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.
AMEN and AMEN!
ABSOLUTELY INDEED:
If venerating and praying to Mary were important or necessary, Christ would have told us so in the Bible. The apostles would have written about it.
None did.
Instead, fallen men add insult to injury as centuries pass and Christ fades as the goddess grows to celestial heights - “Queen of the Universe.”
God forbid.
Did FR become incredibly sluggish and slow the last few hrs?
Huh. Well, I was never a proddie. That’s not my background nor upbringing. You could use the label, I suppose, if you wanted to, on people who converted from some proddie pseudochurch to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I wouldn’t, but you feel free.
Hi boatbums!
Thanks; to God be the glory!
Hoss
Boatbums,
Just to clarify for you and me:
” the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”
Means the Roman Catholic Church.
Just so we don’t get confused. ;)
Hoss
Boatbums,
Just to clarify for you and me:
” the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”
Means the Roman Catholic Church.
Just so we don’t get confused. ;)
Hoss
FR seems to be up and down tonight...will leave this message in case others are also having difficulty. The site goes down while I’m reading a post...just goes away.. I do wonder if this is an attack on Jim’s site?
Do not attempt to adjust your set...or you may enter the
The LightWeight Zone! (fade to black with crazed laughing in the background)
I think you’re starting at the wrong end, as if you’re putting the Bible ahead of Christ, and reducing Christ to a mere functionary. And it’s at best vain and futile to speculate on what God “could have” done; we know only what He did. And, again, the recurring limitation to only what’s “necessary” -- sounds like the all too common grumble, “That’s not my job,” the careful avoidance of doing more than strictly required.
The end result - the salvation of God's people - would still be the same.
Again, such speculation is vain.
Roman Catholics' view of life is clouded by their untoward veneration of Jesus' mother.
Some Protestants’ (especially Calvinists’) view of reality is clouded by their untoward veneration of self -- to the extent that Christ becomes a mere functionary, whose “purpose” -- “job” in some posts -- is to save them. I find it jarring, as if Isaiah had described the seraphim glorifying God in the words, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Host -- on account of He made ME!” It’s a truly insidious idolatry of the self. Do you never glorify God because of what He is in Himself? Do you really never glorify for any of His Creation except yourself?
And what do you intend by “Jesus’ mother”? Do you believe that the Word became flesh -- that Jesus is in fact the Incarnate Word -- or that the Word merely inhabited flesh?
Christ goes so far as to tell us not to look to His mother as our family, but to His followers - those who believe in His name.
I thought it was those “who hear the word of God and keep it, which would seem to mean living by His commandments. The point being that we can’t get out of our proper response to God because someone else does it better.
Mary is simply one of those most fortunate of human beings, a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ ALONE.
She was saved from being a sinner because of the unimaginable dignity and glory of her calling, to bear God Himself. She heard the word of God and kept it!
If venerating and praying to Mary were important or necessary, Christ would have told us so in the Bible. The apostles would have written about it.
None did.
Again, the double-entry bookkeeping approach to religion. Hardly likely to inspire anyone to great heights of devotion!
Instead, fallen men add insult to injury as centuries pass and Christ fades as the goddess grows to celestial heights - "Queen of the Universe." Do some Protestants denigrate Christ to a mere functionary so that they can denigrate Mary even further, or do they really not understand the Divinity of Christ?
Uh...Mary. You know that!
Hoss
Great post!
This is not addressed to any particular person. It is only written in response to my reading the various posts on this thread.
When it comes to the title “mother of God,” it should be understood that this is correct and scriptural if it is understood in the same sense as the term “theotokos,” literally, “God bearer.” This is a very ancient title, and one that was used and defended by the very best of the ancient Church fathers, e.g. Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria. Furthermore “theotokos” was, as a term, explicitly defended and approved by the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431 A.D.), which is itself the last ecumenical council about which there were virtually no reservations on the part of the Reformers. At this council, the Nicene Creed, formulated at Nicaea in 325 (1st Ecumenical Council) and slightly modified (the “filioque”) at Constantinople in 381 (2nd Ecumenical Council) was explicitly upheld as the definitive confession of Christian doctrine. Also, and most interestingly, both Nestorianism and Pelagianism were explicitly rejected as false doctrine at this same council.
Whether or not anyone cares about history or not, we all remain under its effects, like it or not. From this time onward we see in church history a tendency on the part of Rome to err in the direction of Pelagianism. We also see a tendency on the part of Protestants to err in the direction of Nestorianism. Both of these tendencies are amply illustrated on this thread, and on many others on the FR Religion forum.
Coincidence? I doubt it. There really is nothing at all new under the sun. And the waywardness of man has not changed at all.
Throughout the rest of the history of Christendom we see these two threads running side by side, the first, Nestorianism and all its related errors, dealing with Christology, the person and work of the Christ, and the second, Pelagianism and all its related errors, dealing with Soteriology, the way in which sinful mankind is saved.
What is at stake beyond the overheated rhetoric of each of the two sides on this thread are the doctrines of the Christ and of salvation. These are and remain the Scylla and Charybdis of Christianity, as is so tragically illustrated on this very thread. The Protestant tendency to error in regard to Christology will, if not arrested, eventually lead to teachings like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The Catholic tendency to error in regard to Soteriology will, if not arrested, eventually lead to teachings like that of pure paganism, that man saves himself.
In addition, each of these strengths, that is, sound Christology and sound Soteriology, can be falsely and wrongly defended with equally great and awful consequences. On the one hand, the Creeds demand no more of faith in regard to Mary, than that she is the “theotokos,” with all that that means for a right understanding of the person of Christ, and that she gave birth as a virgin. Anything beyond that, whether true or not, is both immaterial and unscriptural, and therefore not necessary for salvation. In regard to salvation, the Creeds demand no more of faith than that it believe what is stated therein in regard to the nature of God and what He has done for us, with all that that means for the proper relation of faith and that which is the product of faith, that is, good works. God saves ... period, end of story. The one who believes and continues in that faith is truly a child of God and, while still burdened with sin and its effects, desires to be and act like a child of God. In other words, being made a good tree by the power of God, the believer produces good fruit. All of which fruit is for the benefit of our neighbors and their salvation, for in Christ every believer has all that is needed for salvation.
The honest of each of the two sides will recognize both the principle strength and the principle weakness of their side. The deluded, whether by others or self, will now scream and throw a tantrum.
Nevertheless, Merry Christmas to all, for unto you is born a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.”
I know that is what they think they are. The one, holy, "universal" and apostolic church is the entire body of Christ and consists of all the believers in Jesus Christ. It is this called-out assembly (church) that the apostles started through the power of the Holy Spirit and continues throughout the entire world independent of outward labels the various denominations use.
There are true Christians among those in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglicans, mainline Protestant and every one that names the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. God knows the heart and I'm sure he ignores the outward designations we use to differentiate ourselves.
The organization that calls itself the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and places itself over all others, does so under their own hubris for we know that the true church transcends human construction and it is Christ himself who is our head and great shepherd.
Listening to these anti-Catholics prattle on about what the think Catholics believe is like listening to Obama explain free market capitalism.......
Let's see...The Nestorians, or the Catholics...Hmmm...
Easy...Nestorians, hands down...
IF you can figure out how God can be born when he already existed, you may be on to something...
You guys are trying to put a human spin on something where the answer is spiritual and way beyond your pay grade...
Mary provided the flesh for a house for God...
Oooh. That left a mark. :D
Too bad they don’t understand the whole Nestorian issue but, as others have stated, they “prattle” on about it... ;)
Hoss
HossB86, so what is “the whole Nestorian issue” according to you?
917 and 933, thank you thank you. Joya
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.