Calvin,Luthern and Zwingli

All believe in the peretual virinity of mary,as did JohnWesley and otherss

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}
WHAT HAPPEN TO THE REST OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

As time went on, and the splinters splintered even further, they got further and further from the Truth.

Protestants today don’t believe that Mary was espoused to the Holy Spirit. So, they have no reason to believe she remains ever virgin. :twocents:

Did they believe Mary was sinless?

Martin Luther did, and defended that view to his death. I don’t think Calvin did. Zwingli referred to Mary as immaculate, but I’m not sure if he was referring to her virginity or her sinlessness. You can read some quotations of these three Reformers on Mary here, if that helps.

None of the Reformers had any problems with the Marian Dogmas. The disrespect given the Mother of God by Protestants is actually quite new in the grand scheme of things.

For Lutherans, marion belief is not a doctrine, so we are free to believe as we wish. For example, I hold, generally, to the 4 Catholic doctrines, but my pastor believes Mary had other children.

Jon

Which is an excellent book on the the subjects its title mentions.

If the Reformers were right about that - maybe they were right about other things too, such as salvation by grace alone through faith alone :cool:

BTW, the quotation from the book does not settle whether Mary was sanctified in the first instant of her conception: that is, the doctrine of the passive conception; or whether she was sanctified at some point afterwards. There was more than one doctrine on the subject in the Church, which is why it was at times rather controversial. The definition of 1854 dogmatised one of several doctrines; until 1661, it was not the only one (Alexander VII forbade theologians to hold any doctrine but that according to which Mary was sanctified in the first instant of her conception - with the exception of Dominican theologians, because the doctrine on the matter held within the Order, though different, was supported by the great authority of St.Thomas. The Pope’s measure was not dogmatic - unlike the definition of 1854. Such variations in theological tradition prior to a dogmatic definition are quite usual; that’s why Ecumenical Councils have debates before defining dogmas.

The “disrespect” - but what does that mean: distaste for Mary; or less emphasis on her than is usual in the RCC ? - mentioned by an OP probably owes something to what could for its part be seen as an inflation of her importance in RCCism. Which is the healthy position: the Protestant, the Roman, or neither ?

=Gottle of Geer;5317643] If the Reformers were right about that - maybe they were right about other things too, such as salvation by grace alone through faith alone :cool:

Good question. Or maybe now, 500 years later, we could think in terms of, not who was right or wrong, but how best can we together express the truth of salvation by Grace alone through faith in Christ.

The “disrespect” - but what does that mean: distaste for Mary; or less emphasis on her than is usual in the RCC ? - mentioned by an OP probably owes something to what could for its part be seen as an inflation of her importance in RCCism. Which is the healthy position: the Protestant, the Roman, or neither ?

In another thread on this subject the thought occurred to me that there are basically 3 dangers in mariology:

  1. For Catholics, to take their veneration too far
  2. For Protestants, that they minimize the importance of the Theotokos too much
  3. For all of us, that we fail to take the time to understand each other’s positions

Jon

Thanks for the link!

How is it “disrespectful” to say that she had a normal relationship with her husband and bore other children?

The disrespect comes when she is all but ignored by Protestants. You hear about her areond Chritmas time, and that is it.

I like you’re quotes in your signature CWBetts:thumbsup:

I hate to break this to you, but the Bible says very, very little about Mary and other than the virgin birth, Mary doesn’t really come into play.

The vast, vast majority of the Bible doesn’t have anything to do with Mary.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how it’s disrespectful to not focus on someone who is mentioned so little in the Bible.

Besides, if she’s as humble as Catholics are always telling us she is, then I would think that she would prefer the attention go to Jesus and not to her.

I hate to break this to you,but you may be reading the wrong Bible,

The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about Mary, both explicitly in the New Testament and implicitly (prophetically) in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Mary is present at almost every major event in the life of Jesus:

His conception (Luke 1:2)
His development in the womb, including the fetal development of John the Baptist (Lk 1:43)
His birth (Lk 2:7)
Offering Him to God (Lk 2:22)
Early childhood (Lk 2:22-38)
His confirmation at 12 years old (Lk 2:49)
His start in public ministry and the first of his miracles, which she instigated. (Wedding at Cana Jn 2:3)
His death on Calvary (Jn 19:26)
The birth of the Church at the Pentecost (Acts 1:14).
I hardly think of these as a "few tiny references."
Read it again.

I see. So how many sermons are we supposed to make out of “Oh yeah, and Mary was there, too”?

I hardly think of these as a "few tiny references."
Read it again.

Well, you’re Catholic so naturally, you believe that every time Mary is mentioned, the focus of the verse is Mary. But the fact remains that she’s still only mentioned in a relatively small handful of verses.

If you want to base your theology on Mary, be my guest. We’re going to base ours on Christ.

Catholic theology is based on Jesus Christ. The difference is that we recognize the unique role that Mary played in salvation history. In Protestant churches, Judas gets more attention than Mary does.

What are you implying here, Carl?

While I think you could have worded your point with more charity, you are spot on that many protestant communions could spend a good bit more energy in identifying the role the Blessed Virgin Mary played in God’s plan, and how her obediance and devotion to her son is an incredible example for us to follow. I certainly don’t think Judas gets more attention, however. At least in Lutheranism, the amount f attention Judas gets is quite appropriate.

Jon

I should have used the word “Evangelical” than “Protestant.” The mainline denominations are much more balanced in their view of the Blessed Virgin. Though she still does not get the attention I think she deserves there, there is also no danger of taking it too far, which some Catholics do.

This is uncharitable and reveals your lack of understanding of the role the Blessed Virgin Mary plays in the life of the typical Catholic. The accusation that the Catholic Church bases its theology on Mary is totally untrue. Whether or not you agree with marion devotion, the fact is that millions of Catholics draw comfort from it, it usually guides them to Christ, and frankly, your words are unnecessarily hurtful.

Jon

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.