Here is FlyingVic's response:
I've read Fr Z's dissection, however, and I think it encapsulates, for good or ill, all the reasons why I am an Anglican rather than a Roman; in essence, it is the application of human logic to matters that are most definitely divine. When our line of argument leads us into definitive statements about what God would or would not do in situations about which we have no historical knowledge whatsoever, then surely we are being presumptuous? You yourself, Father, tried to slap my wrist a few weeks ago by saying that you preferred not to deal in suppositions: what is belief in either the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary if it is not supposition? That these beliefs may be an aid to devotion I can happily accept (and as an Anglican, as you well know, I am welcome to embrace them if I so wish); but to elevate them to the level of things-that-must-be-believed-or-else is, frankly, un-Christ-like. Can you show any instance in the Gospels where Christ imposes any comparable condition of belief upon a follower or an enquirer?
I certainly understand Vic's wish that the Marian dogmas were kept as pious opinions rather than dogma. It is a view I held for a long time as an Anglican. However, Fr. Z did explain how Catholics believe in a hierarchy of truth. Some dogmas are more important than others. He admitted that it was perfectly possible to be a good Catholic and not necessarily have a high and mighty love for the Marian dogmas. It would be admissable (one could argue) that one's acceptance of these dogmas might simply be on the level of not denying them. I have known very good, practically minded converts who have said, "Well, once I accepted the papal claims the rest followed. If the Pope, speaking for the whole church, said we are to hold to these dogmas, then I accept them."
We are charged with the Marian dogmas being mere supposition, and that the church should not have turned into dogma what was mere supposition. However, this is what the church has done from the beginning. The creeds are the product of the church engaging in exactly this process. So for example, from the evidence of the New Testament alone we have ambiguous understandings of the divinity of Our Lord. The Arians found evidence that Christ was not co equal with the Father, while the Adoptionists saw in the Baptism of Our Lord, evidence for their false understandings of Christ's nature. As the Church developed a clear understanding of the Divinity of the Lord she clarified and codified it in dogma. The same is even more true of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Evidence in the Scriptures is scarce and opinion in the church was divided. It would have been much easier to say, "Well, you know, this Holy Trinity business is really rather complex. It is not much more than supposition based on a few scraps of Biblical evidence. Let it remain a pious opinon." However the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided that it was dogma and was necessary for the fullest understanding of God's revelation.
If one accepts the historic creeds, then one must accept the validity of the process whereby those creeds were hammered out and finally accepted by the whole church. You cannot have the creeds without silently accepting the authority that promulgated the creeds. It is that same authority operating within the Church that consulted, debated and finally decided on the various Marian dogmas. What I found interesting while researching my book Mary-A Catholic Evangelical Debate was that the Marian dogmas were not 'late inventions'. It is true that the Immaculate Conception was only defined dogmatically in the nineteenth century and the Assumption in the twentieth, but both dogmas were rooted in the earlier defined dogmas about the Blessed Virgin and were a natural development and outgrowth of them. (Bl. John Henry Newman's essay on the Development of Doctrine is a very important resource to clarify and explain how this process works.)
My final point is this: if one accepts the creeds, then not only must one accept the authority that determined those creeds, but one must also read the history and see that at the same time that the church was deciding the dogmatic formularies concerning the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity, she was also deciding on the true identity of the Mother of God. In fact, the definition of Mary as Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus was given as a defense against Christological heresy. If one does not have a correct view of the Blessed Virgin (say the fathers) one cannot have a correct view of her Son. From the dogma of Mary Mother of God, all other dogmas about the Blessed Virgin logically follow. That they may follow is accepted by Anglicans, that they must follow is what is disputed.
This is why the argument, like all arguments in Protestant-Catholic debate, must come down to the authority question. It's very simple: we believe in the Immaculate Concpetion and the Assumption because the Pope tells us to. Put less baldly--we believe in the Immacualte Conception and the Assumption because the whole church has been brought to the point where we now understand that these beliefs are an essential part of our understanding of God's whole work of redemption through the incarnation of his Son. The Pope has simply voiced this belief and the joyful affirmation that is indispensable if we wish to enter into the fullest acceptance of the miracle of God's saving work.
My plea to a Protestant who is considering Catholicism, (but is stuck on the Marian dogmas) would be, "Just let it be for now. Don't actively deny these things. You might just be denying that something greater than you that you don't understand, and which might just be a great gift. If you think they may be pious opinions, then join us and hold the opinions piously. If you truly do not deny these dogmas, and if you come to hold them piously, then perhaps one day you will come to a point where you also see their necessity. Until then, don't blame the Catholic Church for calling all to receive what she has come to understand as a great blessing. Have an open heart and accept with joy what is offered."
This is the attitude of 'More Christianity'--one which I encourage whenever I can, even when (on this blog and in my personal life) I fall from my own ideal and lapse into pettiness, mean ness or lack of charity.
18 comments:
Great wrap up to this wonderful post, Father. As a convert, (20+ years ago), from the Southern Baptist faith, I too was unsure of the Marian dogmas, but frankly, followed my heart during and after my research, which I believe to have been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit.
Some years after my acceptance into the Church and curious about the Marian chit chat during homilies, I grabbed some book, (sorry, I don't remember its title), that detailed in an apologetic form, the what and why of the Holy Virgin teachings. Once I understood the reasoning behind the dogma, I simply accepted it.
Besides, how could John Paul II lead any one of us astray? Great post!
Thank you, Father, for taking the trouble to respond as you have done. A few thoughts immediately - and perhaps more to follow when I have reflected further!
You nicely underline my suggestion of 'supposition' concerning some Marian doctrines by writing of the controversies about Christology and the Trinity that by contrast had an undeniably scriptural basis.
You go on to describe how these matters were decided by the great Councils of the Church - Councils that are, of course, accepted by the Anglican Church as by the Roman. To this day when theologians refer to these decisions they speak of this or that Council, not this or that Papal pronouncement. The authority behind the decisions was that vested in the whole Church as it spoke in Council; it is disingenuous to speak of the Papal pronouncements on dogmatic matters of the last two centuries as being 'the same authority'.
You move from a 'hierarchy of truth' in which 'some dogmas are more important than others', to 'these beliefs are an essential part of our understanding of God's whole work...' - if a belief is essential then surely it's right up there with Incarnation and Resurrection?
It is one thing to 'decide upon the true identity of the Mother of God'; it is another thing altogether to speculate about what happened at the end of her earthly life. That was my point about applying human logic to matters most definitely divine.
Thank you for your comment Vic. I would argue that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have as much Scriptural foundation as that of the Holy Trinity.
What Bible verses would you find as proof texts for the Holy Trinity? Probably only the Baptism of our Lord--which is a symbolic and visual reference and the Great Commission.
For the Assumption (and Coronation) we point to two passages. First is the Annunciation where the Royal status of Jesus Christ is announced to his mother. If he is the Davidic king, then she is the Queen Mother. That he becomes the King of Heaven means that she must become the Queen of Heaven. This is seen in Rev. 12.1-2 ff.
For the Immacualte Conception we point to the word rendered 'full of grace' from the story of the Annuciation. The Angel Gabriel recognizes and affirms her status as 'full of grace'. If 'full' then there is nothing lacking, and the Blessed Virgin is immaculate. It only remains to ask when that perfection began, and we conclude that it must have begun when she began i.e. at her conception.
Finally, it is true that these two dogmas were not the result of an ecumenical council, but neither were they decreed by arbitrary papal dictat. A very extensive global consultation was gone through with both doctrines in which bishops of the church worldwide were consulted who in turn consulted with their clergy and people, and then the vote was tallied. Furthermore, both dogmas were defined by the popes in question not by their own whim, but in response to repeated requests from the faithful worldwide over a long period of time.
Arguably, this consultation process resulted in a far more extensive and universal decision of the church than if the decision were merely taken by the bishops meeting in council.
Proof texts, Father? Tut, tut! I don't go in for proof texts. I do however believe that it is impossible to read the New Testament without being aware that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are so closely entwined and interconnected that the Three simply have to be understood as being One before any sense begins to emerge.
By contrast, you very ably demonstrate the slenderest of Scriptural connections for the IC and A of the BVM and how much the dogma depends upon the foundation of "If...then..." and "That...means..." and "we conclude that it must...". If this is the way that a devotion turns into a dogma then it comes perilously close to seeking to define both the action and the grace of God by the use of human logic. There is a widespread and worthy devotional practice that centres on 'the cross in your pocket.' I recoil, however, from anything that smacks of trying to have God in your pocket.
Ah Vic, there is where your understandable bias comes in. You don't believe in the IC and Assumption, so you see only 'the slenderest of Scriptural evidence'.
However you do believe in the Holy Trinity, so despite the slenderest of textual support you see it woven throughout Scripture in manifold ways.
Like many Protestants you may have an assumption that Catholics don't really read or understand the Bible. But of course we do read the Bible,and just as you rightly see the Holy Trinity woven through the Scriptures in many marvelous and subtle ways, so we too see the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin woven into the Scriptures in many subtle and manifold ways from the Book of Genesis through to Revelation.
So the Second Eve is prefigured in the prophecies of Gen.3:15. The burning bush which was on fire but not consumed points to the Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception. All the great women of the OT and all the miraculous births point to her.The court of Solomon with the powerful Queen Mother foreshadows the Kingdom of Heaven and the Queen of Heaven.
I could go on. The point I am making is that Catholics also do not like simple proof texts for we see the evidence of these dogmas written not only through the entire Scriptural record, but we see that they are also attested to(at least in kernel form)by the great majority of the Church down through the ages from the very beginning and to the present day.
Our question to those who deny the doctrines is, 1. You are in a minority of Christendom. 2. Your denials are late innovations 3. Your denials are just that--denials. They are a negative 4. Why deny these doctrines? Properly understood and practiced they give greater glory to God and his Son. 5.They are beautiful and profound and glorious beliefs and devotions which honor our mother. You seem to us to follow a paltry and sour faith that denies such glories. We wish for you to have more Christianity. Why be so dismissive and negative?
Is it because you have seriously considered these dogmas or is the rejection simply because they are so distinctively Catholic?
Now, now, Father! This is special pleading of a high order! I say that it is impossible to read the NT and be unaware of its Trinitarian substructure: you say that it is possible to read about serpents in Eden and shrubbery on Horeb and be led to contemplate the Immaculate Conception - and that these two statements, yours and mine, are comparable! "I could go on..." This reading-back-into-Scripture is like the cop who decides on the 'truth' and sets out to find the evidence to back it up. That's not how a CSI works!
I can find a number of references in the NT to the Second Adam, but precious few to a Second Eve. This wouldn't be human logic postulating divine truth again, would it?
Finally, you tell me what I do and don't believe and you lump me in with an alleged opinion shared by 'many Protestants' (two more unjustified Assumptions?). My 'denials', such as they are, are not directed against what may indeed be beautiful and helpful devotions for some, but against the kind of human process that elevates them to the stature of the Incarnation and Resurrection as equally necessary for belief and salvation. A revealed religion that has parts revealed more to some than to others smacks of Gnosticism; a religious authority that piles 'necessary' beliefs and practices upon an already faithful people smacks of Pharisaism.
My Dear Vic, I apologize if I lumped you in with other Protestants, but I have to say your statement that our seeing the Marian dogmas in Scripture in these ways are 'special pleading' and 'reading back into Scripture' is precisely what I expected you to say because, well, that's what I have heard from all Protestants when I explain these things.
In fact, these are not my own interpretations, but those of the pre-Nicene fathers of the church as well as theologians and poets and Biblical exegetes down through the ages. I'm sure being the educated man that you are, that when you were in Anglican theological college you mastered these texts...That's right isn't it? Or is it possible that you are unfamiliar with these texts and do not realize that these, and many more foreshadowings of the Virgin Mary are cherished from throughout the Scriptures?
If your training for the Anglican ministry was of the more low church Evangelical variety, then I would not be surprised if you were comparatively ignorant of these writings. This is where 'sola Scriptura' rather lets one down.
Anyway, whether you are familiar with these ancient texts or not, my simple point is that you cannot see these interpretations of Scripture and these meanings because you do not believe in these dogmas. We do, so we see them echoing throughout the Scriptures. You believe that we are being disingenuous, straining to find proof where there is none and fabricating levels of meaning in Scripture that do not exist. You can't believe we really mean it. We must be grasping at straws, making it up. We don't really, honestly believe there is significant Scriptural support for these beliefs. How could we since you know for sure that there is no Scriptural support.
But have we manufactured evidence and are we reading back into Scripture? A unitarian would say the same of you with whatever Scriptural support you find for the Holy Trinity. You say the 'second Eve' is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Where do you find the term 'Holy Trinity' or 'Trinity'? The Unitarian would say that you have made suppositions based on human logic. You have drawn conclusions which may be drawn, but do not necessarily have to be drawn.
Let me give you an example. I have often heard the first chapter of Genesis used as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. There the Creator God the Father speaks the Word of creation (which is the creative logos later incarnate as the Son) and we are told that the Spirit (ruach) hovers over the waters. This seems a very profound image of the Holy Trinity, but a Unitarian would say, "Balderdash, you're reading too much into a collection of ancient Hebrew mythological language!" Just as you disparagingly refer to a 'bush in Horeb' or 'serpents in Eden'.
I'll steer around the charges of Pharisaism and legalism and Gnosticsm for such vague and nebulous charges can be thrown at any religious group. It's a box of red herrings.
Thank you Father for a solid explanation. I too converted about 3 years ago from the Baptist community and I have begun to embrace the dogmas as God has allowed me to see.
It is hard after some 40 years of indoctrination to be willing to open my eyes and thoughts to new ideas and to learn whatGod has in store for each of us if we are willing. Because of peer pressure I think many are closed to these thoughts afraid that they will have to give back "thier decoder ring" should it come out they have changed positions on a existing dogma...
Thanks for your wonderful understanding and teaching through this medium.
Yours in Christ
Naturally, when I was at an Anglican Theological College we studied Anglican theology. I will happily defer to your knowledge of what was studied at the more low church Evangelical variety.
Perhaps you hear what you hear from all Protestants on these matters because it is for them a genuine concern. And perhaps, of course, because they're right?
The Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa believed it could find justification for apartheid as it looked back through the scriptures - and maybe (I don't know) there are those among the Southern Baptists in the US who might still justify racial discrimination by the same route. We cannot see these things because we don't believe in them...
I "know for sure that there is no scriptural support"? Boy have you got me wrong! Sure, I question it when I do not see it, hence my journey through this blog(!); but since doubt and faith are like the ebb and flow of the tide, how can I be certain of anything except that God loves me? He gives me faith; the world, the flesh and the devil (and some Roman Catholics!) test it, sometimes to the limit.
Everything you say about Mary may be true. Everything you say about Mary will certainly be helpful to some. But it certainly wasn't part of the faith that Jesus passed on to his disciples, and that, after all, is the starting point for all of Christian faith. It needs, therefore, something a great deal more open and tangible, it seems to me, before it can be widely accepted as being as necessary for belief and salvation as, for example, 'Christ crucified, Christ risen from the dead'.
Every church, despite its godly foundation, has so much that is human in its make-up that it is always liable to exhibit some degree of Pharisaism: those among the Pharisees whom Jesus most roundly criticised doubtless thought that they were doing God's work by working out the demands of the Law according to human logic to the nth degree. Jesus disagreed - and we should, all of us, heed the warning. Is he the ultimate authority, or do we look for another?
Vic, the Marian dogmas 'were not part of the faith past on to the disciples by Jesus'? Again, your knowledge of the early church is woeful!
The Protoevangelium of James is a document from the early second century recording earlier traditions of the Church in Jerusalem. There we find the core beliefs of Mary's sinlessness and perpetual virginity from which we deduce the other Marian dogmas.
This, along with other very early writings of the Church Fathers indicate that Marian devotion (and implicitly) Marian dogma was very much part of the experience of the early church. We don't pretend that the full blown dogmas were part of the explicit deposit of faith, but they are not contrary to that deposit and they develop naturally from it.
I'm sorry you didn't address my point that explicit Scriptural support for the Trinity is just as slender as for the Marian dogmas.
Well, anyway we can both agree that Pharisaism and hypocrisy exist in all churches. It's a charge I never make against another person for fear that as soon as I do I brand myself a Pharisee.
I will sign off on this thread. You have prompted my blogging again, and I thank you. I think what is needed is a little series on Finding Mary in the Old Testament!
Claim what you like - and sign off when you like, too! - but there's no way Jesus spoke to his disciples about his mother's immaculate conception, her destiny as the queen of heaven or her assumption into it. There is nothing to indicate that these things were any part of the apostolic preaching; there is nothing to suggest that the earliest church treated her in any way that was special; nor did anything like the Protoevangelium of James make it into the Canon of the NT - which fact immediately raises interesting questions about the level of authenticity deemed acceptable in its contents. Or is that a 'woeful' suggestion?
I gave my opinion about your point about the comparative scriptural support for the IC, QoH and the A of the BVM on the one hand and the Trinity on the other in a way that you described as disparaging. I simply cannot see how you can equate finding the NT references for Father, Son and Holy Spirit and seeing how they inter-relate, with reading about the burning bush and making a connection with the Immaculate Conception. At the very least we are talking here about two entirely different orders of literary criticism!
I, too, am disappointed - that you never addressed my original and fundamental difficulty over the use of human logic to decide matters that are essentially divine.
I look forward to your exegesis of the Old Testament doctrines of Mary; have fun!
Vic, of course you can't see it, and I don't blame you for that. You have been educated, as we all have been, within a Protestant mindset which is the product of the 'enlightenment'. The Catholic way of reading the Scriptures which I am talking about is more ancient than all that. It sees levels upon levels of meaning within all things. I'll write more on it later in case you're interested.
As to the Protoevangelium. I never suggested that it was Scripture or should be treated as such. I simply make the modest claim that it shows us what Christians in the Jerusalem area believed about the Blessed Virgin Mary at the end of the first century.
All that you find there is congruent with current Catholic theology. On the other hand it is in direct contradiction with the Protestant denial of Mary.
Golly Fr D, you and flyingvic know yer stuff don't ya? I'm impressed, but only in the parts of me that will turn to dust, so don't be taken in with flattery, it's all terribly transient.
We can possess all the intelligence that exists and yet still be blind? The Lord Himself has to open our eyes. Who's eyes He chooses to open, depends on Him, not us, nor any talent we have, lest we should be tempted to boast (or be snarky with each other). Scripture also says He reveals mysteries to the unlearned, in order to confound the learned. He's got a great sense of humour, don't you think?
Not to say that intelligence rooted in love isn't extrememly attractive, possibly it is literally the wisdom of God.
But for me, a lesser intelligent type, I have to rely on prayer and obeying my spiritual leaders Hebrews 13:17.
That's why, when I was unsure about Our Lady's role in my life, I asked Jesus and the Father, if it was their will, to let me become closer to her. (Ask and you SHALL receive!)I couldn't go wrong with that prayer and all men's arguments ceased.
His answer came dramatically and not in the way I expected. Be careful what you pray for. But do pray. All words and arguments will pass away, after all.
The Kingdom of God endures forever.
Amen.
I don't know where you blokes get the energy.
Father,
I'm one of those Protestants-(strongly)-considering-conversion. I've been making great progress on Mary lately - I got on board with both the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity during Advent. Yesterday I prayed the rosary for the first time, and I was doing okay until the Hail Holy Queen at the end: "my life, my sweetness, my hope." Then I started to get twitchy - sweetness, eh, maybe...one of those things that, like you said, I can kind of just let lie, and let God change my heart. But "my life," "my hope," that's Christ, and no matter how wonderful Mary is, Christ alone is still my life and my hope. But I'm really trying to work on this stuff - can you help me work this one out a little? Thanks!
Elizabeth, I understand your problems. This sort of language is devotional and not doctrinal. Mary is 'our joy and our hope' inasmuch as she shows us full perfection in Christ. We are not saying she is our only joy and hope.
Think of it like this: Let's say you love your husband very much and he's your only true love. It wouldn't contradict your love for him by also saying that your daughter is 'your joy and your hope.'
I didn't realise you were back!! That's so good. Now I have to spend hours catching up...
I'm not sure you will ever appreciate how much your words of good pastoral sense mean to me - I live in a bit of a desert both liturgically and doctrinally here, and I look on you as a kind of spiritual director in some ways.
Many, many thanks for all you have already written - I don't usually comment but it is much appreciated.
Post a Comment