From the onset Martin Luther's goal was to destroy the Church. ‘Reform’ or ‘correction’ was mere pretext for civil war. We only see 'reform' being used only to convince the illiterate surfs of Medieval Germany. From a gloss we can see schism was the goal early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:
If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., Vol. II, pg 320, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522Notice the quote is prefaced with asserting Luther was "no doubt aligned with the great deceiver." Based on this, I suspect this defender of Rome is also the same author here: he uses the same Luther quote, and asks, "All of which leads me to ask the question of whether or not Luther was possessed by satan? Who else would war against God’s Kingdom on earth? This might explain some strange stories surrounding some of Luther’s strange behavior." This is old-school anti-ecumenical Romanism, hearkening back the destructive criticism of Luther that characterized Roman Catholic approaches to Luther pre-Joseph Lortz.
This particular defender of Rome also thinks Luther did away with the mass: "If you do away the Real Presence you’ve done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously ‘changing the meaning’ of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one." This Roman defender claims to be quoting "Luther's own words" and that responses to his critical attitude of Luther are an offering of "propaganda." Yes, there's propaganda going on, but it's not with those questioning this defender of Rome! Let's take a look at this Luther quote and see if it displays the ramblings of a person possessed by the devil, and if Luther wanted to "do away" with the mass.
Documentation
A fairly complete secondary reference was provided: "Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913) 1522." Based on his earlier post here, I suspect Rome's defender didn't actually use this source, but took the quote from Warren Carroll's book, The Cleaving of Christendom, 1517-1661, p. 59.
"Grisar" refers to a late nineteenth-century Roman Catholic Jesuit historian (1845-1932). I've written about Grisar often over the years (see my brief overview here). Grisar is typically classified (by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars) as belonging to the period of destructive criticism of Luther. Up until the early twentieth century, Roman Catholic biographies of Luther typically attacked the person, Martin Luther. Even with many of their theological evaluations, Luther's thought was taken as suspicious and heretical, with no redeeming value (I go into detail on this here and here). Generally speaking, Rome's contemporary scholars do not utilize Grisar, nor are his works in mass publication, nor have they been for a long, long time. However, the Internet has brought them back to life, so it's not uncommon to find Rome's defenders, particularly those whom are less ecumenically minded, utilizing Grisar.
Grisar did an extensive multi-volume work on Luther (which is at times tedious to the point of being unreadable!), and what's being referred to is volume two, page 320 (English version). There, Grisar states:
It not infrequently happened that the people were deceived by faithless and apostate clerics who became preachers of the new religion, and were drawn away from the olden faith without being clearly aware of the fact. After having become gradually and most insensibly accustomed to the new faith and worship, not even the bravest had, as a rule, the strength to draw back. The want of religious instruction among the people was here greatly to blame, likewise the lack of organised ecclesiastical resistance to the error, and also, the indolence of the episcopate.
Mass still continued to be said in many places where Lutheranism had taken root, though in an altered form, a fact which contributed to the deception. One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice.
He expressed this quite openly to Henry VIII in 1522: " If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devil's help, with false miracles and deceiving signs."1 In respect of the deception of the Mass, "I oppose all the pronouncements of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils, not by an appeal to 'ancient custom and tradition' nor to any man, but to the Word of the Eternal Majesty and to the Gospel which even my adversaries are forced to acknowledge." "This is God's Word," he vehemently exclaims of his denial of the sacrifice, "not ours. Here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists, Thomists, Henryists, sophists, and all the gates of hell, not to speak of all the sayings of men, and the most sacred and deceitful of customs." 2
1. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae," "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220; "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445.Basically, Grisar provided two sources that provided the same text. "Contra Henricum regem Angliae" refers to Luther's Latin response to Henry VIII, 1522. "Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p.220" refers to WA 10,2: 220, one of the most extensive collections of Luther's writings. "Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 445" can be found here. This reference is to a different Latin collection of Luther's writings.The text reads:
2. Ibid., p. 215=437.
A new English version of this text is scheduled for an upcoming volume of Luther's Works
(Theological and Polemical Writings, 1521-1546). There was an English rendering put out in 1928 by the Rev. E. S. Buchanan. Even though long out of print, the text can be found here.
The text in English is entitled, Martin Luther against Henry King of England. This was Luther's 1522 response to Henry VIII's book Assertio Septum Sacramentorum. The King (or whoever wrote the book attributed to the King) attempted to defend the sacrifice of the mass, attempted to present an exegetical defense of transubstantiation, defend the income of priests via masses, and sought to use tradition to justify withholding the cup from the laity (as well as commenting on other Protestant-related issues of the time). King Henry presented the book to the Pope and earned the title "Defender of the faith." (see Brecht, Martin Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation, Vol. 2:86-87). Luther vehemently responded to Henry's book. It's little wonder Luther wrote so harshly against this book. Brecht states, "[Luther] could only ridicule the pope's offer of an indulgence for reading Henry's book" [c.f. "The Pope also granted an indulgence of ten years and ten quadragenes to those who would read the King's book or listen to its content"(link)].
The quote in question appears towards the end of this short treatise. Presenting the complete context is beyond the scope of this entry, so I recommend those interested in Luther's full argumentation read it for themselves. The treatise isn't all that long.
Context
Let us return to the institution. We have then taken away the Mass, and we say in triumph against the Defender of the sacraments, that it is not a work nor a sacrifice, but a word and a sign of divine grace, which Christ uses for establishing and strengthening in us faith in Himself. And we see how foolish Satan is, since the longer and fiercer he rages and writes against us, the more senseless and infatuated is his delirium. For this book of the King, as it is about the best in Latinity of all the books that have been written against me, so is it above all others the most blockish and stupid, so that I could almost attribute it to our writers in Leipsic, who are wont thus to babble when their babblement is at its best.
Having triumphed over the Mass, I think we have triumphed over the whole papacy. For upon the Mass as upon a rock is built the whole papacy with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, its doctrines, and leans on it with its whole weight. And all these things must fall with the sacrilegious and abominable Mass. So Christ through me has begun to unmask the abomination standing in the holy place, and to destroy him, whose coming was through the operation of Satan in all wonders and lying miracles.
O that miserable Defender of the Papist Church! O miserable Church which in vain has poured forth its Indulgences for so great a book, except that a worthy reward it gave both to the Defender and to his book! For as are the Indulgences, so is the Church, so is the Defender, and so is the book also.
These things that I have said are enough for the defence of the chief sacrament, in handling which the Lord Henry greatly laboured with his assertions, as one who was not ignorant that therein lay the main thing for the preservation of the papal reign. The things remaining unsaid I am obliged to defer, being overwhelmed with many occupations, especially with translating the books of the Bible, most necessary works, lest I myself should promote the ends of Satan by my too great zeal in refuting him; for Satan by these senseless books thinks to hinder me, but he will not succeed.Conclusion
The English of Grisar's Luther quote uses "doing way" with the mass. Grisar's German text uses "abzuschaffen." Buchanan though renders it "triumphed over the Mass" (note the Latin word, "Triumphata" in the original). The Grisar versions, using the words they do, may give off the false impression that Luther sought to completely abolish the mass, in general. Rather though, in context, it's Rome's version of the mass that's been triumphed over. That's the intended meaning, which is why Grisar prefaces the quote with, "One of the chief of Luther's aims was to combat the Mass as a sacrifice." What Luther was arguing against were specific abuses heaped on the mass by Rome. Luther believed he was defending the integrity of the "chief sacrament" (see the context above).
This particular defender of Rome went on to cite Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle stating, "It is also generally known with what guile Luther and Melanchthon bore themselves in doing away with the Mass." Denifle though, does not expound on this. Oddly, this Roman defender went on to claim of Luther, "If you do away the Real Presence you've done away with the Mass. He hangs himself in the details surreptitiously changing the meaning of the Mass form a real sacrifice to a symbolic one." For this Roman polemicist, unless it's transubstantiation, it's the symbolic view. He need only visit the Smalcald Articles to gain correction, or any number of other Roman Catholic apologists that use Luther's view to prove he believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
Posts
14 comments:
I know that this is totally unrelated and I do apologize, but James, do you have a link to where I could find LW 41 online?
No, but I'll gladly help you out with what you need.
I was looking for the context of a Luther quote that had been presented to me. Here's the quote:
"God did not receive his divinity from Mary, but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother. … She is the true mother of God and bearer of God. … Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs… just as your son is not 2 sons… even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone." (On the Councils of the Church, 1539)
I saw that you have already briefly addressed it here:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2017/12/interfaith-mary-mother-mary-and-martin.html?m=1
The fact that Luther had some Marian devotion is no surprise at all, I just wanted to see what the context of this quote was. It seems to be popular among Roman Catholics.
Sure thing:
Now the question is: what was it that was condemned about Nestorius and why was this third principal council convoked against him if he did not teach otherwise than that Christ is true God and true man, and one single Christ, not two Christs, that is, one person in two natures—as we all believe and as all Christendom has believed from the beginning? For it appears that the pope and his followers put the words into Nestorius’ mouth that he viewed Christ as a mere man and not also as God, and that he took Christ to be two persons or two Christs. This appears (I say) not only from the histories, but also from the very words and documents of the popes and their writers. Now in order to discover the reasons for this council we ask, what was really Nestorius’ error?
You may read a page or two of the Historia Tripartita, Book XII, chapter 4, which you can do in half of a quarter of an hour, wherein is written everything that one can really know about Nestorius and this council, and see if I hit the mark. The problem was this: Nestorius was a proud and unlearned man, and when he became such a great bishop and patriarch he supposed that he should be looked upon as the most learned man on earth, needing neither to read the books of his predecessors and of other people, nor to learn their way of speaking about these things. Instead, since he was eloquent and endowed with a good voice, he wanted to be a self-made doctor or master, and no matter how he expressed it or pronounced something, it should be accounted correct. He approached the statement that Mary was God’s mother or the bearer of God with the same pride. Then he, in turn, encountered other proud bishops, whom his pride displeased, especially Cyril of Alexandria; for there was no Augustine or Ambrose at hand. Now Nestorius had learned in the church of Antioch that Christ was true God born of the Father in eternity, as the Nicene council had defended, and afterward born a true man of the Virgin Mary. Nestorius did not question these two items; he himself had preached them for a long time. Indeed, he had even persecuted the Arians at the Council of Nicaea, condemning them so vehemently that he had also instigated many murders and much bloodshed, so staunchly did he regard Christ as true God and man.
Moreover, he also conceded that Christ, God’s Son, was born of the Virgin Mary into his humanity, not into his divinity, which we and all Christians also say. But here is where the problem arose: he did not want Mary to be called the mother of God because of this, since Christ was not born of her into his divinity, or, to express it plainly, since Christ did not derive his divinity from her as he did his humanity. There we have the entire bone of contention: God cannot be born of a human being or have his divine nature from one; and a human being cannot bear God or impart the divine nature to a God. This unlearned, uncouth, and proud man insisted on the literal meaning of the words, “God born of Mary,” and interpreted “born” according to grammar or philosophy, as though it meant to obtain divine nature from the one who bore him, and the Tripartita also says that he viewed these words as an abomination—as we, and all Christians (if that were to be the sense of these words), do too.
One can see from this that Nestorius, as an ignorant, proud bishop, adheres faithfully to Christ, but in his ignorance does not know what and how he is speaking, like one who does not quite know how to speak of such things, but still wants to speak as an expert. We too know very well that God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother. I have to illustrate this with a plain example: if a woman bears a child, a rotten Nestorius (that is what the Tripartita calls him) may be proud and ignorant and puzzle out, “This woman has given birth to the child, but she is not the child’s mother because the child’s soul is not derived from her nature or blood, but from elsewhere—for instance, from God. Thus this child is, to be sure, born of the woman according to the body; but since the soul is not from her body, she is not the child’s mother, for she is not the mother of the child’s soul.”
A no-good sophist like this does not deny that the two natures, body and soul, are one person, nor does he say that there are two persons or two children, but admits that two natures, like body and soul, form one person or one child; also that the mother has not borne two children, but only one child. However, he fails to see what he is denying or what he is saying. Just such a man was Nestorius, who admits that Christ is God and man in one person; but because his divinity does not come from his mother Mary, she should not be called God’s mother. This was rightly condemned in the council, and ought to be condemned. And although Nestorius has a correct view on one point of the principal matter, that Christ is God and man, one should nevertheless not tolerate his other point or mode of expression, that God was not born of Mary and was not crucified by the Jews just as one should not tolerate the sophist (who declares very correctly that a mother cannot bear or impart a child’s soul) when he says that a child is not the mother’s natural child and a mother is not the child’s natural mother.
In summary, the proud, unlearned bishop instigated a bad Greek quarrel, or as the Roman Cicero said of the Greeks, “A controversy has long disturbed the little Greeks, who are fonder of argument than of truth.” For whoever admits that a mother bore a child who has body and soul should admit and believe that the mother has borne the whole child and is the child’s true mother, even though she is not the mother of the soul; otherwise, it would follow that no woman is the mother of any child, and the fourth commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” would have to be abolished. Thus it should also be said that Mary is the true natural mother of the child called Jesus Christ, and that she is the true mother of God and bearer of God, and whatever else can be said of children’s mothers, such as suckling, bathing, feeding—that Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs, not two Sons, not two Jesuses; just as your son is not two sons, two Johns, two cobblers, even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.
Thus Nestorius’ error was not that he believed Christ to be a pure man, or that he made two persons of him; on the contrary, he confesses two natures, the divine and the human, in one person—but he will not admit a communicatio idiomatum. I cannot express that in one word in German. Idioma means that which is inherent in a nature or is its attribute, such as dying, suffering, weeping, speaking, laughing, eating, drinking, sleeping, sorrowing, rejoicing, being born, having a mother, suckling the breast, walking, standing, working, sitting, lying down, and other things of that kind, which are called idiomata naturae humanae, that is, qualities that belong to man by nature, which he can and must do or even suffer; for idioma in Greek, proprium in Latin, is a thing—let us, for the time being, call it an attribute. Again, an idioma deitatis, “an attribute of divine nature,” is that it is immortal, omnipotent, infinite, not born, does not eat, drink, sleep, stand, walk, sorrow, weep—and what more can one say? To be God is an immeasurably different thing than to be man; that is why the idiomata of the two natures cannot coincide. That is the opinion of Nestorius.
Now if I were to preach, “Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth (for the gospels call him ‘carpenter’s son’ [Matt. 13:55]) is walking over there down the street, fetching his mother a jug of water and a penny’s worth of bread so that he might eat and drink with his mother, and the same carpenter, Jesus, is the very true God in one person,” Nestorius would grant me that and say that this is true. But if I were to say, “There goes God down the street, fetching water and bread so that he might eat and drink with his mother,” Nestorius would not grant me this, but says, “To fetch water, to buy bread, to have a mother, to eat and drink with her, are idiomata or attributes of human and not of divine nature.” And again, if I say, “The carpenter Jesus was crucified by the Jews and the same Jesus is the true God,” Nestorius would agree that this is true. But if I say, “God was crucified by the Jews,” he says, “No! For crucifixion and death are idiomata or attributes not of divine but of human nature.”
Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 41: Church and Ministry III. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 41, pp. 97–101). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
TW: If the discussion you're having on Luther's Mariology is open for viewing, I'd enjoy seeing it.
As I wrote recently:
James White once described this title as "the single most misused theological term around." Contemporary Protestants distance themselves from the title, "Mother of God," for good reason. The term has evolved in its usage. What was once a rich theological term expressing a doctrinal truth about Christ developed into a venerating praise to Mary. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety, abandoning its Christological heritage.
Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" than they should.
Thank you very much for that James. I sincerely appreciate your help here. Whenever I see any Luther quotes, I immediately turn to your blog and investigate. It would be useful to have Luther's Works for myself and I should buy them. Any ideas on the best place to purchase them?
Anyways, the discussion that I'm having is in the comments section of a video on YouTube titled, "Mormon Tells Durbin to Repent". You'll have to scroll through the comments section to find it. It's under a user named "Delores M". Her first comment is this:
"I used to be outraged at Christians knocking my Catholic faith. But I was nominal and born into it. Then I started to practice Catholicism and it contradicted with my bible readings. This was 20 years ago, but alot of people don't know the faith they were born in.now I'm born again"
There's something like 93 replies in it (not all by me), but a month or so ago I (zipper778) started interacting with a user named "FREEKAFIR". He is a Roman Catholic who has a fair grasp on church history, but it is clouded through the lense of Roman Catholicism. His most recent reply to me though had a LOT of ad hominem attacks against me, of which I will be bringing directly to his attention, and much of his reasoning has been circular.
The only thing that I'm trying to really work through now is how to explain to a Roman Catholic how the term "Mother of God" has been abused. I just like to do research and continue to build onto the case for Sola Christus.
Forgot to post the url to the video. Sorry. Here it is: https://youtu.be/d-xjSJKZbPQ
"6,240 Comments"
Is there an easy way to search the comments?
I don't know of an easy way. The computer that I used at work Made me click the "Load More Comments" button twice and then I found it. The conversation itself is primarily about Roman Catholicism, but FREEKAFIR brought up that quote in one of his arguments and I knew I had to investigate it. FREEKAFIR has posted a LOT.
OK, I think I found it. What a confusing platform of chaos YouTube discussions are! In regard to Luther's comments about Mary, pre or post 1530:
Luther did not dwell on Mary in his writings, of whatever year. Her mention is peppered though throughout. The main exception on this was Luther Commentary on the Magnificat (1521). See my link here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/10/luthers-magnificat-representation-of.html
When Luther did mention Mary, the emphasis is not on her in the way Roman Catholic would emphasize her.
In regard to the "On The Councils of the Church" quote: Yes, it is an example of Luther mentioning Mary, post-1530, and there are a number of instances post-1530 Luther mentions Mary. Notice how in the "pop" Roman Catholic version splattered all over the Internet, Luther's context of evaluating Nestorius is completely missing. One simply assumes Luther is fawning all over Mary as "the Mother of God."
I suspect that whoever originally put the quote in its popular online form had as the target those sort of "fundamentalists" Steve Ray and Karl Keating attacked early on... you know, those sort of people with a knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells like Romanism and think church history started with Billy Graham. The quote, I think, is supposed to "shock" a Protestant that Luther used the phrase, "Mother of God." Yawn. My recent post here on Calvin is along these same lines:
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2019/02/john-calvin-mother-of-god-and-great.html?m=1
One last thing I would continue to point out to the person you're interacting with is to lay off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is like using a sand castle to represent an actual castle. Anyone, at any time, can go in to a Wiki page and make it say whatever one wants to. It's absurd for a defender of Rome, to claim to belong to a church that owns church history to cite a source so fraught with uncertainty.
I looked at Wiki's Luther page on Mary, it was such a train wreck, it would take me a while to untangle that mess... only to have someone come along and edit the page and change it again. I considered logging on to Wiki for fun and doing a massive edit, but i just don't have the time for such a game.
Hang in there: for Rome's defenders it will always reduce to: because Rome says so. Just keep whittling away....
Yeah, sorry that it was such a mess to find.
I told him that Wikipedia is a terrible source, but it doesn't matter to him. He did say that English isn't his first language and he seems to be very European focused and he also used the word Pentecote instead of Pentecost, so I am inclined to believe that he may be French. He also is using the shotgun attack and that is bogging me down time wise because I want to do a good job replying to hi accusations. So it takes me awhile to reply to him.
The whole using Luther against Protestants is a bit of a silly thing to do in my opinion. There are a plethora of Roman Catholic theologians from the past that I could accurately quote from the past that would demonstrate how Roman Catholicism has changed, but they don't care, so why should I? Plus, I read your blog daily so it doesn't surprise me at all that Luther said nice things about Mary.
I honestly don't mind the challenge in debating anonymous people online for a number of reasons. For one, I find that it's an opportunity for me to research topics that I wouldn't normally think about researching. It's also good practice for me because I interact with Roman Catholics on a daily basis (not always theological discussions, but still). And then the obvious attempt of trying to help not only the person that I'm dialoguing with, but also others who might be taking the time to read the conversation. I may never convince him, or people like him, but the conversation could make a fair minded person think twice about Roman Catholicism.
I find that it's an opportunity for me to research topics that I wouldn't normally think about researching.
Great point, that's sorta how my whole blog started.
but the conversation could make a fair minded person think twice about Roman Catholicism.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Post a Comment