Posted on 02/09/2016 7:36:12 AM PST by marshmallow
I never implied that Lutherans denied the Real Presence, I simply pointed out that there are distinct differences between Lutheran beliefs on the matter and Catholic or Orthodox beliefs.
I do not believe Luther worshipped Mary or called her the blasphemous title of mother of God
Read Thesis 75.
Any rejection of the title Theotokos and her perpetual virginity didn't enter mainline Protestantism until long after the original Reformers were dead. Luther and Calvin advocated burning people at the stake for rejecting Marian teachings that had been central to Christianity for over a thousand years.
Why does everyone resist Jesus’ agenda?
Luk_12:51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!
One of the best ways to begin with understanding Luther’s view of Mary is Luther’s Marian hymn, completed A.D. 1545, one year before his death.
Luther scholars frequently—generally correctly—differentiate between “young, Catholic Luther” and “old, Protestant Luther”. Well, here is “old Protestant Luther, some 28 years after posting the 95 Theses sounding very Catholic indeed:
To me she’s dear, the worthy maid,
And I cannot forget her;
Praise, honor, virtue her are said,
Then all will love her better.
I seek her good,
And if I should
Right evil fare,
I do not care,
She’ll make up for it to me
With love and truth that will not tire,
Which she will ever show me,
And do all my desire.
She wears of purest gold a crown
Twelve stars their rays are twining,
Her rainment, glorious as the sun,
And bright from far is shining.
Her feet the moon
Are set upon
She is the bride
With the Lord to hide.
Sore travail is upon her;
She bringest forth a noble Son
Whom all the world must honor,
Their king, the only one.
That makes the dragon rage and roar,
He will the child upswallow;
His raging comes to nothing more;
No jot of gain will follow.
The infant high
Up to the sky
Away is heft
And he is left
On earth,all mad with murder.
The mother now alone is she,
But God will watchful guard her.
And the right Father he.
I do not believe Luther worshipped Mary or called her the blasphemous title of mother of God. We certainly do not today.
[S]he became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child.... Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.... None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.”
Luther’s Works, 21:326, cf. 21:346.
The following 2 excerpts are from documents that were downloaded from the LCMS Lutherans Confessions website
http://www.lcms.org/lutheranconfessions
24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, article VIII. The Person of Christ Page 71 of 102
file:///C:/Users/Rich/Downloads/Solid%20Declaration.pdf
12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.
Epitome of the Formula of Concord VIII. The Person of Christ Page 21 of 32
file:///C:/Users/Rich/Downloads/Epitome.pdf
Luther did not get far enough away from Rome in some matters This apparently is one of them
Lutheran view. Mary is the Theotokos. She is the God-bearer. This term has been translated as the "mother of God", but it is properly understood as God-bearer. This term is important for what it says about Jesus. The Catholics have twisted this to be an honorific to Mary. If you read the Lutheran confessions, the meaning of the term "mother of God" is properly understood because of what it says about Jesus.
Lutheran view. Mary's perpetual virginity is not settled. It is acceptable to believe in her perpetual virginity just as it is acceptable to believe she did not remain a virgin. The Lutheran confessions state that her virginity remained intact with Jesus' birth, but the confessions remain silent on what happened between Mary and Joseph after the birth.
“I do not believe Luther worshipped Mary”
He venerated her - to what extent I don’t know - but none of us “worships” Mary so the real problem would be your understanding apparently.
“or called her the blasphemous title of mother of God”
Oh, please. Yet another Protestant anti-catholic who apparently has no idea what she’s talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Marian_theology#Mother_of_God
“We certainly do not today.”
Because Lutherans ditched a number of things early Lutherans believed. They “evolved” and still do further and further away from historic orthodox Christianity. Ever hear of the Formula of Concord or the Book of Concord? Here’s what Wikipedia says about it:
Subsequently it was signed (subscribed to) by three electors of the Holy Roman Empire, twenty dukes and princes, twenty-four counts, four barons, thirty-five free imperial cities, and over 8,000 pastors. These constituted two-thirds of the Lutheran Church in Germany at the time. Every clergyman in the Electorate of Saxony had to either subscribe or write his objections with respect to the Formula of Concord. A rhyme was circulated [at the time]: “Write, dear Sir, write, that you might remain at the parish” (schreibt, lieber Herre, schreibt, dass Ihr bei der Pfarre bleibt). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_of_Concord
And here’s what was in it that they all agreed to:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Marian_theology#Mother_of_God
So, at one point, just about every important Lutheran on the face of the earth subscribed to the belief that Mary was the mother of God - a belief you call blasphemous.
And you don’t use that “blasphemous” title today, huh? Well, you better tell the pastor at Augsbug Lutheran Church in Shawnee, Kansas (LCMS): “So along with Paul, Peter, and John, so too, Holy Mary Mother of God prays for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.” http://www.augsburglutheranchurch.org/sermons/2015/saint-mary.html
Or you might want to tell the pastor at St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Topeka (LCMS): “Not with Mary coming to Elizabeth, and John leaping in his mother’s womb at the sound of the voice of the mother of God.” http://stjohnlcmstopeka.org/worship/sermons/sermon20151202.php
Gee, I guess that just means the LCMS is filled with crypto-Catholics!
“But again Luther initially set out to reform the Roman Church When they would not address the issues there was no other solution than to break with Rome to follow Christ.”
No, actually the Church did reform she just did it when she was good and ready. Only someone who thinks he is more important than God and His Church would think the universe runs on his self-appointed timetable.
Neither do Catholics.
or called her the blasphemous title of mother of God
Luther was a good enough theologian to know that "Mother of God" translates the Greek Theotokos, which title was affirmed by the Council of Ephesus in defense, not of Mary, but of the true divinity of Christ.
Nothing "blasphemous" about it at all, unless you reject the divinity of Christ. And in that case, you aren't a Christian at all, so why would you care?
As for Luther:
". . . 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." -- {Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)}
"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." -- Commentary on the Magnificat
One could say the same about Pope Francis.
“One could say the same about Pope Francis.”
One could only say that if one wanted to be wrong. So you might say it.
Catholic divorce, approval of civil homo union laws, giving Holy Communion to Lutherans, washing women’s feet on Holy Thursday, super confessors of “mercy”, etc.; all courtesy of Humble “This is my Church!” Jorge.
So you think the Church had a timetable for those things?
See, you’re wrong again. You just can’t seem to help it. You can’t help but make errors.
Bergoglio does; and it’s all history now.
“Bergoglio does; and it’s all history now.”
But the original point was about Luther opposing the Church by forming his own sect when the Church did not reform according to his timetable. Thus, you’re still wrong.
That won’t change.
“But”...
Is that your defense of Papa Tango’s history?
Absolutely pathetic.
Here’s a link to a somewhat more detailed exposition on the correspondence between Jeremias II and the Tubingen divines. The originals texts of the letters used to be on line, but I can ‘t find them anymore. This is a fascinating period in Church history. This is part of the reason I call you guys, only half in jest, German Orthodox, redgolum!
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.stuckwisch.html
The title “Mother of God” is less about Mary, and more about Jesus. If Jesus was fully man and fully God in one person, then Mary was his mother. It dates back to an early issue where there were people who said that Jesus in effect two persons (man and God).
The term is clumsy in English, but Luther did refer to Mary as Mother of God (using the Greek term, which I will not try to spell out this early in the morning). He also thought Mary was a virgin all of her life.
However, the idea of Mary having no original sin was not something that either side believed as dogma back then. That is a recent innovation dating back to 1870 or so.
“Is that your defense of Papa Tango’s history?”
Is that your way of addressing the pope?
Absolutely pathetic.
“However, the idea of Mary having no original sin was not something that either side believed as dogma back then. That is a recent innovation dating back to 1870 or so.”
No. As the Wikipedia article points out:
Begin paste:
n 1544 Luther said: ‘God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.’[15] Elsewhere, “All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin].”[16] When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God’s singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity.
Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person.”[17] (Luther, Martin (1996). John Nicholas Lenker, ed. Sermons of Martin Luther. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, page 291).
end paste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_Marian_theology#Immaculate_conception
Thus, it has to be concluded that Luther had views that allowed either for an 1) immaculate conception or 2) for a cleansing of the soul of the Virgin Mary in the womb and then an avoidance of sin for the rest of her life. It has to be one or the other. In this, he agreed with Catholics. The first attempt to define the Immaculate Conception was in the 14th century, not the 19th.
I cannot count the number of times that I've heard some version of, "Luther, Calvin, et al, certainly didn't believe these things but could only do so much..."
Did they "not go far enough" with denying the Trinity as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with denying the Creeds as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with embracing Arianism as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with embracing Nestorianism as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with embracing Adoptionism as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with embracing Pelagianism as some later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with allowing the ordination of women as nearly all later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with allowing same-sex "marriage" as nearly all later Protestants did?
Did they "not go far enough" with allowing abortion as nearly all later Protestants did?
Is it at all possible that Luther and others recognized that the title of Theotokos had very little to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary personally, but was absolutely critical to defining the nature of Jesus Christ because ANY OTHER title results in a heretical understanding of the hypostatic union of the Logos.
Many present-day Protestants seem to have a romantic notion that the early Christian heretics were actually early Protestants who were unjustly subdued by the "evil" Catholic Church. But the truth, when you look at what they actually believed and the ramifications of those beliefs, is that they were truly heretics.
Did Luther and the other early Reformers have valid grievances against Catholic practices in their day? Absolutely! And I don't think any modern-day Catholic theologian would say differently. But, at the same time, Luther and the others also recognized that many if not most Church teachings were absolutely valid and central to Christianity.
So, in conclusion, I believe that Luther and the other early Reformers knew EXACTLY what they wanted to change and what they didn't. The Concordia is still adhered to by traditional Lutherans, its contents haven't changed, orthodox Lutheranism has had five centuries to reject certain Catholic dogmas and has chosen not to.
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.