Combox for:
Did Any Early Protestant Reformers Adhere to the Assumption of Mary?
[30 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
reformers.html
I have added several paragraphs of material documenting historic Lutheran observance of the Assumption, and changed the title accordingly, as of 1:15 PM EST 1 July 2008.
Fascinating topic!
The interesting thing about this dogma is why anyone has such a big problem with it. Mary went to Heaven, big dea, most everyone believes thatl. Of course, the big issue is that her body went as well. This is what the Protestant objection is to - but I don't reallly see what the big fuss is all about.
Peace, and God bless
Doe wants to make sure that everyone sees this 1544 Luther quote. I'm happy to oblige:
“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things.”
Shane,
The big fuss is making it an article of faith that one must submit to for salvation. I don't think any Protestants mind if one believes it - they just think it should be a matter of pious opinion (as Basil thought with either the PV or sinlessness - can't recall which atm - stating that although he believed it, others shouldn't be required to). Was there any mass crisis in the church in the 20th century forcing it to be defined? Not really I don't think - not the wisest pastoral move imho - just adding more to the divide between the RCC and the rest of Christendom.
This is found on the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod website:
(http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&
cuTopic_topicID=65&cuItem_itemID=22186)
Q. Is there a benefit and/or danger to using a calendar of saints such as displayed on Wikipedia. I understand that Jonathan Edwards is someone we Lutherans would not put on the calendar of saints because of his Reformed doctrine, but would someone like Johann Walter or J.S. Bach who were instruments of God in bringing music into the Lutheran church be appropriate? I ask because the WELS seems (in my experience) to not use the calendar of saints, whilst the ELS has mentioned saints and used the calendar to the glory of God.
A: Both The Lutheran Hymnal (1941) and Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal, the two hymnals WELS congregations use, offer a list of commemorations and minor festivals. Both lists include primarily the commemorations of the apostles and the Christ festivals (e.g., the Annunciation) that are not part of the historic calendar of Sundays and festivals. The Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary, the official hymnal of the ELS, expands the calendar slightly to include some of the early fathers of the Church. None of these three hymnals has anything that approaches the calendar of Commemorations in the new hymnal of the LCMS, Lutheran Service Book, which includes a long list of biblical, Christian, and Lutheran "heroes of the faith." ... While a set of Propers is offered for the apostles' days and Christ festivals, no lessons or prayers are included with with the list in LSB. ...
WELS finds nothing objectionable in remembering the leaders who spoke the Word of God to us (Hebrews 13:7). A few congregations as well as our seminary and colleges remember the days of the apostles in public worship, and the lives and contributions of many believers are remembered in All Saints observances. Especially in our synodical schools, the contributions of theological and musical leaders is regularly recognized. Could we do better at remembering these leaders? I'm sure we could.
I'm not sure, however, that the ELS has been generally more observant of these past leaders than WELS. I'm more inclined to believe that one or another individal pastor or professor (perhaps with LCMS roots) has made this a priority in his ministry and that this has been recognized by a few people in his sphere of influence.
Further stuff about BV Mary found on the same website:
Luther noted Mary's humility: "So the wondrous pure spirit of Mary is worthy of even greater praise, because having such overwhelming honors heaped upon her head, she does not let them tempt her [to pride]. ... [In] truth she thrusts [pride and honor] from her and would have us honor God in her and come through her to a good confidence in His grace." Mary is a model for us and a comfort. Luther wrote: "O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example." Mary isn't "a goddess who could grant gifts or render aid, as some suppose when they pray and flee to her rather than to God," Luther wrote. "She does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request." Luther biographer, Martin Brecht, describes Luther's thoughts: Mary is "the model for believers, and, above all, the example of God's action. It is God's grace that we are to admire in Mary, nothing else not worship." Through faith, Luther wrote, a person "may boast of such treasure as that Mary is his real mother, Christ his brother, and God his father.... By this token you sit assuredly in the Virgin Mary's lap and are her dear child."
More stuff from the same website:
Mary is properly called the Mother of God because the infant she gave birth to was not only a true human being, but also true God (Colossians 2:9). She may correctly be called Theotokos (God-bearer) for the same reason, although the term is not commonly used among us. We also consider her blessed by God, as she considered herself to be (Luke 1:4
. We do not consider her to have been sinless, nor do we pray to her.
The Bible tells us that Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). It seems likely that Mary had other children after Jesus (see Matthew 12:46, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3, 5, Acts 1:14, Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56). However, since these verses don't say specifically that these "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus were born to Mary and since these words can also be used to indicate relationships other than the sibling relationship, we cannot say with certainty whether Mary remained a virgin until the day she died or not. We can have different opinions because Scripture does not answer the questions for us. Therefore the perpetual virginity of Mary is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of confession for Lutherans.
Thus, it would appear from the above snippets that Luther and the Lutherans would not have an objection to a person beliving in the the Marian doctrines such as the Assumption, but would reject the notion that such is dogma because it is not found in Scripture. This goes to the heart of what Messrs. Swan and others do when they attack Marian doctrines. They denigrate the doctrine itself rather than argue the question about whether the Church has the authority to make a belief binding on its adherents. It is interesting to see this distinction because while Protestants make a big deal about having unity on the big issues and countenance diversity on secondary issues among themselves, it is obvious that this is merely (in the Lutheran thinking anyway) a secondary issue which is not not deserving of the kind of condemnation that Messrs. Swan and others heap upon it because Catholics disagree with them on Marian doctrines.
This issue reminds me of something that G.K. Chesterton said along the lines that Moslems oppose Catholicism out of principle; Protestants oppose Catholicism out of prejudice. I will see if I can find the exact quote.
I apologize! The words after "Thus, it would appear..." are my thoughts and not those expressed on the blog. I should have delineated that!
Dave, you wrote, "The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things.”
If this is the best evidence that Mr. Swan has is this cite against the Assumption, he is reading way too much into it. Fr. Luther does not say that the Assumption did not happen, he says it doesn't matter. His statements merely attack the idea that the Pope supposedly had equated the Assumption with Our Lord's Ascension, which to my knowledge the Catholic Church has never taught.
Hi Interlocutor, I do understand where you are coming from but you need to look at Marian doctrines in this way: What in them affirm the Gospel message? I learned early in Catholic grade school, when we look to Mary, we end up seeing Jesus. We are told to be perfect as God is perfect. Mary's immaculate conception and life of sinlessness proves that these words are not lies, but in fact a standard that we can actually with the grace of God hope to attain at some point in our lives. It also proves that God's direct intervention of grace is necessary for our salvation. Mary as the Mother of God proves and protects the Incarnation of Our Lord and that the word "Immanuel" "God is with us" is not only figuratively true, but actually and totally was, is, and always will be true. Mary's assumption is not against Scripture, but proves that God will raise us all up, body and soul which certainly is biblical. I hope you see my point- Marian doctrines provide proofs that support the truth of the Word of God and do not seek to replace it.
Finally, when Mr. Swan provides a church or holy site that claims to have bones of Mary as relics, one might have a reason to question the doctrine of the Assumption. Then he will have provided real evidence and not hearsay, speculation or mere conjecture premised on his bias, whims or prejudices. The fact that there are no such relics ever claimed by anyone says alot in an historic Church that honors and venerates its saints in such a way.
Interlocuter,
'the RCC and the rest of Christendom.'
The Roman Catholic Church IS Christendom. Or rather WAS Christendom when that term meant anything. Protestantism destroyed Christendom. This is not just some bigoted jibe, but reality. There was hegenomy of catholic thought in Europe for 1000 years until the Protestant reformation broke it.
'The big fuss is making it an article of faith'
The big fuss was because catholic theologians had been thinking about it and considering the question for centuries. We catholics THINK about the 'deposit of faith' and after many many years, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can say something NEW about the Faith. Once that moment has arrived then it MUST be announced, promulgated.
We yearn to understand more.
Chesterton, in another context, talked about 'reading history from the inside'. I wish our Protestant friends (not facetiously) would just try to look at look at things from the inside. And, I don't mean you have to become catholics-just IiMAGINE why say the Feast of the Assumption was inaugurated. From the outside you see it as bad PR in terms of ecumenism. That's seeing it from the outside (if I may say so). Thelogians had, as I say, thought about the question along time. Did Mary die like any other human? What happed to the Mother of God at the end of her earthly life? These are the questions, intense interesting questions I might add, that come NATURALLY from what we know already about her.
This is just an appeal really to try to IMAGINE things from the inside.
Commenting by HaloScan
