Adrian Warnock does not often openly criticisize Catholicism, a fact that demonstrates his desire to emphasize unity in the body of Christ over differences in ecclesiology. So, when he does criticize the Catholic Church, it really catches my attention.
He points to a post by David Anthony, which is a commentary on Luke 11:27-28 and Luke 8:21. He believes that the former presents "Jesus prophetically speaking into where Catholicism will go wrong centuries later". Here’s what those verses say.
"…a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’" – Luke 11:27-28
"My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." – Luke 8:21
Adrian tosses in his two cents:
"It is amazing how flagrantly the Roman Catholic system seems (at least to the outsider, anyway) to ignore certain parts of the bible. Few protestants could understand a verse like this any other way than that Jesus is clearly challenging the notion of a special blessedness being attached to his mother by his followers. Yet Catholic doctrine says precisesly what this lady said to Jesus."
"I would love to know how my Catholic readers (if I have any!) interpret this verse. I suspect that most would simply skip over it…"
He’s very wrong. First of all, the Roman Catholic "system", i.e. Church, (as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seems to be ignored by Protestant apologists) absolutely does not ignore certain parts of the book of which she oversaw the compilation. If anything, protestants are guilty of ignoring parts of Scripture by purging several Old Testament books, the deuterocanonicals (not to be confused with the true apocrypha). Secondly, any Catholic who would "simply skip over" a verse like this would be a poor Catholic indeed, for as St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
Let’s show Adrian that the parishioners of St. Blog’s Parish are no slackers when it comes to studying Scripture. Leave a comment or twelve, at his blog, this blog, or both, explaining Catholic and Orthodox exegesis of these passages.
Now, to Adrian’s credit, he didn’t stop with that presumptuous statement.
"…Of course we can easily sit here smugly at this point, but the challenge that sprung to my mind as I considered this was which verses do I neatly skim over in a similar way? Are there parts of the bible that due to their inconvenience to our theological systems we somehow ignore? New Catholic blogger navarrecatholic seems to think so."
"I am not against theological systems, but when we hold onto them so strongly that we blindly ignore parts of the bible that seem to disagree with them then we have turned them into idols."
Regarding the first part, Victor at Navar Catholic is right. Regarding the second, I offer this quote:
“I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church” – St. Augustine of Hippo
I’m nowhere close to being a biblical scholar, but I do remember recently our priest teaching about that very verse and explaining that the original language could more appropriately be translated to mean “indeed, and also” or “not only that, but” as opposed to “rather.” I have a hard time believing that our Lord would essentially ignore the blessedness of His own mother, from whose teaching (along with St. Joseph) He “grew in wisdom and stature” and to whom He was *obedient*.
So while the verse *seems* to disagree with the practice of honoring Mary, perhaps it really doesn’t.
One more thing – does that mean Gabriel was wrong or just trying to flatter her when he called her “full of grace?” Or that Elizabeth was way off the mark calling her blessed among women?
“full of grace” isn’t the only way to translate Luke 1:28.
The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (NIV)
And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NASB)
And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (ESV)
The angel greeted Mary and said, “You are truly blessed! The Lord is with you.” (CEV)
And [the angel] came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.” (HCSB)
Just FYI. 🙂
still, if she’s favored, doesn’t that suggest that there are those of us other moms who are, umm, NOT as favored? 😉
Even if full of grace isn’t the only way to translate Luke 1:28, which is closest to the original text??
That’s a matter of much debate.
Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part I)
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part II)
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part III)
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part IV)
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part V)
The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 (Part VI)
Should Luke 1:28 Read “Grace” or “Highly favored”
The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
“still, if she’s favored, doesn’t that suggest that there are those of us other moms who are, umm, NOT as favored?”
Yes, it does, but “full of grace” is clearly a reference to the Immaculate Conception, whereas “favored” is not.
some things that these people seem to be missing:
2 Peter 1:20 “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”, which is why we have the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church. the Church’s interpretation is the correct interpretation. in protestantism, there is nothing other than private interpretation.
also, with respect to the verses: as i understand it, the root of our devotion to Mary is not that she nursed Jesus but that she submitted her will completely to God’s will and leads us to Him. look at that verse in the context of Luke’s Gospel. in Lk 1:38, she says “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.” and when Elizabeth tries to give her glory (Lk 1:42-44), Mary redirects all of the glory to God in her famous canticle of praise (Lk 1:46-55). Mary doesn’t keep any glory for herself but re-directs it to God. the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual-of complete submission of one’s will to that of God. *That* is why we are devoted to her, not based on the physical manifestations alone. that is what Christ is saying. it is doing the will of God, not nursing, that is what we should strive for and who is a better example of that than Mary?
Trackback Pontifications
We are to have devotion for Christ alone, no other. See Acts 4:12.
“No other Saviour but Jesus; no salvation if his is rejected; no other name or power to save from destruction, unless he is accepted. Why, then, should men invoke the Virgin, or the saints?”(PNT-B W Johnson-1891)
Now, could anything be clearer than that, no, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference.
The quote from Augustine of Hippo just goes to show how we all remain fallible, even Augustine, for the ultimate authority is Scripture.
I left off the St. because it has no relevence seeing as according to Scripture we (Christians) are all saints. Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41, 26:10, Romans 12:13, 15:25. There are many more verses which demonstrate this fact.
It’s all well and good to discuss our differences, and the Marian doctrines are of particular distaste to Protestants. But it all adds up to precisely nothing. The only real issue between us is ecclesiology. If what the Roman Catholic Church claims about herself (or for that matter what the Eastern Orthodox Church claims for herself), then all other discussion is pointless. For she claims to be the final arbiter (on earth) of what Scripture is and what it means. And if that is true, then waving proof texts under her nose amounts to little more than prepubescent grumbling.
Sure, Catholics take a few verses pretty lightly. And otherwise orthodox Protestants take others lightly (esp. the ones Catholics take literally). Relativists of both persusions take all the verses pretty lightly (except the ones that prove that everyone is really rather OK and God isn’t a big meanie). The question really is what authoritative tradition informs us and whether that tradition is divinely constituted.
There is nothing ‘divinely’ constituted about the traditions of the Roman church in its current state.
The RC is not and never was the final arbiter (on earth) of Scripture (except in its own mind). There is no other arbiter but God. Also it is impossible for any mere man (Pope or otherwise) to be infallible.
The only truly infallible Man who ever walked the earth was Jesus Christ Himself.
If anything, protestants are guilty of ignoring parts of Scripture by purging several Old Testament books, the deuterocanonicals (not to be confused with the true apocrypha).
These books weren’t fully and officially added to the canon until the Council of Trent during the counter-reformation (which I believe was in response to Luther), even though many did consider them canonical since they were included in the Vulgate.
does that mean Gabriel was wrong or just trying to flatter her when he called her “full of grace?â€Â
The same greek word (charis), translated as “grace” in Luke 1:30, is also used to describe King David (a murderer and adulterer)in Acts 7:45-46.
in protestantism, there is nothing other than private interpretation.
No, there is the Holy Spirit.
I guess it all comes down to “We shall see on the other side of that last breath.”
Are you implying that Catholics will not be given eternal life?
Folks who found the Pontifications trackback interesting, here’s another relevant post.
The Quia Catch
Glenn:
You mention Acts 4:12. Here is the Standard Version text of the verse.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Obviously, the verse refers to Christ, stating that His is the only name under which salvation may be had. How are traditional Marian devotional practices disagreeable with this proposition? No Catholic pretends that he will be saved by venerating the Church Triumphant.
“. . . for the ultimate authority is Scripture.”
Really? How did Christians get along before scripture existed? How did they decide which books would be canonized, and which discarded? Obviously, an outside authority is required.
“I left off the St. because it has no relevence seeing as according to Scripture we (Christians) are all saints.”
Right. That’s why Catholics believe in the Communion of the Saints — we believe that there exists a true bond between the saints in heaven and those on earth. The canonization of certain people throughout history is a recognition of their eternal beatitude for the purpose of imitation and devotion.
“There is nothing ‘divinely’ constituted about the traditions of the Roman church in its current state. The RC is not and never was the final arbiter (on earth) of Scripture (except in its own mind). There is no other arbiter but God. Also it is impossible for any mere man (Pope or otherwise) to be infallible. The only truly infallible Man who ever walked the earth was Jesus Christ Himself.”
Well, thanks for giving us your opinion. What are your reasons for believing these things.
Name Hidden:
“These books weren’t fully and officially added to the canon until the Council of Trent during the counter-reformation”
You make it sound as if there was a point in time, before which there was an unmolested canon, and after which, there was a canon with books falsely added. In fact, there was no canon extant at any point that did not include the deuterocanon. The first attempts to define a canon of Scripture were at Hippo, in 393, and Carthage, in 397. Guess which books those councils declared part of scripture? The same books as those in any Catholic bible you find today.
One more thing. The canon of Scripture was reaffirmed again at the Council of Florence, held between 1439-1442, one hundred years prior to Trent. The ninety-five theses were posted at Wittenburg in 1517.
With all due respesct to those who follow traditions, (Protestant and Catholic) it is certainly disappointing to see the amount of time that is spent in festival or other such observation of the created beings rather than their Creator and the doing of His expressed will, “go and make disciples…”.
Yes I agree that honorign those who’ve gone before is valuable especially as it teaches following generations on how to walk with God, it’s just that the amount of time and attention given over to it must be considered in proportion to how much time and attention is given to God Himself, studying His Word and reaching those who have yet to know Him.
Are you implying that Catholics will not be given eternal life?
Absolutely NOT!
You make it sound as if…
No, that was not my intention. I guess I should have explained it better. Sorry. The deuterocanonical books were in question, as in throughout history, there were a number of people within the church leadership who either questioned their inspiration or who believed they shouldn’t be in the canon.
No, saying the Catholic Church added books to the canon out of the blue is as misleading as saying Luther took them out because they disagreed with his theology.
Really? How did Christians get along before scripture existed?
The Apostles. Since they weren’t going to be with us forever, through them, God gave us the scriptures. By the time the apostles were gone, Scripture had been written.
How did they decide which books would be canonized, and which discarded? Obviously, an outside authority is required.
And that outside authority was the Holy Spirit.
Actually, having read the New Testament Apocrypha, I can see why they were exlcuded from scripture. There are a lot of glaring contradictions in the books (and several in the deuterocanonical books also).
There is some intersting stuff in the NTA. Like in the Gospel of James, which was not included in the canon because the author, while claiming to be James the Just, author of the Epistle of James, was completely ignorant of Jewish custom. the GoJ talks about Mary’s birth, and gives another account of Jesus’ birth, although with contradictions to the canonical Gospels. It also describes Jesus’ brothers and sisters to be step-brothers and step-sisters, being Joseph’s children from a privious marraige to a woman who died. Anyway, I may do a post about this on my own blog soon.
By the way, anyone else find it interesting that in Jude’s epistle he quotes the Book of Enoch?
“The deuterocanonical books were in question, as in throughout history, there were a number of people within the church leadership who either questioned their inspiration or who believed they shouldn’t be in the canon.”
This agrees with all I’ve heard, although it’s important to keep in mind that, throughout history, the people who questioned the inspiration of the deuterocanon were a very small minority.
“The Apostles. Since they weren’t going to be with us forever, through them, God gave us the scriptures. By the time the apostles were gone, Scripture had been written.”
What about after the Apostles died, in places in which the scriptures had not yet spread? How would these people know what to do?
“And that outside authority was the Holy Spirit.”
Since I’m sure you’re not claiming that the Holy Spirit up and handed the Bible down from heaven, how did people figure out which books were canon, and which not? Obviously, they had to discern the will of the Holy Spirit — but how, and through what organ? The thing is, unless there’s a authoritative body dictating what is truly canon and what isn’t, the upshot is that every single Christian has the right and the ability to select the canon, with the results being hundreds of different versions of the canon.
“By the way, anyone else find it interesting that in Jude’s epistle he quotes the Book of Enoch?”
I do find that interesting. Although I haven’t studied the matter, I hear that there are many examples of New Testament verses referencing Old Testament verses outside the scope of even the Septuagint.
Also, it’s refreshing to have a polite, non-polemical discussion on this topic with someone whom I don’t agree with. Thanks.
…a very small minority.
It was a minority, but very small is a matter of opinion. Jerome himself was against adding them to the Vulgate.
What about after the Apostles died, in places in which the scriptures had not yet spread? How would these people know what to do?
The main reason the Epistles were needed was to correct error, so I guess the answer to your question is they relied on tradition and generally screwed it up.
how did people figure out which books were canon, and which not?
As I said, through the Holy Spirit, who guided the members of the various councils.
Anyway, try reading some of the New Testament Apocrypha sometime. There are glaring contradictions with the canonical books. One good one to read to demonstrate this is the Infancy Gospel of James. Another good one is the Apocalypse of Peter, who’s manuscript is incomplete (I wonder if this is why it was excluded from the canon). The AoP doesn’t seem to have any contradictions, at least it didn’t seem to when I read through it rather than study through it like I do with the books of the Bible.
I hear that there are many examples of New Testament verses referencing Old Testament verses outside the scope of even the Septuagint.
Indeed there are. The Book of Enoch is fascinating. After reading this, one can see why God destroyed the earth with a flood. The Giants/Nephilim would go to peoples’ houses, eat all of their food, and if they weren’t satisfied, they would eat the people. *shudder*
Was 3 and 4 Maccabees part of the Septuagint? I’ve read conflicting accounts of this.
Also, it’s refreshing to have a polite, non-polemical discussion on this topic with someone whom I don’t agree with. Thanks.
And thank you too. The thing is I’m not trying to prove you wrong, convert you, or bash your beliefs. Just want to exchange ideas. I have great respect for Catholicism and actually know what Catholics believe. 😉
“‘How did people figure out which books were canon, and which not?’
As I said, through the Holy Spirit, who guided the members of the various councils.”
Right. . . but, first off, those councils weren’t held until some 300 years after the completion of the scriptural corpus. What occurred in the interim? Secondly, you’ve enunciated a perfectly Catholic view of authority, and even magisterium — that the Holy Spirit guides councils in their decisions. So the next question is what separates these councils, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from, say, the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent, and II Vatican? It seems to me that you’re admitting that certain councils are kept free from error while others aren’t. . . what differentiates the two?
“Anyway, try reading some of the New Testament Apocrypha sometime.”
At one point, I read the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
“Was 3 and 4 Maccabees part of the Septuagint? I’ve read conflicting accounts of this.”
Yes, I think, though I’m not sure.
So the next question is what separates these councils, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from, say, the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent, and II Vatican? It seems to me that you’re admitting that certain councils are kept free from error while others aren’t. . . what differentiates the two?
Sorry it took me so long to address this. I actually received a similar question on my blog, and I answered it there. Feel free to pop on over and have a read.