tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post3043247757455171095..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: The Lutheran Reformers and the Issue of Perpetual VirginityServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-28660775830707809082015-12-04T09:06:14.734-06:002015-12-04T09:06:14.734-06:00As someone who grew up Catholic but joined a Bapti...As someone who grew up Catholic but joined a Baptist youth group, I feel strongly Luther’s frustrations with the sometimes too theological, less practical nature of the Catholic church. But the first time I read this, the idea of totally denying Mary her most important adjective, “Virgin”, shocked me. I agree with LDD on this- I’m not quite sure that Luther had fully decided this doctrinal issue. However, based off of what he does write and his issues with Marian devotion, I think it was his Catholic upbringing that allowed him to more easily accept her as a perpetual virgin. I might be laying my personal thoughts too closely to Luther’s, but honestly, she IS the Virgin Mary and as SL pointed out, the doctrine of her as Virgin had been set in stone for the most part by the time Luther writes his critiques of the church. While virginity is a huge part of Marian doctrine, I think that Luther probably saw it as obvious that Mary be virgin because he was indoctrinated with that from an early age. It was just who she is. And he has no issues with this idea of her, just that Catholic priests seek to emulate that virginity because he sees nothing inherently wrong with marriage and childbirth. In a rather trite conclusion, Luther had bigger fish to fry. If he could still adapt her characteristics to suit his view of womanhood AND use doctrine to show that current Marian devotion was too excessive, then who cared if she remained a virgin? <br /><br />-HGServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-76644969356198257862015-12-02T18:45:35.047-06:002015-12-02T18:45:35.047-06:00In reflecting on Luther’s argument regarding Mary’...In reflecting on Luther’s argument regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity, I’m in fact reminded of Dun Scotus’ conclusion regarding the Immaculate Conception. After much to-ing and fro-ing, Duns Scotus finally lands on the idea simply that the Immaculate Conception is more “seemly” and for that reason is worthy of belief. Luther seems to be doing a somewhat similar thing in that – as the author points out – he declines to give an official position but says that she is “not judged to be the mother of human sons”. On one hand, this makes me think that this type of argument based on “seemliness” may have been more common and therefore more accepted at the time – though I agree with the author that it is very unsatisfying. However, on the other hand, I suspect Luther himself was not completely decided on the issue. There were likely legitimate concerns that both MacCulloch and SL point out, and for this reason, Luther kept a very ‘diplomatic’ stance on the issue. What is interesting about this problem for me is that most later Protestants followed suit and mostly ignored Mary. I find it hard to believe that, in the almost 500 years since Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, this tension in the reformed churches has not been addressed – though this may not be the case but we may have not had the time to read into the issue more in this course. –LDDServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-37759979058797684482015-11-15T14:59:51.004-06:002015-11-15T14:59:51.004-06:00Beautifully observed! I agree with SL: you do an e...Beautifully observed! I agree with SL: you do an excellent job here teasing out the difficulties in the reformers' continuing acceptance of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity in the face of the references in Scripture that would seem quite clearly to suggest that she did, in fact, have other children (which she still might have, even after conceiving the Son of God without a human father). You raise an interesting question about the implication of accepting that Jesus had brothers--what to do with these potential saints? But there was already a place for at least one of them, James "the brother of the Lord", who is mentioned by both Paul and in Acts as a leader of the Jerusalem church. So why did the Reformers not make more of James? RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-60707893452024635992015-11-13T14:05:14.497-06:002015-11-13T14:05:14.497-06:00I found your commentary on early Reformation appro...I found your commentary on early Reformation approaches to the doctrine of “perpetual virginity” to be quite reflective! My own train of thought on the issue flows something like this: depending on which of the early Reformers in class we discussed, you’ll find varying degrees of willingness to tolerate Marian devotion. Luther, as we can see from his warm exposition on the Magnificat, is deeply impressed by how God bestowed upon Mary such grace, and through her humility and smallness, she was magnified to become wonderful – he even applies the term “Queen of Heaven!” (MacCulloch 200). Zwigli and Calvin are less enthusiastic, but all of them do accept perpetual virginity. <br /><br />You pointed out your difficulty in accepting the idea that perpetual virginity was so closely naturalized and connected with the Incarnation of Christ by the Reformation that accepting the doctrine would be a strong defense against radical thoughts of the time. I actually think that the doctrine was quite strongly established – just look at the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, referenced even back in the time of Nestorius and Cyril! By accepting that Mary is the Theotokos, Reformers could draw on these “ancient traditions” against the radical “celestial flesh” doctrine emerging. <br /><br />Now, you’re right that this does undermine their espoused sola scriptura foundation for exegetical faith, especially when it means they have to liberally interpret the verses of Scripture that mention Jesus’ “brethren.” But I think by subtly accepting perpetual virginity, these early Reformers were able to protect a greater good – the Godhead of Christ. Of course, no Reformation doctrine officially listed perpetual virginity as a sacred belief, which is why no Protestant today really thinks about it. Just goes to show how much contemporary Christians think about Our Lady! <br /><br />-SLServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com