T
- Status
A
asd72
Guest
I think scripture supports either option, but leans towards Perpetual Virginity. It is the authority of the Church through Tradition which leads me to accept the historical view.What scripture invalidates this teaching in your opinion?
Hi James,
First I want to thank you for the great resource your website is. It is worthy of reading whether one agrees with you or not.
I’d be curious as to why you believe luther did not believe *sempre virgo *. The Formula of Concord refers to it, and it seems in a proper way, that being in relation to the person of Christ. Seems to me Luther would have seen it that way too.
Jon
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for those kind words. Actually, if you read the question by asd72 above, it was asked: “Is their any evidence he did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?” My response was: No. I know of no evidence suggesting Luther ever denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. On the other hand, there certainly is a fair amount of evidence that Luther eventually denied the immaculate conception.
Regards, James
Gee, James, I really did learn to read at school.
I think you are right about the IC, and on the Assumption he seems to have held a rather generic- “she’s in Heaven” - view.
Jon
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Don’t beat yourself up- the first time I read the question by asd72, I read it the same way you did (and how to go and edit my post to change “yes” to “no”). The question is phrased awkwardly: "Is there any evidence he did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? " It’s asking for positive evidence of a negative conclusion.Gee, James, I really did learn to read at school.
I think you are right about the IC, and on the Assumption he seems to have held a rather generic- “she’s in Heaven” - view.
Jon
James
J
JPeter
Guest
I think its important to remember that neither of those doctrines were dogmatic in the Roman Catholic Church at that time either. Luther did address the fact that in many ways the devotion to Mary was higher than that of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church. Melancthon lays in on the line in Apology 21. In my opinion one of the reasons Luther didn’t say much about it was because those beliefs were not dogmatic until the 19th century. There were concepts of those beliefs in Luther’s time, but the concepts were not seen as problematic to my knowledge. The Old Catholic Church who actually broke away from the Roman Catholic Church over Papal infallibility rejected both of these beliefs as dogmatic. The Eastern Orthodox also reject both of them.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
There were serious problems with Marian theology in the 16th Century, and these problems helped fuel the Reformation. You’re right- it’s important to realize the lack of doctrinal standards of Marian piety in the Sixteenth Century. One cannot appeal to the latest version of the Catholic Catechism as the doctrinal standard for Marian piety four hundred years ago.
Max Thurian notes , “At the Reformation anything to do with Marian doctrine was considered as being part of free theological opinion, so that Orthodox Christology should not be comprised by this or that opinion” [Max Thurian, Mary Mother of the Lord Figure of the Church (London: the Faith Press, 1963), 23].
David Wright focuses the situation:
“At the outset of the Reformation era, formally approved Church teaching about Mary encompassed only the virgin birth, her role as ‘God-bearer’ (theotokos) in the incarnation, and her perpetual virginity—and all of these were the legacy of the age of the Fathers. But since these early definitions theological speculation had steadily mounted. If there had so far been no further dogmatic deliverances, this was partly because on one or two issues different segments of the medieval Church were at loggerheads”[David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective,161-162].
Hhistorian Hilda Graef points out, “…the Mariology of pre-Reformation times had really in many cases become Mariolatry, and needed to be pruned from excesses which could only lead to a debased form of Christianity among the people who were encouraged to place the blessed Virgin beside or even above God” [Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion Vol. I (New York: Sheed and Ward) 318].
Perhaps this description from the Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue is adequate:
“Late medieval piety was marked by a great emphasis on the intercession of deceased saints and in particular by an intensification of confidence in the power of Mary. The steadily increasing number of saints invoked to remedy human needs and ills, and the long-accustomed role of Mary as mediator between the faithful and Christ, obscured the traditional theological distinction between adoration (latria) and veneration (dulia). In 1517, when Martin Luther called for an academic disputation on the use of indulgences and their relationship to the sacrament of penance, the cult of the saints and Mary became a related issue.”[Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 23]. (I would question on what basis one evaluates dulia and latria in the sixteenth century).
James
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
I took some time this morning to look this quote up again.
The first thing to note is the date is wrong. Rather than the correct date is September 8, 1522. This sermon was part of Luther’s Kirchenpostille (festival sermons). I am extremely grateful to the translation work of Joel Baseley who put together a fresh English translation of these sermons, many of which had not been translated into English previously.
Baseley explains in his introduction to these sermons, “Luther’s goal in issuing the festival sermons was to wean his people away from the adoration and veneration of the saints which had crept into the church in order to lead them back to venerate Christ alone and to serve not the dead but the living saints in need, according to Christ’s command” (Baseley, introduction). In other words, this Luther quote that says “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart” is actually part of a collection of sermons intended to wean people away from venerating saints! Amazing. Here’s Baseley’s translation of the paragraph this quote comes from in the sermon, “The Day of the Nativity of Mary (Matthew 1)”. The sentence bolded is that which states “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart” :
“Today’s feast of the blessed Virgin celebrates her birth. We also read today in the beginning of Matthew the accounting of part of the family tree including the great ancestors of Jesus Christ. ** But you know, my friends in Christ, that the honor given to the mother of God has been rooted so deeply into the hearts of men that no one wants to hear any opposition to this celebration.** There is rather a desire to further elevate it and make it even greater. We also grant that she should be honored, since we, according to Saint Paul’s words [Romans 12] are indebted to show honor one to another for the sake of the One who dwells in us, Jesus Christ. Therefore we have an obligation to honor Mary. But be careful to give her honor that is fitting. Unfortunately, I worry that we give her all too high an honor for she is accorded much more esteem than she should be given or than she accounted to herself. So from this comes two abuses. First Christ is diminished by those who place their hearts more upon Mary than upon Christ himself. In doing so Christ is forced into the background and completely forgotten. The other abuse is that the poor saints here on earth are forgotten. I would allow a high regard for Mary and her praise, just so long as you do not get carried away and consider making a law out of it so that she must be honored as a condition for your salvation. For the Scriptures have recorded nothing about her birth or life. So your hearts must not be placed upon her and she must not be exalted above her proper status. The monks invented all this abuse. They wanted to praise the woman. They have used Mary as an excuse to invent all kinds of lies by which she could be used to establish their twaddle. They have used Scriptures to drag Mary by the hair and force her to go where she never intended. For the Gospel that is read today reveals Christ’s nativity, not Mary’s. See how many lies have come out of this which we can in no way tolerate. I can surely allow her to be honored but not in a way that belies the Scriptures.”
Luther’s point is that whatever respect and honor Mary was due to her, the Church of his day had collectively had gone far beyond it.“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart” is not a positive statement, but a negative statement. In other words, this sentence placed back in its context is in regard to excessive Marian devotion.
James Swan
James,
Thanks for this. I took the liberty of highlighting the sentence that is reflected in the Lutheran view of the Blessed Virgin. For me, there’s nothing wrong, necessarily, with the IC, or the Catholic teaching of the Assumption (or Orthodox Dormition), etc. The problem is the binding the hearts of believers to them.
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
I know you must be speaking of the Assumption as one, but are you also saying that the Orthodox reject the perpetual virginity of Mary?
D
dcointin
Guest
The question of the Marian dogmas comes down to ones source of dogmatic authority. For Lutherans, as with all Protestants, only those teachings which are clearly found in scripture should be part of the Church’s dogma. Where Lutherans differ is that they allow traditions to be held as private opinion which, while not found in scripture, do not contradict it. For Orthodox and Catholics, if a dogma has been universally held “always, everywhere, and by all” (the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins), as has the sanctity and assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then it is part of our faith.
My question for Lutherans would be - on what grounds can you confidently reject that these teachings are optional for the catholic faith?
My question for Lutherans would be - on what grounds can you confidently reject that these teachings are optional for the catholic faith?
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
On the grounds that it is neither explicit enough in Scripture or tradition to warrant it being bound upon the Christian’s conscience. That’s not to say that ALL of them are without warrant. The doctrine of theotokos is a dogma in the Lutheran confessions.
D
dcointin
Guest
Let’s take just one of these for the sake of discussion. Would you say that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not stated explicitly enough in tradition for it to be part of the Church’s faith?
Not speaking for Iggy, but just for me, *sempre virgo *was so important to the reformers that it is mentioned in the Formula of Concord in the Article about the person of Christ, appropriately enough) ISTM that it is so intertwined in the Incarnation that, of all the ones you could have chosen, this one has the best argument for inclusion (other than Theotokos, and virgin birth).
Jon
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
It’s explicit in tradition, that’s true. For the reformers, I think it was just assumed rather than having to be a dogmatic pronouncement (by reformers I mean Lutheran). However, the apostolic witness we have through their writings do not make it a requirement for the unity of the church, and so neither should we.
D
dcointin
Guest
I remember debates about the inclusion of that phrase in the Latin Formula of Concord but not in the German, which is considered the “official” where variances are concerned. I don’t remember there being a consensus of opinion on the matter though.
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
Yes. Although it is important (and telling) that while the German edition is the official, canonically, the Latin translation was made for the rest of the world so that it would be understood what Lutherans believed. No one objected to the semper virgo phrase being included.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
This is where I’ll check out-
A historical and contextual look at those Luther quotes and the state of 16th Century Mariology is quite interesting, the “let’s find Mariology wherever we can” discussion is not, at least for me these days.
Regards, James
A historical and contextual look at those Luther quotes and the state of 16th Century Mariology is quite interesting, the “let’s find Mariology wherever we can” discussion is not, at least for me these days.
Regards, James
- Status