Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Back when I first joined YIMCatholic, I was going to write posts about my conversion. I hammered out seven posts in pretty rapid succession and then, I stopped writing them until recently.
Many of my posts now are simply my observations of the world which are colored through the lens of a convert to Catholicism. It would be difficult for them not to be. Other posts I've written are of the "look what I just found!" variety, and the "I want to share this with you" type. Call them the discovery posts if you will.
Recently I gave a talk on the Communion of Saints for my parishes RCIA group. Consequently, I've been answering questions of potential converts that have prompted me to explain my conversion to others.
Basically, this has resulted in my having become a neophyte evangelist of sorts for the Church. And though this blog space isn't the forum for heavy-duty apologetics, because others do that better elsewhere, I have always seen my role here at YIMC as one of evangelizing.
Back to my conversion story, when I was first confronting the idea of becoming a Catholic, I had to look hard at the question "Why am I Protestant?" Having just moved cross-country following my retirement from the Marines, I found out that my mother no longer went to church where we had gone when I was growing up. Instead of the non-denominational church I grew up in (and which we were a founding family of), I learned that she now went to a Presbyterian church instead. Hmmm.
Rather than start visiting all kinds of churches, which appealed to me about as much as shopping for a new car, my family and I kept going to the local Catholic parish in our new town while I did research and home improvement projects. One of the first things I looked into was the problem of Catholics and their obviously misguided devotion to the Virgin Mary.
The funny thing is, I had sat in the pews in the Catholic Church with my wife for close to 18 years and I had never really noticed any wacky or overly zealous devotion to Mary. Not at Mass, anyway, and as we didn't stick around much after the conclusion of Mass, I didn't see anything that made me uncomfortable. Truthfully, I was surprised about this and it's probably a big reason why I continued to sit in the pews with my patient Catholic wife for that long a time.
This didn't stop me from believing that weird Marian devotions were happening though, and I assumed talk of her perpetual virginity was just "crazy talk." Like most, I had no idea what the Immaculate Conception was either and I just thought people were referring to Our Lord's conception. I was ignorant, plain and simple. But I had in mind a mission to correct the wrong religious track that my family was on so I started planning the military campaign to retake the spiritual territory I had ceded to the Church. My first target was what I thought would be the easiest: Mary.
Before I went on my "destroy Marian Devotion" offensive, though, I knew I would have to do a little homework. Planning ahead, you see, I figured the best place to start was with the guys who picked up the Protestant Reformation football and ran with it for touchdowns. Follow the winners Frank, and victory will be yours!
But get this. Much to my surprise, nay, shock(!) I had to throw a penalty flag on myself and look for a different angle of attack. Because what I found out was that the Big Three "Reformers" all agreed with the Catholic Church's teachings on the Mother of God!
Here is what I found, courtesy of the site catholicapologetics.info,
Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of God
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."
Honor to Mary
Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
John Calvin:
It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
Ulrich Zwingli:
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."
I remember being blown away by these revelations. I had gone to Christian churches my whole life and I had been told what I was supposed to believe, and I had never been told these things about Mary. I felt a little bit like the fellow wearing tan below, even though I was really acting like the guy wearing black.
And then I thought, "methinks they dost protest too much." And like young Skywalker above, I too leaped with faith and lived to tell the tale. I didn't land on my feet though. Instead, I landed in the lap of Blaise Pascal.
And so began the process of my going back to the Scriptures and to the Church Fathers and back through the history of the Catholic Church, and finally back into the arms of Christ's Church Herself.
Perhaps this post is a prequel in the 2BFrank saga. Sheeeesh!
To read more about the Protestant Reformers views on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to track down the footnotes too, head on over to catholicapologetics.info. Head over to Scripture Catholic too, and bring your Bibles. Then head over to the Vatican and look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well.
Calvin also believed in, and practiced, burning people at the stake so I guess we should also believe that?
I suppose also that Jesus was then not the first to be born “without sin”. Hmmmm
That's what they claim...They even tell us that Jesus can't save anyone by himself...You must go thru Mary for Catholic salvation...
“We do not ourselves suffer and we are saved by the fire.”
Purgatory cleanses us of our sins, but it does not save. Only those who are already saved will go to purgatory.
How did the teaching of the Catholic Church come into being?
From Christ first and then the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) was the first Church Council, attended by the Apostles.
The first Ecumenical (world-wide) Council was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great with Pope Saint Sylvester I sitting on the Throne of Peter as the 33rd successor of Christ’s appointed Apostle. The site was the city of Nicaea, just south of Constantinople in Asia Minor in 325. This council answered Arius and condemned the Arian heresy and defined the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.
“We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.
And those who say
“there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that
he came to be from
things that were not, or
from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration
these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises”
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/1ecumen.htm
Also here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
Other Canons of the Church dealing with areas that were cultural but affecting the Faith were discussed.
Consubstantiality is a major tenet of Christianity. Difficult, yes. Time consuming and dealt with Prayerfully, yes.
It is what the Church teaches.
Oh and yes, there are footnotes, from the Scriptures and the Fathers.
CS Lewis “It’s no good asking for a simple religion... That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys’ philosophies - these over-simple answers. The problem is not simple, and the answer is not going to be simple either.”
http://atkinslightquest.com/Documents/Religion/Special-Studies/MereChristianity.htm
Without Nicea and the Church there would be nothing but those who resemble Mormons and Unitarians.
I did not “bail” on you. Your bizarre and wrongheaded remarks just don’t get in the way of work.
The short answer is, in toto, no.
But, that is only because you did not read my first answer. We, the believers in Christ alone, do not in any way support, endorse, agree with or recognize the vile Mariolotry promoted by Rome or Luther or Calvin or anyone else. Men are errant. Certainly Rome is. God delivered His word to clearly set out that “there are none righteous, not even one” other than His Son.
It is interesting that you are beginning to read Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, however. Perhaps some of their more biblical comments will get traction...perhaps not.
That’s because Christ never had a beginning. You folks *do* teach that Christ is Eternal?
No, otherwise those who were born before Mary could not be saved. Yet the Catholic church teaches that Moses and Elijah are among the elect.
Some Christians have really bad soteriology.
So because human nature is fallen Catholic teachings are false? Not really a good point to hang your hat here. Christianity is true in spite of Christians.
Christ existed before His birth ... but He did have a birth (at which point He was the first to be born without sin).
SnakeDoc
You’ve understood it perfectly.
“Why not just ask God, directly?”
Sure, but we are commanded to pray for one another. To help each other bear our burdens.
That’s not what scripture says. Scripture says he was ‘born of a Virgin’. Scripture does not say, “He was the first to be born without sin”.
Remember, there is Adam and Eve, also, who were created by God. They too, were sinless in the beginning, before the Fall.
Remember that Scripture says that Christ was fully God and fully Man? Christ inherited his full human nature from Mary. Given the curse of Adam which runs through each of us, how could he be without sin?
>> So because human nature is fallen Catholic teachings are false?
Actually ... yes, in a mannter of speaking.
Maybe not in exactly the manner that you’re referencing — but, personally, the biggest reason that I am not Catholic is the doctrine of infallibility. If we are all fallen, none beyond Christ Himself can be infallible, doctrinally or otherwise.
SnakeDoc
So you are arguing that oral tradition is preserved in the Word?
He is without sin because He is God. The better question is ... how could she be without sin?
SnakeDoc
“If we are all fallen, none beyond Christ Himself can be infallible, doctrinally or otherwise.”
Ok. That point I can understand.
However, here’s the problem. Do you believe that Scripture has perfect accuracy with respect to what Christ taught? Scripture is the work of men, of the copyists and of the original authors, whom God worked through to provide the copy that you have in front of you today.
The point is that God can work through someone to ensure perfect transmission of his Word. The same way in which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are considered to be inspired by God, is the same by which the Pope operates when he speaks from the chair. The exact same manner.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.
This is pretty much the whole dogma. The only "force" involved is the divine will.. We who pray for the dead are but beggers at the king's gate, and so are the saints within, who bow before Him who sits on the throne.
Adam and Eve were created, not born.
SnakeDoc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.