St. Augustine's Prayed to the Blessed Virgin Mary?

 In my Facebook feed, I came across the following prayer of Saint Augustine to Mary:

O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience,and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen.

I had never heard that Augustine prayed to Mary, so this provoked my attention. This prayer of Augustine's to Mary is found on various webpages... typically undocumented. For instance, the website, Learn Religions attributes the prayer to Augustine and uses it to illustrate "both Christian reverence for the Mother of God and the proper understanding of intercessory prayer... We pray to the Blessed Virgin so that she might present our prayers to God and obtain forgiveness from Him for our sins." This website claims "Our content is rigorously researched and written by writers who are experts in their fields." We'll see that they dropped the ball, there's no proof Augustine penned these words. In fact, it's been established who wrote the prayer, and it was not Augustine.

Documentation
I checked a number of links citing the prayer attributing it to Augustine without finding any meaningful documentation. But various clues did arise. Allegedly, the prayer comes with significant papal approval and an indulgence of fifty days!

Our Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX., at the prayer of several devout persons, vouchsafed to grant, by a Rescript of the Segretaria of the Memorials, dated May 19, 1854 -

The indulgence of fifty days, every time that, with contrite heart, the following prayer is said to the most holy Virgin, extracted from the eighteenth Sermon of St. Augustine, De Sanctis.

This source also provides a Latin text demonstrating the prayer has circulated as attributed to Augustine for a long time. 

However, this webpage definitively states the following: 

Written by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (ca 951-ca 1029), it appears in his Sermo IX, De Annuntiatione Dominica. The prayer is sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, Book 10, Sermon 18, de Sanctis, since Bishop Fulbert's sermon appeared in the collected works of St. Augustine at one time. However, it is now known that the sermon is not Augustine's, but Bishop Fulbert's.

Conclusion
Textual criticism once again to the rescue! Augustine did not write this prayer. It would be interesting to know when the "collected works of St. Augustine" incorrectly attributed the prayer to Augustine was published. It would also be interesting to have documentation in regard to the fifty-day indulgente granted by Pius IX for the recitation of this prayer and if he specifically mentions Augustine. That would actually be sadly humorous if true, that the pope granted an eternal fifty-day indulgence based on a mis-attributed prayer. 

A general question though still remains unanswered: did Augustine pray to Mary? A simple Google A.I. search says,

Yes, St. Augustine prayed to the Virgin Mary, asking for her intercession to help him find forgiveness and grace, viewing her as a powerful advocate to present his prayers to God, a practice consistent with early Christian reverence for saints. He expressed deep devotion, believing she, as the Mother of God, could help his prayers reach God and secure pardon for his sins, and his writings highlight her unique role and holiness, influencing later Marian traditions.

The links Google provides though are not helpful. One older source states of Augustine:

Invocation of Angels and Saints.‡‡ On this we have thirteen passages quoted; all, save one, refer to the departed praying for those on earth. Even in this view Augustine expresses a doubt. "The question is indeed a great one, not to be discussed at present whether, or how far, or in what way, the spirits of the dead know the things which happen in our regard." That is a very different question from praying to them for their help and assistance, and our pleading their supposed superabundant merits on our behalf. True, the compilers cite the case alleged to be recorded by Augustine (p. 377), of " a certain woman, who seeing that her child was dead and irreparably lost," ran with the dead body to a place dedicated to "the blessed Martyr Stephen, and began demanding her son from him," and to "restore her son." And accordingly we are told that her son came to life! Well! if such was the genuine production of Augustine, all we can add is, that it is very different from his other sentiments expressed on the subject of prayers; and I venture to assert that no lay Roman Catholic of the present day will believe that such a circumstance ever took place. Modern Romanists under similar circumstances, if they offered up any prayer at all, would invoke the Virgin Mary, not Stephen!

According to this old author, Augustine did not invoke Mary in prayer. 

Did John Calvin Insist Mary be Called the Mother of God?

This little blurb above appeared in a Catholic vs. Protestant Facebook group. I'm going to skip past Luther and Zwingli because they both did positively use the title "Mother of God." However, with John Calvin it's a different story.  John Calvin did not insist Mary be called the Mother of God and shied away from using it. He also warned others not to use it.

Roman Catholic scholars know this. For instance, Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara states, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara also states, "...the reason for his hesitancy on the use of the term 'Mother of God' seems to be based upon a fear of falling into what he saw as the excesses of the past." O'Meara documents this from  letter Calvin wrote "to a French Calvinist community in London in 1552."  Calvin wrote September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, 

Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

Original text: Quant aux autres pointz quilz ont debatu, ie ne doute pas quil ny ayt eu de l'ignorance en ce quilz ont reprouvé ceste facon de parler que la vierge Marie soit mere de Dieu, et avec l'ignorance il se peut faire quil y ayt eu temerité et audace trop grande, comme le proverbe ancien dit que les plus ignorans sont les plus hardiz. Cependant pour aller en rondeur fraternelle avec vous, ie ne puis dissimuler qu’on trouve mauvais que ce tiltre soit ordinairement attribué aux sermons a ceste vierge, et de ma part ie ne scaurois trouver tel langage ne bon, ne propre, ne convenable. Aussi ne feront toutes gens de sens rassis. Parquoy ie ne me puis persuader quil y ayt eu tel usage en vostre eglise, car cela seroit autant comme de parler du corps, du sang, de la teste, de la mort de Dieu. Vous scavez que l'escriture nous acoustume a ung autre stile, mais il y a pis en cecy pour le scandale. Car de dire la mere de Dieu pour la vierge Marie, ne peut servir qu’a endurcir les ignorans en leurs superstitions. Et celuy qui se plairoit en cela, monstreroit bien quil ne scait que c’est d'edifier l’eglise (Corpus reformatorum 42:363).

 O'Meara concludes,

It is not an explicit rejection of Ephesus—for which Calvin has great respect—but rather the effect which this title had on devotional life in the past that explains why Calvin preferred other titles for Mary.

This is exactly why John Calvin avoided "Mother of God" and why many Protestants do today. Dr. 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 Jesus Christ developed into venerating over-the-top praise to Mary and a focus on her intercession. The gist of the term became heavily Mariological in popular piety abandoning its Christological heritage (see my old comments here on this).  Calvin rightly says, "...for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions."

Elsewhere Calvin stated:

For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honor the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her “the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace.” We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; 15:26). This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer?

Original text: Nam quod toties gregis sui faciunt mentionem Sorbonistae, se certe gregem porcorum esse hic prodiderunt. Invocationem Virginis, qua usi sunt antehac, ad petendam spiritus gratiam, quis non videt exsecrabilem blasphemiam esse? ut elogia illa anathematis plena omittamus, quibus dum Virginem volunt honorare, gravissimo probro afficiunt, quum reginam coeli et thesaurariam gratiae appellant. Audimus quid doceat Christus: missurum se a patre spiritum veritatis: illum ut petamus in suo nomine, iubet (Ioann. 14, 26 et 15, 26). Haec igitur iusta petendi regula, et certa obtinendi ratio est. Ad Virginem autem confugere, Christo praeterito, eamque in precatione compellare, non Deum, quis non profanum esse morem videt? A verbo sane Dei prorsus est alienus. Quin etiam exstat decretum concilii Carthaginensis quarti: quod vetat sanctos ad altare invocare. In eo quoque suam insulsitatem apertius etiamnum produnt, quum dicunt salutationem hanc nobis ab evangelio praescribi. Missus est quidem Gabriel, ut Lucas narrat, qui hoc modo Virginem salutaret: sed an sumus Gabrieles? Ubi hoc nobis unquam mandatum est? Quis ad Virginem nobis accessus patet, ut cum ea colloquamur? Ad haec, quorsum tunc salutatio, quum spiritus gratiam implorant, nisi ea precationis vice abutantur? (Corpus Reformatorum 35:44).

Martin Luther's View on Prescribing Marital Intercourse?

 Here's one from a Martin Luther-friendly Facebook group:

I do not believe this is either an authentic quote from Martin Luther or even a second-hand Table Talk statement. It's my opinion this quote with this documentation entered cyberspace via a web-article that provided incorrect research. The quote is an unattributed proverb that picked up Martin Luther as its originator in the nineteenth century.   Let's take a look at how I arrived at this conclusion.

Documentation
The first thing to notice with this quote is that it is purported to be a Table Talk statement. The Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. Easily verifiable are the many comments from Luther about marital sex published with his approval while he was alive. I am not familiar though with him writing or saying this particular sentiment as purported either while alive or via a published Table Talk utterance after his death. Frankly though, it wouldn't surprise me if he did say it!

This Facebook post provides a reference: "watr 6,247,24." This is a reference to the 6th volume of Luther's Tichreden  (Table Talk), page 247 as part of the official Weimar edition of Luther's writings. I'm assuming "24" is the line number. When I check WA Tr 6:247, I do not see this quote anywhere on the page. Line 24 would fall in this paragraph: 

It isn't there. A Google AI English rendering states, 

Such a fellow is D. Jäckel, who is imprisoned in Leipzig and despised by everyone; for he is said to be capable of more than preaching. He had my miller Auna S. wooed, but I sent word to him: That shall never happen. And to the maiden: If you want him, then get away from me immediately! I will neither hear of you nor see you! The same thing happened to him with Mayor H. K., when he had his daughter wooed.

I asked for further clarification. Again the WA Tr 6:247, 24 reference was cited, but I was also provided with documentation from the English edition of Luther's Works (LW):

now, the english translation of the weimar edition (wa tr 6, 247, 24) can be found in luther's works (philadelphia edition), vol. 54: table talk (pp. 139–140, no. 3701, ca. 1538–1542). there it reads literally:“twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four.” the original german passage appears in martin luther's table talks, weimar edition (wa tr) 6, 247, 24: “die woche zwer, der weiber gebühr, schadet weder mir noch dir machts jahr hundert und vier.”

I checked the Table Talk in the Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works (LW 54). The quote was not on pages 139-140. The entries on those pages are from 1532, not "ca. 1538-1542." The entry numbers on pages 138-139 are 1325, 1326, 1327, 1329, not "no. 3701." In LW 54, entry 3701 is found on pages 261-262... and the quote is not there.  In the Weimar edition, Table Talk 3701 is found in WA Tr 3:545-546. The quote is not there either. Nowhere in LW does it say in English, “twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four.” I'm entirely confused by the LW follow-up documentation! 

Where then did this information come from? I suspect it was taken from a webpage article entitled Meister Eckhart´s Mystik und der "fröhliche Wechsel" bei Martin Luther. This paper states,

Daß Sexualität Modus und sakramentaler Ausdruck der Ehe ist, hat Luther nicht bestritten, ist doch heute noch in evangelischen Familien eine genaue Zahlenangabe über den zuträglichen ehelichen Sexualverkehr sprichwörtlich geronnen im Umlauf.[286]

[286] WATR 6,247,24 „Die Woche zwier, der Weiber Gebühr, schadet weder mir noch dir, macht's Jahr einhundert- und vier.“

Google translate:

Becoming one flesh is an expression for marriage. Luther did not deny that sexuality is the mode and sacramental expression of marriage, and even today, a precise numerical guideline regarding appropriate marital sexual intercourse is still proverbially circulating in Protestant families. [286]

[286] WATR 6,247,24 "Twice a week, that's a woman's due, it harms neither me nor you, making it one hundred and four times a year."

I can't know for sure this is where the quote was taken from, but the similarities suggest there is a potential collaboration. As per Google AI, it concludes the quote is attributed to Luther, but not proven to be his:

Authorship: Although the quotation is attributed to Luther in many collections, its actual origin has not been proven beyond doubt historically. It appears increasingly in this form in collections of proverbs of the 19th century.

I agree with Google AI. There are nineteenth century occurrences of the quote found via simple searches. For instance, here's one from 1838 mentioning it is "Luther's rhyme":

This 2013 book appears to have done the necessary work of trying to trace the quote down to its source:

Google AI English translation:

In Wilhelm Wander's fifth volume of his German Proverbs Lexicon, published in 1880, the saying reads: "Two weeks, the women's fee, harms neither me nor you, makes one hundred and four in a year." Wander cites the oldest known evidence to date, three collections of German proverbs. Wilhelm Körte was the first to attribute the saying to the Reformer in 1837. Josua Eiselein adopted it in 1840, and finally It can be found in Karl Simrock's work from 1846. None of the three authors provide a source. Wander also quotes a variant appropriate to the "nation of love" from a book on French proverbs published in 1841: "Il faut se resveiller deux foys la nuit pour vendre le bien de sa femme" (One must wake up twice in the night to give one's wife what she deserves). Whether there were any connections between the German and French variants in the form of migration remains to be determined. It is not impossible, as Paris was a popular place of exile for German artists, especially in the 1830s. Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne are examples. 

It should be noted in passing that Luther, in reference to Luke 18:9-14, repeatedly recommends performing another action, namely fasting, twice a week, for example in a sermon on August 31, 1522. But this, being quite the opposite of the saying under discussion, can hardly be considered its source.

Conclusion
The quote "twice a week is the due of women; it hurts neither you nor me, and makes the year one hundred and four" or it's English variant, "Twice a week, is a woman's due, harms neither me nor you" does not appear to be from Martin Luther at all. Therefore, it is false that "martin luther to married couples prescribed intercourse at least twice a week as the correct quota, no matter what."

Catholic Answers Says the Canon of Scripture Could Include More Books if the Eastern and Western Churches Unite

 This is from 2024:

Catholic Answers Says the Canon of Scripture Could Include More Books if the Eastern and Western Churches Unite?

I watched this video from Catholic Answers. Check this out:

Catholic Answers: "An interesting question concerns what would happen if we and the Eastern Orthodox reunited.  One of the things that I strongly suspect would happen is we would say, "Okay, the issue of the exact border of these books did not divide us before the separation, and so it doesn't need to divide us now." In fact, I was reading just yesterday a quotation from Joseph Ratzinger, where he said that in order to reunite with the Orthodox, we shouldn't require more of them than what they believed before the separation, and they should not regard anything that's happened in Catholicism since the separation is heretical.  So we'd have a situation where within the Catholic Church, you have two opinions. Applying that to the canon, you would have one opinion in the  Western Church that, "Okay, the proto-canonicals  and the seven deuterocanonicals that Catholics  accept are Scripture, and within the reunited  Eastern Orthodox Churches, you would have the  opinion that the proto-canonicals and the seven  plus books that are deuterocanonical that they  accept are Scripture, and these two views could  live alongside each other without a problem." Let a few centuries go by, the Church might decide to revisit the question and hypothetically could accept those books, but we're getting into pretty speculative territory here."