Religious Leaders Agree on Role of Mary

Associated Press (via The Guardian) ^ | 5/17/05 | Gene Johnson

[marshmallow]

SEATTLE (AP) - A group of Roman Catholic and Anglican leaders studying the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, said Monday that after years of talks they have agreed that Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into heaven are consistent with Anglican interpretations of the Bible.

The two sides issued a joint document, ``Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ,'' which will now be examined by the Vatican and the Anglican Communion.

If the terms of the new accord are eventually accepted by top church officials - by no means a certainty - it would overcome one of the major doctrinal disagreements dividing the world's 77 million Anglicans and more than 1 billion Roman Catholics.

Historically, the Anglican Communion has opposed the papal teachings because there is no direct account of them in the Bible.

Immaculate Conception refers to the mandatory Catholic dogma, pronounced in 1854, that Mary was born free of ``original sin.'' The Assumption refers to the belief required since 1950 that Mary was directly received, body and soul, into heaven at the end of her life. Anglicans have neither teaching.

Both Catholicism and Anglicanism officially agree, however, on the virginal conception, meaning that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Anglican Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, Australia, co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, said the Catholic dogmas concerning Mary are ``consonant'' with biblical teachings about hope and grace.

The remaining question between the faiths is the authority on which those dogmas are based, he said - a question to be tackled in future discussions.

``For Anglicans, that old complaint that these dogmas were not provable by scripture will disappear,'' Carnley said during a news conference with Seattle's Catholic Archbishop, Alexander Brunett.

The commission spent five years developing the 81-page booklet, in a process sponsored by the Anglican Consultative Council and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

The document's release was also significant because it follows tensions between Catholicism and Anglicanism over actions by the Episcopal Church, the Anglicans' U.S. branch.

Presiding Episcopal Bishop Frank Griswold, who for a time chaired the commission studying Mary, resigned from the panel after he oversaw the consecration of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. As recently as last month, the Vatican said Robinson's consecration and same-sex blessings by Canadian Anglicans ``created new obstacles'' for relations between the churches.

Though Griswold did not attend the news conference, he was in town Monday to have lunch and attend vespers with Brunett and Carnley.

Bob Chapman, a reporter for the independent Episcopal weekly The Living Church, said there is a long Anglican tradition of honoring Mary - there is even a shrine to her in Walsingham, England - but the degree of devotion varies greatly within the faith.

``I can name a couple of parishes here in Seattle that have better Marian devotion than some Roman Catholic parishes,'' he said, but to other Anglicans, the notion of honoring her is ``anathema.''

The accord announced Monday is aimed at bridging those extremes, he said.

``There are churches that look with suspicion on people who do these things, and yet we all live together under the same umbrella,'' Chapman said.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's plain we don't "fall down to worship" Mary, as John explicitly says he attempted to do with the angel - and was rightly rebuked.

The tradition of the Church plainly distinguishes latria (worship) and the lesser dulia or honor which is paid to the saints, and the hyperdulia or special honor which is due to the Blessed Virgin as the theotokos or God-Bearer.

Since the Church treats the Communion of Saints (you know, it's in that thing called the Creed) as present throughout time and eternity, perhaps it would help if you think of Catholics as asking their good and holy friends who stand in the presence of God to remember them in their prayers -- just as you might ask a deacon or elder or righteous man "whose prayers avail much" to pray for you.

[AnAmericanMother]

Bit of a mix there. The Peace, of course, is new. The Prayers of the People are the newer form, but there's an alternate form in the appendix that is older than the form in the main section, it is also older than 1928. The bulk of the Eucharistic Prayer is older than 1928. Most of the rest of the service (Liturgy of the Word, General Confession, etc.) is straight out of '28, but may not have changed from the older versions. '28 is most familiar to me because I was a cradle Episcopalian born 1955.

[AnAmericanMother]

Since the link bohemund provides says "Rite I" at the top, I bet there's a Rite II lurking around out there somewhere. Your California friends' church must be using Rite II. . . . and apparently there are at least two churches in Texas using Rite I.

I seriously did not know of an Anglican Use parish in California. I only knew of seven in all -- one is in Boston, one is in Columbia SC, one in Las Vegas, and I thought the other four were all in Texas - St. Mary's, Walsingham, Atonement, and St Margaret of Scotland.

[Gingersnap]

I seriously did not know of an Anglican Use parish in California.

Well, this is what they said and it may be a fairly new endeavor. That said, we've never been there and our friends are slightly more casual about church interests than we are so we haven't discussed it in depth. I will ask them for the name the next time we talk.

[AnAmericanMother]

I would be curious. You don't ordinarily think of California as a place fraught with tradition . . . of course I haven't been near the place in 30 years . . . it was fairly wacky then, can't imagine what it must be like by now!

[Rosie405]

The Catholics will first have to try to determine exactly WHO it is they are talking to when they talk to the Anglicans. That's not easy nowadays. The orthodox high-church people? The revisionist "Affirming" Catholics who love the high-church pagentry, but just don't want the theology that usually goes along with it? The low-church, but orthodox, 'evangelicals?' Right now, that whole question is unanswerable.

[NYer]

I seriously did not know of an Anglican Use parish in California.

Came across this ...

California AU Catholic Laity, St. Francis of Assisi Church, La Quinta, CA 92253, c/o Fr. Jack Barker, Box 1503

Also thought this might be of interest to others in the forum.

The purpose of the St. Thomas More Society of St. Clare Church is to establish a Pastoral Provision Personal Parish of the Anglican Use in the Diocese of Scranton and to aid in the establishment of other Roman Catholic Anglican Use Parishes where the need or opportunity may arise.
St. Thomas More Society

[AnAmericanMother]

There's an AU organization in Atlanta, too, but it appears to be defunct. They have no church, and their mailing address is a residence. The archdiocese was not forthcoming when I asked them (this was when we were still prowling about deciding what to do. I guess I wouldn't reveal a plan to raid another denomination to an anonymous voice on the telephone, either. Might impact those plans for World Domination. < g > )

[mike182d]

The point Peter was making is that scripture is not a production of the human mind as you implied but is "God breathed". The Greek word translated interpretation is better translated origin in this passage when put into context with verses 19 and 21.

Peter's point is that a person can't sit down, read the Bible, and authoritatively make a truthful claim of his or her own on any divine revelation contained therein.

The Christian Church from the beginning lauded apostolic authority and continued to do so for millenia. I don't understand what the big deal is now.

[BnBlFlag]

As a low church Evangelical Conservative Episcopalian, they certainly do not speak for me and mine!

[bonfire]

"Could you please cite when the Roman Catholic Church has ever changed its belief structure in 2000 years?"


Meatless Fridays? :)

[mike182d]

Meatless Fridays? :)

You do understand the difference between practices and doctrine, right?

Its like in basketball. A team can change the color of its jerseys all they want, but at no point has the game ceased to be basketball because of it. Only when changes in the rules fundamental to defining the game are made that the game of basketball itself is said to change.

The appearance of the Church has changed. The fundamental tenants have never.

Futhermore, meat is still forbidden on Fridays. The only difference is that an exception is granted for individuals who wish to abstain from something else instead. But, as with all things, the USCCB never clarifies these things to the American faithful.

[bonfire]

"You do understand the difference between practices and doctrine, right?"

Yes. It was a joke. ( Sort of! ) :)

[mike182d]

Then I apologize for my lack of humor in responding. Sorry for misreading your post. :-)

[theFIRMbss]

>" ... Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Revelation 22:8-9
>>It's plain we don't "fall down to worship" Mary, as John explicitly says he attempted to do with the angel - and was rightly rebuked
>>The verse says he was going to "worship" the angel. The angel stopped him, and rightly so.

Thank you for sharing your response to this Scripture. I notice you both agree that the faith of the Apostle John is open to question; but when modern folk worship at the feet of stains they believe picture the Virgin Mary, their "faith" must not be doubted. I think John was made of sterner stuff, and the angel was rebuking John's adoration done in the wrong way. But reasonable Christians can disagree here.

[bonfire]

No problem!

[winstonchurchill]

WC: The RCC, like the Mormon church, is unabashedly accretionist, i.e. their respective organizations have established mechanisms to add to (or change)their belief structure. as time goes along, beyond those concepts found in Scripture.

C: Protestants do the same thing, all the time. Study up on the history of premillenial dispensationalism sometime.

Actually, I agree with you on dispensationalism, but it does not make Protestantism in general accretionist, because Protestant churches have not set up mechanisms as the RCC and the Mormons have (the papacy and the president of the council of the twelve, respectively) to provide additional (or revised) dogmas for their respective churches.

But I do agree that Bible-faithful churches must be continually sensitive to the possibility that their mutual efforts at systematic theology (purportedly drawn from the Bible) can nonetheless amount to 'accretions by common consent.' Placing dispensational theories and 5-point Calvinist theology on a par with the Bible itself are good examples of this problem in Protestantism.

[winstonchurchill]

Could you please cite when the Roman Catholic Church has ever changed its belief structure in 2000 years?

On this topic, to name a just a couple of the hundreds or perhaps thousands, 1854 (adding the 'immaculate conception' of Mary) and 1950 (adding the 'bodily assumption of Mary'). The text of the papal documents themselves demonstrate by their terms that the respective popes were adding these rather unusual doctrines to the pantheon of RCC dogmas. Before the respective pronouncements, they were not part of the belief structure of the RCC (although a few individuals may have theretofore held to them personally), but afterward, they became mandatory parts of the belief structure of the RCC on pain of 'legal' punishment. That's what accretionism is.

Nothing wrong with believing that, just like there's nothing wrong with believing kaballah (sp?) or Mormonism either (apart from the fact they may not be true), but none are Biblical Christianity. "You takes your choice" -- and (I believe) you bet your eternal future on the efficacy of that choice. That's the only point.

[Frank Sheed]

---It's difficult to see what the RCC offers Anglicans nowadays.---

Ummmmm....the TRUTH of the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church? That's all. No more, no less.

Frank

[Frank Sheed]

Dogma is Not a Dirty (Catholic) Word, This Rock