I did one of those things recently where I went to one blog then from a link on that one to another one and then in the same way to another, landing me on a blog of a Reformed Protestant (of some particular stripe).
He posted a dismissive entry about Presbyterians who have become Catholic and managed to both speak pejoratively of those particular “conversative Presbyterian” churches as well as of the Catholic Church. I am disappointed by his polemical tone and diction throughout the post, but I made a comment to one of the author’s comments in response to this statement of his:
Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity…
This Roman “notion” is so silly that, unfortunately for him, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Zwingli all believed in it, too–oops!
I posted a comment which said as much and politely asked him how he reconciles this fact with his great esteem (evident in his posts) for the magisterial Reformers. That was several days ago, but unfortunately he has not approved the comment nor responded in any way.
Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were all favorable to this doctrine. Here are some quotes from these Reformers and the Church Fathers on Mary’s perpetual virginity.
The “notion” is neither silly nor abominable–no more so than the Incarnation itself–but rather it is perfectly fitting that Mary, whom God chose to be the Mother of the Son, should remain a virgin before and ever after Christ’s miraculous conception in her womb.
The “problem” is that the Bible does not explicitly teach that she was always a virgin, and certain passages can be (naively) construed to support the opposite belief. This is only a problem for those who adhere to sola Scriptura, as Mary’s perpetual virginity must be an extra-biblical tradition that has to be “tested” against each Protestant’s interpretation of the Bible, which is ambiguous on the matter.
The author of the post, Mr. Jordan, seemed to have been ignorant that the Reformers believed what he disbelieves and ridicules–hopefully he will have the humility to consider whether he might be wrong on this teaching and reevaluate his position given this powerful evidence against him. And if he is wrong on that teaching, as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all testify to, then what else is he wrong on?