Posted on 06/18/2017 5:12:06 PM PDT by narses
Despite the radicalism of early Protestantism toward many ancient Catholic "distinctives," such as the Communion of the Saints, Penance, Purgatory, Infused Justification, the Papacy, the priesthood, sacramental marriage, etc., it may surprise many to discover that Martin Luther was rather conservative in some of his doctrinal views, such as on baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and particularly the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.
Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther's own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther's position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39). He, 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. (Ibid.)
God says... "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).
Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary's Immaculate Conception, which wasn't even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. 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).
Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn't explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied—although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
There can he 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. Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:
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 goes even further, and gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians, much the same as in Catholic piety:
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, Christ is his brother. God is his father. (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).
Luther did strongly condemn any devotional practices which implied that Mary was in any way equal to our Lord or that she took anything away from His sole sufficiency as our Savior. This is, and always has been, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Luther often "threw out the baby with the bath water," when it came to criticizing erroneous emphases and opinions which were prevalent in his time—falsely equating them with Church doctrine. His attitude towards the use of the "Hail Mary" prayer (the first portion of the Rosary) is illustrative. In certain polemical utterances he appears to condemn its recitation altogether, but he is only forbidding a use of Marian devotions apart from heartfelt faith, as the following two citations make clear:
Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523). Our prayer should include the Mother of God.. .What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor.. .We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her...He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
To summarize, it is apparent that Luther was extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is notable in light of his aversion to so many other "Papist" or "Romish" doctrines, as he was wont to describe them. His major departure occurs with regard to the intercession and invocation of the saints, which he denied, in accord with the earliest systematic Lutheran creed, the Augsburg Confession of 1530 (Article 21).
His views of Mary as Mother of God and as ever-Virgin were identical to those in Catholicism, and his opinions on the Immaculate Conception, Mary's "Spiritual Motherhood" and the use of the "Hail Mary" were substantially the same. He didn't deny the Assumption (he certainly didn't hesitate to rail against doctrines he opposed!), and venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety.
Therefore, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism. To the extent that this fact is dealt with at all by Protestants, it is usually explained as a "holdover" from the early Luther's late medieval Augustinian Catholic views ("everyone has their blind spots," etc.). 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.
Dave Armstrong's Internet Website: Biblical Defense of Catholicism at http://ic.net/~erasmus/.
Dave was received into the Catholic Church in 1991 from Evangelical Protestantism. His complete conversion story can be found in Surprised by Truth.
This item 788 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
“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.
You actually think it was "pleasure"?
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.
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.
Why don't you ask Saint Paul?
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.
Yep!
That's the response to another here having said that they;
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;
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.
Well...if they are yankees while posting on 'Texas threads' they'd better mind their manners.
Just sayin'. ;^')
yankee:
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":
Rarely though do we see Romam Catholics identify as Christians. They identify more with a denominational notation.
Paul never hid behind a caucus thread.
Nope.
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.
I see Luther is back on the good guy list. Tomorrow he’ll be thrown off the bus again.
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.
So was Joseph Stalin. Do you worship him also?
Nope. Nor does any Christian worship Luther which is more than can be said for the Roman Catholic and Mary.
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?
That is why Christianity relies upon the Word for authority.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.