M02: The Melanchthon Conundrum; “Slight doubts [from] Church Fathers.”; list of LC-MS opponents (2 of 28)

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C. F. W. Walther's 1876 essay “The ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.” — Walther opens with a statement of the complexities in trying to assess the theology and behavior of Philip Melanchthon during the last 10 years of Luther's life. Then he shows the first false step that Melanchthon made…

      A real treat is that we get Walther's translation of the Latin and Greek writings and correspondence so common at that time. And it is now rewarding to have the letters of Luther available to read in English in the newly translated St. Louis Edition. Too bad that much of the other writings surrounding the Reformation remain only in Latin and Greek (also German), unavailable to English readers. At least Walther gives us a window into these writings that were formerly only available to scholars. We pickup the text at page LuW 322:

 - - - - - - - -  “Luther's ‘Carrying’ of Melanchthon?” by C. F. W. Walther — Part 2 of 28  - - - - - - - -

First of all, far from stating that Melanchthon during Luther's lifetime either consciously deviated from Luther's doctrines in any article, or, if this was the case, that he should have walked out freely with his delusions and opposed Luther, he rather thought either that only his form of teaching was different and that he only softened certain, as he thought, ambiguous, paradoxical, harsh expressions, or if he himself was already clearly aware of his departure from Luther's doctrine and had secretly spoken out against those of his own convictions, he sought to conceal his deviations at all times by expressing himself ambiguously and, in addition, publicly confessing Luther's doctrines in all respects, so that the unsuspecting Luther had less idea than others of Melanchthon's doctrinal deviations. *)  

——————

*) We will deal later with those cases in which Luther noticed that Melanchthon really deviated, also confronted him for this reason, but Melanchthon gave way or gave reassuring explanations. 

This is the alternative [i.e. conundrum] that first confronts anyone who has taken a more than superficial view of Melanchthon's behavior in the last ten years before Luther's death.  [1535-1546]

Slight doubts about Luther's doctrines of Holy Communion seem to have been raised in Melanchthon's heart as early as 1535, not during his study of the Scriptures, but during the reading of the Church Fathers, especially the Greek ones.**) 

——————

**) [Valentin] Löscher, who also reports this, says in this connection: “What led him to this, among other things, is that he had an almost divine respect for the writings of the fathers.” (Hist. mot. II 31)

On the 12th day of the year 1535 he wrote to [Johannes] Brenz: “I see that there are many testimonies of the ancient writers (Church Fathers) who unambiguously interpret the Sacrament in a typical and tropical [figurative] way; but the sacred testimonies of the saints are either of later origin or spurious.” Not only did he write these words of his in Greek in an otherwise Latin letter (no doubt out of concern that the letter might fall into indiscrete hands), but he also adds: “I ask you to interpret this letter to the best of your ability and, when you have read it, to tear it up immediately and show it to no man.”  (Corpus Reformatorum. II, 824) Nevertheless, Melanchthon, at least because he had not yet overcome his (LuW 323) doubts, still publicly and solemnly confessed himself to Luther's teaching in this respect. In 1536, as is well known, he too signed with Luther the so-called Wittenberg Concord, which he himself had received an order to draw up between the Wittenbergers and the south German theologians (see Luther's Werke. Hall. Ausg. XVII, 2529 ff.; [StL 17, 2087 ff.]).  Among other things, he writes to his trusted friend [Joachim] Camerarius that he “could not, as he wished, prevent the meeting” (Corp. Ref. III, 89), and confesses to his Veit Dietrich: “Since I have tried in vain to prevent the meeting, I have finally taken the step of advising that we (at least) should not enter into a final settlement.” (p. 97) 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 3  - - - - - - - - - -

From relying on the Church Fathers to grudgingly signing the 1536 Wittenberg Concord, Melanchthon begins the change from his earlier orthodox theology. 

      Melanchthon had a habit, in his Latin correspondence, of writing certain phrases in Greek to conceal his thoughts from “indiscrete hands.”  Walther uncovers these phrases so that we can judge them for what they are. My parents spoke German among themselves to conceal their conversations from us children. We will see another example of this later in Part 24 where Melanchthon cloaks a criticism of Luther in Greek wording (Luther “thunders and flashes against certain other things.”). — In the next Part 3… — 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      As C. F. W. Walther, in Part 1, named his opponent Director Hardeland of the Leipzig Mission Society, so I will also name the opponents in today's LC-MS. There is a widespread effort to discredit the historical work of Prof. Friedrich Bente, which also falls against the above work of C. F. W. Walther.  Who are these people waging this attack?  They are, past and present,  

Dr. Lowell Green, († 2014) against Bente's history of Melanchthon in an essay of 1977 (chapter 7) on a matter of the Lord's Supper and in a 1980 book on Melanchthon's later doctrinal weakening,  

the leaders of the 1517 Legacy Project now under the website 1517.org, in their May 19, 2017 "The Thinking Fellows" (TTF) podcast promoting the legacy of Melanchthon and criticizing Bente's history (05:35—26:05),  

 Drs. Scott Keith, Adam Francisco, Rod Rosenbladt, and host Caleb Keith, 

Pastors Christopher Gillespie and Donovan Riley, in their Dec. 5, 2018 "Banned Books" podcast also criticizing Bente's history in general and of Melanchthon in particular, and

Prof. Dr. John T. Pless (CTS-FW), who would, indirectly as a promoter of Dr. Green's teaching, also teach as he did.

. 

Also indirectly, by reference, the opposition to Bente's history is also being waged by Drs. Robert Kolb (LC-MS, Charles Arand (LC-MS), James Nestingen (ELCA [2023-06-02: NALC]), when they claimed in their 2012 Fortress Press (ELCA) book (p. 281-2) that their history has “much greater precision than was possible a century ago” (which includes, if not targets, Bente's Historical Introductions). In all of the histories that Dr. Kolb has written about the Book of Concord or the Formula of Concord, few even mention Bente, and none use his history. While Dr. Green and his followers explicitly criticize Bente, Dr. Kolb simply ignores Bente's history, except for a critical remark in a 2018 essay (p. 205). Simply put, Dr. Kolb has always intended to replace Bente's history, and all the Old Missouri histories, in the LC-MS. (We have not even highlighted Dr. Nestingen's denial of the vicarious satisfaction.) — Also Dr. Erik Herrmann and Dr. Paul L. Maier (LC-MS) (by extension) may be included in this listing. — 

      More details of the charges made against Bente's Historical Introductions will be forthcoming. However there was a surprising defense of Bente made within the LC-MS in 2005.  Who would stand up to such an array of LC-MS opponents?  Find out in Part 9.

Corvinus 2: 5th Sunday in Lent, "even if it costs our life" (Part 2 of ?)

      This continues from Part 1 [Table of Contents in Part 1] in a short series on Antonius Corvinus, a reformer who suffered much for his faith, even death. — Today marks the fifth Sunday in Lent, so we present an English translation of his short sermon on the Scripture text for this Sunday before Palm Sunday. He covers four points of how Christians are to face the opposition and persecution of the world. — Martin Luther, in his Preface to Corvinus's book of sermons, said the following:

“I like these postils of Master Antonius Corvinus very much, that they remain so short, finely pure with the Gospel, and I consider them useful, where they would also be read to the people word for word.”

      Following the break after the first two points, Corvinus's third point is that we must hear the Word for our wisdom, while the fourth is that we keep the Word in faith. — The following was excerpted from the 1899 CPH book (translated): Short and Simple Exposition of the Gospels. pp. 92-98:

=======================================

Fifth Sunday in Lent, Judica.

John 8:46-59.

Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: [page 93] and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

 

Now we have said many times that the Word of God may not be preached without challenge and opposition in this wicked and perverse world, because Christ is set forth as a sign to which many people will object. Luke 2:34. So we see it also in this Gospel of today. For not only is Christ here accused of being a Samaritan and of false doctrine, but also at last the Jews pick up stones and want to stone him. Since such a conflict between the ungodly and the believers will always be and will remain until the end of the world, let us consider how every Christian, and especially the ministers of the Word, should conduct themselves in this matter. For the blasphemers of the divine Word must ever be suffered, but their mouths must be stopped.

First, Christ shuts up those who persecute His doctrine with the blamelessness of His life, saying with gentle words: “Which of you can accuse me of sin?” You reject my doctrine and do not want to accept it. What reason have you for this? If I taught otherwise than I do, and did otherwise than I taught, ye might have cause to reject my doctrine. But you cannot say that my life is contrary to the doctrine. Yet you are so stiff-necked that you will not believe. Behold, here stand the Jews, not knowing what to say. For the life of Christ was blameless, as Isaiah testifies of Him, that no deceit was ever found in His mouth. Is. 53:9 So let every Christian, [page 94] and especially the minister of the Word, be careful that his life and conduct be not reproached with truth by any man, especially as the enemies of the Word  look more to the life than to the doctrine. Indeed, how can I rebuke, if I myself am reproachful, and the listener can say: “Physician, help yourself”? [Luke 4:23] If I am to rebuke adultery, I must not be an adulterer myself. If I should rebuke excessive eating and drinking, I myself must not be a glutton. If I am to rebuke theft, I myself must not be a thief; otherwise Paul will say to me, “In that thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, because thou doest the very thing which thou judgest.” Rom. 2:1. The Holy Spirit will also sing such a hymn to me about this: “What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee?” Psalm 50:16-17. It is true that we are all sinners and unclean before God, and must ask forgiveness of daily trespasses every moment. Nevertheless, the outward conduct of a Christian should be blameless, especially of the pastor, lest the enemies of the Word  gain cause to blaspheme the Gospel because of our evil conduct. 1 Tim. 3:2-7.

Second, Christ extols His doctrine as the certain, righteous truth, again indicating that the Jews reject His doctrine unreasonably, because He preaches nothing but the truth He has heard from His heavenly Father. And if before He defied with His life, now also He defies with the doctrine, which was certainly His Father's, and not, as the Jews falsely said, the devil's doctrine. If a pastor cannot do the same, what can he do? He must be sure that the doctrine is God's, whatever life may stand. Accordingly, if one thing were to be desired, [page 95] and ever must be (which I do not say), I would rather have a wicked pastor for a teacher, who taught rightly, than a pious man, who led me from the Word of God to the doctrines of men and glibness. And Christ agrees with this when He says that those who sit in Moses' seat, that is, those who teach God's doctrines like Moses, should be received and listened to, but not done according to their works. Matth. 23:2-3. For He wants to reject the evil works, but not the doctrines, which are God's. Why do you think that St. Paul boasts that he received his Gospel through the revelation of Jesus Christ? Gal. 1:12. Without a doubt he wanted the Jews to understand that his doctrines were God's and not his own. If then we are sure that our doctrine is not ours but God's, then we should also stand on it, confess it and defend it against the blasphemers, even if it costs our blood and life, just as Christ here also defends the doctrine, namely, that He is not possessed by the devil and does not speak from the devil. In sum, we are to be sure of our doctrine, so that we do not accept, teach or preach anything else unless it is certain truth, as Christ also says of His Father's doctrine: “Thy Word is truth.” John 17:17.

[The balance containing the 3rd and 4th points, and conclusion, is below in the "Read more" section:]

Corvinus, Lutheran martyr; differing histories (Part 1 of ?)

      This coming Sunday will be the 5th Sunday in Lent, also known as Judica.  As I was researching published books by Old Missouri, I ran into a reprint of sermonettes by Antonius Corvinus which contained one for this Sunday.  The 1899 reprint was edited by the excellent Prof. A. L. Gräbner who gave the proper history of this defender of Reformation doctrine. This book had been highly approved of by Martin Luther in his Preface to it. — But before we present this sermonette, what follows is a survey of the contrasting histories of Corvinus that show, once again, how so-called "objective" histories of modern theologians miss the mark.

      What do current histories say about Corvinus?  The LCMS Christian Cyclopedia says:

(Rabe; 1501–53). B. Warburg; d. Hanover. Expelled from cloister because of his Lutheranism 1523; preacher in Goslar 1528, Witzenhausen 1529; advanced Reformation in Northeim, Hildesheim, and Calenberg-Göttingen; opposed Augsburg Interim; imprisoned 1549–52; works include sermons on the Gospels and Epistles.

The 1927 Concordia Cyclopedia gives a bit more information on him, letting us know that he was more than just "imprisoned":

Corvinus (Rabe) Antonius, b. 1501; chased out of his cloister for his Lutheranism in 1522; preacher in Hessen in 1538; reformed in Goettingen, Nordheim, Hildesheim, Calenberg; opposed the Interim; imprisoned in damp cell 1549 — 52; d. April 5, 1553, a true and faithful Lutheran Christian. His sermons on the Gospels and Epistles became popular.

Hmmm, it seems the LCMS, the New Missouri Synod, stripped the history of the conditions of Corvinus's imprisonment. The German Wikipedia article on him (there is no English one) goes further by adding that (translated):

The prisoners were well fed, could receive and answer mail, and talk to their visitors through an open window. 

Imprisoned by a Catholic ruler, but "well fed", etc. Was it actually an easy imprisonment? Hmmm, sounds like Catholic or "objective" historians inserted these comments into this Wikipedia article to try to soften the story of the imprisonment of Corvinus. But the old German history source Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie or ADB states the following excerpt (translated):

However, when Duke Erich II reverted to the Catholic Church and demanded the acceptance of the [Augsburg] Interim from the Protestant clergy of his country, Corvinus drew up a protest against this imposition signed by the entire Evangelical clergy. He atoned for this step with three years of hard imprisonment at Calenberge (1549-53). Most of his library was scattered and burned by the Spanish and Brabant soldiers who accompanied the young duke; his prison was "such a nasty tower that his clothes rotted off his body." Only at the intercession of Duke Albrecht of Prussia was Corvinus released. But he died very soon from the consequences of his imprisonment in Hanover.

Oh well, it seems the new German (Catholic?) historians want the world to forget the real suffering of Corvinus. — But even more than the old German history, Prof. Friedrich Bente, in his Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books, finally put the proper label on Corvinus's imprisonment, p. 101:

…Antonius Corvinus, Superintendent at Kalenberg-Goettingen, the Lutheran martyr, who, because of his opposition to the Interim, was incarcerated for three years, in consequence of which he died, 1553.

Bente is not exaggerating, as he only uses what was known to old German history — Corvinus's death was a consequence of his imprisonment. He was imprisoned as a Lutheran by a Roman Catholic. Corvinus was a Lutheran martyr. Now we finally get the real history of Corvinus. Unfortunately, Prof. Bente's history is now ignored (by Dr. Robert Kolb), or attacked (by Dr. Lowell Green † 2014) by LCMS historians.  But the LCMS cannot bury Bente's quote of Corvinus's precious testimony about Philip Melanchthon's weakness which gives credence to his, and C. F. W. Walther's, history of Melanchthon. — In the next Part 2, we publish a precious sermonette by Corvinus, a sermon that could hardly have been preached by a more qualified theologian, other than Martin Luther, for Corvinus was… a Lutheran martyr.

- - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - 

Part 1: Introduction to Anton Corvinus, Lutheran martyr; differing histories

Part 2: Sermonette for Judica, Sunday before Palm Sunday

Part 3: Palm Sunday: Exhortation to love, humility, and service

Part 4: Easter: Disciples think it a fairy tale

Part 4B: Easter II: Women sent as first preachers… but afterwards?

Part 5: 

Walther: Did Luther "carry" Melanchthon's errors? (Part 1 of 28); Bente shunned in LC-MS

[2024-05-25: Hochstetter's History covers this essay on pp. 425-428]

      C. F. W. Walther is a master historian of the Reformation and all the theologians connected with it.  And in 1876, in the pages of Lehre und Wehre, Walther tackled one of the most difficult issues a Lutheran theologian has to face: the relationship between Martin Luther and his associate Philip Melanchthon.  So when I ran across this extensive essay (39 pages in length), I knew that I had to get it translated.  Walther digs deep into Reformation history to unearth what the persons involved actually said, then he ties it all together.  This is no small task, given the ambiguous language that is used at key points in this history. During the translation of this project, I was greatly interested in the content of Walther’s essay and could hardly wait for each new paragraph in order to get the full story on this important–and controversial–subject. — What did Walther think of Melanchthon and his teaching?  He tells us the answer to that question near the end of his essay: 

"How much would we have preferred to be able to help that only the memory of Melanchthon should be kept alive from the time of his faithfulness and blessed efficacy, but that the memory of him from the time of his softening and falling should be wiped out and buried forever!"  

So why then did he take the time to go into this thorny topic?  We find the answer to that question in both the opening and closing comments. — I have spent several months working on this essay, its supporting documentation, and on the controversial arguments against it. We begin now the first of many blog posts presenting this masterful essay by… "The American Luther." From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 22 (Nov., Dec.1876), pp. 321-338, 353-373 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The “Carrying” of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther.

[by C. F. W. Walther, Part 1]

After Luther's death, it has often been pointed out to those Lutherans who did not want to hold fraternal, altar and church fellowship with manifest false teachers within our church, that Luther, as we know, had himself cultivated such fellowship with Melanchthon, even after the latter had no longer agreed with Luther on several important points of doctrine. *) Such Lutherans, it was claimed, obviously wanted to be more strictly Lutheran than Luther himself. A Lutheran in Luther's sense should not break off fellowship with the erring who still professed the faith of our church, but should rather bear and tolerate it, as Luther once did with a Melanchthon. 

In recent times this was also reproached to those East Indian missionaries [Zorn, Willkomm, Zucker] who had been dismissed and who declared that they could no longer remain in the service of the Leipzig Missionary Society if the latter did not break away from fellowship with notorious false teachers in which it is known to stand. Missionary Zorn wrote to us from East India that Director Hardeland had said to them, the missionaries troubled in their conscience, “You want to be more orthodox than Luther. — You have to take a man as a Lutheran for as long as he is Lutheran, that is, not to separate from him when he professes to be Lutheran. Here,” it goes on, “Luther's carrying of Melanchthon from 1542-1546 was cited (and cited again and again) as a resounding example of healthy church practice from the fundamental period of the Reformation.” 

————

*) This was done by, among others, the crypto-Calvinist Dr. Caspar Peucer, Melanchthon's son-in-law, in his Tractatus historicus de Melanchthonis sententia de controversia Coenae Domini, 1576, and the Philippists at the Altenburg Colloquium in 1568, who went further, claiming that Luther agreed with Melanchthon's deviations from the earlier doctrine. 

(LuW 322)   

If Melanchthon had really already become apparent in Luther's time as a stubborn false teacher, and if Luther had really let Melanchthon have his way during this time, then one would have to admit that those Lutherans who do not want to cultivate fellowship with false teachers appearing in our church [i.e. theologians claiming to be Lutheran] do not act in Luther's sense, at least not according to Luther's example. 

But the matter stands, thank God, quite differently; and the intention of the present article is to prove this. 

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 2  - - - - - - - - - - 

Walther did not want to write this unhappy essay, he was forced into it — forced because of false charges from Lutheran leaders in Germany in the 19th century. But along with the example of the director of the Leipzig Mission Society, Walther gives examples from the 16th Century who tried to hide behind this same false report of Luther.  Unlike his opponents, Walther focuses not on the early years of Melanchthon, but only on the years of the last 10 years of Luther's life. This is exactly the time frame that erring Lutherans want to avoid. —  It is a most unsettling history, not only because of Melanchthon's wavering, but also because it is difficult to defend against the misuse of it by erring Lutheran theologians. What a relief it is to have C. F. W. Walther take on this task, the "heavy lifting", of presenting a full analysis.

      As I progressed through Walther's essay, another work came to mind that would be a perfect compliment to it, Prof. F. Bente's 1921 Historical Introduction to the Symbolical Books, his best known work.  But as I researched Bente's work and reactions to it in today's LCMS, a counter concept of Reformation history came to light.  There is a radical shift in thinking being promoted within and without the LC-MS. And so to counter what is being taught in the LC-MS seminaries and institutions, or at least allowed, I decided to take several months to polish this translation of Walther — adding pictures of many persons, and inserting dozens of links to Walther's source materials so that readers can immediately access them and read them where possible. What makes Bente controversial will certainly make Walther's essay controversial.  More will be said about this in upcoming blog posts. — In the next Part 2, Walther explains the complexity of the problem, then begins to present the matter.

- - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - -

Part 1: This intro; Leipzig Mission dismisses Missouri leaning missionaries

Part 2: The Melanchthon Conundrum; “Slight doubts [rising from] Church Fathers.”; list of LC-MS opponents

Part 3: M.'s good confessions in Luther's last years; Lowell Green's attacks, Marquart's rebuttal 

Part 4: More good confessions by Melanchthon; Green charges Bente on Supper

Part 5: M.'s errors not overlooked; L.'s "guileless, faithful heart"; Rosenbladt's "black hat" charge against Bente

Part 6: Ratzeburger "hits truth" on M.; Scott Keith: Bente's "poorly" covered history

Part 7: M.'s private letters; “objectivity” of modern history?; "Thinking Fellows" "biased" against Bente

Part 8: M.'s “ambiguous behavior”, Calvin: “bread adoration”; "Banned Books" Ban Bente 

Part 9: “Beloved Baumgärtner” testifies against M.; praise for Bente's history from Paul McCain

Part 10: M.: gentle or angry nature?; Dr. Green's false judgment

Part 11: M.'s notorious letter; Green avoids recipient's name (Carlowitz)

Part 12: Quenstedt & Calvin tell the truth about M.; do Dingel & Kolb on Melanchthon & Leipzig Interim?

    Excursus 1: Chemnitz on Melanchthon's errors: Philippism, “horrible heresies”

Part 13: Walther summarizes Melanchthon's ups & downs; Langebartels uses Bente

    Excursus 2: Hutter on Melanchthon's errors

Part 14: Melanchthon: Luther did not carry me; Drs. Keith & Green "perceived errors" vs. Chemnitz

Part 15: Cordatus blows whistle; “‘causa’ must leave”; Walther's Law & Gospel; Gillespie, Riley against Unaltered AC?

Part 16: "necessary cause", “What bondage it was”; the many editions of Melanchthon's Loci

    Excursus 3: Löscher: Melanchthon's “all too political, philosophical mind.”; Löscher vs. Rosenbladt

Part 17: “Luther's mildness; The Thinking Fellows: Bente's "bias" of "confessional historiography"

Part 18:  Luther too mild?; Bente's Historical Introductions uploaded 2 ways

Part 19:  M.'s "game of hide-and-seek"

Part 20: Transubstantiation, Venetians, Swiss; Kolb against Chemnitz on Church Fathers

Part 21: Luther calmed, but Melanchthon “himself was not calm”

Part 22: The unsuspecting Luther… but only too soon…; Kolb avoids Luther's explosive letter

Part 23: Luther to write against Melanchthon, but…; Dr. Green's false thesis on Melanchthon

Part 24: Elector's letter to spare M.; Kolb whitewashes history, theology; LCMS is not true "Missouri Synod"

Part 25: Luther reproaches Melanchthon, Elector seals record; Dr. Keith's Law-driving

Part 26: Luther to Melanchthon: “do away with some points”; Walther's history of Formula polished, uploaded: Kern und Stern (another BTL book)

Part 27: Luther: great harm of silence; Pr Riley on Justification (UOJ) — a contradiction

Part 28: Impossible! (Walther's conclusion); Walther over Drs. Kolb and Green

Walther: “Unbelievable!” Salve regina in Ev. church?; Luther on Lutheran hymns

      This short blurb was spotted when processing the journals of the Old Missouri Synod. Walther gives us some history of this papal doctrine. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 20 (1874), p. 380 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Worship of Mary in the Evangelical Church. Yes, that is how it is. Unbelievable and yet true! The writer of this article has already noticed it repeatedly when he was in Leipzig and found the announcement among the church news in the Tageblatte [Daily News] that a “Salve regina” would also be sung as a motet at 2:30 on Saturday afternoon at Vespers in the St. Thomas Church. We calmed ourselves, however, by assuming that they had probably only used some famous composition of that old text, but had added a different text to it, since we could not believe that in a Evangelical church, and especially in Leipzig, a chant in which Mary is worshiped as the Queen of Heaven would be performed. But lo and behold, the other day we got hold of the musical text of the two motets which were performed on May 9 of this year in the Thomaskirche, and there again a "Salve regina" [Hail Holy Queen] by Robert Papperitz is mentioned as the second motet, and at the same time the whole text is printed, in which Mary is addressed as mater misericordiae, vitae dulcedo et spes nostra [mother of mercy, the sweetness of life and our hope], even as advocata nostra [Our advocate], and is invoked for her help. According to this, it is certain that in the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, prayers are sometimes said to the Virgin Mary. If Pope Pius IX knew this, how he would rejoice, he, the great devotee of Mary, who raised her Immaculata conceptio to dogma and thus took her out of the ranks of the sinful children of men. (Sächsisches" Kirchen- und Schulblatt.) Also Luther once kept the beautiful melodies, which he found and with which papal idolatrous texts were decorated, but put purely evangelical texts under them. In his preface “auf die lateinischen und deutschen Begräbnißgesänge” (on the Latin and German funeral chants) of 1542, he writes of this: “The chant and the notes are precious, it would be a pity that they should perish; but unchristian and unrhymed are the text or words, which should perish. Therefore we strip such idolatrous, dead and mad texts and strip them out of their beautiful musica and put in place of them the living, holy Word of God to sing, praise and honor it with; so that such beautiful ornaments of musica serve their dear Creator and His Christians in the right way, so that He is praised and honored, but we are driven in the heart by His holy Word with sweet song, improved and strengthened in faith.” (See Luther's Works. Hall. A. Tom. XIV, 414 f. [StL 10, 1427 ff.]) Incidentally, the rationalistic sapless and powerless text of many of the more recent popular church choir hymns is not much better than a papist “Salve regina,” in addition to which the music that is supposed to decorate it is usually either a mindless tinkling, or of a thoroughly unchurchlike character. W. [C. F. W. Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I can only hope that this is not the case in any LC-MS congregation, but nothing surprises me about them now, especially with their Romanizing tendencies.