Posted on 04/13/2003 8:43:41 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.
Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."
General
Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . . In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .
{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197} The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]). {Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) } Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . . [But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.
{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}
Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107} Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522} Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76} I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon} Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5} John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}
Luther,Calvin, and Wesley are not "all" the Founders or would they prove a censensus of early Christians as this guy tries to imply.
Luther had trouble with the book of James so I wouldn't put to much stock in all his views. I also disagree with Calvin and Wesley on some of their views.
Catholics are constantly quoting fallible men to prove their false doctrine. Notice that nowhere in this article is a scripture quoted as a source, only what man thought. Typical catholicism: doctrinal proof based on how old, and how many men preached the falsehood.
This author makes an assumption, declares it as truth, and proceeds to base his argument on his assumption.
Now i'll ask you again.Can you prove that ALL founding Prots believed this? If not keep your wise remarks to yourself and stop wasting bandwith with the writings of this idiot.
Three times (four if you count the woman who Jesus contradicted) and all in the Gospel of Luke. None of the other writers found it important enough to mention it.
Have you ever read a bible? This is the second statement from you today that would cause me to wonder.
And such is the nature of the canonization of the Scriptures: the New Testament was accepted by the Church through the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. Indeed, the New Testament is Tradition, canonical, written, infallible Tradition, handed down to us from the Apostles.
Also- and here I have some difficulty- the Church establishes Holy Tradition through the general workings and writings of the Church. In Orthodox thought, the Liturgy in particular expresses Church dogma, and is an expression of Holy Tradition- the Holy Spirit at work within the Church as a whole in this instance. The Fathers- in consensus- are also establishers of Holy Tradition, the Holy Spirit working through them together: not on their own but in consensus.
That is- sort of- the nature of Tradition as Catholics and Orthodox understand it (though Catholics would add the Pope's authority, at which Orthodox would of course cringe).
From Luke: "highly favored one"-- spoken by the angel, "Mother of my Lord" -- spoken by Elizabeth, "Most blessed are you among women" -- spoken by Elizabeth, "Blessed are you who have believed" -- spoken by Elizabeth, "For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." -- spoken by the virgin Mary.
I think that is even more than four times that Mary is referred to as "blessed."
PS. And I think my Bible reads quite a bit like yours, correct?
Jesus did not merely "pass through" Mary; He became very flesh of mankind's flesh, having a real mother: He truly came in the flesh, though through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Even in birth we see His complete Godhood and complete Manhood- of Mary and of God. Thus is His salvific work, which continues in Him: True God and True Man, glorified, uniting us men unto God through Him.
I would agree that much of modern Protestantism is rather poverty-stricken in some ways. However, one should not get the idea that this was the intent of the Reformers: but, especially in the very important area of worship, things were neglected or pushed aside in order to deal with more "pressing" matters. But one cannot blame them over-much- they were after all worrying about eluding government that did not, er, share their religious persuasions. That, and the identity of anything with Catholicism tended to give it an evil appearance: so much so that many good things were tossed out (and such the Reformers acknowledged).
The author made no reference to anything needing the bible for proof. His contention is that Clavin, Zwingli, Luther said something. One would not look to the bible to discern what these gentlemen said many centuries later. Likewise one does not look to the bible to determine what President says about foreign monetary policy in 2003.
Here's a clue to my meaning. The church is the people born of God, his adopted children, not an institution or a building.
Luke 1:45 45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" (NIV)
Luke 1:30 30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. (NIV) "
There you go three times.
Your original post said that Protestants should read the Bible and see how many times she was called blessed. A grand total of three.
We are told by Catholics that her importance is proved by Jesus giving her to John as his mother and mother of all. Funny if John knew of her importance to the church that he failed to mention her by name in his gospel or the three letters he wrote.
We don't see any reference of her from Peter,James,Jude, or even Paul. No mention of her by name after the first chapter of Acts. Don't you think this a little strange for such an important icon of your church?
Maybe they were warned not to bring attention to her until everything was in place after her assumption into heaven. It's possible she was busy setting up her Catholic Prayer Answering Service and working on Rosary designs and didn't want to assume her role as "Queen of Heaven" until things were just right.
If you read back through the thread you'll see that the issue of biblical proof had to do with the name of the website.
It claims biblical answers for catholic beliefs and the fails to use any scriptural reference for it's claim.
Traditions that conflict with scripture can only be called "Tradition of man".We know that the Holy Spirit can't contradict himself. No matter how you claim to come to your tradition, either by council or consensus of holy men of the church, if it is in opposition to scripture it can't be Holy Tradition.
Raising Mary to a position of co-redemptress or co-mediatrix is one that comes to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.