Bullinger on the Assumption of Mary, Revisited

This is a follow up to my previous post about Heinrich Bullinger and the Assumption of Mary. 

Previously I argued that Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger appears to go from being certain about Mary's Assumption (as early as 1539) to being agnostic on Mary's Assumption later in his life (by at least 1552). Why bother with such tedium? I do so to demonstrate that Rome's defenders don't always go that deep into history as they so often claim.  Sure, they'll point out that Heinrich Bullinger made a strong statement affirming the Assumption of Mary. What they might not mention is that he made statements after it in which he said that it's dangerous to explore where Scripture is silent. For instance,

"The most learned theologians say that one cannot assert anything on the matter of the death or the assumption of the virgin. To wish to unearth or clarify certain facts on which scripture is silent is not without its dangers. Let us content ourselves with believing that the Virgin Mary is indeed active in heaven and has received every beatitude after her departing" (Latin text, Translation, Thurian, p.197).

Did Bullinger believe in the Assumption? It appears he at least did in 1539. He plainly states though in later writings that one cannot know Mary was Assumed into heaven. I see a development in Bullinger here. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Bullinger didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened. Bullinger never totally escaped from medieval Mariology, but his comments on the Assumption when placed in their historical context show that he may have been on his way.

Bullinger's Sermon, De beata virgine Maria: Proof for Believing in the Assumption? 
In going through this tedium, I found one author claiming that Bullinger believed in Mary's Assumption later in his life, oddly enough, based on the testimony of Eusebius. If this is so, it would indicate my argument isn't valid, because here would be Bullinger in the late 1550's affirming the Assumption. The author states,

These comments above are based on this passage from Bullinger's sermon De beata virgine Maria. Along with the Latin text, I have William Tappolet's German translation of this passage from Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, p. 292-293. As I suspected, Bullinger is not using Eusebius to claim he again was certain on the Assumption of Mary. Bullinger states that Eusebius wrote a chronicle up to the year 48 A.D., but this diligent historian doesn't really get into what happened to Mary other than saying Mary had been taken up to her Son in heaven. He then mentions papal decrees condemning apocryphal literature that delve into Mary's Assumption. He then says to avoid the arguments about the Assumption from the Disputations of Antonius (Besutius?) and that it's useless to argue where Scripture is silent. The aspect of Mary's final end to keep in view is that she now lives in heaven with Christ. The theme of not delving into where Scripture is silent is exactly what his other later quotes say.

Here is Tappolet's text:

Eusebius, der Bischof von Cäsarea, der - bis ans Wunder grenzend - der fleißigste Forscher des ganzen Altertums war, erwähnt in seiner Chronik zum Jahre 48 nach Christi Geburt, dem 15. nach dem Tod des Herrn, ganz wenig und sagt: die Jungfrau Maria, die Mutter Jesu Christi, wird zum Sohn in den Himmel aufgenommen, wie manche schreiben, daß ihnen geoffenbart worden sei. Dies sagt jener, der in der Kirchengeschichte davon nichts erwähnt. Es ist deshalb nicht verwunderlich, daß in den päpstlichen Dekreten (Distinct. 15. Cap. „ Sancta") der Bericht vom Heimgang der heiligen Maria verurteilt und unter die apokryphen Schriften gezählt wird, wie auch jener Bericht, der über die Geburt des Heilandes, die heilige Maria und die Hebamme des Heilandes etc. herausgegeben wurde. Daher mahnen wir auch, daß jene, die die Disputation des Antonius in seiner Geschichte (Tit. 6, Cap. 3) über den Heimgang Mariens mit Verstand lesen, und alle lernen mögen, wie un fruchtbar und gefährlich es ist, neugierig zu forschen und darüber reden zu wollen, was uns in der Heiligen Schrift vorenthalten ist. Es möge uns genügen, schlicht und einfach zu glauben und zu bekennen, daß die Jungfrau Maria, die liebe Mutter unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, durch die Gnade und das Blut ihres eigenen Sohnes ganz geheiligt und durch die Gabe des Heiligen Geists überreich beschenkt und allen Frauen vorgezogen, und endlich, wie von den Engeln selber, von allen Geschlechtern wahrhaft selig gepriesen, jetzt lücklichmit Christus im Himmel lebe und daß sie ewige Jungfrau genannt werde und auch sei und bleibe, nämlich Gottesgebärerin, deren Andenken unter den Gläubigen in der Kirche stetig und festlich, jedoch fromm und nicht abergläubisch sein soll.

Here is the Latin text:

The Latin text doesn't say anything different than Tappolet's German: Eusebius Caesariensis episcopus, omnis uetustatis, ad miraculum usque, omnium diligentissimus indagator, in Chronicus suis, sub anno a' natiuitate Domine 48. qui nimirum erat 15. a morte Domini annus, paucula annotans, Maria virgo, inquit, Iesu Christi mater, ad filium in ccelum assumitur, ut quidam fuisse fibi reuelatum scribunt.


Addendum: What Did Eusebius Say?
In the Chronicon of Eusebius, there is a disputed passage that reads, "Mary the Virgin the mother of Jesus, was taken up into heaven as some write that it has been revealed to them." The Catholic Encyclopedia notes the passage is spurious:

"There is no certain tradition as to the year of Mary's death. Baronius in his Annals relies on a passage in the Chronicon of Eusebius for his assumption that Mary died A.D. 48. It is now believed that the passage of the Chronicon is a later interpolation."

Bullinger on Mary's Assumption: It is Dangerous to Explore Where Scripture is Silent

This is a follow-up to my earlier entry on Bullinger's Mariology. 

Over the years I've witnessed Rome's defenders saying that Protestant Reformer Heinrich Bullinger believed in the Assumption of Mary.  As far as I can determine, the most important evidence for this conclusion appears to be based on merely one Bullinger quote:

"Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that on the one hand we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures, and on the other hand in order to withdraw from men the possibility of venerating the human body of the saint. It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels."

This quote can be found in a variety of forms, documented (if at all!) in different ways. Often the quote is dated only a short time before Bullinger's death, in 1568, in which case, Bullinger held to Mary's Assumption for almost the entirety of his life. Rome's defenders often use snippets of information like this to provoke historical dissonance in dialog with Protestants: the Reformers believed in sola scriptura, yet believe x y or z about Mary... so why don't you?  In what follows, I'd like to demonstrate that Rome's defenders sometimes aren't up front with all the facts, and when those facts are presented, a different scenario may indeed be possible in regard to Bullinger and the Assumption of Mary.

Documentation
Sometimes the quote above is documented with a reference to Max Thurian's Mary, Mother of All Christians, 197-198. Thurian says in 1568 Bullinger wrote this comment on the Assumption of Mary. Thurian says he took the quote from Walter Tappolet, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, p.327. This pdf (with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) cites the quote as "On Original Sin, 16 (1568)." This is actually a reference to the chapter in the primary source, De Origne Erroris, 16 from Bullinger. This documentation of the primary source may have originally come from Hilda Graef, Mary, A History of doctrine and Devotion, p. 15. She likewise notes 1568, and also that she took the quote from Tappolet. This tedium points to one conclusion: the quote, in whatever form one may find it, will probably lead back to Tappolet's, The Marian Praise of the Reformers.

Bullinger's Three Quotes on the Assumption of Mary: Developing to the Assumption?
I have a copy of Tappolet's book. It's more of an anthology of Marian quotes from the Reformers than an actual analysis of Reformation Mariology. Tappolet doesn't simply provide one quote from Bullinger on the Assumption of Mary, he provides three (p.327-328).  He provides quotes from three different dates, in this order: 1552, 1565, and 1568 (the last quote being that cited above). If one uses the quotes presented in this order, it appears that Bullinger went from uncertainty about Mary's Assumption to certainty. In 1552, Bullinger says we simply know that Mary is in Heaven, and "the Scriptures say nothing more" (The 1552 quote can be found here, Von der Verklärung Jesu Christi). In 1565, Bullinger alludes to the testimony of Ephiphanius on the uncertainty of Mary's death, and states, "It is quite dangerous to try to explore or explain for sure where the Scripture is silent!" (The 1565 quote can be found here , Epitome temporum). But then in 1568 he does an about face and states, "... we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels." The quote is authentic (here is the page in the 1568 edition).

Something doesn't add up. If one looks closer at Tappolet's citations, he does preface the 1568 statement by saying, "The strangest testimony of Bullinger's on the question of Mary's Assumption is contained in Froschauer's 1568 edition of  De Origne Erroris Chapter 16" (p.328). Even Tappolet, the primary source for the quote realizes something isn't quite right. He then includes a few final comments of bibliographic tedium including the fact that the 1549 French edition of De Origne Erroris deleted Bullinger's Assumption comment. 1549? Wasn't De Origne Erroris written at the end of Bullinger's life in 1568? It wasn't. Bullinger composed this book much earlier (1529; it was the companion volume to a book he wrote in 1528). Bullinger was 25 when he originally wrote this book. He revised these two volumes into one volume in 1539. It is in this 1539 edition that the Marian statement in question appears to have originally been written (see page 45). I could not locate the quote it in the 1529 edition, nor do I know if he revised this book previous to the 1539 edition. So, the comment from Bullinger affirming Mary's Assumption precedes the two quotes in which he says one cannot affirm Mary's Assumption. In other words, the documentation points to Bullinger going from affirming the Assumption to being agnostic on the Assumption.

Conclusion
I've yet to come across one of Rome's defenders using the alleged 1568 Assumption quote in its historical lineage, either mentioning how something doesn't quite add up or placing it back in 1539 where it belongs. I've not come across one them saying, "Bullinger earlier affirmed Mary's assumption, but then appears to become agnostic on it." Sometimes, they will come close. Peter Stravinskas, a bit more careful states,

Zwingli's successor, Bullinger, once confessed that Mary's "sacrosanct body was borne by angels into heaven," although he declined to take a firm stand on either her bodily assumption or her immaculate conception. [Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965), 178-179]. [source]

So according to Straviskas, Bullinger once confessed Mary's Assumption, but didn't take a firm stand on it. This is true, as far as it goes. Certainly Bullinger did plainly affirm the Assumption in 1539, but contrary to Stravinskas, this was indeed a strong stand in 1539. It appears that only later did he decline to take a firm stand. Stravinskas may have never bothered to read the quotes in historical order so ended up describing a confused Bullinger.

Did Bullinger believe in the Assumption? It appears he did in 1539. He plainly states though in later writings that one cannot know Mary was Assumed into heaven. I see a development in Bullinger here. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Bullinger didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened. Perhaps Bullinger never totally escaped from medieval Mariology, but his comments on the Assumption when placed in their historical context show that he may have been on his way.

Addendum 4/25/16 (18:30 PM)
One other primary source that I haven't completely worked through yet is found here. The sermon appears to be from 1558, and note the summary of this author claiming that Bullinger believed in Mary's Assumption based on the testimony of Eusebius. I'm in the process of working through Tappolet on this sermon as well. According to Tappolet's translation, the section in question mentioning Eusebius is very similar in content from the 1565 quote above. On page 293 in Tappolet, once again  Bullinger's expresses a warning about it being dangerous to investigate or talk about what Scripture withholds. One should simply believe and confess Mary is heaven with Jesus Christ, not figure out how she arrived there. See this part of the sermon in Latin:

Tapploet's German translation reads,

...über den Heimgang Mariens mit Verstand lesen, und alle lernen mögen, wie unfruchtbar und gefährlich es ist, neugierig zu forschen und darüber reden zu wollen, was uns in der Heiligen Schrift vorenthalten ist Es möge uns genügen, schlicht und einfach zu glauben und zu bekennen, daß die Jungfrau Maria, die liebe Mutter unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, durch die Gnade und das Blut ihres eigenen Sohnes ganzgeheiligt und durch die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes überreich beschenkt und allen Frauen vorgezogen, und endlich, wie von den Engeln selber (p. 293).

That Tappolet doesn't include this in his section on Bullinger and Mary's Assumption (p.327-328) leads me to believe the author above interpreting Bullinger to be affirming the Assumption because of Eusebius is mistaken. Also that the author above omitted the warning passage in his synopsis leads me to conclude Bullinger may be being misinterpreted.  

Heinrich Bullinger's Mariology? (Part One)

In Roman Catholic apologetics, Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) is not primarily remembered for his historical Reformation role as Zwingli's successor, but rather, what he said about Mary. The irony is that it was probably a Protestant responsible for this.

Begin Excursion: Walter Tappolet, The Marian Praise of the Reformers
In 1962, German Protestant scholar, Walter Tappolet, produced a book highlighting Marian statements from 16th century Protestants: Das Marienlob der Reformatoren: Martin Luther, Johannes Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger. The title of this book translates to "The Marian Praise of the Reformers." Bridget Heal suggests that Tappolet had an "ecumenical desire to develop some Marian devotion within twentieth-century Protestantism." If indeed that's what motivated him, he in essence failed to solidify Marian devotion in subsequent Protestantism. Here we are, many years past Tappolet's study, and Rome's Marian dogmas and emphasis are still the characteristics of... Rome. What he did succeed at was to produce an anthology of material that eventually trickled down to Rome's modern-day cyber-defenders. The statements from the Reformers about Mary compiled by Tappolet often serve this typical argument:

Protestants believe in sola scriptura. The Reformers believed in sola scriptura. The original Reformers believed in Roman Catholic Marian doctrines. Therefore, Protestants today should believe in Marian doctrines.

Rome's modern cyber-defenders are probably not using Tappolet's book. What they're usually relying on is some other source that used Tappolet's book and translated this or that statement into English from Tappolet's German. This explains why their documentation is often spurious. Tappolet relied on primary sources written in a variety of non-English languages. Most of Rome's modern cyber-defenders have little idea what these sources are or where to find them. When I first began looking into this issue years ago, the typical "The Reformers believed in Mary" webpage had ridiculous documentation. Not a whole lot has changed, especially in regard to the quotes attributed to Bullinger.

It's been easier to go through Luther's writings and Calvin's writings to demonstrate that in some instances the quotes are being used out of context. In some instances (particularly with Luther), some of the earlier things said about Mary were later repudiated. In some instances, what the Reformers held about Mary isn't even what today's defenders of Rome hold about Mary. But fundamentally, sola scriptura does not claim that all people reading the Bible will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. What it ultimately claims is that there is one divine infallible source of God's special revelation. If the original Reformers maintained something about Mary, this doesn't mean that the successors of the Reformers will also. It's not the Reformers that are the sole infallible authority, it's the Scriptures. End excursion.

Heinrich Bullinger, Devoted to Mary? Wikipedia Thinks So.
Now back to Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger is not known for spending extraordinary efforts to write treatises about Mary. Yet, isn't it odd that if one consults his entry in Wikipedia, one of the last sections of the entry contains a treatment of his "Marian views"? Someone tacked it on sometime after May 2008. That someone is anonymous because "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone...". Of all the facts one should know from a basic overview of Bullinger, someone thinks his Marian views needed to be mentioned! My guess is that someone with a Roman Catholic agenda had a hand in adding this section.

The wiki article rightly mentions Bullinger's importance for his writing of the Second Helvitic Confession. But the Wiki article also states, "Mary is mentioned several times in the Second Helvetic Confession, which expounds Bullinger's mariology." So according to Wikipedia, the very act of mentioning Mary is expounding Marian views! For the record, the word "Mary" is mentioned twice (as part of the phrase "Virgin Mary" and "ever virgin Mary").  Mary is referred to only one other time as "Blessed Virgin." Here's the alleged exposition of Bullinger's Mariology from these three isolated statements in the Second Helvitic Confession:

3,3. For Scripture has delivered to us a manifest distinction of persons, the angel saying, among other things, to the Blessed Virgin, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

6,1. CHRIST IS TRUE GOD. We further believe and teach that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was predestinated or foreordained from eternity by the Father to be the Savior of the world. And we believe that he was born, not only when he assumed flesh of the Virgin Mary, and not only before the foundation of the world was laid, but by the Father before all eternity in an inexpressible manner.

6,3. CHRIST IS TRUE MAN, HAVING REAL FLESH. We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: "he took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham." Also the apostle John says that woever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary not brought from heaven, as Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined.

What do we actually learn about Bullinger's Mariology? The first thing that's apparent is he is not expounding on his Marian views, he's expounding on Jesus Christ, His incarnation, His deity, and His humanity. If one wanted to honestly expound on Bullinger's Mariology from this document, she's mentioned in passing with reference to her historical maternal role in the incarnation and the theological implications for the Deity and humanity of Christ. From these same statements, Here's how Wikipedia's explains how Bullinger's Mariology is "expounded":

Mary is mentioned several times in the Second Helvetic Confession, which expounds Bullinger's mariology. Chapter Three quotes the angel’s message to the Virgin Mary, " – the Holy Spirit will come over you " - as an indication of the existence of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. The Latin text described Mary as diva, indicating her rank as a person, who dedicated herself to God. In Chapter Nine, the Virgin birth of Jesus is said to be conceived by the Holy Spirit and born without the participation of any man. The Second Helvetic Confession accepted the "Ever Virgin" notion from John Calvin, which spread throughout much of Europe with the approbation of this document in the above-mentioned countries [Chavannes 426].

The documentation given is so vague that it's meaningless. Is it a reference to Alexander Chavannes? Earnst Chavannes? Who knows? Wiki states, "The Latin text described Mary as diva, indicating her rank as a person." This is in reference to the word "blessed." Here's a link to the Latin translation. The Latin phrase used is "divam virginem." The Latin word "diva" is a noun meaning either blessed, saint or divine. Wiki says that the word indicates "rank as a person, who dedicated herself to God." Is this sense in which Bullinger is using the words divam virginem? Where is the expounding of Bullinger's view?  Is Bullinger using the word in the sense of title or a description? Where does Bullinger say Mary was of a higher rank of person who dedicated herself to God? Then the Wiki article points out that Bullinger "accepted the 'Ever Virgin' notion from John Calvin, which spread throughout much of Europe..." In actuality, the idea of Mary being "ever Virgin" was already "spread throughout much of Europe" before either Calvin or Bullinger came on the scene! Also, Calvin rarely mentioned Mary's perpetual virginity. Calvin's basic position is that the gospel writers did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. His is a position of silence in regard to the state of Mary's virginity after the birth of Christ.

Bullinger on The Assumption According to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia entry then shifts gears, leaving the Second Helvetic Confession behind, stating,

Bullinger's 1539 polemical treatise against idolatry[2] expressed his belief that Mary's "sacrosanctum corpus" ("sacrosanct body") had been assumed into heaven by angels:

Hac causa credimus et Deiparae virginis Mariae purissimum thalamum et spiritus sancti templum, hoc est, sacrosanctum corpus ejus deportatum esse ab angelis in coelum.[3]

For this reason we believe that the Virgin Mary, Begetter of God, the most pure bed and temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, her most holy body, was carried to heaven by angels.

[2]De origine erroris libri duo (On the Origin of Error, Two Books)
[3]De origine erroris, Caput XVI (Chapter 16), p. 70
[4]The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (1996), George H. Tavard, Liturgical Press, p. 109.

This notion that Bullinger held a lifelong adherence to Mary's Assumption has been floating around the internet for years. It's certainly true that George Tavard gives the Latin text in his book, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary (The English translation cited by Wikipedia is Tavard's as well). He says though (incorrectly) that the comment is according to Bullinger's "friend and disciple Froschauer" from his book De origine erroris libri duo:

Here's where Walter Tappolet comes in. This quote, in whatever form one may find it in, probably originates from Das Marienlob der Reformatoren, p 327. Tappolet treats Bullinger on the Assumption on pages 326-327. He first presents a few Bullinger quotes which say that the Scriptures don't say anything about Mary's death or Assumption and that it's dangerous to explore where Scripture is silent. Tappolet then presents what he says is "the strangest testimony" of Bullinger on the Assumption ("Das seltsamste Zeugnis Builingers über die Frage von Mariens Himmelfahrt"). The quote is authentic (here is the page in the 1568 edition). The interesting thing about the quote is that it wasn't written for publication in 1568 towards the end of his life. Bullinger composed this book much earlier (1529; it was the companion volume to a book he wrote in 1528). Bullinger was 25 when he originally wrote this book. He revised these two volumes into one volume in 1539. It is in this 1539 edition that the Marian statement in question appears to have originally been written (see page 45). I could not locate the quote it in the 1529 edition, nor do I know if he revised this book previous to the 1539 edition. I would argue that the quote represents a development in Bullinger. The other quotes against a blatant adherence to the Assumption cited by Tappolet (from 1552 and 1565)  were penned later. Certainly Rome's defenders could have a strong case if Bullinger wrote this statement at the end of life, but the evidence suggests that he actually moved away from this radical Marian position.


The Protestant Reformers on Mary
Some of Bullinger's Marian quotes have been floating around cyber-space for years. Let's consider the following Bullinger statements from the anonymous web page, Behold Thy Mother: The Protestant Reformers on Mary. This webpage asserts: "The Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." That's a form of the exact argument I outline above. Here's how this webpage quotes Bullinger:

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer's brother-in-law, Zwingli's successor said:

'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 and 2, London: Sheed and Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

"What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..."; "...And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same?"; "...we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels..." (cited in Thurian, page 89, 197, 198)

 Let's work through these quotes and see how they stand up to scrutiny.

1. 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 and 2, London: Sheed and Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

I have the source cited. Hilda Graef says, "Bullinger's Mariology is nearer to Catholic beliefs than that of the other Reformers" (p.14). That's a tacit admission from this Roman Catholic writer that the Reformers are not on the exact page as Rome. Graef also notes her source for these quotes: William Tappolet. He was utilized because she says of Bullinger's actual writings, "the original work being inaccessible to me" (p.14). In other words, Graef doesn't give any references to actual contextual sources for these quotes. The quote being cited above is actually on page 15, not page 14. It turns out, it isn't one quote, it's three.  Here's how Graef cites Bullinger:

He defends Mary's perpetual virginity, including the virginity in partu and inveighs against the false Christians (Scheinchristen) who defraud her of her rightful praise: "In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God."1 She is "the most unique and the noblest member" of the Christian community, not, however, its head or mistress.2 He will not pronounce either on her Immaculate Conception or her bodily Assumption: "Let it suffice us", he says, "simply to believe and confess that the Virgin Mary... completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all... now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God... ."3

Note some of the words left out by Rome's anonymous defender. Bullinger is cited saying, "She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community," but Graef continues the sentence with, "not, however, its head or mistress." Why was this left out?  Then notice Rome's defender leaves out "He will not pronounce either on her Immaculate Conception or her bodily Assumption," and picks up the quote with "The Virgin Mary"! After these Bullinger snippets, Graef goes on to say, "But despite his sincere veneration for her, Bullinger rejects her invocation and mediation, though this does not mean that he is hostile to her, else he would also be an enemy of Christ." So the aspects of Bullinger that speak against Rome's Mary are left out. Why?

2. "What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..."; "...And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same?"; "...we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels..." (cited in Thurian, page 89, 197, 198)

The reference here is to Max Thurian. The book being cited is Mary: Mother of the Lord Figure of the Church (1963), or perhaps Mary, Mother of All Christians. Thurian was an ecumenical Protestant at the writing of this book and not long thereafter went on to become Roman Catholic. Of Reformation Mariology, Thurian states, "One should not normally embark on this subject until one has read the magnificent book Das Marienlob der Reformatoren of W. TAPPOLET" (pp. 196-197). Like the previous quote, this offering consists of multiple quotes put together. Except for the quotes from page 89 (see ** below), all the quotes Thurian uses are from Tappolet. Like Graef, Thurian does not give any references to actual contextual sources for these quotes.  Here's what Thurian says on pages 89, 196-197:

Bullinger, the balanced Reformer, wrote: "What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them, appears very clearly in the first chapters of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and particularly in her "Magnificat." ... If Mary really is the Mother of the Lord, as the blessed Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, so explicitly named her, then it is altogether just that she should be named by the Fathers of the Church "theotokos," that is to say Mother of God (Gottesgebarerin or Muttergottes). Nestorius denied that in the most infamous manner. All the same, if women of the Old Testament like Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, Susannah, Judith and others were notable and excellent women how much more notable and worthy of praise is she who surpasses with distinction all women, the blessed Virgin Mother! ' [Translation of G. DUMEIGE, The Catholic Faith, L'Orante, Paris 1961, p. 191.]**

In connection with the purification according to the Law of Mary in the Temple, Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli, wrote: "And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same" (ibid., p. 282).

Bullinger wrote in 1565: "The most learned theologians say that one cannot assert anything on the matter of the death or the assumption of the virgin. To wish to unearth or clarify certain facts on which scripture is silent is not without its dangers. Let us content ourselves with believing that the Virgin Mary is indeed active in heaven and has received every beatitude after her." However, in 1568, he wrote on the same subject- "Elijah was transported body and soul in a chariot of fire; he was not buried in any Church bearing his name, but mounted up to heaven, so that on the one hand we might know what immortality and recompense God prepares for his faithful prophets and for his most outstanding and incomparable creatures, and on the other hand in order to withdraw from men the possibility of venerating the human body of the saint. It is for this reason, we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels' (ibid., p. 327).

Once again we see information left out, Bullinger's 1565 comment that one should be silent on the Assumption. The more interesting part of this section from Thurian is Bullinger's 1568 apparent about face on Mary's Assumption, but as demonstrated above, the quote wasn't originally from 1568, but from 1539. Hilda Graef makes the same error:

In his work De engine erroris, 16 (1568), he even professes the belief that the body of the Virgin Mother of God has been taken up to heaven by the angels, because he does not think that Elijah can have been superior to her in this respect. As Tappolet points out, this sentence, still retained in the Dutch edition of 1602, was eliminated in the French edition of 1549 (Geneva).

Conclusion
In part two, I'm going to attempt to present a more balanced view of Bullinger's Mariology. It is the case that he held to notions about Mary that modern Protestants do not. However, he was not on the same page as Rome, both then and now. The goal is not to make Bullinger sound either Roman Catholic or Protestant, but to let him be who was.

It could very well be that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and  Bullinger's views on Mary were as Rome's defenders claim. If they were, then so be it. The entire sixteenth century church was bathed in Mariology, so it would not be surprising to discover the Reformers didn't necessarily repudiate every aspect of it immediately. It would not be surprising as well to discover that as church history progressed from the Reformation, the bath water of Mariology gradually disappears, and I would argue, this is indeed what happened.

**Addendum
Thurian claims the citations on page 89 come from a "Translation of G. DUMEIGE, The Catholic Faith, L'Orante, Paris 1961, p. 191." This refers to the French version of this book, La foi catholique. I don't have this source to check, but these quotes are on pages 284 and 285 of Tappolet. I would not be surprised to find out that Thurian actually got these quotes from Tappolet rather than Dumeige.

Against Rome's Apostolic Succession Argument by Bullinger (Part 1)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was a Swiss Reformer and author of a popular writing entitled The Decades. This particular writing was influential in England, highly esteemed and used as a textbook of sorts for training English clergy. Included in The Decades is a section entitled Of The Holy Catholic Church, and included therein is Bullinger's refutation of Rome's apostolic succession argument (that Rome is the true church because of an historical succession of church authority that began with Peter). Here is the first part of Bullinger's argument:

Second, the succession of doctors or pastors of the Church does not prove anything of itself without the Word of God. The champions and defenders of the papistical church boast that they have a most certain mark of the apostolic Church, that is, in the continual succession of bishops which derives from Peter by Clement the First, and so to Clement the Seventh, and to Paul the Third who died recently, and so continuing to Julius the Third, who has only just been created pope. Moreover they add that all those members are cut off which separate themselves from that church in which alone that apostolic succession is found. And we do not deny that the right succession of pastors was of great weight in the primitive Church. For those who were then called pastors were pastors indeed, and executed the office of pastors. But what kind of pastors those have been for some time who out of the rabble of cardinals, mitred bishops and sophisters have been called pastors of the church of Rome, only those are ignorant who are altogether without understanding. The prophet Zechariah heard these words spoken to him by the Lord: "Take to thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd; for lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not look for the thing that is lost, nor seek the tender lambs, nor heal that that is hurt, nor.feed that that standeth up: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their hoofs in pieces. Woe be to the idol shepherd that forsaketh the flock," etc. Therefore by their continual succession of bishops who do not teach the Word of God sincerely or execute the office and duty of pastors, these men do not prove any more than if they were to set before the eyes of the world a company, of idols. For who dare deny that many, indeed the majority of bishops of Rome since Gregory the Great were idols and wolves and devourers like those described by the prophet Zechariah? I ask then, what can the continual succession,cf such false pastors prove? indeed, did not the later ones fill almost the whole Church with the traditions of men, and partly oppress the Church of God, and partly persecute it? In the ancient church of the Israelites there was a continual order of succession of bishops, without any interruption from Aaron to Urias, who lived under Ahaz, and to other wicked high priests who also fell away from the Word of God: to the traditions of men, and indeed to idolatry. But for all that, that succession did not prove the idolatrous high-priests, with the church which adhered to them, to be the true high-priests of God and the true Church of God. For the true prophets of God, the sound and catholic fathers, who preached the Word of God alone apart from and indeed clean against all the traditions of men, were not able to reckon up any succession of priests to whom they themselves succeeded. Yet in spite of that, they were most excellent lights, and worthy members of the Church of God, and those who believed their doctrine were neither schismatics nor heretics, but even to this day are acknowledged to be the true Church of Christ. When Christ our Lord, the blessed Son of God, taught here on earth and gathered together his Church, the succession of high_priests ranged itself with his adversaries: but that did not mean that they were the rulers of the true Church of God, and Christ of the heretical church. The apostles of our Lord could not allege for themselves and their doctrine an unbroken succession of high-priests: for they were ordained by the Lord, who was also himself created of God the High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, outside the succession of the order of Levi. Yet the Church which was gathered by them is acknowledged by all to be the true and holy Church. The apostles themselves would not allow any to be counted their true followers and successors but those who walked uprightly in the doctrine and way of Christ: for the saying of Paul is notable. and manifest: "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." And though he speaks these words to all the faithful, and not only to the ministers of God's Word, yet he would have the latter his followers like all other Christians, that is to say, every man in his vocation and calling. The same apostle, speaking at Miletum to the bishops of Asia, says amongst other things: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Moreover, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them." It is from the apostolic Church itself, indeed from the company or assembly of apostolic bishops and pastors, that Paul the apostle fetches out the wolves and devourers of the Church. But do you not think that these could have alleged the apostolic succession for themselves and their most corrupt cause, that is, that, they were descended from apostolic pastors? But since forsaking the truth they have fallen from the faith and doctrine of the apostles, their derivation and apostolic succession does not in any way help them. Therefore we conclude that of itself the continual succession of bishops does not prove anything, but on the contrary that succession which lacks the purity of evangelical and apostolic doctrine is not valid.

Source: Library of Christian Classics Vol. XXIV: Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 309-311

The Foggy Facts

“James is up to his old tricks again: I am an idiot, an incompetent stooge, whereas he is a sublime model of lay apologetics and does only work of the highest sublime levels of scholarship.” – A Catholic Apologist

No, I've simply been asking questions this Roman Catholic apologist doesn't want to answer. If I were to go to print making historical claims, I would make sure that I actually did read and understand the material I presented. This guy was busy in the blog-back comments of another post, and would not answer a most simple question, if he had (or had not) actually read the context of some words from Bullinger he cited in one of his books.

It’s one thing to put up a web page of information one has not read, it’s quite another to have books published and expect the general public to consider one an authority on the Reformers. I’m hopeful that the Bullinger citation was a simple oversight on this guy's part. I’m hopeful he is not going to print with this same type of research presented in his web pages, obfuscating any who desire to check his facts. More importantly, if he wants to be considered a reliable author, he needs to invest the time in doing ad fontes research.

The following is a snippet from my response to this Catholic apologist on Luther’s view of Mary, and demonstrates some of the reasons discussions with him can be difficult when one takes the time to work through the material he presents.

He was dismayed that I did not provide a specific utterance number from Luther’s Table Talk. Apparently, he is unaware that multiple versions of the Table Talk exist (for instance, a popular on-line version is different in content to the version contained in Luther’s Works). Hence, one can see why a uniform approach to quoting Luther is the most pragmatic approach. Luther’s Works English Edition proves to be the most cogent approach. One can conclude after perusing his many comments on Luther from his web site, that he is serious about studying Luther. My citing of volume and page in Luther’s works was intended to make the job of checking references easier. Secondary sources quoting Luther were a last resort, as were any references to the Weimar edition. I also attempted to use other easily available primary references: popular collections of sermons, and the helpful compilation, What Luther says.

He takes a different approach in his Luther research. In version #3 of his response he references the German Weimar edition 33 times (he cites the English Luther’s Works only 4 times). In order to help out any who cannot read German, he lets the reader know that they can get a “cross-referencing of Luther's German works and English translations,…Heinrich J. Vogel, Cross Reference and Index to the Contents of Luther's Works.” Unfortunately, this book is out of print and is not normally available in college libraries. Used copies are not cheap either. One wonders why he would have a copy of Vogel’s reference, and yet not provide the cross- references for the following citations he provided:

WA 9, 74; WA 10; 46, 136; WA, 10, III, 268; WA 10/3:269.12-13; WA 17, II, 287-289; WA, 17-II, 288; WA 17,409; WA 17/2:288.17-34; WA, 30, II, 351; WA 36,143; WA 37,231; WA 39, II, 107; WA 39/2,.92-121; WA 39/2:107.8-13; WA 40/3:680.31-32;WA 52, 39; WA 52:681.27-31;WA 52, 681; WA 53:640.18-22;WA 4, 693; 10 (3), 331; 46, 136; 47, 860; WA 54,207.

In fairness to him, he did provide 4 cross references to the English edition in his response. Perhaps he did not have the time to provide the others. Interestingly, some of his WA quotes did not make sense. Some references seemed to note which edition of WA (for instance, “2”), while others did not. Are we to assume the earlier edition of WA is meant? There was a lack of uniformity also: sometimes he used Roman numerals, others times he did not. At one point he offered, “WA 4, 693; 10 (3), 331; 46, 136; 47, 860.” These seem more like bingo numbers than references. I still don’t know what “10 (3)” refers to. It would be helpful to at least pick one way of citing WA and sticking with it. Perhaps I might not be able to check WA, but maybe another interested reader will.

I ask any to compare my footnotes with any of this guy's Luther pages. As an example, please see his footnotes for his on-line Paper “Martin Luther: Beyond Historical Myth to Fact.” Primary references to Luther are mostly to Luther’s Works in German. Similarly, A large amount of his Luther references are given merely as titles of a particular treatise, with the readers’ job being the arduous task of tracking down a volume that contains said treatise. Many treatises are still not available in English (Like the frequently quoted sermon he utilizes, “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527), and many have variations in the specific names of his treatises, making them even harder to track down.

He also employs a high volume of Luther citations from secondary sources. That’s fine, but many of the books he cited are no longer in print. Thus, the readers’ task of checking his citations is not an easy road. This leads to only two conclusions: Either he is fluent in German or he does not have the most basic tool for Luther studies: the English edition of Luther’s Works, so he relies on secondary sources or web sites that have posted samplings of Luther’s treatises. He thus complicates the task of any who would check his references or contexts.

His response provided many references that are virtually impossible to track down. One wonders why these sources were offered. Not only are they in different languages, the majority are long out of print:

“Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" Marian Studies, 21, 1970; Marian Studies 18 (1967);"Die Gottesmutter im Glauben und Beten der Jahrhunderte," Hochkirche 13 [1931], Uber die Selige Jungfrau, May 18, 1558;De origine erroris, 16, written in 1568; (Acts of the Council in March 1526 and March 1530; Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1952; "Weimarer Ausgabe / 1883 ff. Weimar edition of Luther's works; Maria bei Luther (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1954); K. Algermissen, "Mariologie und Marienverehrung der Reformatoren," Theologie und Glaube, XLIX (1959); Le Drame de Martin Luther," Decouverte se l'oecumenisme (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1961);Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes. Luk. 11; from Martini Lutheri Postillae. In die Conceptionis Mariae Matris Dei, . Argentorati: apud Georgium Ulricum Adlanum, anno xxx); "On the Schem Hamphoras and the Genealogy of Christ (Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi), 1543; Walter Tappolet and Albert Ebneter (eds.), Das Marienlob der Reformatoren (Tubingen: Katzmann, 1962), . Hans Dufel, Luthers Stellung zur Marienverehrung ( . . . 1968) Festpostille -- two 1527 editions; Sermon at the First Vespers of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; House Sermon for Christmas (1533) ; Vom Schem Hamporas und vom Geschlecht Christi [On the Schem Hamphoras and the Genealogy of Christ] (1543) -- WA 53,640; Wider das Papstum zu Rom (1545); WA 54,207”

In contrast, I have made the readers’ task of locating a context for Luther’s words quite easy; all you need is access to Luther’s Works, which are available in many college libraries, and some public libraries. Used volumes can still be purchased, even singularly (individual volumes can be as cheap as $15-25). Therefore, I see no reason to redo all the footnotes.

He got himself into a somewhat precarious situation on the CARM bulletin boards in November 2002 with his methods of quoting Luther. He posted this quote:

“Inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine; therefore my judgment also is God's and not mine . . . It would be better that all bishops were murdered, and all abbeys and cloisters razed to the ground, than that one soul should perish . . . If they will not listen to God's Word . . . what can more justly befall them than a violent upheaval which shall root them out of the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods . . that the rule of the bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians."

He gave the reference as simply “Martin Luther, Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522.” After searching the entire treatise, I could not find this quote. A Lutheran friend joined the discussion and was able to ascertain that the reason I could not locate the quote was because it was extracted in bits from different spots spanning 31 pages. He responded that he had gotten the quotes from secondary sources (Durant and Janssen), and that he trusted their scholarship. This is not the place to quibble over whatever point he was trying to make. I offer this example merely to show that this Catholic apologist complicates the task of any who checks his Luther references.