Roots of the Reformation: a Response

Dr. Anders reviewed my recent blog entry, Called to Communion on the Roots of the Reformation. His response is found here. In return, I offer the following:


Dr. Anders,

I realize there are inherent difficulties with writing short blog posts on complicated subjects. You say that I misunderstood certain aspects of what you wrote (which indeed may be the case). Couldn't it be that perhaps you weren't clear enough to begin with? Or, to complicate matters, both could be true- there could be a lack of clarity on your part and a lack of understanding on my part. Regardless of which it is, I appreciate that you took the time to read what I put together. After going through your response, I have three points of concern.

First, based on the fact that you've written your entry for the CTC website I'm assuming that on a basic level, your entry on the Reformation was, in some sense, a defense for the Roman church. You end your entry by stating your gratitude for your "corrupt Church," and that you "would never think of leaving it because of corruption." That leads me to the conclusion that, in your opinion, whatever it was the Reformers did, their protest was not ultimately done in the best interest of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Reformers are not be heralded today as those who fought for the true Spirit of the church universal. In your post you ask, "So why does this matter today?" What the Reformers did, according to you, appears to matter- and should be responded to by the defenders of Rome, in order to.... defend Rome, not to herald the Reformers as those who championed the Gospel and Scriptures against a corrupt institution.

I mention this basic point because as I worked through your entry, one question that concerned me was exactly what you thought of the Protestant Reformers. And here, my basic criticism (in response to your concerns that I didn't treat your thesis accurately) was that you provide very little to work with. I note the following:

So why does this matter today? It matters because we need to be alert to how we frame our discussions about the Church and how we respond to propaganda. The Reformation era was not the worst in Church history, but people at the time became convinced that it was. People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering.

And also:

Reflecting on this, it is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made “absence of corruption” a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30) And every attempt to create a perfect Church in this life has always ended in disaster. The Donatists tried it in North Africa. The Puritans tried it in New England. We could list other examples, but the result is always hypocrisy or tyranny.

The first statement appears to characterize the Reformers as "people with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." The second statement (which I noted in my blog entry) may infer you think the Reformers sought to create the perfect church, and that anyone who has this goal will achieve the results of "hypocrisy or tyranny" (as I noted originally, I was not sure you were making this point). This is all you left to be worked with. In your response you cite Farel and characterize him as using the language of inflammatory propaganda. You then go on to say that I was in error in my synopsis of who you thought the Reformers ultimately were ("I certainly did not say the Reformers were “simply disseminating propaganda.” They were propagandists, to be sure, but with real grievances that had been the subject of discussion among Catholics for decades if not centuries").

 I think this criticism is unfair based on what you originally wrote. The overall tenor of your post is that church corruption did not cause the Reformation. You say that explicitly. You clarify this with "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it. " Well, how the Reformers felt about it, according to what you've written, is that they responded "with a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." I stand by my original summary statement of your words and my use of the word "simply."

Second, you went on in your response to clarify that "The Reformers were clearly motivated by the perception of corruption" as opposed to my synopsis of your position that "Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t motivated to reform due to church corruption." Here may again be a lack of clarity in your original post. Your opening two paragraphs argue "corruption" proper was not the ultimate cause of the Reformation. In your second to last paragraph you state, "'Corruption,' as such, was not the cause of the Reformation." Even in your response, it isn't "corruption" proper that caused the Reformation, but the perception of the Reformers. I stand by my synopsis of your position, that ultimately, according to you, corruption was not the ultimate factor for the Reformers, but rather, the Reformers used corruption to advance a "personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." So, again, according to you,whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren’t ultimately looking to reform the church due to corruption. They used corruption as a means to an end, a different end (a personal or political agenda).

Third, in regard to my statement that puzzled you ("factual data")- this also ties in to your characterization of the Reformers as those "with a personal or a political agenda" who "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed." As I read through your entry, I observed that you compared the Reformers to others whom you appear to think actually worked toward responding to corruption without a personal or a political agenda and without exploiting the popular mentality and without disseminating propaganda causing centuries of bloodshed:

One man who gets a lot of the credit for this is Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085). In his day, the Church was absolutely rife with corruption and he wanted to do something about it. He fought hard to eliminate simony (buying Church offices) and clerical incontinence. He strove to free the Church from the control of secular rulers. But he did something very radical, too. He called on laypeople to oppose corrupt clergy, absolving them of their obligations to obey.

In the aftermath of Pope Gregory’s reform, we saw centuries of religious movements and lay reforms both inside and outside of the Church. The most famous examples are St. Francis and St. Dominic, who rose up in answer to the Church’s call for Reformation." " What all of this means is that the Church created the expectation that things should be better. Religious carried out centuries of catechesis and preaching. Books like The Imitation of Christ flooded the popular market once Guttenberg invented printing. The Church created such a demand for good religion that she couldn’t keep up with the demand.

Here I think your argument is not a factual argument per se, but rather an argument of the heart, or rather, you're starting with a basic unproven presupposition: certain people are real reformers of the church, certain people are not real reformers of the church. Who decides which are which? Well, if one is a defender of Rome, certain historical personages will be seen as reforming the church, others will not.

In conclusion, you mentioned to my friend Ken Temple that "the Protestant Reformation took the form of a Protest against doctrinal corruption in the Church." You also said that "whether or not that protest was justifiable" was not the point of your entry. I think it's very easy to read between the lines of what you've written to conclude the Reformation was not a justifiable protest with long lasting positive results. You then state:

The thesis of the article is that corruption alone, whether doctrinal, moral, institutional, or what-have-you, is not a sufficient explanation of the Reformation. But, rather, a change in religious mentality (along with other social, political, and technological developments) was required before claims of corruption could have the force necessary to move an entire culture the way they did.

This is an adequate thesis, as far it goes. But it appears to me your entry says a bit more. It particularly downplays the element of corruption within the Roman church and places a negative value on the  protest of the Reformers. If I had to summarize your entry in a few words, I'd say your entry was an apologetic effort to defend the Roman church against the Protestant Reformation.

Was Martin Luther a Closet Universalist?

Here's a recent question sent over to me:

I recently heard a claim that Luther was a universalist, or at the least a hopeful inclusivist. Have you written anything on the blog about this that I missed? Based on this quote here "It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s ability to do that?"

I don't recall this, so like everyone, I put the quote in Google.  The first thing I discovered was that back in 2011 I missed the brouhaha of the quote being used in Rob Bell's book, Love Wins:

Rob Bell on Martin Luther and Salvation in Hell (Justin Taylor)

Easy Virtues and Cruel Mistresses: Basic Advice on How to Interpret Luther (Carl Trueman)

Then, I even came across a Universalist website saying that Luther was being mis-cited: Was Martin Luther a Closet Universalist?

So, this is a quote in which I don't need to reinvent the wheel. Interesting stuff.

Called to Communion on the Roots of the Reformation

Since October is Reformation month, one expects to find content from the defenders of Rome explaining why the Reformation was a tragedy or why it wasn't a movement actually reforming the true church. One particular blog entry was offered by Called to Communion on October 1 by David Anders- Roots of the Reformation: What it Means for Today. Dr. Anders says he's a former Calvinist and Protestant historian. The argument he ultimately puts forth appears to be as follows:


1. In all periods of history, the church has been plagued with corruption. Corruption was not the cause of the Reformation. 

2. The Roman church wants corruption responded to. The Roman Church is actually responsible for creating the expectation that corruption should be rooted out and the the church should be reformed.

3. Throughout her history, the Roman church worked towards responding to corruption, this before Luther and the Reformers.

4. The Protestant Reformers "stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality."

5. Those involved in the Reformation had "a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." They were not responding to corruption.

6. One other possible argument Dr. Anders makes is that the Reformers sought to create a perfect church. Any such attempt though will result in "hypocrisy or tyranny." I say this is a possible argument because I was not entirely sure it was being inferred from his final paragraph.

Dr. Anders basic argument boils down to saying it was not corruption in the church that provoked the Reformation. The Reformers were not reformers but were simply disseminating propaganda against the true church. One of the roots of the Reformation therefore is the Roman church. The Roman church "created the expectation that things should be better," not Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Knox. Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren't motivated to reform due to church corruption.

Before responding to this argument, let me describe two of the good things about this blog entry. First, Dr. Anders blatantly admits that the defenders of Rome don't understand the cause of the Reformation:

If you ask most people why there was a Protestant Reformation they answer, “Because of corruption in the Church.” That’s the common view. They might blame the indulgence controversy or Papal involvement in politics. If they’re Protestants, they probably claim the Church was doctrinally corrupt. Even Catholics give this answer. (I know. I just polled a roomful of Catholics on the question.) For centuries, in fact, this was the standard line for Catholic historians: if only the Church had done a better job, there would have been no Protestant Reformation. There is one small problem with the corruption thesis, however. It’s just not true.

While the defenders of Rome claim doctrinal certainty and unity, when it comes to interpreting history, particularly the Reformation, that's a different story. I agree fundamentally with Dr. Anders that the defenders of Rome are by and large ignorant of the Reformation at best. I would go further and say at worst many rely on out-dated historical information and are often too stubborn to go beyond the likes of Grisar, Denifle, or O'Hare. Ironically, it was actually one of their own historians that helped popularize the corruption theory, Jospeh Lortz. Now, Dr. Anders is saying this notion that corruption was the root of the Reformation is "just not true," and as we'll see, in its place, he'd rather believe the view of someone who thought religion was fundamentally dangerous and to be avoided as an old way of thinking.

Second, another good point raised by Dr. Anders is that the Roman church has been plagued by corruption for the entirety of her existence: "...corruption in the Church didn’t make the 16th century any different from every other century." He says also, "...It is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made 'absence of corruption' a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30)." This is a helpful point to use in demonstrating a typical double standard put forth by many of Rome's defenders. There are those that argue Luther regretted the Reformation because it made people worse. They typically argue the Reformation was a failure and was morally bankrupt. It didn't produce good fruit, nor were its results any better than those of the corrupt church Luther and the Reformers fought against. Luther knew this, and admitted it. He died despondent over the mess he created. Heretics never lead good lives, nor produce good fruit. Since Rome is the true church and the Reformation was a failure, we as separated brethren must reunite with her. Trent cleaned up the situation as well, so what are Protestants waiting for? It's only by being in the true church that someone can attain true holiness. Here Anders dissolves the idea for Roman Catholics that true religion will lead to spiritual success and religious tranquility. No: the enemy is always sowing weeds among the wheat. If Rome can claim that she exists as the true church of God despite failure and sin, Protestants can do likewise.

As to his argument: It isn't really an argument based on factual data. It's an argument based on a presupposition that only those approved by Rome (at some point) are the actual reformers of the church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were "People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." Only Rome can respond to the corruption of Rome. To respond in kind to this argument one need simply assert that those who attempt to promulgate Romanism and want to see the elimination of sola fide, sola gratia, or sola scriptura are disseminating anti-biblical propaganda against the true church. Further, during her history have not the forces of Rome been responsible for political agendas, propaganda, bloodshed and suffering? Certainly she has, so it's a double standard to claim the Reformation exhibited this devious behavior and is therefore not ordained by God, whereas the Roman church exhibits this behavior and is ordained by God, able to ferret out corruption.

Despite an official historical pronouncement from Rome on the cause of the Reformation, Anders asserts, "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it." This does not alleviate the fact that at the time of the Reformation there was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption. Why is it not the case that God brought forth the Protestant Reformers to combat it? Why is what the Reformers did simply "a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering"? Dr. Anders doesn't say. Rather, he expands his position by saying:

There were many, many factors leading to the Reformation: economic and political changes, demography and societal attitudes, technology (printing), intellectual developments (scholasticism and the renaissance), religious sentiment, and the contributions of colorful personalities. It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation. These all came together at a critical moment in western history. “Corruption,” as such, was not the cause of the Reformation.

So, according to Dr. Anders there were large categories of economics, politics, demographics, social issues, technology, etc... one might as well just say all spheres of human existence were factors leading to the Reformation, with the exception of one: corruption in the Roman church. On what basis does one decide that virtually all spheres of human social existence were factors leading to the Reformation except one? One what basis does one decide that an ill-working institution that has her tentacles wrapped around every sphere of social existence wasn't a factor leading to the Reformation? The basis appears to be that put forth by a French secular historian:  

The Protestant Reformers merely stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality. This is not simply my private theory. Lucien Febvre made the argument in 1929 in his famous essay, “Une question mal posée.” Today, this is the consensus view among historians. A good book on the subject is Steven Ozment’s, The Age of Reform: 1250-1550.

I happen to have Ozment's book, and he does in indeed discuss the theories of Lucien Febvre. Ozment states, "Lucien Febvre scoffed at the very notion that church abuses, regardless of their magnitude, could explain a religious revolution." He goes on to say, "The medieval church failed, he believed, precisely in those matters that touched the heart" (p. 211). Ozment himself though goes on to argue that to understand the Reformation, one should consider not only Febvre's conclusion, but to link that with the position argued by Roman Catholic historian Jospeh Lortz (corruption did ignite the Reformation). Ozment then goes on for multiple pages in describing the corruption present at the time. In another less-technical work, Ozment gives a basic overview of the different theories as to what caused the Reformation: Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1991). He documents six basic (and sometimes contradictory) theories as to the impetus of the Reformation. While Febvre's view is popular today, it is hardly the only player in the continuing debate as to the cause of the Reformation.

What was the cause of the Reformation? Certainly Dr. Anders is correct that there were "many, many factors."  Arguing though that every social aspect of human existence was a factor save the ill-working institution that was involved with virtually every social aspect of human existence appears to me to be nothing more than a scholarly parlor trick.


Addendum
One final set of criticisms of Dr. Anders article can be found in a comment below his entry on the Called to Communion website.  I have no idea who this person is. While I think he missed the fundamental argument being put forth by Dr. Anders, he did ask a good related question based on the idea that Rome is the historical vehicle to combat her own corruption:

David Anders, How should someone react to corruption in the Church? From reading other material on this website, it seems that when someone commits themselves to the Roman Catholic Church, they are subjecting their whole person to the Teaching Magesterium as their God-appointed Shepherds in the faith. So how can an individual even “know”, in any degree above the level of opinion, that corruption is actually taking place? Much less begin to know how to properly react to it.

Gentlemen such as Michael Liccione, Ray Stamper, and Bryan Cross, unless I have misunderstood them, have taught that when one comes into the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (not to say every faithful Catholic does this, or must do this), they are giving an assent of faith that is supernatural in character, and then far exceeds the limits of human reason. Thus, “Whatever the Church says, Christ says” and “Whatever the Church does, Christ does”. Under this principle, one sees that Christ is working above and behind the whole ecclesial program. Any seceding or doubt that occurs in the heart is quickly repented of, because of the higher order of knowledge that is working behind the visible structure of the Catholic Church, and one must trust and commit themselves to this higher order. Therefore, how can one even know beyond his/her own opinion that there is corruption in the Church?

I think of a scene that is in the old movie Martin Luther (from the early 1900’s) where there is a local friend of Fr. Luther who is walking around drunk who is walking around with a paper with the official stamp of the Pope’s approval that one had been given a plenary indulgence. The drunk says “I payed good money for it”. I think of when some days I ago I was looking old photos and documents of my family’s history and I found an official authoritative document concerning how the faithful are to pray for a member of our family who had died. From what my family tells me, this individual lived and died outside of communion with the Catholic Church, and died in the middle of the day when he was fighting Chickens in Puerto Rico. Aside from our being able to know the depths of the human heart, one questions how the Church had the authority to simply write it off as if he was in purgatory, and that all should pray for his soul.

When these things occur, how does the faithful Catholic, holding to the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (as above described), know when to identify something as “corruption” or whether he is in sin for even thinking that he had the right to have such a suspicion. And if it is the case that an individual must not identify anything as corruption, for in so doing one raises his himself up against the Church, then how does one “react” to what appears like “corruption” by anything other than submission and obedience?

Another example would be Exsurge Domine (1520), which is a famous bull promulgated by Pope Leo X against Dr. Martin Luther. This Bull comes from the Pope himself, he is acting as Pastor of all the faithful (“In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor”….and “We forbid each and everyone of the faithful”), invoking his Apostolic Authority (“Rise Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor..”), to an issue related to faith and morals (“We can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith…”) , in which the following is stated:

“….we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these errors… 33) That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit”

Dr. Luther is well-known to have decried the Church -approved practice of burning heretics at the stake. And here, it would appear very clearly, in an ex-Cathedra statement, the Church says that Dr. Luther’s position is “against the Holy Spirit”. The whole document is said to have been dealing with the faith and morals of the Church.

In Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, we read:

“We excommunicate and anathemative every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith which we have above explained, condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the Faithful (faith/morals/church membership), so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church….If [a ruler] refuses to comply let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, they he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance, and preserve it in the purity of faith…>Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land”.

Now, how would anyone who was Catholic at the time be able to respond to such an Ecumenical decree as corruption (for no doubt today Catholics believe this is corruptible) with anything but obedience and submission. I mean, he is told, for the sake of his soul, that is is bound to obey such decrees, and that if he does so, he does so to his eternal ruin.

Now, before we begin by distinguishing what is “infallible” and what is “not infallible”, I would like to keep this consonant with Dr. David Anders original post. Despite the fact that today some Catholics will argue that these teachings of the past are dead and buried in the ground of fallible teaching, it still does not answer how one was to react to these teachings, which, for the modern Roman Catholic is totally corruptible. To say that one would not be held accountable because the Church was speaking with her authority, and the laymen is bound to subject himself to the Church, is to put the eternal law of God under the living Voice of the Church, however shape or form that it comes. The authority of the Church did not come with any flexibility, and if you disobeyed the Church, you were to be considered, by all as well as yourself, not in communion with Christ.

So this all goes back to the question of how is one to react to corruption in the Church. For this does not bear upon just the window of history wherein the European Reformation took place, but also for today and forevermore. For just as the Church has revised things, calling one thing binding in one place and not binding in another, in the past, presumably, it can do so in the future. And for all we know, we are living in a time wherein there is teaching and practice, that will be later seen as unacceptable by the very same Church.

This is not to deny that one must be able to see the hand of God in history. The limits of our understanding in what God does is clearly testified by the Scriptures “My ways are above your ways, my thoughts are above your thoughts”. And we also know that Salvation and Redemptive history was not always “ideal” (Abraham’s fornication w/ Hagar, the sins of the 12 sons, Joseph’s betrayal into Egyptian slavery, etc,etc,etc), but that God is moving his plan through it anyhow.

But when there is an exercise of Ecclesiastical authority which binds the conscience, and the conditions and qualifications for such authority to be binding or not binding are different throughout the ages, how is one to really “react” properly when the Church acts in ways, that, in heinsight, we now know to be, in fact, false??

Luther: Take Away the Mass, Destroy the Church

Here's an obscure Luther quote used particularly by those upset by the changes in the Mass (Pope Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae, 1969): "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church." This quote is found on numerous web pages often in this particular context:

The Destruction of Catholic Worship is the Destruction of the Catholic Faith
The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: "The way we worship is the way we believe." The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church's enemies have always understood this principle as "They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church." (source)

It is also found in this dire context:

The Apocalypse is the mysterious process of the quiet infiltration and rewriting of the Catholic religion by Jewish Masonic priests, bishops, cardinals and antipopes over a 2000 year period. By rewriting the Liturgy of the Mass which causes the abomination of desolation and by rewriting the names or form used in the Seven Catholic Sacraments, causing just about all to receive the mark of the beast, Freemasonry neutralizes its competition for control of the world, causing a phenomenon known as the New World Order (Novus Ordo Saeculorum). "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church." - Jewish Freemason Martin Luther (source)

It can be found in a Latinized form:

Martin Luther's slogan was : "Tolle missam, tolle Ecclesiam." Destroy the Mass and you destroy the Church. This is very true from the point of view of the invisible, mystical reality. It is this mystical, invisible, reality that is essential for salvation. True, the visible reality of the Mystical is necessary during our present existence in time and space. And because we are still in this body of flesh and in this existence of time and place, the ordinary process of salvation takes place in our present mode of existence. (source)

In one of his works against the Church established by CHRIST he fearing neither God nor man declared: "Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam" which means 'destroy the Mass and destroy the Church. Continuing in his assault against the Catholic Church, in which he was once an ex-monk, he declared: "When the Mass has been overthrown, I think we will have overthrown the Papacy. I think it is in the Mass, as on a rock, that the papacy wholly rests ... Everything will of necessity collapse when their sacrilegious abominable Mass collapses. (source)

It can also be found attributed to Cardinal Newman:

If John Cardinal NEWMAN was right in saying, "Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam, - Do away with the Mass, and you do away with the Church,' we too are right in symmetrically concluding, 'Bring the true Mass back, and watch the true Church equally return to its own pristine holiness and glory." - Father Gommar A. DE PAUW, in New York, when asked for comment on the preceding statement. - Sept. 5, 1999 (source)

Documentation
In my cursory search, I did not find any specific documentation for this alleged saying of Luther's.  It appears to me that Luther probably did not say, "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church." Rather, he held something like Take away the mass and destroy the papacy.

Possible Contexts
On a hunch I recalled Luther's famous "Eight Sermons at Wittenberg" (Invocavit Sermons, 1522) in which Luther came out of hiding and returned to preach at Wittenberg when he heard about the radical changes occurring. Notice Luther seeks to abolish the mass, but in an orderly fashion:

In his sermon of March 9, 1522 Luther stated:

Therefore all those have erred who have helped and consented to abolish the mass; not that it was not a good thing, but that it was not done in an orderly way. You say it was right according to the Scriptures. I agree, but what becomes of order? For it was done in wantonness, with no regard for proper order and with offense to your neighbor. If, beforehand, you had called upon God in earnest prayer, and had obtained the aid of the authorities, one could be certain that it had come from God. I, too, would have taken steps toward the same end if it had been a good thing to do; and if the mass were not so evil a thing, I would introduce it again. [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 51: Sermons I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 51, p. 73). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

In his sermon of March 10, 1522 Luther stated:

Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with it, because it is performed as if it were a sacrifice and work of merit. Therefore it must be abolished. Here there can be no question or doubt, any more than you should ask whether you should worship God. Here we are entirely agreed: the private masses must be abolished. As I have said in my writings, I wish they would be abolished everywhere and only the ordinary evangelical mass be retained. [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 51: Sermons I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 51, p. 75). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

One of the most direct statement from Luther that to abolish the mass is to abolish the Papacy can be found in his writing against Henry VIII in 1522 (WA 10:2, 220):

Let us return to the institution. We have then taken away the Mass, and we say in triumph against the Defender of the sacraments, that it is not a work nor a sacrifice, but a word and a sign of divine grace, which Christ uses for establishing and strengthening in us faith in Himself. And we see how foolish Satan is, since the longer and fiercer he rages and writes against us, the more senseless and infatuated is his delirium. For this book of the King, as it is about the best in Latinity of all the books that have been written against me, so is it above all others the most blockish and stupid, so that I could almost attribute it to our writers in Leipsic, who are wont thus to babble when their babblement is at its best. Having triumphed over the Mass, I think we have triumphed over the whole papacy. For upon the Mass as upon a rock is built the whole papacy with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, its doctrines, and leans on it with its whole weight. And all these things must fall with the sacrilegious and abominable Mass. So Christ through me has begun to unmask the abomination standing in the holy place, and to destroy him, whose coming was through the operation of Satan in all wonders and lying miracles.

After digging around for awhile, this last quote appears to be the closest possible that I could find to the obscure quote. That Luther was opposed to the mass is no secret. Simply read Hartman Grisar's  lengthy overview (his is a Roman perspective). Luther was eventually even opposed to the word "mass"(LW 38:226).

A Follow-up on Tim Staples and David F. Wright on Calvin's Mariology

Tim Staples: Apologists Make Mistakes Too, Revisited

In a recent entry I noted that Tim Staples admitted "Apologists make mistakes too!" This refers to a recent Catholic Answers blog post in which Mr. Staples documented Rome's defenders misusing facts about the Reformers. The following is an extended version of some comments I left for Mr. Staples on his blog entry.

After some dialog with another of Rome's defenders, Mr. Staples re-edited his blog post. Originally he stated,

This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not.

He revised it to:

This second myth is even more widespread, but I must qualify it. There can be no doubt that John Calvin, at least at some point in his career, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But to place him on the same level of Luther, Zwingli and Wesley is misguided. It is not to paint the entire picture accurately.

He has since mentioned in the comments:

I am going to take out even the possibility that Calvin denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary for both our electronic version of the book and our next printing. Even though I still think there is evidence there, it is not strong enough to contradict the scholarship you mentioned. I remember Jimmy Akin telling me when I first came to Catholic Answers words to the effect of, "There are lots of things that are possibilities and that we may think are really cool that do not merit being published either in a book, CD set, or DVD." I think this is one of these.

What appears to have happened is that an obscure sermon of Calvin's (documented here) influenced Mr. Staples to make this change in his book. In the comments section of his blog entry, Mr Staples wrote that Calvin was "confused" in this sermon for the following reasons:

St. Joseph did not marry Mary, he never lived with her, but he was "married all along." His reasoning seems muddled. Because he never taught on the topic explicitly to defend it, we don't really know what he believed about 1. when Joseph and Mary would have been "married." 2. Were they ever truly married? 3. Did they live together? He appears to say no. It is difficult to see how that would have been a "marriage" to Calvin at all, considering his teaching on marriage.

In response, I offer the following observations:

1) Typical of Calvin on this issue, the subject matter of the entire sermon does not dwell on Mary, and even less on Joseph. The quote in question is more of a passing comment, or more of an an end-note (for lack of a better term) stuck right at the very end of the sermon.

2) The 1562 published sermon isn't exactly from the pen of Calvin. It's a transcription based on what someone heard him say. It's within the realm of possibility that the reason Mr. Staples thinks Calvin's reasoning is "muddled" is due to distortion or lack of clarity in the way it was heard and written down.

3) I've analyzed the sermon and compared it to Calvin's commentary comments, particularly those comments pertaining to Mary that overlap in the sermon and the commentaries. There are indeed many similarities more than dissimilarities.

In the well-known comments from Calvin's Commentaries, his basic point is that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the Biblical texts of Matthew 13:55 and 1:25, and it's “folly” to make a text say more than it does. In this sermon he likewise stresses that "Though some fantasies have been expressed that this passage is teaching that the virgin Mary had other children than Jesus and that Joseph lived with her afterwards, this is nonsense. The Evangelist had no interest in reciting what happened after."

There are some differences as well. When Calvin says, "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence," Calvin's commentary says, "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin."

The sermon comments have some interesting details about Joseph. One thing to keep in mind is not reading into what Calvin is saying. For instance, when Calvin says, "He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company," and "Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her," it would be inconsistent within the context to conclude Calvin is saying that Joseph and Mary never lived together, even after the birth of Jesus. Calvin is not speculating as to what happened afterwards based on this verse (that's his main point!). It would be a contextual error then to think Calvin here means that Joseph was some sort of monk never dwelling with Mary. The point Calvin is making concerns the period of betrothal. See particularly Calvin's comments on Matthew 1:18-25 where Calvin says "before they came together" means "before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family" and "The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof." See also Calvin's comments on Luke 2:1-7 and Luke 2:48-58.

If one reads between the lines of the sermon, it appears Calvin is saying Mary had no other children besides Jesus. Without any clear denial that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and with comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children- I think this is why so many writers have concluded Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary- it's a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. The problem with the conclusion is that it goes against Calvin's specific guidelines- to not speculate beyond what he thought the Scriptures stated. To be fair to Calvin is to allow him to say what he said, not what we want him to say. If one really wanted to give Calvin's opinion on this issue, it is to simply say that Calvin did not think it correct to speculate.

Revisions are par for the course. People who take written theological positions will at times revise something they've earlier stated. I've never had any personal interaction with Mr. Staples before, but he seems to be willing to follow evidence where it leads. In this instance though, I think he was correct originally that Rome's defenders are misusing Calvin on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. Perhaps all it would really take is for him to clarify that there is no explicit teaching from John Calvin on Mary's perpetual virginity. What there is are statements from Calvin saying not to go beyond the text of scripture to speculate as to whether or not Mary had other children. Calvin offers no clear denial of Mary's perpetual virginity.

David F. Wright Calvin's view of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Mr. Staples also noted he revised his view in regard to Calvin / Mary because of scholarly consensus. This sort of argument was lodged against me 10 years ago when I concluded Luther did not have a lifelong belief in the immaculate conception. You know what I did? I went and looked up what evidence each scholar used to make their conclusion. In many instances, the evidence presented didn't support the conclusion, or was taken from someone else's conclusion, or made a different conclusion. About 10 years later, it was finally conceded by the person using the scholarly consensus argument that I was correct all along.

For instance, the following comment was directed toward Mr. Staples:

This 1562 sermon may be one reason why many Protestant (including Calvinist) scholars agree that Calvin adhered to Mary's perpetual virginity, as I noted in a paper over four years ago now: David F. Wright, in his book, "Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective" (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated: '". . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . [Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely as simply as 'Mary preferring 'the Virgin', etc.).'

What I would want to see is if the scholars cited to Mr. Staples about Calvin's view of Mary utilized the 1562 published sermon as this comment asserts. Let's look at the scholar cited, David F. Wright. I happen to have this book of which he's the editor and a contributor. I don't think the 1562 sermon was a factor. If it was, Wright appears to have neglected to cite it in any of his three chapters- particularly Chapter 8: Mary and the Reformers.

The 1562 published sermon isn't cited on either page 173 or page 175.  On page 173 note what Wright says just before the citation offered above. Wright documents Luther's adherence to Mary's PV and then states:

There is no doubt that the consensus of the Reformers affirmed Mary's virginity not only 'before the birth' (in partu) and after it (post partum). Calvin is something of an exception, in that his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it.

The other part of the quote, "[Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as 'the holy Virgin' (and rarely as simply as 'Mary preferring 'the Virgin', etc.)." is from page 175- a different context. There Wright is discussing Calvin's view of Mary's sinlessness, not her perpetual virginity. These two quotes from two different contexts on two different pages, stuck together (for whatever reason), don't say anything about a 1562 published sermon. There are no footnotes from either page 173 or 175 referring to the 1562 published sermon. In fact, there are no footnotes at all to Calvin's writings on page 173. On page 175 there are references to Calvin's writings on the purification of Mary, not Mary's perpetual virginity.

The only possibility that Wright had the 1562 published sermon in question is that on page 170 he cites a number of comments from Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels vol. 1. In documenting the quotes (all direct references to the Commentary), he refers also to Max Thurian on pages 39-40. Nowhere on page 170 does he cite the 1562 published sermon which Thurian cites in his book on pages 39-40. Neither does he cite any of the content from the 1562 published sermon, other than the fact that the sermon also states Calvin's view to not speculate as to what happened afterwards in regard to Mary. In fact, Wright doesn't cite Thurian at all on page 170, but appears to be using him as a secondary reference to the same material from the commentary.

Notice also Wright points out that Calvin's position was an exception to the Reformers, and then speculates that because Calvin "never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity" "he may be said to have believed it". I appreciate Wright's careful exception and understand his speculation. But it is just that: speculation. Calvin's view is to not speculate as to what happened afterward.

I did a cursory search of the footnotes provided for the entire book, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989) to see if anywhere else the 1562 published sermon was mentioned. It was not. There was though an interesting comment from Tony's Lane in his chapter, The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth (chapter 5). There Lane does refer to Calvin:

The virgin birth does not really exalt celibacy unless it is supplemented with the further doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. This doctrine is found already in the second century and was well established by the third century. In its interesting to note that Calvin refused to commit himself on this matter while the marginal notes of the Puritan Geneva Bible of 1560 defend Mary's perpetual virginity. (p.111)

Now if one were to characterize the opinion of this book, both Wright and Lane note Calvin never made a precise statement on Mary's perpetual virginity. Wright speculates he may be said to have held it, Lane leaves it at "Calvin refused to commit himself on this matter."

This is simply one of the things I would do with each of the scholars cited to Mr. Staples before deciding one way or the other what the consensus of Calvin's view is on Mary's perpetual virginity. For David F. Wright, he speculates what Calvin's view is ("It may be said...") with the qualification that Calvin was an exception to the general consensus of the beliefs of the Reformers on this issue.


Addendum

Mr. Staples left the following comment:

#58  Tim Staples - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Blogger

James,

I think you make very good points. I tend to agree with you. But I don't think these points rise to the level of certainty that we want at Catholic Answers in our apologetics books. I think Calvin may well of waffled on this point, but you do make good points. I appreciate your comments. I especially agree with you when you point out Calvin's constant attempt not to go beyond what is said in the texts of Scripture. Thanks again.

October 24, 2014 at 8:14 am PST

Debate: Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ? (White vs Wilson)

Does Trinitarian baptism join you to the New Covenant? Does it join you to Christ? Does it make you a brother or sister in Christ with everyone else who has likewise been baptized, even if you hold to a false gospel? Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ by baptism, but not by confession of faith? These are the issues debated by Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. (2 Hours 48 Minutes)

O'Carroll on Calvin's Mariology

A few weeks ago I Came across Michael O'Carroll's Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Virgin Mary. His entry on Calvin was interesting, but unreadable unless one can read upside down. I took the time to flip the pages around.

Overall, I think this Roman Catholic treatment of Calvin's Mariology is quite good. Rome's apologists would do well to consider how radically different Calvin's view of Mary was to the Roman church of his day and the Roman church of our day. O'Carroll does well in describing the continuity / discontinuity of Calvin with the church of his day as well as with later periods of church history.

Your Comment is Awaiting Moderation

My apologies to those of you kind enough to leave comments. At times the comments may not appear immediately on the blog. I have trouble with trolls and stalkers from time to time.

There are only a few people who are permanently banned from commenting here. It takes a long time to reach the line that says, "Cross this and you'll be on permanent ignore."

Now with Facebook and Twitter, blog discussions aren't as popular as they once were. I still prefer blogs and discussion forums. I do maintain a Facebook page for this blog, and post to it from time to time. I simply don't have the time or desire to maintain it regularly. And besides, I've never really pursued being an Internet-apologist rock star. I don't sell anything, and more often than not, I blog the stuff I do out of purely selfish reasons rather than to gain a following. I expect no one to comment, and then I'm amazed people actually do.

Thanks for the comments.  

Calvin: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children..."

Add caption

This entry is a follow-up to: Tim Staples Says: Apologists Make Mistakes Too! There has been some interesting discussion on the blog entry recently posted by Mr. Staples about Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity.

One point of interest was an obscure Calvin quote used by the Roman Catholic author Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, pp. 39-40. His book was originally written in French in 1962. Thurian states:

Lastly Calvin's thought is made even more clear in a sermon on Matt. 1:22-25, which was published in 1562 in the shorthand notes of Denys Ragueneau: "There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, "to be used for our edification."(21)

(21) La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64.

Documentation
If one checks Thurian's documentation for his Calvin quote, it doesn't appear to me that he actually utilized a primary source, but rather took his citation from La Revue réformée 1956/4, pp. 63-64. In other words, the Calvin quote in question that is presented in English came from the French, and was taken from a French journal. Where did the French journal get it? Did the journal article use the primary source? I don't know. Thurian says the sermon was published in 1562.  It's unclear to me when exactly the sermon was preached. T.H.L. Parker says Calvin began preaching on a Harmony of the Gospels in 1559 and did so until the end of his life, so it could very well have been 1562, but since the book was published in 1562, I would posit it was probably preached sometime between 1559-1561 (see Parker's chart here). One other interesting detail is that "Calvin left the publishing of his sermons to to others with the exception of four sermons which he revised and published..."

I tracked down the actual sermon. All the sources I checked mentioned that the person who took the shorthand notes on Calvin's sermons during this period, Denys Ragueneau, was a paid professional in this field, and his abilities surpassed earlier attempts to capture Calvin's sermons.

Context
Typical of Calvin on this issue, the subject matter of the entire sermon does not dwell on Mary, and even less on Joseph. The quote in question is more of a passing comment, or more of an an end-note (for lack of a better term) stuck right at the very end of the sermon:

The English Calvin translation from  Neville B. Cyer of Thurian pp. 38-39 is good, but leaves out some things:

And notably it is said that he did not know the Virgin until she had given birth to her first Son. By this the Evangelist means that Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her, but rather to obey God, and to fulfill his obligation to her. It was thus not for reasons of carnal love, nor for profit, nor for anything else that he took her as his wife; it was to obey God and to show that he accepted the grace proffered. This was a blessing, that he could not even fully appreciate. Here is what we must retain.

There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage  that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the Holy Spirit's intention. To give ourselves over to subtle foolishness on this question would be to abuse the holy Scriptures, which is to be useful for our edification, as St Paul says. As for the rest, when men are so unstable and have such itching ears for new and appealing speculations, the devil must possess them as much as they harden themselves, so that they not be brought to the right path and thus trouble heaven and earth; rather, they must maintain their errors and dreams with a diabolical obstinacy. How much the more must we be sober to receive the doctrine that is given to us to accept the Redeemer who is sent to us from God his Father, and that we know his virtue so as to learn to hold ourselves fully in him.

Thus we bow down before the majesty of our good God.

Analysis
There are similarities between this comment and Calvin's earlier comments on Mary's virginity. In the well-known comments from Calvin's Commentaries, his basic point is that a necessary inference that Mary had other children cannot be made from the Biblical texts of Matthew 13:55 and 1:25, and it's “folly” to make a text say more than it does. In this sermon he likewise stresses that "Though some fantasies have been expressed that this passage is teaching that the virgin Mary had other children than Jesus and that Joseph lived with her afterwards, this is nonsense. The Evangelist had no interest in reciting what happened after."

There are some differences as well. When Calvin says, "And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence," Calvin's commentary says, "He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin."

The sermon comments have some interesting details about Joseph. One thing to keep in mind is not reading into what Calvin is saying. For instance, when Calvin says, "He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company," and "Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her," it would be inconsistent within the context to conclude Calvin is saying that Joseph and Mary never lived together, even after the birth of Jesus. Calvin is not speculating as to what happened afterwards based on this verse (that's his main point!).  It would be a contextual error then to think Calvin here means that Joseph was some sort of monk never dwelling with Mary. The point Calvin is making concerns the period of betrothal. See particularly Calvin's comments on Matthew 1:18-25 where Calvin says "before they came together" means "before they came to dwell together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family" and "The meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their roof." See also Calvin's comments on Luke 2:1-7 and Luke 2:48-58.

Calvin never comes right out and says Mary was a perpetual virgin, as Roman Catholics understand it. Calvin quite explicitly denies that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity in his commentary on Luke 1:34-38:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.

We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?"

But if one reads between the lines of the sermon, it appears Calvin is saying Mary had no other children besides Jesus. Without any clear denial that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and with comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children- I think this is why so many writers have concluded Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary- it's a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. The problem with the conclusion is that it goes against Calvin's specific guidelines- to not speculate beyond what he thought the Scriptures stated. To be fair to Calvin is to allow him to say what he said, not what we want him to say. If one really wanted to give Calvin's opinion on this issue, it is to simply say that Calvin did not think it correct to speculate. This isn't the answer polemicists want to hear, but it is letting Calvin be Calvin.


The Argument From Tim Staples on Calvin and Perpetual Virginity
Mr Staples eventually changed his original blog entry. He originally stated:

This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not.
He revised it to:

This second myth is even more widespread, but I must qualify it. There can be no doubt that John Calvin, at least at some point in his career, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But to place him on the same level of Luther, Zwingli and Wesley is misguided. It is not to paint the entire picture accurately.

Mr. Staples was right originally. There is no explicit teaching from John Calvin on Mary's perpetual virginity. What there is are statements from Calvin saying not to go beyond the text of scripture to speculate as to whether or not Mary had other children.  In regard to the revised statement, the "one point in his career" in which Calvin is said to have believed in Mary's perpetual virginity is the sermon published in 1562 discussed above.  The way Mr. Staples sees it is that this sermon is "earlier in his career" as compared to Calvin's final word on the matter in his Commentary published in 1563. According to T.H.L. Parker though, Calvin's commentary on the Synoptics was published in 1555. As I stated above, the sermon is probably from 1559-1561. It would appear to me that the commentary was before the sermon. Even if the Staples dating scenario is correct and Calvin vacillated on this question in the span of year at the end of his life- this seems like a stretch to me- certainly possible, but hardly likely. Calvin was a consistent theologian. Certainly there were changes in his thinking, but they typically were not saying one thing one year and the opposite the next.

On the other hand, Mr. Staples makes some interesting arguments that I'd like to contrast with some comments from Steve Hays :

...[I]f we read further in Calvin's commentary and head over to Luke 1:34, in volume 2 of this same work I mentioned above, he seems to deny what he had earlier accepted as true.

Luke 1:34 is the famous text where Mary, having heard God's invitation for her to become the Mother of God through the message of the Archangel Gabriel, asks the obvious question: "How shall this be since I know not man?" In other words, "How is this going to happen since I do not plan on having conjugal relations?" For more details on this and more, get my book!

Calvin's commentary on this text reads: “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage…”

Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove Mary had a vow of Perpetual Virginity before her marriage to St. Joseph, but that this "would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage." This would seem to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary itself as a possible consideration for Calvin, and it seems to be a change in Calvin's thinking on the matter.

So what may have informed this change? I argue, it may well have been his understanding of the "covenant" of marriage. Remember, John Calvin did not believe marriage to be a sacrament that is ratified as such at the altar of a church and then consummated on the wedding night. It was a "covenant" conditioned upon certin essential things, including the exchange of vows, a minister present, public witnesses, and the consummation. In his commentary on Eph. 5:28, for example, he says:

Marriage was appointed by God on the condition that the two should be one flesh; and that this unity may be the more sacred, he again recommends it to our notice by the consideration of Christ and his church.

The consummation, for Calvin, was essential to marriage. But even more, in his commentary on Eph. 5:31:

And they two shall be one flesh. They shall be one man, or, to use a common phrase, they shall constitute one person; which certainly would not hold true with regard to any other kind of relationship. All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance. 'We are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh,' (Ge 2:23;) not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we derive our life.

If "all is dependent upon this," it is no wonder that Calvin (and this followers today) would eventually come to view the PVBVM as out of the question.

The Argument From Steve Hays
This same point Mr. Staples makes was alluded to recently by Steve Hays:

Finally, there's a substantive theological issue. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it was never a real marriage (by Jewish standards). In that event, Jesus is not the legal stepson of Joseph, in which case he can't trace his family tree through either the Matthean or Lucan genealogies.

I'm not exactly sure what Calvin would say about this argument in regard to Mary and Joseph. To be consistent, any sort of comment would be going beyond Calvin's stated opinion into the realm of speculation. In terms of sheer logic, the point Hays makes is cogent, and I would agree with him.

Hays also says,

It comes as no revelation that the Protestant Reformers agreed with the Latin Church and (some) church fathers on a number of issues. There's continuity as well as discontinuity. So it wouldn't be some great coup to discover points of agreement between Luther or Calvin with the Latin Church or some church fathers. That was never in dispute.  

Hays gets to the heart of the issue. What I've found is that the alleged Mariology of the Reformers has been used by the defenders of Rome to show that the Reformers practiced sola scriptura and held to distinctly Roman doctrines. Therefore, they argue a few different ways:

a) Romanism is biblical
b) Sola Scriptura is inconsistent (or all Protestants should agree as to what the Scriptura teaches)
c) To be consistent Protestants, following the direct opinions of the original Protestants is necessary.

Hays though points out what any good Protestant historian would say: within all periods of church history, there is continuity and discontinuity. It doesn't surprise me or embarrass me as a Protestant to discover Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nor does the view of Calvin that appears to affirm the notion of perpetual virginity between the lines while at the same time saying not to speculate beyond the Biblical text. When one closely scrutinizes the Mariology of the Reformers, one finds exactly what Hays says: there's continuity as well as discontinuity with the Reformers and earlier periods of church history as well as the period in which they lived.

Tim Staples Says: Apologists Make Mistakes Too!

Tim Staples has yet another product coming out on Mary. This time it's a book entitled, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines.  That Rome's defenders continually produce materials about Mary is not surprising, but what is surprising is that Staples recently pitched the book on his blog stating, Apologists Make Mistakes Too! What Staples is referring to are historical errors some of his fellow apologists have made with the historical facts concerning the Protestant Reformers.

For years Rome's apologists have tried to use aspects of the Reformation in support of their version of Mary. The basic argument is that the Reformers held to sola scriptura and yet had a Roman Catholic Mariology. Luther and Calvin believed this or that about Mary, so... why don't contemporary "Bible only" Protestants?

Some of their argumentation is downright silly. Staples rightly identifies one of the worst:


Luther Was Not Buried Beneath An Image of Our Lady 
 As I point out in my book, Martin Luther did retain much of his Catholic Mariology after having left the Church. But there are also not a few myths about what Luther did and taught floating about in Catholic circles. If you haven't heard this one yet, you will. It has been written about and spoken about by quite a few Catholics, and I have personally heard some very well-known apologists state it as true as well. The myth claims there to be a relief of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with an accompanying inscription by Peter Vischer the Younger over the tomb of Martin Luther in the Wittenberg "Schlosskirche" ("Palace Church") where he is buried. "See?" The argument goes. "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Unfortunately, it is actually a memorial plaque for Henning Gode, the last Catholic Prior of that church, who died in 1521. Same building, but not connected to Luther. Luther did believe in Mary as Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, and even, at least at times in his writings, free from all sin, though he goes both ways on this one, but there is nary at hint of Mary's assumption.

I first came across the burial vault argument in 2007 while listening to a podcast from Mark Shea. Shea stated:

For Luther the Assumption was a settled fact...indeed Luther's burial vault in the Wittenburg church on whose door he had posted his ninety five theses was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer's sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin.

This led me to a statement by Peter Stravinskas:

Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the realization that his burial chamber in the Wittenberg church, on whose door he had posted his 95 Theses, was adorned with the 1521 Peter Vischer sculpture of the Coronation of the Virgin, with the inscription containing these lines: Ad summum Regina thronum defertur in altum: Angelicis praelatia choris, cui festus et ipse Filius occurrens Matrem super aethera ponit. This "archaeological" fact would seem to speak volumes about Luther's final thoughts on the place of Mary in the life of a Christian.

Staples is correct about the tomb inscription and that Rome's defenders have used it to say, "Luther believed in Mary assumed into heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!" Staples is also correct that in Luther's Reformation writings "there is nary at [sic] hint" he believed Mary was assumed into heaven.

Staples then moves to a mistake about John Calvin:

Calvin Did NOT Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 
This second myth is even more widespread. I have found it not only taught and published by many Catholics, but I even found one popular Calvinist apologist who has it up on his website as being true. And that is, John Calvin actually taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He did not. The error seems to have stemmed from misunderstanding some few comments from John Calvin’s 3-volume set, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Transl. by Rev. William Pringle (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2009). In his commentaries on Matt. 13:55 and Matt. 1:25, in volume 1, he takes Helvidius to task for assuming Mary had other children because of the mention of the “brothers of the Lord,” in Matthew 13:55, and for assuming “Joseph knew her not until…” meant that Joseph then was being said to have known Mary conjugally after Christ was born. Calvin correctly and sternly (in good Calvin fashion) teaches the "brothers" of the Lord may well be a Hebrew idiom representing "cousins" or some other extended relative. And he also points out that the "until" of Matt. 1:25 really says nothing about what happened after Mary gave birth. It was used there to emphasize the virginity of Mary up "until" that point. Don't get me wrong here. This is good stuff from John Calvin. He honestly exegetes these texts and corrects not only Helvidius, but, no doubt, some of his own confreres who were presuming what was not in these texts. That's a good thing! But unfortunately, many Catholics have taken these two sections of Calvin's commentary out of context and claim it to mean he agreed with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But in fact, he never says that. He simply concludes these Scriptures to be silent on the matter. They prove neither yeah nor nay when it comes to Mary's perpetual virginity. What my Catholic friends should have done (and I include myself here before I found this while researching for my book... ssssssshhhhhhh!) is to read further in Calvin's commentary and head over to Luke 1:34, in volume 2 of this same work, where he expressly denies Mary’s perpetual virginity.Luke 1:34 is the famous text where Mary, having heard God's invitation for her to become the Mother of God through the message of the Archangel Gabriel, asks the obvious question: "How shall this be since I know not man?" In other words, "How is this going to happen since I do not plan on having conjugal relations?" For more details on this and more, get my book! Calvin's commentary on this text reads: “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage…” Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but he denies the doctrine itself as a possible consideration.

This is another issue that's been on this blog for many years now. One of my earliest blog entries addressing this goes back to 2006, and it's come up a number of times since then. I would say that Staples is probably the first of Rome's popular defenders to arrive at the conclusion he has about Calvin on this issue.  I look forward to utilizing Staples here the next time one of Rome's apologists bring this up.

Kudos to Mr. Staples, especially with his position on Calvin. I've accused Rome's defenders for years of sloppy and inaccurate historical work on the Protestant Reformation, especially the Reformers' Mariology. At times it's been like shooting fish in a barrel. I have not purchased the book Staples reveals all this information in.  I would speculate there's a good chance he probably came across this blog while doing his research. I know even if he did utilize my blog for his book, he would probably not admit it. It is possible as well Mr. Staples has no idea who I am and figured this stuff out the same way I did: by looking at evidence and reading documents in context.

Ah well. It's enough for me that one of Rome's popular defenders is now saying some of the same things I've been saying for years.


ht: "guy fawkes" for his blog comment alerting me to the blog entry from Mr. Staples.



Addendum #1
I attempted to purchase the e-book version of Staples' new book on Mary, but as of 10/12/14 it was not yet available. Because (as Staples explains below) his comments about the Reformers are footnotes rather than actual lengthier treatments, I can't see the value in spending more than twice the amount for the actual book.

Addendum #2
A comment was left for Mr. Staples giving (among other things) a Calvin citation from a secondary source (that is, no original or complete context) documenting a sermon from Calvin (a citation from Calvin in English which was translated from the French, originally from shorthand notes), taken from a French journal, not the original sermon (that is- the secondary source utilized a Calvin quote from a journal).

Mr. Staples then responded and gave some further information about his position on John Calvin and Mary's perpetual virginity:

I did not go into this kind of detail in the book because it was a peripheral point and limited to a footnote. I was speaking of how a lack of understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary can lead to the loss of an understanding of many crucial teachings, like the indissolubility of marriage, sacraments, consecrated celibacy, the biblical notion of consecration in general, and more. In passing I note how the loss of an understanding of these things can lead to a loss of understanding of Mary's Perpetual Virginity or vice versa. That is when I toss out the idea that Luther's followers could be examples of the former while Calvin's followers the latter. I then footnote the fact that I believe Calvin rejected the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in his commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke and that I think many of us have taken this work out of context over the years. I don't comment on his earlier sermon at all. Again, maybe I should have, but it was a footnote. At any rate, here's my take on what you say. I think Calvin, like Luther on the Immaculate Conception, seemed to waffle on this teaching. Calvin was much more systematic than Luther, but he evolved (or devolved) in his teaching at times as well. But the use of his commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, specific to his comments on Matt. 13:55 and especially Matt. 1:25 is misguided, in my opinion. When you consider that Calvin explicitly takes a position in between Helvidius and Jerome in his commentary on Matt. 1:25 and he says as much, he says the text does not conclude either way, and then he footnotes his own work in Matt. 1:25 when he comments on Matt. 13:55 that the "brothers of the Lord" could be a Hebrew idiom for some other extended relation, that seems to me to be more agnostic than declaratory of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I don't think the references to "the Virgin Mary" would carry the day either. I know I referred to Mary as "the Virgin Mary" when I was Protestant, but that did not mean I believed she was a perpetual virgin. While it is true that the "title" "Virgin Mary" did carry with it a connotation of a permanent state in the first 16 centuries of the Christians era, so it is an interesting point, I think it more important to go to Calvin's writings on the topic to get at what he really believed. To the point: I would give more weight to his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, than to the earlier sermon. A major commentary on Scripture that probably took years to write seems to me to be more telling than a sermon that is written in a few days. Moreover, the translation of Calvin's commentary (by Pringle) I used is a collation of both the original Latin 1555 edition and the 1563 French translation that Calvin himself translated from his original Latin text just about a year before he died. So this would come after his 1562 sermon. To give you more of the citation, I'll pick up near the end of my citation and continue: "... and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews." Thus, he rejects the notion that Mary could have had a vow of perpetual virginity at the annunciation to be sure. He then goes on to reject that Mary could be referring to the future and never having intercourse with a man either: "We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?'" What jumped out at me reading this was this: He is responding to an "objection." An objection to what? To his teaching that the very idea of a virgin giving herself to a husband while planning to be a perpetual virgin would be tantamount to committing "treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and... pour[ing] contempt on the holy covenant of marriage." Those are very strong words that would, in my view, lend themselves to Calvin having second and third thoughts about the perpetual virginity of Mary at the very least. If he wanted to clarify things, it would seem to me Matt. 1:25 would be the place to do it because that is where "Joseph takes Mary his wife," but there he is clearly agnostic on the matter. Again, I don't go this deep into Calvin's mind in the book, but I would think, at the very least, one should say Calvin may have held to the view and then waffled on it, rather than just claiming he held to the dogma as did Luther, Zwingli, and even Wesley. Whenever I cite Luther on the sinlessness of Mary, I also note that this was early in his career and he seemed to move away from it later. That seems to me to be the honest thing to do. I would hope folks would have this same courtesy toward me if they come upon things I taught early on that I have come to see I was mistaken on. Or, at least, I would hope folks would inform their audience of my change in thinking. That's my two cents worth. Though you may think it worth less than that!