21 December 2007

Some Provocative Quotes on Our Lord's Blessed Birth

"She is blessed above all other women, not only because she gave birth without labor, pain, and injury to herself, not as Eve and all other women, but because by the Holy Spirit and without sin she became fertile, conceived, and gave birth in a way granted to no other woman." - Martin Luther, Personal Prayer Book 1521 (and reprinted throughout his life), AE 43:40.

"Now, although Mary was not required to do this - the law of Moses having no claim over her, for she had given birth without pain and her virginity remained unsullied - nevertheless, she kept quiet, and submitted herself to the common law of all women and let herself be accounted unclean. She was without doubt a pure, chaste virgin before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth, and was neither sick nor weakened from the birth, and could certainly have gone out of the house after giving birth, not only because of her exemption from the Law, but also because of the uninterrupted soundness of her body." - Martin Luther, preached at the parish church in 1541 on the Eve of the Circumcision, House Postil III:256.

"He employed this mode of presence when He left the closed grave and came through the closed door, in the bread and wine in the Supper, and, as people believe, when He was born in His mother." 1577, SD VII:100

"He showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, because He was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she is truly the mother of God and yet has remained a virgin." 1577, SD VIII:24

18 comments:

Unknown said...

Fr. Weedon,

Thanks for the provocative post :-)I think I understand why they would be provocative within contemporary Lutheranism -- even though it's simply confessional -- but it also helps me refine my responses to those who hold on to a more Reformed or Sacramentarian view of the Blessed Sacrament; it's very much a matter of Christology. I'm still working my way through the BOC... It appears to me His Blessed Birth for us makes possible His Blessed Presence where He gives Himself to us.

Thanks.

Pax,

Omar

Christopher Esget said...

I've long been embarrassed by what I am about to reveal (which sadly has been couple with a laziness to look into the matter by myself): I do not understand why this is important. This is not a challenge, but a genuine question from a simple pastor: What am I missing? Why is this significant?

William Weedon said...

Dear Pastor Esget,

Nothing to be embarrassed about. It's usefulness, as far as it goes, is indicated by Omar: it flushes out Nestorianism. A person who holds a Cyrillian (i.e., true and Orthodox) Christology won't bat an eye over it, but may not see what the big deal is. But a Nestorian leaning person will challenge the very possibility of such a thing as destroying our Lord's humanity. From the Lutheran perspective, the Supper and the Incarnation tend to run hand in hand - when someone denies the possibility of the Lord's Body and Blood being in the Supper truly and actually, it is quite often a person who disbelieves it was even possible for our Lord to use a manner of presence to pass from the womb leaving the Blessed Virgin still exactly as she was. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Christopher Esget said...

That does make perfect sense. I'm a big fan of the illocal presence. So, to let the conversation play out, How does one respond to the objection that the closed womb is not found in the nativity narratives (at least, not that I have grasped yet)?

William Weedon said...

Well, is it denied there? The whole approach to the Church's tradition comes into play - where Lutherans received what had come before and rejected only what was contrary to the Sacred Scriptures. The so-called "catholic principle."

William Weedon said...

Oh, one more thing: I remember Dr. Rosin explaining how the early Lutherans were convinced it was in the Isaiah prophesy: for it is a Virgin who not only a conceives, but precisely *a Virgin* who bears a Son. Though Luther himself discounted this passage as applicable, early Church fathers referred to Isaiah 66:7,8.

Christopher Esget said...

That's a great way to look at it. I will meditate on these things. Thank you.

mlorfeld said...

Pastor,
While I certainly understand your point about what you call the "catholic principle," Scripture does in fact stay silent on the matter. So while we cannot reject it, we also cannot dogmatically assert it either. While acknowledging the long history that this belief has been held is it not proper to be silent with Scripture on this (with regards to speaking doctrinally)?

William Weedon said...

Much depends, Matt, on whether or not you consider Isaiah 66 to have answered the question. (One does note the tension, for example, with Revelation 12). Dr. Luther seems not to have treated it as a matter of uncertainty at all, but from the pulpit proclaims it as undoubtedly true. That at least should give a modern Lutheran pause - which was why I cited the quotes.

mlorfeld said...

Pastor,
You make a good point. On a similar note, one might question why the prophesy in Isaiah 7 must be seen as Messianic, considering that it had immediate applicability to Ahaz... then along comes Matthew 1 and puts uncertainty to rest.

Unfortunately there is no such cross reference for Is. 66... but as you bring it up, I can certainly see how it can be interpreted in much the same way as Is. 7.

As to whether or not Mary suffered child-pain, this still seems to be somewhat of an open question. If one opines that Mary did have a painful birth, it does not necessarily mean a rejection of orthodox Christology, though you make a good point that it should cause one to bat an eye. The same Christ who came into the room with the disciples that Easter day could similarly pass through the womb of His mother. Still I find some relief that we can say "I don't know."

William Weedon said...

Matt,

Hand in hand with your observations, then, is the question of whether the NT intended to provide a definitive number of "fulfillments" or to set forth the pattern of interpreting the OT prophesies so that "these are they which speak of Me." I opt for the later and do not believe that we are bound simply to what the NT declares to be in fulfillment.

mlorfeld said...

Pastor,
Oh certainly! After all, I'm a St. Louis Seminarian. We like our typology. But that also means I'm a son of a son of Sasse.

The open issue on this is in what way Is. 66 speaks to Christ. Is it speaking to the manner of Christ's birth, is it speaking to the grand narrative of salvation, is it doing something else that I can't think of at 5:30 in the morning?

Unknown said...

This is good stuff :-)

I'm still learning about Lutheranism. The Lord passing through the Virgin's womb in the same manner as when he passed through the closed grave and the closed door after the Resurrection is something I was not completely aware of.
However, I would think that one cannot see this view apart from the belief that the Virgin was devoid of actual sin (though still conceived in original sin) How God chose to send His Son to us is, then, much larger an issue than whether or not Mary experienced pain at childbirth. What kind of vessel would God want to bring about the Incarnation?

Lots of question from a neophyte... :-) But not inappropriate for this time of year, I think.

Pax

William Weedon said...

Omar,

Yes, you hit on exactly the train of thought that led to confessing a painless birth - the conviction that the curse of Eve did not apply to the Blessed Virgin because of the Holy Spirit's filling her, cleansing her, and because of the nature of her miraculous conception. A most blessed Nativity to you, my friend!

WM Cwirla said...

Awaking early to ponder the mystery of the Word made Flesh, I too must confess to sharing in Pr. Esget's bemusement over this strange teaching.

While I will grant that it is mentioned in passing in our Confessions and was held by many a church father, including our own Father Luther, I fail to see the connection to Nestorianism. How does one, by believing the birth of our Lord to have occurred in the ordinary manner of all human births de facto deny the personal union of the two natures of Christ? How does an ordinary birth make Mary less the Mother of God? Is Christ not our Substitute under the Law? Is He not like us in every way except without sin? Does He not fully participate in our humanity? Why must we make HIs birth something exceptional to our own? It is His conception that is exceptional, according to the Scriptures.

The holy evangelist St. Luke, a physician known for using technical language in his version of the Gospel, states nothing out of the ordinary about the birth. "She gave birth to her firstborn son...." What is unusual, and a sign for the shepherds, is that this Son is laid in a manger.

I find the "typology" used to justify the notion that our Lord was born from a closed womb to be forced and highly allegorical. Instead of Nestorianism, I smell the aroma of Platonic idealism and the Greek discomfort with the material world, especially as it pertains to the body.

I'm sensing a bit of the "piling on" phenomenon that occurs when we are not content to say what the Scriptures say but must add a bit of our own to whomp things up a bit it. As Eve put it in that fateful sentence, "We must not eat of it, nor even touch it." The old Adam is a natural born Platonist.

Unknown said...

Hmmm...

Rev. Cwirla (and others) bring up a good point.
If we grant that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin (even if she might still be spared from actual sin) ,is it not possible for her to have experienced the pains of childbirth? Isn't that one of the consequences of the fall apart from actual sin by the descendants of Adam and Eve?
A painful childbirth, I agree, does not necessarily deny the union of natures in Christ.

As far as Platonic idealims goes, I think the old Adam is either a natural born Platonist or a natural born hedonist. St.Paul addressed both in his letters, I believe.

Like I've said: good stuff :-)

My questions might be a lot but I'm still learning...please, bear with me.

Pax

Enjoy your Christmas day!

William Weedon said...

Pastor Cwirla,

Bah! Humbug! ;)

Not a bit of platonism running (or ruining) the question. Rather the joyful recognition that we can't and dare not lay our prescriptions of what "true humanity" are on our Lord (which is essentially what Nestorianism ends up doing) and instead recognize that, to quote our dear favorite Dr.: "He alone knows what it is to be human; He alone is." We're all fragments; He's the whole.

So if, as people believe, He chose to pass through the womb without injuring His blessed Mother's virginity, that makes Him not one bit less human. It just shows what humanity can be when it is taken into union with the Deity. We remember that He wills for us to become by grace all that He is by nature!

But with that, I wish you, my dear friend, a most blessed Feast of the Lord's Nativity - I hope that the joy of the Day lightens all your life and ministry!

Unknown said...

I will do more research on this topic... Fr. Weedon, I have downloaded a paper on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother off your congregation's web site. It should help shed some more light on the matter.

(Wheels in the head turning... :-))

Have a joyful St.Stephen's commemoration