Does anyone know of any reviews of The
Purpose Driven Life from a Catholic perspective? I haven’t read it,
but I know millions of people have. I tend to be skeptical of anything
that popular. That’s not to say I never jump on any bandwagons, but I
like to check things out first. Also, I’ve heard some folks dismuss it
as “fluff” and others denounce it as heterodox.
I anxiously await your responses. 🙂
Five hundred years before a post on a blog could have national and global impact,
Martin Luther made a primitive posting on a door. The Church has been reeling from
this event’s consequences ever since.
Recently, someone suggested to me that Luther was only asked by the pope to recant
48 of his 95 theses. Does anybody know if this is true? If so, which theses were
acceptable and which were not? I wonder how events might have played out if Luther
had chosen to be less defiant.
Sadly, I still haven't had time to properly respond to Ed Heckman's difficulties with the Church's beliefs concerning Mary. I did get one answer to my call for rebuttals from the peanut gallery. Here's Anonymous' defense of Marian doctrines. The opinions expressed by him/her may or may not reflect my beliefs or the beliefs of the Church.
1. Ed's first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she's no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ's life.
In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17. But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will. See Luke 1. Being faithful without knowing what the consequences will be is better than being faithful for a reward.
And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that "you yourself a sword will pierce," Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites. See this.
2. Ed's second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless "New Eve" because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless "New Eve."
In response, I would note that: a) you can "save" people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.
And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless "New Eve." But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don't demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.
It seems Jay is having similar discussions at Deo Omnis Gloria.
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [regarding Jesus' "brothers"]
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Part II [regarding Joseph not knowing Mary "until" Jesus' birth]
If only I had more time to blog. Between class, research, RCIA, choir, and spending time with my wife, I can’t spend nearly as much time writing as I would like. I’ve been trying to cut back on blogging so as to not neglect my wife, so I try to pick one big topic to tackle each week.
My exchange with Adrian Warnock regarding "the simple gospel" seems to be winding down, which opens up a "slot" for something else. On the other hand, I’ve been outlining an article I’d like to write on imitation of Christ, directly and by proxy through imitation of the saints. That leaves me little or no time to respond to Ed Heckman’s well-constructed thoughts regarding Mary, the Catholic Church, and Scripture.
In his latest post, Ed does what no other Protestant with whom I’ve debated has done – actually read the Catechism. I’m so thoroughly pleased and impressed that I wish all the more that I had time to respond. He does a pretty thorough job fisking some of the Catechism’s statements about Mary. Obviously I disagree with him, but I respect his analysis none the less. I would be overjoyed if some of my knowledgeable Catholic readers would respond to him criticisms.
Go to it!
Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
Update: If you’d like to write a post-length rebuttal but don’t have a blog of your own, send your post to me and I’ll consider posting it here.
