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.
Bless your heart, Ben. I thought this discussion could remain above such a juvenile level because you already know the answer to your question. Seeing as this is a common thing, to ask questions seemingly to refute the obvious, let me be more precise:
Romans 3:21 and following:
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Now. I quoted Romans 3:23 to you and explained that it was a universal for mankind. Christ is God and Man, correct? So instead of silly little semantic games that you seem to enjoy, please read it in context. Note that Christ redeems...not Mary. Note that God sent Christ as the propitiation.. in Christ’s blood. Note v. 26 also; this applies to Mary. She herself referred to her Savior.
Now, then. Semantic games aside. Where is it shown, anywhere in the Scriptures, that Mary did NOT sin??? We have ample evidence that we are all sinners due to Adam’s fall. Was not Mary born of woman? She too was subject to Original Sin. Just as you and I.
Faith in Christ saved her. Were she to be sinless, she wouldn’t need a savior; yet she claims Jesus as hers.
How can you argue with Scripture?
Now the short answer to your question. No, Jesus was not a sinner.
Hoss
Then God, “God, as Christ the Son” was also sacrificed?
“bridge”? It seems to me that a bridge joins two things without being either and carries something from the one to the other.
:-D
“I use the Protestant canon primarily (because it is made of the books which are absolutely accepted by all), but yes, I do have Maccabees, and have studied it quite a bit, as with the many other books which might even remotely be attributed to the prophets/agents of YHWH.”
Enoch too? What about the Didache?
Interesting. Not the reply I expected. So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?
Well, I respect that approach. Disagree with it as I believe that Jerome got it right.
Peace and blessings, Sir.
“So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?”
Again, way to go, Ben. Such a great example of putting words into other’s mouths. Did he say he made his own personal Canon for his own personal use? I didn’t read that. Did you write that, roamer_1??
Such a common tactic. And so unnecessary were you to engage in honest debate.
tsk, tsk.
Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself.
Hoss
Yes, God died on the Cross and resurrected on the third day.
“It seems to me that a bridge joins two things without being either and carries something from the one to the other.”
Then it’s not a bridge. It would fall down. Has to be anchored in both sides securely, fully God and fully Man.
To use your method of debate...
So, Ben... is God not eternal? Can God die?
:D
Hoss
“Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself”
I said I disagree with the position. But, it is intellectually self-consistant. This is why I respect that position.
There are two consistant Christian positions. One, that the Church was right, accept all the Councils and accept the Canon of the Catholic Church.
Two, reject the canon, reject the councils, accept that you and you alone are to decide what is and ought to be scripture. Take each of the books that are available and make the determination for yourself.
Most Protestants, and others try to adopt a middle position between the two. They accept some of the ecumenical councils, (as many as just one), or they accept only *some* of the books. Protestants are just the latest incarnation of this thought.
By definition Protestants accept 4 ecumenical councils: Nicaea, First Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. They accept the Canon as set by Luther.
The orthodox accept 7, the first four, plus 2nd, 3rd Constantinople and 2nd Ephesus.
Oriental orthodox rejects Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Assyrians reject Chalcedon. They, however accept the Catholic Canon, as do the orthodox.
The only truly significant contribution of Protestants is that they choose Luther’s canon. That’s basically it. Their claim of addition by subtraction that you can build a better bible by getting rid of books.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Classification Protestant
Theology Reformed Evangelical
Governance Presbyterian
Origin June 11, 1936
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Separated from Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Separations Bible Presbyterian Church
Congregations 255
Members 29,421
(ministers: 485
communicants: 21,123
non-communicants: 7,813)
Statistics for 2009[1]
Well son of a gun. We have a here a church founded by men. Not Christ, not God, and not growing.
“Watch yourself, roamer; Ben requires precision of us, but not of himself”
I said I disagree with the position. But, it is intellectually self-consistant. This is why I respect that position.
There are two consistant Christian positions. One, that the Church was right, accept all the Councils and accept the Canon of the Catholic Church.
Two, reject the canon, reject the councils, accept that you and you alone are to decide what is and ought to be scripture. Take each of the books that are available and make the determination for yourself.
Most Protestants, and others try to adopt a middle position between the two. They accept some of the ecumenical councils, (as many as just one), or they accept only *some* of the books. Protestants are just the latest incarnation of this thought.
By definition Protestants accept 4 ecumenical councils: Nicaea, First Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. They accept the Canon as set by Luther.
The orthodox accept 7, the first four, plus 2nd, 3rd Constantinople and 2nd Ephesus.
Oriental orthodoxy rejects Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Assyrians reject Chalcedon. They, however accept the Catholic Canon, as do the orthodox.
The only truly significant contribution of Protestants is that they choose Luther’s canon. That’s basically it. Their claim of addition by subtraction that you can build a better bible by getting rid of books.
When Christ was incarnate, yes, he died on the Cross.
However, the Godhead is eternal.
To die, to go from life to death and then to be resurrected from the grave would be a real change, mutability, would it not?
However, is it not Catholic doctrine and teaching that God is unchanging, immutable? As described in The Catholic Encyclopedia,
“These are some of the Scriptural texts which clearly teach Divine immutability or unchangeableness, and this attribute is likewise emphasized in church teaching, as by the Council of Nicaea against the Arians, who attributed mutability to the Logos (Denzinger, 54-old No. 18), and by the Vatican Council in its famous definition.”
And if “God died on the Cross and resurrected on the third day.” would not that leave the Father and Holy Spirit as a ‘biune’ instead of a ‘triune’ God?
The point is, you put words in roamer_1’s mouth, not the historicity of The Canon, or Ecumenical Councils.
You again were dishonest in hour question to roamer_1.
Hoss
Just as I know. Point made yet again.
Hoss
“We have a here a church founded by men. “
Just like the Roman Catholic Church.
Hoss
Yes, though my Didache is now only electronic... My library used to be quite a bit more extensive than it is now... Unfortunately, illness and bad eyes have forced me into a position of using electronic media more than my beloved old tomes.
Interesting. Not the reply I expected. So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?
Not exactly. I accept the Masoretic Hebrew texts without question, and recent events (the Dead Sea Scrolls) prove that choice nicely. I am less enamored of any school wrt the New Covenant books - I am quite sure that the Greek is not the original... So, until the original (Hebrew) texts emerge, It is my opinion that the "new" must be proved in the "old" - quite the reverse of what is commonly insisted upon.
So my accepted Scripture, in the exact sense, is the Hebrew Tanakh... With the New Covenant books accepted as well, though with *some* reservations. (generally KJV and NKJV)
Well, I respect that approach. Disagree with it as I believe that Jerome got it right.
I think not. Especially wrt the Old Covenant... One must remember that the harlot was rising up, even in John's day. Anything beyond that point is untrustworthy. Certainly I would not lend the Roman church one bit of trust with regard to keeping any text.
Jesus was executed. He didn’t die of old age.
Neither one had the aging process stopped...To suggest Mary got old and then was translated to heaven is nothing more than a wishful fable...
Had Jesus not been killed, would he now appear as a two thousand year old human, or would his aging process have been halted at a convenient age???
Nope.
No, I wrote that I accept the Protestant canon as primary - Those books which everyone accepts absolutely. Beyond that, I judge the book by it's fitting on top of the foundation of the Torah, and it's prophetic content, as fitting upon the foundation of the prophets.
Why do you guys refuse to acknowledge that there are two lines of bible manuscripts...The relatively few that your religion makes claims to and the Majority Texts which are completely separate from Rome and Jerome???
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.