Posted on 02/01/2007 9:29:47 AM PST by Ottofire
Because he stands in the shadows of Luther and Calvin, Zwingli (1484-1531) gets overlooked often. His writings can be difficult to track down. One can go to the local bookstore and get a Calvin or Luther bio or anthology, but you’ll do a lot searching to actually get a Zwingli book. When you do read Zwingli, it becomes apparent that he was not on par with either Luther or Calvin.
I’ve always wanted to read Zwingli discussing his Mariology. For the most part, the only people who seem to “care” about Zwingli’s Mariology are Roman Catholics. And really, they probably aren’t interested in actually reading and researching Zwingli. Rather, his writings are used for polemical purposes- to show that an early Reformer had particular beliefs about the Virgin Mary. It does appear that Zwingli did have some similar beliefs about Mary to those found in Roman Catholicism. This is a subject that I plan on exploring. I'd like to see for myself how Zwingli understood the role of Mary. I refuse to be spoon fed Zwingli quotes from Catholic apologetics- for I doubt most of the pop Catholic apologetic writers have actually read Zwingli on this subject.
Well, here's a present from me to the Catholic apologetics community. I did finally track down a piece from Zwingli on Mary. It is a section from the “Sermon on Mary, The Pure Mother of God”. Zwingli preached the sermon in Zurich in the autumn of 1522. In it, you will find Zwingli saying all sorts of things about Mary. He calls her "pure" and "holy", a "spotless virgin" etc. Note though, Zwingli’s explanation of the Greek word "kecharitomene". Zwingli understands the word to mean “favorable”.
“When the angel came in unto Mary, he greeted her with these words: " Hail, thou art full of grace! The Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women." Here it is to be noticed that this word "full of grace" is, translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene," which means beloved, or filled with grace, highly favored, whereby we understand that the word “full of grace " should not be taken to mean that she was from herself full of grace, but that all the grace with which she was so rich and full was from God. For to be full of grace is nothing else than to be highly favored of God and to be chosen before all other women. For grace is only the favor of God. So if I should say that God has given much grace to men, I should say nothing else than God has been very favorable to men and done loving things for them. Therefore is the pure Mary full of grace from God, as she herself sings: "He hath done to me great things." She says not: "I am great from mine own grace," but " the Almighty hath done to me great things." For immediately afterward she adds: "He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaiden, for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." [Source: Guy Carelton Lee (ed.), The World’s Orators (New York: GP Putnum’s Sons, 1900, 95-96).
posted by James Swan at 6:33 AM
GRPL ping!
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}
But the descendants of Mary are also sinners, going all the way back to Adam. She is not sprung from dust, she is human, thus carries the sin of Adam carried by all descendants of Adam except the one Perfect Savior.
Using your semi-gnostic argument Mary would have to be wholly created for this purpose without any human parents to be sinless, which Luke, did not document, nor did he document the perfect birth of Mary, though he most likely did talk to the Blessed Mother in person, himself.
(I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong, much like the anti-materialist gnostics. Sex between married people is indeed a blessing and carries no sin, given to us from God Himself. Thus the sex that produced Mary gave her no sin, just her nature as a human did.)
is sex between a husband and his second wife a blessing?
You would be well advised to better acquaint yourself with our theology of Marriage. Your statement, quoted above, 'seems' delusional and disconnected from reality.
--is sex between a husband and his second wife a blessing?
Of course it is. But marriage is only for this world. And all the pleasures of marriage serves the purposes of God to ensure the generations. If you are asking about a second marriage after unwarranted divorce, the divorce is a sin that must be repented of. You must consult the scriptures and get counseling to see if sex after the second marriage is a sin. I am not studied in this area.
Something of the Scriptures that I just read and came to mind:
Matthew 22:23-33 (NASB)
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27"Last of all, the woman died.
28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
So if according to the RCC, Mary is the wife of the Spirit, is she still that after her death?
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Please clarify. By "second wife" do you refer to "remarriage" after "divorce", or to marriage of a widow(er)?
Do you actually think God can glorify His Name through you and not His Mother in the supernatural things that He did for her? It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it or if Zwingli and Calvin and whoever believed it, truth is truth; regardless.
reffering to protestant divorce really (IE not a situation where the marriage was nonexistent due to porneia)
--I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong
-You would be well advised to better acquaint yourself with our theology of Marriage. Your statement, quoted above, 'seems' delusional and disconnected from reality.
("delusional and disconnected"? Heh!)
Then please explain why, if Mary's parents were married, she must be immaculately conceived herself. Her conception was pure if done the natural way.
Does the RCC suggest that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit similarly to Jesus?
>>I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong, much like the anti-materialist gnostics.<<
What the hell are you talking about? Read this and then get back to us:
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/
What do you think "immaculately conceived" means?
Thanks ... I ask because my first thought involved widow(er)s ...
--Do you actually think God can glorify His Name through you and not His Mother in the supernatural things that He did for her? It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it or if Zwingli and Calvin and whoever believed it, truth is truth; regardless.
Did I say that God was not glorified in the virgin birth? I give all glory to God for that is where it belongs.
The reformed give no glory to His servants, who are but mirrors that reflect His Grace, and neither deserve or require worship, latria, dulia or otherwise. Sola Dei Gloria not glory to Mary, and certainly no glory TO me. I pray that THROUGH me, may God be glorified.
It does not require the immaculate conception of Mary for her to give birth to the Savior. That happened with Mary having a natural one. And all glory for Christs birth is His alone.
May I direct you to Pope Benedict's recent encyclical, Deus Carita Est?
But the descendants of Mary are also sinners, going all the way back to Adam. She is not sprung from dust, she is human, thus carries the sin of Adam carried by all descendants of Adam except the one Perfect Savior.
The RCC does not deny that Mary required a savior. But theologically speaking, however, for her to have held the presence of God in her womb (a virtual human "ark of the covenant"), she could not be stained with original sin. The RCC believes that Mary was PRESERVED from this sin by the living Word at her (immaculate) conception. So, yes, Jesus saved His own mother at her conception.
Luke's account of the Visitation to Elizabeth gives strong evidence that, even in the earliest days of Christianity, Mary was honored and praised as a new "ark of the covenant". It was not too long after that early believers honored her as being without sin.
my point is more that if Joeseph were to have relations with Mary after God set her apart it would be at best no more blessed than are remarriages after divorce.
Also though even Paul mentions remarriage for widowers is more of a lesser of two evils...
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.