This emphasis, which should especially appeal to Methodists, who are accustomed to thinking of the saints as 'our friends above' as fellow travellers on the way, is a placed on Mary as 'our sister in the Church, a fellow disciple.' It is balanced with an emphasis upon Mary as mother, which has always been central to Catholic piety but which is not incompatible with Methodism, which in the nineteenth century revered many of its own female saints and spiritual leaders as true 'mother of Israel.' (Ibid., paras 35-6)
The report dealt in considerable detail with Catholic belief concerning Mary. (Ibid., paras 23-6 - the Immaculate Conception and 31-4 - the Assumption) Methodists of all generations from the Wesley onward have frequently been apt to dismiss Marian devotion, often very inaccurately understood, as superstitious, even idolatrous, but they have perhaps ignored far more than they have rejected.
In these circumstances, Catholics needed to expound Marian teaching in a way most likely to make sense to and appeal to Methodists. They were also in a position to make a challenge to Methodism: Do Methodists respond positively enough to the Scriptural call for all generations to cal Mary blessed? Has this scripture based Church been blind to scriptural teaching? A prominent Methodist member of the dialogue (Dr. David Butler) has more than once reminded Methodists that Scripture says more about Mary than it does about the Eucharist, yet Methodists have never doubted the importance of the latter.
The Methodist members of the dialogue accepted that there was a case to be answered and that exploration of Marian devotion was part of their ecumenical duty, integral to 'walking together on the pilgrim journey.' (Mary, para. 1) the practical flavor of the dialogue, in contrast to the more purely theological tone of the other dialogues, is seen in the provision of practical questions designed for the faithful to explore together as part of a reception process. Discussion of the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 was not, however, omitted.
Unsurprisingly, the two churches were unable to reach agreement on these. Methodists do not accept them, arguing that they lack any clear basis in Scripture. On the other hand, the Methodists were prepared to concede that they accepted the truths to which they point, that is to say, in the case of the Immaculate Conception, the availability of a special grace for a unique vocation, and in the case of the Assumption, the anticipation of our eschatological destiny in heaven. It is said in the report that Methodists 'safeguard in other ways the faith which they seek to express and symbolise.' (Mary, para. 4) The question of the literal truth of the dogmas was left vague. Paragraph 3 pointed to the quest of the historical Mary as being subject to the same problems as the quest of the historical Jesus and for the distinction between Mary, the historical figure, and Mary, the 'figure' or type, to be maintained. It seems to the present writer that, if such distinctions are indeed valid, then the Marian dogmas need no longer be church-dividing as between Methodists and Catholics.
Similarly, the belief in Mary as 'ever virgin' accepted by none less than Wesley himself, need create no problem if the emphasis is laid upon the purity and single mindedness of Mary in her vocation as opposed to a particular historical interpretation of the controverted critical question of the nature of the 'brothers and sisters' of the Lord. (Ibid., para. 30, Wallwork's pamphlet, 2005)
The practical call of the report is clear. It challenges both churches. Catholics are challenged to present their Marian faith as part of the total understanding of the workings of divine grace and human but divinely evoked and enabled response. The Catholic Church is also challenged to purify its devotional practice so as to remove any fear that devotion to Mary might obscure her truly creature and redeemed status. Catholics are also challenged to ensure that Marian piety does 'justice to a truly Christian image of womanhood.' To Methodism, there is a challenge to develop an authentically Methodist devotion to Mary as elder sister in the faith and model disciple, as pattern of obedience, contemplation, wisdom and faithfulness. The Methodist response will be a true of Methodism's ecumenical credibility and receptiveness. (Mary, paras 2-4)
Shortly after publication of Mary, two significant assessments of it were written by Methodist scholars. The first, by John Newton, was basically very affirmative, recognizing the traditional Methodist neglect of Mary and asserting, in respect of the dogmas of the perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, that:
I take it to be an ecumenical principle that what is a vital matter of faith to my Christian brother and sister of another Christian tradition cannot be a matter of indifference to me. I must listen, explore, try to understand. (Methodist-Roman Catholic Joint Statement, in McLoughlin and Pinnock 1997:171-80)
Newton felt that the report should have said more about the motherhood of Mary from the standpoint of the influence that she must have had in forming the growing Christ.
The second assessment, by Edward ball, was more critical, evincing a much more robustly Protestant critique of ideas of cooperation and responsible grace. Ball cited Barth's view that Mary's response in her fiat was 'the acceptance of a miracle of grace, not the acceptance of a cooperative role.' (In Epworth Review, Oct. 1997, vol. 24, no, 4; 25-41. Ball, a lecturer in Old Testament at the University of Nottingham, is a Methodist local preacher and is now also a member of the British Roman Catholic-Methodist Committee, though he was not on it at the time that Fr. Evans compiled the report) He argued that the commission had at various points uncritically accepted debatable Catholic interpretations of Scripture, for example, in deriving Mary's spiritual motherhood of believers from Christ's commitment of the beloved disciple to her care. He also felt that they had failed to give full weight to the Markan's 'coolness' towards Mary recorded in Mark 3:5-31.
He felt that an emphasis upon the Assumption as an anticipation of our eschatological destiny had displaced the Ascension as an entirely sufficient pledge in itself. He felt that if Mary was to be commended as a model, she should be seen as one of her weakness and failure as well as in her obedience. Ball undoubtedly expressed reservations that would be shared by some Methodists; equally, some other members of the commission felt that he had failed to do justice to the divergence between the Methodist understanding of responsible grace and the views held within the other Reformed traditions, while Newton felt that confession of the perfect humanity of Christ necessarily implied something about the mother from whom he derived that humanity.
The Groupe des Dombes is bolder in its conclusion that the other dialogues so far considered. In line with its earlier practice, it was concerned to challenge both Protestants and Catholics to a very specific degree of real convergence. (Marie, paras 289-338) It aimed to set controversies over grace and response in an agreed context. It repudiated the language of co-redemption as used in certain circles in the Catholic Church, noting its intentional abandonment at Vatican II. It recorded its distrust of any language of mediation used of Mary in anyway that was not strictly instrumental and subordinate to Christ as sole mediator. (Ibid., para. 210)
It affirmed that there need be no necessary incompatibility between the traditional Catholic language of cooperation and the term 'grateful response to a perfect gift' as used by the French Reformed theologian Jean Bosc. (Ibid., para. 209) It cited Luther's affirmation of Mary's free works of love and his conclusion, 'after we have been justified by faith, we must do everything for others, freely and gladly.' (Ibid., para. 216)
An attempt to balance the Protestant emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the Catholic emphasis on the nature of 'grace response' can be discerned in the following sentences: 'Passivity before grace, the "letting go" of faith in its presence, is the source of a new activity. Availability translates into obedience.' (Ibid., para. 219)
The challenge to Roman Catholics is to take seriously and act upon legitimate Protestant concerns about the extent to which Marian doctrine and devotion have come dangerously close to losing moorings in the fundamental truths of grace and Christology. Catholics are warned about the danger of invoking the senus fidelium in defence of new cults or proposed dogmas, since the alleged senus fidelium can rest upon 'religious sentiment rather than Christian faith.' Mariology should be seen as an aspect of Christology, not an independent theological discipline. (Ibid., para. 219-4)
The Groupe des Dombes argues that its consensus in Mary's cooperation should suffice for unity in faith, thereby, incidentally, asserting a resolution to the problem left unresolved in the British Catholic - Methodist dialogue. It argues that submission to the dogmas of 1854 and 1950 should not be required of non-Catholics, nor simply because of their definition in separation and without consultation with the other churches, but also because of the repeated requests by popes prior to 1854 that those holding contrary opinions in these matters should not anathematize each other. Protestants should simply be asked to affirm that they 'respect' the content of the dogmas, not judging them as contrary to the faith, but accepting them as 'free and legitimate consequences of the reflection of the Catholic consciousness on the coherence of the faith.'
Reference is made to the recent progress in Christological dialogue between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox churches, in which it has been agreed that these churches need not be bound to the Christological these of Chalcedon from which they dissented in 451. (Ibid., paras 295-9) Finally, stress is placed on Paul VI's teaching that Marian doctrine and devotion should be biblical, liturgical, ecumenically sensitive and anthropological related, the key emphasis being upon Mary as active in faith and love. (Ibid., para. 306)
Protestants are challenged as to whether their silence concerning Mary prejudices their relationship with Christ and does justice to the Reformers and, even more significantly, to Scripture. (Ibid., paras 315-17) They are challenged to acknowledge the symbolic value of the Marian dogmas and to affirm that they are not contrary to the basic doctrine of justification. They should recover the celebration of those Marian feasts that have a clear scriptural basis, such as the Annunciation and the Presentation. (Ibid., paras 326, 331) There is relatively little emphasis upon Mary as model disciple, in contrast to the Catholic-Methodist dialogue, but that is perhaps to be explained by the very different context of French classical Protestantism from that of British Methodism.
The recent Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission II (ARCIC) report, Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ, represents the highest degree of convergence yet achieved between the Roman Catholic Church and any of its Western ecumenical dialogue partners. The report is quite clear in affirming that 'the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions' and that 'Mary has a continuing ministry which serves the ministry of Christ, our unique mediator.' (ARCIC, an agreed statement, London, 2005, see para. 78)
It will be apparent that the assertion that the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are 'consonant with Scripture' (and can only be understood in a total scriptural context) goes beyond the more tentative statement of the British Catholic-Methodist dialogue that Methodists could accept many of the truths that the dogmas were meant to under grid, while still not being able to accept them as scriptural. The report is also bold in stating that it is 'impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary.' It argues that:
Affirming together unambiguously Christ's unique mediation which bears fruit in the life of the Church, we do not consider that the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us in communion dividing... we believe there is no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division on these matters. (Ibid., para. 75)
It accepts, however, that there are still general questions of authority relating to dogmatic definition and reception that need to be settled. It accepts that a recognition by Anglicans of the controverted dogmas as 'revealed by God.' In an important footnote, it points to 'instances in ecumenical agreement in which what one partner has defined as de fide can be expressed by another partner in a different way' citing the examples of accords with the Lutherans and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Ibid: 63, n.13)
The report is set out in three main sections. The first, in the spirit of the original ARCIC commitment to seek consensus through a return to the commonly accepted sources of Scripture and early tradition, represents a common re-reading of the scriptural evidence relating tot he role of Mary. Paragraph 30 sums up the conclusions of the commission on the role of Mary as attested in Scripture.
The scriptural witness summons all believers in every generation to call Mary blessed, this Jewish woman of humble status, this daughter of Israel living in hope of justice for the poor, whom God has graced and chosen to become the virgin mother of his Son, through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. We are to bless her as the 'handmaid of the Lord' who gave her unqualified assent to the fulfillment of God's saving plan, as the mother who pondered all things in her heart, as the refuge seeking asylum in a foreign land, as the mother pierced by the innocent suffering of her own child, and as the woman to whom Jesus entrusted his friends. We are not with her and the apostles as they prayed for the outpouring of the Spirit on the nascent Church, the eschatological family of Christ. And we may even glimpse in her the final destiny of God's people to share in her son's victory over the powers of evil and death. (Rev. 12; ibid., paras 28-9)
The second section looks at Mary within Christians tradition, noting delicately the developing shifts of emphasis within Marian theology and devotion, especially the medieval one from seeing Mary primarily as type of the Church to associating her ever more closely with Christ's work of redemption. 'The centre of attention of believers shifted from Mary as representing the faithful Church, and so also redeemed humanity, to Mary as dispensing Christ's graces to the faithful. (Ibid., para. 42) Attention is then given to the reaction of the Reformers against abuses in the contemporary cult of the saints and to the resultant reactions on both sides of the Reformation divide, with Roman Catholics increasingly seeing Marian devotion as a badge of their Catholicism, while Protestants reacted in a negative direction. (Ibid., paras 44, 47)
Emphasis is laid upon the facts that the Anglican Reformers showed reticence in ascribing any sort of sin to Mary. (Ibid., para. 45) Five feasts of Mary were preserved in the Book of Common Prayer and individual Anglicans preserved a strong devotion to her before as well as after the beginning of the Oxford Movement in 1833. (Ibid., para. 46) Finally, stress is laid upon the reception of Mary's essentially Christological and ecclesiological role in the teaching of Vatican II, and on a 'new prominence' for Mary in Anglican worship 'through the liturgical renewals of the twentieth century.' 'Growing ecumenical exchange has contributed to the process of re-reception in both communion.' (Ibid., paras 45-50)
The last section seeks to locate Mary and her role in the history of salvation within the framework of a 'theology of grace and hope.' It adduces Romans 8:30, where Saint Paul sets out a pattern of grace and hope as paradigmatic of God's intended relationship with the human race. 'Those whom God predestined, he also called; those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.' It sees God anticipating in Mary his work in other faithful Christians.
The sense of God's calling others from the womb, such as prophet Jeremiah, helps to give credence to the commission's statement that 'we can affirm together that Christ's redeeming work reached "back" in Mary to the very depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings.' (Ibid., para. 59) Likewise, the universal hope within the Church of ultimate glorification helps to sustain the affirmation of the teaching that 'God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into glory as consonant with Scripture.' (Ibid., para. 58) Nicholas Sagovsky, an Anglican member of ARCIC II, has since testified to the fruitfulness of the Pauline text in assisting the members of the commission towards a fresh understanding of the role of Mary in Christian faith. (Tablet, 21 May 2005:8)
It is too early to say exactly how the report will be received. It is likely to meet with some scepticism from the more Protestant wing of the Church of England. (Anglican) On the BBC's Sunday programme, David Hilborne, an Anglican priest who is also an official of the Evangelical Alliance, ironically stated that a distinction had to be made between the ability to argue that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were consonant with Scripture and their being held actually to be 'warranted by Scripture,' thus allowing Evangelicals, Anglicans and the others to accept that they lacked the plain scriptural authority to justify their being enforced as doctrine. Rather less ironically, Rod Thomas of Reform accuses ARCIC of trying to 'shoehorn' the dogmas into Scripture. (Tablet, 21 May 2005: 30)
One suspects that some Protestant biblical scholars nay be unhappy with the interpretation of Mark 3:5-31 and parallels, with the endorsement of the view that the term 'brothers' in relation to Christ is not to be taken literally and with the special pleading that Romans 3:23 with its stark statement that 'all have sinned' is to be taken in a particular contextual meaning rather than a face value. (Mary, Grace and Hope, paras 19-20, para. 59, no. 12) There will be certainly be reservations over the concept of Mary's continuing ministry and over the degree of cautious affirmation of the spiritual value of private revelations. (Ibid., para. 73)
From the Roman Catholic side, Sarah Boss has commented that the report gives little attention to the identification of Mary as a type of the Church which is so strong in the early Fathers. (Tablet, 21 May 2005: 7) She points to the very real difficulties that the report will pose for those Evangelical Anglicans who can accept that Mary was used as an instrument of the divine will, but who are also very unwilling to accept the language of 'cooperation' with God which the report takes for granted. (Ibid)
It is also significant that, though Mary's 'pondering' is recorded, there is no discussion of its significance for the creative development of tradition within the Church. The commission can, of course, reply that the context of Anglican-Roman Catholic relationships has determined the thrust of the report with its emphasis on showing the consonance of Marian doctrine with Scripture, just as, for the Catholic-Methodist dialogue, the context was, in part, the Wesleyan concept of responsible discipleship.
These reservations apart, many Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others will find the report lucid, stimulating and even devotional.
It will be apparent from the above summaries of four key ecumenical dialogue reports that very considerable progress has been made with what was once commonly seen as an intractable issue. It is worth stressing that, even apart from the achievements of the set-piece dialogues, the progress of the dialogue has influenced the way in which Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants theologians have tried to commend their positions in terms that will make sense and appeal to their partners. Particularly notable work in this respect by individual theologians has been done by Bishop Kallistos Ware, in taking an irenic stance vis-a-vis Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and by Fr. Ted Yarnold, who has commended the same doctrine to Protestants as a particularly important instance of grace alone. (Stacpoole (ed.) 1982: 169-81, 125-30)
There seems to be a consensus on the following points. First, that Marian doctrine and devotion must be integrated within an understanding of the primacy of the grace and saving mission of the triune God. In calling Mary the Abraham of the new covenant, the Groupe des Dombes locates her clearly within the context of the Pilgrim Church and identifies her as a pilgrim in faith, a theological approach which will resonate with Protestant emphases while retaining the Roman Catholic emphasis upon her pivotal importance. (Sesboue 1990: 384-5) It can certainly be agreed that Mary, like every faithful Christian, stood constantly in need of grace and, indeed, received all the graces needed for her special and unique vocation. Catholics and Methodists could faithfully deepen their Marian dialogue by discussing the question of Mary's reception of grace in the light of Wesley's theologoumenon that those who have attained to perfect love stand even more in need of sustaining grace than those who have not yet attained to this perfection.
Finally, there is the common emphasis upon Mary as model disciple, sister as well as mother, always within the fellowship, never above it or detached from it, Mother of the Church, as Paul VI taught, but as also fellow disciple who travels with us, having gone through her own doubts and periods of darkness, and who teaches through her own profound reflection. If there is one aspect of the scriptural record that might have been thoroughly examined in the dialogues (and not just by ARCIC as specifically recorded above) it is the significance of the sentence recorded twice by Luke, 'and Mary kept all these things in her heart and pondered on them.' - Luke 2:19, 51)
A possible cloud on the ecumenical Marian horizon came with the request, backed by 40 Cardinals and 500 Bishops, that the Pope consider the solemn definition of the dogmas of Maria co-redemptrix and Maria mediatrix of all graces. (Tablet by E.J. Yarnold, R. Greenarce, R. Laurentin and E. Storkey on 17, 24, 31 January and 7 February 1998 respectively) This was virgorously opposed at a Marian congress, at which Anglican and Orthodox observers were present, as likely to create almost insuperable problems. It will be seen that such a definition would certainly go against the spirit of the understanding of Christ as sole mediator and of grace expressed in the dialogues, most particularly that adopted by the Groupe des Dombes.
What the future of such Marian maximalism will be within the Catholic Church is difficult to predict. Even more important is the question of the reception of the dialogues already detailed. It is quite clear that this remains the most urgent question for the next generation: how to communicate the agreed insights within the churches, especially the Roman Catholic, Anglican-Church of England, Lutheran and Methodist churches that have taken the lead.
BY DAVID CARTER
Page 3
If you wish to donate. Thank You. God bless.
By bank transfer/cheque deposit:
Name: Alex Chan Kok Wah
Bank: Public Bank Berhad account no: 4076577113
Country: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
I have through years of reading, pondering, reflecting and contemplating, the 3 things that last; FAITH . HOPE . LOVE and I would like to made available my sharing from the many thinkers, authors, scholars and theologians whose ideas and thoughts I have borrowed. God be with them always. Amen!
I STILL HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY TO YOU BUT THEY WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR YOU NOW. BUT WHEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH COMES, HE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH, SINCE HE WILL NOT BE SPEAKING AS FROM HIMSELF, BUT WILL SAY ONLY WHAT HE HAS LEARNT; AND HE WILL TELL YOU OF THE THINGS TO COME.
HE WILL GLORIFY ME, SINCE ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. EVERYTHING THE FATHER HAS IS MINE; THAT IS WHY I SAID: ALL HE TELLS YOU WILL BE TAKEN FROM WHAT IS MINE. - JOHN 16:12-15 -
No comments:
Post a Comment