|
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
- John 1:14
|
|
|
|
Solid Rock or Stumbling Block?
A Consideration of the Petrine Ministry
by Fr Samuel Edwards SSM
In my last article for this web page, I led you through a rather lengthy consideration of the catholic doctrines that involve the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the history of our redemption. Now, I would invite you to consider with me the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church which is Christ’s Bride and Body. It is my hope that what follows will clarify matters so that those who, after much prayerful reflection, are led to the acceptance of the offer of Anglican Ordinariates in communion with the See of Rome, will know what it is they will be affirming and so that those who, after much prayerful reflection, decide not to accept it will understand what it is they are declining to affirm.
There are three basic and essential doctrinal elements related to catholic teaching concerning the Petrine ministry exercised by the Bishop of Rome, which may briefly be denoted by the words primacy, succession, and infallibility. We will consider these in order, but at the outset it is worth noting that most Anglicans of the various species of “high churchmanship” (ranging from “prayer book catholic” to “anglo-papalist”) haven’t much difficulty with succession, and many have no great difficulty with primacy. Most of the difficulty revolves around the last item: infallibility, about which there is more distortion and nonsense circulating than about the other two combined (which is saying a lot, since there is no small amount of distortion and nonsense in circulation about them).
Primacy of Peter
The scriptural basis for the doctrine of the primacy of Peter (and, in combination with the doctrine of succession, for the doctrine of the primacy of Peter’s successors) rests not only on the famous passage in St Matthew’s gospel where Jesus refers to Peter as the “rock” upon which he will build his Church – critical though that is – but as well on passages in Luke’s works (the Gospel and the Acts) and in those of Paul. It is noteworthy (1) that in every scriptural list of the Lord’s apostles, full or partial, Peter is named first, (2) that when Judas is being replaced between the Ascension of the Lord and Pentecost he is the one who gives direction on how that is to be done, (3) that on the Day of Pentecost he is the one who speaks first to the assembled multitude, and (4) that at the Council of Jerusalem, when the question of Gentile membership in the Church is being debated, he speaks last in the debate, and (5) that after he speaks, there is no more debate: The matter is determined, and James’ subsequent directions are aimed at implementing the decision. It is also noteworthy that when Paul goes up to Jerusalem, it is to consult with those who are accounted pillars of the Church, of whom Peter again is named first.
There is no argument that will stand against the Scriptural evidence that Peter had a primacy among the apostles of the Lord, and that this primacy was something that was conferred upon him personally by the Lord himself.
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is usually understood as the notion that the Pope is a kind of monarch among bishops, that he stands in a relationship to the rest of the Church’s bishops that is like that of a medieval king’s to his vassals. However, if one is using analogies drawn from civil government, this is really not the best of them. A much more accurate, and therefore a better analogy is to the role of a Prime Minister in a monarchy. The Prime Minister is equal to all the other Ministers in that each is appointed by the sovereign, but who also is first among them (hence, Prime) because he is the one who is charged with the final responsibility for the other Ministers, for deciding finally between them when there is a dispute over what the policy of the Crown’s government is, for seeing that they implement these policies in their own areas of responsibility, and for disciplining or removing them when they fail to do so.
A critical aspect of the primacy conferred on Peter which has often been overlooked but has been more prominently emphasized since Vatican II – particularly during the reign of John Paul II – is the responsibility to “strengthen [also rendered as, “confirm”] the brethren.” This given to Peter by Jesus and recorded in Luke 22:31-32: “And the Lord said, ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
One more thing about primacy: The very word implies collegiality, not solo despotism: There can be no primacy without a group of equals in which the primacy is exercised. In the Vatican II documents concerning the Petrine office, it is made quite clear that, though the Pope is the principal bishop of the Church and has final authority over the college of bishops of which he is the head, he exercises his ministry within and speaks on behalf of the bishops who are in communion with him, and who with him comprise the Church’s organ of definitive teaching in matters of faith and morals, called the magisterium (from the Latin word for “teacher”).
Succession from Peter
Primacy is one thing, succession another, and the link – or lack of it – between the two historically has defined the differences between Anglicans, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Popes are the lineal successors of Saint Peter the Apostle and that the official authority given to him by Jesus was passed on to his successors in office down to the present day. (Pope Benedict XVI is the 264th successor of Saint Peter.) It is possible to recognize on the basis of Scriptural evidence alone that Peter had a definite primacy among the original apostles of the Lord while at the same time denying that this primacy was or even could be passed on to others, and many Anglicans and Protestants have taken this position. The problem with it is that there is also strong Biblical evidence that by the words he used in the very act of conferring the primacy on Peter, Jesus made it plain to the disciples that it was to be passed on “until his coming again.” Here’s why:
When Jesus told Peter that he was giving him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” he was using an image from the Old Testament (specifically from Isaiah 22, verses 20-22) that would have been very familiar to the rest of his disciples. The immediate context in which these verses come has to do with the Lord’s depriving Shebna of his office as treasurer of the royal household because of his abuse of his power. (The office of treasurer was the most important in an ancient Middle Eastern monarchy, for obvious reasons. It was equivalent to that of the Grand Vizier in Egypt, and to that of Prime Minister – who is also called the First Lord of the Treasury – in Great Britain.) Through Isaiah, the Lord tells Shebna,
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. [Emphasis added.] And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house. – Isaiah 22:20-23a
The “key” given to the Prime Minister was the primary sign of his office. With it, he had the means to open or to shut the kingdom’s treasury as directed by the King. Shebna had apparently been abusing his office by neglecting to use what was in the treasury to repair the defenses of Jerusalem, using it instead to feather his own nest, so he was deprived of the office and with it the key to the treasury.
The disciples of Jesus, being well versed in the scriptures, would have immediately heard the resonance between this passage and what Jesus said to Peter after his confession at Caesarea Philippi, “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”:
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place.] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.] – Matthew 16:17-19
(It is interesting to note that in this passage, Matthew uses the plural, “keys,” rather than Isaiah’s singular, “key.” I am unsure of what significance this fact has, though it does put me in mind of the fact that while each Minister of State would have the key to his own office and dispatch box, the Prime Minister would be the only one have the key to all the offices and dispatch boxes. Perhaps it is a veiled reference to the universal mission of the church, which comprehends the Jew and the Gentile.)
In addition to the Biblical evidence, it is clear that from a very early time the succession from Peter – both in office and in its attendant authority – was widely acknowledged in the Church, beginning with the First Letter of Clement (the third successor of Peter), written around 95AD addressing and settling a controversy in faraway Corinth. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing to confute heresies about a hundred years later, gives lists of succession several for several episcopal sees, beginning with that of the Church at Rome, whose consistent orthodoxy he especially emphasizes. Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo make strong affirmations of the primacy and succession of the bishops of Rome. At the crucial Council of Chalcedon in 451, it is the reading of Pope Leo the Great’s letter on the true relationship between the human and divine natures in Christ that brings the debate to a close with the attending bishops crying out, “Peter has spoken through Leo” and then incorporating his terminology into the Council’s definition. (Here there is an echo of Peter’s role at the Council of Jerusalem.)
Infallibility
It is not at all uncommon for Anglo-catholics to have no difficulty at all with affirming the primacy of Peter and the succession of the bishops of Rome to that primacy. Indeed, it is almost a staple of the High Church Anglican doctrine of the Church. The balk comes with the third distinct element of the Petrine ministry, which is the dogma of papal infallibility. It is usually the last doctrinal hurdle to be crossed.
First, it is critical to understand exactly what this dogma proclaims. Perhaps it would be best at this point to cite in full the paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which deal with this dogma:
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith." [Lumen Gentium 12; cf. Dei Verbum 10.]
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. [Lumen Gentium 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"[ Dei Verbum 10 # 2.] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."[ Lumen Gentium 25 # 2.] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [Cf. Lumen Gentium 25.]
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" [Lumen Gentium 26.] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
The first thing to note is that infallibility in matters of faith and morals is a characteristic primarily of the Church as the Body of Christ. When the Pope speaks infallibly, he must be doing so, not as an individual named Karl or Karol or Luciano or Giovanni, or Peter, giving his opinions – not even on matters of faith and morals – but “in virtue of his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful.” (The Latin term for this is ex cathedra, literally “from the chair [of Peter].”)
The next thing to note is that infallibility has a limited, though practically crucial, scope: It is restricted to matters of faith and morals. Beyond that, what is defined is not new doctrine (since public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle), but is the making explicit of what heretofore was implicit, the making more definite of what previously was indefinite. This is one reason why, from the days of the earliest councils of the Church down until modern times, the documents in which dogmas (required beliefs) are defined typically spend a great deal of space citing the Scriptural and Traditional foundations of the new definition and, by using Reason (which means human reason enlightened by the Holy Spirit, who makes present the divine Reason, or Logos), showing how the new definition is part of the treasury of faith committed by Christ to his Church.
Now, to the inevitable – and fair – question, “where is this found in the Bible,” the answer is, “nowhere explicitly, but that would hardly make it the only dogma that falls into that category.” Nor, I might add, would it make the Roman Catholic Church the only Christian body to assert as an essential teaching something that cannot be found in Scripture: For example, there is no explicit assertion in the Bible itself that only what is explicit in its text can be required for belief. This is why the Anglican Articles of Religion add “may be proved thereby [=demonstrated to be congruent with]” to “read therein” in reference to the sufficiency of Scripture. (See my previous article on Mary for a fuller discussion of this point.) Neither is there any explicit assertion in Scripture that it is self-interpreting, though there is an explicit condemnation of private interpretation (see 2 Peter 1:20-21).
The principal Biblical foundation for the teaching concerning the infallibility of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals – expressed through the college of bishops in union with the Pope – is held to be Jesus’ assertion to Peter that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against” the Church. As Roman Catholic apologist (and former Presbyterian minister) Scott Hahn writes,
… [T]he gates of Hades derive their power from error, from untruth, from falsehood, the father of lies. If one lie is allowed into the Church's pure, sacred teaching, that's like taking a window pane and putting one crack into it. I'll tell you what happens. I was driving down a highway in Milwaukee and a little pebble bounced up and just touched the windshield, a little crack. What happened? Over the next few months, my wife will tell you, that crack grew and grew, and we had to replace it because the whole thing could have been shattered. [A link to the transcribed lecture from which this is extracted, and which has been of great help to me in preparing this essay, can be found at the end of this article.]
Jesus knew full well the condition of the world into which he was sending his apostles: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep among wolves.” If he indeed is the Good Shepherd, it strains credulity to assert that he would not have provided his Church with what it needs, not only to repel the Wolf of Souls, but to confine him to his lair, beat down its gates, so that he at last can corner and slay him.
There is also support in the New Testament for the idea of binding definitions made in virtue of the office of the defining personage(s) – teaching delivered ex cathedra. There at least two pieces of evidence for this. Hahn points out one of them, noting that Jesus – whose estimation of the moral character of the scribes and the Pharisees was far from high – still told his followers that, since “the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat (cathedras)” they should “do what they tell you, but not what they do, for they practice but they do not preach.” The other is the treatment John gives to the High Priest Caiaphas’ declaration to the Sanhedrin that “it is expedient for us that one man [Jesus] should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” One would think that it would be sufficient to let this example of self-serving cynicism (what would today be dignified as Realpolitik) speak for itself, but John continues,
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. [John 11:50-52, emphasis added.]
Caiaphas, a man wholly lacking in any sense of justice, or care for the truth upon which all justice rests, still was able, “not of himself, but being high priest,” to utter – albeit without understanding what he was saying – a profound truth about the significance of the death of Jesus. One might well ask whether it is not reasonable to suppose that, if this sort of thing were possible for the priesthood of the Old Covenant, it is even more so under the priesthood of the New Covenant.
One might also ask why, if it were possible for the Holy Spirit, “in many and various ways,” [Hebrews 1:1] to direct several dozen naturally fallible men to write infallible Scripture, it would not be possible for him to continue to direct naturally fallible men, as needed and on the basis of that infallible Scripture, to authentically and definitively interpret it.
Conclusion
After prayerful consideration, during which much of what I formerly understood about this matter has been weighed in the balance and found wantint, it seems to me that each and all of the three aspects of the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome – primacy, succession, and infallibility – pass the classical threefold Anglican test for legitimate teaching: They are conformable with Scripture, with Tradition, and with Reason.
I humbly commend these reflections, and this conclusion, to your consideration with the appeal of Saint Paul to the Christians at Philippi:
I have not yet reached perfection, but I press on, hoping to take hold of that for which Christ once took hold of me. My friends, I do not claim to have hold of it yet. What I do say is this: forgetting what is behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press towards the finishing line, to win the heavenly prize to which God has called me in Christ. We who are mature should keep to this way of thinking. If on any point you think differently, this also God will make plain to you. Only let our conduct be consistent with what we have already attained. [Philippians 3:12b-16, Revised English Bible.]
Waynesville, North Carolina
Octave Day of Saints Peter and Paul
Commemoration of Saint Thomas More, Martyr
July 6, 2010
Note: The transcription of Dr Scott Hahn’s lecture on the Papacy referred to above can be read in full at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
+ + + + + + +
Dear Members and Friends of Saint Peter’s:
The 2010 Synod of the Diocese of the Eastern United States, where you were represented by Seth Linn, Deacon Louis, and me, has now come to an end.
As might be expected, a great deal of time was devoted to discussing the recent offer from Pope Benedict of a way for Anglicans to come into full communion with the See of Peter and how that would affect our life together in this diocese, especially in situations in which the members of our parishes might come to different conclusions regarding the proposal. Deacon Louis, in his sermon for today, has given a very good reflection on our meeting, and I commend it to your attention when it is posted on the parish website.
It was clearly realized at Synod that more information needed to be communicated to all the members of the diocese so that each person and congregation can make the best decision possible, and the leadership of the diocese is committed to seeing that this happens.
I was among those clergy who were constituted as a working group charged with preparing materials concerning The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the doctrinal touchstone of the full communion that is being offered. In that connection, I would encourage each of you to submit questions to me to be shared with the other members of the working group. If you have concerns, it is probable that other members of the diocese will have similar concerns, and we want to address these as best we can. (If you wish to consult the Catechism, it is widely available in print, and can be read online at www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM. Of particular use – not least because of its question and answer format – is the accompanying Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which can be found online at http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html)
It was very clear that, even in the presence of a wide spectrum of opinion, there is a determination on the part of our bishop and our diocesan leadership to ensure that the pastoral needs of everyone in the diocese are adequately met. No one will be left an orphan, regardless of the decision made in his local community of faith, nor will anyone be compelled to act contrary to his or her conscience. Indeed, respect for personal conscience is a hallmark of the best of both Anglican and Roman pastoral practice, and it will be a guiding principle for us in this present time. Further discussion of practical details will be ongoing as further information becomes available.
It should be remembered by everyone that the sovereignty of personal conscience carries with it a moral obligation to inform that conscience as fully as possible. In other words, we really are required – so far as is possible for us – to know what we’re talking about. Whether one decides to enter into an Anglican Ordinariate in full communion with the Roman Church or remain as a member of the Anglican Church in America as presently constituted, he should make that decision on the basis of what is objectively true and not out of unexamined opinions or inherited prejudices.
Because the matters we must consider are of such importance, they are apt to generate great emotion, and great emotion tends lead to fear and to shut down the capacity to listen with genuine attentiveness. Therefore, it is our challenge to present all viewpoints as fairly, as accurately, and above all as charitably as possible, God being our helper.
As is ever appropriate, the Lord Jesus gets the last word: “Be not afraid.” [Matthew 28:10]
Fr Samuel Edwards, Vicar
+ + + + + + +
GETTING RIGHT WITH MARY
Jesus saith unto his mother, “Woman, behold thy son!” Then saith he unto the disciple, “Behold thy Mother.” And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. – John 19:26-27
Introduction
For a long time, this month of May was traditionally associated with the Virgin Mother of our Lord, and thus was often called “the month of Mary.” In many places, it was in characterized by special devotions focused on our Lady, from religious processions to Maypole dances (the latter probably being a Christianized version of pre-Christian springtime rites and for that reason as roundly hated by puritanical types as were the customs of Christmastide). In the days of our grandparents and great-grandparents, “May” was often the nickname given to girls whose given name was “Mary,” though probably never so common as “Molly.” Very likely, some version of this name – Mary, Maria, Marie, Marian, Miriam, Maryam, Mariah, and so forth – is the most common given name for Christian women in all cultures, and in some cultures (such as the French) is not rare as a component of men’s names as well.
The reason for this is that in all history there is no human shadow that stretches so long as that of this slip of a Hebrew maiden – save that of One, who is also the Sun/ Son who casts the shadow. The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, whose Irish wit and eloquence was matched by his theological acumen, called her “the world’s first love,” and, excepting always and only her divine Son (which exception she would be – and is – the first to insist upon) there is no one – no not one – to whom this title can be more appropriately applied. The face of Helen of Troy may have launched a thousand ships on a mission of vengeance and destruction, but that of Mary of Nazareth has launched millions upon millions of saints on the path to mercy and fulfillment.
A consideration of Mary to us at tiny Saint Peter’s Anglican Church in remote Waynesville, North Carolina may seem to have little importance, but in fact it is acutely relevant. As most of our members and readers surely know by now, we are a part of the Anglican Church in America, which is the American representative of the Traditional Anglican Communion. Our bishops (see story on the web page “That They May Be One”) recently made a unanimous request to the Vatican to see how the ACA might be configured as a “Personal Ordinariate” under the terms of last November’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus (Groups of Anglicans) and so be admitted to full communion with the Bishop of Rome and all those in communion with him in the Catholic Church(es).
The teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Virgin Mary is an essential component of her faith and identity, and it must be properly understood as such by Anglicans coming into full communion with her. I say, “properly understood,” because there is a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of that teaching by non-catholic Christians and by non-Christians. Much of this is born of ignorance; some of it comes as part of a general hostility to the Church itself; all of it conforms to the divisive purposes of Satan, who hates only One – Jesus himself – as much as he hates the Virgin Mother and all she personifies and represents – pure and focused love of God, fruitfulness, humility, marriage, virginity, obedience, courage, sanctity, and so on.
The reason many good Christians – even high-church Anglicans – shy away from veneration the Blessed Virgin Mary is that they fear that honor given to her detracts from that due to her divine Son. This might be true if love were quantifiable, but genuine love is not divided or diminished by having more than one object, though its quality and expression will differ according to the nature of its object. To say, “I cannot honor/ pray to/ praise Mary without diminishing or corrupting the honor I give to Jesus,” is substantially no different than saying you cannot admire the “Mona Lisa” without diminishing the regard you have for Leonardo, or that you cannot listen to Bach’s music lest you think less of his genius, or that you cannot commend Dickens’ books for fear that you might not adequately appreciate his greatness. Any of these are manifestly absurd, for it is through the works of Leonardo or Bach or Dickens that we know their greatness.
What is true regarding the sub-creator is supremely true of the All-Creator: To praise His work is to praise Him in His work. Indeed, His work is fully comprehended in the “great glory” for which we praise him. That includes the greatest of his created works – whom we hymn as “higher than the Cherubim, more glorious than the Seraphim” [Hymn 599] – whom Wordsworth called “our tainted nature’s solitary boast” – whose glory is derived entirely from Him, as she herself acknowledges from the first: “For he that is mighty hath magnified me.”
Now, it cannot be denied that it is possible, and that it often has happened, that devotion to Mary has become distorted. So has patriotism, and love of family, and love of food and drink, and just about anything else you can name. Idolatry is the risk God runs for creating a world filled with the signs of his presence. However, when idolatry is present, it is so because of a moral failure – and generally a failure of imagination – on the part of the idolater. Idolatry is in the idolater, not in the thing of which he makes an idol. The destruction of the thing leaves the fundamental disease untreated, and the idolater will simply shift his misdirected devotion to another object less than God. It is really no accident that many of the very churches that have defined themselves as being against the veneration of Mary and the saints and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and in the Church have evolved into associations that deny – or make optional, which is a “soft denial” – belief in the divinity of Jesus and his saving work.
The Catholic Doctrines about Mary
It must be understood that the essential fact about the catholic doctrines concerning Mary is that they are all ultimately about Jesus – even as she is, and from the Annunciation has known that she is, all about Jesus. Her exaltation – “henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” – is precisely the consequence of the fact that “he that is mighty hath magnified me, and holy is his Name.” Her fundamental counsel as “the handmaiden of the Lord” [Luke 1:38] to us “the servants,” is “whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” [John 2:5].
The essential catholic doctrines about Mary are as follows:
1. She was conceived of the union of her mother and father in the normal way, but with the “singular privilege” (that is, hers alone) of being so conceived without taint of original sin. This was done in anticipation of her call to be the Mother of God (see number 7 below), and solely in virtue of his merits. (This is called the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, and should not be confused with the following.)
2. In genuine freedom accepting the call of God and by her obedience undoing the disobedience of her (and our) foremother Eve, she conceived our Lord “of the Holy Ghost,” and without a human father. (This is called the Virginal Conception of our Lord, not to be confused with the preceding.)
3. She remained a Virgin after the birth of the Lord. (This is called the Perpetual Virginity of our Lady, and was believed by all orthodox Christians and most heretical Christians until quite recently. These included the great Anglican theologians as well as Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys, and even Zwingli.)
4. She was present at the Cross, where Jesus commended her into the care of his beloved disciple [see John 21:25-27], and she was present and praying in the company of the Apostles and other disciples in the Upper Room from the Ascension until the Day of Pentecost [see Acts 1:14 and following].
5. At the end of her earthly life, she was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory. (This is called the Bodily Assumption of our Lady.)
6. Because of her unique relationship to her divine Son, the King of heaven, she is rightly regarded as the Queen (or if you prefer, the Queen Mother) of heaven and so is entitled to the greatest degree of veneration (not worship, which is proper only to God) among all creatures. (This veneration is technically referred to by the Greek word hyperdulia, which is an intensification of the term dulia, which signifies what is properly rendered to the saints at large, and which also is the word lying behind our English word “due” – meaning that which is owed someone because of who they are. The Greek word for worship is latreia. The distinction between dulia and hyperdulia is one of degree; that between them and latreia is one of kind.)
7. She continues – together with all the faithful, but to a supreme degree – to participate in the mediatorial ministry that is her Son’s and to intercede on behalf of the whole Church. Therefore, it is at least as good and right to ask for her intercessory prayers as it is to ask for those of any other member of Christ’s Church, and her intercessions, at least as much of those of any other member of Christ’s Church, are effective. (This is called the doctrine of Mary as Universal Mediatrix, which – it must be emphasized – is a ministry she exercises not apart from, but within that of her Son, who is the “one mediator between God and man [1 Timothy 2:5].)
8. She is rightly titled Theotokos (a Greek word meaning, “birth-giver of God” or “Mother of God”) because the Lord Jesus is God in Person, and because his human and divine natures, though they can be distinguished, cannot be separated without grievous error. This dogma is sometimes referred to as the dogma of the Divine Maternity.
Now, most modern traditionalist Anglicans (yes, I’m aware of the paradoxical phrase, and it’s there on purpose) and other non-Roman and non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, have no difficulty affirming items 2, 4, and 8 on the list above. The problem seems to come with items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7.
I understand the difficulties, since (with the exception of 8), I’ve shared them at some point along the way. (In the interests of full disclosure, I affirm every last one of them now.)
It recently occurred to me that the usual objections for orthodox-evangelical-catholic Anglicans all seem to derive from a reading of one of our basic Anglican principals for determining what is and is not dogma (that is, essential teaching): “...that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” (Article VI., emphasis added.)
Now, contrary to what is usually assumed (because for so long the Articles of Religion have been subjected to an essentially Puritan/ Calvinist “spin”), this does not mean that “if I don’t see it written explicitly in the Bible, I don’t have to believe it and the Church can’t require that I do.” This is not catholic – Roman, Anglican, or Orthodox – teaching, but instead is characteristic of a particular literalist strain of American Protestantism, perhaps most noticeably present in the Church of Christ.
You will note that Article VI clearly indicates that what is read in (that is, is plainly evident from) Scripture, is not the sole test of dogma. In addition, that which can be “proved” from Scripture may be denoted as dogma.
“Proof,” as anyone familiar with rules of evidence will know, is not confined to smoking guns. It can include more circumstantial kinds of evidence, so long as it is conformable to what is more certainly evident. “The Church to teach, the Bible to prove” does not mean that plain biblical words must give explicit testimony to the Church’s teaching, but that what purports to be Church teaching must not deviate from what the Bible – taken as a whole, not as a collection of proof-texts – says. The Bible may be interpreted in its own terms, but it is not self-interpreting in the sense in which that notion (which is nowhere found in scripture, by the way) is usually applied, which is really an attempt to avoid both the teaching authority vested in the Church and the evident deficiencies and risks of private interpretation (which, not by the way, is explicitly condemned in scripture). There still needs to be an authoritative source to elaborate and apply the principles of interpretation, and that is why we have been given the gift of the Church’s teaching authority, sustained in truth by the Holy Spirit.
As an example, an Anglican might object that, since the Assumption of our Lady is not recorded in Scripture, it is not right that belief in it be classified as an essential component of the faith. If he is applying the narrow (Church of Christ-type) definition of Scriptural proof, he is correct. However, apart from the difficulties he is letting himself in for when someone applies this principle to other items that he might consider essential, such as, say, the legitimacy of infant baptism, he is not applying the standard as the Articles themselves present it. Further, he gets into difficulties when some smart-alec (like yours truly) asks, “If Enoch and Elijah – who no one will deny were sinners as are we, notwithstanding they “walked with God,” – were assumed bodily into heaven, by what standard can you pronounce that Mary was not assumed into heaven?” In other words, the Assumption of our Lady is entirely conformable to Scriptural standards (provable by Scripture), and being so, is capable of being asserted as an essential component of the faith on grounds which, though not explicit in Scripture, are in full conformity with it.
Now, let us look in order at the items that seem to pose difficulties for a number of Anglicans:
1. The Immaculate Conception. This is a recognition, not only of the uniqueness of the role of Mary in the history of salvation, but of the fact that God was directly involved at every stage of its preparation. In brief, the doctrine asserts that in view of the merits of her Son (to borrow Peter’s phrase from his Pentecost sermon, “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God”) Mary was conceived without the deficiency – the “stain of original sin” – which is the handicap we inherit from our first parents. One might say that its purpose was to give her the ability to render a genuinely free consent to the unique and unrepeatable mission which was to be laid before her by the Archangel Gabriel – capable of possessing such fear-expelling perfect love that Perfect Love Himself could dwell within her without destroying her. If she were to be the agent for the undoing of the damage Eve began and Adam ratified, Mary had to be as free to obey as Eve had been. In other words, she had to be made consecrated – that is, made holy so that she could receive the Holy One himself. As is abundantly clear from the way the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, Mary is made holy as we are: in virtue of the merits of her Son. From our perspective inside time (which is other than God’s perspective, which is that of eternity, or “all time at once”) this means they were applied in anticipation, but this sort of application is not a difference in kind, but one of method. In our case and in hers it is the same grace from the same source.
3. The Perpetual Virginity. As I have already mentioned, all orthodox Christians – including the “magisterial Reformers” of the sixteenth century (Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, together with the Anglicans) – believed it, or at least would not countenance its denial. Its denial, except by evident and isolated heretics, did not become common until quite recent times – from the miscalled “Enlightenment,” which had a tendency to corrupt even some elements who stood in opposition to it. Though never formally defined in the same way as the Immaculate Conception, the Divine Maternity, and the Bodily Assumption, this is no less an essential component of the Church’s teaching about Mary and – because of that – about God.
Why is this? Well, why are we scandalized when we hear of a consecrated church converted into a bar or a restaurant or a private home? It is not because we think that food and drink and family life are in themselves bad things: At least it shouldn’t be, or we probably have a heresy to repent of. Rather, it is because we instinctively sense that there is something not quite right about converting something that has been set aside for the worship of God to any other use, however legitimate. The proof that Belshazzar was “weighed in the balance and found wanting” was his taking the sacred vessels that had been looted from the temple by his father Nebuchadnezzar and using them for drinking cups at a pagan banquet. [See Daniel 5]
My point here is this: What kind of God would give someone a unique and unrepeatable calling – to be the Mother of his unbegotten Son (and, we might add, the sole supplier of that Child’s genetic inheritance) – and then set her aside as if she were some sort of disposable Dixie cup? Our God does not merely use people who actively obey him; rather, he rewards them with a share of his own life and glory appropriate to the obedience they give him. As the calling God gave Mary was unique and unrepeatable and incomparable, so the marriage between Mary and Joseph had to have been unique and unrepeatable and incomparable, and the catholic sensibility knows this is true. It was a marriage like no other at least in part because, unlike any other marriage between living people, it was a marriage in which the final purpose of that “honorable estate” – which is the union of the partners in God – was already fully present. There is much more that I could write about this, and likely will at some point in the future, but for now I’ll stop here and deal with the most common objections.
“But,” someone always will say, “the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.” Yes, it does, but to use these terms in the restricted sense we commonly use them today (referring to biological siblings having at least one parent in common) is anachronistic: The multiple sharp distinctions we now draw between brothers and half brothers and cousins and such were not really a part of Palestinian Jewish usage in the first century. A brother was a kinsman, a male relative from the same family group, as a sister was a female relative from the same family group. In day to day speech, your uncle’s daughter was your sister, and if further clarification of the exact degree of relationship was needed, it would be provided. “James, the Lord’s brother” was not what we would call Jesus’ full brother – the child of Mary and Joseph after the firstborn. (Indeed, in the strict sense, no one could have been Jesus’ full brother in that sense, given his true Paternity.) Rather, this James could have been a cousin or even a child of a previous marriage by Joseph, assuming that the Lord’s foster father was a widower when he became Mary’s husband.
It also will not work to argue that, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born son,” she must have had other children. In biblical terminology, the “first-born” is the one who “opens the womb,” and there is no necessary implication of other progeny. “First” can as easily mean “first and only” as it can mean “first of several.”
5. The Bodily Assumption. Although this has already been dealt with in part above, it is worth noting further that the significance of this doctrine cannot be more relevant to a generation which, for all its idolatry of the flesh, really despises the body. It should be noted that when the Assumption was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, it was explicitly defined as a “bodily” assumption: “When the course of her earthly life was ended she was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” While this formulation leaves open the question of whether she died and then was assumed (most, including me, believe that she did) there is no room in this formulation for interpreting the event in a symbolic/ “spiritual”/ immaterial sense. What awaits each of us at the general resurrection is what Mary already enjoys: The final perfection of body and soul in a spiritual body like that of her Son’s resurrected body.
6. Hyperdulia/ the heavenly Queenship of Mary. In addition to what was set forth in the above description of this doctrine, it helps to understand it in the context of the role of the Queen Mother in the ancient Near Eastern world. As the mother of the King, the Queen Mother – being more closely related to him than any other person – would have unique access to him and authority under him. In Mary’s case (unlike that of earthly queen mothers, such as Bathsheba for example) this does not involve attempts to wheedle and persuade the king to act to her personal advantage: After all, if Mary has a motto, it is “whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.” The Lord will do what he will do, and in his will Mary does not merely acquiesce, but unreservedly consents. So such authority she exercises and such benefits as are put within her gift are always (a) derived from Jesus and (b) exercised and granted according to his will. If there is no room within evangelical theology for “Another Mediator” separate and independent from the “One Mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ,” neither is there room for it in catholic theology. All ministry under God – including that of the Mother of God – is delegated and is derived from him. It is in this sense that all Marian titles that cause evangelical hackles to rise – such as “Mediatrix,” “Co-mediatrix,” “cause of our joy,” etc. – must be understood.
This brings us at last to …
7. Mary as intercessor. Here, I will quote from the preface to my as-yet-unpublished Rosary manual, The Pondering Heart:
The reality of (and the lawfulness of asking for) the intercession of the Virgin Mary, or indeed that of any saint, is not one of those things that is so clear in Scripture that belief in it is obligatory on that basis alone. However, it needs to be noted that it is not contrary to Scripture, it is rooted in the Scriptural doctrine of the Church as the one Body of Christ, and it has been a part of Christian tradition for so long that its historical origins cannot be traced to their root. As Dr Austin Farrer writes, “no Christian is obliged to invoke the prayers of any saint,” and that includes those now living among us as well as those departed to be with the Lord. However, assuming that the suppliant recognizes that every grace comes from the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, there is no harm in invoking the prayers of the saints who have gone before us.
The trouble starts when one goes from saying that he is not comfortable with doing this himself to making the positive assertion that it is something no Christian ought to do. At this point he enters dangerous territory where, if he is to be logically consistent, he must finally deny either the essential unity of the Church as a communion of believers in Christ or the lawfulness of its members asking one another’s prayers.
In this context it is perhaps not very helpful that the longstanding custom in the West of referring to the Church as Militant (here on earth), Expectant (in paradise), and Triumphant (in heaven) can easily lead people who have not been adequately instructed to think that there are three distinct Churches when in fact there is only one Church that has three inseparable aspects. If there is only one Church, then an argument against asking the prayers of any of its members who happen no longer to be living in this world can logically – if absurdly – be pursued to the conclusion that it is impious to ask the prayers of any who are still living in it.
The excuse that the prohibition of the invocation of the saints’ prayers is necessary to prevent idolatry in the end makes no more sense than the assertion that the sale and use of alcohol must be prohibited to prevent alcoholism. The capacity of any thing to be abused cannot be used as an argument against its use; the primary problem is not with the thing abused, but with the intelligent entity who abuses it.
So there ... but so what?
Much of the importance (the “so what”) of the doctrines about Mary has already been dealt with in the body of what has preceded, and I won’t repeat that here (at least, not much of it). There are still some things to be said, however.
One of the items of practical importance is the fact that, if we in the ACA and at Saint Peter’s are to become part of the Anglican Ordinariates – if we are to enter into full communion with Rome’s Bishop and those in communion with him – the acceptance of the four Marian dogmas (the formally defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception [1 above], the Divine Maternity [8], and the Bodily Assumption [5], as well as the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity [2]) will not be optional: Each of them is considered an inseparable component of the Church’s core doctrine.
As ought to be evident from what I have written already, it is my opinion that both the post-Reformation dogmatic definitions (the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption) can be accepted on grounds that are entirely consistent with Anglican theological method and with the plain language of the Anglican Articles of Religion. There is an argument for not doing so on the grounds that previous definitions of essential Christian teaching – such as the definitions concerning the relationship between Jesus’ natures and his Person made in the first four to seven Ecumenical Councils – were made in the context of a major heresy which openly denied the teaching at issue.
For a long time, I found this pretty convincing, but recently I’ve begun to question whether I’ve been missing something – whether, in fact, these two doctrines needed to be recognized as essential dogmas because of the presence in the modern world of ideas and attitudes which, however subtle and cloaked (unlike the previous heresies), are no less dangerous to the Church’s mission of presenting to the world Christ the Real Man as the only Savior of humanity and the King and Mediator of the New Humanity. My reflections on this are not fully formed, but their trajectory is clear: Already, in the discussion of the Bodily Assumption above, I’ve suggested that it is a dogma that once and for all puts paid to the false notion that bodily existence is no essential part of redeemed humanity. People who believe that are as likely to assume that, so long as you are suitably “spiritual” it doesn’t really matter what you do with your body and those of your fellow persons, nor does it signify anything important that when God called you into being, he made you a woman or a man. In defining the Assumption, the Church is again affirming that what God redeems, he means not to destroy, but to fulfill and to glorify.
Increasingly, it also seems to me that the definition Immaculate Conception (the last of the Marian dogmas that I have come wholeheartedly to affirm), as well, is pointed at the heart of a major attitude of modern and post-modern people, which is the functional denial of God as the sole source of genuine holiness. This dogma makes it abundantly clear that Mary’s sanctification was not the result, but the source, of her goodness, and that the source of that sanctification was the grace that pours out from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit in virtue of the Son’s redeeming work. Who she is, she is entirely because of Him; likewise who we are becoming, we are becoming entirely because of Him (“It doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” – 1 John 3:2). This dogma puts paid to the false notion that we can achieve genuine holiness in virtue of our works and on our own initiative. It affirms that people are not in heaven because they have earned it by being good, but that if they are good at all it is because heaven is in them, and that heaven is in them because they first have been purified in heart.
Conclusion … for now, at least
This essay, as is not uncommon with me, began with a title and grew from there. Now it is time to wrap it up, for now, and return to the title: “Getting right with Mary.” Of course, this is a play on the road signs one often sees here in the Southern mountains counseling us to “Get right with God,” and that is the best advice you’re likely to see on any road sign. So far as I can see, “Getting right with Mary” is an inevitable component of that advice, and through it lies the way to the healing offered to a hurting world through the divine Son of God and Son of Mary.
Although I am still developing the thought – with a big assist from the writings of John Paul II on the “theology of the body” – I think that getting right with Mary is a necessary component of the healing of our world’s twisted notions of sex and sexuality and gender identity and children and so much else that tortures or desensitizes so many millions. Through it lies the recovery of genuine femininity from the dual depredations of clinging-vine dependency and butch feminism, and through it as well lies the recovery of genuine masculinity from the dual depredations of machismo and metro-sexuality. How this is to be – is being – accomplished is not altogether clear enough for me to articulate at this time, but that it is being done I have no doubt. And there is one clear image that emerges already, and that is of a circle of beads and a medallion and a crucifix, and men and women praying.
Fr Samuel L. Edwards SSM
Waynesville, North Carolina
May 18, 2010
|
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ our Lord.
- 2 Peter 1:2
|
|
|
|
