Whoa
Ok, any of you who know me know that I waited two, maybe three minutes after posting the previous entry before searching Google to see who else had used "Immaculate (mis)Conception". My first try was with "immaculate misconception". The top result of that was a movie with that title (out just in 2006!), the plot of which seems to only reinforce how incredibly profound and widespread the ignorance is.
Then I entered "immaculate mis-conception", and found this blog (which belongs to a Filipino librarian?), which led me to the Papal encyclical of Pius IX which laid out the doctrine in no uncertain terms-- in 1854!. Which reminded me that the Vatican took that moment in history to make all the (previously folky) veneration of Mary into "official doctrine". It's fascinating to read about; I think I saw it in Constantine's Sword by James Carroll. The Church was losing ground badly to liberal modernizing governments throughout Europe, so it seized upon the idea of the semi-divine Mary as a way to regain some influence over Catholic populations within those countries.
Gee whiz-- scan through that encyclical a bit. It's far worse for Protestants than I had thought. Look at this:
"Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot." (from "Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture")
And then, what I think could be called the central statement of the doctrine:
"[The early church fathers] testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness." ("... Of a Super Eminent Sanctity")
Now, except for the extremely rapturous and flowery language, I think this is pretty close to what I said in my earlier post. The fervor of the language in this encyclical is a bit breathtaking, and helps me to understand my own father's devotional stance a bit better. But set in its historical context, it seems quite feverish and perhaps even desperate.
So the reaction from Protestants against this is on two levels, to match the two levels (popular and realpolitik) of the Vatican's doctrine. The Protestant "common man" knows to reject any whiff of doctrine that is not "explicitly" derived from scripture, and in particular any doctrine that seems to encroach on the uniqueness of Jesus' claim to divinity, just as the Catholic "comman man" (or more frequently, woman?) clung to the image of a transcendental Mary. But also, realpolitik had been a driving force of Protestantism from the very beginning, as rulers appropriated it as a useful way to undermine the influence of Rome in their countries.
Check out Shia Islam sometime, for an interesting parallel. Relatives of Muhammad who were wiped out in power struggles following his death became somewhat more than human in the minds of those who belonged to the party, or faction (shia) that believed in those displaced relatives.
Then I entered "immaculate mis-conception", and found this blog (which belongs to a Filipino librarian?), which led me to the Papal encyclical of Pius IX which laid out the doctrine in no uncertain terms-- in 1854!. Which reminded me that the Vatican took that moment in history to make all the (previously folky) veneration of Mary into "official doctrine". It's fascinating to read about; I think I saw it in Constantine's Sword by James Carroll. The Church was losing ground badly to liberal modernizing governments throughout Europe, so it seized upon the idea of the semi-divine Mary as a way to regain some influence over Catholic populations within those countries.
Gee whiz-- scan through that encyclical a bit. It's far worse for Protestants than I had thought. Look at this:
"Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot." (from "Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture")
And then, what I think could be called the central statement of the doctrine:
"[The early church fathers] testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness." ("... Of a Super Eminent Sanctity")
Now, except for the extremely rapturous and flowery language, I think this is pretty close to what I said in my earlier post. The fervor of the language in this encyclical is a bit breathtaking, and helps me to understand my own father's devotional stance a bit better. But set in its historical context, it seems quite feverish and perhaps even desperate.
So the reaction from Protestants against this is on two levels, to match the two levels (popular and realpolitik) of the Vatican's doctrine. The Protestant "common man" knows to reject any whiff of doctrine that is not "explicitly" derived from scripture, and in particular any doctrine that seems to encroach on the uniqueness of Jesus' claim to divinity, just as the Catholic "comman man" (or more frequently, woman?) clung to the image of a transcendental Mary. But also, realpolitik had been a driving force of Protestantism from the very beginning, as rulers appropriated it as a useful way to undermine the influence of Rome in their countries.
Check out Shia Islam sometime, for an interesting parallel. Relatives of Muhammad who were wiped out in power struggles following his death became somewhat more than human in the minds of those who belonged to the party, or faction (shia) that believed in those displaced relatives.
posted by Joel GL at 3:34 PM
1 Comments:
yup, i'm a filipino librarian. i also happened to teach high school religion in a catholic, all-boys school called "sacred heart school." but guess what? no one could explain to me what the "sacred heart" was =)
you may want to check out my other religion posts, especially Introducing Gen X to the Bible.
Post a Comment
<< Home