A Protestant Discovers Mary

NC Register ^ | March 13, 2010

[NYer]

Romano Guardini wrote in his book on the Rosary, “To linger in the domain of Mary is a divinely great thing. One does not ask about the utility of truly noble things, because they have their meaning within themselves. So it is of infinite meaning to draw a deep breath of this purity, to be secure in the peace of this union with God.”

Guardini was speaking of spending time with Mary in praying the Rosary, but David Mills, in his latest book, Discovering Mary, helps us linger in the domain of Mary by opening up to us the riches of divine revelation, both from tradition and Scripture. Mills, a convert from the Episcopal Church, former editor of the Christian journal Touchstone and editor of the 1998 book of essays commemorating the centennial of C.S. Lewis’ birth The Pilgrim’s Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness, as well as the author of Knowing the Real Jesus (2001), has written a rock-solid introduction to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and done so with intellectual rigor and an affable tone.

His book begins with an introduction in which he describes how he came to discover the riches of the Church’s teachings on Mary: “I began to see how a sacred vessel is made holy by the sacred thing it carries,” he writes. “I began to feel this in a way I had not before. I found myself developing an experiential understanding of Mary and indeed a Marian devotion. Which surprised me. It surprised me a lot.”

Unfortunately, he notes, he did not learn about Mary from contemporary Catholics, nor in homilies, “even on Marian feast days.” It seems he learned on his own by reading magisterial documents and going back to Scriptures in light of those documents.

This book shares the fruit of that study. Mills examines the life of Mary, Mary in the Bible, Mary in Catholic doctrine, Marian feast days and the names of Mary. He includes an appendix full of references to papal documents and books on Mary.

Most of the book is done in a question-and-answer format, which usually works well, although at times it feels awkward. Would someone really ask, for instance, “What is happening in the liturgy on the Marian feast days?”

But most of the questions are natural. “What is the point of Marian devotion?” Mills asks. It is “to live the Catholic life as well as we can,” he answers. “This means going ever more deeply into the mystery of Christ, to become saintlier, more conformed to his image, by following Mary’s example and by turning to her for help and comfort.”

Next question: “Does devotion to Mary detract from our devotion to Christ?”

“Christians since the beginning of serious Marian devotion have been careful to emphasize Mary’s subordination to her son,” Mills replies. “In fact, they have said it so often that the reader begins to expect it. In the fifth century St. Ambrose put it nicely: ‘Mary was the temple of God, not the god of the temple.’”

David Mills, with the same radical clarity he showed in Knowing the Real Jesus, has written what has to be one of the best, if not the very best, short introductions to Catholic teaching on Mary, the Mother of God. Discovering Mary is ideal for those wanting to know more about her, whether they be skeptics, Protestants, or Catholics who don’t know the Mother of the Church well enough.

Franklin Freeman writes from Saco, Maine.

DISCOVERING MARY

Answers to Questions About the Mother of God

By David Mills

Servant Books, 2009

148 pages, $12.99

To order: servantbooks.org

[Running On Empty]

Thank you.

[Ken4TA]

2. Incidently about the dogma of IC -- I was reading up about this and I see references to this dating back to the apocryphal Gospels in the 1st century that recount the grace of the meeting of her parents Joachim and Anne and also in the epistles of Ireneus from 170 AD and in the writings of Ephream and St. Ambrose and explicitly in St. Augustine stating her to be free from original sin. From this narrative is derived the feast of Anne's conception of Mary in Byzantine liturgy, celebrated since the eighth century on December 9th

This feast was introduced in the West around the 10th century, and it celebrates explicitly the Conception of Mary without original sin. The feast was extended to the universal calendar by Sixtus IV in 1476 with a very beautiful formulation, but sadly reduced to a simple memorial of the "Conception of Mary" in the Missal of 1570. Duns Scotus gives the theological key to understand the mystery of how she was saved through the grace of God, through her savior, her son, in a special way, filled with grace.

I find your 2 statements to be an admission that DOGMA is the "Traditions of Men" that were condemned by Jesus concerning the Pharisees - no real difference exhibited!

The IC is especially to be condemned because it is taking what is spoken of Jesus as refering to Mary - Jesus was Immaculately Conceived, free from sin at birth and free from sin during his earthly life. There is absolutely no evidence of Mary being immaculately conceived anywhere, except in the "Traditions of men".

Your Church's explanation of "Dogma" needs a good and thorough overhaul to be considered by any thinking individual.

[betty boop]

I'd say you are corrrect on the first part but no on the second...

If you condemn the first part — the vine to something like 60 million Catholics in the United States alone, who would be the branches; then by logic how good can any of those branches be? Let alone the quality of the fruit they bear?

How do you spare the latter, if you condemn the former?

[Running On Empty]

Again, thank you. You analogy is both brief (thank you) and insightful.

You have expressed concisely in only 50+ words exactly what I have been thinking for some time, as I have watched the “wholesale” (favorite word of one poster) condemnation of the Catholic faith and then not wanting it to be perceived as a personal attack that affects the individual. At which point, I have observed, that any response from individuals is disingenuously labeled as “whining” or obfuscation.

In line with your post, I understand a recent post made by tax-chick:

“Every plural-pronoun group is made up of individuals about whose belief we can legitimately claim to know very little”

[Tax-chick]

That was a good post by betty_boop.

Mine was not quite as articulate ;-), but was an attempt to convey the fallacious of the dichotomy of “you Catholics” vs. “we non-Catholics,” or vice-versa, when it is erroneous to attribute homogeneous beliefs to either set, and overreaching to claim knowledge of the specific beliefs of any individual member.

I guess that was garbled, too. Oh, dear, a strange cat is here to taunt my petz.

[Quix]

I have not directly ever observed any purportedly Christian organization

to have been even 98% or more evil

or

even 98% or more purely holy.

As I’ve noted before . . .

satan uses the bad in all of us as individuals

and

the bad collected together into organizations

against us as individuals; as groups and as part of the Body of Christ.

He’s very good at that.
He’s very good at hiding that.
He’s very good at white-washing that.
he’s very good at getting that to be seen by parts of organizations and individuals as wonderful and sometimes, even holy—witness the pharisees 2000 years ago.

[Quix]

JUSTIFYING THE EVIL BECAUSE OF THE GOOD

IS A FOOL’S ERRAND.

[trisham]

I love the photo of Frank with the sockmonkey. Mr. trisham gave me a sockmonkey yesterday because I love the Kia commercial. :)

[betty boop]

... but was an attempt to convey the fallacious of the dichotomy of “you Catholics” vs. “we non-Catholics,” or vice-versa, when [1] it is erroneous to attribute homogeneous beliefs to either set, and [2] overreaching to claim knowledge of the specific beliefs of any individual member.

You nail two fallacies here, Tax-chick!!! {They would be [1] and [2] above.} And hardly in a "garbled" fashion!

I can't generalize about "strange cat" phenomena, beyond noting that, in my experience, they can be interesting. :^)

A delight to hear from you. (BTW, I 'm thoroughly enjoying the Sowell you recommended!)

[betty boop]

“Every plural-pronoun group is made up of individuals about whose belief we can legitimately claim to know very little.”

We should make a BILLBOARD of Tax-chick's seminal insight here!!! And post it on every highway and byway between now and Kingdom come!

Just my humble opinion, for what it's worth.

[Running On Empty]

When a fool justifies evil, his foolishness will be known.

To accuse anyone of justifying evil without good cause or proof is also a fool’s errand—and can also play into the deceiver’s hands.

[Quix]

I made a generic observation about a truth.

I suspect you knew that.

[Running On Empty]

I didn’t see how the post pertained to the subject at hand with any specificity; for that reason, I don’t see its purpose.

So, yes—now that you point it out, it appears generic.

[PatriotGirl827]

bump

[Quix]

AGREED.

However, there is merit in writing and speaking in ways such that folks . . . as Scripture says . . .

‘examine themselves . . .’

Even if someone comes at me unwarrantedly with a chain saw or a meat axe, I try and examine myself . . . to learn what, if anything, God would have me learn from the incident.

[Quix]

A number of folks are known to persistently misconstrue my purposes.

[xone]

The blessing is of God, yes, but we can choose to accept or reject it

Unless the thief was predestined as it appears he was.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

Even if someone comes at me unwarrantedly with a chain saw or a meat axe, I try and examine myself . . . to learn what, if anything, God would have me learn from the incident.

Well it's nice to know you have such ample time for reflection and self-examination, when you are directly faced with the impending chain saw or meat axe....

Anyhoot, time for bed, dear brother in Christ. Good night — and God's blessings be with you!

[Cronos]

I find your 2 statements to be an admission that DOGMA is the "Traditions of Men" that were condemned by Jesus concerning the Pharisees

Well, that's a flawed individual interpretation (sola interpretura).

If you read up you'll find works like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas which predate much of what was written in the NT. These are not the traditions of men, but the traditions of God -- remember that Christ spent 40 days teaching his apostles and the vast bulk of them did not write books (Paul came later) but taught verbally.

If you read Irenaeus who was a witness to apostolic teaching, he writes

Having founded and built the Church, the blessed apostles entrusted teh episcopal office to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in the Epistles to Timothy; Linus was succeeded by Anecletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, the bishopric fell to Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had their preaching tinging in his ears and their authentic tradition before his eyes. And he was not the only one; there were still manypeple alive who had been taught by the apostles... in the same order and the same succession the authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church and the preaching of the truth have been handed on to us

--> we are the people of Christ, of the traditions of Christ as spread by His apostles

The early Church appealed to the tradition and apostolic succession as her basis for truth and her weapon against the heretics like the Gnostics and Marcionites. This was the universal teaching of The Church. Even if you do not accept apostolic tradtion, it is a fact that Irenaeus and the early Church used successioni and tradition as their authoirty. They firmly believed that the apostolic teaching woudl be sustained through the apostolic succession in the Churches

Did the New Testament give birht to the Church or did The Church (Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, Catholic) give birth tothe New Testament? (the NT were produced by The Church (the community of believers) yet the Church was subject to them, like Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Living Word yet was subject to Him).

The NT is the child of The Church -- the primary author IS the Holy Spirit -- God is the author. The writers were a part of the Church and the Church had the authority to recognise the inspired books and the authority to close the canon. Without the authority of The Church, how does a Protestant know which books belong in the New Testament? Reformed theologian R.C> Sproul says in Essential truths of the Christian faith that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallibile books"

If Christ wanted us to have an infallible colleciton of writings, he needed to do one of two things:
1. Give us an authoritative list of writings, dictated by an apostle that would form the canon to provide certainty, so there would be no confusion OR
2. Establish an infallible community, a Church that could give us a list of infallible writings so we could be certain.

The did not do the first, and the Protestant denies the second.

The NT is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followers. It is not however, the sum total of all their teachigns and traditions -- for example Paul's First letter to the Corinthians is actually the second letter. 1 Cor 5:9 informs us that Paul had sent an epistle earlier. Also Jude 17-18 where Jude writes "But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: they said to you, 'In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.'" These are not recorded in the writings of the NT but were part of the tradition passed on by the apostles that Jude assumed all believers know. Jude assumed his readers had an intimate knowledge of the words contained in the unwritten tradition. And what of the teachings of Philip, Bartholomew, Andrew, Thomas etc.?

Jesus promised us an authoritative Church (Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15:20). The fullness of Christ's teachings through His apotles -- written and unwritten was not contained in the Bible alone but was deposited in The Church. As John Hardon S.J. wrotein his book "pocket Catholic Dictionary":

Traidiotn first means all of divine revelation , from the dawn of human history to the end of hte apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by The Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God's revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture".

he also writes in his commentary on the Catechism

Catholicism believes that the whole content of God's revealed word is not limited to the biblical page BUT it also sees that the Bible and tradition are intimately related, in fact are interdependent.. the two may not be separated... Moreover, both have been left with The Church and IN The Church as a sacred deposit"

Jesus's word was spoken orally to the twelve just as in the Old Covenant oral tradition was established side-by-side with the Torah -- Matthew 23:1-2 "Then said Jesus to the crowd and to his disciples: 'the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice'"

Jesus recognised the Jewish tradition as biding upon the people of Israel.

Jesus promised that when the Holy SPirit came, he would teach them all things and bring to their REMEMBRANCE "all that I said to you" (Jn 14:26)

You may quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 and you will find that St. Paul uses the same language in Eph 4:11-14 informing his readers that the equipping and perfecting of saints is accomplished through the leaders of the Church.

Acts 1:2-3

Until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit tothe apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God"

The Early Church depended upon the apostolic Tradition. If you read Eusebius The History of the CHurch from Christ to Constantine which he wrote in 325, he repeatedly talks about "apostolic succession", "apostolic tradition", "practice of the Church"

If you read even more ancient writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries you will see the same echoed -- the apostolic Church was the orthodox-catholic Church.

2 Tim 3:15 "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in teh household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Paul referred to the Church (the community of believers holding to apostolic teachings and tradition), not the Bible as the pillar and foundation of The Truth

We read in Jude 3 "contend earnestly for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints" -- and you read from the 2nd century Irenaeus confirming that (Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the Apostle John)

This preaching and this faith the Church, although scattered over the whole world, diligently observes, as if it occupied but one house, and believes as if it had but one mind, and preaches and teaches as if it had but one mouth. And although there are many dialects in the world, the meaning of the tradition is one and the same." from Against heresies
"When therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among other the truth which is easily obtained from The Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, depostied with her (The Church) most copiously everythign which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life"

And you carp agains the 1st and 2nd century Church apostolic teachings? Do you honestly believe that you or someone in the 1500s knew better than someone who was just a generation from the apostles? Or someone who heard the apostles?

The Church was viewed as the bank into which Christ and the apostles deposited the fullness of the faith.

Why did the holy Spirit wait for almost four centuries before finally collecting and forming the apostolic writings into a collection called the New Testament? Why didn't the apostles colelct all the inspired writings and authoritatively announce that this was now the "sole rule of faith for your individual interpretations"? They did not because the truth was not to be deposited into a book, as the protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura teaches, but the truth, the fullness of the faith, was deposited in The Church -- to the saints once and for all

St. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistleof ours"

St. Augustine (354-430) "I believe this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successorts, but which , because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves"

Clement of Alexandria ( a successor to the Apostles) said of Mark's gospel "When at Rome, Peter, had openly preached the word and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it. When Peter heard about this, he made no objection and gave no special encouragement" (from Eusebius' history of the church

The New Testament documents especially by Paul were sent to correct a problem, remind the readers of the oral tradition, or to supplement the preachign of the gospel.

And I'll quote Eusebius once more who wrote "Thus they proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven through the whole world, giving very little thought to the business of writing books"

The term "canon" was being used for the oral tradition and confessions of faith long before it was used to describe the list of accepted books. In fact, this canon, or tradition was an important criterion for determining which books would eventually become part of the New Testament -- if you deny Tradition, then you deny that criterion and you are left with no leg to stand on for determining the inspiration or canonicity of the Bible in your hands

The first century Christian would have been without the New Testament, but he woudl not have been without the apostolic tradition, preserved by the Church and passed on to the next generation: even without the final collection and ready availability of the NT as we know it, the early Church existed and thrived by means of the apostolic Tradition preserved within the Church

Fundamentalists says that the Bible alone, nothing but hte Bible is the standard and rule of Christianity. And yet we see that from numerous sources that this is a revisionist view of hte first centuries. Early Christianity had no compiled New Testament until 393 and Could never have made that statement.

Sola scriptura had never been taught by the apostles, the fathers or The Church. It is never taught in scripture either!

The Reformation principle of each man with a Bible and his own interpretation led MARTIN LUTHER to write

There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejectsthe Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams

And again I quote Ireneus from Against Heresies who wrote in 180 AD, 200 years before the NT was collected formally and it's canon determined

as I have already observed, tha Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For althought the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet hte import of the tradition are one and the same. For the churches in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those int eh EAst, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions (Israel) of the world"

The Holy SPirit authored and collected the bible but he used men , the Church to write it and to collect it and to close canon.

The Dogma is the tradition of God as through His Apostles, these are not the traditions of men like sola fide, sola scriptura, rapture, etc.

Even your assertion against Mary is incorrect when you consider the term the angel used for mary -- full of grace. The greek word signifies FILLED with grace, overflowing with the grace of God. God created this woman and filled her with grace so that God Himself could be born inside Her. As we know with the Ark, only the purified, holy priests could even touch it -- what more for someone holding God? Mary, the God bearer, Theotokos.