Glaring Hiatus

[SteveVH]

I understand what you are saying, Steve. If you want to claim love for Mary, that is one thing. We can all admire, respect and give witness to the faithful throughout the ages. You and I know, however, that this is not merely the case with Rome’s devotion to Mary. She is ascribed (not dogmatically, I understand) the titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, the Catechism makes the claim that no graces come to man but through Mary’s intercession. This is far more than saying we love Mary. The abuses, that even Rome admits, occur in places like Latin America are evidence of this.

One of God’s names is Jealous, and God wishes to be served alone. I realize that many may think that God is quite willing to be served along side or together with Mary, but almost everyone can recognize that there comes a time when the devotion to Mary is excessive, where it elevates her to the position of a goddess, even though the word is not used.

There is little doubt that Marian devotion has become Marian worship among some who are ignorant of the Church’s true position. These people most definitely are in need of catechesis. This fact, however, does not diminish who she truly is, nor the honor due her. This is probably not the place to branch off into discussion concerning the titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, but I think if you understand how the Church has arrived at them, you will have no reason to be afraid. Her role in the incarnation goes far beyond what most people imagine. This was God’s plan, not hers, but her YES to the Lord would change the world forever. The blood that Jesus shed for us was Mary’s blood.

 

[FantomScholar]

There is little doubt that Marian devotion has become Marian worship among some who are ignorant of the Church’s true position. These people most definitely are in need of catechesis. This fact, however, does not diminish who she truly is, nor the honor due her. This is probably not the place to branch off into discussion concerning the titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix, but I think if you understand how the Church has arrived at them, you will have no reason to be afraid. Her role in the incarnation goes far beyond what most people imagine. This was God’s plan, not hers, but her YES to the Lord would change the world forever. The blood that Jesus shed for us was Mary’s blood.

I agree that Mary is important in the flow of redemptive history. She is, however, no more directly important than Abraham, David, or Jehoshephat. It is true she bore Christ, and there can be no temporal honor greater than that. However, neither she nor Christ’s human nature would have existed without the aforementioned men. The blood that Christ shed was also from them. It is not who the blood was given by that we pay attention to, though. We pay attention to who shed it and why it was shed.

I think it naive to say that such abuses are a result of poor catechesis. Rather, they are a downward spiral from an already defective understanding of Mary. The types of devotion that exist to her throughout the writings of the church are the same level of worship (and all prayer is a form of worship) given to Mary, just not of the same degree as seen in countries where she is outright worshiped as goddess.

What if the man in Acts 10:25 claimed that he was just “loving Peter”, and that he didn’t mean to elevate Peter above God? What if the people in 1 Corinthians 1:12 claimed that they were just “loving” the leaders they were following? Obviously, the command to love one another doesn’t justify holding a person in higher esteem than we should. We can love Mary without making her out to be a sinless perpetual virgin who is Queen of Heaven, co-redeemer, dispenser of all grace, etc. If Catholics acknowledge that Mary isn’t God, does that mean that they can believe whatever they want to believe about her? Obviously not. If a person falsely believes that Mary is 99% of what God is, acknowledging that there’s a 1% difference doesn’t make that false view any less false. We can acknowledge that somebody isn’t God, yet still be elevating that person more than we should.

 

[SteveVH]

I think it naive to say that such abuses are a result of poor catechesis. Rather, they are a downward spiral from an already defective understanding of Mary. The types of devotion that exist to her throughout the writings of the church are the same level of worship (and all prayer is a form of worship) given to Mary, just not of the same degree as seen in countries where she is outright worshiped as goddess.

“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men… flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it. No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”
(CCC par. 970; LG 60, 62)

I think it is you who has the defective understanding. The Church has made it abundantly clear that Mary is not to be considered in any way to have a status anywhere near that of Christ.

Your lack of understanding that suggests that “all prayer is a form of worship” is fairly common in many non-Catholic circles. This is mainly due to either a faulty understanding or complete ignorance concerning the concept of the “communion of saints”. We believe that the Church exists both here on earth and in heaven. Those who have died in Christ are not dead, but living in the presence of God. We are intimately connected to those in heaven by the very fact that we all constitute the “mystical Body of Christ”. Since we can’t very well call them on the phone or email them, we communicate through prayer; prayers of petition. We ask them to pray for us, just as we may ask someone here on earth to pray for us. Sorry, but not all prayer is a form of worship, if “prayer” to the saints is properly understood. I have been Catholic all my life and have never heard of a prayer to any of the saints that would constitute worship.

We can love Mary without making her out to be a sinless perpetual virgin who is Queen of Heaven, co-redeemer, dispenser of all grace, etc. If Catholics acknowledge that Mary isn’t God, does that mean that they can believe whatever they want to believe about her? Obviously not. If a person falsely believes that Mary is 99% of what God is, acknowledging that there’s a 1% difference doesn’t make that false view any less false. We can acknowledge that somebody isn’t God, yet still be elevating that person more than we should.

If anyone thought that “Mary is 99% of what God is” they would be as wrong as you are, just on the other side. As for her being sinless, her perpetual virginity and her being the Queen of heaven, you leave me at a disadvantage. It is very easy to throw out one liners, yet each of these on their own could make up a very long thread. I certainly don’t have the time to adequately address each of these in this post. If you wish, maybe you can start another thread to address these issues.

God bless.

 

[FantomScholar]

“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men… flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it. No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”
(CCC par. 970; LG 60, 62)

A person who believes they need a mediator with the Mediator simply doesn’t understand the Mediator to begin with.

Christ does not share His Mediation with anyone or anything. He does not “dole out” mediation duties. The statement that there is one God and one mediator between man and God means exactly that. In the same way that God does not share His Godhood with “lesser gods,” He does not share His mediation with lesser mediators.

Your lack of understanding that suggests that “all prayer is a form of worship” is fairly common in many non-Catholic circles. This is mainly due to either a faulty understanding or complete ignorance concerning the concept of the “communion of saints”. We believe that the Church exists both here on earth and in heaven. Those who have died in Christ are not dead, but living in the presence of God. We are intimately connected to those in heaven by the very fact that we all constitute the “mystical Body of Christ”. Since we can’t very well call them on the phone or email them, we communicate through prayer; prayers of petition. We ask them to pray for us, just as we may ask someone here on earth to pray for us. Sorry, but not all prayer is a form of worship, if “prayer” to the saints is properly understood. I have been Catholic all my life and have never heard of a prayer to any of the saints that would constitute worship.

Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

“the dead.” The meaning is not difficult: it refers to someone who was once physically alive on earth but is no longer. It’s just that simple. When a person stops breathing and their heart stops and they expire, they are dead. It is sophistry at its best to say, “Oh, but they are alive to God!” Of course they are. Even those undergoing punishment awaiting the day of judgment are “alive” in that sense. That is not the point. The prohibition here refers to the dead, and whether one was righteous or unrighteous is not mentioned. It does not say “those who call upon the unrighteous dead,” it simply says “the dead.” Further, this is a prohibition in law directed to those of us alive on earth. Hence, it uses our viewpoint, not God’s, as the definition of who is dead and who is alive. Can anything be more obvious, more plain, more simple, than this? To seek after, to inquire after, resort to, frequent, or to seek in prayer or worship. One of the activities that is an abomination in God’s sight, connected with other magical and pagan activities, is seeking after, resorting to, and praying to, the dead.

Now, Rome encourages this very activity, so, Rome must find a way to dismiss commands like this. In this instance, the prohibition against religious contact with, communication with, inquiry of, the dead, is dismissed by simply redefining the term “the dead.” If you are a saint, you aren’t dead, so, all is well! So, we have to ask, what is this prohibition about then? Who does it forbid us to inquire of? All those who have passed from this life are, we believe (in opposition to some), conscious, either in the presence of God or they are undergoing punishment (there is no purgatory to make reference to in such a biblical discussion). So, it would follow, if the Roman argument is valid, that this last section was a waste of “sacred page space,” a useless prohibition without object and meaning.

I know the standard objections that are usually offered to these points: “Most Protestants are quite comfortable asking for prayers from other Christians on earth; why do they not ask those saved saints who have departed from the earth and are close to God in heaven? After all, they may have passed from this world, but they’re certainly alive – more than we are!” That sounds so nice, but it is double-talk. Passed from this world = dead to us. Alive to God? Of course. Spiritually alive? Completely. But the prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have “passed from this world”! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined. Further, there is a substantive, clear difference between asking a fellow believer to pray for you, and the prayers that are addressed to Mary and the saints. I have never asked anyone to save me from the wrath of Jesus, and yet that is what we read in numerous Marian invocations.

Can you please cite an example from Scripture wherein prayer is not a form of worship?

 

[benidict]

A person who believes they need a mediator with the Mediator simply doesn’t understand the Mediator to begin with.

Christ does not share His Mediation with anyone or anything. He does not “dole out” mediation duties. The statement that there is one God and one mediator between man and God means exactly that. In the same way that God does not share His Godhood with “lesser gods,” He does not share His mediation with lesser mediators.

Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

“the dead.” The meaning is not difficult: it refers to someone who was once physically alive on earth but is no longer. It’s just that simple. When a person stops breathing and their heart stops and they expire, they are dead. It is sophistry at its best to say, “Oh, but they are alive to God!” Of course they are. Even those undergoing punishment awaiting the day of judgment are “alive” in that sense. That is not the point. The prohibition here refers to the dead, and whether one was righteous or unrighteous is not mentioned. It does not say “those who call upon the unrighteous dead,” it simply says “the dead.” Further, this is a prohibition in law directed to those of us alive on earth. Hence, it uses our viewpoint, not God’s, as the definition of who is dead and who is alive. Can anything be more obvious, more plain, more simple, than this? To seek after, to inquire after, resort to, frequent, or to seek in prayer or worship. One of the activities that is an abomination in God’s sight, connected with other magical and pagan activities, is seeking after, resorting to, and praying to, the dead.

Now, Rome encourages this very activity, so, Rome must find a way to dismiss commands like this. In this instance, the prohibition against religious contact with, communication with, inquiry of, the dead, is dismissed by simply redefining the term “the dead.” If you are a saint, you aren’t dead, so, all is well! So, we have to ask, what is this prohibition about then? Who does it forbid us to inquire of? All those who have passed from this life are, we believe (in opposition to some), conscious, either in the presence of God or they are undergoing punishment (there is no purgatory to make reference to in such a biblical discussion). So, it would follow, if the Roman argument is valid, that this last section was a waste of “sacred page space,” a useless prohibition without object and meaning.

I know the standard objections that are usually offered to these points: “Most Protestants are quite comfortable asking for prayers from other Christians on earth; why do they not ask those saved saints who have departed from the earth and are close to God in heaven? After all, they may have passed from this world, but they’re certainly alive – more than we are!” That sounds so nice, but it is double-talk. Passed from this world = dead to us. Alive to God? Of course. Spiritually alive? Completely. But the prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have “passed from this world”! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined. Further, there is a substantive, clear difference between asking a fellow believer to pray for you, and the prayers that are addressed to Mary and the saints. I have never asked anyone to save me from the wrath of Jesus, and yet that is what we read in numerous Marian invocations.

Can you please cite an example from Scripture wherein prayer is not a form of worship?

hello fantomscholar. deuteronomy 18:11-12 has more to do with seances and such. it is what king saul did, when he visited the witch at endor. that is what this passage is refering to. what we do, by asking for intercession does not violate this commandment at all. we are not attempting to raise a spirit of the deceased for answers.
there is a big difference in the praying for intercession, and necromancy or sorcery. also what about the cloud of witnesses we read about in hebrews. and the martyrs in revelation? it seems the saints that have gone ahead are very interested in what is going on, on earth. also Mary is no longer dead. she has been raised and assumed into heaven to take her rightful place. as is alluded to in the old testament. in various places. but again. it can not be expected that a protestant will see this, any more than Marys connection to the Ark. Peace

 

[SteveVH]

A person who believes they need a mediator with the Mediator simply doesn’t understand the Mediator to begin with.

Christ does not share His Mediation with anyone or anything. He does not “dole out” mediation duties. The statement that there is one God and one mediator between man and God means exactly that. In the same way that God does not share His Godhood with “lesser gods,” He does not share His mediation with lesser mediators.

I think you would agree that God could create each of us out of thin air, just as we are. But that is not how he chose to do it. Instead His plan was for us to co-operate in the creation of each new person by becoming one flesh. Does He depend on us? No. Mary co-operated with God in the incarnation of His Son. Jesus could have simply appeared, but he didn’t. Mary co-operated in bringing the Savior into the world, a singular, unique role that no other person on earth enjoyed.

Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

Praying to the saints in heaven is hardly having a seance. We do not “call up the dead”.

“All forms of divinization are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead, or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future…” (CCC par 2116)

“the dead.” The meaning is not difficult: it refers to someone who was once physically alive on earth but is no longer. It’s just that simple. When a person stops breathing and their heart stops and they expire, they are dead. It is sophistry at its best to say, “Oh, but they are alive to God!” Of course they are. Even those undergoing punishment awaiting the day of judgment are “alive” in that sense. That is not the point. The prohibition here refers to the dead, and whether one was righteous or unrighteous is not mentioned. It does not say “those who call upon the unrighteous dead,” it simply says “the dead.” Further, this is a prohibition in law directed to those of us alive on earth. Hence, it uses our viewpoint, not God’s, as the definition of who is dead and who is alive. Can anything be more obvious, more plain, more simple, than this? To seek after, to inquire after, resort to, frequent, or to seek in prayer or worship. One of the activities that is an abomination in God’s sight, connected with other magical and pagan activities, is seeking after, resorting to, and praying to, the dead.

“Have you never read in the book of Moses how God spoke to him at the burning bush and said ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ Yet it is of living men, not dead men, that he is the God”. (Mk 12:26)

Who appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration? Were they dead or were they alive? Your quote from Deuteronomy is in an entirely different context and addresses completley different subject matter having to do with the occult.

Now, Rome encourages this very activity, so, Rome must find a way to dismiss commands like this. In this instance, the prohibition against religious contact with, communication with, inquiry of, the dead, is dismissed by simply redefining the term “the dead.” If you are a saint, you aren’t dead, so, all is well! So, we have to ask, what is this prohibition about then?

See above.

But the prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have “passed from this world”! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined. Further, there is a substantive, clear difference between asking a fellow believer to pray for you, and the prayers that are addressed to Mary and the saints. I have never asked anyone to save me from the wrath of Jesus, and yet that is what we read in numerous Marian invocations.

Again, the prohibition is against occult practices of conjuring up the dead in order to gain some advantage or control outside of one’s natural ability. Just look at the context. It is speaking of “one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.”

Can you please cite an example from Scripture wherein prayer is not a form of worship?

I guess it all depends on how you wish to define worship. Its definition has certainly changed over the years. Is a prayer of petition a prayer of worship? I would say no; you would probably say yes. Paul asks the Christians of Rome to “join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea…”. Is this a prayer of worship, or a request made of God? Does requesting something of God constitute worship?

Listen to Abraham: “O Lord, God, what good will your gifts be, if I keep on being childless and have as my heir the steward of my house, Eliezer?” Abram continued, ‘See, you have given me no offspring, and so one of my servants will be my heir’" (Gen 15:2,3). This sounds more like a complaint than worship.

 

[FantomScholar]

I think you would agree that God could create each of us out of thin air, just as we are. But that is not how he chose to do it. Instead His plan was for us to co-operate in the creation of each new person by becoming one flesh. Does He depend on us? No. Mary co-operated with God in the incarnation of His Son. Jesus could have simply appeared, but he didn’t. Mary co-operated in bringing the Savior into the world, a singular, unique role that no other person on earth enjoyed.

This isn’t denied. The status that she is given as a result of it doesn’t follow her pious action in obedience to God.

Praying to the saints in heaven is hardly having a seance. We do not “call up the dead”.

"All forms of divinization are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead, or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future…" (CCC par 2116)

The form is different. The end result is the same. It is seeking to communicate with and have petitions heard by the dead. One doesn’t need to sit around in a circle with candles to do so.

Who appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration? Were they dead or were they alive? Your quote from Deuteronomy is in an entirely different context and addresses completley different subject matter having to do with the occult.

Of course they are alive. I acknowledged as such. That isn’t in question. What is in question is that because they are alive with God, it doesn’t follow that they can hear the multitudes of prayers offered to them and actually respond. Nor does that differentiate it from occultic practices that were forbidden in the Mosaic Covenant. I am quite sure that occultists also believed that the dead were alive, otherwise they wouldn’t have been petitioning them!

I guess it all depends on how you wish to define worship. Its definition has certainly changed over the years. Is a prayer of petition a prayer of worship? I would say no; you would probably say yes. Paul asks the Christians of Rome to “join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea…”. Is this a prayer of worship, or a request made of God? Does requesting something of God constitute worship?

Listen to Abraham: “O Lord, God, what good will your gifts be, if I keep on being childless and have as my heir the steward of my house, Eliezer?” Abram continued, ‘See, you have given me no offspring, and so one of my servants will be my heir’" (Gen 15:2,3). This sounds more like a complaint than worship.

Yes, Abraham was certainly complaining; but while the complaint itself wasn’t direct worship, Abraham still acknowledged that he was communicating with the divine and I imagine quaking in his boots (sandals?). All prayers are a form of worship because they acknowledge our dependence on a higher being that can answer our requests to them, whatever they might be. As such, they are instrinsically worshipful of whatever is being prayed to.

 

[diana_leslie]

You’re thinking of the Protoevangelion of James–mid-2nd century at the earliest, I believe. I don’t know of any scholars, even conservatives, who think it’s reliable (maybe you can point me to some conservative Catholic or Orthodox scholars who do). It’s pretty much universally agreed to be pious legend and nothing more, though I suppose it is possible that it contains some authentic traditions.

You obviously know more than I do about scripture scholars, but I have heard Catholic Answers use the Protoevangelium of James a few times, stating that we should use caution in looking at it, but it can be useful as long as it is not contrary to Scripture. I have also heard the argument that Scripture seems to imply that Mary intended to remain a virgin when the angel Gabriel tells her that she would conceive and bear a son and Mary says “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34) She was betrothed to Joseph at the times, so if she was intending to have children with him as usual, this would not be so surprising.

Jesus wasn’t married. It’s virginity within marriage that seems to make sex unholy, because sex is normally a part of marriage.

I see what you are saying, but for Mary to remain a virgin points to something far deeper than the holiness of marriage and sex . It points to the Catholic theology that she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit (all consecrated virgins today are spouses of Christ, a little different but similar), and that she carried God within her. In the Old Testament we see married couples abstaining at various times when in the presence of something very holy. When Moses was at Mount Sinai, preparing for the covenant, he asked the people to purify themselves and “Have no intercourse with any woman.” (Ex 19:15) In Old Testament law, priests were not allowed to have intercourse while they were serving in the temple. Because Mary carried God within her, she became a temple, thus Joseph was not to touch her.

Also, in Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant by someone else, he was not allowed to have relations with her, ever. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. She was God’s and God’s alone.

I think the Theology of the Body is great. But it isn’t the traditional Catholic understanding. I think it’s a legitimate development (though granted my idea of legitimate development is somewhat looser than the Catholic one), but it’s fairly new in Catholicism.

I don’t understand what you mean by “it isn’t the traditional Catholic understanding”. It’s definitely a development (and relatively new as you say), as all doctrine develops over the years, but that doesn’t mean it is in anyway contrary to past doctrines.

I also don’t quite understand how the virginity in partu leads to Docetism either. The point is, it’s a miraculous birth, and we can’t explain how it happened any more than we can explain how the Trinity works in definitive terms. Perhaps (and this is speculation here), the way the birth of Christ came about is how all births would come about if it weren’t for the Fall of Man–still a physical human birth.

Another interesting and important note about Mary: She was the Daughter of the Father, the Wife of the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of Jesus. She is an important model in all the ways unique to being a Woman.

 

[Berean2]

A person who believes they need a mediator with the Mediator simply doesn’t understand the Mediator to begin with.

Christ does not share His Mediation with anyone or anything. He does not “dole out” mediation duties. The statement that there is one God and one mediator between man and God means exactly that. In the same way that God does not share His Godhood with “lesser gods,” He does not share His mediation with lesser mediators.

Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

“the dead.” The meaning is not difficult: it refers to someone who was once physically alive on earth but is no longer. It’s just that simple. When a person stops breathing and their heart stops and they expire, they are dead. It is sophistry at its best to say, “Oh, but they are alive to God!” Of course they are. Even those undergoing punishment awaiting the day of judgment are “alive” in that sense. That is not the point. The prohibition here refers to the dead, and whether one was righteous or unrighteous is not mentioned. It does not say “those who call upon the unrighteous dead,” it simply says “the dead.” Further, this is a prohibition in law directed to those of us alive on earth. Hence, it uses our viewpoint, not God’s, as the definition of who is dead and who is alive. Can anything be more obvious, more plain, more simple, than this? To seek after, to inquire after, resort to, frequent, or to seek in prayer or worship. One of the activities that is an abomination in God’s sight, connected with other magical and pagan activities, is seeking after, resorting to, and praying to, the dead.

Now, Rome encourages this very activity, so, Rome must find a way to dismiss commands like this. In this instance, the prohibition against religious contact with, communication with, inquiry of, the dead, is dismissed by simply redefining the term “the dead.” If you are a saint, you aren’t dead, so, all is well! So, we have to ask, what is this prohibition about then? Who does it forbid us to inquire of? All those who have passed from this life are, we believe (in opposition to some), conscious, either in the presence of God or they are undergoing punishment (there is no purgatory to make reference to in such a biblical discussion). So, it would follow, if the Roman argument is valid, that this last section was a waste of “sacred page space,” a useless prohibition without object and meaning.

I know the standard objections that are usually offered to these points: “Most Protestants are quite comfortable asking for prayers from other Christians on earth; why do they not ask those saved saints who have departed from the earth and are close to God in heaven? After all, they may have passed from this world, but they’re certainly alive – more than we are!” That sounds so nice, but it is double-talk. Passed from this world = dead to us. Alive to God? Of course. Spiritually alive? Completely. But the prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have “passed from this world”! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined. Further, there is a substantive, clear difference between asking a fellow believer to pray for you, and the prayers that are addressed to Mary and the saints. I have never asked anyone to save me from the wrath of Jesus, and yet that is what we read in numerous Marian invocations.

Can you please cite an example from Scripture wherein prayer is not a form of worship?

FS, this post is a bonanza! You articulate what I understood but could never properly put to words.

 

[SteveVH]

This isn’t denied. The status that she is given as a result of it doesn’t follow her pious action in obedience to God.

The form is different. The end result is the same. It is seeking to communicate with and have petitions heard by the dead. One doesn’t need to sit around in a circle with candles to do so.

Of course they are alive. I acknowledged as such. That isn’t in question. What is in question is that because they are alive with God, it doesn’t follow that they can hear the multitudes of prayers offered to them and actually respond. Nor does that differentiate it from occultic practices that were forbidden in the Mosaic Covenant. I am quite sure that occultists also believed that the dead were alive, otherwise they wouldn’t have been petitioning them!

Yes, Abraham was certainly complaining; but while the complaint itself wasn’t direct worship, Abraham still acknowledged that he was communicating with the divine and I imagine quaking in his boots (sandals?). All prayers are a form of worship because they acknowledge our dependence on a higher being that can answer our requests to them, whatever they might be. As such, they are instrinsically worshipful of whatever is being prayed to.

Well I know plenty of people who acknowledge a higher being but never pray. According to your definition they are worshiping God simply by acknowledging his existence. Remember, the demons also believe and acknowledge God’s existence. I doubt they are involved in worship.

But hey, thanks for clearing this all up for me. I’ll be heading to the Baptist church next Sunday. Wait a minute. We had a Baptist Church in my small town but that Church has split into four seperate churches in the past five years. Hmm. Which one would you suggest I attend? Which one of these has the truth? Of course, its the one that believes as you do. Isn’t it funny that those who deny the infallibility of the Catholic Church embrace instead the infallibility of their private views?

We are obviously going nowhere here, but thanks for your comments. I think we’ve whipped this dead horse long enough. I will pray to the saints to intercede for you.

God bless.

 

[diana_leslie]

A person who believes they need a mediator with the Mediator simply doesn’t understand the Mediator to begin with.

Can you please cite an example from Scripture wherein prayer is not a form of worship?

A person who believes they cannot pray to the saints simply doesn’t understand the Body of Christ.

Christ is the One Mediator; we are all members of the Body of Christ. When we ask others to pray for us, they are acting within the Body of Christ. In one sense, you could say they are mediators (small m), in as much as they ask on our behalf, but they can only ask because of their membership in the Body of Christ. They can only work through Christ, the One Mediator. Without Christ, it doesn’t work. (Paul asks others to pray for him–Col 4:3, 1 Tim 2:1, which is just before he speaks of the One Mediator…)

Let me give you a metaphor. In my work place, we have a VP that is somewhat “untouchable”. While he cares about us, the employees who do the production work, we cannot go to him to ask him of anything. Only our Director can mediate for us. Now, say there is a rule that we must keep the blinds closed in our office all day. If I don’t like it, I can go straight to my Director and ask her to ask the VP to allow me to open my window and let in some light. She will do that. But if I ask my neighbor in the cube next to me to go with me to the Director, and make the same request, it has much more of an impact. Now, if no one else in the office cared about opening the blinds, or even wanted it dark, then, even if my request was granted, only my window would be allowed to let in light, instead of all the blinds being raised, and the whole office being filled with light. It would not have nearly the same impact if we all had gone to the Director and asked her to go to the VP.

Now, if I really wanted to let in the light and fill my space, I would also go to my Supervisor and have him ask the Director to mediate for us as well. He would be even more persuasive than I am because he better understands both the Director’s will and the VP’s will (which are one in the same since they want what is best for the company). He has already served in my position and been promoted to a position much closer to the Director (in the same way the saints who have passed on to Heaven are closer to Christ). The Director has promoted him, and put him in his position as Supervisor (as Christ has made the saints able to get to Heaven), and expects him to help serve us workers. **Note: saints are not supervisors; that’s just the name used at my workplace.

The Director (Jesus) is the head of our body of workers, and we, working through her, are able to come to the VP (God).

You say that we can not and should not speak to those who have passed from this earth. What about Christ at the Transfiguration, speaking to Moses and Elijah (Matt 17:3). Jesus is a model for us, why would he converse with the “dead” while he was still on Earth if we should not do so?

Mary also conversed with the Angel Gabriel who is in Heaven (Lk 1:26-38). In Psalm 103, verse 20, David directly addresses the angels: “Bless the Lord, all you angels…” If Mary and David could do this, then surely God could allow us to speak to the saints in Heaven.

Lastly, your question regarding where to find praying not being considered worship in the Bible–I would ask you this: does asking God for something mean worshiping Him? Or is there much more to worship–Praise, Adoration, Thanksgiving. When my husband asks me for a snack, he is not worshiping me at all. It is simply a request.

The fourth definition of “prayer” at Dictionary.com is “to make earnest petition to (a person)”

Certainly you can have prayers that are worship. But without praise and adoration it falls short of worship. When we pray to the saints, we mean prayer in the sense that we are asking them to intercede on our behalf. They have no power to do it on their own; they can only do it through Christ as members of His Body.

The Communion of Saints is a wonderful gift Christ has given us, and it improves our relationship with Christ, never hinders it. Through the saints, we can “let in more light”.

 

[Non_Serviam]

A person who believes they cannot pray to the saints simply doesn’t understand the Body of Christ.

Christ is the One Mediator; we are all members of the Body of Christ. When we ask others to pray for us, they are acting within the Body of Christ. In one sense, you could say they are mediators (small m), in as much as they ask on our behalf, but they can only ask because of their membership in the Body of Christ. They can only work through Christ, the One Mediator. Without Christ, it doesn’t work. (Paul asks others to pray for him–Col 4:3, 1 Tim 2:1, which is just before he speaks of the One Mediator…)

Let me give you a metaphor. In my work place, we have a VP that is somewhat “untouchable”. While he cares about us, the employees who do the production work, we cannot go to him to ask him of anything. Only our Director can mediate for us. Now, say there is a rule that we must keep the blinds closed in our office all day. If I don’t like it, I can go straight to my Director and ask her to ask the VP to allow me to open my window and let in some light. She will do that. But if I ask my neighbor in the cube next to me to go with me to the Director, and make the same request, it has much more of an impact. Now, if no one else in the office cared about opening the blinds, or even wanted it dark, then, even if my request was granted, only my window would be allowed to let in light, instead of all the blinds being raised, and the whole office being filled with light. It would not have nearly the same impact if we all had gone to the Director and asked her to go to the VP.

Now, if I really wanted to let in the light and fill my space, I would also go to my Supervisor and have him ask the Director to mediate for us as well. He would be even more persuasive than I am because he better understands both the Director’s will and the VP’s will (which are one in the same since they want what is best for the company). He has already served in my position and been promoted to a position much closer to the Director (in the same way the saints who have passed on to Heaven are closer to Christ). The Director has promoted him, and put him in his position as Supervisor (as Christ has made the saints able to get to Heaven), and expects him to help serve us workers. **Note: saints are not supervisors; that’s just the name used at my workplace.

The Director (Jesus) is the head of our body of workers, and we, working through her, are able to come to the VP (God).

You say that we can not and should not speak to those who have passed from this earth. What about Christ at the Transfiguration, speaking to Moses and Elijah (Matt 17:3). Jesus is a model for us, why would he converse with the “dead” while he was still on Earth if we should not do so?

Mary also conversed with the Angel Gabriel who is in Heaven (Lk 1:26-38). In Psalm 103, verse 20, David directly addresses the angels: “Bless the Lord, all you angels…” If Mary and David could do this, then surely God could allow us to speak to the saints in Heaven.

Lastly, your question regarding where to find praying not being considered worship in the Bible–I would ask you this: does asking God for something mean worshiping Him? Or is there much more to worship–Praise, Adoration, Thanksgiving. When my husband asks me for a snack, he is not worshiping me at all. It is simply a request.

The fourth definition of “prayer” at Dictionary.com is “to make earnest petition to (a person)”

Certainly you can have prayers that are worship. But without praise and adoration it falls short of worship. When we pray to the saints, we mean prayer in the sense that we are asking them to intercede on our behalf. They have no power to do it on their own; they can only do it through Christ as members of His Body.

The Communion of Saints is a wonderful gift Christ has given us, and it improves our relationship with Christ, never hinders it. Through the saints, we can “let in more light”.

The fact that you have to make God the Father, who gave His Son for our salvation, so that we might be restored to fellowship with Him, the “Untouchable” for your analogy to work, shows quite clearly the flaw in your argument.

 

[diana_leslie]

The fact that you have to make God the Father, who gave His Son for our salvation, so that we might be restored to fellowship with Him, the “Untouchable” for your analogy to work, shows quite clearly the flaw in your argument.

Perhaps “untouchable” was a poor choice of words, but you realize that the ONLY reason we can come to the Father is because He sent His Son, Jesus Christ. That is why Christ is the One Mediator. Without Christ, there would be no salvation.

 

[Contarini]

Hey Contarini, after reading your response it appears to me that when you look at protestantism, you can only see a glass half empty and when you look at the Apostolic Succession bunch, your view is affected by your rose coloured glasses.

That isn’t really a substantive remark or one that helps discussion. Of course we all have biases of various sorts. My own bad experiences with primitivism certainly make me aware of its dangers, and (perhaps in part because of these experiences) I have a strong temperamental bias in favor of continuity. But that doesn’t really affect the validity of my arguments one way or the other. We can all start down that road and simply dismiss anything we don’t agree with as the product of bias. Better to hold each other accountable to standards of reasonable discourse.

This seems to assume that a big “T” tradition actually exists and that it can be distinguished from all the other tradition

No, it doesn’t assume anything of the sort. It raises the possibility. If no such Tradition exists, then of course no tradition is sacrosanct (though it still does not follow that primitivism is the best approach).

and if that is a bad assumption, then we have a religion that has a large component that is merely a man-made invention.

If that is a bad assumption then we have no Christian Faith at all, period. It’s *all *man-made invention.

Now if you want to reword this as “the Tradition of the first century can all be found in Scripture, and cannot be reliably found anywhere else” then we can talk about why you believe that and what that says about our attitude to the early Church which determined the NT canon, etc. But if you say flatly that all tradition is human tradition, then we have no New Testament and no divinely revealed faith at all, only an interesting set of cultural and religious traditions that may have some wisdom. (I don’t disparage this, by the way, but Christians have usually thought that our religion involves more than this!)

Note: there’s some ambiguity here, because both Protestants and [generally] Roman Catholics distinguish between Scripture and Tradition. I more or less prefer the Orthodox approach which includes Scripture in Tradition. However, since the NT is itself based on Tradition, it amounts to the same thing. I don’t see any way to deny that the proclamation about Jesus was *originally *oral and was passed down until the point (even if that was only a couple decades later) where it was put into writing.

I don’t know where to start with this…I don’t think that the process of handing down the Faith from one generation to the next has been inerrant

Depending on what you mean by that, I’m not sure it needs to be for my position to work.

and as such IMHO we no longer have historic Christianity

So why not just give up on Christianity? Where does one go back to in order to reconstruct what has been lost? Scripture? But Scripture is (if viewed apart from the witness of the Church) simply a bunch of interesting early Christian books, not all of them clearly earlier or more authentic than other books which the early Catholic Church (using that term to mean the Christian tradition that articulated itself in the second century against Gnosticism and *not *to make any claims about the Roman Catholic Church of our day) decided not to accept (often for ideological as much as historical reasons).

I guess I’m not sure where you are coming from because you haven’t been too clear as to when you think “historic Christianity” was lost and just what you think is a sound basis for reconstructing it (although Scripture seems to be involved somehow).

(and it hasn’t always been all that nice).

Well sure. Scripture isn’t always all that nice, if it comes to that.

What you want to classify as development would (IMHO) be classified as innovation in any other institution or body of rules and regulations.

Maybe. I don’t really care. I’m not as invested as the RC’s in making some kind of fundamental conceptual difference between development and change. The difference that matters between the two is whether the basic teachings and practices have been preserved and rightly interpreted. I’m sure that in a secular institution that would often look like “innovation.” That’s what religions do–they adapt, often in startling ways.

Why not? If we are given the awe-inspiring authority to decide for ourselves, who Jesus was and what he did for us,

I’m not sure I would say that. I would say that I have been called by the Church. Sure, I can choose to refuse. But I didn’t wake up one morning and say “here are a bunch of options and I pick that Jesus guy–now, what accessories do I want–Jesus with sacraments and incense or Jesus with eternal security and private Bible study.” That’s not, in my opinion, how it works. We are presented with the Gospel by the Church, and it’s a package deal. We didn’t make it up and we don’t get to reshape it into anything we want it to be, although of course there are interpretive choices that we have to make, and of course our reason and intuitions are part of the Body of Christ and part of the Body’s discernment process.

 

[Contarini]

why shouldn’t we also have the opportunity to decide for ourselves the less important matter of what is really just “the product of pious imagination” and need not be followed for our walk?

There is no claim of the Christian Faith which may not conceivably be simply a product of pious imagination. Even the Resurrection, although having pretty good historical evidence as founding events of religious traditions go, can certainly be explained along those lines. So sure, you can choose to be a “Jesus follower” who doesn’t actually believe any of the things historic Christianity believes. You can make Jesus up after your own image if you want to. But as an orthodox Christian, I’m not going to agree that the choice about which parts of Christian teaching are pious imagination is less important. Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is *not *clearly less important than the choice to believe in some sort of Jesus with whatever accessories you may choose to give Him.

I recognize that you are thinking of less basic stuff. But that’s illogical on your part.

If the ECFs were somehow freed from their own cultural prejudices then you might be able to begin to make a case that they were somehow more receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit than moderns. It is not that we are their betters, it is that they aren’t our superiors.

It’s not that they were our superiors, but that we received the Faith from them. We can build on the inheritance we have received from them. We can even go back and question some of their beliefs and practices in the light of what they themselves recognized as the higher authority of Scripture and apostolic tradition generally. But if we really want to throw out their inheritance altogether and go back to the drawing board, then we need to do so seriously and consistently and make up a new religion. And as I said earlier, I don’t think that’s worth the trouble.

The apostles might have been such a body, but they split up and died.

Why do you believe that there were any apostles at all? The current trend in secular scholarship appears to be to date the Acts of the Apostles as late as the second century and put it in the context of the development of “early Catholicism.” (I am strongly inclined to be skeptical of this claim, but since my skepticism is rooted in my belief in historic Christianity I don’t see why you should share it.) Isn’t it quite possible, if we view the historic traditions of the Church with a hermeneutic of suspicion, that the whole concept of an original group of authoritative “apostles” is an invention of the late first and early second centuries designed to support the claims of a particular faction within early Christianity? After all, the Gospel of Mark presents Jesus’ disciples as being generally clueless. The promise to build the Church on Peter (or Peter’s confession or whatever) is added in Matthew. Which, by your standards, should count for an innovation, shouldn’t it?

Since then, nothing close. The Church consists of all those to whom the Holy Spirit is given (past, present and future)

Doesn’t this mean, in practice and as far as you can discern, that the Church consists of you and anyone you might happen to find spiritually congenial? Is this really a Church at all?

I don’t see how a very small bunch from an ancient hierarchy has the authority to speak for the whole Church

Because we stand on their shoulders. We received the Faith from them. If we don’t want to receive it, we can try to reconstruct a better one if we want to. But I for one see no reason to engage in such a project.

Do you think that the orthodox had a better claim to an unbroken continuity with the Faith than the Arians? If so, why…you’re a reasonable and informed fellow and I’d like to hear your take on that?

My short answer would be: yes, but I recognize that it’s not simple or obvious, since both sides were in continuity with certain ideas or emphases in the previous tradition.

My somewhat longer answer is: well, first of all, which Arians? The semi-Arians were arguably the most “conservative” in a straightforward, face-value kind of way. But it became increasingly clear in the course of the fourth century that their position wasn’t tenable. It was basically a refusal to ask questions about the implications of what Christians believed. And I think that once you ask those questions, then yes, the answers the Church arrived at manage to preserve the traditional faith in a way that the alternatives don’t.

If you look at someone like Eunomius, for instance (of course, the problem with all these guys is that we are basically dependent on their enemies to know what they believed), then I think one can make an excellent case that his position (at least insofar as we can determine it) is not true to the historic faith of the Church up to that point.

But here’s the main place where I suspect we differ: I’m frankly looking back at this from the standpoint of someone for whom the orthodox position is the default option. So I’m not asking “from a neutral standpoint, is one of these positions in more continuity with the previous faith of the Church than the alternatives?” I’m asking “do I have any good reason, as someone who derives my faith from the Catholic Church of the fourth century, to think that they were wrong.” And the answer is a resounding “no.”

 

[Contarini]

So the whole is greater than the sum of the parts? How is it that individually they are fallible men, but their collective action is inerrant? Or isn’t that what you are saying?

You keep using the word “inerrant.” I am not aware of having used it, myself.

But yes, I think that the Church is the kind of entity that is greater than the sum of its parts. That whole Body of Christ thing, you know.

Perhaps it isn’t obvious to you, but I would say the likelihood of the Roman Communion not having violated the integrity of the Faith = the likelihood of the Orthodox not having violated the integrity of the Faith = some Protestant group succeeding in returning precisely to the original Faith

Well, for the reasons given in my earlier post, I strongly disagree.

I wouldn’t look at it as preservation vs. reconstruction. If the task is preservation of a forrest…adding a bunch of foreign species of tree is not preserving it and taking an axe and cutting out as many of the foreign species as can be identified is not strictly reconstruction.

Indeed, but this presupposes that one has some way to tell the two apart. I don’t see how you can do so apart from a reliance on tradition. You can’t use Scripture as the criterion, because if you don’t trust the historic Church then it might well be that Scripture itself has some “foreign species” in it. And of course many people would say just that. If you use historical evidence as the criterion, you run into the extreme diversity and ideological tension of New Testament scholarship. There are about as many historical reconstructions of earliest Christianity as there are scholars doing the reconstructions. Maybe you are confident that you can sort out the dead wood in that particular forest–I’m not.

Someone like Dominic Crossan, for instance, is trying very hard to get rid of the “foreign species” and get back to what Jesus really taught. But what he comes up with looks suspiciously like what a sensitive, liberal 21st-century religious person would like the founder of their religion to look like. You might come up with something quite different because you may have different hangups. But I’m not sure your results would be any more reliable.

The “Mary always points us to Jesus” justification sounds as valid as someone arguing that one can get a better look at the moon if one only stands under this tree and peers through the heavy canopy of leaves.

I don’t particularly like analogies that imply that Mary is an object between us and Jesus, because I think they miss the point–but taking your analogy on its own terms, one could quite reasonably suggest that a person could best enjoy the sunlight under the shade of a large tree (it is surely more fitting to compare Jesus to the sun than to the moon–indeed, the more traditional analogy would be that Mary is the moon and we see the light of the sun reflected from her).

Our faiths keep taking us to different conclusions, but if we set them aside and use the historical approach, then it seems that we could possibly arrive at the same conclusion. This diminishing likelihood tells me that the historic Faith has indeed been compromised.

Indeed, but exactly the same could be said of the virginal conception with regard to the Resurrection, and of the Resurrection with regard to the Crucifixion. Each of these is less likely (from a purely historical point of view) and looks relatively more like a pious legend than the one before (the crucifixion is pretty much indubitably historical, though of course most scholars would say that the story as found in the Gospels has plenty of pious legends attached to it).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Aren’t you begging the question a bit using terms such as shameless and junk?

I don’t think I’m begging the question, just using language expressively! I recognize that one person’s shameless junking is another person’s responsible pruning.

Now if you are saying that Protestants are quite willing to conclude that large chunks of Christian history don’t shed light on the teachings or actions of the early church and aren’t useful in studying those early teachings and actions, I think we have a point of discussion.

I’m not talking about historical study of the early Church (or of Scripture) in its original historical context. That is very valuable work, and of course in doing that work one needs to be willing to set later developments aside (though I think that even here, it’s worth while keeping in mind that interpreters of the era between the one we are studying and our own may have much to contribute). I’m talking about how we determine doctrine.

The New Testament does not, from a strictly historical point of view, shed light on the Old. But from a theological point of view it certainly does. (I recognize that the case is different since the New Testament actually contains new revelation, but that just points up the fact that a historical approach and a doctrinal one are not the same thing.)

What I am saying is that all of church history between the Apostles and us has to be taken into account when we determine how we interpret and apply their teachings theologically.

The question is development of WHAT? We certainly see development in the NT, development of practice, development of “canon law” for lack of a better term, development of structure. The follow-up question is do we see development of doctrine?

It would appear that we do, although outside of Paul, we see very little of it.

I think there’s considerable development evident among the Gospels. Matthew represents a more developed Christology than Mark, and John than Matthew.

Even in the case of Paul, most of the development centers around transplanting the faith into non-Jewish communities and the dividing line between practice and doctrine can get blurry to say the least.

Indeed. I’m not really sure how this is relevant to the points where we disagree, or how your statement about speculative theology is relevant, unless you are condemning speculative theology altogether.

That’s one way to interpret it, or it is quite possible to say that the church headed in one direction, one or more leaders took a contrasting tangent, and in a later period the course changed again.

It is possible, certainly.

 

[Contarini]

Paul was mistaken about how soon Christ would return-does that discount everything else he said?

Either you think it does and have to come up with some elaborate rationalizations to make it all fit into a “longstanding trajectory” or you acknowledge that Paul was mistaken on this point, that God wanted us to see that he was mistaken (quite possibly to show that a church doesn’t have to be infallible to follow Christ). Only fundamentalists and those with an “or Jesus lied” doctrine of infallibility (funny how those two groups have so much in common and don’t realize it) go through the former exercise.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of this. However, there’s a difference between saying that Paul clearly expected Jesus to return soon, and saying that we can throw out the idea of the Second Coming altogether, or saying that Paul’s ethical teaching is worthless because it was based on the false assumption that Jesus was coming soon. (One of the most challenging aspects of Christian ethics as I understand them is the call to live every moment as *if *we believed Jesus was returning soon. So the “mistake” of the first Christians has in fact been written into the basic structure of Christian ethics.)

While reconstructing primitive Christianity may be impossible, pruning the overgrowth that surrounds it to get back to a more biblical, apostolic Christianity is possible.

But why assume that the New Testament as we have it is all apostolic? Why assume, if we don’t trust the early Catholic Church, that being “apostolic” is even a meaningful concept?

If our starting point is not the canonical heritage delivered us by the historic Church, then I don’t see why one should pick the 27-book NT canon as one’s starting point.

I may be arguing against a position you do not hold, just as you do above when you argue against the “or Jesus lied” doctrine of infallibility.

Just because Luther didn’t get it totally right doesn’t mean that it isn’t a worthy goal to strive for.

The problem isn’t that Luther didn’t get it totally right. The problem is that after 500 years, the entire enterprise has simply become an exercise in endlessly reinventing the wheel. If you believe that one particular trajectory within Protestantism has gotten closer and closer to getting it right, then you are justified in holding the position you do. I don’t find such a proposition convincing, myself. The particular trajectory I was taught (which led to a Wesleyan Holiness/dispensationalist/house church sort of theology heavily influenced by folks like Watchman Nee and T. Austin Sparks) is in my opinion clearly mistaken, and I haven’t been convinced by any of the others (not because I haven’t looked into many of them seriously).

The Apostles didn’t quit because all of Judaism didn’t decide to follow their lead.

Indeed. But the Apostles weren’t trying to “prune the overgrowth.” They were following a genuinely new and decisive revelation of God.

Methinks you make a bit much of historical continuity-as Radical points out below, the Arian bishops had the same apostolic succession as Athanasius-so that can’t be the touchstone of Apostolic fidelity. Rather it is fidelity to their message

Exactly. And when I speak of continuity I am obviously speaking of fidelity to the message, although the only communities that do not have decisive breaks in their history are ones that have apostolic succession of bishops, so I’m quite willing to believe the claim that continuity of order is essential to continuity of message. (Clearly the converse is not the case, as my own Communion witnesses–although of course the RC’s would say that we have broken continuity of order, and the Orthodox would deny that continuity of order is a meaningful concept outside the true Church.)

that they’ve left us in written form.

Why only in written form? And why the confidence that the New Testament is in fact apostolic?

Historical continuity is helpful in discerning that message, but enough of the “primitive” Apostolic teaching can be gleaned from it for one to understand Christ, His teachings and how the Apostles and other responded to recognize one’s own responsibility.

I don’t see that this position works. I think that it invariably results in deciding that the bits of the tradition you like are apostolic and reconstructing a Christianity that doesn’t challenge your cultural and temperamental presuppositions. Unless, of course, there are bits of the tradition that you *do *hold on to non-negotiably. But that seems to be what you are ruling out, unless I misunderstand you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think if we are going with "historical continuity as a criterion (your point, not mine) that the Tridentine wing of Catholicism can lay a lot more continuity on the scale than the VII crowd-another reason why we disagree on its relative importance.

As I said, there is a difference between “ressourcement” and simple conservatism. All the points you and Radical have made weigh on behalf of ressourcement and against simply accepting whatever the previous generation did with the tradition they receive.

The catch with your concept of “ressourcement” is that we get to decide which lines of thought and practice from the past are “relevant”. That’s the theological equivalent of judicial activism. Viewed in that light, a primitivist streak, doesn’t seem so offputting.

Quite the reverse. This objection is far, far more damning with regard to primitivism. The primitivists are the truly radical “judicial activists.” (And yes, I think that applies to American secular jurisprudence as well, although since the U.S. Constitution is a much simpler document composed at a much more recent and better documented period than the Bible, the point isn’t anywhere nearly as obvious.) “Ressourcement” amounts in juridical terms to looking back to the original sources to help you figure out which precedents are to be seen as more important, how they are to be interpreted, etc. Primitivism amounts to throwing precedent out the window and coming up with a brand new interpretation of the original documents. And that will invariably result in something much more radical and much more subjective, because you are going to interpret the original sources in the light of your own culture and your own preoccupations.

The Apostles were able to be saved without knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-why can’t we?

I know of no Church that makes the details of angelology a doctrine necessary for salvation. Well, I guess the RCC may hold that you have to believe that angels are strictly incorporeal. Ask them.

I’m not sure why you are so preoccupied with angelology.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am prepared to allow for pious legends w/i scripture…though I am not rushing to label the virgin conception as one of them.

Agreed. But the reason for me is that the Rule of Faith precludes this. What is your reason?

and I have such a hard time seeing how so much of it relates to the incarnation.

I can’t think off-hand of a Marian doctrine that isn’t related to the Incarnation. Mind you, I can’t think of a single doctrine that isn’t, so that’s not saying much. . . .

It is somewhat reasonable to do, b/c the two sides share the same view of the data’s status

Untrue, because Catholics (whether in the Roman Communion or some other) accept Scripture on the testimony of the Church. If you don’t trust the Church (again, I am not talking about infallibility necessarily but about general trustworthiness), then your reason for drawing the line there vanishes. You are, in effect, cheating by assuming things you have deprived yourself of the right to assume. You aren’t really a “Radical” at all!

I don’t know, however, that your explanation works for why Paul doesn’t talk about Mary at all. If Paul’s theology doesn’t require Mary, then it seems his theology is very different from Catholic and Orthodox theology and it would seem that he didn’t see Marian piety as a means of elaborating on the Incarnation as it does not merit a mention.

But it follows just as much that he didn’t see the virginal conception as key to the Incarnation. So my argument holds. In fact it’s a lot more troubling that he didn’t mention the virginal conception (which must have been always believed by the people who could have known the original facts, if it is true at all) than that he didn’t promote a devotional practice of asking for Mary’s prayers, precisely because the latter obviously *was *a somewhat later development and *not *as directly connected with the Incarnation.

By the logic of the OP as interpreted here by you, it seems to follow necessarily either that Paul didn’t believe in the Incarnation or that he thought the virginal conception was in no way relevant to it.

I would suggest that part of it has to do the difference between with the perceived source. As you noted, there is little debate over certain of the Pauline epistles.

Little debate about their *authorship.

We have confidence in who wrote them, we have confidence in what authority Paul claimed

But if you don’t accept the judgment of the early Catholic Church, there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for accepting that authority, do there? Why is Paul not just an eccentric early theologian who did a lot of good in spreading the Gospel but had some wacky ideas? Does the fact that his letters were the first Christian documents written necessarily make him the voice of early Christianity as a whole? Isn’t it historically possible that, as many folks would argue, Paul actually reinvented Christianity in a quite radical way, and that Jesus’ original followers disagreed with him? (Certainly Galatians seems to presuppose such a situation, and could be cynically viewed as Paul’s desperate attempt to spin the obvious fact that the Jerusalem apostles didn’t agree with his teaching.)

and we have confidence that they have been preserved in their original form with but a few minor alterations. In contrast, with the development of Marian doctrine we can’t hold it up and say that, “This is from the apostles”.

We can’t say that with certainty of the virginal conception, though it’s certainly possible (I tend to believe this) that Luke based his story on what Mary told him. But I believe this because I put some credence in later tradition.

It seems (to me based in part on the “glaring hiatus”) that as the ECFs scoured the OT and NT and as they reflected more deeply on scripture they began to see Mary referenced in various passages. At the same time, as they reflected on the Incarnation, their piety and reasoning told them that Mary must have been elevated to a level of purity unknown to any other b/c of the manner in which she was connected to God himself.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

The ECFs may have been better positioned than us to say whether 1 Corinthians was from the hand of Paul and should be regarded as scripture (or maybe we can say with confidence that they got that right).

Why can we say with confidence that they were right? Maybe Paul just did a good job of spreading his innovative ideas among the Gentiles, so that his followers were able to present themselves in the second century as the “real Christians,” in opposition to other groups like the Ebionites.

And modern scholars generally think that the Fathers were wrong in their belief that Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul (not even to mention Hebrews, about which the ECF’s themselves were in some doubt).

On the other hand, they were not better positioned to say whether Mary should be properly called the new Eve or the new Ark or seen in Revelation. Further, they were not better positioned to apply reasoning and decide whether Mary must have been free from sin or not or whether she is due hyperdulia.

I don’t see this, because the decision about which books were authoritative was not simply a matter of historical evidence (and modern scholars think that they were wrong in several cases on the historical question). It was a theological question about whether these books agreed with the Rule of Faith. I don’t see why we should follow Irenaeus in his view of the canon and not in his view of Mary as the New Eve. (Note: a point against Catholicism is that Catholics don’t follow Irenaeus in his chiliasm.)

Edwin