Glaring Hiatus

[FantomScholar]

This is an interesting point. I was under the impression that there was some difference there, though I knew that it wasn’t that great.

However, if you’re right (as I assume you are, since I admit that I don’t know that much about the Church of the East) I think this would be an argument in favor of the proposition that the “Church of the East” is far more orthodox than used to be supposed, expressing the same faith in different words. I was not thinking primarily of the definition at Ephesus itself but of Mary’s role in the Incarnation, although of course I was expressing that role in the language defined at Ephesus since I accept the authority of that Council.

Edwin

The East began the practice of invoking Mary directly in the liturgy, while the Roman mass mentions Mary and speaks of her intercession, she is however, not directly addressed. The famous liturgiologist, Gregory Dix, says of the Marian festivals: “In Rome none of the five great festivals of our Dear Woman are older than 700 A.D. At that time the festivals of the Purification, the Annunciation, Assumption and Birth of Mary were taken over by Pope Sergius I, a Syrian from Byzantium. The Immaculate Conception developed as a festival and doctrine in the west first in Anglo-Saxon England, in the early eleventh century, on the basis of an older and different form of Byzantine origin.” (The Shape of the Liturgy, 1947, p. 376).

While I would disagree with your conclusion that this makes the Eastern churches more orthodox in an apostolic sense, I think it would be correct to say that the East has had far more impact on the development of Roman Catholic theology than Rome would be willing to admit. At least as regards Marian devotion.

 

[Contarini]

While I would disagree with your conclusion that this makes the Eastern churches more orthodox in an apostolic sense, I think it would be correct to say that the East has had far more impact on the development of Roman Catholic theology than Rome would be willing to admit. At least as regards Marian devotion.

I think you misunderstood me. By “the Church of the East” I meant the “Nestorian Church.” The former term appears to be considered more polite, so I used it (just as I would not call members of the Roman Communion “Papists”!). I wasn’t talking about the Chalcedonian Eastern Church.

Edwin

 

[FantomScholar]

I think you misunderstood me. By “the Church of the East” I meant the “Nestorian Church.” The former term appears to be considered more polite, so I used it (just as I would not call members of the Roman Communion “Papists”!). I wasn’t talking about the Chalcedonian Eastern Church.

Edwin

My mistake, then!

 

[diana_leslie]

I find the following quote from Jesus very interesting and inclusive of all who follow Him, not just for Mary.

Lu 8:20, 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Oh to be found faithful!!!

You are right to say that this quote includes all Christians as His family and not just Mary.

However, I find it hard to confirm that he is denying the importance of His own mother in the plan for salvation. It is instead a very strong way of saying that yes, indeed, as followers of Christ who do His will, we become part His immediate family.

To honor Mary does not deny that we are all part of Christ’s family. As such, we are part of Mary’s family, too. Christ gave her to us as our mother on the cross when he tells the beloved disciple (who represents all Christians) “Behold, your mother.” (Jn 19:26-27) She is a model for us to follow with her full consent to God’s will.

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.” --Lk 1:48 (the same Gospel you quote…)

Tell me, what does your church do to call Mary blessed?

 

[FantomScholar]

To honor Mary does not deny that we are all part of Christ’s family. As such, we are part of Mary’s family, too. Christ gave her to us as our mother on the cross when he tells the beloved disciple (who represents all Christians) “Behold, your mother.” (Jn 19:26-27) She is a model for us to follow with her full consent to God’s will.

Where is the substantiation for the statement that Christ gives Mary to us as our mother? You say that John represents all Christians when Christ makes this statement. Why? All I see here is that Christ is making provision for His mother’s well-being.

 

[Berean2]

Where is the substantiation for the statement that Christ gives Mary to us as our mother? You say that John represents all Christians when Christ makes this statement. Why? All I see here is that Christ is making provision for His mother’s well-being.

Thanks for asking that question, FS. I’ve had it myself, ever since I first saw that verse interpreted that way here @ some other thread.

And Contarini, senility is a tragic thing (mine, I mean): you were spot on, because, no, I did not understand your point. Please do “theology for dummies” for me, if you would. (I sometimes wonder if my “theology gene” is only half formed.)

 

[Linda_Marie]

Mary has not been declared Co-Redemptrix. In addition, the term is easily misunderstood. It does not mean that Mary is essential to our salvation.

It means that Mary is the supreme Co-operator with the Will of God in the Redemption. In being the person, the human being, from whom God took flesh and became Man, Mary Co-operated in a Singular and Unique fashion for all eternity. Even so, this is NOT dogma.

Mary is one who leads us to Christ. She is not the only one. Many people do this. Your mother, perhaps, first taught you about Jesus and in this way, was ‘essential’ to your salvation. Not that salvation was from your mother, but that salvation came to you through her.

Jesus, our Salvation, came to all of us through Mary.

But, you still do not have to have any kind of devotion to Mary to be saved according to Catholic teaching.

Many find devotion to her to be beneficial to their spiritual life with Christ. Others seem to find her an obstacle. It is my personal opinion that not availing oneself of the help of the mother of our Lord is like a man ignoring the life-ring, saying he can swim to the boat on his own. Sure, maybe he can, but doesn’t it make sense to grab hold of the help offered?

 

[Berean2]

Mary has not been declared Co-Redemptrix. In addition, the term is easily misunderstood. It does not mean that Mary is essential to our salvation.

It means that Mary is the supreme Co-operator with the Will of God in the Redemption. In being the person, the human being, from whom God took flesh and became Man, Mary Co-operated in a Singular and Unique fashion for all eternity. ] Even so, this is NOT dogma.

Jesus, our Salvation, came to all of us through Mary.

But, you still do not have to have any kind of devotion to Mary to be saved according to Catholic teaching.

This is very instructive, Linda Marie. Is dogma, then, everything contained in the CCC?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Indeed. It’s a real puzzle. Why don’t the Epistles mention the idea that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse? For that matter, the Gospel of Mark doesn’t mention it either, and one can argue over whether John mentions it indirectly. It almost seems as if Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives represent a later development unknown to the first believers, doesn’t it?

Let’s follow your hypothetical trail and see where it leads. Let’s bow for a moment to the dictates of higher criticism and say that the birth narratives were later additions to the texts of the Gospels. Someone having a picnic just outside Cairo found copies of both Matthew and Luke that date back to 90 AD and neither contain the narratives.

Does removing this particular belief from the deposit of faith render the church unable to be formed? Does it render men unable to be saved? Note that I’m not saying the events of Christ’s birth did not happen, just that they were not included in the Gospels in this scenario.

Were this the case, would the church be unable to carry out the Great Commission?

If the church is able to carry on in this scenario, what does this tell us about the relative importance of Marian information. What weight should it be granted to it relative to the information on Jesus, the Apostles and their mission and message?

It isn’t that Mary is unimportant to the church, rather that the teachings related to her and her role form a secondary level of teaching (along with many other valuable teachings) that are preceded by the core kerymatic teachings.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s follow your hypothetical trail and see where it leads. Let’s bow for a moment to the dictates of higher criticism and say that the birth narratives were later additions to the texts of the Gospels. Someone having a picnic just outside Cairo found copies of both Matthew and Luke that date back to 90 AD and neither contain the narratives.

Actually, I am not aware of any scholars who think that the original versions of either Matthew or Luke did not contain birth narratives. The addition of the respective birth narratives is generally considered to be one of the contributions of the respective authors of what we call “Matthew” and “Luke.” In other words, both authors took Mark and Q and added some of their own material, including the birth narratives. So no one expects to find what you describe. I think it’s generally agreed that these Gospels were complete in more or less the form we have them by the year 90 or so. (I’d date them earlier, but I’m near the conservative end of the spectrum.)

Were this the case, would the church be unable to carry out the Great Commission?

If the church is able to carry on in this scenario, what does this tell us about the relative importance of Marian information. What weight should it be granted to it relative to the information on Jesus, the Apostles and their mission and message?

It isn’t that Mary is unimportant to the church, rather that the teachings related to her and her role form a secondary level of teaching (along with many other valuable teachings) that are preceded by the core kerymatic teachings.

Clearly we agree on the basic point that the birth narratives are in some sense related to Marian doctrine.

I would agree cautiously with your claim that the “core kerygmatic teachings” don’t include the virginal conception, in the sense that Paul says nothing about it and the sermons recorded in Acts don’t mention it. However, it is in the Creeds, and from my perspective that makes it part of the Church’s kerygma.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And Contarini, senility is a tragic thing (mine, I mean): you were spot on, because, no, I did not understand your point. Please do “theology for dummies” for me, if you would. (I sometimes wonder if my “theology gene” is only half formed.)

Senility has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s simply that you aren’t familiar with the assumptions I’m coming from. (I’m probably somewhat more familiar with the assumptions you are coming from, since I come from a conservative evangelical background and have experience with quite a wide variety of evangelical perspectives. I’m a church historian–understanding this stuff is my job.) My perspective on Scripture is shaped primarily by the Catholic (or historic Christian–I mean the same thing by this) tradition, and secondarily by modern scholarship (about which I know much less). Certainly my evangelical heritage shapes me very much as well, especially where it agrees with older Christian teaching (often in opposition to much modern scholarship).

Anyway, the point I’ve been trying to make is simply that the stories about Jesus’ birth *are *in some sense Marian teachings. You are assuming them as part of the New Testament–I do as well–but when you ask “why don’t the Epistles mention Mary” you need to apply this question consistently to the stories about Mary found in the Gospels as well as to non-Biblical ones. This is a counter-intuitive thing for a devout Protestant to do, because you automatically assume a huge difference between material found in the Bible and material that isn’t found in the Bible. Historical-critical scholars would deny this on the one hand by treating the Bible like any other ancient text, and Catholics would modify it on the other by giving non-Biblical tradition considerable authority as well. So for the purposes of Protestant-Catholic dialogue, we need to consider how the Biblical material on Mary (chiefly the birth narratives) is related both to the earlier parts of the New Testament (Mark and the Pauline letters) and to later tradition.

Note: I’m assuming that Mark was written first. The more traditional view is that Matthew was written first, and there’s a significant minority of modern scholars who hold to this view. I find the arguments for Marcan priority more convincing, myself, but I admit that I haven’t studied the question deeply. Either way, my point about the Epistles stands!

I may have only confused you further. What exactly did you need explained? (I should have asked this *before *emitting more verbiage!)

Edwin

 

[FantomScholar]

Clearly we agree on the basic point that the birth narratives are in some sense related to Marian doctrine.

I would agree cautiously with your claim that the “core kerygmatic teachings” don’t include the virginal conception, in the sense that Paul says nothing about it and the sermons recorded in Acts don’t mention it. However, it is in the Creeds, and from my perspective that makes it part of the Church’s kerygma.

Edwin

I think you will find among Protestants that the stress is more on the birth narratives being related to the doctrine of Christ and not to Mary. In and of itself the virginal conception states that Mary conceived without male cooperation. While this describes the way in which Mary conceived, it says nothing about the person of Mary, or the status of her soul (with or without original sin), or whether she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, or whether she was assumed into heaven. It does say volumes, though, about the person of Christ. This is reinforced by how much Mary is mentioned in the birth narratives versus the way in which the Gospel writers treat her after the birth and when Christ begins His ministry, in which she is very rarely mentioned at all.

I do agree with you that the virgin birth is part of the Church’s kerygma, but only because it relates to our confession of the person of Christ. I don’t think you’re arguing otherwise, but it can be important because of the way that the Roman Church tends to take that basic confession and build the Marian dogmas upon it for the purpose of binding Catholics toward confessing things about Mary that are not part of the mission of the Church.

 

[diana_leslie]

Where is the substantiation for the statement that Christ gives Mary to us as our mother? You say that John represents all Christians when Christ makes this statement. Why? All I see here is that Christ is making provision for His mother’s well-being.

I apologize if I have assumed that most Christians believe “the beloved disciple” of John’s Gospel represents all those who see to follow Christ and have a relationship with Him.

If we think about it logically, though, we should look at the context of this scene at the Cross. These words are some of the last Jesus spoke as he was dying. On the surface, yes, they show his incredible love and care for his mother in His last moments of life. But don’t you think it logical that, as these were only one of seven “last words” of Christ on the cross, there would be more significance that only what is on the surface?

All the words of Christ on the cross have serious implications for all Christians. They are:
Luke 23:33-34 “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
Luke 23:39-43 “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
John 19:25-27 “Woman, behold your son.” “Behold, your mother.”
Mark 15:33-34 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
John 19:28 “I thirst.”
John 19:29-30 “It is finished.”
Luke 23:46 “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

These words of Christ to Mary and the Beloved Disciple are only one of the three found in John’s Gospel. As you know, the other two, “I thirst”, and “It is finished”, have very strong symbolism (much more than the fact that Jesus was literally thirsty and that he was about to die), as does much of John’s Gospel. It seems unlikely, then, that these words to Mary and the Beloved Disciple were meant only as care for his mother. Instead, the Beloved Disciple, who is never named in the Gospel, has been seen as representative of all who seek to have an intimate relationship with Christ. He is the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, as we all are.

This article covers this in much more detail than I have space for here: holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/edwardpsri/knowingmary/06.asp

The truth is, we as Christians, are all sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters of Christ. If God is our Father, who, then, is our Mother? Mary. She is the Mother of Christ, and we are all members of the Body of Christ. This does not mean she is in any way equal to God; she is merely an instrument of God’s will.

The Catechism puts it this way: “She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ… since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.” (CCC 963)

We could never honor Mary as much as God did when He made her the Mother of His Son.

Think about that for a minute. She bore Christ in her womb. Christ as an unborn child lived on her blood–how intimately connected can you get? God honored her; so can we.

So, tell me, how does your church call Mary blessed?

 

[Contarini]

I think you will find among Protestants that the stress is more on the birth narratives being related to the doctrine of Christ and not to Mary.

Of course. But this disjunction between Jesus and Mary is, from a Catholic perspective, one of the basic Protestant mistakes. It isn’t Jesus *or *Mary. Marian doctrine *is *all about Christ.

Note that this may not apply to some of the later RC Marian doctrines (though RCs generally argue that it does).

Edwin

 

[FantomScholar]

Of course. But this disjunction between Jesus and Mary is, from a Catholic perspective, one of the basic Protestant mistakes. It isn’t Jesus *or *Mary. Marian doctrine *is *all about Christ.

I think there is something of a disconnect here between that statement and how that plays itself out in the devotional life of the RCC. If Marian doctrine is all about Christ, then why do the doctrines lead to the hyper-veneration of Mary that we see right up until the present day?

I would posit that the reason for such a disconnect is precisely because the position that is given to Mary by fiat dogma will always detract from the veneration given to Christ. Mary as she exists within the Biblical record does not do this, because the Biblical record doesn’t assign anything remotely similar to the doctrines that have come about in church history do. In that sense, it is not a Jesus or Mary dichotomy, anymore than it is a Jesus/Paul or Jesus/Peter dichotomy. However, once you begin to refer to her as a mediatrix of graces, and design the kind of flowery prose that is written about her in prayer such as that of Alphonse Ligouri, the dichotomy is created by the very fact of assigning capabilities to Mary that properly only belong to Christ.

 

[FantomScholar]

The truth is, we as Christians, are all sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters of Christ. If God is our Father, who, then, is our Mother? Mary. She is the Mother of Christ, and we are all members of the Body of Christ. This does not mean she is in any way equal to God; she is merely an instrument of God’s will.

Sorry if I snipped your post a bit… I just wanted to narrow it down after reading through your documentation.

This is just an example of speculating without any evidence. Mary is entrusted to John, not the other way around. As John explains in verse 27, he took care of Mary after Jesus’ death. If either figure is portrayed as being protective in this passage, it’s John, not Mary. Even if that wasn’t the case, why should we assume that John is representative of the Christian church, whereas Mary is just Mary? The Catholic choice to see John as symbolic, while not seeing Mary as symbolic, is arbitrary. It’s unprovable. The most plausible explanation of this passage is the one that John himself gives us in verse 27. To read some spiritual motherhood of Mary into the passage, an interpretation that nobody advocated during the earliest generations of Christianity, is going beyond the evidence.

So, tell me, how does your church call Mary blessed?

We most certainly consider Mary to have been blessed. We also consider every one that has been used by God throughout redemptive history to have been blessed. This doesn’t mean we venerate them.

 

[Contarini]

I think there is something of a disconnect here between that statement and how that plays itself out in the devotional life of the RCC. If Marian doctrine is all about Christ, then why do the doctrines lead to the hyper-veneration of Mary that we see right up until the present day?

I would posit that the reason for such a disconnect is precisely because the position that is given to Mary by fiat dogma will always detract from the veneration given to Christ.

That is, again, a Protestant assumption that is embedded in the way you look at the issue. You start with that–you aren’t concluding it from any evidence that I can see.

Mary as she exists within the Biblical record does not do this, because the Biblical record doesn’t assign anything remotely similar to the doctrines that have come about in church history do. In that sense, it is not a Jesus or Mary dichotomy, anymore than it is a Jesus/Paul or Jesus/Peter dichotomy. However, once you begin to refer to her as a mediatrix of graces, and design the kind of flowery prose that is written about her in prayer such as that of Alphonse Ligouri, the dichotomy is created by the very fact of assigning capabilities to Mary that properly only belong to Christ.

I don’t find Liguori very helpful as a spiritual writer, myself. In fact I once bought *The Glories of Mary *to try to persuade myself not to become Catholic (obviously it worked, or something did!). However, the fact is that if you look at his work as a whole you find plenty of focus on Christ. It’s just that Protestants know him for this one book about Mary and assume that this somehow “detracted” from Christ. And one finds this often in Catholic piety–the folks who were most devoted to Mary had the strongest and most personal devotion to Christ. Look at Bernard of Clairvaux–evangelicals love him for his Christocentrism, but he is also the person credited with jumpstarting the efflorescence of exuberant Marian devotion in the Western Middle Ages (even if he didn’t say all the over-the-top things Liguori said he said).

There is a certain kind of popular Marian piety (see Michael P. Carroll’s Veiled Threats, for instance) which treats Mary as if she were a goddess in her own right. But I do not in fact see this in the classic Catholic devotional writers, even though I think their language was over-the-top and could have pernicious consequence when taken out of context.

Edwin

 

[FantomScholar]

That is, again, a Protestant assumption that is embedded in the way you look at the issue. You start with that–you aren’t concluding it from any evidence that I can see.

What evidence would I need to present in order to show the veneration given to Mary other than what is present within Roman Catholic theology?

However, the fact is that if you look at his work as a whole you find plenty of focus on Christ. It’s just that Protestants know him for this one book about Mary and assume that this somehow “detracted” from Christ. And one finds this often in Catholic piety–the folks who were most devoted to Mary had the strongest and most personal devotion to Christ. Look at Bernard of Clairvaux–evangelicals love him for his Christocentrism, but he is also the person credited with jumpstarting the efflorescence of exuberant Marian devotion in the Western Middle Ages (even if he didn’t say all the over-the-top things Liguori said he said).

No one denies, of course, that Rome has maintained creedal fidelity (inasmuch as those within Protestantism care about such things, and that is certainly to our shame). It has always strongly encouraged and fought for the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and other doctrines relating to Christ. However, I believe this is precisely why the Marian cultus that has arisen within Roman Catholicism is such an unspeakable tragedy. That someone like Bernard who maintained the Christocentrism he did can fall into novel and dangerous notions, then it speaks volumes to the level of how an unbiblical view of Mary can affect ones theological outlook.

No such devotions outside of Christianity would concern us as evangelical Protestants. No matter how grandiose it were, it would be no danger to the Christian faith, and it would finally have no power in world history. But a madonna cult in which the mother of the Lord is the madonna, is a power in the world. If the Madonna of Lourdes or of Fatima were not identified with Mary, if these were, as in corresponding cases in the ancient world, treated as independent divine beings, they would mean nothing to us. It is this identification which gives significance to the cult of Lourdes and the cult of Fatima, because they legitimize them with the authority of the Gospel. As is the case in every church, so also the Roman Church does not live from her errors, but from her truths. The fearful thing in her history is this: these truths have been used to justify those errors.

 

[Radical]

Maybe you guys can fill me in. I’m at a loss: if Mary is so crucial to our faith/salvation, why do the Epistles not mention her that way? …

You could have asked why that picture of her is missing from the early extra-biblical writings as well. The Apostolic Fathers have references to Jesus being born of a virgin, but that is about as far as it goes. The glaring hiatus is longer than you have described.

 

[Dokimas]

You are right to say that this quote includes all Christians as His family and not just Mary.

However, I find it hard to confirm that he is denying the importance of His own mother in the plan for salvation. It is instead a very strong way of saying that yes, indeed, as followers of Christ who do His will, we become part His immediate family.

To honor Mary does not deny that we are all part of Christ’s family. As such, we are part of Mary’s family, too. Christ gave her to us as our mother on the cross when he tells the beloved disciple (who represents all Christians) “Behold, your mother.” (Jn 19:26-27) She is a model for us to follow with her full consent to God’s will.

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.” --Lk 1:48 (the same Gospel you quote…)

Tell me, what does your church do to call Mary blessed?

I call her blessed. You’re correct that the Bible tells us she is blessed. Jesus also gives examples of others that are blessed (Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount).​

Mary is a wonderful example for us. I love the two times it’s recorded that she took in things she didn’t understand and pondered them in her heart. I love her response to the angel when she said that she was willing to have done to her what the message said, even though she did not understand.​

Was Mary ALWAYS about God’s will? How about the time Jesus (age twelve) stayed behind in Jerusalem? How about at the Cana wedding when Jesus told her He wasn’t ready to be exposed?