Replies

The Council of Trent was the Counter-Reformation Council. It was convened in the mid-sixteenth century, a little less than 25 years after Luther posted his 95 theses at Wittenberg.

No one says that belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is NECESSARY to your salvation. Whether Scripture contains all that is necessary as to doctrine or not, Jesus Christ gave the keys to Peter and by the Council of Jerusalem of about 54 AD, that decision as to the circumcision of uncircumcised Gentile male converts (mostly adults) to Christianity being unnecessary was made upon Paul's petition to Peter. (Acts).

Certainly, there were those among the early Church Fathers who were in error. The brilliant Tertullian comes to mind. He died holding the errors of UltraMontanism, despite having defined orthodoxy as "antiquity, universality and consensus." I am aware of only one Egyptian pope, Pope St. Miltiades (311-314) and, like most popes, he did not seem to have initiated much in the way of doctrine. He was the pope when the Emperor Constantine decided to accept Catholicism as the religion of the Roman Empire only a few years after the abdication of Diocletian and the end of Diocletian's persecution of Christians and the then pagan Constantine's success in the civil war of succession after seeing a vision of the cross in the sky with the legend beneath "In Hoc Signo Vinces" or In This Sign, You will Conquer.

The putative existence of a variety of heresies among Egyptian Church Fathers no more proves the inerrancy of Scripture (which ought to be conceded in its own right) than it could possibly prove the errors of popes none of whom were Egyptian Early Church Fathers. By analogous logic, does one reject the possibility of Christian orthodoxy in doctrine because of the reformation which began nearly 1500 years after the sacrifice of the cross and then metastacized into thousand of distinct "churches" each with its own notions to distinguish it from the others. This observation does not disprove the reformation but it also does not recommend it as a source of theological truth or orthodoxy either.

Again, it was the First Vatican Council of the mid-19th century that formally declared and defined papal infallibility and not Pope Pius IX (with the incomparable nickname Pope Pio NoNo). Neither John Paul II nor any other pope (including Pius XI) has ever defined Mary as Co-Redemptorix. She cannot be Co-Redemptorix and the confusion probably results from remarks as to her acceptance of her virgin maternity of Jesus Christ.

The reason that many Protestants have trouble with this stuff is that many are ever prepared to believe the worst about Catholicism. We Catholics certainly have our disagreements with the children of the reformation. We need not go out of our respective ways to find more. If Catholics have a weak grasp of the history of the reformation, then it is at least equally true that the reformed do not grasp the history of the Catholic Church.

You may have noticed a previous post whose author I have forgotten who posted that Jesus Christ must have been the Son of God because He could not be sinless (in the sense of Original Sin) as a Son of a descendant of Adam (through whom He would have had Original Sin). Made sense to me although God is wonderful and can do anything. Is it not equally obvious that Jesus's mother would be without Original Sin also. Therefore the Catholic tradition, eventually made dogmatic by Pius IX after Mary's apparition to St. Bernadette Soubarous at Lourdes, that Mary was conceived without the taint of Original Sin by Divine Intervention and protection at her conception. You may not believe it but it is neither necessary to your salvation nor a particularly difficult act by an omnipotent God desiring a perfect vessel through whom to send His Son to us.

It would also be consistent with several other traditional Catholic beliefs as to Mary which (to the best of my knowledge) have not been formally defined as dogma. Since pain in childbirth was a wage of Original Sin and since death was also a wage of Original Sin, many believe that an immaculately conceived Mary would have suffered no tribulation in the birth of Jesus and would have, at most, fallen asleep rather than died (this is known as the Dormition of Mary).

We who are Catholics are not the only Christians who have "traditions of men" as you may call them. There are a lot of traditions of reformed men and women as to the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Not all of them are true but they are the tradition of the reform nonetheless. None of this is to make fun of you or of your beliefs. I have no doubt that you believe what you believe as sincerely as I believe what I believe and that our God, nonetheless, loves each of us at least as much as we each love Him.

In any event, what I believe and what you believe are much more consistent (90-95%) than either of us is in the habit of saying. We ought not fight one another publicly on the 5-10% for the entertainment of our mutual enemies and those of our God (enemies who produce Discovery Channel programming suggesting that He did not rise from the dead, as Scripture teaches us both; that Dan Brown and not the Gospels have the truth that Mary Magdelene was NOT married to Jesus Christ NOR that any child Judah or otherwise was born to them; that Mary, assuming, as you might, that she was buried anywhere, was buried not at Ephesus in Turkey where she lived with John the Evangelist bu at Jerusalem's suburbs much less with the body of Jesus Christ, etc.).

Please do not regard my occasional historical corrections (such as the century of Trent) as hostile. Any perceived offense from me to you is not intentional but a fault of this fallen human that I am.

We are separated brethren in Christ. I think that Scripture teaches that we will know the Christians as those who love one another. Let us prove Scripture, here and everywhere, now and ever.

God bless you and yours.

No one says that belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is NECESSARY to your salvation.

I think the pope does. At any rate, this is part of the Protestant frustration with Catholicism. It is all these different inconsequential matters, some spurious, that must be discussed endlessly. Or that assume an important role in faith and doctrine and the ceremonial life of the church. If they are not essential, they should be pared away. There is also a certain Protestant instinct against any tendency that detracts from the work and glory of our Savior, against anything that detracts from His central place in our spiritual life. I would say, however, that Catholics do not neglect the Father. When you observe many Protestant and evangelical churches, you see an overwhelming enthusiasm for the Son and rarely a mention of the Father. Knowing you over the years at FR, I know that you do understand these matters well, no less than a serious and devout Protestant would.

By analogous logic, does one reject the possibility of Christian orthodoxy in doctrine because of the reformation which began nearly 1500 years after the sacrifice of the cross and then metastacized into thousand of distinct "churches" each with its own notions to distinguish it from the others. This observation does not disprove the reformation but it also does not recommend it as a source of theological truth or orthodoxy either.

The Reformation is best understood as a mostly successful attempt to return to those doctrines, based on scripture, known throughout the ancient churches. It relied heavily upon that titan of theology, Augustine. It explicitly rejected much of the corruption that had grown up around the Roman hierarchy. The Reformation had no problem with simple believers of Christ, they reserved their condemnation for those who had abandoned the humble role of shepherd for more worldly ways. In that sense, the Reformation was a back-to-basics movement. Naturally, given the bloodshed and the passions involved, it regrettably acquired a life of its own on both sides, a bad influence on both for centuries.

As for a 'revival' of ancient practices, one might point to the establishment in the American colonies of the practice of the ancient Greek democratic republics as a form of government and somehow suggest that the span of time involved casts some doubts upon its legitimacy. But that would also not be true. I'm not expressing it well but I'm sure you take my meaning.

Neither John Paul II nor any other pope (including Pius XI) has ever defined Mary as Co-Redemptorix.

But they gave her that title publicly.

Therefore the Catholic tradition, eventually made dogmatic by Pius IX after Mary's apparition to St. Bernadette Soubarous at Lourdes, that Mary was conceived without the taint of Original Sin by Divine Intervention and protection at her conception. You may not believe it but it is neither necessary to your salvation nor a particularly difficult act by an omnipotent God desiring a perfect vessel through whom to send His Son to us.

If it is not necessary to salvation, why contend for the doctrine? As for the necessity that Mary be immaculate, it would mean that Jesus' mother was not fully human, as human as any other woman. Therefore, you have robbed Him of His full humanity. As you know, He did glory in the title Son of Man as much as Son of God. As the disputes over ancient heresy show so clearly, nothing can be allowed to rob Him of either His full humanity or His full divinity. To ascribe to His mother any particular merit over any other woman does, in fact, diminish Him as a man and leads toward the varieties of heresy in which He is considered to be a god who merely appeared to wear human flesh. I'm sure you know about these ancient heresies and the terrible controversies they led to.

It would also be consistent with several other traditional Catholic beliefs as to Mary which (to the best of my knowledge) have not been formally defined as dogma. Since pain in childbirth was a wage of Original Sin and since death was also a wage of Original Sin, many believe that an immaculately conceived Mary would have suffered no tribulation in the birth of Jesus and would have, at most, fallen asleep rather than died (this is known as the Dormition of Mary).

Scripture does not mention she had a painless childbirth or that she merely fell asleep and disappeared into thin air (not that that is consistent with the account of Juvenal posted earlier). Moreover, if she did not experience pain in childbirth, then she was not truly a woman, again her own supernatural nature would detract from Jesus' own divinity and humanity. I would note that the Gospel accounts uniformly describe the miraculous events of her life consistently and in detail and yet they omit a painless birth. Beyond that, if you did prefer to believe her childbirth was painless, it would be as simple to posit that God Himself granted that to her instead of somehow suggesting that His creation of her as a unique and sinless creature was required to achieve the outcome of painless childbirth. Probably what makes a non-Catholic so resistant to these ideas is that the New Testament speaks consistently of Mary and Joseph and Jesus but never in the terms of Mary or Joseph being other than an ordinary young married couple who experienced a few very startling miracles surrounding the birth of their first child, who was the Son of God.

We who are Catholics are not the only Christians who have "traditions of men" as you may call them. There are a lot of traditions of reformed men and women as to the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Tell me about it. Even in the Baptist tradition, with our emphasis on very simple and largely non-ornamental buildings, there is a creeping tendency to constantly embellish and distract with frivolities from the worship of Christ and Him alone. Our history is to hold these things in check but you notice the creeping tendency. It is not difficult for us to understand why the church of Rome ended up with so many problems after so many centuries, so many different challenges in so many different places.

In any event, what I believe and what you believe are much more consistent (90-95%) than either of us is in the habit of saying. We ought not fight one another publicly on the 5-10% for the entertainment of our mutual enemies and those of our God.

Actually, I believe it does no harm and can do a lot of good. It is more likely that dispute can cause people to question what they believe and lead them to look for more answers and substance. The greatest problems faced in modern churches are people who attend and call themselves Christians but really have no idea of what they actually believe or why they believe it. Nor do they look at the available history to confirm what they believe. So I think debate, kept reasonably polite, may be good for the faith. Naturally, being polite doesn't mean that theology isn't a bloodsport so the audience should be cautious. So theology has a danger that it may become too careless or disruptive but it is probably more dangerous, especially in the modern era, to sit back in your pew complacently, not knowing or caring what you believe or upon what basis you believe in particular doctrine.

Please do not regard my occasional historical corrections (such as the century of Trent) as hostile.

Not at all.