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.

[american colleen]

No I did not criticize PM as he attributed the source - used the banner, in fact. All of us do that. Marmema did the same in several of her posts, as did I. We named the source and/or linked it.

There is a huge difference when you cut and paste, do not link or name the source you are using and pass it off as your own writing. Many, many of the poster's (who I criticized) posts that I have read are obviously not his own words (I think after a while we know how one another writes) so I put half dozen or so words in quotes and do a google search. Never fails, I find someone else wrote what he posted. I just think it is sad because it almost seems that the person doesn't trust themselves to be able to explain what they believe.

I don't want to get into a pissing match over this stuff, so I have deliberately not pinged anyone else. Do a search... And, the person I criticized was very gratious. I meant nothing personal, but coming on a thread and not even bothering to offer a theological opinion on the subject and doing a hit and run is crummy. And then look what happened with that poster and another poster. Stupid.

[FormerLib]

Well said!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Now, look what would happen had the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers to apply monogene to describe Jesus as Mary's only child. The specialness of the relationship between God the Son and God the Father would be muddied. Indeed, on another thread right now, a Calvinist (God bless him) is pointing out an early Mormon belief of God the Son at some point being "born" to God the Father. Now, imagine how much stronger the Mormon heresy in this regard would be if the Holy Spirit had decided to use monogene to also describe the relationship between Mary and Jesus. Monogene is used in the New Testament several times to describe an only child, but it is reserved by John, when he references Jesus, for the special case of the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity.

---

Well, bind me to a stake and let the Jesuits burn my corpse...

Holy Trinitarian Relevancy, Batman, it's an actually cogent Romanist Argument.

Every other Romanist Argument I've ever encountered seems intent upon wiggling through a "linguistic loophole" which might, at the extreme borders of possibility, PERMIT an equivalence between PROTOTOKON ("first-born") and MONOGENE ("Only-Born")... like a Defense Lawyer who knows his client is guilty, he's just trying to get him off on a Legal Technicality (an example I may use again, but I thought your Post deserved first consideration).

You're actually arguing that, in this particular Case, PROTOTOKON might be preferable for Trinitarian (i.e., Anti-Mormon, Anti-Arian) Theology.

As you already said, am I going to agree with you? NO, OF COURSE NOT. "First-Born" is still the normative and organic interpretation of prototokon, which does not mean "Only-Born".

And as detailed in my #160-161, I have offered at least four Principal Arguments, each of which must be independently overthrown. And I think you must admit my reservation of the fact that, in terms of positive evidence, you have not overthrown ANY of my arguments.

But in terms of answering My Arguments -- that is, not disproving (which you have not done), but in terms of offering a Plausible Alternative (which I will graciously admit that you have) -- you have answered, if not overthrown, the "PROTOTOKON" vs. "MONOGENE" disputation.

PROTOTOKON really is NOT the appropriate Greek terminology for an "Only Son"; but in this particular case, you've undertaken to actually justify the possible rationale for the Roman Claim.

And I'll give credit where it is due. Rather than basically admit "linguistic Guilt" and attempt to get the Roman Case off on a Legal Loophole, Rather than attempt to exculpate the PROTOTOKON on a mere Linguistic Technicality (which is, IMHO, the usual Roman Argument), you're attempting to provide an actual Alibi for your Client as to *why* Prototokon might be preferable to Monogene in this unique case.

So have you overthrown my first Argument (that is, Disproved it?) No, you have not. You have merely answered it (that is, provided a Plausible Alternative).

But I gotta at least respect that. As Mr. Madrid said, an "A for Effort" -- AlguyA... you've gotta fine Linguistic Counter-Argument there on the "first-born" vs. "only-born" matter, and never let it be said that I won't admit a good Argument. (After all, if I could knock it down off the top of my head... I would).

All that said -- you've still got at least three more Principal Arguments to go (see #160 and #161).

Bon Mot, AlguyA.

Best, OP

[MarMema]

So don't think that finding one trivial thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church is going to work as a divisional tactic.

To assist you in your confusion, I have here posted what I actually said. I did not say that the Theotokos was trivial. I said that one "thing in which the Orthodox church agrees with the RC church" was trivial.

[MarMema]

In a post you made yesterday you used some link that I clicked on and found that some of the Orthodox Patriarch's actually request meetings with the popes. In fact, I was surprised that one of the Orthodox clergy on that site had a name beginning with "Pope"...

I checked all of my posts for the day you specified and am unable to find any link I posted as you describe here. None of our Orthodox clergy have ever used the title of "pope". It is my understanding that the word originated from the Italians, so I am fairly certain that you are confused here.
Please be kind enough to clear this up for me, in the interests of accuracy and to avoid slander of my church.

[Wrigley]

I disaree ctd. There is that pesky belief that Mary was without sin. That comes directly from this belief.

[Wrigley]

It'll come soon won't it? The sooner the better.

[american colleen]

I read all of the posts on this thread and clicked on the links that you provided. From one of the links I came up with "Pope Shenouda" who is a Coptic(?) Orthodox. Could have been that I was reading your link and followed other links from it, I can't remember.

I don't remember the name of the website and I didn't bookmark it, but the name stayed with me as it began with "Pope" and that surprised me.

I don't know how you could think I am trying to slander your Church? I wouldn't ever do that.

[american colleen]

Speaking only for myself I took the "one trivial thing" as the Theotokos because that is what we were talking about on those specific posts.

I am done here. The peace of Christ be with you.

[connectthedots]

There is that pesky belief that Mary was without sin. That comes directly from this belief

I find no Biblical basis for the notion that Mary was without sin. Even if she was, that ceratainly is no reason to believe she was a perpetual virgin.

[malakhi]

None of our Orthodox clergy have ever used the title of "pope".

She may be a little confused. The head of the Coptic church is called "Pope", but the Coptic church is a Monothelete church, and is not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

[malakhi]

Monothelite.

[malakhi]

Or is it Monophysite? I can never keep those two straight.

[malakhi]

The Oriental Orthodox churches (including the Coptic church among others) did not accept the council of Chalcedon, and have been out of communion with the Roman church and the Eastern/Greek/Byzantine Orthodox churches since 451 C.E.

[TexConfederate1861]

I am sorry, but though I disagree with the RC's on many points, there is just too much written evidence, both in the writings of the early Church Fathers, and in writings that were not added to the Canon of Scripture, but were approved for teaching and historical purposes, that state that Mary remained a virgin until her death.

Read the "Gospel of Thomas"....one source.

[SoothingDave]

The head of the Coptic church is called "Pope", but the Coptic church is a Monothelete church, and is not in communion with the Orthodox churches.

I know I've seen references to "the Pope of Rome" which were not needlessly redundant.

SD

[LiteKeeper]

Read the "Gospel of Thomas"....one source.

Sorry, gospel of Thomas is not Scripture. I give it no weight.

[MarMema]

Well just for the record keeping you are so fond of, let's remember that you were incorrect about what I said because you ignored the prepositional phrase following the verb, you failed to provide proof of a mysterious link I am unable to find, and then you announced you are leaving the thread.

So in the future, keep your snide comments about my failures to document things with absolute proof to yourself, or practise what you preach. Thanks.

[SoothingDave]

Google searches for "Pope of Antioch" or "Pope of Constantinople" do not return empty.

SD

[MarMema]

So next time before you post try reading them.

Pope antioch