Apparitions of the Virgin Mary A Protestant Look at a Catholic Phenomenon: Part Two

Christian Research Journal ^ | 1991 | Kenneth R. Samples

[gitmo]

Protestants, diss Mary at your own peril.

I can't recall ever hearing a Protestant do that.

[narses]

presently no screen name wrote:
“You can’t be Mary, she had other children. Going to those already deceived to spread the deception should work.”

Then we hear from Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, who Speaks on Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:

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

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {”Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

“. . . 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.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Commentaries on Luther

“. . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her.” (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

“In Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call ‘surprising’”.
(David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)

Martin Luther defends the Eucharist

In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Other Reformers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{”Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}
See also:
Mary in Scripture
David’s experience with Mary
The Rosary
Is Mary a Pagan Goddess?
Do Catholics pray to Mary?
What’s this Co-Redemptrix nonsense?
Mary in the early Church and today

Some of the above from Nelson Pacheco from “Luther On Our Lady”.
Most of the Martin Luther quotes were found on Dave Armstrong’s site www.BiblicalCatholic.org

Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way
we have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together
we give you absolute permission to move
Amen

[CatholicTim]

I wish all Protestants would read former evangelical, now Catholic, Mark Shea's trilogy on Mary. This would clear up a lot of confusion. Catholics do not worship Mary. She is fully human, not divine.

If you are too lazy to read Mark's books, you might want to consider reading John Henry Newman's “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”. He was an Anglican that wanted to understand the origins of Catholic doctrines concerning Mary (which he did not agree with at first). After his study he eventually joined the Catholic Church. Here is a link:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Finally I left the schismatic, subjective wilderness of evangelical Protestantism 6 years ago when I discovered the fallacies of Sola Scriptura and the beauty of true historical Christianity—as it has always been practiced for 2000 years.

Sola Scriptura is not part of any historical orthodox Christian tradition. Every early church quote I have read by Protestants are from those who also attest to the authority of tradition and the church—never Sola Scriptura. Saying that scripture is without error and inspired proves nothing since Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) also affirm the same.

Sola Scriptura is contradicted in scripture (for example — 1 Tim. 3:15, Matt 16 and Matt 18 — which speak to the authority of the church and 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 — which speak to the authority of apostolic tradition.)

No quote from scripture can be used to support Sola Scriptura. This is simply a theological assumption.

Also, all Marian doctrines do have implicit support from scripture. Once you start connecting the dots you can clearly see them. There are plenty of good articles on www.catholic.com about the scriptural support for Marian doctrines.

I will ask our mother (Rev 12:17) to pray for you all. Her prayers are powerful.

God bless

[big'ol_freeper]

It’s not about laziness. It’s about being a useful idiot for the evil one. It burns in their hearts.

[Alex Murphy]

I wish all Protestants would read former evangelical, now Catholic, Mark Shea's trilogy on Mary.

You'll find a more receptive audience for Shea over on Democratic Underground:
Who Is Mark Shea Talking About?
Capitalism, Colossians and the Miller Brewing Company
The Perspicuity of Scripture and Other Creation Myths
The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms [2009 thread]
The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms [2010 repost]
Big Laws and Small Laws [Mark Shea on "Nanny Staters" vs the "Right Wing Noise Machine"]

[smvoice]

We know. You don't "worship" Mary. You, what is the word, hyperdulia Mary. What is the verb for hyperdulia?

He was an Anglican that wanted to understand the origins of Catholic doctrines concerning Mary (which he did not agree with at first). After his study he eventually joined the Catholic Church.

Too bad his "study" wasn't the study of 2 Tim. 2:15. "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Of course he ended up joining the Catholic Church. That is where all who ignore/refuse to study God's word, rightly divided, end up. That, and connecting imaginary dots to IMPLICIT poofs of Scripture, buried so deep between the lines you could strike oil before you strike a meaning you like.

[narses]

Veneration is not worship.

[smvoice]

iknow...and an imposed government donation is not a tax.

[narses]

Non sequitur. Sad that logic and language escape you.

[CynicalBear]

>>So Marian Doctrine is “unbiblical?<<
>> Well, so is “Sola Scriptura<<

Let’s see what the original Church founders thought of Sola Scriptura

Irenaeus

Irenaeus is considered one of the most important of the early Church fathers. He was born around 140 A.D. in Asia Minor and in his early years was acquainted with Polycarp, the martyr from Smyrna, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He later became a bishop of Lyons and was highly respected as a Church leader and theologian. He is principally known for his refutation of the Gnostic heresies and defense of orthodoxy.

Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...

It is clear that what Irenaeus meant by proof was documentation from Scripture. This lack of it proved to him that Gnostic teaching was not apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus goes on to say that if a doctrine cannot be proven from Scripture it is purely speculative and cannot be known. He made it clear that revelation comes only through Scripture, so if Scripture is silent on a subject one cannot pretend to know what it does not reveal. He rejected the legitimacy of speculation on any matter not revealed in Scripture.

The importance of this principle is apparent when applied to the subject of tradition. Irenaeus believed that true apostolic tradition cannot be purely oral in nature—it must be verified from the writings of the apostles. This was the point of contention between Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents. The Gnostics claimed to possess an oral tradition from the apostles which was supplemental to Scripture and immune to the Scriptural proofs demanded by Irenaeus. We will look at this in more detail in a moment. According to Irenaeus, in order for tradition to be demonstrated as truly apostolic it must be documented from Scripture.

The Catholic Church started out with the right idea but seems to have gone against the real Church Fathers. That pretty much puts today’s Catholic Church in the category of the Gnostics as per Irenaeus.

[sayuncledave]

Then may I be so bold as to suggest the outstanding Robert Sungenis? (http://www.catholicintl.com) or perhaps Sonitus Sanctus (http://www.catholicaudio.blogspot.com) or the Institute of Catholic Culture (http://www.instituteofcatholicculture.org). Heck, there are many good sources for information, folks. If I can find them, I know you can find them.

[CynicalBear]

>>Sola Scriptura is not part of any historical orthodox Christian tradition.<<

See post 30

[smvoice]

Sad that logic and language escape you.

But I'm happy that the Grace of God does not escape me. I would exchange every 'logical' thought you own and your love of 'language' in order to know Christ and the free gift of God that "By grace are ye saved through faith, (not logic or language) and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9.

Sad that so many are impressed by so little, narses.

[Lee N. Field]

Practice and dry runs for the big deception at the end.

"Lying signs and wonders."

[narses]

“But I’m happy that the Grace of God does not escape me.”

Maybe but truth isn’t in your words. That is sad.+

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[smvoice]

What is the ‘our gospel’ that Paul refers to? Show me some of your ‘truth’, narses.

[narses]

ROTFLMAO!

[smvoice]

That’s a great example of showing someone the Gospel. When you have no idea what it actually IS. Yes, you are full of...truth...

[narses]

Snort. LOL.

You are getting funnier with every post.

You conflate venerate with worship, you dream up siblings for Jesus that never existed and you claim to be in God’s Grace while doing so.

Jeremiah 5:21 Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

[johngrace]

I think this gentlemen knew Tradition.

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the TRADITION of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and

organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the TRADITION and the Faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which Succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).