Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Mariology’ Category

« Previous Entries

Why I’m Not Roman Catholic

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 20, 2009

James White had a very thoughtful post on the theological issues that underlie the decision to be or not to be Roman Catholic. Reading that post, as well as listening to his extended Dividing Line podcast has led me back into the fold of Calvinism, which I believe is a very good thing. I need to solidify my theology if I expect to defend it against outsiders.

But it leaves me with the question of why I’m Reformed and not something else, like Roman Catholic. Regular readers of this blog will recall that I was raised Catholic–baptized and confirmed. So why am I not still Catholic?

I’m not Catholic for four very important theological reasons: dispensing of grace by sacraments, veneration of saints and Mary, the Eucharist, and the alleged infallibility of the Pope. I simply cannot agree to the Roman theology behind these three items.

I’ve found recently in two snippets from the news and the book Justification by Hans Kung that the Roman view of justification is essentially the same as the Reformed view. I admit that I haven’t read Justification carefully enough, but I’m assured that that is the conclusion of the book. Man is justified before God solely on the basis of grace through faith, plus nothing. That is the Reformed view as well as the Catholic view.

However, Catholicism differs from the Reformed view of grace significantly. Grace is dispensed through the sacraments in Catholicism. In the Reformed view, it is God’s discretion upon whom grace is given; in other words, it is a free gift and not of works (Eph 2:8-10). Since grace is unmerited favor, it makes no sense that one has to work for it in the Roman view. On the other hand, the Reformed view makes much more sense; God bestows grace upon whom he will (see Rom 9).

Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry; Scripture makes that clear (see, for example, this post from TurretinFan). Therefore, I see no justification for the veneration of saints, angels, or the Virgin Mary that one sees in Romanism.

The rubber justification that the Romanists often use is that they only pay latria to God, while offering dulia to the saints and Mary. Latria is pure worship, while dulia is more like a deep reverence. This is a distinction without a difference. One should err on the side of caution, especially in light of the first commandment’s harsh penalty proscriptions for idolatry.

Consider the severe punishments that God pronounces on the entire nation of Israel for her disobedience and idolatry. Consider the judgments of the pagan nations in the Promised Land due to their idolatry. This is something that God takes very seriously. As an extension, so should we!

The Eucharist is a fancy form of idolatry. The Eucharist isn’t merely a symbol of the body and blood of Christ; in Romanism, it becomes the body and blood of Christ, and therefore an object to be worshiped. Worshiping bread and wine is idolatry, regardless of what it symbolizes.

The Eucharist is disgusting in another way. It “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ, so that Jesus is sacrificed over and over again on the altars of Romanism. This makes light of the fact that Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) because he offered himself once for all (Heb 7:27). There is no need to offer sacrifices daily because Jesus took care of all of that with the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:11-14).

Finally, papal infallibility makes Roman Catholicism into a cult. The power of the pope to define doctrine ex cathedra, thus binding all Roman Catholics to that teaching for all time, is too much power to vest in one man. This is nothing less than an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture in faith and practice.

I’m not a Protestant out of mere preference, as James White suggests many are. I understand the theological issues that divide us from Roman Catholics. Ultimately, I know that Catholics aren’t saved because of what Rome teaches, but in spite of what Rome teaches.

Posted in Liturgy, Mariology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Transubstaniation | Leave a Comment »

Why the Catholic View of Mary Denigrates the Incarnation

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 27, 2008

Matthew Bellisario’s final diatribe about yours truly runs thus:

Corey also asked this question, “Why does Mary get special consideration and her own title? She, too, is a cog like us.” I have to really shake my head in disbelief when I see a question like this. The reason is because it degrades our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His incarnation. You see, when someone cannot get that Mary was special by merely the fact that God was in her womb, then you can’t expect them to honor Jesus either, which they do not, despite their religious rhetoric. Mary was special because God chose her to come into the world incarnate, thats why she gets special consideration. This is just common sense. She was part of God’s salvific plan, and she was the only one in the history of mankind to have this unique bond of motherhood to God himself. But Corey would have his readers think that this was just no big deal, she is just a cog. That is equal to degrading our Lord’s incarnation as if it were just no big deal. (source)

That is hardly the case. I will argue that it is the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception of Mary that dishonors our Lord. The Protestant view of things is the correct, biblical view of the matter. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Mariology, Roman Catholicism | 3 Comments »

Another Reply to Matthew Bellisario

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 24, 2008

Matthew Bellisario replied to this post with a lengthy diatribe found here. In his reply, Mr. Bellisario goes to great lengths to prove that “co-” doesn’t imply an equal share. I said:

“Co-” does mean “with,” and implies (at least to me) an equal share in the action. Cooperate. Coworker. Both terms imply an equal share of action, and this is what is so reprehensible about the title.

Mary participated in God’s plan, but not in an equal share. Remember that the term “Co-” implies equal participation.

He replies:

This shows everyone that Corey will go to any lengths to justify his opposition to God’s salvific plan of salvation. Where on earth does the definition of co have to mean an equal share? This is absolute nonsense. Does the co-pilot share equal responsibility or action with the actual pilot? Co means with, not necessarily equal to. If you look in the dictionary you will see it defined just as commonly as, “Subordinate or assistant: copilot”. You can see that Corey has a one track mind to degrade God’s chosen plan to actualize the incarnation of Christ. No one has ever said that Mary has an equal share in God’s salvific plan. In fact the Church has over and over stated this, yet those who oppose Christ and His will reject the Gospel for their own preferred version. You can see this apparent personal pride here by the mere fact that Corey stated, “(at least to me)” in referring to the definition of the prefix co. It doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it means, or in the context that the Church uses it in. Its all about Corey and what he thinks.

The prefix “co-” doesn’t have to imply an equal share, as in Mr. Bellisario’s example of a copilot. But in many cases it does imply equal share. I restate my two examples of cooperate and coworker. My old job title at Wendy’s was co-manager, and I was expected to operate the store as the actual head manager would, and I functioned as an acting store manager on several occasions. The copilot would do the same thing: function as pilot with full and equal responsibility in the absence of a pilot. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Mariology, Roman Catholicism | Leave a Comment »

A Response to Matthew Bellisario about Mary

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 18, 2008

I finally got around to writing a response to Matthew Bellisario about my article regarding Mary, the “Blessed Mother.” Let me just state for the record that I believe Mary is to be held in high regard as an example of Christian obedience and humility, but I do not believe that she is to be held in the esteem that Catholics hold her. I don’t believe in offering prayers to her, I don’t believe that she is in any sense “Co-Redemptrix,” I don’t believe that she had anything to do with the Atonement nor does she play any role in salvation either today or in years past.

That said, let’s dive in:

Does the term co-mediatrix or co-redemtrix imply we are equating Mary as a fourth person of the Trinity? Obviously not, because the term does not imply anything of the sort. Co means with. If Mary participated in God’s plan of salvation, (which anyone who would deny this fact cannot call themselves a Christian) then she can be titled obviously a co-redemptrix, because she participated in God’s plan. I will say this plainly, it seems that [James] White is just (pardon my French) too damn stupid to understand what co means. Aside from all of this, this terminology has not been defined by the church as of yet.

Once again, a broken record. He repeats exactly what he said in the initial article but fails to clarify it. “Co-” does mean “with,” and implies (at least to me) an equal share in the action. Cooperate. Coworker. Both terms imply an equal share of action, and this is what is so reprehensible about the title.

Mary participated in God’s plan, but not in an equal share. Remember that the term “Co-” implies equal participation.

Yes he like James White follows a heresy condemned by the Church [Calvinism]. I never said Mary was divine as Cory here writes, “Whatever you believe about Mary, she was a mere human and not divine.” Well we all know that you do not have to be divine to participate in God’s redemptive plan of salvation. Anytime we pray or lead someone to the faith we become participants of God’s plan to save other people. So his argument here is nothing more than pure rhetoric. (emphasis added)

Then why are we not all termed “Co-Redeemers?” Because we do not participate in the plan of salvation in equal footing with God’s action in salvation. We are merely a cog in the wheel of the ultimate plan, doing our role defined by God when we lead someone to the Lord (Eph 2:8-11). Why does Mary get special consideration and her own title? She, too, is a cog like us.

What? 6th century is not early? Says who? I find it quite amusing that the only argument this guy can provide is that this writing just isn’t early enough for him. Yet none of these guys have anything from this period attesting to their heretical beliefs. I have given a source from the 500s attesting to a Catholic practice and it just isn’t old enough for this guy. Is this the best this guy can do? Well as we know that is about par for the likes of James White’s fans don’t we?

But I can provide Scriptural evidence for my beliefs, which dates back to the apostles. He’s providing non-inspired writings 500 years after the fact. I think that I am justified in asking him for earlier attestations. Asking me for earlier attestations is just deflecting the question, not answering the charge.

I have posted my video. I don’t need to go on his radio show to refute White. My video is on the web for all to see. By the way, this guy can’t even spell my name correctly either.

Chicken? I’d like to see some actual interaction between you and White. I think that everyone would. So what do you say? Are you up to the challenge?

By the way, I corrected all of the misspellings. Sorry, won’t happen again.

Posted in Apologetics, Mariology, Roman Catholicism | 1 Comment »

Matthew Bellisario and Mary

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 2, 2008

Matthew Bellisario’s love for Dr. James White, a friend of this blog, is well documented. His attitude toward Dr. White is always charitable, so it is no wonder that Dr. White has never offered a reply to Bellisario’s comments. I will offer an answer for Dr. White in this short article to the latest diatribe by the Catholic Champion.

Bellisario has this to say about Mary:

Does the term co-mediatrix or co-redemtrix imply we are equating Mary as a fourth person of the Trinity? Obviously not, because the term does not imply anything of the sort. Co means with. If Mary participated in God’s plan of salvation, (which anyone who would deny this fact cannot call themselves a Christian) then she can be titled obviously a co-redemptrix, because she participated in God’s plan. I will say this plainly, it seems that [James] White is just (pardon my French) too damn stupid to understand what co means. Aside from all of this, this terminology has not been defined by the church as of yet.

Let’s first assume an Arminian perspective on salvation for the sake of argument. By virtue of human free will, we all would participate in our salvation by making a decision to follow Christ. Therefore, are we not all Co-Redeemers in salvation by this logic?

But, like James White, I follow the Reformed view of salvation, which means that salvation is solely God’s work. We mere humans do not participate in it. Whatever you believe about Mary, she was a mere human and not divine. Therefore, she does not participate in salvation in any way–to suggest otherwise is blasphemous.

White says that it is blasphemous to ask the Blessed Mother to pray for us, to intercede for us. Is it? Then I ask why in the world does every ancient Liturgy have petitions to her? You see, White knows that when it comes to the Church and her Liturgies he has no defense of for his outlandish heretical rants. The Liturgies of the Church show us plainly that Christians of the early centuries gave the Blessed Theotokos praise, and they asked for her intercession.

Livias in the 6th century wrote, “Raised to heaven, she remains for the human race an unconquerable rampart, interceding for us before her Son and God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Assumption 291(ante AD 560),in THEO,187

Sixth century isn’t “early.” Bellisario offers nothing in his entire post earlier than this quote to back up his assertion that the early Christians paid special attention to Mary. Prayer to Mary, and the Marian dogmas, are simply not traceable to apostolic times in any form. I have no doubt that Mary was held in special reverence, but I doubt very much that prayers were offered to her the way that the Catholic Champion suggests. Dr. White need not offer a defense for something that the other side has not sufficiently established as a fact.

Now lets also call out James White on his video regarding the liturgy and Transubstantiation in which I posted responses to a few months back? I flat out called him on his erroneous conclusions he formed from his “12 century” arguments on the tabernacle, the host elevation etc. He loves to attack Catholics and mock them on his blog and his radio show, yet he cannot defend his own foolish arguments. Where is he and his arrogant response on this? We are waiting.

If Bellisario is so anxious to call James White out, why doesn’t he call The Dividing Line? If Dr. White’s assertions are so foolish and easily refuted, why not embarrass him on his own podcast? That would prove once and for all that James White is not worthy of as many followers as he has and it would show all of his listeners that Catholicism is the way to go. Alas, I doubt that that will ever happen because we all know how it would really turn out and who the loser would be. We know that Dr. White would make Matthew Bellisario look like a complete idiot, and look good doing it.

Posted in Liturgy, Mariology, Roman Catholicism | 1 Comment »

Fifth Marian Dogma Letter

Posted by Cory Tucholski on February 22, 2008

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 9:8) 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 7:26-28)

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.

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus, Mariology, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 1 Comment »

New Hymn to Mary?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 2, 2007

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.

Posted in Mariology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism | Leave a Comment »

Defending James White

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 8, 2007

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.

Posted in Apologetics, Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Mariology, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 3 Comments »

Rude!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on August 17, 2007

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.

Posted in Apologetics, Mariology, Roman Catholicism, Theology | Leave a Comment »

Logic that Isn’t

Posted by Cory Tucholski on August 14, 2007

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. 8) 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.

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus, Mariology, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries