It was only as a result of the Second Vatican Council [ Vatican II ] (1962-1965) that the Roman Catholic Church could enter into, and indeed, impart a new elan to the Ecumenical Movement. For the future of Marian dialogue as such, the key development was the treatment of Mary in the schema on the Church, thus affirming that her role has to be seen within the Church and the rest of the communion of saints. (Lumen Gentium) Within that framework, the emphasis upon her as first and model disciple would prove especially helpful, since Protestants could accept that the emphasis upon her obedience was entirely biblical and could look upon her as an elder sister in faith in a manner that was consistent with Protestant ecclesiology, especially that of the free churches with their emphasis upon church as a mutual fellowship in learning and discipleship. ('Mary, Servant of the Word.' in McLoughlin and Pinnock (eds.) 1997)

There was now a good point from which dialogue could then progress to examine issues more difficult for the Protestant mindset. The new situation was recognized by McAfee Brown, who wrote (cited in ibid: 11)

"Catholic have gone a first mile in trying to re-establish theological rapport on this issue. Protestants have an obligation to go a second mile in opening themselves to an examination of what the New Testament says about the place of Mary in the Christian faith.'

Nevertheless, the feeling in general in the dialogues between Catholics and Reformation and post-Reformation traditions that emerged from the late 1960s was that it was better to start with other issues. One prophetic figure, Martin Gillett, a Catholic layman and former Anglican deacon, disputed this and argued that far from being a cause of disunity, common dialogue concerning Mary might actually help to promote unity. To this end, he formed the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ESBVM) in 1967 in England. (see Stacpoole (ed.) 1982)

Gillett was a tireless activist and soon succeeded in convincing some senior Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist leaders of the value of such a society. The society grew to a membership of well over 1,000 with branches in Ireland and the USA as well as several in England. It sponsored both local meetings and national and international conferences. The latter, in particular, attracted the services of many theologians and over the years the society has published many pamphlets on Marian and ecumenical matters, as well as four books of essays, mainly representing conference papers. (Stacpoole (ed.) 1982, Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue; 1987, Mary and the Churches; McLoughlin and Pinnock (eds) 1997, Mary is for Everyone; 2002, Mary for Earth and Heaven)

It role in bringing Marian themes to the fore in ecumenical discussion has been widely affirmed. The success of the society has, however, been limited to the extent that most of its members are Roman Catholic and most of the remaining members come from the wings of the Church of England (Anglican) and the Methodist Church most favorable to the Catholics and Sacramental traditions. There are only a few members from the other free churches. Nevertheless, the society has been very open to the expression of Marian opinions decidedly contrary to those of the bulk of the membership and it has given the floor to speakers who express very traditional Protestant reservations, such as William Bridcut, a minister of the Church of Ireland, whose work has already been quoted.

Several individual pioneering theologians (often though not always in connection with the ESBVM or dialogue groups) have made and continue to make important contributions to the development of an irenic ecumenical understanding of Mary.

Outstanding examples are the Taize brother Max Thurian, in his Mother of the Lord, Figure of the Church, the Methodist Neville Ward with his Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy, a book that first brought the spirituality of the rosary to the attention of considerable numbers of British Methodists, the Methodist Pauline Warner whose essay 'Mary, A two edged sword to pierce your heart' was an attempt to commend to Methodists the concept of the Immaculate Conception in terms of preparation for a unique vocation, and the French Jesuit Bernard Sesboue. (Thurian 1963; Ward 1971; Warner's article, Sesboue 1990) Recently, important work has been produced in America by scholars from the reformation traditions, particularly, but not exclusively, the Lutheran tradition.

Orthodox (including here Oriental Orthodox) Christians do not have the same difficulties with Catholic piety and doctrine as Protestants, though they do have some difficulties with the Marian dogmatic definitions of 1854 and 1950. In general, Marian devotion is central to the Orthodox; indeed, the Mother of God is more frequently mentioned in the official liturgical books of the Orthodox Church than in those of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of her perpetual virginity is affirmed. She is stated to be 'all holy.' (panagia)

Orthodox difficulties with the criticism of the Roman Catholic teaching of 1854 and 1950 stem partly from differing views on the necessity of dogmatic definition and partly from a different understanding of teaching authority in the Church. Many Orthodox state that they accept the truths under girding the two definitions, but they do not believe that it was necessary to define them dogmatically. They argue that faith in the assumption, in Mary's bodily presence in heaven, has always been part of the hope of the Church, but never part of its public preaching, for which reason dogmatic definition was unnecessary. They also argue that solemn dogmas can only be defined by a council of all bishops; even then, they are still subject to reception by all the faithful, who, according to the teaching of the Orthodox, are the final guardians of the faith. Certainly, they do not regard the Roman Catholic Church, on its own, as competent to add to the faith.

Orthodox are also critical on two other points. They do not accept the Augustinian teaching on original sin which under girds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, even though they have no difficulty in believing that Mary never, at any stage of her life, sinned. They also argue that their dogmatic and devotional development stems directly from contemplation of the union of the two natures in Christ and has never become detached from this to the degree that was true of some Marian maximalism before Vatican II.

The fear of the 'detached' Mary, exalted for her own sake and considered almost independently both of her Son and of the Holy Spirit that over shadowed her both at her Annunciation and again, in union with the apostles, at Pentecost, is a fear in the minds of some Orthodox. Elizabeth Behr-Sigel emphasizes that certain Fathers of the Church were aware of the risk of 'attributing' too great a role to nature and to human will at the expense of divine grace' and that they 'insisted on the human weakness of Mary' while seeing her as the 'spirit bearer, pneumatophoros par excellence.' (Behr-Sigel 1991) Behr-Sigel also expresses reservation over Paul VI's title 'Mother of the Church' on the grounds that this might seem to put our adoption by Mary on the same level as our adoption in Christ by the Father. (Ibid: 204)

A helpful development since Vatican II has been the increasing recognition by many Catholic scholars that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches accept essentially the same faith. Many Catholics now accept that the ancient division over the filioque clause in the creed need no longer divide. Cardinal Ratzinger even delivered himself of the view that, in the case of reunion, the Orthodox would not be expected to accept all the dogmatic formulae developed solely in the West. It thus seems that, at least from the Roman Catholic side, differing ways of expressing an essentially common faith and devotion to Mary need no longer be church dividing. (Christological between the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East)

So far there have been three official inter-confessional dialogues, all involving the Roman Catholic Church, and one unofficial, but extremely influential dialogue in France, this last having been, to date, the most thorough. A few other dialogues have touched upon Marian themes, including the Orthodox - Old Catholic dialogue and the Catholic-Pentecostal one. (Kilian McDonald: 'Mary in recent ecumenical documents' in Stacpoole (ed.) 1987)

ARCIC I, in section 30 of the Final Report (1981) touched on several themes, all of which have been taken up, to varying degrees, in the other dialogues. The first fuller-scale dialogue was that of the American Lutherans and Roman Catholics. In the mid 1990 came the British Roman Catholic-Methodist dialogue, resulting in the pamphlet Mary, Mother of the Lord, Sign of Grace, Faith and Holiness, written by Michael Evans. (Epworth Press and Catholic Truth Society) At the end of the 1990s representing the culmination of a long series of consultations, came the report of the Groupe des Dombes, an unofficial but extremely influential group of French Roman Catholics and Protestants. (An initiative of the French ecumenical pioneer Abbe Paul Couturier in 1937; consisting of equal teams of French Catholic and Protestant (Lutheran and Reformed) theologians) Finally, delayed because of complications in Anglican-Catholic relationships, came the report of ARCIC II in May 2005.

The ARCIC I statement of 1981 set the tone for much which was to be discussed in greater detail in the later dialogues, as well as pointing to some of the continuing issues. Section 30 contains these statements:

Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree in much of the truth that these two dogmas (that is, those of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) are designed to affirm. We agree that there can be but one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ and reject any interpretation of the role of Mary that obscures this affirmation. We agree in recognising that Christian understanding of Mary is inseparably linked with the doctrines of Christ and the Church. We agree in recognising the grace and unique vocation of Mary, Mother of God Incarnate, in observing her festivals, and in according her honour in the communion of saints. We agree that she was prepared by divine grace to be the mother of the Redeemer, by whom she herself was redeemed and received into glory. We further agree in recognising in Mary a model of holiness, obedience and faith for all Christians... Nevertheless, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by these dogmas are sufficiently supported by Scripture.

All the dialogues share certain common emphases. Primary is the stress that Mary's 'co-operation' with God, her fiat, is not an act of independent of divine grace, but rather one made possible by it. As Rev. Fr. Sesboue, the French Jesuit who has long played, a distinguished role in the Groupe des Dombes, puts it, 'her fiat is the purest fruit of grace.' (Sesboue 1990) Sesboue points to the way in which Mary had to walk by faith and not by sight, an emphasis that reassures Protestants that Mary is not being divorced or set totally apart from the experience and struggle of other believers. (Ibid: 383) The dialogues all emphasize the sheer gratuitousness of God's regard for Mary. Sesboue prefers the translation comblee de grace to the traditional pleine de Grace as a more accurate rendering of the Greek kecharitomene, his favoured translation being perhaps best rendered in English as 'overwhelmed with grace.'

Only Christ can be said to be full of grace, but Mary can be said to be overflowing with the gifts of grace. (Ibid: 378) Sesboue resemble the Presbyterian theologian John Oman in his emphasis upon grace as relational. 'In this term are included amiability, kindness, free friendship, pleasure, even good pleasure.' ( Ibid: 379) This last expression resonates with Methodists, accustomed to singing at their Covenant services,

And if thou are well pleased to hear,
Come down and meet us now. (Peterborough, 1983)

From their side, Roman Catholic have been eager to acknowledge that Mary needed redemption as much as any other human being, the difference being in the Catholic teaching that this was effected in a unique way in view of her unique vocation and in anticipation of the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Despite the considerable overlap in their conclusions, each dialogue was differently shaped by its particular context. The first, the American Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, was particularly concerned with its relationship to a prior agreement on justification by faith, that doctrine for Lutherans being the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the touchstone of all other Christian teaching. The Lutherans were anxious to see that Catholic teaching and practice and any possible reception of them among Lutherans did not contradict the basic principles of their previous agreement on justification. (The One Mediator, the Saints and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, VII, 1983-1990)

The dialogue was thus particularly concerned to explore the present and past practice of both churches with regard to Marian devotion and the cult of the saints in general. It started from a common concern to safeguard the uniqueness of Christ and his justifying grace. Both churches were anxious to disabuse themselves of any misconceptions; thus Lutherans came to accept that Catholics practices in regard to the saints are not idolatrous, while Catholics recorded their appreciation of the very real honour in which Luther and many Lutherans held Mary. (Ibid: 375-84, 438-51, 456)

Both churches expounded their convictions in detail, giving weight to contextual factors. The Lutherans explained that their utter trust in the sole sufficiency of the merits of Christ and their beliefs in the literal immediacy of his self-giving to the faithful believer made it difficult for them to see why it should be useful or necessary to place trust also in the saints, including Mary. Luther had objected to the cult of the saints on the grounds that it detracted from trust in Christ alone. They did not deny that the saints in heaven prayed for the Church on earth, but they did not see them as playing any essential role in the salvation of others. (Ibid: 386)

The Roman Catholics responded by emphasizing that, though Christ is the sole autonomous mediator, he nevertheless empowers his faithful saints to cooperate with him. Though Catholics freely accept that God is free to save whom he will and certainly cannot be bound by the prayers of the saints, they nevertheless have confidence in the communion and mutual aid of the saints as something that continues on either side of death. (Ibid: 395)

For Lutherans, by contrast, the key importance of the saints lies in the example of obedience on earth, for which thereafter they are certainly to be honoured and imitated. Mary is in this especially pre-eminent as 'God-bearer and most praiseworthy of the saints.' 'In this sense, Mary is, to Lutherans, a prototype of the Church, obedient to the Spirit, humble in her great calling, and the embodiment of the unmerited grace of God.' Roman Catholics gave Lutherans an assurance that nowhere was invocation of the saints and Mary defined as an obligatory practice. (Ibid: 388-9, 462)

In their study, the Lutherans and Catholics identified 19 'church-uniting convergences' beginning with the basic affirmation that 'our entire hope of justification rests on Christ Jesus... we do not place our ultimate trust in anything other than God's promise and saving work in Christ.' 'Christians honour saints in at least three ways, by thanking God for them; by having faith strengthened as a result of the saints' response to God's grace; and by imitating in various situations, their faith and their virtues.' Christians are neither forbidden nor commanded to ask the departed saints to pray for them. Devotion to Mary and to the other saints should be practiced in ways that do not detract from the ultimate trust to be placed in Christ alone as mediator. (Ibid: 405-7)

In their final reflections, both Catholics and Lutherans accepted that five centuries of separation had led to the development of 'different ways of living out the Gospel.' (Ibid: 451) The Catholics accepted that within 'popular' tradition many Catholics had tended to invoke the saints for temporal favours rather than as exemplars of holiness, a practice that had been deplored more recently by the magisterium. They accepted, possibly with modern feminist as well as Protestant critiques in mind, that Mary had too frequently been portrayed as a submissive rather than responsible woman disciple. Mary needed, rather, to be presented as both responsible disciple and model of the Church. (Ibid: 453) The Lutherans reflected that, through the dialogue, they had come to a deeper appreciation of the doxological dimension of the Church and to a greater appreciation of the legitimate diversity of forms of spirituality; nevertheless, they felt obliged to reiterate the centrality of the doctrine of justification. (Ibid: 457-64)

The British Catholic - Methodists dialogue was far less concerned with the problem of justification. The common Catholic and Methodist emphases on sanctification and responsible grace made for a different style of convergence. Methodists are agreed with the other classical Protestants in emphasizing the utter gratuitousness of grace and in rejecting any concept of salvation by works. (see Wesley 1984, vol.1:129) However, they are closer to Tridentine Catholicism than to the classical teaching of the Reformation on the question of the potential for actual sanctification. (Lindstrom 1946, see Hymn and Psalms, op. cit. no.788) the term 'faith that sweetly works by love' in the hymnody of Charles Wesley is close to the fides caritate formata of Trent. The Wesleyan reconciliation of the Reformation doctrine of justification with a strong doctrine of sanctification receives doxological expression in these two lines of Wesley:

Joyful from my own works to cease,
Glad to fulfil all righteousness. (Hymns and Psalms, no.788)

Methodists theology precludes any idea that the redeemed sinner must inevitably always remain simul iustus et peccator, while accepting realistically that most of us, perhaps the vast majority, do so. On principle, it sets no limits to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit and encourages all believers to 'press on to full salvation.' Granted that Catholics and Methodists are able to concur in such sentiments, the dialogue was able to make the statement that 'Methodists and Catholics recognize the need for human beings to co-operate in the mystery of salvation' subject to the necessary caveat that it is divine grace alone that enables our free response to God and any resultant growth in holiness. From this, it is possible for Catholics and Methodists to share the position that 'Mary "sum up" in herself, the relationship between God's sovereign grace and our free cooperation as individual believers and as the Church of Christ. (Mary, paras 5, 17)

                                                                         Page 2
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 -