X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:13:47 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: CRJ

Mark,

I must admit I know little about CRI and CRJ, but from what I know about it,
it sounds like a magazine dedicated to exposing heresies and cults and
quasi-Christian groups that have wacko.  Naturally I object to a two part
article that attempts to refute some of Catholicism's treasured doctrines.
I imagine people use CRJ as a standard of orthodoxy, and it would appear that
by publishing such an article, we would be excluded from orthodoxy. I would
expect a magazine that concentrated on apologetics and exposition of
heterodoxy would avoid what it would consider doctrinal squabbles between
fellow Christian churches.  To bring up a particular doctrine and criticize
it may indicate that the Journal is excluding that particular church that
holds that believe from orthodoxy.  That is my concern.

I came to know about the Marian article via another magazine that refuted it,
and I must say that in reading it, it was certainly more tempered than certain
anti-Catholic articles; for example, it says that by venerating the Mother of
Jesus, Catholics are "injuring ecumenism."  Ostensibly this means they
consider their criticism more warning than condemnation, but their language
gets stronger.  They also propose some strange ideas; for example, they
proposed the following questions:
1. Is celibacy a higher state than marriage?
2. Is asceticism a biblical tradition?
3. Does the gospel teach celibacy?

They answered "no" to all of them, which is surprising considering the
Scriptural evidence against them.  They exemplify what Max Thurian, then a
Calvinist, called "the anti-ascetic or anti-monastic reaction found in a
certain type of Protestantism."

CRI's positions do not represent all of orthodox Christianity. Luther said,
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of
God. . . . It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Luther, along with Calvin and Zwingli, also believed in the perpetual
virginity of Mary, in contrast with the position taken by CRI.  Martin Luther
said, "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."  John Calvin said, "Helvidius [a fourth-century heretic]
has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because
mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." (Calvin
translated the Greek adelphoi as "cousins" or "relatives.")  Zwingli said, "I
firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought
forth for us the Son of God and remained a virgin pure and intact in
childbirth and also after the birth, for all eternity.  I firmly trust that
she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the
blessed and the angels." Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer's brother-in-law and
Zwingli's successor, wrote, "She can hardly be compared with any other saints,
but should by rights be elevated above all of them."  Drelincourt wrote: "We
do not simply believe that God has favored the holy and blessed Virgin more
than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that he has exalted her
above all Seraphim . . . . the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the
creature, but also the Mother of this great and living God."

So indeed in CRI's criticism of our belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary,
and in her exalted status among the Saints, they also have criticized the
greatest of Protestant reformers.

Certainly we should not be singled out for this criticism.

Eric