Reformers supporting Marian doctrine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not familiar enough with Luther to comment on their supposed contention that he believed the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary into heaven. The perpetual virginity of our Lord's holy mother was a Christian commonplace back in their day. Most of the Reformers believed that. Perpetual virginity is not a distinctively Roman dogma. I myself believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary-- believing it is the most plausible position.

Unlike Rome, however, it does not have the same status. Protestants are free to disagree on the issue.
 
"Mother of God," or theotokos is not a distinctively Roman Catholic shibboleth. It has reference to Christ's divinity, not to Mary's supremacy.

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."--That is hardly an affirmation of the assumption of Mary.

However, Luther's statements concerning the immaculate conception and honor/prayer given to Mary cannot be approved of. This is just further proof that the Lutheran Reformation did not go far enough.

I don't find anything objectionable in the quotes from Calvin and Zwingli, except concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.
 
This site:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

makes a specialty of tracking down the truth behind the numerous (and contradictory) claims by RCers (mostly) concerning Luther. Depending on what a particular guy wants to construe Luther as saying, he typically either has undimmed RC marian devotion, or else he champions unfathomable evil

(but seldom at the same time, probably because undimmed marian devotion and unfathomable evil aren't twin thoughts RCers want smushed together too often)

Anyway, the real Luther put the brakes on marian devotion, just like the Reformation in general. Meanwhile, Rome hit the gas.
 
MW said:
TylerRay said:
I don't find anything objectionable in the quotes from Calvin and Zwingli, except concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Click to expand...

What could be objectionable in the quotations from Calvin?
Click to expand...

It's not that I think he holds to any sort of superstition; I just don't think that the most natural reading of the Scriptures points to a perpetual virginity. It's something Reformed Christians can disagree on, and unless I'm convinced otherwise, I disagree with Calvin on it.
 
TylerRay said:
It's not that I think he holds to any sort of superstition; I just don't think that the most natural reading of the Scriptures points to a perpetual virginity. It's something Reformed Christians can disagree on, and unless I'm convinced otherwise, I disagree with Calvin on it.
Click to expand...

But what in the quotations is objectionable? Is it objectionable to deny the brothers must refer to blood-brothers?
 
We must remember that Luther's theological corpus is immense. His views changed over the decades. His Marian piety, like most pious Catholics, was intense. It didn't burn off overnight from October 31st, 1517 to November 1st, 1517.
 
MW said:
TylerRay said:
It's not that I think he holds to any sort of superstition; I just don't think that the most natural reading of the Scriptures points to a perpetual virginity. It's something Reformed Christians can disagree on, and unless I'm convinced otherwise, I disagree with Calvin on it.
Click to expand...

But what in the quotations is objectionable? Is it objectionable to deny the brothers must refer to blood-brothers?
Click to expand...

Not at all--my post was imprecise. If the author of that webpage is correct in stating, "Calvin translated 'brothers' in this context to mean cousins or relatives," then I think it was a poor choice of translation.

There is nothing in the quote from Calvin himself that is objectionable.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
This site:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

makes a specialty of tracking down the truth behind the numerous (and contradictory) claims by RCers (mostly) concerning Luther. Depending on what a particular guy wants to construe Luther as saying, he typically either has undimmed RC marian devotion, or else he champions unfathomable evil.
Click to expand...

See specifically: The Protestant Reformers on Mary

I've gone through most of the quotes from the Roman Catholic link posted in the O.P.

Regards,
James
 
I noticed one error in the article. It states: "[FONT=&quot]Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death[/FONT]". But the Immaculate Conception at that time was a theological opinion, not a dogma that required intellectual assent on pain of heresy. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. It was only declared a de fidei dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Luther would have been free to accept or reject this doctrine, and it would have had no bearing on his eternal salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top