Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by 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
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
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 . . .
[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.
Martin Luther
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.
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
John Calvin
Huldreich Zwingli
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Heinrich Bullinger
'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.'
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
Main Index & Search | The Blessed Virgin Mary | Protestantism
Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 27 January 2002.
I disagree - they say nothing more than theres a lot of people attending. It speaks nothing to thier spiritual condition, thier faith or thier assurance of salvation.
Like I said - by that measure - Mormons are doing something right, when you and I know that not to be the case
Matthew 18:20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
silly me relying solely on Scripture again
I did ..... and I appreciate those prayers - I'd also appreciate them for my Catholic lesbian sister, my now dead Uncle who was excommunicated for marrying a Presbyterian (he was incidentally the finest Christian I have ever met) and my now deceased Grandparents who left the faith in the 40's after a priest made a pass at my Grandmother (They found a home in the Pentecostal movement).
Likewise, I will pray for you
No argument there - I think the fly in the ointment is the extreme to which it is carried in Catholicism (excepting of course the subject of our present chat)
For preists, no - for devoutly faithful family - yes
just how many aspects of romanism are extrabiblical in origin -
man will steer you wrong
- Gods Word is the truth
I'll stick with truth
There are a zillion different interpretations by Protestants, and you've already granted that every believer may simply look at the Bible and come away from it with whatever he will.
Almost all of those "protestant" interpretations are also held within the RCC. Is a charismatic Catholic acceptable, but a Catholoic traditionalist not? Is a liberation theologian acceptable as long as he's under Rome? We can draw Venn diagrams to show how different teachings have crossed the Romanist-protestant boundaries -- which is why I think you're comparing apples, oranges, bananas, kiwi, berries, and grapes in trying to contrast Rome from any other church.
Where is the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in all truth (John 14) in this scheme you propose?
With so much diversity and so many conflicting teachings within Roman Catholicism, I know He's not limited to serving in the Vatican.
There is not a great diversity of beliefs among the hierarchy, and it is their beliefs that count for defining the Church. A Catholic who does not share the faith of His Bishop and the Pope is not really formally a Catholic, although materially he may remain within the Church.
Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Faith is not subjectively defined by individual believers, but objectively defined by the Pope and Episcopal heirarchies Magisterium. The conformance of believers to these teachings shows their conformance to the Church.
Are you lumping confessional Protestant churches in with ad hoc American neo-evangelicalism? I object to someone calling my faith "subjective" since my faith is hardly a relative matter. It's based on the same historical creeds yours is.
Please tell me how my church's confessions are "subjective"? Even Eck and other papal envoys didn't use that particular word.
You also didn't explain how you account for charismania/renewal within the Roman See. Is it any different than that which is present in certain American neo-evangelical sects?
The Catholic Church alone was founded by Christ. You cannot with the Catholic Church point to a date and say, as with the Lutheran Church, for example, ahh 1517 - Luther nailed the theses up at Wittenberg - that's the start of the Lutheran Church. There was no Lutheran Church or Faith for the 1500 years prior!
Since your Church was admittedly founded by a fallible man, even an objective confession is really simply their subjective reading of that part of divine revelation that they accept.
Yes, you can accept the authority of creeds produced at early Church Councils. But will you also accept the Canons of those same Councils that support numerous Catholic doctrines? Will you accept their endorsements of the work of local plenary councils that laid down rules on celibacy, appeals to Rome, the canon of the Bible (including the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha), the perpetual virginity of Mary, relics and the veneration of saints and icons, etc., etc.? I doubt it! You'd have to become Catholic to do so. Your Church's objective confession is a subjective selection of historic teachings, just as the Protestant Bible is a subjective selection of the Old Testament that excises the Deuterocanon contained in the Septuagint that the whole early Church used (you know, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, etc.).
I await your reply to my view of things.
I await your reply to my view of things.
I started to respond point-by-point, but I'm going to let it rest. I'll only say that Luther did not found any church, Christ did and that church is one. The church is not based upon succession alone, but on certain teachings -- teachings which, with Luther, I agree Rome departed. On matters where your denomination is still correct, I fight vehemently against those who'd throw the baby out with the bath water. It's too bad you cannot rise above your spite and do the same in return. After all, various Catholic scholars over the years have pointed out that Luther's confession at Augsburg was well within Catholic tradition.
Take it easy, separated brother.
Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.
The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.
The only possible escape is claiming there is authority, but that it is not without error. But an authority in matters of belief that can err is no authority at all, but simply an opinion with power behind it. I suppose what I would view as a cynical view of the Church could maintain this, and thus claim a continuity from the Apostles to Luther. But I have a difficult time squaring this idea with Christ's promise to be with us always, and to send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.
Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith. Either he's right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and he's wrong, or we are both wrong. We can't be both right. Regardless of what you want to select, there is a need to seek out the truth in prayer, since where discord of belief exists, it cannot be the will of Christ.
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.