Growing Protestant Devotion To Mary

Bvm

Catholic News Agency reports a surge in Marian devotion among British Protestants:

"Walsingham is home to two Marian shrines — one Catholic and the other Anglican — located at opposite sides of the town.

[…]

"According to the New York Times, the number of Protestant pilgrims visiting the Marian shrine and staying overnight has risen since 1999, from 10,000 to 12,000.

"Protestant worshipers in Walsingham often belong to the Anglo-Catholic tradition, which accords greater reverence to the Virgin Mary than other Protestant sects, and uses the bells and incense like in the Roman Catholic liturgy.

"The shrines also appeal to other Christians, and the Orthodox and Methodist churches in the town are indicative of this."

GET THE STORY.

This Rock ran an article a few years back on how one Catholic teacher presented the reasonableness of Marian devotion to Protestant students.

GET THE ARTICLE.

New Mary Document (ARCIC)

A reader writes:

Jimmy,

Do you kwow if, when the new document, "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ,",will be available and if we can download it anywere?


http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=56648


http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory%3Fid%3D762213&hl=en

The document is available now, but it is not available for download.

For those who may not be up on what the reader is asking about, there is a new, just-out document from ARCIC (the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, or the main Anglican-Catholic ecumenical dialogue) called "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ." It’s also called "the Seattle Statement" since key work done in drafting it was done in Seattle, where it was released Monday by the Catholic head of ARCIC (Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett) and the Anglican head (Peter Carnley, Archbishop of Perth).

I’d been hearing rumblings about the new document for a bit, but when it came out today, I immediately tried to get a copy.

Unfortunately, it isn’t online–and the plans don’t seem to be for it to be put online. The source I spoke to stressed the copywrited nature of the work (as have written resources I now have) and indicated that it was being produced by Continuum publishing

ORDERS ARE ALREADY BEING TAKEN FOR IT ONLINE, HERE.

ARCIC thus seems to be going the route of protecting their copyright and trying to make money via standard publishing. I don’t know how ARCIC is funded–this may be something they need to do or are contractually bound to do, though for my money–in the Internet age–if you have a new ecumenical or ecclesiastical document that you want to make a really big splash with, the thing to do is slap it up on the Internet.

The source I spoke with was very helpful, though, and I now have a copy of the document, along with some supporting materials. Unfortunately, I can’t simply post the whole thing. That would violate good faith with the source (as well as copyright law), but I can write about it (the source expects me to do that) and quote highlights under the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law (also expected).

So here goes . . .

This is a first take, not based on a full, exhaustive reading of the text.

First, the document makes its status clear right up front. It is not an official document of either Church:

It is a joint statement of the Commission. The authorities who appointed the Commission [that includes the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity] have allowed the statement to be published so that it may be widely discussed. It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the Anglican Communion, who will study and evaluate the document in due course. 

The document is meant to specifically focus on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which were dogmas that previous ARCIC work had called for further discussion.

The document has a lengthy section on Mary in Scripture, followed by one on Mary in Christian Tradition, which amounts to a history of Marian belief and devotion in the Christian age (including in the Reformation). This section is quite well-written, accurate, balanced, and up-to-date, including things John Paul II did as recently as 2002. This section notes:

Jesus Christ was “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” This Anglicans and Roman Catholics together affirm [MGHC 33].

In receiving the Council of Ephesus and the definition of Chalcedon, Anglicans and Roman Catholics together confess Mary as Theotókos [MGHC 34].

There is then a theological section broaching remaining difficulties. It sets an eschatological framework for considering these difficulties, focusing on Mary’s role in God’s plan of the ages. It recognizes that God gave Mary graces to prepare her for her role as the Mother of the Messian and acknowledges her acceptance of God’s will in this role. It thus states:

With the early Church, we see in Mary’s acceptance of the divine will the fruit of her prior preparation, signified in Gabriel’s affirmation of her as ‘graced’. We can thus see that God was at work in Mary from her earliest beginnings, preparing her for the unique vocation of bearing in her own flesh the new Adam, “in whom all things in heaven and earth hold together” (Colossians 1:17). Of Mary, both personally and as a representative figure, we can say she is “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand” (Ephesians 2:10) [MGHC 55].

It goes on to say regarding the Immaculate Conception:

In view of her vocation to be the mother of the Holy One (Luke 1:35), we can affirm together that Christ’s redeeming work reached ‘back’ in Mary to the depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings. This is not contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and can only be understood in the light of Scripture. Roman Catholics can recognize in this what is affirmed by the dogma – namely “preserved from all stain of original sin” and “from the first moment of her conception" [MGHC 59].

Regarding the Assumption, it states:

[G]iven the understanding we have reached concerning the place of Mary in the economy of hope and grace, we can affirm together the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture and that it can, indeed, only be understood in the light of Scripture. Roman Catholics can recognize that this teaching about Mary is contained in the dogma. While the calling and destiny of all the redeemed is their glorification in Christ, Mary, as Theotókos, holds the pre-eminent place within the communion of saints and embodies the destiny of the Church [MGHC 58].

It also says concerning these two doctrines:

We have agreed together that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of 1854 and 1950, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of grace and hope outlined here, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions [MGHC 60].

But it immediately goes on to note that Anglicans have a problem regarding these as obligatory for belief.

There is a final section on Mary in the life of the Church. It acknowledges Mary’s unique role in the communion of the saints and takes up the subject of praying to the saints. After reviewing many of the passages commonly cited in Catholic apologetic writings on the subject, it states:

It is in this sense that we affirm that asking the saints to pray for us is not to be excluded as unscriptural, though it is not directly taught by the scriptures to be a required element of life in Christ. Further, we agree that the way such assistance is sought must not obscure believers’ direct access to God our heavenly Father, who delights to give good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:11) [MGHC 70].

Citing the "Behold your mother" passage in John, the document notes that Christian believers

may come to see Mary as mother of the new humanity, active in her ministry of pointing all people to Christ, seeking the welfare of all the living. We are agreed that, while caution is needed in the use of such imagery, it is fitting to apply it to Mary, as a way of honouring her distinctive relationship to her son, and the efficacy in her of his redeeming work [MGHC 72].

Regarding Marian devotion, the document says;

Many Christians find that giving devotional expression to their appreciation for this ministry of Mary enriches their worship of God. Authentic popular devotion to Mary, which by its nature displays a wide individual, regional and cultural diversity, is to be respected [MGHC 73].

It adds a discussion of apparitions and the devotion showed regarding them and states:

We are agreed that, within the constraints set down in this teaching to ensure that the honour paid to Christ remains pre-eminent, such private devotion is acceptable, though never required of believers [ibid.]

Summing up the topic of Marian devotion and praying to the saints, it states:

Affirming together unambiguously Christ’s unique mediation, which bears fruit in the life of the Church, we do not consider the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as communion dividing. Since obstacles of the past have been removed by clarification of doctrine, by liturgical reform and practical norms in keeping with it, we believe that there is no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division on these matters [MGHC 75].

The document concludes by noting that "Our statement has sought not to clear away all possible problems" (MGHC 80), which is a key statement that needed to be there since the document does not report full agreement on all points. It does open the door for Anglicans to believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example, but acknowledges that Anglicans find it difficult to say that such beliefs should be required.

Early work by ARCIC was found problematic by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (prompting clarifications to be made), but based on the brief look at the document that I’ve been able to have, I’m not sensing such problems with this one. This document does not seem to be papering over divisions with ambiguous formulae (one of the problems with the early work) and seems to clearly acknowledge when the two groups are not in full agreement.

In terms of what is new in the document that might advance the cause of authentic ecumenism, it strikes me that the Catholic group does not do that much that is new toward answering Anglican concerns. Instead, the document cites a long string of things Catholics have already done that ameliorate the kinds of concerns Anglicans had after the time of the Reformation. In other words, it acknowledges that the kind of hyper-Marian things many Protestants were afraid of regarding Catholic Marian belief and practice have been carefully nuanced already by the Catholic Church.

Most of the reassurances that Anglicans would have sought thus have already been made in different Catholic documents. It helps, though, to have a joint document acknowledging that these reassurances havfe been made.

Most of the "new" things in the document therefore fall on the Anglican side of things. They display a remarkable degree of openness toward Catholic Marian belief and practice. While this stops short of a full endorsement or mandate of the Catholic perspective, it is still a remarkable step forward.

Since this is not an official document of either Church, it speaks only for the actual participants in the dialogue and is presented to the two communions for reflection. Unless there’s something that I missed, I don’t think that the Holy See will have a problem with what it says (maybe a phrase here or there). What I will be most interested to see is the reaction that it gets in the Anglican communion. If it receives a positive reception there, it could have a significant impact on future relations and lead to a broadening and deepening of Marian belief and practice in Anglicanism.

Our Lady Of The Underpass, Redux

Kewly enough, I noticed that my humble post on "Our Lady of the Underpass" has been picked up elsewhere. However, not all readers of this blog have yet picked up on the distinction that JimmyAkin.org is currently a group blog, so my post was mistakenly attributed to Jimmy. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries writes:

"And finally, Dave Armstrong saw my note on Mary stains, and has fulfilled my wildest dreams by telling his fellow Catholics to get a grip (a little paraphrase there). Thank you Mr. Armstrong. Now, if you could be so kind as to go down to Chicago and try that out in front of all those folks lighting candles, I’d like to see their reaction. Or, how about cleaning the stain off the wall while explaining that? Yes, that would be interesting. But maybe Armstrong will comment on this amazing comment cited by Jimmy Akin about the same ‘stains.’"

[White here cites the original post. His editorial comment: "Um … yeah, wow. OK."]

Since the post has garnered a bit of controversy, even within the comments section of my post itself, I decided that a bit of clarification would be helpful:

The commenter I cited, a reader of Relapsed Catholic, implicitly agreed that the stains on the wall in question are just that, stains. As one reader of my post pointed out, when Mary actually appears, she simply appears. In all true apparitions, it’s really Mary, not an image in toast, oil, or any other material thing:

"These things ARE NOT MARY. They are nothing, just shadows, oil slicks, water stains. Our Lady NEVER appears IN something, IN some medium. She simply APPEARS. I am really sick of these stories, they really get my goat. Don’t these people know ANYTHING about verified Marian appearances? Rant over. For now" (emphasis is the reader’s).

(As a quick side note, even the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, miraculously impressed on St. Juan Diego’s tilma, is just that: An image.  It was an image given as a sign to verify the reality of the apparitions given to St. Juan Diego himself.)

The distinction the person I quoted was trying to make, a distinction with which I agreed, is that it is in line with a genuinely Catholic piety to consider shapes vaguely similar to Mary to be images — icons, if you will — of Mary placed within creation. If such shapes are indeed placed within creation, then God does it; something Relapsed Catholic’s commenter states whimsically by attributing the deed to the Child Jesus scribbling pictures of Mommy.

The Catholic worldview is an inherently sacramental and incarnational worldview. Because Catholics experience God spiritually through the physical reality of the sacraments, it is natural for them to instinctively see God’s hand at work in the physical order of things. That sacramental experience of God enables Catholics to draw more deeply from the reality of the Incarnation than might non-sacramental Christians who only experience God cerebrally. Thus, Catholics can draw connections that might otherwise horrify non-sacramental Christians. "Our Lady of the Underpass" is one example.

As another example, I once read a book on St. Joseph which quoted a Catholic saying that he especially loved St. Joseph because St. Joseph taught God how to be a man. When I first read that, I loved the idea but realized that this was a deeply Catholic sentiment that might well repulse Protestant Fundamentalists. It’s not because they would disagree that Joseph was entrusted by God to raise and rear Jesus Christ; it’s because they have not deeply pondered, as Catholics have over many centuries, what it means for God to have chosen to become a man.  What it means that he chose to enter humanity as a baby rather than as a man full-grown.  The repulsion would be the first instinct, the pious Christian reaction that it is impossible for man to teach God anything, even, to a certain extent, how to be a man.  It would take deeper reflection to realize that there is nothing wrong with saying that Christ’s earthly father taught him some of what it means to be a man, just as human fathers do for human sons.

Getting back to the original point: In short, yes, designs that appear to resemble Mary should not be mistaken for "apparitions" around which followings presumably develop. At best, such natural designs of sacred images are natural icons open to interpretation by others who may see other, non-sacred designs in them. Just like icons, such images should not be worshipped, but if they point the person onward to Mary and through her to Christ, neither should they be condemned. (And, in distinction to sacred icons, which should be treated with the reverence due such icons, there would be nothing wrong with eating a "Marian" grilled-cheese sandwich or scrubbing a "Marian" oil slick from a wall.)

Those non-sacramental Christians critiquing the Catholic reaction to such images should at least remember that the Catholic worldview is finely attuned to seeing the supernatural within the natural creation of God. Such Christians may not understand the conclusions Catholic draw from such a sensitivity to creation, but should at least be able to agree that it expresses a genuine Christian sentiment that all creation (which includes sandwiches and oil slicks), of which Christ is the firstborn, was created in Christ and for Christ, and thus gives glory to him (cf. Col. 1:15-16).

Our Lady of the Underpass

Ordinarily, I don’t pay much attention to "sightings" of Mary in all manner of creation. It kind of reminds me of the child’s game of spotting pictures in clouds. That’s not a bad thing, per se, but certainly not something that should be taken seriously. So, when I saw this story about another such "sighting," I sighed and shrugged.

However, a reader over at Relapsed Catholic had a wonderful comment on the matter, also working in an observation about our new Pope:

"I saw a clip today of a young German woman being interviewed in Rome. I forget her exact words, but she indicated that the election of Benedict represents the redemption of Germany: the country that produced Hitler has now produced a Pope. What a neat thought! [Especially when one remembers that both men were born on Holy Saturday. –MA]

"You probably caught that ‘Our Lady of the Underpass’ story. I admit I tend to roll my eyes when people see the Blessed Virgin in pieces of toast and parking garage walls. However, lately I’ve been smiling at the idea of the Child Jesus scribbling pictures of Mommy all over — just because he can, you know?"

Time On Protestants On Mary

TimecoverTime Magazine is doing a cover story on the Virgin Mary and how she is coming to be regarded in Protestant circles.

For a long time many in Protestant churches (myself among them, back in the day) have downplayed and even dissed the Blessed Virgin, which is rather extraordinary since, y’know, she’s Jesus’ mom.

Well, the times, they are a-changin.’

Partly due to Mel Gibson’s treatment of Mary in The Passion of the Christ, partly due to cooling passions from the Reformation, partly due to Catholic apologetics, and partly due to thoughtful Protestant leaders who have been speaking out on the subject: Mary is now getting more of the respect and devotion she deserves in Protestant circles.

(Even if she does look like she’s doing the "wax on, wax off" move on the Time cover–but, hey, they ain’t Christian: They’s Church of the MSM.)

I’ve been quite surprised at the changes taking place. One Protestant apologist I know speaks very openly about Mary and sounds very Catholic in doing so, even defending titles like Mediatrix on her behalf.

You thus might want to check out this issue of Time at at your local news stand.

OR USE THIS LINK TO EXPLORE THE PARTIAL MATERIAL THEY MAKE AVAILABLE TO NON-SUBSCRIBERS.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent it!)

Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh!

A reader writes:

I’m trying to piece together an apologetics answer involving some Greek and Aramaic and this is getting dangerous.  Could you help?  It centers on the objection to Catholics claiming that the "brothers of Jesus" actually refers to "cousins or kinfolk" following the indefinite term aha (I think) in Aramaic.  Aramaic apparently has no strict term for cousin and the Greek author transliterated adelphos from the Aramaic "brother".  So far so good.   But someone recently retorted that if there is no term for cousin in Aramaic, why is Elizabeth called Mary’s "cousin" (sungenes) in Luke 1, 36?  OK, I’ve learned that "cousin" is only one word used here by English translators- along with kinswoman and relative.  So, Elizabeth’s not strictly meant to be seen as Mary’s literal cousin.  But now I’m trying to learn if there is a corresponding Aramaic term for the Elizabeth-Mary relationship as there is for the Jesus-Brothers relationship.  It seems that, to be consistent, Luke must have transliterated some sort of Aramaic term to arrive at sungenes for the Elizabeth-Mary relation.  Any ideas?

First, let me take a moment to comment on the translation in Luke 1:36 in the New American Bible of sungenis (the feminine form of sungenēs) as "cousin." This is a terrible rendering that has caused confusion for countless faithful Catholics. It is just another one of the seemingly countless flaws with this translation. The meaning of the Greek word sungenēs (pronounced sun-gen-ace) is too general to be translated "cousin." "Relative," "kinsman," or (in the feminine) "kinswoman" would be acceptable translations. "Cousin" is simply wrong, and so clearly wrong that in Luke 1:36 in the current version of the NAB, they’ve stopped rendering it that way and translated it as "relative" instead. If only the translators hadn’t been so irresponsible as to do the misrendering in the first place, countless Catholics would have been spared confusion.

Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for "cousin." If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

Luke could have been translating any one of these more general terms (or, rather, their feminine equivalents) as sungenēs, or he could have been translating a different, general term, or he could have been paraphrasing what the angel said rather than translating from the Aramaic. There’s really no way to know which is the case, but there certainly are alternatives.