Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary

CatholicCulture.org ^ | Dave Armstrong

[mrobisr]

“Good for you. Judas and Pilates also have the Blood of Christ on their hands.”

All have sinned thus all have the Blood of Jesus Christ on their hands to include Mary mother of Jesus.

Romans 3:23 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

Luke 1:46-47 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

The key is to accept that Grace through faith. Personally I’m glad that I have the blood of Christ on me that’s the only way I have forgiveness of sins, Salvation, and a guaranteed seat in Heaven.

You do realize that it was the pleasure of God the Father to crucify Jesus right... that’s the only way we are saved.

Isaiah 53:10 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

10 And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

[ebb tide]

You do realize that it was the pleasure of God the Father to crucify Jesus right...

You actually think it was "pleasure"?

[boatbums]

But this will not do for those who are serious about consulting Luther in order to arrive at the true "Reformation heritage" and the roots of an authentic Protestantism. For if Luther's views here can be so easily rationalized away, how can the Protestant know whether he is trustworthy relative to his other innovative doctrines such as extrinsic justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura? It appears, once again, that the truth about important historical figures is almost invariably more complex than the "legends" and overly-simplistic generalizations which men often at the remove of centuries—create and accept uncritically.

I guess this week Luther is a "good guy" to our FRoman friends?

Mr. Armstrong is very selective in his expositions on Luther and fails to do what he advises others. He generalizes, simplifies and doesn't consider the more mature Luther and his Mariology. For those interested in a more balanced look at this subject than what a Roman Catholic apologist imagines, please see Martin Luther's Theology of Mary by James Swann.

It's funny how Armstrong wants to criticize Protestants by questioning Luther's view of Mary and his "trustworthiness" on this versus his other Reformed doctrines. It's like he just doesn't get it that Luther is not the Pope of Protestants, that the Reformation was far more widespread than one man and about far more than simply Luther's thinking about Mary. Reformation theology was neither novel nor "innovative" - something RC critics claim but find impossible to prove.

[boatbums]

Who's complaining? Despite what the Bergoglio claims, prostelyzation[sic] is a Catholic’s duty.

Do you think talking to people like you are doing on this thread is a good example of "proselytization"? Because I think real proselytization happens through gentleness and respect. No one will be persuaded to convert to a group where its members are elitist jerks.

[ebb tide]

Do you think talking to people like you are doing on this thread is a good example of "proselytization"?

Why don't you ask Saint Paul?

[BillyBoy]

>> You complain when Christians post on Roman Catholic threads. <<

I doubt anyone would complain when Christians post on Roman Catholic threads, since Roman Catholics are the largest group of Christians in the world. Complaining about it would be akin to complaining that Americans are posting on Texas threads.

[DennisR]

Yep!

[BlueDragon]

The Church of ME the Only One!

That's the response to another here having said that they;

"... don’t give a rip about what Luther has to say on Mary or any other subject.”

???

Luther should be looked upon as authoritative, now?

Whatever happened to Luther having been some sort of [fill-in-the-blank with dealer's choice of favorite, typical Roman Catholic condemnation of Martin Luther]???

People are supposed to respectfully consider what is being presented here as having been the man's thinking (which is somewhat dubious assumption, in and of itself, considering the polemical nature of the source) in regards to this particular subject matter ---but not at all in other things, is it? Because it's Martin Luther he simply must be attacked-attacked-ATTACKED except when he may have had things to say supportive of how 'cult of Mary' devotees tend to hyperventilate (figuratively speaking, of course) when doing the hyperdulia in service to "Her"? That's what I'm seeing here.

Was that sort of thing (the "in service to Her" link provided immediately above) which showcases "Mary" presenting herself as a co-redeemer that persons were advised they should "serve" with prayer directed to her (instead of relying upon, praying to, worshiping and serving the Creator) what Christ and his chosen apostles had in mind when establishing the Church? If so, they seemed to have never gotten around to mentioning it. In fact (in the Scriptures) they tended consistently to do rather the opposite.

The relatively early in history of the Church, Gnostic-like beginnings of Marianism did not gain much more than a toe-hold until the 4th, and 5th centuries, expanding from there on to transpose attributes of Christ onto "Mary" more fully only centuries long after the original cast and crew of apostles, and 1st generation acolytes succeeding them had passed on.

From within point #5 at Why Mary? at Patheos.com, written by Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History, Baylor University;

"... In devotional practice, Mary for well over a thousand years became the second Christ, a co-Christ. If the church officially drew a strict distinction between the worship due to Christ and the veneration due his Mother, that division collapsed in practice."

Jenkins is not all that much 'anti-Catholic', which can be determined from investigating the man's other writings, for example this from 2002, the article subheading reading; The trauma stemming from the Boston case should not be used to accuse the whole Roman Catholic Church and his own personal history. I mention this because he seems to be even-handed in his approaches to information as he finds it. Interestingly enough, at the end of the first article that I'd linked to, at Patheos.com, he ended that article posing this question, which I think is an interesting one: "So at what point did “tradition” cease to be valid as a source for doctrine?"

Perhaps "tradition" was never all that good of an actually reliable source for doctrine, it having been a decidedly mixed bag all along. Similar to how "ecclesiastical writings" in comparison to more actually fully canonical texts ---although a few of those "ecclesiastical writings" fit to be read from (in practice, generally in limited extract) within Church, were described (and provided warnings regarding) by St. Jerome in BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE OF JEROME TO THE BOOKS OF SOLOMON regarding Sirach, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus, "... Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas".[underlining added]

What if I told you that I don't give a rip about what the likes of Dave Armstrong has to say? Would that make me into being;

The Church of ME the Only One! ???

He's a lesser figure than Martin Luther was.

That goon (Armstrong) is the kind of RC apologist who would argue that the books Jerome clearly enough set outside the canon had been accepted as fully canonical pretty much all along despite there being abundant evidence to the contrary.

Dave Armstrong's arguments are rather worthless, their only utility presented to myself being example of RC polemical apologetic to be examined in detail in order to show the holes in it. For this article, well, there's more than one way to skin the beasty little critters. I've seen his work before. It's often the same ol' same ol' misrepresentation of actual fact and historical record -- that studiously ignores anything that would detract from the polemic. Should I expect much of anything different for this article?

In other words, the man lacks intellectual integrity when it comes to needing justify to others particular tenets of belief, faith and practice, relatively peculiar chiefly to Roman Catholicism. The various flavors of Orthodox do have their differences in regard to how they go about praising the Theotokos, with yet more significant difference with the Latin Church in how she is presented within Orthodox theology.

I can say all of those things honestly enough without being "The Church of ME the Only One!" as you had so rudely posted as something of personal commentary/insult reply to metmom.

[BlueDragon]

Complaining about it would be akin to complaining that Americans are posting on Texas threads.

Well...if they are yankees while posting on 'Texas threads' they'd better mind their manners.

Just sayin'. ;^')

---

---

Useful defintions;

yankee:

---- somebody that "lives up North" most particularly to the East of the Smoky Mountains and North of the old Mason-Dixon line.

"d" word yankee (often pronounced as one word with "yankee"):

--- one of those people from up there who come down here for the winter. Not seen in Texas winters nearly as much as seen in Florida

the should not be said "g" word, combined with the also bad thing to say "d" word, said in conjunction with the already defined word, "yankee":

--- somebody from up there who moves down here and STAYS year-round making a [fill-in-the-blank with whatever derogative most suitable to fit occasion/behavior] and general pain-in- the-neck to be around. I mean ...have you ever heard them people talk? Before the Cubans, the (can't say those words here) yankees transmogrified South Florida into being stuffed with prime example of one the rudest populations you'd ever not want to be around all that much...

[ealgeone]

Rarely though do we see Romam Catholics identify as Christians. They identify more with a denominational notation.

[ealgeone]

Paul never hid behind a caucus thread.

[ealgeone]

Nope.

[ealgeone]

Is that so? I haven't seen one thread posted by him. Could you give me an example?

A simple search of Free Republic proves you wrong....again. That is, if you know how to search Free Republic.

Now, run along back to your caucus threads where you'll be safe and no one will have to keep correcting you.

[ealgeone]

I see Luther is back on the good guy list. Tomorrow he’ll be thrown off the bus again.

[ealgeone]

Who's complaining?

You...the modern day Luther.

You don't like what your pope is doing so you post thread after thread after thread trashing the pope. How is that any different than what Luther did?

At least Luther had been seminary trained.

Have you?

I mean seriously, who are you to be trashing your pope?

You're your own little Luther.

[ebb tide]

At least Luther had been seminary trained.

So was Joseph Stalin. Do you worship him also?

[ealgeone]

Nope. Nor does any Christian worship Luther which is more than can be said for the Roman Catholic and Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are a perceptive person, metmom. Can YOU not wrap your mind around the concept that a man might be wrong about one thing and right about another?

[ealgeone]

That is where the Roman Catholic appeal to "Tradition" fails. The ECFs are all over the place on the issues.

That is why Christianity relies upon the Word for authority.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t understand your linkage here. I was writing about Luther, not the Early Church Fathers. Luther’s errors, following from and resulting in schism, were plain.

And the ECF’s are by no means infallible. You have to apply Vincent of Lerin’s “Everywhere, everyone, at all times...” Allowing for the legitimate rhetorical hyperbole here, of course.

I like your reference to the Word, though. We are not, as the Muslims say, People of the Book. We are People of the Word.