John's Gospel & Epistles

Rufus,

Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, that she was the Mother of God, and that she prays for the church. These are attested to in the Lutheran Confessions. Confessional Lutheran churches simply ignore these.

God bless,

Grant

 

Revelation 12.

God bless,

Grant

 

GraceSaves, are the Lutheran Confessions and Luther's Confession identical?

God Bless

rufus

 

I'm referring to both, here.

In saying "Luther believed" I am referring to his own personal writings.

However, the Lutheran Confessions, which are the confessional teachings of the church, state that Mary was "always a virgin," they refer to "always holy," state that she "prays for the church," and is "most worthy of the most ample honors."

I have a copy of all of the texts of the confessions and have looked them up, to verify that they are there. You can find these in the Book of Concordia, which can be downloaded from the LCMS website: http://www.lcms.org/

God bless,

Grant

 

Early in his life Martin Luther fell on his dagger, cutting an artery. "Mary, help!" he called. Reared in a medieval Roman Catholic piety, it was natural for him to call on the Virgin Mary and other saints.

Later he saw things differently. The year before he died, Luther said a "flagrant manner filled everything [in the church of his era] with the idolatrous worship of the saints.... And Mary was worshiped by all as a mediatrix and helper in all necessities."

Why did people flee from Christ to Mary? Luther saw a root of the problem in St. Bernard, who suggested "Christ is given to scolding and punishing, but Mary has nothing but sweetness and love." Thus, Luther noted, "People learned to say: 'Dear Mary, step forward in my behalf!' "

The Scriptures always point to Christ as the one who saves. Luther characteristically said: "Oh, how many kisses we bestowed on Mary! But she did not redeem and save me."

Luther honored Mary but came to see who she really was.

rufus

 

ruf,

Why did ML leave the Hail Mary in his prayer book? Do you say it or is it blasphemous? Just curious.

As for Bernard being the root of it, due to that quote, there are marian prayers from as early as the third century that at recorded. That does not mean there were not any before that. Epiphanaus had extensive writings about Mary also in the 5th century. It is unlikely that it was anything new to speak this way of her as there was no outcry against them and they were embraced by the Church. (by the way where were the Lutherans back then?)


As for the quote from St. Bernard, I would certainly like to see the context which I am sure you cannot provide. If it comes from Luther you take it at face value. I am looking for it on the web. It may well be that he sees the embracing of the crosses in life as difficult, while saying a prayer, asking Jesus mother to interceed for him is the gentler route. Crosses come from Jesus you know. It doesn't mean that he does not love us, but rather that he does. They aide in our sanctificatoin. I am quite sure that St. Bernard embraced his crosses in life and knows where they come from. I am just speculating of course. Context is always important. It would also be interesting to see what else Bernard said about Jesus and Mary to see if he was really an idol worhipping Mariolater as you make him out to be, rather than focusing on one out of context statement. I will post more if I can find the actual quote.


"Why did people flee from Christ to Mary? "


Well if this is what you think the rosary is about you need to look a little deeper. The rosary is a meditation on Christ's life, death, and ressurection. So Luther was wrong. It is not either or just as it is not either Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2:20) are the foundatoin of the Church or Jesus (1 Cor 3:11). It is Jesus through the Prophets and apostles.

The Scriptures always point to Christ as the one who saves. Luther characteristically said: "Oh, how many kisses we bestowed on Mary! But she did not redeem and save me."

Well if you think Catholicism says that Mary saves you just haven't been listening. All is the grace of Christ. Grace alone.

"Luther honored Mary but came to see who she really was."

Repeat after me... Hail Mary full of grace. Hey if it is good enough to be in Luther's prayer book I would think you would jump on it.

[ February 14, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Curtis,

This is a very interesting response. The Aposle Paul in Chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians reprimands the corinthians for standing by while a man is living with his Mother in Law. Scandals are rebuked by John in far away lands in Rev 2 and 3. Why would they care if they took your approach to this, if they somehow did not see themselves as connected to the Christians in Corinth or Sardis or Ephuses or Philledelphia. Yet, Curtis's approach is that other baptists in other parts of the world have nothing to do with me. You should be scandalized by it. There should be an outcry. Instead you say it ain't happenin in my Church. That is a head in the sand arguement if every I heard one. Do you know that the Body of Christ is Curtis? Do you know what it means to be in communion with o other Churches? Read Romans 12 and 1 Cor 12 and then get back to me.

Oh and later you say that we don't have a reason why John didn't write about the assumption in his epistles. Many were given in the beginning of this thread. I suppose though, you feel under no obligation to note that.

 

Thessalonian said:

Christian brother, how can one be quite SURE and SPECULATING at the same time. lol.

Sorry to be nickpicking. God Bless.

Type into your web browser: Martin Luther and Virgin Mary. Many links come up. Happy hunting.

rufus

 

Rufus,

I'm well aware that Martin Luther changed some of his opinions before his death. However, he did not alter the Lutheran Confessions, on which that church is built (Augsburg Confession, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Smalcald Articles, etc). The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod preaches that they are UAC (Unaltered Augsburg Confession). That means no changes or cropping of the text. And the Marian things are still in there.

God bless,

Grant

 

Christian brother, how can one be quite SURE and SPECULATING at the same time. lol.

Sorry to be nickpicking. God Bless.


Type into your web browser: Martin Luther and Virgin Mary. Many links come up. Happy hunting.

rufus </font>[/QUOTE]No problem. The speculating comment was with regard to reconciling Bernard's comment about Jesus and Mary, not about whether or not he embraced his crosses, as that is a must for anyone who is in a religous order. Does that help.

What I want to find is Bernard's actual writing. I have found a few places where Luther quotes it but would like to see the context. No luck so far.

 

Here is a reading from a homily by St Bernard on our Lady: http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/stbernard/default.htm

Blessed Mary! She lacks neither humility nor virginity. And what unique virginity. Motherhood did not stain but honoured it. What extraordinary humility. Fruitful virginity did not tarnish but exalted it. And matchless fruitfulness went hand in hand with both virginity and humility. Which of them is not incomparable? Which is not unique? I should not be at all surprised if, having meditated upon them, you hesitated to say which you find more praiseworthy, whether you think more amazing the fruitfulness in the virgin or the integrity in the mother; nobility in child-bearing or, in spite of such nobility, humility. Possibly it is more blessed than if she had received only one of them. And yet, is it so extraordinary that God whom we read and see to be wonderful in his saints (Ps.68:35), should show himself even more wonderful in his mother?

You who are married, then, reverence the integrity of her flesh amid frail flesh. And you, consecrated virgins, admire the virgin's fruitfulness. Let all strive to imitate the humility of the Mother of God. Holy angels, revere the mother of your King, you who worship our humble virgin's child, for he is your King and ours, the restorer of our race, the builder of your city. Angels, allow us men to join with you in singing worthy praise of his highness and his lowliness, he who with you is so sublime and yet with us so humble. To him be honour and glory for evermore. Amen.

Also check out the following: www.fcsn.k12.nd.us/Shanley/broanth/bernard.htm

rufus

 

Curtis

Why did John not specifically mention Mary's assumption in the Gospel or his episles.

This type of speculation is futile but even you gave a few reasons why and we could explore other reasons

You said you could see other Gospels/Epistles leaving them out being that they were written in 50 -70 AD. How do you know you have the dating right for John's work (see my post in millenial views) your dating of 85-96 AD relies one one quote which can be interpreted many ways from a man not known for historical accuracy or consitency, the same guy also once said Jesus died at the age of 50. Is this the Gospel truth.

So I agree with you if Mary hadn't died by then that would be an excellent reason to not include it in either of those books.

Even if you stubbornly refuse to hold on to your dates of 85-95 for his books ad how much older is John than Mary 15-20 yrs is it possible that Mary was still alive, yes.

Secondly you ignore what scripture commands us to do

2 Thes 2:15 hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter.

John showed Mary great honor in the Gospel and Revelation ie in Rev 12 showing her crowned in heaven, the mother of all who keep the commandments, as well reminding us Jesus told us that Mary was John's mother at the foot of the cross, quite a connection. Maybe with all the Honor he showed her being crowned in heaven etc it was not necessary to say exactly how God brought her there. How do you expect to get to heaven other than God bringing you there?

But maybe some inquisitive guy like yourself simply asked John how Mary ended up in heaven as described in Rev 12.

Also the cannon of scripture is closed but you also assume we have all of John's epistles and that they are in scripture. This is not a valid assumption.

For example we do not include Paul's letter to the Laocedians in scripture because we don't have it. Eventhough he wanted it read in conjuction with his letter to the Col. (unless you believe the apocrphyl versions of it)

Col 4:16
Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

You are free to follow this everyman for himself interpretation of scripture without any Tradition or Church authority, I will follow the biblical example of Scripture, Tradition and the Church.

God Bless

[ February 15, 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

 

Rufus,

I don't see any problem with that quote at all. Are you posting it because you think it is somehow blaspehmous or sets Mary up as a God. You really would have to work hard to prove that. It is quite apparent that the gifts bernard attributes to Mary he sees as coming from God and he exalts God over this.

I did not say I couldn't find any of bernard on the net by the way. I cannot find the quote that Luther thinks is so damnable however.