The Reformers and Mary

Another excellent blogspot.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/historical-popularity-of-roman-catholic.html
The Historical Popularity Of The Roman Catholic View Of Mary

The issue of the popularity of the Roman Catholic view of Mary came up in another thread.

There was widespread opposition to the Catholic view of Mary in early post-apostolic church history. The Catholic view of her, in its entirety, isn't found in any extant document of the earliest centuries, despite agreement with some aspects of the Catholic view among some sources. I have several articles on early Christian views of Mary here. We've discussed the mother of God issue in the comments section of the thread here.

Concerning the Protestant reformers, it's true that some of the early Protestants, such as Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, held a much higher view of Mary than most Protestants do today. But the extent and significance of that early Protestant agreement with the Roman Catholic view of Mary is often misrepresented.The Catholic Marian scholar Michael O'Carroll notes that Martin Luther was "not wholly consistent" in his beliefs about Mary (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 227).

O'Carroll writes that Luther "underwent a certain development in his ideas, and we must not forget that, up to his middle thirties, he had accepted - though with some questioning - traditional Catholic ideas and practice in this area" (p. 227). Though Luther was "emphatic on the divine motherhood" and "true to Catholic tradition on the virginity" (p. 227), for example, he also "talked of the danger of making Mary into an idol, even a 'goddess.' The 'papists' have done so....Of the feast of the Assumption, he had said: 'The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry, and without foundation in the Scriptures.' He even said that he would keep the Visitation to 'remind us that the [Papists] taught us apostasy.' The Salve Regina, Europe's most powerful Marian hymn, he dismissed. It said too much." (p. 228)

However, O'Carroll gives examples of other comments Luther made that were more positive toward Roman Catholic Marian beliefs, sometimes in a seemingly inconsistent manner.O'Carroll says much the same about Ulrich Zwingli (p. 378). Like Luther, he seems to have accepted most of the view of Mary that was popular in his day, and he seems to have been inconsistent. Despite some positive comments about popular Roman Catholic Marian belief, Zwingli also "was against all invocation of Mary. He denied, on the Reformation principle of sola gracia, all merit on Mary's part and any power of mediation or intercession on our behalf. He waged war on all images." (p. 378)

O'Carroll describes John Calvin's view as much closer to that of modern Protestants. Calvin condemns the "gross and abominable superstitions" in the Roman Catholic view of Mary (p. 94). He comments that "their insane raving went so far that they just about stripped Christ and adorned her with the spoils" (p. 94). Calvin wrote, "It is they who do Mary a cruel injury when they snatch from God what belongs to him, that they may deform her with false praise." (p. 94)

He criticizes Marian relics, and he "held that Mary was the Mother of God...Yet he scarcely used the title Mother of God and, in a letter to the Calvinist community of London, he discouraged its use. 'To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition.'" (p. 94)

Calvin "rejects totally the Immaculate Conception (qv) as he does the Assumption (qv). He thought that the latter feast had one advantage - Catholics thinking that Mary had been assumed bodily could not worship her relics....Invocation of Mary he forbids....He brands all invocation of the Virgin execrable blasphemy. He attacks, too, holy images of any kind, therefore of Our Lady, calling them idols" (pp. 94-95). Calvin believed that "Mary will take her revenge, on the last day, on those of whom she is the 'mortal enemy', the Papists" (p. 94).

2 comment(s):
Dominic Bnonn Tennant said:
'To speak of the Mother of God instead of the Virgin Mary can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstition.'

I'm glad to see I'm in good company.

11/05/2009 5:45 PM
Viisaus said:

A Victorian-era high-church Anglican writer Richard Littledale provides us an interesting "argument for silence" - in the pre-Nicene era, writers gave Mary no more attention than was given to her in the Scriptures:

http://www.archive.org/details/plainreasonsaga00littgoogPlain Reasons Against Joining The Church of Rome, pp. 68-69

"1. In the ante-Nicene period, the following extant writers never so much as name St. Mary at all; St. Barnabas, St. Hermas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,^ St. Firmilian, St. Dionysius, Arnobius, and St. Methodius.^

2. St. Justin Martyr mentions her twice in connexion with the Nativity, and once with the flight into Egypt. St. Clement of Alexandria once touches on her virgin childbearing. Tertullian mentions her four times, once in connexion with the Nativity, once merely to defend the occasional interchangeableness of the words "woman" and "Virgin" by showing that both are applied to her (" De Veland. Virg." vi.), but twice actually to charge her with lack of belief and with seeking to call Christ away from His work (De Carne Christi, vii. ; Adv. Marc. iv. 19), thereby arousing His indignation. Origen, very similarly, names the Blessed Virgin but casually a couple of times, and in the one place where he goes more into detail, he explains the sword of Simeon's prophecy to be unbelieving doubt, whereby she was offended at the Passion. "Through thine own soul .... shall the sword of unbelief pierce; and thou shalt be struck with the sharp point of doubt" ("Hom. in Lucam," xvil) St Archelaus defends the Virgin-birth against Manes, and incidentally touches on the message to our Lord regarding His Mother and brethren. St Cyprian casually names her once as Mother of Christ (Epist Ixxii., aL Ixxiii). There remain only two passages from which any conclusion can be drawn; The first of these is in St Irenaeus, where he says that St. Mary's obedience counterbalances Eve's disobedience, so that she has become the "advocate" of Eve. ("Adv. Haer." V. xix.) We have only the barbarous Latin translation here, and cannot tell exactly what the Saint wrote or intended,^ but we have his mind plainly enough expressed in another place, where he speaks of Christ having "checked the inseasonable haste of His Mother at Cana." ("Adv. Haer." III. xvi.) The other is in a fragment of St Peter of Alexandria, where he styles St. Mary "glorious Lady, and ever-Virgin." Clearly, nothing in these scanty details supplies the justification sought for."