1. What is dogma?
3.3 Papal Inerrancy
Not surprisingly, it is Karl Barth who is most articulate in this area as well. He sees a logical connection between Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 and the proclamation of Papal Infallibility in 1870.
His perspective is that a church that would venerate a human being would have to defend itself from criticism by asserting its infallibility. He sees the subsequent Marian dogma, Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 as continuing in this tradition. Protestant theologians see these two dogmas not only as unsupported by scripture, but as a declaration of a new Christianity. The Magisterium is criticised for using its authority too much in the creation of the first of these dogmas, the Immaculate Conception, and too little in its inability to resist the clamour for the
27 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. V.12 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1956), 143-146.
28 Skydsgaard (1962) 15, quoted in O‘Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, 32.
62 second, the Assumption. They are seen as the legitimation of naïve piety to the level of dogma by theologians, including a Pope, who ought to know better. 29
It is held that the recent – post Reformation – doctrines of Mary are a direct result of the proclamation of Papal Infallibility, and this fact is the basis of much criticism of the dogmas. It is frequently difficult to distinguish between criticisms of the Marian dogmas, and criticisms of the papacy. This, naturally, has ecclesial and ecumenical implications as well.
Marian dialogue has assumed great ecumenical importance in the last two centuries. One of the prime reasons for this is the fact that much of Marian dogma has occurred in a divided church.
For this reason, any theological pronouncement will be suspect, but particularly one which impinges so forcefully on the basis of all theology. A biased theology, such as this is perceived to be by Protestants, implies an unfortunate deficiency.
Also, the fact of these two Marian dogmas being pronounced without ecumenical consultation has been damaging to ecumenism. The timing of each dogma is also seen as threatening. The late nineteenth century was home to rampant nationalism and growing liberalism, and the 1950‘s saw a growth in the ecumenical movement. This lack of concern for secular thought has been perceived as high-handed and insensitive. This is more the pity as the main issues in ecumenism, ecclesiology and Christology, are being compromised by the impasse in Mariology.
4 Anglican Concerns in Mariology
The Anglican theology of Mary sits uneasily in both the Catholic and the Reformed camps, and, until comparatively recently, there was minimal effort to reconcile any differences. In spite of seemingly incompatible differences, there exists an evangelical Marian theology which is trying to finds points of reconciliation with Rome. Such pro-Marian initiatives do not have a large following, but are nevertheless important, and have the potential to initiate a transformation in lay opinions. Notable among such Anglican theologians in the 19th century were John Henry
29 Barth, Church Dogmatics, 143-146.
63 Newman (before he became a Roman Catholic) and E B Pusey whose stance has done much to enlighten believers regarding Mariology, an issue which had had limited exposure in the Anglican Church since post Elizabethan times.
Newman‘s intense Christology saw the Incarnation as the essential justification of all the Marian dogmas. For him, the Theotokos implied all her privileges. Her sinlessness was essential for that of Christ. The faith in Christ that was central to his life, inevitably sustained a Marian devotion that had to be expressed within certain limits within the Anglican Church of his day. Those limits he saw as being defined christologically as the devotion of Christ to his mother.30
Another such influential Anglican theologian is E.L. Mascall whose Mariology is Catholic in most respects although his authority is unapologetically ecumenical.
The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), formed in response to Vatican II, on March 24, 1967 by Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Michael Ramsey, had as its goal to analyse those disparities which divide Catholicism and Anglicanism and see if any sort of compromise could be reached. This produced a series of documents on such topics as the Eucharist (9/7/71), Christian ministry (12/13/73) and authority (1/20/77, 9/3/81) which were compiled together as The Final Report. 31 In 1974, in Marialis Cultus, Pope Paul VI observed that
Catholics are also united with Anglicans, whose classical theologians have already drawn attention to the sound scriptural basis for devotions to the Mother of our Lord, while those of the present day increasingly underline the importance of Mary‘s place in the Christian life. (#32)
30 Fr Nicholas, ―John Henry Newman‘s Mariology: A Key to Unlocking John Paul II‘s Theology of the Body,‖ in The Virgin Mary and the Theology of the Body,ed. Donald Calloway. (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2005), 286-287.
31 The first phase or ARCIC ran from 1970 to 1981 and produced four statements: Eucharist (1971), Ministry and Ordination (1973), Authority and the Church 1 and 11 (1976 and 1981). The second phase ran from 1983- 2005 and issued five statements: Salvation and the Church (1986), The Church as Communion (1990), Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church (1993), The Gift of Authority: Authority in the Church 111 (1998); Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ (2004).
64 Subsequently, in 1981 Authority in the Church II also commended some consensus between the Churches, but underlined the major differences in the Catholic and Anglican Marian doctrine.
The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption raise a special problem for those Anglicans who do not consider that the precise definitions given by the dogmas are sufficiently supported by scripture. For many Anglicans the teaching authority of the bishop of Rome, independent of a council, is not recommended by the fact that through it these Marian doctrines were proclaimed as dogmas binding on all the faithful. Anglicans would also ask whether, in any future union between our two Churches, they would be required to subscribe to such dogmatic statements. (#30)
Again, the issue is the lack of consultation of believers outside of the Catholic Church. In 1995 in his Encyclical on ecumenism Pope John Paul II insisted that Marian themes were ‗… in need of fuller study by all Christian traditions‘. (#79)
Against this background it was decided, in 2002, by a special consultation of Anglican and Catholic bishops, to request ARCIC to study the place of Mary in the life and doctrine of the Church, and this produced the Seattle Statement in 2004. Inevitably, its reception has been mixed, but it has nevertheless stimulated further dialogue. The purpose of the Commission was not to resolve doctrinal differences, but merely to produce a more complete statement of the Marian beliefs which are shared by Anglicans and Catholics, and to this degree it was successful.
The fundamental question was ‗to what extent does Marian doctrine or devotion concerning Mary belong to a legitimate ―reception‖ of the apostolic Tradition, in accordance with the Scriptures?‘32 In the end, the Commission produced ‗significant‘ though not ‗substantial‘
consensus.
The Seattle Statement deals with four areas. 33
32 Brendan Leahy, ―The Achievements and Challenges of Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ,‖ Louvain Studies 33 (2008): 123.
33 Leahy, ―The Achievements and Challenges of Mary,‖ 123ff.
65 4.1 Scriptural Sources
The first of these, Mary According to the Scriptures, provides a logical starting point and immediately deals with the Anglican concern over the lack of scriptural base for the dogmas as required in Article VI of The Thirty-nine Articles. The Seattle Statement finds that ‗it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture without giving due attention to the person of Mary‘ (MGH 77)34 and identifies the scriptural issues in MGH 30. However, it offers no solution or even suggestion as to a resolution of these sticking points. Perhaps of more significance than these scriptural issues is the ‗ecumenical hermeneutic‘ of the Commission which is particularly attentive to the desire for unity.