The internet: vector for romophobia (on Mary’s maculate conception)

You know, you read enough Puritan, ultra-Presbyterian, or Baptist websites, and you really get the idea that Roman Catholicism can’t be that bad. I know a man who in his younger years almost considered (note: almost) Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy because he was taking an Ancient and Medieval Church history course from a Presbyterian pastor with many Baptist students.

The internet helped him come to his senses.

While there is ugly Protestantism, there is beautiful Roman Catholic writing and Eastern Orthodox writing.  This can really skew one’s perspective.  If you start getting afflicted with a temptation to defect, let the internet be your rescuer.  Read zealous Roman Catholic apologists.

I’m talking about this stuff.

Today is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, in which we celebrate the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who “from the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” This doctrine cannot rightly be understood, without understanding how and why Mary is the Second Eve.

Mary is not the Second Eve; the Church is.  Eve is a one of many types of the Church, and so are Jael, Hannah, and Mary.

And speaking of beautiful Eastern Orthodox writing, while I don’t find as much of value in this chapter of Alexander Schmeman’s For the Life of the World, I still remembered this quotation well enough to find it again.  He wrote that Mary

is the true daughter of the Old Testament, its last and most beautiful flower.  The Orthodox Church rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception precisely because it makes Mary a miraculous “break” in this long and patient growth of love and expectation, of this “hunger for the living God” which fills the Old Testament.

And while there is a lot of superstition in this essay, there is also some great insight:

…Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ.

The fact is that appeals to tradition are invariably appeals to the approved traditions at the present moment.  Any historian knows that the claims for the supremacy of the Pope or the immaculate conception of Mary or many other things are based on a decision to favor the parts of the past (or allegations about the past) that the claimant can use and to dismiss all other evidence as “heretical” or “minority.”  It always begs the question.  Yet the proponents pretend that Scripture is impossible to interpret without tradition. And when confronted with some minor and obvious statement from Scripture that, quite unintentionally, shows what a pack of lies they are dedicated to pushing, they get quite unglued.

So if Protestant sectarians are pushing you over the edge, I think you should read their equivalent characters from the other side and let them push you back.

2 thoughts on “The internet: vector for romophobia (on Mary’s maculate conception)

  1. Bryan Cross

    Mark,

    “Mary is not the Second Eve; the Church is.” The two are not mutually exclusive, because Mary is the New Eve in one sense (as the Mother of the Church, and she who by her fiat made possible the Second Adam’s work of redemption as His associate), while the Church is the New Eve in another sense, as the Bride of Christ. So we don’t have to choose between them.

    The quotation from the Antiochian site is fundamentally misguided:

    “if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ.”

    It is one thing to assume human nature from sinful humans. It is quite another to assume a sinful nature. There are not two human natures, because there are not two species within a genus ‘human.’ There is human nature with sanctifying grace, and human nature without sanctifying grace. So the Antiochian claim in the quotation you cited amounts to this: Unless Christ received a human nature not having sanctifying grace, He could not redeem those not having sanctifying grace. That’s essentially saying that unless Christ had original sin, He couldn’t save those in sin. But that’s false. If Christ Himself had original sin, then as the Church Fathers teach, He too would have needed a Savior. So Christ did not need to lack sanctifying grace in order to redeem those lacking sanctifying grace. He needed to be from from original sin order to redeem those under sin. For the same reason, Christ did not need to receive His human nature from someone lacking sanctifying grace in order to redeem those lacking sanctifying grace. Otherwise, Mary would have had to be in a state of mortal sin when Christ was conceived. But no one in the history of the Church has ever believed such a thing.

    I hope you and your family have blessed Advent.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Reply
  2. mark Post author

    Well, right back at you and yours regarding Advent, with gladness there’s a season that doesn’t involve a tradition I think wrong so I can share it with you!

    But I’m still processing your comment. On the one hand, you’re making me think that the Nazianzan quotation may be more of an overreach more than a great insigh, but I’m not sure that the equivalence works between Mary and the exact sins she may have committed (i.e. being in a state of mortal sin) and a sinful nature in a more generic sense.

    So I shall ponder this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *