Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity
By Kenneth J. Howell, Ph. D.
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.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
This article is from Ken’s new book, Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity. [Queenship Publishing]
Quix have you ever read any of the Church fathers who were contemporaries or students of the Apostles. Have you read the history of the Church councils? Do you know how responded to the heresies that threatened it?
Do you honestly think those who learned from the Apostles themselves and who passed on their teachings would have embraced heresy and allowed it to take root in the Church?
If you believe that how can you trust any doctrines arising from that time in Church history? The Trinity, The Divinity of Christ, The Hypostatic Union. Can you defend against the heresy of Gnosticism, Arianism and the like?
Do you know that besides the Immaculate Conception
(though I believe they do hold Mary never committed personal sin) the Orthodox also teach Mary was ever virgin, that she was assumed into Heaven, that she bore God in her womb?
Rather than Catholics and Orthodox building skyscrapers of falsehood. Some Protestant sects have done their best to tear down the citadil of Truth built on the Word of God, both written and given to us through the Traditions of the Apostles and the Fathers.
Not at all. I thought no such thing.
I realize how entrenched the Maryolatry stuff is far and wide and particularly hereon.
I merely stated my eager happiness at laying aside the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature as soon as y’all did.
However, being more of a realist . . . than many RC’s, I had no illusions nor delusions that any RC reps hereon were going to lay 1% of such aside for any reason short of a literal burning bush in their laps.
Rejoicing alert to RC’s: Quix is going to class to teach shortly.
If Mary's mom and dad did not conceive Mary would God be powerless to chose another female? Why did it take 1900 years to establish the dogma? Empirical evidence established the Resurrection since day one. If Mary ascended where is the empirical evidence at? Conflicting stories do not count consistency needs establishment. Are religions actually an enemy of the real God? (Trying to create/please God in man's own vision, works and deeds)
One day I brought up these simple questions to a nun in religion class and it got me in a whole lot of trouble. Never did get a LOGICAL answer from the nun, principle (Who was also a nun) and the Priest I had to visit for "counseling".
Do you honestly think those who learned from the Apostles themselves and who passed on their teachings would have embraced heresy and allowed it to take root in the Church?
= = =
Have read some such.
Yes, I absolutely believe the above—I’ve seen it happen in within a matter of weeks to months after a great congregational pastor moving on or graduating to Heaven.
‘Tis human. happens chronically in human groups—ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS human groups.
Good points.
I understand. The resistence to truth on these threads on the RC side is so thick one would need blasting materials to shake it slightly loose.
Thanks much.
There was never a widespread abuse of Indulgence's that some forms of protestantism would like for you to believe. The abuse before Luther was handled by the Church resulting in excommunication of a handful of people who were involved.
Like anything else,we have sinners in the Church who do not follow the teachings
Many people have no idea what indulgences are and are not
From New Advent
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin.””
Here is an example of an indulgence
The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church.
roamer-””No! It is the French Liberalism, growing fitfully from the rotten root of Roman Empire that has foisted this nonsense upon the world. It has grown and festered far longer in the Catholic nations than it ever has among the Protestants. It is the basis of the stench of Nazism, and of communism, and is the very self same liberalism that we fight now. To suggest that such is the fault of Protestantism, or of the Protestant Nations is to deny history.””
Many people have been brainwashed to believe what you said here.It's not even close to being true
Here are the historical facts ...
I'll make this brief(in a hurray)
The reformation in breaking unity from the Catholic Church is the true start of Liberalism that gradually weakened the Catholic countries.
It was the french (mostly calvinists) who pillaged and stole the catholic Churches land and forced democratic elections to choose Bishops etc..- where protestant communities were actually able to select a Catholic Bishop in France,the Bishop was then forced to take civil oaths.
The United States was founded by liberal french and european calvinistic puritan slave owners and lawyers who were freemasons.
Are you going to call them Conservatives and moral?Hardly!
Thus it not surprise anyone that abortion,pornography etc.. is legal and protected in the name of freedom and democracy. It was only a matter of time before we caught up with most of western europe. It's not getting better either,Dear Brother.
ALL of this is and has always been AGAINST the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The world renown Professor of History Dr John Rao sums this up well
excerpt;
The Founding Fathers and their successors built their “make believe” objective order first and foremost upon America's British heritage. This was quite a schizophrenic legacy by the late eighteenth century. It certainly included Christianity, chiefly in the form of Anglicanism and Puritan Protestantism. But it also involved the Enlightenment, primarily in the manner that former Anglicans and Puritans who had lost their Faith presented it. These converts to the naturalist camp often used the Christian-inspired language with which they were familiar to promote their new, anti-Christian goals. Whether they intended this or not, such speech soothed those who remained believers and blinded them as to where, exactly, their familiar-sounding doctrines might actually lead in the future.
Even the Founders were aware that there was a troublesome reality that their novus ordo saeclorum was obliged immediately to confront. This was the presence in the United States of a kaleidoscope of different ethnic groups and religious convictions. That presence grew still more complex and troublesome with the mass migrations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The fullness of the make believe order of the American Pluralist system emerged out of attempts to harmonize the reality of a multicultural society with the basic conservatism of the Anglican via media, the radicalism of Puritanism, and the naturalism of an Enlightenment of both Anglican and Puritan flavor. Its theory and “mystique” were firmly in place by the late 1890’s. What they claimed was that America had discovered the formula for providing a peaceful, ordered community out of a society guaranteeing freedom to all of God (or Nature's) divided children. America thus offered mankind throughout the globe its “last and best hope” for a liberty, tranquility, and happiness greater than any ever known in human history.
Unfortunately, “diving into” the Americanist Pluralist mystique helps merely to bring to fruition another version of vulgar, materialist, and uniform disorder, whipped into some semblance of make believe unity through the will of the strongest. It aids in the perfection of that type of bland, organized willfulness predicted by nineteenth century Catholic thinkers, but in a more successful and seductive way than they could ever have imagined. Those who are interested in a deeper, more detailed discussion of Americanist Pluralism and its (temporarily) successful employment of Original Sin as the central building block of individual and social life should consult my Americanism and the Collapse of the Church in the United States, Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves, Founding Fathers and Church Fathers, To Promote Dialogue, Fight American Pluralism, and many other articles, all to be found on the For the Whole Christ website (jcrao.freeshell.org). All I propose to do in the present brief talk is to outline the main lines of the perversion and the confusion that this system perpetrates.
Let it suffice to say for now that the “freedom” and the “order” that one obtains through it are a purely naturalist freedom and order based upon the peculiar and often contradictory Christian and Enlightenment factors forming American culture. Its naturalism is bewildering to the believer because, as noted above, so many Americans used-—and still use-—Christian language to describe, praise and promote a set of anti-Christian purposes. It is baffling also because it has to cater to both radical and conservative naturalist tastes at one and the same time.
Hence, the American is told that he has the radical freedom that a secularized Puritans might wish him to have, a freedom that “sounds Christian” because it can easily be related to its fundamental Protestant roots. But in order to practice this freedom in a way that does not disturb the order preferred by Enlightenment conservatives, he learns that liberty actually has to be utilized in a way that avoids “divisiveness”; in a fashion that “integrates” its practitioner into an order composed of endless varieties of “non-divisive, integrating individualists”.
Americans learn that the “freedom” of communities, such as the Catholic Church, is subject to the influence of Puritan and secularized Puritan ideas regarding liberty. Freedom, under these circumstances, means only the freedom given for individual members of a religious society to rip their communal authority to shreds. All attempts to hold onto communal authority could be nothing other than assaults on freedom detested by the anti-institutional God of Protestantism and the anti-institutional Nature of the liberty-loving Enlightenment. Freedom for religious communities-—for all communities, as far as more radical thinkers are concerned-—amounts to nothing other than the freedom to be impotent and to self-destruct. James Madison, the chief author of the American Constitution, quite openly rejoices in this truth, arguing for the need to “multiply factions” within existing, strong communities so as to paralyze their ability to mobilize their followers and actually shape the American political and social order.
First you must understand we believe the Church is protected against teaching heresy not because of any personal holiness or inerrancy of her clergy or members. But because of Christ’s promise and because of the Holy Spirit’s protection.
Secondly yes there were Church fathers even who taught things later rejected by the Church. Individuals (with the exception of the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedera) are not protected against teaching heresy. Even Peter fell into error and was called Satan by Christ.
But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy. Christ knew too well that humans are sinful, weak creatures who are too easily swayed by culture and whose natural affection is for sin. So He sent the Paraclete.
That is why we call Pentecost the birthday of the Church. You may believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, we do not.
This is why we differ so greatly in so many of our beliefs. Many Protestants believe there is no visible Church. That each believer is given the Charism to be protected against the error of heresy. That all Biblical passages need no interpertation by anyone outside of the reader. You would never, ever agree on the Catholic definition and understanding of Church. Because of this you are unable to separate the acts of sinful men within the Church from her claim to having the fullness of Truth.
All the Church claims and teaches rests on the foundation of Christ. We understand that. We will not reject Her just because so many do not grasp this.
First go read what the doctrine says pay close attention to the phrase “ merits of Jesus Christ”
Then please go research where the relics of Mary are kept and venerated. ( I am not asking you to believe in them, but keep in mind the relics of Saints are kept and venerated by the faithful. It is a great honor for a Church to house the relics of a saint. So they do tend to let word get out they have them)
Then read a variety of concordances on the meaning of the phrase “ full of Grace”. To be thorough start with the question of how the Greek phrase “Kecharitomene:” is properly understood and translated. There are disagreements but I think it important you get a chance to examine all sides.
Then if you want. (I wouldn’t) you can read about the debate between different Schools of Theology about whether Mary was without original sin as well as personal sin or only without personal sin. It may be enough to read how the writings of Don Scotus helped answer the dilemma of if all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, how then could Mary be without original sin? Didn’t think the Church had thought of that little glitch did you?
Then please look up the definition of Assumption and contrast it to the Ascension. They are not the same and anyone who trys to give you an understanding that they are needs a swift kick in the ass.
Ok after all that come back and ask your question again edited to reflect what Catholics truly believe and what the Marian doctrines you allude to actually say.
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.- 2 Corinthians 10:3-6
If Mary was free from original sin then her parents and their parents etc... must be also.
It does not follow. Mary herself was not god, she carried God and this, the speculation goes, necessitated her purity as the tabernacle of the Word. St. Anna did not carry but another human.
I would agree this is a bit speculative. The scripture merely says "Hail full of grace". The Greek there is past tense, and it is a unique Greek word not used by Luke anywhere else. This leads us to think that hte filling of grace occurred at some point before the Angle spoke. The natural point of time for that is conception. But one who goes by the scripture alone is not obligated to reacht he same conclusion Catholics reach.
Mary would God be powerless to chose another female?
We believe that God foreknows all events, so He foreknew Mary's consent also. It is pointless to speculate if another woman would have been chosen, since we don't have multiple universes and in this one, Mary was chosen.
Why did it take 1900 years to establish the dogma?
The Catholic dogmas are not established by council. They are proclaimed as being the belief of the Church since day one. The Pope chose to proclaim the marian beliefs in question as dogmatic because the world was falling into a number of inhumane heresies, atheistic darwinism chief among them. At that point it became important to stress that human existence has a supernatural dimension and has heaven as its both source and destiny. But the Pope would not have been able to proclaim the dogma if the beleif had not been present in an inarticulated form in the Church.
If Mary ascended where is the empirical evidence at
That is sort of the point: there is no known relic of Virgin Mary when there is a relic of virtually every saint of the early Church period.
Missionaries in the future will, more and more, see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ Himself is born. In an apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her divine Son. She is forever a "traitor," in the sense that she will not accept any devotion for herself, but will always bring anyone who is devoted to her to her divine Son. As those who lose devotion to her lose belief in the divinity of Christ, so those who intensify devotion to her gradually acquire that belief.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1952.
Is there not a cause? (1Sam.17:29) :)
Johann Tetzel
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm
There is always more than one side to a story
“As has been explained here may times, co is used in the sense of the Latin “cum,” meaning “with.””
Now you are an optimist, attempting to teach these literary geniuses a foreign language when they are inept at the native tongue.
Utter nonsense. Many theologians (Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius etc...) were skeptical and not exactly sure. "Consensus" was not reached until "1900" years later, "1500" if you count from 'De Obitu S. Dominae', how convenient.
I will take the Bible plus early Church Father "questioning of the whole deal" (Some had a belief but not enough to to rise to the level an "dogma", remember that) over Gregory of Tours, De Obitu S. Dominae, hearsay and Pope Pius XII any day.
I would agree, although this returns us to our very first conversation, wherein I suggested that recognition of Protestant authority would be of a necessity.
It is impossible to see eye to eye when one participant is looking down his nose at the other.
1. Refrain from describing the other confession in caricature terms. For example, the Protestants should listen to how the Catholics themselves explain the veneration of Mary, the saints, and the relics, rather than assuming that all these are idolatry or even detract from the worship of God. This doesn’t mean the Protestants have to venerate Mary, but it means that the Protestants express their disagreement in terms acceptable to the Catholics.
What you are describing is simply a matter of good manners, something both sides could stand some work on, and consideration goes both ways. I doubt we will ever have agreement, and I doubt our principles would allow us to avoid the nasty bits, as many might do in polite conversation, but we could all work on a more friendly interchange, that is true.
2. Concentrate on its own confession rather than on defects in other confessions, just like Protestants do between themselves, and the Catholics do with the Orthodox.
Um, I hate to spring it on you like this, but Protestants fight like a sack of cats. Our interdenominational wars, or more often, orthodox vs liberal wars are just as bad as anything you see here.
The difference here is that, for the main, the religious body is made up of Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals, Catholics, and a fair sprinkling of Mormons. As the Evangelicals tend to think along the same lines, there is a greater solidarity, and especially so when against Catholics and Mormons, as the differences are so profound, all three groups are well educated and stand their ground.
3. Acknowledge that each side is profoundly concerned in correctly understanding the entirety of the Holy Scripture, and that we have honest differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of some passages. [...]
WRT correct understanding, one thing that would be nice is if the Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true. If the Catholics and Evangelicals together can agree and develop an inter-faith seal of approval which is *not* given to the publisher unless the translation meets the standard, that would go a long way toward getting lesser translations off the street. I do not mean to suggest that you give up the Apocryphal books, nor that we must adopt them, but that the books as presented meet the scrutiny of both sides.
It is unhealthy to call another side’s interpretation as unscriptural, deride it as “tradition of men”, etc. when your own side also has but an interpretation by other group of men.
I don't think you really 'get it' wrt Protestant interpretation. Because our doctrines are diverse, and because we as denominations are not in agreement, The Scriptures are always paramount. We hack on each other about our own interpretations too.
One thing that would help is for Catholics to realize what a broad brush they use to paint us with. "Protestant" is a very wide ranging term. It is hardly productive to accuse Fundamental Evangelicals for the asinine doctrines of the liberal churches.
To put differently, to offer a variety of interpretatins of scripture is one thing, and it is healthy. To say that one interpretation is inspired by the Holy Ghost and the other is not is not healthy.
I don't know how that is to be resolved by either direction.
4. Acknowledge that the works of the early fathers of the Church is an important historical witness to the practices of the historical early Church. It is fine to disagree with them here and there, unhealthy to create myths of the historicity of one side’s interpretation of scripture in absence of patristic evidence of such.
I don't know Protestants of any knowledge that do not honor the works of the early fathers. That does not include elevating them to the authority of Scripture though, and there is a mistrust even of these works because of paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles. If the accusation remains unspoken, it is this line of thought that is the root of our distrust of prayer to Mary and to saints. It is this line of thought that insists upon sola scriptura.
rollo said-””I will take the Bible plus early Church Father “questioning of the whole deal” “”
Seems to me you are taking someone else's opinion on this rather than looking at what Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius actually wrote
The early church father's you mention believed Mary is the New Eve and did NOT say Mary sinned at all.
This means that Mary was superior to Eve in every way
lets take a look...
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
” ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord—simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself...Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord.” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 22:19,38 (A.D. 384).
“We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 (A.D. 415).
That pretty much takes care of Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius .
I don't know who the etc’s are you mention are but I can show you a whole hosts of others along the line of the ones you mentioned.
I wish you 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.