Josiah Concept Ministries

Five Roman Catholic Cardinals have written a letter to the other members of the College of Cardinals urging additional support in the form of signatures asking Pope Benedict XVI to define the fifth and final Marian dogma.  The suggested wording is thus:

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.

Let’s back up a second.  The four Marian dogmas that are already defined are the Divine Motherhood, the Perpetual Virginity, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.  The Divine Motherhood means Mary is called the Mother of God, or theotokos in the Greek.  The Perpetual Virginity means that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.  The Immaculate Conception means she was born without sin.  And the Assumption means that she was taken into heaven body and soul.

Now the Cardinals wish to define Mary as Co-redemptrix, which recognizes the unique role that she plays in the salvation of man.  Many people think that this a new teaching of the Catholic Church, but in reality it isn’t.  Dave Armstrong obligingly demonstrates that for us in this article.  This, in fact, has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for a very long time.

As Mediatrix of all graces, the Church will recognize that God’s grace flows to man through Mary.  She will also be defined as Advocate, which means that she presents the prayers of the faithful to her Son.   Armstrong argues that the world isn’t ready for these titles to be dogmatically defined because of the misunderstanding that they wrought.  I agree that they shouldn’t be defined, but for far different reasons than DA has given.

These titles detract from the singular glory of Jesus Christ.  Let’s look first at Mediatrix of all graces.  Grace flows not from Mary, but from God.  Not from God then to Mary then to us, but from God to us.  The Scriptures are very clear on this point: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Cor 9: and “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).  Grace is God’s gift to us.  Period.

Advocate also detracts from the singular glory of Christ, for it is He that mediates prayers, not Mary to Him.  “[T]here is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

Finally, the letter to the Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that only one person could have made the ultimate sacrifice that pleased God and made atonement for the sins of mankind.  Only one person could “save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him” (Heb 7:25)

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Heb 7:26-2

Mary can’t do this for us.  Only Jesus can be this high priest, superior to the earthly priests, who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”  Mary is not that high priest, nor indeed can she be.

Now I really can’t wait to read the new encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI.  Apparently, there is a new hymn to Mary:

At the conclusion of his encyclical released today, Pope Benedict honored Mary as our model of hope and asked for her intercession in showing us the way to the Father.

Using a title for Mary used for over a thousand years, the Holy Father explained how the “Star of the Sea” is our model for hope on our earthly journey.  He described the dark, turbulent waters that we face in life and the need to have a star as a guide to follow the route.

“Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history.  But to reach him we also need lights close by – people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way.  Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us?” (source)

This is going to be an interesting read.

A reader identifying himself as Dan writes in hope that I will swim back across the Tiber. He says:

I’m also glad that you’re on fire for the Lord. But I am sorry that you misunderstand the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you’re not alone — the late Bishop Sheen, as I’m sure you’ve heard, said that ‘there are probably a hundred people in the U.S. who disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but thousands upon thousands who disagree with what they wrongly think the Church teaches. . . .’ I prayed and listened and read and thought and found that, yes, the Catholic Church is the true Church established by our Lord. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Catholics don’t resacrifice Christ on the altar. Catholics don’t violate Scripture by calling our priests “Father.” Catholics don’t believe that they can earn their way to heaven. . . . I will suggest that you check out the folks at “Catholic Answers,” including catholic.com, as well as at chnetwork.com; I think you’ll find — after more prayer and thought — more of value and truth at those sites than at the site of Mr. White. The objections I’ve seen on your blog entries are all answerable at these sites.

All right, where to begin? I’m familiar with the quote from Bishop Sheen, but I don’t believe I have misrepresented the Catholic faith. I grew up in the Catholic faith. I’ve seen the evidence of the Mary worship. Like Dr. White, I disagree that hyperdulia, dulia, and latria are fundamentally different things, which is the general explanation behind Mary worship. I addressed that topic in this article.

As to Catholics and the Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, says that the Eucharist “is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.“  Continuing in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

I’m sorry, but to say that Catholics are not re-sacrificing Christ on that altar is using the same trick of language that I refused to accept for worship (veneration) of Mary.  More on that here.

Catholics believe the necessity of the sacraments for the dispensing of God’s grace, which means that you actually have to do something–participate in the sacraments–for salvation.  That, to me, is the same as a works-based salvation.

I have never said that Catholics sin by calling their priests “Father.”  That you included that tells me that you haven’t read my position on those matters.  No one, in fact, has read either of those essays I linked to for quite a while.

Dan, I am aware of the sites that you link to.  As to whether they or Dr. White are more truthful, I suggest that you check out Dr. White’s recent blog entry on this unfortunate example of dishonesty from one of your own apologists, Dave Armstrong.  According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese.  This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy.   Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would fill that office, not a mere man.  This article explains it in greater detail.

Armstrong quotes the dictionary definition of a vicar, but he knows full well that this is not the definition of vicar that is implied by the Pope’s Vicar of Christ title.  That is blatant dishonesty on his part.

On which bank of the Tiber will I remain?  The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty to try to call someone a non-Trinitarian.  James White has undoubtedly done more to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity than any of the Roman Catholic apologists who would be his detractors.  This is the side of the river you’re trying to entice me to?  No, thank you.  I will stay put.

James White humorously quoted from the Roman Catholic Apologetics Manual.  His comments were tongue-in-cheek, though they don’t really miss the mark by much.  Here is what he said:

If you are a Roman Catholic you are, by definition, charitable, even if you call someone a moron and insult their parents. It is ok, for, all that is done in service of Mother Church is accepted and charitable (RCAM, 7.4.3). The corollary, discussed elsewhere in the RCAM, is that all humor is acceptable if it is offered by a Roman Catholic, but none–and we mean none–is acceptable if offered by the anti-Catholic (note the repeated emphasis upon using the buzz-phrase anti-Catholic, even if the use of the term is absurd, offensive, and demonstrates an arrogance on Romes part that is simply insufferable). Ray’s mastery of the RCAM is admirable, to be sure. (source)

Kevin Johnson, the webmaster at Reformed Catholicism, had this to say in response to this post by Catholic apologist Steve Ray (which I also commented on here).  Of course, this generates what we bloggers call a “pingback,” so Ray was aware of Kevin’s comments.  After responding to the pingback in a way that showed he didn’t understand anything about Protestantism, Kevin asked Ray to actually respond to the argument presented and to learn a little bit about what Kevin believes before making assumptions.  Here is the reply from Ray:

Hello Kevin: Thanks for sharing your name– it was not on the post. I wish I had time to dialog but unfortunately I am swamped and not able to take on detailed debates. Back in the old days I had plenty of time but such is not the case now. I hope others jump in to dialog with you. One of the problems I face Kevin is that you are one of 33,000 denomoninations [sic] that have sprouted out of the Reformation and to take the time to understand the various details that each of you hold with a multitude of beliefs and traditions would be impossible.

I have no time to visit your website along with the hundred websites attached to the 100 e-mails I get a day to try to understand your intricacies of doctrine and beliefs. There is such a wide spectrum that spreads all over the map.

So, in short, if I offended you or misrepresented you I am sorry. But, I doubt I am far off and without taking a day to study you and your website, I often have to generalize. I wish I had as much time as some others have but it is simply not the case since I am packing to lead three pilgrimages in the next three months along with 10 speaking engagements and finishing two books.

Anyway, I appreciate you visiting my blog and hopefully others will interact with you. God bless.

That’s pretty arrogant, if you ask me.  He not only admits to not knowing Kevin’s position, but refuses to study it.  But he brushes it off by saying “I doubt I’m very far off . . . .”  So it looks like James White is really dead on with his assertion that these guys just get mean, especially when they try to defend a proposition like the Assumption of Mary, which has no defense.

August is one of my wife’s favorite months to have a husband in apologetics ministry.  Her personal theological entertainment is the unbiblical Catholic devotion Mary, especially when it gets weird, like seeing Mary in a drop of chocolate.  So, in honor of my wife, who puts up with a lot for me to conduct this ministry and work full time, I thought I’d look at Steve Ray, Catholic apologist, who has posted some logic behind the Marian dogmas.  Let’s take a quick look.

Follow the logic: 1) The kings of Israel raised their mothers to Queenship which became established as an official office; 2) the mothers were referred to as the Queen Mothers or the Great Lady; 3) they sat on a throne near their sons (1 Ki 2:19); 4) Jesus is the quintessential Jewish King with an eternal kingdom; 5) Jesus is the fulfillment if the Israelite offices of Prophet, Priest & King; 6) As the Davidic king, Jesus would honor his mother more than earthy kings honored their mothers; 7) It is biblical, historical, and reasonable to expect the perfect Jewish king to follow in the stead of the kingdom and his fathers by assuming his mother to a throne at his right hand. It is proper and biblical to consider Mary in a position of intercessor. (source)

Well, item 1 is a leap since we only know of one king that did it.  Item 2 means nothing.  Item 3 again has only one historical example.  Items 4 and 5 I very obviously agree with.  As a side note on item 5, though, if Jesus is the fulfillment of the office of priest, then why do Roman Catholics continue to have priests?  Item 6 is a leap as he pretends to know the mind of Christ, which of course, no human can.  Item 7 has no basis in reality, since it is not reasonable to expect someone who achieves perfection to follow the model of the earthly, sinful kings that came before.  And finally, even if I followed the logic up to item 8, that point is still irrelevant because all that has been argued is that Mary should receive the title of Queen Mother, not that any responsibilities would be conferred upon her.

So, even if the logic of 1-7 washed, would Mary have any responsibilities in this position as Queen of Heaven?  Well, the very Bible that these guys are using to back up the dogmas says that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ.  Therefore, I would have to say that it is unlikely that she would be granted authority that usurps Christ’s authority.

The Reformed Catholic blog, which follows most Catholic teachings but has a decidedly Calvinistic soteriology, has this to say in response to Steve:

Here’s a tip for all our Catholic friends. When you’re defending the traditional doctrines of Catholicism, just admit it. You’re working with traditions. Not biblical doctrine. And you’ve accepted such things by faith in the Magisterium. Whether or not the traditions are present in Scripture is really immaterial. There is no Queen Mother tradition in the Scriptures that would allow you to take these sorts of logical leaps . . . . (source)

This echoes some of James White’s response, here.  But the best part of that post is its conclusion:

I would dearly love to see Rome’s popular, traveling apologists stand up before a live audience and actually defend Rome’s dogmas on this topic. They love to crank out the books and CD’s on the topic, because, quite obviously, they sell. But you won’t find them rushing to defend these things against knowledgable opposition, and for good reason. They know that this kind of argumentation collapses under serious examination, and the only folks who find it convincing in the long run are those who want to believe.

So would I, Dr. White.

Ninety years ago, the Virgin Mary appeared to three children in Fatima. The apparition, since called “Our Lady of Fatima,” made three predictions to prove that she was who she claimed to be. One vision was a lake of fire. One vision was of Russia becoming Christian again. The third was never revealed, and has been the subject of much speculation.

Many accuse the Vatican of hiding details about the end of the world. The vision, according this group, revealed exact details about the end of the world. The Vatican has been accused of suppressing the details, hiding it from the general public. Why? To what point and purpose would they hide something like that?

It seems that when people ascribe certain behaviors to a group, especially a large and monolithic entity like the Vatican, they forget that such an organization acts in the best interest of all the people involved. In other words, there is a reason that they do everything that they do. There is no particular reason to hide this final vision, if it indeed was integral to the end times.

All of the Scriptural indicators of the end times are in place. If the Vatican has advanced knowledge that the rest of us don’t have, then now is the time to show it, so that all who call themselves Christians can be better prepared in the Tribulation. Of course, I’m a historicist, so I believe that the Tribulation is going on now as I (along with all the faithful) await the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior.

Of course the Vatican denies that they are hiding anything. The Vatican’s Secretary of State and second-in-command of the Catholic Church, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, explained that they are not hiding anything, and all of the visions have been revealed. The third vision, he explains, predicted the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. Not only has the former pope declared this, but it was confirmed by Sister Lucia (the last remaining Fatima visionary) on her deathbed in 2005.

This has all the makings of another anti-Catholic, conspiracy laden, historically false Chick tract.

Guess what the crazy part is? I believe that the Catholic Church is telling the truth. Why? Because to what point and purpose would they lie about something like this? If they really had inside information on the end of the world, it would help all of the faithful. If that is the purpose of the Church, to serve the faithful, then it only makes sense that if they had the information that they should share it.

There is, of course, a Scriptural reason I don’t believe that the vision of Fatima heralds the end of the world. Jesus said that no one knows the hour except the Father alone. Now, if Jesus didn’t know the appointed hour of the end times, why in the world would anyone believe that Mary knows?

Yes, I make fun of Chick tracts. They’re poorly drawn and evidence of a man with a deteriorating grasp on reality. But many of them are really good, they do present the gospel message in a readable and fun way, and they can become excellent witness tools if used properly. In the case of Mary, I couldn’t have said this any better myself, so I’m not going to try! Common sense forces me to disagree with the part of this tract that connects Mary to ancient pagan deities, but neither do I know enough comparative theology to authoritatively dissent with what Mr. Chick reports. I have a general enough grasp on ancient mythology to say with certainty that the deities (and their roles) are accurate as presented. It isn’t a great leap forward to assume that they are the foundation of the Marian dogmas. But I think that by taking Christ out of the limelight using devotions to Mary, as well as declaring the pope “Vicar of Christ” and each priest an “alter Christus” (another Christ) and declaring the sacrifice at Calvary an ongoing sacrifice in the Eucharist that the Roman Catholic system exerts control over the faithful by asking them to place trust in the Church and not in Christ.

I still don’t believe that the Church is suppressing details about this vision, as many authors and Vatican watchers suspect. But I do believe in the message of this Chick tract wholeheartedly: Rome’s gospel doesn’t save. Only Jesus Christ does that, perfectly with each life the Father calls to repentance, with the sacrifice offered once for all upon the cross.

I’m no fan of the Catholic Church, but I don’t believe that they are hiding anything about that either. I don’t believe it because if Jesus didn’t know the appointed time, there is no way Mary would. That Catholics even think that she might saddens me just a little bit.

For some work at Got Questions Ministries, I had to research the Catholic position on Mary as Co-Redemptrix next to Christ. I was a little nervous.

Fortunately, I am relieved to report that Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate (the so-called “fifth dogma”) is not official Catholic teaching. I will, however, add the articles on the theological grounds for making such a claim to my reading list and post commentary on them here. There is an organization 7 million petitions, 550 bishops, and 43 cardinals strong called Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (the Popular Voice for Mary Mediatrix), who boasts the late Mother Teresa as a member, that is gaining ground in defining Mary those new titles.

There is also an organization that is trying to go even further than that and have Mary named as a fourth member of the Godhead, but I’ll bet everyone can see the heresy in that without requiring comments from me.

I am developing a sister site to God is Imaginary, called God is NOT Imaginary, which will have the same layout/look/feel as the former, but be based on my series of articles here that answer the claims it puts forth. What I’m praying for is a few more writers who can help me get the material together in time for a late-January 2007 launch. Of course, I want to produce material for it, but I also want to do management functions–editing the articles, tweaking the site design, finding an appropriate hosting service, and advertise.

My prayers: two or three more writers, funding for advertisement and domain registration, and the wisdom to select the correct hosting option. I humbly request everyone’s prayers in those regards, please.

The good news is that, with the launch of that site, this blog will get its own domain name too! God has provided a growing audience for this blog, and He has provided me with an inexpensive registration service (we can’t afford it right now because of Christmas), and I am confident that He will provide enough funds to take this ministry through its next few steps.