First, let us note what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary is not.
1. It is not idolatrous. As I have noted twice before, sinlessness is not synonymous with Divinity. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, were created in a state of Original Justice, and they were in no way equal with their Creator.
2. It is not "works-based". The Church is quite clear that Mary's freedom from sin, and all of her honors and privileges, were the work of God. Without His Grace she could do nothing. Like Mary herself, when we consider this mighty work, we ought to offer our praise to God for His goodness, power, and mercy. "The Mighty One has done great things for me...." (Lk.1:49) All Marian dogmas are essentially Christo-centric.
3. It does not deny Mary's need for a Savior. We saw in the previous post, borrowing Bl. Duns Scotus' argument, that preservation is a form of salvation. "To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant, in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen." (Jude 1:25)
4. It is not unreasonable. Although God became man, walked among sinners, and bore the curse for us, there runs throughout Sacred Scripture the clear idea that whatever contains or comes in contact with whatever is holy ought itself to pure. Thus Jesus Himself warns us not to give what is holy to dogs. All the furnishings and vessels of the Old Testament temple (which is a pattern of heavenly things) were purified before their use. Perhaps most importantly of all, in this present context, the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the very symbols of our Blessed Lord, was covered without and within with purest gold, which is a symbol of holiness. Is it unreasonable then to think that God Almighty might choose to preserve entirely spotless the one who was to bear His only Son? On the contrary, it is reasonable, and fitting.
5. It is not contrary to Scripture. While I have written nothing yet to offer any proof or evidence for the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, it was shown in the last post that the standard Scriptural proofs for the sinfulness of all humans do not, in fact, preclude the possibility that God, in His omnipotence, may have kept one member of our race free from sin. It is worth noting here, lest we misapply this idea, that the Catholic Church has not only affirmed the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but has also been quite clear that she was the only one so blessed. As Catholics, we can no more refuse to believe in the sinlessness of Mary than we can refuse to believe our own sinfulness. Each and every one of us (Mary included) stands in absolute need of a Savior, and our Hope is in the Blood of Christ.
Sacred Scripture and the Authority of the Church
This is not the place to enter into a full discussion of the relationship of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture. A detailed treatment of sola scriptura, conciliar authority, tradition, the canon, etc., would require too much space and would remove us from our principal topic. However, since much of what will follow is based upon Scriptural interpretation, and since there are many misconceptions upon this point, I feel that a brief overview of the Church's relationship to the Bible would beneficial before we enter the main part of these essays.
It seems to me that there are two main misconceptions concerning the Church's view of Scripture. The first of these is that she is simply opposed to Scripture, at least to those parts which do not please her. Fables are told until they become proverbial of the Church's hatred of the Bible, her attempts to suppress it and keep the laity from hearing or reading it their own language, of torture and executions inflicted upon those in the past who were found with Scripture in their possession. In short, the Catholic Church is seen, in many circles, to be the intractable foe of the Bible. It is easy to become angry at such statements, scandalous as they seem to be, but it must be remembered that they are often repeated in good faith by those who have had the words of outrageous pseudo-historical writings such as Foxe's Book of Martyrs ringing in their ears since childhood. I hope to go into greater depth on this topic in a future series, but for now let it suffice to say that such accusations are devoid of historical factuality. Why, for one example, were there some twenty-four complete and partial translations of the Bible in the German tongue before Luther composed the "first", if the Church was opposed to Scriptures being read or heard in the common language the people? Or why was work done on an English translation even before Wycliffe? Or why did the monks labor so hard during the Dark Ages, when learning and literature were almost lost in the West, to painstakingly hand-copy and preserve the Sacred Scriptures? Simply put, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of the Bible is pure fantasy.
The second misconception, somewhat milder than the first, is that while the Church may be somewhat accepting of Scripture she sets her own authority above that of the Bible, and accepts extra-biblical doctrines that appear in early Christian tradition. It is quite true that the Church sets great store by Sacred Tradition, illuminating as it is, and that she considers her own authority on matters of faith and morals to be God-given and infallible. Yet a proper understanding of the relationship and purpose of these three things--Church, Scripture, Tradition-- is essential. The first thing to note is that the Church's authoritative relationship to the Bible is one of interpretation. This places her authority into an entirely field than that of Sacred Scripture, and so, to call one above the other is somewhat meaningless. The Church does not invent doctrine. It is her place to define, guard, and promulgate it. She may add no new doctrine to the Bible, she may subtract no old one. Scripture is written word of God, inspired and infallible. Yet every written word must be interpreted, at least by the one who reads. Books are not self-interpreting. Thus, Scripture may be seen as the container of doctrine, and the Church as the interpreter of doctrine. There is no point in pitting the one against the other, of calling the one greater than the other. They both have different functions.
As for Sacred Tradition (that body of early Christian tradition which clearly seems to have stemmed from oral statements of the Apostles themselves), the Church holds this in very high esteem. It helps to illuminate and flesh out those areas of Scripture which are more obscure or which have been afforded less detail or space in the actual text of Scripture. Yet the Church accepts nothing of tradition which is either contradictory to, or not found in the written Scriptures.
Thus, we may consider the following beliefs of the Catholic Church concerning revelation. 1. The Sacred Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are infallible. 2. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. 3. Private revelations may continue, but the faithful are not bound to believe them, or to go beyond what is found in Scripture and Tradition. 4. Sacred Tradition is accepted as inspired, as St. Paul commands the Thessalonians to "hold fast to what you have received, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 5. Nothing in tradition may be considered Apostolic if it is contrary to the Scriptures. 6. Nothing in tradition can be certainly declared as doctrinal if it is not found also in the Scriptures. 7. In matters of doctrine and revelation the Church holds as authoritative these three things-- Church, Scripture, and Tradition, yet no doctrine may be positively affirmed as necessary to believe which is not at least implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture.
Thus, from what has just been shown, the Catholic Church does not consider herself to be above the Bible, nor does she consider herself to be able to add new doctrines which are not found in the Bible, nor does she offer official sanction to any doctrine which is not found in the Bible. Now, to some it may seem shocking that the Church will officially define as revealed doctrine that which is only implicitly hinted at in the Scriptures, perhaps even shrouded in darkness and obscure analogies. Yet, at the same time, it may be comforting to others to learn that the Church refuses to promulgate any doctrine which opposes Scripture, or cannot be found in Scripture in some way.
As we prepare to examine the various Marian dogmas of the Church it is good to keep these facts in mind. Certainly not every doctrine which we hold concerning Mary is obvious in Scripture. Much of it is hidden, full of symbolism and foreshadowing. We may not expect to find it laid out in black and white, or in handy footnotes on the bottoms of the pages. Yet, as Catholics, we most firmly hold and declare that not one of the doctrines which we hold concerning the Blessed Virgin is either opposed to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, or not found therein at all. Each one of them is found, at least in kernel form, within the pages of the Bible. We may have to probe deeply, and we must certainly ask for the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit, but when we do, we will uncover veritable mines of doctrinal treasures. May God bless us, and guide us, and grant us wisdom, as we prepare to examine these things.
It seems to me that there are two main misconceptions concerning the Church's view of Scripture. The first of these is that she is simply opposed to Scripture, at least to those parts which do not please her. Fables are told until they become proverbial of the Church's hatred of the Bible, her attempts to suppress it and keep the laity from hearing or reading it their own language, of torture and executions inflicted upon those in the past who were found with Scripture in their possession. In short, the Catholic Church is seen, in many circles, to be the intractable foe of the Bible. It is easy to become angry at such statements, scandalous as they seem to be, but it must be remembered that they are often repeated in good faith by those who have had the words of outrageous pseudo-historical writings such as Foxe's Book of Martyrs ringing in their ears since childhood. I hope to go into greater depth on this topic in a future series, but for now let it suffice to say that such accusations are devoid of historical factuality. Why, for one example, were there some twenty-four complete and partial translations of the Bible in the German tongue before Luther composed the "first", if the Church was opposed to Scriptures being read or heard in the common language the people? Or why was work done on an English translation even before Wycliffe? Or why did the monks labor so hard during the Dark Ages, when learning and literature were almost lost in the West, to painstakingly hand-copy and preserve the Sacred Scriptures? Simply put, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the enemy of the Bible is pure fantasy.
The second misconception, somewhat milder than the first, is that while the Church may be somewhat accepting of Scripture she sets her own authority above that of the Bible, and accepts extra-biblical doctrines that appear in early Christian tradition. It is quite true that the Church sets great store by Sacred Tradition, illuminating as it is, and that she considers her own authority on matters of faith and morals to be God-given and infallible. Yet a proper understanding of the relationship and purpose of these three things--Church, Scripture, Tradition-- is essential. The first thing to note is that the Church's authoritative relationship to the Bible is one of interpretation. This places her authority into an entirely field than that of Sacred Scripture, and so, to call one above the other is somewhat meaningless. The Church does not invent doctrine. It is her place to define, guard, and promulgate it. She may add no new doctrine to the Bible, she may subtract no old one. Scripture is written word of God, inspired and infallible. Yet every written word must be interpreted, at least by the one who reads. Books are not self-interpreting. Thus, Scripture may be seen as the container of doctrine, and the Church as the interpreter of doctrine. There is no point in pitting the one against the other, of calling the one greater than the other. They both have different functions.
As for Sacred Tradition (that body of early Christian tradition which clearly seems to have stemmed from oral statements of the Apostles themselves), the Church holds this in very high esteem. It helps to illuminate and flesh out those areas of Scripture which are more obscure or which have been afforded less detail or space in the actual text of Scripture. Yet the Church accepts nothing of tradition which is either contradictory to, or not found in the written Scriptures.
Thus, we may consider the following beliefs of the Catholic Church concerning revelation. 1. The Sacred Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are infallible. 2. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. 3. Private revelations may continue, but the faithful are not bound to believe them, or to go beyond what is found in Scripture and Tradition. 4. Sacred Tradition is accepted as inspired, as St. Paul commands the Thessalonians to "hold fast to what you have received, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 5. Nothing in tradition may be considered Apostolic if it is contrary to the Scriptures. 6. Nothing in tradition can be certainly declared as doctrinal if it is not found also in the Scriptures. 7. In matters of doctrine and revelation the Church holds as authoritative these three things-- Church, Scripture, and Tradition, yet no doctrine may be positively affirmed as necessary to believe which is not at least implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture.
Thus, from what has just been shown, the Catholic Church does not consider herself to be above the Bible, nor does she consider herself to be able to add new doctrines which are not found in the Bible, nor does she offer official sanction to any doctrine which is not found in the Bible. Now, to some it may seem shocking that the Church will officially define as revealed doctrine that which is only implicitly hinted at in the Scriptures, perhaps even shrouded in darkness and obscure analogies. Yet, at the same time, it may be comforting to others to learn that the Church refuses to promulgate any doctrine which opposes Scripture, or cannot be found in Scripture in some way.
As we prepare to examine the various Marian dogmas of the Church it is good to keep these facts in mind. Certainly not every doctrine which we hold concerning Mary is obvious in Scripture. Much of it is hidden, full of symbolism and foreshadowing. We may not expect to find it laid out in black and white, or in handy footnotes on the bottoms of the pages. Yet, as Catholics, we most firmly hold and declare that not one of the doctrines which we hold concerning the Blessed Virgin is either opposed to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, or not found therein at all. Each one of them is found, at least in kernel form, within the pages of the Bible. We may have to probe deeply, and we must certainly ask for the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit, but when we do, we will uncover veritable mines of doctrinal treasures. May God bless us, and guide us, and grant us wisdom, as we prepare to examine these things.
No comments:
Post a Comment