The Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[MarcoPolo]

I’ve known about some of Luther’s very strong language supporting Catholic teachings about Mary. But I’ve since read more from Calvin and Zwingli. There is a decent collection of quotes here. Examples:

Luther
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."

Calvin
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."* (admittedly Calvin thought we cannot know for sure if she remained ever Virgin. However he did say that a person who denied her Perpetual Virginity would be a person who had an “extreme fondness for disputation.”)
*
Zwingli
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."

So when did the notion that Mary did not remain a Virgin gain popularity?

 

[bengal_fan]

it started with the idea (and one i think luther, calvin, and zwingli would agree with) that the belief was not necessary for salvation. her perpetual virginity may be true (and frankly i lean towards it) but it’s not necessary for salvation. the firm belief that she had other children comes out of rebellion against the authority of the church trying to say that if you didn’t believe it, you weren’t going to heaven. i think the church is wrong for making it a necessary doctrine for salvation and i think the deniers are wrong for almost doing the same thing by saying if you don’t believe she had other children, you must be making her like God and worshipping mary. why can’t we just say God could have done it either way and both ways have a beauty to them?

 

[MarcoPolo]

i think the church is wrong for making it a necessary doctrine for salvation

You mean that they defined it as a doctrine of the faith?..i.e. part of God’s revelation. I’m not sure what you mean that the Church says it’s “necessary” for salvation.

 

[bengal_fan]

You mean that they defined it as a doctrine of the faith?..i.e. part of God’s revelation. I’m not sure what you mean that the Church says it’s “necessary” for salvation.

that it is necessary to believe in this doctrine as part of the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles and part of the things necessary to believe in to receive God’s grace. the church teaches that you must accept the entire deposit of faith to be in communion with the church and that you must be in full communion with the church for salvation. the church declared the marian doctrines part of the deposit of faith.

 

[ralphinal]

that it is necessary to believe in this doctrine as part of the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles and part of the things necessary to believe in to receive God’s grace. the church teaches that you must accept the entire deposit of faith to be in communion with the church and that you must be in full communion with the church for salvation. the church declared the marian doctrines part of the deposit of faith.

Begal,
Let me get your take on this. Do you think that it is important that Catholics beleive it because it teaches something of importance to salvation or should we beleive it because we beleive that the Catholic Church holds the fulness of truth, was founded by Christ, and that Church has declaired it to be doctrine? Since Luther et al. questioned the point that the Church was correct in general, the teachings like the Perpetual Virrginity fall into doubt as well. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Ginger2]

So when did the notion that Mary did not remain a Virgin gain popularity?

I think it is the human nature of “I know something you don’t know” that over-comes certain people.

It is a common theme within pseudo-christian cults. It is a way for satan to draw attention away from Christ. What these people are really saying (IMO) is “I’m special”

I have never known any Protestant churches that teach she had other children. When the question comes up it is mostly a matter of saying the Bible does not clearly state one way or the other.

The idea is mostly that we cannot let our fascination with the Blessed Virgin Mary over-shadow our focus on Christ Jesus.

We cannot become so puffed up with pride in thinking we KNOW something that is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, that our religious discussions are really about how clever we are and not really focused on God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

that it is necessary to believe in this doctrine as part of the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles and part of the things necessary to believe in to receive God’s grace.

I see. Well, in understanding God’s revelation in its fullness whether or not men consider it “necessary” doesn’t come into play. The Church transmits that which is God’s revelation by His terms.

 

[mgrfin]

I

How long have you been with us, Ginger? Few things are clearly spelled out in Scripture. That is what Theology is all about.

The Scriptures we have are not the originals, nor in the original language. Your interpretation of Scripture is an individual thing, prone to error.

Not so with the Roman Catholic Church, to whom the Scriptures were entrusted to preserve and interprete authoritatively.

And, devotion to Mary takes nothing away from our worship of God or of Jesus Christ. Such devotions only add to the honor and glory of God.

We worship and adore Jesus. We venerate the saints, including Mary, the Mother of God.

That’s the way it is, and always will be - thank God.

You keep up with the drumbeat of your sore points, which are basically in error. Today Mary, tomorrow Sola Scriptura, the next day Sola Fides, next week, OSAS. We are getting used to you and your beliefs, and your anti-Catholic statements.

But we pray for you, and hope for your salvation within the Catholic Church.

peace

 

[justinthemartyr]

who is to say that it is not relevent to one’s salvation? It is a doctrine of the apostles themselves and scripture tells us we are to hold to the apostles doctrines.

what? do we only listen to that part of scripture that we want to and throw the rest away?

If everyone believed it previous to the 16th century, then it must have been of some importance.

Just because something does not look to be explictly sotriological on the surface, does not mean it is not an issue dealing with soteriology.

Many also believe today that one does not have to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man Jesus Christ in order to be saved, but Jesus makes it clear that we must.