Why is "A Mighty Fortress is our God" in our hymnal?

[Expatreprocedit]

“On earth is not his equal” ; could be interpreted as a rejection of the Pope, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both were not popular with Luther and the reformers.

In “On earth is not his equal” “his” refers to Satan. I don’t know how that can be taken as a rejection of the pope or the Real Presence.

 

[pianistclare]

“On earth is not his equal” ; could be interpreted as a rejection of the Pope, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both were not popular with Luther and the reformers.

Yes. That’s what my priest said.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The usual Catholic objection to “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” was not so much that Luther wrote it, as that it was used as a battle and slaughter song by the Peasant Revolt that Luther instigated (albeit not on purpose), and by several of the Protestant warring factions in the brutal wars afterward.

So baaaasically, we’re talking about singing Nazi songs in a synagogue, or at least, singing “Marching to Georgia” as a US patriotic song… in Georgia. (Except that Sherman’s troops didn’t do hardly anything objectionable, compared to the Peasant Revolt guys and the European wars doing horrible stuff to Catholics and other Protestants.)

Of course, the traditional objection by Catholic church musicians is that one of the verses actually ends by saying that the devil has no equal on Earth, making the song a hymn to Satan unless you go on and sing the next verse after it. (And yes, the next verse is about Satan’s butt being kicked; but the Satanist version happens fairly often in churches where the music director isn’t observant enough.)

Some people have associated the song’s praise of Satan with the historical bad stuff done by its historical singers, which is at least worth considering. (And with all the good stuff that gets cut out of modern Catholic hymnals, I don’t see why they didn’t cut the controversial Satan verse too!)

And no, they don’t ever teach us this kind of useful stuff in history classes… which is why our contemporary Catholic generation doesn’t realize there’s anything objectionable about the song except Luther’s name on the lyrics.

“On earth is not his equal” ; could be interpreted as a rejection of the Pope, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both were not popular with Luther and the reformers.

Despite how some may misinterpret the words, the first statement about Satan in verse one is based on 1 John 5:19; following with a verse based on Ephesians 6:12 (“We wrestle not with flesh and blood…”).

There’s no praise to Satan in the song, just acknowledgment of spiritual realities.
And Luther and Lutherans do believe in the Real Presence.

 

[exnihilo]

There is nothing wrong with non-Catholic hymns provided they jive with Church theology.

Should we also ditch “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” or (gasp) “Amazing Grace” because these hymns have Protestant origins?

The Battle hymn is a war anthem and has no place in any church. It wasn’t written by a Protestant but by a non Christian, a Unitarian. It claims Christ was born in the lilies of the fields. Having a chorus of hallelujahs doesn’t make it a Christian song and I can’t imagine what possible justification would exist to sing it at Mass.

So baaaasically, we’re talking about singing Nazi songs in a synagogue, or at least, singing “Marching to Georgia” as a US patriotic song… in Georgia. (Except that Sherman’s troops didn’t do hardly anything objectionable, compared to the Peasant Revolt guys and the European wars doing horrible stuff to Catholics and other Protestants.)

Sherman’s troops didn’t do anything objectionable? Since when is stealing people’s food and burning everything in your path, including homes, not objectionable? I’ll answer my own question. Since Sherman did it.

 

[Hatikvah]

“On earth is not his equal” ; could be interpreted as a rejection of the Pope, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both were not popular with Luther and the reformers.

Luther believed in transubstantiation. Other than Gnostics, Calvin was the first major person to reject anything to do with Christ and the Eucharist, using it as a “symbol.” That’s really just… wrong.

 

[Thorolfr]

Leaving aside the hymn’s Lutheran origins, it is based on Psalm 46 (Vulgate 45). Surely, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think that there are slightly different versions, too, some with possibly anti-Catholic overtones. The version we sing in my Lutheran church has this interesting section:

Though hordes of devils fill the land,
All threatening to devour us,
We tremble not! Unmoved, we stand;
They cannot overpower us.
Let this world’s tyrants rage;
In battle we’ll engage!
His might is doomed to fail,
God’s judgment must prevail-
One little word subdues him.

I’m not completely sure who “this world’s tyrants” are, but I can guess who was intended.

 

[steido01]

“On earth is not his equal” ; could be interpreted as a rejection of the Pope, or the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Both were not popular with Luther and the reformers.

Utterly false. That line refers simply and only to Satan, who, as Prince of this fallen world, has great power (of course, the next verse crushes Satan’s head with the Gospel). If you’re interpreting that as an attack on the Pope, you’re attaching a meaning that’s simply not there.

Furthermore, you are seriously mistaken about Luther’s beliefs on the Eucharist. He believed strongly in the Real Presence. So do Lutherans today. In fact, Luther believed in the Real Presence so strongly, that when he and Zwingli found agreement on just about everything, Luther and the other Lutherans refused to be in communion with the Zwinglians because Zwingli denied the Real Presence.

In one instance, an elderly woman spilled some of the Blood from the cup. Luther fell to the ground and lapped it up like a dog. The congregation was in tears. In another instance, the stain of some of the Blood couldn’t be removed form an altar using purificators, so Luther carefully excised that portion with an ax, and had it burned, in keeping with ancient tradition.

A mighty fortress is our God, a trusty shield and weapon;
He helps us free from every need that hath us now overtaken.
The old evil foe now means deadly woe; deep guile and great might
Are his dread arms in fight; on Earth is not his equal.

With might of ours can naught be done, soon were our loss effected;
But for us fights the Valiant One, whom God Himself elected.
Ask ye, who is this? Jesus Christ it is.
Of Sabbath Lord, and there’s none other God;
He holds the field forever.

Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us.
We tremble not, we fear no ill, they shall not overpower us.
This world’s prince may still scowl fierce as he will,
He can harm us none, he’s judged; the deed is done;
One little word can fell him.

The Word they still shall let remain nor any thanks have for it;
He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit.
And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife,
Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
The Kingdom ours remaineth.

 

[steido01]

Luther believed in transubstantiation.

Well, no. Not quite. The Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence is “Sacramental Union,” which is neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation, but rather a simple statement of, “We don’t know how it happens, but Christ is really, truly present in, with, under, around, above, below, and in every possible way.”

Because Sacramental Union is not a way of explaining the mystery, but rather merely a statement of the Real Presence, it is permissible for Lutherans to believe that Transubstantiation is the “how” that the Real Presence comes to be. Luther did not begrudge anyone for holding that view - in fact, he said, “I’d rather drink pure Blood with the pope than mere wine with the Enthusiasts.”

Other than Gnostics, Calvin was the first major person to reject anything to do with Christ and the Eucharist, using it as a “symbol.” That’s really just… wrong.

Correct, though some Calvinists might say that their “spiritual communion” is “real.” We’d counter that it’s a “real absence.”

 

[GEddie]

The Battle hymn is a war anthem and has no place in any church. It wasn’t written by a Protestant but by a non Christian, a Unitarian. It claims Christ was born in the lilies of the fields. Having a chorus of hallelujahs doesn’t make it a Christian song and I can’t imagine what possible justification would exist to sing it at Mass.

A funeral Mass where the decedent was an ex-U.S. soldier, mebbe?

The religious beliefs of a songwriter shouldn’t really matter generations after he too has passed.

Regarding the lilies: Yes it’s hokey, but a) the writer presumably knew zero about our LORD’s birthplace other than it was “across the sea” from NA, b) high-flown hyperbolism was the norm in the mid 1800s, and c) “in the scorching Asian desert” doesn’t really work in a hymn in any case.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Well, no. Not quite. The Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence is “Sacramental Union,” which is neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation, but rather a simple statement of, “We don’t know how it happens, but Christ is really, truly present in, with, under, around, above, below, and in every possible way.”

How would this differ from consubstantiation? Does the LC hold to consubstantiation?

ICXC NIKA

 

[lax16]

Can’t stand that song theologically. It’s pure Calvinism dressed in nice clothes.

You know I will never be able to sing it again after reading this. But that’s okay, I always like the facts given to me straight.

 

[GEddie]

Despite AG’s post-Reformational origins, is it really that bad?

Isn’t it grace that “teaches our hearts” to fear God, and will lead us to life everlasting?

Isn’t it true that we cannot exercise faith, or come to repentance without grace?

ICXC NIKA

 

[steido01]

How would this differ from consubstantiation? Does the LC hold to consubstantiation?

ICXC NIKA

Consubstantiation is term that rises from an Aristotelian explanation of the Sacrament. It proposes that an impanation or infusion takes place and either totally or essentially makes a new or “third” substance.

Lutherans do not profess Consubstantiation (as has been discussed ad nauseum in the Non-Catholic Forums section), because they do not pretend to explain how the Sacrament occurs.

This thread my help: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=889981

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Can’t stand that song theologically. It’s pure Calvinism dressed in nice clothes.

What is wrong with Amazing Grace?

 

[cheezey]

…
They request it at every.single.funeral.
…

I want “Abide With Me” at mine.

 

[steido01]

I want “Abide With Me” at mine.

Uh-oh! That one was written by – gasp – an Anglican!

 

[cheezey]

Uh-oh! That one was written by – gasp – an Anglican!

Oh, my! The earth just went flat!!! AUGH!!!

 

[Casilda]

Like a balloon, squeaking…

 

[AbideWithMe]

I want “Abide With Me” at mine.

I’ll be there if I’m able!

 

[AbideWithMe]

The Battle hymn is a war anthem and has no place in any church. It wasn’t written by a Protestant but by a non Christian, a Unitarian. It claims Christ was born in the lilies of the fields. Having a chorus of hallelujahs doesn’t make it a Christian song and I can’t imagine what possible justification would exist to sing it at Mass.

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea…”

Lilies, especially the Madonna lily, are a symbol of Mary. I’ve seen paintings by Anglican artists using that symbolism. I think there’s a good likelihood the writer meant Mary by “beauty of the lilies”.