We get that in our faith a lot too. We believe in becoming more like Christ thru emulating him, we love him therefore we seek to be like him - but in no way can we buy our way to heaven with works. Salvation comes only through Christ.
First, I’m married to a lifelong Catholic, and my sister converted to Catholicism seven years ago. During a difficult period with my current Anglican church I attended a Catholic church with my husband for more than two years. And I’ve attended Catholic Churches in various locations. By no stretch could I be termed anti-Catholic. I have even considered becoming a Catholic, but I’d have to sign on to beliefs about Mary that have no Biblical support. The one that makes no sense at all is her immaculate conception. We know from the Bible that Jesus led a sinless life because He was both fully God and fully human, and that His divinity came from the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary. He had no human father so escaped the sin nature that passes through Adam. But Mary’s parents were both human, which means that she had a sin nature. All indications are that she led an exemplary life, but an exemplary human life, which means that she was subject to sin and needed salvation too.
The works accusation against Catholics I believe to be a misunderstanding of what Catholics actually mean when they use what for Protestants are trigger words, such as merit. I have trouble with the quote about Purgatory you included because it does sound awfully like the process is the source of purification, rather than the blood of Jesus cleansing us from all sin. Perhaps if it were worded to indicate not a process of purification but a time of adjustment for those whose salvation occurred so late in life that they had no opportunity to learn about holy living? Tolkien wrote a novella called “Leaf by Niggle” that contains such an idea. It’s not Biblical but could be a belief worthy of speculation, rather than of doctrine.
My most serious reservation about Catholicism is something I recently learned that disturbs me very much. I believe in the real presence of Jesus in communion, but not in transubstantiation. That belief was proposed by a monk named Radaburt in the 10th century, I believe, and was subsequently adopted as a doctrine of the Church. Various beliefs became attached to this new doctrine: that priests performed this miracle in the mass; that this power gave them special authority; that this change of substance was a sacrifice of Jesus every time it was performed; that performing this miracle in the mass was a meritorious act; and that by it the Church ministered grace to those who received it. The doctrine of transubstantiation gave priests tremendous power over the laity and, in effect, taught the latter to focus on the Mass instead of on the finished work of Jesus Christ. It’s not that the Roman Church teaches wrong doctrine about the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it’s that the added layer of transubstantiation prevents many Catholics from grasping the actual teachings of the Church.
Thank you for these thoughts, Kay! I'll try to respond as best I can.
Remember that for Catholics, the deposit of faith can be found both in Scripture and Tradition. So for example, when the Bible talks about "The Lord's Day" instead of the Sabbath, Catholics know that this is Sunday, even if it's never explicitly said in Scripture, because that is and always has been the day the full liturgy is celebrated. Everything we believe is consonant with Scripture, but not all of it is derived from Scripture. Remember that the Church is older than the Bible, and Paul was planting churches before the New Testament was written. So when it comes to Mary, what Catholics believe does indeed accord with Scripture, but isn't necessarily *derived* from it.
For the Immaculate Conception in particular, consider the unique greeting Gabriel gives Mary: "Hail, Full-of-Grace!" Another translation might be, "You who have been completed in grace." It's hard to see how being totally filled with God's grace is compatible with sin. But more importantly, let's look at your worries. First, the Bible never states that the reason Jesus has no earthly father is to protect Him from Original Sin. It's not an outrageous claim, but it's not attested to by the Bible itself, it's a strain of human reasoning. Second, the omnipotent God is absolutely capable of preserving someone from the stain of Original Sin from their conception onward. Wouldn't it be an arbitrary limit on His power to say otherwise? Third, you don't have to be God to be sinless; Adam and Eve, for example, were created without sin. And although they ultimately chose to compromise with Satan, from the earliest times Christians have seen Mary as the Eve of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is necessarily better than the old one. Whereas the Old Covenant had a virgin without original sin who then compromised with the devil, the new one has a virgin who refused even the faintest trace of sin. You can see this in Chapter 12 of the Letter to Diognetus. Irenaeus also writes about Mary as New Eve. Fourth, Mary is absolutely saved by Christ. Her preservation is a *proactive application of the redemption of Christ.* We only care about Mary because we care about Christ. Fifth, the belief that Mary never sinned is very early and universal. You can read about it here: https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin
In 1 John, the Apostle distinguishes between sins that are "unto death" and sins that are not. The word Purgatory means something like "removing imperfections by fire." The word itself comes from the Greek "puros," "fire," as discussed in 1 Cor 3. We are fundamentally in friendship with Christ, but still struggle with those sins that are not "unto death." In Purgatory, God helps us outgrow them, so that nothing hinders our love for Jesus. It is an encounter with the person of Christ that converts our hearts more fully to Himself. This only works if we're already saved. It is also widely attested by the Fathers: https://www.churchfathers.org/purgatory
I am happy to report that the last paragraph is basically all paper tigers. Catholics have always believed that in the Mass, the bread and the wine are replaced by the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. You can read about this here: https://www.churchfathers.org/the-real-presence . You can also find it in John 6. This is the climax of the Mass. If this belief were invented a thousand years after Christ, it wouldn't be universal among all the ancient Churches. As it is, the Coptic Church, which split from the Catholic Church in 451, believes what we do. It's not a new sacrifice, but a making-present of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. If we are being united to Christ at this most intimate level, it is absolutely a communication of grace, similar to but not identical with the grace that we receive when we read the words of the Gospel. The Second Vatican Council describes the Eucharist as the "Source and summit of the Christian life." Once you remember that Catholics think this is literally Jesus Christ Himself, it makes total sense. Far from being in competition with God, it is actually the most intimate, Christocentric thing available, full stop.
Since you have some Catholics in your life you care for deeply, I cannot recommend enough a pair of books by Brant Pitre: "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary," and "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist." And really, you can't spend enough time on ChurchFathers.org ! It's an absolute treasure trove.
You use a lot of straw men in your criticisms of Protestants. Not all Protestants are the same. Some Protestant denominations are nearly on the verge of total separation from Christianity. However, Catholicism does have teachings that have no basis in scripture such as the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her assumption. Mary was no doubt blessed to be chosen by God to bear the Christ as conceived of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean she never sinned or never bore other children. Joseph was never mentioned in scripture after the birth and childhood of Jesus, It speaks of Mary and his brothers. If she had no other children where did these brothers come from? Supposedly these were stepbrothers from a previous marriage of Joseph, but why were these children not mentioned when they were traveling to Bethlehem for the census or on the trip to Egypt to escape Herod? Jesus, when told that His mother & brothers were outside wanting to speak to Him, said who is my mother? And who are my brothers? What was his answer? That those who do the will of his Father in heaven are his brother, and sister, and mother. Doesn’t seem to be a special emphasis on the woman that bore him. After the death & Resurrection of Christ Mary is not made mention of one time in scripture by name. Doesn’t that seem odd that if she is of such importance to the salvation of man that Peter, John, Paul, James, and Luke never mention such a role? These are just problems around doctrines related to Mary. I would say these doctrines fall into the category of myths & fables that we are warned not to be distracted by.
Hey Steve, thanks for this! The post is really about how Protestants strawman Catholicism, and I can attest to the fact that many, many Protestants think A) Catholicism is works-based (see, for example, the popular evangelical documentary "American Gospel") and that B) Catholics worship Mary (or at least think we verge on it, which is what I take most of your comment to be implying). If there's something more specific I'm strawmanning, I would be grateful to
As a side note, you've forgotten that she was with the disciples in prayer on Pentecost (Acts 1:14), and that a conspicuously Mary-like figure appears at the beginning of Revelation 12, immediately after the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Chapter 11. Interesting, given that Christian tradition has always thought of her as the Ark as she bears Jesus, the presence of God Himself. So all she does is:
-Receive the first announcement of the Gospel
-Get a totally unique title from an angel ("You who have been completed in grace")
-Literally raise Jesus Christ
-Compose the Magnificat, which establishes a clear parallel to Hannah in the OT
-Receive a prophecy that "a sword shall pierce [her] own heart," showing the closeness of her suffering to Christ's
-Initiate Christ's first miracle, which John calls "The first sign by which he made his glory known to his disciples"
-Accompany Him to the Cross
-Receive the Beloved Disciple as her son; in the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple stands for every Christian
-Receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
-Appear in John's vision (who had lived with her for decades) as Satan's adversary
-And of course complete the Eve typology (This is already noted by Irenaeus, and also the Letter to Diognetus in the second century).
We could have a longer conversation, but I don't know that I'm really any better than just looking at the Catholic Answers pages on this. I will say that ChurchFathers.org would be extremely helpful here, as well as noticing that it's actually in an Ecumenical Council (number 5 to be exact) that Mary is Ever-Virgin. This was the universal teaching of the ancient Church.
None of the above make Mary a co-redemptrix with Christ as taught by the Roman church - Pope Benedict XV. Scripture teaches that there is no other name in heaven or earth by which men may be saved. Acts 4:12.
Protestant churches generally do not teach that baptism is a regenerative act. They teach that it is a sign and seal of the covenant God made with man.
Another part of your article talks about prayers made to the saints. Christ taught his disciples how to pray using the framework of the Lords Prayer. Saints are dead people. All believers in Christ for salvation are saints. Paul wrote to the church in Colossae opening his letter by addressing “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae”. Prayers for the dead are unscriptural.
When Catholics talk about Mary as the Co-Redemptrix, we do not mean that she deserves some of the credit for Christ's work. Rather, we do not think that creatures and the Creator compete with one another; it can be 100% Christ, His grace, His merit, and His initiative, *and* it can still be true that Mary really did enable Him to come into the world. Remember how St. Paul tells Philemon that Philemon owes him his very self? Paul is talking about saving Philemon's soul. He doesn't feel the need to say, "I did nothing at all here," because he really did preach the Gospel and disciple him! And yet Paul can still say, "Yet not I, but through Christ who lives in me." Both are true. Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Christ is the one Savior, Mediator, and Redeemer of mankind. Would it be helpful if I were to point you to some passages in the Catechism that reflect on this a bit more?
You may have been exposed to a relatively narrow band of Protestantism. That is certainly true for the Baptists and the traditions downstream of them (nondenoms and some charismatics). But Lutherans and the Reformed traditions do think that Baptism is essential to salvation and plays a key role in passing from death to life.
I fear you'll have to take this one up with Christ. Luke 20: "...They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
There's a passage from Pope Benedict XVI that I heard once and have never been able to find again, but it instantly changed my mind on this point. It went something like this: "If the real difference is not between those who are living and those who are dead, but those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ, why should death sever our communion?" Indeed why should it? Indeed, if it helps, it seems the earliest Christians also thought that their fellowship with one another extended beyond the death of the body: https://www.churchfathers.org/intercession-of-the-saints
I firmly believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God. So she is the earthly mother of Jesus. However, since Christ is God and God is eternal, she cannot be the Mother of God. An eternal being has no mother. Mary was unquestionably the vessel that God used to birth God manifested in the flesh. That doesn’t require her to be sinless, a perpetual virgin, or that I believe she was assumed. The Gospel of James, that seems to be the source of stories of Mary’s childhood and of Joseph being chosen as her protector who was old and had children from a previous marriage, is a questionable source at best that was rejected by Pope Innocent I and the Gelasian Decree warned Christians not to receive it. I appreciate the dialogue and will continue to research and explore these topics.
I seem to detect that some defenders of these doctrines talk about the beauty of the doctrines without providing the basis and sources of them. The beauty of a teaching doesn’t prove the accuracy of a teaching.
You have not addressed any points that I made. I went to the link you provided on Church Fathers and saw nothing there to change my opinion regarding Mary. Not one source was an apostle or New Testament writer, including the half brothers of Jesus, James & Jude. I do not accept the Ascension of Isaiah or Odes of Solomon as sources to be taken seriously. Every other source given was beyond 150 A.D., well beyond the life spans of any of the apostles or New Testament writers. The idea that Eve was a virgin at the time of her fall to temptation is purely speculation. According to Paul in the letter to the Romans sin and death came through Adam not Eve and death & sin have been overcome by “the one man, Jesus Christ,….” (Romans 5:12-21). Mary has no part in redemption or salvation. Read Acts 4:8-12, particularly verse 12. Mary is to be honored for her role in giving birth to Christ, but there is not one shred of evidence that she didn’t actually go through the normal process of giving birth to Jesus, that she was sinless, that she remained a virgin throughout her life, or that she had anything other than a normal death. The main thing to note is that there is no need for any of those things to be true. Christ alone satisfies what each of us needs for salvation. There is no need to pray to anyone else. Jesus is our Great High priest who allows us to “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” I am not being disrespectful of Mary. God saw her as worthy to bear the Messiah, which makes her worthy to be honored among women. However, that doesn’t make her sinless or someone to pray to. To pray to anyone other than God is wrong. She is the mother of Jesus in His incarnation, she is not the mother of God, as God has no beginning or end. He and He alone is infinite. Jesus is the Word “and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” Read John 17:5 where Jesus speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Jesus pre-existed Mary. Mary was simply a vessel for His incarnation, which was an honor given to her based on her faithfulness, not her sinlessness. I know you are sincere in your beliefs on this matter, but the level of sincerity has nothing to do with the accuracy of one’s beliefs.
I'm not sure we're really able to have a productive conversation in this format, but a few thoughts on this:
-As I said, I didn't address your points very closely because other people have already said this better than me. If you're really interested in seriously investigating Catholic thought on Mary, the place to go is "Jesus and the Biblical Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. I could rehearse some of his arguments but it would be better to cut out the middleman and just go straight to the source.
-What ChurchFathers.org illustrates is that the beliefs Catholics hold today were extremely common or even universal among the earliest Christians. Then, they show that they're consistent through the first several centuries. If you think you understand Christianity better than folks just one or two generations removed from the Apostles, by all means overturn their judgment. But my assumption is that they are right even if I don't personally see why, at least on matters with such universal assent.
-I notice you say that Mary is not the Mother of God. This usefully points out a deep disconnect between your line of thinking and the ancient Church. Surely you know this, but the entire Third Ecumenical Council was called to settle this question, and the definitive answer was, on pains of being Nestorian and excommunicated from the universal, undivided Church, "Yes, Mary is the Mother of God." Why was this so important? Well, part of the answer has to do with the communication of idioms, but part of it is also that the ancient Church understood that Mariology is really about Christology. We care about her because we care about Him. Happy to talk more about the logic here, but if "But God is eternal!" were actually a salient objection, one would have expected it to find purchase among the hundreds of bishops gathered at Ephesus. Something interesting about this controversy is that Nestorius understood himself not as a heretic but as someone simply trying to faithfully interpret the Bible to the best of his abilities. Even the best of us can get into trouble when we try to go it alone.
-You are of course free to bite the bullet and just say everyone was wrong. But then you have to make a choice. Either Mariology matters so much that this is worth schisming over, or it's not. If you opt for the former, you have a Mormon theology of Church history. If you opt for the latter, you've undercut your warrant for Protesting. More here if you're interested: https://www.reformationcatholicism.com/p/argument-from-the-general-apostasy
-Remember that we do not assume Sola Scriptura, so if your argument hinges on more or less saying, "I don't see it in the Bible and what I personally see is all I'm willing to believe," we already have very different frameworks. But again the Brant Pitre book is really the place to go! Willing to ship it to you if you'll read it :)
-You make two very interesting assumptions that Catholics do not make. The first is that if a doctrine is true and must be assented to, then it is theologically necessary. We do not think this. God could have used a sinner instead of Mary; He could have used someone who wasn't ever-virgin. God could have become Incarnate without the Virgin Birth, even! It was a gratuitous act of God's grace that He provided a mother for the Church in Mary. She is a free, unmerited gift to us. The second assumption is that if Mary is sinless, then she doesn't need a savior. But Catholics think A) that Mary's sinlessness is a forward-looking application of Christ's own work, intrinsically united to His death and resurrection, and B) the redemptive work of Christ is MUCH more than being saved from sin. Its primary function is to make it possible for us to be united to God and become "partakers of the Divine Nature." Even if Mary didn't need to be saved from sin (which would not say--we would just say that the Son had ALREADY saved her from sin by his divine omnipotence), she would still need the work of Christ to enter heaven.
You are correct about the Acts 1:14 mention of Mary, but you don’t address that it also mentions His brothers. Matthew 13:55 the crowd in Nazareth said “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is his mother not called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all here with us?” There is no record of Joseph having previously been married or having a minimum of 6 other children, 4 named brothers and unnamed sisters. There is nothing here to support the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It also says that Joseph did not “know” her(Mary) until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. The implication is that Joseph did “know” Mary after that and that she brought forth other children.
-I don’t believe the woman in Revelation 12 is referencing Mary, but Israel. The Child does represent Christ, but the Woman represents the nation of Israel that God used to bring forth the Messiah. Satan tried to exterminate Israel, prior to Mary. Pharaoh tried as did Haman.
-Of course Mary is blessed in many ways, but some of the things you mention do not really set her apart. Mary’s care being entrusted to John simply was an effort to make sure she was taken care of in a society where women were very restricted in their ability to provide for themselves and have property. I don’t see that John stands for all Christians.
-As for receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, if you are assuming that includes all the people at that gathering, there were 120 disciples there, including His brothers.
-When you say she appeared in John’s vision as Satan’s adversary, I assume you are referencing Revelation 12 again and I believe you are incorrect that the Woman is Mary. Also, how do you know she lived with him for decades? What sources do you have for Mary’s life after the Day of Pentecost?
Where does Jesus ever point to Mary being especially set apart from the rest of mankind as sinless. Like Elizabeth & Zacharias, the parents of John the Baptist, Mary seems to have been blameless in walking in the commandments & ordinances of the Lord. That didn’t mean they were sinless, but God favored them to bring forth a son that was the forerunner of the Christ. Mary was highly favored to bring forth the Christ in her womb. That doesn’t mean she was sinless and a perpetual virgin. All generations do call her blessed. Jesus told the rich young ruler there is none good but God. That is saying none is holy but God. Not me, not you, not Mary, not Pope Francis, not Billy Graham, not anyone except for God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Mary called God her savior. If she had no sin why did she need a savior? God is sovereign and He is able to do what man cannot. He brought forth His Son of a virgin by the Holy Spirit with the power of the Highest overshadowing her. I need no further explanation.
If you're willing to seriously engage Catholic thought on this subject, I'm really not the best person out there--what you want is Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary." If finances are a barrier, I am willing to chip in to get this for you if you intend to read it :)
One reason to move beyond a dismissive posture is that the earliest Christians did not express the views you do here. They thought of Mary as the new and better Eve, and even called an ecumenical council to deal with a matter of Mariology. They (including Augustine) thought she committed no sins, and that she could intercede for Christians on earth. You can find all this and more at https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin . But again, the Pitre book is really the place to go!
We get that in our faith a lot too. We believe in becoming more like Christ thru emulating him, we love him therefore we seek to be like him - but in no way can we buy our way to heaven with works. Salvation comes only through Christ.
First, I’m married to a lifelong Catholic, and my sister converted to Catholicism seven years ago. During a difficult period with my current Anglican church I attended a Catholic church with my husband for more than two years. And I’ve attended Catholic Churches in various locations. By no stretch could I be termed anti-Catholic. I have even considered becoming a Catholic, but I’d have to sign on to beliefs about Mary that have no Biblical support. The one that makes no sense at all is her immaculate conception. We know from the Bible that Jesus led a sinless life because He was both fully God and fully human, and that His divinity came from the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary. He had no human father so escaped the sin nature that passes through Adam. But Mary’s parents were both human, which means that she had a sin nature. All indications are that she led an exemplary life, but an exemplary human life, which means that she was subject to sin and needed salvation too.
The works accusation against Catholics I believe to be a misunderstanding of what Catholics actually mean when they use what for Protestants are trigger words, such as merit. I have trouble with the quote about Purgatory you included because it does sound awfully like the process is the source of purification, rather than the blood of Jesus cleansing us from all sin. Perhaps if it were worded to indicate not a process of purification but a time of adjustment for those whose salvation occurred so late in life that they had no opportunity to learn about holy living? Tolkien wrote a novella called “Leaf by Niggle” that contains such an idea. It’s not Biblical but could be a belief worthy of speculation, rather than of doctrine.
My most serious reservation about Catholicism is something I recently learned that disturbs me very much. I believe in the real presence of Jesus in communion, but not in transubstantiation. That belief was proposed by a monk named Radaburt in the 10th century, I believe, and was subsequently adopted as a doctrine of the Church. Various beliefs became attached to this new doctrine: that priests performed this miracle in the mass; that this power gave them special authority; that this change of substance was a sacrifice of Jesus every time it was performed; that performing this miracle in the mass was a meritorious act; and that by it the Church ministered grace to those who received it. The doctrine of transubstantiation gave priests tremendous power over the laity and, in effect, taught the latter to focus on the Mass instead of on the finished work of Jesus Christ. It’s not that the Roman Church teaches wrong doctrine about the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it’s that the added layer of transubstantiation prevents many Catholics from grasping the actual teachings of the Church.
Thank you for these thoughts, Kay! I'll try to respond as best I can.
Remember that for Catholics, the deposit of faith can be found both in Scripture and Tradition. So for example, when the Bible talks about "The Lord's Day" instead of the Sabbath, Catholics know that this is Sunday, even if it's never explicitly said in Scripture, because that is and always has been the day the full liturgy is celebrated. Everything we believe is consonant with Scripture, but not all of it is derived from Scripture. Remember that the Church is older than the Bible, and Paul was planting churches before the New Testament was written. So when it comes to Mary, what Catholics believe does indeed accord with Scripture, but isn't necessarily *derived* from it.
For the Immaculate Conception in particular, consider the unique greeting Gabriel gives Mary: "Hail, Full-of-Grace!" Another translation might be, "You who have been completed in grace." It's hard to see how being totally filled with God's grace is compatible with sin. But more importantly, let's look at your worries. First, the Bible never states that the reason Jesus has no earthly father is to protect Him from Original Sin. It's not an outrageous claim, but it's not attested to by the Bible itself, it's a strain of human reasoning. Second, the omnipotent God is absolutely capable of preserving someone from the stain of Original Sin from their conception onward. Wouldn't it be an arbitrary limit on His power to say otherwise? Third, you don't have to be God to be sinless; Adam and Eve, for example, were created without sin. And although they ultimately chose to compromise with Satan, from the earliest times Christians have seen Mary as the Eve of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is necessarily better than the old one. Whereas the Old Covenant had a virgin without original sin who then compromised with the devil, the new one has a virgin who refused even the faintest trace of sin. You can see this in Chapter 12 of the Letter to Diognetus. Irenaeus also writes about Mary as New Eve. Fourth, Mary is absolutely saved by Christ. Her preservation is a *proactive application of the redemption of Christ.* We only care about Mary because we care about Christ. Fifth, the belief that Mary never sinned is very early and universal. You can read about it here: https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin
In 1 John, the Apostle distinguishes between sins that are "unto death" and sins that are not. The word Purgatory means something like "removing imperfections by fire." The word itself comes from the Greek "puros," "fire," as discussed in 1 Cor 3. We are fundamentally in friendship with Christ, but still struggle with those sins that are not "unto death." In Purgatory, God helps us outgrow them, so that nothing hinders our love for Jesus. It is an encounter with the person of Christ that converts our hearts more fully to Himself. This only works if we're already saved. It is also widely attested by the Fathers: https://www.churchfathers.org/purgatory
I am happy to report that the last paragraph is basically all paper tigers. Catholics have always believed that in the Mass, the bread and the wine are replaced by the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. You can read about this here: https://www.churchfathers.org/the-real-presence . You can also find it in John 6. This is the climax of the Mass. If this belief were invented a thousand years after Christ, it wouldn't be universal among all the ancient Churches. As it is, the Coptic Church, which split from the Catholic Church in 451, believes what we do. It's not a new sacrifice, but a making-present of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. If we are being united to Christ at this most intimate level, it is absolutely a communication of grace, similar to but not identical with the grace that we receive when we read the words of the Gospel. The Second Vatican Council describes the Eucharist as the "Source and summit of the Christian life." Once you remember that Catholics think this is literally Jesus Christ Himself, it makes total sense. Far from being in competition with God, it is actually the most intimate, Christocentric thing available, full stop.
Since you have some Catholics in your life you care for deeply, I cannot recommend enough a pair of books by Brant Pitre: "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary," and "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist." And really, you can't spend enough time on ChurchFathers.org ! It's an absolute treasure trove.
You use a lot of straw men in your criticisms of Protestants. Not all Protestants are the same. Some Protestant denominations are nearly on the verge of total separation from Christianity. However, Catholicism does have teachings that have no basis in scripture such as the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her assumption. Mary was no doubt blessed to be chosen by God to bear the Christ as conceived of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean she never sinned or never bore other children. Joseph was never mentioned in scripture after the birth and childhood of Jesus, It speaks of Mary and his brothers. If she had no other children where did these brothers come from? Supposedly these were stepbrothers from a previous marriage of Joseph, but why were these children not mentioned when they were traveling to Bethlehem for the census or on the trip to Egypt to escape Herod? Jesus, when told that His mother & brothers were outside wanting to speak to Him, said who is my mother? And who are my brothers? What was his answer? That those who do the will of his Father in heaven are his brother, and sister, and mother. Doesn’t seem to be a special emphasis on the woman that bore him. After the death & Resurrection of Christ Mary is not made mention of one time in scripture by name. Doesn’t that seem odd that if she is of such importance to the salvation of man that Peter, John, Paul, James, and Luke never mention such a role? These are just problems around doctrines related to Mary. I would say these doctrines fall into the category of myths & fables that we are warned not to be distracted by.
Hey Steve, thanks for this! The post is really about how Protestants strawman Catholicism, and I can attest to the fact that many, many Protestants think A) Catholicism is works-based (see, for example, the popular evangelical documentary "American Gospel") and that B) Catholics worship Mary (or at least think we verge on it, which is what I take most of your comment to be implying). If there's something more specific I'm strawmanning, I would be grateful to
As a side note, you've forgotten that she was with the disciples in prayer on Pentecost (Acts 1:14), and that a conspicuously Mary-like figure appears at the beginning of Revelation 12, immediately after the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Chapter 11. Interesting, given that Christian tradition has always thought of her as the Ark as she bears Jesus, the presence of God Himself. So all she does is:
-Receive the first announcement of the Gospel
-Get a totally unique title from an angel ("You who have been completed in grace")
-Literally raise Jesus Christ
-Compose the Magnificat, which establishes a clear parallel to Hannah in the OT
-Receive a prophecy that "a sword shall pierce [her] own heart," showing the closeness of her suffering to Christ's
-Initiate Christ's first miracle, which John calls "The first sign by which he made his glory known to his disciples"
-Accompany Him to the Cross
-Receive the Beloved Disciple as her son; in the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple stands for every Christian
-Receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
-Appear in John's vision (who had lived with her for decades) as Satan's adversary
-And of course complete the Eve typology (This is already noted by Irenaeus, and also the Letter to Diognetus in the second century).
We could have a longer conversation, but I don't know that I'm really any better than just looking at the Catholic Answers pages on this. I will say that ChurchFathers.org would be extremely helpful here, as well as noticing that it's actually in an Ecumenical Council (number 5 to be exact) that Mary is Ever-Virgin. This was the universal teaching of the ancient Church.
None of the above make Mary a co-redemptrix with Christ as taught by the Roman church - Pope Benedict XV. Scripture teaches that there is no other name in heaven or earth by which men may be saved. Acts 4:12.
Protestant churches generally do not teach that baptism is a regenerative act. They teach that it is a sign and seal of the covenant God made with man.
Another part of your article talks about prayers made to the saints. Christ taught his disciples how to pray using the framework of the Lords Prayer. Saints are dead people. All believers in Christ for salvation are saints. Paul wrote to the church in Colossae opening his letter by addressing “the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae”. Prayers for the dead are unscriptural.
Hi Daithi,
Unfortunately, there are paper tigers afoot.
When Catholics talk about Mary as the Co-Redemptrix, we do not mean that she deserves some of the credit for Christ's work. Rather, we do not think that creatures and the Creator compete with one another; it can be 100% Christ, His grace, His merit, and His initiative, *and* it can still be true that Mary really did enable Him to come into the world. Remember how St. Paul tells Philemon that Philemon owes him his very self? Paul is talking about saving Philemon's soul. He doesn't feel the need to say, "I did nothing at all here," because he really did preach the Gospel and disciple him! And yet Paul can still say, "Yet not I, but through Christ who lives in me." Both are true. Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Christ is the one Savior, Mediator, and Redeemer of mankind. Would it be helpful if I were to point you to some passages in the Catechism that reflect on this a bit more?
You may have been exposed to a relatively narrow band of Protestantism. That is certainly true for the Baptists and the traditions downstream of them (nondenoms and some charismatics). But Lutherans and the Reformed traditions do think that Baptism is essential to salvation and plays a key role in passing from death to life.
I fear you'll have to take this one up with Christ. Luke 20: "...They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
There's a passage from Pope Benedict XVI that I heard once and have never been able to find again, but it instantly changed my mind on this point. It went something like this: "If the real difference is not between those who are living and those who are dead, but those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ, why should death sever our communion?" Indeed why should it? Indeed, if it helps, it seems the earliest Christians also thought that their fellowship with one another extended beyond the death of the body: https://www.churchfathers.org/intercession-of-the-saints
I firmly believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God. So she is the earthly mother of Jesus. However, since Christ is God and God is eternal, she cannot be the Mother of God. An eternal being has no mother. Mary was unquestionably the vessel that God used to birth God manifested in the flesh. That doesn’t require her to be sinless, a perpetual virgin, or that I believe she was assumed. The Gospel of James, that seems to be the source of stories of Mary’s childhood and of Joseph being chosen as her protector who was old and had children from a previous marriage, is a questionable source at best that was rejected by Pope Innocent I and the Gelasian Decree warned Christians not to receive it. I appreciate the dialogue and will continue to research and explore these topics.
I seem to detect that some defenders of these doctrines talk about the beauty of the doctrines without providing the basis and sources of them. The beauty of a teaching doesn’t prove the accuracy of a teaching.
You have not addressed any points that I made. I went to the link you provided on Church Fathers and saw nothing there to change my opinion regarding Mary. Not one source was an apostle or New Testament writer, including the half brothers of Jesus, James & Jude. I do not accept the Ascension of Isaiah or Odes of Solomon as sources to be taken seriously. Every other source given was beyond 150 A.D., well beyond the life spans of any of the apostles or New Testament writers. The idea that Eve was a virgin at the time of her fall to temptation is purely speculation. According to Paul in the letter to the Romans sin and death came through Adam not Eve and death & sin have been overcome by “the one man, Jesus Christ,….” (Romans 5:12-21). Mary has no part in redemption or salvation. Read Acts 4:8-12, particularly verse 12. Mary is to be honored for her role in giving birth to Christ, but there is not one shred of evidence that she didn’t actually go through the normal process of giving birth to Jesus, that she was sinless, that she remained a virgin throughout her life, or that she had anything other than a normal death. The main thing to note is that there is no need for any of those things to be true. Christ alone satisfies what each of us needs for salvation. There is no need to pray to anyone else. Jesus is our Great High priest who allows us to “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” I am not being disrespectful of Mary. God saw her as worthy to bear the Messiah, which makes her worthy to be honored among women. However, that doesn’t make her sinless or someone to pray to. To pray to anyone other than God is wrong. She is the mother of Jesus in His incarnation, she is not the mother of God, as God has no beginning or end. He and He alone is infinite. Jesus is the Word “and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” Read John 17:5 where Jesus speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Jesus pre-existed Mary. Mary was simply a vessel for His incarnation, which was an honor given to her based on her faithfulness, not her sinlessness. I know you are sincere in your beliefs on this matter, but the level of sincerity has nothing to do with the accuracy of one’s beliefs.
I'm not sure we're really able to have a productive conversation in this format, but a few thoughts on this:
-As I said, I didn't address your points very closely because other people have already said this better than me. If you're really interested in seriously investigating Catholic thought on Mary, the place to go is "Jesus and the Biblical Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. I could rehearse some of his arguments but it would be better to cut out the middleman and just go straight to the source.
-What ChurchFathers.org illustrates is that the beliefs Catholics hold today were extremely common or even universal among the earliest Christians. Then, they show that they're consistent through the first several centuries. If you think you understand Christianity better than folks just one or two generations removed from the Apostles, by all means overturn their judgment. But my assumption is that they are right even if I don't personally see why, at least on matters with such universal assent.
-I notice you say that Mary is not the Mother of God. This usefully points out a deep disconnect between your line of thinking and the ancient Church. Surely you know this, but the entire Third Ecumenical Council was called to settle this question, and the definitive answer was, on pains of being Nestorian and excommunicated from the universal, undivided Church, "Yes, Mary is the Mother of God." Why was this so important? Well, part of the answer has to do with the communication of idioms, but part of it is also that the ancient Church understood that Mariology is really about Christology. We care about her because we care about Him. Happy to talk more about the logic here, but if "But God is eternal!" were actually a salient objection, one would have expected it to find purchase among the hundreds of bishops gathered at Ephesus. Something interesting about this controversy is that Nestorius understood himself not as a heretic but as someone simply trying to faithfully interpret the Bible to the best of his abilities. Even the best of us can get into trouble when we try to go it alone.
-You are of course free to bite the bullet and just say everyone was wrong. But then you have to make a choice. Either Mariology matters so much that this is worth schisming over, or it's not. If you opt for the former, you have a Mormon theology of Church history. If you opt for the latter, you've undercut your warrant for Protesting. More here if you're interested: https://www.reformationcatholicism.com/p/argument-from-the-general-apostasy
-Remember that we do not assume Sola Scriptura, so if your argument hinges on more or less saying, "I don't see it in the Bible and what I personally see is all I'm willing to believe," we already have very different frameworks. But again the Brant Pitre book is really the place to go! Willing to ship it to you if you'll read it :)
-You make two very interesting assumptions that Catholics do not make. The first is that if a doctrine is true and must be assented to, then it is theologically necessary. We do not think this. God could have used a sinner instead of Mary; He could have used someone who wasn't ever-virgin. God could have become Incarnate without the Virgin Birth, even! It was a gratuitous act of God's grace that He provided a mother for the Church in Mary. She is a free, unmerited gift to us. The second assumption is that if Mary is sinless, then she doesn't need a savior. But Catholics think A) that Mary's sinlessness is a forward-looking application of Christ's own work, intrinsically united to His death and resurrection, and B) the redemptive work of Christ is MUCH more than being saved from sin. Its primary function is to make it possible for us to be united to God and become "partakers of the Divine Nature." Even if Mary didn't need to be saved from sin (which would not say--we would just say that the Son had ALREADY saved her from sin by his divine omnipotence), she would still need the work of Christ to enter heaven.
You are correct about the Acts 1:14 mention of Mary, but you don’t address that it also mentions His brothers. Matthew 13:55 the crowd in Nazareth said “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is his mother not called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all here with us?” There is no record of Joseph having previously been married or having a minimum of 6 other children, 4 named brothers and unnamed sisters. There is nothing here to support the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. It also says that Joseph did not “know” her(Mary) until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. The implication is that Joseph did “know” Mary after that and that she brought forth other children.
-I don’t believe the woman in Revelation 12 is referencing Mary, but Israel. The Child does represent Christ, but the Woman represents the nation of Israel that God used to bring forth the Messiah. Satan tried to exterminate Israel, prior to Mary. Pharaoh tried as did Haman.
-Of course Mary is blessed in many ways, but some of the things you mention do not really set her apart. Mary’s care being entrusted to John simply was an effort to make sure she was taken care of in a society where women were very restricted in their ability to provide for themselves and have property. I don’t see that John stands for all Christians.
-As for receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, if you are assuming that includes all the people at that gathering, there were 120 disciples there, including His brothers.
-When you say she appeared in John’s vision as Satan’s adversary, I assume you are referencing Revelation 12 again and I believe you are incorrect that the Woman is Mary. Also, how do you know she lived with him for decades? What sources do you have for Mary’s life after the Day of Pentecost?
Where does Jesus ever point to Mary being especially set apart from the rest of mankind as sinless. Like Elizabeth & Zacharias, the parents of John the Baptist, Mary seems to have been blameless in walking in the commandments & ordinances of the Lord. That didn’t mean they were sinless, but God favored them to bring forth a son that was the forerunner of the Christ. Mary was highly favored to bring forth the Christ in her womb. That doesn’t mean she was sinless and a perpetual virgin. All generations do call her blessed. Jesus told the rich young ruler there is none good but God. That is saying none is holy but God. Not me, not you, not Mary, not Pope Francis, not Billy Graham, not anyone except for God. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Mary called God her savior. If she had no sin why did she need a savior? God is sovereign and He is able to do what man cannot. He brought forth His Son of a virgin by the Holy Spirit with the power of the Highest overshadowing her. I need no further explanation.
If you're willing to seriously engage Catholic thought on this subject, I'm really not the best person out there--what you want is Brant Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary." If finances are a barrier, I am willing to chip in to get this for you if you intend to read it :)
One reason to move beyond a dismissive posture is that the earliest Christians did not express the views you do here. They thought of Mary as the new and better Eve, and even called an ecumenical council to deal with a matter of Mariology. They (including Augustine) thought she committed no sins, and that she could intercede for Christians on earth. You can find all this and more at https://www.churchfathers.org/mary-without-sin . But again, the Pitre book is really the place to go!