On the Immaculate Conception (of Mary).
A dear woman once came to me with great concern. She is a close friend of mine, and a devout protestant. So it happens from time to time that my Catholicness worries her. She sat in my room and was looking at a lovely picture I have of Our Lady of Grace, one of my favorite images of the Blessed Mother. She looked at it for a while, then, seemingly out of the blue, asked, "What do you think of the Catholic Church's deifying of Mary?" I told her that the Church did not now, nor would ever deify Mary. To which she responded with a question of the Immaculate Conception. It is a doctrine often misunderstood by our evangelical protestant brethren, and one that I feel deserves a bit of explanation. As always, it is not my intent to convince you of the doctrine, for I fully believe that only God is capable of changing the heart. But I will take the opportunity to inform you of it, so that you may at least understand it, regardless of your own personal belief.
Many confuse the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary with the same kind of Immaculate Conception regarding Christ when this is not at all what the Church intended. Mary, our Blessed Mother, was born of St. Anne and St. Joachim. She was born of two human parents, unlike Christ who had only one. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
This does not mean that she lived a perfect life as Christ did, but that she was "full of grace", as the archangel so eloquently greeted her. (The entire first line of the Hail Mary "Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with the, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of they womb Jesus", is lifted directly from scripture.) No one else in all of scripture was so greeted.
For the "sola scriptura" Christian, there is not much backing up for the doctrine, but neither is there disproof. However the Catholic Church, along with several similar denominations, do not rely merely on scripture, but also on tradition and reason, viewing doctrine as a three legged stool, rather than a single rod. Our Lady of Lourdes introduced herself to Saint Bernadette thus, "I am the immaculate conception..."
Whether one accepts this doctrine or not isn't really my concern here. My concern is setting straight the false impression of "Mary worship" that many perceive to be taught by the Catholic Church. We honor our Mother, and acknowledge her special place among the saints, but never should her veneration become confused with worship. I honor many people who are my superior: my former abbot, my sifu, my priest. The Blessed Mother, then, being the vessel through which my Lord and Savior became flesh, is surely worthy of my respect and consideration. It is for this reason I have no problem praying the Rosary, or accepting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It simply makes sense in my mind, does not run contrary to scripture, and strengthens my faith in the one true God. Anything that does that, I cannot consider bad. Amen.
Riley
Many confuse the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary with the same kind of Immaculate Conception regarding Christ when this is not at all what the Church intended. Mary, our Blessed Mother, was born of St. Anne and St. Joachim. She was born of two human parents, unlike Christ who had only one. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
This does not mean that she lived a perfect life as Christ did, but that she was "full of grace", as the archangel so eloquently greeted her. (The entire first line of the Hail Mary "Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with the, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of they womb Jesus", is lifted directly from scripture.) No one else in all of scripture was so greeted.
For the "sola scriptura" Christian, there is not much backing up for the doctrine, but neither is there disproof. However the Catholic Church, along with several similar denominations, do not rely merely on scripture, but also on tradition and reason, viewing doctrine as a three legged stool, rather than a single rod. Our Lady of Lourdes introduced herself to Saint Bernadette thus, "I am the immaculate conception..."
Whether one accepts this doctrine or not isn't really my concern here. My concern is setting straight the false impression of "Mary worship" that many perceive to be taught by the Catholic Church. We honor our Mother, and acknowledge her special place among the saints, but never should her veneration become confused with worship. I honor many people who are my superior: my former abbot, my sifu, my priest. The Blessed Mother, then, being the vessel through which my Lord and Savior became flesh, is surely worthy of my respect and consideration. It is for this reason I have no problem praying the Rosary, or accepting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It simply makes sense in my mind, does not run contrary to scripture, and strengthens my faith in the one true God. Anything that does that, I cannot consider bad. Amen.
Riley
posted by Vincent Christian | 5:06 AM
2 Comments:
I would readily agree with you when you say that there are a great many doctrines that do not agree with this truth, but then, it's not hard to find conflicting doctrines all about. This does not necessarily mean one is right and the other wrong. Don't mistake me, I do believe in absolute Truth, but I also believe that no one man (save Christ himself) or denomination is capable of nailing every facet of absolute truth. We all see things from different angles and one some things a man will be right, and on other things wrong. Perhaps you arer right about this, but perhaps not. Either way, as I have often stated, I have no intention nor desire to try and sway you from your interpretation. You have obviously studied scripture for yourself, as I encourage, and have come to your own conclusions.
And since you are so well versed in scripture, I'll not quote any at you, as it's not really my pleasure to use scripture as a basis for arguement, though I would recommend you to a fine apologist I know, if that is your cup of tea. His blog is linked to my own "Apologetics 101".
However, I do owe you a decent response, as you have been curteous enough to comment on my blog. So I will leave you with this thought, quoted from a book I've recently began reading. "'When you say something to someone, he may not accept it, but do not try to make him understand it intellectually. Do not argue with him; just listen to his objections until he himself finds something wrong with them.' This is very interesting. Try not to force your idea on someone, but rather think about it with him. If you feel you have won the discussion, this also is the wrong attitude. Try not to win in the argument; just listen to it; but is is also wrong to behave as if you had lost." -Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind."
God's Peace,
Riley
You know, I find it highly ironic that I, a former evengelical Protestant turned Anglo-catholic, should come to such a discussion with a former Catholic turned evangelical Protestant. I've a feeling that we have much to learn from one another.
I would not say that you have been imputent here, but rather, forward. Very forward. But I certainly can admire your fervor. However, I would encourage you to caution as well. Balance is necessary here. While you do not want to lose your fervor, you do not want it to run away with you either. Like fire, fervor can provide warmth, energy and light. But, if it runs away with you, it can destroy everything in its path.
For example, a story. A friend of mine, a fine Christian woman, worked with a non-christian to whom, slowly and patiently, she had been sewing seeds, watering them and watching as the woman began to open up to the idea of Christianity. In one afternoon, a very fervent (but unfortunatly tactless) individual spoke with the non-christian and only managed to undo months worth of witnessing on my friend's part. I do not accuse you of this, as you do not seem to have crossed that line, but Satan need only tip the scales a little- in either direction- to use us.
The call to witness is a delicate one which requires much discretion. As always, we look to Christ as our supreme example. Note that there was only one place that Christ ever went looking to teach (witness): the synagogue. He did not go to the pagan temples, nor the mosques or even to market to teach. The only place he sought out to teach was in essence, church. Ahh, but you may wonder about the Sermon on the Mount, or other such teachings that occured outside of the synagogue? Recall that in those instances, Christ did not seek out these people. It was they who sought out him.
So what is the significance here? It is simple: that Christ did not go about trying to make converts. He went about truly living the Faith. And it is that which makes an impact. When you truly live the Faith, and wait with out stretched arms, people will come to you wanting to know about this Christ who makes you so different. And you will find that it is your actions that truly make your words speak volumes.
Post a Comment
<< Home