The confession heard 'round the world!

Bonnie

Super Member
Interestingly (at least to me), I may have actually found a scan of Luther's own penmanship of this section, see this link. I can't make any of it out. He wrote some of the document, but dictated some of it due to kidney stones (as per the link in my previous post).

Edited to add: Here is the German text. The phrase in question is "und von der reinen heiligen Jungfrauen Maria." Luther's typical later view is that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. It was not adherence to the Roman error of the immaculate conception. The phrase though that's left out is "ever virgin." (und von der reinen heiligen Jungfrauen Maria geboren sei . Danach gelitten , gestorben, begraben , zur Hölle gefahren).
Thanks Tertium! I appreciate it!
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
That isn't what Luther wrote. As per Jaroslav Pelikan (who is not a member of the CARM forums due to being a lot smarter than all of us here and also being dead), the Latin text of the Smalcald Articles is a translation of the original German text. The original German text did not contain the notion of "Mary, pure, holy, and ever-Virgin" (ex Maria pura, sancta, Semper Virgine.) See his comments in his book, Mary Through the Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 158-159.

Some years back I interacted with one of Rome's defenders, who, in essence thought the German versions of the Smalcald Articles were engaging in a Marian cover-up. Here we see that the actual historical distortion is attributing the Latin text to Luther's German. The question though is why did the Latin text use "ex Maria pura, sancta, Semper Virgine"?

Why was the Latin was translated “Mary, pure, holy, and Ever-Virgin”? Perhaps the the translator used the phrase as a force of habit (as it was a common phrase). Perhaps the translator believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. It could also be that the Smalcald princes thought the phrase would gain more in a hearing with the Papacy? It’s also possible that the sense of “pure” was only to indicate that Mary was a “real creature or truly human” [See: Heiko Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation (Michigan: WB Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994) 241.] which was a sense in which this word was used in the 16th century.

Details of the Latin translation / translator can be found here (see the discussion starting on page 332). The Latin translator "fell into disrepute" as per "evinced Roman Catholic leanings."

And now you know... the rest of the story!

Edited to add: The thrust of my comments is not to deny Luther's adherence to Mary's perpetual virginity. The above should be read with the emphasis on the notion of the immaculate conception: a Roman deviation which Luther did ascribe to early in his career, but later rejected.
Thanks! Good stuff.

In true Touche Turtle style I would like to ask Mr. Not-this-and-not-that what string you searched on to find that article at ctsfw? Thanks.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Thanks! Good stuff.

In true Touche Turtle style I would like to ask Mr. Not-this-and-not-that what string you searched on to find that article at ctsfw? Thanks.
Um... I think I used "Smalcald articles" and "latin" or perhaps I used the German title + Latin.

begin preaching to the choir:

In essence, I think it's really a quibbling point. Luther used words like "pure" and "holy" in regard to Mary not to indicate her lifelong sinlessness, and for whatever reason, his very German text left out perpetual virginity (which the Latin text added). Luther's emphasis, even in the Smalcald Articles is typically not on Mary, but rather Jesus. It's only those fixated on Mary that shift Luther's emphasis and attempt to raise debate.

end, about face.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Um... I think I used "Smalcald articles" and "latin" or perhaps I used the German title + Latin.

begin preaching to the choir:

In essence, I think it's really a quibbling point. Luther used words like "pure" and "holy" in regard to Mary not to indicate her lifelong sinlessness, and for whatever reason, his very German text left out perpetual virginity (which the Latin text added). Luther's emphasis, even in the Smalcald Articles is typically not on Mary, but rather Jesus. It's only those fixated on Mary that shift Luther's emphasis and attempt to raise debate.

end, about face.
Thanks. Searching the net isn't a strong suit.

And the choir says, "Amen."

Baptism is yet another reason Mary and the saints don't have the role in the lives of the faithful which the Papcy and the Orthodox have been trying to assign them.
 

Nic

Well-known member
No, it is not. Do you know logic at all?

That's logical...

Yet you spouted.

Not impressed.
Hi Woody🙂
An observation:
I find it curious that you mention your response isn't a non-sequitar, but then immediately agree to the afforded reasoning behind the charge.
Maybe you see something I don't see, but that's my initial impression, thanks.

Nic
 

Woody50

Well-known member
Hi Woody🙂
An observation:
I find it curious that you mention your response isn't a non-sequitar, but then immediately agree to the afforded reasoning behind the charge.
Maybe you see something I don't see, but that's my initial impression, thanks.

Nic
It's "non sequitur" for future reference.

Thanks for Googling that...you're learning.

I'm interested. How is my post a non sequitur? I don't mean to be insulting here, but you need to learn more before you answer.

Thanks for your calm and thoughtful reply. I await your answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Bonnie

Super Member
LOL.

Okay.

Your synod is irrelevant. Does that work?
This is the Lutheran board and what I posted in the OP came from my Lutheran synod. So, how can my synod be irrelevant on this Lutheran board? I was also citing where the quote came from, as per the rules. I hope you get it, now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

BJ Bear

Well-known member
It's "non sequitur" for future reference.

Thanks for Googling that...you're learning.

I'm interested. How is my post a non sequitur? I don't mean to be insulting here, but you need to learn more before you answer.

Thanks for your calm and thoughtful reply. I await your answer.
Non sequitur is Latin for it doesn't follow. Simply put your initial reply didn't follow from the post. The post was not about what does Woody50 care about.

The post is on the board of Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings, that is the statement that caused the hubbub almost five hundred years ago, and since the post did not advocate something over scripture your question didn't follow.

Take your own advice about learning.
 
Last edited:

Woody50

Well-known member
This is the Lutheran board and what I posted in the OP came from my Lutheran synod. So, how can my synod be irrelevant on this Lutheran board? I was also citing where the quote came from, as per the rules. I hope you get it, now.
Speaks volumes. Thanks.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Speaks volumes. Thanks.
Well for me, it demonstrates the setting for the conversation and in doing so offering what a Lutheran synod may offer in the way of a sermon seems not only fair but expected. I think the challenge then should be, how does the sermon either stack up or not with the biblical witness in mind rather than simply stating your synod doesn't matter.
My two pesos.🙂

Nic
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Today to the very date is the 500th anniversary of Luther's "Here I stand!" confession of faith before the Diet of Worms, in Germany. Luther could NOT recant what he had found in Scripture, which the RCC had buried under centuries of man-made doctrines, like Indulgences and Purgatory. He said his conscience was "captive to the word of God." His conscience was submissive to God's holy word, the Bible. NOT to the Pope.

This is part of a blurb about this in our bulleting this Sunday:



Our synod put out a sermon all pastors could use today, based on this 'here I stand" which our pastor used, though he tweaked it a bit, to bring in the OT message. But I noticed that, while the sermon did mention Luther, it was only peripherally. Instead, the sermon brought in how God worked through Luther to bring the true Gospel message to all, preaching the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake on account of His finished work on the cross and His great love for us. NOT on the basis of works we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy!

Luther just jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Nothing to celebrate.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Well for me, it demonstrates the setting for the conversation and in doing so offering what a Lutheran synod may offer in the way of a sermon seems not only fair but expected. I think the challenge then should be, how does the sermon either stack up or not with the biblical witness in mind rather than simply stating your synod doesn't matter.
My two pesos.🙂

Nic
Inflation. Soon it will be my dos dollares. ☺️
 

Maxtar

Active member
Today to the very date is the 500th anniversary of Luther's "Here I stand!" confession of faith before the Diet of Worms, in Germany. Luther could NOT recant what he had found in Scripture, which the RCC had buried under centuries of man-made doctrines, like Indulgences and Purgatory. He said his conscience was "captive to the word of God." His conscience was submissive to God's holy word, the Bible. NOT to the Pope.

This is part of a blurb about this in our bulleting this Sunday:



Our synod put out a sermon all pastors could use today, based on this 'here I stand" which our pastor used, though he tweaked it a bit, to bring in the OT message. But I noticed that, while the sermon did mention Luther, it was only peripherally. Instead, the sermon brought in how God worked through Luther to bring the true Gospel message to all, preaching the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake on account of His finished work on the cross and His great love for us. NOT on the basis of works we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy!
So he quickly set about tearing up the Bible and from there it went from one to many, all with their own take on things.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
So he quickly set about tearing up the Bible and from there it went from one to many, all with their own take on things.
That is an ahistorical take. Luther translated as many books as are in the longest canon. That means more books than the canon which the Papacy settled on at Trent.

If you do read Trent then you will also find that in a house keeping session because of the multiplicity of varying Latin translations they named an authoritative version, and to bring order to the almost anything goes world of Roman Catholic allegorical interpretation they claimed that Rome has the authoritative interpretation.

There is enough mud to go around for everybody.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Today to the very date is the 500th anniversary of Luther's "Here I stand!" confession of faith before the Diet of Worms, in Germany. Luther could NOT recant what he had found in Scripture, which the RCC had buried under centuries of man-made doctrines, like Indulgences and Purgatory. He said his conscience was "captive to the word of God." His conscience was submissive to God's holy word, the Bible. NOT to the Pope.

This is part of a blurb about this in our bulleting this Sunday:



Our synod put out a sermon all pastors could use today, based on this 'here I stand" which our pastor used, though he tweaked it a bit, to bring in the OT message. But I noticed that, while the sermon did mention Luther, it was only peripherally. Instead, the sermon brought in how God worked through Luther to bring the true Gospel message to all, preaching the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake on account of His finished work on the cross and His great love for us. NOT on the basis of works we have done in righteousness, but on account of His mercy!

What is the diet of worms?
 
Top