Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity

We are living in a remarkable age. As we approach the third millennium of Christianity in the year 2,000, we are watching a world in extremes. Amid the rapid onslaught of secularization and irreligion, we find hordes of people seeking solace in religion.

Amid the ravages of war and violence, we find the comfort and love of those who care for the poor and disadvantaged. Amid the lightning pace of modern life, we find souls searching for deeper meaning by retreating to monasteries and ashrams for solitude.

Two of the most powerful inspirations in late twentieth century Christianity are the drive toward greater unity among Christians of widely differing backgrounds (ecumenism) and the rapid growth of Marian devotion all around the world. This century has seen unprecedented efforts to bring together Christians who have been separated by misunderstanding and prejudice. And just when the ecumenical movement on a formal level seemed moribund, a new surge of grassroots ecumenism is finding ways of bringing together Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Whatever the outcome of these efforts, the air of this last decade of the second millennium is filled with the scent of Christian unity. It seems that Christians are grasping every opportunity to reconcile their doctrinal differences and to find the sweet savor of "brothers dwelling together in unity" (Ps 133: 1).

If this is an age of ecumenism, it is equally a Marian era because no century since the birth of Christ has witnessed such an outpouring of devotion to the mother of Jesus. As many observers note, reported apparitions and locutions have multiplied, leading numerous Christians to an unprecedented devotion to the humble handmaiden of the Lord who was privileged to bring the world its Redeemer. In tandem with these grassroots movements, there is a monumental effort within the Catholic Church for the Pope to define as dogma Marian doctrines that have long been present in the Church (Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, Advocate). Whether or not the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church decides to act, there is unlikely to be any diminishing of devotion to the mother of Jesus.

On the other hand, many non-Catholic Christians are mystified by such devotion to Mary. Some feel strangely drawn to honor her, but are afraid of falling into excessive focus on Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. To others, Marian devotion borders on the blasphemous. To still others, Catholics are idolaters. It is not an overstatement to say that no expression of historic Christianity has ever placed Mary in such a high position of honor as has the western Catholic tradition. And even though the Eastern Orthodox Churches have long honored Mary as the Mother of God, they do not have fully developed mariologies as the Western Church has.

The juxtaposition of ecumenical and Marian movements seems odd at best. On the surface, it appears that Mary would be the last subject chosen in an ecumenical dialogue. One might think that all the areas on which common agreement might be achieved should be addressed first, and then deal with the thorny question of Marian doctrine. Better to leave Mary until last. However, I am now convinced that questions about Mary must be addressed up front if any true ecumenism is ever to be achieved.

On a purely human level, no genuine friendship can ignore beliefs which are central to one party while those same beliefs are at best questionable to the other. Further, it is not completely honest for Catholics to pretend that Marian doctrines and devotions are not important and central to our lives. We ought to state openly that the Catholic faith does not allow the Church to ever change its defined dogmas about Mary. On the other hand, we must admit that not everything that goes on under the term Marian devotion is necessary or beneficial for the Church.

What can talk about Mary do to promote the cause of ecumenism? The answer depends on what we mean by ecumenism. One definition, and the one most common, sees ecumenism as a process of negotiation between different churches whereby one church gives up some aspect of its faith and the other partner relinquishes its claim to some of its distinctives. This process proceeds through a number of steps until a lowest common denominator is reached. The result is a church or some other official body which has a reduced form of faith and practice so that it might accommodate each respective member. This has largely been the pattern of ecumenism in the United States and the Western world for the better part of this century. In my judgment, such attempts have been a monumental failure. Mary cannot help with this type of ecumenism. The other definition of ecumenism is not founded on the concept of negotiation, but on seeking together the truth of God’s revelation. It begins with confessing that we don’t apprehend God’s truth completely, and that we must always seek to have the mind of Christ. In this conception, unity of heart and mind does not come from negotiated agreements, but from all parties, recognizing and embracing the objective truth of God.

It is a commonplace that married couples do not achieve success by each giving fifty percent to their marriage, but by each giving one hundred percent of themselves. In the same way, Christian unity comes from full commitment to searching for truth in a spirit of humility. Ecumenism begins with recognizing that unity already exists in God, that Christ is the center of unity, and that the Holy Spirit is the operative agent in bringing Christians together. Mary has everything to do with this kind of ecumenism.

Mary: The Sign of Unity ?
How can Mary help in promoting Christian unity? Many may feel the weight of disunity among Christians and long for a greater oneness in Christ, but can Mary really give us that greater oneness? Mary has been a source of division between Catholics and Protestants for a long time. What good will focusing on Mary bring? How can Christians be one when the very Marian devotions so precious to Catholics are viewed as idolatrous by Protestants? To human eyes, it seems that almost any other Christian doctrine would be better suited to bring unity than doctrines of Mary. And if we think of Mary just as a set of doctrines, that would be true. But Mary is more than a set of doctrines. Mary is a person. She lived her life on this earth as the mother of our Lord with her own character, mind, and idiosyncrasies. These things are true regardless of what we believe about her. Mary is what she is apart from our beliefs.

There is one unmistakable fact that we must remember about the real Mary—the Son of God lived in her womb for nine months. This is how Mary can be an instrument of unity. She united the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, with His human nature in her own body. Mary united more than any human being has ever united. She united God and man in the small confines of her own womb. Ponder this amazing reality. In Mary’s womb, heaven and earth were joined, not as two separate realities, but perfectly united in the one person of the Son of God. No wonder it says that "Mary treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lk 2:19). It is a reality beyond words.

Mary was the instrument of unity for the body of Jesus Christ and this is why Mary has long been thought of as mother of the church. The church is the body of Christ and Mary was the mother of Christ’s body, both physically and mystically. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ is the key to unity among Christians, but the one Savior Jesus Christ would not be what he is—the perfect God-man—without Mary’s being the means of uniting His divine and human natures in one person.

Mary’s example of obedience and discipleship also forms the foundation of unity. Mary gave herself unreservedly to Jesus her Son. Every Christian wants to be an obedient disciple of our Lord and needs examples of obedience to do so. Mary was filled with grace, and this allowed her to listen to the commands of her God without delay. Mary was on earth what every Christian will become in heaven, filled with grace. Obedience means a readiness to say YES to God, a spirit of humility that says "Let it be" (fiat). Unity cannot be achieved through negotiation. It must come through obedience to the apostolic teaching given by Jesus to Paul and the other apostles. Without a willing spirit, we can never achieve God’s desire for unity. Mary’s life of obedience and discipleship calls us to unity with God through obedience.

The unity we seek is not human but divine. Its source is the divine life of Christ the Redeemer. It is that unity for which He prayed when He said, "Father, that they might be one." This kind of unity doesn’t come from each group of Christians giving up some belief or practice for the sake of unity; it comes from each individual or group submitting to the authority of Christ and from the work of the Holy Spirit bringing oneness where it is humanly impossible. Like salvation itself, Christian unity is not within the grasp of human power. All we can do is open ourselves to the ministry of the Spirit to produce the unity that is impossible through negotiation.

It is because Mary has been such a stumbling block for Christians that a fuller embracing of her person and role will achieve a greater unity than we might expect. If we view Mary apart from Jesus, then Mary cannot help us. Yet she was never meant to be seen apart from her Son. Just as the Magi found Jesus "with his mother" (Mt 2:11), so we find Mary involved with her divine Son, cooperating in His work and plan.

We cannot solve the problem of how to be one in Christ. Not by negotiation, not by one or the other side caving in. But God can solve our problems. God specializes in the impossible, just as He once said to Mary (Lk 1:37). If the Holy Spirit can form within the womb of the Virgin Mary a new entity—the unique Godman—then He surely can bring together Christians divided by history, suspicion and misinformation. Perhaps it’s time for us to stop trying to be unified and let God do what we have failed to do. No one can see precisely how this will happen, but we know it won’t happen without embracing the fullness of salvation in Christ himself.

Mary and the Unity of the Trinity
The unity we seek does not result from negotiated agreements. Our Christian unity must be founded on truth. It must be unity of heart and mind, a permanent oneness that is not shaken by the changing tides of custom and culture. The New Testament concept of unity is nothing less than union with the Holy Trinity. Jesus our Lord prayed that the oneness of His disciples would resemble and flow from the oneness experienced by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: "That they all may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you that they may also be one in us" (Jn 17:21). Jesus Christ does not want our unity to be like his and the Father’s. He wants our unity to be the same as He and the Father have.

Mary is both a sign and an instrument of the unity coming from the Holy Trinity because she bears a unique relation to each member. Let’s see how Mary is related to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. First, however, a word of caution. In A.D. 431 the ancient Christian Church defined Mary as the Mother of God because the Church wanted to protect the full divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. This title, Mother of God (or better Godbearer), asserted that the child in Mary’s womb was nothing less than fully God and fully man. But the title Mother of God never has been nor should be interpreted to mean that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. Mary bears a distinct relation to each member of the Trinity, but she is not the mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the daughter of the Father.
When Mary proclaims herself the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk 1:38,48), she is declaring her filial obedience to the will of God. The love she has for the heavenly Father shows itself in her desire to be His vessel of bringing salvation to the world. What better sign of unity than this act of submission to the will of God? If we only follow Mary’s lead, we will find ourselves united in heart as her heart was united with the heavenly Father’s heart.

Mary did not negotiate with God, bargain with Him nor seek a compromise. She acknowledged her dependence on His grace and sought to perform His bidding. The will of the Father is unity for us who profess His Son. We will have unity only when we have submitted ourselves to the Father as Mary did.

Yet Mary is more than a sign. She is an instrument of unity. How is this true? Without her obedience the Savior would not have been born. Some Christians think that if Mary had refused Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Savior, God would have found another woman. There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament for this view. Mary freely gave herself to God’s will of giving the world its Savior. By her instrumentality Mary united the Father to the world through His Son. In a profound sense, Mary united us to the Father through the Son. And that is how we will find a greater degree of unity today. By seeking to imitate her obedience and by seeking submission to the same Father through the Son she bore.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Gabriel proclaimed that the Holy Spirit would come over her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Lk 1:35). This is the language of marital love (see Ruth 3:9; Zeph 3:17). Mary was united with the third person of the Trinity in order to give flesh to the second person. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she gave her body to the service of God so that she might receive the fullness of God. And so Mary is a sign of how we too must seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit to do the will of God (cf Eph 5:18). It is the Holy Spirit who brings Jesus Christ today just as He brought the divine Christ to the womb of Mary (cf. Jn 14:17,18). When we are filled with the Spirit as Mary was, we are united to Jesus and we become more united with one another. Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit brought us the Son who poured out the Spirit that we might be united with both Son and Spirit. Her union brings about our union.

Mary is the mother of the Son.
Through her, Christ’s divine and human natures were united into the one person that would save us from our sins. As Jesus’ mother, Mary signals that our unity will only be in and through her Son. When Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman ... that we might receive the adoption" (Gal 4:4,5), the apostle implies that true unity comes only from being members of the same family—the same family in which Jesus is the firstborn Son.

We cannot be members of many different families that have a tolerance for one another’s beliefs and worship. No doubt tolerance for cultural and historical differences is essential, but that is still not the New Testament ideal of unity. Unity means being in the same family as Jesus ("one Lord"), having the same content of belief ("one faith"), living in the same Church body ("one baptism"). Only then can we be sure that we have the same "God and Father of all, who is over all, through all and in all." See Ephesians 4:4-6.

Mary: God’s Woman of the Hour
Now is the time for unity among Christians. As we approach the beginning of the third millennium since Christ’s birth, we see an almost unprecedented call to unity. Christian leaders the world over have caught a glimpse of Christ’s will that "they may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you" (Jn 17:21). The desire for unity is laudable and ought to be pursued with vigor. Yet the only unity worth pursuing, the only unity that will last is the unity that already exists in the Holy Trinity. This kind of unity is not something we achieve. It is something given to us as a gift. This unity is infused in our souls and expressed by oneness of mind and heart (doctrine and love).

Truth without love is barren and sterile. Unity without truth is empty and fruitless. Jesus was a kind and compassionate man who proclaimed the truth. The Lord who wept over Jerusalem’s obstinacy (see Mt 23:37-39), and who was moved with compassion over the "sheep without a shepherd," (Mk 6:34) is the same Lord who said that the truth of His words would not pass away (Lk 21:33). If Jesus is our Lord, then we must follow with equal vigor His truth and love.

Insistence on truth at the expense of unity will not do, nor will embracing unity at the expense of truth. Truth and unity are equally ultimate. Yet even now, we must realize the impossibility of reconciling truth and unity with human schemes and ingenuity. The only way to have unity is by having unity in Truth. The truth that brings unity is Jesus Himself who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). The truth Jesus gives is the complete teaching of His will as expressed in and through the Church of the apostles.

The Church is Jesus’ idea and institution; it is part of the will of Jesus. And it is Christ’s Church that wrote and gave us the Holy Scriptures and the truths of faith passed down from generation to generation. Obedience to Jesus means obedience to Jesus’ Church. It is no accident that Christians have spoken of the Church as our mother for centuries. Classic Christianity spoke this way: the one who wants God as a Father must have the Church as a mother. Why is it necessary? Because Jesus is nurturing our faith through our mother, the Church. And that is why Mary is so important.

Jesus is our model but we must remember that even our Lord learned some of His commitment to truth and compassion from His mother. All we have to assume is that Mary lived her own words to see that this is true. She loved truth enough to consent to Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Son of God (Lk 1:38). She was filled with compassion enough to see God’s "mercy from generation to generation" (Lk 1:50). Mary was a woman of truth and love. Her commitment to God’s truth and love lead her to the unity of the Son of God. Her submissive heart that willingly embraced God’s truth and her devoted love for God brought about the unity of Christ’s human and divine natures into the perfect unity of His one divine person.

So Mary’s commitment to truth and unity is both our model and the means of our unity. She modeled our path to unity by her embrace of the divine Son within her womb. We must embrace Him too. Mary is also the means of our having unity because without her act of submission to God we would not have the one Savior who can unify us.

It is time to lay down our defensive postures, to lay aside our personal and political agendas, to give up our dearest visions for the Church and to embrace the complete will of Christ. I believe that if we could simply be like Mary on that day when Gabriel came to her, we could then say with her, "Let it be done to us according to your word" (Lk 1:38). Perhaps, she could say with us:

Lord, we are your servants.
Heal our divisions and
Let Your Son reign as Lord within.
Let Your Word dwell within us
And make us one.

Sorry, I had missed your post in the fray...

I am following you up to this bit:

God choose to impregnate a virgin for Jesus’ birth so that there would be no misunderstanding as to who the father is.

As far as was generally known He was Jesus ben Joseph, son of Jacob. His birth by a virgin was kept secret, as Mary was soon married to Joseph.

Because there was no human father, there was no sin nature. He was the same as Adam before the fall. He was born sinless and had free will like Adam.

Is it your assertion that the sinful nature is only passed through the father? That the sinful nature of the mother (that she received from her father) is *not* passed on to the child?

That is different, and interesting. I will have to ponder that a while...

Unlike Adam, He choose to obey His Father. This is why Paul stated in Romans 5 and 6, (paraphrasing); “As by one man, Adam, all sin came into the world, by one man, Jesus, it was conquered.

You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?

That bit relies upon the 'sins of the father' part... which I still stew upon...

We can live a less sinful life as Christians because we are no longer bound by the sin nature. It is now our free will when we sin.”

Whether true or not, it is incidental. Any sin, free will or not, dooms us. It is the Blood of the Lamb that covers our sin. Many a Christian has also wound up in unbelief, What does that do to this construct?

The somewhat juxtaposed point I might speculate upon is that the unsaved sinner, still under the sinful nature, I suppose, is not under free will, then? What of those sinners before the cross? Was there no free will involved there?

For the courts of Heaven to be satisfied, Jesus had to be exactly like pre fall Adam.

I am unsure of where you get this thought... The courts of Heaven must be satisfied, to be sure, but it is my reckoning that the sinless life of Christ was the deal breaker, though the word of God (Prophecy) had to be fulfilled in Him too (God could not break His word).

As you can plainly see, there was only one reason for a virgin birth.

I don't see it quite as plainly as you suspect. I will await your clarification.

Your position (if I have it right) is a stronger one than mine, as it explains how Christ's own body might be a sinless vessel, wherein mine supposes Christ conquering sin from within the corrupting influence of a sinful nature. Yours would be a more comfortable fit for an Holy Deity.

Yet my position still has weight in the obvious fact that Christ's human body was still corruptible. He did in fact die, and death is part and parcel with the original sin. On the surface of it, that would indicate Christ being born into the curse, and succeeding in spite of it.

I am not being flippant here. You bring up an interesting theory, and the mechanics of Christ's deity interacting with His human form are largely unknown. I will have to stand on the evidence though, until some other means is revealed:

If Christ was indeed removed from the curse of Adam, His body an holy chalice without sin or flaw, death would not find Him, because death is part of the curse. It stands to reason thereby, that He was born into the curse, just like the rest of us, and that He succeeded where we all have utterly failed, in spite of that curse.

All the talk about Mary being sinless and/or her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with God’s plan working and takes away from who we should be focused on.

On that we are in complete agreement.

PLEASE ping me to any update on Your neice.

Lord, Jesus, for Today’s Grace,
Today’s Blood covering;
Today’s wholeness;
Today’s provision;
Today;s Peace—Your peace like a river;
Today’s Joy in You;

Today’s Holy Spirit Comfort;
Today’s understanding;
Today’s Intimacy with You and others;
Today’s Forgiveness;
Today’s Hope;
Today’s Wisdom;
Today’s Kindness;

Today’s touch from You . . . & from ‘You with skin on.’
Today’s Word;
Today’s Growth in You;
Today’s next step WITH You;
Today’s discipline in thought and deed;
Today’s letting go of things that hinder;
Today’s focus on the supreme priority of You and You alone;

Today’s maturity;
Today’s pleasure in knowing You;
Today’s Spirit-Filled choices with You, in You;
Today’s Serendipity;
Today’s Spontaneity;
Today’s Fellowship with those who love You;
Today’s Service to You and to the broken hearted even if all that’s possible for the broken mentioned is to acknowledge weakly that ‘tain’t my brother or sister but me so needy, today, Lord;

Today’s Strength in You;
Today’s Overcoming in You;
Today’s Abandonment to You;
Today’s Courage in You;
Today’s Fun in You, with You;
Today’s Abundant Life in You;
Today’s Resurrection Life in You;

Today’s Security in You;
Today’s Steadfastness in You;
Today’s Perseverance in You;
Today’s Faithfulness in You;
Today’s Deliverance in You, Through You;
Today’s Transformation(s) in You, Through You;
Today’s Soaring on wings as Eagles In You;

Today’s Identity, essence, becoming . . . IN you;

Today’s All in All In You, Lord . . .

We ask for all such things according to your Riches and Graces in Glory be imparted to JimRob; Alamo-Girl’s niece; the Don-o’s sons; MarySecretary; other Freepers and loved ones in need of healing/organs/rotor-rootered veins/arteries; tumors removed; marriages healed; jobs provided; prodigals returned to you and family love; Arthritis, bitterness, resentments removed & forgiveness extended; knees, hips and finger joints healed; . . . anguished questions answered or let-go . . .

Lord, You alone have the perfect provision for such needs. We lay them before you, trusting in your perfect Love to offer, provide your Perfect response(s) . . . by Your Stripes, Lord and in Jesus’ Precious Blood and Name.
Amen.

Thank you for your response. I hope my answers will make my points more effective.

God choose to impregnate a virgin for Jesus’ birth so that there would be no misunderstanding as to who the father is.

As far as was generally known He was Jesus ben Joseph, son of Jacob. His birth by a virgin was kept secret, as Mary was soon married to Joseph.

That may have been true at the time but the virgin birth is one of the foundations of Christianity. It is part of the Apostle’s Creed. Jesus could not have been the begotten of the Father any other way.

Because there was no human father, there was no sin nature. He was the same as Adam before the fall. He was born sinless and had free will like Adam.

Is it your assertion that the sinful nature is only passed through the father? That the sinful nature of the mother (that she received from her father) is *not* passed on to the child?

That is different, and interesting. I will have to ponder that a while...

That is how I have been led to believe the scripture I posted from Leviticus. I.E. I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me.

God does not say the iniquities of the mothers, only the fathers. While searching for more such scripture I was reminded by some of the scriptures I read that the fall did not happen when Eve tasted the fruit. It happened when Adam did. By one man’s sin, Adam, sin entered the world.

Unlike Adam, He choose to obey His Father. This is why Paul stated in Romans 5 and 6, (paraphrasing); “As by one man, Adam, all sin came into the world, by one man, Jesus, it was conquered.

You suggest that because the impetus to sin is removed from Him, his actions of free will, obeying the Father, caused Him to live a sinless life, thus breaking the bonds of sin for all?

That bit relies upon the ‘sins of the father’ part... which I still stew upon...

The sin’s of the fathers part makes it all possible. Fallen man has more than an impetus to sin, he has no choice but to sin. Christ was like pre fall Adam with free will, he could obey God or Satan. He chose God and broke the bonds of sin for all.

We can live a less sinful life as Christians because we are no longer bound by the sin nature. It is now our free will when we sin.”

What you say is true about the Blood of the Lamb. It has already covered our sins past and future. My point is the future ones. I know God has forgotten my sins but I sometimes wonder how many lashes Jesus took for me. How many were for my future sins that could have been avoided because I am free not to sin.

The free will was over powered by the sin nature. No one could gain heaven on there own. That is why God sent Jesus.

For the courts of Heaven to be satisfied, Jesus had to be exactly like pre fall Adam.

The sinless life of Christ was the deal maker not breaker. My point is that the Courts of Heaven had to have apples for apples. Adam lost salvation for man. Christ had to be exactly like Adam to make what He did legal. He had to be capable of the same failings or the contest would not have been fair and/or legal. When He was tempted by Satan, He had to be just as able as Adam to capitulate or it was meaningless.

Prophecy had to be fulfilled to prove who He was, for the most part.

As you can plainly see, there was only one reason for a virgin birth.

I don’t see it quite as plainly as you suspect. I will await your clarification.

Did my answers help or hinder?

Your position (if I have it right) is a stronger one than mine, as it explains how Christ’s own body might be a sinless vessel, wherein mine supposes Christ conquering sin from within the corrupting influence of a sinful nature. Yours would be a more comfortable fit for an Holy Deity.

Yet my position still has weight in the obvious fact that Christ’s human body was still corruptible. He did in fact die, and death is part and parcel with the original sin. On the surface of it, that would indicate Christ being born into the curse, and succeeding in spite of it.

I am not being flippant here. You bring up an interesting theory, and the mechanics of Christ’s deity interacting with His human form are largely unknown. I will have to stand on the evidence though, until some other means is revealed:

You are forgetting one thing. Christ died by choice. Father, Your will be done. He sweat blood just thinking about being separated from the Father. This makes it even more (What ever superlative you want to insert here.) what he did for us.

He had to die while innocent to payoff that part of the curse for us. The death also allowed Him to be resurrected to fulfill Prophecy and to assure us the Father would do the same for us.

All the talk about Mary being sinless and/or her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with God’s plan working and takes away from who we should be focused on.

On that we are in complete agreement.

I find it interesting that you are the only one to comment on my post. I thank you again and I hope I answered some of your concerns. BVB

Roamer-””But heresies have come and gone all along- The RCC has excomunicated whole churches, and even regions for their heresies.””

These heresies have come back and have grown roots again due to the reformation,like the previous example I gave you on those groups again denying Divinity of Christ-the Mormons Jw’s etc.
They don't effect the Catholic Church because they have already been dealt with and condemned.

roamer-””But what is less easy to determine from within the RCC, and I am treading lightly here my FRiend, are those heresies which may have taken root””

Whatever you think has taken root,if it were an actual heresey,it grew outside of the Church,not from the Church's teachings.My guess is that what you call a heresy is based on your OWN interpretation of scripture

roamer-””But what force is there within the RCC that can really do so? Fifteen hundred years of being insistently inerrant, an hierarchical structure with little in the way of checks and balances””

The Catholic Church has concrete dogmatic teaching on Faith and Morals,thus there is no need for checks and balances. An example would be on abortion -we can trace the Church's condemnation of abortion back to the first century written in the Didache and others throughout the centuries

From the Didiache
“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” Didache 2, 2: SCh 248, 148; cf. Ep. Barnabae 19

roamer-””I will contend that statement. By and large, the lion's share of Protestantism is pretty much on the same page.””

I think many of them started that way in the beginning,but as you pointed out the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, I would say other mainline protestant churches will continue along this path because of the lack of understanding of TRUE freedom and lack of putting concrete limits for the sake of financially being able to survive.

This is the end result of a plauarlistic society

The false idea that freedom is the right to do whatever “I” please has thus lead to a pluralistic world of materialism,sexual immoralities,self fulfillment etc ... you name it , its all here!
All this is done in the name of freedom and protected in the name of democracy

This is not True Freedom,Dear Brother!
True freedom means being FREE FROM ERROR,thus being free from materialism,sexual immoralites, self fulfillment etc

“The Truth shall set you free”

The Catholic Church has taught True freedom from the very beginning and reinforced this through her Dogmatic constitutions through the ages.Sadly many within the Church don't follow those teaching,but those teachings CANNOT ever change because they are dogmatic,thus guided by the Holy Spirit

Roamer said “”I am adamantly against their doctrine of infant baptism””

The early Christians Baptized Infants,Dear Brother.

look.....

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.” Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.” Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).

It is also scriptural

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children's faith.

I have enjoyed conversing with you.

I wish you and your family a Blessed evening

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.