very nice....let’s see how the anti marian crowd twists those words of the very leaders they themselves credit with ‘restoring’ the ‘true’ faith....
#1 It really doesn’t matter what those men believed. Some of it is *pure* speculation. She had other children with Joseph, so she could not be a perpetual “virgin” for one.
#2 However, I believe some of it as well and I believe Mary should be thought of in a very high regard.
#3 That does not mean that you can a) pray to Mary or b) have Mary intercede on your behalf as both of those are unbiblical.
It seems the main problem I have always had with the “perpetual virginity” argument is the least defensible, even by Calvin, as noted in your post: he “interprets” the translation to mean cousins, etc. (isn’t it clear that James was “the brother of Jesus”?). I just can’t go there: I firmly believe that Mary was a virgin when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and that she remained a virgin right through the birth of Christ, but after that, I can find absolutely no scriptural support for her remaining so. And in my mind (and my faith), it just doesn’t matter that she had normal marital relations with the faithful Joseph after Christ’s birth. That does nothing to detract from the honor done her by God or the faithful way in which she accepted His will.
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful analysis and your genuine seeker’s faith. Thanks for the post.
Colonel, USAFR
Eh. Catholics seem to quote Luther and Calvin to Protestants as if we simply replaced the Catholic Pope with Luther and Calvin. Luther and Calvin may have agreed with the Catholic Church about Mary’s perpetual virginity. I still don’t.
SnakeDoc
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass"....This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary's womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain.
-- from the thread Did Mary retain her virginal integrity while giving birth to Jesus?
I have no idea why you weren’t taught these things as a Protestant but, Good Luck.
It is a mystery why you and I, and others, are now come into a cocoon, where the treasures are hidden from the masses, the world, while in plain sight. How far removed from the early Church we have come, particularly in the USA—from that early Church Christ established in Peter, standing over the old gates of Hell. It is truly a miracle to take that first scary step approaching the Church, through the gauze of slander, lies, mis-information and near clinically proportioned ignorance and bias of and against Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church. It is as if the power of the Holy Spirit moved mightily from the power of the heart for Jesus, to the head, and the power of Reason which emboldens the soul by way of Wisdom. Can I ever live up to all I have learned, and be once saved always saved? Of course not. But the striving is the Way of the Cross, and the state of Grace is availed to the People of God, and I try to rest in his Mercy, for now knowing, I carry a heavier weight and responsibility for obedience, discipline, piety and conscience, by His Grace.
Good for you.
As to Mary's perpetual virginity, I don't really care what those quoted have said. I know what scripture says in, for example, Matthew 1:25
Oh boy.....here comes the Mary Defamers and the Catholic haters.....and so near Christmas!!
The implication here is that somehow the perverted view of Mary held by the RCC is shared by those in the Reformation. Dream on, folks. And, once again, the believers in Jesus Christ, alone, dismiss, repudiate, disavow and expose this dangerous cult-like worship of Mary for what it is...heresy from Rome.
Mary was chosen to be the mother of Jesus long before any conception. She should be honored by us since God obviously chose her for a reason. That said, Mary was a human, a sinner, and required a redeemer. That isn't just MY assumption ... read Romans 3:23.
Interestingly, many (not all) Catholic churches in the Philippines (I lived there 7 years) actually teach that the "immaculate conception" also included Mary's own birth. Thus, Mary herself became a semi-deity. I've been in the congregation when a priest actually instructed us to "pray to Mary for..." for some reason or another.
Obviously my experiences are not the norm for Catholic churches but I am more than a little wary of ANY church that teaches praying to anyone but the Trinity.
Did any of them belie she was completely sinless worthy of prayer?
Calvin also believed in, and practiced, burning people at the stake so I guess we should also believe that?
Thanks for the link.
Looks worth while to rumage around for other gems.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
Just so. Both Luther and Calvin were highly respectful of the Virgin Mary.
Luther accorded her every Catholic title that was common in his day, with the sole exception of “Queen of Heaven.”
The disrespect shown by many Protestants for the Mother of Jesus was a later development. And it is not compatible with numerous passages in the Bible.
I became aware of this when a friend of mine investigated the puzzling (to many) question as to why the Puritan John Milton also speaks so respectfully about Mary in his poems. Indeed, in Paradise Regained, he treats her far more respectfully than he treats the Apostles.
Let me see now, the first generation of Reformers—after over 1000 years of religious conformity enforced by the execution by burning of dissenters—kept some extra-biblical beliefs about Mary, which the 2nd generation of the Reformation—and Protestants ever since, rejected. THAT convinces him to be a Catholic?
Hmmmm, didn’t take much, eh?
This is not addressed to any particular person. It is only written in response to my reading the various posts on this thread.
When it comes to the title “mother of God,” it should be understood that this is correct and scriptural if it is understood in the same sense as the term “theotokos,” literally, “God bearer.” This is a very ancient title, and one that was used and defended by the very best of the ancient Church fathers, e.g. Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria. Furthermore “theotokos” was, as a term, explicitly defended and approved by the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431 A.D.), which is itself the last ecumenical council about which there were virtually no reservations on the part of the Reformers. At this council, the Nicene Creed, formulated at Nicaea in 325 (1st Ecumenical Council) and slightly modified (the “filioque”) at Constantinople in 381 (2nd Ecumenical Council) was explicitly upheld as the definitive confession of Christian doctrine. Also, and most interestingly, both Nestorianism and Pelagianism were explicitly rejected as false doctrine at this same council.
Whether or not anyone cares about history or not, we all remain under its effects, like it or not. From this time onward we see in church history a tendency on the part of Rome to err in the direction of Pelagianism. We also see a tendency on the part of Protestants to err in the direction of Nestorianism. Both of these tendencies are amply illustrated on this thread, and on many others on the FR Religion forum.
Coincidence? I doubt it. There really is nothing at all new under the sun. And the waywardness of man has not changed at all.
Throughout the rest of the history of Christendom we see these two threads running side by side, the first, Nestorianism and all its related errors, dealing with Christology, the person and work of the Christ, and the second, Pelagianism and all its related errors, dealing with Soteriology, the way in which sinful mankind is saved.
What is at stake beyond the overheated rhetoric of each of the two sides on this thread are the doctrines of the Christ and of salvation. These are and remain the Scylla and Charybdis of Christianity, as is so tragically illustrated on this very thread. The Protestant tendency to error in regard to Christology will, if not arrested, eventually lead to teachings like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The Catholic tendency to error in regard to Soteriology will, if not arrested, eventually lead to teachings like that of pure paganism, that man saves himself.
In addition, each of these strengths, that is, sound Christology and sound Soteriology, can be falsely and wrongly defended with equally great and awful consequences. On the one hand, the Creeds demand no more of faith in regard to Mary, than that she is the “theotokos,” with all that that means for a right understanding of the person of Christ, and that she gave birth as a virgin. Anything beyond that, whether true or not, is both immaterial and unscriptural, and therefore not necessary for salvation. In regard to salvation, the Creeds demand no more of faith than that it believe what is stated therein in regard to the nature of God and what He has done for us, with all that that means for the proper relation of faith and that which is the product of faith, that is, good works. God saves ... period, end of story. The one who believes and continues in that faith is truly a child of God and, while still burdened with sin and its effects, desires to be and act like a child of God. In other words, being made a good tree by the power of God, the believer produces good fruit. All of which fruit is for the benefit of our neighbors and their salvation, for in Christ every believer has all that is needed for salvation.
The honest of each of the two sides will recognize both the principle strength and the principle weakness of their side. The deluded, whether by others or self, will now scream and throw a tantrum.
Nevertheless, Merry Christmas to all, for unto you is born a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.”