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.

[ChicagoGirl]

I am a traditional Catholic and I highly honor Mary, but I believe that trying to convince Protestants of her holiness and virginity is like trying to teach Advanced Calculus before subtraction. In my experience, Protestants who convert to Catholicism (including two close family members) generally accept the Marian doctrine last and they have the most trouble with it.

After generations of prejudice against Catholic thought and Mary, they just can’t accept it until after they begin to realize that the Catholic Church holds the truth. They have a knee-jerk reaction against Mary. I think you’d have to start with arguing against sola scriptura or something.

[Revelation 911]

911 and a few others who keep beating their heads against the wall in a futile attempt to *prove* that Mary had other children besides Christ), they do two things. 1) Start the name calling (which is the fallacy of ad hominem) and 2) attempt to change the subject to something else they think they can do better on.

I have to admit - this one has me scratching my head in befuddlement......please illustrate for all (with links) where I laced the dialogue with ad homs and name calling. I made no mention of Mary's veneration or the plausability of the co-redemptrix notion, nor did I address the papacy.

Your assertion is baseless - teetering closely to a lie

Perhaps you are confusing me with RobbyS, who had a post deleted for same.

____________________

Posted by RobbyS to Revelation 911

On Religion 06/25/2003 9:50 PM EDT #89 of 101

Catholics are the only true Christians. All others who claim to be Christian are schismatics and heretics :-).

_______________

........Charming

Psalm 12:

3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and every boastful tongue

Now, while Im responding to you for the last time, please note it is impolite to speak of another freeper with whom you agree or otherwise without including the freeper in the post mentioning him, her.

enjoy your day Pat

[ChicagoGirl]

Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

Oh, I just looked them up. One of their websites states that they were formed in 1457. That's a pretty long time after Christ.

[Revelation 911]

God would have blessed them with more numbers.

so numbers denote success?

Catholics - ....meet the LDS Mormons

[Revelation 911]

One of their websites states that they were formed in 1457. That's a pretty long time after Christ.

....and solidifying doctrine in 1854 regarding Marys perpetual virginity isn't?

By that token - anyone who held that position beforhand was a heretic

So - taking it to another extension - Calvin - Wesley and Luther were "heretics" then for affirming Marys perpetual virginity and "ok" now, as it suits the argument and Pope Pius IX says its "kosher" (he he)

(quotation marks used figuratively)

....can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

[Revelation 911]

FYI - I was Catholic until my 35th

[conservonator]

....can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

Yes, everything looks different from the outside. Can you imagine how Christianity looks to an outsider? To understand, you must shed your prejudice and be as a child: trust completely, be curious and have faith. Come inside, again, it can be done. That’s what happened to me.

[RobbyS]

Irony is obviously lost on some people. Guess my smiley face was not clear enough.

[RobbyS]

Too young to remember the case of Father Feeney?

[RobbyS]

A decline in numbers, either from a failure to recruit or from a lowering birth rate, is surely a troubling sign. Witness what has happened to the Anglican Church.

[Revelation 911]

Too young to remember the case of Father Feeney?

no salvation outside the church? - specifically what case?

[RobbyS]

Don't get your dander up.We are close to agreement. Obviously Christians will interpret the Scriptures in the light of faith in Jesus, just as others will interpret them in the absence of faith in him. Catholics read the New Testament in the light of faith in the Church and NCs in the absence of such faith. Total unbelievers, of course, will look at everything in the light of their total rejection of the supernatural and call them fantasy. There is no "objective" point of view.

[RobbyS]

He was declared a heretic.

[RobbyS]

A faithful Catholic can believe in a heresy. St. Thomas did not believe in the Immaculation Conception. Some Catholics are so poorly catechized that if they and a Methodist are each asked if they agree with a list of Catholic doctrines, the Methodist may score higher than the Catholic. The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.

[Revelation 911]

The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.

My opinion is the Bible will never steer me wrong -

[Revelation 911]

The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.

spend a minute and look at what your saying - youve totally excluded Christ and faith

[ChicagoGirl]

-God would have blessed them with more numbers. -so numbers denote success?

No, but they say something about a church, "which the gates of hell will not prevail against."

[ChicagoGirl]

By that token - anyone who held that position beforhand was a heretic

I don't know where you get this idea. The church always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and restated it in 1854, because heretics were refuting it. Not because it wasn't true before.

...can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

To be honest, I think your bias against the Church has blinded you from the truth. Your argument is nonsensical. The Church has remained constant in its belief about Mary for more than 2000 years, and if you can't see that as proof of the truth, then I can't help you. God chose a human woman to bear His son and carry Him in her womb and give birth to Him and raise Him. The bible, 2000 years of faithful Christians and common sense all hold that Mary remained a virgin for life.

I believe that God wants us to honor and respect His Holy Mother.

[ChicagoGirl]

It's too bad that you had a bad experience with the truth. I will pray for you to come back home.

[RobbyS]

And you have forgotten that the Church is defined as the body of Christ. He is the head, we are the members. And so we get to the meaning of that parable in which the Lord tells to cut off an infected member.