Religious Leaders Agree on Role of Mary

Associated Press (via The Guardian) ^ | 5/17/05 | Gene Johnson

[marshmallow]

SEATTLE (AP) - A group of Roman Catholic and Anglican leaders studying the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, said Monday that after years of talks they have agreed that Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into heaven are consistent with Anglican interpretations of the Bible.

The two sides issued a joint document, ``Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ,'' which will now be examined by the Vatican and the Anglican Communion.

If the terms of the new accord are eventually accepted by top church officials - by no means a certainty - it would overcome one of the major doctrinal disagreements dividing the world's 77 million Anglicans and more than 1 billion Roman Catholics.

Historically, the Anglican Communion has opposed the papal teachings because there is no direct account of them in the Bible.

Immaculate Conception refers to the mandatory Catholic dogma, pronounced in 1854, that Mary was born free of ``original sin.'' The Assumption refers to the belief required since 1950 that Mary was directly received, body and soul, into heaven at the end of her life. Anglicans have neither teaching.

Both Catholicism and Anglicanism officially agree, however, on the virginal conception, meaning that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Anglican Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, Australia, co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, said the Catholic dogmas concerning Mary are ``consonant'' with biblical teachings about hope and grace.

The remaining question between the faiths is the authority on which those dogmas are based, he said - a question to be tackled in future discussions.

``For Anglicans, that old complaint that these dogmas were not provable by scripture will disappear,'' Carnley said during a news conference with Seattle's Catholic Archbishop, Alexander Brunett.

The commission spent five years developing the 81-page booklet, in a process sponsored by the Anglican Consultative Council and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

The document's release was also significant because it follows tensions between Catholicism and Anglicanism over actions by the Episcopal Church, the Anglicans' U.S. branch.

Presiding Episcopal Bishop Frank Griswold, who for a time chaired the commission studying Mary, resigned from the panel after he oversaw the consecration of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. As recently as last month, the Vatican said Robinson's consecration and same-sex blessings by Canadian Anglicans ``created new obstacles'' for relations between the churches.

Though Griswold did not attend the news conference, he was in town Monday to have lunch and attend vespers with Brunett and Carnley.

Bob Chapman, a reporter for the independent Episcopal weekly The Living Church, said there is a long Anglican tradition of honoring Mary - there is even a shrine to her in Walsingham, England - but the degree of devotion varies greatly within the faith.

``I can name a couple of parishes here in Seattle that have better Marian devotion than some Roman Catholic parishes,'' he said, but to other Anglicans, the notion of honoring her is ``anathema.''

The accord announced Monday is aimed at bridging those extremes, he said.

``There are churches that look with suspicion on people who do these things, and yet we all live together under the same umbrella,'' Chapman said.

[LiteKeeper]

You have got to be kidding?

[winstonchurchill]

Hell, we wrote the New Testament, compiled it, codified it, and canonized it. You Protestants just took it and tore 7 books right out of it. Thankfully someone stopped Martin Luther before he tore Revelations and some of the Epistles out too.

I know Biblical literacy is not highly valued within the RCC, but the last book of the Bible is named "Revelation" (singular), not "Revelations" (plural). Sorry about that.

Your claim that the RCC "wrote the New Testament" is amusing. Is no arrogance too much? Did the RCC, like the Soviet Union of old, also invent the telephone and the telegraph? Since Al Gore is gone from the national stage, you could probably also claim that the RCC invented the Internet. That would fool the masses, wouldn't it?

Now a few facts.

Even under the RCC's view, the apocryphal books were never in the NT (the RCC puts them in the OT. The reason that when the Council of Trent added them -- 29 years AFTER the Reformation had begun -- they called them "deuterocanonicals" is because they were never part of the Jewish OT. [BTW, the RCC's Council of Trent also uncritically picked up (and made mandatory on RCC adherents) three of the least manuscript-supported portions of the NT (including the disputed ending of Mark and the pericope of John). As ever, they were politicians, not scholars.]

Because Jerome translated his Bible from the intervening Greek translation of the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew manuscripts, he inadvertently picked up the deuteros which the Septuagint translation had included. [Although Jesus and the NT writers occasionally quoted from the Septuagint and quoted from the Hebrew version of most of the OT books, neither Jesus nor the writers ever quoted from any of the deuteros.] When, as a result of the Reformation, the RCC found itself scurrying to try to defend its accretionist doctrines for the first time in the marketplace of ideas (with millions of people reading the Bible for the first time as a result of Luther), the deuteros became important in trying to provide a basis for accretionist concepts like 'purgatory.'

So, even though the apocryphal books were not in the Hebrew canon, the Council of Trent added them to the RCC Bible for defensive reasons. In sum, Luther didn't 'rip them out' of the OT, he merely refused to follow the later RCC decision to add them. Just another evidence of RCC accretionism.

[winstonchurchill]

So Jesus died for theological anarchy? Jesus also prayed so that all may be one. It certainly isn't one. And belonging to an organization is not some trivial matter that's so easily overlooked. There are some serious differences between the [Protestant denominations]. I'm talking canon of the Bible, the nature of Christ or whether there is even a Trinity, salvation, the [Lord's Supper], free will vs. pre-destination.

Yes, belonging to an human organization is a trivial matter. The Bible says "...He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." It doesn't say "...so that everyone who belongs to the Mormon Church or the RCC will not perish ...." Only our individual relationship to Christ matters. [Even the RCC purports, at some level, to believe that, I think.]

Yes, there are important differences among the Protestant denominations. The topics you mention (with the exception of the canon) are among them. [I know of no dispute among Protestant denominations on the canon.] But what better way to keep the interpretation of the Bible free of error than to maintain the free marketplace of ideas? Certainly that is better than a lot of political decisions by corrupt 'popes.' Centralized decision-making is always dangerous.

For example, did you ever wonder why Michaelangelo's ceiling in the Sistine Chapel contains so many depictions of pagan oracles indiscriminately interspersed among the Biblical figures? It is because the then-pope, Julius II, in addition to fathering several little bastards out-of-wedlock and repeatedly cheating Michaelangelo on his contract for the ceiling, was a big believer in pagan divination. Follow the money. He was a real scumbag. So much for 'papal infallibility.'

Jesus called us to follow Him and honor His teachings and His Father's Commandments. He didn't say 'believe whatever you want; it doesn't matter.'

Here you are right. That's why we must follow the Bible and not the man-made inventions of the accretionist organizations. That is why the invention of doctrines such as the 1950 invention by the RCC of the 'bodily assumption' of Mary without even a pretense of Biblical authority is so very, very dangerous. The RCC is simply making it up as it goes along -- and misleading millions as it goes.

[mike182d]

The holy Spirit guides the elect of God not churches.

Do you have Scripture to back up the belief that the Holy Spirit only guides the elect of God or is this your own personal accretion?

[mike182d]

Their can be no doubt that Peter taught the supremacy

The supremacy of which Sciptures? At the time those letters were written, there were about 40 gospels floating around the community. It was the Catholic Church, several hundred years later, that authoritatively deemed what we have now as the "official" New Testament canon.

If you're going to be technical, the only true Scriptures officially recognized by the very early Church was the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. whenever Jesus says "so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled," He's not talking about the Bible but the Torah). So, if you want to be "Scripture-only" you might as well disregard the whole of the New Testament and refer only to the true Scriptures, as recognized by the first Christians.

Do Protestants honestly believe that the Bible we have always existed in the form it does today? I suggest reading some history books.

I am sure you read that some where or heard it said but that is not consistant with the entire passage.

I am sure you have read this somewhere that the Bible is the supreme authority, but this exalted "truth" of sola scriptura is not consistent with Christian theology for 1000+ years.

Here's a quote from Irenaeus dated 189 A.D.:
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:4:1).

Or Origin, dated 225 A.D.:
"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).

And this is a good one from Epiphanius of Salamis, dated 375 A.D.:
"It is needful also 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" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6).

And some from my favorite Saint, Augustine:
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Now, do you mean to tell me that you understand more about Christian theology and the importance of Apostolic authority than the whole of the Christian Church for over 1000 years? Does your opinion trump theirs?

[conservonator]

The holy Spirit guides the elect of God not churches.

You're partially right, since Christ only established one Church, He does not guide church(es)but only the one He established.

[theFIRMbss]

>That was pretty slick how you swapped out the word "worship" and slipped in "pray to". If it wasn't dishonest I'd admire the tactic.

Not as slick as you changing a discussion of theology to an attack on my character. But, yes, I'd use the phrases "pray to" and "worship" as if they were synonyms in this context. After all, when the Apostles explicitly asked Jesus how to pray, He said to start with the words, "Our Father . . ." Who we pray to is who we worship.

[Blessed]

>Now, do you mean to tell me that you understand more about Christian theology and the importance of Apostolic authority than the whole of the Christian Church for over 1000 years? Does your opinion trump theirs?<

What I pointed out was you had misinterpreted the passage in Peter.

> What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:4:1).<

This seems to be exactly what Peter is worried about in II Peter.He was concerned that men would "devise cunning fables" that would pervert the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.This is why Peter (your first Pope)kept pointing us to authentic "Holy Spirit inspired" teaching through scripture.

>"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).<

Thank you for this quote it reinforces what I have been saying.The Truth which is scripture has been handed down through the Church to prevent heresy.The author then says tradition is not at odds with this truth.Obviously this means tradition must be measured against scripture not the reverse.Just what Peter said in II Peter.

[mike182d]

Apparently, the first Christians did not see it this way:

Cyprian of Carthage
"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Origen
"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Methodius
"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian
"You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us so that we may love him" (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

John Chrysostom
"He that wears the purple [i.e., a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tentmaker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead" (Homilies on Second Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

"When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]" (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

Ambrose of Milan
"May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ’s benign countenance" (The Six Days Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

Augustine
"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

Apparently the early Christians never saw a problem with this, but then again what do they know about being "true" Christians? I'm sure that men existing 2000 years after the death of Christ are much more knowledgeable of what Christ truly intended.

[theFIRMbss]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Luke 23:42-43
------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this thief could have
shouted down to Mary and
asked her to mention

his thought to Jesus,
instead he just asked Jesus.
Is Jesus farther

away from us than
He was from the dying thief?
We can talk to Him.

[Blessed]

>You're partially right, since Christ only established one Church, He does not guide church(es)but only the one He established.<

How does Christ Guide a Church?

How can we tell if a Church is guided by Christ?

[mike182d]

Obviously this means tradition must be measured against scripture not the reverse.Just what Peter said in II Peter.

Let's look at the quote you are referring to, and I will place emphasis on the parts you seem to be intentionally avoiding:

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).

Could you point out where "Scripture" in mentioned once in that quote? It should be quite obvious that the early Church placed a greater emphasis on the authority of the teachers than on any specific written letter. It is also important to note that at this point in the Church's history, not a single Christian considered these writings "Scriptures" and never referred to them as such. They are merely called "writings." Whenever they do say the word "scripture" it is in reference to the Old Testament as the New Testament had not been canonized as a holy text yet.

And this is exactly what Peter is talking about in the following passage:

"2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Here he says scripture (word of prophecy) is more sure than a voice from heaven.He then continues to endorse the importance of scripture in the verses you contested.

Excuse me, but where on earth do you see the word "scriptures?" The "word" he is referring to is the spoken word, the oral Tradition that is currently being passed on by those with the authority to pass it on as the New Testament did not yet exist.

It baffles me how people who claim to believe only what is written in the Bible insert assumptions contained nowhere therein.

[mike182d]

How can we tell if a Church is guided by Christ?

If it is founded upon Kepha, the kepha upon which Christ built His Church so that the netherworld may not prevail against it.

[mike182d]

Well, this thief could have shouted down to Mary and asked her to mention his thought to Jesus, instead he just asked Jesus. Is Jesus farther away from us than He was from the dying thief? We can talk to Him.

Hey, like I said, if you have a problem with it, take it with the first several hundred years of Christians, not me. I'm not making this stuff up, but following in line with those closest to Christ and the successors of the Apostles.

[conservonator]

How does Christ Guide a Church?

Through the Holy Spirit

How can we tell if a Church is guided by Christ?

Believe in Christs promise that the gates of hell would not prevail and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Also, look at the dogma and doctrines of the faith: all are perfect and lead to Christ.

[Blessed]

>Through the Holy Spirit<

How does the Holy Spirit Guide the Church?

[conservonator]

How does the Holy Spirit Guide the Church?

How does God affect anything or anyone? Grace. Moved by His grace, the pope and bishops teach the truth, protect it from error and help us understand revelation.

[Blessed]

>Excuse me, but where on earth do you see the word "scriptures?" The "word" he is referring to is the spoken word, the oral Tradition that is currently being passed on by those with the authority to pass it on as the New Testament did not yet exist.<

He is refering in this instance to the Old Testament.If the Holy Spirit moved Peter to write this about the Scripture of the Old Testament why would the New Testament not be equally inspired and held with the same reverance?

If you read the next verse it is obvious "word of prophecy" is scripture because he says it in this verse.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

It is clear from scripture that Peter and the Apostles were very concerned about apostasy and relied on Scripture to prevent heresy from "oral traditions" from infecting the church.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[Blessed]

>How does God affect anything or anyone? Grace. Moved by His grace, the pope and bishops teach the truth, protect it from error and help us understand revelation.<

After all this you see the light.The Holy Spirit guides people not Churches.A church is only guided by the Holy Spirit as it reflects the Holy Spirit inspired Grace of the Christians in the body.

[mike182d]

The Holy Spirit guides people not Churches.

Christ's bride, the Church, is not seperate from the people. They are one in the same. You are attempting to perpetuate a false dichotomy.