Saturday, March 16, 2019

Rome's Defender says, "I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther"

Here's a brief interaction on a difficult subject, Martin Luther's antisemitism. I do not condone Luther's treatises against the Jewish people, nor should anyone. However, if your own church is guilty of harsh rhetoric against a particular group of people... well... best not bring up Luther's antisemitism as proof you belong to the right church!

This conversation was slightly edited (formatting, not Luther-related content). The original can be found beginning here.

#49





When I look at Martin Luther or any religion in comparison, Lets look at that whole package.

On the Jews and Their Lies -- By Martin Luther

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]


1500 years not a peep, this guy invents Faith Alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...and_Their_Lies



Jesus Christ gave clear indication of Justification.

Matthew 12

37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”


Why wasn't the Jesus word on the matter good enough on justification and salvation?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther.
#71
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
When I look at Martin Luther or any religion in comparison, Lets look at that whole package.

On the Jews and Their Lies -- By Martin Luther

In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]

I'm not going to follow that Nazi, Martin Luther.
While it's easy to cut-and-paste Luther's harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, "look how awful!" consider the following Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans":
On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.
#75
Originally posted by James Swan View Post

While it's easy to cut-and-paste Luther's harsh recommendations against the Jews and triumphantly declare, "look how awful!" consider the following Papal Bull "Decet Romanum" against a group of people, known as "Lutherans":
On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.
We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.
I'm sure there are plenty of horrible examples of Catholic leadership, I'm not accepting any change in theology they might insist.

In short two wrongs don't make a right. A Nazi pushing his theory of "FAITH ALONE" simply not going to fly with me.

#80
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
I'm sure there are plenty of horrible examples of Catholic leadership, I'm not accepting any change in theology they might insist.

In short two wrongs don't make a right. A Nazi pushing his theory of "FAITH ALONE" simply not going to fly with me.
The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum. This is according to the standard you have set: hatred as a defining standard of truth, as part of your, "whole package."

Here's how I like to present my worldview. If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument. Similarly, go ahead and make arguments for Rome, defend your worldview. But always ask yourself: does the argument or point i'm making apply to my own position? If it does, you've refuted yourself.
#88
Originally posted by James Swan View Post

The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum. This is according to the standard you have set: hatred as a defining standard of truth, as part of your, "whole package."

Here's how I like to present my worldview. If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument. Similarly, go ahead and make arguments for Rome, defend your worldview. But always ask yourself: does the argument or point i'm making apply to my own position? If it does, you've refuted yourself.
"Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid,"

First it absolutely is Invalid because he calls it his theology. Hate the Jews as he does, embrace the entire theology of faith alone.

Let me give you some ground as there is "Luther's theology" vs "Lutheran theology".




"The point of what I posted was to demonstrate that if Luther's harsh attitude towards the Jews is a proof that Luther's theology is invalid, then similarly, Rome's theology is invalid in their hatred of Lutherans as presented in Decet Romanum."

I agree if ROME is putting out NEW theology. And in a case they TRIED it would be a internal war. I don't cease to be catholic. I don't give up and abandon the family.

"If an argument I'm making also works against my own position, it's not a valid argument."

I totally agree. Which is why this works just fine. Nothing new is being claimed.

The entire Church can decide to murder all they can tomorrow. And you can have a papal bull 50 feet long saying they are going to do it. I can be labelled heretic.

None of those things change church teaching. The clergy are not gods over laity. And the smallest unit of christian will always be the Saint himself.


When you know the truth and the guy in front of you is a flat out liar, how may opinions need to be made to convince you that the TRUTH is not so? He can have all the opinions, you already know the truth.


#93
Originally posted by utilyan View Post

When you know the truth and the guy in front of you is a flat out liar, how may opinions need to be made to convince you that the TRUTH is not so? He can have all the opinions, you already know the truth.
I suspect you may not be understanding me. Perhaps I was not clear. Let me try again.

You can argue Luther was negatively this or that, and you can claim the Roman church is positively this or that. However, if the negative thing you're arguing against Luther also applies to your own position, it's not a valid argument. It's the same sort of thing going on now in the United States. The Democrats are saying this or that person is a "racist," yet it's a double standard because the Democratic party is also making racist statements.

The Roman church made similar awful statements against a group of people (The "Lutherans"). Therefore: Luther and the Roman church are BOTH guilty of racist hate filled statements against people they did not like and wanted to suppress. Should we take this further and bringiup Rome's history against the Jews at this point?

"The early Roman pontiffs of the sixteenth century had Jewish physicians and were favorable to the Jews and the Maranos of their states. Time soon came, however, when the Sephardic Jews of Italy fared differently. As early as 1532, the accusation of child murder nearly entailed the extermination of the Jews of Rome. In 1555, Paul IV revived the ancient canons against the Jews which forbade them the practice of medicine, the pursuit of high commerce, and the ownership of real estate. He also consigned them to a Ghetto, and compelled them to wear a Jew badge. In 1569, Pius IV expelled all the Jews from the Pontifical States, except Rome and Ancona. Sixtus V (1585-1590) recalled them; but, soon after him, Clement VIII (1592-1605) banished them again partially, at the very moment when the Maranos of Italy lost their last place of refuge in Ferrara. Similar misfortunes befell the Jewish race in other states of Italy as the Spanish domination extended there: Naples banished the Jews in 1541; Genoa, in 1550; Milan, in 1597. Hence-forward, most Sephardic fugitives simply passed through Italy when on their way to the Turkish Empire." [source]
Go ahead and argue against Luther. That's fair. Your argument though that one of the reasons he's wrong, or whatever, because of his comments about the Jews works the other way as well: Rome is therefore wrong because her statements about the Lutherans and her actions toward the Jews.

It's offensive for you to refer to Luther as Nazi, particularly from a Roman perspective. Physician, heal thyself.

#95







Luther wrote down his theology and it includes murdering Jews. You can have hundreds of popes even one today say they hate jews, That does not change Catholic theology.

IN TEACHING Luther says kill Jews. He wrote an entire book on it. He determines his own theology.


The Lutherans know. ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...d_antisemitism

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in an essay on Lutheran-Jewish relations, observed that "Over the years, Luther's anti-Jewish writings have continued to be reproduced in pamphlets and other works by neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan."[95]

Nothing in Catholic church teaching says hate anyone. Evil Catholics exist. The teaching however does not teach to hate Jews.


Luther however is writing a book teaching to HATE JEWS -->The Nazis used Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology. Luther even went so far as to advocate the murder of those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, writing that "we are at fault in not slaying them".[55]

If a catholic wrote a book it only is what it is that does not determine church teaching. Thats why we are not caught by inventions of false teaching as Luther caught plenty with his theology of Faith Alone.

#108
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther wrote down his theology and it includes murdering Jews.
This is false. Luther did not instruct anyone to murder Jews. Even in his harsh book, "On The Jews and Their Lies," Luther says, not to "harm their persons." See LW 47:274.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
You can have hundreds of popes even one today say they hate jews, That does not change Catholic theology.
The Pope officially released "Decet Romanum" in 1521. The papacy said of the Lutherans: their property is to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians." Had you lived in 1521, this is what the Papacy would have instructed faithful Roman Catholics to believe. That was official Roman Catholic teaching in 1521.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
IN TEACHING Luther says kill Jews. He wrote an entire book on it. He determines his own theology.
Once again, this is false. Luther never said to "kill Jews."

True, Luther wrote against the Jews, but do you want to know Luther's opinion of his books? "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board.... My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God’s grace) have written anything good." (LW 34:283-284). If you want to know what the essence of Luther's "teaching" is, simply go get a copy of the Book of Concord. This is the confessional standard that embraced Luther's teaching, and carried it on to subsequent generations.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
The Lutherans know. ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...d_antisemitism
I'm not a millennial, so I don't rely on Wikipedia (even though that Wiki article refers to me at the bottom, LOL).

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in an essay on Lutheran-Jewish relations, observed that "Over the years, Luther's anti-Jewish writings have continued to be reproduced in pamphlets and other works by neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan."[95]
This is an invalid argument, but please, do provide some examples of this. You brought it up, so prove it.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Nothing in Catholic church teaching says hate anyone. Evil Catholics exist. The teaching however does not teach to hate Jews.
Except of course in 1521, when all the faithful Roman Catholics were instructed via an official bull from the Pope instructing them to, in essence, hate Lutherans.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther however is writing a book teaching to HATE JEWS -->
The Pope in 1521, instructed Roman Catholics to hate Lutherans,

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
The Nazis used Martin Luther's book, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology.
The Nazis picked and chose what they wanted from Luther. But by all means, instruct me here. Where exactly, or what is your proof, that the Nazis used Luther's treatise, "to claim a moral righteousness for their ideology"?

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Luther even went so far as to advocate the murder of those Jews who refused to convert to Christianity, writing that "we are at fault in not slaying them".[55]
This is false. Luther never advocated murdering anyone who didn't convert. The quote you've cut-and-pasted "we are at fault for not slaying them" is being taken out of context, and I can prove it if need be.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
If a catholic wrote a book it only is what it is that does not determine church teaching. Thats why we are not caught by inventions of false teaching as Luther caught plenty with his theology of Faith Alone.
In 1521 the Pope releases a official document instructing Roman Catholics to hate Lutherans. If you lived in 1521, this was the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

#111
.



"We are at fault in not slaying them" --Martin Luther.


There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! --Martin Luther ON JEWS AND THEIR LIES.



Furthermore, if they are pious Jews and not the whoring people, as the prophets call them, how does it happen that their piety is so concealed that God himself is not aware of it, and they are not aware of it either? For they have, as we said, prayed, cried, and suffered almost fifteen hundred years already, and yet God refuses to listen to them. We know from Scripture that God will hear the prayers or sighing of the righteous, as the Psalter says [Ps. 145:19]: "He fulfills the desire of all who fear him, he also hears their cry." And Psalm 34:17: "When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears." As he promised in Psalm 50:15: "Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you." The same is found in many more verses of the Scripture. If it were not for these, who would or could pray? In brief, he says in the first commandment that he will be their God. Then, how do you explain that he will not listen to these Jews? They must assuredly be the base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. If there were a single pious Jew among them who observed these, he would have to be heard; for God cannot let his saints pray in vain, as Scripture demonstrates by many examples. This is conclusive evidence that they cannot be pious Jews, but must be the multitude of the whoring and murderous people. --- Martin Luther ON JEWS and THEIR LIES.




Pope Bacon can declare we should hate and kill everyone in the world. That does not equate to Catholic Theology. That is HIS theology.


We can read Decet Romanum Pontificem

Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm



QUOTE IT. There is nothing in an excommunication that teaches brand new theology. Quote where it says Catholic teaching is now hate Lutherans.



Its amazing how out of the way folks will go to defend a Nazi teaching.

#112
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
"We are at fault in not slaying them" --Martin Luther.
The actual place where these words from Luther occur is LW 47:267. Luther in context is bombastically arguing against the oppression of the Jews, saying rather that the Jews are oppressing the Germans! He presents the argument that it is they that are benefiting off German land, at the expense of the Germans. He further takes as true the the rumors that the Jews were killing German children and poisoning wells. "We are at fault in not slaying them" is part of a rhetorical argument in which Luther accepts the negative Jewish stereotypes of his day, then he attempts to present the case that despite these Jewish crimes, the Germans were gracious and kind to the Jews. Luther is not saying that the Germans should go out and kill the Jews. He's saying that if all the negative things are true about the Jews are true (as he previously stated, like killing children, poisoning wells, etc.), the Germans were at moral fault for allowing them to live. Rather, Germany has allowed them "to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property..." This is a rhetorical descriptive argument. It is not a prescription to go out and kill Jews. .

Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons":
And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. (LW 47:274)
Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Pope Bacon can declare we should hate and kill everyone in the world. That does not equate to Catholic Theology. That is HIS theology.
In 1521, Decet Romanum pontificem officially instructed Roman Catholics how to treat Lutherans. If you were alive in 1521, this would have been the declarations guiding the society you lived in. Would you REALLY have said, "I'm not going to follow your directive, Pope Bacon. It is not Roman theology?" How would you know it was not Roman theology?

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
We can read Decet Romanum Pontificem

Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm QUOTE IT. There is nothing in an excommunication that teaches brand new theology. Quote where it says Catholic teaching is now hate Lutherans.
It has been quoted to you. It was cited with the specific purpose of demonstrating your double standard. You cited Luther's calling for harsh treatment of the Jews, and I countered with Rome demanding harsh treatment of the Lutherans. You can't have it both ways: you can't accuse Luther of being a "Nazi" for what he wrote (see your post here) and then ignore that the Papacy called for the same sort of treatment of the Lutherans: Property is to be confiscated, those adhering to "Lutheranism" are to be treated as criminals against the Empire. They were considered "excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.

Originally posted by utilyan View Post
Its amazing how out of the way folks will go to defend a Nazi teaching.
This is pure personal slander, but it does serve its purpose in demonstrating your double standard at best, and at worst indicates you have missed the thrust of the argument. Nowhere in this vast thing we call "cyberspace" will you find me "defending Nazi teaching." Rather, I've been critical of Luther's anti-Jewish comments for years.

Certainly Luther's comments about the Jews were terrible, but they are not the deciding factor in his theology. Good Roman Catholic scholarship typically interacts with Luther's theology rather than attacking Luther the person, because the story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society's negativity towards the Jews.

Previous to Luther there were atrocities like The Strasbourg massacre (1349). Those Jews agreeing to be baptized were spared being burned alive. Even after Luther, Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) was involved in some fairly serious Jewish persecution:

"In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake. On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats" [Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), 357].

Owen Chadwick likewise documents this: "He forced every Jew to wear a yellow hat and live in a ghetto with only one exit... He caused to be published the first Index of prohibited books... Sixtus of Siena was sent to Cremona, where there was a great Hebrew school (for the destruction of the Talmud was ordered), and reported that he had burnt a store of 12,000 volumes... Under an Inquisition with extended powers, and a pope ready to suspect everyone, there was almost a reign of terror in the city. 'Even if my own father were a heretic,' said the Pope, 'I would gather the wood to burn him'" [Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), 271].

A cyber-acquaintance of mine stated something in passing on Luther's attitude toward the Jews that I find meaningful, not only to the Luther & the Jews dispute, but to many aspects of church history:

"Let's think about this: 500 years ago, someone demonstrates that his view of people different than himself sociologically or politically is pretty provincial and, if we can say it plainly, insulting. In every generation after him, because of his influence in general, every biographer of him points out the fault, decries it, and indicates we shouldn't be like him. All the people who follow this guy theologically and denominationally all repudiate his faulty views, and they confessionally reject these views. His 500 years of influence are thereafter gleaned for the best of his ideas and the worst are literally called out and rejected, and reasonably-healthy churches are thereafter grown."
Even though I'm not a Lutheran, I think this is the actual paradigm Lutheranism has followed. From my perspective, I use the same paradigm for church history, be it Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, etc. I realize that the voices from the past often have sins and faults. The cliche is to chew the meat and spit out the bones. That's what I do with Luther- that's why I can read him, even while not being a Lutheran, and I can appreciate him.

#114


Simply James you are absolutely correct in how you have misunderstood it. Neo-Donatism doesn't work and hypocrites are wrong. I 100% agree.

If you could split the hairs between Lutheran and Luther's theology, you could better understand my POV.

LUTHER's theology is flat out wrong.

#116
Originally posted by utilyan View Post


Simply James you are absolutely correct in how you have misunderstood it. Neo-Donatism doesn't work and hypocrites are wrong. I 100% agree.

If you could split the hairs between Lutheran and Luther's theology, you could better understand my POV.

LUTHER's theology is flat out wrong.
Wow. Tilt. Game completely over.

Posted by at 22 comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Luther: "If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope"

Here's a Luther quote (along with commentary) from one of Rome's defenders:
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) 1522
Notice 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.
2. Ibid., p. 215=437.
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:


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.
Posted by at 14 comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, February 25, 2019

John Calvin: “It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell”

Here's a John Calvin quote that appears on a number of web-pages:

Calvin wrote King Henry VIII, "It is better to burn a few [Anabaptists] at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell."

This particular version of this quote comes from the web-page, Fathers of the Reformation put together by a fringe group referring to themselves as "The Twelve Tribes." They assert Calvin had a "reign of terror" in Geneva, which is perhaps the least of their charges hurled at Calvin. The quote is typically found in similar polemical web-pages critical of Calvin's view of capital punishment for heresy. The quote can actually be found here on this blog, left by an anonymous comment back in 2007! We'll take a closer look at this quote to see what (if anything) Calvin wrote to King Henry VIII. We'll see that the quote may be spurious. If it's something John Calvin actually wrote, there's very little evidence to support it.

Documentation
As far as I can tell, all the on-line uses of this quote stem from one source: the 1986 book, Renaissance and Reformation by William Estep. Estep was an authority in Anabaptist history and in no way a supporter of either Calvin or Calvinism (see his article here in which he claims Calvinist  doctrines lead to a "dunghill").  On page 241, the author states:


The author includes a footnote for the quote:

The careful reader will notice the footnote does not necessarily say the quote in question was taken from Balke's book, only that Calvin's "harsh attitude" is "delineated." While I currently have this book on order,  it does not appear the quote comes from this source. Google provides two different searchable versions of this book (here and here). Neither appears to provide any such quote. [Update: There is no such quote found on pages '329-32" of Balke's book. These pages comprise of an "Epilogue"]. 

The next avenue to pursue is Calvin's correspondence with King Henry VIII. Henry was king from 1509 until 1547 which would overlap with some periods of Calvin's reforming work (particularly the years 1536-1547). I didn't recall that Calvin had ever written to Henry VIII (or, vice versa). Typically it's Luther's interactions with Henry that garner the most attention. I checked the extant editions of Calvin's letters available to me, and I could find no evidence that Calvin corresponded with King Henry VIII. Even a simple Google search of the terms "John Calvin" and "Henry VIII" did not produce any information about their correspondence.  I'm not the first to come up empty looking for this quote. This author refers to Estep's Calvin quote and states, "Ein solches Schreiben konnten wir bisher nicht finden."


Conclusion
First, I find it very suspicious that the correspondence of two infamous people, King Henry VIII and John Calvin, would be so obscure, particularly in this age of Internet information. This leads to me to question if any such correspondence actually exists.

Second, given the hostile polemic against Calvin that's gone on for centuries, I also find it very suspicious that such a Calvin quote as "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell" would be so obscure. Calvin's detractors have sifted his work over and over, searching for any nugget that would paint him a the tyrant of Geneva. Only one person found this tidbit? That's really difficult to believe.  It's true that Estep was knowledgeable in Anabaptist history, so this sort of blunder is also peculiar given his pedigree.

Third, according to Beveridge and Bonnet, "Calvin condemned with great severity the spiritual tyranny of Henry the Eighth, and the endeavours of that prince to substitute a sanguinary imperial popedom for that of Rome." Consider Calvin's statement about Henry VIII in his commentary on Hosea:
In short, the reformation under Jehu was like that under Henry King of England; who, when he saw that he could not otherwise shake off the yoke of the Roman Antichrist than by some disguise, pretended great zeal for a time: he afterwards raged cruelly against all the godly, and doubled the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff: and such was Jehu.
When we duly consider what was done by Henry, it was indeed an heroic valour to deliver his kingdom from the hardest of tyrannies: but yet, with regard to him, he was certainly worse than all the other vassals of the Roman Antichrist; for they who continue under that bondage, retain at least some kind of religion; but he was restrained by no shame from men, and proved himself wholly void of every fear towards God. He was a monster, (homo belluinus — a beastly man) and such was Jehu.
These negative comments about Henry VIII do not necessarily prove that Calvin would not offer him counsel on suppressing anabaptists, but it does suggest that Calvin did not have an amicable relationship of counsel with the king, as Estep's quote suggests, that Calvin made recommendations to the king for the benefit of "other Englishmen."

Finally, lest I be chastised for missing the forest for the trees, yes, it is true that Calvin believed in the death penalty for heresy. In his letter to the Protector Somerset (October 22, 1548) Calvin states, 
From what I am given to understand, Monseigneur, there are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne, and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty.
Calvin's support of capital punishment goes beyond the scope of this entry. My concern here is with a particular quote that I believe paints Calvin in a worse light than I think is fair. Calvin is purported to have flippantly said, "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell." If Calvin really did say such a thing, I'd like to see the proof.  I'm going to keep an active search for this quote, until more proof emerges, I remain skeptical. 
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 15, 2019

John Calvin, The Mother of God, and The Great Protestant Cover-up

Here's a John Calvin quote that repeatedly appears on polemical Roman Catholic web-pages:
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.
Why would Rome's defenders be citing such a seemingly innocuous comment from Calvin? What's so controversial about Calvin saying "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43) or that the child in the womb of Mary was God incarnate? Calvin, to my knowledge, has never been charged with denying the divinity of Jesus. Nor have I ever found any charges that Calvin believed the child in Mary's womb was merely a man that became divine at some later date (Calvin explicitly argues against that). What's going on with the defenders of Rome?

This version of the Calvin quote above comes from an early pop-apologetic Roman Catholic web-page entitled, The Protestant Reformers on Mary I've never been able to determine who originally  put this web-page together (see my review here).  The page goes back at least as early as 2000. Whoever did put it together, I doubt they realized how often the content would be cut-and-pasted for years, now, decades. This old web-page was dedicated to showing "fundamentalists" "that the 'Reformers' accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith." Without overtly saying it, what it appears the web-page is attempting to do is demonstrate that Calvin believed Mary was "the Mother of God," that controversial title oft-used by Roman Catholics dripping with the devotion to and the intercession of, Mary; or, as the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from 1954 states,
From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven. And never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ; nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother's solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.
Other Roman Catholic websites are more overt that their "Mother of God" meaning is intended to be extrapolated from Calvin's words. Using this quote, John Pasquini states in his books Catholic Answers to Protestant Questions and True Christianity the Catholic Way, "Even John Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God!" EWTN hosts a web-page that states, "The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God."  Raymond De Souza uses the quote as proof  that "Luther, Calvin and Zwingli preserved it intact in their systems of distorted doctrines" and that "Protestantism, unhesitatingly called the Holy Virgin 'Mother of God (theotokos).'" The Seekers Guide to Mary says, "Calvin also held that Mary was the Mother of God" and use the quote "In Calvin's own words." These are but a few examples from a seemingly endless pool of Google hits. 

 As their argument typically goes, the original Reformers had a rich, almost Roman Catholic Marian piety, but, as The Protestant Reformers on Mary web-page says, "Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences." Why did this happen? Because the descendants of the Reformation had "iconoclastic passion"  towards Marian piety. Now, it's up to Rome's defenders to do deep historical research into the Reformation and demonstrate to modern-day Protestants how far they've strayed from likes of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. One Roman Catholic web-page utilizing the Calvin quote argues, "The longer and the further Protestant strayed from the Catholic Church, the more watered down all the Catholic Truths became including their love and devotion to Mary. But originally, the three main fathers of Protestantism loved their heavenly mother."  Now, "Mother of God" is a phrase rarely used by Protestantism, mostly ignored, sometimes derided and abhorred.

Let's take a closer look at this quote, check the documentation, put it back in its context, and then explore John Calvin's use of the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." Let's see what happens when we dare to uncover what Calvin thought about the phrase and concept, "Mother of God." We'll find there actually is a "cover-up" going on, but it's not a hiding of of Calvin saying "Mother of God" in his extant treatises.

Documentation
I suspect that the English version of this quote may have originally been taken from Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos, a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 94. Note the similarities of its popular Internet use to the English rendering from O'Carroll:


O'Carroll's book documents two Calvin quotes here, "CR, 45, 348 and 35." Notice how this old EWTN page seemingly lifted the Calvin quotes from O'Carroll. The author of the EWTN article, Dr. Robert J. Schihl, mentions the information was an excerpt from his own book, A Biblical Apologetic of the Catholic Faith. I suspect that the popular online presentation of the documentation (John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35) was placed in this form by Dr. Schihl (see page 131 of his book). It appears to me that Dr. Schihl lifted O'Carroll's Calvin quotes and presented the research as his own and filled out the references. Interestingly, Dr. Schihl actually quotes O'Carroll on the same page, but never mentions him as his Calvin source. Or, it may be Dr. Schihl just cut-and-pasted someone else's use of O'Carroll. Someone, at some time, translated these Calvin quotes into English and my guess is it was O'Carroll, not Schihl or any of the online Roman Catholic polemicists.

The "CR" reference provided by O'Carroll refers to the Corpus Reformatorum, which is an old collection of Latin Reformation writings. The series contains a number of volumes of Calvin's writings. Here is a link to where Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia vol. 45 can be found, and here is the text of the quote in question being referred to on page 35:


The text being cited is Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43. This text has been translated into English, most popularly by William Pringle in the 19th century, as part of  Calvin's Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. A modern English translation is also available in print.  The translation below is from Rev. Pringle (link). The quote under scrutiny is in bold type.

Context
43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.
She calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.
Conclusion
First, the tedious part of this Calvin quote, the documentation, demonstrates how deep many of Rome's defenders actually go in their studies of church history.  I suspect Michael O'Carroll, actually did pull out Calvin's writings in Latin and translate particular quotes into English. As for the bulk of usages I've seen of this Calvin quote on-line, this English rendering has simply been cut-and-pasted endlessly, along with documentation to the Latin text, as if Rome's cyber-polemicists actually utilized "Calvini Opera" or the Corpus Reformatorum! This sort of endless cut-and-pasting strongly suggests Rome's apologists never checked the actual context, nor did they know or care that a useful English version of the entire context has been widely available since the 19th century.

Second, if there really is some sort of cover-up going on, isn't the context interesting as to how Calvin comments about praising Mary? If Calvin had some sort of deep devotion to the "Mother of God" where's the proof?  Calvin says that many people are guilty of praising in a "superstitious manner" and making idols: "The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool." Then in regard to Elizabeth, Calvin admits that Mary has a higher distinction than other people, but through the testimony of Elizabeth he says it's because Mary "obtained more than she deserved." When Calvin then goes on to comment on the phrase "the mother of her Lord" and  says the child in Mary's womb was "eternal God," there is an obvious lack of  praise and devotion directed toward Mary for anything she had done or deserved. David F. Wright observed,
It is Calvin's complaint against 'the papists' that their praises of Mary have obscured her greatest honour of all, and have robbed the Son of God of his own in order to dress her up in the sinful spoils of robbery. 'The praises of Mary, where the might and sheer goodness of God are not entirely set forth, are perverse and counterfeit.' So Calvin betrays some concern at the parallelism of the salutation of Elizabeth. 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!' (Luke 1:42). The connecting particle must be taken in a casual sense, for the blessedness of Mary is due to that of Christ [David Wright, Chosen By God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, (London: Marshall Morgan and Scott, 1989) 178]. 
Earlier in his commentary, Calvin commenting on Luke 1:28 said that "Mary is blessed" "does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy." Commenting on Luke 1:42 Mary is said to "blessed" because "God bestowed the remarkable honour of bringing into the world his own Son." Probably shocking to Calvin's original audience, he says,  "To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life."  Yes, Calvin refers to Mary as "holy virgin" a few times in his commentary, but he never expounds on it in such a way as to lead his readers into any sort of devotion or praise of Mary. He goes as far as saying that while praising the day the Son was brought into the world, it should simply remind us of "the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son." Being reminded of Mary's motherhood is a far cry from devotion to Mary as the "Mother of God." Commenting on Luke 1:48, Calvin says:
Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son.”' None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.
Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honourable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements. Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him.
Third, isn't it peculiar that Calvin never actually uses the phrase, "Mother of God" in the quote we've been examining?  Certainly it can be deduced from the context that "Mary is mother of the Lord" and the "mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God." Why didn't Calvin just use the phrase "Mother of God"? Here's where it gets interesting: as I've gone through Calvin's writings, the phrase "Mother of God" or "Theotokos" is oddly missing. Could it be that the phrase is missing because future generations of Protestants expunged it from Calvin's writings as part of the nefarious Reformation Marian piety cover-up?

According to Roman Catholic writer Thomas O'Meara, "Calvin nowhere calls Mary Theotokos or the Mother of God." O'Meara 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 then refers to a 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.
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.
And this is exactly why Calvin avoided it and why many within Protestantism do today. 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 (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?
Yes, there's a cover-up going on, but it's not on the Protestant side. It's with Rome's defenders attempting to reinterpret John Calvin as a supporter of their particular brand of Mariology.  It's only by equivocating and playing fast and loose with terms does John Calvin become a supporter of Rome's Mary, the blessed and holy "Mother of God." Rome's defenders pour much more into the term "Mother of God" and Calvin realized this. There was a blatant attempt by Calvin and the Genevan government to suppress Romanism. That Calvin conscientiously avoided using "Theotokos" is just one instance of what was going on at the time. For example, there was a Genevan law in place which forbade parents to name their children after popular saints. One man spent a few days in jail for naming his child after a saint that had a shrine in the area!

Rome's defenders could counter all this and simply say John Calvin believed in the title "Mother of God" because he believed in the concept that Mary was the mother of Jesus who is God. But what would be the point?  The same argument could be made of me and countless others. No, we reject the deep devotional and intercessory role that their use of the phrase "Mother of God" implies within a Roman Catholic worldview.


Addendum #1, Trent Horn
I first wrote about Calvin's use of the phrase "Mother of God" back in 2013. While revisiting this subject I came across Rome's defender Trent Horn commenting on Calvin's rejection of using the term "Mother of God." Mr. Horn says,
Some Protestants object to Mary’s divine maternity not on biblical, logical, or historical grounds, but on practical ones. According to them, even if Mary is the Mother of God, Christians should not say she is because that can mislead less educated people. For example, Calvin said, “To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.”26 Matt Slick says, “The term, ‘mother of God,’ runs the risk of suggesting that Mary is somehow divine and part of the Godhead.” Gustafson likewise claims it is “creepy” to call Mary the Mother of God because this conjures up images of Mary being God’s wife.
This objection is as weak as saying that we should not refer to Jesus as God’s Son because that runs the risk of suggesting that God has a wife or that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary. This is not a hypothetical concern as early Mormons like Brigham Young understood Jesus’ identity as “Son of God” to mean Jesus was “begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”. Many Muslims reject the Incarnation precisely because they think it entails that God physically begot Jesus through Mary. This shows that a doctrine should not be rejected just because it can be misunderstood. If that were the case, our faith would have few or possibly no doctrines at all!
26. John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters , vol. 5, ed. Jules Bonnett (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 362. Michael O’Carroll, however, documents Calvin saying, “The mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” O’Carroll, Theotokos , 94
I've included Horn's footnote because he included the same Calvin quote this entry is focused on. Did he include it to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency in Calvin's thought? Regardless, Horn makes a logical point, that simply because a phrase can be misunderstood or abused does not mean the term should be avoided. I've similarly tried to remind people that the word "Catholic" does not necessarily mean, "Roman Catholic." Some of the people I've used the word on are obviously confused, until I explain it to them. Think also of how our current society pours an entirely different meaning into the word "gay." What was once intended to mean "lighthearted and carefree" now means "homosexual." When Calvin avoided the term "Theotokos," it was consciously done as part of the ongoing societal Reformation efforts which sought to expel as much Romanism as possible from Geneva. It makes perfect sense he would pass along this advice to other Reformation efforts throughout Europe.

Should Protestant today avoid the term?  I would never argue as Horn's examples of Slick and Gustafson do. Those are wacky examples, for sure. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase if it's understood in a Christological sense rather than a Marian sense. I see this debate more like debating with a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness as to who Jesus is. Rome's apologists presents a different "Mother of God" than than which is found in sacred Scripture. When one reads a Mormon writing mentioning Jesus, a careful reader pours in the meaning of who Jesus is according to the Mormons. The same goes for Roman Catholic writings about the Mother of God. I'm all for reclaiming misused words for proper service in the "Catholic" church!

Addendum #2
Thomas O'Meara includes an alternate English translation of Calvin's comments about Mary in his letter from September 27, 1552 to the French Church in London:
I have no doubt that there has been some ignorance in that they have reproved this fashion of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and because of their ignorance it is likely that they have assumed a temerity and brashness which is too great. . . . However, to continue in fraternal friendship with you I am not able to disguise the fact that I find it wrong to have this title ordinarily attributed in sermons about the Virgin, and for my own part I would not think that such language was good or proper or convenient. . . . You know that scripture accustoms us to a rather different manner of speaking, but there is something worse here—for it could give scandal. To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition. And he who is content with that shows quite clearly that he is not aware of what is edifying in the Church [Calvin, Lettres anglaises (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1959), pp. 180-181].
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)