Invoking Mary in Prayers (Not Anglican, Reformed or Lutheran)

We bring two selections.  First, we post the devotional from EWTN, a Roman site, advocating for Marian invocations.  Ango-Catholics (alleged and so-called Anglicans) practice this.  Second, we post a response by a favourite blogger of our's.  It follows the Romanist post.

First,

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/perpet3.htm

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.

---

O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fill my soul when I pronounce thy sacred name, or even only think of thee. I thank God for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely pronouncing thy name: let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help.

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

The second post, opposing Romanist dogma and saint-invocation, is by Turretin fan is at: 
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-pray-to-anyone-else.html

God declares:

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Mary declares:

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

The angel declares:

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And remember what Jesus himself taught us about how to pray:

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, ...

So, my dear friends, why entreat Mary to save you?

Why utter this kind of prayer? "O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying."

Why refer to her by the title, "Salvation of the Roman People" as did John Paul II?

Turn from this idolatry and serve God alone.

As Jesus rebuked Satan:

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Your service to Mary is an offense to God. What better time to turn from Mary to Her Son than when men around the world are remembering Jesus birth?

-TurretinFan

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E. Newman

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/john-henry-cardinal-alfred-e-newman.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Ftriablogue+%28Triablogue%29

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E Newman

Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, © 2005), doesn’t end at the Reformation. He continues to review developments in the various doctrines of justification as they proceeded through the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican schools of thought.

McGrath writes about the “seriously and irredeemably inaccurate” historical and theological analyses that John Henry Cardinal Newman did of Luther’s doctrine of Justification. That assessment — “seriously and irredeemably inaccurate” — is based on his review of Neman’s 1937 Lectures on Justification.

Now, McGrath is not the be-all and end-all of English theology. But neither is he a slouch. And since he is famous for writing and re-writing various editions of his books, fixing mistakes, and charging more money for them each time, I can’t tell you if this information appeared in earlier editions of his work (and thus, he’s had opportunities to reflect on what he’s saying here, and correct it). But given that this is in the “Third Edition” of this work, you can be pretty sure that he’s comfortable with this assessment. He’s had three opportunities now to tweak what’s in this book.

Newman is, of course, a hero to many of today’s generation of militant Roman Catholics. Newman’s theory of “the development of doctrine” provides the underpinning for the modern (Vatican II) version of Roman Catholic doctrine. Of course, Roman Catholics expect that Newman was right, or substantially right, about most of the things he said.

But on the contrary, Newman’s Lectures were “seriously and irredeemably inaccurate” in many respects, and McGrath documents this thoroughly.

McGrath says of Newman:

Newman’s theology of justification rests primarily upon a historical analysis of the doctrines of justification associated with Luther (and to a much lesser extent, with Melanchthon), with Roman Catholic theologians such as Bellarmine and Vasquez, and with the Caroline Divines. It is therefore of the utmost importance to appreciate that in every case, and supremely in the case of Luther himself, Newman’s historico-theological analysis appears to be seriously and irredeemably inaccurate. In other words, Newman’s construction of a via media doctrine of justification seems to rest upon a fallacious interpretation of both the extremes to which he was opposed, as well as of the Caroline divinity of the seventeenth century, which he regarded as a prototype of his own position. (296-297)

Of this third error, which essentially was recent Anglican history at the time he wrote, McGrath says, “Newman’s claims to present an ‘Anglican’ theology of justification appears to involve the unwarranted restriction of ‘Anglican’ sources to the ‘holy living’ divines, with the total exclusion of several earlier generations of Anglican divines - men such as Andrewes, Beveridge, Davenant, Downham, Hooker, Jewel, Reynolds, Ussher and Whitaker. The case for the ‘Anglican’ provenance of Newman’s via media doctrine of justification thus rests upon the teachings of a small, and unrepresentative group of theologians operating over a period of a mere thirty or so years, which immediately followed the greatest discontinuity within English history — the period of the Commonwealth.” (283)

“Newman simply did not understand the Tridentine doctrine of Justification”

McGrath says “Newman’s superficial engagement with Roman Catholic theologies of justification cannot be allowed to pass without comment.” Newman only superficially interacted with the works of Bellarmine and Vasquez, “forcing us to base our tentative conclusions upon the few passing statements made in the Lectures in general. Newman clearly believes the Roman Catholic teaching to be that humans are justified on account of their renewal. Like many contemporary Evangelicals, Newman appears to have assumed that the notion of factive justification implies that the analytic divine verdict of justification is based upon the inherent righteousness of the individual achieved through moral renewal — whereas the reference is, of course, to the infusion of divine righteousness which is the cause of subsequent renewal, and is not identical with with that renewal itself” (pgs 299-300, emphases in original). McGrath says that overall, Newman’s assessment of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification in these Lectures “suggests (though it is not conclusive) that Newman simply did not understand the Tridentine doctrine of justification.”

Newman’s faulty understanding of Luther

But most glaringly, Newman makes “a series of puzzling assertions concerning Luther, of which I shall note a few, and indicate the responses which any Oxford undergraduate studying Luther’s works for the Final Honor School of Theology would be able to make:

1. “He found Christians in bondage to their works and observances … he left them in bondage to their feelings”. This is untenable. Luther’s theology cruces is aimed precisely at any form of reliance upon feelings. Luther has no doubt that theology must relate to experience, but the nature of that relationship is construed in terms of the primacy of theology over experience.

2. “He weaned them from seeking assurance of salvation in standing ordinances, at the cost of teaching them that a personal consciousness of it was promised to every one who believed.” Once more, Luther’s ‘theology of the cross’ flatly contradicts this point. For Luther, the grounds of Christian certainty most emphatically do not lie in any “personal consciousness of salvation”, but only in the objective promises of God. For Luther, security comes form looking outside of oneself to the gracious promises of God delivered and secured in Christ, and made visible and tangible in the sacraments. Luther argues that the essence of sin is that humanity is … “bent in on itself”, in that it seeks both the grounds of salvation and reassurance in itself, rather than in Christ.

3. “For outward signs he substituted inward.” I assume that this is to be interpreted as meaning that Luther puts personal consciousness of salvation above the sacraments. Precisely the opposite is true. Luther consistently declares that the sacraments are objective signs and reassurances of the promises of God, which are to be trusted and relied upon irrespective of the personal feelings and emotions of the believer.

4. “…for reverence towards the church [he substituted] contemplation of self”. Newman here seems to have bought into the Enlightenment view that Luther is a rugged and lonely individualist, who spurned the church in order to contemplate himself. The popular view of Luther’s doctrine of justification is that it obviates the need for church, sacraments and ministry. Luther’s view on this matter was, of course, rather different (301-302).

At this point, McGrath, terming Newman’s handling of Luther “inept”, looks for several factors that may “help us view Newman’s inept treatment of Luther in a more kindly manner…” These include the fact that Luther’s works had not fully been translated into English, and that the existing English translations were not accurate. He also suggests that Newman was viewing Luther “through the lens of the evangelicalism that he knew within the Church of England during the 1830’s”.

There is, quite frankly, more of this, and more egregious, and I hope to get into it in a future post.

Calvinistic, Reformed Churchman: Charles Simeon

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_001_5_Carus.pdf

This consists of letter addressed to Rev. Charles Simeon, Church of England, a Calvinistic and Reformed man. The were addressed to him upon the commencement of his ministry at Trinity Church, Cambridge. Trinity was in the heart of centre-city Cambridge of that day. He faced numerous difficulties, but his fidelity resulted in laying the foundation for another century of Churchmen faithful to the Reformed Church of England.

Simeon was ordained on Trinity Sunday, 26 May 1782, by the Bishop of Ely upon his fellowship at King's College. He began his ministry in St. Edward's Church ("in good old Latimer's pulpit"), serving there during a Rector's lengthy vacation.

In the space of 4-6 weeks, the place was filled. Three times the usual number of communicants attended the Table (notice, this forum will not use the term "altar"). Simeon visited every house in the parish, whether Dissenters or Anglicans. He mentions a discussion with a dissenter about predestination.

Of predestination, Simeon says, "...I myself should no more have loved God if He had not first loved me, or turned me to God....by His free and sovereign grace turned me, than a cannon-ball would of itself return to the orifice from whence it had been shot...and from that day to this, I have neever had a doubt respecting the truth of that doctrine, nor a wish (as far as I know) to be wise above what is written."

Ultimately, Rev. Charles Simeon preached for the first time in Trinity Church on November 10, 1782.

The brief letter in this URL from Mr. Thornton to Rev. Simeon is instructive, but will not be addressed here.

We find here a lengthy letter from Rev. John Newton, another Calvinistic and Reformed Churchman, to Rev. Simeon (Newton is the author of "Amazing Grace.")

Newton assures Simeon that his appointment is in the sure and certain will of God and that he may and should begin his works with this confidence. He draws attention to the "Great Adversary," yet calling him to calm, peace and faithfulness "under the banner and the eye of the Captain of Salvation." He counsels wide exposure and use of widely appreciated sense of Scriptures.

Simeon faced opposition. The congregation had originally petitioned the Bishop for a Rev. Hammond, but the Bishop offered the living to Simeon. The congregants "locked" their pews. Simeon put in, at his own expense, some seats for others, but the Wardens removed them. Simeon had a natural ardency, but Bp. Charles McIllvaine of Ohio would later comment that this "ardency" was no more made plainly known than in his patience, the ardency of restraint and patience.

http://www.htcambridge.org.uk/history.htm

As to Holy Trinity Church, it has a long, distinguished history. The oldest part of the building dates from 800 years ago, the previous building having been destroyed by fire in 1174. Say the name Holy Trinity (HT) and there is a high possibility that people will talk about Charles Simeon or will remember coming to the Church to attend CICCU meetings.

"Between the years of 1782-1836 Holy Trinity Church was the centre of revival of spiritual life in Cambridge.

The ministry of Charles Simeon in Holy Trinity began when he was appointed vicar by the Bishop of Ely against the wishes of the churchwardens and congregation who disliked the earnestness of his manner and the evangelicalism of his message. When Simeon proposed starting an evening service the wardens actually locked the church doors against him. This kind of opposition continued for a number of years, but he never flinched and gradually the response to his ministry was so encouraging that he erected a gallery in the south transept at his own expense. He ended his life as the best known ‘character’ in Cambridge, his funeral in Kings College Chapel being attended by some two thousand people."

"Charles Simeon’s ministry to students included sermons classes and discussion groups which provided the

only training then available for ordinands. His preaching was particularly notable, his declared aim being ‘to humble the sinner, exalt the Saviour, and promote holiness.’ In 1794 Simeon introduced into the church a barrel-organ with sixty hymn tunes to assist the congregation, as he hoped, with their singing. Simeon also had a deep concern for Missions and raised up several missionaries. He was also one of the founders of the Church Missionary Society in 1799."

"In 1887 the Henry Martyn Memorial Hall was erected next to the church as a centre for Christian undergraduates with a heart world mission. Between 1873 and 1889 there were no less than 140 offers to the CMS from Cambridge men, and in 1885 it was the famous ‘Cambridge Seven’ whose going out to China did so much to stir Christian interests in Missions. Holy Trinity has always been as concerned for the wider church as it has for its own particular field amongst the townsfolk and students of Cambridge."

The church remains active and has continued to retain its Reformed, Evangelical and Anglican ethos. Charles Simeon remains a benchmark for Calvinists who yearn for Biblical ministry, the old Prayer Book, and Evangelical Churchmanship (without Tractarianism).

Archbishop Mark Haverland, Anglo-Catholic Church

News & Annoucements

Posted using ShareThis

I will be attending Holy Communion tonight at 1700, 23 August 2009, in Jacksonville, NC.

The Archbishop of the Anglo-Catholic Communion, Dr. Mark Haverland, will be presiding. We are scheduled for a barbecue to follow.

I look forward to the meeting; some will view this as capitulation. It is not. The Reformation lines are drawn in the sand for this forlorn scribbler.

It must be irenic, thoughtful, and suffused with Christian charity.

The Gospel lesson for the Eleventh Sunday after Trinity demands such.

One hope is to secure one of theair reading lists for those in the queue for orders. If we get that, we will post it. We have posted the unhappy list secured from the Anglican Province of America, unhappy due to brevity (some 75 books) and remiss with respect to Anglican history.

As a former chaplain, it was always interesting to engage with informed and educated men, few though they were in the chaplaincy. One was a Jesuit Chaplain and he was academically "in the house" with twelve years of graduate training; Paul and I had great times at dinner table talking theology aboard the carrier with hot-shot F-18, A-7, and F-14 pilots listening in--quietly, as was their duty. We'd howl and engage, but always with charity.

Another was a liberal Methodist who didn't believe in the resurrection; another was a Pastor from the Presbyterian Church in America. These men were readers who "stayed on top of the game."

There were a few others.

Discussion does not, as for some, constitute advocacy of the positions of the other.

Humility is not optional. That must inform the defense of the faith. Arrogant orthodoxy is repugnant, Pharisaical, and ungentlemanly. We cannot escape that profoun nd disjunctive particle "but..." in Ephesians 2.4-5.

But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved...

I respect the honesty of these Anglo-Romewardizers who do not capitulate and who openly defend their parameters consistently.

I find Dr. David Virtue's chaotic mix--the mishmash--less than coherent, consistent and, in some cases, candid; on the latter, I intend to review the interview between David Virtue and Dr. Michael Horton.

Over.