UPDATE: OK. Here we go again. I’m not putting up with it this time. You want to respond respectfully, great. But anything less than calm and reasonable isn’t going to make it.
If you don’t know about my wrestlings with Catholicism, I can’t catch you up. Hit the search engine or ask someone who obsessively reads this blog.
I’ve avoided Scott Hahn completely. For a while, my wife and I had a deal his books wouldn’t be in the house. (I’ve since given up those kinds of ridiculous compromises. I’ve even given her one of his books recently.)
Hahn is a former conservative Presbyterian professor who has been called “Luther in reverse” since his much noted and retold conversion in the mid 1990’s. Today he is a prominent Catholic scholar, apologist and Bible teacher, doing much to encourage Roman Catholic adults to understand their faith and especially its sources in scripture.
Hahn’s conversion and subsequent speaking and writing career have resulted, according to Catholic sources, in…..a large number of conversions. (I’ve actually heard the term “millions,” which seems a bit enthusiastic.)
If you’ve read my writing about my own journey in relation to Catholicism, then you know I don’t like attempts at conversion. (Yes, the 135 of you who tried it, I mean you.) I like my Merton, my Nouwen and my Vatican II ecumenism. I don’t like Catholic Answers, The Journey Home and the big gun- Scott Hahn. (Be like Amy W and Alan C, people 🙂
But I’d never read or listened to much more than Hahn’s testimony, so being in a car many hours this week, I had a chance to remedy that. I went to Catholic Audio and found a five session conference Hahn did training adult Catholics to explain five of the most controversial areas of their faith: The Pope, Mary, the saints, purgatory and the Eucharist. (Get the mp3 link at the end of the post.)
I made it through all five presentations and I want to give a brief summary of my thoughts. This isn’t a response by any means. Hahn is a Ph.d and a trained scholar. I’m a lowly seminary grad and high school teacher. I’d love to hear him in a debate with any number or Protestant apologists, but his calling is more that of a teacher. Nonetheless, in these talks, he made extensive reference to his own journey from Protestantism (which he always speaks of very respectfully and positively) to Roman Catholicism. He is quite open about where he had the most difficulty embracing Roman Catholic teaching, which I appreciate.
1. Hahn’s presentations on the Pope, the saints, the Eucharist and especially Purgatory were outstanding. Were I in a position to consider conversion, they would be extremely helpful presentations. I recommend them to anyone on that journey. Of course, I disagreed in places and had questions, but the majority of these presentations were enjoyable and beneficial to work through.
2. The presentation on purgatory was particularly good because Hahn related his own objections and his strong belief in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. His focus on the application of that atonement was, in many ways, similar to what I’ve heard from reformed teachers like John Piper. Hahn related purgatory to an overall view of suffering in the Christian life and did an excellent overview of that theme in Romans 8. I recommend this presentation above all the others.
3. Though we might have some substantial differences on the subject of purgatory, I felt Hahn’s view would make for an interesting conversation with the views of C.S. Lewis, who believed in purgatory, and N.T. Wright, who rejects purgatory but believes scripture teaches much on an interim state.
4. Many of Hahn’s Biblical insights in these presentations were brilliant. It is obvious that his Catholic setting as a scholar has placed him in a different position to approach the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, than many Protestants can appreciate. It is a richer, deeper sense of interpreting the Bible from within the church than many Protestants would attempt. Again, I would not join him in all of his conclusions, but his method was admirable, usually sound and often very suggestive of deep and helpful Biblical themes.
5. But then there was the presentation on Mary. Much of that material can be found here and perhaps elsewhere on the net.
I know that many of my RC friends believe I have a “Mary problem,” but that is really not the case. I would agree completely with Scot McKnight’s views on Mary. I believe that the great common areas of Marian doctrine that can and should be affirmed in the three major Christian traditions should be emphasized without embarrassment or reluctance.
I share a strong view of the communion of saints and the active role of those who have gone on to the church triumphant. I am not distressed by ideas of prayer that include the intercession of those who are with Christ. I am not opposed to the honoring of Mary as the mother of the divine Son of God, the incarnate Jesus, a model of the church and source of particular imitation and inspiration.
But in the one hour plus I listened to Hahn on this topic, I could feel the pain. And I didn’t bring any Tylenol either.
I could feel the pain of the Marian dogmas that have been propagated and made mandatory most recently, and the lack of simple, obvious Biblical evidence for those dogmas.
I could feel the stress of following a trail through scripture that was worthy of an Indiana Jones movie. And that is not an exaggeration. Hahn’s wild ride through the Old Testament to prove his points made the dispensationalist teaching of the rapture seem like John 3:16.
Again and again, Hahn told of “little known” aspects of the Queen-Mother theme in ancient middle eastern monarchies. Again and again, he said that “deeper study” would reveal the role of the Queen Mother. Again and again, he attempted to prove that the ark of the covenant is a Biblical symbol for Mary. With full knowledge that NO Protestant scholars buy his equation of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 with Mary, he persisted in insisting that the ark in the temple at the end of Revelation 11 and the woman in Revelation 12 are the same person.
These are fascinating views and have deep roots in Catholicism, but they aren’t laying there in the texts of scripture to be found and believed. They are a brew of centuries of Catholic scholarship finding what needs to be there.
Taking every available shortcut, and totally avoiding Mark 3, Hahn gave the expected view that Mary was ever virgin and had no other children. He cited the Protestant reformers as allies in this view, which is hardly a useful tactic if you intend to say those same reformers were wrong about so much else. Again, plain statements of scripture? Not available apparently.
He nobly attempted to explain why Joseph would have not had sexual relations with his wife despite the plain language of the Bible by saying Joseph would have considered marital sex and other children as an “unworthy use” of the virgin’s womb. One analogy compared Mary’s womb to fine China and marital sex to a picnic with plastic plates. This negative view of marital sex is something that simply can’t be brought into Christianity without deep negative consequences. Defending such an unnatural marriage with such analogies is insulting to those of us who are willing to listen and think through these difficult topics.
Word to all readers: Augustine was screwed up on the subject of sex and so were lots of other revered early church writers. MAJORLY SCREWED UP. Being great pastors and theologians doesn’t help straighten out the view that Joseph wouldn’t have wanted to defile the holy womb with regular marital sexual relations. Read Paul’s writings on marital sex and ask yourself if Augustine and Jerome were paying attention.
After all this desperation, Hahn never attempted a justification of any kind of the assumption of Mary, only resorted to a logical explanation of the immaculate conception and took for granted that Marian appearances, titles and piety contained nothing of interest. As seems to be the case so often, when we’ve gotten this far into what the church teaches on scanty or no evidence, there’s little hesitancy to put the brakes on or answer the huge questions that emerge.
As I said, a Protestant like myself feels that this sort of presentation is a painful exercise. Much of the “Biblical evidence” was of a kind that could never be brought into a neutral setting and presented seriously. It was as if the subtext was supposed to overtake the text: If you can believe all the rest, you can find a way to wrap your mind around this and make it work.
In other words, how much do you want to be in communion with the true church?
The issue for Protestants like myself is that the core Marian dogmas are important and almost all affirmable. But the more recent ones, and the more recent attempts to make all of this “Biblical” via various exegetical adventures, almost seems like tests for how much a Protestant is willing to surrender over to the teaching of the church what cannot be discovered or articulated any other way except dogmatically. If you persist in sayng these matters must be clearly demonstrated from scripture, something is going to have to give. See what the church sees and forget what you don’t see.
As I said, that’s real pain for some of us.
For many of us, that is also an insurmountable obstacle. Better- far, far better- to just say “The Church teaches it,” than to send Scott Hahn out to try and convince me that the Queen Mother Bathsheba proves the exalted role of Mary. Please.
I appreciated Scott Hahn’s presentations and learned much about his faith and his journey. It was helpful. He anticipated almost all of my objections to most of his subjects and answered them well, if not convincingly.
But on the subject of Mary it remains impossible to see why one must affirm the assumption of Mary in order to come to the Lord’s Table. Such a dogmatic hoop is there only to emphasize the necessity of submission of the mind and conscience to the church. As long as I can read the Bible for myself with reason and a modestly critical hermeneutic, I’ll never be able to affirm these dogmas.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Michael,
Great post. I have read a couple of Hahn’s books, most notably “Home, Sweet Rome.” A few friends have either made that journey or considered it and then relented. You descriptions are helpful to any who would be interested in the subject and particularly Hahn’s “evangelistic” fervor for Rome.
Blessings. Always enjoy reading what emerges from your keyboard.
LikeLike
Yes, and some were better than others. The post reformation ones are the problem. And I’ll wager they aren’t over.
LikeLike
I think that it is possible that early Christians were not excluded from the Last Supper for not believing that Jesus was really God and man – not just God’s Son and not just the Messiah, or that God is really Three persons in One—- until the Council of Nicea.
Is it possible that all these progressive refinements of the existing Faith, which were helped by the Holy Spirit, resulted in excluding previous church members?
LikeLike
Bill,
But no one was required to believe those dogmas in order to take the Lord’s Supper until they were deogmatized.
LikeLike
Hi, Michael.
I found couple of links that lay out in more detail the Catholic Church’s understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
http://www.frtommylane.com/bible/enjoying_paul_old_testament/03_nt_gal1.19_brothers_sisters_jesus.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080300.htm
In the case of the Marian dogmas, while these were proclaimed recently, they have been part of the traditions of the faith for centuries. What Catholics refer to as the Assumption is called the Dormition among Eastern Orthodox. Some of the other Marian beliefs are mentioned in the works of the early Church fathers and some extra-canonical texts such as the Protoevangelion of James.
Good luck and God bless you,
Bill
LikeLike
lonleypilgrim,
I am in absolute agreement with you that Romans 14 leaves how and what we celebrate up to our individual consciences, but it doesn’t say that the feasts no longer mean anything or aren’t permanent. I have pointed out the passage from Isaiah 66 that speaks of celebrating the Sabbath and new moon(first of the month in Hebrew calendars) in the new heavens and new earth. Zechariah also has a prophecy of all the nations coming to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles. And I think Paul was very clued in to the meaning and implications of the Jewish Feasts. Look at his reference to Jesus as the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23. The resurrection of Christ actually took place on the day the celebrated firstfruits and this makes the passage in Matthew 27:52-53 make a lot more sense in that light.
I just read something earlier in Wright’s book that helps put into words where I am at with this. It also has application here as this blog has moved to the JSS phase.
“When we look at events in the history of the Old Testament, with these points in mind[essentially that Christ validated the Old Testament and completed it] then it has several effects. It means first that whatever significance a particular event has, in terms of Israel’s own experience of God and in the articulation of their faith, is affirmed and validated. ‘What it meant for Israel’ does not just evaporate in a haze of spiritualization when we reach the New Testament. At the same time, secondly, we may legitimately see in the event, or in the record of it, additional levels of significance in the light of the end of the story – i.e. in the Light of Christ. And thirdly, conversely, the Old Testament event may provide levels of significance to our full understanding of all that Christ was and said and did.”
As I have been studying these, I have seen this type of realization in my own life. I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, I just get too excited to hold it in(plus I am a pastor and sometimes we don’t know when to stop talking.) My own blog posts have been reflective of this excitment, and I apologize if I am monopolizing the conversation here with it. For me it meshes perfectly with what I am getting from reading the iMonk and JSS blogs, because at its core it is a search to know Jesus as He was, a Jewish man and the Messiah, anointed Son of God.
LikeLike
Jeff M,
I would say that Jesus fulfilled Yom Kippur also, but He didn’t do it on Yom Kippur. I have heard some Messianic Jews who claim that the 2nd coming will happen on Rosh Hashanah. I’ve heard some say that He was born on that day also. When I start hearing that sort of stuff that’s when they lose me.
As to whether or not the feast days were intended to be permanent, I appeal to Paul’s statements in Romans 14 that one man honors special days and another honors all days the same and the neither is wrong.
LikeLike
Paul,
I agree with you totally about symbols, but let me add one thing. Even if they are totally innocuous to you because they have been used by Christendom for so long, many pagans and others outside the church see in them the corruption of Christianity itself. I believe it damages our witness to a lost and dying world in some places when we forget where those things come from. What we do with them on a personal level is completely between us and God, and I am not intending to condemn anyone or judge anyone in regards to them. If I have come across this way, I apologize for it. I am just trying to point it out so that we as believers can be aware of some of the stumbling blocks that the church has placed in some folks path.
As for the Divine inspiration of the Hebrew calendar, let me make a couple of statements. God’s Feasts are tied to that calendar. He set them out on specific days of specific months of that calendar. Jesus also observed this method of timekeeping(not the Julian calendar that eventually was transformed into our current Gregorian one). We know this because the Bible tells us that he went up to celebrate the Feasts in Jerusalem with everyone else at the appointed times. Calendars are a funny thing really. I don’t pretend to know everything about them. There is a good article on them here.
The author there makes some excellent points and tracks the Biblical relevance of the calendar the Jewish people use. Certainly the Gregorian calendar is more accurate in terms of what we observe astronomically, but in it we lose something that God is still doing today. The feasts are a testament to God’s faithfulness for all. We still have the Feast of Trumpets(where no one knows the day or the hour it begins) and the Feast of Tabernacles (where God draws all nations to Himself) to look forward to in time. I still have to live in a world dominated by man’s time, but I have made a conscious decision to pay attention to God’s time as well .
You asked me about the statement, “reworking God’s ways in our own image”. Let me try to clarify with an example. God sets apart a day, Sabbath. He makes it clear that we will be keeping it forever(Isaiah 66:23). I did a post at my own blog in more depth on this a while back, but suffice it to say that we(the church) literally decided to move God’s Sabbath to Sunday as this quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates:
“The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day.
I know plenty of people who refuse to this day to do any work on Sunday and so forth because this is what they have been taught. It isn’t Scriptural and God never said it. We as people have taken what He did and changed it slightly for ourselves. That is what I was trying to say with that comment.
I hope I haven’t left the impression that I am fretting over believing or “falling into” the wrong kind of Christianity. That isn’t where I am at at all. I am rejoicing at what God is showing me. I am about to start classes for my master’s degree and just got my books for the first ones. One of the books is Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright. I can’t remember the last time that I got excited about reading a “textbook” before classes even get started.
Let me also say that I have enjoyed this discussion with you. I have learned a great deal from it. I appreciate particularly the information about the Catholic Encyclopedia. I didn’t realize that the info was that old. It is a good thing to know. Thanks for your work on it. It is a good resource for study.
Blessings to you,
Jeff
LikeLike
lonleypilgrim,
That is more or less exactly where I am at. I think we can learn a lot be reclaiming the Jewish feasts into our Christian lives. God never intended for them to be done away with. There are still feasts that have fulfillment to be made. The Feast of Trumpets is a rehearsal of Christ’s Second Coming, just as the rehearsals of Passover and Pentecost were literally realized in history on those dates. Part of the story is yet to be realized and the Jews are still rehearsing the script.
LikeLike
Oh Yes, as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia, I think it a great resource. That is why I contributed in small way for to the effort to get it into electronic form and make it available online. I find three downsides. It was published in 1908 so the articles had to be written before then. By necessity the articles are very condensed so difficult to read, and require lots of side trips to other articles if I am not very familiar with the topic. The online version, helpfully has blue highlighted hyperlinks, but every third word is highlighted and I find it distracting to read on the screen unless I reset my browser style sheet to display the links in black.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Jeff M,
My perspective is probably about 170 degrees off of yours ;).
Before I dig in, I am curious what you mean by ‘reworking God’s ways in our own image’? I’m getting an illegal syntax error.
Also, I totally agree with your concept that the new testament is the fulfillment of the old. If you want to read any Catholic sources on that I can point you to some excellent resources.
Onto origins of words, symbols and pagan influences in general. Firstly, I am far, far more concerned about the influences, false gods, idols and demons that are pervasive right here, right now than remnants of pagan history that were incorporated into Christian practice centuries ago.
Second, I don’t believe there is any real meaning to symbols or words other than the meaning that we ourselves attach to them. I have several reasons for this. First and foremost is that Satan has power only when we believe his lies. I don’t believe that there is any word or symbol that can allow Satan to have any power over me or anything else, unless I believe that it has that power, and maybe not even then. Secondly, symbols and words have meaning because we give it meaning. Our intentions, and what we mean by using that word or symbol are all that matters, not what someone 700 years ago thought it meant. Christ gave the meaning to the cross. The early Christians gave the meaning to the fish symbol. Before Christ, the cross symbolized other things, some of which still carry some meaning – but the action of Christ on the cross gave it a new meaning. The ‘fish’ symbolized fish, until Christians invested a new meaning in it. Now today, many people probably don’t know what it means.
Third, God created the world and all that is in it, and it was good! Specifically to paganism, which is primarily a worship of nature, although demonic practices might also be present I am not generally afraid of it. God created Man and the world, in a rustic way even with no knowledge of the Bible or Christ, Man can seek God and in Nature God has left his image in some way. The Catholic Church does not deny that non-Christian and nature religions can have elements of the Truth in them.
Fourth, God can redeem and use anything for his purposes.
Now, a pentagram or a swastika is a very disturbing symbol to me. When I see one, I immediately pray for my own soul, for the people around me and especially for the people associated with it. However, the symbols themselves have no power. It is the power of what they stand for in our present culture that makes my skin crawl. The people who use these symbols today use them because of what they mean in our day and time and they intend them to symbolize that very meaning. In 500 years, the memory of Auschwitz and horror movies may face into total obscurity and those two symbols may come to mean something else. Prior to the Nazis the swastika was innocuous and it is technically some form of a cross so it might of even had a Christian origin.
I belong to an organization that uses a triangle inscribed in a circle as its primary symbol. There is another homosexual activist organization that uses the same geometric figure with pink and purple colors. I read somewhere once that is an ancient Satanic symbol. I also notices that it is in the one of the stained glass windows of the Cathedral at Chartes. The only thing it means to me is service, unity and recovery.
The fact that Christmas is associated with Solstice and probably hijacked a pagan holiday and appropriated some pagan customs doesn’t trouble me at all. I don’t even have a problem celebrating Solstice just for Solstice! – I wouldn’t attach any pagan meaning to it. The Universe is Incredible! God’s work is unbelievable. The solstice is a Astronomical even, a feature of God’s creation. Man has used the solstice to mark time and set the calendar in every culture for about 6,000 years at least (obviously I am not a young world creationist!) I think it is a very appropriate day to praise GOD and celebrate the birth of Christ!
In my family, my wife and I do try to be very conscious of our traditions. We do the easter bunny (although I’d kind of like to get rid of that) in a small way. Santa Clause has a Catholic origin, at least in part, but we try to keep that small as well because the modern world has really stripped it of anything useful. Holy week we go to Church every day but Saturday (no services). We actually fast and try to do extra prayers during lent. We make a real effort to observe advent. We don’t put the tree up until Christmas, not the day after thanksgiving. I am very concerned about the materialism associated with both holidays, and try to focus my children in other directions as much as reasonably possible.
We even celebrate Halloween, but we also try to invest at least equal time celebrating All Saints day (Mas on All Saints and All Souls) . I’ll never let me kids dress up as demons or devils etc. We usually have an All Saints day party where kids dress up as a saint and give an oral report on their saint. Then we break a pinata.
As for the liturgical Calendar in general. I am a scientist. The Gregorian Calendar is a better Calendar! I admit, I am not familiar with the Hebrew Calendar being divinely inspired. I am open to enlightenment.
Actually, I have to tell you that this discussion makes me very happy to be a Catholic. I know you are genuinely trying to serve the Lord and live a Christian life. You are diligently trying to make your life reflect Jesus. I admire that. I wish a lot more Catholics were as sincere. I went through a time when I was reading, debating, following arguments and trying to figure out what God wanted, what Jesus meant for the Church to look like. I spent about 7 years doing that. I finally, through grace, came to actually have Faith. Faith in Jesus in general. Also, Faith that Jesus meant what he said: “On this Rock I will Build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” By God’s grace I came to totally trust in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I can focus on prayer, worship and being a good husband and father instead of worrying whether I have somehow fallen into the wrong kind of Christianity. It truly is a great blessing.
God Bless
Paul
BTW it looks like my perspective might actually be a full 180 degrees off yours.
LikeLike
Jeff,
While some of the practices of Messianic Jews trouble me at times, I do wish the church would spend some time commemorating the Jewish feasts. I don’t mean in the sense of the first century Judaizers, but in the sense that they are part of God’s work in history. In other words, they are part of the story.
LikeLike
It is the English word used, but it shows the creeping influence of outside forces. The entry I quoted was the first lines from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry online at newadvent.org. Maybe that isn’t a good source for Catholic information. If so, I apologize.
Pascha or its variations are the transliterated form of the Hebrew Pesach, which is Passover in English. Why did the church allow a known pagan association to be linked with “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year”? This doesn’t even touch the pagan traditions that are a part of the Easter holidays. This kind of thing is disturbing to me. The entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to note the strong tie of Christ’s death and resurrection to Passover. This is from the Easter entry there: “The connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian feast of Easter is real and ideal. Real, since Christ died on the first Jewish Easter Day; ideal, like the relation between type and reality, because Christ’s death and Resurrection had its figures and types in the Old Law, particularly in the paschal lamb, which was eaten towards evening of the 14th of Nisan.”
The article goes on to explain why they couldn’t keep up with it because of the Julian calendar’s difference with the Jewish calendar. My big question is why the Church decided to dump the Jewish calendar, which was instituted by God, for the Julian calendar and then eventually a calendar of her own making? I don’t know that there is an easy answer for this, but it is something I am puzzling over.
LikeLike
I thought Easter is merely the English word used. The countries with latin based languages use the word pasca relating to the pascal mystery.
LikeLike
Sorry to Kepha whose comment didn’t make it. Don’t know why.
I’ll be back home tomorrow afternoon and comments will be moderated again. I’ll be posting as review and repsonse to Bouyer’s Spirit and Forms of Protestantism over at Jesus Shaped Spirituality in a couple of minutes. I’m sure that will make for a lot of discussion.
LikeLike
Sorry, I have got to start hitting return twice between paragraphs. That thing looks like a giant runon thought. : )
LikeLike
Paul,
Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the information you found. Easter and Christmas have become more and more problematic to me the more I have studied. A few years ago, God placed a man in my path who had been studying and observing the Jewish feasts and Sabbath for a number of years. At first, I found it odd, but I knew his testimony of knowing Christ and the fruit of his life, so I asked him questions; lots and lots of questions. He teasingly tells me these days that I was supposed to tell him where he was wrong. A cursory glance through my blog will show that hasn’t been the case. The deeper I have dug for myself the more these tensions in church teaching grew. I have looked into the Catholic sources to see what they say about some of these issues and have often been left with more disappointment and frustration. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Easter indicates in the first sentence that the English word comes from says this, The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown, even in the Edda (Simrock, Mythol., 362)”. If the very name of the holiday is admittedly pagan in origin and the date is seemingly unconnected to its original anchor of the Passover, then what has the church(Catholic or otherwise) done to God’s purposes? This year was one that brought the differences of opinion on this particular matter into sharp contrast, and I am glad to see in your last post the information that there may be some reconciliation on the horizon. I am not certain that simply harmonizing the date for Easter will solve the deeper problem of reworking God’s ways in our own image. You see Christ didn’t come to create something new; He came to complete something old(eternal even).
As a pastor, I have started to share some of what God has shown me with my congregation. The results have been very amazing. The richness of God’s Word has increased in my study to the point that I am amazed at how much I glossed over without a second thought before. I have never felt more humbled or hungry to know the riches of God. There is a real danger that I would stray farther off topic if I get going, so I will stop for now.
LikeLike
Jeff M
I had a minute while the toddler was napping, its gone now, but:
I found from a 2006 Zenit article interviewing Bishop Brian Farrell the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
who represented the Holy See at the 9th Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Brazil, addresses the topic of ecumenism
VATICAN CITY, 5 MARCH 2006 (ZENIT)
quoting Bishop Farrell
In relation to Easter, the Catholic Church has expressed her willingness to change the way of fixing the date to be in accord with the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox on the date, if a common solution can be found. We are willing. It is a very difficult problem.
In the third century of the Church there were discussions on the date of Easter and they continue today. It is a point on which we talk and we will seek a solution. It would be a magnificent testimony before the world that Christians celebrate together, on the same day, the resurrection of Christ, the center of our faith.
LikeLike
Jeff M
In my post above I didn’t properly distinguish between schism and heresy. Some of the divisions in the early Church were over heresy and so are not technically schism. Martin Luther and the reformation began as an issue of doctrine. Some scholars believe that if his case had been handled more gently Luther would have eventually found a way to reconcile his original positions. As it was, he was excommunicated as a heretic.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches (16 of them) are in schism from the Catholic Church. There are fragments of other Eastern Churches that are also in heresy. You might want to read the Decree on Ecumenism Chapter 3 that addresses the Eastern Orthodox.
The following quote refers to several encyclicals regarding the Eastern Churches. Maybe one of them specifically addresses the question of the date of Easter. The “without narrowness” refers to rite and theological formulations.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908 edition) available online at newadvent.org.
In the Encyclical “Praeclara gratulationis’, of 20 June, 1894, that has been often described as “Leo XIII’s testament”, he again turned to the Eastern Churches and invited them in the most courteous and the gentlest way to come back to communion with us. He assures schismatics that no great difference exists between their faith and ours, and repeats once more that he would provide for all their customs without narrowness (Orth. Eastern Church, 434, 435). It was this letter that called forth the unpardonably offense answer of Anthimos VII of Constantinople (op. cit., 435-438). Nor, as long as he lived, did Leo XIII cease caring for Eastern Churches. On 11 June, 1895, he wrote the letter “Unitas christiana” to be the Copts, and on 24 December of that same year he restored the Catholic Coptic patriarchate. Lastly, on 19 March, 1895, in a motu proprio, he again insisted on the reverence due to the Eastern Churches and explained the duties of Latin delegates in the East.
As a last example of all, Pius X in his Allocution, after the now famous celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy in his presence on 12 February, 1908, again repeated the same declaration of respect for Eastern rites and customs and the same assurance of his intention to preserve them (Echos d’Orient, May, 1908, 129-31). Indeed this spirit of conservatism with regard to liturgies is in our own time growing steadily at Rome with the increase of liturgical knowledge, so that there is reason to believe that whatever unintentional mistakes have been made in the past (chiefly with regard to the Maronite and Catholic Armenian rites) will now gradually be corrected, and that the tradition of the most entire acceptance and recognition of other rites in the East will be maintained even more firmly than in the past.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Thanks Paul
LikeLike
Memphis Aggie,
Great Post. Thanks.
Paul
LikeLike
Jeff M.
I am sorry to not respond sooner to your question about the date of Easter, and early schisms. I remember reading a book on the early schisms, maybe 15 years ago but I can’t locate it in my book pile. I only have a general sense of the controversies and schisms of the first 1000 years. I reread the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Eastern Churches the other day, and was reminded of how tangled it all is. Keeping all the different groups straight even is such a chore!
You are probably better informed than I am.
I do have 2 thoughts to throw out though.
First, my limited knowledge of history, I’d say personalities and political / economic issues and pride, both individual and national played a significant role in nearly every schism. In many or most schisms such issues seem to have been very significant. The Roman Church contributed its part to those causes, particularly leading up to the reformation and the way Martin Luther was handled but also in dealings with the Eastern Churches.
Second, regarding the schisms in the early Church. The way I read the history, it seems that all of the Churches in those days took schism very seriously. The fact that so many Bishops and Patriarchs excommunicated each other is a scandal, but in a way, it also shows that visible unity was something that they valued – otherwise there would have been no point to the excommunication.
God Bless,
Paul
LikeLike
The talks of the recent St Alban & St Sergius conference at St Vladimir’s Seminary are now available at the Ancient Faith Radio. I particularly commend, in light of the talking points of this thread, the talk given by Richard John Neuhaus.
LikeLike
“But to convince me that I do not have the fullness of God through faith in Christ now is going to take more than a presuppositional announcement.”
This statement turns on the “fullness” term and the “through faith” phrase. I would propose that none of us has the “fullness” of God bestowed on them in this life and that this is a conflation sanctity and salvation and a Protestant concept of security. You’re saved through faith. But sanctity and growing in holiness is a slow process and the consolations offered by God exceed even salvation. I don’t doubt that you can grow in sanctity outside the Church, through acts of charity and humility offered for Christs glory. However within the Church there are sacramental mechanisms to support you and help you persevere like the very under appreciated sacrament of confession.
Of course the very need to “persevere” in the faith is Catholic. If you accept a bullet proof notion of salvation in that once you’ve proclaimed Christ you’re irreversibly golden I guess you would not see any benefit of the sacraments or the Church. There are some beliefs which are too alien to Catholicism to be reconciled and the concept of perfect security is one of them.
Another is deal breaker is the “through faith” Sola Fide idea. If salvation is all God bestows then faith is sufficient. In the light of Matthew 25 I don’t believe this, but if you held to this Sola and salvation is all you seek from God then again where’s your motivation to enter the Church? Now I can’t understand how anyone could say they love God and seek to do just the minimum heavenly requirements and nothing else. That’s not loving God, that’s using Him as a vehicle. Further I believe God has many graces and consolations to bestow because generosity and super abundance are His nature. Who wouldn’t want the serenity of St Francis or the joy of St Faustina?
Obviously there is also the Eucharist and how you view John 6:53. I understand reception of communion as a literal requirement. However I also believe God will feed the righteous who are outside the Church on the last day, because I believe in His great over-riding Mercy and love as a defining part of His character. Further because Christ was critical of the insular legalistic Judaic world I can’t imagine that He does not intend that His gift be “laid before all” (the meaning of the word catholic) even through mechanisms outside the Church. However I expect that graces of this kind (outside the Church) are extraordinary and therefore uncertain. Security is in the Church for a Catholic, because graces received within Her are the ordinary (although still miraculous) fruits of obedience.
So packed into your statement is a distillation of Protestant thought. I can’t refute it, I’m no apologist, but I can unzip and extract the concepts so you can see how many differences are embodied in that single comment.
LikeLike
You say it so well. God Bless and thanks.
LikeLike
Joe,
I think we would both agree that understanding Scripture isn’t always easy. It does require and openness to understanding. But I do believe that the Holy Spirit assists us as believers in understanding God and His Word.
I am not certain where you got the idea that Christ replaced the Sabbath or even what you mean by that. Christ spoke against the legalism that the Sanhedrin had placed on the Sabbath, but He didn’t do away with it in any form. The church did decide that it should be moved to Sunday and then proceeded to enforce some Pharisee like rules on that day, which I am certain Christ would have decried in similar fashion. There was a lot of disagreement about the Sabbath in the early church because some wanted to codify this idea of Sunday worship to eliminate “Jewish” influence. But God instituted the Sabbath and never changed it. In fact, Isaiah 66:23 plainly states that we will continue to worship God on the Sabbath in the new heavens and the new earth that God is making, which means that the Sabbath hasn’t changed and won’t change(I do still worship on Sunday, because Paul said frankly that whatever day we celebrate should be done for the Lord and I wouldn’t have a problem with having church on Tuesday or Friday or any other day). As I said before, I don’t think God has changed anything. It is true that some of the things in the OT remained a mystery(not understood fully) until the arrival of Christ. But with the Holy Spirit and the revelation that Jesus has given us of the Father, I don’t think we are similarly limited in our understanding.
To be sure, I am much happier rejoicing in the things that we do agree on. But I also value finding out why we differ and continuing to learn. I don’t have any corner on the truth. The more I learn the more I realize there is to learn. I am just enjoying the journey. Thanks again for sharing.
Jeff
LikeLike
Jeff,
You are right. Most Christians (as do I) agree that the OT and the NT are in harmony and one complements the other.
Of course Jews do come to Christ and can find him as a fulfillment of the OT, the Messiah. But many OT scholars and Jews (people of the Book) have not seen it that way. I am no scholar, but I just don’t think that it is very obvious reading the OT that all these Christian changes would necessarily follow. God is now a Trinity – yes you can find this in the OT but it is hard to see unless you are open to something new. The Sabbath, the day of rest, tied into the creation of the world is now replaced by Christ That is hard to see considering its huge importance in the OT. Circumcision, a perpetual covenant, is replaced by baptism.
The Apostles, even after being with Jesus for three years, meeting Him after the resurrection, and receiving the Spirit, they too had difficulty with these issues – including the eating of unclean food (until special revelation). None of these issues were obvious to them from their knowledge of the OT scriptures. They argued about these issues and it is not clear that they were all (Sabbath) settled by the end of the First Century.
It seems to me that for the Jews of Berea to find these things in the OT they must have searched carefully but they must have also changed their priority of certain themes that permeate the OT. And while I might not always be persuaded by it, Scott Hahn’s method of hunting for Marian doctrine in Scripture may not be all that different than this.
LikeLike
Dang, I was trying to get that posted quickly and it needed more attention. Excuse my poor editing.
Paul
LikeLike
Michael,
But the fact is that the question of what do I get of CHRIST in the RCC that I don’t have now is really a test of to what extent you identify Jesus with everything in your church. For instance, if you believe Jesus set up the church to be the mediator of his mediation, the dispenser of the sacraments that convey saving grace, then OF COURSE I’m missing out. Duh.
But to convince me that I do not have the fullness of God through faith in Christ now is going to take more than a presuppositional announcement.
EXACTLY – I think?!? ‘fullness of God’ doesn’t quite work for me, but otherwise.
In terms of purely intellectual endeavor, study and reason there seems to be an impasse. Doesn’t there seem to be chasm between Protestant positions and Catholic positions that is nigh near impossible to span by reason or argument? Certainly it seems pretty impossible to drag or entice someone across by intellectual means.
I propose that it may be an inherent limitation of the Ameri-Proto-Catholic Apologetics is that because of the emphasis on Biblical arguments and adaptation to appeal to or deflect Protestant apologists it gets caught up in fighting running skirmishes and is thus prevented from really engaging on more fundamental differences.
In past discussions (here and elsewhere) and even earlier on this topic, I have often gotten the feeling that Protestants think Authority and Magisterium and Hierarchy are appendages, or stand alone doctrines in Catholicism. Certainly fits with the theory of accretion that many subscribe to. I think what I have learned in this discussion is how important it is to recognize and acknowledge that the major doctrine of Catholic teaching are intertwined and support each other.
I like what Lisa posted:
… but it’s the living it that’s much harder and more important. If you’ve experienced someone living their faith in a way that brings tears to your eyes while knowing they couldn’t expound one bit on the technicalities then you know what I mean. That doesn’t mean the two can’t or don’t coexist but if I had to choose God help me live it better than I can speak it.
Conversion is brought about by the Holy Spirit when we get our wants, demand and egos out of the way. All the division and problems in the Church are created by us, not God. The problems will always be there because we are all human, but if we live out our faith heroically, it will get better.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Checking back in. WIth Paul’s capable help, it’s been a good thread.
I finished reading Bouyer’s Spirit and Forms of Protestantism today. A devastating critique. More on that at my other blog (JSS) maybe tomorrow.
Let me just make one comment that seems to go across the board with all of us.
Protestants tend to answer everything as if the church doesn’t exist unless they invent it with they current approach to the Bible, etc.
RCs tend to answer everything with the presupposition that Christianity equals their current church, all its dogma, all its history, etc.
So it’s easy to say that I am missing “the whole of Christianity” when you start with that presupposition.
And it makes a critique like Bouyer’s powerful.
But the fact is that the question of what do I get of CHRIST in the RCC that I don’t have now is really a test of to what extent you identify Jesus with everything in your church. For instance, if you believe Jesus set up the church to be the mediator of his mediation, the dispenser of the sacraments that convey saving grace, then OF COURSE I’m missing out. Duh.
But to convince me that I do not have the fullness of God through faith in Christ now is going to take more than a presuppositional announcement.
And I’m sure the EOs out there would have a thing or two to say about how much the fullness of knowing Christ is associated with submission to the bishop of Rome.
ANd then there’s what one sees in the life. I know some amazingly Holy and Jesus like people- martyrs and servants- who are no where near the RCC. Is this like the Charismatics I used to know who would debate among themselves how Billy Graham could have all that unction if he wasn’t baptized in the Spirit and speaking in tongues? 🙂
peace
cya all tomorrow when I get some connectivity.
MS
LikeLike
It’s the tone I have a problem with and as I said that’s on my radar due to my own problem with tone, Lisa. Someone else may read them and not detect that tone. I read them as my journey took me towards Catholicism. I was sure if I only had all the answers and could answer any apologetic question then I could prove to others that my decision was sound. So really it’s my own upmanship attitude that’s the issue for me.
LikeLike
It seems that within the rather broad tent of Christianity that there are 4 general ideas about the nature of the Roman Catholic Church.
A. It is THE true church.
B. It is a true church.
C. It is a false church.
D. It is THE false church.
A would seem to be the position of devout Roman Catholics and a handful of others who have yet to convert to the RCC.
B would include a vast number of ecumenically minded Protestants who disagree with the RCC on matters like Mariology, the Papacy, Purgatory and so forth, but still think it is a true church. I’m assuming this is also the position of most in the Eastern Orthodox world as well, but am not familiar enough with them to say emphatically. There may also be some Roman Catholics, who have wandered a little too far from the Tiber, who hold this position also.
C would be the position of many evangelicals who are convinced that the RCC teaches a false gospel. Most Calvinists I’ve ever met fall in this category (J.I. Packer and Timothy George being notable exceptions). Many conservative baptists tend to hold this position as well. A lot of KJV Only folks also are in this camp (though many hold to position D).
D includes those who believe that the RCC (or at least the Pope) is the beast of Revelation. A lot of independent baptists, some Calvinists, Seventh Day Adventists and John Hagee types tend to fall in this category.
My own position is B. That is why I sound different when I’m debating with those on this thread who hold to position A and those in other places who hold to positions C or D.
LikeLike
This may not be actually pertinent to over-all post, but I have come to believe in at least the plausibility that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. However, I also think that this possibility doesn’t necessarily have to denigrate marital sex. One possible alternate explaination could be that Joseph could quite possibly have been too old or ill and was quite content to have her as his companion and allow her to concentrate on raising Jesus. Given the extraordinary events that he witnessed, he might have been less inclined to see his marriage in the traditional Jewish way.
Now, I’ll be the last to claim that there is any explicit evidence of this in Scripture and the first to admit that its speculation, but its intriguing to me nonetheless. What is the details of the tradition are correct and have subsequently accrued incorrect theological interpretations?
If we accept the idea that Joseph had already had one wife before Mary and children from that union, then he would have been quite a bit older than Mary at the time of their marriage. This is not unheard of especially back then. Then imagine that his good health and vigor began to fail quite naturally only once he had completed his mission to protect the Christ-child and his Mother and see them safely back to Galilee (Could he have been preserved from infirmity until then? & Of course, by old I mean what would have been old back then in his fourties or fifties) If he quickly declined after the return from Eygpt, then this might explain why there is so little material regarding him. Most would agree, I think, that Joseph had to be already dead by at least the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus if not long before then. If he was much older than Mary, this is easy to imagine. Whatsmore, if he had been struck down untimely, his early end might have rated a mention whereas the natural end of a long and good life wouldn’t have.
This might be further supported by the many images of Joseph as an older man. I believe that tradition can preserve facts even long after the true narrative is lost. Are the images of Joseph as a white-haired yet hale older man just such a case?
The reason that I like this notion (and I do not make the mistake that it is anything more than that) it preserves what may well be the facts about Joseph and Mary preserved by tradition without the negative interpretation given to these facts by later theologians. It may have been that God did indeed want to preserve Mary to be dedicated her whole life to Him alone. But if that is the case, such preservation of her would not have been from some kind of stain or degradation but merely to keep her focus on him and remain faithful to him alone. It could also have been something as simple as that God wanted Mary to concentrate on raising Jesus without other children to compete for her attention.
Again let me repeat that I do not believe this as a matter of faith. I believe it as a possibility that there could be some truth to the tradition that Mary remained a virgin. In which case, I don’t think it should be rejected whole-cloth. It might be better to simply be somewhat agnostic about it and perhaps take from it whatever might benefit you. For instance, I personally have no problem with the idea of Mary being specially dedicated to God and thinking along these lines helped me to understand better what such dedication might mean as far as my own understanding of my faith. It has been something which I have only come to meditate upon via thinking of Mary and of her life. Others might come to such an understanding and comfort with the idea through the same channel. Who knows? Should we close off any avenue which might lead to a deeper understanding or a deeper faith?
LikeLike
On Dr. Scott Hahn
“Luther in Reverse” – Don’t be thinking that any significant number of Catholics of any stripe go around actually thinking that. It was just a radio spot tag line to hype up interest in broadcasts. It might have been printed as a quote on the jacket of “Rome Sweet Home” in some editions. It’s just a sales pitch people stuck on him. It sounds pithy and it irks protestants.
Although Dr. Hahn has done some apologetics and is very capable, he is not a professional apologist. His conversion story was taped (without his knowledge at the time I believe) and widely distributed (with his permission). In the early years his wife wrote the book covering their conversion. He released and sold a few tape sets. He did some bible study and faith formation on EWTN. You might recall he ‘torpedoed’ his own career when he converted and had a family with like 5 kids to feed. Eventually, after they recovered from the ‘10.0 earthquake’ of their conversion and Scott settled in to steady job and writing career, he stopped releasing tapes, doesn’t do many interviews, he’s not on the radio all the time any more.
Very little of his audio / video stuff is strictly apologetic. Mostly its conversion story and study.
I’m not sure if I’ve read most of his books, but I can see 4 of them from where I sit (one that I haven’t yet read). His books are not apologetic.
I am not qualified to rate his writing as far as theology, but I like them because he manages to write fairly sophisticated theological ideas in a manner that I can understand without have to reread repeatedly and diagram and refer to dictionaries and etc. I don’t read them strictly speaking as theology. It is more a theologically informed spiritual meditation.
Just my 2 cents
Paul
LikeLike
I just read your full post and I think I might have a unique perspective. I’m a Marian Catholic at heart. I believed in the sanctity of the Mother-child relationship before I believed in God at all. I decided to become a Catholic on the feast of the Assumption. I fully believe that Mary shielded the seed of faith in my heart until it could grow strong enough to stand on it’s own. I also completely and comfortably accept all of the Marian dogmas and some of the Marian visions (Fatima & Lourdes) even though we are not required to do so. I wear a Marian medallion (the Miraculous Medal), recite the rosary whenever I can and believe She interceded on our behalf in the birth of my second son. I even have a Marian garden in my backyard. In other words I’m hip deep in the Marian life (although it feels like I’ve only just started to offer Her the praise she deserves).
Despite all this I completely agree with you Michael. You are exactly right – there is no clear cut Biblical support for a lot of Marian dogma. I don’t find the Bathsheba example compelling either. It’s fishing for support of conclusion already made rather than reasoning from the evidence of scripture. Frankly when I first converted from Judaism I didn’t find the references to Christ in the Old Testament that compelling or clear cut either, and they are certainly more developed. However this is really about Authority, not Mary. If the Pope dogmatically decided tomorrow that the Gospel of St Mark was false and decided to toss it, I’d be shocked, but I’d accept it. For me Church > Bible and that is exactly why Marian dogma is such a stumbling block because, for Protestants, the equation is reversed (Bible > Church). The controversy over Mary s really a consequence of our disparate views on Authority.
LikeLike
““I wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?â€
Yes. There is a tone in many(not all) of their writings that grates on me.
Most likely it reminds me of how much I’ve simply wanted to be right and rest in that instead of living the journey. I’m not saying that’s what the apologists are doing so simmer down out there. I just recognize a certain tone that I’ve had (and still have at times). A tone of a one upmanship of sorts.”
I have a very hard time understanding why those who read – anything – seem unable or unwilling to put things in context.
Catholic apologists exist because the Catholic faith gets attacked. Just like Theist apologists exist because atheists attack belief in God (see Dawkins, R., etc.) The TR apologists exist because they belive whatever their version of true Christianity is being attacked by Emergents or Michael Spencer or whoever.
That’s what apologetics IS. It’s not theology. It’s not spiritual writing. It’s not ecclesiology. It’s not Scripture. By nature it is explanatory and defensive.
So, Catholic apologists are answering those who are attacking the Catholic faith from any number of directions. Attacked for being irrational or pagan or non-Biblical or just stupid. You name it.
Ordinary Catholics out here in the world get it from their friends, neighbors, family members. They ask the apologists for help. The apologists help by way of websites, talks, and books.
So?
Why is this even controversial? Look at Dave Armstrong, for example. The guy is in constant conversation/dialogue/battle with various Protestant apologists – yes, apologists – so that shapes his writing. That’s what he’s doing – he’s answering attacks.
It’s one little corner of life. If you don’t like it, why bother with it? I could say “I’m bothered by anti-Catholic apologists” and go on nattering about how much they bother me, but the best answer would be to just not read James White. Or if I’m bothered by the TR blogs…don’t read them.
If you’re “disappointed” in the apologists, then read other Catholics. Read Pope Benedict. Read Theresa of Avila. Read Therese of Liseux. Read Dorothy Day. Read Bonaventure. I don’t care.
But why be “disappointed” in apologists just doing what apologists always have done?
LikeLike
I would like to invite folks to go back and re-read Matthew Petersen’s comments. Matthew is NOT Catholic, nor is he Orthodox. I believe that he is presently attending a Reformed congregation. But he reads Scripture with a truly catholic mind. I know that his comments about Mary may at first sound bizarre, but that is because the typological-figurative reading of Scripture does not come naturally to us any longer. It’s a skill that needs to be acquired. We have to put on a different set of spectacles.
That is probably why the invocation of authority is the first thing Catholics do when speaking to Protestants who are inquiring about Mary: “Trust the Church,” “trust the magisterium,” “believe the dogmas,” etc. Though this sounds like an arrogant assertion of authority, it really isn’t. It’s just that until one is willing to trust magisterial teaching about Mary, one will never make the effort to read Scripture differently, with a catholic-typological-symbolic mind as opposed to a critical-literal-propositional mind.
I do not talk a lot about Mariology because, quite frankly, I have not yet acquired fluency in this dimension of the language of faith. This is a real problem, because this lack affects my reading of the biblical narrative. This became clear to me while reading some of the writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar. I like Balthasar because he reads Scripture as story, rather than as a theological textbook. But he tells the story differently than any Protestant I had ever read. He tells it differently because the person of Mary has a constitutive role within the narrative. It is this role, by the way, that the Marian dogmas are intended to protect.
This is why I harp about our fundamental ability to rightly discern the fullness of Christian faith and practice by the reading of Scripture alone. So much more is involved. What we are talking about is our immersion into the language of faith, into a way of life, into an imaginative and symbolic vision. We have to learn to see and feel and experience the world differently. We have to take on a different mind, a new heart. The reading of the Church Fathers is essential here. Even more decisive is immersion into the eucharistic-liturgical-ascetical life of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox understand this dimension of spiritual formation better than anyone. If anyone reading this blog is not already a regular reader of Fr Stephen Freeman, then I encourage you to start reading his blog “Glory to God.” Abbot Joseph’s blog “Word Incarnate” is also excellent. What I appreciate about both is the patristic vision they are able to express. It has a depth and profundity that much contemporary Protestant, and sadly Latin Catholic, writing simply cannot touch. It cannot touch it because it has been cut off from the deep sacramental-imaginative-spiritual roots of catholic faith and practice.
And perhaps this is the answer to the question earlier raised by Michael: “What benefits in regard to Christ are not available to me as a Protestant?” In my earlier comment I suggested that the question itself is problematic, because it places us in the position of spiritual consumer, looking for the best deal in town. Ultimately, though, do we want to be where God wants us to be, regardless of immediate benefit? But I also want to acknowledge the legitimacy of the question. The benefit of full communion with the Church Catholic is immersion in not just “mere” Christianity–Christianity cut down to the bare minimum–but in full Christianity. It is formation in that objective wholeness of truth and life that God intends for his people.
LikeLike
Gee, you don’t keep up with a site for a few days and wow over 100 posts on Scott Hahn no less! Thanks for keeping us posted Michael
LikeLike
“I wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?”
Yes. There is a tone in many(not all) of their writings that grates on me.
Most likely it reminds me of how much I’ve simply wanted to be right and rest in that instead of living the journey. I’m not saying that’s what the apologists are doing so simmer down out there. I just recognize a certain tone that I’ve had (and still have at times). A tone of a one upmanship of sorts.
All the apologist stuff makes my head hurt.
I understand it’s important but it’s the living it that’s much harder and more important. If you’ve experienced someone living their faith in a way that brings tears to your eyes while knowing they couldn’t expound one bit on the technicalities then you know what I mean. That doesn’t mean the two can’t or don’t coexist but if I had to choose God help me live it better than I can speak it.
Michael, your willingness to read and explore and wrestle with all of this challenges me to keep an open mind. Actually the other day my husband bought John Eldridge’s Wild At Heart book on CD. I thought to myself, if Michael can listen to 5 hours of Scott Hahn then I can listen to John Eldridge. 🙂
LikeLike
JayH: Yes, I was referring to The Protoevangelium of James.
Sorry for not responding sooner; I’ve been somewhat busy.
LikeLike
Joe M,
I must disagree with you wholeheartedly. There in nothing in the NT that contradicts or changes the OT. There may be things that come into clearer focus for us from the OT in the NT, but that is a different thing. God has never changed. Abraham was justified by faith, just like you and me.(Romans 4) There is a dangerous vein of teaching within the church that suggests that God in the NT is different that God in the OT. That He somehow because nicer and more loving or something. This is false. He has always been long-suffering and patient with sinners. The Jews weren’t saved by “keeping the law”. They were saved by trusting in God, by faith in His promises.
In fact, if you study the Jewish Feasts, you will see that they were and are dress rehearsals for what God had planned to do from the beginning. Do you think it was a grand coincidence that Jesus died on Passover and fulfilled the meaning of Passover at the same time? When Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus, he didn’t have the NT to show them. He was showing them what the OT said about Him. It is in there. The whole book is about Him.
Jeff M
LikeLike
I, too, can identify with your Festus. Marian doctrines were the hardest for me to come to grips with as a result of my prostant faith formation. What really helped me was in fact, praying the rosary, and truly looking to Mary as a mother. “Hold me in your arms, and carry me to Jesus,” I would always say. What tipped me off were Christ’s words on the cross, “Woman, behold your son” and to John: “Behold your mother.” How beautitful! Surly this is quite important if Jesus is use his last words to ensure his mother loves us and is loved by us.
As for Festus, I’d say he’s in a good spot. Faith is a gift, and it comes to us all in differnt ways and different times. So long as we remain open, our Lord’s grace will overwhelm us with his Truth. I find the most important prayer to pray is simply this:
“Lord, I abandon myself into your hands; do with me what you will.”
LikeLike
To Jeff M,
As I wrote above, there is so much in the Christian Gospel that contradicts and changes what is clearly written in the OT. The Bereans searched the Scriptures, but they must have had to change the way they valued many verses about the Sabbath, God, circumcision, the Law, and the chosen people. The preponderance of evidence in the OT does not predict many of the Christian innovations. And yet when Paul preached to them they could harmonize these things with the OT.
I think Marian doctrine’s and scripture can be viewed in a similar light. Should we be like the Bereans or Thessalonians?
I am not trying to convert anyone to RCC, I am just trying for better understanding of the role of Scripture and how rigidly we should interpret it.
LikeLike
As a Festus, or former one, I agree with you. To use an analogy that I found useful, I think of Jesus as a tree. We are climbing toward heaven. The doctrines are branches, if some of us chose not to climb using branches that others see as strong, then that is our decision.
I would also recommend that he relax, but possibly find an icon of Mary that he likes (just for its beauty) and have that in his house.
From a personal stand point, one Hail Mary is good, but 50 of them. Some of us are truely unable to talk and mediate at the same time.
LikeLike
I’d be interested, and more importantly believe that other readers might appreciate the thoughts of some of us Catholics on this scenario.
I have answered my own question at the end. If I am wrong, I’d like to know, but I’d ask you to please reference as specifically as possible what Church document I need to read, and what section, to understand my error. Between EWTN, Vatican.va, and NewAdvent.com almost anything should be available online.
Festus is Catholic (A baptized member of the Catholic faith, receiving the sacraments). He finds that he feels unable to truly ‘believe’ in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. He doesn’t feel able to believe it is appropriate to pray to Mary. He does acknowledge the authority of the Church, although these difficulties challenge him so that he feels weak, even in trusting the Church. This reaches a crisis and he consults a spiritual adviser.
He does not hold an opposing belief – does not firmly believe that Mary sinned etc. He simply doesn’t feel that he does or is able to fully believe.
Festus is advised by the spiritual adviser to pray, and do his best to be willing to believe, to ask for God’s grace to grow in faith.
Festus agrees to do this to the best of his ability. He follows through pretty well, but work, family life – His prayer life is not exemplary. The situation persists for years. Yet, Festus more or less periodically make an effort to remain open to faith and often at Sunday mass manages to ask Jesus for the grace to believe.
1) What is Festus’ status within the Church?
2) Should Festus be receiving communion?
3) What if he dies in this state?
4) What is the minimum number of Hail Marys that Festus must say?
Truly, It didn’t occur to me as I concocted this, but I really feel sorry for Festus.
My Answers:
1) Festus’ status within the Church is unaffected by these circumstances to the extent that he honestly tries to be open to the grace he needs to believe. It is not for anyone but Festus, God, and maybe his confessor to judge whether he is ‘honestly’ trying to be open. This would change if he became convinced of a contrary belief, and unwilling change. In that case, technically his status changes, his communion with the Church is compromised. His refusal to listen to the Church, to try to believe, becomes a sin (because he is refusing to listen to Jesus through the Church). Is this a mortal sin??? I don’t know.
2) Yes! Festus Should be receiving communion!! Because the grace available in the sacrament will help him in his faith!!! Assuming he hasn’t committed mortal sins blah blah blah. His inability to fully accept these doctrines is not a sin, as long he remains willing, or at least tries to remain willing to believe.
3) Only God judges. The Church does not a speculate on Festus ultimate salvation (except in the case of sainthood).
4) 0 – Festus does not have to pray any Hail Marys. I would personally recommend that he force himself to say at least one a day – always asking for grace. In fact, I would recommend he say the Rosary every day in front of the blessed sacrament asking Mary to lead him into a deeper relationship with Jesus.
Blast me! But please, point me to some official source to correct my error.
Paul
LikeLike
Arturo,
Thanks for staying in the conversation. I for one value your contributions. I for one agree that the point where Marian Devotion becomes so extreme as to damage the faith of an individual or community is very seldom if ever reached within the confines of the Church. In some schismatic groups it appears more likely that among other errors the emphasis on Mary might somehow get twisted. Also, in cases of semi-christian or non-christian devotions where Mary is probably indeed being used as a goddess there is obviously serious problems.
The only cases I can think of within the Church where I might be inclined to believe Marian Devotion had gone too far are possibly in cases false apparitions, where some seer is giving false prophecies. But, that really is a case of something other than the Marian Devotion actually being the source of the problem.
On the other hand, for the purposes of this forum, I would acknowledge that Marian Devotion (prayer) is not mandatory.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Michael Spencer,
I finally am ready to tackle the question that prompted my expression of discouragement. Going back quite a ways, as Fr. Kimel has already gone a couple rounds with you.
I have been ruminating over that exchange. One thing that puzzled me was exactly what in this question bothered me, and apparently Fr. Kimel so much?
I think I have come to understand my reaction. The other questions contributed, as did the whole context in semi-real time, but he real “burr in the blanket” was this question.
And let’s assume that many Protestants agree with much of Catholicism- as I do- but not all. Is it necessary for me to believe the magisterium is infallible in order to teach Mere Christianity?
When you say ‘mere Christianity’ you see a common, innocuous formulation which happens to implicitly reject Authority and Hierarchy.
Your question juxtaposes Catholicism, magisterium and infallibility with ‘mere christianity’ which rejects both magisterium and infallibility.
It rejects the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In my Catholic mind it all conflates together. So in one question (which becomes very aggressive to me) you profess to ‘agree with much of Catholicism’ while at the same time ripping Catholicism to shreds!! Ouch!! At the same time (context) wanting to lay claim to the right to teach the faith with approval of the Church you are rejecting. Now I see why I got so angry.
So, even now my first inclination is to give a brutally honest and uncharitable answer to your question.
“Yes, you are qualified to teach ‘mere christianity’ and only ‘mere christianity.’ You are clearly not qualified to teach the Christian Faith, in its fullness, as it subsists in the Catholic Church.”
Now that is a harsh statement. It might seem like appropriate answer to an aggressive question. Factually it is absolutely correct, even the uncapitalized christianity. Doctrinally, it is the ‘correct’ answer.
But it is not the appropriate answer. I don’t believe that you intended to ask the question I understood, and even if you did I should be charitable. I believe you intended to ask, “does the Catholic Church say I am totally unqualified to teach anything about Christianity just because I find myself unable to accept all of the Church’s claims?” The answer to that question can be found in the Decree on Ecumenism Section 4 paragraphs 8 & 9
On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
God Bless, you are in my prayers
Paul
LikeLike
Paul,
Thanks for your lengthy and patient response. I was beginning to think you had forgotten me tonight, but I can see from the post that you merely had a lot of typing to do. : )
I am afraid that my other relevant comment got lost in the Marian discussion, which I wasn’t going to get into, but I have time tonight(since I am staying up all night to celebrate Pentecost) and I am studying the Scriptures and well, it happens.
I took another opportunity tonight to look at the Catholic Encyclopedia online and read the entry about the Easter Controversy. Since I have started to study what God had to say in the Jewish Feasts, I have found this kind of thing more and more fascinating. I am not trying to overwhelm you, and if this is more than you want to discuss I will not be offended, but the fact that there was such a huge division in the second century Catholic Church over the keeping of Easter leaves me with big questions regarding the Magesterium of the RCC. Because of that what I see in the word “whom” in the Timothy passage is not the Magesterium, but his family and synagogue. I know Timothy was young, but his infancy was not spent in the Christian faith, but in its Jewish roots. In that case the teaching of the Apostles confirmed what he had learned from infancy. Much as the Bereans were commended for taking Paul’s teachings and comparing them to Scripture. I am very diligent to take the teachings of the RCC or anyone else for that matter back to Scripture to see if it is true. I think this is what you mean by our different presuppositions and in that I agree that argument will not bear much if any fruit. I do like your programming analogy, if only because I am a hopeless tech geek sort anyway. When it boils down to it, I have many things I agree with the Catholic Church on, but in the areas where there is little direct Biblical evidence and mostly the Magesterium or tradition of the RCC to support a teaching, I find it to be a point of tension I cannot overcome. God may one day show me something I never considered and a light may go on like in Philippians 3:15 – All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
It has happened before in my walk with God and I am positive that I haven’t arrived yet so I expect it will happen again. : ) I do enjoy the opportunity to chat with brothers and sisters and keep on working on knowing our Father more and more.
Shalom and Blessings to you,
Jeff
LikeLike
Jeff M and anyone else
The direct answer to Jeff’s second question is actually at the very end of this post (The Last 8 paragraphs. This is an exceptionally long post. I need to start my own blog! Michael forgive me for posting such a monstrosity. I hope some of you find it useful. I attempt to uses Jeff’s questions to providing a teaching moment on how to understand maybe be a little less offended and confused when encountering Catholic Speak. It’s just a start.
I’m actually going to Title this reply – A bit pretentious I admit
Getting Beyond Apologetics – Part 1
First, I’d like to begin with and examination of little apologetics problem. Jeff posed the question of “I wanted to add a couple of things into the discussion. On the matter of the quote from 1 Tim. 3:15 to suggest that the Bible doesn’t claim to be the sole authority, it is only part of Scripture and not the whole counsel of it. 2 Tim. 3:14-17 says, “14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.â€
Now, this is like the first apologetics ‘trick’ I learned, and many of you have seen it. I would like to use it to illustrate something beyond the debate. We come at things with our own ‘paradigm’ or ‘hermeneutic’ or ‘point of view’ whatever. I know that many of you truly see ‘sola scriptura’ or something very close to it in this passage. I don’t see it at all. I don’t see any suggestion what-so-ever that it is only scripture or even primarily scripture.
Indeed, I see something that Protestants don’t see. I see: 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it” as apostolic teaching – magisterium, tradition the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now you can go ahead and believe that I am guilty of presupposition and a total Moron. I can think similar things about you. That gets us nowhere. I have seen this point argued and debated to the point where I want to puke. No one is going to change their position because of an argument, and certainly not over this passage.
My hack-kneed computer programming analogy – the same piece of code parses entirely differently in a Catholic compiler than in a Protestant compiler.
The next part of Jeff’s post:
“For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,†that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.†that give me a lot of pause. I searched through Scripture and can find no reference to the church being a “means of salvationâ€. I am sure that you would agree that salvation is through Christ alone. What those of us outside the RCC hear in this statement is that Christ is only in the Roman Church.
Jeff is referring to my post directed to Michael at on 09 Jun 2008 at 3:37 am
I have to tell you, I was nervous when I hit ‘send’. I spent a lot of time praying before I posted that. There were several Bomb Shells in there I thought. I spent a lot of time praying after I posted it that it would work out. You can scroll down to the last 8 pages and skip the detour through how Catholic Talk to read the direct answer to Jeff’s question. Truthfully, I wouldn’t probably bother to respond to Jeff’s question unless I can use it as an opportunity for us to further dialog in some other respect, because it inherently leads into the formulation of salvation and justification and grace and we all know where that debate is going to end.
Before I get into this I’ll post a link to the whole document I am quoting from for those of you who don’t have much to do: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
It turns out, that this post seems to be providential, since it fits perfectly for this exercise. I claim no credit for planning this.
I quoted the first paragraph of the decree which essentially states that Christ founded one Church and it is the Catholic Church and any Christian body divided from the Church is ‘openly contradicting the will of Christ.’
Frankly I am surprised Jeff didn’t ask anything about that particular paragraph – It is a very bold and I imagine off-putting claim to make. I bring it up here to provide a lesson in reading official Catholic documents and the difficulties communicating between Catholics and Protestants.
This is my imitation of how Protestants discuss doctrine: As an outsider I don’t expect this to be a perfect description. When most protestants, certainly Baptists and non-denoms etc. have a doctrinal issue to resolve or discuss they generally start with John 3:16 😉 ;>) They start with the Bible. Now, I am pretty sure they generally know what passages they are going to go to first, and the majority of the passages they are going to hit, but they always start by reading Bible passages. Now, I don’t really believe they don’t have ‘any idea’ where they are going to end up, or that they don’t pretty well know how they are going to interpret each passage, but that is how protestants approach a doctrinal issue. Makes sense, Bible is the authority, everything has to start with the Bible.
I diverged to how Protestants discuss doctrine to illustrate how differently Catholics discuss doctrine. I am not proposing to argue about the strengths or weaknesses of each approach. I honestly think this might help us understand each other a bit more.
Catholics approach doctrine in a very different way. The Bible is not ignored, or even slighted, and it is not that Catholic doctrine is ‘unBiblical.’ The idea that we would start by going to scripture passages is bizarre. For all practical purposes a discussion of doctrine between Catholics at any level from lay people to Cardinals NEVER begins with opening the Bible (never is really two strong but not much). Going directly to scripture, for a Catholic, would be like needing a new car and going out and digging up some iron and coal to forge steel and build one from raw materials. We’ve had 2000 years of Bible scholarship and Authoritative teaching from the Magisterium. There are no new doctrinal issues. It’s all been done! Dozens of scholars, doctors of the Church, Saints, Popes, Councils and Fathers have addressed each issue. It would be insane to try to reinvent or even pretend to reinvent doctrine from scratch.
So, getting back to the Decree on Ecumenism, most Catholics discussing doctrine are going to start with “What does the Church Teach.†In everyday life, that is usually going to be looking it up in the Catechism, if we don’t know it pretty well already. In official Church documents this approach is very formalized. The discussion is going to start with the core of the Catholic faith related to the issue – establishing and clearly reminding ourselves what we already know the Church teaches. This establishes an anchor point to start from. Nothing that comes after is in any way going to diminish, change, or nullify this statement.
The Introduction to the Decree on Ecumenism states the problem or question that is being addressed, but even here the anchor point of the discussion is being set: There is One Church founded by Christ and it is the will of God that all Christians be united in that Church.
The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature. (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO – Section 1 paragraph 1)
The rest of the introduction is more fleshing out the problem. I suspect that many people generally skip introductions to get to the ‘meat.’ This is a big mistake when reading a Catholic Church document.
Chapter 1 – Catholic Principle of Ecumenism is the start of the discussion, but in a way it is really a prelude. A scholarly Catholic will often breeze through this section nodding their head because they’ve heard it all before. A Protestant is probably going to find some ‘bomb shells.’ You will notice that just about every statement in the section is footnoted. There is nothing, nothing new in this section. Almost every single statement is a direct quote or a close paraphrase from some previous document. A heavy emphasis is on Councils. Encyclicals, Bulls and other Papal stuff are in there. There are many quotes from scripture – but truly they are usually quoting the scripture from within another source. Finally a smattering of Augustine, Aquinas and a few others.
In this section the Church is setting the anchor point and laying out the boundaries for discussion by re-stating and summarizing everything we already know and teach that pertains to the question. Nothing in the discussion is going to controvert what is stated here.
I quoted paragraph 4 and will now finally answer Jeff’s question.
“For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,†that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.†that give me a lot of pause. I searched through Scripture and can find no reference to the church being a “means of salvationâ€. I am sure that you would agree that salvation is through Christ alone. What those of us outside the RCC hear in this statement is that Christ is only in the Roman Church.” This is in regard to Section 3 paragraph 5.
I totally agree that that is inflammatory in this forum. I am truly surprised I haven’t been thoroughly fisked. I can start an argument in just about any group of 3 or more sincere Catholics with this one. It is a very difficult matter to really understand. I am not sure that I completely understand. I am sure that I can’t adequately explain it to anyone – Catholic or not. Yet, I will try to make a little progress.
First, taking on paragraph out of a Council document is very dangerous, we need context, and you may notice my original quote started with ‘nevertheless’ so this statement modifies some previous information. So back to the decree to get Section 3, paragraph 4:
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Christ has not refrained from using the separated Churches (Orthodox) and Communities (Protestant bodies) as means of salvation. So, salvation is available to Protestants. Clear? Salvation is possible for Protestants. Salvation is possible for Protestants!
Salvation is through Christ alone. Now, to even begin to understand “the Catholic Church is the all-embracing means of salvation,†it is necessary to remember that the Catholic Church is (I am speaking Catholic hear) the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. When we read St. Paul description of the members of the body of Christ, we read it as a description of the Catholic Church. (Read Benedict the XVI homily to priests and religious at St. Patrick’s in NYC) Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. The Church is (in some sense) the Body of Christ. All the grace available or present or flowing through the Church is the grace of Christ’s Sacrifice. All of Christ’s grace comes through is body the Church. (this is imperfectly stated – I am over my head) Really, there is not a clear distinction between Christ and the Church. It is not Church = Christ, and Christ > Church for sure. (AHH “The Church is the Bride of Christ” Analogies to sacramental marriage apply)
Indeed, paragraph 2:
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.
Now I know you aren’t going like this! Essentially this paragraph says that Christ’s gifts (of grace) can exist outside the Catholic Church, but although they are available outside the Church, they rightfully belong to the Catholic Church regardless of where you might find them. There is no statement (anywhere that I know of) that specifically says how much, which or what percentage of Christ’s gifts to the Church are available outside of the visible unity of the Church (so I believe that is an open form for debate). It is however clear, that the fullness or completeness of God’s grace is available only in the Catholic Church.
Means of Salvation: This doesn’t make sense, if you don’t at least try to think as the Church believes that Salvation is not a one moment “I got saved†“once saved, always saved†proposition. The Christian journey is one of persevering in Christ and growing because of his grace. The access to the fullness (all means of salvation) of Christ’s grace is highly desirable, although not strictly speaking necessary for salvation. Some sense of that is what is conveyed by ‘means of salvation’ is opportunities or mechanisms of grace. As I mentioned, I am in over my head. Here we run into issues of salvation and formulations we all know divide us. I am not going there.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Jeff,
Quickly because I have to go to bed, Christ too was a servant, and his command that we say “we are unworthy servants” is a command that we imitate Him.
Is learning from our parents sin? If not, Christ was like us in that respect.
Matt
LikeLike
Lonelypilgrim,
Yes.
He did learn as ordinary children learn didn’t He? He was fully human, like us in all respects, sin only excepted. It isn’t because of sin that we learn from our parents is it? Isn’t our imitation of our parents one of the places we are most like God–you must be like little children, the father son relationship is the one image we are given of the inter divine life.
How else would the one cell have learned to know the Father save through Mary’s action? How else would the Christ child have learned save like all children do, from His parents?
About your second question, I have no idea what Catholics teach about kenosis. I have a really weird pedigree–even now I have only received communion in Protestant churches, never in Orthodox or Catholic ones–and I’m not saying I have a Catholic understanding of kenosis, only that the biblical view of kenosis implies something very much like the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary. Mary’s kenosis was, like it is for all mothers, to raise her child up to be separate from her. But that means that she receives back what she had given up.
Regarding Christ’s kenosis, Philippians 2 lists two kenotic actions of Christ. 1) Being in the very image of God He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made Himself in the form of a man. 2) Being found in human fashion, he humbled Himself to death, even death on the cross. We have emphasized the second, but St. Paul seems to think the first is also significant. I almost said equally significant, though I suppose a case could be made that it is more significant, and if you said it is less significant I don’t think it would affect what I am saying. The first kenosis is significant.
In both kenoses he emptied Himself of all. In the second, He committed His Spirit into His Father’s hands. But in the first, the Father committed his Word into Mary’s hands, and Christ committed Himself into her hand.
I am not quite sure how we can get around this. Christ became nothing, and received it back from His mother. That’s what it means that she was His mother. He became a unknowing single cell. Mary, and later Joseph (and when he was twelve Caiaphas) taught Him to love and know again.
Matt
LikeLike
Matt,
As Christians we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man correct? This would make Him inherently different in that respect. Which does not disqualify Him from partaking in our weakness. Hebrews clearly teaches that He was tested in all points as we are, yet without sin. But how was He tested? In the wilderness, Satan asked Jesus to turn a stone into bread. Is that something that you or I can do? I won’t answer for you, but I cannot do it so this wouldn’t be “tempting” to me if you get my meaning. But to Jesus, this must have been possible to do or else it wouldn’t have been “tempting”. He withstood this temptation the same way we are to do, by relying on God and His Word.
Certainly, He learned from His earthly parents how to eat, walk, talk, read, ect. And He was of course obedient to them, or He would have violated God’s Law in the Commandments. But it is a serious stretch to say that He is an image of the Father because of them. I may ruffle feathers with this one and I apologize in advance, but I don’t know how else to say it. Mary was chosen by God to be Jesus’ mother, but that is not appreciably different that Abraham being chosen by God to be the father of the nation that Jesus sprang from. It is the work of God and no man or woman gets any of His glory for going along with Him in His work. Mary was willing to obey God. She said, “I am the Lord’s servant, may it be to me as you have said.” She is not His equal. She is the Lord’s servant.
Jeff
LikeLike
Matt N.
Did you really mean to say “It was only because of their teaching, of their instruction that He knew how to know the Father.” ?
I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia online and read what it had to say about Kenosis. It listed the various ways protestants have understood Kenosis and then gave the Catholic teaching on it. I can’t say that I disagreed with anything in the Catholic teaching on it, but it sounds different than what you are saying about it.
Here it is by the way:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think His Father taught Him through the Law, and through his mother and Joseph. Like He did all Jews. Remember, like for all parents, Mary saw all her flaws reflected in her Son. Remember, like all children, Jesus responded like his (earthly) parents. If we want to say Jesus was truly a man, we must say Mary and Joseph actually raised Him. Luke 2 even says He was subject unto them.
Yes, granted, He learned from the Law. Yes, granted, he learned from prayer. But before He could understand the Law, before He knew how to pray, who taught Him to read Scripture, who taught Him to pray?
Yes, His Father taught Him everything. But He was, and is, a man. Before He was even able to learn from His Father, he learned from His mother. As Philippians 2 says, He emptied Himself of everything, and was found in the form of a man. That means he learned as a human child does. From his (earthly) parents. It was only because of their teaching, of their instruction that He knew how to know the Father. If He had some sort of super-human access to the Father, He has not fully partaken of our weakness. He is the full access to the Father, but who He is is from Mary. He is an image of the Father because He is an image of Mary and Joseph (though an image that far surpassed them).
Matt
LikeLike
Matthew Peterson,
A couple of questions for you about who taught Jesus. What do you make of these statements?
John 8:28 – So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
John 15:15 – I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
Christ learned more from His heavenly Father than from Mary and Joseph. To say that, “But Christ was and is who He is only because of his mother’s raising Him. It seems to me to be a denial of his humanity to say otherwise.” doesn’t make sense. These statements are of the same tenor as the end of Luke 2. Jesus said He had to be about His Father’s business and His earthly parents didn’t understand. I am not trying to be difficult, but this makes your previous statements about the importance of Mary and Joseph hard to agree with.
Jeff M
LikeLike
dumb ox,
I thought we had gotten pretty good at kicking around problems in the protestant camp around these parts. 🙂
Paul,
Thank you again for your calming influence. I am still anxiously awaiting your take on my questions.
lonelypilgrim,
Thank you as well. You said some of the things that I wanted to say, particularly in response to the Mary made God God comment. When I read that I had to walk away from my computer and go watch the movie Amazing Grace with my wife and parents. (Pretty good movie by the way) I wasn’t quite sure what to say about that one.
I will say one thing about God allowing believers to do things erroneously for centuries. He allowed the nation of Israel to do all kinds of things erroneously for centuries at a time. Frankly, He is allowing them to carry on as if Messiah never came and still loves them anyway. (I am not suggesting universal salvation for the Jewish nation, but you gotta admit that the Book says He will set let them see the light someday). I have been asking myself why the church stopped observing the Feasts of the Lord that the Bible clearly says we will be celebrating when He returns. (see Zachariah 14:16; it hasn’t happened yet, but it will. Isaiah 66:22-24 is also clearly yet to come) Clearly God is more gracious to us in our dim understanding that we even realize.
Shalom and Blessings,
Jeff M
LikeLike
lonelypilgrim,
Please re-read my post. I clearly qualified my statement you object to, and in context it is clear that I am stating a fundamental Christian doctrine that Christ emptied Himself of everything, and thus was taught everything by Mary and Joseph. That includes love. Love Himself was taught love by Mary. That we see God by seeing Christ. But Christ was and is who He is only because of his mother’s raising Him. It seems to me to be a denial of his humanity to say otherwise.
That was supposed to be part of the uncontroversial part of my post.
My argument was (abbreviated): We all agree about how exalted Mary’s role was. The divergence is over how exalted it is. Protestants point to Mark 3 and other similar passages, and wonder why Catholics and Orthodox view the Theotokos so highly. But it seems to me that Mark 3 and such passages fit perfectly into the Catholic view. Mary’s role is a role of giving. At first she has Christ unbelievably close. But her whole life she gives to Him, and by giving to Him, sends Him from her. By the time He is thirty, she is just another disciple. By the time He is thirty-three, He rejects her, and gives her to another. All because she was faithful. But God is not a God who refuses to resurrect. Mary has given, God shall return to Her. What she had is returned, thousand-fold. That is to say, as dependent on her as He was, He shall be.
Michael,
I hope you don’t take this as attempting to get you to become RC. You expressed some frustration with Catholics inability to defend Marian doctrines Scripturally. The arguments tend to be (like many here have been) “Stop rejecting the tradition of the Church. Yes it isn’t in Scripture. But the Church teaches it.” I’m just trying to give a Scriptural argument for the Marian dogmas.
In Christ,
Matt
LikeLike
Well, having been called out, I will perhaps try to clarify a bit. Briefly, I’ll say this: If I had something against “brown people” and were saying that something was the way is may be because someone was “brown” or “red” or “white” or green or purple, I would apologize for doing so, but I did no such thing. Now, perhaps saying “certain cultures” was unnecessary, but it was in no way a slam on anyone for being a part of any particular ethnic group.
That was a side point in my post, in which I was mostly trying to defend that Catholic belief and devotion to the Blessed Mother is not inherently some kind of blockage to faith in Christ. It is, rather, I believe, an enhancement of our faith in Christ, a strengthening of it. I certainly didn’t mean to be saying that any proper belief and devotion in/to the Mother of God is bad. It’s not – for the record.
I was also attempting to show understanding about how many of our Protestant siblings tend to see these things. Some of them point certain things out and say, “look, this is inappropriate” and I’m saying – No, not really, not what you’re pointing out, but yes, there may well be some inappropriate things, and that’s not good, and I don’t really care who’s taking something too far. It could be pasty white Scottish Catholics, it would still be something which isn’t as healthy as it should be. I certainly can’t get into qualifying all these perhapses – I’m just using general examples to make a point. And even though I’m of Scottish ancestry, surname-wise, I’m not even close to “pasty white” so anyway.
I appreciate your peace-filled words as well Paul. Thanks for that. I hesitated to even jump in here again. This kind of exchange turns ugly far too often and I have no interest whatsoever in getting into anything negative. I hope I have not contributed to any of it. Peace to all in this house.
LikeLike
Sam Urfer:
Thank you for the clarification on Tolkien and Lewis. I picked up on a little of that in my research, particularly Tolkien’s critique of the Chronicles of Narnia.
It was mentioned on EWTN radio a few weekends ago that the “protestant principle”, emphasizing renewal, has always been active within the church. Unfortunately, I didn’t catch the name of the person who said it (not Hahn). I know not all that is said on EWTN truly represents Catholic teaching, but that is what I mean by “protestant”. I admit that I can’t square that with what protestantism has grown to represent. I agree that many protestants today would have nothing with which to identify themselves without the Catholic Church to kick around. I wish more protestants would protest the abuses present within their own camps.
LikeLike
Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship was cold to the point of being gone by the time Lewis died, largely because of their theological differences. Saying that Catholicism somehow needs Protestantism is disingenuous, as the Church did fine for 1500 years beforehand. Protestantism, by definition, does need something to Protest against, so you are right as far as that goes.
The Lord loved Mary enough to become her Son. How can one love her too much?
LikeLike
I don’t think Mary causes the greatest divide between Catholics and protestants. I for one believe Mary wears a crown in heaven, but I believe all those who overcome to the end will wear a crown (1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 4:4). To know that Mary’s humility and faithfulness was acknowledged in heaven brings incredible hope and encouragement for me to remain faithful. I have tried to substitute that part of the Rosary with other devotions, but this is why I can’t.
I think some here need to stop and consider the amusing reverse of fortunes that has occurred between protestants and Catholics during the past 10-20 years. Stop and think of how many Catholics were lured away from their church with rubish like Jack Chick’s “Alberto” and Keith Green’s “Catholic Chronicles” (I’m ashamed to admit I handed some of those tracts to my Catholic friends back in highschool; I am equally thankful that they were grounded in their faith enough to not fall for it). Now Scott Hahn attempts to draw protestants to Catholicism using similarly dubious practices; however, nothing I have heard him say comes near to the vile, illogical heresay that I have heard uttered against the Catholic church by uneducated protestants.
I think iMonk’s comment about sharing with non-christians is profound. How much time and resources have been wasted converting Catholics to various forms of protestantism and now vise-versa? Statistics show that most Christians don’t have any non-christian friends.
Catholics do have an audience which they can reach. To this day, protestants have little room or tolerance for thoughtful, contemplative people. There are more writers like G.K. Chesterton and Orestes Brownson in the Catholic church than there are those like C.S. Lewis in protestant churches (Capon definitely comes close). This is a bitter detriment for protestants. Maybe we’ll get it right someday.
In my opinion, postmoderns are on more of an “existential” or “ontological”(for a lack of better terms) search; and old school ten-step, pragmatic, “got it all figured out” evangelicalism isn’t going to have the answer. Catholics like Hahn are crazy if they go down that same road as bible-thumping evangelicals. Catholics should make their appeal reflect the mysteries which their church embodies.
I think Catholicism and protestantism need each other, similar to what Tillich sited as the need for both the “protestant principle” as well as “catholic substance”. Unification would have tragic results for both sides, but that doesn’t mean both sides can’t encourage and build each other up. Remember Tolkien was Catholic, and he and C.S. Lewis were good friends.
LikeLike
Artruo,
I just saw your posting above about Marian devotions. I am a convert from Southern Baptists, similar in flavor to Michael’s upbringing. (at least on my grandparent’s side)
One of the main Bible verses about prayer that I remember being stressed in my youth was the one about avoiding vain repetitions. I do not pray nor worship well under those circumstances, whether it be the rosary, the Divine Mercy chapet, or praise music that repeats the same phrase many times. That is not to say that I don’t respect those who do pray the rosary, or miss the people praying it before Mass. Nor does it imply that I don’t have a decent interesting relationship with Mother Mary. (She makes a very nice mother-in-law)
To help you understand the discomfort that some of us have with the Marian doctrines, let me make this suggestion. “Let’s form a group that will go out into the neighborhood (in pairs of course) making sure that our parish isn’t missing any body that needs help and introducing ourselves to the new comers.)
Any takers?
LikeLike
As a protestant I feel the need to apologize to some of the Roman Catholic readers of this blog. The reason being is that I’m convinced there must be a protestant conspiracy somewhere.
Arturo, Matt N. and Matt K. must really be protestants in Papal clothing. Their defenses of Roman Catholic teachings have done more to convince me that they are wrong than any protestant attack on them could hope to do.
One of them attacks other Catholics for not being devoted to Mary enough.
One says that Mary made God God.
One says that if you are going to give in to the Reformers on Mary then you might just as well give in to the atheists on Jesus. OK, I have to comment a little more on this one. I’m not sure who he claims is giving in to the Reformers. Protestants aren’t giving in because they already believe the protestant view of Mary. Nor have I heard any Roman Catholics who are recanting their belief in Roman Catholic Mariology. For the record the reason that protestants accept the protestant view of Mary but reject the atheist view of Jesus is because of that belief that Catholics reject – SOLA SCRIPTURA. As you say the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach the Marian doctrines of the Catholic church. In fact, many of us claim the Bible contradicts the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. However, it does explicitly teach that Jesus Christ is both God and man, was virgin born, lived sinlessly, died on a cross, was buried, rose from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father and will come again. That’s why protestants disagree with Catholics on Mariology, but agree with them on Christology.
OK, I said that part about a protestant conspiracy with tongue in cheek, as I assume most of you knew. But in seriousness the closest I’ve come to wanting to convert to the RCC is listening to people like John Hagee and reading Jack Chick’s “tracts” on the issue. I would say you 3 guys are the Hagees and Chicks of the Roman Catholic world.
LikeLike
Amen Paul
Thank you for your wisdom.
LikeLike
Mathew and Arturo and Any other fully Catholic Christians out there:
I am suspecting that this topic got cross posted on a Catholic Blog somewhere and that there are some readers showing up, and some of you are eager to post in on this topic.
It is more important than ever that you pray for guidance, think about charity and post carefully, because this forum is unmoderated this week I am not recommending you try to sound like a relativist or go any where near hearsay – but please, please don’t head off on the other end of the spectrum. Sedeventist leanings would be extremely unhelpful just now.
I’d like to introduce you to this Blog and its owner a little, and also what I know of the regular readers. I highly recommend you read back at least 4 months anything that looks remotely Catholic on this blog. The readership here is pretty stable, people here have been through this before. You really need to understand who you are talking to, and where they are in Faith before you let loose.
One thing I have been trying to learn and understand on this Blog and others like it is “what can I do to better communicate with, and share in (imperfect) Christian unity with my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I am working on a crack-pot analogy that Catholicism and each Variation of protestantism are like different, but related, programing languages. Any programmers out there know that someone fluent in Cobol can make some sense out of Java but it is a lot of work and parts of it need to be explained.
I am convinced that the way I can be most useful here is to try to bridge that gap a little further. As Catholics, you need to be aware that phrases and formulations that are ‘no brainers’ to us often sound like hand grenades to the people on this blog and particularly to Michael the owner. Please read, read, read and listen to Michael Spencer before you cut loose.
May Love and Charity and Christian Hope guide you,
Paul
LikeLike
Gentlemen,
I see that for the most part, the thread has stayed constructive with moderation off. Please keep it that way.
But stop wasting time trying to convince me to join the RCC.
I have no $ to speak of. I have a job with the Baptists. I am 51 and fat. I am not going to be a greeter at WalMart with a seminary degree just so I can go to mass with 15 people in Clay Co while I starve to death. Even if I go on the speaking circuit as the freak ex-Baptist, it’s not worth it.
GOD gave me the ministry I have. If you don’t believe that God gave me the ministry I have, then explain that all Protestants serving Christ are wrong to be doing so.
I’ve spending the day reading Bouyer, and I’m still going back to my job in a few weeks to preach the Gospel to kids who don’t know Jesus and have never heard of him.
Really. Find some non-Christians.
I appreciate and love you as brothers, but you make me feel like I am wasting my life if I can’t find a way to accept Marian dogmas and then a couple of years from now when I make it through the rural version of RCIA, finally get to commune with people who are RC.
God hasn’t left me to wander. He put me where I am and I’m not out of union with him or his church. That’s the problem of certain Christians, but I am not one of them.
Peace and I do love you all.
MS
LikeLike
I have trouble with the idea that God allowed all Christians to continue for centuries, and most Christians right up to the present day, erroneously praying to and venerating the Mother of God, as it sent each and every one of them irreversibly on the road to Hell… until some anointed Reformers came along and decided to rid us all of this ‘impurity’. And you call papal infallibility ‘arrogant’?
Condemnation of Marian devotion, while not damning in itself, was certainly an innovation of the worst kind: for it took a major chunk out of Christian faith. There may be a lack of explicit Biblical proof for a few of the Marian doctrines, but there is a lack of physical proof for ALL of the Jesus doctrines. If you’re going to give into the ‘Reformers’ on the matter of Mary, you might as well give in to the atheists on the matter of Jesus.
LikeLike
Obvious typo, in the last Paragraph, that shouldn’t be Mary 15, but Mark 15.
LikeLike
Michael,
I don’t know if you’ll read this since you’re on vacation. And I’m not at all trying to convert you–just trying to show you the reason I see for seeing the Theotokos as Queen of Heaven.
Whenever we start with Mary, we must start with the Annunciation, Christmas, the Presentation, etc.–for Mary is the Theotokos, and we cannot begin to understand her aside from this. (I believe you agree with this.)
And when we look there, we discover how wonderfully exalted Mary was. As it says in Philippians, Jesus decided to become nothing, and to receive all from Mary and Joseph. The Father decided to speak to us, but rather than speaking Himself, he allowed Mary to form His Word. That is to say, the work of Mary’s hand was God.
And we could even say, in a sense, that Mary made God God. He was nothing, absolutely dependent on her. And she taught Love to love. No one sees the Father except the one to whom Son of man reveals Him. But the Son of man only saw the Father because Mary revealed Him.
But however exalted Mary was, her ministry was not a ministry of holding or hoarding God, but of sending Him away. Of giving Him to the world, and even to His Father. This mission of Mary is seen most clearly in the Presentation, when she actively gave Him away to the Father, but the Presentation is the mission of her life. At the annunciation God was wholly dependent on her. But she gives Him her flesh and blood, and gradually makes him more and more independent. Finally, He would be able to survive outside her, and at the fullness of time she brought forth her first-born, a Son. But even yet, he could not survive without her, he needs her milk her flesh and her blood to survive. But she does not keep Him to her breast, but gradually stengthens Him, making Him ever more and more independent of her. And then, having become independent enough that he recognizes his independence–that he cries like the world has ended whenever she leaves the room–she keeps not this nearness to her Son, but like any mother, raises Him up, weans Him, and teaches Him to be glad without her. By the time He is twelve, He is still subject to her, but His true house is not hers, but His Father’s. By the time He is thirty, she is just another disciple, by the time He is thirty-three, he refuses to come down and save her, but instead willfully abandons her, willfully deprives her of her life and hope, and gives her away to another.
Her whole life is summed up in the presentation, she has God in her hand, but Simeon takes the Boy from her. And a sword shall pierce her soul.
But this cannot be the end of the story. God is faithful. She lost Son for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Surely she shall receive back thousand fold. But what shall she receive back? What else beside her Son, her Child, now again her Child, now again as tender and close to her as ever He was. Otherwise she could say “yet this I had, and this was good, but this I have lost.” She would no longer be Mother of God. As dependent on her as He was, so dependent on her is He. (Or if you prefer, shall He be.) Her cross, the sword piercing her soul, is not the end of the story any more than Good Friday is the end of her Son’s. As He lost all, and therefore regained it and has been given a name which is above all names; so she lost all, lost even the privilege of being unique, become just another disciple, then even lost what matters most to her, as to any mother, her Son. And if the gospel promise is true, she has (or shall) receive back all and thousand-fold what she has lost: she has (or shall) receive back thousand-fold the radical connection with her Son and radical dependence of Him on Her. God does not take without returning it back. Her Son does not take without returning thousandfold whatever He took. And He took Himself, Himself as a child, Himself as a baby, Himself as a fetus, himself as an embryo, himself as a single cell.
But does not Mark 3 (which I hope you can see figures as central in my account of her glory as Mary 15 in my account of her Son’s) say that she looks like any disciple? Say rather that Mark 3 says that any disciple looks like her. That, like a good mother, she wants to give all her children, and all her Child’s children everything she has, all the greatest gifts she has. And what greater gift does she have than being Theotokos, being the mother of God. By her working, by her motherly love of Christ, we all, like St. Paul the mother of the Galatians, look like Mary, are transformed into the Mother of God.
In Christ,
Matt
LikeLike
Dear Paul,
Some of the things I said were unfair and I apologize.
We shouldn’t blow off at the mouth (or rather at the keyboard) and name calling never get anyone anywhere.
However, at times one has to be callous about what we believe; Faith is the only thing we should be callous about. My problem is not with people who have difficulties with Marian piety. When I was a monk, a fellow novice was a convert from Presbyterianism, and I told him that to be a good Catholic, he had to have much Faith in the Mother of God. He listened and did not despise the long-established tradtions and attitudes of the Church when it comes to the Virgin Mary.
Some of what I have seen on this thread, however, is something entirely different. When someone posts something like:
“There are plenty of Catholics who try to deflect that and explain how they’re not really going too far, but seriously people, let’s get honest here. There are Catholics, especially in certain cultures, who have too central a focus on the Blessed Mother. She can tend to overshadow Jesus, not point to Him (as she should). That’s not good.”
…I find that offensive. Even though one could read this as, “those brown people down there who don’t know how to lay off the Mary worship”, I am not going to ask for an apology. I am not the one he should be apologizing to anyway. What this tendency constitutes is a bunch of converts being thankful that they don’t have to do what a lot of us (probably non-white) cradle Catholics are used to doing, and that is an entirely different attitude, and it is dangerous to the Faith.
And I refuse to be of the mindset that Vatican II changed anything. Just because in this country the liturgy, piety, and ethos of Catholicism were secularized to meet the tastes of a Starbucks-consuming, strip-mall shopping world doesn’t mean that such things were the work of the Holy Ghost. American exceptionalism is just that: exceptional. And as we immigrants and children of immigrants are set to take over the Church since we are the main cause of its growth, I would ask that you come to terms with the fact that it will only become more exceptional by the year.
Again, I know that the Mary question can be hard for Protestants when approaching the Church, but their attitude should be that of learning what the Church has been doing for 2,000 years without them. And thus I end by posting a prayer by a famous convert who came to love Mary as well, Cardinal Newman:
TRULY art thou a star, O Mary! Our Lord indeed Himself, Jesus Christ, He is the truest and chiefest Star, the bright and morning Star, as St. John calls Him; that Star which was foretold from the beginning as destined to rise out of Israel, and which was displayed in figure by the star which appeared to the wise men in the East…Hail then, Star of the Sea, we joy in the recollection of thee. Pray for us ever at the throne of Grace; plead our cause, pray with us, present our prayers to thy Son and Lord — now and in the hour of death, Mary be thou our help.
LikeLike
Paul,
I look forward to it. I live in an area that has a lot of Lutheran and Catholic influence here in the north. I am the kind of guy who keeps asking questions and wants to know the answers. I had several dialogs with a lady who was a devout Catholic several years ago and she used to give me reams of printouts. I will confess that I studied them and sometimes marked questions on things that didn’t add up for me. She was very gracious, but some of those questions never got a satisfactory answer. At least not one that I could harmonize with Scripture.
Shalom and Blessings,
Jeff M
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think I am going to enjoy typing with you. I can’t take time to write a full response now, but I will late this evening.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Arturo,
As a fellow Catholic I am saddened by your post. I feel injured for the sake of the people who you have failed to treat as brothers.
I am not a convert, but I have shared the journey with a few, and met, read, and listened to many others. A protestant becoming Catholic is no easy thing. I can only assume that you have never really considered how difficult it is or listened to someones story. If you had, I don’t believe you would be so callous.
The Marian aspects of the Church are extremely painful for protestant converts to confront. I personally have a cousin and good friend who is about 97% Catholic in belief who has been stuck on Mary for years, and he was raised in Catholic tolerant church in a primarily Catholic city. Some of the converts have been raised in churches where Marian devotion is regularly condemned as paganism and idol worship. For them to pray the Rosary feels about as foreign to them as praying to Mecca would to me.
I would really appreciate it if you would post some kind of an amends.
Now, we live in a Post Vatican II world for a reason, because the Holy Spirit prompted the Church to hold a council and reformulate the language and structure we use to present the faith. Making the Ave Maria’s and St. Michael prayers optional was part of that for precisely this reason.
I will agree with you to this extent. I have already been praying for these converts that there pain will be eased, and that the Blessed Mother will welcome them and help them to grow even closer to Jesus her Son and our Lord and Savior.
I suggest you pray a Novena for that intention, and I will do so as well.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
IMonk, you wrote:
But the more recent ones, and the more recent attempts to make all of this “Biblical†via various exegetical adventures, almost seems like tests for how much a Protestant is willing to surrender over to the teaching of the church what cannot be discovered or articulated any other way except dogmatically.
I think you are right. I’ve noticed that many Protestant converts to Rome, including myself, rarely, if ever, did any serious research in the area of mariology. Usually they just accept it on authority, other times they only read some popular literature on the subject. I would suggest that you delve deeper into the issue of Catholic mariology. Aside from the Scriptures and the Fathers themselves, two good academic places to start are,
1.) Dr. Stephen Shoemaker’s work Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Dr. Shoemaker’s work is not an easy read, but it is well worth wading through. Half of his book consists of translations into English for the first time of the earliest literasture on both the Dormition and Assumption. This alone is worth the price of the book. (Unfortunately, I’ve already come across lay Catholics who have read the book, admitted that it was over their head, but proceed to use it for their apologetical purposes. Sad.)
2.) The Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder. Dr. Shoemaker is one of the many academic contributors of this volume, all of whom focus on various aspects of the Cult of the Virgin.
I hope you find these works of great help. I recommend them to you as someone who himself is struggling spiritually and who read, and is reading, these works in his quest for Christian Truth.
LikeLike
This thread has been very painful to read because it has made me deeply ashamed of most of the Catholics who have posted here. Marian piety difficult? Optional? Weird? This even from a man who is a priest of our Church? You know the last group of people in our church who attacked Marian piety from within? The Jansenists. Look it up.
Would any of you have converted prior to the Second Vatican Council? After Low Mass, you had to recite three Hail Marys and a Salve Regina after evey Mass, plus the prayer to St. Michael. How about the Ave Maris Stella, which is the liturgical hymn of Vespers to the Virgin:
HAIL, O Star of the ocean,
God’s own Mother blest,
ever sinless Virgin,
gate of heav’nly rest…
Break the sinners’ fetters,
make our blindness day,
Chase all evils from us,
for all blessings pray.
If this stuff is unpalitable, I would argue that you are not really Catholic, or at the very least you still have some major converting to do. To paraphrase Origen, you understand nothing unless you have laid your head on the heart of the Savior and have received His mother as your own. I don’t care what you have read and what you profess.
Hey if you gone this far, why not go farther? There has been no saint in recent memory that didn’t have a deep love for the Virgin and had recourse to her often. For me, there is no Marian “exaggerations”: de Maria numquam satis. And if you Catholics still have a problem with it, you still have a lot of “vainly repititious” rosaries to pray.
LikeLike
The church with “authority†(the Roman Catholic Church) has a false sense of unity and reality. Just because the RCC teaches one doctrine does not mean it’s unified. Unity in belief is far more important than unity of doctrine. The RCC does not have unity of belief…far..far from it. So, it is strange to me that Fr. Kimel concludes with the statement that “we need the church†for its authority and to have a faithful tradition. If the goal is to bind up the truth in books that so few can understand, then the RCC has done a pretty good job. For the majority of Catholics in Church on any given Sunday do not believe or understand the teachings of the RCC, nor do they want to or care.
John, I’d like to engage you on this point. I will not contest your claims about the quality of catechesis in the Catholic Church or the integrity of the personal faith of the majority of Catholics. I have no data from which to argue, and anecdotal evidence, whether yours or mine, is pretty worthless. I will say that one can level similar charges against most Protestant congregations. From what I can tell, most folks who go to church (whatever church) are not terribly interested in Christian doctrine. They tend to believe what they want to believe. I speak from 25+ years of pastoral ministry. But these kinds of comparisons are generally unhelpful.
My point about the necessity of authoritative tradition and a teaching office is quite limited. I am not trying to be polemical. I am certainly not trying to persuade any one reading this blog to become Catholic. But I am challenging, as strongly as I can, the claim that one can discern essential Christian doctrine simply by reading the Bible, without any doctrinal and hermeneutical guidance from an authoritative Church and tradition. In my judgment, sola scriptura is implausible and incoherent. It doesn’t work. On why it doesn’t work, I refer folks to my ruminations on sola scriptura and reading Scripture. I would love for folks to engage my arguments.
I have assumed a tone of “challenge” in this thread not in order to convince people to become Catholic but to encourage Protestant readers to look critically at their assumptions about the Bible and how they read the Bible. How do we properly read the Bible? It is not at all obvious how to do so. The Bible is a varied collection of texts written by multiple authors and redactors. Its genre is sui generis. It does not provide us hermeneutical instruction on how to read it rightly as one book. It does not tell us if it is formally and materially sufficient for purposes of Christian doctrine and practice.
When I was seminary I was taught that the correct way to read the Bible was by the employment of the historical-critical method. The writings of the Bible are ancient texts and we should read them as ancient texts, utilizing all the critical and historical resources at our disposal. The assumption is that once we have determined the historical-critical meaning of a specific text we have in fact determined its scriptural or theological meaning. But why should I assume this? This is certainly not how the Church Fathers read the Old and New Testaments, nor is it how St Paul and the Apostles read the Hebrew Scriptures. Consider the “Song of Songs”: is it a collection of erotic poetry, or is it a poem about the relationship between Christ Jesus and his bride the Church? A “plain” reading of the book supports only the former, yet all of the Church Fathers tell us it’s about God/Christ and Israel/Church.
The point here is nothing is obvious. It may seem obvious to a Protestant reader of the Bible that the Bible does not support Catholic and Orthodox beliefs about the Virgin Mary, but this only means that Protestants read the Bible differently than Catholics and Orthodox. It’s all a matter of which pair of glasses one is wearing.
LikeLike
I wanted to add a couple of things into the discussion. On the matter of the quote from 1 Tim. 3:15 to suggest that the Bible doesn’t claim to be the sole authority, it is only part of Scripture and not the whole counsel of it. 2 Tim. 3:14-17 says, “14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
This passage says that anyone who belongs to God(through faith in Christ Jesus), is capable of using Scripture to learn and be fit for God’s Kingdom. This isn’t the only passage like this either.
Secondly, Paul,
It is quotes like this, “For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,†that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.” that give me a lot of pause. I searched through Scripture and can find no reference to the church being a “means of salvation”. I am sure that you would agree that salvation is through Christ alone. What those of us outside the RCC hear in this statement is that Christ is only in the Roman Church. I know this isn’t what you intend to say from you other posts, but that is how this statement comes across. Let me go back to the heart of the question. Does the Roman Catholic Church have the infallibility that she claims to have, Papal or otherwise? I asked a few questions along these lines in a blog post a while back. I am genuinely curious about this. When I was studying church history and learning that the unity of the RCC was not as long-lasting and unassailable as I had been told, it made me start to wonder more.
LikeLike
There was a statement on here earlier on the subject of “ecclesial infallibility.”
Now I would define infallibility as “the incapacity to be wrong.” Ecclesial I would assume means the church. So, putting two and two together I would assume that “ecclesial infallibility” would mean the incapacity of the church to be wrong (and by church of course that would mean the Roman Catholic Church).
Perhaps one of the Catholic posters on here can clarify this a little further.
LikeLike
Michael
In Jesus Christ I sincerely value you as a brother and I have learned from you. I have quoted the Decree on Ecumenism extensively in this reply. I am not trying to bait you or convert you or shove “my church is better than your church” in your face. As I understand this conversation we are talking about Catholic Doctrine. You specifically refer to the Decree on Ecumenism twice.
Really, I can’t give a rational protestant reason to join the Catholic Church. So I must give an unapologetically Catholic one.
Should everyone who has providentially found themselves outside of the RCC make every effort to be in full communion?
Yes!
Why?
Because that is what Jesus Christ wants you to do.
“Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.” (Unitatis Redintigratio , Section 1, paragraph 1 -Emphasis mine)
What benefits in regard to Christ are not available to me as a Protestant?
I have to admit this sounds to me like “What prize do I get if I become Catholic?” I know that’s not what you meant. However, I think the better question is “how can becoming Catholic make me a better disciple of Jesus Christ?”
To answer your question I’ll quote the decree on Ecumenism again.
“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.” (Unitatis Redintigratio , Section 3, paragraph 4 – emphasis mine)
So you get to be “blessed with that unity that Jesus Christ” wishes to bless you with and you will “benefit fully from the means of salvation.” In addition of course you get to resign from the debating society, participate in the sacramental life of the Church, ……..Of course you question was specifically in regard to Christ.
Given what Vatican II and other recent ecumenical documents have to say, why can’t I say, “I choose not to enter the RCC, but to be a part of the church catholic.â€
You can. The real question is why would you want to do that?
I hope your sabbatical is going well.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for posting. I would like to respond and ask some questions. May I ask what city or diocese you grew up in?
Unity in belief is far more important than unity of doctrine.
I don’t see this as obvious. Do you mean to distinguish doctrine (official teaching?) from what belief? The Church believes what she teaches. Doctrine is what the Church believes. Now, what muddled ‘beliefs’ are in the head of any individual could easily differ. Is that what you mean?
The fact that the Church is composed of a bunch of broken people doesn’t mean it isn’t united.
For the majority of Catholics in Church on any given Sunday do not believe or understand the teachings of the RCC, nor do they want to or care.
Some days I might just agree with you, but really that is a very big statement. I would agree that hardly any Catholics fully and completely understand everything the Church teaches. I would also agree that the vast majority is not very motivated to further their understanding. There are also plenty who either believe something they incorrectly understand, or who choose to believe something they know is contrary to faith but for whatever reason don’t or won’t resolve it. Then there are a few who I can’t for the life of me figure out why they still call themselves Catholic.
On the other hand, I don’t fully and completely understand everything the Church teaches although I do make an effort. I believe that a majority of practicing Catholics actually do believe what the Church teaches and understand the faith reasonably well.
It would be outrageous to claim that the majority of Catholics have no idea what the Church teaches, and that the majority don’t believe any of the correct doctrines.
There is a lot of room for better Catechesis and faith formation and many Bishops are making some remarkable progress.
A relationship with the Triune God was not encouraged. I cannot think of one person from my youth who is a practicing RC.
John, I’d like to hear more about your experience. My own education and catechism was very deficient and that is a common experience for those of us who came of age in the 80’s.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Michael,
In reading through this whole conversation, I was most intrigued by your following three paragraphs:
I simply don’t believe that God allowed me to live my life till I am 51 in the Baptist church, and now, thanks to internet apologists for the RC, I need to resign, become jobless and go get something in the Eucharist that, in my experience, isn’t producing anything distinctively more Jesus-like than my own tradition.
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him. And I’m quite serious. If the invitations of Jesus to come to him don’t apply to me wherever I and my simple faith in Jesus happen to be, then it’s Buddhism for me.
I don’t have these anxieties about what is the true church. Jesus is the mediator and Jesus is enough. No church dispenses him.
At first glance that first paragraph seems to be an implicit argument. The conclusion of the argument is that the Catholic Church’s claims [viz-a-viz the sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist] cannot be right. The premise of the argument is that God would not let you be so wrong for so long. But God lets many people (billions) be wrong their whole lives. What makes you so special? (In other words, the argument looks like special pleading — “I know God lets billions of other people be wrong, but He wouldn’t let me be wrong.”)
But maybe you aren’t making an argument there. Maybe you are just stipulating what kind of a God you want to believe in. In your second paragraph, that seems to be the sort of thing you are doing. You don’t seem to be arguing there for a particular ecclesiology; you seem to be saying that if God hasn’t set up things such that He is equally available in all denominations, or that He is no less available apart from the [visible] Church than within it, then you won’t believe in Him. It seems to me that a more humble, open stance is one that says, “Whatever way God has set things up, that’s what I will believe.”
As for your claim in your third paragraph that “Jesus is the mediator and Jesus is enough. No church dispenses him.”, you seem to be making use there of a monocausal conception of mediation such that if Jesus is the mediator between God and men, then nothing else can be the means by which Jesus is conveyed to men. But “how then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” Since preachers are a means by which Christ is communicated to people, therefore simply because Jesus is the mediator between God and men, it does not follow that there are no ecclesial means by which Jesus is communicated to men. I think the gnosticism Fr. Kimel referred to is one that separates Jesus from the Church, and therefore separates salvation from the sacraments. But the sacraments are that from which the Bride of the Second Adam is made. Therefore, the sacraments are the means by which we receive the salvific life of the Second Adam. And the sacraments come to us through the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
The church with “authority” (the Roman Catholic Church) has a false sense of unity and reality. Just because the RCC teaches one doctrine does not mean it’s unified. Unity in belief is far more important than unity of doctrine. The RCC does not have unity of belief…far..far from it. So, it is strange to me that Fr. Kimel concludes with the statement that “we need the church” for its authority and to have a faithful tradition. If the goal is to bind up the truth in books that so few can understand, then the RCC has done a pretty good job. For the majority of Catholics in Church on any given Sunday do not believe or understand the teachings of the RCC, nor do they want to or care.
I grew up in the RCC and left 2 years ago. I was taught to pray the rosary and that if I did not go to church on Sunday I would go to hell. A relationship with the Triune God was not encouraged. I cannot think of one person from my youth who is a practicing RC. Now my parents read apologists like Scott Hahn and are serious about their faith. They are shocked that none of their children embrace the fullness of the faith as they do. They use the tone that Fr Kimel used in his comments when trying to show us the way. It doesn’t work.
LikeLike
When I was teaching children in the Catholic Church, I made sure that my co-teacher taught both the rosary and the Marian doctrines. (The rosary still reminds me of “vain repetitions†even though I know the history of it)
Thank you, Anna! Thank you! That’s one of the things that’s hard to say when you’re a Catholic convert. I tend to let a lot of the Marian stuff slide, because I do feel really weird with it. I doubt she’s terribly offended by that. 🙂
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I certainly am, Michael. While Protestant apologists (the ones specializing in Catholicism, anyway) tend to come across angry, the Catholic ones come across smarmy and superior, as though they’re just waiting for you to get a clue and see how right they are. The best exception I’ve seen to that is Thomas Howard, who is respectful without having to feign it. But yes, I can enjoy the convert apologists because I agree with them, but if I were a Protestant, they’d get on my nerves something fierce. Scott Hahn included. (Although he intimidates me intellectually.)
LikeLike
Scott M
Thanks for your reply. I wish I would have been less confrontational last night when I typed. Thanks for not taking offense. I think we would go too far off topic to get into a full discussion of the relationship between the eastern and western churches and protestantism. I also, am not any where near an expert on Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity.
In my posts today I have refrained from referring to the Roman Catholic Church and am simply saying the Catholic Church – because that is how Catholics think. I only use RCC here to try to get along. When I refer to the Catholic Church I mean the Roman Church and all the other Churches – the Eastern Churches. Pope Benedict gave a talk a couple of weeks ago about relations with the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Churches where he Eastern Christianity as one one the lungs of the Church and stated that the Church needs to breathe with both lungs again. We don’t distinguish between western and eastern fathers of the Church, or between western and eastern church history.
You probably know that here are many Eastern Churches that are in full communion with Rome and and fully part of the Catholic Church: several Byzantine groups (Melkites etc.), Chaldean, Alexandrian, Abyssinians, Syrians, Uniat Church of Malabar, Armenians, Maronites. (as an aside, on Orthodox Patriarch and his flock of ? 8,000 ? I believe just last month re-established full communion with the Roman Church) I believe there are 16 different separated Orthodox Churches.
I will agree with you that Catholic thought has been dominated by western and Latin modes since Augustine and even more so since Thomas Aquinas. The Reformation originated in the west and is entirely western in thought. The style of philosophy and theology in the Western Church both Catholic and Protestant is distinct from Eastern. In that respect the two sides of the coin analogy is reasonable. However Protestantism, as it has evolved has rejected many parts of the Church that the western and eastern Churches continue to hold fast. According to Catholic (Eastern and Western) definitions, the protestant denominations are not even fully recognizable as Churches.
However- as I understand it – on the vast, vast majority of articles of faith and morals the Eastern and Western Churches are compatible. The formulations may differ, but they are compatible. (I am not an expert, and I would be willing discuss and learn, but we should probably find another forum)
Paul, I’m curious why you think I’m pitting EO against the RCC?
I took your post a little too strongly last night. Upon rereading today I wouldn’t make that particular accusation.
I do think you are setting up an unhelpful dichotomy, but I think the same of most of the modern EOs in America that I know and have read. My impression is that the EO church in America puts a lot of emphasis on the differences with the Roman Church – maybe even to the point of exaggeration.
as far as I can tell, the general consensus within Orthodoxy
I don’t know if it is even possible to speak about the general consensus within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church in America maybe – but world wide? 16 different Patriarchs? I do think you are going a bit far in speaking for the Orthodox as a whole.
Regarding your comments on the inheritance from Adam and Marian doctrines: I am not well enough informed to debate, but I don’t ‘prima facia’ accept that you understand either Orthodox or Catholic teaching well enough to ‘contrast’ them.
I don’t want to fisk the rest of your response, so I will speak from my own experience. I was raised catholic and attended public and catholic schools, catechism class, ‘devout family’ began attending daily mass in high school, alter boy, lector, youth group, retreats, camps. catholic college for a time. I knew next to nothing about Catholicism until I started studying (after I got tired of Evangelicals asking if “I was saved”) in my late twenties and I still have a lot to learn. I find that it is very easy to be a ‘good’ catholic and a)either misunderstand or be unaware of any number of doctrines, b) be unprepared to explain my faith, c) be unaware that I don’t know what I don’t know.
The most amazing time in my life was when I discovered that there are so many incredible and interesting aspects of Catholicism that I NEVER encountered while doing all the right things as a middle class American Catholic. Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day (the Catholic Worker, Jacque Maritain), Fatima, St. John of the Cross, the Cloud of Unknowing….
Please don’t be offended that although I will concede you are well informed, I will question every statement you make about Catholocism and most often I will have some beef with it – whether I choose to say so or not. Truth is that it is the same for people I meet at Mass, members of my family, and even the Priest at the parish I visited last week. On some things (not faith and morals) I will even quibble with Pope Benedict XVI himself.
Learning to think with and understand the Church while growing in spirit and prayer and raising children to love God the greatest gift God could ever give me. The Catholic faith is not a bumper sticker faith – there are dozens of facets to everything.
Have a Blessed Sunday
Paul
LikeLike
Paul:
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I am not disappointed in how apologists or convert apologists present the RCC.
I am disappointed by how difficult it is to get past our cultural biases and communicate with one another on anything substantial.
I personally do not consider myself an apologist, and the reason I am participating in this forum is not to do apologetics. I am more interested in ecumenism and understanding each other.
I think the convert apologists in general have done a pretty good job of formulating good Catholic responses to protestant and particularly evangelical questions and accusations. It has been very helpful for many pew sitters like me a) understand where these questions come from and b) know that there is a reasonable answer and c) take the the time to learn more about my faith.
It is like each flavor of American protestantism is a different programming language. The apologists help me translate the questions into something that actually makes sense to me as a Catholic, and helps me understand the answer and some idea how to try to explain it to a protestant.
Apologetics is not the main way I relate to protestants. It is a tool available to use at times, but not primary. American convert apologetics is unique. it is not the way Catholics really think. It is a pretty good attempt to help Catholics translate, but it has limits.
I read this blog, and pay particular attention to the Catholic topics because I am trying to understand how ‘you all’ think. I grew tired of straight apologetics and debates years ago. I like the way you and many of your readers are usually interested in trying to actually understand each other, rather than win debate points. When I can, I try to contribute a little on the Catholic side.
I have practically memorized the Vatican II documents on ecumenism and the convert apologists sound like a completely different religion.
Ecumenism is one thing, apologetics is another? Ecumenism has to be balanced with everything else.
There are limits to ecumenism. Pope Benedict and JPII raised some hackles with statements about ecumenism relatively recently.
These are some of the cultural aspects of Catholicism that are seemingly difficult for protestants to see: it is messy, it takes time, there is more than one dimension to every issue. There are debates over ecumenism going on between different parts of the Catholic Church all the time. Thats why Benedict and JPII thought it necessary to clarify.
Certainly, to Catholics ecumenism does not mean that we surrender the truth.
Why do I react strongly to being told I’m a gnostic who can’t even ask the questions, understand mere Christianity, etc?
Fr. Kimel did not actually accuse you of being a gnostic or not understanding mere Christianity although I agree he cam across pretty strongly. He was expressing, pretty well, the feelings we have over here on the Catholic side.
To a Catholic, it is like some of your questions are written in the wrong programming language. I am pretty sure you don’t have any idea how loaded and aggressive they sound to us. I might take a shot at answering them later if anyone is interested, but I don’t have time today.
That is a big part of the problem in understanding each other. American protestantism in particular asks questions and wants answers in ways that are not totally compatible with the Catholic way of thinking.
Enjoy your sabbatical week, my prayers are with you and Denise.
Paul
LikeLike
There is a lot of talk about the presupposition from RCs re: Tradition, but there is also presuppostions from Protestants about the Bible as the only source of teachings.
The Bible itself says that it is not the sole authority. “The church is thbulwark and foundation of truth” 1TIM 3:15
LikeLike
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him.
Michael, I have never said this; I have explicitly stated the opposite, both on this blog and on my own blog. This is not the issue.
I am arguing against your claim that you can discern “mere Christianity” merely by reading the Bible with your “mind on.” You note that there are many forms of sola scriptura out there, but you have not yet articulated precisely what that means (no doubt you have done so in other blog articles). But it really doesn’t matter, because all forms of sola scriptura, no matter how much honor is given to secondary authorities, elevate the individual’s private reading of Scripture (and tradition) over all secondary authorities. This is as true for Lutherans and Reformed, as it is for Baptists.
All of us want to believe that the body of beliefs that we happen to hold at any precise moment in fact represents essential Christianity. We have to believe this, because to believe otherwise is to call into question our deepest faith commitments. But I presume that the purpose of this conversation is to examine these deepest commitments.
Am I advancing a form of presuppositionalism? Perhaps I am, though I have never read Van Til. I am not a philosopher, but I suppose I would want to provisionally claim that we are all presuppositionalists in one way or another. Is not your commitment to sola scriptura, in whatever form you hold it, in fact a presupposition? Does it not function as an unshakable paradigmatic structure through, by, and in which you read the Bible and reflect on Christian doctrine? You didn’t logically deduce sola scriptura from your faith in Christ (one can be a Christian without believing in it–most have), nor did you learn it by reading the Bible (the Bible “teaches” no such doctrine). Yet you remain convinced that you can determine the fullness of Christian doctrine simply by reading it with intelligence and good sense. This sounds like a presupposition to me.
It is precisely this presupposition that I wish to challenge. You, of course, are free to challenge my presuppositions. 🙂
With all due respect, it continues to fascinate me that the discussion on this web site seems to have this tension between any one of us being part of the true church and belonging to the real Christ NOW, vs the importance some people feel of moving TO the EO or the RCC as the end of their journey.
This tension is present because it is a tension expressed in your own writings. We all seek to “defend” our religious commitments. This is as true for those who opt out of the denomination landscape as for those who remain within this landscape. Michael, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian cannot help but advance his conviction that the fullness of the Christian faith is located within his ecclesial tradition and community. Catholics and Orthodox are not ecclesial relativists. They cannot accept the position that all Churches are equal. They truly believe that Christ has founded a visible, sacramental, doctrinal Church rightly ordered in time and space. Those who disagree with the the Catholic-Orthodox claim will of course find the claim offensive, just as non-Christians find the evangelical claim that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life offensive. So the tension to which you allude is inevitable. The only way for us to avoid it is to become thoroughgoing relativists; but I don’t suppose you are willing to take that step. I know I am not. But we can still have a civil conversation and can learn from each other.
You appear to have taken offense to my allusion to the pietistic and gnostic roots of American religion. I did not intend to offend, and I apologize. I simply believe it to be the case that pietism-gnosticism is the worldview into which you and I have been born and raised. It is the air we breathe. It shapes our thinking and acting in deep and pervasive ways. Whether this influence is good or bad is an interesting question. I happen to believe that in important ways classical catholic Christianity stands firmly against it, but even as I say this, I have to acknowledge the conflict within my own heart and history. My family has deep revivalist-Pentecostal roots. I gave my heart to Jesus numerous times at summer camp in Black Mountain, North Carolina. I have been baptized in the Spirit. I have received the gift of tongues. I have sung in the Spirit at prayer and praise meetings. I am fluent in Jesus-language. Nobody but us pietists here. I can no more renounce this history than I can renounce my self. But pietism also has a dark side, as you know. My spiritual challenge of the past thirty-some years has been the healing, correction, and integration of this history into the sacramental-catholic faith to which I was converted thirty-three years ago. I have only been partially successful. On many days I stand at the abyss and gaze into the darkness.
I return to the question: What is “mere” Christianity and how is it possible to recognize and identify it? One thing is clear to me: one does not identify it simply by reading the Bible. Whatever else the Bible is, it is a varied collection of different kinds of texts written over a period of a thousand years. It is not a comprehensive compendium of Christian beliefs and practices. It is not a catechism. It is not a systematic theology. It is not a book of liturgical instruction. It is not a book of canon law. I grant that some Christians read the Bible in these ways, but it is not obvious that they should do so. As Richard Swinburne notes, “The Bible does not belong to an obvious genre which provides rules for how overall meaning is a function of meaning of individual books.”
If a Martian were to visit earth and pick up a copy of the Bible, with no knowledge of Christians and Churches, would he be able to comprehensively reconstruct Christian belief and practice? I do not think so. We need more than a “mind on.” We need a community of faith. We need authoritative and faithful tradition. We need the Church.
LikeLike
The point of my little book was that since DVC was directed at devaluing the Bible as an authoritative source for the truth about Jesus…to make the case (!) for the Bible’s authority in that respect. As you recall, the DVC was all about saying the Gospels were untrustworthy because they were the result of patriarchal politcal machinations and all while the Gospel of Thomas, etc., held the Real True Truth.
That’s all.
LikeLike
One of the books that I found to be real helpful during the Da Vinci Code discussions a couple of years ago was “De-Coding Da Vinci” by RC writer Amy Welborn. On the last page she writes this:
“Curious about Jesus?
The truth is as close as a book on your shelf.
And no, it’s not The Da Vinci Code.
Don’t let a novelist with an agenda instruct you in the ways of faith. Go back to the beginning, and go to the source: Pick up that Bible.
You might be surprised at what you find.”
Interesting that she tells her readers to pick up the Bible to find out about Jesus. Can they really understand what it says about Jesus without the magisterium of the Church to explain it to them? Did she make a mistake in leaving that out?
LikeLike
Oh, and though I’m aware that the Roman Catholic Church invites Orthodox to communion, I also do have a couple of Orthodox friends. And after the funeral of an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic friend of ours, one Orthodox friend explained to me some of the reasons they are not allowed to take Roman Catholic communion. I’m not sure we achieve anything when we simply gloss over very real differences even as we pray for all schisms to be healed.
LikeLike
Paul, I’m curious why you think I’m pitting EO against the RCC? I didn’t say anything about the differences that I haven’t heard and read from a very wide array of EO voices. As far as I can tell, the general consensus within Orthodoxy are that RCC and Protestantism are flip sides of the same coin. And I tend to agree.
I’m very much still learning about Orthodoxy. But I do know quite a bit about the Roman Catholic Church. For reasons related to the neighborhood in which we lived and not religion, I did attend a Roman Catholic school from 6th to 8th grade. And since I was exploring many different spiritualities with my family (and my mother in particular) and had been raised in a way that left me interested in such things, I actually paid attention and asked questions in religion class and at Mass. Further, after traveling many different paths, my mother did convert to the RCC sometime in the late eighties, before I was anything identifiably Christian. She’s now the principal at a mission Catholic school serving mostly non-Catholic poor families. And I’m looking right now at the large second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on my desk. I’m hardly an expert on Catholicism, but I’m at least as well informed as most lay Catholics. (Oh, and my wife was raised Roman Catholic. And other parts of my family are as well.)
And on pretty fundamental questions such as the nature of our inheritance from Adam and the nature and purpose of the Incarnation and atonement, Roman Catholicism took a medieval turn in a different direction than Orthodoxy. And on questions such as that, they are largely more similar to Protestants these days than Orthodox. That’s not particularly surprising since Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are both branches from the same Western tree.
LikeLike
Paul:
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I’m not RC and I am.
I have practically memorized the Vatican II documents on ecumenism and the convert apologists sound like a completely different religion.
Why do I react strongly to being told I’m a gnostic who can’t even ask the questions, understand mere Christianity, etc?
Because of this document, which doesn’t sound at all like the convert apologists.
LikeLike
I’m very disappointed how this dialog has concluded. On reflection it seems pretty typical of the last 4 or 5 here. I am finding it difficult to write a measured and charitable response at this time.
I am discouraged Michael has reacted so strongly to Fr. Al (unnecessarily but understandably I suppose).
I am a bit angry that Scott feels so well informed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that he can pigeon hole both of them and pit them against each other. One thing I’d really like to SHOUT right now is that Catholicism (both Roman and Eastern) is a lot, LOT bigger on the inside than it looks like from the outside, especially if you’re looking at a protestant bookstore at reading protestant authors. Two sentence summaries of Catholicism just don’t cut it (they sound really stupid to anyone who has ever really studied Catholicism from Catholic sources – the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great start but only scratches the surface).
I hope to be able to post something more useful on this thread after some prayer and a good nights sleep, Mass, Holy Communion, a donut and a cup of coffee.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how I would even characterize my journey, much less guess what the destination will be. I’m coming to believe that, if things were different than they are in the US today and in my family, I could perhaps be Orthodox with a less ironic faith than I would have either in Roman Catholicism or any variant of Protestantism I’ve examined. But things are ever what they are, and it seems unlikely I will ever test that idea. That doesn’t bother me like I think it would some because my entire Christian journey has been a path of radical change for me over the past fifteen years or so. I don’t think I expect that change to stop now.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the podcast I mentioned. It wasn’t really about conversion to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, but rather how she would frame her “testimony” differently now. It included thoughts like: I was saved 2,000 years ago (through the work of Jesus). I am being saved now. I will be saved at the final judgment of the living and the dead. That’s why I said I thought you might like it.
If I remember correctly, the last King of Ethiopia was a devout Christian. And his nation was much more Christian under him. I believe Ethiopia was part of the 6th century schism over Chalcedon (but I have to admit I’m not sure). Still, it is certain that Africa has suffered much especially from colonialism and post-colonialism. Ethiopia is not now what it once was. And the more central areas of Orthodoxy have faced persecution particularly under the Ottoman Empire. And the more north Orthodox have suffered this past century under communism. Still, I could pick any number of students just in my own community who go to church but have no real idea what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think that can be pegged to a tradition.
I thought of Glory to God in particular because of some things you’ve written recently. Father Stephen have some thoughts which seem very similar in his essays on a one-story versus a two-story universe. It occurs to me that there is a shorter summary of those thoughts in a lecture available in the last two episode of the OCF podcast. I think the lecture is about an hour long and divided into two podcasts. If you didn’t want to spend much time, you might want to just listen to that lecture. I also think you might like Father Stephen because he lives and ministers in the mountains not too distant from where you do. Many of his podcasts relate to that culture.
Take care and enjoy your sabbatical.
LikeLike
Thanks Scott. I’ve listened to Frederica Mattewes-Greene and Simply Orthodox for a while.
I’m always interested to learn more about Orthodoxy. Many of my students are Ethiopian Orthodox, and without being disresepctful, I rarely meet one with even a basic understanding of Christianity.
Learning about Orthodoxy where I live is a bit like learning about the Inuit. They’re not around here. A few in Lex two hours away.
With all due respect, it continues to fascinate me that the discussion on this web site seems to have this tension between any one of us being part of the true church and belonging to the real Christ NOW, vs the importance some people feel of moving TO the EO or the RCC as the end of their journey.
I’m on the first journey. I’m not on the second. Conversions stories are interesting to read, but my belief that God has me where he wants me and that God has no interest in me changing denominations is solid.
Frankly, the conversions stories I am reading are people who’ve abandoned the denominational landscape altogether. (See the God Journey Podcast for example.)
Peace
MS
LikeLike
Hmmm. For years I actually assumed that Orthodoxy was simply an Eastern variation of Roman Catholicism. Over the course of the last couple of years, though, I’ve discovered how mistaken that assumption was. Most of the Orthodox I’ve read or heard would tend to say that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are more similar to each other than either is to Orthodoxy. I have a pretty decent grasp (without the caricatures and straw men often employed) of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. And I’ve always said, contrary to much of what I hear, that they aren’t actually all that dissimilar.
As an adult convert to Christianity (more or less — the reality is actually more complicated and a longer story) from a varied spiritual background, but certainly with a lot of far Eastern influence, I read Scripture and always seemed to read it differently than my fellow Protestant wayfarers. Since I’ve also always had an interest in ancient history, I naturally studied the history of the Church and read much that I could find from the first millenium especially. (Most of those ancient preachers and writers are Eastern, not Western. Just an aside.)
However, it was only when I actually began reading and listening to Orthodox writers and speakers from more or less present times that I realized that many of the things I understood from Scripture that seemed so different from the things my fellow Western Christians understood were actually extremely similar to Orthodox understandings. Protestants largely took the Western philosophical and scholastic approach of medieval Roman Catholicism and cranked it up to the nth degree. But on most of the fundamental matters of the faith, including how you understand and know God (largely through the exercise of your mind) they are both very similar to each other.
Michael, if you ever have some spare moments, you might want to visit the ancientfaith.com website and listen to some of the “Glory to God” or “Pilgrims from Paradise” podcasts. Having listened to all episodes of Internet Monk Radio ever released on the internet, I think you would enjoy both of those podcasts even where you disagreed with them. I also love the “Close to Home” podcasts, but they may not be to your taste. Still, you might enjoy the way Molly Sabourin would tell her conversion testimony today. (Apparently it was a requirement in a class at the evangelical college she attended.) I think that was sometime last February. And you might also like the one on Forgiveness Vespers from this year’s Lent. (And Orthodoxy still follows the older calendar which always places Pascha on or after Passover, so it was much later than Easter on the Roman Catholic calendar this year.)
Anyway, the Orthodox would agree that there is no room to establish the new Roman Catholic dogmas. They look askance at the Immaculate Conception because they do not believe our inheritance from Adam is guilt for Adam’s sin. Rather, our inheritance from the ancestral sin of Adam is death. Jesus received our full nature, including death, through Mary, but through his divine nature was able to remain sinless. So the whole Roman Catholic and Protestant issue over Jesus having to somehow have something different about his birth so that he could be born free from sin is a complete non-issue in the Orthodox tradition.
And while the Orthodox do largely believe that Mary has also experienced in advance the Resurrection of her Son which we will all one day experience, that belief has very ancient roots. More importantly, though, it is not and will not ever be a dogma. The Orthodox do not have a means to add new dogmas. They do not have the means of innovation in the Apostolic Tradition which both Roman Catholics and Protestants have.
Theotokos or God-Bearer is a title given to Mary in defense of the Incarnation of Jesus. There was a heresy which held that Mary gave birth to only a human child and the divine nature was added later. And that is refuted by affirming that Mary gave birth to a fully human and fully divine Jesus.
Take care, Michael.
LikeLike
Well, this is Catholic Presuppositionalism. Impressive, Fr. Van Til. 🙂 Not only are my answers lame, I can’t even ask the questions right. As an American Protestant, I don’t even know what Christianity is. I’m only asking gnostic, Americanized questions that assume Jesus is available outside of the authorized franchise. In fact, the Christianity I am discussing isn’t even Christianity at all, but the Protestant reduced price version.
With all due respect, your rhetoric isn’t the rhetoric of your church’s documents on ecumenism. You’re preaching quite a different sermon.
I stated in another post that my “sola scriptura” assumptions are probably being misstated by you, as I believe in prima scriptura. No difference from your standpoint, but important to me. You’ve mentioned many Protestants who share your views, none of whom are Roman Catholics. That tells me something.
I simply don’t believe that God allowed me to live my life till I am 51 in the Baptist church, and now, thanks to internet apologists for the RC, I need to resign, become jobless and go get something in the Eucharist that, in my experience, isn’t producing anything distinctively more Jesus-like than my own tradition.
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him. And I’m quite serious. If the invitations of Jesus to come to him don’t apply to me wherever I and my simple faith in Jesus happen to be, then it’s Buddhism for me.
I don’t have these anxieties about what is the true church. Jesus is the mediator and Jesus is enough. No church dispenses him.
Thanks for the invigorating exchange.
LikeLike
Is it necessary for me to believe the magisterium is infallible in order to teach Mere Christianity?
But what is “mere Christianity,” Michael? What if what you believe to be mere Christianity is but a gutted version of full Christianity? How can you, given your sola scriptura commitments, ever discern the difference?
Let’s bracket, for the moment, the question of the Pope. The answer to your question is still an emphatic yes. This is why I formulated “Pontificator’s First Law“: “When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.” It’s important not to leave Eastern Orthodoxy out of the equation. Catholicism and Protestantism are not the only authentic Christian options. Eastern Orthodoxy represents a form of Christianity that justly claims to be ancient and apostolic. And one thing is clear: on most doctrinal and sacramental matters, Orthodoxy is far closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. So when Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree (e.g., on sacraments, bishops, veneration of the Theotokos, invocation of the saints, etc.), should not this consensus weigh against contrary Protestant beliefs?
You ask what benefits of Christ are not available to you as a Protestant. Is this really the question you want to ask? Is it a question we should be asking? The question itself is profoundly American and reveals our deep pietistic and gnostic roots. Who needs the Church when one can get an unmediated Jesus? Harold Bloom’s *The American Religion* is necessary reading, as is Philip Lee’s *Against the Protestant Gnostics*. Stanley Hauerwas’s sermon for Reformation Sunday is also very much to the point.
What do we gain by becoming Catholic or Orthodox? Immediately comes to mind: the Eucharist–the Eucharist and all the sacramental mysteries of the Church! The saints and martyrs and all the company of heaven! The Blessed Virgin Mary! The irreformable dogmatic decisions of the ecumenical councils! The fullness of catholic faith and practice! The ascetical tradition and discipline! Unity with the apostolic Church founded by Christ! Deliverance from private judgment and the need to invent for oneself a personal theology!
There are all sorts of negatives, too, of course. Catholic and Orthodox parochial life is a mixed bag, and bishops can be both blessing and bane. For someone like myself who loves, and needs, the liturgy, American Catholic liturgical life can be exceptionally painful. Ultimately, though, I cannot and will not sell either Catholicism or Orthodoxy on the basis its superior fulfillment of our spiritual needs and desires. It’s probably and ultimately true, but it would be dishonest for me to assert that it is always the case. If it were, there would be far fewer converts from Catholicism and Orthodoxy to evangelical religion. Jesus is not limited to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (thank God!). But the fact that he is not limited to the visible catholic and sacramental structures of the Church does not mean that we should not seek to be found within those structures. What God wills for us is good for us.
So the only question that matters is, What does God will for us? Of course, whether I desire to embrace, whether I do in fact embrace, the good God wills for me is quite a different matter. My confessors know that I do not! May God have mercy upon me, a sinner.
LikeLike
Fr. Al:
One other comment/question and I’ll shut up.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is not uniformly and identically believed by Protestants.
For example, while I use the term, my actual view is the prima scriptura view as articulated by SOuthern Baptist theologian James Leo Garrett. Garrett wants to make it clear that he does not believe in scripture alone as authoritative or that he rejects tradition. Protestants like D.H. Williams are articulating a strong view of tradition and canon.
“Intelligent” Protestants have a variety of ways of articulating the relation of scripture and tradition.
LikeLike
>I honestly have a hard time understanding why intelligent Protestants do not see things as clearly as I see them.
Glad we got that out on the table. -) And you already provided my excuse 🙂
Do you believe my high school students need to have the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church to understand John 3:16?
And let’s assume that many Protestants agree with much of Catholicism- as I do- but not all. Is it necessary for me to believe the magisterium is infallible in order to teach Mere Christianity?
Should everyone who has providentially found themselves outside of the RCC make every effort to be in full communion? Why? What benefits in regard to Christ are not available to me as a Protestant?
Given what Vatican II and other recent ecumenical documents have to say, why can’t I say, “I choose not to enter the RCC, but to be a part of the church catholic.”
LikeLike
Why is does any Catholic have anything to say to any Protestant other that sentence: The Bible cannot be understood outside of the teachings of the RCC?
Because that is the precise and correct response to the Protestant claim of the perspicacity of Holy Scripture, just as the claim of perspicacity is the precise and correct response to the Catholic claim of ecclesial infallibility. And at this point we confront a fundamental difference which I do not know how to negotiate. Two conflicting paradigms are colliding.
I have to honestly say, with all love and respect, that I find the Protestant confession of sola scriptura, with the attendant confession of biblical perspicacity, incoherent, implausible, and impossible to believe. Michael, when you express your confidence that any believer can discern the fullness of Christian doctrine simply by reading the Bible with his “brain on,” I can only shake my head in disbelief, just as I know you shake your head when confronted with Catholic claims about the Eucharist or the Mother of God. Even as an Anglican I found biblical perspicacity far-fetched and absurd, which is why I relied so heavily on the Church Fathers and the Vincentian canon as my theological guides. It was only when I finally admitted the impossibility of *all* forms of Protestantism to stand intellectually against the skepticism and relativism of modernity that I then turned to the Catholic Church. I will not rehearse here the considerations I have found persuasive. I refer anyone who might find them of interest to my past blog articles on sola scriptura.
I will say that the theologians who ultimately prepared me for conversion to the Catholic Church were Protestant theologians, men like Robert Jenson, Richard Swinburne, George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas, Thomas Oden, and Lesslie Newbigin. In each of them, each in their own way, one sees the assertion of the necessity of authoritative tradition for the proper reading of the Bible. In the absence of such a tradition, the Bible cannot function as a dogmatic authority for faith and practice, as the history and diversity of Protestantism amply documents. The intellectual bankruptcy of Protestantism is so obvious to me, so crystal-clear and patent, that I honestly have a hard time understanding why intelligent Protestants do not see things as clearly as I see them. This is not to say that I believe that the truth of Catholicism is obvious. Quite the contrary. On Tuesdays and Saturdays I can easily see myself as Eastern Orthodox, while on Wednesdays I am ready to simply give up on the whole Christian game and return to the agnosticism of my youth. But I have decided to cast my fate on the see of Peter. If I’m wrong, then I’m in good company.
I well understand the difficulties the Marian dogmas pose. I’ve been there. Indeed, I have to admit that many forms of Marian devotion remain alien to me, and some forms I find deeply objectionable. But these difficulties pale to insignificance when compared to the difficulties posed by the drastic reduction of catholic belief and practice that is typical of most forms of Protestantism. I could continue, but I think I’ve said enough at this point. I’d be happy to amplify and expand if anyone so wishes. I hope that my rhetoric has not offended. It is not my intent to attack or offend. God bless.
LikeLike
I think because Mary did her work behind the scenes that it is hard to understand why the early Patristic Church loved her so much.
Maybe this video will help:
http://www.burkeingraffia.com/blog/may-31-mary-melanie-and-me/
Scott Hahn was one of my professors in college. He impressed upon me a poetic version of covenant theology that cannot be swallowed in a sound byte or put on a bumper sticker. He is just a man like the rest of us, but he is sincerely seeking the truth using every resource at his disposal. He is not the sort of person who is only out to sell books.
LikeLike
Michael,
If you don’t mind, I’m one convert who entered the Catholic Church with doubts about the Marian doctrines especially her Immaculate Conception. When I was teaching children in the Catholic Church, I made sure that my co-teacher taught both the rosary and the Marian doctrines. (The rosary still reminds me of “vain repetitions” even though I know the history of it)
For me, Scott Hahn was helpful in giving me words to help explain what I knew instinctively in my spiritual journey.
LikeLike
I meant “(because their marital relations would be considered non-marital relations).”
LikeLike
I know Wiki has some issues, but it states that the assumption has been around since at least the 3rd-4th century. It was dogmatically “confirmed” recently, but has been a part of little “t” tradition for some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
I agree that it’s a stretch to prove the assumption, immaculate conception, etc., based on the bible alone. Catholics are better off saying these things are part of tradition, and not “disproved” by the Bible.
Like you, I can see the reasoning behind most Catholic theology. My problem is the Catholic Church’s need to define certain seemingly benign activities as “mortal sin” (i.e. sin that, if not confessed to a priest, will cause you to go to hell). These things include deciding to sleep in instead of going to church one Sunday, a married couple using contraception once regardless of the reason, a Catholic marrying a non-catholic without church approval (because their marital relations would be adultery).
I want to belong to the historical church, but these ridged doctrines don’t seem to reflect the Jesus I see in the Gospels.
LikeLike
Does anyone else see the historical irony in the fact that RCs are quoting the scripture in English?
LikeLike
“One never hears a convert talking about “Here’s where I stake out my own practice in regard to Mary.†It’s always, “Here’s how I discovered the Bible really does teach all of it- and I just never noticed it before!—
Might it be worth exploring why that is?
Perhaps it is because…they’ve not left the Sola Scriptura paradigm behind?
And because in contemporary American Catholicism, any substantive way of making sense of faith, Scripture and Tradition has been abandoned on the popular level in the wake of Vatican II? And American Catholicism has, instead of staking out its own presuppositions on those matters, in this vacuum, subtlely accepted the presumptions of the Protestant worldview?
Just some thoughts. These folks came into the Church in which apologetics was a big no-no among the Catholic establishment In the absence of traditional Catholic apologetics, which has a long and substantive history and is not rooted in adopting a sola scriptura angle..they really had to create their own sense of what they were doing and why it made sense to them.
LikeLike
Michael,
I can totally relate to your post. I too have never been able to accept the Marian dogmas of the RCC. It really comes down to the authority issue that has been mentioned. My studies of church history in college made it painfully clear that there wasn’t a time when everyone in the early church saw Rome as the only authority. They argued with Rome and one of the bishops(in the 2nd century) even wrote to the Roman bishop and told him that his church would obey God rather than men(referring to the Roman bishop and his instructions to the church). This doesn’t sound like they felt the Roman bishop was infallible to me.
I like what you said, “I accept the fallibility of the church and trust in the sovereignty of God.”
Amen brother,
Jeff M
LikeLike
Arthuro,
As a former RC who was heavily involved in Catholic Youth Ministry, I eventually drifted into the Non-Denom world for 20+ years. What I appreciated from the Jesus movement was that they actually opened their bibles and read them. Of course, all the rapture teachings and Victorious Christian Life stuff eventually burned me out.
I came across New Covenant/Old Covenant teaching through Ray Stedman, which years later, I can see was an evangelical version of the Reformation Law/Gospel formulation. White Horse Inn carried me over the transom–and I have an appreciation for segments of my Calvary Chapel days–especially in the respect for Scripture.
Ultimately, as a Protestant, I have come to terms with the 5 Solas. As I follow Sola Scriptura, I have come to believe that Scripture as the Word of God–creates the Church, not vice versa.
When I used to see people prostrating themselves before statues of Mary or other Saints, or even Jesus, my skin would crawl.
As I’ve come to terms with the Finished Work of Christ on the Cross, looking to any other action on my part or other Mediator is repugnant.
As you mention non-believing lapsed catholics or atheists having some hidden love for Mary, despite despising Christ–I can’t see the benefit for anyone there. That Mary would lead them back to a false Co-Redemptor? As far as the feminine aspect–that is RCC compromise with paganism–much like the Emergents now. There is a reason that Jesus called God “our Father in Heaven” and emphasized His Sonship. The Church is the Bride of Christ and is to submit to the Son, not Mary. To put Mary between believers and Jesus borders on blaspheme, I would wager.
I know RCC makes a big deal out of Jesus giving Mary into the Apostle John’s care. Could this not just be a way to provide for Mary in her old age and nothing more? And in this case, such an action places Mary under the authority of John, in his household, not the reverse. This in effect quite disproves Mary’s authority in the church.
Jesus was born of Mary to prove that he was of Human Flesh. He did not need Mary to prove His Divinity–He could have appeared instantaneously and performed miracles and even suffered death on the Cross–but without the humanity given when he was born of Mary–people could say, sure Jesus died on a Cross, but so what! He was God!
God chose a lowly human girl named Mary, so that He might share in our human condition, yet by His power, he did not sin. How, is beyond me. By Faith, I believe in the only begotten Son of God.
LikeLike
Thanks Alan. Very helpful.
One never hears a convert talking about “Here’s where I stake out my own practice in regard to Mary.” It’s always, “Here’s how I discovered the Bible really does teach all of it- and I just never noticed it before!”
LikeLike
Lordy lordy, Michael Spencer, that’s some hard-core car time man. Scott Hahn, wow. I’m impressed with this though – that you did that, just engaged his thoughts and ideas. I think, however idealized his notions of the Catholic Church may or may not be, that he seems to be one of the more irenic “apologists” around in the convert camp. He does seem more of a scholar/teacher than a technical apologist for certain. I only have one book of his, Letter and Spirit, and I haven’t read all of it – seems decent. Anyway, I’ve seen him on TV and read here and there, this and that and like I said, I like his spirit, his tone as a person. He seems kind.
I’ll say this on some of the other you were talking about: I agree with you that the contemporary tendency among convert apologists to sometimes try to “prove” all things Catholic by the Bible alone ends up being very “gymnastic” at times. I’ve thought this myself – “uuuh, it’s not necessary to prove everything we believe by pointing to it, either explicitly or even implicitly, in Scripture.” It’s just not. As Catholics, of course, we would be committed to things in the Marian arena, for instance, not directly contradicting Scripture. Some may believe some of it does, but of course there are those pesky alternative interpretations. So, I’d say from my perspective, none of it does.
So, while there may be something to the Queen-Mother thing in the story of Israel and the Church, there needn’t be. I think Fr. Al mentioned that these Traditions didn’t come out of nowhere in the history of the Church. They’ve been there to one degree or another and have never been universally called out as something which blocks our faith in Christ. I’m not trying to prove anything to you – just laying out how I look at these things. I see the Marian dogmas and I don’t see a snag that gets in the way of my faith in Jesus. I feel enriched in it.
Now, I do agree there are many popular Catholic “abuses” in the area of Marian devotion. There are plenty of Catholics who try to deflect that and explain how they’re not really going too far, but seriously people, let’s get honest here. There are Catholics, especially in certain cultures, who have too central a focus on the Blessed Mother. She can tend to overshadow Jesus, not point to Him (as she should). That’s not good. I’m not saying that makes them non-Christian pagans, but it’s just not good, much as, perhaps, too great a focus on politics or sports overshadows Jesus in the lives of many Americans. Those things are of a different order, but hopefully the point is made. We certainly should all be careful to keep central and core things central and core and move out from there.
Just an interesting last thought too: Most, if not all, Marian devotions are NOT mandatory for Catholics. No Catholic HAS to say a Hail Mary or pray a Rosary. No Catholic is required to attend a May “crowning” deal. And you can add to that list tons of other popular devotions, which may well help a lot of people to grow in faith (in a very good way) but which are not central to the level of requiring these practices in connection to them. So, all Catholics theoretically believe the same things about Mary, but they certainly all don’t have the same focus on or devotion to her.
OK, as usual, I’ve not blogged at my place for a bit so I’m over here going off at the mind. Peace to you.
LikeLike
136? I truthfully don’t want you to change.
Joe
LikeLike
Two excellent recent books exhaust the topic:
Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker, David Gustafson (Brazos), Endoresed by a Whos Who on both sides.
You really have to already be convinced of Catholicism’s truth claims for Gustafon’s arguments not to hit home here.
Mary for Evangelicals by Tm Perry (IVP), sympathetic but realistic.
LikeLike
Susanne, though you and I have quite different beliefs in God and what he does, I appreciate your story.
Word to the gallery: please keep the discussion on Scott Hahn/Mary, not on conversion. Thanks.
Peace
MS
LikeLike
Our family rather parallels yours in a way. My husband grew up conservative Baptist — Tim LaHaye was the pastor at the church, high school, and college he attended in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. We’ve been attending an EV Free Church for 15 years this month.
About nine years ago, I became part of a small Internet community of women, made up mostly of homeschooling moms who needed a creative outlet and grown-up conversation on literature, theology, the arts, films, etc. Early on, one of the women converted from the Vineyard tradition (was a part of John Wimber’s original church) to Catholicism after praying for five years that her husband would be led by the Spirit to convert to the RCC as well. They accomplished their conversions with no strain on their marriage because the woman was willing to wait on God to keep His promise to her that He would bring them into the RCC together.
I am in a similar boat. The Holy Spirit revealed to me that my husband and I are to convert to Roman Catholicism too, but right now my husband is very anti-Catholic. He allows me to attend weekday healing services at a conservative Anglican Church, so I “get my liturgy fix” there at least plus I don’t have to grapple over the places I’m still uncomfortable with yet in Catholicism. I have read Scott Hahn’s conversion story and the conversion stories of other evangelicals to the RCC, and they’ve encouraged me greatly. I’ve recently read Hahn’s book on Mary as well, but I still didn’t understand all he was trying to express. I’ll reread it again in a few months.
I plan to wait until my husband converts, if he does convert, before I start going to Catholic Mass. I’ve already been waiting and praying for five years so far, and I’m sure I have *many* more to go on. I may have several months to wait, or, much more probably, several years to wait, or perhaps I’ll never convert in this temporal life. I don’t know. But our marriage is still strong because I don’t want to usurp familial leadership. Does that make sense???
I’ll continue praying for your family to have unity and peace.
– Susanne, who should not be posting blog replies at nearly 2:30 AM…..
LikeLike
Michael – I believe Hauerwas has moved from the Methodist Church of his upbringing to the Anglican Communion.
Regarding Hahn, why does it almost always seem to be largely educated WASPs who are so impressed by romanticized conceptions of the Roman Catholic Church, while 100,000s of Latinos, born and baptized Roman Catholics, are leaving Rome for evangelical forms of Christianity. There may be a sociological component to explain some of this exodus, but the majority of those who are leaving cannot be so easily dismissed.
You stated that Hahn is “a prominent Catholic scholar, apologist and Bible teacher, doing much to encourage Roman Catholic adults to understand their faith and especially its sources in scripture.”
Hahn presents an idealized, monolithic Catholicism that tends to appeal to people who don’t live in areas dominated by cultural Catholicism.
LikeLike
When I read Protestant conversion stories, there is almost always one common characteristic: a desire to get SOMETHING right out of all the options available.
This might be “who has the true Eucharist?” or “What is the church founded by Jesus?” or “Are the clergy in my church actually true ministers?” or “How can I know what is the true doctrine?” and so on.
I grew up with this in Landmark Baptist fundamentalism.
It never took with me. I have no anxieties about what is the “true” anything in Christianity.
I believe a fallible church was adequate for the Spirit to produce an authoritative canon.
I accept the fallibility of the church and trust in the sovereignty of God.
I believe that what it is important to know is revealed in the New Testament and can be known by an obvious reading. (If it’s important, it’s there. If it’s not important, it’s probably not there.)
I have no anxieties at all about belonging to Christ, going to heaven, are my sins forgiven, do I believe enough of the right stuff from tradition, etc.
When I read about the anxieties of converts, I simply can’t identify.
When I look at the RCC, I find much to admire, but nothing that persuades me that God dwells there in a way differently than he does throughout his church and among his people.
So I appreciate all resources, but my “wrestling” isn’t on a personal level. If you don’t know the story, you are obviously a new reader.
peace
MS
LikeLike
Michael,
Before I became a “revert” to the Catholic Church (having spend some 15 years as an Episcopalian), I too struggled with the Catholic Church’s devotion and emphasis on Mary. I could go along with it up to a point, but the more recent Catholic dogmas seemed to just be too much.
Having read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church twice during my spiritual journey, I felt I was being called “home to Rome.” But I couldn’t rationalize the Immaculate Conception. (The Assumption didn’t bother me as much, as there was biblical precedent, and Mary does “disappear” from historical record). How could Mary be sinless? And why all of this devotion and emphasis on her?
My difficulty was only resolved gradually and after much prayer. I asked the Lord to teach me to love His mother only as much as He does – neither more nor less. Over time, as I continued to ask this of the Lord, my difficulties subsided -and though I couldn’t “prove” these dogmas from Scripture or from the unanimous testimony of Tradition, I accepted them on the basis of the Church’s authority. (Was it Augustine who said something like “I would not believe in the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church”?)
Since that time, I have had a deepening appreciation for Mary, and for her role in our salvation history. Might I recommend a couple of books? You may be familiar with Pelikan’s “Mary Through the Centuries” – a very good overview. But I also highly recommend “Our Lady and the Church” by Hugo Rahner, SJ (Zaccheus Press).
God bless you! I enjoy reading your blog!
LikeLike
You’re 136 Joe.
LikeLike
Word to all readers: Augustine was screwed up on the subject of sex and so were lots of other revered early church writers. MAJORLY SCREWED UP.
I suspect that was because they came out of the sexual free-for-all of the Late Roman Empire. I’m in California, Ground Zero of the Sexual Revolution, and the constant in-your-face of SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! in any and every form except heterosexual monogamy has gotten me completely disgusted with even the idea of sex.
There’s even an “asexuality” movement gaining ground among college students; when you’re 18, been there/done that/got the VD, and as burned out on sex as a worn-out street whore, you get to the point you want nothing more to do with it. EVER.
LikeLike
Michael
Rereading your post, I feel the need to clarify a little. You wrote:
It makes Protestant-Catholic discussions really a moot point beyond a discussion of the authority of the church to define all answers to all questions.
Although I agree that authority is at the heart of many of the most fundamental issues that divide the Church, and RCC dogma ultimately comes down to the authority of the magisterium, that does not mean that all questions are answered by authority.
There is much in the faith that is not defined by dogma. In my previous few posts a few months ago, I alluded to the reality that the Catholic Church is not a monolith. In every respect there is much variety within the church. We catholics within the church find plenty to debate and discuss and argue about from within, and have done so for centuries.
Again, God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Arturo,
>I still don’t see why that is such a horrible thing, and maybe God doesn’t either.
I don’t know what blog you were reading that said the proper appreciation of Mary is “horrible thing,” or that I consider my brother Fr. Al to be promoting a “horrible thing,” but it wasn’t this blog and it wasn’t me.
I recommend you reread the “common ground on Mary” that I affirmed, and if there are some Jack Chick Protestants on this blog discussion, you might point them out. I’m missing them.
peace
MS
LikeLike
CoderForChrist: 3) Ever-Virgin. You mentioned that Hahn “avoided†Mark 3. While Hahn may have avoided that passage, that passage only disproves the Ever-Virginity of Mary when one assumes the Catholic tradition that says the “brothers†were cousins. A much older tradition, still taught in Orthodoxy, holds that Joseph was a widower when he took Mary, who had avowed herself as a virgin, into his household. There was never any intention to consummate the marriage in the first place, and Joseph already had children by his previous wife.
Are you referring to the Protevangelium of James?
LikeLike
” But as to purgatory, I think many Christians can find common ground between Ratzinger, Wright and Lewis.”
Wow, this sounds like Vatican 2 for at least some of Protestantism.
For John: “Take away the veracity of scripture and what is there? How does one opinion supersede any other? I guess that makes me a “bible-thumperâ€, but I can live with that.”
No one is doubting the veracity of Scripture. But as they said on the Simpson’s, “The Bible says a lot of things,” and thus are produced so many opinions – many of which are good and contain some truth. But in the end I think we need to approach Scripture like the noble Bereans who with the Spirit somehow were able to reconcile what the OT says and what Paul taught about Christ: That God actually was and is three persons, that all the passages on the perpetual covenant of the Sabbath of the OT no longer applies, that the perpetual covenant of circumcision means nothing, that all the food laws mean nothing, that Jews and Gentiles are now equally valued in the eyes of God. To find all this in the OT scriptures that the noble Bereans used would require a method Biblical interpretation not in common use today.
LikeLike
Michael,
It’s been a while since I have replied, but I have been following along faithfully. I continue to keep you in my prayers and now pray for your wife as well.
We RCs and other Christians have plenty to discuss together. We have much in common and much to share. As an RC I have learned a lot from my encounter with people of other backgrounds. I continue to learn a lot from reading your blogs.
When it comes to resolving some of the beliefs that divide us, I have found that it really does come down to authority and that is not only when it is RCC vs. any other although it is more starkly pronounced.
The truth is that none of us picked up a Bible, read it, developed our own logically consistent theology, morality, eschatology and christology and walked off in faith alone.
We all are part of some community and we all come at our faith with the guidance of others. Our very relationship with scripture and faith is formed in the mold of those who instruct us. We all accept many authorities as we walk in faith.
Many of our theological disagreements ultimately boil down to two things: our ‘mold’ or approach to the faith and the authority we accept – both informally (W.T. Wright or Piper) or formally (scripture alone, scripture and reason, scripture reason and tradition, or all of that plus the magisterium).
So I agree, at the bottom of the struggle with the the RCC over the Marian dogma’s is the impasse of authority. It doesn’t mean we don’t have anything to talk about, but it does mean that neither I or anyone else is going to argue you into the RCC and neither you or anyone else is going to argue me out of it. Although I am a cradle catholic, I have had my struggle with RCC dogma, I fought the battle and made the arguments and in the end… by the grace of God I found faith. Not unlike Scott Hahn and many other converts I eventually conceded that the Magisterium was correct in many of the issues I had argued, I made the decision to be open to faith, and over time, through prayer and study I came to trust the teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church.
Once I viewed the Christian faith WITH the Church and let myself and my thinking be conformed that mold, all my arguments were easily overcome.
There is no argument I can make from the Bible or any other source that will overwhelm all objections. Many others do a great job of explaining why the RCC makes sense, why it does not contradict scripture, how the papacy is biblical etc. I have lots of personal reasons I believe, but for me it all comes down to the gift of faith. Although I was born and raised in the RCC (and poorly catechized like 99% of my generation) it was not until I became willing to lay aside my obstinacies and arguments and learn that faith found me.
I will say this, paraphrasing someone: If it wasn’t for the authority of the Magisterium I would not believe in the Bible.
God Bless
Paul
LikeLike
Amen imonk,
I’ve learned some great things from reading a few of Hahn’s books, but that guy talks way too fast for me to follow. I don’t really understand all of the Marian doctrines, and I don’t enjoy the old church ladies making me feel guilty for not praying my rosary (it’s just not my cup of tea).
I’m really glad that understanding the bible and church doctrine is not one of the commandments.
LikeLike
“That’s why I say that all of this seems to me to just be various versions of “Will you submit to the judgment of the church in all things?†And that’s fine, but I prefer the direct method to the idea that it’s all there in the Bible if I’d just read it with my brain on.”
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, although I disagree that “it’s all there in the bible”.
LikeLike
Fr. Al,
Excellent points, so with all due respect- and I mean that sincerely- I have a question.
Why is does any Catholic have anything to say to any Protestant other that sentence: The Bible cannot be understood outside of the teachings of the RCC?
We asked a RC to join the BHT last year. After a few months, I deleted him, because he wouldn’t talk to us. He answered all our questions with “The Church teaches X, and until you submit to the church, all your Bible study is just going to get you more confused.”
I was annoyed at the time, but now I have to say that seems precisely on target.
It makes Protestant-Catholic discussions really a moot point beyond a discussion of the authority of the church to define all answers to all questions.
peace
MS
P.S. Hauerwas is a Methodist isn’t he? 🙂
LikeLike
I got my first Scott Hahn tape when I was in the Legion of Mary as a teenager. It was given to me by a very holy blind woman who was very devoted to the Virgin.
I would like to know, then, what Protestants think when they read John 19: 26-27:
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” [KJV]
First of all, what type of son would Christ be to deprive His brothers and His sisters of the presence of their mother? That’s why Catholics say that He was an only child.
Secondly, do Protestants give any meaning to these verses? Or is it just some quaint text that we have to skip over and that the Papists make too much of a big deal about?
I think no devout Catholic can read these verses without getting a lump in his throat and even a bit teary eyed. Especially in more traditional Catholic cultures, we learn to love Mary from the cradle. Often, we are surrounded by pictures of her, and the Ave Maria is probably one of the first prayers we learn how to recite, even before we could really talk. I guess for us Catholics, it’s nice to have another mom. Even many apostate atheist Catholics who hate Christ and are the most vehement anti-clericalist still have a secret love for His mother. I can’t explain that. It’s just the way it is, and in truth that type of love has led even the worst unbeliever back to the Church.
Maybe Jack Chick is right. Maybe it is some form of goddess worship that has contaminated the “pure Gospel”. However, maybe that is something that God had planned all along: maybe He knew that the feminine is such a powerful archetype in the religious consciousness of human beings that He knew that people would venerate His mother and have recourse to her. I still don’t see why that is such a horrible thing, and maybe God doesn’t either.
LikeLike
That said I was recently blogging about a Christian history textbook I borrowed from a friend (Justo Gonzalez’ The Story of Christianity, very good read btw) and was struck by how recent some of the Marian dogmas are – the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary are both dogmas based on Papal pronouncements and are pretty recent (approx. 1850 and 1950). Historically speaking you could be a faithful Catholic without believing Mary was born free of original sin and bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her life… Even the Tiber shifts in its banks from time to time…
This objection fails to take into consideration that the simple fact that all dogmatic definition occurs *in history*. Before the Council of Nicaea Arian-like ambiguity about the identity of Jesus and his relation to the Creator was open to all Christians. It was only after the Nicene dogmatic definition and its incorporation into the mind of the Church that it became clear that “orthodox” belief required the assertion of an identity of substance between the incarnate Jesus and God the Father. And similar observations can be made about all the dogmas of the Church.
The Marian dogmas may well “look” late to us, but in fact, as far as we know, we are still in the “early” days of the Church. In the fourth century, many considered the homoousion of Athanasius to be an innovation and novelty and rejected it on that basis. See R. P. C. Hanson’s *The Search for the Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381*–and in one sense they were quite right.
Put aside, for the moment, the alleged novelty of the Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Consider, rather, the novelty of Protestant rejection of Marian veneration. Consider the novelty of Protestant rejection of the “practical” sinlessness of Mary and of her perpetual virginity. Consider the novelty of a form of Christianity in which the person of the Theotokos is absent in Protestant preaching, worship, and devotion. And all of this is justified in the name of the plain reading of Scripture, yet who before the 16th and 17th centuries ever read the Scriptures so as to reduce Mary to one sinner among many? How many Protestants are happy to say with St Augustine: “Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.” When the “direct” reading of the Bible leads to such drastic reduction of the faith catholic, then I suggest that it is time to stop reading the Bible with one’s “brain on” and start reading it in faith *with* the Church.
The Bible simply cannot be properly read apart from the mediation of the Church.
Or as Stanley Hauerwas provocatively puts it: “No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America.”
LikeLike
Hahn routinely claims that he can defend any Catholic teaching using only the Bible. That doesn’t necessarily make Catholicism credible; it just means that he probably belongs on TBN rather than EWTN. Rationalism to the rescue yet again. But if it is wrong for Hahn to do it, protestants should probably knock it off, too.
As a protestant, Mary is very important to me, particularly as an example of faith and God’s grace. I think because protestants tend to overlook Mary they never truly grasp the significance of the incarnation. I believe Mary should be honored among protestants, because the Mighty God has done great things through her by His grace. This is in keeping with what Luther called the proper way to recite the Ave Maria. Our prayers should imitate Mary’s fiat, just as Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy will be done”.
I can’t as a protestant accept the view of Mary as comediatrix. There is one mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5) and Jesus Himself who intercedes for us (Hebrews 7:25). Jesus tells us to pray to the Father ourselves in His name (John 16:23-24)! We are called to boldly approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). No where are we told to go through proper channels or some social/spiritual network. But I, too, believe the saints in heaven do pray for us, just as we are called to pray for each other here on earth.
I really believe there is a connection between this issue and what enables the creation of personalities like Todd Bentley. We are in real trouble when we believe someone else will get a different answer to our prayer request than the one we would receive by praying ourselves. That is not intercessory prayer. It is grace-by-merit via the backdoor. No one has more access to the Father through Jesus than anyone else! The Father loves us equally, because of Jesus. We need no other mediator. It doesn’t take courage to approach a loving God; it takes courage to believe that it is all true: that He truly loves us individually and welcomes us into His presence. Grace is scary stuff. It throws all our cowardly excuses out the window.
Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.
LikeLike
Before 1850, I could have been a good Catholic and embrace those who believed things about Mary that I didn’t.
Nothing profound to add here, it’s just that I have often had similar thoughts and, until now, never heard anyone else say this. Nice to finally hear it elsewhere. And it wasn’t any help (from my Protestant perspective) that when the Pope made that ex cathedra proclamation (Yes, my RC brothers and friends, the only one in history. Yes, I know!) he punctuated it by saying that if anyone rejects one part of the Catholic faith, he rejects the entirety. Pretty much a deal breaker for alot of folks.
LikeLike
Please, forgive me if I am overstepping any bounds, but I thought I’d take a look at some of the things said about Mary, from the view of one who moved from Protestantism past Catholicism to Orthodoxy only a year ago (which means I’m pretty darn ignorant about a lot of things). Part of why I thought I’d post this is because the Orthodox have a number of similar objections to Catholic Mariology as Protestants do.
1) The Queen-Mother issue. I don’t recall hearing any Orthodox make a big deal out of this; it seems primarily the realm of Catholic scholars. This may just be a result of not hearing much in the way of Orthodox apologetics.
2) Recent Marian dogma. I assume by this, you’re referring to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. On this points, my understanding is that the RCC not only lacks Biblical evidence, they lack a Traditional footing for these doctrines as well.
The Immaculate Conception is only even necessary when considered in light of Original Sin, a doctrine in which the Orthodox have never believed (as one speaker I heard put it, “The Immaculate Conception is an unconvincing solution to a nonexistent problem”).
However, it goes deeper than that. A modern-day Saint of the Church, St. John the Wonderworker, said in his book that the Immaculate Conception actually denies all of Mary’s virtues! What virtue is it to abstain from sin, if one is unable to sin? This does imply that we believe she never sinned: as I understand it, where we differ from Protestants here is that we believe that she never committed conscious sin; however, she may have sinned unintentionally.
Regarding the Assumption, I think it is enough to say that the Orthodox Church, to this day celebrates the Dormition (“Falling Asleep”) of the Theotokos. However, at the same time, we do believe that she was bodily assumed into Heaven after her burial, and it is noteworthy that, although both the RCC and EOC venerate her and highly value relics, there are no relics of the Theotokos.
3) Ever-Virgin. You mentioned that Hahn “avoided” Mark 3. While Hahn may have avoided that passage, that passage only disproves the Ever-Virginity of Mary when one assumes the Catholic tradition that says the “brothers” were cousins. A much older tradition, still taught in Orthodoxy, holds that Joseph was a widower when he took Mary, who had avowed herself as a virgin, into his household. There was never any intention to consummate the marriage in the first place, and Joseph already had children by his previous wife.
All that said, you’ll notice that I never attempted a “Biblical explanation” of any of this. I think that’s the biggest weakness of arguments such as what you’ve presented of Hahn. Sometimes, the right answer to a question is to point out that the presuppositions behind that question are wrong. Once the wrong presuppositions are corrected, the question often becomes irrelevant.
LikeLike
Metapundit: Yes yes yes. This is a major problem.
Before 1850, I could have been a good Catholic and embrace those who believed things about Mary that I didn’t. Sorry, but I can’t see how those dogmas did anything but perpetuate division on grounds that are far from the Apostle’s Creed.
And just think about it. I could start RCIA today, and the day before I am received into full communion, another dogma could be defined as absolutely necessary.
That’s why I say that all of this seems to me to just be various versions of “Will you submit to the judgment of the church in all things?” And that’s fine, but I prefer the direct method to the idea that it’s all there in the Bible if I’d just read it with my brain on.
LikeLike
Michael, regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, you may find of interest these reflections of mine. There is no question that a clarification, purification, and reformulation of the doctrine has occurred in the Catholic Church over the past fifty years. This clarification is grounded in a deeper apprehension of the infinite love and mercy of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
I’m with you on Mariology – it’s the stuff I just have the hardest time with in terms of engaging Catholicism. Especially in my area where Catholicism is mostly Latin American and Portugese Catholicism the devotional aspects of Marian theology really bother me…
That said I was recently blogging (http://metapundit.net/sections/blog/the_history_of_christianity) about a Christian history textbook I borrowed from a friend (Justo Gonzalez’ The Story of Christianity, very good read btw) and was struck by how recent some of the Marian dogmas are – the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary are both dogmas based on Papal pronouncements and are pretty recent (approx. 1850 and 1950). Historically speaking you could be a faithful Catholic without believing Mary was born free of original sin and bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her life… Even the Tiber shifts in its banks from time to time…
LikeLike
Assuming that Jesus was both human and divine, could it be that Mary was the mother of the human but not the divine? Is it not true that flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit? How, then, could Mary, who was flesh, give birth to the divine? It is not wrong to respect and honour Mary, whom God selected to be the mother of Jesus. However, veneration (ie worship) belongs to God, not to Mary.(I grew up in the RCC during the 1950s when, according to the Catholic scholar Hans Kuhn, the doctrine of Mary was far more extreme.)
I think to view Mary in this manner (mother of the human but not the divine) is to make the same errors the Nestorians made…making divisions regarding the human and divine natures of Christ that made it as if Jesus were two people occupying the same head. This could lead to many logical errors not the least of which would be that there were really two Sons of God: the human Jesus and the divine Word who was sharing a room with Him in His head.
But, Jesus is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person with two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. So it’s entirely appropriate to call Mary the “Mother of God” because she was the mother of the God-Man, Jesus. When Jesus introduced Mary to someone he didn’t introduce her by saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”
Regardless of our other struggles with Marian dogmas, I really don’t see this one as a problem. In fact I see it as an important one to affirm as it directly impacts our understanding of Christ.
*note – much of that description, though expressed other places, was cribbed from Mark Shea. Yes, he’s Catholic, but I believe his argument is quite sound even from a Protestant perspective.
LikeLike
I just finished teaching Wright’s Surprised by Hope for 8 weeks. Ratzinger presents Purgatory as process, which I think is, at least at that point, so indistinguishable from what many of us would say about final sanctification as to be no barrier.
But there is still the indulgence problem and the theology that undergirds it. More of a barrier. But as to purgatory, I think many Christians can find common ground between Ratzinger, Wright and Lewis.
LikeLike
Mike-
Have you read NT Wright’s For All the Saints: Remembering the Christian Departed ? In this short (100 page) book, he outlines a pretty scriptural view of the saints and biblical arguments against traditional Catholic dogmas of purgatory.
What I found extremely interesting was his citation of Ratzinger’s view of purgatory, which seemed to completely turn the Roman dogma on its head. It almost seemed more like something C.S. Lewis would propose. Basically, Ratzinger says that purgatory is where all of the impurities of our souls are burned up in our encounter with God after death.
I’d be interested to read more about Ratzinger’s view as cited by Wright.
LikeLike
From my experience on both banks of the Tiber:
When Protestants flake out, it’s usually some sort of End Time Prophecy or Culture War or Bible Code obsession.
When Catholics flake out, it’s usually some form of Mary obsession.
Same tendency to flake out, different expressions.
LikeLike
John,
Don’t think believeing in the veracity of Scripture ipso facto makes you a “Bible Thumper.” But you are right, take the scripture away and you have no reason not to be Catholic, if possibly no reason to be Christian at all.
LikeLike
Take away the veracity of scripture and what is there? How does one opinion supersede any other? I guess that makes me a “bible-thumper”, but I can live with that.
Btw– “the 135 who tried” lol, gotta love it.
Peace,
John
LikeLike
Interesting to hear your take on Scott Hahn. I didn’t know they thought of him as Luther in reverse. That is kind of funny. Back in college I ended up with one of his tapes and listened to the whole thing thinking, really? It was hard for me though as a Lutheran to fully understand who he was attacking. It wasn’t the Lutheran position. It became an ah ha moment for me. I began to realize how different the Lutheran position is from atleast most of the rest of protestantism, and from Catholocism. I also remember thinking if he had been Lutheran, he might still be Catholic, but his reasons for changing would have been very different. So I think it a bit ironic that they call him “Luther in reverse.”
LikeLike
Assuming that Jesus was both human and divine, could it be that Mary was the mother of the human but not the divine? Is it not true that flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit? How, then, could Mary, who was flesh, give birth to the divine? It is not wrong to respect and honour Mary, whom God selected to be the mother of Jesus. However, veneration (ie worship) belongs to God, not to Mary.(I grew up in the RCC during the 1950s when, according to the Catholic scholar Hans Kuhn, the doctrine of Mary was far more extreme.)
Richard
LikeLike
If you can believe all the rest, you can find a way to wrap your mind around this and make it work.
Quite.
A lot of that goes on, not only on the RC side of the aisle. Not “Is it true?”, but “Is it possible for me to affirm this?”. (At the risk of going off-topic, this is a problem I have with some presentations of “evangelical universalism”, despite my own semi-universalist leanings. The argument becomes, “It is possible to believe in universalism and still be an evangelical”, rather than, “The Bible clearly teaches universalism”.)
LikeLike