Marian beliefs of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli

[erikd]

Martin Luther:

Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

“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.”

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

“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…”

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.” Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.”

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”

Ulrich Zwingli:

“It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.”

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.”

“Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin.”

“It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother.”

“The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.”

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been “covered up” by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This “cover-up” can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that “Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers’ almost universal acceptance of Mary’s continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner”. He then asks if it is “a favourable providence” that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being “transmitted to the Protestant churches”!

mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

 

[ecedmondson]

I believe it was Luther’s and Calvin’s immediate followers that disbanded Mary. Though I’m not sure on my history here, I think it had to do with the initial rebelling to begin with. Something along the lines of “If ‘so and so’ can get away with reforming this, then we’re going to reform that.” It’s a shame really, Protestants are missing out of an amazing part of our relationship with Christ through His mother.

Also interesting, if you ever mention these Marian beleifs to a Protestant, it is completely denied. Is history lying to us?
Church father’s teaching on Mary is denied too though, so if it’s ignored then, I guess it will be ignored later on…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Martin Luther:

Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

“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.”

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

“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…”

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know.”

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.” Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

1. It is correct that Luther (and generally the Lutheran Fathers) did embrace these concepts. Luther was quite passionate about some of them, especially early in his life.
2. It should be remembered by Catholics that Lutherans have no pope and regard NO ONE as infallible/unaccountable or as the mouth of God or Vicar of Christ. Luther is often respected as a scholar and expert in biblical languages, but he regarded as a mere mortal who put his pants on one leg at a time, lol. He is regarded as fallible and accountable - to be held up to the Rule of Scripture just as he demanded. Luther said some wise and insightful things, and some dumb and horrible things. For Lutherans, the norma normans is Scripture - not Luther.
3. Lutherans embrace the title of Mary as The Mother of God to this day. The other issues are not dogmas. One - the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - is actually alluded to in our Confessions but it is clear from our history that it was never regarded as dogma. The other things are not mentioned at all, in any sense. These things are what Lutherans regard as “pious opinion.” A pious opinion is a topic not affirmed OR denied by Scripture but has a solid, ecumenical, historic affirmation among Christians. It is a PERMITTED view, but not a MANDATED view. For example, my Lutheran pastor embraces the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. According to him, most Lutheran pastors do not. And then there are some Lutherans like me that neither affirm it OR deny it but take no position at all on the matter (ONE of the reasons I left Catholicism). All these are permitted in Lutheranism and always have been.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[erikd]

I believe it was Luther’s and Calvin’s immediate followers that disbanded Mary. Though I’m not sure on my history here, I think it had to do with the initial rebelling to begin with. Something along the lines of “If ‘so and so’ can get away with reforming this, then we’re going to reform that.” It’s a shame really, Protestants are missing out of an amazing part of our relationship with Christ through His mother.

If it was Luther’s followers that decided to abandon our Blessed Mother, that would put more emphasis on the chaos that ensued following the reformation that claimed to eliminate chaos and disorder. That would mean that though the leader claims one thing, the followers are free to believe whatever they want. This, of course, would be a violation of the following teaching of Jesus:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
St. Matthew 18:17

One could say, at this point, “what are we to listen to?”

Also interesting, if you ever mention these Marian beleifs to a Protestant, it is completely denied. Is history lying to us?
Church father’s teaching on Mary is denied too though, so if it’s ignored then, I guess it will be ignored later on…

Since Scripture is historical fact, one could say that ignorance of Scripture / history is ignorance of Christ. Perhaps these protestants ought to listen to Jesus when He said:

“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.”
St. Matthew 10:40

 

[erikd]

1. It is correct that Luther (and generally the Lutheran Fathers) did embrace these concepts. Luther was quite passionate about some of them, especially early in his life.
2. It should be remembered by Catholics that Lutherans have no pope and regard NO ONE as infallible/unaccountable or as the mouth of God or Vicar of Christ. Luther is often respected as a scholar and expert in biblical languages, but he regarded as a mere mortal who put his pants on one leg at a time, lol. He is regarded as fallible and accountable - to be held up to the Rule of Scripture just as he demanded. Luther said some wise and insightful things, and some dumb and horrible things. For Lutherans, the norma normans is Scripture - not Luther.
3. Lutherans embrace the title of Mary as The Mother of God to this day. The other issues are not dogmas. One - the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - is actually alluded to in our Confessions but it is clear from our history that it was never regarded as dogma. The other things are not mentioned at all, in any sense. These things are what Lutherans regard as “pious opinion.” A pious opinion is a topic not affirmed OR denied by Scripture but has a solid, ecumenical, historic affirmation among Christians. It is a PERMITTED view, but not a MANDATED view. For example, my Lutheran pastor embraces the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. According to him, most Lutheran pastors do not. And then there are some Lutherans like me that neither affirm it OR deny it but take no position at all on the matter (ONE of the reasons I left Catholicism). All these are permitted in Lutheranism and always have been.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah, I wanted to know if Jesus walked up to you today and asked you to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well has her immaculate conception, would you do it?

What if He told your Church that this is the absolute truth, and you should therefore believe it, would you believe it?

Do you believe that the Bible or the Church are the pillar and foundation of the Truth? (Scriptural references would be appreciated)

Final question is can you think of one time in the Gospels when Jesus takes a non-position on an issue?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah, I wanted to know if Jesus walked up to you today and asked you to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well has her immaculate conception, would you do it?

Personally, of course. I don’t deny them now. But, of course, that would have no bearing on you or anyone else.

What if He told your Church that this is the absolute truth, and you should therefore believe it, would you believe it?

You mean, He would appear as a keynote speaker at our Synodical Convention next year in St. Louis - and said so? Sure. My denomination doesn’t deny these teachings now, many of these registered in congregations legally affiliated with it accept those two things now (including my pastor).

Do you believe that the Bible or the Church are the pillar and foundation of the Truth? (Scriptural references would be appreciated)

I believe the church is (but I don’t beleive any denomination is - including The Catholic Church). But a pillar doesn’t establish or norm, a pillar upholds. Christians are to uphold the truth.

Final question is can you think of one time in the Gospels when Jesus takes a non-position on an issue?

Of course, all issues Jesus doesn’t address. I don’t think He said anything about President Obama or if there is life on other planets, for example. I can’t think of a verse where He mentions what will happen to the body of His Mother upon Her death (or was it Her undeath?). That doesn’t mean there are NOT answers to these things, but we have no record that JESUS specifically took a stand.

.

 

[erikd]

I believe the church is (but I don’t beleive any denomination is - including The Catholic Church). But a pillar doesn’t establish or norm, a pillar upholds. Christians are to uphold the truth.

Do you believe that Jesus established a Church 2000 years ago? Do you believe that the Apostles were the leaders of that Church 2000 years ago? I know you do. Do you believe that the teachings of the Apostles can be changed, altered, or believed any way you see fit?

Of course, all issues Jesus doesn’t address. I don’t think He said anything about President Obama or if there is life on other planets, for example. I can’t think of a verse where He mentions what will happen to the body of His Mother upon Her death (or was it Her undeath?). That doesn’t mean there are NOT answers to these things, but we have no record that JESUS specifically took a stand.

But He did take a stand on every issue brought before Him, He never waivered. We are taught to be as He was, as we are also taught to listen to the authoritative Church that He Himself built. If the Church was built on the backs of the Apostles, we are certainly obliged to listen to them, and not allowed to make our own doctrine if it was contrary to theirs. Would you not agree?

 

[JonNC]

I believe it was Luther’s and Calvin’s immediate followers that disbanded Mary. Though I’m not sure on my history here, I think it had to do with the initial rebelling to begin with. Something along the lines of “If ‘so and so’ can get away with reforming this, then we’re going to reform that.” It’s a shame really, Protestants are missing out of an amazing part of our relationship with Christ through His mother.

Hello ece, and welcome to CAF. One of the things you will find is that broadbrush caricatures generally don’t stand long.

I think you have your history wrong. And the rebelling notion is a modern one. The early Lutheran reformers were just that. The “if so-n-so” thought is simplistic, and certainly is, at best, a matter of conjecture outside the reality of that time.
I do, however, agree with your last point that Lutherans (I can’t speak for other Protestants, as I do not know their teachings on the subject) would do well to increase their knwledge and devotion towards the BLessed Virgin.

Also interesting, if you ever mention these Marian beleifs to a Protestant, it is completely denied. Is history lying to us?

Is this an anecdotal statement, your own experience? Which communion are you speaking of? I believe in the Mary’s perpetual virginity, that she was protected from sin by God’s Grace, and that she is in heaven by His grace, as well.

Church father’s teaching on Mary is denied too though, so if it’s ignored then, I guess it will be ignored later on.

Denied by whom? Sources please.

Jon

 

[Lutheranteach]

Josiah, I wanted to know if Jesus walked up to you today and asked you to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well has her immaculate conception, would you do it?

What if He told your Church that this is the absolute truth, and you should therefore believe it, would you believe it?

Do you believe that the Bible or the Church are the pillar and foundation of the Truth? (Scriptural references would be appreciated)

Final question is can you think of one time in the Gospels when Jesus takes a non-position on an issue?

If he walked up to me, I would have a lot of questions.

A) If Mary was immaculately conceived, than did her mother have to be as well, and her mother, and her mother, and her mother? And, why is it necessary at all. Isn’t part of the miracle of your birth, part of the wonder that you came into this world via a poor young woman who was so much like all of us?

B) Why would God be so cruel as to give Joseph a wife he could never physically express his love to? If indeed she was a perpetual virgin

C) The Church or the Bible?..If it’s important enough to be a pillar of truth is it not important enough to write down?

E) If Jesus returned and told me these things? Of course I would believe.

 

[ecedmondson]

Hey JonNC

I was probably a little to general in my last post. I live in a largely evangelical, protestant area. Mainly Baptist, Baptist-like Non-denominationals, and some Pentecostals. So yes, I am referring to my own experience with protestants.

As for what I mentioned on “being denied”, I have often tried to explain to the numerous evangelicals around me that I’m not worshipping Mary, that this practice is Biblical, and an idea of the early Christians, the early Church fathers. I’m usually ignored…

However, I am pretty sure about the reformer’s followers disbanding the Catholic church’s teachings regarding Mary, mainly because I went and check my History book and History references (it’s a middle age-renaissance european history class) besides the book and they support this. It started, according to one of my references given to me by my teacher from an AP book, with the peasants revolt after Luther in which Luther sided with the German princes. Many of Luther’s followers did not want to be associated with the peasants since Luther didn’t and went extra ways, outside of Luther’s will, to separate themselves from the church.

 

[JonNC]

Hey JonNC

I was probably a little to general in my last post. I live in a largely evangelical, protestant area. Mainly Baptist, Baptist-like Non-denominationals, and some Pentecostals. So yes, I am referring to my own experience with protestants.

As for what I mentioned on “being denied”, I have often tried to explain to the numerous evangelicals around me that I’m not worshipping Mary, that this practice is Biblical, and an idea of the early Christians, the early Church fathers. I’m usually ignored…

However, I am pretty sure about the reformer’s followers disbanding the Catholic church’s teachings regarding Mary, mainly because I went and check my History book and History references (it’s a middle age-renaissance european history class) besides the book and they support this. It started, according to one of my references given to me by my teacher from an AP book, with the peasants revolt after Luther in which Luther sided with the German princes. Many of Luther’s followers did not want to be associated with the peasants since Luther didn’t and went extra ways, outside of Luther’s will, to separate themselves from the church.

Thanks for your explanation.

What the Lutheran reformers did, again I can’t speak to other groups’ teachings, was recognize that the marian beliefs, while important to them, were not explicit in scripture and not a necessary belief for salvation, IOW adiaphora. The only thing they rejected was invocation for intercessory prayer, which brings me to my next point:

It is unfortunate that there are many Protestants who misunderstand, for whatever reason, the practice of invocation of the saints and Mary. It is not worship of Mary or the saints, it is not idolatry. It is the same as asking our friends to pray for us or others.
The Lutheran view is there is no explicit scriptural call for the practice, and while we know the Church Triumphant prays for us in a general way, there is no way of knowing they can hear us. My own take is that, while I do not practice it, I cannot condemn it because it has been practiced in both east and west back to the early Church. In addition, it has given comfort to many Christians of the centuries.

BTW, I lived in south Texas for a long time. There are more Catholics and Lutherans there than where I live now.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

What the Lutheran reformers did, again I can’t speak to other groups’ teachings, was recognize that the marian beliefs, while important to them, were not explicit in scripture and not a necessary belief for salvation, IOW adiaphora.

EXACTLY…

Some Lutherans (like Luther himself) embrace these ideas as pious opinion and certainly they play a profound part of their spirituality. My own LCMS Lutheran pastor is such an example.

While the only one of these I personally embrace is Mary as the Mother of God, but I don’t reject any of the others. And I must say, this was an issue for me as I investigated Lutheranism, so my pastor and I spend some time on this. I liked my Rosary and had a fairly deep Marian spirituality. I still do. But I TOTALLY and IMMEDIATELY agreed with the adiaphoron status of this - indeed, ONE of my “issues” in Catholicism was the absolute necessity of accepting with docility that Mary had no sex ever, for example. While I hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem as chief among the saints, and I see Her as “pure” in some sense, what in the world does that have to do with marital intimacies? No Catholic teacher could ever tell me. And what in the world does that have to do with my salvation? No Catholic teacher could explain. IMHO (and I know Catholics will disagree) all this huge stress on dogmas, all this cognative stuff and cognative requirements actually hinders Marian spirituality. Anyway, as a Lutheran, I’m welcomed to adore and revere Our Lady - and I do.

It is unfortunate that there are many Protestants who misunderstand, for whatever reason, the practice of invocation of the saints and Mary. It is not worship of Mary or the saints, it is not idolatry. It is the same as asking our friends to pray for us or others.
The Lutheran view is there is no explicit scriptural call for the practice, and while we know the Church Triumphant prays for us in a general way, there is no way of knowing they can hear us. My own take is that, while I do not practice it, I cannot condemn it because it has been practiced in both east and west back to the early Church. In addition, it has given comfort to many Christians of the centuries.

I PERSONALLY tend to agree with you.

.

 

[ecedmondson]

I find this all interesting because almost everytime I mention the word “Catholic” I’m attacked by itinerant evangelicals…I hate saying that but it’s true.

Some Lutherans (like Luther himself) embrace these ideas as pious opinion and certainly they play a profound part of their spirituality. My own LCMS Lutheran pastor is such an example.

I was unaware of the Lutheran beleifs concerning Mary, and though this might be a little off topic, is there a major Lutheran body (sort of Like the Vatican for Catholics) that dictates any sort of beleif about Mary? Or is it as you said about simply personal?

BTW, I lived in south Texas for a long time. There are more Catholics and Lutherans there than where I live now.

Gasp! Besides where the rest of family lives (there’s like 7 Catholics in their entire state.), I didn’t know that was possible!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I was unaware of the Lutheran beleifs concerning Mary, and though this might be a little off topic, is there a major Lutheran body (sort of Like the Vatican for Catholics) that dictates any sort of beleif about Mary? Or is it as you said about simply personal?

1. A subtle but important distinction: Lutheran beliefs is not the same as Lutherans beliefs. The same distinction is made in Catholicism, too. Perhaps the majority of Catholics believe that men look better with short hair, but ERGO that’s not dogma in The Catholic Church. What CATHOLICS believe is not necessarily what The Catholic Church beleives.
2. The official statement of what is Lutheran belief is found in The Lutheran Confessions (last edited in 1560). Jon may be a better student of them (some I haven’t even read yet), but I’m aware that Mary as The Mother of God is affirmed there. There is also a mention of Mary as the Perpetual Virgin - although we see from history that this view (commonly held by the Lutheran Church Fathers) was never embraced as dogma. The other Marian views are not present there.

Lutherans (like most Protestants) have a concept of “pious opinion.” Sometimes we refer to such as “adiaphoron.” This is a view or practice about which there is no dogmatic requirement. My pastor defined pious opinion as, “A view neither affirmed or denied by Scripture but with a very historic and ecumenical embrace.” Most of the Marian views would fall into this (the Assumption of Mary lacks ecumenicalism, however). These are thus not dogmas (for which one might be excommunicated, for example) - either way. Thus, my Lutheran pastor rather passionately holds to The Perpetual Virginity of Mary but admits that probably most Lutheran pastors don’t accept it as true at all. Then there’s me - I take no position at all on it, either accepted or declining it.

Marian spirituality in Lutheranism is mixed. I’m new to Lutheranism (I was Catholic) but I suspect it’s not what it was in the early days. My own congregation (from which nearly all my experience is limited) is probably not typical since it’s mostly former Catholics (including the pastor). I don’t know why Marian spirituality has declined in Lutheranism (as I suspect it has) and can’t theorize. But officially, nothing has changed at all. All these views existed when The Lutheran Confessions were written. It’s perhaps meaningful that only two were even MENTIONED: Mary as The Mother of God (history shows this is dogma among us) and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which history shows has never been regarded as such - but simply pious opinion). These views neither affirmed by dogma or rejected as heresy become candidates for adiaphoron and pious opinion.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

=ecedmondson;6043458]I find this all interesting because almost everytime I mention the word “Catholic” I’m attacked by itinerant evangelicals…I hate saying that but it’s true.

I’m sorry to hear that. It is a reflection on them, not you.

I was unaware of the Lutheran beleifs concerning Mary, and though this might be a little off topic, is there a major Lutheran body (sort of Like the Vatican for Catholics) that dictates any sort of beleif about Mary? Or is it as you said about simply personal?

No, not really. Lutheranism doesn’t have the hierarchy that the CC has. It is, in my view both a blessing and a curse. Lutheranism is, often, a national Church. In America, there are three major synods, and some smaller ones. But again, the Lutheran Confessions - The Book of Concord - make no statement - except for intercessory prayer - for or against the other marian beliefs (it does imply her as “ever virgin”, and it does refer to her as “Mother of God”). They are considered adiaphoron -things indifferent (to salvation).
So, while Josiah here may not consider her perpetual virginity part of his personal piety, I do. His pastor does, mine doesn’t. It isn’t a division between us because it is just that - personal piety.

Gasp! Besides where the rest of family lives (there’s like 7 Catholics in their entire state.), I didn’t know that was possible!

 

[peary1]

I believe it was Luther’s and Calvin’s immediate followers that disbanded Mary. Though I’m not sure on my history here, I think it had to do with the initial rebelling to begin with. Something along the lines of “If ‘so and so’ can get away with reforming this, then we’re going to reform that.” It’s a shame really, Protestants are missing out of an amazing part of our relationship with Christ through His mother.

Also interesting, if you ever mention these Marian beleifs to a Protestant, it is completely denied. Is history lying to us?
Church father’s teaching on Mary is denied too though, so if it’s ignored then, I guess it will be ignored later on…

I always maintained that the change in Marian beliefs among later protestant reformers had a lot to do with their own personal relationship with their mothers. I also maintain that it had a lot to do with the changing concept of ‘motherhood’ throughout contemporary history, beginning with the reformers up to the present day.

 

[erikd]

If he walked up to me, I would have a lot of questions.

A) If Mary was immaculately conceived, than did her mother have to be as well, and her mother, and her mother, and her mother? And, why is it necessary at all. Isn’t part of the miracle of your birth, part of the wonder that you came into this world via a poor young woman who was so much like all of us?

I think that this very website could answer that question. Catholic.com has a great tract on this very issue, and many other common objections to Mary’s immaculate conception:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

In addition, I would also recommend another article by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin entitled “The Woman of Revelation 12”

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

B) Why would God be so cruel as to give Joseph a wife he could never physically express his love to? If indeed she was a perpetual virgin

Are you suggesting that anyone who is unable to show love to their partner in a physical way is created that way out of a hatred towards us by God? What about those who are physically impaired from birth, such as quadroplegics and such, are they to assume that God is just being cruel to them?

Abstinence is not a cruel joke or a punishment. The vast majority of Catholic Priests remain abstinent (only less than 1% of priests are ordained from the Anglican or Episcepelian Churches, and have been allowed to remain married while serving in a limited Priesthood) and they believe that it is a beautiful gift from God.

C) The Church or the Bible?..If it’s important enough to be a pillar of truth is it not important enough to write down?

I’m not sure I understand the answer to the question, because the answer is clearly spelled out in 1 Timothy 3:15.

E) If Jesus returned and told me these things? Of course I would believe.

What if Jesus used the Church that He Himself built to give you these glad tidings, would you believe it then?

 

[erikd]

1. A subtle but important distinction: Lutheran beliefs is not the same as Lutherans beliefs. The same distinction is made in Catholicism, too. Perhaps the majority of Catholics believe that men look better with short hair, but ERGO that’s not dogma in The Catholic Church. What CATHOLICS believe is not necessarily what The Catholic Church beleives.

I believe that this would be referred to as “cafeteria Catholicism” which is kind of like deciding for yourself which of your marriage vows you’ll actually uphold as sacred. Your marriage partner might have something to say about this.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

1. A subtle but important distinction: Lutheran beliefs is not the same as Lutherans beliefs. The same distinction is made in Catholicism, too. Perhaps the majority of Catholics believe that men look better with short hair, but ERGO that’s not dogma in The Catholic Church. What CATHOLICS believe is not necessarily what The Catholic Church beleives.

.

I believe that this would be referred to as “cafeteria Catholicism” which is kind of like deciding for yourself which of your marriage vows you’ll actually uphold as sacred. Your marriage partner might have something to say about this.

So, if I quote my Catholic brother-in-law who professes (rather dogmatically) that BMW’s are the best cars on the road, ERGO that is official dogma of The Catholic Church? The Catholic Church doesn’t agree with you. The opinions of some CATHOLICS is NOT necessarily regarded as dogma (or even truth) by The Catholic Church - no matter how sincere, passionate or pious such opinion may be.

Not EVERYTHING every one of the world’s 70 million Lutherans is regarded in Lutheranism as official dogma of Lutheranism. That goes for all past Lutherans, too. Including Luther.

.

 

[Wesley7]

I have the Concordia Lutheran confessions. Most of what Luther,Calvin and Zwingli taught according to Protestant belief can be found in that book of concord.