Talk:John Calvin's views on Mary

Neutrality
This article was written from a Catholic perspective. I have attempted to neutralize the sections through "Mother of God", which were the most egregious. Still, paragraphs like this:


 * The veneration of the Mother of God exists, if the faithful see Mary as leader to Christ. She was not only physically mother, but spiritually in unity with him, as her prayer Magnificat is testimony for. The Magnificat must be the basis for a realistic devotion to her. The Magnificat is also an invitation to imitate her life.[23] Furthermore, the Mary’s Magnificat is an example of true praise of God in humility, because we humans are nothing and have no value. We owe everything to the grace of God.[24] Mary totally gave herself to God and is therefore our model [25]

must be stated in more neutral and clearer terms, e.g., by stating what is Calvin's view and what is not in all this.

Also, the footnotes to Calvin's works should be Anglicized and linked (most of his works are available freely at CCEL). I have done this for the sections I mentioned. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, after reading this and several other articles on the Protestant Reformation, I am finding that many of them are written from a Catholic point of view. They say things along the lines of "Calvin didn't believe such and such and thus our [Catholic] beliefs are heresy to him etc etc etc..." The article should simply state what he believed and actually said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.6.217 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well actually understanding his beliefs in comparison with the then Universal church is critical, how else would a non-informed reader see what exactly he was protesting against —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.62.83 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Christian Protestantism, the word "protestant" is from the Latin "pro" (for) and "testare" (witness)- taken together, a Protestant is "a witness for something." Before and during the Reformation era, that's what it meant to "protest" a doctrine or set of truth-claims. For the purposes of any and all articles remotely similar to this, you would do well to avoid equating Protestantism with the far-less-relevant use of the word that means "manifestation of dissent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.207.65 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing neutrality, why is term "papist" used repeatedly throughout this entry, apparently even when not quoting Calvin? Wikipedia itself defines it as an anti-Catholic slur. 38.165.15.201 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because the New Catholic Dictionary - the official Roman Catholic lay person's resource work for issues of history and doctrine of the Roman See itself uses and approves of the term "Papacy" to describe Roman Catholicism?CoolBlueGlow (talk)

Response to Neutrality
I have now changed the section on 'Mother of God' to include two viewpoints; the view that Calvin basically accepted the Catholic view point; and the much more widely held (and in my opinion, much more likely) view that Calvin rejected Catholic Mariology outright, seeing the death of Christ as the central end of Mary's motherhood to him.

I would also point out that it is common for Calvinists to refer to Catholics as "papists" in a totally neutral way. The meaning of it is that Calvinists often reject the doctrine that Catholics are actually 'catholic' in the strict sense of the word: i.e. a unified church of God. Though it is certainly usual to understand "papist" as an anti-Catholic slur, the word needs to be viewed in context, as do all such terms. In this context it is simply being used as a neutral term for those who hold to the doctrine of the papacy (i.e. Roman Catholics), so as not to offend those Calvinists who consider themselves to be catholic (theologically speaking). In the context of an article on Calvinists and Catholics, it is entirely appropriate to use the terms "papist" and "catholic" in a theological sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vague789 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. The opinion of some Calvinists that the Roman Catholic Church is not "Catholic" in the "strict sense of the word" is irrelevant to an article that is intended to be neutral. For the purpose of a neutral article each group should be referred to by the name which they give themselves; to do otherwise is to take a position regarding the truth or falsity of the claims. --69.244.0.12 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

<><><><><><>

O.K. Fine. So in the interest of true neutrality, in this article let us call Roman Catholics "the self-proclaimed seat of Christian Universality in early Western Christendom" That would be extremely precise. At some level, allowing for a Protestant point of view in an article about the life and work of self-proclaimed Protestant men on how they viewed the Roman See (there I go again...) while on earth hardly seems to grossly violate rules of neutrality. Further, asserting that "what folks call themselves" is the sole valid litmus test in textual neutrality seems conveniently biased toward Rome's favorite argument for the authority behind the universality of their catholicism. (e.g. Peter's apostolic headship). That seems like a suspiciously convenient textual ruse to this Protestant.

Surely we can all agree that textual neutrality encompasses a number of attributes. To be perfectly frank, at a minimum Rome has no externally verifiable claim to the universality of her Christian authority. Besides the obvious "we are because we said we are" argument, whither Rome's authority? History, common sense, and even Rome's own documents demonstrate that this authority hasn't always resided in Rome. Even if one believes at face value the New Catholic Dictionary's frothy and self-serving explanation of the "Catholic" power of the Roman See, the NCD argument is as full of logical holes as good chunk of Swiss cheese. Simple example: NCD says "The Roman See was founded by Saint Peter c.42" O.K. fine, what happened from 33 - 42 A.D? Was there no Church from 33 - 42 A.D? Or, was there no Roman See? Since the seat wasn't in Rome, where was it? Did the seat reside in Peter himself? If so, what are we to make of Peter's regression into neo-Judaistic lawkeeping, which we read of in Galatians? That must have occurred during the period of 33-42 A.D? In this Holy Scripture - Canon of Romans and Protestants alike - Peter was severely chastised by St. Paul for his flirtation with his old habit of Judaistic law-keeping. Despite this glaring example of Peter's fallibility, Rome today insists that in matters of doctrine, the sitting pope (that would have been Peter from 33-62 A.D., according to Rome)is "infallible". Hmmm...Peter must not have been much of a infallible Pope, if his rebuke for his error on matters clearly doctrinal could be canonized into Holy Scripture! So, is St. Paul wrong, or is it Peter? Or is Holy Scripture in error? If Holy Scripture, how can we trust Rome's sole source of authority for Peter's elevation as Pope? If Peter was wrong, how can one continue to insist that the Roman See is the seat of authority for all matters Catholic? At least in this one example, she must not have been as Catholic as she would now like us to believe.

So we see there are many logically consistent reasons that raise a reasonable suspicion of the possibility of a limited nature for Rome's catholicism.

But, perhaps I'm just being a heretic. That is, after all, what Rome still officially terms Protestants, their children and their grandchildren - at least according to the decree of the Council of Trent. I believe that is still the official position of the Roman Catholic See, is it not?

CoolBlueGlow (talk)

weird ref
Where is this reference from? It's kind of a mix of old French (Saincts trespasses) and English (Advocats in Paradies), with an enigmatic reference (Ep 1438, Vol 14,21). "Quant a L’intercession de la vierge Marie et des Saincts trespasses, revenez tousiours a ce principe, que cw n’est pas point a nous faire des Advocats in Paradies, mais a dieu, lequel a ordinne Jesus Christ un seul piur tous, Ep 1438, Vol 14,21"

Coeur (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Critique
An interesting critique of this article can be found here. I will read over it and see what I can do to improve the article. StAnselm (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)