This blog is an attempt to help clear up misconceptions about the Catholic Church, to explain why we and our families became Catholic, and to interact with Protestant and Bible-only ideas opposed to the Catholic Faith.
The Roman Catholic Institution's perversity consists in the fact that she wants to magnify Mary, not God. (one example of many: http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign/A-Beacon-to-the-World-13.html ). Salvation is not in "the church," it is not in, by, through, in conjunction with, etc., baptism, the rosary, the "adoration" of Mary, the "eucharist," etc. Mary did not cooperate "in a wholly singular way in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls” and she had no “exceptional role in the work of redemption" (as stated in “Council’s Teaching on Mary Is Rich and Positive,” Dec. 13, 1995, L’Osservatore Romano, English edition. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5607
Mary has no part in the work of redemption or mediation. She is not co-redemptrix no co-mediator with Christ. But, I suppose it may depend on the definition of terms. The Roman Catholic Mary is not the Mary of the Bible, and the Roman Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, but "another Jesus" which Paul warned believers about in 2 Cor 11.
You offer several assertions. Here are some questions:
1) Who is the woman to whom the following texts refer: Gn. 3:15, Is. 7:14, Mic. 5:1-2, Lk. 1:26-38, Lk. 2:22-24 [note here that the best Gk mss refer to both Jesus and Mary's purification], Jn. 19:28, Gal. 4:4, Rev.11:19-12:17?
2) Can those simply outside the Church be saved?
3) Can you, in the light of your total severance of salvation from both the Church and Baptism, [etc.], explain contrary assertions found in Scripture: e.g., Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, 1Tim. 3:15 [role and identity of Church]; Jn. 3:3-7, Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16, Rm. 6:3-5, 11, Gal. 3:26-27, Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:5-7, I Pt. 3:19-21[baptism]?
------------------------
Apostolic Christians (e.g., Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, et al.) do not "adore" Mary. Adoration is due to and must be directed to God alone. We do venerate Mary, however, because of "the great things the mighty has done for her," in obedience to and fulfillment of Mary's own words: "All generation shall call me blessed" (Lk. 1:48-49).
I won't take the time now to reply to your final paragraph: too much wading to do with respect to the first. For now: gratuitously asserted; gratuitously denied.
I'll take a short time now to give a short answer, but I don't usually waste time debating with strangers on social media. I had forgotten that this blog was no longer private.
1. Eve, Mary, Israel (I reject the "best Gk mss" which are so corrupted, and contradict themselves thousands of times in the gospels alone). 2.Yes. 3. There are no contrary assertions when "church" and "baptism" are properly defined according to the scriptural usage, no man-made tradition.
Apostolic Christians are those who follow the Scriptures, where apostolic tradition has been preserved for us. The semantic dance around "adoration" and "veneration" doesn't change the actual acts of worship (call them what you may) done towards Mary. It is not as flagrant here in the states, but travel to Mexico City and visit the Basilica of our Lady of Guadalupe, for example, and watch the pathetic "veneration" of Mary throughout that complex, whether through the art, statues, and icons, or the thousands that daily visit...very sad.
Nothing gratuitously asserted...plenty of reason and justification behind it.
I can't speak for Mr. Masters, but I have known Kyle for some years and have been a part of this blog when it was private... though I have not done a good job responding and contributing. I assume you know Kyle quite well. So let's say our mutual brother, whether physical or spiritual, gives us some relation worth keeping the conversation going.
Thanks for taking the time, Michael. I assumed this was a discussion you're interested in pursuing. I am sorry, however, you view such discussion, at least in the blog medium, a waste of time.
I offer some follow up observations and questions:
(1a) You stated: "Mary did not cooperate 'in a wholly singular way in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls' and she had no 'exceptional role in the work of redemption'"
My hope in citing the above passages was to draw attention to how in both prophecy and their fulfillment Mary is given a unique role, and cooperated with the Holy Ghost in an exceptional manner, implying about her person certain unique characteristics (BTW John 19:28 should be 19:25, sorry). In my understanding of the texts, such would include a unique mutual enimity common with her seed towards the serpent (Gn 3:15); virginal motherhood (Is. 7:14); the advent of the Messiah, by implication Mary (Mic. 5:1); high favor and blessedness among women and her willingness to become the mother of Son the Most High (Lk. 1:26-38);her co-purfication with Jesus about whom we all agree is sinless, suggesting a unique situation and relation to God and her Son; the ark of the New Covenant, realizing and fulfilling the ancient enmity prophecied in Gn. 3:15 (Rev. 11:19-12:17). A. These are all unique attributions to Mary. B.You stated Mary has no such singular role or exceptional cooperation. C. But your statment contradicts the witness of scripture. D. Therefore your assertion appears to go against scripture.
(1b) An aside: you state: "I reject the "best Gk mss" which are so corrupted, and contradict themselves thousands of times in the gospels alone"
I assume then you have access to the best witness to the original autograph (unless you attribute immediate inspiration to a textual tradition and/or translation?). If so, I'd be interested to know a.) what this is and b.) how you know this. I see no record in scripture, specifying ms traditions and/or translations. My point, see above, in noting the common purification of Jesus and Mary was to underscore the interesting fact that both were being purified under the law. Jesus didn't need to purified. If Jesus didn't need such purification and the purification was related to or analogous to the need for the mother to be purified, an apologetic against Mary's Immaculate Conception is rebutted. This read is in fact confirmed by the early Greek Fathers whose proximity to the event themselves, the Apostles and knowledge of Greek places them in a superior position to our own as both witness to the fact and interpreters of the scripture.
(2.) You affirm that one can be saved outside the Church no matter the definition stipulated. But Paul calls the Church both Body and Bride of Christ. So your words imply that one can be saved, which is possible only in Christ, outside his body-bride. What other means of salvation and what other society of the "saved" are revealed in Scripture? A corollary question: are believers in Christ members of the Body of Christ ("in Christ", "adopted sons")?
(3.) Please tell me which passage I cited with respect to baptism (a.) cannot be legitimately read as inclusive of water baptism and (b.) what Peter means when he states "baptism doth now save us" and why it cannot (i) include water baptism and (b) be taken literally.
----------
Credo in unum Deum's arguments and question were good. Do you have a response?
I leave your gratuitous denial aside for the time being.
Michael, thanks for your honesty and candor. But I would like to challenge the odd notion that Rome wishes to exalt Mary above God. One need only glance at the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin to see how odd is that claim. For it is Mary, a mere mortal, destined, like us all, to be conceived without the divine life necessary to commune with God. But only an act of redemption could save her from that fate. And it is more perfect to prevent sickness than to be only a remedy for sickness. But this is what Christ did for His mother. Being Perfect in every way, we must believe that Our Lord is the Most Perfect Redeemer. But He cannot be this in name or title only, but in reality-- in history. He has accomplished this Most Perfect Redemption by preventing His mother from being infected in her soul by sin. For the Protestant, Jesus is not the Most Perfect Redeemer (though, some may admit He could possibly be that). But the Catholic Church has thought that for centuries. So we have been carried to new heights of praise and adoration for Our Lord upon knowing he is the Most Perfect Redeemer. If anybody does think to exalt Mary, let him be corrected or leave the Catholic Church, for She will have none of it. If she wanted to exaly Mary in the way you say she does, than Rome would have said God granted such and such to her because of her innate holiness and, as such, God had a debt to her in some way. Obviously ridiculous and in explicit contradiction to the Church's teaching about human nature and the human condition (sinners in need of a savior). Finally, I leave with the question I often have to leave Mormon "elders" with. The elders admit that God in a state of learning, like us, only better, that he is not infinite being, not infinitely perfect, etc. But, I ask, why would I want to stop worshipping a God whi is infinite being, intellect, will, knowledge, wisdom, goodness, etc? Why exchange that for what you are offering, which is obviously a lesser god? So I ask, why would I want to exchange worship of a Christ who is the Most Perfect Redeemer for one who isn't, for one who is less perfect?
I never said they want to exalt her above God, but they want to magnify her, not God. The examples I cited are just a few of the clear examples. Having Mary on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, the place where God's presence rested, and from where Moses heard God speaking to him. To say that the Roman Catholic institution will have "none of it" in reference to somebody exalting Mary is evidence of spiritual blindness.
But what of my example of the Immaculate Conception, which clearly gives the lie to the notion that Rome magnifies Mary and not God (which would appear to be the same thing as exalting Mary above God)?
I love Catholicism; it has such great names. Our Lady of the Sign - Ark of the Covenant is an artistic expression of one of the most beautiful and mysterious truth's of God's universe; that God the Creator desires to work in and through his creation. The 'Our Lady of the Sign' is a monstrance holding the Eucharist. This is a play on the idea of Mary as the new ark of the covenant. She holds the Bread, the Logos and the High Priest in her womb. She is the fulfillment of the OT ark. The iconographer would be shocked at someone suggesting that this was an attempt to magnify/exalt Mary above God or in place of God. The correct interpretation of the artwork would be to marvel at the mystery that Mankind plays an essential role (in this case a woman) in his own salvation history. This is the mystery expressed in Phil 2:12-13. See the explanation of the icon here, including the many scripture references; http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign-Ark-of-Mercy-12.html
Also, Credo wanted to challenge the notion that "Rome wishes to exalt Mary above God". Michael you responded by denying that you said that Rome wants to exalt Mary above God (thus affirming proper Catholic teaching), but then replaced that with the statement that Rome magnifies Mary not God. But that statement is not correct, Rome is very clear that Mary is to be venerated and God alone worshiped. The veneration of Man and worship of God are not mutually exclusive, any more than total devotion to your wife is mutually exclusive to total devotion to God. Both are possible and even complementary so long as both are properly ordered. As every knowledgeable Catholic would tell you, veneration of Mary, or any other saint, is also a glorification of God, because we marvel at and praise God for what he has done through a simple, poor girl, and in Our Lady, draw hope for God's generosity in our own lives. These are the loftiest and most noble themes the human soul can grasp; not spiritual blindness.
Hi Mike, thank you for being willing to express your thoughts on the blog. There are many questions presently on the table that really ought to be followed up on and I have some that I’d like to add as well, but I don’t want to see the details swept under the rug and ignored. I hope you will come back to the responses to what you asserted and ‘give an answer’ (1 Peter 3:15). As you said, you have plenty of reason and justification behind your claims. I, for one, would sincerely like to hear what you have in mind.
But, besides answering the aforementioned questions, perhaps you can take a step back with me from your original assertions (which also implied objections to Catholic teaching). Since (our understanding of) Mary remains a point of disunity between Baptist and Catholic theologies, and since God wishes us to be of one mind, it seems important for us to at least try to get to the bottom of the differences in humble pursuit of the truth. With this in mind, while you have said what you *do not* believe Mary or her role is, perhaps you could share what you *do* believe about her. Could you give us a presentation of her that you believe would be in harmony with the whole of the scriptural account? A theology of Mary, if you will? What do you believe the Bible teaches about Mary?
The Roman Catholic Institution's perversity consists in the fact that she wants to magnify Mary, not God. (one example of many: http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign/A-Beacon-to-the-World-13.html ). Salvation is not in "the church," it is not in, by, through, in conjunction with, etc., baptism, the rosary, the "adoration" of Mary, the "eucharist," etc. Mary did not cooperate "in a wholly singular way in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls” and she had no “exceptional role in the work of redemption" (as stated in “Council’s Teaching on Mary Is Rich and Positive,” Dec. 13, 1995, L’Osservatore Romano, English edition. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5607
ReplyDeleteMary has no part in the work of redemption or mediation. She is not co-redemptrix no co-mediator with Christ. But, I suppose it may depend on the definition of terms. The Roman Catholic Mary is not the Mary of the Bible, and the Roman Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, but "another Jesus" which Paul warned believers about in 2 Cor 11.
You offer several assertions. Here are some questions:
ReplyDelete1) Who is the woman to whom the following texts refer: Gn. 3:15, Is. 7:14, Mic. 5:1-2, Lk. 1:26-38, Lk. 2:22-24 [note here that the best Gk mss refer to both Jesus and Mary's purification], Jn. 19:28, Gal. 4:4, Rev.11:19-12:17?
2) Can those simply outside the Church be saved?
3) Can you, in the light of your total severance of salvation from both the Church and Baptism, [etc.], explain contrary assertions found in Scripture: e.g., Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, 1Tim. 3:15 [role and identity of Church]; Jn. 3:3-7, Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16, Rm. 6:3-5, 11, Gal. 3:26-27, Col. 2:11-12, Tit. 3:5-7, I Pt. 3:19-21[baptism]?
------------------------
Apostolic Christians (e.g., Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, et al.) do not "adore" Mary. Adoration is due to and must be directed to God alone. We do venerate Mary, however, because of "the great things the mighty has done for her," in obedience to and fulfillment of Mary's own words: "All generation shall call me blessed" (Lk. 1:48-49).
I won't take the time now to reply to your final paragraph: too much wading to do with respect to the first. For now: gratuitously asserted; gratuitously denied.
I'll take a short time now to give a short answer, but I don't usually waste time debating with strangers on social media. I had forgotten that this blog was no longer private.
Delete1. Eve, Mary, Israel (I reject the "best Gk mss" which are so corrupted, and contradict themselves thousands of times in the gospels alone).
2.Yes.
3. There are no contrary assertions when "church" and "baptism" are properly defined according to the scriptural usage, no man-made tradition.
Apostolic Christians are those who follow the Scriptures, where apostolic tradition has been preserved for us. The semantic dance around "adoration" and "veneration" doesn't change the actual acts of worship (call them what you may) done towards Mary. It is not as flagrant here in the states, but travel to Mexico City and visit the Basilica of our Lady of Guadalupe, for example, and watch the pathetic "veneration" of Mary throughout that complex, whether through the art, statues, and icons, or the thousands that daily visit...very sad.
Nothing gratuitously asserted...plenty of reason and justification behind it.
I can't speak for Mr. Masters, but I have known Kyle for some years and have been a part of this blog when it was private... though I have not done a good job responding and contributing. I assume you know Kyle quite well. So let's say our mutual brother, whether physical or spiritual, gives us some relation worth keeping the conversation going.
DeleteThanks for taking the time, Michael. I assumed this was a discussion you're interested in pursuing. I am sorry, however, you view such discussion, at least in the blog medium, a waste of time.
DeleteI offer some follow up observations and questions:
(1a) You stated: "Mary did not cooperate 'in a wholly singular way in the work of restoring supernatural life to souls' and she had no 'exceptional role in the work of redemption'"
My hope in citing the above passages was to draw attention to how in both prophecy and their fulfillment Mary is given a unique role, and cooperated with the Holy Ghost in an exceptional manner, implying about her person certain unique characteristics (BTW John 19:28 should be 19:25, sorry).
In my understanding of the texts, such would include a unique mutual enimity common with her seed towards the serpent (Gn 3:15); virginal motherhood (Is. 7:14); the advent of the Messiah, by implication Mary (Mic. 5:1); high favor and blessedness among women and her willingness to become the mother of Son the Most High (Lk. 1:26-38);her co-purfication with Jesus about whom we all agree is sinless, suggesting a unique situation and relation to God and her Son; the ark of the New Covenant, realizing and fulfilling the ancient enmity prophecied in Gn. 3:15 (Rev. 11:19-12:17).
A. These are all unique attributions to Mary.
B.You stated Mary has no such singular role or exceptional cooperation.
C. But your statment contradicts the witness of scripture.
D. Therefore your assertion appears to go against scripture.
(1b) An aside: you state: "I reject the "best Gk mss" which are so corrupted, and contradict themselves thousands of times in the gospels alone"
I assume then you have access to the best witness to the original autograph (unless you attribute immediate inspiration to a textual tradition and/or translation?). If so, I'd be interested to know a.) what this is and b.) how you know this. I see no record in scripture, specifying ms traditions and/or translations. My point, see above, in noting the common purification of Jesus and Mary was to underscore the interesting fact that both were being purified under the law. Jesus didn't need to purified. If Jesus didn't need such purification and the purification was related to or analogous to the need for the mother to be purified, an apologetic against Mary's Immaculate Conception is rebutted. This read is in fact confirmed by the early Greek Fathers whose proximity to the event themselves, the Apostles and knowledge of Greek places them in a superior position to our own as both witness to the fact and interpreters of the scripture.
(2.) You affirm that one can be saved outside the Church no matter the definition stipulated. But Paul calls the Church both Body and Bride of Christ. So your words imply that one can be saved, which is possible only in Christ, outside his body-bride. What other means of salvation and what other society of the "saved" are revealed in Scripture? A corollary question: are believers in Christ members of the Body of Christ ("in Christ", "adopted sons")?
(3.) Please tell me which passage I cited with respect to baptism (a.) cannot be legitimately read as inclusive of water baptism and (b.) what Peter means when he states "baptism doth now save us" and why it cannot (i) include water baptism and (b) be taken literally.
----------
Credo in unum Deum's arguments and question were good. Do you have a response?
I leave your gratuitous denial aside for the time being.
Thanks. God bless you.
Michael, thanks for your honesty and candor.
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to challenge the odd notion that Rome wishes to exalt Mary above God. One need only glance at the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin to see how odd is that claim. For it is Mary, a mere mortal, destined, like us all, to be conceived without the divine life necessary to commune with God. But only an act of redemption could save her from that fate. And it is more perfect to prevent sickness than to be only a remedy for sickness. But this is what Christ did for His mother. Being Perfect in every way, we must believe that Our Lord is the Most Perfect Redeemer. But He cannot be this in name or title only, but in reality-- in history. He has accomplished this Most Perfect Redemption by preventing His mother from being infected in her soul by sin. For the Protestant, Jesus is not the Most Perfect Redeemer (though, some may admit He could possibly be that). But the Catholic Church has thought that for centuries. So we have been carried to new heights of praise and adoration for Our Lord upon knowing he is the Most Perfect Redeemer.
If anybody does think to exalt Mary, let him be corrected or leave the Catholic Church, for She will have none of it. If she wanted to exaly Mary in the way you say she does, than Rome would have said God granted such and such to her because of her innate holiness and, as such, God had a debt to her in some way. Obviously ridiculous and in explicit contradiction to the Church's teaching about human nature and the human condition (sinners in need of a savior).
Finally, I leave with the question I often have to leave Mormon "elders" with. The elders admit that God in a state of learning, like us, only better, that he is not infinite being, not infinitely perfect, etc. But, I ask, why would I want to stop worshipping a God whi is infinite being, intellect, will, knowledge, wisdom, goodness, etc? Why exchange that for what you are offering, which is obviously a lesser god?
So I ask, why would I want to exchange worship of a Christ who is the Most Perfect Redeemer for one who isn't, for one who is less perfect?
I never said they want to exalt her above God, but they want to magnify her, not God. The examples I cited are just a few of the clear examples. Having Mary on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, the place where God's presence rested, and from where Moses heard God speaking to him. To say that the Roman Catholic institution will have "none of it" in reference to somebody exalting Mary is evidence of spiritual blindness.
DeleteBut what of my example of the Immaculate Conception, which clearly gives the lie to the notion that Rome magnifies Mary and not God (which would appear to be the same thing as exalting Mary above God)?
DeleteI love Catholicism; it has such great names. Our Lady of the Sign - Ark of the Covenant is an artistic expression of one of the most beautiful and mysterious truth's of God's universe; that God the Creator desires to work in and through his creation. The 'Our Lady of the Sign' is a monstrance holding the Eucharist. This is a play on the idea of Mary as the new ark of the covenant. She holds the Bread, the Logos and the High Priest in her womb. She is the fulfillment of the OT ark. The iconographer would be shocked at someone suggesting that this was an attempt to magnify/exalt Mary above God or in place of God. The correct interpretation of the artwork would be to marvel at the mystery that Mankind plays an essential role (in this case a woman) in his own salvation history. This is the mystery expressed in Phil 2:12-13. See the explanation of the icon here, including the many scripture references; http://www.sanctuaryofthedivinemercy.org/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign/Our-Lady-of-the-Sign-Ark-of-Mercy-12.html
DeleteAlso, Credo wanted to challenge the notion that "Rome wishes to exalt Mary above God". Michael you responded by denying that you said that Rome wants to exalt Mary above God (thus affirming proper Catholic teaching), but then replaced that with the statement that Rome magnifies Mary not God. But that statement is not correct, Rome is very clear that Mary is to be venerated and God alone worshiped. The veneration of Man and worship of God are not mutually exclusive, any more than total devotion to your wife is mutually exclusive to total devotion to God. Both are possible and even complementary so long as both are properly ordered. As every knowledgeable Catholic would tell you, veneration of Mary, or any other saint, is also a glorification of God, because we marvel at and praise God for what he has done through a simple, poor girl, and in Our Lady, draw hope for God's generosity in our own lives. These are the loftiest and most noble themes the human soul can grasp; not spiritual blindness.
John Shaferly
Hi Mike, thank you for being willing to express your thoughts on the blog. There are many questions presently on the table that really ought to be followed up on and I have some that I’d like to add as well, but I don’t want to see the details swept under the rug and ignored. I hope you will come back to the responses to what you asserted and ‘give an answer’ (1 Peter 3:15). As you said, you have plenty of reason and justification behind your claims. I, for one, would sincerely like to hear what you have in mind.
ReplyDeleteBut, besides answering the aforementioned questions, perhaps you can take a step back with me from your original assertions (which also implied objections to Catholic teaching). Since (our understanding of) Mary remains a point of disunity between Baptist and Catholic theologies, and since God wishes us to be of one mind, it seems important for us to at least try to get to the bottom of the differences in humble pursuit of the truth. With this in mind, while you have said what you *do not* believe Mary or her role is, perhaps you could share what you *do* believe about her. Could you give us a presentation of her that you believe would be in harmony with the whole of the scriptural account? A theology of Mary, if you will? What do you believe the Bible teaches about Mary?