Protestants and the Marian Doctrine

Abstract

PROTESTANTS AND THE MARIAN DOCTRINE IN this study an important place is accorded the comparison between sixteenth century and contemporary Protestantism . At the very outset ·it will be noticed how different these positions are. This difference is all the more evident from a comparison of the thought of Luther with that of contemporary Calvinism. I believe that on this point Hebert Roux represents the average contemporary Calvinist attitude. He writes: " To the question, ' What place does the Virgin Mary hold in reformed piety?,' we can and must reply with firmness, 'None whatever.'" 1 This position, moreover, may be considered as the logical outcome of the very principles of the Reformation. We shall see, however, that at the beginning of the Reformation the position was less radical, especially in the mind of Luther. Indeed, we may speak of Luther's Marian devotion, despite his denial of fundamental 'elements of Catholic theology concerning Mary. LUTHER In his commentary on the M agnificat, in the explanation of the verse, " The Almighty has done great things for me," Luther writes: " These great things are just this, that she has become the Mother of God. So great and numerous are the bless.ings which have been bestowed upon her by this event, that no one can comprehend them. All honor and happiness flow from it, as likewise the fact that in all mankind, one person ah:me is above all others, to whom no one may be held equal, since a unique Child, and what a Child, is the Son of the Heavenly Father and also her very own. Therefore, the honor due her can be summed up in a single word, by calling her the 1 Jean Bose, P~re Bourguet, Pierre Maury, and Hebert Roux, Le protestantisme et la Vierge Marie, Paris, 1950, p. 8. 480 PROTESTANTS AND THE MARIAN DOC'l'RINE 481 Mother of God.... No one could say to her anything more grand. Nothing greater can be said of her." 2 The tone of this passage is striking, so far removed is it from the reserve of the average contemporary Protestant position. As far as Luther is concerned, Mariology is shaped by two principles, Christus solus and Scriptura sola. But within this framework Luther seeks to give Mary a real place. In the name of his Christological principle Luther rejects the cult which acknowledges Mary as "Queen of Heaven." For this reason he cannot tolerate the Salve Regina. How could one possibly say that Mary is " our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope"? The Regina Caeli ought also to be discarded. To call Mary " Queen of Heaven is to attribute to a creature that which belongs to God alone." 3 Speaking of Mary, Luther continues, " I accept the fact that she prays for me, but that she is my consolation and my life, this I cannot admit." 4 Mary's merits may not even be considered. According to Luther the angel's salutation, " Thou hast found grace with God," does away with the idolatry of placing Mary on a level with God Himself. All that Mary has is grace, not merit. No confidence may be placed in Mary or in her merits, but in God alone. In the devotional order we must reject the distinction between dulia and hyperdulia, which is " man-made thought without basis in Holy Scripture." 3 Attributing to a creature the exercise of divine mercy is, on Luther's part, cause for great indignation. The rebuff at the wedding of Cana serves precisely the role of stressing that Christ alone is Mediator. With polemic excess, Luther does not hesitate to say that all Christians are of the same rank. Peter is no greater than the thief on the cross, and the Mother no higher in dignity than the sinner, Mary Magdalene.6 •Cf. R. Schimmelpfennig, Die Geschichte der Maienverehrung im deutschen Proteatantismus, Paderborn, 195!it, p. l!it. •Cf. Schimmelpfennig, op. cit., p. 9. •Ibid. •Cf. Schimmelpfennig, op. cit., p. 10. •Cf. Schimmelpfennig, op. cit., p. 11. 482 JEROME HAMER In accord with his Scriptural principle, Luther remarks that Holy Scripture is purposely silent concerning Saint Ann, precisely in order to avoid our going elsewhere to...