Tags
I am grateful to Chalcedon and Dave Smith for their help in trying to understand the language of Marian veneration. But I still feel, as I did reading David Monier-Williams’ explanation of the ‘hows’ of therapy as though I am in the presence of something designed to complicate matters in a way that allows those conveying the language to exercise power; it is the creation of an hieratic priesthood which has privileged access to secret mysteries cloaked in a language of social exclusion: don’t understand it? You are shut out, unless, that is, you consent to be taught it. This is as far from Jesus as you can get. Jesus spoke in parables because he wanted to be clear to folk. His prayer was a simple one which had in it all a person could need. His message was also simple – repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. In everyone’s life that’s the case. I could drop dead this afternoon, so could you. We never quite got round to the repenting because there was always tomorrow – Jesus is reminding us that one day there won’t be. It is urgent we repent and come to Him. That is why his language is straightforward, as is that of Paul and the others. Now it is true that the passage of time and the necessities of translation mean that we need some help with understanding what is being said – but that’s all.
Complex vocabulary has its place, but is, too often, the instrument of a small elite entrenching itself with the power which the understanding of that language gives it. This was one of the arguments of the Reformers against using Latin. Latin was not the original language of the Scriptures, it may be doubted that Jesus or his Apostles understood it very well, if at all. Yet, for centuries, it was the language of the Bible in the West. That served the purposes of a clerical elite very well, but there’s no evidence it served the purpose of communicating the Gospel to the people. When I was a lad, I never met a Catholic who had even read the Bible. They listened to the passages said at Mass, but I never came across a Bible study class at a Catholic Church, or a Catholic who could refer, with ease, to the Scriptures. I blame no one for that – save their clerical class. If a powerful group of men hold the great secret in language you don’t understand, that puts you at their mercy. However much you mouth that you are the servant of the servant of the poor, you aren’t – you really aren’t.
The great strength of English Protestantism has been that it brings the words of God to all who will hear them, and it takes those words very seriously. Recently here we had some discussion of the length of a sermon, with some of my Catholic friends here saying that no one could be expected to concentrate for 45 minutes. Tosh, was, and is, my response. If you cannot concentrate on the word of God for 45 minutes, then I am not sure what sort of relationship you think you have with God. If the ploughboy and the serving maids in the early part of this century could do so, I am not sure why some think modern man is so lacking – 45 minutes on the computer game would be thought a tiny amount of time.
In the end, if comes back to taking personal responsibility. Yes, you are saved by the blood of Christ. If you want some other intermediary, if you want some hieratic mystery, fine, reach out for it – even if you can’t be bothered to listen to a 45 minute sermon – but it is really much easier – and also harder, than that. Jesus has saved you. He is the one mediator with God. His the one sacrifice which you ever need. His the only Graces you need. But that calls forth from you a personal responsibility. The priest, the bishop, Mary herself can, none of them, not one of them, call forth from your heart the love which will make you want to transform your life. The Holy Spirit does that – and like Peter, you will follow where he leads – even if it isn’t where you want to go. You don’t need anyone save the Holy Spirit – and if you have him, you know it.
Philip Augustine said:
I would say from everything that I’ve read both from theologians and from the Bible. God–His salvation for the world–is both simple and complex. However, what keeps my faith is drinking the eternal living spring of my faith. (Jn 4:14) I find Christ’s discourse on the Bread of Life (Jn:6) equally fascinating as I ponder on the mysteries of faith. However, it’s really simple isn’t it? Matthews chapters 5 and 6 in my life are most Holy. The Sermon on the mount in Chapter 5 and MY therapy I use in life Mt. 6: 26-32–which has helped me most in life–
“26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
I would imagine my fellow Catholic may grill me for saying this as many are afraid of ecumenism. However, my knowledge of scripture (which is still growing) was a response to Protestant criticism. So shall we ask the question, “without them, would I be ignorant to it’s wisdom?” I think it’s a fair question.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That is a very interesting response. Iwould say that we know what to do – doing it is the hard bit.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
In the end, again, as I said on your Mary question, the Catholic Church as the Eucharist–both complex and simple. For me, faith without the Eucharist, in the words of Flannery O’ Connor “To Garbage with it!”
Of course, these are my personal feelings alone, I don’t say it to demean you, only to understand me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
**”has the Eucharist** I’m riddled with typos. It’s early here and I’m my first cup of coffee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Food for thought:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Geoffrey, thank you for the very interesting series of posts. I’ll admit this post today has my dander up just a bit so I will offer the following response.
First, whenever I am told in so many words that Mary is somehow usurping Christ’s power to save our souls, what always springs to my mind are her own words, “My soul magnifies the Lord.” Mary is nothing without the power of the Trinity, everything that she is and does is simply to magnify God’s holiness and power. She is nothing in and of herself. I thought C’s comments yesterday about Mary’s necessary holiness (as the physical womb which bore Jesus) were very good. I don’t know any Catholic who does not understand that our faith revolves around and hinges on the saving power of Jesus Christ.
I understand that the term “Mediatrix of all graces” causes a lot of distress among non-Catholics. (Distress is putting it politely.) However, for me, what this means is that we would not have the life of Jesus and his healing words and deeds without her…she came to us through her, this was God’s choice. A choice, he didn’t need her, but he chose to work through humble humanity. It is humanity’s goal to become holy, to be magnifiers of God’s holiness, to be adopted children of God, and Mary shows us the way with her every word and action in the Bible. She is nothing in herself; her soul magnifies the Lord for all of us to see his holy works.
Some Catholics, like me, find the Church teachings to be deeply meaningful, potent, and freeing. I happen to enjoy looking up words in the dictionary, stretching my meager knowledge, and contemplating things I could not think up on my own. I experience this as a gift and not as an effort to befuddle and control me.
Who said Catholics can’t focus on a 45 minute sermon? That is idiotic to me and “idiotic” is a word I hardly ever use. The Mass is an intensely prayerful hour long experience. The focus is on participating in the Word of God in the very giving of the Precious body and blood of the Living God. We don’t go to mass for a lesson, we go to participate in a little taste of Heaven. For those who wish to learn more and deepen their understanding, there are retreats and talks and small groups and Bible study offered in many parishes, optional yes but available for those who seek it.
“In the end, if comes back to taking personal responsibility. Yes, you are saved by the blood of Christ.” This is exactly what Mary teaches and exemplifies for us. There is no contradiction there between Catholics and Protestants as far as I can see.
Phew, not I have to go take a nap. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thanks Zeke – on the long sermons, the general response from your fellow Catholics was that 45 minutes was ‘too long’. I sometimes listen to the sermims from the Casa C puts up on Mondays, and can’t say I find them very nourishing. Ten minutes is too little.
I am grateful for what you say about Mary, and accept it. But the word mediatrix seems designed to trigger a certain kind of response. Have a good nap. 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Mediatrix in the early Church
By the fourth century, the Church Fathers manifested a profound understanding of Mary’s function as Mediatrix. In reference to the Blessed Virgin, St. Ephraem (373) said: “With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world” (S. Ephraem, Syri opera graeca et latine, ed., Assemani, v. 3, Romae, pp. 525, 528-9, 532). St. Cyril of Alexandria, in one of the greatest Marian sermons of antiquity, said: “Hail Mary Theotokos, venerable treasure of the whole world…it is you through whom the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored,…through whom the tempter, the devil is cast down from heaven, through whom the fallen creature is raised up to heaven, through whom all creation, once imprisoned by idolatry, has reached knowledge of the truth, through whom holy baptism has come to believers…through whom nations are brought to repentance….” (Hom. in Deiparam, PG 65, p.681). Antipater of Bostra, another Father of the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), wrote: “Hail you who acceptably intercede as a Mediatrix for mankind.” St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. Peter Damian, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Bernardine of Siena all spoke either explicitly of Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces or of Marian mediation. Such citations became ever more frequent by numerous Doctors of the Church, mystics, saints, and writers throughout the Middle Ages up to the modern era. St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated: “God has willed that we should have nothing which would not pass through the hands of Mary” (Hom. III in vig. nativit., n. 10, PL 183, 100). __ https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=360
Seems Christians have been very confused until the Reformation. No wonder Pope Francis is going to praise the many ‘gifts’ that we have received from their enlightened re-forming of Christianity. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I do not disagree, but I do think, again, there is something cultural here. All of the people you mention operated in cultures which were used to goddesses, and I am not sure that they were not coopting Mary to combat this. It would explain why the Boscos of this world go in the direction they do, but as with “easter’ they miss the point, which is the faith spiritualising something.
But certainly in Western Europe, this is not something with which we are familiar. I have just seen Jessica’s post, and actually think that, as ever, sh has managed to explain the problem in a way I finally begin to grasp!!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Jeff, I stayed out of your post on Mary. But now, may I ask a question?
Good brother Servus says that Mary aslo shed her blood for the remission of out sins. I don’t need to ask you if you agree with him. But not one of our catholic friends commented on that. I take that to mean that they al agree that Mary shed her blood for the remission of out sins.
Its rare for me to be speechless. This is one of those rare times. I don’t know what to say.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Why are you asking Geoffrey? You could read it again but then I don’t expect you to understand it. Let me say it in another way:
Just like you recieved your body and blood from your mother and father, Jesus did likewise: but since Jesus had no human father, He recieved His Body and Blood from Mary which, if you read the lineage of Mary in Matthew . . . and thus, Jesus’s human lineage . . . you would see that his physical body came from Mary. It is why He is called Son of David and Son of man. His humanity came frm Mary. Do you get it now? Mary is not the mother of His Person: His Person is fully Divine from all eternity. But his Body and Blood did not come from His Divine Nature but from His Human Nature which was given to Him by Mary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Obviously, the Council at Ephesus decided that. I don’t for a moment deny it. But neither do I see that Mary is in any way my mediator with God. Jesus told me to go directly to God, so I do.
I can understand why some find her a help, but not why anyone would find her a necessity.
It feels over elaborated and unnecessary. Had it been in any way essential for our salvation, we should have been told so. Of course Mary is ‘full of grace’ and all generations call her blessed, but the rest of it, poetic, certainly, but potentially misleading too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Of course, all one need to do, to dispell the ‘necessity’ of praying through Mary is to go the Church’s own prayer, its Holy Liturgy. Every prayer in the Liturgy ends with “through Christ Our Lord. Amen.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, it does, which is why it seems to me that Mariology is an added extra. Some may find it useful, but I think much of its language misleading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Why would you see it as misleading if you properly understood it? Fire can be an evil if it is out of control but when controlled it is very useful. Would you do without fire because some do not know how to control it?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
But can you be absolutely sure that it is properly understood? The language is, frankly, confusing. Most people reading the word ‘coredemptrix’ would not reach for a conclusion which, like one of Pope Frank’s speeches, required a whole bunch of caveat by ways of explanation.
I’ve no problem with this, but no use for it in my own devotions either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Can you be absolutely sure that God in three Persons is properly understood? Is not the languagle confusing: three is one. The same for the natures of Christ. This is not a Pope Frank moment . . . it is a solidly conceived understanding of man’s relationship to God and His love for man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Quite the opposite – I think we understand very little of the workings of the divine mystery, and that if theologians had devoted half the time to pneumatology as they have to mariology, we’d understand more.
You may be able to help me here. A friend recently asked for a good book on the Spirit. I offered him my spare copy of Sproul’s book, and recommended Carson’s ‘Showing the Spirit’ and Lloyd-Jones’s ‘Joy Unspeakable’, but the only Catholic volume I have is Cardinal Wuerl’s on ‘Open to the Holy Spirit’ – do you know it? Is it any good or is it modernist? Would you have any recommendations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
But pneumatology, like Mariology is a very specialized and esoteric theology that is not of much use unless one is willing to explore it from the vantage point of prayer and reason.
No I do not know Wuerl’s book as I distrust his understanding and spirituality and thereby stay away. In fact, you are right about the absence of much on the subject. This short PDF from Ratzinger might be of interest however: http://www.communio-icr.com/files/ratzinger25-2.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
True, but unlike Mary, the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, and that’s why I should have expected more here. I did wonder about Wuerl, as what little I know of him makes him an object of distrust.
I am just coming to the end of the Hahn. I have no problem with it, and he’s not telling me anything I don’t know. But he’s not telling me why I need the Queen Mother when I have direct access to the King.
I am very happy to accept Mary as the new Eve, but then we don’t spend a great deal of time speculating on her. I do think a great deal of the Marian veneration is based on speculation. I see no great harm in it, and if, as you and C say, it does good, then fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Try it, you’ll like it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I am having trouble with this bit:
‘All grace, says the Polish saint, ultimately comes to us from God the Father, through the merits of Jesus Christ, his Son, and is distributed by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, in distributing all grace, works in and through Mary — not because he has to do so, but precisely because in his plan of salvation, God wills to do so’
That seems a huge leap. I hate this style of arguing – three things that are unproblematic, and then a fourth one sneaked in as though it were too obvious.
It seems entirely based on the assumption that what is being argued is true, and so here are some illustrations.
But it is far from obvious that grace flows through Mary to us – this is really quite important, after all, and I can’t see why not one of the evangelists thought it worthy of mention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I don’t see it as a leap Geoffrey. We have always seen God working through our human nature. We are participants in our salvation as we have to ante up something. In this case, Mary anted up evertyhing for all of us. So we have no problem that this is how God has always worked with man and yet when it comes to Mary we are loathe to say that He is working through Her. As Marmion said in the ariticle given to you the other day . . . it is the nature Goodness to share itself . . . and yet we don’t seem to like it very much if He shares it or uses human beings for our edification and reception of His Grace because we somehow find that is lowering Himself in our mind. I see it as quite the opposite. I see it as a magnanimous God with perfect humiliation, love and spirit of sharing this Glory of His with us. To me a saint does not sit about contemplating their navel for are about their Father’s business and Christ is all but happy and joyful that they wish to do so . . . and gives them the requisite Grace to share and participate in this purification of humanity which, among the elect, will be fully incorporated in the Heavenly family; as the Bride of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
There is an argument here that is pushing against something I am not saying and don’t believe.
I am more than happy to admit God works through human beings – it’d be an odd Christian who thought anything else. Quite how one gets from thence to the rather large pyramid of Marian veneration is interesting, but again, to my way of viewing this, straining too far.
I finished Hahn, and apart from his ranting style giving me a headache – has the fellow never heard of varying your pitch – he added nothing. There were lots of little leaps which made sense if you accepted the premiss, and not if not.
Interesting, like Marmion and the piece about Kolbe, but it is like listening to a conversation in another room about a subject about which you know something, but with folk emphasising and focussing on a minor part of what is really important. No problem with it, but nothing much there – and I am trying – probably very trying 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
No you are not trying my patience if that is the reference; not at all. As to Scott Hahn; he is a great and dynamic speaker and it is quite sad that the only audio I could get on this off the web was poorly recorded and does not do him justice.
And yes, from our perspective as Protestant born and raised Christians, it is almost like learning a new language or finding emphasis being placed on that this is not what we are familiar with.
Mariology, Pneomonolgy and Mystical Theology are not developed as much as domatic theology, moral theology and the like. They all have something in common. They are related with our spiritual lives as a kite attached to a solid reference point that is well grounded. For without the grounding aspect, it is unregulated and will surely go its own way and eventually crash. When built within the frames of our faith and the theology that describes it and its boundaries it gives one a superior view of the spiritual life that one is not privy to from the ground. If the spirituality of a John of the Cross is not something that calls to you and you cannot reconcile it to be, in fact, tethered to scripture and theology proper, then it becomes dangerous and you should stay away. If, as I think you are, firmly grounded in the faith, then there is nothing to fear. In fact, it opens one up to a Spirit that soars toward God. I don’t know of many great saints that did not have an active devotion to Mary.
I also recall your telling me that your dear Catholic friend that passed away was one of the most spiritual men you ever met . . . and I might just suggest that much of what was gained by him spiritually came from his great devotion to Mary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, indeed, on my old friend, and it is because of him that I abandoned many of the prejudices I had, and indeed, why this topic interests me.
What you, C, and perhaps most of all, what Jess said yesterday, has helped. I can only pray that I will come to the sort of understanding of this you all have.
It isn’t that my head does not understand – it is the old heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I understand fully the situation, my friend. And without the heart, I’m afraid, the rest cannot follow. It is not unlike our coming tot he faith itself. Some are convinced in the head of the truths of the Gospel but simply cannot get their hearts to become actively involved; and that is the faith aspect that is needed. Now I probably would not have accepted the faith aspect to Mary if it had not been for the Church . . . for I had already found faith in the Church and knew that She could not suggest a devotion to me that was harmful to my soul. So a leap of faith I made . . . and should you do so I think you will see that it was just like what happened to you when you made your leap of faith with Christianity itself.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Also, to your last sentence, it was not above Paul to think that grace was being given through him. I doubt he would have objected to including others, such as the other Apostles and Mary.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I’m sire he wouldn’t – but as he didn’t say anything about Mary, that is conjecture.
I’ve no problem with the idea – it is just the heightened language of coredemptrix and comediatrix which put me off. I know what they mean, but listening to some Catholics, I am not sure they seem to agree that they don’t mean what it sounds like they mean. I read the de Montfort book a few years back – I am sure it can be explained away, but he really did sound like he was worshipping Mary. If he wasn’t, he needed to take more care with his style. No doubt it as all poetic and the rest – but even so, it left a bad taste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
One of the reasons that I am not a big de Montford fan. I find nothing wrong with him, mind, but as you say, it certainly is not a good apologetic to non-Catholics because of the tone and tenor of what he says. I have picked up my Mariology not so much on books devoted to the study, but by the Saints in passing and their meditaitons on Her and their love for Her as expressed in their writing. Perhaps that is what you need do as well. Read the saints . . . some are syrupy, some are scriptural, others are personal etc. There is as much to say about Mary as there are those who have taken time to incorporate her into their spritual life. Some will appeal and some may be off-putting. But I think that his is only a temporary situation. I am quite comforatable reading most approved saints and their thinking and exhortations regarding her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
C has suggested I visit him and go to Walsingham – I may just do that 🙂 My thanks for your help – as I say, it is a matter of the heart, and my hardened old thing isn’t there yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I think that is a splendid idea Geoffrey. I hope you do take C up on his invitation. Perhaps the old heart will shed its objections and if not . . . will perhaps soften just a bit?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I am not sure what sort of Protestant Hahn was, but if he discovered all this after becoming a Catholic, I think he must have been a very ill-informed one.
It all makes perfect sense, of course, but I am not sure why he supposes that the Kingdom of Heaven is going to be like Solomon’s? He is making a huge logical and exegetical leap here, and to me, he is doing so because he needs to if his thing about the Queen Mother and Mary is to stand up. If you put your own conclusion in as one of the premisses to reach it, you certainly will – but it’s not an impressive trick. Splendid that there was a QM for 400 years in the Davidic kingdom, but who says it is the prototype of Cod’s kingdom. Do you suppose he’s read the rest of the story of David – which hardly makes it a model for the kingdom of God. He says it is ‘crucial’ to understand, and then imposes upon this conclusions of his own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Well, like in all cases of typology there are parallels and differences. A fulfillment of this development is what he is getting to. I think you are being a bit too literalistic.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I think he is – saying you cannot have Jesus as your king without Mary as your queen is simply going way beyond what the text says – and what the early Fathers said.
I’m sorry, I am not impressed with Hahn who seems to me the worst sort of ex Prote. I doubt he knew very much about typology before he converted, and now he has an extravagant devotion to it.
When he says ‘we need her’ that is his view, precisely nothing in what precedes that comment supports it.
The problem with typology is that taken too far you can justify just about anything from it. At one point he seemed to be saying that as Solomon bowed to the Queen Mother, Jesus did to his mother. I can’t find that in my Bible. I think he got a bit over excited. Why does he shout the whole time? Makes him very tiresome to listen to.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
This article by be of some interest as well: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4270
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thanks for this, and the Ratzinger. 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
As paganism reined before during and after Judaism and Christianity and is certainly alive today, one can make suppositions about the ‘why’ of anything that we practice or the language of our Faith. But I am glad if Jess’s post helps.
I would remind you that not everyting is so ‘clear’ as you made it sound in your post. Mariology is more similar to Song of Songs, Proverbs and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) than Leviticus. 🙂 But those are Scripture as well.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good point Good brother Servus. And one I don’t hear addressed. This is a technical issue, of parentage or inheritance.
Here are some facts;
The female has these “eggs” that contain half of the genetic material to make a person. You are assuming that Mary fertilized herself. Im sure god knows better than to clone humans, because mutation abound when the same DNA lines up. I, and im sure others, believe god created the other half of the genome, and in doing so, Jesus became the son of God. Taking into account that Jesus wasn’t created with Mary….he was always here. I believe god did this the old fashioned way….he paired her genes with his.He was always the Son, but now he is the son of man, the Holy One of Israel. I don’t believe mother and son had the exact genome make up. We can compare similarities in forensics to determine sibblings or parents, but they are close, not a pure match. Not that anything is impossible with god…its just that son and mother are two different people.
I don’t thinkim going to change your mind on this. I can see that if Mary is your redemptrix, your path to salvation, that settles the issue.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, why would you assume that we do not believe what is in the Creed – ‘was conceived by the Holy Spirit’ – so where, here is any statement that Mary fertilised herself? Do you just make this stuff up? As with so many people who just decide they are followers of Jesus, you pick up old heresies in your ignorance and pride. Jesus was made man – the Word became Incarnate. The Word was not Incarnate before Mary, so your second false statement is that ‘Jesus wasn’t created with Mary.’
When you say you believe something, my response is the Bible said there would be many false teachers, and for nearly two thousand years better minds and holier men than you and I have discussed the explored these matters. I have the humility to try to learn from them, you have just the arrogance satan loves, as you value your own opinion and know nothing else.
No one says Mary is the only path to redemption.
You know, if you would only take the trouble to read carefully and think, you might not misrepresent us so often, and you might even begin to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I’d say that most ‘Christians’ after the time of Constantine weren’t really Christians at all – and confusion did reign for a very long time.
When I read church history, about how the church expanded, it seems to be all about political power. King such-and-such became a Christian, largely because it seemed politically expedient to do so – and as a result his whole kingdom became Christian at the same time. Do you really think that this meant a whole-sale change of heart and mind of an entire population?
Reading church history convinces me that Christianity has always existed either outside the church, or else as a minority interest within the church, using the structure of the church.
I got my basic introduction to church history from a series ‘Sveriges Kyrkohistoria’ (Sweden’s Church History), a 6 volume set and the first two volumes (up to and including the council of Skänninge) are probably the most interesting.
I’m struck by the pure paganism when it comes to the design of the wooden stave churches in Norway The outside of the church was the devil’s side, hence all the wooden gargoyles to scare off the evil spirits. The theology didn’t seem to have much ‘Christianity’ about it at all; it was clearly a very serious compromise with Norse theology.
Christianity in Nordic countries seems to have been marked by plain superstition. For example, they date the coming of Christianity to Sweden by looking at burial patterns. When they see the buried person facing east, they assume it was a ‘Christian’ burial.
Frans Bengtsson amusingly plays on this in his novel ‘Den Röde Orm’ (translated into English as ‘The Long Ships’) where the newly Christianised king imagines that a relic which has just been brought back from Spain might prove helpful for curing his tooth-ache (King Blue Tooth).
So – you’re absolutely right – people were very confused for a very long time. The stave churches date from the 12th century. When the light of plain Christian truth entered is a good question – was it with the reformation? Or was it before? Certainly, the stave churches (12th, 13th century) are from a time when confusion reigned – so if there was a universal clear and plain understanding, it came after that time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Actually we find prayers and artifacts that date long before Constantine . . . so I don’t think that is going to do it. I think the problem is more likely that we have lost more to the dust of history than we have found. As a popular devotion it seems to have weathered every storm of controversy and every objection thrown at it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
A popular devotion, yes, I agree, But as we can see from the Medicine Man’s video of popular devotion at the Casa, some folk get carried away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
There are folk that get carried away with everything: from penance, devotions and almost any aspect of Christianity. But that does not mean that we should not try to develop an understanding of these things in a healthy way. After all, if Mary’s ‘Soul doth magnify the Lord’, then She is useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Many things are useful, but only one – Christ – essential. For me, as for many, the Christian life already has in it more than we can explore in one lifetime, and I just cannot see anything here. It is fine for women and for Southern Europeans and Latinos, but it really isn’t for most men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Yes, Christ is essential. A full understanding of the Essential Person of Christ would require our understanding of His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit regarding His Divine nature. Likewise, it seems to me, a full understanding of Christ would require our understanding of Mary and Her relationship to Christ to understand His Human nature. As the two natures of Christ are inseparable, I would not deny myself of trying to understand both.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I agree until you get to the last point. The Bible has much to say about the nature of the relationship between Father and Son, and, if we dig and read sensitively, also about the Spirit – although it seems from my own days reading theology that pneumatology is a very under-developed part of the field. The Bible gives us very little information about the relationship between Jesus and his mother. We can, of course, spend a great deal of time speculating on it, but I am not sure that that time would not be better spent on a study of the workings of the Spirit and his relationship with the other persons of the Trinity. It is via the Trinity we are redeemed, not by Mary. I do not say she does not matter – heaven forfend, but I do think a great deal of ink has been spent on what, by its nature (given the actual evidence) is pious speculation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Pneumatology is underdeveloped in classical theology and one must turn to mystical theology to see that there is more development that we might have imagined. The Bible might have more to offer than you think: I think we have lost much of this as it was taken for granted the further back we go in Christian history. For a look at what is being re-discovered scripturally, listen to Dr Hahns presentation. It is in three parts but I think they will play one after the other after you get past the annoying commercial that plays in the beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgeU6d8Bxlo
He, in no way exhausts this exploration, asn there are many other scripture scholars that are looking into many other aspects which appears to be a rich area for us to mine the gems that hidden there. So his is only one of many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I shall listen. As I say, I have no hostility to this devotion, I simply think it unnecessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
…. yes – the ‘Queen of Heaven’ is mentioned in Jeremiah (most unfavourably) – so it dates back to at least 500 years BC.
Many belief systems other than Judaism and Christianity have an important female deity. Giving Mary an elevated status would have been important for persuading people to change from one system of gods to Christianity.
The argument ‘everybody was doing it’ doesn’t prove anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
You’ll like mine today, I think Jock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Of course the sermons from the Casa are about as nourishing as cardboard. Is there any wonder why we wouldn’t want 45 minutes of that? I have heard great sermons of very short duration and some much longer. It is the content of the ideas presented that gives a sermon substance for our spirit. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Very true my friend. If that is what our director of dreams gets, no wonder he goes off into dreamland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
I can see how the word mediatrix can be a stumbling block. For me, the whole thing with Mary is simple and that word makes it sound complex and incomprehensible. Maybe that is, at least in part, the point you are making. I also understand that many Christians have a direct and powerful encounter with God and don’t feel that Mary had one thing to do with that encounter. You are certainly right that the Bible doesn’t tell us to ask Mary to intercede for us and indeed Jesus tells us to pray to our Father in heaven. But the thing is, we aren’t all solitary individuals in our Christianity, we are a body and a church of believers who call on each other for loving support. Catholics just happen to believe that this body includes the saints of the past and Mary.
In some ways, when it comes to Mary’s intercession and mediation, I think Protestants and Catholics are trying to compare apples (direct communion with God) with oranges (intercession of the saints) and end up throwing their fruit of choice at each other instead of coming to a deeper understanding. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, a lot of sense there Zeke. I am not, for a moment, denying Marty’s role, and I think some of the answers coming my way are really rehearsed for those who do.
I can see that those whose faith is more emotional than mine might share Jessica’s attitude, and that’s fine.
What I still don’t get is why this grand superstructure is necessary. We go to the Father by the Son, none other, and I think folk get mixed up if other folk use grand words like ‘mediatrix’. It sounds like it is setting Mary up as ‘co-redemptix’, and again, I understand that could have a very innocuous meaning – simply that he cooperation brought the redeemer into the world. But bringing the term into use and reading some of what is written by those who want it approved, convinces me that there are those who use the word literally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
I just want to note that the Church consists of both living and dead Christians. Much like we ask our living brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us we also ask those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for us.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
There is a impassable gap between the living and the dead.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Chalcedon, I put my answer to you down here. I don’t understand why you dismiss what I said. The egg has to be fertilized. So Gabe said the holy ghost will come over Mary and she will conceive. What im saying is that Jesus is half DNA from god the Father. Im not arguing your belief of Mariology.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Thanks for clarifying that Bosco. It did seem odd, and I am glad I misread it.
A further question for you. Can what is perfectly good abide the presence of evil? I would say the Bible tells us it can’t. So, how could Jesus, who is perfect goodness, have had half his DNA from a woman still affected by original sin? He couldn’t, because he was without sin. The child of a sinner would have inherited the sin, surely? Hence, Mary must already have been without sin to give sinless genes to the sinless one.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Sin is in the soul. The molecules in the body don’t have anything to do with it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The soul is not separate from the body. Jesus could not be sinless if he shared the DNA of a sinner – there really is no getting away from that.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Are you sure the soul is not separate from the body? Body is flesh. DNA of a sinner? DNA is a molecule. It doesn’t sin. Its like saying a rock sins. Sin is in the mind. The body follows the mind. The mind makes the body sin. But the sin happened in the mind. Just as looking at a hunny bunny is adultery in the heart.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We are made up of DNA, and so Christ had DNA from his mother. You are mixing up sin, the doing of something wrong, with Original Sin, which is the consequence of Adam’s fall – remember Paul – as in Adam all men sinned. What do you suppose that meant.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Way to go, C!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – when you start reasoning like this, it sounds like sophistry. It is also entirely disconnected from any understanding that I have of ‘sin’.
I presume your question ‘Can what is perfectly good abide the presence of evil?’ is supposed to elicit the answer ‘no’. You then have to answer the question: how then was God able to come to live among us at all? The answer ‘oh, it’s all right, because as an unborn child he was in a sinless womb’ simply doesn’t hold water. Once he was out of the womb, he was then living in a sinful world; the perfectly good, had to abide in the presence of evil.
What makes me very uneasy about your thought process: you seem to be excusing people for their sin on the grounds of genes, DNA, etc …. It’s as if the rest of us have an excuse; our mothers were not without original sin, we have it in our genes and DNA; in some sense it isn’t our responsibility. If God had given us the same start in life as he gave to Jesus (when he made Mary free from original sin) then we would have been OK; we would not have been ‘psychologically disturbed’
Your understanding of ‘original sin’ (later in the discussion with Bosco) is just plain wrong; we show that we are ‘in Adam’ when we sin. So if Mary sinned, then she was ‘in Adam’ and was not free from ‘original sin’.
I have never figured out what is meant by ‘original sin’. I understand being ‘in Adam’ and ‘in Christ’ according to the apostle in Romans 5, but ‘original sin’ is a technical term introduced by theological scholars which I never come across unless I’m in discussion with Catholics. It doesn’t form part of my normal thought process and I still haven’t understood what you mean by this – especially if you say that Mary was without ‘original sin’ (i.e. the remnants of being ‘in Adam’) and yet she sinned and needed a redeemer. If you do not sin, then you do not need a redeemer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is a sign of how deracinated Protestantism is in some areas that something which both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have recognised since before the spit in 1054, seems so foreign to you.
In Adam’s fall we all fell. To reduce that to ‘Adam sinned and we are in him when we sin’, which it seems to me you are doing, is to beg the whole question of why Christ needed to be incarnated at all. After all, God could just appear on the nightly news world wide and announce that anyone who is naughty will be punished – that would set us all straight.
What is meant by original sin is the Fall. In that, the image of God in us is marred and hidden; we know what is right, we will it, and yet we end up, as Paul says, doing the other thing. That shows our nature is fundamentally damaged. How can it be healed? God has told us. As St Greogory of Nazianzus put it ‘what was not assumed could not be healed’ – so the Word assumed our flesh so that it could be healed by being united with the Divine, thus beginning the process of our restoration – at the end we shall be back in that image of God in whom we were first made, with all the grime and the dirt washed off us. We use theological terms all the time, Trinity is just one example.
If you think about sin in such reductionist terms then I can see why you do not understand what I wrote about Mary. In Adam’s sin all fell – that does not just mean we can be sinful from time to time, it means there is that fundamental flaw in us which makes us tend toward sin. Mary was as much a victim of Adam’s fall as the rest of us, it was just that the healing process started earlier, when she was conceived without sin.
The Incarnate Word was both wholly human and wholly divine, and so yes, lived in this world of sin he came to redeem, but had Mary been the inheritor of Original Sin, then her son could not have escaped that taint.
I am not sure that your reading of sin makes much sense of Romans 7 – I think the Catholic one does.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Firstly, you shouldn’t attribute to ‘Protestantism’ anything that I say and secondly, I think you’d probably be surprised at the number of Catholics who can go to church week by week and never hear the term ‘Original Sin’ mentioned. I’m not a theologian; I simply know enough to explain my own faith to myself (and to try to articulate the reason for the hope that I have if asked) and in this context, I don’t need the term ‘Original Sin’. I do, though, find the term ‘Trinity’ clarifying.
Romans 7: following Romans 6v2 (we have died to sin), Romans 7v1 tells us that we have died to the law. It then goes on to elaborate on this point.
Sin is dead in the sense that the final victory is assured (I know that I am ‘in Christ’, that I will see life), but is still very much active – hence Paul’s ‘wretched man’. The law condemns us and the ‘wages of sin is death’, but the penalty has already been extracted; Christ died on the cross and we also died to the law in Him in the sense that the law has already extracted its penalty (those of us who are ‘in Christ’, who have ‘died to sin’ in Him and find it a moral impossibility to live in it any longer). The law that he refers to, of course, is the law that condemns us before Him.
As you put it, ‘the image of God in us is marred and hidden; we know what is right, we will it, and yet we end up, as Paul says, doing the other thing.’ This was true of Paul, this was true of Mary; this is true of all of us who are living for Christ. Paul was a mature Christian when he wrote these words. He wasn’t writing about some time in his past; he was writing about his current ongoing experience of himself as a mature Christian. Are you saying that this was not Mary’s experience? Are you saying that Mary did not find that ‘Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.’ Are you saying that this was not Mary’s experience as a mature Christian? If you are saying that this was not Mary’s experience, then you contradict the central thrust of Scripture, ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,’ This includes Mary. ‘The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.’
When you write ‘had Mary been the inheritor of Original Sin, then her son could not have escaped that taint’, you limit God. You limit the power of God to perform miracles. For you, it was impossible for God to perform a miracle so that Jesus could escape the taint of Original Sin if his mother had inherited Original Sin.
I think your church would be in much better shape if it simply presented Mary as a hero (or heroine) of the faith, a sinner who was called by God to an extraordinary calling and was faithful to her calling. If she were presented in this way, there would be no problem.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jock, sorry to jump in but it might be helpful to you to understand what Catholics believe about original sin and the state of Mary in that regard. I hope this will save Chalcedon a bit of ink. So for what it is worth:
THE CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDING OF ORIGINAL SIN
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
+++++
Now St. Paul and all other Baptized souls were freed from this defect of Original Sin during their ‘rebirth by water and the spirit but were still hampered by the concupiscience of sin. Mary, however, was not only preserved from Original Sin but also from ALL stain of Original Sin which means that she did not have this concupiscience or tendency toward sin as did St. Paul. However, this does not mean that she did not have to contend with sin and have the capacity to sin as she was born in the same origianal state as Adam and Eve who had to contend with sin and use the gift of their freewill; they failed. So Mary’s freewill was left intact and sin is always present in the world in which she lived. Mary, like Adam and Eve could submit to sin though they had no compulsion to do so. Thereby, it is the Catholic belief that Mary remained without any stain of sin for her entire life and thus was raised both body and soul at her death. So she succeeded where Adam and Eve failed in their use of freewill.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Many thanks for this. It is clarifying. I can take two sentences from this, which show that the Catholic church is WRONG.
The first (a couple of sentences)
‘And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.’
‘Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.’
When the bible talks of the sin of an individual, it always means thoughts, words or deeds of that individual. There is no such thing in Scripture as a sin not ‘committed’. The predisposition towards sin (which we inherit from Adam) is clearly a personal fault.
Really – you can’t be serious when you consider sin as something that does not have the character of a personal fault. At the very least, I would have thought that ‘Original Sin’ might have meant the pre-disposition towards sin, the fact that we (by nature) enjoy sin, the fact that it is only the worry about getting caught that stops us from sinning in deed. But the Catholic church tells me that ‘original sin’ does not have the character of a personal fault in me. Nevertheless, it is something horrid and nasty that has been transmitted to me – but they don’t explain what. There is absolutely no reason in this definition why God should be angry with me, or why he should find fault with me, over ‘Original Sin’.
When Adam fell, the whole of nature fell with him. This certainly does refer to a personal fault; at the very least, it is the personal fault of finding the consequence of sin enjoyable (even if I don’t do it) and the personal fault of only remaining on the straight and narrow in order to avoid punishment. More often, we express our solidarity with Adam by sinning in word and deed.
The second ‘it is the Catholic belief that Mary remained without any stain of sin for her entire life’ is in flat contradiction to the entire message of Salvation. It basically means that Mary did not need a redeemer. Holy Scripture says, ‘all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God’. This includes Mary. People are not condemned for some abstract concept (original sin which does not have the character of a personal fault); we all stand condemned because we all have sinned; we all have fallen short of the glory of God; if not in word and deed, then certainly in thought. This includes Mary.
If you say that she remained without any stain of sin for her entire life, then you essentially give her a God-like status and she should be part of the Trinity.
Holy Scripture makes it clear that it is only in Christ that repentance is found. Not only have all sinned, but we all, by nature, enjoy sin and revel in it. That is what it means to be ‘in Adam’. By nature we cannot repent. If we could repent, then we would not need a redeemer. After the fall, all God ever asked man to do was to repent. The redeemer was necessary because we could not repent; repentance is itself a gift from God and is found in Christ alone.
If there really was a person who remained without the stain of sin for her entire life, then that person had no need of repentance. It means that man was essentially able to work out his own salvation without a redeemer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Jock – Of course the original sin or first sin of humanity was as you say; a personal sin. But Original Sin as relating to us is a distortions of our nature, inherited from that sin . . . not our sin per se. As to the idea that all Adam and Eve needed to do was repent cheapens the price for sin and lowers the dignity of God to that of another finite creature. Since His dignity is infinitely more than man could possibly repay . . . even were He to give his life as a sacrifice for sin against God . . . it would not be enough until, that is, a Perfect and infinite Sacrifice would be made man, to give Himself for all humankind.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – when I wrote this, I was referring to the words of Ezekiel: The whole of the discourse of chapter 18 is useful, ‘The soul who sins is the one who will die’ (18v4). He says (21 onwards)
‘But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live, he will not die. None of the offences he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.’
All God ever asked any of us to do was to repent. This includes Adam. The reason we need a redeemer is because, without Christ, we cannot repent. Repentance is a gift from God, through Christ.
I cannot see how it cheapens the price for sin to point this out.
In some sense, there was something transmitted to us in the fall; when Adam fell, the whole of creation fell. What we see in creation is a distorted and fallen image of what the heavenly kingdom will be like. But if you want to understand why we are sinners, you have to understand why Adam was a sinner. The same thing within Adam which caused him to sin is also within us and causes us to sin. If you blame your own sinfulness on the fall of Adam, you are in danger of making the same excuses as Adam (‘oh Eve made me do it’) or Eve (‘oh the serpent tempted me and it’s all the serpent’s fault’).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Jock – thanks for the explanation as I didn’t recognize the translation nor your commentary. What he seems to be saying here is that the end determines all of a mans life. That mortal sin leads to death having destroyed the life of grace. And dying in mortal sin is death and in grace, life. I can read no more than that into what is being said.
And if, like you say, we needed Christ to fix our damaged nature then God isn’t God. God could think it and it would be done. Something more than this is wrong with sin and it took God to suffer and die as a human to redeem us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I think a church which has brought a billion sinners to Christ is not in bad shape.
You seem to think sin is simply doing bad things, but seem, in what you say, to have no explanation of why that happens – which is where, whether you ever hear about it, is where Original Sin comes in; it is the consequence of the Fall. You seem quite sure that God could have made Mary without sin, but unclear on what that meant. The Church simply provides a name for the miracle. If God, as you seem to admit, worked that miracle, then yes, Mary did not sin.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – you don’t have an explanation as to why we sin either; you have simply pushed it back one step. If you say ‘sin happens because of Original Sin which was transmitted to us as a result of the fall’ then (a) you’re in danger of making the sort of excuse that Adam made ‘oh it was all Eve’s fault’ and the sort of excuse that Eve made, ‘oh it was all the serpent’s fault’. You now have to explain why Adam sinned in the first place. If you find an explanation for that, you’ll find that the same explanation holds for all of us.
If you say, ‘Mary was without Original Sin and spent her whole life free from the taint of sin’, then you contradict the clear and plain word of Scripture:
‘There is no-one righteous, not even one;
there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.
All have turned away and become worthless;
there is no-one who does good, not even one.’
and then
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Scripture is using ‘all’ to mean ‘all’ here. There are no exceptions; ‘not even one’.
If you presented Mary as a hero of the faith, a sinner, who was called by God to an extraordinary calling and was faithful to that calling, then this would give an accurate picture and would be very good. Trying to present Mary as without Original Sin and spending her whole life without the taint of sin contradicts the clear and plain word of Scripture.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The explanation is the Fall, as I said, so I am not quite sure what other sort of explanation there is on offer? If you prefer your own private exegesis of the Church’s book to that of the Church, then no one can stop you – Adam’s pride lives in his sinful descendants. If it were as ‘clear and plain; as you think, how odd that so many theologians and saints have not had the supreme wisdom you seem to have been blessed with.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
‘The explanation is the fall’ – and, as I said, how do you explain The Fall?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I thought Genesis did that?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, then you’ve answered a question that Paul couldn’t answer, even though he spent a lot of time commenting on Genesis in his letter to the Romans. He says, ‘I do not understand what I do’ (Romans 7v17); he doesn’t give a trite answer of ‘oh it was Original Sin wot dun it’.
He’s also well aware that Mary was the mother of Jesus and yet he says, ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3v23) and to emphasise that by all he means absolutely all (and not all except Mary) he quotes ‘There is no-one righteous, not even one’ (his quotation from the Prophet Isaiah).
So (a) you have found an answer to a question that Paul could not answer and (b) you have corrected a major error in Paul’s writings.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It was not ‘original sin’ wot done it. what original sin did was to transmit Adam’s fult to his descendants, which is why there is not one of us without it. That God ensure that the new ark of the Covenant was the exception to that seems obvious enough – unless you are going to explain how Christ could be fully human and fully divine and without sin in some ingenious way as yet unheard of. You seem to me to be saying that God could have done it by a miracle, and yet object to that explanation when it is said to you that Mary was the miracle; odd. As a former Anglo-Catholic, I have never understood this protestant chippiness on Mary.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I’ve explained the ‘protestant chippiness about Mary’; it’s because Paul wrote ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ and when he enumerates the exceptions to this, he writes, ‘not even one’.
The chippiness comes from reading Holy Scripture, seeing clear and plain words and then we’re told that we’re not being intellectual enough; if we were more intellectual then we would see clearly how ‘not even one’ didn’t refer to Mary.
The ground was cursed as a result of Adam’s sin, ‘for thy sake’. When Adam fell, the whole of creation fell and (as Paul puts it in the eighth of Romans), the whole of creation is groaning for the redemption. So The Fall made life immeasurably harder for all of us. But it seems to me (and most theologians) that Adam was predisposed to sin before he actually sinned by the specific act of eating the fruit. The Serpent was also out of order when he tempted Eve. We all have the same predisposition to sin that Adam had before The Fall and I don’t think you’ll find a single theologian (not even a Catholic one) who will disagree with that.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You keep missing the point. No one says Mary did not need a Saviour, no one says that she did not need saving from Original Sin. What the Church is saying is that she was saved from it at the moment of conception.
We have to take care with the ‘all men sin’. The gnostics used those texts to justify their view that Jesus was not really a man, because had he been, he would have been covered by those texts. I take it you agree that he really was human as well as divine, and if so, then there is at least one qualification to those Johannine texts.
Because you deny Original Sin, you deal entirely with personal sin, which is not the same thing at all. Original sin is not what we do, it is what we inherit. Calvin seems to understand this well enough – see:-
“Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 248-249. Calvin uses Eph 2:3, Rom 5:19, 1 Cor 15:22, and John 3:5-6 to back up his assertion that Adam’s sin has severely tainted the nature of all people over the Pelagian belief that Adam’s sin was propagated by imitation. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 248-249.”
but some of his latter-day followers seem to have lost this insight and fallen for the fallacious argument that modern science shows this not to be so.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – we may be talking at cross purposes here. I do agree that through The Fall we are all tainted with sin and through The Fall we have a predisposition to sin.
At the same time, I object to anything which lessens my guilt for my personal sins or indeed anybody else’s guilt for their personal sins. We are guilty because of what we do and not because of any taint that was passed on to us through The Fall.
The reason I am extremely sceptical about Bosco is his web page, backed up by some of the things he writes here, which indicate that he has a mind which revels in filth. It is our personal sin that condemns us and it is our personal sin that we are called upon to repent of, not some abstract taint that is called ‘original sin’.
Paul writes ‘all have sinned’ and gives this as the reason for lack of righteousness (the third of Romans). When he says ‘all have sinned’, he means that all have committed personal sins.
Nobody is arguing with you over the consequences of The Fall. God pronounces his judgement, ‘for thy sake the ground is cursed’ and when Adam fell the whole of creation fell. This explains (among other things) natural disasters; it explains why a God of Love not only allows, but is the author of so much suffering in the world.
Going through the verses you quote Calvin as using in his Institutes – yes, they do back up very clearly that ‘through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners’; a sinner is somebody who commits personal sins. God does not call us ‘sinners’ purely through the taint of original sin.
Ephesians 2v1-3: As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Here it is our personal sin that God the Judge calls us to account for. Yes, we are marred by the taint of the fall; it is our personal sin for which we are condemned. Ephesians 2v3 has to be taken in the context of verses 1 and 2.
Romans 5v19 is the explicit verse which does clearly state ‘through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners’.
1 Corinthians 15v22 says, ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.’ All die ‘in Adam’; the reason they die is because of their personal sin and 1 Corinthians 15v22 does not contradict this.
John 3v5-7 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
Paul spends the whole of chapters 1 to 8 of Romans elucidating this; those who have ‘died to sin’ and for whom it is a moral impossibility (although tragically not a logical impossibility) to live in it any longer are those who have been ‘born again’.
I’m surprised that you should be appealing to Calvin and taking the parts of Calvin that form his doctrine of ‘predestination’ to back up your argument; Calvinistic ‘predestination’ is the logical conclusion of this line.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It was certainty where Calvin took St Augustine’s ideas, but Augustine’s Church has never followed him there.
We must be at crossed wires if I am giving the impression of trying to mitigate personal responsibility for our sins. We are all conceived in sin, and we tend to it as the sparks fly upward, but through Christ we can gain much strength in resisting that, just as through his sacrifice the taint of original sin is, at the last, erased.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I read the piece that Dave Smith cut and pasted from the Catholic catechism – and I’d say that I prefer to be ‘deracinated’ tnan just plain wrong.
I suppose that the Jews (Saul of Tarsus, for example, before his conversion) were of the view that Christianity was entirely deracinated from Old Testament Scripture.
I am proud to think of sin in ‘reductionist’ terms; namely, thought, word and deed, relishing the evil and finding the good rather boring (sin and the disposition towards sin),
I’m not so enthusiastic about the sort of ‘cultural enrichment’ and broadening of my narrow view that includes a definition of ‘sin’ (used more broadly to mean that which alienates me from God) which ‘does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants’. I am proud to be narrow-minded and reductionist in this matter.
The one and only thing that God ever required of us to do was to repent of our sins. If we had been able to do that without a redeemer, then we would not have needed a redeemer; we would have been right with God, we would have been restored to communion with God and the heavenly life without the need of a redeemer. We are not alienated from God because of something that ‘does not have the character of a personal fault’.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Well, if your belief system revolves around flesh and what the eye can see, then that settles the debate.
LikeLike
Pingback: Catholic culture? | All Along the Watchtower