Customer Reviews

The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Cri Books)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

A PROTESTANT'S CRITICAL REVIEW:

PRAISE:
They make a few good point here and there, particularly over the extent of her role as mediatrix (esp. dispensatrix - which they fail to examine as closely as they ought), extent of "religious devotion," the failure of the Vatican to actively patrol and correct excesses, and belief in teachings about Mary (not central to the gospel) being required among Catholics for salvation. They are correct on the excesses in writing and praxis which appear to make Mary more approachable than Jesus and the Father, and do a okay job of providing quotes to back it up. There are a few good statements (the last five paragraphs of Chapter 8 were very good). The second part is handled better than the first; The criticism of apparitions is generally good, though operating on dismissive presuppositions. Pacwa's response was generally good (with a couple of exceptions), but not thorough enough. Their response to Pacwa was okay (particularly regarding his handling of a couple of texts), but read their own presuppositions into it the texts.

JUST A FEW OF THE PROBLEMS:
1.) The book is a little out of date. Local bishops (which Rome gives authority to assess such matters) of the area have given the "revelations" at Medjugorje both 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' and 'constat de non supernaturalitate.' This means they believe they are of human (not divine) origin. The Vatican has opposed churches organizing pilgrimages to the site. However, John Paul II did seem to have great interest in it.

2.) The authors seem not to have done much research into church history, or general history for the first half of the book, including the later exchange with Pacwa. Consequently, they are unable to make a reasonable assessment of the origins of the concept of Mary as Mother, or Queen, beyond the common poor assertion of a pagan connection.

3.) Their proposition that these beliefs were guided by some innate need in pagan converts for a universal queen-mother is unhistorical speculation. Hypocritically, they do not apply the same to history and practices in the Old Testament, the New Testament, Christology, and Christian practices (such as baptism and communal meals).

4.) They assert this pagan infection of the faith took place when vast number of pagans entering the Church (this would be the third and fourth century). This is sheer ignorance. They neglect that it was established leaders who taught the converted. Bishops baptized converts, and met in Church counsels. Catechesis was established as early as the second cen.. It actually increases in depth and extent over time. The third and fourth centuries are particularly tough (in both the East and West) to make sure converting pagans knew the faith and were living it. [For a brief review see the section on Christian initiation in Latourette's "A History of Christianity," Vol. 1., and the article on catechetics and catechumens in Fergusen's "Encyclopedia of Early Christianity." For deeper research, ref. Fergusen's bibliography for the article.]

5.) The authors employ numerous fallacious arguments (ad populum, selective evidence, straw men constructed from reductio de absurdum, asserting the consequent, etc.) in building their case. They consistently simply assume the validity of their own presuppositions. One example of ad populum occurs on p. 171 regarding the interp. of Rev. 12. They overlook the fact that the traditional position is well established via the CCC (2853). Even if the assertion were true, it would invalidate the traditional position. They also neglect that Catholics see imagery on several levels (Pacwa mentions in passing).

6.) They consistently twist scripture by selective (fallacy of suppressed evidence) proof -texting for arguments to verify the standard evangelical presuppositions and schema. For instance, asserting that no one but God should receive honor, glory, praise, or even to be bowed/prostrated before (such as royalty) sounds holy and laudable. Problem: It is antibiblical. The biblical position is that everyone is to receive the honor, glory, and praise of which they are worthy. This especially means that only God receives honor, glory, praise, and prostration as God. They include the term adoration in this list. However, the words "adore" and "adoration" do not appear in scripture, and have a variety of meanings: worship due God; love or revere greatly; like a lot. In Catholicism, the second applies to Mary.

7.) The authors (as is the habit of Protestants) assert 'sola scriptura' to bolster their position. However, sola scriptura cannot be substantiated in scripture or history. Such a doctrine would have invalidate the divine inspiration of oral teaching by Christ, the Apostles, and the prophets in the early church. Texts used to support "sola scriptura" do assert the authority of scripture, but do not thereby invalidate other divinely inspired revelation or teaching. They attempt to bolster the argument of "sola scriptura" by implying or asserting the cessation of divine revelation. This is another theological position that is not taught in scripture (i.e. it is non-sola scriptura), and actually seems to be contradicted. ----- In practice, Protestantism doesn't hold to "sola scriptura" either. Protestants speak dogmatically on issues unclear in scripture (eschatology, etc.), sometimes create vagueness on things clear (women elders, etc.), and assert teachings and practices not given in scripture (Joseph and Boaz as O.T. types for Jesus, altar calls, etc.).

8.) The authors consistently portray these Marian issues as a Protestant-Catholic debate. However, they neglect the fact that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all held that Mary was the theotokos/mother of God, remained perpetually a virgin, and that they could justify this belief from scripture. Luther also believed she was sinless, the new Eve / new Sarah, Queen, mother of Christians, was assumed into heaven, "we can never honor her enough," "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ...She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified." Luther stated that, "The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace," and "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God."

9.) They couch arguments with adjectival qualifiers that prejudice the case in their favor. For example, "the unbiblical nature of Marian apparitions" (p. 173). "Unbiblical" is not necessarily "anti-biblical." Of course, such apparitions are "unbiblical"! Mary was alive while the NT was being written, so they did not occur at that time and cannot appear in scriptural history. Even if such an incident appeared in scripture (had Mary died earlier), Protestants would argue that the text "doesn't teach it would happen again," again asserting "sola scriptura." --- This argument shows its true silliness when we realize that every historical event (including miracles done by God) that have happened since the last book of the N.T. was written is historically "unbiblical"; So too, are is much of modern Christian practice and daily living.

10.) Their assertion on the reason for the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount with Christ is pure theological speculation. There position that God could not do similar appearances to other people for other reasons is, again, theological speculation, not from scripture. It is not based on their criteria of "sola scriptura," and is therefore illegitimate as an assertion of truth, faith, and doctrine. It is "unbiblical," being beyond the teaching of scripture.

11.) Some of their assertions/arguments depend entirely on their apparent Premillenial eschatology (exp.: p. 172; pp. 2-3). Needless to say, there are other positions on eschatology held by Protestants and Catholics that disagree with Premillenialism. Amillenialism and Postmillenialism hold that the saints could be or are reigning now. This yields two significant conclusions: 1.) That they are both aware of what is transpiring on earth, possibly able to be approached regarding it, and able act in regards to it. 2.) That it is possible Mary is indeed ruling as Giberah (queen mother) beside, but in subordination to, her Son, King Jesus.

12.) The authors are so Evangelical in mindset as to assert that scripture does not support saints in heaven being aware of what is happening on earth. When Pacwa counters (including reference to the saints under the altar in Revelation crying out, "How long, oh Lord...", and the elders offering the incense which are the prayers of the saints), they brush right by it. They eisegete into the motives of the authors of scripture with ridiculous assertions like, "the authors of scripture REFRAINED from calling her the mother of God, CHOOSING RATHER to call her the mother of Jesus," (emphasis mine) as if they were even thinking about it while writing. [Actually, only John and Luke use it.] By this standard, we note that the authors of scripture also "REFRAINED" from calling Jesus the "God-man," or the "Second Person of the Trinity," "CHOOSING RATHER" to call Him, "Jesus," and "Christ," and "Lord." What of it?

13.) Their methodology in limiting the typological use of Psalm 45 would also eliminate its application to Christ. Yet it is the scriptures themselves that apply it to Christ (Heb. 1:8-9). According to Miller and Samples this would not be possible since this would mean Christ had a queen whom he looked upon with desire. Even if one took the queen (who is the bride in this text) to be the Church, the analogy is problematic (as are all analogies); For if the whole Church is the bride who enters the Lord's palace, who are the virgins that accompany her, and the sons she is to bare? This text does not necessitate, nor deny the Catholic position.

14.) While critical of Pacwa's handling of Heb. 12:22-24, their own is not much better. The text does not seem to indicate a mere "identification with" those things and persons mentioned. Rather, it indicates that we have entered into interrelationship with them. The extent of that interrelationship (i.e. intercommunication) is what is under debate. It does surprise me that Pacwa did not appeal to the Psalms where, during praise of God, the psalmist exhorts everything and everyone God has made to give Him praise, including the angels and heavenly hosts that serve Him (Ps. 103:20-22; 148:1-2; 150:1,

15.) Both sides miss the argument that Mary can be considered our mother (via being the mother of Jesus) of all Christians, just as Sarah was to all the tribes of Israel; and just as Abraham is our "father in faith." Hence the statement by Elizabeth about Mary believing God, rather than laughing.

16.) Their assertion is that the concept of Mary as mother of God and Marian devotion was due to latent pagan desires within Christians to have a replacement for the mother-goddesses they had previously worshipped and esteemed. They assert the Council of Chalcedon as the real genesis of Marian devotions, asserting the title "Mother of God" as causal. Pacwa answers that Marian devotion was earlier, since it took place in a church named after Mary. The authors respond that this is understandable since Ephesus was a center of Artemis worship.
Several problems here.
a.) Archaeology seems to indicate the church was built after that council.
b.) Artemis was not a "mother of god," or a mother goddess. This is a frequent mistake. Instead,
she was the goddess of motherhood, having acted as her mother's midwife. She never had
children. She was a huntress.
c.) Ephesus had been the home of St. John and Mary. It makes sense that they would be specially
honored there. In Rev. 2:2 and in Ignatius of Antioch's letter (Eph. 9), the Ephesians are praised for
not accepting false apostles, or false doctrines. Their zeal continues to show forth in the early fifth
century. This makes it difficult to believe Miller and Samples accusation against them.
d.) Ireneaus' developed thinking on the New Eve doctrine obviously shows considerably thought about,
and very high regard for Mary's motherly role in our salvation, "the cause salvation, both for herself
and the whole human race." She also becomes "the advocate of the virgin Eve," and participates
in rescuing the whole human race. (Ireneaus 1.455; 1.547).
e.) Hippolytus (d. 236) already had called Mary the "bringer forth of God."
f.) The "Sub Tuum" prayer earlier existed, and first appears in the Coptic liturgy in the 250's. Later
it would be adopted in the East, and then the West. The prayer reads, "We fly to thy patronage,
O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all
dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen."
g.) Though the temple of Artemis was sacked by the Goths in 263 AD, it was rebuilt. Later, Emperor
Theodosius, a Christian, made several decrees against paganism, eventually prohibiting their worship
in temples (391 AD). Ten years after he had closed them St. John Chrysostom declared the temple
of Artemis to be abandoned, and lead a mob of Christians that tore it down.
h.) Theotokos ("God bearer") was established as a title at the Counsel of Ephesus (431 AD) to deal
with Nestorians. However, Monophysites began employing the term to assert that Jesus only had
one nature, divine. So, a few use later, the title "Mother of God" began being employed to show
that Mary did not merely bear God in the person of Jesus, but also as mother was the source and
indication of Jesus having a human nature as well. Neither was primarily focused on Mary.
i.) See #4 above for more on this issue.


17.) The authors insist that development of the Eve/New Eve parallelism does not offer "CLEAR EVIDENCE" of pre-Chalcedonian devotion to Mary. Yet they hold no such evidentiary standards for themselves in their own theory of its development. They act as if the conversion of pagans and society were a war with a clear stopping point of complete victory; a war in which total saturation was necessary to protect Christianity from pagan influence. This without providing any date range when it occurred; without "clear evidence," or proof of causal linkage. They couch their argument in hints to the inability of finding such evidence, thus erasing their need for it.
"Although Christianity was superficially victorious, paganism remained deep-rooted and would not surrender without a stubborn and protracted battle. In fact, paganism never fully surrendered to Christianity. IMPERCEPTIBLY AND SUBTLY, it survived and strongly influenced the early church, its institutions, its doctrines and its mode of worship" (p. 66) (emphasis mine). [Also, see #4 above on this issue.]
This statement is meat to anti-Catholic Protestants, busily gleaning from the imperceptible. It is gross presumption to unprejudiced student of church history, particularly the history of Christian theology. Evidently, Miller and Samples need no evidence for their negative assertions, but Catholics need more than the "New Eve" doctrine for their positive ones.

18.) Unable to substantiate their position, they offer proof based on their own earlier assertions; "However, as I indicated in chapter 1, radical devotion to Mary did exist on the fringes of Christianity since around the fourth century," (p. 67). If you consider liturgical prayers, writings of popular theologians, Churches named after her, and Church Counsels making rulings related to her as "the fringes," well, you need to re-orient yourself. And remember, the Church was often underground for the first three centuries.

19.) Yes, their charge in chapter 7 depends entirely on non-evidentiary slowly creeping pagan infiltration which they have psychoanalyzed into history as the longing for a "mother-queen goddess." It's necessary to make their theory work in the sixth century.
The role and honor given of Mary as "Queen mother" and "Queen of heaven" contrasts very starkly with the roles and honors given various pagan goddesses as queens of heaven, or queen mothers, or virgin mothers, etc., which are heavily linked to seasonal events. It would be impossible for any converted pagan to confuse the two. The concept regarding Mary seems much more closely tied to the governmental role of queens in Jewish and pagan societies, particularly the position of "queen mother" (i.e. the authority held by the mother of the king). The concept falls in line with Christ's Kingdom, and would naturally find eventual further theological expression, and biblical justification / substantiation. I could go over biblical, pagan, Christian, and semi-secular monarchical examples of "queen-mothers," but shall spare you.
Actually, if you think about it, the pagan concept attributed to particular goddesses also probably stems from their experience with earthly Queens. After all, one generally needs some sort of background experience upon which to form a concept and assign it to the abstract.
We Protestants recognize Christ as Monarch (1 Tim. 2:2; Rev. 17:14; 19:16), and that we will reign with him (1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6), but fail to conceive the possible place of Mary, His own mother, in His monarchical Kingdom.


This book is very, very limited usefulness....except perhaps in how not write a book that requires research.

The authors present a very convincing case proving that Catholic veneration of Mary is not Biblical. Part one of the book is a survey of Catholic Mariology, which includes chapters on Mary's immaculate conception (according to Catholic doctrine Mary was born without original sin), and her bodily assumption into Heaven. These doctrines are then effectively contrasted to Scripture passages presenting biblical truths which disprove them. Part two is a fascinating discussion of the apparitions (ghostly appearances)of Mary that have become increasingly common in the last two centuries. One author traveled to the site of one such appearance and interviewed those involved. An interesting read that gives an Evangelical response to a controversial topic.

In Miller and Sample's "The Cult of the Virgin Mary", the authors attempt to outline what Mariology is from the Protestant perspective. The book also covers some of the well-known apparitions of Mary: Fatima, Lourdes, Guadelupe, and Medjugorje (former Yugoslavia). The main thesis is that veneration of Mary is unbiblical, and therefore this practice will continue to divide the Catholic and Protestant churches. The authors back up their opinions with Biblical verses, and make a good point about how the veneration of Mary sometimes invalidates the role Jesus plays for Christianity: the redeemer and mediator between God and Man. The examination of apparitions of Mary is not as strong, and in the last chapter, the point is made repetitively that the apparitions cannot be from God, therefore they must be from the other side. I will say that although the authors claim to look at this purely from the scriptural side, and therefore with a certain degree of 'objectivity', there are moments when it is obvious that no matter what is 'discovered' (for example: one of the authors visits Medjugorje and examines events there), if it ain't Protestant, it ain't acceptable. I also thought it interesting that some side notes in the text, such as on Buddha being an atheist (according to "some scholars" as the book puts it) detract from what was supposed to be the aforementioned focus on Mariology. I thought this book interesting for the most part.

This book, as accusative as it may seem, is, overall, a good book. If it is devisive or considered 'in-fighting' to proclaim truth, then so be it, for truth's sake. The author points out what is obvious to the majority of protestant Christians (and several non-Christian religious groups as well, i.e. Islam). When Mary, Jesus's earthly mother, is venerated, prayed to, and worshipped, she becomes the unwilling central figure of a blasphemous cult. Human beings are not deity. The author makes this clear. Only God should be prayed to.

This book is ridiculous in its simplistic approach to a very serious theological problem, namely the differences between Catholic and Fundamentalist (not so much "Protestant") views on Mary. It is true enough that some people who have a strong Marian devotion can give non-Catholics the wrong idea about what the authentic tradition and teaching of the Church is in regards to Mary, but that is hardly the basis for dismissing Mary's role in Christianity or Christian prayer. As a Catholic Theology major, I would say that this work is good as satire (its really that bad), not much else. If I had been Mitch Pacwa S.J., I would not have even dignified being involved with it.

This is a typical protestant approach, I am episcopalean who knows better that catholics unless they are from a third world background know better when praying. If they pray they are only asking for intersession, they assume mary will ask God. I think protestnts and catholic should settle their differences, becuase theres gonna be much more things to worry about in the future, if people even go to church at all. Like some new theory will try to prove us believer wrong.We should stick together and encourage each other to be faithful, not push each other out of their religion. Theres more to go after other than catholics.

I want to write about the reviews posted by other customers, rather than about this book directly. As one who does not hold any religious beliefs, it pleases me greatly to see Christians engaging in in-fighting; accusing each other of 'demon' worship, etc. I am very glad that you expend your energy on vituperation and defamation of each other, rather than turning your attention to people like me.