Question:
The following are some qoutes about what Martin Luther believed about Mary’s perpetual virginity: 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.)
Response:
The following are some qoutes about what Martin Luther believed about Mary’s perpetual virginity: 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.)
Thanks for turning off the html, Paul. I am not exactly sure what you point is in posting these Luther quotes. I do not find in them anything new and different. If you are going after Radical Reformer "Mary Bashers," I love it and encourage your work. I believe that all the quote you have given in these several "What Luther believed about the Virgin Mary" are authentic Luther, as far as I can tell. They certainly track with what I know to be authentic Luther. However, it would have been helpful to have had fewer and all in one large post so that one could more easily respond in general to the issue raised. Lutherans do not have a problem with Mary, they do not have a problem with the "Hail Mary…" properly understood as one of your Luther quotes points out. However, Lutherans do have a problem with what some people have done to Mary. Mary was honored by God as no one has ever been honored, and we should honor her too. Again the problem is not Mary but what some people have done to Mary. "Granted that blessed Mary prays for the church, does she receive souls in death, does she overcome death, does she give life? What does Christ do if blessed Mary does all this? Even though she is worthy of the highest honors, she does not want to be put on the same level as Christ but to have her example considered and followed. The fact of the matter is that in popular estimation the blessed Virgin has completely replaced Christ." Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, 1531, Article XXI, Invocation of Saints. From the Tappert translation of The Book of Concord published in 1959 by Fortress Press. For a detailed discussion of the Lutheran view of Mary and the Saints you might like to take a look at, "The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary," Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, Edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford and Joseph A. Burgess. Bob Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Response:
For some Lutherans it is not even the content of some of the doctrines themselves so much as how the doctrines have been stated and promulgated. That’s a very interesting point. Can you expand on it?
Please be aware that what follows is my own oppinion and while I will take full responsibility for it it should not be taken as the *official* position of any Lutheran Church body. For Lutherans, just because something is not forbidden does not mean that it is required. That leaves a lot of area for, "maybe." In the earliest and best attested traditions of the Church, i.e. Scripture there is no direct mention of the Immaculate Conception. There is nothing against it either. There is just silence. The idea of the Immaculate Conception has some certain aesthetic attractiveness to it but to require it as an item of belief required to hold the Christian faith is much too great a reach. To understand it as something that is a possibility is very different and in keeping with the silence of the earliest and best attested traditions of the Church. The idea of the Assumption of Mary the Mother of Our Lord has a bit more horse power because there is Scriptural precident for the assumption (The bodily taking up to heaven) of certain very holy people, Enoch and Elijah and, of course, of our Lord himself as we celebrated last Thursday. Also, there is no "tomb of Mary" as one might expect because there is for example Peter’s tomb to be found as I recall beneath a rather large church building in Rome. <g However, Scripture says nothing of the Assumption of Mary and the earliest mention tradition does seem to be a bit late for something so unusual and important. Again the idea has some certain aesthetic attractiveness to it but to require it as an item of believe required to hold the Christian faith is much too great a reach. And again, to understand it as something that is a possibility is very different and in keeping with the silence of the earliest and best attested tradtions of the Church. The idea of Mary’s intercession for the church and all the faithful is again a very attractive idea. It fits very well with the understanding that the Church Triumphant continually prays for the Church Militant. Mary, of course, is a member of the Church Triumphant and thus prays continuously for the Church Militant. Lutherans hold that the saints should be kept in remembrance so that our faith may be strengthened whe we see what grace they received and how they were sustained by faith. However, it cannot be proved from the eariest and best attested traditions of the Church, Scripture, that we are to invoke saints or seek help from them. At the same time one can find it is proper for one to ask another for their prayers and no where can one find that it is forbidden to ask one of the Church Triumphant for their prayers. It is an open question. It is also an open question as to whither the prayers of one individual Christian are any more effective than those of another individual Christian. I can ask for your prayers, Dave, maybe I can ask for Mary, Mother of Our Lord or say, Martin of Tours, for their prayers. But there is no requirement to do so nor any assurance that they either respond or that their prayers are any more effective than your or mine. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has once or twice been accused of high-handedness. For instance, a number of my Orthodox friends in America admit that they really agree with the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, and don’t really mind it being there; rather, they are still outraged, 1300 years after the fact, at how it was inserted in the first place).
That is a large part of the problem. Unilateral promigation of dogma does not sit well those not consulted. The part of the Lutheran Church of which I am a part has done the same thing on an entirely different issue, the ordination of women. We did it unilaterally without consulting other Lutherans or fully considering the effect on our natural ecumenical partners. As for Mary, I see the great ecumenical stumbling block as the sort of all-out, totus tuus mariology that emerges from the piety and writings of Montfort and his likes.
Yep. I really don’t see how a common ground can be levelled out here, unless perhaps the turn of the millennium, the continued banal existence of the world, and a general boredom with the recent spate of marian apparitions might produce some new vector of development in the "high mariology".
The Papal pronouncements have painted you into a corner. Having said that, I should also add that I would not like to see any particular weakening of the force of this high mariology, which tends to produce, imo, a very deep, active and Christ-centered piety among those who pursue it.
It is most certaily true that it has produced a Christ centerd piety among many of those who pursue it. Among others however, it is as Melanchthon said in the Apology, "in popular estimation the blessed Virgin has completely replaced Christ." The difficulty is to move from the latter to the former. And perhaps you are right, it may take something unusual to push things out of the corner. Dave
Bob Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Response:
For some Lutherans it is not even the content of some of the doctrines themselves so much as how the doctrines have been stated and promulgated.
That’s a very interesting point. Can you expand on it? Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has once or twice been accused of high-handedness. For instance, a number of my Orthodox friends in America admit that they really agree with the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, and don’t really mind it being there; rather, they are still outraged, 1300 years after the fact, at how it was inserted in the first place). As for Mary, I see the great ecumenical stumbling block as the sort of all-out, totus tuus mariology that emerges from the piety and writings of Montfort and his likes. I really don’t see how a common ground can be levelled out here, unless perhaps the turn of the millennium, the continued banal existence of the world, and a general boredom with the recent spate of marian apparitions might produce some new vector of development in the "high mariology". Having said that, I should also add that I would not like to see any particular weakening of the force of this high mariology, which tends to produce, imo, a very deep, active and Christ-centered piety among those who pursue it. Dave
Response:
Lutherans as far as I know do not believe the doctrines of Mary including the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and her Intercession.
Depending on how these doctrines were spun out Lutherans would consider them to come under the "popular estimation" point that Melanchthon makes in the quote below. "Granted that blessed Mary prays for the church, does she receive souls in death, does she overcome death, does she give life? What does Christ do if blessed Mary does all this? Even though she is worthy of the highest honors, she does not want to be put on the same level as Christ but to have her example considered and followed. The fact of the matter is that in popular estimation the blessed Virgin has completely replaced Christ." Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, 1531, Article XXI, Invocation of Saints. From the Tappert translation of The Book of Concord published in 1959 by Fortress Press. As I have said, Lutherans have no problem with Mary, they do have a problem with what some people have done to her. In Christ, Paul p.s. Yes, I am going after Mary bashers.
Go get’em and more power to you. Lutherans do not bash Mary. They do, however, object strongly to some of the doctrines some people put forth concering her but she is held in great respect and affection by Lutherans. For some Lutherans it is not even the content of some of the doctrines themselves so much as how the doctrines have been stated and promulgated. Bob Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Response:
Lutherans as far as I know do not believe the doctrines of Mary including the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and her Intercession. In Christ, Paul p.s. Yes, I am going after Mary bashers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following are some qoutes about what Martin Luther believed about Mary’s perpetual virginity: 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.) Thanks for turning off the html, Paul. I am not exactly sure what you point is in posting these Luther quotes. I do not find in them anything new and different. If you are going after Radical Reformer "Mary Bashers," I love it and encourage your work. I believe that all the quote you have given in these several "What Luther believed about the Virgin Mary" are authentic Luther, as far as I can tell. They certainly track with what I know to be authentic Luther. However, it would have been helpful to have had fewer and all in one large post so that one could more easily respond in general to the issue raised. Lutherans do not have a problem with Mary, they do not have a problem with the "Hail Mary…" properly understood as one of your Luther quotes points out. However, Lutherans do have a problem with what some people have done to Mary. Mary was honored by God as no one has ever been honored, and we should honor her too. Again the problem is not Mary but what some people have done to Mary. "Granted that blessed Mary prays for the church, does she receive souls in death, does she overcome death, does she give life? What does Christ do if blessed Mary does all this? Even though she is worthy of the highest honors, she does not want to be put on the same level as Christ but to have her example considered and followed. The fact of the matter is that in popular estimation the blessed Virgin has completely replaced Christ." Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, 1531, Article XXI, Invocation of Saints. From the Tappert translation of The Book of Concord published in 1959 by Fortress Press. For a detailed discussion of the Lutheran view of Mary and the Saints you might like to take a look at, "The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary," Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, Edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford and Joseph A. Burgess. Bob Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.