Do Lutherans believe in the immaculate conception like Catholics?

[Albion]

I'm inclined to accept the Immaculate Conception inasmuch as the Virgin Mary was without the guilt of sin, blameless, and pure

IF you believe that when the angel said to her that she had found favor with God, he actually mean that she was without the guilt of sin, blameless, and pure, I suppose you could make something out of that...but a doctrine of Immaculate Conception isn't it.

but I do know many Christian theologians over the centuries questioned it. I realize too the Immaculate Conception doctrine/dogma is dependent entirely on how we view original sin.

It's also dependent upon showing something, anything, that speaks to her condition at the time of conception. Right? Unfortunately, there isn't anything.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's also dependent upon showing something, anything, that speaks to her condition at the time of conception. Right? Unfortunately, there isn't anything.

If you believe that original sin is a stain that enters the person at conception (very common for Protestants or Catholics prior to the last 100 years or so), and then you believe the Virgin Mary is without original sin (common, pious catholic belief), then it follows she was conceived without sin.

Of course, many modern Roman Catholic theologians are uncomfortable with thinking of sin in this manner, they prefer to talk about God giving the Virgin Mary a singular grace at conception. I don't have a problem with that, but that's not really how people traditionally talked about the Immaculate Conception, in my estimation, until modern times.

 

[Albion]

If you believe that original sin is a stain that enters the person at conception (very common for Protestants or Catholics prior to the last 100 years or so), and then you believe the Virgin Mary is without original sin (common, pious catholic belief), then it follows she was conceived without sin.

Not in the least.

If you believe all of that, except for the illogical conclusion, the idea that she was forgiven her sins before the Annunciation makes considerably more sense--and is in harmony with the Gospel account--than that she was conceived without sin.

And if that (IM) was so important to the mother of the Christ, why not also the mother of the mother of the Christ? Anyway, you see, I hope, that there still isn't a shred of evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to lend credence to the Immaculate Conception theory.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I read some where that Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate conception of Mary, that she was free from original sin. I want to convert to the Lutheran or Methodist Church but if they believe this I dont think I will convert.

Dear Colleague,

It isn't true that ,'Catholics,' believe in the Immaculate Conception'. Roman Catholics do, but they are a Catholic Sect dating from the Council of Trent. Catholics, Anglican and Orthodox believe that Mary was tainted ? by Original Sin, but was cleared at some time during her early years. Never-the-less, the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, which the Anglican Church accept teaches through three Councils that the Lady Mary was, THe Mother of God, that she was All Holy and Ever Virgin and Immaculate.
If you convert chances are that you will be abandoning the true faith!

 

[MKJ]

Dear Colleague,

It isn't true that ,'Catholics,' believe in the Immaculate Conception'. Roman Catholics do, but they are a Catholic Sect dating from the Council of Trent. Catholics, Anglican and Orthodox believe that Mary was tainted ? by Original Sin, but was cleared at some time during her early years. Never-the-less, the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, which the Anglican Church accept teaches through three Councils that the Lady Mary was, THe Mother of God, that she was All Holy and Ever Virgin and Immaculate.
If you convert chances are that you will be abandoning the true faith!

Well, the Orthodox don't believe she was tainted by Original Sin. They don't really use that model at all.

It makes the whole Immaculate Conception thing a little easier to deal with.

 

[mark46]

I agree.

It is the model/understanding of Original Sin (and sin itself) that is at issue. The Orthodox have a very different model that Protestants. For the Orthodox, given their understanding of Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception is an unnecessary and irrelevant doctrine.

So, for me, it seem that the first issue is the Anglican understanding of Original Sin. Is there a clear understanding? Has this understanding developed/changed as has been the case for Roman Catholics?

Well, the Orthodox don't believe she was tainted by Original Sin. They don't really use that model at all.

It makes the whole Immaculate Conception thing a little easier to deal with.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I would say that clearly the understanding has not changed for Catholics, i.e. Traditional Anglicans or Orthodox. The lady Mary is human and was weighted at some time with original sin, or sin at least. Howsoever,we know that the Ecumenical Councils, or three of them have declared her the Theotokos, The Mother of God! Whilst two others ,at least have said that she was Ever Virgin ,Holy and Immaculate. Archbishop Laud when asked if the Councils were infallible replied yes, if they were called by the Church and the findings were accepted by all its members everywhere and at all time. Dean Field in his famous book on the Anglican Church said as much. (Dean Field,'The Church.') Now, as I have heard the belief in the Ecumenical Councils have been offered regularly at joint meetings between Orthodox and Anglicans meetings and the Traditional Anglican beliefs from the Councils have been accepted, it would seem that many Anglicans fall short of traditional Anglicanism. Certainly at the time of the later reformation in this country there's little doubt that the bishops accepted the Councilist view of the faith and I've never heard of either the Councils or their stand being rejected.

 

[Albion]

Dear Colleague,

It isn't true that ,'Catholics,' believe in the Immaculate Conception'. Roman Catholics do, but they are a Catholic Sect dating from the Council of Trent. Catholics, Anglican and Orthodox believe that Mary was tainted ? by Original Sin, but was cleared at some time during her early years. Never-the-less, the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, which the Anglican Church accept teaches through three Councils that the Lady Mary was, THe Mother of God, that she was All Holy and Ever Virgin and Immaculate.
If you convert chances are that you will be abandoning the true faith!

Anglicans don't teach all of that, so it may not be so critical as you suggest ('abandoning the true faith').

There are no doubt SOME Anglicans who believe everything listed above but they are a minority.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

,,,,,,,,,,,.You are correct, never-the-less, what kind of Anglicans are they? What does it take to make an Anglican today? I was taught that to be an Anglican that we had to accept Christ's Revelation, scripture and the teaching of the College of apostles ,explained and interpreted by the Seven Councils> What do modern Anglicans believe in?

 

[everbecoming2007]

I wouldn't say believing in the first seven councils requires a belief in the Immaculate Conception as the Eastern Orthodox firmly accept seven councils, but not that Mother Mary was conceived without sin. They do not think in terms of original sin. They believe she lived without sin, but without thinking in terms of original sin they cannot uphold her Immaculate Conception. As I understand it the Catholics have quite a bit of room for exactly what original sin is, though, so after researching that and how you come to feel about it could affect how you see the Immaculate Conception.

Everywhere I've read all Anglicans accept at least four councils. Some make good arguments for the first six since the fifth and sixth council are more of a refinement and support to what came before. Some Anglicans also accept the seventh council, but there is some dispute over this as the seventh council in its support for icons seems to indicate a veneration for saints. Largely Anglicans have come around on the idea of images -- I've never been to an Episcopal communion service where there wasn't some sort of image present, even at events outside of the church -- but since the thirty-nine articles seem to condemn images and are generally open to interpretation, it would seem that acceptance of the seventh council is not considered necessary for Anglicans. I have problems with this theologically, but this is what I understand of Anglicanism at this time.

 

[mark46]

Please correct if I am mistaken.

My understanding is that the Articles speak out against the veneration of saints (and icons) as practiced by the Roman Church at the time.

In some sense, it would useful for Christians to decide whether we believe what the unified, ecumenical Church believed in 787, the date of the last ecumenical Council. Much division has taken place since then. I would argue that some of this is because we do not openly accept the ecumenical Councils, and have not had any since 787. Of course, it also be useful to have similar understandings of what the Councils taught.

I wouldn't say believing in the first seven councils requires a belief in the Immaculate Conception as the Eastern Orthodox firmly accept seven councils, but not that Mother Mary was conceived without sin. They do not think in terms of original sin. They believe she lived without sin, but without thinking in terms of original sin they cannot uphold her Immaculate Conception. As I understand it the Catholics have quite a bit of room for exactly what original sin is, though, so after researching that and how you come to feel about it could affect how you see the Immaculate Conception.

Everywhere I've read all Anglicans accept at least four councils. Some make good arguments for the first six since the fifth and sixth council are more of a refinement and support to what came before. Some Anglicans also accept the seventh council, but there is some dispute over this as the seventh council in its support for icons seems to indicate a veneration for saints. Largely Anglicans have come around on the idea of images -- I've never been to an Episcopal communion service where there wasn't some sort of image present, even at events outside of the church -- but since the thirty-nine articles seem to condemn images and are generally open to interpretation, it would seem that acceptance of the seventh council is not considered necessary for Anglicans. I have problems with this theologically, but this is what I understand of Anglicanism at this time.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Please correct if I am mistaken.

My understanding is that the Articles speak out against the veneration of saints (and icons) as practiced by the Roman Church at the time.

In some sense, it would useful for Christians to decide whether we believe what the unified, ecumenical Church believed in 787, the date of the last ecumenical Council. Much division has taken place since then. I would argue that some of this is because we do not openly accept the ecumenical Councils, and have not had any since 787. Of course, it also be useful to have similar understandings of what the Councils taught.

Well, part of the problem with interpreting the Articles is that they were deliberately open to interpretation. The statements about images and the veneration of saints could be taken to narrowly apply to the circumstances at the Reformation, yet up to this day many Anglicans are very much against any use of icons or veneration of the saints, and there is nothing I know of officially in Anglicanism to preclude this view. It would seem that the church has shifted to a more narrow interpretation of the Articles on images and saints as you propose in that, as I've said, I've never been to any Anglican service without images that I know of, and I've never even set foot in an Anglo-Catholic parish. I never have seen the veneration of saints in an Anglican setting, but I've never had a priest that discouraged me from doing it, and I have been in Anglican chapels that encouraged prayer of the Rosary. It would seem that the practice of the church in these cases has embraces the interpretation of the Articles you offer.

On the other hand, Anglicans in some other parts of the world probably more strictly adhere to the Articles. Even some articles I've come across by Anglo-Catholics in places like Africa don't believe in images or saint veneration, though they emphasize the centrality of the sacrament of Holy Communion.

I think we're simply divided on this issue in Anglicanism, and I don't see a way to resolve it at this time.

 

[Albion]

Please correct if I am mistaken.

My understanding is that the Articles speak out against the veneration of saints (and icons) as practiced by the Roman Church at the time.

In some sense, it would useful for Christians to decide whether we believe what the unified, ecumenical Church believed in 787, the date of the last ecumenical Council. Much division has taken place since then. I would argue that some of this is because we do not openly accept the ecumenical Councils, and have not had any since 787. Of course, it also be useful to have similar understandings of what the Councils taught.

Isn't the answer that the council allowed for images, but not for the abuse of images?.

 

[graciesings]

I grew up in a Lutheran church, and they definitely believe that Christ is sinless. I have heard in Lutheran churches that Christ Is the only human who didn't sin, so I would guess no. This kind of thing might vary from person to person, though.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Isn't the answer that the council allowed for images, but not for the abuse of images?.

Albion, I believe you are correct.

I grew up in a Lutheran church, and they definitely believe that Christ is sinless.I have heard in Lutheran churches that Christ Is the only human who didn't sin, so I would guess no.

As do all Churches.

This kind of thing might vary from person to person, though.

While we don't know what is in peoples minds, the Bible teaches that Christ died for all; no exceptions. If He died for all, then all have need for redemption... because they are sinners. Mary was blessed, Mary found favour with God; we honour and adore her, because she points us to Christ, she sets for us an example of Love. Lutherans remember all of the Marian festivals... except the Immaculate conception for these reasons.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Please correct if I am mistaken.

My understanding is that the Articles speak out against the veneration of saints (and icons) as practiced by the Roman Church at the time.

In some sense, it would useful for Christians to decide whether we believe what the unified, ecumenical Church believed in 787, the date of the last ecumenical Council. Much division has taken place since then. I would argue that some of this is because we do not openly accept the ecumenical Councils, and have not had any since 787. Of course, it also be useful to have similar understandings of what the Councils taught.

I think we have a slight misunderstanding here, surely the teachings of the seven Ecumenical Councils are the ,'bed rock,' of the Holy Catholic Church of which the Church in England is quite possibly the oldest European Segment.
British Bishops played their parts at the Councils according to early historians, in Saxon times the regular Convocations of the Church in this country commenced with a roll call of bishops affirming their continued allegiance to them. I have already pointed out that this support for the Councils was agreed all through the English Reformation and even today whilst all Catholic Churches claim seven councils, even the protestant sects acknowledge four. They are the means of interpreting scripture and have served us well for two thousand years having scriptural provenance where the intervention of the Holy Ghost was claimed by Our Lord's Brother.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I think we have a slight misunderstanding here, surely the teachings of the seven Ecumenical Councils are the ,'bed rock,' of the Holy Catholic Church of which the Church in England is quite possibly the oldest European Segment.
British Bishops played their parts at the Councils according to early historians, in Saxon times the regular Convocations of the Church in this country commenced with a roll call of bishops affirming their continued allegiance to them. I have already pointed out that this support for the Councils was agreed all through the English Reformation and even today whilst all Catholic Churches claim seven councils, even the protestant sects acknowledge four. They are the means of interpreting scripture and have served us well for two thousand years having scriptural provenance where the intervention of the Holy Ghost was claimed by Our Lord's Brother.

Most sources I've ever come across in Anglicanism affirm four besides some high church Anglicans. Do you have a source that says that the entire Anglican Communion accepts seven? I have heard it argued that the homilies could support six, but there has been some disagreement on the seventh. Iconoclasm became pretty common in the Church of England under King Edward, although I know Queen Elizabeth opposed it. Also the seventh council affirms images because it is not a worship of the image, but of what it represents, including saints...thus the seventh council embraced veneration of the saints -- that was part of what they affirmed when they embraced images. However, in Anglicanism the veneration of the saints is at most adiaphora. Most Anglican clergy I've talked to accept only four officially, even my first priest who was rather Anglo-Catholic. He accepted seven personally, but said only the first four are fully binding in Anglicanism.

 

[Albion]

Most sources I've ever come across in Anglicanism affirm four besides some high church Anglicans.

That's correct.

Do you have a source that says that the entire Anglican Communion accepts seven?

That would settle it--at least for the 3/4 of all Anglicans who belong to churches that are members of the Anglican Communion.

Also the seventh council affirms images because it is not a worship of the image, but of what it represents, including saints...thus the seventh council embraced veneration of the saints -- that was part of what they affirmed when they embraced images. However, in Anglicanism the veneration of the saints is at most adiaphora. Most Anglican clergy I've talked to accept only four officially, even my first priest who was rather Anglo-Catholic. He accepted seven personally, but said only the first four are fully binding in Anglicanism.

And when people say that Anglicans accept 6 or 7 they invariably mean that they accept what they consider to be the most important points made by those councils, never the whole of what those councils decreed.