After my paper documenting Luther's
Mariology appeared on-line, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong
counter-responded immediately (his response appeared in about a week after my
paper was posted). As he sought to make his arguments cogent and his
documentation more plentiful, his first response was revised two more times.
His final draft can be found here.
My response covered all three versions.[1]
Appendix B: Luther's understanding of
"Veneration":
A review of Luther’s “Marian”
hymns and his concept of veneration.
Appendix C: The Mariology of the Middle Ages :
Jaraslov Pelikan’s overview of
sixteenth century Mariology.
This paper is a response to the multiple versions of Dave Armstrong’s “Counter Reply: Martin Luther’s Mariology (Particularly the Immaculate Conception).”[2] His reply is to my paper, Martin Luther's Theology of Mary. Casual readers with only a minor interest in this topic need not concern themselves with the lengthy endnotes. They were provided for secondary comments and further documentation from the sources I utilized.
Anyone familiar with Internet theological bulletin boards have at some point come across Roman Catholic criticism of Martin Luther. Fairly common topics include: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, and some even argue Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany. Interestingly though, when it comes to the topic of Mary, Roman Catholic sentiment towards Luther shifts considerably. Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from. This drastic shift is puzzling; particularly since Luther’s abandoning of the intercession of the saints and his doctrine of justification significantly changes his Marian approach.
My paper was not written for the intention of inviting Mr. Armstrong to debate. Rather, it was posted for the broader Protestant Internet community. I understand why Mr. Armstrong would feel the need to respond, since I referenced his web page as an example of popular Roman Catholic approaches to Luther’s Mariology. I could have chosen any number of Catholic sites as an example; I used Mr. Armstrong’s material because I have a suspicion the majority of anti-Luther pro-Catholic web pages utilize his research more than they do their own investigations. Mr. Armstrong’s Catholic web site is one of the few that takes exploratory searches into Martin Luther’s world, sadly a world that many contemporary Protestants could care less about.
C. Hostility and Ad Hominem
In his initial response to my paper, Mr. Armstrong confused me with another person whom he dialogued with a few months ago. His response was quite offensive, regardless of whom he was critiquing. I was said to be:
“critical and overbearing.” I put forth, “snide insinuations of [Mr. Armstrong’s] alleged profound incompetence and dishonesty,” “tedious insulting material,” I employ a “typical (almost absurdly laughable) anti-Catholic, anti-medievalist cardboard caricature of the Christianity and piety of the middle ages,” “garden-variety warmed-over Charles Hodge anti-Catholic stereotypes of Catholic Mariology,” “convoluted heretical reasoning,” “a pitiful onslaught of polemical and rhetorical comments, which grossly distort the Catholic understanding of Mary,” I operate out of a “Protestant polemical excess,” I utilized tactics similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses, I “mock [Catholicism] as idiotic and unbiblical”, I follow “the widespread Protestant contra-Catholic polemical tendency,” “an absurd anti-medievalist (and ultimately anti-Catholic) picture of the Christianity and piety of the Middle Ages,” I make “absurd all-knowing proclamation[s],” I “set up… straw man image[s] of Catholic apologists,” and I was also portrayed as so incompetent that I lacked the ability to conduct a basic search on the World Wide Web.
He also seems to insinuate that since I am merely a “seminary student” I couldn’t possibly have an accurate opinion on Luther. His final comment was perhaps the most telling of his attitude toward my abilities: “As the inquirer gets deeper and deeper into the subject, many other more advanced treatments (including dialogues with educated, theologically-literate Protestants) can be found in my papers and links…” Contrarily, I never questioned Mr. Armstrong’s ability or credentials to espouse Catholicism. I do not know the nature or extent of Armstrong’s education, nor have I questioned it. Nor will the reader find any slander against Mr. Armstrong in my original paper.
This situation was ‘somewhat’ rectified when I pointed out Armstrong’s error of misidentification. When he realized he was firing at the wrong target, Mr. Armstrong edited his response and toned down some of his hostile language. Some of the above comments are still contained in later versions of his paper. Perhaps with the ever-changing nature of Mr. Armstrong’s web page response, we can expect to see further editing.
It’s hard to know exactly where to begin in evaluating Mr. Armstrong’s response to my paper. One must first stand in awe of his ability to put forth a thirty-seven page single-spaced document (more than double the length of my original double spaced paper) filled with citations, comments, and sharp remarks in a relatively short amount of time.
It will be my purpose to show that Mr. Armstrong has missed the main points in my paper. My paper follows a particular logical order consisting of: an introduction in which I put forth the question and conclusion to be discussed, a “body” in which I present my evidence, and a conclusion that summarizes the body and reiterates points made in the introduction. Earlier versions of Mr. Armstrong’s response followed no apparent order. His response was filled with a fair amount of tangential material, sending the reader in a multitude of directions (directions worthy of study, yet tangential to my paper).
I have taken a fair amount of time to compare and contrast his comments to my paper, check his references, and cite the same sources he utilized. My apologies for the excessive length of this paper. Since I do not plan on writing any further responses to Armstrong’s material on Luther and Mary, I tried to be as thorough as possible. Thus, it could similarly be argued that this response has engaged tangents; however my only desire is to exhaust the topic, and move on. Had I the desire for a continuous debate with Mr. Armstrong, all of this material would surface eventually anyway. I expect Mr. Armstrong will again quickly respond to this paper. Unless Mr. Armstrong presents some compelling relevant information, this will be my only response.
It is my contention that Mr. Armstrong’s material on Luther’s theology of Mary reflects an extreme position: the great Reformer was primarily in agreement with Rome in both doctrine and practice, with only minor conflict. Armstrong believes that Luther was “extraordinarily devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Luther “venerated Mary in a very touching fashion which, as far as it goes, is not at all contrary to Catholic piety.” Armstrong believes “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.”[3] This extreme position’s polar opposite is the conclusion that Luther placed little emphasis on Mariology. Both positions have been argued in the last 500 years. Mr. Armstrong treats my position as if it were the polar opposite. Quite the contrary, the purpose of my paper (and this one as well) was to put forth a balanced understanding: Luther indeed had a Mariology. It reflected his commitment to Christ, and stood in antithesis to popular Catholic belief in the sixteenth century.
II. My Introduction From
“Reflections on Martin Luther’s Theology of Mary”
Mr. Armstrong notes that he actually agrees with the basic thesis of my paper, that as Luther’s theology grew, elements of his Mariology were rejected, minimized, or reinterpreted as he clung to and developed his commitment to solus Christus.[4] Note that my opinion of Luther is that he “grew and developed” as a theologian. Although agreeing with my basic point, Mr. Armstrong adds a much different slant that attempts to negate this point. He says,
“I have often observed, in
my papers about Luther, his tendency to contradict himself or vacillate, and
the difficulty of constructing a coherent account of his beliefs. Luther's
thought was the very antithesis of the systematic and orderly teaching of, say,
John Calvin.”[5]
Elsewhere, Mr. Armstrong cites noted scholar Roland Bainton that for Luther “the conflicts and the labors of the dramatic years had impaired his health and made him prematurely an irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse.”[6] This is indeed a distressing picture of Luther the theologian. One perhaps questions why I would even remotely portray Luther the theologian as “growing and developing” in a positive direction considering Mr. Armstrong’s substantial point from such a respected Protestant scholar. But consider the same chapter from Bainton’s book from which Mr. Armstrong cited. Bainton says,
“Luther's later years are, however, by no means
to be written off as the sputterings of a dying flame. If in his polemical
tracts he was at times savage and coarse, in the works which constitute the
real marrow of his life's endeavor he grew constantly in maturity and artistic
creativity. The biblical translation was improved to the very end. The sermons
and the biblical commentaries reached superb heights. The delineation of the
sacrifice of Isaac, … comes from the year 1545. Some of the passages cited
throughout this book [Here I Stand] to illustrate Luther's religious and
ethical principles are also from the later period.” [7]
Similarly, the popular caricature of Luther as a less-than-coherent-angry-old-man has been addressed in a thoughtful paper by Gordon Rupp entitled, “Miles Emeritus? Continuity and Old Discontinuity Between the Young and The Luther”[8] Rupp points out:
“But what of the old Luther? It is often assumed
that his last years were racked with illness and exhaustion, and the symptoms
of old age: that pessimism and intolerance provoked him into outrageous polemic
and made him the scorn of his enemies, and a trial to his friends. I believe
this to be a quite exaggerated impression.”
“Nor is his thought and in the quality of his
writing, and in the depths of his achievement is it permissible to drive a
wedge between the Young and the Old Luther. There were great and lasting
continuities. Not that there were no changes.”
“Despite changes of emphasis, and a way of picking on a phrase like ‘Christ’s strange work’ or ‘gratia’ and ‘donum’ or the thought of the pope as a Werewolf, which he uses for a time, and the drops, and despite the fact that he was no systematizer, there is an inner coherence and consistency in Luther’s thought. This is most evident in the firmness with which he held to the doctrine of Justification ‘sola fide’ and ‘solo Christo’.” [9]
Many Roman Catholics also fail to understand the structure of Luther’s theology. As Mr. Armstrong points out, Luther was not a systematizer. But this does not mean that Luther was haphazard. He wrote treatises for specific situations; hence he has gained the description of an “occasional writer.” Within these writings, one sees a constant method: Luther reveled in contrast and paradox. Examples of this would be “Deus absconditus vs. Deus revelatus,” “glory vs. Cross,” “law vs. gospel.” Luther rejected the medieval use of the logical, “ergo” (therefore). For Luther, theology is not systematic theological reasoning. It is not simply the matter of moving from one human conclusion to another: Theology is always a matter of “denote” (nevertheless). At times, Luther can appear contradictory: he will say something like “God is both hidden and revealed.”
Within Luther’s Mariology one sees this contrast and paradox at work. For example, in Luther’s Magnificat, one could read it and think it was a treatise that was trying to establish a Mariology. Rather, Luther presents the contrast between the “mighty princes” and the “lowly virgin,” in order that his reader might understand the paradox of “law / gospel.” Eric Gritsch explains,
The contrast
between the "lowly virgin" and the "mighty princes" in the
Magnificat reflects Luther's basic view of the contrariness of God who is both
"hidden" and "revealed" in his creation and redemption God
works his "alien work" through creation, especially through political
government. When one prince defeats another in battle God discloses that he
uses one against the other in order to make his judgment in history. History is
the battleground God's "carnival" (as Luther likes to say). When God
does his "proper" work, he uses his power directly, the power of the
Holy Spirit mediated through the audible and "visible word"... Only
faith "knows" this work. Mary is the embodiment of God s proper"
work and an example of faith. Luther commends her Magnificat to Prince John
Frederick of Saxony so that he may understand God s work in the "law"
and the "gospel." The Christian prince according to Luther, should
understand both his duty to use the law of the sword as well as his responsibility
to provide space for the gospel of God’s unmerited grace. Mary is the example
that God is in control of human history; he can choose the lowliest of the
lowly and put down the mightiest of the mighty. Thus the Magnificat is the
swansong as it were, for those who think they have absolute power in the world
Only God has such power; he can remove tyrants and replace them with good
men".[10]
One must be consciously aware of this within his theology, coupled with the clear knowledge that there is a clear progression in his thought. Studying Luther is no easy task, and the studies of Luther throughout the past 500 years can sometimes be both help and hindrance.
Thus, Mr. Armstrong and I have a
significant presuppositional difference in our overall approach to Luther
studies. My paper sees Luther as a gifted thinker whose theology grew and
developed, rather than a man whose later years were plagued by incoherence and
ravings. Not that it was always a steady climb forward for Luther; there were
pitfalls, but his theological insights were steady: a review of the totality of
Luther’s works show a brilliant theologian whose theology can be summed up
quite simply: “When you’ve said Jesus, you have said it all.”[11] As
with all of us, conforming our lives to Christ in thought and deed is a
lifelong process. Luther was no exception.
B. Luther did indeed have a Mariology
Similarly in my
introduction, I pointed out that “Luther did indeed have a Mariology.” Mr.
Armstrong though seems to think I am denying that Luther (and the Reformers)
had a Mariology.[12] He cites Jaroslav Pelikan, David Wright,
William J. Cole, Thomas O’Meara, Basilea Schlink, Peter Toon, Elliot Miller,
John De Satge, and Max Thurian in order to prove something I never denied.
While his wealth of research is to be commended, it serves as a clear example
of Mr. Armstrong creating a contention that doesn’t exist. I never denied that Luther had a Mariology.
Thus, totally irrelevant
were quotes from Armstrong about Heinrich Bullinger and information about the
content of Zwingli’s Marian piety. My
paper was not about whether or not the early Protestants had a unified Marian
piety, nor was my paper about Heinrich Bullinger’s Mariology or Zwingli’s
observation of Marian feasts. My paper admits that Luther had a Mariology and
wishes to explore the basic tenets of that Mariology. While I find Mr.
Armstrong’s research interesting, it is an unnecessary digression from the
focus of my paper.
This is a major charge
against Mr. Armstrong’s response: throughout his paper he documents that Luther
had a Mariology (as well as other early Reformers), but then fails to explore
the content of that Mariology by citing and exploring the primary source
writings of Luther. Mr. Armstrong
infrequently cites Luther in his response, and rarely interacts with the quotes
of Luther I used. One would think he would have scoured contexts in order to
prove my interpretation of Luther faulty. Such argumentation is missing from
the bulk of his response.
C. The Distorted Image
Mr. Armstrong strongly
disagrees with my statement that any picture created to prove Luther’s devotion
to Mary as similar to Roman Catholicism is an image sketched distortedly. He
says that he has shown (through a myriad of Protestant scholarly quotes) that “similarities exist
and they are profound. It is not absolute agreement all down the line; yet it
is a remarkable accord, and I have documented it.” Perhaps my use of
the word “similar” was not exactly the best choice. Indeed, There are
similarities because both Rome and Luther have a Mariology, employ similar
terms, and are aware of Christological teaching about Mary. It is the content
and progress though of Luther’s Mariology that is the focal point of my paper.
D. Mr. Armstrong’s Luther
Mr. Armstrong thinks that I incorrectly summarized his view of Luther’s Mariology when I said he drew a picture of Luther espousing a doctrine of Mary that reflects Roman Catholic theology, with little or no conflict with Luther’s Reformation ideals. He though would rather be thought to hold, “several nuanced [sic] qualifying remarks, contrasting Luther's Marian views with those of the Catholic Church.” The only qualifier he actually mentions is Luther’s rejection of the intercession and invocation of the saints.[13] One is left wondering though why Mr. Armstrong contests my summary. He says, “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.” This was my exact point. Mr. Armstrong’s picture of Mary was sketched to show how Roman Catholic Luther’s Mariology is.
Mr. Armstrong’s approach to Luther is an excellent example of the “drastic shift” I noted above. When Luther makes positive comments in regard to Mary, Luther is seen as a positive theological beacon that all Protestants should flock towards. On another article from his web site though, Mr. Armstrong denigrates Luther’s character and presents him as someone that Protestants should run away from.[14] He documents such things as Luther’s “intemperate language,” his pre-involvement with Nazi Germany, and his “persecution of Anabaptists and Jews.” For Armstrong, these are some of the “historical facts”:
“from a biblical perspective, a man's teachings must be backed up by his life, or else the doctrines are suspect…To think that a man greatly lacking in moral uprightness could deliver the truth of primitive," holy, and pure Christianity to the world is biblically, morally, and even logically suspect. Therefore, we must determine whether Luther can pass this fundamental test -- all the more so since he often excoriated the faults of others.”
“His was a deep, demanding
soul, to whom no Catholic can in charity deny fraternal pity, but his mind
contained also something of the devil, which made his arrogant desire to trace
his own path alone turn to rebellion of the worst kind . . .”
“Was Luther a truthful man? . . . I would say that he never hesitated to lie if he thought it useful . . .”
“His violent and passionate
temperament could brook no contradiction, and in every controversy he would
overwhelm his opponents with the grossness and obscenity of an infuriated
peasant. And secondly, all that is best in his writings springs directly from
his subjective personal experience. He recognized no truths except those which
he felt and saw directly by an immediate act of psychological intuition. In
comparison with this nothing else mattered.”[15]
After spending time reading Armstrong’s articles about Luther, why should anyone believe Luther about anything? Mr. Armstrong paints Luther as thoroughly intolerant, a liar, supporter of bigamy, perpetually foul mouthed, a deliberate misrepresent-er of opponents, actively seeking the deaths of Jews, a catalyst for the Third Reich, and a sufferer of megalomania, to name only a few.[16] Why is it that when Luther speaks about Mary, anybody should listen? It is hard to take Mr. Armstrong’s views on Luther seriously. What Armstrong rips away with one hand (Luther as an authority: The great Reformer), he attempts to give back with the other (Luther as an authority: Protestant Mariology).
Mr. Armstrong stayed away from denying my point that Luther’s Mariology was Christocentric. That this was a unique approach in the sixteenth century against the prevailing Roman Catholic attitude is noted by two of the scholars he cited:
David Wright:
“In face of such
perversions, Luther's critique [of Mary] is basically a Christocentric one
which makes full use of justification by grace alone.”[17]
Eric Gritsch:
“[Luther]…
placed Mary in a christocentric context in his early sermons and biblical
commentaries, especially in his commentary on Psalms: she is the "blissful
Mother" who is humble in the faith and shows the faithful what great
things God can do. He also warned against a too zealous veneration of Mary at
the expense of Christ.”[18]
In another place, Gritsch explains Luther’s Mariology is presented in the context of “a christocentric theology which Luther saw affirmed in apostolic and patristic thought, but no longer in the normative scholastic tradition of the medieval Western church.”[19] This is a striking implication and indictment of the medieval church.
III. The Young
Luther, Saints and the Virgin
In my description of the medieval climate and Luther’s own admission of partaking in Mariolatry (while a faithful son of the Catholic Church), Mr. Armstrong’s charges that I put forth a “Cardboard Caricatures of Medieval (and Orthodox Catholic) Marian Piety.” He adds that I’ve engaged in a “lamentable tactic,” of “garden-variety, warmed-over Charles Hodge, wrongheaded stereotypes of Catholic Mariology.” He suggests, “Someone ought to direct Mr. Swan to an orthodox Catholic catechism” which (I assume) would spell out clearly what does or does not constitute excess in medieval devotion to the Virgin Mary.
What Mr. Armstrong fails to do in these criticisms is to put forth doctrinal standards of Marian piety within the Sixteenth Century to correct my (alleged) caricature. He cannot seriously be suggesting the latest version of the Catholic catechism was the doctrinal standard for Marian piety four hundred years ago, or for that matter the Second Vatican Council.[20] The Lutheran and Catholics in Dialogue scholars noted that little had been defined dogmatically about Mary in the sixteenth century.[21] David Wright focuses the situation:
“At the outset
of the Reformation era, formally approved Church teaching about Mary
encompassed only the virgin birth, her role as 'God-bearer' (theotokos) in the
incarnation, and her perpetual virginity—and all of these were the legacy of
the age of the Fathers. But since these early definitions theological
speculation had steadily mounted. If there had so far been no further dogmatic
deliverances, this was partly because on one or two issues different segments
of the medieval Church were at loggerheads.”[22]
Perhaps this description (given from a pro-Catholic source) is adequate:
Late medieval
piety was marked by a great emphasis on the intercession of deceased saints and
in particular by an intensification of confidence in the power of Mary. The
steadily increasing number of saints invoked to remedy human needs and ills,
and the long-accustomed role of Mary as mediator between the faithful and
Christ, obscured the traditional theological distinction between adoration
(latria) and veneration (dulia). In 1517, when Martin Luther called for an
academic disputation on the use of indulgences and their relationship to the
sacrament of penance, the cult of the saints and Mary became a related issue.[23]
“The Confutation
thus defended both
the veneration and the invocation of the saints. Asserting that Christ is the
sole Mediator of redemption, it proposed Mary and the saints as mediators of
intercession. It did not regard invocation as contrary to Scripture but as
having a biblical basis. At the same time it did not criticize aberrations in
this form of Christian piety. What the Confutation did was to call for trust in
the church's understanding of itself as a body whose members (deceased as well
as living) are empowered by Christ their head to help one another.”[24]
Even the strict orders
of monks were infected with Mariolatry:
“The Augustinian
Order which [Luther] joined paid high honour to Mary. He remembered being
afraid of Christ and taking refuge with Mary and saints, as though they were
the mediators and Christ the judge and executioner. 'We held Christ to be our
angry judge, and Mary our mercy-seat, in whom alone was all our trust and
refuge.”[25]
That both the laity and
the clergy were in need of reformation is generally not disputed. When the
early Reformers criticized the Catholic Church on deviant excess, some Catholic
theologians responded (perhaps similar to Mr. Armstrong): “We never taught such
things!” The Reformers in unison replied,
“But your people believed it, and you do nothing about it!” Historian Charles
Guignebert explains their responsibility:
“Certain Catholic writers of our own day
confess that the condition of the clergy was degraded but think themselves to be
justifying this state of affairs by saying that it corresponded to that of the
laity at that time, on the principle that, in the main, people always get the
religion and the church they deserve. This is so, and it cannot be denied that
society in the fifteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth centuries seems
very corrupt, judging by its upper classes, and that the religion of the lower
classes appears very uncouth. Nevertheless the conclusion indicated is that the
Church is largely responsible for this depravity and superstition, upon
ascertaining that the demand of the Inquisition for orthodoxy can be satisfied
with its appearance only, and that crimes and sins are of little ecclesiastical
importance save as they represent a fruitful source of revenue for the vendors
of absolution.”[26]
A concise statement of
the Mariology that preceded Luther was accurately described by Jaroslav Pelikan
in the book, Reformation of Church and Dogma Volume 4. I have included a brief portion of Pelican’s
description in Appendix C.
B. Elite Belief
Mr. Armstrong asserts that I have misunderstood folk piety and Catholic doctrine. I am well aware though of the differentiation between popular belief (or “folk piety”) and elite belief in the medieval world. Elite theology formed by the elite class was Biblical thought placed in the context of Greek philosophical traditions.[27] Popular belief was formed not only by the influence of elite belief, but also by the ancient tribal beliefs that existed before Christianity had come to the land. Even though the Church had driven away the pagan gods of the lands, they had not altered the basic structure of religious belief that had been set by pre-Christian pagan religions. These two beliefs are not to be understood as completely separate. One must realize that popular belief influences elite belief.
This entire section in my paper focuses (generally) on popular belief within the medieval world. Elite belief though, cannot be ignored. I consider elite belief also a channel that fed Marian devotion toward excess. That the theologically educated during the Reformation similarly added to Marian excess is usually not disputed. Owen Chadwick points out,
“The strong and popular devotion to the Virgin was accompanied by
a marked growth in the cult of the saints and their relics, and of pilgrimage
to their shrines. Ill-regulated fervour could be superstitious or even
demonic... But superstition was no innovation. Since the darkest ages peasants
had consumed the dust from saints' tombs or used the Host as an amulet or
collected pretended relics or believed incredible and unedifying miracles or
substituted the Virgin or a patron saint for the Savior. In 1500 they were
ardently doing these things. What was new was not so much the practice as the
way in which the leaders of opinion were
beginning to regard it.” [28]
Historian Leopold von
Ranke gives an interesting look at Sixteenth Century prayer books given to the
people:
“There are prayers to which an indulgence
for 146 days, others to which one for 7000 or 8000 years are attached: one
morning benediction of peculiar efficacy was sent by a pope to a king of
Cyprus; whosoever repeats the prayer of the venerable Bede the requisite number
of times, the Virgin Mary will be at hand to help him for thirty days before
his death, and will not suffer him to depart unabsolved. The most extravagant
expressions were uttered in praise of the Virgin: ‘The eternal Daughter of the
eternal Father, the heart of the indivisible Trinity:’ it was said, ‘Glory be
to the Virgin, to the Father, and to the Son.’”[29]
These types of prayer books were
condemned by Rome twenty-five years after Luther died. They had enjoyed a rich
life as normal piety in the medieval Catholic Church.[30]
C.
The “Normal” Marian Piety of Luther
Catholic
historian Hilda Graef notes that the early reformers (during this time of
wide-spread spiritual deviation) practiced a normal piety that conformed to
Rome:
“All three continental reformers, Luther,
Calvin and Zwingli, had grown up as Catholics and conformed to the devotional
practices of the Church, especially Luther, who had been an Augustinian friar
while Zwingli had been a secular priest and Calvin a layman.”[31]
Catholic historian
Thomas O’Meara notes that Luther,
“[In the] early period of his life was
not just cloaked with Catholicism; as a monk, as priest, as teacher of medieval
theology, he was immersed in the Catholic Germany of his age…few [men] were so deeply
involved with Catholicism as was the dynamic Luther.”[32]
O’Meara also points out, “Before his ideas began to change, Luther was imbued with that Marian piety almost natural to the medieval Christian.”[33] William Cole observes, “In the Marian Augustinian atmosphere, Luther was greatly influenced by some of the most influential Marian Saints and writers. Along with Saints Bernard and Anselm, Luther had accepted the Mariology of the Church.”[34] Thus, in a society that was plagued with doctrinal deviations on the popular level, Catholic scholars see Luther’s early Marian piety as normal. Luther himself though, looks back on it and sees Mariolatry.
“A recollection from Luther’s Table Talk verifies the impact medieval
Mariolatry had on the young Martin Luther.
Sometime in 1503, he unintentionally stabbed his shin on a short sword
and cut an artery in his leg. Thinking
himself near death from the wound, he cried out, “Mary, help!” Help indeed arrived, but in the form of a
surgeon who dressed the wound. Later
that evening, the wound broke open again.
The same fear of death gripped him, and Mary was called upon once more
to save his life. Had Mary saved
Luther? The mature Luther looking back
on this experience realized how far from the spiritual help of Christ he
actually was: “I would have died with my trust in Mary.”[35]
O’Meara notes that
Luther’s “revolt” against the Church
was due to “the multiform abuses of
Marian devotion and veneration which drew down Luther’s rebuke; this was what
Luther originally attacked.”[36] What O’Meara fails to
point out is that Luther included himself with those who practiced Mariolatry.
Luther was a “theologically
educated Catholic.” He earned his degrees in the shortest time
possible, and achieved the highest degree possible. During this time he was
sure he had participated in Mariolatry:
“Luther recollected, “Christ in His mercy
was hidden from my eyes. I wanted to become justified before God through the
merits of the saints. This gave rise to
the petition for the intercession of the saints. On a portrait St. Bernard, too, is portrayed adoring the Virgin
Mary as she directs her Son, Christ, to the breasts that suckled Oh, how many
kisses we bestowed on Mary”! Luther
concluded though, that even in St Bernard’s incessant praise of Mary as she
directs the sinner toward Christ, Bernard left out Christ completely: “Bernard
filled a whole sermon with praise of the Virgin Mary and in so doing forgot to
mention what happened [the incarnation of Christ]; so highly did he… esteem
Mary.” Thus, young Luther partook in
Mariolatry, but the mature Luther looking back saw only the excesses of
medieval devotion and teaching on Mary.
He saw that she had been adorned with attributes that only belonged to
Christ.”[37]
Mr. Armstrong shares the same confusion as O’Meara. For Armstrong though, Luther becomes the champion of Marian piety, correcting medieval excess. Armstrong fails to connect Luther’s autobiographical admissions of Mariolatry with his theological reform. Remember, Armstrong’s position is that Luther’s Mariology is essentially Catholic: “it can be stated without fear of contradiction that Luther's Mariology is very close to that of the Catholic Church today, far more than it is to the theology of modern-day Lutheranism.” To substantiate this “Catholic” Luther, “defender of correct Marian piety,” Armstrong at one point says,
“In fact, Martin Luther "praised" Mary and said that she should be honored in his very last sermon at Wittenberg. He understood the difference between veneration and worship, just as Catholics do (and he also strongly criticized excesses in Marian devotion, just as Catholics also do; particularly in Vatican II).”[38]
Armstrong is correct that Luther mentions Mary in his last Wittenberg sermon. Luther did not say or imply though that “Mary should be honored.” I have provided the relevant section from this sermon in this endnote: [39]. Luther’s tone is quite sarcastic, and his main point is that Christ alone should be worshiped. Luther mocks those who would call upon Mary or venerate her. Luther insists that those who seek Christ through Mary do so by the use of “reason,” and “reason is by nature a harmful whore.”[40]
Addressed below (in section IV. C ) is a more detailed explanation of what Luther meant by “praising” Mary, and it will be shown to be fundamentally non-Catholic. However, it is also interesting to note that Luther abandoned the distinctions of latria, dulia, and hyper-dulia. When commenting on Deuteronomy 6:13 Luther said,
“Here
the scholastics have concocted various dreams about dulia, latria, and
hyperdulia. With one and the same word the Hebrew
denotes service toward God and toward men, so that their distinction is useless.
But Moses wants to say this: “Serve Him alone. That is, whatever you do, and
whether you live under the bondage of men or as a manager of affairs, refer it
to Me, and do it in no other name than that you are sure in faith that I alone
am served in this.”[41]
Luther understood that the Latin words latria and dulia were traceable, not only to the New Testament (where they are used synonymously about worship or service to God), but were also used to translate a single Hebrew term where they represent the same idea. For examples of the way Luther used the term “veneration” please see Appendix B.
I do not think Mr. Armstrong can harmonize Vatican II and Luther. In order for Armstrong to substantiate that Luther believed Mary should be venerated rather than worshiped (like a Roman Catholic), Mr. Armstrong must consult Luther and prove he agrees with the following from Vatican II:
“It is supremely fitting . . that we love those friends and fellow heirs of Jesus Christ, who are also our brothers and extraordinary benefactors, that we render due thanks to God for them and suppliantly invoke them and have recourse to their prayers their power and help in obtaining benefits from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is our sole Redeemer and Savior. For by its very nature every genuine testimony of love which we show to those in heaven tends toward and terminates in Christ, who is the 'crown of all saints.' Through Him it tends toward and terminates in God, who is wonderful in His saints and is magnified in them."
“The authentic cult of
saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts but rather in
the intensity of our active love By such love, for our own greater good and
that of the Church, we seek from the saints example in their way of life,
fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession. ... Our communion
with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the more adequate light
of faith, in no way weakens but, conversely, more thoroughly enriches the
supreme worship we give to God the Father through Christ in the Spirit."
E. Christ as Judge, Mary the Merciful
Curiously, Mr. Armstrong
does not comment on my point that during the Middle Ages Christ was viewed as
Judge, while Mary was seen as a great merciful protector, in some instances
“deified.” I noted Luther’s dread of Christ as the severe judge. As historian Robert Fife explains,
[Christ] became a great source of
unhappiness in the cloister…he refers frequently to his conviction that Christ
was indifferent to human woes and must be won over through the intercession of
his mother, the Virgin. The picture of
Christ sitting in judgement on the last day dwelt vividly in his mind, so that
he could not shake off fears connected with it. [Luther said,] 'When I looked on Christ, I saw the Devil: so [I
said], ‘Dear Mary, pray to your Son for me and still His anger.’[42]
The Lutheran and
Catholics in Dialogue scholars noted that,
“Luther was
convinced that the practice of invoking the saints only continued the medieval
tendency to transform Christ the "kindly Mediator" into a
"dreaded Judge" who is to be placated by the intercession of the
saints and Mary, and by a multitude of other rites.”[43]
Hilda Graef explains the
origin of this idea:
“Germanus also was among the first to
teach another doctrine that became a commonplace in medieval preaching and
devotion; namely that Mary turns away God’s anger ‘and the sentence of
damnation, because you love the Christians; refuge of sinners.’…such a division
between God’s just anger and Mary’s mercy was certainly unknown in the earlier
centuries, and is rejected today except as a devotional expression needing
careful explanation.”[44]
Graef notes that some
sixteenth century Catholic apologists tried to deny the Church had allowed the
notion of Christ as Judge / Mary as mercy distinction. The Counter-Reformer St.
Peter Canisius (Jesuit, circa 1597),
“attacks Luther for saying that Catholics
go to Mary rather than to Christ, that they attribute to Christ the realm of
justice and to Mary that of mercy and that the say Mary can command her Son.
But certain preachers actually did say these things; and through the
attribution of their works to such authorities as St. Albert and St.
Bonaventure, these ideas had a tremendous influence”.”[45]
Later Graef discusses
(canonized) Saint Ligouri and notes that Ligouri,
“repeats the medieval idea that Christ is
the king of justice, while he has surrendered all the treasures of his mercy to
his mother. Thus ‘when God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her
protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her son and saves him.”[46]
Similarly, Graef describes
the Seventeenth-Century Catholic writer Adam Widenfeld and his book Wholesome
Advice from the Blessed Virgin to her Indiscreet Worshippers (1673), that
he:
“objected to calling [Mary] omnipotent
and… representing her as the mother of mercy in opposition to God, the severe
Judge. Widenfeld’s book was attacked with incredible violence especially by the
religious orders, though it was approved by several bishops, including the
Archbishop of Cologne. The former, however, obtained its condemnation, and it was
placed on the Index in 1674.”[47]
I would be curious to
see how Mr. Armstrong comes down on this issue, rather than dismissing my
points as “Cardboard Caricatures of
Medieval (and Orthodox Catholic) Marian Piety.” Perhaps current day Catholics would find this
distinction heretical, whereas the Archbishop of Cologne thought the doctrine
so important that he actively went out of his way to attack those denying it.
Ligouri taught it and was canonized. On what basis did those in the Sixteenth
Century decide the orthodoxy of this doctrine?
Admitting that it is not current Catholic doctrine does not help those
in previous centuries who embraced it. During Luther’s day, this distinction
was commonly adhered to. After reviewing Mary’s role as merciful mediator between
humans and the justice of Christ, Giovanni Miegge remarks,
“in substance it
would be impossible to deny that such was the motivation of [medieval] Marian
devotion. When Luther some centuries later, in his joy at having found again a
Christ who was compassionate, painted in gloomy colors the judicial Christ that
had been the incubus of his boyhood, it was easy to accuse him of having
knowingly distorted the reality. But the great advance that Marian devotion
made from the twelfth century onward is the best confirmation of the
substantial truth of his appraisal. Luther recovered the Gospel of the pure
mercy of God in Christ, the Gospel of grace without merit and beyond merit.
With this, without polemics or attacks, he dissipated the doctrine of Mary's
mediating mercy in the new evangelical faith and made it impossible, impossible
because superfluous.”[48]
Miegge also asks a
pertinent question: “Is it not extremely
significant that the only sphere of theology and of Catholic devotion in which
it is possible to speak of a truly free grace, a grace that is not paid for by
some "suitable" merit but is given to unworthy sinners, is the sphere
of Marian piety? How has this happened?”
His answer:
“The answer is
not hard. It is because the Catholic theological and soteriological system,
with its rigid juridical pattern, permits no other way of expression. Christ in
Catholic dogma can no longer be the symbol of a total grace because He remains
the supreme judge, seated on the rainbow, who terrified Luther as a child, and
remains the cold executor of final judgment, painted by Michelangelo in the
Sistine chapel with arm upraised to curse unless the pitying mother stops Him.
If He is not that, He is, inversely, the crucified one, too mysterious and at
the same time too broken by the weight of inexorable divine justice to be truly
the comforter, the friend of every day, the merciful one.”[49]
Mr. Armstrong cites Jaroslav
Pelikan as scholarly proof that Luther used the term “Mother of God.”[50] Ironically, I never
denied that Luther used this term. I
said in section II of my paper, “Unlike
modern Protestants, Luther did not shy away from using the term, “Mother of God,”
and he was fully cognizant of its correct usage.” Mr. Armstrong cites Karl
Barth that Protestants do not reject the term “Mother of God” and see it as a “legitimate expression of Christological
truth.”[51] Unfortunately, Dr.
Barth’s comment has nothing to do with my paper. My paper was about Luther’s
theology of Mary, not what Dr. Barth thinks is an appropriate theological term
for Protestants, nor did I ever deny the usage of the term for modern
Protestants. Rather, I pointed out that it is a term easily misunderstood, and
that Protestants not using it perhaps have a legitimate concern in avoiding
theological confusion.
Mr. Armstrong points out a lack of documentation in regard to my comment that the phrase “Mother of God” evolved in popular usage. Hilda Graef explains that the root of the Fifth Century Theotokos controversy was “Christological, not Mariological.”[52] Jaroslav Pelikan points out “Originally this title too was a way of speaking about Christ.”[53] Giovanni Miegge says
“The first purpose of the title Theotokos is not to
glorify the Virgin Mary but to express in a term clear, impressive and popular
the real divine humanity of Christ. God in Christ is made man in such a precise
and realistic sense that Mary can be called His mother.”[54]
By the Twentieth Century, one
finds the Mother of God praised for her sacrifices and attributes, rather than
Christ’s. The original understanding has been reversed: Mariological, not
Christological. As an example, note the encyclical of Pope Pius XII from1954.
The following excerpts emphasize the greatness of the Mother of God and her
role, rather than Christ:
“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.”
“The Blessed Virgin, sitting at the right hand of
God to pray for us is hailed by another writer of that same era in these words,
"the Queen of mortal man, the most holy Mother of God.”
“And in the eighth century Gregory II in the
letter sent to St. Germanus, the patriarch, and read in the Seventh Ecumenical
Council with all the Fathers concurring, called the Mother of God: "The
Queen of all, the true Mother of God," and also "the Queen of all
Christians.”
“Ardent voices from the East sing out: "O
Mother of God, today thou art carried into heaven on the chariots of the
cherubim, the seraphim wait upon thee and the ranks of the heavenly army bow
before thee."
“From these considerations, the proof develops on these
lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by
God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in
a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source
of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was
accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation," in which a virgin was
instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been
closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that
this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ "in order that she might
become a partner in the redemption of the human race"; and if, in truth,
"it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever
most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal
Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal
love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his
lamentable fall," then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ,
the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but
also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is
queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve,
she was associated with the new Adam.”
“In order to understand better this sublime dignity
of the Mother of God over all creatures let us recall that the holy Mother of
God was, at the very moment of her Immaculate Conception, so filled with grace
as to surpass the grace of all the Saints. Wherefore, as Our Predecessor of
happy memory, Pius IX wrote, God "showered her with heavenly gifts and
graces from the treasury of His divinity so far beyond what He gave to all the
angels and saints that she was ever free from the least stain of sin; she is so
beautiful and perfect, and possesses such fullness of innocence and holiness,
that under God a greater could not be dreamed, and only God can comprehend the
marvel."
“Let all Christians, therefore, glory in being
subjects of the Virgin Mother of God, who, while wielding royal power, is on
fire with a mother's love.”[55]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
“From the most ancient times
the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God’ to whose
protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very
special devotion ...differs essentially from the adoration which is given to
the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly
fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of
God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole
Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.”[56]
Contrast Pius XII and the Catechism with what Protestant apologist James White concludes:
“What is vitally
important is that the term God-bearer as it was used in the creed and as it was
applied to Mary in these controversies [Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon] said
something about the nature of Christ, not the nature of Mary. "Mother of
God" is a phrase that has proper theological meaning only in reference to
Christ. Hence, any use of the term that is not simply saying, ‘Jesus is fully
God, one divine Person with two natures’ is using the term anachronistically,
and cannot claim the authority of the early church for such a usage.”
“…there can be nothing about the term theotokos that in any way exalts Mary but only Christ. Of course, if this is true, then the vast majority of the use of the phrase "Mother of God" in our world today is simply in error. Prayers addressed to "Mother of God" that seek her intercession and ascribe to her power and glory and honor are using the title in a way completely foreign to the biblical truths that gave rise to it in the first place. And the fact that, in general, the term is avoided as improper outside the narrow spectrum in which it speaks to the important truth of the unipersonality of Christ, as well as His full deity, is a testimony to the spiritual sensitivity of believing Christians. We cannot help but conclude that the use of “Mother of God” as a title for Mary that leads to her being seen in quasi-divine categories is nothing but a gross misunderstanding of the true relationship between the blessed virgin of Nazareth and the eternal God who sent the eternal Son to be born of her.”[57]