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.

[Blessed]

>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.<

I am sure you read that some where or heard it said but that is not consistant with the entire passage.

2Pe 1:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know [them], and be established in the present truth.

2Pe 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting [you] in remembrance;

2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Peter is expressing his concern that they will continue to have the truths he has given them after his death.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here Peter says they have not made up the truths as some fable but he was one of the few people that actually heard the audible voice of God.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Here he says scripture (word of prophecy) is more sure than a voice from heaven.He then continues to endorse the importance of scripture in the verses you contested.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.(origin)

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is interesting that Peter proceeds in the next 2 chapters to warn against false teachers and their "destructive words".He finishes the epistle by again stressing the value of scripture.

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the long suffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Their can be no doubt that Peter taught the supremacy of scriptures and considered them to be God's word.(God Breathed)

[Conservative til I die]

This, of course, is ultimately the issue. Most RCC adherents will readily concede that their devotion to/worship of Mary is based upon their organization's 'tradition' and not upon the Scriptures. 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.

The risks of an accretionist church, of course, is that, like the old children's game of 'telephone', by the time the story gets filtered through the 'tradition' of each of the carriers on its way around the circle, it bears little or no resemblence to the original message. The advantage of the accretionist approach is that it can readily adapt to cultural and scientific developments, but the disadvantage is that no effective mechanism has been found to keep the accretions 'tied to' and limited by the original message.

The Anglicans have always muddled along somewhere in the middle between the accretionists and the non-accretionists, granting some (undefined) role to 'tradition'. All that is changing here is that (apparently) some segment of the Anglican church is swinging toward complete accretionism.

For those of us with a high view of Scripture (versus man-made accretions), this is sad. For the accretionists, obviously, it is a cause for celebration and an old-fashioned "I told you so."

That's why the Catholic Church is fortunate to have the Holy Spirit guiding her. The Holy Spirit does not guide any other Church.

[Blessed]

>That's why the Catholic Church is fortunate to have the Holy Spirit guiding her. The Holy Spirit does not guide any other Church.<

The holy Spirit guides the elect of God not churches.

[Conservative til I die]

Most Anglican services are more reverent that the Novus Ordo services anyway.

Traditional catholicism for my and my family forever. Cant tolerate weakness and compromise of Our Lord and his church and his mother for anyone

You sound like you're talking about a political party rather than a religion.

There are plenty of parishes offering a reverent Novus Ordo. To dismiss the Novus Ordo merely because it's not the "Old Ordo" is illogical.

[Conservative til I die]

That was pretty slick how you swapped out the word "worship" and slipped in "pray to". If it wasn't dishonest I'd admire the tactic.

[Conservative til I die]

It doesn't matter how directly we Catholics say it, most Protestants will never let go of their strawman. I always look at it this way: If we did indeed worship Mary, we must feel that it is her due as some sort of deity or semi-deity. If we feel that way about her, then why would we go to such pains to conceal and deny our belief from Protestants? Especially if we view her as some goddess.

[Conservative til I die]

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.

27,000 Protestant sects. End of story.

[Conservative til I die]

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.

Christ did not leave us a Bible. He left us a living Church.

[Blessed]

>Christ did not leave us a Bible. He left us a living Church,

Why did he quote it so much then?

[Conservative til I die]

Why did he quote it so much then?

He quoted the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures. The New Testament wasn't written yet. The NT quotes Jesus, not the other way around.

[Blessed]

So you don't consider the old testament to be part of the Bible?

[winstonchurchill]

That's why the Catholic Church is fortunate to have the Holy Spirit guiding her.

Others would suggest perhaps another 'spirit' is 'guiding' it.

The Holy Spirit does not guide any other Church.

The Holy Spirit guides individual believers, not organizations. All human organizations are corrupt (certain the RCC is far from an exception); only the relative degree varies. The RCC's recent scandals with pedophilia and homosexuality reflect upon the corruption of the organization, but of course not upon the Holy Spirit or those RCC adherents who are Christians (and I believe there are some).

[winstonchurchill]

Christ did not leave us a Bible. He left us a living Church.

I thought the RCC accepted the Bible as the Word of God. I agree that Christ established His living church as a body of true and living believers, but they are not found exclusively in any organization of men, most assurredly not the RCC.

[winstonchurchill]

27,000 Protestant sects. End of story.

It's only the 'end of the story' if you think that Christ died to save organizations. He did not; He died "... so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" whether they belong to any particular organziation or none at all. That, my friend, is both the beginning and the end of the story.

Neither the Chamber of Commerce or the RCC nor any other human organization can save you. Good wishes.

[AnAmericanMother]

The declarations did not create the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, they simply codified what had been accepted in tradition for centuries.

Or else Tiepolo and El Greco were psychic . . . ya think?

[Pyro7480]

I love that Tiepolo painting. I use it as the banner for my blog.

[AnAmericanMother]

There's absolutely nothing the Church can do with regard to devout but deluded folks who "see" Mary in freeway underpasses . . . except to caution them with regard to unapproved revelations (which is done fairly frequently).

I will note that there's occasional hysteria whipped up amongst Protestants about religion, faith healing and camp meeting hysteria come to mind. But the outlying religious hysterics of any denomination prove absolutely nothing about the doctrine taught by that group. The same is true of the Catholic Church.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's amazing, isn't it. His command of color and line . . .

[Conservative til I die]

Christ did not leave us a Bible. He left us a living Church. I thought the RCC accepted the Bible as the Word of God

Of course we do. Hell, we wrote the New Testament, compiled it, codified it, and canonized it. You Protestants just took it and tore 7 books right out of it. Thankfully someone stopped Martin Luther before he tore Revelations and some of the Epistles out too.

[Conservative til I die]

27,000 Protestant sects. End of story. It's only the 'end of the story' if you think that Christ died to save organizations. He did not; He died "... so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" whether they belong to any particular organziation or none at all.

So Jesus died for theological anarchy? Jesus also prayed so that all may be one. It certainly isn't one. And belonging to an organization is not some trivial matter that's so easily overlooked. There are some serious differences between the sects. I'm talking canon of the Bible, the nature of Christ or whether there is even a Trinity, salvation, the Eucharist, free will vs. pre-destination.

Jesus called us to follow Him and honor His teachings and His Father's Commandments. He didn't say 'believe whatever you want; it doesn't matter.'