Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
A PENTECOSTAL
CATHOLIC
RESPONSE TO ROMAN TEACHING ON MARY
by Jerry
L.
Sandidge
The ninth
meeting
of the
Dialogue
between the Secretariat for Promoting
Christian
Unity
of the Roman Catholic Church and
leading representatives
of some of the Classical Pentecostal Churches was conducted in Vienna (Austria), October 4-10,1981.1 The
major topic
of discussion was the doctrine of Mary. It was
anticipated by both sides to be an
extremely
controversial
exchange.
But the
dialogue
ended with a deeper
sense of understanding and consensus than was first
expected.
lThe first quintennium (five years) of the Dialogue was held in 1972-1976. The second series of five will conclude in 1982. For a report on the first quintennium see Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B. (ed.), Presence, Power, Praise: Documents on the Chan’smatic RenewaL Vol. ill, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1980, pp. 373-395; Arnold Bittlinger, Papst and Pfingstler: Der romisch katholischpfingstliche Dialog und seine okumanische Relevanz. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978.
Jerry L. Sandidge (Ph.D. cand., Catholic University of Louven, Belgium), is an Assemblies of God missionary to Europe. He is the founder of University Action, an outreach to students, a ministry he has directed for eight years. He has ministered extensively throughout Europe, participating
in a variety of evangelical and Pentecostal theological conferences.
– 33-
1
paper
forced me into a serious
Being
the author of the Pentecostal
study
on
Mary,
the Mother of Jesus.1 As I began
searching
the
sources, several
practical
issues
began
to
emerge. First,
there is a
great
dearth of material written by Pentecostals about Mary. Outside
around the Christmas
Jesus,
and a few lines about Mary at the
wedding
of
Cana,
there is
cussion centered
practically
nothing
on the
subject.
Nlary
in
prayer meetings that Pentecostals
songs,
and
poems;
of some dis- story
and the
virgin
birth of
There are comments
by
Pente-
for their veneration of
So,
it could almost be said
of Mary, unless it would
has an official
statements; legends, and
study groups; liturgical
costals
criticizing
Roman Catholic charismatics
and conferences.
have no “view” or “theology”
be in negative terms, i.e., those
things
which are not believed about her.
By contrast,
the
subject
of Mary in Roman Catholic tradition unending supply
of books and articles;
societies, libraries,
practices
and
popular
devotions
reaching
back to patristic times.
Facing
of material, it is difficult for a non-Catholic to know what sources are the best and which
period
should
get
the most atten- tion. How can a Pentecostal ever absorb so much
especially
when he is basically
repelled by the whole subject
in the first
such an abundance
place?
Thirdly,
I very soon discovered understand
information,
that in order to fully appreciate and
concerning
the role of
subjects
must
important
to know
something tradition,
the saints and
ecclesiology.
Finally, during my investigation, “Which view of
Mary
do I
pursue
the rich tradition and
teaching
Nlary
in the
body
of Catholic truth, that other related
be studied as well. There is, in Catholic
theology, harmony
and
applied consistency among
doctrines which
overlap
and touch each other. It is difficult to isolate one
topic
and
ignore
the related
topics. Thus,
it is
about Scripture
and
exegesis,
the role of
as well as Catholic
teaching
concerning
the communion
of
I had to ask
myself
the
question,
as best
representing
Catholic
teaching?”
Not
every
Catholic
agrees
at
every point
about
Mary.
There are,
first of
all, papal
documents and various Council statements con- cerning Mary. Then,
there are the books and
journal
articles
by leading
lThe title of my paper was “A Pentecostal Perspective of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.” The Roman Catholic paper was presented by the Rev. Laurence R. Bronkiewicz, Academic Dean of the North American College, Rome and was entitled, “The Catholic Veneration of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.”
– 34-
2
theologians,
Lastly,
there is the
her
which do not
always agree
with each other and often are different from the official ecclesiastical documents.
wide
variety
in the
practice
of these Marian doctrines. Some Catholics
their devotion to
Mary
while others almost
repudiate
are
watching
with interest the
position
the
charismatic renewal will
finally give
to
Mary
in its
prayer
exaggerate
role
altogether.
Pentecostals Catholic
groups
and charismatic
worship.
Vatican Council
adequately
me that we Pentecostals
there is room within the of
Mary.”l Thus,
it seems to
cussed-both
posite picture
of our
understanding
Indeed,
it is true as Kilian McDonnell
points
out that as “the Second
demonstrated,
[Catholic]
church for various
theologies
have a dual task before us if we are to make any progress
with Roman Catholics on the
subject
of
Mary.
We must study carefully
all the texts of the New Testament where
Mary
is dis-
directly
and
indirectly-in
order to
put together
a com- of her role in God’s
economy. Then,
we must stretch ourselves and seek to understand more
perfectly current Roman Catholic
teaching concerning Mary,
the Mother of Jesus. Only
after this is done are we in
any position
to make a
meaningful
in charismatic renewal to
spiritual
contribution
tance,
and faithful
understanding.
unity,
mutual
accep-
introductory
remarks,
census and
disagreement Pentecostals
concerning
After
having
made these
brief,
but
important,
i must move to discuss what I consider to be the
major points
of con-
between Roman Catholics and classical
Mary.2
Points of
Agreement
In
surveying four
important Pentecostals
Catholic
teaching
on
Mary,
there seem to be at least points
where Pentecostals
call the
virgin
birth of Jesus.
(For Catholics,
can
agree.
The first is what
it is called
lkilian McDonnell, “Protestants, Pentecostals, and Mary,” New Covenant, Vol. 6, No. 9 (March 1977), p. 29.
Mackenzie, pp.
21 have purposefully omitted any discussion on Mary and the Reformers. This theme has been treated in such articles as: Walter J.
Hollenweger, “Ave Maria: Mary, the Reformers and the Protestants,” One in Christ, Vol. XIII, No. 4 (1977) pp. 285-290; Ross
“Calvin and the Calvinists on Mary,” One in Chris4 Vol. XVI, Nos. 1-2 (1980)
68-78. I have also omitted articles and opinions of evangelicals, since I am seeking to discover what is uniquely the issues facing Roman Catholics and Pentecostals.
– 35-
3
the
virginal conception
of
Jesus.)
Both Catholics and Pentecostals consider this truth a part
of what is essential to salvation. For Pente- costals to debate this
point
with biblical scholars of whatever
per- suasion would
largely
be a futile effort, since there would seem to be no “middle-ground”
or
meeting point.
There would be no
compromise because of the Pentecostal’s respect for the integrity of the Bible and the desire to
preserve
the truth of the divine nature of Christ.
By Mary accepting
to be the bearer of Jesus’
humanity
and
accept- ing
the divine
plan
for her life
(Lk. 1:38),
“she is an
example
to all the children of God to obey His will at all costs and leave the future in His
loving
hands.”l
Throughout
her
life, Mary was a model
of faith and devotion and reliance
upon
the
Holy Spirit. Pentecostals, along
with Catholics,
see
Mary
as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s
prophecy (7:14)
about a
virgin (or young
unmarried
woman) bringing
forth
Emmanuel, i.e., “God with us”
(Matt. 1:23).
Secondly,
even
though
Pentecostals do not refer to
Mary
as the “Mother of God” as Roman Catholics do, it seems that, nonetheless, we do
accept
the
theological
truth of this title for
Mary.
The term “Mother of God” was defined at the Council of
Ephesus
in 431 A.D. It was done to refute the Nestorian error which saw the term theotokos (“God-bearer”)
for
Mary
as
incompatible
with the full
humanity
of Christ,
and the word christokos
(“Christ-bearer”)
was
proposed
in its place.
Thus, the definition
was not meant to be Marian but Christo- logical
in focus.2
In
spite
of the fact that the decision at
Ephesus provided
a
major thrust to Marian devotion,3 Pentecostals should not raise objcctions to the title “Mother of God” since we believe that Christ was God “in the
.
lFrancis P. Hoy, “Mary’s Experience with the Holy Spirit,” Paraclete, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter 1978), p.
16.
2A very good discussion of theotokos is contained in Walter J. Burghardt and William F. Lynch (eds.), The Idea of Cathiolicism, New York: Meridian Books, 1960. The chapter entitled “Theotokos: The Mother of God,” pp. 166-183, is a discussion of the Council of Ephesus and its significance for today.
3J. M. Carmody, “Theotokos,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967, p. 75.
– 36-
4
preserved
later, historically,
truth contained
with and
flesh”
(Jn. 1:14).l
What
may
have
happened
this
teaching
should not cloud the
Christological
in the “Mother of God” title for
Mary.
Jesus received His human nature from His human
mother,
thus He can be called Son of Mary (or
Son of Man) and
Mary
can
rightly
be referred to as Mother of
God.
holiness of Mary. Pentecostals Holiness is an
everpresent teaching.
In
fact,
the movement century
holiness denominations.
Thirdly,
Roman Catholic
theology puts heavy emphasis upon
the
should be able to identify with this truth.
theme of Pentecostal
scriptural emphasis
The
angel
announced
is an
outgrowth Indeed, Catholic
preaching
and of the nineteenth theology
carries
But on the
most favored one! The
or special
function for her. Catholics Pentecostals
her holiness is essential upon
the earth.
Fourthly,
Pentecostals
Nlary’s
holiness
beyond
the
explicit teaching
of
Scripture.
of this
truth,
there should be
agreement.
to
Mary: “Greetings,
Lord is with
you” (Lk. 1:28, NEB).
The Pentecostal would
emphasize her
simple
faith and trust in
God,
rather than
any uniqueness
honor
Mary
as the model
virgin,
whereas
see her as the model wife and mother. But in both cases
to her
special
role in the
coming
of Jesus
reference to
and Catholics would
agree
on
Mary
as a model and
example
of Christian faith and trust. Catholics see
Mary
as the New Eve. The first Eve fell short of God’s
plan
for her life. The New Eve
(Mary)
did not.
Although
there is no
Scriptural
Mary
as the New Eve, the
symbolism
could be allied.
(Indeed,
Paul sees Jesus as the New Adam (Rom.
5:12-21).
Her
serenity during
the Annunciation
ful
response
to the Lord
(Lk. 1:46-55)
serves as an
example
of faith for
The
quiet ponderings
every
Christian.
thoughts
(Lk..’ 1 :26-38)
and her beauti-
of her heart
(Lk. 2:19)
about
lThe Council of Ephesus was called to convene on Pentecost, 431 A.D. The year 1981 1 was the 1550th anniversary of the Council. It was also the sixteenth centenary of the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) to which we owe one of the great Christian creeds and a special emphasis on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Pope John Paul II, in a letter to Catholic Bishops said: “The anniversaries of the two great Councils this year direct our
and hearts in a special way to the Holy Spirit and to Mary, the Mother of God.” The Pope called for a great ecumenical celebration in Rome on Pentecost, June 7, 1981. That meeting was held in the Marian Basilica of Rome, in spite of the personal injury to the
The Pentecostal world was represented by the Rev. David J. de Plessis. (cf. “Letter of the Holy Father Pope John Paul II to the Bishops of the Catholic Church…”, Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1981).
Pope.
– 37-
5
(Lk. 2:51) provide
as a
parent living.
Her continual
the events
taking place
in her
life,
and her faithfulness
an ideal model for Christian
trust in Jesus, even when He
gently
rebukes
her,
shines as an
example
of
humility
and obedience.
(Notice
how
explicit a French Catholic
priest
very
favorable to charismatic Mary
at Pentecost.
Acts 1:14 lists “Mary, the mother of Jesus” as
among
“the women” present
in the
upper
room on the
day
of Pentecost.
Luke is with
regard
to Mary). Rene Laurentin,
renewal,
makes three
good points
about
1) “Mary
is the model for the Church in her
recep- tivity
to the
Holy Spirit,
who forms Christ in the
people
2) “Mary
is the model for Christians
for the charismatics tongues
that is characteristic
baptized
in the
Spirit.”
of God. 3) Mary
for the
praying
in movement.”l Here is
is also a model of the charismatic life.” She is “the model not
only
in
general
but
specifically
of the Pentecostal
an
example
of a Catholic scholar
putting Nlary
in
proper perspective,
to the
joy
and satisfaction
service of the Catholic charismatic renewal.
which
hopefully, important
Points
of Difference
For most Pentecostals
Catholicism. theological
theological
of
Pentecostals,
is one
easy
to
object
to the Roman
level rather than a
both
by But the Catholic view of
She
appears
as a
could sit
together
in
it is rather
Catholic
teaching regarding Mary.
We have not understood her role in
Usually,
we
object
on an emotional
level. But to do this falls short of what is
required Christian
grace
and academic
respectability.
Mary
is still a stumbling block for most Pentecostals.
great
obstacle in
any
discussion on
spiritual unity today.
It is for these reasons that I began with
positive elements;
to try to show that
progress in this difficult area is
possible.
Ten
years ago
who would have believed that Roman Catholics and classical Pentecostals
dialogue
and
discuss,
of all
topics, Mary?
From
my study
and discussion with Catholics, I see four
major
areas
us
concerning
the
place
of Mary in the
plan
of God. The first of these has to do with elements
surrounding
on the
Perpetual Virginity
of
Mary.
The
objection
three
points:
and sisters,” which taken
literally
would indicate
of disagreement.between
teaching
summarized in the
following Jesus
having
“brothers
1) Scripture
the Catholic
could be speaks
of
pp.
lrene
Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1978, 222-225.
– 38-
6
ginity
is not
necessary
2) Mary’s perpetual
vir-
that
Mary
had other children after Jesus.1
in order to
recognize
and
preserve
her
openness to the call of God for her life and the fulfillment of her role as the Mother of Jesus.
3) Mary’s marriage
to
Joseph
is cast into a rather
strange mold if, indeed,
they
both took a vow of virginity and at the same time
exchanged
the vows of
marriage. purpose
of
marriage,
and full
parenthood.
The Immaculate
Conception for Pentecostals. This doctrine
i.e.,
the
procreation
This would be
contrary
to a
major
of
children, ‘
sexual
union,
of Mary is the second
major problem
through many
centuries of
developed
Catholic
history.
It was
finally
defmed
by Pope
Pius IX in 1854 in the encyclical Ineflabilis
Deus. This document
…
states that:
her
conception,
God …
preserved
vealed
by
God
and, therefore, believed
by
all the faithful.2
the most Blessed
Virgin Mary was,
from the first moment of
by
the
singular grace
and
privilege
of
almighty
immune from all stain of
original sin,
is re-
Pentecostal
objections
firmly
and
constantly
to be
2)
It seems
contrary
to
impression
to or identification
comfortably
close to
damaging
could be summarized as follows.
1)
The doctrine is not
taught explicitly
in
Scripture.
the biblical doctrine of original sin. 3) The doctrine seems to
give
the
that both Jesus and
Mary
must be
spared any
connection
with sex.
4)
This
doctrine,
or
clouding
it
seems,
comes un- the fullness of Jesus’
humanity.
Professor Walter J.
Hollenweger
was
speaking
for all Pente- costals when he asked, with its
implication
of the immaculate
is the need for the doctrine
requires
of mild
despair:
“… where
conception?”3
Mary
Scholars, Philadelphia:
lThe matter of Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” is a whole subject in itself, which
much careful exegesis. Biblical evidence proving Mary had other children is inconclusive. A good discussion of this problem is the book edited by Raymond E. Brown,
in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic
Fortress Press, 1978.
2J. Neuner and J. Dupuis (eds.), The Christian Faith, Bangalore, India: Theological Publications in India, 1978, pp. 196, 197.
3Walter J.
Hollenweger, “Ave Maria: Mary, the Reformers and the Protestants,” One in Christ, VoL xm, No. 4, (1977), p. 287. ,
– 39-
7
Assumption
assumption.
of
Protestants,
Orthodox, and Deus reads in
part:
“the Immaculate
The third
major objection
follows on the
previous one, namely,
the
of
Mary.
The
peak
of what some have called the “Marian Age”
came in 1950 when Pope Pius YII defined the doctrine of l?Iary’s
This was over
misgivings
some Catholics alike. The definition, lvfunificentissimus
Mother of
God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her
earthly
life was finished, was taken
up body
and soul into
the
glory
of heaven.”I
Concerning
tions as to that of the Immaculate
this
teaching,
Pentecostals
would voice similar
objec- Conception.
It is an
unscriptural
embellishment which fosters an
teaching,
it seems to be an
unnecessary
devotion to
Mary,
and since it was defined ex cathedra2
exaggerated
there seems to be no
possibility
for Catholic
theologians
to treat the
doctrine with
flexibility
in
dialogue
with non-Catholics.
Yet,
the Roman Catholic Church will
probably
doctrines of
Mary’s
Immaculate Pentecostals will
probably
Conception
never rescind its and
Assumption.
We
and churches
theological, psychological, acceptance,
the
Holy Spirit,
charismatic
biblical truth. It is an
openness
never embrace them. So the best we can hope
for in this case is to seek for continual
understanding-historical,
and
personal.
The charisms of grace, mutual
and
respect
are called for in this
day
of the
outpouring
renewal,
together
in theological dialogue. Such an attitude is not a compromise
to see what the
Holy Spirit
is
doing
of being
able to sit
of
1Neuner and Dupuis, The Christian Faith,
p. 220.
authority
supreme pontiff’-E.G.
2The term ex cathedra
“symbolizes the Roman pontiffs
title to that
supreme
and to the charism of infallibility that
accompanies it: because he is the successor of Peter, head of the college of Apostles….
Through succession to his chair, or
office, in the Church, the authority and infallibility of Peter lives on in the Roman
Hardwick, “Ex Cathedra,” new Catholic Encyclopedia, VoL 5, p. 699.
cathedra, i.e., infallibly;
It was not until the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) that the dogma of the infallibility of the pope was defined. To the best of my research, I only find twice when the pope spoke ex
in 1854 (15 years before Vatican n when the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Concepticn was defined, and in 1950 (12 years before Vatican II opened) when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was defined.
-40-
8
by
the
special
venera-
on this
point
in the context of traditions other than our own. It is simply the
recogni- tion that the
Holy Spirit
is
speaking
to all the Churches.
Finally,
Pentecostals are often scandalized
tion
given
to
Mary by
Roman Catholics. It is
probably
where we Pentecostals are the most vocal and
display
our
greatest
concerning
Mary.1
Such
charges
as are leveled at
Catholics,
which stem
desire to honor Jesus Christ as the the other members
of the
God-head)
to Whom
Catholic/Pentecostal
concern about what we considered
with
regard
to the veneration
admitted there were certain made it
very
clear that
proper
veneration
ignorance
of Catholic
teaching “idolatry”
and
“pagan practices” from the Pentecostals’ sincere only
One
(besides
worship
is due.
At the 1981 Roman costals
expressed
in current Catholic
practice The Catholic
delegates
Mary
is
always
to be
Christological.
Church,”
Chapter
replaces
steps
have been taken to correct
excesses,
tion of the Second Vatican
Council, “Dogmatic
8,
and the
encyclical
Pope
Paul VI. For Roman
Catholics, Mary
in no
way
substitutes
the one Saviour and Mediator Jesus Christ
(lTim.
Pentecostals do not invoke the
help
or attention
other saint because it is not considered to be a valid biblical
practice. So,
once
again,
the
gulf
between the two
positions
seems
impossible
bridge. Yet,
can we Pentecostals
Dialogue,
the Pente-
to be excesses
of
Mary.
excesses and
(“Honor”
not
“worship”)
of They
also showed that
practical
according
to the instruc-
Constitution on the
Marialis Cultus
(1974) by
for,
or
2:5, 6).
of
Mary
or
any
to deny
that the
Holy Spirit
is
doing
a
wonderfully unique thing today
in the Catholic charismatic renewal? We cannot
deny
this and still be true to our own
theology
of the
Holy Spirit
which allows Him to “bloweth where He listeth”
Just because we “came out from
among
them”
30, 50,
or 70
years
ago,
are we
holding
that
practice
(Jn. 3:8).
as a “Pentecostal tradition”
to be
expected
and
imposed upon everyone
who receives the
baptism
in the Holy Spirit?
If
so,
we are
guilty
of the
very
sin committed
when,
in the
early days
of the
outpouring,
evangelical
and holiness churches. Can we not
rejoice
in what is happen-
upon
against
us we could not remain in our
1 If there are objections to Catholicism by classical Pentecostals, they should be based
the latest statements and documents of the Catholic Church and not upon extreme cases, medieval excesses, or pre-Vatican II practices. It is necessary to read the docu- ments of Vatican II and then to read the books and journal articles by scholars reflecting the spirit and direction of Catholic theology today.
– 41-
9
ing
and at the same moment continue to maintain our own Pentecostal
hour. But it is also its
distinctives? This is Pentecostalism’s greatest
test.
_
In conclusion,
greatest
steps
have been taken:
it must be admitted that there are
yet many
diffi- culties to be worked out between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals concerning Mary.
But two
important
in
theological dialogue;
and
2)
The
publication Praeurrza of two articles, one by a Roman Catholic and one
by
a Pente-
discussion
of
Mary
1)
The
in
together”
the
Holy Spirit
has an
and indicate the
way
each
other, strip away
misunderstandings,
the
differences,
start has been made.
By going
to the biblical
sound
principles
of
exegesis
and
costal,
on the
subject
of
Mary.
In the
process
of
“reasoning opportunity
to
enlighten show the consensus,
highlight ahead. A
significant
accounts of
Mary
and
applying hermeneutics,
can be learned.
By
Pentecostals
refreshing insights
about
Mary’s
role in God’s
economy
recognizing
their
prejudices
and
concerning
excesses in
by
made.
the veneration
Rene Laurentin
ignorance
of Roman Catholic
teaching
about
Mary;
and
by
Catholics being
sensitive to the Pentecostal conscience
of
Mary,
can
any significant progress
a
fitting
conclusion to this discussion of Mary,
who was so
singularly
blessed of God and was the Mother of our
provides
Lord.
…
many theological
or
pious
theories
about
Mary, many
honorific titles have been
forgotten,
devotions have been
jettisoned,
have
proven
untenable
and
many sometimes
hastily
and in an
excessively
radical
spirit;
but amid this
collapse
of a “Mariology” and a “arian” devotion that were marked
by
extremism and an
inflated narrowness,
something
life. It is essential
solid and
inescapably
true has
clear that
Mary,
as
make this
rediscovery,
for
been
coming
to the fore. It has become
Mother of Jesus, is at the
very
heart of revelation and the Church
that Christians
Mary’s
real
place
has often been
mistaken;
her true stature has been hidden
by
too
many superstructures.1
1Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, p. 227.
– 42-
10
