Skip to comments.
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^
| Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,
Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Amidst all the stimulating discussion here about the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, it ocurred to me that it would be instructive to point out that both Martin Luther and John Calvin -- the progenitors of two of the three major branches of the Protestant Reformation -- both held firmly to this Catholic teaching. For your consideration, let me add here some pertinent quotes from these two Protestant leaders.
I'd respectfully ask our Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends here to think carefully about these quotes and consider just how far modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th-century moorings, not to mention how very far it has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the Catholic Faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.
Patrick Madrid
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}
Main Index & Search | The Blessed Virgin Mary | Protestantism
Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 27 January 2002.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; bible; catholic; catholicism; christianity; mary; protestant; protestantism; scripture; tradition; virginity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301 next last
To: Patrick Madrid
Unconvincing. These men were just as fallible as we are today. There are many others who would disagree with them, then and now. You have nothing but fallible human beings carrying on a "tradition"...a tradition that is not universally agreed to.
To: LiteKeeper
Unconvincing. That's just your fallible human opinion. there are many others who would disagree with you. Sorry, you score no points with that "argument."
To: Patrick Madrid
It seems to me that the honest response from the Sola Scriptura crowd should be that scripture is either silent on the issue or supportive of the Catholic position.
To cling to the position that Mary was not ever-virgin, without solid scriputral basis, reveals the real agenda -- not to uphold scripture, but rather to challenge all things considered Catholic.
To: el_chupacabra
I agree. And as I pointed out in an earlier post on the "Fr. Ron Tacelli Article" thread, Scripture is silent on this issue, in terms of an explicit statement saying either that Mary had other children besides Christ or that she did not have other children besides Christ.
The fact is, as even Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin (no friends of Catholicism) readily recognized and admitted, the historic Christian teaching on this issue was that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
Since the sola scriptura mindset cannot possibly resolve this issue, it is eminently reasonable to consider what the early Christians in the first several centuries of Christianity believed and taught about Mary's virginity. You will find -- and I'd be happy to post examples to corroborate this, if anyone wants to see them -- that orthodox Christian belief in Mary's perpetual virginity was both ubiquitous and continuous during those first fifteen centuries. I respectfully suggest that that is a fact our Protestant friends should ponder carefully and prayerfully.
To: Patrick Madrid
You guys aren't obsessed with Mary are you. No not a bit.
6
posted on
06/24/2003 5:06:38 PM PDT
by
DManA
To: DManA
Obsessed? No. At least no moreso than Martin Luther or John Calvin. And let's not forget that Catholic marian teachings are at the forefront of the arguments consistently raised by Protestant critics of the Catholic Church. So, since it always seems to get around to Mary in these discussions, why do you flinch when Catholics bring her up first? Is there an unspoken double standard at work here perhaps?
To: Patrick Madrid
As you can glimpse in the writings of Luther and Calvin, the radical wing of the Reformation never honored Mary. But it has little to do with what is in the Bible. Rather it has to do with their dogmatic rejection of Catholicism.
8
posted on
06/24/2003 5:17:42 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
To: Patrick Madrid; nickcarraway; Salvation
Bump!
To: Patrick Madrid
Is this more appropriately posted on the Neverending Story thread? It is where Calvinists and Catholics engage in debate and Apologetics is advanced. Jim Robinson seems to have it particularly for that purpose. Just noting fyi. V's wife.
10
posted on
06/24/2003 6:09:31 PM PDT
by
ventana
To: ventana
A lot of us don't go over to the NES thread. I like having this type of thing out on the main forum periodically, especially for lurkers.
To: Canticle_of_Deborah
I see your point. I respect Jim's preferences for the use of his site and wouldn't want to compromise the Religion section where so many fine Catholic as well as other religious information is posted. It's edifying. I guess JR will let it be know how much bandwith apologetics is furnished herein. V's wife.
12
posted on
06/24/2003 6:45:28 PM PDT
by
ventana
To: LiteKeeper
These men were just as fallible as we are today. Hmmmm ... I must make a decision! Shall I follow a self-admittedly fallible set of beliefs termed Protestantism, or a self-admittedly infallible set of beliefs termed Catholicism?
If I follow Protestantism, I'm likely to be wrong. Therefore, it shouldn't matter to stay a Catholic, since even though Protestants think me wrong, they think themselves wrong too. At worst, we are all wrong together, just on different things, and God will forgive us of the blessed muddle. At best though, we Catholics are right, and Protestants are in for a tough surprise at the judgement.
So no matter who is right, there is no harm in being a Catholic, but if Catholics are right, being a Protestant would be deadly.
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Pascal would be proud of you ;)
To: Patrick Madrid
historic Christian teaching on this issue was that Mary remained a perpetual virginAnd that would, indeed, be fact.
15
posted on
06/24/2003 8:04:53 PM PDT
by
MarMema
To: Hermann the Cherusker
I am not one of them, but I know some protestants who think Catholics are not going to Heaven. They say Catholics are trying to work their way into Heaven and have not asked Jesus to forgive their sins. I am offended when either a CAtholic or Protestant claims only they are going to Heaven.
16
posted on
06/24/2003 9:05:39 PM PDT
by
ACAC
To: Patrick Madrid
Bookmarking
17
posted on
06/24/2003 9:22:14 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Patrick Madrid
**That's just your fallible human opinion.**
18
posted on
06/24/2003 9:22:53 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Patrick Madrid
BUMP
To: Hermann the Cherusker; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; ...
even though Protestants think me wrong, they think themselves wrong too Pinging the troops ... both camps! I'll put on the first pot of coffee.
20
posted on
06/25/2003 1:47:42 AM PDT
by
NYer
(Laudate Dominum)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 301 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson