For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Jennie, I'm going jump straight out of that thread into this one, so I apologise to your regular readers if they find this confusing! =)
I take it that your two main issues are that:
1) Mary's role has been blown completely out of proportion; and
2) you don't think anyone in Heaven (but God, of course) can hear prayers.
Am I right?
I don't think I could ever help you out with #1, but I'm curious about how you arrived at #2. I've heard other Protestants say of a loved one, "She is still watching over us" or "She is still here with us"--and that sounds very much like the Communion of Saints to me (except that Catholics would be more likely to assume that a loved one's soul is in Purgatory and pray for her rather than to her).
Anyway, if you had a close friend whose mother recently died and who started saying those things, would you object to the theology behind it?
Anyone who is reading this and hasn't read the post and comments at Visits to Candyland please read that first to catch up on the discussion.
Enbrethiliel,
You said: I take it that your two main issues are that:
1) Mary's role has been blown completely out of proportion; and
2) you don't think anyone in Heaven (but God, of course) can hear prayers.
Am I right?
As to number one, I believe Mary's role has been totally made up, except for what is in scripture, and THEN completely blown out of proportion. Her scriptural role was to bear the Savior, give birth to Him, raise Him, and then learn what it means that He is her savior and God and that she must first give Him up to death and then give Him up as son because He resumes His role, His glory, and His power in Heaven. He gave her to John because she could no longer be His mother, I believe.
As to number two, you are right that I believe only God can hear prayers. I don't believe that people who have passed on can watch over us or hear us. If a friend said that about her loved one who had died, I most likely would not say anything at the time because I don't really think it is harmful within reason. As I said, my problem is mainly with Mary's role as heavenly intercessor and seemingly powerful helper. These are the roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit alone.
Did you read my comment at the end of the thread on Visits to Candyland about Christ tearing the veil? I think that is one of the most important issues between Catholicism and Protestantism. I believe many practices of Catholicism are placing a veil between God and man.
We serve such a loving, personable God, who loves to be among His people in a close and intimate way. What is the thinking behind asking saints to pray for us?
I don't know if I completely answered your question, Enbrethiliel (that is a lovely name; do you mind me asking what it means and is it a real name or a nick-name?) about how I came to believe that the saints can't hear us. I don't know; I've never believed that people who have passed on can hear us. The Bible doesn't give any indication that they can, and seems to give direct indication that they can't and that we shouldn't try to contact them.
Jennie, "Enbrethiliel" is an "elf name" I got from a Middle-earth Name Generator! My real name is the more prosaic "Cristina"! =P
By the way, I'd like to thank you for always spelling my 'blog name properly! I understand that it must look strange to some people and don't mind the occasional misspelling, but you've always cared enough to get it right. =)
Back to the topic . . .
As I've indicated, I don't think we'll be able to change each other's minds about these topics. I'm asking you questions, though, because I want to know how you see things that are familiar to me, and you do answer clearly! (Thanks again!)
Your reading of Jesus' giving Mary to St. John is something I've never encountered before, and I must say I find it very, very sad. Theologically, I'd wonder whether such an interpretation exalts Jesus' divine nature over His human nature (which, of course, we're not supposed to do). Personally, I think it just makes Jesus seem less loving. If you shared that reading with someone else raised with the "Madonna and Child" as a standard in art, you'll get the same reaction.
As to spelling your name, I've read the Lord of the Rings about 15 times, though as I mentioned once, I backed away from C.S. Lewis, and also Tolkien. :)
Enbrethiliel, You got me started looking up elf names. Shame on me! I think I found out that Pilgrim's Daughter might be 'Randiriel'. I don't know if I like it or not. (I remembered Mithrandir means grey pilgrim, so randir is pilgrim and iel adds daughter to it). I like yours better! Nimthiriel is the translation of Jennifer to elvish, but my name isn't Jennifer, it's just Jennie, after my Grandmother's nickname. That's kind of pretty!
I thought you probably would think my understanding of Jesus giving Mary to John was rather anticlimactic compared to the Catholic understanding. I am open to other interpretations, as I have just recently been thinking about it. I just don't see any indication in scripture that Mary is meant to be the church's mother in any way, nor is she called 'the mother of God' but is the 'mother of the Lord'. Not that His humanity is separate from His Godhood, but that Mary is not mother of His godhood, as if it originated with her. The Apostles never mention any doctrine about her in the New Testament. Everything has developed later gradually. I think it WAS hard for Mary to lose her son to death and to His Godhood, but she gained a savior and a God that she could touch and love, which is infinitely better. She also became part of the Bride of Christ and a daughter of God as a believer. That is an incomparable blessing.
Jennie, I don't think the Catholic Church has ever taught that Mary is called "Mother of God" because Jesus' Divinity originated from her. It's another term that has proven problematic because of what others have taken it to mean, but their meaning is not what the Church teaches.
The title "Mother of God" is foremost an acknowledgment of the fact that He is and ever shall be 100% human and 100% Divine. Yes, it came several hundred years after the events mentioned in Scripture (but so did the canon of Scripture, for that matter!). Jesus' humanity and Divinity were pretty much settled things from the outset, and Mary's title as "Mother of God" not only builds on that but is also a direct counterthrust to a heresy attacking Jesus' Divinity.
Of course, you've probably read all of that a million times before! =) I hope I don't sound condescending.
I also hope you don't mind a slight change of subject. Writing that parenthetical comment two paragraphs ago made me wonder what you would say if a Christian decided that Scripture was unnecessary. Many of the first Christians didn't have the Bible as we've come to know it, for the New Testament books were written later--and perhaps those converted by Apostles other than St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. John and St. Paul read other gospels, other letters, or even nothing at all. Sacred Scripture itself is a development of what existed in the early Church, so why is it necessary to a Christian?
Enbrethiliel, Jennie, I don't think the Catholic Church has ever taught that Mary is called "Mother of God" because Jesus' Divinity originated from her. It's another term that has proven problematic because of what others have taken it to mean, but their meaning is not what the Church teaches.
I know that the Church doesn't teach that Christ's divinity originated with Mary. It is the fact that the magisterium allows Mary to be called an unscriptural name when the Holy Spirit inspired only the words 'mother of the Lord' and in allowing this they, for hundreds of years, have not protected their flock from the possible blurring of understanding that would exalt Mary in their minds to godhood, whether she is called so or not. Have you not seen or heard of people who pray to Mary for help and call her the names and offices of God? Aren't there many people who look to her and her image for all their help and comfort? This is not discouraged, as far as I can tell, and it leads me to believe that in many places and hearts the RCC is the Church of Mary more than the church of Jesus Christ.
The title "Mother of God" is foremost an acknowledgment of the fact that He is and ever shall be 100% human and 100% Divine. Yes, it came several hundred years after the events mentioned in Scripture (but so did the canon of Scripture, for that matter!). Jesus' humanity and Divinity were pretty much settled things from the outset, and Mary's title as "Mother of God" not only builds on that but is also a direct counterthrust to a heresy attacking Jesus' Divinity. Are you talking about the Arian heresy or the later Nestorian heresy? I don't remember if the title 'mother of God' was used in the 4th century in reference to the Arian heresy. The thing is, I don't think 'mother of God' is the first, best, or only way to combat heresy against Jesus' divinity. I think it opens up a whole other possibility of error, as I've said. How about the scriptural titles of 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man'? I'm thinking that the title 'mother of God' came not from combatting heresy, but from people wanting to exalt Mary. Then the heresy became an excuse for the title. I believe Nestorius, who I think is no longer considered a heretic by scholars, was trying to combat Mariolotry and used an unfortunate expanation to try to get people to understand that Mary is not the mother of Jesus' godhood, since it did not originate with her. She should be called 'mother of the Lord' (he said) as scripture calls her. I agree with him and don't think he was saying what he was accused of saying.
Jennie, it has been years since I last looked closely at the Nestorian heresy (yes, it's that one), so I won't remember all the nuances, but it's pretty clear that Nestorius' target was never Mary, but Jesus Himself.
As for the dangers of calling someone in Scripture by an "unscriptural name," I guess I'll have to point back to my last question in my previous post. (You might be answering that right now, so that we end up cross-posting!) Even God is referred to by the very non-Scriptural name of the "Holy Trinity" by many Protestants. (I guess the point is moot because you're not one of them?)
What I mean to say is that there are also great dangers in making an idol out of Scripture.
I also hope you don't mind a slight change of subject. Writing that parenthetical comment two paragraphs ago made me wonder what you would say if a Christian decided that Scripture was unnecessary. Many of the first Christians didn't have the Bible as we've come to know it, for the New Testament books were written later--and perhaps those converted by Apostles other than St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. John and St. Paul read other gospels, other letters, or even nothing at all. Sacred Scripture itself is a development of what existed in the early Church, so why is it necessary to a Christian?
Well, since I don't agree with the implication that the early Christians didn't have the scriptures, I think the possibility of Christians deciding they don't need scripture lies more in the Catholic church who believe that the Church gave us scripture, not with protestants who know God gave the scriptures to the church. The earliest Christians had the Old Testament, the Apostles and those who learned from the Apostles. These men were directly speaking (and writing in letters) the gospel of Christ which is the word of God, and teaching the gospel as taught in the Old Testament scriptures as well. I believe all the believers had access to enough of God's word in these forms as they needed. I believe that anything written or said that was in accord with scripture and the gospel of Christ functioned as the word of God, such as letters written by Apostles or others that are not now included in the Canon, as long as they did not contain error. I also believe that the New Testament books were written very early, mostly within 25 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. By the time the Apostles and other leaders died, the scriptures were available widely even if there was no official list of them. The list wasn't needed until false books began to be written.
It's not making an idol out of scripture to say that since the Holy Spirit never saw fit to have Mary called 'the mother of God' then we shouldn't do so either. It seems like a very pointed and intended omission to me.
It is arguably much harder to make an idol out of scripture, which is the inspired word of God Himself, than to make an idol out of Mary, who is a human being, shown in scripture as being fallible and even sometimes wavering in faith. The Bible says: Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
God's word is an extension of Himself and it can hardly be thought of too highly.
Jennie, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Catholic Church teaches Scripture comes from the Church. Well, obviously, men physically wrote the books and letters and then decided what would be part of Canon, but Catholics have always been very clear that Scripture is the inspired word of God and in that sense directly comes from Him.
Also, there's St. John's note at the end of his Gospel that Jesus did many more things that were never written about, and St. Paul's reminder to the Thessalonians to hold fast to what he taught them both by word of mouth and by writing. If I'm not mistaken, there's also a verse in Acts which quotes a line Jesus never said in the Gospels.
This is not to put Scripture down, of course, but to point out that whatever the early Church had, it never relied solely on Scripture. It also recognised a difference between the inspired Word of God and anything functioning as the Word of God.
Oh, great . . . I got side tracked again . . . Believe it or not, I don't actually want to argue history with you. =P
I think the main thing I want to point out is that there's a difference between using what is found in Scripture to contradict something Christians do and using what is not found in Scripture to contradict something Christians do. There are so many things not found in Scripture, such as the word "Trinity." (This reminds me . . . I once found myself in an oddly aggressive comments thread, in which a troll accused the blogger of being anti-Semitic for the "reason" that the blogger has never publicly declared that he isn't anti-Semitic.)
I've also read a pretty watertight argument by a former Evangelical (who was merely playing advocatus diaboli, of course) that "proves" that it's all right for a man to have more than one wife at a time because Scripture explicitly prohibits only divorce and multiple wives for bishops. Yet just because we don't have a clear and unambiguous statement against bigamy in Scripture, does that mean this was "a very pointed and intended omission"?
Jennie, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Catholic Church teaches Scripture comes from the Church.
In my online conversations with Elena it has been said quite a few times, but I couldn't find the threads to show you. I think it has come up when I have been discussing sola scriptura or tradition vs. scripture and is used to basically discredit protestant arguments, because 'after all, without the Roman Catholic church there would be no Bible.' Or at least we wouldn't know which books were inspired. I don't want to get into that, except to say that the church knew which books were inspired all along, until some confusion came in later when books falsely attributed to apostles began to show up. Even then I think they were easily recognized because of how they contradicted the known scriptures.
Of course there are things that aren't in scripture that are true or helpful; and there were things that were said and done by Jesus and the Apostles that aren't in scripture. We believe that everything that was necessary is included, and that anything that is taught must be compared to existing scripture to be sure it doesn't contradict the whole revealed word. We believe that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and are contrary to it because they take the focus off of Christ and give Mary the offices, actions, and names of God. For example, she is called comforter, mediatior, intercessor, refuge of sinners, etc. These are all God's 'names.' I resent that very much. I believe God resents it and hates it, just like He hated it when the Israelites made the golden calf and said it led them out of Egypt, and worshiped the queen of heaven instead of their Savior.
Well, obviously, men physically wrote the books and letters and then decided what would be part of Canon, but Catholics have always been very clear that Scripture is the inspired word of God and in that sense directly comes from Him.
Enbrethiliel, I would put it a little differently, not that men decided which books would be a part of the canon, but that they listed the ones that were already recognized by the body of Christ, pointedly excluding the ones that were not recognized and did not have the character of inspired words.
We serve such a loving, personable God, who loves to be among His people in a close and intimate way. What is the thinking behind asking saints to pray for us?
Hillary, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comment earlier. I agree with your statement about God, and think that one reason people may ask the saints in heaven to pray (or may pray to them) is that the specific saints are thought to have certain strengths or attributes that may help people to gain these attributes themselves or help them in specific circumstances. Since I don't believe they can hear us, I would say that a good practice would be to use their lives as inspiration and pray to God, as Jesus taught us, to help us with these issues. We can thank God for the saints that have gone before us and for the example they have left for us.
Well, can you think of anything that is taught in tradition but not in scripture that is necessary and could not be done without? (I would say that much of tradition is actually harmful, but I'll leave that aside for now) And if you look at scripture, it has inexhaustible stores of wisdom and instruction in it. Even things that are not explicitly spelled out can be inferred in it. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
Actually, yes, I can think of something that is taught in Tradition that is nowhere to be found in Scripture: the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also think that sticking to "only what is necessary" was never the Holy Spirit's style.
(Jennie, I realise I must be sounding unusually terse lately. I don't mean to be rude. I'm just a bit busy with stuff this weekend. I'd love to keep discussing stuff on our usual level, but I decided to stick to the essentials=-Oh, how ironic, aye?--in the meantime.)
Enbrethiliel, I have two posts on the Trinity in scripture that give passages that make it clear that the early church knew about the 'trinity', though the word is not used. I think under the post 'the trinity in the Old Testament' there is a comment with a link to more scriptures in the OT.
I suspect that the idea of the trinity is one of the things Jesus showed the Apostles from the OT after He rose again, like on the Road to Emmaus, when He explained from scriptures about Himself. As Jews they didn't yet understand about the trinity, though it was there all the time.
I do think that the Holy Spirit gives us what is necessary in Scripture and no more. Yet it is an overflowing abundance when He teaches us from it. Remember the passage in Deut. that says 'the secret things belong to the LORD, but what is revealed belong to us and our children forever'?
I read on that Old Testament Trinity blog this morning that the Hebrews did have an understanding of God as plural because of some specifics of the Hebrew language, such as using plurals for God in many places. It was Moses Miamonides (not spelled right, but I can't find the article right now)the famous Rabbi, who changed the teaching and ever since it has been taught among the Jews that God is only one person, whereas before there was an understanding that God is one God, yet plural. It seems MM did this to discourage the teaching that Jesus is the Son of God. So it may not be true that the Jews had no understanding of the trinity before Christ.
Ah! The plurality of God - a teaching that is highly misunderstood in Christianity (Jehovah Witnesses, etc). We grapple with the need to reconcile teachings of monotheism (one God) with trinitarism (triune God), due to lack of understanding of God's nature.
The Jews of the Old Testament had no problem referring to the Son, or the Spirit of Elohim, or Yahweh. Trinitarism is therefore nothing new. Not an invention of the church councils.
Hi again, Jennie! It will be a while before I can read your Trinity posts, but thank you for pointing me to them. =)
Sticking to this thread . . .
I have two posts on the Trinity in scripture that give passages that make it clear that the early church knew about the 'trinity', though the word is not used.
Now I'm starting to wonder whether we're even talking about the same thing when we write of Tradition! =P I use a capital T to distinguish it from man-made traditions (which are not limited to Catholics, as I recently found a curious example in a Protestant book from the Women of Faith Study Guide series!). Big-T Tradition is the Word of God passed on in ways other than the written word (e.g. through the liturgy).
What do you mean when you write (small-t) "tradition"?
I suspect that the idea of the trinity is one of the things Jesus showed the Apostles from the OT after He rose again, like on the Road to Emmaus, when He explained from scriptures about Himself.
Jennie, in this instance, at least, I think you're just reading into Scripture what you want to see. If you say something like that, there's nothing to stop a Catholic from saying, "I suspect the seeds of Marian devotion were planted by Jesus among the Apostles after the Resurrection," etc.
Anyway, I understand your belief that Scripture contains all that is necessary, but why don't you think the "overflowing abundance" of the Holy Spirit cannot also reveal itself in the forming of cultures, traditions and devotions? Or rather, if Scripture contains what is necessary, then it should be a foundation for building Christian theology and practice; but I see you using it as a fence to keep out what is not necessary--which is kind of the other way around.
Now I'm starting to wonder whether we're even talking about the same thing when we write of Tradition! =P I use a capital T to distinguish it from man-made traditions (which are not limited to Catholics, as I recently found a curious example in a Protestant book from the Women of Faith Study Guide series!). Big-T Tradition is the Word of God passed on in ways other than the written word (e.g. through the liturgy).
What do you mean when you write (small-t) "tradition"?
By 'tradition' I was referring to the same thing you meant by 'Tradition' I think. I tend to think of all tradition as being either man-made or at least of less importance than scripture, though it may sometimes be derived from scripture. However, Paul refers to tradition in the sense of 'teaching' which I believe means the same as the doctrine of scripture.
I tend to think of 'Tradition' as being all the things that Catholics and Protestants disagree on, which are not taught scripture, but that Catholics believe were passed down or were developed from 'seeds' in scripture. I don't know if this is what you believe 'Tradition' is. Is there a list or a place where 'Traditions' are written that were supposedly passed down from the Apostles?
Jennie, in this instance, at least, I think you're just reading into Scripture what you want to see. If you say something like that, there's nothing to stop a Catholic from saying, "I suspect the seeds of Marian devotion were planted by Jesus among the Apostles after the Resurrection," etc.
But the difference is that the doctrine of God being three in one is taught openly in scripture, while the doctrines of Marian devotion are not seen there, except negatively, I believe.
Anyway, I understand your belief that Scripture contains all that is necessary, but why don't you think the "overflowing abundance" of the Holy Spirit cannot also reveal itself in the forming of cultures, traditions and devotions? Or rather, if Scripture contains what is necessary, then it should be a foundation for building Christian theology and practice; but I see you using it as a fence to keep out what is not necessary--which is kind of the other way around.
Compare your statement to the Israelites in the Old Testament. God gave them His word spoken and written by the Prophets. He didn't want them to develop their own ways, but to go by His revealed word. I believe the Word is there partly as a 'fence' as you said, or a rule to keep us in line with what is pleasing to God. On the other hand there is an abundance of treasures within it to give us more than we need for our lives.
Is there a list or a place where 'Traditions' are written that were supposedly passed down from the Apostles?
Will it surprise you to know that Tradition isn't written down? ;) If it were, it would be Scripture! =P
Tradition is better thought of as an action of the Church. When you bring your children to church on Sunday, you're taking part in an ancient Tradition.
One reliable depository of Tradition is the liturgy, especially the Mass. Historians who weren't necessarily Christian were writing what they knew of Christian worship as early as the first century, and it's clear that the early Church believed in the Eucharist.
It may be a stretch to find the seeds of Marian devotion in Scripture, but the Eucharist and the "seeds" of the Mass are as evident as the Trinity!
Anyway, Jennie, I think I'll let you have the last word now. =) My main purpose in coming here to continue the discussion from Visits to Candyland was to find out your reasons for believing what you do--and I think I've done that.
I'll just say that the modern idea of transubstantiation is not the same as the early ideas of the 'real presence'. There were varying ideas about what that meant among the Fathers and the earlier churches, just as there are today, but none went so far in their understanding of Christ being physically present in the eucharist. You may know that 'eucharist' means thanksgiving, and all Christians can use that word in the Lord's Supper, not just those who believe in transubstantiation. As long as Christ truly is present in us and with us, that is what is necessary.
32 comments:
+JMJ+
Jennie, I'm going jump straight out of that thread into this one, so I apologise to your regular readers if they find this confusing! =)
I take it that your two main issues are that:
1) Mary's role has been blown completely out of proportion; and
2) you don't think anyone in Heaven (but God, of course) can hear prayers.
Am I right?
I don't think I could ever help you out with #1, but I'm curious about how you arrived at #2. I've heard other Protestants say of a loved one, "She is still watching over us" or "She is still here with us"--and that sounds very much like the Communion of Saints to me (except that Catholics would be more likely to assume that a loved one's soul is in Purgatory and pray for her rather than to her).
Anyway, if you had a close friend whose mother recently died and who started saying those things, would you object to the theology behind it?
Anyone who is reading this and hasn't read the post and comments at Visits to Candyland please read that first to catch up on the discussion.
Enbrethiliel,
You said:
I take it that your two main issues are that:
1) Mary's role has been blown completely out of proportion; and
2) you don't think anyone in Heaven (but God, of course) can hear prayers.
Am I right?
As to number one, I believe Mary's role has been totally made up, except for what is in scripture, and THEN completely blown out of proportion. Her scriptural role was to bear the Savior, give birth to Him, raise Him, and then learn what it means that He is her savior and God and that she must first give Him up to death and then give Him up as son because He resumes His role, His glory, and His power in Heaven. He gave her to John because she could no longer be His mother, I believe.
As to number two, you are right that I believe only God can hear prayers.
I don't believe that people who have passed on can watch over us or hear us. If a friend said that about her loved one who had died, I most likely would not say anything at the time because I don't really think it is harmful within reason. As I said, my problem is mainly with Mary's role as heavenly intercessor and seemingly powerful helper. These are the roles of Christ and the Holy Spirit alone.
Did you read my comment at the end of the thread on Visits to Candyland about Christ tearing the veil? I think that is one of the most important issues between Catholicism and Protestantism. I believe many practices of Catholicism are placing a veil between God and man.
We serve such a loving, personable God, who loves to be among His people in a close and intimate way. What is the thinking behind asking saints to pray for us?
I don't know if I completely answered your question, Enbrethiliel (that is a lovely name; do you mind me asking what it means and is it a real name or a nick-name?) about how I came to believe that the saints can't hear us. I don't know; I've never believed that people who have passed on can hear us. The Bible doesn't give any indication that they can, and seems to give direct indication that they can't and that we shouldn't try to contact them.
+JMJ+
Jennie, "Enbrethiliel" is an "elf name" I got from a Middle-earth Name Generator! My real name is the more prosaic "Cristina"! =P
By the way, I'd like to thank you for always spelling my 'blog name properly! I understand that it must look strange to some people and don't mind the occasional misspelling, but you've always cared enough to get it right. =)
Back to the topic . . .
As I've indicated, I don't think we'll be able to change each other's minds about these topics. I'm asking you questions, though, because I want to know how you see things that are familiar to me, and you do answer clearly! (Thanks again!)
Your reading of Jesus' giving Mary to St. John is something I've never encountered before, and I must say I find it very, very sad. Theologically, I'd wonder whether such an interpretation exalts Jesus' divine nature over His human nature (which, of course, we're not supposed to do). Personally, I think it just makes Jesus seem less loving. If you shared that reading with someone else raised with the "Madonna and Child" as a standard in art, you'll get the same reaction.
As to spelling your name, I've read the Lord of the Rings about 15 times, though as I mentioned once, I backed away from C.S. Lewis, and also Tolkien. :)
Enbrethiliel,
You got me started looking up elf names. Shame on me! I think I found out that Pilgrim's Daughter might be 'Randiriel'. I don't know if I like it or not. (I remembered Mithrandir means grey pilgrim, so randir is pilgrim and iel adds daughter to it). I like yours better! Nimthiriel is the translation of Jennifer to elvish, but my name isn't Jennifer, it's just Jennie, after my Grandmother's nickname. That's kind of pretty!
I thought you probably would think my understanding of Jesus giving Mary to John was rather anticlimactic compared to the Catholic understanding. I am open to other interpretations, as I have just recently been thinking about it. I just don't see any indication in scripture that Mary is meant to be the church's mother in any way, nor is she called 'the mother of God' but is the 'mother of the Lord'. Not that His humanity is separate from His Godhood, but that Mary is not mother of His godhood, as if it originated with her. The Apostles never mention any doctrine about her in the New Testament. Everything has developed later gradually.
I think it WAS hard for Mary to lose her son to death and to His Godhood, but she gained a savior and a God that she could touch and love, which is infinitely better. She also became part of the Bride of Christ and a daughter of God as a believer. That is an incomparable blessing.
But Cristina isn't prosaic; it means 'follower of Christ'; very beautiful!
+JMJ+
Jennie, I don't think the Catholic Church has ever taught that Mary is called "Mother of God" because Jesus' Divinity originated from her. It's another term that has proven problematic because of what others have taken it to mean, but their meaning is not what the Church teaches.
The title "Mother of God" is foremost an acknowledgment of the fact that He is and ever shall be 100% human and 100% Divine. Yes, it came several hundred years after the events mentioned in Scripture (but so did the canon of Scripture, for that matter!). Jesus' humanity and Divinity were pretty much settled things from the outset, and Mary's title as "Mother of God" not only builds on that but is also a direct counterthrust to a heresy attacking Jesus' Divinity.
Of course, you've probably read all of that a million times before! =) I hope I don't sound condescending.
I also hope you don't mind a slight change of subject. Writing that parenthetical comment two paragraphs ago made me wonder what you would say if a Christian decided that Scripture was unnecessary. Many of the first Christians didn't have the Bible as we've come to know it, for the New Testament books were written later--and perhaps those converted by Apostles other than St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. John and St. Paul read other gospels, other letters, or even nothing at all. Sacred Scripture itself is a development of what existed in the early Church, so why is it necessary to a Christian?
Enbrethiliel,
Jennie, I don't think the Catholic Church has ever taught that Mary is called "Mother of God" because Jesus' Divinity originated from her. It's another term that has proven problematic because of what others have taken it to mean, but their meaning is not what the Church teaches.
I know that the Church doesn't teach that Christ's divinity originated with Mary. It is the fact that the magisterium allows Mary to be called an unscriptural name when the Holy Spirit inspired only the words 'mother of the Lord' and in allowing this they, for hundreds of years, have not protected their flock from the possible blurring of understanding that would exalt Mary in their minds to godhood, whether she is called so or not. Have you not seen or heard of people who pray to Mary for help and call her the names and offices of God? Aren't there many people who look to her and her image for all their help and comfort?
This is not discouraged, as far as I can tell, and it leads me to believe that in many places and hearts the RCC is the Church of Mary more than the church of Jesus Christ.
The title "Mother of God" is foremost an acknowledgment of the fact that He is and ever shall be 100% human and 100% Divine. Yes, it came several hundred years after the events mentioned in Scripture (but so did the canon of Scripture, for that matter!). Jesus' humanity and Divinity were pretty much settled things from the outset, and Mary's title as "Mother of God" not only builds on that but is also a direct counterthrust to a heresy attacking Jesus' Divinity.
Are you talking about the Arian heresy or the later Nestorian heresy? I don't remember if the title 'mother of God' was used in the 4th century in reference to the Arian heresy. The thing is, I don't think 'mother of God' is the first, best, or only way to combat heresy against Jesus' divinity. I think it opens up a whole other possibility of error, as I've said. How about the scriptural titles of 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man'? I'm thinking that the title 'mother of God' came not from combatting heresy, but from people wanting to exalt Mary. Then the heresy became an excuse for the title.
I believe Nestorius, who I think is no longer considered a heretic by scholars, was trying to combat Mariolotry and used an unfortunate expanation to try to get people to understand that Mary is not the mother of Jesus' godhood, since it did not originate with her. She should be called 'mother of the Lord' (he said) as scripture calls her. I agree with him and don't think he was saying what he was accused of saying.
+JMJ+
Jennie, it has been years since I last looked closely at the Nestorian heresy (yes, it's that one), so I won't remember all the nuances, but it's pretty clear that Nestorius' target was never Mary, but Jesus Himself.
As for the dangers of calling someone in Scripture by an "unscriptural name," I guess I'll have to point back to my last question in my previous post. (You might be answering that right now, so that we end up cross-posting!) Even God is referred to by the very non-Scriptural name of the "Holy Trinity" by many Protestants. (I guess the point is moot because you're not one of them?)
What I mean to say is that there are also great dangers in making an idol out of Scripture.
I also hope you don't mind a slight change of subject. Writing that parenthetical comment two paragraphs ago made me wonder what you would say if a Christian decided that Scripture was unnecessary. Many of the first Christians didn't have the Bible as we've come to know it, for the New Testament books were written later--and perhaps those converted by Apostles other than St. Peter, St. Matthew, St. John and St. Paul read other gospels, other letters, or even nothing at all. Sacred Scripture itself is a development of what existed in the early Church, so why is it necessary to a Christian?
Well, since I don't agree with the implication that the early Christians didn't have the scriptures, I think the possibility of Christians deciding they don't need scripture lies more in the Catholic church who believe that the Church gave us scripture, not with protestants who know God gave the scriptures to the church.
The earliest Christians had the Old Testament, the Apostles and those who learned from the Apostles. These men were directly speaking (and writing in letters) the gospel of Christ which is the word of God, and teaching the gospel as taught in the Old Testament scriptures as well. I believe all the believers had access to enough of God's word in these forms as they needed. I believe that anything written or said that was in accord with scripture and the gospel of Christ functioned as the word of God, such as letters written by Apostles or others that are not now included in the Canon, as long as they did not contain error.
I also believe that the New Testament books were written very early, mostly within 25 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. By the time the Apostles and other leaders died, the scriptures were available widely even if there was no official list of them. The list wasn't needed until false books began to be written.
It's not making an idol out of scripture to say that since the Holy Spirit never saw fit to have Mary called 'the mother of God' then we shouldn't do so either. It seems like a very pointed and intended omission to me.
It is arguably much harder to make an idol out of scripture, which is the inspired word of God Himself, than to make an idol out of Mary, who is a human being, shown in scripture as being fallible and even sometimes wavering in faith.
The Bible says: Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
God's word is an extension of Himself and it can hardly be thought of too highly.
+JMJ+
Jennie, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Catholic Church teaches Scripture comes from the Church. Well, obviously, men physically wrote the books and letters and then decided what would be part of Canon, but Catholics have always been very clear that Scripture is the inspired word of God and in that sense directly comes from Him.
Also, there's St. John's note at the end of his Gospel that Jesus did many more things that were never written about, and St. Paul's reminder to the Thessalonians to hold fast to what he taught them both by word of mouth and by writing. If I'm not mistaken, there's also a verse in Acts which quotes a line Jesus never said in the Gospels.
This is not to put Scripture down, of course, but to point out that whatever the early Church had, it never relied solely on Scripture. It also recognised a difference between the inspired Word of God and anything functioning as the Word of God.
Oh, great . . . I got side tracked again . . . Believe it or not, I don't actually want to argue history with you. =P
I think the main thing I want to point out is that there's a difference between using what is found in Scripture to contradict something Christians do and using what is not found in Scripture to contradict something Christians do. There are so many things not found in Scripture, such as the word "Trinity." (This reminds me . . . I once found myself in an oddly aggressive comments thread, in which a troll accused the blogger of being anti-Semitic for the "reason" that the blogger has never publicly declared that he isn't anti-Semitic.)
I've also read a pretty watertight argument by a former Evangelical (who was merely playing advocatus diaboli, of course) that "proves" that it's all right for a man to have more than one wife at a time because Scripture explicitly prohibits only divorce and multiple wives for bishops. Yet just because we don't have a clear and unambiguous statement against bigamy in Scripture, does that mean this was "a very pointed and intended omission"?
PS -- My word verification is "sushi"! =D
Jennie, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Catholic Church teaches Scripture comes from the Church.
In my online conversations with Elena it has been said quite a few times, but I couldn't find the threads to show you. I think it has come up when I have been discussing sola scriptura or tradition vs. scripture and is used to basically discredit protestant arguments, because 'after all, without the Roman Catholic church there would be no Bible.' Or at least we wouldn't know which books were inspired. I don't want to get into that, except to say that the church knew which books were inspired all along, until some confusion came in later when books falsely attributed to apostles began to show up. Even then I think they were easily recognized because of how they contradicted the known scriptures.
Of course there are things that aren't in scripture that are true or helpful; and there were things that were said and done by Jesus and the Apostles that aren't in scripture. We believe that everything that was necessary is included, and that anything that is taught must be compared to existing scripture to be sure it doesn't contradict the whole revealed word. We believe that the Marian doctrines have no basis in scripture and are contrary to it because they take the focus off of Christ and give Mary the offices, actions, and names of God. For example, she is called comforter, mediatior, intercessor, refuge of sinners, etc. These are all God's 'names.' I resent that very much. I believe God resents it and hates it, just like He hated it when the Israelites made the golden calf and said it led them out of Egypt, and worshiped the queen of heaven instead of their Savior.
Well, obviously, men physically wrote the books and letters and then decided what would be part of Canon, but Catholics have always been very clear that Scripture is the inspired word of God and in that sense directly comes from Him.
Enbrethiliel,
I would put it a little differently, not that men decided which books would be a part of the canon, but that they listed the ones that were already recognized by the body of Christ, pointedly excluding the ones that were not recognized and did not have the character of inspired words.
We serve such a loving, personable God, who loves to be among His people in a close and intimate way. What is the thinking behind asking saints to pray for us?
Hillary,
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comment earlier. I agree with your statement about God, and think that one reason people may ask the saints in heaven to pray (or may pray to them) is that the specific saints are thought to have certain strengths or attributes that may help people to gain these attributes themselves or help them in specific circumstances. Since I don't believe they can hear us, I would say that a good practice would be to use their lives as inspiration and pray to God, as Jesus taught us, to help us with these issues. We can thank God for the saints that have gone before us and for the example they have left for us.
+JMJ+
We believe that everything that was necessary is included
Why?
Well, can you think of anything that is taught in tradition but not in scripture that is necessary and could not be done without? (I would say that much of tradition is actually harmful, but I'll leave that aside for now)
And if you look at scripture, it has inexhaustible stores of wisdom and instruction in it. Even things that are not explicitly spelled out can be inferred in it.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
+JMJ+
Actually, yes, I can think of something that is taught in Tradition that is nowhere to be found in Scripture: the doctrine of the Trinity.
I also think that sticking to "only what is necessary" was never the Holy Spirit's style.
(Jennie, I realise I must be sounding unusually terse lately. I don't mean to be rude. I'm just a bit busy with stuff this weekend. I'd love to keep discussing stuff on our usual level, but I decided to stick to the essentials=-Oh, how ironic, aye?--in the meantime.)
Enbrethiliel,
I have two posts on the Trinity in scripture that give passages that make it clear that the early church knew about the 'trinity', though the word is not used. I think under the post 'the trinity in the Old Testament' there is a comment with a link to more scriptures in the OT.
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/search/label/Trinity
I suspect that the idea of the trinity is one of the things Jesus showed the Apostles from the OT after He rose again, like on the Road to Emmaus, when He explained from scriptures about Himself. As Jews they didn't yet understand about the trinity, though it was there all the time.
I do think that the Holy Spirit gives us what is necessary in Scripture and no more. Yet it is an overflowing abundance when He teaches us from it. Remember the passage in Deut. that says 'the secret things belong to the LORD, but what is revealed belong to us and our children forever'?
I read on that Old Testament Trinity blog this morning that the Hebrews did have an understanding of God as plural because of some specifics of the Hebrew language, such as using plurals for God in many places. It was Moses Miamonides (not spelled right, but I can't find the article right now)the famous Rabbi, who changed the teaching and ever since it has been taught among the Jews that God is only one person, whereas before there was an understanding that God is one God, yet plural. It seems MM did this to discourage the teaching that Jesus is the Son of God. So it may not be true that the Jews had no understanding of the trinity before Christ.
Ah! The plurality of God - a teaching that is highly misunderstood in Christianity (Jehovah Witnesses, etc). We grapple with the need to reconcile teachings of monotheism (one God) with trinitarism (triune God), due to lack of understanding of God's nature.
The Jews of the Old Testament had no problem referring to the Son, or the Spirit of Elohim, or Yahweh. Trinitarism is therefore nothing new. Not an invention of the church councils.
+JMJ+
Hi again, Jennie! It will be a while before I can read your Trinity posts, but thank you for pointing me to them. =)
Sticking to this thread . . .
I have two posts on the Trinity in scripture that give passages that make it clear that the early church knew about the 'trinity', though the word is not used.
Now I'm starting to wonder whether we're even talking about the same thing when we write of Tradition! =P I use a capital T to distinguish it from man-made traditions (which are not limited to Catholics, as I recently found a curious example in a Protestant book from the Women of Faith Study Guide series!). Big-T Tradition is the Word of God passed on in ways other than the written word (e.g. through the liturgy).
What do you mean when you write (small-t) "tradition"?
I suspect that the idea of the trinity is one of the things Jesus showed the Apostles from the OT after He rose again, like on the Road to Emmaus, when He explained from scriptures about Himself.
Jennie, in this instance, at least, I think you're just reading into Scripture what you want to see. If you say something like that, there's nothing to stop a Catholic from saying, "I suspect the seeds of Marian devotion were planted by Jesus among the Apostles after the Resurrection," etc.
Anyway, I understand your belief that Scripture contains all that is necessary, but why don't you think the "overflowing abundance" of the Holy Spirit cannot also reveal itself in the forming of cultures, traditions and devotions? Or rather, if Scripture contains what is necessary, then it should be a foundation for building Christian theology and practice; but I see you using it as a fence to keep out what is not necessary--which is kind of the other way around.
Now I'm starting to wonder whether we're even talking about the same thing when we write of Tradition! =P I use a capital T to distinguish it from man-made traditions (which are not limited to Catholics, as I recently found a curious example in a Protestant book from the Women of Faith Study Guide series!). Big-T Tradition is the Word of God passed on in ways other than the written word (e.g. through the liturgy).
What do you mean when you write (small-t) "tradition"?
By 'tradition' I was referring to the same thing you meant by 'Tradition' I think. I tend to think of all tradition as being either man-made or at least of less importance than scripture, though it may sometimes be derived from scripture. However, Paul refers to tradition in the sense of 'teaching' which I believe means the same as the doctrine of scripture.
I tend to think of 'Tradition' as being all the things that Catholics and Protestants disagree on, which are not taught scripture, but that Catholics believe were passed down or were developed from 'seeds' in scripture. I don't know if this is what you believe 'Tradition' is. Is there a list or a place where 'Traditions' are written that were supposedly passed down from the Apostles?
Jennie, in this instance, at least, I think you're just reading into Scripture what you want to see. If you say something like that, there's nothing to stop a Catholic from saying, "I suspect the seeds of Marian devotion were planted by Jesus among the Apostles after the Resurrection," etc.
But the difference is that the doctrine of God being three in one is taught openly in scripture, while the doctrines of Marian devotion are not seen there, except negatively, I believe.
Anyway, I understand your belief that Scripture contains all that is necessary, but why don't you think the "overflowing abundance" of the Holy Spirit cannot also reveal itself in the forming of cultures, traditions and devotions? Or rather, if Scripture contains what is necessary, then it should be a foundation for building Christian theology and practice; but I see you using it as a fence to keep out what is not necessary--which is kind of the other way around.
Compare your statement to the Israelites in the Old Testament. God gave them His word spoken and written by the Prophets. He didn't want them to develop their own ways, but to go by His revealed word. I believe the Word is there partly as a 'fence' as you said, or a rule to keep us in line with what is pleasing to God.
On the other hand there is an abundance of treasures within it to give us more than we need for our lives.
+JMJ+
Is there a list or a place where 'Traditions' are written that were supposedly passed down from the Apostles?
Will it surprise you to know that Tradition isn't written down? ;) If it were, it would be Scripture! =P
Tradition is better thought of as an action of the Church. When you bring your children to church on Sunday, you're taking part in an ancient Tradition.
One reliable depository of Tradition is the liturgy, especially the Mass. Historians who weren't necessarily Christian were writing what they knew of Christian worship as early as the first century, and it's clear that the early Church believed in the Eucharist.
It may be a stretch to find the seeds of Marian devotion in Scripture, but the Eucharist and the "seeds" of the Mass are as evident as the Trinity!
Anyway, Jennie, I think I'll let you have the last word now. =) My main purpose in coming here to continue the discussion from Visits to Candyland was to find out your reasons for believing what you do--and I think I've done that.
I'll just say that the modern idea of transubstantiation is not the same as the early ideas of the 'real presence'. There were varying ideas about what that meant among the Fathers and the earlier churches, just as there are today, but none went so far in their understanding of Christ being physically present in the eucharist. You may know that 'eucharist' means thanksgiving, and all Christians can use that word in the Lord's Supper, not just those who believe in transubstantiation. As long as Christ truly is present in us and with us, that is what is necessary.
Post a Comment