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.

[katnip]

Ok Marmema, so what did you do to start this newbies rant about Orthodox Christians besides agree with him ?

To: Patrick Madrid

historic Christian teaching on this issue was that Mary remained a perpetual virgin

And that would, indeed, be fact.

15 posted on 06/24/2003 8:04 PM PDT by MarMema [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Sorry Patty, there's only a handful of Orthodox Christians that I know of on this forum. Their job is not to sit around just waiting for your next post so they can respond to it, despite how important you think you are (Mr. been here all of 2 weeks).

[american colleen]

You could stay on topic, you know. As far as the Blessed Virgin Mary, there is virtually no difference in what either of our Churches teach.

In a post you made yesterday you used some link that I clicked on and found that some of the Orthodox Patriarch's actually request meetings with the popes. In fact, I was surprised that one of the Orthodox clergy on that site had a name beginning with "Pope"...

Anyway, you yourself (and the person you quoted in your above post) may be personally opposed to "Ut unum sint" but not all Orthodox feel the same way you do.

[american colleen]

Mr. been here all of 2 weeks

Is there a time qualifier to be met in order to post on FR? Everyone is new at some point.

[katnip]

Well yeah, everyone's new at some time, but it takes a bit more than 2 weeks posting to be taken seriously or for people to start looking for your posts.

I find it funny that he seemed to think everyone's just sitting around waiting to respond to his posts or pat him on the back whenever his fingers type a sentence.

2 weeks new seems a little young to be making the demands he makes in his post 175.

[Patrick Madrid]

"In other words, we honor her for giving birth to Christ but we stop short of making her into a fourth member of the Holy Trinity.

This is excellent news. I'm happy to know that you don't make the mistake of trying to make Mary the "fourth member" of the Holy Trinity.

[MarMema]

He sees himself as a great theologian, not entirely his fault perhaps. I don't think they teach their members about prelest.

[Patrick Madrid]

Sorry, but your attempt to evade or downplay the fact that the Orthodox Churches affirm the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity, not as insiginificant and in *exactly* the same way the Catholic Church does, won't wash. The facts are the facts. If you want to get angry with me for showing the evidence from bona fide Orthodox sources, that's okay. It doesn't bother me, and I don't return your anger with anger. I pray that God will bless you.

[american colleen]

Ya know, I've read here that people are afraid or too timid to post because they are afraid everyone is going to jump all over them. I thank God that people were so patient with me when I was new on FR.

This is post 175:
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.

And I don't see any "demands" at all.

When I joined FR, I joined on the "political" side. I never posted to the religious threads but saw them as they at that time, were mixed in with politics. The threads scared me because of all the fighting "in the name of God." The first night I posted something to do with religion was in defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary (who was being excoriated by some Protestants) and the poster who was with me who had also jumped in that night for the first time was Wordsmith - who is a wonderful Orthodox man. We became friends and united because of our love of the Theotokos. We civilly exchanged posts "off" line, talked about Catholicism and Orthodoxy and he invited me to attend an Orthodox Mass with him. He recommended several books to me which I purchased and have read.

And ya know, Patrick Madrid has run a forum similar to FR for a long time and he's probably lurked on FR for a long time before something interested him enough that he decided to join - like most of us. He has published a religious magazine for some years and he is the author of many books. Why would he come to FR in a timid manner? I've found his posts to be polite, to the point and he has not slandered or personally insulted anyone.

[katnip]

I am quite fond of and read many Catholics posts on this site. You know I was raised RC and have converted to Orthodoxy. I seem to still be on many Catholic ping lists (well, maybe not after today).

This is the first thread I've read Pat's posts. I'm not seeing the same polite manner you speak of from the get-go here.

Sorry I can't read post 175 as anything more than snide.

[Patrick Madrid]

My, my. You have pretty thin skin, don't you? You've worked yourself into quite a lather over this. Which makes wonder why someone who wants so badly to put me in my place and let me know that my unimportant newbie comments don't have people at the edge of their seats, waiting to respond (geesh, as if), would so antsy to get in there with your own put-downs. Well, you zinged me good, brotha. You got your jab in. Do you feel better now?

And by the way, who really cares if I'm new here? How does that matter, one way or the other? Or perhaps you've established some magical time period after which people's opinions begin to matter.

[katnip]

You got your jab in. Do you feel better now?

Yes, much thank you.

[american colleen]

I'm not seeing the same polite manner you speak of from the get-go here.

Well, ya gotta join and post and read stuff on FR with charity in your heart, first of all. Type can't show a smile or a laugh or inflections. I like to give everybody the benefit of the doubt and I hope people do the same when they read what I write.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Give em hell katnip! :)

Your right he's full of himself.

BigMack

[ThomasMore]

Let's take it Back to the Bible. Maybe you don't like "Sola Scriptura" -- neither do I. It is often misunderstood. Let us instead consider the Scriptures to be THE FIRST-CENTURY MAGISTERIUM

First thing you need to do then, OP, is infallibly declare the 27 NT books as the inerrant word of God. You were neither there nor privy to their writing nor their preservation. Why should I believe you that the 27 are the inspired word of God? Why should I trust you over the Church that does have that authority? Or at least they have better evidence of such authority.

I accept the RCC teaching on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the Mother of God for the same reason I accept their declaration that the 27 are the inerrant word of God; no more no less!

[AlguyA]

"So don't think that finding one trivial thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church is going to work as a divisional tactic."

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day where an Orthodox described Theotokos as a trivial thing. Is this a common view in your church? I've read other Orthodox, here at FR, who had led me to believe your church held some devotion to Our Lady.

[american colleen]

I mean no offense, Big Mack, but it would be nice to see you address the topics on threads in your own words (i.e. no cutting and pasting) instead of taking potshots at people or just posting some silly graphics.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

What for? its all been said a million times, pot shots are all thats left. :)

Besides I'm working on my grand opus!

BigMack

[MarMema]

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day where an Orthodox described Theotokos as a trivial thing

That is what she said, isn't it? What did I say, though? You *might* want to try for some accuracy with this.

[drstevej]

Besides I'm working on my grand opus! ~ BigMack

What, a Spam Happy Meal?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Buzz off you snake.

BigMack