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.
"the Eastern Orthodox leaders are the patriarchs rather than the popes"
I am not and have not insulted or maligned anyone's faith or the Church they belong to.
This is pitiful, really.
Funny, it wasn't pitiful for you to bring up something I posted in error, what last year?, on this very thread, yet AGAIN, and in a very snide manner too.
But if I hold you to the same standards, it is "pitiful".
Not long ago (like in 2003) you used a non-existant "New York Catechism" to "prove" untruths about the Catholic Church. You insisted that the "New York Catechism" existed and in fact were going to try to find one. I never heard about it from you again. In fact, until your last post to me, I didn't even know you admitted that you posted things from the "New York Catechism" in error.
I used no bogus resources. I never insulted the Orthodox Church. I have not called you snide.
All this over the Dormition of the Theotokos. So sad.
You can continue with this silliness, I don't want to as I honestly believe it is an occasion of sin.
Hail Mary! Full of Grace!
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary Mother of God.
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
It's quite clear that Colleen saw a website from a "Coptic Orthodox Church" which calls their leader a "Pope."
And like I said, I know the phrase "Pope of Rome" is not necessarily redundant.
Neither she nor I were aware that this "Coptic Orthodox" is not under your definition of "Orthodox." So, it was just a simple misunderstanding.
She did not mean to "slander" your Church. It was just not realized that this "Coptic Orthodox" was not actually "Orthodox."
No harm, no foul.
SD
In other words, we honor her for giving birth to Christ but we stop short of making her into a fourth member of the Holy Trinity.
There has been much discussion in the Catholic church and on this forum about declaring Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" with Jesus Christ.
While it may be clear to some Catholics what exactly that means, I think it's fair to say that other denominations would see that as declaring her a fourth member of the Holy Trinity (as if such a thing could be).
It would be nice if Colleen would be willing to accept the misunderstanding as "no harm, no foul" also.
I'm still trying to figure out how post 175, which started some of this, was anything but an out of the blue slap at Orthodox Christians for no reason I could see.
The link had a listing of papal quotes on it, to which the FR RC objected. One of those quotes looked like it originated in a book entitled Roman Catholicism. But more than that, this quote is everywhere on the internet, pages and pages of sites are using this quote.
I was unable to locate the source of the quote, though I attempted to track it down. So that means I am deliberately using bogus resources.
And yet, Colleen has been untruthful and changed her story on this very thread. She first posted that she followed a link I had posted the day before. When I said I was unable to find it, she then said well maybe it was another link from a link I posted. And she has yet to show me evidence of eastern patriarchs seeking meetings with the pope as she stated in her post. Additionally she was incorrect about us having popes.
I am leaving for the Olympic Peninsula this weekend and will not be back on the thread after this - so you can all safely return to your discussion. :-)
That one was a bit of a "hey aren't we on the same side" thing, as I see it. But the follow up:
Maybe you don't attend the Divine Liturgy as you should, if you are, in fact, Orthodox.
Is entirely uncalled for.
SD
Untruthful? Changed my story? I found the link from your original link "The Orthodox Church in America" (which I stated from the get-go). Sorry I can't remember exactly the correct links I followed after starting with your link!!! My gosh! Half the stuff I read on the Internet I can't remember exactly where I found it! Why is that "untruthful?" Who cares anyway since nothing I posted was a slur, an untruth or misleading.
BTW, I stated that not all the Orthodox are as opposed to meeting with the Pope as you are. There are hundreds of articles and sites on the web which detail those meetings. You can find them if you want to.
I'm sure Our Lady is most edified by these posts.
I'm probably misunderstanding the hatred the author of the statement has for the Catholic Church, too.
Please.
Instead of questioning whether a person attends their liturgy or whether they are, in fact, what they say they are is rude. If someone presents themselves as a member of religion X, it is bad manners to say "well, if that is what you really are."
We are (generally) adults here trying to share faith. To question another in this way seems to be a basic denial of the others "good faith" effort to communicate about important matters. It is not as if this is a teen chat room and you are worried that the hot 16 year old blond girl might actually be a 40-year old man.
Know what I mean?
To sum up, saying "haven't you noticed in the liturgy that..." is a good way to talk.
Saying "if you actually attend Liturgy and aren't just lying about your religion..." isn't.
SD
Differences from Roman Catholics.From an article linked on orthodox net.
"We neither accept the universal jurisdiction claimed by the Pope over the whole of Christendom since the Hildebrandine period of the papacy, nor the claim to infallibility defined by Vatican 1, however qualified. We reject the "filioque" addition to the Nicene Creed not just because of its unilateral imposition by the Latin Church but also because it effectively subordinates the position of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Also, by creating a dyarchy of origin, (however qualified), for the Holy Spirit (proceeding from the Father and Son) under the false premise that the Son is thereby distanced from Arianism, the Trinity itself is radically unbalanced and the Holy Spirit reduced to an incomprehensible, impersonal afterthought. We accept much of St. Augustine's teaching but reject his contribution to the filioque development in which he embraced the psychological analogy of the Trinity and the associated understanding of the Holy Spirit as the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. We reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as based on a faulty understanding of original sin largely perpetuated by St. Augustine who regarded the primal rebellion against God as a "sexually transmitted disease." Although we believe in the assumption of Our Lady to heaven at her Dormition, nonetheless this is not to be overdefined as public dogma as it has never been part of the public preaching of the Church but rather an essential part of the Church's inner life which we have no business defining as if it were a saving truth in the public domain. (We do not rank truths according to their alleged importance; we distinguish them according to their appropriateness). We do not think it necessary to define "everything under the sun" in order to make the Church's teaching either more rational, systematic or clear cut. We accept that there are truths firmly to be believed but embedded in the mystery of God. The most appropriate language for such truths is poetry and hymnody, not the legalistic and defective analytical language of the scholastic theologian or canon lawyer. We reject the notion that the end of saved humanity consists only in the Beatific Vision or mere reconciliation. The end of humanity is the resurrection life of Christ where we shall be transformed by the divine energies of the Trinity from one degree of glory to the next. In this we shall be divinised, made whole and perfect as an iron glows red in the fire. We thereby reject, (after Anselm who defined the idea), that redemption consists ONLY or PRIMARILY in the satisfaction of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. The resurrection is as much part of the salvation process as the Cross. The full and rich biblical salvation metaphors need all to be included, not just the ones that emerged from feudal medieval Europe."
Do Roman Catholics
kneel on Sunday? We don't.
Commune infants? We do.
Use leavened bread and wine together? We do.
Accept original sin? We don't.
Fast on Sat or Sun? We don't.
Have primarily married clergy? We do.
Worship toward the east only? We do.
Have clergy with beards? We do.
Accept the doctrine of purgatory? We don't.
Have a pope? We don't.
Celebrate as a major feast the Blessing of the Waters? We do.
Have their homes blessed yearly? We do.
Allow second marriages in the church? We do.
Receive communion while standing? We do.
Have Holy Oil annointings every year during Holy Week and as needed for illnesses? We do.
Use statues? We don't allow them.
Use icons? We require them.
Have monastic orders? We don't.
Use the filioque? We don't.
Allow for human reason in knowing God? We don't.
Believe in transubstantiation? We don't.
Practise chrismation separate from baptism? We don't.
Believe the faithful ( not the priest) bring the Holy Spirit down during the Epiklesis or even use it? We do.
View the sacraments as necessary for salvation? We don't.
Add water to the wine in memory of the water Christ shed on the cross? We do.
Believe in doctrinal development? We don't.
Use Slavonic or Koine in the liturgy? We do.
Accept the pope's role or infallibility? We don't.
Use liturgies from St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil? We do.
Celebrate Pascha, and as the main feast of the year? We do.
Celebrate Pascha based on the Jewish calendar? We do.
Have a confirmation? We don't.
Make the sign of the cross with three fingers ( never with an open hand)? We do.
Make the sign of the cross from right to left? We do.
Consider Holy Saturday as one of the holiest days of the year? We do.
Fast about 1/2 of the year? We do.
And this is leaving out the major differences in theology and legalism.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Ping.
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.