Recent CARM Discussion on Luther's Mariology

I've begun copying the discussions I take part in over to the blog to keep a record for myself (and also sometimes things disappear from forums). Blogger also now does a good job with copying the fonts and formatting from discussion boards.

The following discussion took place on the CARM boards. I realize this topic is a bit dull, but it's always a great reminder how how poorly some of Rome's defenders are at actually looking stuff up before they post it. I've also back-posted a very similar discussion from the Catholic Answers forums from last year: Luther's View of Mary on Catholic Answers Forums.

 Originally Posted by AmericanDream 

Did Luther retain the rcc practice belief of her special status?

You'll find a lot of propaganda about Luther's Mariology on the Internet. This particular subject has fascinated me for about 10 years now.

Here's how I see it: Luther rarely wrote about Mary- that is, if you take his writings as a whole. Of what he did write, you'll find his Marian views underwent development, particularly because of his eventual denial of the intercession of the saints. He was though against the typical Marian idolatry of his day, throughout his career.

A Roman Catholic going by the name "Aquinas" posted:

 Originally Posted by AmericanDream 

Did Luther retain the rcc practice belief of her special status?

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Martin Luther, Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[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. (Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

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

"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." (Martin Luther, Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

This sort of thing was hidden from me as a Lutheran (for ~30 years).

I listened for 30 years. These things were never mentioned to me while a Lutheran. I think the reasons are obvious.


 My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Martin Luther, Sermon, September 1, 1522).

See: Luther: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart"

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

[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. (Martin Luther, Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

See: Luther: "Mary... We Can Never Honor Her Enough"

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

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

See: Luther: No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

"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." (Martin Luther, Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

See: Luther: Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

This sort of thing was hidden from me as a Lutheran (for ~30 years).

The quotes you posted are characteristic of shoddy Roman Catholic pop-apologetics put together by laymen on the Internet who rarely (if ever) look up the actual contexts of where these quotes originally came from. 

Fairly common topics posted by such Internet apologists 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. 

Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century. Some of the Roman Catholics during Luther's day actually were suspicious of his Mariology, particularly his explanation of the Magnificat. Even later Roman apologists, some quite hostile to Luther understood this:

Hartmann Grisar, commenting on Luther’s Magnificat states, “[Luther] certainly was in no mood to compose a book of piety on Mary. The result was that the book became to all intents and purposes a controversial tract, which cannot be quoted as a proof of his piety or serenity of mind during those struggles.”[Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD, 1915), 502]. 

For further information see: Luther's Magnificat: A Representation of Luther's Lifelong Mariology?

Or, for detailed a look at Luther's Mariology, see: Martin Luther's Mariology (Index)

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

I listened for 30 years. These things were never mentioned to me while a Lutheran. I think the reasons are obvious.

God bless your previous Lutheran pastors for not spreading propaganda.



Aquinas Responded:

 Originally Posted by James Swan 

God bless your previous Lutheran pastors for not spreading propaganda.



See: On John Calvin's "Mariology"

JS

Agreed. Martin Luther was indeed a propagandist.

At least we got an indirect admission that Martin Luther's theology constantly shifted, and lacked anything resembling consistency. Even in his lifetime, Sola Scriptura had failed him as a praxis.

It can be argued from various schools of thought that he had moments of lucidity. Which moments were lucid entirely depends on the perspective of the one making the claim. Naturally, when he spoke these things of Mary, I would consider them lucid moments.

My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

Agreed. Martin Luther was indeed a propagandist.

Either:

1) You misunderstood my post; the "propaganda" I referred to was that put forth by Roman Catholics and avoided by your previous Lutheran ministers.

2) You understood what I meant by "propaganda" but decided to be intentionally antagonistic.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #1, and thus make this clarifying explanation: The quotes you posted about Luther's alleged hidden "Mariology" are not something that was hidden from you by your previous Lutheran pastors. Rather, the quotes you appear to be so smitten with, when placed back in their context and historical time period do not support Romanism. The "propaganda" therefore is that put forth by Romanism.

I hope that explanation clears things up. I'd be disheartened to discover your comment was actually intentionally antagonistic.

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

At least we got an indirect admission that Martin Luther's theology constantly shifted, and lacked anything resembling consistency. Even in his lifetime, Sola Scriptura had failed him as a praxis.

While Luther's theology did undergo development (and by the way, have you ever heard of Newman's development of doctrine hypothesis that Rome's defenders use to explain away the historical inconsistencies within Romanism?), there was indeed a consistency on important matters. There is a thoughtful paper by Gordon Rupp entitled, “Miles Emeritus? Continuity and Old Discontinuity Between the Young and The Luther” Rupp points out:

“But what of the old Luther? It is often assumed that his last years were racked with illness and exhaustion, and the symptoms of old age: that pessimism and intolerance provoked him into outrageous polemic and made him the scorn of his enemies, and a trial to his friends. I believe this to be a quite exaggerated impression.”

“Nor is his thought and in the quality of his writing, and in the depths of his achievement is it permissible to drive a wedge between the Young and the Old Luther. There were great and lasting continuities. Not that there were no changes.”

“Despite changes of emphasis, and a way of picking on a phrase like ‘Christ’s strange work’ or ‘gratia’ and ‘donum’ or the thought of the pope as a Werewolf, which he uses for a time, and the drops, and despite the fact that he was no systematizer, there is an inner coherence and consistency in Luther’s thought. This is most evident in the firmness with which he held to the doctrine of Justification ‘sola fide’ and ‘solo Christo’.”

Found in: Yule, George (editor) Luther: Theologian for Catholics and Protestants (Scotland: T & T Clark Ltd., 1985), pp. 75-76.

Many Roman Catholics also fail to understand the structure of Luther’s theology. Certianly Luther was not a systematizer. But this does not mean that Luther was haphazard. He wrote treatises for specific situations; hence he has gained the description of an occasional writer. Within these writings, one sees a constant method: Luther reveled in contrast and paradox. Examples of this would be “Deus absconditus vs. Deus revelatus,” “glory vs. Cross,” “law vs. gospel.” Luther rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). For Luther, theology is not systematic theological reasoning. It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another: Theology is always a matter of “denote” (nevertheless). At times, Luther can appear contradictory: he will say something like “God is both hidden and revealed.”

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

It can be argued from various schools of thought that he had moments of lucidity. Which moments were lucid entirely depends on the perspective of the one making the claim. Naturally, when he spoke these things of Mary, I would consider them lucid moments.

Why that's so nice of you to throw Luther a bone. What you haven't done though is demonstrate you have read the contexts your Luther / Mary quotes come from. In fact, I would speculate you simply copied and pasted them from... somewhere. I've been dealing with those specific quotes for years and I've yet to find a Romanist that actually went and looked up their contexts before posting them. But, no worries, I've done a lot of the tedious work already of researching them. All you would need to do is go through the links posted earlier for you.

Before I sign out for the day, if you ignore everything I've written above, I would be very grateful if you'd at least answer this one question: do you think it's responsible to post quotes from contexts you've never read?

JS

Aquinas responded:

 Originally Posted by James Swan 

Either:

1) You misunderstood my post; the "propaganda" I referred to was that put forth by Roman Catholics and avoided by your previous Lutheran ministers.

2) You understood what I meant by "propaganda" but decided to be intentionally antagonistic.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #1, and thus make this clarifying explanation: The quotes you posted about Luther's alleged hidden "Mariology" are not something that was hidden from you by your previous Lutheran pastors. Rather, the quotes you appear to be so smitten with, when placed back in their context and historical time period do not support Romanism. The "propaganda" therefore is that put forth by Romanism.

I hope that explanation clears things up. I'd be disheartened to discover your comment was actually intentionally antagonistic.

JS

The quotes were never discussed in any context when I was a Lutheran, and I think it's obvious that the reason is as simple as (is typical protestant fashion) overcompensation. Anything that could remotely, by anyone, be understood as even similar to Catholic theology (as simple as "Hey, that Mary sure was something huh?") is ran from like the PLAGUE in protestant circles. Deny if you like. I've lived it.

They need not "support Romanism" to make a point in being discarded, hidden, or otherwise ignored by protestant theologians (save to point out that Luther allegedly held your consensus's view on Mary rather than his Catholic view, being a Catholic Priest, before he was a schismatic bearing theological ideas on the toilet).


 My response:

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

The quotes were never discussed in any context when I was a Lutheran,

I'm not sure why there would be a reason to. On the other hand, one need only read Luther's alleged Marian sermons to see that more often than not, Mary isn't even the main subject, sometimes she's barely mentioned. But, you appear to have some sort of strong adversity to any sort of research that challenges your Romanism. You can cling all you want to your story about "when you were a Lutheran...", but I suggest you'd find an audience that actually entertains triumphant conversion stories over on the Catholic Answers forums. They love stories and emotional responses rather than truth and historical facts.

 Originally Posted by aquinas 

and I think it's obvious that the reason is as simple as (is typical protestant fashion) overcompensation. Anything that could remotely, by anyone, be understood as even similar to Catholic theology (as simple as "Hey, that Mary sure was something huh?") is ran from like the PLAGUE in protestant circles. Deny if you like. I've lived it.

As stated above, how and what you lived is not all that important to me. I don't enjoy conversion stories, either Protestant or Romanist. I think people tell them because they like to talk about themselves. I would agree that there are Protestant churches that could do better in referencing Mary. But then again, the actual Biblical content about Mary is... sparse, when compared to other important New Testament people. On the other hand, in this very thread, I stated that Luther rarely wrote about Mary- that is, if you take his writings as a whole. So before you blast away at your former pastors for not quoting Luther on Mary, keep in mind that he didn't sit around writing and contemplating Mary like Romanists do.