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."