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.,

[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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hi, AlguyA!! It's nice to see you.

I have a habit of mentally categorizing each of my RC Opponents into the Roles they play in my own personal "education by Life-Theater" (I tend towards narcisstic solipsism. So sue me).

• "Catholicguy" is a pugnacious brawler, and reminds me to attempt to remain Civil -- he can give as good as he gets. (All too often, better)
• "Polycarp" is like a, hmm... Orthodox Ecumenicist, and reminds me to stay Friendly -- he attempts, while respecting our divisions, to find Common Ground where we stand together in this Present Age upon the foundation of Scripture and Tradition. A welcome alternative, I think, to the Anti-Orthodox Ecumenicists of Billy Graham and Tony Campolo and (dare I say) the current Pope.**
• And you? You are like my own personal Roman Catholic Skeptic -- you always question, always doubt (in charity), always try to keep me intellectually honest. Which can only be a good thing.

Much obliged, and always a pleasure. But in response, I think I'll address your comments in reverse order.

Is it your contention John 3:16 would be better translated, "only-born" Son rather than "begotten" son? Or that there is no difference between the two?

No. The simple issue here is that New Testament Greek has two entirely different terms for "First-Born" (prototokon) and "Only-Born" (monogene), and both are used quite effectively in Scripture.

Monogene, meaning "Only" born or begotten, is used appropriately in John 3:16 -- Christ Alone is Eternally-Begotten of the Father, the "only-begotten" Son (monogene). But this isn't the terminology used with Mary -- the term there is "prototokos", meaning "first-born" Son AND NOT MEANING "only-born" Son, which is "monogene" (cf John 3:16, again).

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, Mr. Bechtel attempts to fudge the issue by pointing out that the "only" child to breach a woman's birthing canal is, by definition, the "first" child to do so. Well, yes, that's biologically true -- which together with a buck-seventy-five, will get you a cup of Hemingway java at Baby's Coffee outside of Key West. But Bechtel is still trying to skirt around the basic fact that, while his pedantic observation is biologically correct, these concepts demand two entirely different words in the Greek -- MONOGENE "Only-Born" or PROTOTOKON "First-Born". The Gospel writers had a clear choice, used "only-born" where appropriate, and chose "first-born" in regard to Jesus birth of Mary.

Moving along....

Hmmm, could you please provide the quotes Eusebius and Clement offer stating Jesus and James were "blood-brothers." The references I've seen from these two sources would argue just the opposite.

Here's a dollop of the relevant quotes:

Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI: "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Clement: "When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."

Eusebius: "A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."

Now I've got two questions for you (and also Mr. Madrid):

• In the first place, regarding the Exaltation of James the Righteous to the Episcopal Throne of Pre-Eminence over the Apostles, what kind of sense does it make to propose that we are talking about James the Lesser? If James the Lesser was just (one of several) first-cousins, why Exalt him to the Episcopal Throne? And why call attention to his "brotherhood", if he is just a "brother", you know, "cousinly-speaking" (or whatever) as a basis for his Exaltation to the Episcopal Throne?

  If James the Righteous is the Eldest half-brother of Jesus, we can read the Traditions exactly as written and it all falls quite neatly into place.... "good interpretive evidence for something very dramatic happening after Jesus’ crucifixion lies in the very fact that Jesus’ brothers didn't believe who He was (would your brothers?) until the resurrection (which would convince anyone!). Suddenly, the oldest surviving sibling is the head of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus Movement Jews."

  But if we read the Traditions as (despite what they say) referring to James the Lesser (who was just one of several first-cousins), the records of Clement and Eusebius don't really make a lot of sense. The only reason we would even advance such an awkward proposition is if we were attempting to "square the circle" in favor of a Romano-centric, Petrine-successionist view of the Early Jewish Church which is simply incommensurate with the Facts of the Case.

  If you think that is too harsh a critique on my part, try this -- when you offer your response, offer your response in terms of Ockham's Razor, and see if it really holds water -- capische?

• And in the second place, Bechtel of the Catholic Encyclopedia stakes his entire case on the Claim that "James the Righteous" (son of Mary of Joseph) was the SAME PERSON as "James the Lesser" (son of Mary of Cleophas). Beyond the Point that this is Scripturally Impossible in terms of Matthew 10 and 13, this absurdity is also Magisterially Impossible given the fact the Blessed Saint Clement expressly records within a few years of the Fact that Cleophas was the UNCLE of James the Righteous, NOT his father as Bechtel claims -- thus directly contraverting Bechtel's fanciful imaginations, and directly supporting the Protestant Argument.

So pardon my sarcasm, AlguyA...

But exactly where does Bechtel get off, 1900 years after the fact, with his delusional claims that Cleophas was the Father of James the Righteous when the Blessed Saint Clement expressly states that Cleophas was the UNCLE of James the Righteous?!?! (which, incidentally, would make Joseph and Mary the FATHER and MOTHER of James the Righteous)?

Vietnam, Deja Vu?

We must burn down Tradition, in order to save it?

No dice, kemosabe.

best, OP

---

**-- (Dominus Iesus was a happy exception -- it was like that "Old Time Roman Catholic Hour", dredged out of the steamer trunk for one last rallying of the Faithful. But as the US Bishops declare the Conversion of Jews to be a fool's errand and the Pope busies himself with suckling a Koran on candid camera, I fear Dominus may be the last gasp -- in this Age, at least -- of the Robust Romanism I once knew, and loved-to-hate)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thank you, Steve. I will send you the book to the address you mentioned in your post. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to read the book.

Life is a journey. I will happily read your book... I read Boettner's Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination while still quite Arminian; I hated it, but I couldn't deny it. (Since you are, so the two-minute biographies relate, a former Presbyterian -- like every other major Lay Apologist fielded by Rome today -- perhaps you can appreciate that. If not, then just consider it instead my first real introduction to Augustinianism, which is certainly respectable).

And yeah, before you say it, I am talking about Boettner's good stuff... I do know that Boettner's Roman Catholicism was pretty shoddy work by compare. In fact, part of my own journey into Orthodox Christian Amillennialism (more Augustine for you) has been the realization that Rome, for all her faults, cannot be the Whore of Babylon (even when she acts like it, whatever Luther may have said), given that much of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 67-70.

More on that subject if you like, incidentally -- I do like to research my Arguments. Just don't tell Hal Lindsey, Dave Hunt, and Tim LaHaye I told you so; for my heretical refusal to identify Roman Catholicism with Babylon, and -- what is more damning -- my surely-apostate rejection of Dispensational Pre-Millennialism, they might (gasp!) excommunicate me from the Protestant Confession... whatever that means, nowadays.

Also, I'll try to post an article soon (not written by me, btw) on the issue of James the Just and the brothers of the Lord. If nothing else, perhaps it will advance the dialogue here somewhat.

I'll look forward to it.

Just do me a favor -- to abuse the name of a currently-popular English movie, let's not "Bend It Like Bechtel"...

Been there, done that. I'm hoping for better.

best, OP

[drstevej]

So should I take the name Pope James II rather than Pope Piel I?

Well reasoned material OP, as I would expect from you. I am anxious to see a detailed rebuttal from the opposing view. So far the response has been very timid IMO.

This issue is indeed a lynch-pin of RCC ecclesiology.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So should I take the name Pope James II rather than Pope Piel I? Well reasoned material OP, as I would expect from you. I am anxious to see a detailed rebuttal from the opposing view. So far the response has been very timid IMO. This issue is indeed a lynch-pin of RCC ecclesiology.

Thanks. By the way, while I'm burning poor Mr. Bechtel in effigy, let me throw another log of Tradition on the fire.

The Greek Orthodox Calendar of Saints assigns three different Commemoration Days to the three different James:

• April 30 -- the Day of Apostle James Bar Zebedee
• October 9 -- the Day of Apostle James Bar Alphaeus
• October 30 -- the Day of Saint James the Brother of the Lord, first Bishop of Jerusalem

  Orthodox Calendar of Saints, April
  Orthodox Calendar of Saints, October

Certainly an odd custom for the ancient Greek Orthodox to have developed, if the latter two James were (as Bechtel claims) one and the same person. Will Rome be sending out papal legates to advise the poor, misguided Greeks of their error, and re-work the Orthodox Calendar of Saints on their behalf?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So should I take the name Pope James II rather than Pope Piel I? Well reasoned material OP, as I would expect from you. I am anxious to see a detailed rebuttal from the opposing view. So far the response has been very timid IMO. This issue is indeed a lynch-pin of RCC ecclesiology.

Thanks. By the way, while I'm burning poor Mr. Bechtel in effigy, let me throw another log of Tradition on the fire.

The Greek Orthodox Calendar of Saints assigns three different Commemoration Days to the three different James:

• April 30 -- the Day of Apostle James Bar Zebedee
• October 9 -- the Day of Apostle James Bar Alphaeus
• October 23 -- the Day of Saint James the Brother of the Lord, first Bishop of Jerusalem

  Orthodox Calendar of Saints, April
  Orthodox Calendar of Saints, October

Certainly an odd custom for the ancient Greek Orthodox to have developed, if the latter two James were (as Bechtel claims) one and the same person. Will Rome be sending out papal legates to advise the poor, misguided Greeks of their error, and re-work the Orthodox Calendar of Saints on their behalf?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

strike post #164, corrected for typos.

[Codie]

Does Catholicism have any merits?

[Patrick Madrid]

Steve,

Well, at least we can give you an A for effort, if not sound doctrine, but you simply aren't going to get anywhere with that futile attempt to use the Orthodox (the Orthodox!!!) liturgical calendar to "prove" your theory that Mary is not a perpetual virgin.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped the attention of others here, but even so, it's worth noting that even though there are multiple feast days for "the Jameses" in the Orthodox liturgical calendar, the Orthodox Churches all *vigorously* assert their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. For example, the Orthodox Church In America's website says this in response to the claim that Mary the Mother of the Lord had other children besides him:

"Concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, the Orthodox Church also holds firmly to this doctrine. We firmly believe that Mary remained a virgin after she gave birth to Christ, while we reject the notion that she had other children after Him."

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/q-and-a_old/perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html

The Ukranian Orthodox Church in America -- http://www.uocofusa.org -- has this edifying and correct explanation of its teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, among other Marian doctrines:

"The Ever-Virgin Mary has been given the title of the "Birth-giver of God" or in Greek, the "Theotokos". This is a placement of honour and reverence. Mary was and is, the Mother, the Birth Giver of God. It was through her and her alone, that God, the Word, the Logos, the second person of the Holy Trinity was united to His creation. It was through Mary alone that God and mankind are united. She was the focal point which made it possible for the Messiah to walk among mankind. Without her, Jesus Christ would not have become part of His Creation

"The exalted position of Mary within Orthodox Theology is extremely important both for worship and for contemplation. Mary herself, was the greatest example of human personhood that mankind had to offer to God. This places a hindrance to those who believe that the Orthodox Church is a "male" dominated Church. Not so. Mary, a woman, was and is the greatest example of the height of holiness that a human being can reach. As such, we should look upon her as the epitome of faith, love, devotion and unselfish giving that we have throughout history

"Christ Himself is the only Lord unto whom we place our trust, faith and love. Nevertheless, major figures throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity are extremely important as icons of true faith and unselfish love. These figures to whom we look up to are Mary, the Mother of God, the Apostles, St. John the Baptist and forerunner of Christ, along with the other holy teachers, martyrs and defenders of the Faith throughout the Centuries!

"These people are our Christian heroes! They are the ones who devoted and donated their entire lives and their whole beings and their whole bodily and spiritual energies to defending and teaching the Word of God, the lessons of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! It is upon the blood of these people that we learn about true faith and devotion. It is upon the true examples of virtue and faith that Mary the Mother of God had, that we can ourselves aspire to a greater spiritual plain.

"Mary, the Theotokos, is the first and chief among the Saints. She is a model of devotion and commitment to God. She is an Icon of moral purity. She is an example - the greatest example! - of a person who lived in communion with God. This is true since God chose Mary to be the Mother of His Son. Since Mary found this great level of favour with God (see Luke 1:28-30) it should be conceivable that we, as human beings struggling to find this same Divine favour, look upon Mary as an example of one who has already found that which we constantly seek.

"Was Mary an example of purity? Yes. Luke 1 :27 states that she was a Virgin and would remain a Virgin ever after giving birth! Is this inconceivable? Probably for the human mind, but for God, all things are possible! Mary was born to an elderly couple, Joachim and Anna. These people had no children but wished desperately to have one. They vowed to donate their child’s life to the Service of God. When Anna, in her old age, gave birth to Mary; this was seen as a miracle. The child was brought to the Temple in her third year and left with the Priests and other young people to learn the Scriptures and the life of service to God.

"Mary stayed at the Temple until age 14 at which time it was necessary for her to return to her parents or become married. Joachim and Anna had already deceased, therefore, she was destined to be married. Mary, however, explained to the High Priests that she had given a vow of virginity and service to God. Upon hearing this, the High Priests betrothed her to an elderly man, who was a Godly person. That man’s name was Joseph, a carpenter, who was 80 years old. Joseph had children from a previous marriage and he was charged with looking after Mary and watching over her vow of chastity and service to God.

"Furthermore, it would be silly to even contemplate that after such a glorious, earth shattering, once in an eternity event such as giving birth to God Himself, should anyone ever seek after the pleasures of the Marriage bond Once Mary herself came into direct contact with God and her body contained the glorious presence of God, I am sure that she could not nor would not be able to search for anything as fulfilling ever again, on this earth!

"It was through Mary’s devotion to God; her unfaltering love and desire to serve Him that she became the chosen one for the birth place of God’s only begotten Son. Throughout the first and especially the second chapter of Luke, we find the deep faith of Mary and her willingness to give her life for her God (Luke 1:3 1-35 and 38). In these Chapters, we find the blessedness of the person of Mary and we realize that she shines forth in this Gospel as a person to be deeply respected.

"In Luke 1:43, she is honoured as the "Mother of the Lord". In Luke 1:48 we read, "All generations will call her blessed." If it is true that we are to "pray for one another" and that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effect", (James 5:16), why then should we not ask for the prayers of Mary who is "full of Grace", "blessed", and the greatest representative of the whole human race in Christ’s incarnation?"

http://www.uocc.ca/on%20mary.html

Check the doctrinal statements of all the recognized Orthodox communions around the world, and you'll find the same firm belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. By denying that historic Christian teaching, you've put yourself at odds with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the unanimous teaching of the early Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, and even, ironically, with major Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther, both of whom utterly rejected your claim that Mary the Mother of the Lord had other children besides him.

If nothing else, I would think (and hope) that this massive, 2000-year preponderance of authoritative weight on this doctrine being squarely against your theory would give you pause for reflection that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong and the Catholics, Orthodox, Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, and even the Reformers all reject your view as unbiblical.

You're free to believe as you wish, of course, but at least be aware that your vuiew does not represent (indeed it is vigorously rebuffed by) the historic Christian teaching on this issue.

Patrick Madrid
Envoy Magazine

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Does Catholicism have any merits?

Yes.

Next question?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, at least we can give you an A for effort, if not sound doctrine, but you simply aren't going to get anywhere with that futile attempt to use the Orthodox (the Orthodox!!!) liturgical calendar to "prove" your theory that Mary is not a perpetual virgin.

That wasn't really the point of my #165; rather, I was simply observing that the Orthodox liturgical calendar at least admits the fact that, contra Mr. Bechtel, James the Righteous and James the Lesser were almost certainly NOT the same person.

See again my #160 and #161 for explanations as to why this is so.

best, OP

[jboot]

With all due respect, an artful dodge. Please, if you have few moments to spare, I would be delighted to see you directly address his points from posts 160 and 161. A restatement of familiar Marian doctrine in insufficient in this case.

[jboot]

In=is. Grrr-lack of sleep kills!

[Patrick Madrid]

No, not a dodge at all. Actually, I did post a response to #s 160 & 161, but did so, inadvertently, I think, in another thread.

#155 posted on 07/07/2003 5:08 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid.
( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/934893/posts?page=155#155 )

[Patrick Madrid]

Yes, Tim, I understood your post to mean about the Orthodox seeing more than one James in Scripture. But my point was that you used it -- or at least you certainly appeared to try to use it -- in an attempt to bolster your argument against Mary's perpetual virginity. That was the specific problematic issue I responded to.

Pax

[Patrick Madrid]

Apropos of our conversation dealing with the Orthodox Churches' teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, have you noticed how quiet they've been about this? One would think that, given the historic Orthodox affirmation of this doctrine, some of the more, shall we say, "persistent" and "vocal" Orthodox folk on this message board, who always show such alacrity in posting their comments when the Catholic Church is the issue, would have added their voices to defend Holy Tradition, now that Orthodoxy has recently entered the picture in your and my comments. Fascinating.

[MarMema]

I confess to not being very knowledgeable in this topic, but I have been reading and trying to follow along.

My understanding, from searching the internet, is that we also differ from your view on it. I found this paragraph on a site I consider reputable and sound, and offer it here.

"As for the idea that James was brother in the sense of half-brother, being the son of Joseph by a previous marriage, "still the dominant position within the Orthodox churches" (the eastern or Byzantine Orthodox) Bernheim is, perhaps, less dismissive. "While no passage in the New Testament suggests this, none allows us to reject it" but notwithstanding new arguments produced in support of this interpretation Bernheim considers them "not enough to make it completely credible." Which suggests to my mind that he doesn't dismiss it altogether - maybe not completely credible but evidently so to a certain extent.."

[MarMema]

Oops, the phone rang just as I was posting and I forgot to add your name to ping also above.

[MarMema]

Additionally I am unsure about the actual significance of this belief in the Orthodox church, as I have never once heard it discussed in any sermon, etc. Nor does the average Orthodox surfer tend to find writings and discussion about it on the net, on Orthodox sites.

We're a lot more into the Holy Spirit and especially the Trinity when it comes to being theological...or even persistent and vocal, for that matter.

[Patrick Madrid]

Hmm. It's curious that you failed to include the link to this "reputable" expression of Orthodox Faith. At best, all I can conclude (being very familiar with the many official Orthodox statements of belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary) is that you either don't understand Orthodox theology as well as you would like others to think you do, or you do know the historic Orthodox position but yet you obscure it in an attempt to (as if it were possible) counter the Catholic teaching on this age-old issue. Even more fascinating!

[Patrick Madrid]

"I am unsure about the actual significance of this belief in the Orthodox church, as I have never once heard it discussed in any sermon, etc. Nor does the average Orthodox surfer tend to find writings and discussion about it on the net, on Orthodox sites."

What a pity that the Orthodox sites you frequent have fallen away from proclaiming and defending Holy Tradition on this issue! I encourage you to make the effort to gain a deeper knowledge of Orthodox theology, in particular the constant Orthodox teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, before you attempt to speak on its behalf in fora such as this one. You should begin frequenting instead the many reputable Orthodox sites (e.g. the books and official websites of the various Orthodox communions around the world: Greek, Russian, Constantinopolitan, etc.)

Have you not read your own Orthodox saints on this issue?

"The Church teaches that Christ was truly born of the ever-virgin Mary" (St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, "True Exposition of the Faith"). "It is indispensable for us to confess that the holy, ever-virgin Mary is truly the Birthgiver of God, so as not to fall into wicked blasphemy. For those who deny that the Holy Virgin is truly the Birthgiver of God are no longer believers; they are disciples of the pharisees and sadducees" (St. Ephraim the Syrian, "To the Monk John").

Who knows? Maybe you don't attend the Divine Liturgy as you should, if you are, in fact, Orthodox. If you did, you would know that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom contains numerous references to and invocations "Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God." But then, perhaps you don't attend Liturgy often enough to know about that fact.

Or, perhaps you do know it, but for some unfathomable reason, you've placed personal agendas against the Catholic Church before your obligation as an Orthodox believer to speak the truth. I don't know, and I won't pass judgement. God alone knows.