Martin Luther Question

[Eden]

If a Protestant is called to the contemplative life, what are their options?

A follow up- is not doing this every second of every day a mortal sin or a venial sin?

Why are there not levels of sin for Protestants? It’s unbiblical to assert that “sin is sin”. There are different levels of severity:

deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000385.html

 

[thistle]

Read the book The Facts About Luther by Msgr Patrick F. O’Hare. One book reviewer, Joyce Kilmer, said “You leave the apologists of Luther absolutely no loophole of escape; you have written what must in all fairness be called an unanswerable book. Never again, it seems, can an intelligent Protestant speak of the founder of Protestantism except with shame”.

 

[Lost_Found]

Eden:

If a Protestant is called to the contemplative life, what are their options?

Why are there not levels of sin for Protestants? It’s unbiblical to assert that “sin is sin”. There are different levels of severity:

deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000385.html

Partly because Protestants violate the commandment Jesus gives in the two synoptics. He says to love with ALL our heart/soul/mind. If you’re going to use ALL, then use ALL, not constantly say not to use this God-given gift or that God-given gift of the heart/soul/mind in order to accomplish this.
Honoring God’s beautiful creature Mary in no way takes away from the Glory of God. It just adds to it. The only thing that takes away from the Glory of God is when Protestants don’t do their homework and falsely accuse us of worshipping Mary with idolatry, and diminishing her at every turn. You won’t find anyone saying that Mary is God and she wouldn’t accept that. But she’s one very,very special creature and if you can’t see that from scripture you are closing yourself off from God.

 

[RyanL]

TertiumQuid:

Just curious- do you know anyone currently alive on earth that actually loves God with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind? A follow up- is not doing this every second of every day a mortal sin or a venial sin?

If we kept the first greatest commandment perfectly, as you have defined it, we could not keep the second greatest commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is where it is useful that God gave us reason. Is it a venial or mortal sin not to expend every erg of emotional energy to loving God? Nope. What this means is that you love God, and whenever a choice is given to pick God or pick something else, you always pick God out of love for Him. Perhaps a more physical example would help - I love my wife, which is exactly as God intended it to be. Does this mean that every second of every day I focus on loving her to the exclusion of everything else, or that if I am not thinking about her unceasingly that I don’t really love her? Nope. But whenever the choice comes to pick her or pick someone else over her, I choose her. This same type of analogy is used by St. Paul in Ephesians chapter V.

Make more sense? Absolutizing a single verse to the detriment of other verses is always wrong. Just a maxim by which to read.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[TertiumQuid]

thistle:

Read the book The Facts About Luther by Msgr Patrick F. O’Hare. One book reviewer, Joyce Kilmer, said “You leave the apologists of Luther absolutely no loophole of escape; you have written what must in all fairness be called an unanswerable book. Never again, it seems, can an intelligent Protestant speak of the founder of Protestantism except with shame”.

Hi Thistle,

Mr. Joyce Kilmer said this in The Facts About Luther, page 377. I currently have 2 copies of this book. An original printing from 1916, and the TAN reprint (1987).

Father O’Hare book presents a Luther who is not only mad, but morally depraved and corrupt. He asserts that Luther in the Wartburg was in close touch with Satan. Luther lived indecently, decried celibacy and virginity, sanctioned adultery, dishonored marriage, authorized prostitution and polygamy, and was a drunkard and frequenter of taverns who preached his theology in the fumes of alcohol in the midst of his fellow revolutionaries. He attributes to Luther a fickle and cunning character, an inordinate impudence, an unbridled presumption, a titanic pride, a despotic nature, and a spirit of blasphemy; Luther was a blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionary, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace to the religious calling, an enemy of domestic felicity, the father of divorce, the advocate of polygamy, and the propagator of immorality and open licentiousness.

It’s not hard to figure out why this book went out of print- It is not a book of “facts” at all, but rather gross slander. It would have remained obscure, but the publisher Tan books resurrected it in 1987 with a new printing. The book is filled with citations from Luther and both Protestant and Catholic scholars on almost every page. Many times (if not most times), references are not given. With those references that are given, many are not complete enough to provide any help for the researcher in tracking them down. This seems to not bother TAN publishers all that much, since they have been printing this book for about 15 years. It is indeed an irony that a book that claims to be filled with “facts” isn’t that concerned with making sure its readers have sufficient information to check the truthfulness of those “facts.”

If Mr. Kilmer checked out scholarly reviews of O’Hare’s book, he would have learned that the book was rejected by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[gracelife]

chaphenderson:

I do not want anyone of this forum to get offened by this question. I am just trying to learn more about the Catholic faith.
Why did Martin Luther stop praying to the Saints? Did he think it was not necessary? Maybe someone can tell me where to find the answer to my questions.
Thanks,
ChapH

An Open Letter on Translating
By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546
gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/ltran11.txt

On the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede for us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer as
I am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in
which I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).
First, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that
the saints in heaven intercede for us - even though we cannot know this as the Scripture does not tell us such - but the saints have been made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whom we should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of these saints a particular power and might has been given - one over fire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and all
sorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to
have let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity the
papists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes
and preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of the
intercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now -but you can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this primping and preening to continue without cost.

And again, you know that there is not a single passage from God
demanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede for
us, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. One
finds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the
prophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercede
for them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel with
whom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from
him a blessing. In fact, on finds the very opposite in revelation
as the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.
22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but human
nonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and theScriptures.

As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do
anything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is putting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or
tolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to
teach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people
taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and
burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was
difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so
steeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel
is now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse
for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are
to do.

This is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for
people are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. They
learn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.
When our nature is already all to prone to run from God and
Christ, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to
trust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and
are therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is not
to be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh
participate in idolatry, against the first commandment and our
baptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch their
trust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it
will be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and
rightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on the
door - he will already be present.

continues …

 

[Church_Militant]

Martin and Mary
Quotes on Luther’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

While I began to explore Catholic faith, one of the bigger stumbling blocks I inherited as a Protestant was a suspicion of the Catholic devotion to the saints, and particulary Mary the mother of Jesus. Though I was not at the “them Caffolicks worship Mary!!” stage, it was an uncertain aspect their their religious experience. However, since that time, I have come to accept Mary as my personal spiritual mother and recognize her role in caring for me as her own son and praying on my behalf to God. What brought about this change? Well, the usual Catholic appologetics did a large part, for sure. Yet the emotional punch, the thing that gave me the ardour and the “permission” as a Protestant to believe these things, were the writings of Martin Luther, founder of my denomination. One is hard-pressed to find anywhere a deeper devotee of Mary the Mother of God anywhere. It is a sad state of affairs that, after Luther, the leaders of the Lutheran church were on such an anti-Catholic kick that they ripped Mary out of the church and, to this day, one can barely mention her without her opponents getting excitable.

The following quotes are some of Martin Luther’s gems that helped in my own recognition of Mary’s role as my own spiritual mother. I pray it may be a source of inspiration and growth for those who read it as well.

* "No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." Sermon, The Feast of the Visitation, 1537.

* "She was not filled with pride by this praise... this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an empress or a queen... blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'" Sermon, The Feast of the Visitation, 1537.

* "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin... God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil... God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." Personal Prayer Book

* "It is a great joy of which the angel speaks! It is God's consolation and overflowing goodness that man should be honoured with such treasure: Mary as his true mother, Christ as his brother, and God as his Father." Luther's Works, Weimar.

* "I believe that there is no one among us who would not leave his own mother to become a son of Mary. And that you can do, all the more because that has been offered as a choice to you, and it is an even greater joy than if you embraced you mother with real embraces." Sermon, Christmas, 1523.

* "Mary is the mother of Jesus and the mother of us all. If Christ is ours, we must be where he is, and where he is, we must be also, and all that he has must be ours, and his mother therefore also is ours." Sermom, Christmas, 1529.

• “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.” Luther’s Works, Pelikan, ed.
• “She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must… have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage passed: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised far above all women, indeed above the whole human race.’” Sermon, The Feast of the Vistiation, 1532
• “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.
• “[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.
• “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” Sermon, September 1, 1522.
• “There can be 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.” Sermon, The Feast of the Assumption, 1522.
  Source

 

[Church_Militant]

One other thought…the Catholic Church (nor I) base our devotion to the Blessed Virgin upon the heretic Martin Luther, so, though these quotes are of interest…they are nothing more than curious side notes that tell us that even a heretic can still be right on some points.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hello again Church Militant,

Thank you for your interest in this subject. I’m not sure how interested anyone actually is on Luther’s Mariology. I have documentation on some of the quotes proving they don’t imply what Roman Catholics think they do. It would take me multiple posts to go through them all. Luther was not extremely devoted to Mary. His Mariology is far less Roman Catholic than is popularly portrayed. I have provided links already to research on this subject for anyone interested.

I can’t research some of these quotes simply because no English translation of the entire context exists. Some of the references provided are below standard or non-existent. This makes it really difficult to get to the bottom of things. This is probably my biggest gripe in discussing Luther: most people don’t care to provide accurate or helpful citations. I’m not sure why this is. It really helps develop honest dialog. I try, as much as possible, to provide references (or at least have them if needed) on anything I cite (Protestant or Catholic). Luther is really easy to mis-cite. Contexts are crucial to discussing him.

If you would like to have a cordial dialog with me on this subject, my basic rule is: if you’re going to quote Luther, be able to provide a context, or at least have a context. Otherwise, there really isn’t any point, is there? It would be a one-way discussion in which only I have the context and could prove the accuracy or inaccuracy of the quote. That doesn’t seem like it would be an interesting discussion on your end.

That said, I do have a few comments on the link you provided.
Church Militant:

I have come to accept Mary as my personal spiritual mother and recognize her role in caring for me as her own son and praying on my behalf to God.

-snip-
Church Militant:

What brought about this change?…. Yet the emotional punch, the thing that gave me the ardour and the “permission” as a Protestant to believe these things, were the writings of Martin Luther, founder of my denomination.

It would be interesting to know exactly who wrote this and what is meant by “founder of my denomination.” I’m assuming Lutheran. The author then provides quotes to proveLuther believed:

1. Mary as his “own spiritual mother
2. Mary had a spiritual role caring for Luther as her own spiritual son
3. Mary prayed on behalf of Luther to God.

Because of Luther believing these things, the writer of the webpage believes them also as a Protestant. Now, you must know this is not Protestant logic. Protestants are not supposed to believe something because Luther told them so. Protestants are supposed to believe things because Scriptures teaches x, y or z. . When reading the quotes, it’s important to ask, do these quotes establish points #1 #2 and #3? I say they do not, and I would argue my case if need be. I’m tempted to say whoever wrote that web page didn’t really do a very good job, and probably never read any of the actual contexts those quotes were taken from. If you know who the author is, I’ll glad write to him/her and voice these concerns.

Now just to look at one of the quotes:
Church Militant:

" It is a great joy of which the angel speaks! It is God’s consolation and overflowing goodness that man should be honoured with such treasure: Mary as his true mother, Christ as his brother, and God as his Father." Luther’s Works, Weimar…

This quote is from The Sermons of Martin Luther vol.1. The quote, as it is cited is an excellent opportunity to show why context is so important. Just previous to Luther saying this, he says,

“We see here how Christ, as it were, takes our birth from us and absorbs it in his birth, and grants us his, that in it, we might become pure and holy, as if it were our own, so that every Christian may rejoice and glory in Christ’s birth as much as if he had himself been born of Mary as was Christ. Whoever does not believe this, or doubts, is no Christian. O This is a great joy of which the angel speaks. This is the comfort and exceeding goodness of God that, if a man believes this, he can boast of the treasure that Mary is his rightful mother, Christ is his brother, and God his father. For these things actually occurred and are true, but we must believe. This is the principle thing and the principle treasure in every Gospel, before any doctrine of good works can be taken out of it. Christ must above all things become our own and we become his, before we can do good works.” (Sermons of Martin Luther 1.1:144).

The point, Luther is making, is not about Mary. It’s about the imputed righteousness of Christ that becomes ours when he is embraced by faith alone. This is not, Roman Catholic Mariology to say the least.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Church Militant:

One other thought…the Catholic Church (nor I) base our devotion to the Blessed Virgin upon the heretic Martin Luther, so, though these quotes are of interest…they are nothing more than curious side notes that tell us that even a heretic can still be right on some points.

I’ve noted something similar to this as well.Anyone familiar with Internet theological bulletin boards have at some point come across Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany.

Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.

As the Roman Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:

“In works on Luther’s Mariology a false picture has occasionally been given because the principle of Luther’s mariological evolution has not been kept in the foreground. We are told that Luther accepted the Assumption and yet forbade the singing of the Salve Regna; that he preached of Mary as immaculately conceived and also as a sinner. The time element, the dating of Luther’s remarks, is all-important. Luther’s Marian theological evolution in the years 1513-1527 has its own coherence, but the reformer’s thought is definitely changing, and not always in the same direction.” { Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Thought, 113}.

Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric. This was a unique approach in the sixteenth century against the prevailing Roman Catholic attitude.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Church_Militant]

TertiumQuid:

Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric. This was a unique approach in the sixteenth century against the prevailing Roman Catholic attitude.

Regards,
James SwanMr. Swan,
I think perhaps you imply more than is factual about the 16th century Catholic Church. Despite you personal disagreements with us all Catholicsim is very much Christocentric, and always has been.
Pax tecum,

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi Church Militant,

I’m assuming we’re moving past Luther’s quotes at this point (though you’re always welcome to continue the discussion in that direction).
Church Militant:

I think perhaps you imply more than is factual about the 16th century Catholic Church. Despite you personal disagreements with us all Catholicsim is very much Christocentric, and always has been.

I’m always wiling to be corrected. I think you may have mis-read my words. I said “in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century”, which is different than any offical Catholic dogma or teaching on Marian piety.

I would be interested in any doctrinal standards put forth by the 16th Century (or previous)Roman Catholic Church that regulated Marian piety in popular 16th century belief.

David Wright notes :“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.”(Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective,161-162).

Similarly, historian 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”(Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion Vol. I (New York: Sheed and Ward) 318).

Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue note: “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).

Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric. That this was a unique approach in the sixteenth century against the prevailing Roman Catholic attitude is noted by these writers:

David Wright:“In face of such perversions, Luther’s critique [of Mary] is basically a Christocentric one which makes full use of justification by grace alone.”(Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989) 164).

Eric Gritsch: “[Luther]… placed Mary in a christocentric context in his early sermons and biblical commentaries, especially in his commentary on Psalms: she is the “blissful Mother” who is humble in the faith and shows the faithful what great things God can do. He also warned against a too zealous veneration of Mary at the expense of Christ.”(Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 236). Gritsch says further, “There is a growing consensus among Luther scholars that Luther’s reflections on Mary were grounded in a christocentric theology from the beginning.” .

Elsewhere, Gritsch explains Luther’s Mariology is presented in the context of “a christocentric theology which Luther saw affirmed in apostolic and patristic thought, but no longer in the normative scholastic tradition of the medieval Western church.” This is a striking implication and indictment of the medieval church.

Regards,
James Swan