I believe in Jesus Christ, God the Father’s only Son, our Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, was crucified, died.” It is always one and the same Son of God, our Lord. Therefore it is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and true God, and that the Jews crucified not only the Son of Man but also the true Son of God. For I do not want a Christ in Whom I am to believe and to whom I am to pray as my Savior who is only man. Otherwise I would go to the devil. For mere flesh and blood could not erase sin, reconcile God, remove His anger, overcome and destroy death and hell, and bestow eternal life."


    Here, Luther's using the rich Christ-centered usage of Theotokos when discussing the incarnation or Christ’s Deity. I would agree with him. so, this quote may be a "shocker" to some sort of fundamentalist type, but not the Reformed or Lutheran.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now Footnote #2: "Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320."

    This reference appears to be to WA 11, not LW. "op cit." refers to the previous reference. That means, you want us to go back to the source just cited. Well, you unknowingly cited LW. This reference though is sort of from WA 11. You can find WA 11 online.

    Here is part one of an English rendering of pages 319-320 from WA 11. Let me know where your quote, "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin" is located:

    as happened after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the fathers and their descendants.

    Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.

    The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

    Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. continued:

    For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.

    The third passage is addressed to David, II Samuel 7[:12–14], “When your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” These words cannot have been spoken of Solomon, for Solomon was not a posthumous son of David raised up after his death. Neither did God after Solomon (who during David’s lifetime was born and became king) ever designate anyone as His son, give him an everlasting kingdom, or have him build such a house. Consequently, the whole passage must refer to Christ. We will let this passage go for the present because it is too broad and requires so much in the way of exegesis; for one would have to show here that Christ accordingly had to be the son of a woman only in order to be called here God’s child, who neither should nor could come out of an accursed act.

    The fourth passage is Isaiah 7[:14], “God himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin [jungfrau] is with child, and shall bear a son.” This could not have been said of a virgin who was about to be married. For what sort of a marvelous sign would that be if someone who is presently a virgin should bear a child within a year? Such is the ordinary course of nature, occurring daily before our eyes. If it is to be a sign from God, therefore, it must be something remarkable and marvelous not given by the ordinary course of nature, as is commonly the case with all God’s signs.

    It is of no help for the Jews either to try to evade the issue here and come up with this way of getting around it, namely: the sign consists in the fact that Isaiah says flatly that the child shall be a son and not a daughter. By such an interpretation the sign would have nothing to do with the virgin but only with the prophet Isaiah, as the one who had divined so precisely that it would not be a daughter. The text would then have to speak of Isaiah thus, “Behold, God himself will give you a sign, namely, that I, Isaiah, will divine that a young woman [jung weyb] is carrying a son, and not a daughter.” Such an interpretation is disgraceful and childish.


    Now granted Scott, 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."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Footnote #4- Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William I. Cole) 10, p. 268.

    First error: William J. Cole didn't translate Volume 10 of Luther's Works. The quote was probably snatched from his article Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" (Marian Studies), (1970), 123-124. Your reference left out what Cole actually cited: WA 10 (3), 268, 13 to 269. The (3) is crucial because there are three volumes of Volume 10.

    Luther stated in 1522:

    "Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living."

    -continued-

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now, let's take off our Assumption glasses for a moment with that Luther quote from 1522. Toward the end of his life, Luther delivered a series of lectures on the book of Genesis. Note the following quote:

    "This is what Moses wanted to indicate when he speaks of 'the lives of Sarah.' It is as though he were saying: 'Sarah, in conformity with differences in places and people, often adopted a different attitude and different ways. When she came to a place where she thought she would live pleasantly and quietly, she was compelled to move and to change her plans and feelings as she did so.' For this reason that saintly woman had many lives. More attention should have been given to these things, although it is easy for me to believe that in her hundredth year she was just as beautiful as she was in her twentieth.

    Then one should much rather consider how Abraham delivered a beautiful funeral address about Sarah. For in the Holy Scriptures no other matron is so distinguished. Her years, lives, conduct, and burial place are described. In the eyes of God, therefore, Sarah was an extraordinary jewel on whom extraordinary love was bestowed, and she is mentioned deservedly by Peter as an exemplar for all saintly wives. He says (1 Peter 3:6) that she called Abraham lord and that “you are her daughters.” To all Christian matrons Peter holds her up as a mother.

    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.

    But these facts do not concern Sarah, who is already dead, as much as they concern us, who are still alive. For it is a very great comfort to hear that the departure and death of that most saintly matriarch and of all the fathers, in comparison with whom we are nothing, differs in no wise from our own death but was just as odious and ignominious as our own is. Their bodies were buried, consumed by worms, and hidden in the earth on account of their stench, not otherwise than if they had not been the corpses of saints; yet they were most saintly people, and, although departed, they are actually alive in Christ.

    Accordingly, these things are written for our sakes, in order that we may know that the most saintly fathers and mothers underwent the same experiences we are wont to undergo. Nevertheless, it is certain about them that in the eyes of God they live; and I believe that they — namely, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Adam, etc. — rose with Christ.


    Note above how Luther treats Mary. He doesn't speak of some cryptic way in which Mary disappeared off the earth. No, she's placed in a list with others whose deaths are not recorded in Scripture, and are passed over in silence. Are we to assume, based on Luther's words, that all the women were Assumed into Heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now Footnote #5: Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

    William Cole didn't have anything to do with WA 10 (3), The reference otherwise is accurate.

    As to "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"- in context, Luther states,

    "You know, my friends, that deep in the heart of men is inscribed the honor with which one honors the mother of God; yes, it is even so deep that no one willingly hears anything against it, but extols her more and more."

    Luther's point is that whatever respect Mary was due to her, the Church collectively had gone far beyond it. Note Luther's qualifier: "Now we grant that she should be honored since we are enjoined by the Scripture to receive one another with honor, as Paul says (Romans 12:10); so man must also honor her." Romans 12:10 states, "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another." Luther saw that Mary had become more than she actually was. Note where Luther places Mary with his veneration of her:

    "We are called Christians after Christ, because we depend upon him alone and are his children and heritage; in this respect we are like the Mother of God herself and Mary's brothers and sisters; otherwise we do injury to the holy blood of Christ, for through his blood all of us are cleansed from sin and made partakers of his goods. In this respect we are likewise holy as she. And if she received greater grace, that did not happen because of her merit but because of the mercy of God, for we cannot all be the mother of God. Otherwise she is like to us inasmuch as, by the blood of Christ, she has come to grace as we have." WA 10 (3), 315, 10 to 316, 11

    So there you go- in a passage in which Luther chastises the church of his day for excessive Mary worship, and Mary is to be honored as all Christians are according to Romans 12:10, the quote is cited by Catholic apologists to prove Luther held to similar devotional practices of today's Roman Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Footnote #6- Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129

    Pelikan had nothing to do with WA 51, nor did he edit LW 51.Yes, the quote is in WA 51. Unfortunately, it's completely out of context. Your quote "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing" can be found in this context. Ask yourself if you're citing Luther in context:

    And what I say about the sin of lust, which everybody understands, applies also to reason; for the reason mocks and affronts God in spiritual things and has in it more hideous harlotry than any harlot. Here we have an idolater running after an idol, as the prophets say, under every green tree [cf. Jer. 2:20; I Kings 14:23], as a whorechaser runs after a harlot. That’s why the Scriptures call idolatry whoredom, while reason calls it wisdom and holiness. How the prophets inveighed against this lovely whoredom, idolatry! It is a wild thing which is not easily caught and its foolishness is inborn, but it considers itself the height of wisdom and justice, and still it cannot understand the things of God. We must guard against it, as the prophets say: You must not serve God on the mountains or in the valleys or under the trees, but in Jerusalem, which is the place that God appointed for his worship and where his Word is. But here again, reason says: True enough, I have been called, circumcised, and adjured to go to Jerusalem, but here is a beautiful meadow, a fine green mountain; if we worship God here this will please God and all the angels in heaven. After all, is God the kind of God who binds himself only to Jerusalem? Such wisdom of reason the prophets call whoredom.

    Therefore, when we preach faith, that we should worship nothing but God alone, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we say in the Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ,” then we are remaining in the temple at Jerusalem. Again, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” [Matt. 17:5]. “You will find him in a manger” [cf. Luke 2:12]. He alone does it. But reason says the opposite: What, us? Are we to worship only Christ? Indeed, shouldn’t we also honor the holy mother of Christ? She is the woman who bruised the head of the serpent. Hear us, Mary, for try Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. Here Bernard went too far in his “Homilies on the Gospel ‘Missus est Angelus.’ ” God has commanded that we should honor the parents; therefore I will call upon Mary. She will intercede for me with the Son, and the Son with the Father, who will listen to the Son. So you have the picture of God as angry and Christ as judge; Mary shows to Christ her breast and Christ shows his wounds to the wrathful Father. That’s the kind of thing this comely bride, the wisdom of reason cooks up: Mary is the mother of Christ, surely Christ will listen to her; Christ is a stern judge, therefore I will call upon St. George and St. Christopher.


    continued

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, we have been by God’s command baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews were circumcised. Therefore, just as the Jews set up all over the land their own self-chosen shrines, as if Jerusalem were too narrow, so we also have done. As a young man must resist lust and an old man avarice, so reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering. That’s why there must be preachers who will point people to the catechism: I believe in Jesus Christ, not in St. George or St. Christopher, for only of Christ is it said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]; not of Mary or the angels. The Father did not speak of Gabriel or any others when he cried from heaven, “Listen to him” [Matt. 17:5].

    Therefore I should stick to the catechism; then I can defend myself against reason when the Anabaptists say, “Baptism is water; how can water do such great things? Pigs and cows drink it. The Spirit must do it.” Don’t you hear, you mangy, leprous whore, you holy reason, what the Scripture says, “Listen to him,” who says, “Go and baptize all nations” [Matt. 28:19], and “He who believes and is baptized [will be saved”]? [Mark 16:16]. It is not merely water, but baptism given in the name of the holy Trinity

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think you should be able to see Scott how sloppy this page of yours is. Warning: don't cut-and-paste without checking your facts first.

    I'm done.

    Regards,
    James

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, for the sake of completeness, I might as well add this:

    Correction on this citation, which many other Catholic apologetics sites have as well. This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works. Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence.


    As to Luther's changing view on the Immaculate Conception, even Armstrong has finally conceded I'm right about this. See:

    Luther: the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin

    1544: Luther's Explanation Concerning Mary and the Birth of Christ

    Response to Paul Hoffer on Luther & the Immaculate Conception

    Luther: God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins

    Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, in yesterday's mail I recieved Luther's Works vol. 59 (published this month). They state:

    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: see e.g., Luther's sermons for Christmas Eve 1539, WA 47:860, and 1540 WA 49:173; Dufel, Luther's Stellung zur Marienverehrung, pp. 163-174, 196-97; Kreitzer, Reforming Mary, pp. 110-11 [LW 59:434-435].

    Is Concordia Publishing arguing from silence as well? Hardly, they're affirming the same argument I've been presenting for 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Again, my humble thanks to James Swan for these Luther quotes/citations. I have made corrections to this version (on this blog) to the citations mentioned. I am still working through the actual quotes.

    James, I do express my appreciation sincerely. As a former Lutheran, the topic of Luther still piques my interest.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's a lot of things to correct, at least with the Luther material. I don't have time for the Calvin & Zwingli quotes.

    The quote from Luther on the Immaculate conception should be removed entirely, as should the "argument from silence" comment in your footnote. I've been at this for quite a number of years, and I'll gladly send you any info you want on it.

    The Luther comment allegedly affirming the Assumption should likewise be removed, as the quote in context doesn't support any such thing. Keep in mind, the volume from which that quote comes from has all sorts of feast day sermons, some to various saints. In each instance, Luther says things to the effect like "what this person did isn't in Scripture, so we aren't going to talk about it."

    Also the two quotes about "honor to Mary" should be removed, as they likewise say no such thing in context.

    You also have a footnote #17 with no text, and yes, I do have a copy of that book referenced.

    Once again, no need to order Grisar's book, it's online. I can actually scan the pages for you from my own copy if you'd like. While I often disagree with Grisar's interpretations, his facts and references are typically quite accurate. When I'm looking for quotes, his books have helpful and accurate references. If he says part of a sermon was removed, you can bet it was.

    ReplyDelete
  14. James Swan writes: There's a lot of things to correct, at least with the Luther material.

    From what I am seeing, there's not a lot to "correct" - moreso to contextualize - which I believe my added statement at the beginning of the article now clarifies. The quotes are legitimately from Luther and AFTER his split with the Catholic Church - but I could not say he held these views throughout his life with a few exceptions.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interestingly, I posted a comment on BeggarsAll - which has disappeared. Curious, after being so generous with Mr. Swan - the same is not true for myself on "their" blog.

    The essence of that response on BeggarsAll was:
    1) The initial posting of that information on my site was the result of someone from BattleACTS posting the material, which she evidently copied from another website.

    2) I agreed with one of the other commentators that it's really kind of a silly topic to get all worked up about to begin with. Why do we really care what the Protestant defectors from the Catholic Faith believed? Yes, they held on to some beliefs and creeds from Catholicism - and still hold to some to this date! The real apologetic for us is to demonstrate the validity of the teachings themselves, not so much whether or not early Protestants held on to them for a time.

    3) I have made corrections to the citations and updates to the context to the article here on this blog and will update the web page in short order as well.

    It is disappointing to see that after allowing Swan's critique and even numerous links - that my comment (much smaller and only a few links so that their readers could see context) disappeared so quickly.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  16. James Swan has basically stated that all citations and quotes should be thrown out, I beg to differ.

    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. I changed the citation to reflect what Swan stated was the correct reference. The quotation is quite accurate and thus should remain.

    Quote 2: 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."

    Quote 3: Citation is confusing, but appears to be an accurate citation of the Latin sermon in question - and the quotation is accurate. I'm still working on resolving this one completely, but it appears to be a "good quote."

    Quote 4: Citation should have been Cole's work Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" I fixed that.

    Quote 5: The citation was off (citing Cole again), and I fixed it. Swan himself said that other than the reference to Cole, "The reference otherwise is accurate."

    Quote 6: On this quote it would appear Mr. Swan is correct and the original citation was taken out of context. I have left that citation and quote in place, and added the context. I did this because it has been on my site so long that if others continue to research it, I want them to see this added information.

    So ONE of the six quotes from Luther was flat-out misleading, and I have offered the context to affirm this is so. I'm sure Mr. Swan would like me to just agree with him on all his renderings - but I don't see how I could objectively do so.

    Again, I express my appreciation for bringing this to my attention, and though I don't see much value in this whole discussion - since it was a bit errant for so long, I will continue the effort to make sure it is correct and accurately represented.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interestingly, I posted a comment on BeggarsAll - which has disappeared. Curious, after being so generous with Mr. Swan - the same is not true for myself on "their" blog.

    Scott,

    The comment you left on my blog went into Blogger's auto-spam filter, which none of us has any control over. I've noticed links left in comments often trigger blogger's spam detector.

    When I got over to my blog, I released your comment from Blogger-spam-purgatory, and it's now visible for the myriads of those who can't wait to read another episode in the Luther Mariology myth (maybe all three of them). If you're not sure where your blogger spam filter is, log into your account, and click on the "comments" button at the top, there you'll find your blogger spam filter.

    I was quite disappointed by your response to the material and information I provided you. I have the full contexts for each of the Luther quotes in question. I was so disappointed, that I wonder if any sort of response is even a worthy endeavor at this point. It might simply be wasting time. If you're interested in this topic, I'll obliged you with a response. If for you it's "a novelty and not really worth spending too much time and/or effort upon", I'll leave it at that, with the admonition that you really shouldn't be posting on subjects you obviously know very little about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi James, yes your message was there and is released - I know where it the spam folder is. I could have sworn I saw my message posted on your site and then it wasn't.

    As for posting that which one knows little about - I trusted a source, and though this person obviously trusted the source she quoted from, she didn't check on the accuracy of the citations. I posted it here precisely so that I (and we - as you learned some from this too) could learn more about the actual quotes and citations, which I feel we're getting to the bottom of.

    As for this topic - I'm interested in seeing this round to the end, as for it "being a novelty not worth spending too much time on," I stand by that. It's not something I ever put much effort into to begin with - I'm only putting in the effort now to "make right" what has been on my site (and others) for many years now.

    I withdraw the implication that my post on BeggarsAll was somehow removed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I added a response to the current blog entry on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The only value I see in such a discussion about what the early deformers thought about St. Mary, is to disprove the protestant notion that such doctrines were recent innovations of the Church. Most, if not all, of the doctrines on the Blessed Virgin Mary were believed and have been taught since the beginning of the Church. The deformers believed the Marian doctrines, including her perpetual virginity and sinless state, to be true because that is what they had been taught by THE Church, the Catholic Church. The attacks on the Mother of God would come later--they are the recent innovations, not the other way around.

    Out of Christian charity I removed the rest of my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The deformers believed the Marian doctrines, including her perpetual virginity and sinless state, to be true because that is what they had been taught by THE Church, the Catholic Church.

    My studies have been particularly in the area of Luther's theology. Luther's Mariology isn't modern day Roman Catholic Mariology, and it was quite at odds with popular Roman Catholic piety in the 16th Century.

    I'm not a Lutheran, so it really doesn't matter if what he believed is different than what I hold to. I say, simply let Luther be Luther.

    Anyone familiar with Internet theological bulletin boards and blogs have at some point come across Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

    To make matters worse, the documentation and quotes put forth by Romans Catholics (over the eight or nine years I've studied this) are typically horrendous.

    That being said, this subject isn't rocket science. Anyone willing to look at primary sources and contexts will see that Luther's Mariology isn't Roman Catholic Mariology. True, there are some similarities, but the differences are significant- so much so that this little web page that Scott's correcting needs a complete overhaul in order to be honest and correctly factual.

    If someone (say for instance, Scott) wants to challenge my opinions on this topic, they need to do so with contexts and primary sources. Saying, "I don't agree" or "Swan's biased" isn't a meaningful response.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Swan] "Anyone willing to look at primary sources and contexts will see that Luther's Mariology isn't Roman Catholic Mariology."

    And would I agree with you to a point. However, "anyone willing to look at primary sources and contexts" will also see that Luther's so-called theology in many areas was ever-changing. His "Mariology" is no exception.

    [Swan] "True, there are some similarities,.."

    That was the *point* or at least that was *my* point! The doctrines on the Mother of God didn't just appear out of no where. They are *not* a recent innovation of which protestants like to accuse the Church. *My point* was that the only reason Luther's thoughts or opinions on St. Mary are or should be brought up is to prove that the hero of so many protestants *did believe* what the Church has believed almost since the beginning of Christian record. It can be proven that these doctrines existed *even* (or at the very least) in the writings of such a defector several centuries ago.

    [Swan] "...but the differences are significant-"

    Of course the differences are significant, that is why he was a PROTESTant and was no longer Catholic. But, as it has also been pointed out he *did* believe ALL of the doctrines at one time or at the very least paid lip service to them in order to become a Catholic priest.

    [Swan] "...so much so that this little web page that Scott's correcting needs a complete overhaul in order to be honest and correctly factual"

    You have provided your interpretations but nothing says your interpetations are "honest and correctly factual" either.

    One of the few things that most protestants agree on is their dislike for the Catholic Church. Most only know what they've been told about the Church, and believe even the most outrageous nonsense. As long as they have this common enemy, they don't fight each other over the huge elephant(s) in the room--their very diverse tenets of faith in order to 'be saved.'

    You're not Lutheran, so you don't have to agree with Luther. I'm not Lutheran, and I don't agree with Luther, so wouldn't that give us *some* common ground from which to work?

    ReplyDelete
  23. My apologies, Scott, and any CathApol readers following along. I had computer problems which caused me to post my comments multiple times today. That is why there are so many deletions.
    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "anyone willing to look at primary sources and contexts" will also see that Luther's so-called theology in many areas was ever-changing. His "Mariology" is no exception.

    Actually, I've documented this, extensively at times. This is just another reason why Scott's original "Reformers on Mary" serves a bit more as propaganda than helpful history. Keep in mind, the original web page (Scott's now correcting) said, "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up' by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." So this webpage was attributing to Luther, say a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, when in fact Luther did not, nor did he "defend" it "to his death." That's bad history. Attributing to Luther a belief in the assumption without a shred of positive proof is propaganda. Using quotes showing Luther's "honor of Mary" out of context, and thinking he means the same thing as you is propaganda.

    *My point* was that the only reason Luther's thoughts or opinions on St. Mary are or should be brought up is to prove that the hero of so many protestants *did believe* what the Church has believed almost since the beginning of Christian record

    But this would be incorrect. Similarities are not the same as believing the same thing as you do. For instance, when Luther uses the phrase "pure virgin" it would be a major error to think he means "immaculate conception of Mary."

    But, as it has also been pointed out he *did* believe ALL of the doctrines at one time or at the very least paid lip service to them in order to become a Catholic priest.

    So...when web pages say things like, "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death" and I present clear evidence he did not, don't you think such a statement should be.... removed?

    You have provided your interpretations but nothing says your interpetations are "honest and correctly factual" either.

    Have you ever heard of... using arguments and proof to support such a statement? Here's your chance to prove that I'm not honest with this topic. All you need is Luther's writings, look up the contexts, do a little historical background work, compare it to what I've written over the last eight years or so, and prove that I am "dishonest" and not "correctly factual." That seems simple enough.

    One of the few things that most protestants agree on is their dislike for the Catholic Church. Most only know what they've been told about the Church, and believe even the most outrageous nonsense. As long as they have this common enemy, they don't fight each other over the huge elephant(s) in the room--their very diverse tenets of faith in order to 'be saved.'

    You must have me confused with Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're not Lutheran, so you don't have to agree with Luther. I'm not Lutheran, and I don't agree with Luther, so wouldn't that give us *some* common ground from which to work?

    One would think! But so far, Scott has written things like "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence." I have positive proof Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, and I've provided links for Scott on this that (so far) haven't been touched. . Why would admitting I'm right on this be so problematic for Scott? Even a Roman Catholic apologist who fought me on this for quite a few years finally conceded I'm right on this- and Scott's linking to this guy's article at the bottom of this blog entry.

    Now, unless you have any interactions with the Luther materials, I'm not interested in bickering back and forth with you. Yes, you're Roman Catholic and I'm not. Yes, you don't trust me, big deal. Yes you're defending the church and I'm defending the church. Yes, we're both emmotionally involved with our beliefs. We could go back and forth for hours, and never move beyond this.

    Please interact with the Luther quotes and citataions I've provided, prove me to be "dishonest"- I'm not interested in vague speculations and "my church is better than your yours" bantering.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott- on Luther's Magnificat:

    "Thus he was then still in favour of the invocation and intercession of the Holy Mother of God, whereas later he set aside the invocation of any Saint, and declared it to be one of " the abuses of Antichrist"

    Two years after Luther wrote the Magnificat, we see his Marian theology evolving. He wrote to a group of Bohemians,

    “… I certainly would not call you heretics, as our sophists do, because you do not honor or call upon the mother of God or any of the saints, but cling alone to the only mediator, Jesus Christ, and are satisfied that in heaven as well as on earth each one is obligated to pray for the other. For there is nothing in the Scriptures about the intercession of dead saints, nor about honoring them and praying to them. And no one can deny that hitherto through services for these saints we have gone so far as to make pure idols out of the mother of God and the saints. We have placed more confidence in them, on account of the services and works which we have done for them, than we have placed in Christ himself, with the result that faith in Christ has perished.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Keep in mind, the original web page..."Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been 'covered up'...with damaging theological and practical consequences. So this webpage was attributing to Luther, say a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, when in fact Luther did not, nor did he "defend" it "to his death.""

    Cathmom5: Well, I don't see how your implication follows. Saying that Luther's theology had damaging effects is not the same thing as saying he had lifelong belief in the immaculate conception or that he defended it to the death. And I certainly said no such thing.

    Cathmom5: Again, *my* point was that the Immaculate Conception is not a recent innovation.

    "That's bad history.... Using quotes showing Luther's "honor of Mary" out of context, and thinking he means the same thing as you is propaganda."

    Cathmom5: And as I stated, you are incorrect. He did believe in the concept, or at least must have paid lip service to it in order to become a Catholic priest.

    "But this would be incorrect. Similarities are not the same as believing the same thing as you do. For instance, when Luther uses the phrase "pure virgin" it would be a major error to think he means "immaculate conception of Mary."

    Cathmom5: And, you are entitled to your opinion. However, since he WAS a Catholic priest, I think it more likely that he DID at least understand it with a Catholic understanding at one point in his life--whether he abandoned the ideas later was not *my* point.

    [Cathmom5 previously] But,...he *did* believe ALL of the doctrines at one time...in order to become a Catholic priest.

    "So...when web pages say things like, "the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death" and I present clear evidence he did not, don't you think such a statement should be.... removed?"

    Cathmom5: I think we may be having two seperate converstations here. I was making a point about the existence of the Marian doctrines and you're going on and on about the web page. I was making a SEPERATE point.

    [Cathmom5 previously:]...nothing says your interpetations are "honest and correctly factual" either.

    "Have you ever heard of... using arguments and proof to support such a statement? Here's your chance to prove that I'm not honest with this topic. All you need is Luther's writings, look up the contexts, do a little historical background work, compare it to what I've written over the last eight years or so, and prove that I am "dishonest" and not "correctly factual." That seems simple enough."

    Cathmom5: Yeah, it would, if that were *my* point. I haven't studied your so-called 'historical background work,' and I don't intend to now. Let's get this straight, I wasn't accusing you of being dishonest. I said I don't know that your opinion is any more honest or correctly factual than Scott's.

    Cathmom5: Life is too short. I plan to spend my life more productively. I spend time with my Lord and studying my own Faith.

    [Cathmom5 previously] One of the few things that most protestants agree on is their dislike for the Catholic Church. Most only know what they've been told about the Church, and believe even the most outrageous nonsense. As long as they have this common enemy, they don't fight each other over the huge elephant(s) in the room--their very diverse tenets of faith in order to 'be saved.'

    "You must have me confused with Jack Chick and Dave Hunt."

    Cathmom5: Nope, I am not confused. I see you missed *my* point yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  28. [Swan] "...But so far, Scott has written things like "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence." I have positive proof Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception,..."

    Cathmom5: I never stated he had a "lifelong belief in the immaculate conception." *My* point was that he DID believe in it at some point. Therefore, the belief predates Luther and is *not a recent innovation*.

    [Swan] "Now, unless you have any interactions with the Luther materials, I'm not interested in bickering back and forth with you."

    Cathmom5: And yet, here you are.

    [Swan] "Yes, you're Roman Catholic and I'm not. Yes, you don't trust me, big deal. Yes you're defending the church and I'm defending the church."

    Cathmom5: Actually, I'm defending the Church.

    [Swan] "Yes, we're both emmotionally involved with our beliefs. We could go back and forth for hours, and never move beyond this."

    cathmom5: Beyond what? We're not even on the same page. I was defending the longevity of the Marian doctrines, you're off on Scott about his web page.

    [Swan] "Please interact with the Luther quotes and citataions I've provided, prove me to be "dishonest"- I'm not interested in vague speculations and "my church is better than your yours" bantering."

    Cathmom5: I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression. I never said you were dishonest. My original post was not even addressed to you or anything you said. It was addressed to what Scott said about the value or lack thereof in a discussion on Luther's thoughts about Mary. I simply stated that both sides have an interpretation. I'm not interested in wasting my time on such an unimportant topic.

    Since you're not interested in talking about "my* point and I'm not interested in disputing Luther's beliefs, I guess the "bantering" is done.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I removed the "Comment deleted by author" postings (a couple were there from James too). So those are all gone.

    [cathmom5 wrote: My apologies, Scott, and any CathApol readers following along. I had computer problems which caused me to post my comments multiple times today. That is why there are so many deletions.
    Sorry.]

    ReplyDelete
  30. [cathmom5 said:]
    >> The only value I see in such a >> discussion about what the early
    >> deformers thought about St.
    >> Mary, is to disprove the
    >> protestant notion that such
    >> doctrines were recent
    >> innovations of the Church.
    >> Most, if not all, of the
    >> doctrines on the Blessed Virgin
    >> Mary were believed and have
    >> been taught since the beginning
    >> of the Church. The deformers
    >> believed the Marian doctrines,
    >> including her perpetual
    >> virginity and sinless state, to
    >> be true because that is what
    >> they had been taught by THE
    >> Church, the Catholic Church. The
    >> attacks on the Mother of God
    >> would come later--they are the
    >> recent innovations, not the
    >> other way around.

    Scott responds:
    And that, truly, was my intent in posting the original article to the website. The reposting of it here is to clarify the citations, context of quotes, etc., which I am painstakingly working through. I don't see the topic of Luther's Marian views being particularly worth more than a passing "hmmm," but since I am in agreement with Mr. Swan over some poor and out of context citations - I am spending the time to "make it right."

    [James Swan replies to cathmom5:]
    > My studies have been
    > particularly in the area of
    > Luther's theology. Luther's
    > Mariology isn't modern day Roman
    > Catholic Mariology, and it was
    > quite at odds with popular Roman
    > Catholic piety in the 16th
    > Century.

    Scott responds:
    Actually, and I think you're in agreement with me, James, Luther's EARLY Marian views (after the split) were still quite inline with Catholic thought, his views changed on many/most regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    [James Swan continues:}
    > I'm not a Lutheran, so it really
    > doesn't matter if what he
    > believed is different than
    > what I hold to. I say, simply
    > let Luther be Luther.

    Scott responds:
    And I agree to a point here. I am no longer a Lutheran, what Luther believed doesn't really matter to me - but as a former Lutheran it does interest me. I've already renounced my Lutheranism and so far as I can see, Luther was a heretic - plain and simple - so "let Luther be Luther" leaves him in that category.

    [James continues:]
    > Anyone familiar with Internet
    > theological bulletin boards and
    > blogs have at some point come
    > across Roman Catholic criticism
    > of Martin Luther. Fairly common
    > topics include:
    > Luther’s alleged antinomianism,

    Scott responds:
    I've heard of this, but have not engaged such discussions as yet.

    [James continues:]
    > his rejection of certain
    > canonical books,

    Scott responds:
    Well, he DID reject several canonical books from the Old Testament and it is well known that he initially omitted some from the New Testament, but ultimately kept the Catholic Canon of the New Testament. I realize you reject the fact that the Old Testament books he rejected were canonical - but they were. This is quite a different topic, we can pick this up later if you wish.

    [James continues:]
    > his alleged desire to be a
    > Protestant pope,

    Scott responds:
    Actually, the first time I've encountered anything similar to this is in my research for THIS discussion! I don't think he wanted to be a "Protestant pope" - but I recall something of him declaring he was called, similarly to St. Paul, to right this ship.

    [James continues:]
    > and some even argue Luther’s
    > partial responsibility for Nazi
    > Germany.

    Scott responds:
    Well, Hitler seemed either quite reliant or at least quite supportive of Luther's antisemitism, but again that's a whole 'nother topic, not to mention is at the risk of invoking "Godwin's Law."

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  31. continuing...
    [James continues:]
    > Interestingly though, when it
    > comes to the topic of Mary,
    > Roman Catholic sentiment towards
    > Luther shifts considerably.
    > Luther becomes the staunch
    > supporter of Mary; a leader that
    > all contemporary Protestants
    > should learn a great lesson in
    > Mariology from. This drastic
    > shift is puzzling; particularly
    > since Luther’s abandoning of the
    > intercession of the saints and
    > his doctrine of justification
    > significantly changes his Marian
    > approach.

    Scott responds:
    Granted, in his later years Luther's Marian views shifted. As for his doctrine of justification - Catholics and Lutherans (and not all, I grant) have agreed on the fundamental principles of justification. Some from both sides do not agree with this agreement.

    [James continues:]
    > To make matters worse, the
    > documentation and quotes put
    > forth by Romans Catholics (over
    > the eight or nine years I've
    > studied this) are typically
    > horrendous.

    Scott responds:
    Well thus far from what we've seen the quotes themselves are not horrendous, in fact quite accurate (referring only to the quotes from my website), however at least one was taken out of context and it seems to have the opposite intent of the same quote in context. I too oppose such and could label it as "contextually horrendous" - but the quotes thus far you have confirmed are Luther's words.

    [James continues:]
    > That being said, this subject
    > isn't rocket science. Anyone
    > willing to look at primary
    > sources and contexts will see
    > that Luther's Mariology isn't
    > Roman Catholic Mariology.

    Scott responds:
    Later in his life, this is true for the most part. For one example, which I believe you concur with, he never denies and even refers to the fact that the Blessed Virgin remained a virgin, even after the birth of Jesus.

    [James continues:]
    > True, there are some
    > similarities, but the
    > differences are significant- so
    > much so that this little web
    > page that Scott's correcting
    > needs a complete overhaul in
    > order to be honest and correctly
    > factual.

    Scott replies:
    Again, "factually" it appears the quotes ARE correct! In at least one case CONTEXT is challengeable, but not the fact that he said those words. And I reiterate, I do not see out of context quotes as an honest portrayal of what someone has said, and THAT is why I am "correcting" the website (starting with our discussions here).

    [James concludes (this round) with:]
    > If someone (say for instance,
    > Scott) wants to challenge my
    > opinions on this topic, they need
    > to do so with contexts and
    > primary sources. Saying, "I
    > don't agree" or "Swan's biased"
    > isn't a meaningful response.

    Scott replies:
    Well, I'm not real interested in persuing the "banter" over bias. Earlier I stated that your sentiments were not without bias, nor was the website which a friend of mine copied from (10 years ago). It is my goal to present the quotes WITHOUT BIAS even where the initial sentiments are not supported.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  32. One would think! But so far, Scott has written things like "Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence." I have positive proof Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception, and I've provided links for Scott on this that (so far) haven't been touched.

    sw: Well, you provided several links, some I have not gotten to yet, however - merely providing links is not documentation of your argumentation. Asking me to go seek out what you're referring to is only somewhat helpful. Now, providing a "quote" and then citing your source (through links) would be more helpful. I have begun going through your response with Mr. Armstrong, but walking through a previous discussion which I was not part of is a bit tedious (to say the least).

    James continues:
    Why would admitting I'm right on this be so problematic for Scott? Even a Roman Catholic apologist who fought me on this for quite a few years finally conceded I'm right on this- and Scott's linking to this guy's article at the bottom of this blog entry.

    sw: I have absolutely no problem admitting you are or might be right. I've made some changes (here on the blog version of the article) in good faith, based in trusting your word. I'm sure you can understand my cautiousness in just blanketly accepting you at your word.

    Scott<<<

    PS- You mentioned Grisar's books are available online, do you have a link you wouldn't mind sharing? Is either or both WA or LW available online (in English)? The Grisar book you mentioned I didn't need to get (after I had already ordered and paid for it) arrived and it is a different version and publisher - and though it has the same title, it has NO (that I can find thus far) primary source material in it. It may make for interesting reading, but won't be very helpful as documentation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I deleted my last comment which stated, "I'm sorry, I'm done with you both. You're wasting my time."

    I didn't want this comment to come off as angry. Scott, after you've done your studies on this topic, contact me and I'll take a look at it.

    As to Grisar, visit my blog, and look him up as a topic on my sidebar- I'm sure I've posted the links somewhere. If you still can't find them, e-mail me.

    That being said, I am done here till you both put forth some substance on this topic (contexts, references, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. James,
    I believe Cathmom5 is done as well. Really, I was not expecting more from you until I have finished my research. Again, actually quoting something and citing a source would have been nicer than just links, but I'll get to through this soon.

    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  35. I posted this on my blog, but I might as well put it here as well.

    Luther, Martin, qtd on Coming Home Network: (LW, vol. 51, pp. 375-376) (Swan claims CHN got this from him).


    LOL. Of course the one who posted the Luther quote probably got the quote from me, from this link which was a direct response to him, from years ago. See footnote #39.

    Similar to the person on the CHN forum, this same Romanist apologist citing this quote was arguing "In fact, Martin Luther 'praised' Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg." I nailed him on it, and posted the context for him. Now though, he posts the quote I provided for him as the CHN hero Romanist apologist- when he himself made the same false statements the person on CHN made. Will he admit he was making the same wrong argument about Luther "praising Mary" in his last sermon? Probably not.

    Go ahead though and ask him. I'd love to hear him explain how he previously argued "In fact, Martin Luther 'praised' Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg" and then was the hero on the CHN forum with the same quote I provided for him.

    In my response to him I stated: "Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic, and his main point is that Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Christ through Mary do so by the use of 'reason,' and 'reason is by nature a harmful whore.'"

    On the CHN forum he states now:

    I found some further information on it. It looks like the page numbers you gave were wrong, and taking into account the surrounding context, Luther was being sarcastic, and was against asking Mary to pray for us, not for it

    This is just another reason why I don't trust many Romanist apologists.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I was not disputing CHN got the reference from you, Mr. Swan, I was acknowledging (and LINKING) that you claim the origin of that quote/citation was from you. I've added further clarification of that sentiment on the blog version (see above).

    ReplyDelete
  37. I have restored the original article here back to reflect what was on the original web page, this way Swan's comments may make more sense as that is what he was dealing with. The "updated" copy has been published as a new article here:

    http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/01/reformers-on-mary-update.html

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.