As I may have mentioned earlier, I grew up with Catholics on my mother’s side and the Church of Christ on my father’s side. Not exactly a recipe for happy relations. For the record, the Catholics were more gracious about it. I found the tension painful, difficult, and unnecessary and thus tried to avoid religion as a young person.
The Hound of Heaven got to me, anyway, while at college in Tallahassee, Florida. A story for another time.
Although my parents now go to the Southern Baptist church, my mother still bears the imprint of her Catholic upbringing and relates easily on religious matters to her brothers and sisters. I went through a period at the beginning of this century where I thought I might convert to Catholicism. Yet, here I am, still evangelical and probably not changing, although my mentor Francis Beckwith has crossed the Tiber.
Though I feel pretty settled as an evangelical, I do not understand why something like the claimed appearance of Mary at Fatima would be so disturbing. We are talking about a woman who, if scripture is to be believed, bore the son of God in her womb. We embrace the thought that God does everything for a reason. And for some reason he chose her. There is something I am missing, probably something obvious. Someone on this list will tell me why I should find the purported appearance of Mary more unsettling than I do.
What is it exactly that is so objectionable about the claim that she appeared to some children? I readily admit that I am not a theologian, but am instead more of a religio-political analyst. My many Catholic relatives may be blinding me, too. I just don’t see it.
What I can tell you is that I went to Mother Angelica’s beautiful church in Hanceville, Alabama a few years ago with my aunt and uncle, both of whom fit the old description of being more Catholic than the pope. (My uncle, a good and godly man, died of an agressive brain tumor earlier this year. He was the kind of man who wrote encouraging letters to prisoners.) I sat in that place on a wooden pew and heard cloistered nuns (out of sight behind a screen) sing the most beautiful music I have ever heard in my life. Even now, I can feel the sensation of it, vibrating into my soul.
What grieved me at that time and in that place was not whatever feeling those people had about Mary, but that I could not take communion with them because they did not wish it so. Though I claimed Christ, just as they did, I was a separated brother who could not share the sacrament.
The division of the church scandalizes me, especially in the world we live in. Part of the reason we lost as much as we did in American culture is because the Protestants worried more about “Romanism” than they did about secularism.
I wish I could see the Reformation’s end in sight, in a way that would somehow satisfy us all.
Related posts:
October 30th, 2009 | 11:08 am | #1
This is a very nice post, but it is an oversimplification to say “I could not receive Communion because [the Catholics] did not wish it” as though there is nothing but caprice behind closed Communion. As a Catholic I have always wondered why non-Catholics (and even, sometimes non-Christians) get annoyed by this, but when I ask them, “do you believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ,” they will agree that they do not, but still don’t see why that should stop them. “It’s a symbol and a gesture…” they say. But Jesus said it was his flesh and his blood. To receive considering it anything less…it’s not right.
I’ve always found it interesting (and ironic, sad and sometimes funny) that on certain issues, the Catholics take the bible more “literally” than the Evangelicals, and the Evangelicals are more circumspect than that Catholics. John Chapter 6 is a prime example of a place in the bible where Evangelicals pull back from “literal” translations while the Catholics jump in with both feet. For my money, turning bread and wine into Christ’s flesh and blood is a cakewalk for the God who created the whole world and managed a virgin birth. He is with us until the end of the world. I have always liked that. Til the end of time, and -literally, physically- with us, to all the ends of the world; the world over.
There is a long post about this question of closed communion here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/08/20/taking-communion-when-not-catholic/
October 30th, 2009 | 11:09 am | #2
Hunter –
I appreciate the relational ties and boundaries you have set up for your post — in fact, I honor them as I understand them and in some sense live with them myself. However, I think you’re missing the boat regarding my concerns, so I am going to lay them out in a few layers so we can see how I perceive the matter, and then let the rock throwing begin.
The first thing is the question of supernatural visions: are there events like this in the world and specifically in the life of the church today? For example, does God still give new prophecy and revelation in the “thus saith YHVH” sense? Many people of many theological stripes would say “yes” to this question (even though I would not), so maybe that’s not a bridge too far.
The next thing is this: this is a vision which in some sense does expand the canon — it is explicitly about end-times and about the coming age in which all people ought to begin to do something which God intends. So is expanding the canon of revelation a bridge too far? I think it is, but again I think that many people who are not even Catholic wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Then the next thing is this: these visions are explicitly for the purpose of expanding the global veneration of Mary’s Immaculate Heart. And I’d be willing, for the sake of this post, to be as charitable as possible toward the word “veneration” here, the veneration of Mary’s heart seems to be at best a distraction from the Gospel.
And the last thing for the sake of this comment and this post would be this: the movie in question is seeking to popularize this somewhat-questionable situation.
So that would be the simple and (as far as it can be) seeking-not-to-offend version of why I would look at that ad and furrow my brow.
Let’s see where that takes this discussion.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:34 am | #3
Hunter,
If I may, your sentence here:
“The division of the church scandalizes me, especially in the world we live in.”
seems to misunderstand the reason for the division.
It runs much deeper that a “your way is wrong so we can’t let you in” kind of thing. It is, at it’s core, a division based upon the very definition of what it means to claim Christ and therefore, who really can claim him, and, of course, on what authority any of that can be rightly set.
It must be a painful situation to be in, but I fear that you are running into what Christ meant when he said “For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”
I don’t think the Roman Catholics here would disagree, although they’d see it from the other side of the aisle, that the fundamental difference in these things makes division inevitable and necessary.
I agree, it is sad. But sad doesn’t always mean avoidable.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:35 am | #4
First, to Elizabeth, I do understand the Catholic point of view on closed communion. That may be part of why I feel excluded. It annoys the heck out of me when some of my fellow Protestants offer communion by saying, “This is a symbol . . .”
Hey, the Bible doesn’t say that! Embrace the mystery, folks! So, Elizabeth, I may not be so far away as you think I am.
Frank, I think you laid out your case in a very nice fashion there. You should have done that in the first post!!!
October 30th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #5
I agree with Turk that it is a distraction. The whole Mary phenomenon is so…well…Mary-focused. Why does the mother of Jesus, I wonder, feel the need to make a miraculous appearance to boast about how perfect she is? (Declaring oneself the Immaculate Conception is not exactly the pinnacle of humility.) All throughout Scripture, the theme of the prophets and angels is that they are nothing and God is everything.
In other words, it may not be a big deal to Hunter Baker, but it is a huge deal to Catholics, and that in itself is something to consider.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:48 am | #6
Hunter, I don’t think you’re that far away – which is probably why I have a lot of Evangelical readers! :-) You’ll note that long post I linked you too was part of a debate between me and a fellow who (I believe) is Episcopal, not Evangelical!
October 30th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #7
“Why does the mother of Jesus, I wonder, feel the need to make a miraculous appearance to boast about how perfect she is? (Declaring oneself the Immaculate Conception is not exactly the pinnacle of humility.)”
Oh, boy. I will let a better Catholic mind than mine take that on, but honestly, Mary is not “boasting how perfect she is.”
October 30th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #8
Elizabeth,
She may not be boasting, but her followers clearly are.
Surely that must be recognized that as a clear line of separation between Catholics and Evangelicals, whichever side of the Tiber one is on.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #9
[...] 10/30/2009 by Hunter Baker Cross-posted at First Things’ Evangel blog: [...]
October 30th, 2009 | 12:09 pm | #10
Okay, I can’t leave it alone, but I also can’t spend all day here, so let me just expound on that a tiny bit.
First, as I commented in the initial thread last night (I think I’m comment #61) it is important to recall that are not REQUIRED to pay any attention at all to these apparitions. I am not going to repeat that whole long comment here, though. Secondly, Anthony, you write as if Mary -all on her own- is taking it upon herself to visit her children (Christ gave her to us from his cross). But we see in scripture that Mary does nothing except by God and for God. I don’t think anyone would intelligently argue that Mary is acting as a free agent, here.
Third, the proclamation of Mary, that she is the Immaculate Conception came at a time when the church was coming to a head at its understanding of Mary’s role as Ark of the New Covenant. The story of Bernadette’s receiving that information when she did is made all the more remarkable considering just how slow on the uptake Bernadette appeared to be. In that case, Mary was not coming down to earth to tell us how “perfect” she is (what an staggeringly awful and ungenerous sentiment to ascribe to the God-bearer who gave her own flesh and blood to the Incarnate Word so that He might redeem us all)…but she was validating a thesis.
Mary’s role in the great pageant of salvation is such that she is deserving of more respect than a dismissive “telling us how perfect she is” which reveals a true deficiency in understanding not only of her role, but also of the whole notion of the unknowable and mysterious God whose ways and thoughts are not ours. Nothing in scripture is there by accident, and that includes mentions of Mary, either direct or indirect. To love Christ, and to love his redemptive act, is to give due honor to his mother, whose “be it done to me…” was essential to His coming. Mary is the Theotokos; she is also the one who said, “do whatever He tells you.” She is also with the apostles when the Holy Spirit descends. She is worthy of a great deal more than your scorn, I think.
I don’t expect to convince anyone of anything -and indeed I am not TRYING to convince anyone of anything. Mary can handle herself and does not need my poor assistance. But some background for you, on the Immaculate Conception, if you are interested:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1159
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2006/12/08/feast-of-the-immaculate-conception-2006/
There are things seen and unseen, and there is deep mystery and much that is unknowable. A question: do Evangelicals confess the Apostles Creed? I’ve always wondered.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #11
Protestantism = gnosticism.
Why?
Because it is a never-ending search for the elusive “real church” which Jesus apparently never really clearly revealed.
Gnosticism.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:11 pm | #12
See, Daryl, I don’t think anyone is boasting.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:16 pm | #13
Well, calling her perfect and Immaculately conceived, kind of sounds like it to the untrained ear.
Perhaps your right though, it may not be boasting, but it still is a plain line of division between those who think she was perfect and those who see her as a highly priviledged woman as sinful and in need of a Saviour as any of the rest of us.
What I don’t understand, I guess, is why people mourn that a difference like that needs to bring division. How could it not?
October 30th, 2009 | 12:27 pm | #14
Daryl, I mourn the division because I believe God himself desires that we would be one as the church just as Christ and the Father are one. That doesn’t mean compromise at all costs, but it does mean the breach is a bad thing.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:32 pm | #15
Hunter,
I see your point, but I disagree about the breach being bad.
I think it’s a necessary consequence of two different religions noting their differences and recognizing that they must stay separate.
Remember, neither side believes that the other preaches the gospel, so in that it’s a similar breach to the one between Christians and Mormons, and I don’t hear anyone lamenting that breach.
The church IS one as Jesus and the Father are one. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the Father doesn’t answer Jesus prayers and I don’t think that’s a road anyone wants to head down.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:50 pm | #16
To put my comment another way (for those of you who are offended by the term “boasting”), I consider it theoretically possible that a person other than Jesus might exist who has never committed a sin. (I am setting aside for now a lot of the other issues involved in why, from a Catholic perspective, Mary would have to be immaculately conceived). I would consider that person greatly blessed, and I would move on with my life and pray to God that he give me the same endurance.
But Catholics do more than this. Much more. They place Mary on a pedestal above all humanity and make her the focus of their prayers and devotions, and whenever Mary appears to them in visions she always seems to encourage this sort of attitude, whereas the angels would have said something along the lines of “stand on your feet, I’m just the messenger.”
For this reason, my opinion is that it is both a very big deal and no deal at all.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #17
We do put her on a pedestal; she is our mother and the mother of our Lord and savior. We ask for her prayers as we ask our friends (or our own mothers) to pray for us. Mary, in scripture, saw a need and went directly to Jesus and said, “help them out,” so we count on her to tug on Jesus’ sleeve on our behalfs! :-)
But if you have ever prayed the rosary, you understand that all of that praying, all of those devotions, are focused on Jesus, for Mary always says “do what he tells you,” and our contemplative praying of the rosary brings us into Christ’s life and teachings, where we find both insight and consolation.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2008/04/02/rosaries-divine-mercy-those-repetitive-catholic-prayers/
October 30th, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #18
Elizabeth,
I am aware of all that and I understand what is being done.
All I ask is that you realize that this is part of what causes the division and, as long as Catholics believe this about Mary and Evangelicals don’t, there must be division, and significant division at that.
This is, among other even more significant things which cause Hunter pain when he attends a Catholic church with family, and why, despite his wishes, the Reformation (and hence the division) will never truly be over.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:23 pm | #19
Daryl, I do understand all of that. What do you suggest be done about it? :-)
October 30th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #20
“All I ask is that you realize that this is part of what causes the division and, as long as Catholics believe this about Mary and Evangelicals don’t, there must be division, and significant division at that.”
That’s it? You’re willing to remain in schism over THAT? It’s like the guy who holds a gun to his own head, looks you dead in the eye, and makes the threat, “Do I say or I’ll shoot.”
October 30th, 2009 | 1:46 pm | #21
Elizabeth,
Well isn’t THAT a loaded question… :-)
There is only one thing to be done about it. And that is, cross the Tiber. If Rome is right, we Evangelicals must cross to you. If the Evangelical church (historically understood) is right, then Rome must cross.
But either way, the only way to avoid that kind of pain is to agree on what the gospel is.
I don’t see that happening and I don’t think you do either.
The Reformation wasn’t political and it wasn’t social, it was about authority and justification. As long as Trent stands, divided we must be.
That doesn’t mean families and friends must permantly part ways, but it does mean that some of what draws us together, must, of necessity, push us apart.
The real problem (as relates to this blog), I think, comes when we pretend that those differences aren’t real and serious, and carry on, because inevitably it will come up and someone will start yelling about how we need to accept each other’s beliefs as valid.
I just don’t see how that can happen.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #22
Francis,
Yes, and to say otherwise is to misunderstand and downplay the division. Remember, Rome kicked the Reformers out, not the other way around.
That little division is one that removes Jesus from being the “One mediator between God and man” and gives it to Mary. No small thing for either side to ignore. And I’m not asking you to. I’m only saying that for the two sides to come fully together, one or the other must change their views on that, and other issues.
There is this line that you left out:
“This is, among other even more significant things which cause Hunter pain…”
in which I acknowledge that there are other EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT things. The Mary issue is huge, massive even, but there are larger issues, not the least of which is the very definition of the gospel.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:53 pm | #23
“someone will start yelling about how we need to accept each other’s beliefs as valid”
A la, Frank Beckwith.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #24
Dr. Beckwith –
Are you really committed to the idea that it’s the “Evangelical” who has anathematized Rome and not the opposite?
Are you really willing to commit to the idea that it’s the Evangelical who is asking too much when it is plainly the Catholic Magisterium which demands it must be infallible?
That seems a little much — more than is really reasonable to suggest. Please help me understand your analogy better because you cannot possibly mean that the only reason the Catholic Magisterium does not embrace Evangelicals is that Evangelicals are playing hard to get.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #25
Hunter Baker, et. al. –
On the chance that the Eucharist as celebrated by the Holy Catholic Church actually is the body and blood of Christ, taking it in as if it were not might very well be anathema. Much better to settle up with some non-blessed wine and bread for the purpose of memorial rather than partake of the flesh and blood of our Savior.
Elizabeth – I take issue with characterization of evangelicals not taking the word “is” as literally true. This argument seems to misunderstand the conservative, high-view-of-Scripture point of view for many evangelicals. Certainly “I am the door” cannot mean a literal wooden door. Nor is there a literal wall someplace where Jesus stands to block entrance. This is a little bit of a straw man on my part; it is just meant as an example. What is means is very important. See, e.g., Arian controversy. Funny (and I mention it again) the Trinity is some doctrine about which we all align ourselves with the Fathers.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #26
J.D Hinze,
“I take issue with characterization of evangelicals not taking the word “is” as literally true.”
Although…we don’t, in that particular context. At least not in the way that Catholics do.
October 30th, 2009 | 2:37 pm | #27
Elizabeth, I’m not accusing you of not focusing on Jesus at all. My grandparents are Catholic, and I work with a LOT of Catholics in my organization, and I understand how a prayer to Mary is supposed to be an indirect prayer to Jesus and so-forth. The trouble is that for Protestants, any kind of mediation through various beings in the heavenly realm is unnecessary.
I also understand the comparison of Mary with asking a brother to say a prayer for you. However, you have to admit that they are not the same thing. You would not venerate Joe Smith next door, or even your priest or bishop. As a Catholic, you are often told to look to Mary, look to Mary, in a way that, whether or not you want to call it worship, you would never be told to look to Moses or Elijah or Enoch or even St. Francis for that matter.
As a person who isn’t the most skilled in saying prayers, I should perhaps be careful what I criticize. But it seems to me that the Mary issue would have a profound impact on the form and focus of one’s prayer life.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #28
“Are you really committed to the idea that it’s the `Evangelical’ who has anathematized Rome and not the opposite?”
Evangelicals can’t anathemize Rome since they have no magisterium, just as you can’t bribe me with Monopoly money. :-)
Frank, why do you insist on equivocating on the term anathema as used by Trent? By now you must know that it is a term of art that is connected to a particular understanding of excommunication in canon law which no longer holds.
The question of who did what to whom is the sort of canine tail chasing that will get us nowhere. At the end of the day, the most important question is the one raised by David Wells in his latest book, “Do you have the courage to be a Protestant?” And if you do, then I hope and pray that you become the best Protestant you can be, worshipping our Lord and living out the Divine Life. However, if your reasons for remaining in schism with Rome are on the level of “the Mary stuff is just sort of creepy to me” or “you’re worshiping a cracker” or “you’re replacing Jesus as Mediator with Mary,” which are not serious objections to anyone who has studied Catholicism, then your schism is sin and you should go to confession and ask for absolution.
Remember, intra-Christian evangelism is a dangerous thing. If I knew, for example, that a Protestant friend would cease to be a Christian and would never consider Catholicism if he found persuasive all my arguments for the Church and against Protestantism, I would let him be and pray for his continued allegiance to Christ. On the other hand, I would hope that my Protestant friends would not plant seeds of doubt in devout Catholics mind knowing that these seeds would most likely lead to unbelief and not to Protestantism.
This is why when I share my journey I never, ever disparage or denigrate my Evangelical friends and what I’ve learned from them over the years. I disagree with them, to be sure, and I have no problem explaining where and how we disagree. But I do not want any of my Evangelical listeners to consider abandoning their Christian faith if Catholicism is not even on their ecclesiastical radar.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #29
Dr. Beckwith,
It would really really help if you would name the real reason for schism.
The definition of the Gospel is at stake. Rome and historic evangelicalism could not be more clear on that, nor could their differences be more stark.
Honestly, although you don’t like it, it’s claims like that (that the differences are trivial things) that make people ask if you ever understood the Evangelical Gospel or the gospel according to Rome.
You don’t help your argument by framing in that way.
Elizabeth gets it, which is why we were able to talk so civilly even while remaining unwilling to compromise.
October 30th, 2009 | 5:11 pm | #30
The trouble is that for Protestants, any kind of mediation through various beings in the heavenly realm is unnecessary.
But simply because something is unnecessary does not mean it is not good. I think that this illuminates a difference in “instinct” between Catholic and Protestant thought. Many things are, strictly speaking, “unnecessary” — Church buildings, art and architecture, songs of worship — and yet we make use of them in our worship of God. In fact, carrying this instinct further back, the Redemption and even Creation itself are “unnecessary.” As Chesterton was probably the best to show, God delights in gratuity.
Our natural lives are full of actions which are more than is necessary to keep our lungs and stomachs full; it seems not unlikely that our spiritual lives are meant to be similar. Natural life is endlessly creative and proliferative, complex and full of gratuitous things. Any God who decides to make a platypus, or create sex as the means of reproduction, or make the mundane daily sunset so beautiful — or even Who decides to become incarnate and die on a cross — clearly isn’t too concerned with economy. I don’t see why the spiritual life would be so different, as long as it remains steadfastly centered on Christ. Simplicity is good spiritual practice insofar as it keeps our minds off of distractions; but the ultimate simplicity is the non-existence of the Buddhism, not the radical “Fiat!” of Christianity.
Apropos, I also thought Luther’s words on the matter might be helpful:
“[Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531)”
A Catholic would agree with him on that completely.
October 30th, 2009 | 5:28 pm | #31
I don’t there can be any good reason for schism, since schism is a sin. Having said that, I do think given our historical situation and how Protestantism has developed I completely understand why a Protestant would not want to become Catholic. He or she will arrive at the ecumenical table with an evidential set for which he or she has good reason not to discard. That sort of person is not in schism even though he or she remains Protestant, since he or she is not intentionally rejecting what he or she knows to be true. This why I said what I said in my last posting. I do not believe that aggressive evangelism on the part of Catholics and Protestants is a good idea, for the reasons I outlined above. However, I do agree with Carl Trueman: if you are to remain a Protestant, you need a good reason to do so, since for Western Christians, Rome is the default position. Here’s my blog on this for Reformation Day 2009: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/10/reformation-day-2009-is-reformation.html
October 30th, 2009 | 6:41 pm | #32
“There is only one thing to be done about it. And that is, cross the Tiber. If Rome is right, we Evangelicals must cross to you. If the Evangelical church (historically understood) is right, then Rome must cross.”
I’m not Catholic, and I believe there are good reasons to not be Catholic. However, I am in no way anti-Catholic. All that being said, I want to make the point that evangelicalism is not a church. There is no such thing as Catholics coming over to the “evangelical church”, as some have suggested. What would that be? Protestantism cannot be compared to Catholicism in very meaningful ways because Protestantism exists only in relation to Catholicism. There never has been, nor will there be, a true Protestant church. Catholicism is definable; it has a catechism and a clear set of doctrines. Protestantism does not.
I may not know exactly what i am yet, but the very Protestant idea that the church is invisible is simply not tenable. Bishops and Sacraments have been there since the beginning.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:01 pm | #33
I don’t know where else to ask this question, so maybe this is a good place to ask it:
What is the raison d’etre for the Evangel blog at FT?
I looked for a post in the archives and could not find a post describing Evangel’s purpose. Maybe fleshing out the purpose for Evangel would be a good place to begin the dialogue. Or monologue, whichever.
I am an Evangelical, I hope in the best sense of the term, and I believe official Catholic doctrine is opposed to the Gospel of Christ, which is why I’m not Catholic.
BUT
At the same time I know and have heard of Catholic priests preaching the same theology and lauding the books of John Piper (as an example). And I also know there are enclaves and/or individuals within the Catholic Church, dissenting from official Catholic doctrine and holding to salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ, and that apart from works, though works will of necessity be shown in the true believer, so that we have no basis for boasting in ourselves, but only in Christ.
(Note: I attended St. Thomas University, for one year, and attended a religion class. The Professor replied to my question as to whether or not Mormonism was on par with Catholicism in terms of the way each saw salvation. He said they were both Christian. He saw no difference between Catholicism and Mormonism. They both, he said, saw salvation in terms of our works. This was a religion Professor at St. Thomas University, not a priest, for clarification purposes).
What is the purpose of the Evangel blog? What is it for?
I think having a page or link describing the purpose of the blog would be extremely helpful. I think it would help readers understand better and interact in a clearer light if they knew the purpose behind Evangel.
Thanks.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:15 pm | #34
I have yet to accuse you of worshipping a cookie, or replacing Jesus with Mary, Dr. Beckwith. And in asking questions about apparitions of Mary, I have been somewhat circumspect to point out that the same trash in Evangelicalism is just as trashy. What I have said has been very plain in the topic for this post: is there a place that people will not go when it comes to these sort of weird and problematic expressions? Is there a place at which we ought to distance ourselves from them?
Consider that a little, and I’ll be back on Monday.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:23 pm | #35
My bad, I don’t even know the University I attended:
University of St. Thomas.
October 30th, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #36
Jonathan, sounds like a professor who badly needs to be replaced.
MBB, nice post.
October 30th, 2009 | 8:53 pm | #37
Two quick points:
This has come up at least a couple of times in this set of posts, so: Does it help that the Catholic Church has officially condemned and declared as a heresy (from, I believe, the 400s on) the idea that salvation can be through works?
Secondly, especially as we contemplate Reformation Day: Does it help that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, honored and venerated her, and so on? As the quote from Luther, above, says, “We can never honor her enough.” Does it help at all that that is from Luther?
At any rate, see you all later, probably. It’s time for a bit of fasting from blogs. If for no other reason, good grief, how do folks (myself definitely included) find the time to keep up?
October 30th, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #38
And on the Magisterium: In all my years as a Protestant, I did have a Magisterium. Every Protestant I know has a Magisterium. If any of us heard a sermon or a statement we disagreed with, we said, “That doesn’t line up with the Bible, and I’m not accepting it, no matter who it comes from.”
See? An infallible Magisterium capable of determining truth and error, based on an infallible reading of the Bible. Just a Magisterium that is highly—singular, shall we say.
October 31st, 2009 | 1:36 am | #39
Frank, I was not writing about you. I was writing about the general tenor of some of the criticism that one finds here and there. But I’m not sure what to make of this: “And in asking questions about apparitions of Mary, I have been somewhat circumspect to point out that the same trash in Evangelicalism is just as trashy.”
While writing my PhD dissertation on David Hume and miracles (1989, Fordham University), I read several works detailing the criteria by which the Catholic Church assessed miracle and other sorts of supernatural claims like apparitions. It’s pretty rigorous. That’s why the Church takes a long to time to evaluate such claims.
I also believe, by the way, that God performs miracles in Evangelical churches as well. In fact, my dear friend, J. P. Moreland, has documented many cases from his own experience and ministry.
For that reason, I think it is wrong to paint modern miracles with a broad brush by implying that they are “trashy.”
October 31st, 2009 | 7:31 am | #40
Two things:
1. Mary says in the Magnicficat: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”. She was aware she was not perfect and in need of a Savior.
2. If I showed you a picture of my house and said “This is my house”, you probably would not literally think the picture was my house. The same principle applies when Jesus shows the disciples a piece of bread and says
“This is my body” – its just a representation of his body. (I read this somewhere a long time ago but don’t remember where). You can take Jesus’ words literally and still believe they are a symbol.
October 31st, 2009 | 8:45 am | #41
Dr. Beckwith –
I agree that it is nearly impossible to have an open discussion about the relationship of the Catholic church to “Evangelicals” without that sort of thing creeping in. My thanks being clear about what you meant.
As to the Catholic Church’s investigations of miracles, I’m non-plussed. I agree that it’s rigorous as far as it goes, but after it’s all said and done those who follow the Roman Pontiff are left holding the bag. On the one hand, if the investigation rejects the miracle, there’s no canonical obligation for Catholics to believe it’s not a miracle. The myriad of Catholic cults around sitings and apparitions and non-canonized dead people speaks to this, and the Magisterium’s lack of action toward those aberrational demonstrations speaks to how the Catholic church views them. But on the other hand, when the Papal investigation turns up the miracle is true and an act of God, there’s no obligation to believe that, either. In some ways, that’s to their credit for not adding this stuff to the necessary essentials of the faith — but for example, I’d say that anyone who says that Peter didn’t heal anybody in Acts 3 is rejecting the faith by rejecting Scripture’s transparent description of the events — and I think you’d agree with me.
If Saint Exemplar is today healing people from beyond the grave in the name of Jesus Christ, and as a sign of who he is and what God is doing today in the church, I’d say that’s something people need to know about and believe, and if he’s not, they are endangering themselves with myths and stories — and in a very clear way, idolatry. The same kind of idolatry, btw, that people who think the government can save us morally are engaged in.
I respect that you may not find all that as trashy as I do — there are non-Catholic men who would agree that my judgment there is rash. However, a belief that the miraculous is God’s prerogative is one thing; a belief that it is relatively-common and useful is another.
October 31st, 2009 | 8:59 am | #42
If I were to hold up a pen and say, “This is me,” and then point to a piece of paper and say, “This is you,” it would be fairly evident that I was trying to make a point about our relationship and not to make a literal identification between myself and the pen, and you and the paper. I am not really a pen, and the pen is not really me. This should help to clear up the confusion over Jesus’ words in the Lord’s Supper.
October 31st, 2009 | 1:15 pm | #43
Hunter,
Thanks!
Michael,
Mary says in the Magnicficat: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”. She was aware she was not perfect and in need of a Savior.
Catholics completely agree that Mary needed Christ as her Savior just like the rest of us.
To quote Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
“The meritorious cause [of the Immaculate Conception] was the Redemption by Jesus Christ. It follows from this that even Mary was in need of redemption, and was in fact redeemed. By reason of her natural origin, she, like all the other children of Adam, was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin, but by a special intervention of God, she was preserved from the stain of original sin. Thus Mary was also redeemed “by the grace of Christ” but in a more perfect manner than other human beings. While these are freed from original sin present in their souls, Mary the Mother of the Redeemer was preserved from the contagion of original sin. Thus the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in no way contradicts the dogma that all children of Adam are subject to original sin and need redemption.”
So while God applies the saving grace of Christ to us after our contraction of original sin, in Mary’s case He used the merit of Christ to grant Mary the grace of being protected from the contraction of original sin. It is still entirely due to Christ.
November 1st, 2009 | 12:21 am | #44
Interestingly, Thomas Aquinas disagreed with the belief that Mary received her grace before birth.
November 2nd, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #45
“I am not really a pen, and the pen is not really me. This should help to clear up the confusion over Jesus’ words in the Lord’s Supper.”
I’m sorry, but you can’t take hundreds upon hundreds of years of debate regarding the nature of the Lord’s Supper and solve it by reducing the argument to one sentence. It is this kind of simplistic view of very complex theological issues that does little to add to the conversation and reduces us to a yelling match (I don’t mean to demonize you, and I guess that you have a much more robust theology than that – your comment just made for a great example of my point. No hard feelings)
To get to the the original post: I agree that Evangelicals specifically, and Protestants in general, have given Mary a very low status. I have been in many Protestant churches who give credit to various NT saints like John the Baptist, Paul, etc. But would not dream of acknowledging one of the key figures in salvation history (up there with David and Abraham).
Since we disagree over Marian theology with Catholics, we often throw out the baby with the bathwater and forget an amazing example of faith and submission to God.
November 2nd, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #46
Andrew,
That’s good and so true. I wonder how often we overlook things that ought not be overlooked, or fail to fully develop ideas purely on the basis that “we’re not Catholic”.
It does seem that much of what passes for Evangelicalism these days almost defines themselves as “not Catholic” while failing to understand how they can be positively identified.
You’re point about Mary is bang on.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact