Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Back when I first joined YIMCatholic, I was going to write posts about my conversion. I hammered out seven posts in pretty rapid succession and then, I stopped writing them until recently.
Many of my posts now are simply my observations of the world which are colored through the lens of a convert to Catholicism. It would be difficult for them not to be. Other posts I've written are of the "look what I just found!" variety, and the "I want to share this with you" type. Call them the discovery posts if you will.
Recently I gave a talk on the Communion of Saints for my parishes RCIA group. Consequently, I've been answering questions of potential converts that have prompted me to explain my conversion to others.
Basically, this has resulted in my having become a neophyte evangelist of sorts for the Church. And though this blog space isn't the forum for heavy-duty apologetics, because others do that better elsewhere, I have always seen my role here at YIMC as one of evangelizing.
Back to my conversion story, when I was first confronting the idea of becoming a Catholic, I had to look hard at the question "Why am I Protestant?" Having just moved cross-country following my retirement from the Marines, I found out that my mother no longer went to church where we had gone when I was growing up. Instead of the non-denominational church I grew up in (and which we were a founding family of), I learned that she now went to a Presbyterian church instead. Hmmm.
Rather than start visiting all kinds of churches, which appealed to me about as much as shopping for a new car, my family and I kept going to the local Catholic parish in our new town while I did research and home improvement projects. One of the first things I looked into was the problem of Catholics and their obviously misguided devotion to the Virgin Mary.
The funny thing is, I had sat in the pews in the Catholic Church with my wife for close to 18 years and I had never really noticed any wacky or overly zealous devotion to Mary. Not at Mass, anyway, and as we didn't stick around much after the conclusion of Mass, I didn't see anything that made me uncomfortable. Truthfully, I was surprised about this and it's probably a big reason why I continued to sit in the pews with my patient Catholic wife for that long a time.
This didn't stop me from believing that weird Marian devotions were happening though, and I assumed talk of her perpetual virginity was just "crazy talk." Like most, I had no idea what the Immaculate Conception was either and I just thought people were referring to Our Lord's conception. I was ignorant, plain and simple. But I had in mind a mission to correct the wrong religious track that my family was on so I started planning the military campaign to retake the spiritual territory I had ceded to the Church. My first target was what I thought would be the easiest: Mary.
Before I went on my "destroy Marian Devotion" offensive, though, I knew I would have to do a little homework. Planning ahead, you see, I figured the best place to start was with the guys who picked up the Protestant Reformation football and ran with it for touchdowns. Follow the winners Frank, and victory will be yours!
But get this. Much to my surprise, nay, shock(!) I had to throw a penalty flag on myself and look for a different angle of attack. Because what I found out was that the Big Three "Reformers" all agreed with the Catholic Church's teachings on the Mother of God!
Here is what I found, courtesy of the site catholicapologetics.info,
Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of God
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Assumption
Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:
"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."
Honor to Mary
Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing." Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.
John Calvin:
It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
Ulrich Zwingli:
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."
I remember being blown away by these revelations. I had gone to Christian churches my whole life and I had been told what I was supposed to believe, and I had never been told these things about Mary. I felt a little bit like the fellow wearing tan below, even though I was really acting like the guy wearing black.
And then I thought, "methinks they dost protest too much." And like young Skywalker above, I too leaped with faith and lived to tell the tale. I didn't land on my feet though. Instead, I landed in the lap of Blaise Pascal.
And so began the process of my going back to the Scriptures and to the Church Fathers and back through the history of the Catholic Church, and finally back into the arms of Christ's Church Herself.
Perhaps this post is a prequel in the 2BFrank saga. Sheeeesh!
To read more about the Protestant Reformers views on the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to track down the footnotes too, head on over to catholicapologetics.info. Head over to Scripture Catholic too, and bring your Bibles. Then head over to the Vatican and look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well.
“Which is why I’ve argued that Matthew affirms Christ gave Peter the following:
1, authority over the other Apostles,
2, the power to bind and loose.”
Peter was in fact, historically the first to proclaim the truth that Jesus was the Christ; the play on words could be interpreted as Christ would build “my church” on Peter/The Rock. Not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Universal — ALL who believe on Jesus as their Lord and Savior. But, nowhere in that passage does he set up Peter as a Pope; nor, is there any reference to apolstolic/papal succession. Were you to be fair, you would admit that there is no evidence for what you claim. And, in fairness, we do interpret scripture differently. Protestants attempt to interpret what the scripture says; Roman Catholics who are “vested” with the authority to interpret it seek to interpret it to fit the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions. Along the way, they do get some things right (to be fair).
As for Mary, your cite is absolutely farcical! “All generations hereafter will call you blessed.” Not repeated in scripture? Try the perennial favorite of Roman Catholicism (that I just referenced above) Matthew 16....
Matthew 16:17:
“ 17 And Jesus answered him, e“Blessed are you, fSimon Bar-Jonah! For gflesh and blood has not revealed this to you, hbut my Father who is in heaven.”
So blessedness=sinlessness? By your logic, Peter would have been sinless also; odd, this passage occurs at the start of Jesus’ ministry, before the thrice denial of Christ BY Peter! How could this be???
Also, how about Matthew 5?
2 and he began to teach them.
He said:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
So: the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, those hungry/thirsty for righteousness, etc. are ALL SINLESS. Without sin. They are blessed; Jesus said so!
I believe your reasoning falls flat on this. Your last sentence is sent packing. Mary was sinful; she offered a sin offering; she referred to her son as her savior. Can’t you take God’s Word for truth?
And, by the way — did you ever apologize to roamer_1 and admit to him that you were disingenuous in your attempt to put words in his mouth? I haven’t checked the posts in a while.
Hoss
Those are SO MUCH FUN! For years, Hubby and I did the local parish Christmas Story. We had one young fellow (narrator) reading the gospel, and then the others acted out the shepherds, wise men and holy family. Congregation and choir sang the hymns that went with each part. Then big party downstairs with a santa.
Very small rural parish but lots of love and laughter.
ROTFLOL! Amen! Great post.
All authoritarian tyrannies are the same top-down hierarchy that divide into only two classes - the elevated ruling class (priests) and everyone else below.
You are wrong as usual. Thirteen years of catholic education - under the nuns, brothers and priests.
Yep. Just like my husband. You former papists really know your stuff. Thank God for His merciful guidance -- "Post tenebras lux" (After darkness, light" - for those who are unfamiliar with the well-known phrase [see post 1,096])
I wasn’t “reading your mind.”
I was agreeing with you.
And yet you STILL took exception to my post.
Fascinating.
What do you think we should do about posters’ “inscrutable” Latin names, like Deo Volente?
>>Very small rural parish but lots of love and laughter.<<
That’s what makes it all special.
I know I won’t get a seat for mass, but for years I have had these great big grown boys tell me how much fun it was to be a shepherd.
It’s a blast!
What papal evidence? The earliest writings about it are NON Christian? Have you ever read the Transitus by Pseudo Melito? It is a Gnostic or Collyridian fable sounding more like myths of King Arthur than anything Christian.
R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:
This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).
Dr. E.: “Wow. So sorry. I guess I over-estimated RC apologists’ knowledge of a fairly-common phrase...”
Here we go:
_____________________________________________
And NO MORE LATIN - what part of obedience to rules is repellent to you?
1,018 posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:50:26 PM by presently no screen name
______________________________________________________
It isn’t the Catholics who have the problem with latin, clearly.
“What papal evidence? The earliest writings about it are NON Christian? Have you ever read the Transitus by Pseudo Melito? It is a Gnostic or Collyridian fable sounding more like myths of King Arthur than anything Christian.”
If your assertion has basis we would have seen some Papal reference thereof. Seeing as you would have quoted said Papal evidence if you knew it existed I can only conclude two things.
One, you are unaware of any Papal statement that confirms what you have stated here, or:
Two, such a Papal statement doesn’t exist because your assertion is entirely false.
We as Catholics aren’t bound to accept any of your citation. We are, however bound to accept the proclamation from the Pope. So until you have Papal evidence to confirm your statement, you are wasting your time. Except of course, to preach to the choir.
etc., etc., etc.
Problem?
Sure.
"Marian worship in the ecclesial community...is based on the will of Christ..."Mary is the path that leads to Christ..." - pope John Paul II, (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997)
“Peter was in fact, historically the first to proclaim the truth that Jesus was the Christ; the play on words ;could be interpreted; as Christ would build “my church” on Peter/The Rock.”
The issue therefore isn’t *lack* of biblical evidence, but that your interpretation of said evidence differs.
“But, nowhere in that passage does he set up Peter as a Pope; nor, is there any reference to apolstolic/papal succession.”
That is an entirely different claim. Correct. I am not arguing that the passage explicitly defines apostolic succession. I am arguing that the passage argues that Peter had primacy over the rest of the apostles.
The argument FOR apostolic succession is a bit more involved. What does Christ mean when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Scripture traditionally records that this office is passed on from one officeholder to the next. Ergo, it makes sense that when Christ hands the keys to Peter, that they are given to his office and expected to be passed down through the generations proceeding.
“Were you to be fair, you would admit that there is no evidence for what you claim.”
The fair analysis is that you interpret the evidence in a different fashion, not that the evidence is lacking.
“So blessedness=sinlessness?”
Never said this was so. ‘All generations shall call you blessed’, is different.
Where does that statement confirm that the origin of devotion to the blessed mary is to the document referenced?
JA, ignore the words and pass out the well wishes.
When someone must belittle another to build themselves up, they need our prayers more than our bullseyes.
A Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year to both of you Christians! Our Lord’s Love shine on you and may you be kept safe and healthy thoughout 2011.
In Jesus’ name, Amen!
He’s not attempting to read your mind; he’s making a basic statement. He said, “the minds of some posters will never be swayed...”
He didn’t say, “WrightWings will never change his mind.”
BIG difference.
Hoss
Further, the only time the words "Queen of heaven" are used in Scripture, it is to describe an idol.
How to papists miss that? Do they read the Bible?
And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?" -- Jeremiah 44:18-19 "But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
And even further, do Roman Catholics read Hebrews?
"(Jesus Christ) being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" -- Hebrews 1:3
"When He had BY HIMSELF purged our sins..."
Mary does not "share in the work of salvation with her Son" as your popes and your catechism "proclaim."
"Flee from idolatry."
Do you need the Latin phrase "etc., etc." to be translated for you?
Dr. E is a “she”.
And not a “Dr.”
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.