-
Is “Forgiveness” The Hardest Gift For Christians?–The Christian Tech-Nerd
It may be hard, but it is not optional. I’ve dealt with this topic in my post The Important Difference Between Inexcusable and Unforgivable, a point which confuses many people.
-
Ralph Martin Gets the Boot
From his seminary position, no less:
Two prominent theologians who critiqued what they saw as doctrinal ambiguity under the late Pope Francis have been fired from their longtime posts at the Archdiocese of Detroit’s major seminary by the local archbishop, the Register has confirmed.
Archbishop Edward Weisenburger removed Ralph Martin and Eduardo Echeverria from their positions at Sacred Heart Major Seminary on July 23, both theologians told the Register separately.
In a statement to Renewal, the Catholic charismatic apostolate founded and led by Martin, the theologian described his sudden termination as “a shock,” noting his 23 years of contributions to the seminary. He wrote that when he asked Archbishop Weisenburger for an explanation, the Detroit ordinary “said he didn’t think it would be helpful to give any specifics but mentioned something about having concerns about my theological perspectives.”
First, I think it’s a stretch to characterise Ralph Martin as a “theologian.” Such a title implies that he thinks through problems for solutions, and Martin spent too much time in “headship” mode during his years in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (where I came to know of him) to merit that moniker.
I’m pretty sure at the core of this dispute–his new Archbishop is an acolyte of the previous Occupant of the see of St. Peter–is his position on people going to Hell:
Martin frequently cited what he regarded as a lack of clarity in Pope Francis’ teaching, and wrote in his 2021 book A Church in Crisis that the then-pope was “reluctant to dispel” ambiguity, which was “almost a hallmark” of Francis’ approach. Following Pope Francis’ Jan. 14, 2024, statement that he liked “to think of hell as empty,” Martin penned a commentary in the Register arguing that the pope’s comments were “extremely damaging,” and played into “a widespread sympathy” toward universalism, the heretical belief that all are saved.
I commented on Ralph Martin’s position in my post Winning the Lost is Better Than Counting Them. Martin is one of those people who, unlike the reverends peres Jesuites, thinks that Hell will be full. He was into it with Larry Chapp. I interjected with a quote from Bossuet to the effect that we should spend more time worrying about our own destiny and not obsess with others, adding that Bossuet in general is “more in a pastoral and soul winning frame of reference.” Chapp characterised that as sub-Christian.
Say what you will about Ralph Martin, he’s doubtless done more through his evangelistic efforts to send fewer to Hell and more to Heaven than Chapp has. And that probably is what got him the boot: people who see many going to Hell are motivated to change that while people who don’t are not. And happily I believe that Bossuet will be remembered long after Martin, Chapp and this archbishop are gone.
-
Will the Anglicans Ever Figure it Out About the Blessed Mother?
I didn’t mean for it to be a response, but while putting together my post Mary, Protestant and Catholic the North American Anglican was busy with this topic with two posts:
- Mary in the Anglican Tradition by William Jenkins; and
- Another Look at St. Mary the Virgin in the Anglican Tradition by Richard Tarsitano, which is a response to the first
Let me make one serious observation before trying to sort things out: Tarsitano is right that the 1940 Hymnal (or any other hymnal) isn’t a good way to establish doctrine. I was raised on same and I can attest that some of the hymns are magnificent, but some of them are real duds. One of them turned up in another NAA piece The Confession–St. Peter’s Day, when Andrew Brashier cited “They Cast Their Nets in Galilee” (#437.) This hymn, underneath its pious tone, is one of the most sour assessments of Christian sacrifice ever penned, which may explain why George Conger prefers givebacks over renunciation. As I noted when I posted the album Frederick Gere and Milton Williams: The Winds of God, it is “my unfavourite hymn.”
With that out of the way, both of these posts leave the same impression: for a part of Christianity which is supposed to be based on reason, Scripture and tradition, the first two get the short shrift. I think that’s one reason why I swam the Tiber: in addition to the endless fence riding and Anglican fudge, most Episcopal divines were content to either appeal to the aesthetic or, as one of them put it more recently, “tinker with the Prayer Book.” Roman Catholicism, when it isn’t hindered by the likes of the last Occupant of the See of Peter, has answers, many right, some wrong, but answers.
In Mary, Protestant and Catholic the dissertation’s author does a good job looking at the issue from a Scriptural standpoint, which would advance the debate a good deal. I think we need to focus on two central issues to get to the bottom of this: why it was important for Jesus to be born of a virgin, and why we need an additional patronage in our heavenly relationships.
Let’s start with the first, and a good place to start is Aquinas (Summa, III q.28 a.1):
I answer that, We must confess simply that the Mother of Christ was a virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the Ebionites and Cerinthus, who held Christ to be a mere man, and maintained that He was born of both sexes.
It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a virgin. First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father Who sent Him. For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting that He should have another father than God: lest the dignity belonging to God be transferred to another.
Secondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is sent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived without any interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word. Since therefore flesh was so assumed by the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it was fitting that it also should be conceived without corruption of the mother.
Thirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ’s humanity in which there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the world was taken away, according to John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God” (i.e. the Lamb without stain) “who taketh away the sin of the world.” Now it was not possible in a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin. Whence Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “In that union,” viz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, “the nuptial intercourse alone was lacking: because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He wished to be conceived, Who was to be without sin.”
Fourthly, on account of the very end of Incarnation of Christ, which was that men might be born again as sons of God, “not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13), i.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg.): “It behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be born, after the flesh, of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church.”
Although Aquinas goes on to defend many typically Catholic positions on the Blessed Virgin (but not the Immaculate Conception) this is a good place to start. Neither of the NAA articles really tackle this issue with any kind of precision. It’s true that one thing the Reformation sought to achieve (and in England that was given a boost by the closing of the monasteries) was to get away from the idea that only celibate people were really full-on Christians. Our hypersexualised era–not unlike in some ways that into which Our Lord came–should give us more sympathy than it does with a society that wanted to get past sexual activity–with or without the goal of procreation–as the sine qua non of life. We for our part have allowed a Mormon-style “waist down religion” to creep into our churches. Neither of these extremes is justified by the New Testament, but the Virgin Birth was the first sign that we really were getting a new and better way.
This brings me to the second point: do we really need another intermediary between ourselves and God? This gets to the whole issue of Mary and the other saints as “patrons” delivering our requests as clients to our “Emperor.” The whole idea of patron saints and their intercession was a combination of two things: a concession to the polytheistic culture and an integration of Roman political concepts into the life of the Church. Especially with the latter I will offer the What the Britons Thought of Pelagius and Grace, especially relevant to those who see the Church of England as a continuation of the British church.
I think that the people of the “three-legged stool” of reason, tradition and Scripture need to make sure all three legs are in good shape, otherwise they will find themselves flat on the floor.
-
Mary, Protestant and Catholic
In my wanderings on X I was directed towards an interesting document: Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism by one E. Svendsen. It’s especially interesting for me since his first degree came from Tennessee Temple University/University of Tennessee at Knoxville. I doubt that he, sitting in class at Temple, had any idea of the heartburn the whole subject of Mary caused the Catholic Charismatic renewal not so far from where he was getting his education. I plan to take this in a personal direction, but I don’t want to avoid the bigger picture: the matter of the Mother of God, more than any other single issue, divides Roman Catholics and Protestants, and that divide is about as gaping as the one between the rich man and Lazarus.
In the Scriptures? So What?
Svendsen’s central purpose is to show that the Roman Catholic concept of Mary is at odds with that presented in the Scriptures. As is the custom with seminary academics and those adjacent thereto, he gets lost in the weeds from time to time, but his case is basically sound. It is at its best when he deals with Mary’s appearances in the Gospel narratives after Our Lord’s birth; she could not grasp the radical nature of who he was and what he was doing and teaching, that only becoming fully evident after his Resurrection. She wasn’t alone; that ignorance permeated his other disciples as well. In his discussion of Mark 3:21-35, Svendsen discusses Jesus’ rebuff of his mother and his brothers; a Mary who had divine wisdom as the Roman Catholics posit would have never put herself in the position of such a rebuff. (This also shows that Mary did not grasp the superseding of blood relationships with the formation of the Christian church in the blood of Jesus Christ, something I’ve seen repeated from my own home church to the maudlin sentimentality of Scots-Irish evangelicals.)
Such arguments, however, will fall on deaf Roman Catholic ears, as their response will be simple: the Tradition of an infallible church and Pope say otherwise. Svendsen does investigate the witness of the Fathers, but in doing so he runs into Bossuet’s objection: at what point in history do you stop agreeing with the Fathers and the Church? But that’s a two-edged sword, by their own admission Peter was entrusted to preserve the deposit of faith, does contradicting the Scriptures accomplish that? Of course not, we are at an impasse.
The Days of Wine and Vatican II
At the start of his work, Svensden notes the following:
Küng and Moltmann, relating the events at Vatican II (1962-1965), inform us that the proposal to draw up a separate document on Mary was rejected by a slim majority of the council (1,114 votes to 1,074), and Marian doctrine was instead incorporated within the larger Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). The council further “explicitly warned against Marian exaggerations” (1983:vii). Since that time Marian emphasis has waned considerably from the excesses found in the period just prior to the council. McKenzie witnesses to this same phenomenon when he says: “When I studied theology nearly fifty years ago, my professor said that this belief [Mary as Mediatrix of all grace] was ripe for dogmatic definition [by the pope]; now it has fallen into the Marian silence.” (1983:4).
The source he refers to is the work Mary in the churches, the 1983 compendium edited by Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann. It was the work of advocates of a more moderate role for Mary, but as we will see, the view from the pew is that by 1983 they were fighting a rear-guard action. One of the contributors was John McKenzie, to whom I refer frequently on this blog and whose works The Two-Edged Sword and The Power and the Wisdom I have found life-altering. Svensden’s inclusion of material like this is one of the few admissions by a Protestant I’ve run across that adoration of Mary has ever slacked off in the Roman Catholic Church, but I am a witness to the contrary.
My first Mass was on Mother’s Day 1972 at St. Edward’s Catholic Church in Palm Beach. Sitting a few rows behind the place where Jack Kennedy knelt with his family when in town, I was regaled by two things: the Novus Ordo Missae, which was for me a positive, and one of the schmaltziest, saccharine sermons I have heard from any pulpit, where the priest related our own mothers to Our Mother–Mary. That didn’t go down too well; if I had been force to endure more of those, I might not have swam the Tiber. Two parishes later I was at a parish where my parish priest received me into the Roman Catholic Church and seldom an Ave Maria was heard in Latin or English. (He also introduced me to John McKenzie and G.K. Chesterton.) That lack of Marian devotion continued through my years in university and up until I left for the two and a half year ordeal at First Baptist Church.
Much of the nonchalant attitude towards Our Lady was part and parcel with a post-Vatican II belief that the Catholic Church, like a house lived in for a long time, had accumulated a lot of clutter and that it was necessary to clean the house to make it better to inhabit. Marian devotions and prayer weren’t the only thing in the crosshairs (one only needs to recall striking St. Christopher from the calendar because we had no evidence he actually existed) but they were high on the list.
When I returned to Roman Catholicism in 1981 things were different. In the intervening time the new Pope John Paul II had gotten up to speed and my Catholic Charismatic prayer group had split–bitterly so–over Marian devotions. (I found out later we weren’t alone.) The two were related. Vatican II had laid out what were on paper fairly restrictive conditions for ecumenical activity. In the chaos that followed Vatican II, these could be ignored, and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal did so with gusto. (That includes the community of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.) Marian devotions could not be cast aside so casually, and the Church under John Paul II used them as a “wedge issue” to enforce what Protestants would call “denominational distinctives” and get the non-Catholic people out of the Renewal. It’s not an understatement that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal would have never gotten off the ground if the Church had enforced Marian spirituality in the 1960’s the way they did in the 1980’s.
So (Where) Do We Go From Here?
At this point this state of affairs–which has continued under both Benedict XVI and Francis–is pretty much reduced to missal attacks (I saw this delightful autocorrect misspelling on X) on social media. It’s tempting to think that Leo XIV, a product of a low period in Marian enthusiasm, might relent and take a more moderate course on the subject, but I wouldn’t count on it. Marian devotions have support in the Church across the spectrum, and priests and bishops have in them a useful weapon to keep the faithful in line.
McKenzie mentioned earlier the business of Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces. If Leo really wants the nuclear option on this topic, he only needs to proclaim ex cathedra that she is the co-Redemptrix along with her Son. There are difficult theological problems with that position which exceed those of the Immaculate Conception, but we got that, and there’s a steady undertow in favour of it. Such a move would put paid to much of the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, which would be painful for those who are engaged in it, but that’s life.








