quote:

---

And so, everything in the liturgy is real, but it is a reality not of "this world" and not in its fallen and splintered time, but in the assembled new time. When attempts at a "rational" explanation of the eucharist arose in the West in the beginning of the eleventh century, Berengar of Tours proposed a distinction of what is "mystical," i.e., symbolic, on the one hand, and what is "real," on the other. ... (A. Schmemann, "The Eucharist")

and

A. Schmemann, "For the Life of the World" - from pages 128-130

The uniqueness of secularism, its difference from the great heresies of the patristic age, is that the latter were provoked by the encounter of Christianity with Hellenism, whereas the former is the result of a "breakdown" within Christianity itself, of its own deep metamorphosis. The lack of time prevents me from dealing with this point in detail. I shall limit myself therefore to one "symbolic" example directly related to our theme. At the end of the second century a Latin theologian, Berengarius of Tours, was condemned for his teaching on the Eucharist. He maintained that because the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements is "mystical" or "symbolic," it is not real. The Lateran Council which condemned him--and there is for me the crux of the matter-simply reversed the formula. It proclaimed that since Christ's presence in the Eucharist is real, it is not "mystical." What is truly decisive her is precisely the disconnection and the opposition of the two terms verum and mystice, the acceptance, on both sides that they are mutually exclusive. Western theology this declared that that which is "real" is not symbolic. This was, in fact, the collapse of the fundamental Christian understanding of creation in terms of its ontological sacramentality. And since then, Christian thought, in Scholasticism and beyond it, never ceased to oppose these terms, to reject, implicitly or explicitly, the "symbolic realism" and the "realistic symbolism" and the symbolism of reality. It was the collapse of the fundamental Christian mysterion, the antinomincal "holding together" of the reality of the symbol, and of the symbolism of reality. It was a collapse of the fundamental Christian understanding of creation in terms of its ontological sacramentality. And since then, Christian thought, in Scholosticism and beyond it, never ceased to oppose these terms, to reject, implicitly or explicitly, the symbolic realism and the "realistic symbolism" of the Christian world view. "As if God did not exist"-this formula originated not with Bonhoeffer or any modern apostle of "religionless Christianity." It is indeed implied already in Thomism, with its basic epistemological distinction between causa prima and cause secundae. Here is the real cause of secularism, which is ultimately nothing else but the affirmation of the world's autonomy, of its self-sufficiency in terms of reason, knowledge, and action. The downfall of Christian thought and experience. And whether the "natural" and the "supernatural" are somehow related to one another by analogia entis, in the Latin theology, or whether this analogy is totally rejected, as in Barthianism, ultimately makes not difference. In both views the world ceases to be the "natural" sacrament of God, and the supernatural sacrament to have any continuity with the world.

---

quote:

---

The Eucharist has a magical quality that seems to take the place of Christ. Now, if they believe it is Christ Himself (which I think they do) I don’t know how much of a problem I have with that… Their devotion to God and trust in Him OVER earthly things seems to be the guiding principle…I guess there is no harm done in that. However, I don’t see this activity in scripture. What I see is that they ate it. Am I missing something? When did the veneration of the Eucharist start?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------
Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}



--------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------
Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .

{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}



--------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------
The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).
{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }



--------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.


~Martin Luther



--------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

~Calvin



--------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}



--------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
~Zwingli



--------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

~Heinrich Bullinger


{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}



--------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
~John Wesley



--------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

I took a class in seminary that was dedicated solely to the theology of the three most famous Carmelites: St. Therese, St. Teresa, and St. John of the Cross. Amazing and powerful writings...they absolutely changed my life.

---