Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Protestant Reformers on the Virgin Mary
This Rock ^

Posted on 12/08/2006 8:12:09 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre

Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

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}

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"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." (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Commentaries on Luther

". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)

"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". (David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)

Martin Luther defends the Eucharist

In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity 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)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: calvin; catholicism; evangelical; luther; mary; protestant; protestantism; reformed; virginmary
The Reformers beliefs about the Virgin Mary and those of contemporary Evangelicals are like night and day.
1 posted on 12/08/2006 8:12:12 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

Under no circumstances would I ever demean my brothers and sisters who are Catholics, but there is no evidence that Mary continued her life as a virgin.

True, there may be no evidence that she wasn't a lifelong virgin, with the exception of Scriptural references to Jesus' brothers. But that is a powerful exception. If you accept the references to Jesus' brothers, you really have to do a lot of extrascriptural bending and spinning to make her a perpetual virgin.

Bottom line for me, with no disrepect toward other opinions, Scripture rules. Luther's opinions are extra-Scriptural


2 posted on 12/08/2006 8:31:57 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norge

No evidence. There is plenty of evidence dating from the Second Century. The ideas to the contrary were first proposed by the Gnostic heretics.

Oh ye of little faith.


3 posted on 12/08/2006 8:57:23 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre (There's no such thing as relativism, only dogmatism of a different color)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norge

I agree. I am Lutheran (Missourri Synod) and although Luther was a great figure in the Protestant Reformation and has his accolades, we are also very careful to note that Luther was not perfect, and not everything Luther said or did is beyond reproach. Where Luther's teachings agree with Scripture, we would agree with him; where they depart, we would remain with Scripture.

To simply throw Luther's quotes around where he was wrong on a subject and somehow use them to support an incorrect position, the original author should also use Luther's incorrect ideas and quotes later in his life about his own German countrymen and the Jews, who were both frustrating him in his later years. If the man was always right, let's use all his quotes, and not just cherry-pick the ones that further one's own incorrect views.

Luther wasn't infallible, and nobody but God is infallible. No person save Jesus Christ (God the Son, in the flesh) was infallible. Luther was wrong in his views on certain aspects of Mary. He was wrong on other things as well. We don't point them out to beat him up and savage him because of it, but I point it out because the original poster is using his incorrect quotes to further buttress his own incorrect viewpoint by saying even a Protestant believes what the Roman church teaches.


4 posted on 12/08/2006 9:02:28 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norge

The Biblical canon is extra-scriptural. What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?

The word "Trinity" is extra-scriptural, not to mention the catechetical formulae about who Jesus was. If Christ's divinity and humanity was as plain to understand as you perhaps take for granted, the Arian heresy would never have arisen, not to mention Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc.

If every man or woman is his or her own pope, chaos is the end result.


5 posted on 12/08/2006 9:03:24 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre (There's no such thing as relativism, only dogmatism of a different color)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre
'The word "Trinity" is extra-scriptural"

It's funny you mention that, because Tertullian the guy who first recored that term denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. The trinity can be backed by scripture, the perpetual virginity of Mary can not.
6 posted on 12/08/2006 9:07:59 PM PST by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Are you not guilty of doing the same thing? Cherry-picking quotes to support your position? No one ever can claim to know who is wrong or right about Mary, and to claim otherwise is irresponsible. I did not read any reference to the Roman Catholic Church or that he was pushing any sort of agenda.

If Mary was held in such high regard by God, as the only person ever to bear His son, certainly we must hold her in the same regard. This is in the Holy Scripture. It is through Mary that Jesus came to this world by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the Will of God.

Please don't get so angry, or argumentative. In the end, there will be only one truth. We need to be supportive of other Christian faiths and not denegrate another. We get that enough from other sources. We are one body, with many different ideas.


7 posted on 12/08/2006 9:30:30 PM PST by 8thChild (Merry Christmas!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Among other things, I was taught in a Missouri Synod school, with male teachers, no less (Reinhold Arkebauer, Luther Kollander, and Adolph Stahlecker...does that confirm my background?)


8 posted on 12/08/2006 9:36:52 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

Thank you for posting those beautiful quotes about Our Lady.


9 posted on 12/08/2006 9:40:21 PM PST by diamond6 (Everyone who is for abortion has been born. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

BTTT!


10 posted on 12/08/2006 9:52:49 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

On this we agree:

Mary was an exceptional woman, chosen by God to bear His Son.

To some degree, I agree that chaos reigns when there is no unifying authority which determines dogma.

Having said that, with my Missouri synod, Fundamentalist Baptist, Bob Jonesian, Evangelical Presbyterian, definitely non-Catholic, Philip Yancey (and even Tony Campolo)-styled Christianity, whose authority do I follow? Hmmmh?

I really liked Pope John Paul, and I am warming to Benedict, I love Billy Graham, and I like R. C. Sproul, and I think Robertson McQuilkin has it right. And I love reading the Bible (in a good contemporary translation).

Now what do you think I should do?


11 posted on 12/08/2006 9:53:41 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all considered Mary a perpetual virgin! Thanks for the thread.


12 posted on 12/08/2006 9:54:44 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
**the perpetual virginity of Mary can not.**

Then why did these reformers think that it was substantiated?

Check out this thread on FR!

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

13 posted on 12/08/2006 10:00:37 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 8thChild
Cherry picking quotes? I don't think so----

Would you say these Protestants cherry-picked their opinions?

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

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

14 posted on 12/08/2006 10:03:56 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

that wasn't the point - the point is that it is only natural to spin things to what we believe and we'd be lying if we deny. We are fortunate to have such conviction in our faiths that we should use our "aggression" toward winning those not as faithful. If you believed what I did - you would be Catholic and if I believed what you did, I would be protestant. We both made choices and it truly makes absolutely no sense to argue or prove our respective cases. We have to get along - all Christians.


15 posted on 12/09/2006 1:46:46 AM PST by 8thChild (Merry Christmas!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: norge

The New Testament tells us to go to the Church when there is a dispute - such as the one about Mary's perpetual virginity - and to listen to the Chruch - (who hears you hears me) and the church, the pillar and ground of truth - teaches Mary's perpetual virginity


16 posted on 12/09/2006 5:48:12 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 8thChild

We can't be one body if we believe different things. THere is only one truth now, btw.


17 posted on 12/09/2006 5:52:44 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre; Campion; sitetest; BlackElk; mockingbyrd
Protestants apper willing to abandon almost anything if what is being abandoned is harmonious with Catholic Doctrine.

That should come as no surprise. In translating the New Testament, the KJV translators changed the words of Scripture....

Mal 1:11, prior to the KJV changes, the words in bold appeared. The KJV translators changed them and substituted the words italicesd

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place sacrifice incense shall be offered unto my name, and a Clean oblation pure offering; for my name shall be great among the Gentiles heathen, saith the Lord of hosts

*It was no big deal to change Scripture to oppose the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass so what is the big deal about abandoning Tradition?

18 posted on 12/09/2006 6:04:43 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

"What came first the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles or the Bible?"

When I first read your post, I misunderstood, and want to clarify what, upon reflection, I think you're saying. The answer to this question is that the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles (i.e. tradition) came before the writings of the New Testament and their subsequent gathering into the canon. So, you're saying that the Catholic position concerning Mary, which was formalized into doctrine MUCH later (parts of it as late as late 1800's or early 1900's, I believe), were actually beliefs that arose out of very early oral tradition, and are therefore not new, not a change to our faith, but supported by evidence from the earliest days of Christianity. Is that correct?

As for myself, I have a funny, very personal belief about theological controversies-- I believe that if I need to have a defined belief on them, if I need to know the truth, that God will tell me. If He hasn't done that, which He hasn't in this case, then I don't need to know, I don't need to have a position. :) I do believe, however, that He has told some other folks the truth-- I suspect He's told the Catholics, but again, I just don't know for sure. :-D


19 posted on 12/09/2006 7:50:35 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: walden; sitetest
God did tell you. When you learn what the Catholci Church Teaches you are hearing Jesus.

Jesus is the Church and the Church teachs with His authority.

With all due respect, the reason you do not hear God is you do not appear to have, yet, stooped to the same humility the Theotokos modeled for us as an example.

Saul, why do you persecute me

He that heareth you, heareth me

*With all due respect, brother, I really do not find it convincing that each protestant approaches Holy Writ with an open mind. Most protestants have been reared by protestants parents who have, knowingly or not, been recipients of an oral protestant tradition predicated on opposition to the Church Jesus established.

20 posted on 12/09/2006 11:14:14 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

I have read the entire Catholic catechism, and while I don't object to any of it, I also feel no personal need for much of it. Maybe others, with different sorts of minds than mine, need that, but I feel that the Apostle's creed is a clear enough statement of belief for me. With that, my prayers, the bible, and the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life, I am content. I read the bible daily (I'm just about to finish my second trip through the whole thing) but don't pretend to understand much of it, or to understand the significance of much of the rest. I do it as a discipline, because I do believe that if left to our own devices, we will unconsciously read only the parts we like and ignore the parts we don't, which is how I believe people go wrong and end up creating a God more to their liking than the God that exists. Once again, however, I figure if there's something in it I need to understand, God will clarify it for me. I guess I'm just simple-minded.

And, I don't try to read the bible with an open mind, I try to read it with an empty mind-- to understand what is truly there, and not to impose upon it my own preferences. God is who He is, and He has revealed Himself in history and scripture. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."


21 posted on 12/09/2006 1:01:49 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: walden

The kernel of Catholic ponderings on the Mother of God is rooted in Luke Chapter 1. Besides, although the original deposit of faith closed with the death of the last apostle, the Holy Spirit never has ceased to give the Church a deeper understanding of the Sacred Mysteries found in the pages of Scripture.


22 posted on 12/09/2006 8:35:01 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre (There's no such thing as relativism, only dogmatism of a different color)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: walden
I also feel no personal need for much of it.

Christianity is all about meeting your personal needs according to your own personal tastes. Really, it is all about you. Keep shopping around till you find exactly what *you* want. /s

But when you figure out that Church is about serving and worshipping God, then send me a note.

-A8

23 posted on 12/10/2006 4:44:47 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: walden
I believe that if I need to have a defined belief on them, if I need to know the truth, that God will tell me.

Did a voice speak this to you from heaven? Where are you getting this belief?

-A8

24 posted on 12/10/2006 4:48:23 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: norge
If you accept the references to Jesus' brothers, you really have to do a lot of extrascriptural bending and spinning to make her a perpetual virgin.

First, show us where in Scripture it is documented that other children, i.e. brothers and sisters of Jesus, were born of the Virgin Mary.

Second, show us where in Scripture the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is specified.

25 posted on 12/10/2006 5:25:10 PM PST by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

Nice.


26 posted on 12/10/2006 7:08:31 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
Your questions have been argued by people with far higher scriptural pay-grades than mine, for a lot of centuries. So what I am about to reply in response is nothing, if not insignificant. Can we at least agree on that?

I personally can't document #2, sola scriptura. Others around here seem to be comfortable arguing the point. But I do accept it.

If I don't, I have to determine who is right regarding many extra-scriptural pronouncements. That would give me a colossal headache. (Case in point, do you accept every point that every Pope has claimed as from God? I am assuming you are Catholic.) So I do rely on Scripture alone as my guide. (I will admit, there are so many interpretations of scripture floating around that that in itself is a slippery slope.)

As to point one, while there may be no evidence that Jesus' brothers (and sisters?) were born of Mary, you cannot show me scriptural evidence they were not. The fact that Jesus' family is referenced in Scripture seems to me to be inclusive.

I am not a Catholic, so I do not necessarily accept the Catholic interpretation of God's Word nor its doctrines. But I would never engage in Catholic bashing.

27 posted on 12/10/2006 8:47:21 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: norge
Case in point, do you accept every point that every Pope has claimed as from God?

At least those very few declared as infallible teachings on faith and morals because I believe the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

As to point one, while there may be no evidence that Jesus' brothers (and sisters?) were born of Mary, you cannot show me scriptural evidence they were not.

So as far as point one, to declare Mary gave birth to additional children cannot be determined conclusively one way or the other from Scripture alone. To claim that she did is extra-scriptural.

I personally can't document #2, sola scriptura. Others around here seem to be comfortable arguing the point. But I do accept it.

If I don't, I have to determine who is right regarding many extra-scriptural pronouncements.

Regarding point 2, Scripture does not declare Sola Scriptura as doctrine, and since you believe in it but can't document it, you've determined that someone was right regarding this extra-scriptural pronouncement.

Non-Catholics accept a number of non-Scriptural teachings as doctrine and it always amuses me when they criticize Catholics for doing the same (note that I am not saying you personally are criticizing Catholics).

28 posted on 12/10/2006 9:14:26 PM PST by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

I have too much respect for the opinions of any Christian than to engage in arguments that can not end, without the subjugation of another.

I don't yeild on my points, nor would I demand that you yeild on yours.

On this I won't yeild...my salvation is dependant solely on the sacrifice of Our Saviour.

On that I hope we can agree.


29 posted on 12/10/2006 10:21:50 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

I have been far too Nordic tonight...

Yeild = Yield.

For goodness sake.


30 posted on 12/10/2006 10:25:23 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

I have been far too Nordic tonight...

Yeild = Yield.

For goodness sake.


31 posted on 12/10/2006 10:25:35 PM PST by norge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

Some really well-researched stuff here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm


32 posted on 12/11/2006 1:16:30 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sigzero

FYI


33 posted on 05/31/2011 2:52:41 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joseph DeMaistre

BTTT!


34 posted on 03/24/2015 3:35:46 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson