Fat chance.
One of the major tenets of the world-wide Reformation was a call to end the worship of Mary and the saints which has always been a hallmark of the corrupted church of Rome.
Luther had a lot of learning to undo. A few of the earliest Reformers may have still believed Mary remained an eternal virgin, but the similarity between the truth and Rome's lies ends there.
The Protestant Reformers did not believe Mary was sinless, nor that she was assumed into heaven bodily, and certainly Mary was NOT men's intercessor, mediator, nor co-redemptrix.
All those blasphemies were heaped on Mary by the papacy. They belong to Rome alone.
Here's a great link from Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary...
Tragically, each new Marian doctrine has moved Roman Catholic theology and devotion increasingly away from the Holy Scriptures and toward human innovation. In reality, the declaration of Mary as “God-bearer” brought ill effects upon the Catholic church. The original issue in that fifth-century debate was not Mary at all, but Christ. The council acknowledged Mary was the “God-bearer” in order to affirm the deity of Christ without question. Quickly, however, the doctrine came to magnify Mary. In popular Catholic devotion — and in the writings and sermons of popes — Mary is now called the Queen of Heaven, the Mother of all Graces, and an abundance of other unbiblical titles. By the time of the Reformation, the veneration of Mary was established Catholic piety and theology. John Calvin warned of “those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her.” And to those many others have been added. In the medieval church, Mary was already understood in a mediatorial role, and as intercessor to her Son. As Calvin retorted, praying to Mary “is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God.” As the Bible clearly reveals, there is but one Mediator, Jesus Christ, and his mediatorial work cannot be supplemented by Mary. While careful Catholic theologians insist their Marian doctrines do not diminish or impugn the saving work of Christ, this is the inevitable result. And, though Catholics claim their veneration of Mary does not distract from the worship of the Trinity, Marian devotion has virtually eclipsed the worship of God in many quarters. Marian devotion is profoundly lacking in biblical support. Scripture reveals Mary to be a worthy model of humble submission to the will of God, as the virgin who was the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Scripture does not reveal any suggestion that Mary is to be venerated, that she should be honored with unbiblical titles, that she was perpetually a virgin, that she was conceived without sin, that she was assumed into heaven before death, that she participated in any way in the atonement, or that she serves in any mediatorial role. To the contrary, the Bible makes clear the only true worship is the worship of the one true God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God is a jealous God who will not allow the worship of any creature—even the earthly mother of Jesus the Christ. The debates over Mary emerged anew in the Reformation and remain a major divide between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, few Protestant theologians have been willing to address the debates head-on. Despite his own theological deficiencies, Karl Barth did get to the bottom of this issue. Mariology, he said, “is an excrescence” — ”a diseased construct of theological thought.” Further, “In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.” What should be our response? Barth suggested one simple word — No. Clearly, some Catholics are concerned about the ecumenical impact of the proposed new doctrines. They should well be warned. Nothing will more clearly demonstrate the profoundly unbiblical temptations of Roman Catholic theology than the adoption of these new Marian doctrines. Mary is not in any sense a co-redeemer, co-mediator, or advocate. She is not a dispenser of grace. Like all Christians, she is a sinner saved by the grace of God through the redeeming work of our Lord Jesus Christ. In reality, new papal declarations may not mean much anyway, because the proposed Marian doctrines are already firmly ensconced in popular Catholic piety. This is an infusion of paganism all evangelicals must resist. We have no right to grant to Mary—or to any saint, or to anyone else—what the Bible does not explicitly ascribe. In this we should all take Mary’s advice given as Jesus performed his first miracle: “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Nothing more—and nothing less.Currently, the (RC) church recognizes four Marian dogmas. The most important of these, Mary’s divine maternity, was defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431, granting that Mary is rightly called “God-bearer” because she was the mother of Christ. Later dogmas declared Mary’s perpetual virginity (649), Immaculate Conception (1854), and Bodily Assumption (1950).
Good read Dr. E.....thanks.
As Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote, “It may be objected: ‘Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.’ But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men.”
Really?
Luther had the following to say:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Well?
I asked your tag team partner the same question but he appears to have bailed on me, so I'll repeat it to you; are you happy to sign off on Luther's statement?
All those blasphemies were heaped on Mary by the papacy. They belong to Rome alone.
Like calling Mary "The Mother of God" as Luther did?
Did you miss that part?
Would that be a "blasphemy", too?
Luther the blasphemer?
Really?
Luther had a lot of learning to undo.
ROFL............poor Luther!!
Uh.........maybe many of the current miasma of "churches" have now gone so far off the rails as to be unrecognizable to a man like Luther, thus necessitating condescending drivel such as yours. Maybe the "reform" has progressed to such a point as to have completely lost touch with its original intent and now espouses every heresy imaginable, including many never even dreamed of by Luther!
Who cares what Albert Mohler (who?) thinks??
I'll be posting plenty of articles in the coming days and weeks which show clearly what the Church Fathers thought of Mary and the world will be to clearly see how far removed tripe like yours is from the thoughts of those who studied at the feet of the Apostles and who helped to build the early Church.
Enjoy!
EXCELLENT.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Amen, great post, Dr. E. Good source for the link too. :) This really is getting out of hand. Mary must increase, but God must decrease.