Posted on 04/11/2008 8:33:54 PM PDT by markomalley
Challenge the Caucus designation of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2000422/posts
Rationale:
Non Caucus members should be able to refute misrepresentation:
Article states that “Luther and Calvin believed, for example, in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”
Compare with:
‘It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.’
Calvin’s COMMENTARY ON A HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS, MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xv.html
I would have to agree. Which means this thread will not be a free-fire zone. Standby with Extinguishers and Water Hoses.
Mary is...there aren't enough words. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!
Wonderful article. Marking it for my saves page of bookmarks.
“Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.”
You got a link for that? :-)
It’s in Luke.
Nice. When I want a link I can’t get one. :-)
Click on the verse numbers or the footnote numbers. It’s all there.
Sorry, I thought the verse numbers were linked. They aren’t. My mistake.
How is that a misrepresentation? The very source you quoted verifies Hahn's claim in Calvin's case. Here's a link to Jerome's defense against Helvidius that Calvin referenced: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's certainly worth the read, especially if you can enjoy a caustic wit:
If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give thee thanks?”
Ouch! :)
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
John Calvin also wrote this:
“There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!
“For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....
“And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE....” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
“We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called ‘brethren.’ Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as ‘brethren’ of Christ.” (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
“Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person.” (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)
As a Catholic apologist noted:
Max Thurian, who was a Calvinist when he wrote MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS (NY: Herder and Herder, 1963) but later converted to the Catholic faith, summarizes the views of the Protestant Reformers —
“A very ancient tradition of the Church affirms a perpetual virginity of Mary; and the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves confessed ‘-Mariam semper virginem-’ [Mary ever-Virgin].....
“The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God’s gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief.”
“For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy.”
“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, MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS, p. 37-40, 197)
More: http://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/calvin-on-perpetual-virginity-of-mary/
Apparently there is no mirepresentation of Calvin’s views. He believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Excellent. Thank you.
It seems more than likely that James the Just, “the brother of The Lord”, was the same person as James the son of Alphaeus, who was not the child Mary and Joseph, and was a relative (cousin?), of Jesus, but not what we would call our “blood brother” (but it is altogether possible they were raised so closely that they were, in essence, brothers.)
If Mary had other children, why would Jesus instruct the Apostle John to take care of her? Surely St. James the Just, the man who was held in such high regard by the other Apostles that they left the final say during the Council of Jerusalem to him, would be capable of taking care of his own family. That is, of course, if Mary of Nazareth was his mother.
Why the Evangelical crowd on FR presses this point is beyond me. It seems to be just a sheer hatred of anything “Catholic”.
Exodus 32: 4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” 6 And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.
Compare the two passages. "God just isn't enough. Bring out the idols." Some things never change, do they?
Sadly the Protestants are going to have fits about how the reformers viewed the BVM.
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.