Confessional Lutheran Perspective on the Mother of God as given by a Lutheran "father" of the Church, Arthur Piepkorn

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TriuneUnity

Guest
From a Homily on the Commemoration of St. Mary (Aug 15)

"Yet both extremes - the extreme of excessive veneration and the extreme of excessive downgrading of the Mother of God - are sources of concern and scandal to Christians who stand committed to the Book of Concord and to the Book of God. The reason for their concern in both directions finds a focus in the words of St. Elisabeth in today’s Gospel: “And why is this granted me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” That is precisely the point. She is the Mother of Our Lord, hence Elizabeth’s awed delight. But she is the Mother of Our Lord, so that the bright aureole that enfolds her figure is only a reflection of His blazing and unearthly glory.

The function of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Sacred Scriptures, in the history of salvation, and in the faith and worship of the Church, is to point to her Son. The noblest picture that can be painted of her is with her Child in her arms. She is the living and loving proof that when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law, to redeem those that were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as children. She is the living and loving proof that for us men and for our salvation the only God who is the bosom of the Father came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and was made man; that He who died for us is one of us; that the one Mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus, that “there is no other God besides this Man” that the merciful and faithful High Priest Whom we have in the service of God to make expiation for the sins of our fallen kind is made like us His brethren in every respect, that we have an Intercessor Who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, one Who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning, that He partook of our nature of flesh and blood so that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.

As long as the focus of the spotlight is on the Lord Jesus Christ, the richer the radiance that reflects upon His Mother the better. We are not offended that Gabriel addressed her, “Hail, O Favored One,” or that St. Elisabeth by divine inspiration twice called her blessed, while expressing humble amazement that the favor should be granted her of entertaining in her home the Mother of her Lord; or that by the same inspiration the Holy Virgin should say, “All generations will call me blessed.”

Nor ought we feel any particular compulsion to execrate pious opinions long held by Christians. We need not feel obligated to blacken her reputation and to invent transgressions for her to have committed as if somehow we were saved by the sinfulness of the Blessed Virgin rather than by the sinlessness of her Son.

Here we stand with Blessed Martin Luther. In his exasperated distress at the exaggerations of the medieval Mary cult, he might delcare: “I should wish that the veneration of Mary be altogether exterminated solely on account of its abuse.” Yet, three years before his death he was still affirming in print the opinion that he had worked out in detail and with considerable theological ingenuity twenty-five years earlier, namely, that through the merits of her Son-to-be the Blessed Virgin was marvelously preserved from taint of sin from the first moment of her existence as a human being. We who have been reading him at least in English will recall that in the Exposition of the Magnificat he calls “Queen of heaven” a true enough name for her, and that elsewhere he acknowledges her as a gracious Lady exalted above all empresses.
 
We remember that so doughty an adherent of the Augsburg Confession as Blessed John Brenz could say of the bodily taking up of the Virgin to Heaven: “About this let everyone think as he will.” And that the great Lutheran hymn-writer and preacher of the late seventeenth century, Blessed Valerius Herberger, presents a careful justification of this theological opinion in a sermon in his Evangelische Herzpostille. It is when these pious opinions are elevated to the status of dogmas which must be believed under pain of eternal condemnation that we delcare this kind of constraint - rather than the opinions themselves - to be antichristian and diabolical.

We Lutherans have no reluctance about apostrophizing the Blessed Virgin in our hymns and in our worship. Today’s gradual repeats the inspired words of St. Elizabeth: “Blessed art Thou, O Mary, among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb; behold there shall be a performance of those things which were told thee from the Lord.” In the propers for the Feast of the Annunciation, the tract is the Angelus. One hymn in our German hymnal addresses her: “Mary, God has chosen thee to become a mother.” A hymn that we have sung in this summer’s series of chapel services paraphrases the Eastern Church’s Theotokion: “O higher than the Cherubim, More glorious than the Seraphim, Lead their praises!” And it goes on to call for her, as the Bearer of the Eternal Word, to continue to magnify the Lord as she first did in the events that we celebrate today. In one of our most popular Christmas carols we describe her as prophetically foretold “Branch of loveliest form and grace” while at least two others describe her as “undefiled.”

The official editions of our Church’s Symbols twice apply to her the title that the Council of Ephesus approved in 431, “The woman who gave birth to God,” or, as we usually translate it into English, “Mother of God.” They speak of her perpetual maidenhood and the birth of our Saviour without violation of her virgin estate. They call her “the pure, the most holy, and most praiseworthy Virgin.” And they cheerfully concede that in the presence of God she is interceding for the Church upon earth.

Yet in all of this she is first and always, “the Mother of Our Lord.” If in our hymns we call her - as we do - “most gracious” and “full of grace,” it is because God has filled her with the grace of which His Son is the Incarnate expression. And if we call her blessed, it is because we can imagine her bliss in bearing the Lord Jesus beneath her heart by reason of the operation of the same Holy Ghost in our heart…"
 
Correct me if I am wrong…but “dogma’s” don’t come into play…
 
I’ll have to address this later…its late and I have to log off. 😉
 
I agree with Child in her arms part.

In fact, I have a big debate going on about it in the Philosophy forum.

I cringe when I see Mary without child.
 
From a Homily on the Commemoration of St. Mary (Aug 15)

"Yet both extremes - the extreme of excessive veneration and the extreme of excessive downgrading of the Mother of God - are sources of concern and scandal to Christians who stand committed to the Book of Concord and to the Book of God. The reason for their concern in both directions finds a focus in the words of St. Elisabeth in today’s Gospel: “And why is this granted me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” That is precisely the point. She is the Mother of Our Lord, hence Elizabeth’s awed delight. But she is the Mother of Our Lord, so that the bright aureole that enfolds her figure is only a reflection of His blazing and unearthly glory.

The function of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Sacred Scriptures, in the history of salvation, and in the faith and worship of the Church, is to point to her Son. The noblest picture that can be painted of her is with her Child in her arms. She is the living and loving proof that when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law, to redeem those that were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as children. She is the living and loving proof that for us men and for our salvation the only God who is the bosom of the Father came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and was made man; that He who died for us is one of us; that the one Mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus, that “there is no other God besides this Man” that the merciful and faithful High Priest Whom we have in the service of God to make expiation for the sins of our fallen kind is made like us His brethren in every respect, that we have an Intercessor Who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses, one Who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning, that He partook of our nature of flesh and blood so that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.

As long as the focus of the spotlight is on the Lord Jesus Christ, the richer the radiance that reflects upon His Mother the better. We are not offended that Gabriel addressed her, “Hail, O Favored One,” or that St. Elisabeth by divine inspiration twice called her blessed, while expressing humble amazement that the favor should be granted her of entertaining in her home the Mother of her Lord; or that by the same inspiration the Holy Virgin should say, “All generations will call me blessed.”

Nor ought we feel any particular compulsion to execrate pious opinions long held by Christians. We need not feel obligated to blacken her reputation and to invent transgressions for her to have committed as if somehow we were saved by the sinfulness of the Blessed Virgin rather than by the sinlessness of her Son.

Here we stand with Blessed Martin Luther. In his exasperated distress at the exaggerations of the medieval Mary cult, he might delcare: “I should wish that the veneration of Mary be altogether exterminated solely on account of its abuse.” Yet, three years before his death he was still affirming in print the opinion that he had worked out in detail and with considerable theological ingenuity twenty-five years earlier, namely, that through the merits of her Son-to-be the Blessed Virgin was marvelously preserved from taint of sin from the first moment of her existence as a human being. We who have been reading him at least in English will recall that in the Exposition of the Magnificat he calls “Queen of heaven” a true enough name for her, and that elsewhere he acknowledges her as a gracious Lady exalted above all empresses.
👍
 
Mary is the Mother of God. That is dogma. She conceived as a virgin. That is dogma. I understand that your opinion on other Marian dogmas is that they are diabolical according to Luther or his cronies. That is clear. So that we can all be clear and understand one another, I think your opinion and Luther’s is diabolical.

You do not know her. You are separated from her and can not receive her benefits or consolations today.

Wow, is this Grandfather’s hardcore attempt at ‘tough love?’ lol…geez?
 
.

Wow, is this Grandfather’s hardcore attempt at ‘tough love?’ lol…geez?

Understand what separation means. Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church Christ founded, declaring Luther’s doctrines to be true and the Church’s to be false. We are separated. We can hope for one another’s good, but we are separated. Unity is broken. Christ’s command that His followers be one is disobeyed. The consequences will be severe.

There is one Church. There are not two or a thousand. There is one. There is not one in heaven and another one on earth. There is one in heaven and on earth. You can belong to her or be separated from her. There are no degrees of separation as one can not be a little pregnant. We are together or apart.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations teaching various peculiar doctrines based on private interpretation of scripture, following Luther’s example, claiming scripture gives them authority to do so and form separate bodies, as did Luther.

They are separated. They are not of us. They have separated themselves from us by their own doing and remain apart. This division done under the claimed authority of scripture is diabolical and the result will be the destruction of Christian civilization, a descent into chaos. We are witnessing it happening. A house divided will not stand.

We have Christ’s promises that His Church will not be overcome. He will be with us until the end of time. But when branches are cut off from the vine they eventually die.

Protestantism is by its nature doctrinally chaotic. By nature it divides itself. It multiplies divisions. History proves this. It is inevitable. Luther saw it himself. Every man has license to define truth for himself based on his read of scripture. So we have a branch separated from the vine and then chopped into thousands of pieces. We love them, but they are not one with us or themselves.

If Luther condemns Catholic dogma as diabolical he is either right or wrong. He forthrightly states his convictions and separates himself and his followers from the ancient Church.

Denominationalism is diabolical. It is of the devil. It is disobedience to Christ’s explicit command to His Church as found in scripture.
 
Mary is the Mother of God. That is dogma. She conceived as a virgin. That is dogma. I understand that your opinion on other Marian dogmas is that they are diabolical according to Luther or his cronies. That is clear. So that we can all be clear and understand one another, I think your opinion and Luther’s is diabolical.

You do not know her. You are separated from her and can not receive her benefits or consolations today.
Wow, is this Grandfather’s hardcore attempt at ‘tough love?’ lol…geez?

Dude! You should be more careful with your quotes. For a minute there I was thinking “Wow, gurneyhalleck must’ve gone off the deep end” then I saw the /quote and realized you were posting someone else’s words, not your own.

Boy were my cheeks red! 😉
 
We remember that so doughty an adherent of the Augsburg Confession as Blessed John Brenz could say of the bodily taking up of the Virgin to Heaven: “About this let everyone think as he will.” And that the great Lutheran hymn-writer and preacher of the late seventeenth century, Blessed Valerius Herberger, presents a careful justification of this theological opinion in a sermon in his Evangelische Herzpostille. It is when these pious opinions are elevated to the status of dogmas which must be believed under pain of eternal condemnation that we delcare this kind of constraint - rather than the opinions themselves - to be antichristian and diabolical.

We Lutherans have no reluctance about apostrophizing the Blessed Virgin in our hymns and in our worship. Today’s gradual repeats the inspired words of St. Elizabeth: “Blessed art Thou, O Mary, among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb; behold there shall be a performance of those things which were told thee from the Lord.” In the propers for the Feast of the Annunciation, the tract is the Angelus. One hymn in our German hymnal addresses her: “Mary, God has chosen thee to become a mother.” A hymn that we have sung in this summer’s series of chapel services paraphrases the Eastern Church’s Theotokion: “O higher than the Cherubim, More glorious than the Seraphim, Lead their praises!” And it goes on to call for her, as the Bearer of the Eternal Word, to continue to magnify the Lord as she first did in the events that we celebrate today. In one of our most popular Christmas carols we describe her as prophetically foretold “Branch of loveliest form and grace” while at least two others describe her as “undefiled.”

The official editions of our Church’s Symbols twice apply to her the title that the Council of Ephesus approved in 431, “The woman who gave birth to God,” or, as we usually translate it into English, “Mother of God.” They speak of her perpetual maidenhood and the birth of our Saviour without violation of her virgin estate. They call her “the pure, the most holy, and most praiseworthy Virgin.” And they cheerfully concede that in the presence of God she is interceding for the Church upon earth.

Yet in all of this she is first and always, “the Mother of Our Lord.” If in our hymns we call her - as we do - “most gracious” and “full of grace,” it is because God has filled her with the grace of which His Son is the Incarnate expression. And if we call her blessed, it is because we can imagine her bliss in bearing the Lord Jesus beneath her heart by reason of the operation of the same Holy Ghost in our heart…"
Thanks, TU. More Lutherans should read this.

Jon
 
Dude! You should be more careful with your quotes. For a minute there I was thinking “Wow, gurneyhalleck must’ve gone off the deep end” then I saw the /quote and realized you were posting someone else’s words, not your own.

Boy were my cheeks red! 😉
haha!

It’s amazing how the Mary threads always bring out either the Jack Chick’s or Art Sippo’s of CAF.
 
The function of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Sacred Scriptures, in the history of salvation, and in the faith and worship of the Church, is to point to her Son. The noblest picture that can be painted of her is with her Child in her arms. She is the living and loving proof that when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law, to redeem those that were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as children. She is the living and loving proof that for us men and for our salvation the only God who is the bosom of the Father came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and was made man; that He who died for us is one of us; that the one Mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus,
That is so Catholic no self-respecting Lutheran should say it.😛 😃 😉
 
That is so Catholic no self-respecting Lutheran should say it.😛 😃 😉
Sometimes Christians who are separated from Christ’s Church become aware of the disconnect. What they try to do is find some ancient saint or early father to find a quote from his or her writing they agree with. They use this to try to reconnect themselves with the ancient faith. We agree with what Basil or Crysostum said about such and such so therefore our doctrine or belief is correct. Essentially they realize that it is necessary to establish some connection to the those who came before. If they can do that it proves that they did not make up something crazy out of nowhere.

The problem with this is that if they were to take everything that paricular saint said back in antiquity their novel doctrines would be refuted.

They have to isolate some statment and agree with it, but they can not take the netire body of the saint’s wring and doctrine, because it will be inevitably Catohlic. In other words they have to pick and choose from the whole body of doctrine.

Nevertheless it makes heretics comfortable to say, see we agree with Augustine on this, or Basil on that.

The definition of a heretic is someone who picks and chooses.
 
Understand what separation means. Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church Christ founded, declaring Luther’s doctrines to be true and the Church’s to be false. We are separated. We can hope for one another’s good, but we are separated. Unity is broken. Christ’s command that His followers be one is disobeyed. The consequences will be severe.

There is one Church. There are not two or a thousand. There is one. There is not one in heaven and another one on earth. There is one in heaven and on earth. You can belong to her or be separated from her. There are no degrees of separation as one can not be a little pregnant. We are together or apart.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations teaching various peculiar doctrines based on private interpretation of scripture, following Luther’s example, claiming scripture gives them authority to do so and form separate bodies, as did Luther.

They are separated. They are not of us. They have separated themselves from us by their own doing and remain apart. This division done under the claimed authority of scripture is diabolical and the result will be the destruction of Christian civilization, a descent into chaos. We are witnessing it happening. A house divided will not stand.

We have Christ’s promises that His Church will not be overcome. He will be with us until the end of time. But when branches are cut off from the vine they eventually die.

Protestantism is by its nature doctrinally chaotic. By nature it divides itself. It multiplies divisions. History proves this. It is inevitable. Luther saw it himself. Every man has license to define truth for himself based on his read of scripture. So we have a branch separated from the vine and then chopped into thousands of pieces. We love them, but they are not one with us or themselves.

If Luther condemns Catholic dogma as diabolical he is either right or wrong. He forthrightly states his convictions and separates himself and his followers from the ancient Church.

Denominationalism is diabolical. It is of the devil. It is disobedience to Christ’s explicit command to His Church as found in scripture.

Grandpa, I appreciate your zeal for Christ but Catholics are called to charity and love of Protestants. We are not to sit in the seat of judgment and declare how is broken and who is whole. There are many of our protestant brothers in Christ who are on FIRE for the Lord more than many Catholics. You cannot tell me that the Holy Spirit does not work in protestants or that God does not hear their prayers or that they are diabolical. We need to respect their views with charity and disagree with love, gently and kindly. We Catholics are NAIVE if we think the Church didn’t bring a lot of the Reformation upon OURSELVES in the Middle Ages. Between the wretched abuse of indulgences, the corrupt real estate dealings of the Vatican, priestly and papal scandals, too much bureaucracy drowning out the Gospel, apathy from the top, and much suppression of science, art, and expression, the Church imploded from within. We need intellectual honesty to admit our shortcomings. The Church was, often times, a bright light and a beacon of hope in the medievel world and without the Church where would we be? But the truth is that Church had and actually still has no checks and balances, it had no watchdog to police its own dirty deeds and the Reformation resulted. The result of that reformation is protestantism. The protestants we have today who are good, prayerful people by and large come from this development hundreds of years ago and they are raised in that belief structure. They are not knowingly diabolical and our catechism calls us to charity toward them. Our catechism, while it calls everyone to catholicism, makes it clear that protestants can be saved.

I understand your points about denominationalism and God’s desire for unity that we may all be ONE. I understand. But we will not obtain the unity you seek through Pharisaic, condescending overemphasizing our differences but rather we should start by emphasizing our commonalities…then go from there…charity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top