Posted on 08/24/2014 4:45:06 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Let's see what the Father of Protestantism thought about the Blessed Mother.....
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.
I grew up in a Lutheran family and later became Catholic. The Mariology might not be “as strong” in the Lutheran church as in the Catholic Church, but most of these views held by Luther aren’t exactly new to me, and the one’s that are, aren’t particularly shocking. Even as a kid, I was always more shocked by the things members of other Protestants denominations said about Mary, than anything I read or heard about Catholic teaching. I’d say that even today Mary is held in high regard in the Lutheran church even if it isn’t nearly as apparent as it is in Catholicism.
Luther accepted the very same anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees that Jesus Christ condemned as his final authority.
Therefore, those who also accept the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture are at best deluded heretics who follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees rather than following Jesus Christ, and more often than not, simply following of their own personal preferences the way Eve followed her own preferences rather than following of Christ.
Have a very nice day
You know the Blessed Virgin has her own book in the Qu’ran as well? I know that surprised me, a lot. She is literally the only woman mentioned by name, but she’s mentioned frequently.
There is something about the ideal of a pure and chaste and good woman that seems to resonate in people.
And these men?????
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
If Mary is the mother of God and the Father is God, then Mary is the mother of God the Father.
If Mary is the mother of God and the Holy Spirit is God, then Mary is the mother of God the Holy Spirit.
That puts Mary above the Godhead, makes Mary deity, makes her the mother of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, making them created, finite beings with beginning.
It totally messes up all kinds of theology.
Do Catholics EVER think through what they have been spoon fed for their entire lives, cause it sure doesn't look that way with the arguments they use.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
In Scripture, the Holy Spirit is clear in calling her *mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
They want to hate Luther and will find any excuse to do so, even if they have to make something up.
You’ve shown them the facts, time and again, and still, there are some who continue to recite the same old mantras about Luther and the Apocrypha.
All the facts in the world will not convince someone whose mind is made up and will not believe.
Thanks for trying, though. Those kinds of inaccurate statements need to be exposed and corrected.
Thank you.
In one sense, I can see what the OP is doing because even those who are heretics can also agree on certain other Catholic truths.
OTOH, I agree with you. As a Traditional Catholic I would never use a heretic as support for Catholic truths.
The view is that the only way to salvation is through the Pope (or rather a mythic perfect Pope since the last few don’t pass the mustard).
What is funny is that this was meant to be an attack on Lutherans today, who are probably very familiar with this material, and other non Lutheran Protestants, who couldn’t care less.
Thankfully, God used dear Luther to recover His Gospel of Grace!
For this, every true believer should be thankful for Luther... And overlook his many failures.
Jesus Christ said He is the King, the Jewish King, who sits on the throne of David. Therefore, His mother is the Queen. It's that simple, Mary is the Queen of Christ's Kingdom. PERIOD.
Anyone who says Mary is a powerless is denying what Scripture says regarding the King, the Queen, and His Kingdom as established by God in the Old Testament.
Have a nice day.
Thank you for your listing a chapter in the Bible dear salvation. I agree that His Wird is inspired and the ultimate basis of all doctrine.
There are a lot more believers in Catholicism than any other faith in the world. Catholics - Going strong now for 2,000 years. The reason? Started by Christ who said he would be with His Church till the end of the ages, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
Islam does so to limit the divinity of Jesus to one being born of a woman.
Recall in Islam, women are not held in high regard.
Large numbers do not make it right.
She seems to be the exception that tests the rule. She’s reverenced in the Qu’ran like the French reverenced Saint Joan.
Not going to step on theological toes - or not often, I’m quite simply not that smart - but there are common patterns in all beliefs that seem to be hard wired into us.
There was a good thread on sun worship a couple days ago - again, it seems to be something universal, just like the just, chaste and virginal woman.
I believe the Catholic Faith is the one, true faith, but I would agree that I wouldn’t use numbers to support truth.
Case in Point: Isn’t the number of adherents following Islam growing faster than any other religion/denomination?
I consider Islam an ideology based on hate and wanting to kill every Christian that walks the earth, started by a pedophile warmongering psychopath. But you’re right about them breeding like rabbits.
Is it just breeding that is increasing their numbers? I thought people are converting to Muslim as well (and not by force necessarily).
Its one thing to say that Mary is not God. Its another thing entirely to say Mary is the mother of god. Similarly that God would die on a cross, or become man.
The posters on this forum deny the profound and necessary communication, either the divinity of Christ or the humanity of Christ.
That or assume as the Sabellians, Jesus was only a modalistic man who was only a mask of God denies the trinity. God is a trinity and therefore the second person Jesus is God and a person.
And there are some ancient Christian and Catholic conclusions which are inescapable based on the reality of what Jesus came to this world to accomplish. God was born to a woman because God must have died on the cross. Yet, though he was God had the power to take up life again.
God is both man and God in the second person of the trinity. If he is man he was born to a woman, who because she gave birth to the second person of the trinity, is also the mother of God.
She is Queen of heaven because Jesus is the king of Jerusalem, and the king of heaven and earth, which makes her the mother of Jesus and also the mother of God the Queen of heaven and earth.
If God truly became man and then choose to save humanity through his humanity, he did not at the same time choose to save through humanity by means of a non-humanity.
God is man and God and man in the second person in the trinity.... One would think Christian people would get that this actually means something. To say it doesn’t is to be a heretic, and an unbeliever in Jesus.
To imply some artificial and extra-biblical belief that somehow Mary is not the mother of God, when they believe that God had also decided to die a humiliation on the cross in order to save humanity is would be inconsistent. Why is one position so much more difficult than another?
What is not assumed is not saved. God assumed our humanity completely in order to save it. The instrument of salvation God had chosen to use for mankind was his very self-taking on human flesh by being born into this world as a man. Both natures are present in one person such that realities of one are realities in another. Jesus is a man, and a man is Jesus. Jesus is God and God is a man.
Are there distinctions? From the beginning of time did God intend to be born into this world to save it? Does God change? Or have no beginning and no end?
There is a whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. I’d advise many step back, and do their homework, to understand that there are extremely good biblical and understandable reasons for why Catholics and many Eastern and Orthodox Christians believe what the believe about Mary.
Isn’t God worth more to you than arguing on some message board without having understood the other side?
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.