For years I have read little posts by fresh new Papal converts that assert that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So did Turretin. Setting aside the question of whether these men believed that this notion was important or not — and Calvin, at least, is clear that it is not important one way or another — we might ask just what is the point? Evidently this information is offered to score points, or as a way of beginning to proselytize. 

I imagine that some unlearned or unthinking persons might be impressed by this argument, but nobody who knows much about the Reformation would be. Let us consider what else these men believed, and ask our youthful Papists if they go along with them.

1. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tertullian, etc., all believed that the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the Pope and that the Whore Babylon in Revelation 17 is the Papal Church. Not only did the Protestants of the first couple of centuries after the Reformation believe these things, but they wrote them into their confessions. BMEV (Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin) did not make it into the Protestant confessions, evidently not considered very important or necessary. But the Pope as Antichrist did make it into the confessions. This was considered very important and necessary. 

2. All these men also denied the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, to children. This error made it into the Westminster Larger Catechism. 

So, now we can ask if our young Romanists want to defend these two ideas, especially #1. 

In fact, these Reformers were wrong on all three counts. The Man of Sin and the Harlot Babylon are clearly stated in the text to be phenomena of the Apostolic Age. There is no Antichrist in the Bible, only antichrists (plural). The Reformers and their followers were wrong about this, and their confessions are in error.

There is absolutely no hint in the Bible that baptized children are to be denied the Lord’s Supper. The Reformers were dead wrong on this matter.

Finally, the Bible is clear that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations and children. The men listed above were quite wrong about this, though none evidently thought it important enough to put into their confessions. 

In conclusion, the answer to young Papal bloggers is simple: So what? The Reformers erred in a number of areas. We have long since moved past these errors.

One other point worth making. As regards the BMEV doctrine, what about all the other Reformers? We know that Farel famously debated against the idea with a Fransican monk and a riot ensued. Bucer, like Calvin, insisted that it was impossible to say on the matter, so that dogmatism was excluded. I’ve seen it written that Bullinger defended it, but that begs the question of whether he merely preferred it or thought it crystal clear and incontrovertible. And what of Musculus, Vermigli, Ursinus, Olevianus, the Westminster Divines? Evidently John Owen did not hold to it at all.

So, once again, there’s no reason to be impressed by this claim that the Reformers agreed on the necessity of the BMEV doctrine. Farel was against it. Bucer and Calvin thought it adiaphora.