Senate Understanding Christianity... (now: "Fear of Hell"/"Greed for Heaven" versus "Loving God")

Time for a new discussion?


In my first post here, I typed this:

Does anyone, Christian or Non-Christian, want to learn any more about anything just mentioned? Or anything else you have a question about? Or something about Christianity that doesn't seem to make sense to you? Or maybe you want to have a more in-depth theological discussion on something?

Each could make a good topic, as long as we're all here to better understand Christianity.

As a friendly reminder:
Please be respectful to everyone. Everyone is welcome: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, those unsure... everyone. Please be respectful of Christian beliefs, and other people's beliefs.

For one, and it's just for interest's sake: how do Christian churches other than Catholics view Mary, Our Lady? What beliefs are out there about her?

For full disclosure, in the Catholic Church she holds a fairly important position. We've got three key theological principles as apply to her:

(1) This one's probably the most obvious one. Catholics believe Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, i.e. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by ordinary biological interaction. This is what the event of the Annunciation is held by Catholics to be about (and I only realised the other day on a literal reading that the conception does not happen without Mary's consent -- Gabriel speaks in the future tense throughout Mark I think it is about what will happen, and only when Mary says "I am the handmaiden of the Lord; let it happen to me as you have said" does the angel depart.

(2) Less obviously, Catholics also believe in what's called the Immaculate Conception. I understand this was the subject of fairly recent (for the Church) pronouncement of orthodoxy, i.e. one of the solemn declarations made under the "blessing?" of Papal Infallibility. Catholics hold that Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross was to remit the condemnation of Man for Original Sin, i.e. Adam and Eve's disobedience to God in Eden. That being so, before Christ died on the Cross, all people were born and conceived with the taint of Original Sin. It therefore became a point of theology that Mary could not have borne God in that flawed state, so Catholicism holds that Mary's conception was without the taint of Original Sin, unique in all history, so she therefore did not pass that sin onto her son Jesus.

(3) And finally, there's the Doctrine of the Assumption, again the subject of Papal pronouncement as infallible. In essence, it holds that pursuant to the traditions of the Church rather than anything in the Bible as such, when Mary died her body did not remain here on Earth. Rather, she was "assumed" body and soul directly to Heaven. This seemed to flow out of the Immaculate Conception, in that since Mary never had the taint of Original Sin, she was never subject to the passage of death that is the scar of Adam and Eve's Original Sin and through which every human must go.

For Catholics she's seen as a fairly potent mediator with Jesus; sometimes she seems to be projected as a more "approachable" face to people in the church, that if Jesus seems a little intimidating, that you should direct a prayer to Mary who then intercedes on your behalf with Jesus - because what son could say no to his mother? Catholics don't believe that Mary herself has any power to grant prayers -- that power is reserved to God alone. But Mary's intercession with Jesus is believed by Catholics to be very potent. There's a fair number of Marian shrines around or miracles (Lourdes, Fatima) attributed to her status.

This is partially what the Catholic prayer beads, the Rosary, is all about. It's said to have been given to St. Dominic if I remember right, and aside from being a meditative tool, it's also a series of fifty chants of the Hail Mary. When you see them being used, it's either as a contemplative tool or as a direct request to Mary for intercession with Jesus on the supplicant's behalf.

Anyway, that long aside, how do the other branches see her? It's more for interest than anything else...

Well, I'm a Catholic and she's my patron saint, so obviously I have a close personal connection to the Marian cult. I visited Lourdes once and it was a pretty deep spiritual experience.

Well, I'm no expert on doctrine but, from what I know of the Anglican Church (my own faith), we would agree with the first of your theological principles but not the other two. Mary is greatly respected as the mother of Christ but not considered as mediator. Prayer is direct to the Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit.

Yeah, that's how my Congregationalist church was... great respect to Mary, but not treated as a mediator.

A common misunderstanding of Catholicism from Protestants is that Catholics actually worship Mary and the Saints, when Catholics just see Mary and the Saints as mediators.

I learned about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption in my Catholic high school, but those doctrines never really made sense to me. But I guess that's probably because I don't believe in Original Sin either, at least not in the way that most do.

Yup. It's even right there in the Hail Mary:

Hail Mary, full of Grace
The Lord is with Thee
Blessed art thou among women,
and Blest is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death.

Note the bolded part. Mary prays, she doesn't grant prayers.

I have a vague knowledge of some Catholic doctrine, so I knew that they didn't worship Mary. However, I have seen her referred to as the co-redemptrix which is an interesting (and complex) concept which, as far as I know, is not part of any Protestant beliefs.

One misunderstanding that I have found to be very common, particularly with non-Christians, is the meaning of 'Immaculate Conception'. Many people seem to think it is the same as 'Virgin Birth'.

From a Classical Pentecostal perspective, Mary is held in high regard as the Mother of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word. However, the thought of Mary not having Original Sin or of her being translated to Heaven, without dying, is not widely accepted.

Simply, she was an obedient, Godly woman who accepted the call of God to bear the Savior of the World. As might be obvious, Pentecostals do not hold Tradition on equal ground with Scripture, as the RCC does. This is probably the reason for the disconnect.

I don't know if Catholics hold Tradition on equal ground with Scripture as such -- I'd have to go and research it, but I seem to remember that Tradition doesn't override Scripture to the extent of an inconsistency. I think Tradition is just ... sort of the way we fill in the blank bits

The RCC states that tradition and scripture together create the Word of God. I believe this is actually in the catechism, but I could be mistaken.

You'd be surprised how many "casual Catholics" confuse the two, too.

EDIT: Also, shouldn't someone change the title to reflect the current topic?

The Catholic/Orthodox understanding is that the three pillars of the Church are: Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Magisterium(teachings). The Word of God, in the Gospels, if you recall from the opening of John, refer to the person of Christ Himself (Logos = Word), the Second Person of the Trinity. In the Epistles it may sometime refer to Scripture or to the Logos, depending on the context.

On the topic of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, I like to explain Veneration, with the analogy(It's not perfect but gets the point across) of "guitar gods". You got people like Van Halen, Page, Jimi Hendrix, Clapton etc. that people, sadly, worship, idolize, and love so much that even their instruments gain a bit of prestige. People will pay and come to just gaze and touch their instruments even if the famous musician isn't there. The instruments are elevated just by association. But does this take away from the rockstar? No, of course not. I can't imagine any fan if given the choice of meeting Eric Clapton or seeing his guitar, would go with the latter. The same with God and his Saints. They are the "instruments" of God here on Earth, through which he has done visible and great works.

My understanding, is that Tradition does kinda trump Scripture, Scripture is interpreted in light of Tradition. It makes sense, since we got Holy Scripture through Holy Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is difficult for my Protestant Pentecostal mind to understand how tradition could trump scripture, especially since there would be no tradition without scripture.

Of course, tradition is the lens by which we may interpret scripture, but the lens is not greater than the physical document, in my mind.

Were the scriptures written only with their tradition or were the Holy Scriptures some kind of a "New Thing" to the world? Of course, we know that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, was most definitely a New Thing. Why can't the scriptures be the same?

Well consider that the earliest written Epistle was Thessalonians 1( Or, Colossians, not sure.) that was written in the mid 40's. Christ dies in 33 AD, so consider that for a good decade, none of the New Testament was around, what were the Apostles and Disciples doing for that length of time? You can bet that a good amount of teaching was passed on verbally and by example. When St. Paul and the others write to the churches across the Mediterrenean, they're writing to churches that have already been established and have been practicing the faith for a while.

And it's true that the lens isn't greater than the physical document, but then, I wouldn't say that Tradition is a merely a "lens", it's a form of Divine Revelation on it's own.

Could you please clarify the last question? I don't think I understood what you meant.


p.s. I'm about to head out, so I might not be able to address the question until later. Maybe one of our other Catholic posters could

I'm really not entirely sure if I'm agnostic or not. I believe in a divine presence that sees the good in every single being. I don't believe in a Hell or a being of pure evil. I dunno. I've never been altogether that concerned with my beliefs to tell you the truth.

Yes, but this was one of the major criticisms of Judaism by early Christianity. It is not for nothing that Jesus quotes Isaiah to condemn the Pharisees for "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." I don't see how one could be any more forceful about making the point that tradition and scripture should not be on an equal footing.

In regard to Christian Tradition, is there a cut off point for where it is considered to be 'official'? In other words, does it have to come from the very early church, or are later additions accepted (and up to what point)? How is it decided what counts as Tradition and what is simply interpretation?

And then there is also Restorationism from the 19th Century which essentially chucks all that, save for the Bible, and starts from scratch.

Does anyone have any questions concerning the events of Holy Week?