Ever Virgin?

[St_Worm2]

I also confess PV. To me, it's an issue that does not impinge on the Gospel which can be demonstrated to have been present in the tradition of the ancient Church. I believe that no overwhelming case can be made either for or against PV from scripture, therefore I see no need to challenge this belief on the basis of scripture, but it is not a belief to which consciences should be bound.

Personally, I see objections to PV rooted more in Rationalism and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment than in legitimate objections based on scripture or theology.

Hi Tangible, thanks for replying and I agree with you (for the most part anyway ). However, it seems to me that the argument "for" Mary's PV is found specifically in the tradition of the ancient Church, and the argument that might possibly oppose it in the Scriptures. I've never taken time to make much of an issue out of it one way or the other (for the reason you first mentioned), and although I was surprised to find the PV doctrine outside of the RCC, I wasn't opposed to it because THEY believed it

Have I missed something in the Bible that would lead me to believe in the PV of Mary 'apart' from the tradition of the ancient Church?

Thanks!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi Tangible, thanks for replying and I agree with you (for the most part anyway ). However, it seems to me that the argument "for" Mary's PV is found specifically in the tradition of the ancient Church, and the argument that might possibly oppose it in the Scriptures. I've never taken time to make much of an issue out of it one way or the other (for the reason you first mentioned), and although I was surprised to find the PV doctrine outside of the RCC, I wasn't opposed to it because THEY believed it

Have I missed something in the Bible that would lead me to believe in the PV of Mary 'apart' from the tradition of the ancient Church?

Thanks!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

Legally, under Jewish law, a widow would be looked after by her eldest son; should he predecease her, the responsibility would pass to the next son; since He adopted St. John to St. Mary, and St. Mary to St. John; it is not a very big stretch to conclude that he had no "brothers" that were siblings; the protestant argument that for siblings seems to neglect this very exchange at the crucifixion.

Than and tradition makes my acceptance of Semper Virago easy enough.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thanks Mark, that is a very good Biblical argument for Mary's PV

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks Mark, that is a very good Biblical argument for Mary's PV

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

You too David!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From the Pen of Martin Luther:

O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example. ( WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER - THE MAGNIFICAT - TRANSLATED AND EXPLAINED 1520-1)​

Our prayer should include the Mother of God.. .What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor.. .We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her...He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).​

 

[Tangible]

I can't speak for all, but the LCMS does not support perpetual virginity: Frequently Asked Questions | The Bible - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

The traditional Lutheran position is that Mary is “ever virgin” and even now remains as virgin (SD, section VIII, para 24, Latin text). Luther, who translated the entire Bible, held this view. All of our Lutheran fathers into the 20th century held this view. It was not until our current LC-MS’ official systematics text was published that pastors could officially believe that Mary did not remain a virgin.

If the Christology of a theologian is orthodox in all other respects, he is not to be regarded as a heretic for holding that Mary bore other children in a natural manner after she had given birth to the Son of God. [Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 2: 308]

Notice that Francis Pieper, LC-MS President from 1899-1911, shows the normal, default position for Lutherans: They believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Not believing it to be true is the exception, which is allowed “if the Christology of a theologian is orthodox in all other respects.” Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a recent innovation and a historical aberration within the Church.

What are We to Make of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? — Shepherd of the Hills

 

[Resha Caner]

The traditional Lutheran position is that Mary is “ever virgin” and even now remains as virgin (SD, section VIII, para 24, Latin text). Luther, who translated the entire Bible, held this view. All of our Lutheran fathers into the 20th century held this view. It was not until our current LC-MS’ official systematics text was published that pastors could officially believe that Mary did not remain a virgin.

I'm familiar with the text from the Solid Declaration. It reads (emphasis mine):
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

(Emphasis mine). When I first read this text, I didn't realize Lutherans ever held a view of perpetual virginity. It was scoffed at in my church when I was young. As such, I interpreted this text very differently - and continue to maintain it is a reasonable interpretation. Specifically, I thought the point was to emphasize Jesus did not have an earthly father. IOW, an alternative phrasing of the highlighted sentence would be: Mary bore and gave birth to Jesus even though she was a virgin at the time.

However, I do now realize Luther and many of the first Lutherans were raised on an idea of perpetual virginity. It makes sense that they would have carried over many Roman Catholic ideas. It wasn't what initiated the Reformation, and it took time for them to think through the theological corpus. With that said, one can't cherry pick Luther quotes. His ideas changed over time. In some cases he went back and forth. It's even more indefensible to claim all Lutheran pastors prior to 1951 supported the idea.

Further, I don't agree with Luther simply because Luther said it or with the Confessions simply because the Confessions say it.

The point I made earlier (i.e. that Jesus had no earthly father) is the important theological point that needs to be maintained. Beyond that, nothing about Mary's virginity is of theological significance. Rather, it becomes a matter of historical accuracy. My opinion is that the weight of the historical evidence indicates Mary did not remain a virgin. However, there is enough uncertainty, it is a small enough issue, and I have enough respect for tradition, that it doesn't bother me if people say they believe she did remain a virgin ... unless they start to argue it as some major theological issue. Then it becomes a problem. I just recently tried to discuss this with a Catholic, and the attitude - the approach - the belief in the cardinal importance of this issue - is a real problem. We couldn't even get to a point where they articulated the supposed theological issue for Catholics.

So, what prompted you to post what you did?

 

[Tangible]

I just believe that it is the most historically consistent for Lutherans to hold to PV. I realize that many have been influenced by Reformed thought in this and other matters through the years, and like PV - pro or con, most of these influences do not impinge upon the Gospel.

PV is a pious opinion, and consciences should not be bound either for or against. For myself, I would rather trust in the traditional position arrived at by men much more learned and scripturally wise than I will ever be than in a historically novel position espoused by many who would also reject other "Catholic" Lutheran positions and openly state that the Lutheran Reformation was incomplete and lacking in making additional necessary reforms.

 

[Resha Caner]

I just believe that it is the most historically consistent for Lutherans to hold to PV.

Maybe so. That's not a convincing argument for me.

I realize that many have been influenced by Reformed thought in this and other matters through the years ...

My views on the matter have no Reformed connections that I'm aware of.

For myself, I would rather trust in the traditional position arrived at by men much more learned and scripturally wise than I will ever be ...

That's fine.

... than in a historically novel position espoused by many who would also reject other "Catholic" Lutheran positions and openly state that the Lutheran Reformation was incomplete and lacking in making additional necessary reforms.

Neither does my opinion have anything to do with whether it's "Catholic" or not. You'll see me encouraging genuflection, Ash Wednesday, and other things some people consider too Catholic. You'll also see me encouraging the Seder and things that are too Jewish for some.

However, given the Apostle John had to defend against gnosticism within his own lifetime, I've no confidence in the ability of some early Church Fathers to resist pagan influences. Mariology just smells too much of paganism.

 

[Tangible]

(I'm not seeing any response, Resha, just a quote of my previous post.)

 

[Resha Caner]

(I'm not seeing any response, Resha, just a quote of my previous post.)

Sorry. Pilot error. It should be there now.

 

[Tangible]

However, given the Apostle John had to defend against gnosticism within his own lifetime, I've no confidence in the ability of some early Church Fathers to resist pagan influences. Mariology just smells too much of paganism.

Well, if PV is improper Mariology, it must be so in its most innocuous form. It should not be assumed that simply because one holds to PV, there is a progression to other marian docrines that do actually impinge upon the Gospel.

I believe that historically, especially in the US, there has been constant pressure from Reformed (American Protestantism, generally speaking) on Lutherans to distance themselves from anything that too strongly resembles Roman Catholicism. A lot of this stems from historical anti-Catholic sentiment and bigotry - "Romophobia" if you will.

As Lutherans, I believe it is in our church's best interest to resist such pressure, and not be shamed or ostracized into adopting a more Reformed appearance in our piety and worship in order to fit in better with American Protestantism.

 

[Willie T]

BoC

24]
 On
 account
 of
 this
 personal
 union 
and
 communion
 of 
the
 natures,
 Mary,
 the
most
 blessed Virgin,
 bore
 not 
a
 mere man,
 but, 
as
 the
 angel 
[Gabriel] 
testifies, 
such
 a
 man
 as
 is
 truly
 the
 Son of
 the
 most
 high
 God,
 who
 showed
 His
 divine
 majesty
 even
 in
 His 
mother's
 womb,
 in as much
 as He
 was
 born
 of
 a
 virgin,
 with
 her
 virginity
 in violate.
 Therefore
 she 
is
 truly 
the
 mother
 of 
God, 
and never the less 
remained 
a
 virgin.
​

This is the principle passage that my Lutheran friend and the article he cites claims as the reason the that Lutheran Church, historically, held to Mary as, "Ever Virgin".

Here is the link to the article he offered.

To me, BoC article 24 articulates several very important truths about Mary, and especially about the Lord's miraculous birth, but as far as her being "ever virgin", I'm not seeing it (cf Matthew 1:23-25).

What am I missing

Thanks!

--David

​

To me, that says she remained a virgin throughout THAT pregnancy and delivery. I don't see it saying a word about her subsequent life.

 

[Tangible]

To me, that says she remained a virgin throughout THAT pregnancy and delivery. I don't see it saying a word about her subsequent life.

It doesn't. There are several oblique proofs that Mary had no other children, and the consensus of the Church catholic for over 1000 years was her perpetual virginity. But likewise, there is no scripture that explicitly and unequivocally proves against PV.

It's a pious opinion either way.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, if PV is improper Mariology, it must be so in its most innocuous form.

Not when PV is driving all the associated "temple virgin" nonsense some attach to it.

It should not be assumed that simply because one holds to PV, there is a progression to other marian docrines that do actually impinge upon the Gospel.

Such as?

I believe that historically, especially in the US, there has been constant pressure from Reformed (American Protestantism, generally speaking) on Lutherans to distance themselves from anything that too strongly resembles Roman Catholicism. A lot of this stems from historical anti-Catholic sentiment and bigotry - "Romophobia" if you will.

I'm well aware of that phenomena from my historical research. It was a case of rhetoric getting in the way. The "freedom" Americans proclaimed after the Revolution was misunderstood by many immigrant groups, Germans among them ... Sometimes it seems even the Americans who proclaimed it didn't understand what they wanted until something happened that they didn't like. It also became an issue during WWII when the government tried to appeal to the patriotism of African-Americans to get them to enlist. "We have to protect freedom." The response was, "You must be kidding." It became known as the "Double-V" campaign, whereby blacks were insisting that if they were going to fight, they needed to be given the same rights as whites.

Regardless, I don't think it's proper to assign that to Reformed thought. American Protestantism is a better label, but the tag many historians put on that aspect of American history is "Puritanism". That's also the term used in the book I'm reading right now on the history of Lutheran secondary education.

As Lutherans, I believe it is in our church's best interest to resist such pressure, and not be shamed or ostracized into adopting a more Reformed appearance in our piety and worship in order to fit in better with American Protestantism.

Yes, but for the right reasons. It's become a fun activity for me to ask people to name characteristics they consider to be "Lutheran". What most people mention are actually German characteristics, not Lutheran ones. There is a difference. When you to get to the essence of what is Lutheran (or Christian) you will find it is culturally independent. That is a beautiful thing ... but it can also be a big problem. People need cultural symbols to attach to theological ideas. If those symbols happen to be American rather than German, I'm OK with that. It's only when the symbol begins to corrupt the idea that I object.

 

[Resha Caner]

To me, that says she remained a virgin throughout THAT pregnancy and delivery. I don't see it saying a word about her subsequent life.

That was how I interpreted it as well until I was shown historical examples of Lutherans who accepted PV. So, it's hard to say what the original intent was, but I plan to stick with that interpretation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It doesn't. There are several oblique proofs that Mary had no other children, and the consensus of the Church catholic for over 1000 years was her perpetual virginity. But likewise, there is no scripture that explicitly and unequivocally proves against PV.

It's a pious opinion either way.

We also have the "cloud of witnesses".

BTW, even Zwingli and Calvin held Semper Virgo

Interesting article here: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.clausosemper.htm regardig Luther's view of both Semper Virgo and Clauso Utero.

 

[John Yurich]

I was told that Lutherans believe that Mary was Ever Virgin, and that her perpetual virginity is taught as being true in several of your confessions. I realize Martin Luther believed the doctrine, but what about most Lutherans today?

Is it an official doctrine in the denomination you belong to (or perhaps in a different Lutheran church)?

Does anyone one here believe it?

Also, which Lutheran Confessions teach the Ever Virgin doctrine?

Thanks for your help (I'm not Lutheran, so I hope it was ok to post these questions here .. please let me know if it was not!)

Yours and His,
David

I always believed that Lutherans were supposed to believe every doctrine that Luther taught.

 

[Tangible]

I always believed that Lutherans were supposed to believe every doctrine that Luther taught.

You were misinformed.

 

[Arcangl86]

I always believed that Lutherans were supposed to believe every doctrine that Luther taught.

Lutherans are a doctrinal denomination, but the doctrines that need to be followed are contained in the Book of Concord. While Luther did write several of the documents in the Book of Concord and is still influential, the non-confessional writings and teachings of Luther aren't normative.