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.

[.45MAN]

That was wonderful and insightful. New blood in Patrick Madrid will bring up the level of blood pressure, but it will be for the better.

[.45MAN]

Your going to need more than a pot!!! Call the red cross canteen truck.... Ha!

[dansangel]

Welcome to Free Republic. I do not envy your task here. Personally, I have stopped posting to the Catholic threads (except for this one time) due to the horrendous amount of vicious, ugly flaming that goes on.

May God Bless you abundantly for all of your work. We need more like you to fight the good fight.

.45MAN - Thanks for the ping.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

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.

Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God.

Becky

[Revelation 911]

Grant Swank alert - run a google campers

[Desdemona]

With all due respect, Mr. Madrid, the protestant movement was a revolt, not reform. No one who claims protestantism wants to admit it, but the motivations were not doctrinal or theological, but completely human.

[NYer]

May God Bless you abundantly for all of your work. We need more like you to fight the good fight.

He's a brave one, indeed, to show up on Free Republic without the mantle of a freeper disguise.

Mr. Madrid hosts an informative blog! When you get a chance, you may want to drop in and leave a comment. I believe you will find the Dwight Longenecker articles to be astute commentaries on the times in which we live.

EnvoyMagazine

[dansangel]

Thank you. You have mail.

[Patrick Madrid]

"Welcome to Free Republic."

Thanks, Dansangel. Seems like a friendly place.

[Patrick Madrid]

Becky said, "Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God."

Oh, I see. So using that logic you'd also be forced to assert the the absence of any explicit statements in Scripture (versus implicit evidences, and there are *plenty* of implicit evidences for Mary's perpetual virginity in Scripture) regarding the Trinity as One God in Three consubstantial, co-equal Persons, the two natures of Christ, and the canon of Scripture itself must mean that those issues aren't important to God.

Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter). That revelation is handed down in the Church through Sacred Tradition, entirely outside the pages of Scripture. If you don't believe me, crack open your Bible and try to locate where in the inspired books there is a list of which books belong in the NT. Yet I'm certain you would argue that the Bible itself is "important" to God. Right?

Another example of biblical silence on an important issue: The NT nowhere condemns slavery. Galatians 3:28 mentions that there is no distinction in God's eyes betweem slave or free, but neither there nor elswhere in the NT is there a *teaching* delivered on the subject of slavery. In fact, in some sections (e.g. Philemon) Scripture gives the appearance of tolerating it (cf. 1 Peter 2:18).

So, the fact that something as important as the teaching that slavery is wrong isn't mentioned explicity in Scripture (much less condemned) doesn't ipso facto disqualify that issue as being important or true.

Ditto for Mary's perpetual virginity.

There are numerous other examples I could use to demonstrate the fuzzy thinking and unbiblical character of Becky's comment, but I hope these couple of examples will suffice to make the point that her dismissal of this doctrine, quoted at the top of this post, is simply not cogent.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Then the Catholic Church will offend you, since she holds to a dogma reading: "Outside of the Catholic Church there is positively no salvation." (Lateran Council IV)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Scripture being silent on the point actually speaks very loudly about the importance of the point to God. p>Scripture says next to nothing about the Trinity or the Church as well. Are those also unimportant points?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I was thinking even more of King Henry of Navarre, who returned to Catholicism for that very reason.

[Revelation 911]

Matthew 12

Jesus' Mother and Brothers

46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[1]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Clearly - the reference in v46 is literal and the reference in v49 is figurative.

Important nuance to note - If the duality of Christ is accepted, they are 1/2 brothers and sisters, wholly human. To call them "brothers" and "sisters" in the whole sense is innaccurate.

IMO Mary was a human called by God to do great things, as was Moses & the Apostles etc... I'd suggest we're treading on Idol worship when we deify her obedience and love....something every Christian ought to be expressing -

[Patrick Madrid]

"I'd suggest we're treading on Idol worship when we deify her obedience and love....something every Christian ought to be expressing."

Agreed. And that's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary and the saints, indeed any creature.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2113 says:

"Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.'[Mt 6:24 .] Many martyrs died for not adoring 'the Beast'[Cf. Rev 13-14.] refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.[Cf. Gal 5:20 ; Eph 5:5 .]"

I'm glad you agree with us, Rev!

[redhead]

"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.""

Touche'!

Welcome, Patrick! Love to see your name on FR's Catholic list.

[fishtank]

It's a good thing that I don't think of the major Reformers as little popes, otherwise I'd still be holding to the false teachings that they could not rid themselves of.

In particular, some Lutherans that I know have made ML a little pope, and they are more familiar with his books than they are of the Bible itself.

Roll over Beethoven, and tell old Luther the news!

[Revelation 911]

I'm glad you agree with us, Rev!

Rather, Im curious to hear your reconciliation of Matt 12 as it relates to perpetual virginity.

[conservonator]

It's a good thing that I don't think of the major Reformers as little popes, otherwise I'd still be holding to the false teachings that they could not rid themselves of.

The beauty of Protestantism; every man a pope...

[snerkel]

Good Morning Revelation 911. I ran a google and only found partial quotes similar to the few presented in the article. I can find no writings from the Protestant Fathers to support the claim they supported an ever-virgin Mary. You?