The Virgin Shall Bear God

From time to time I try to write about the truths of the Faith shared by Catholics and Protestants, the many doctrines on which we find ourselves in glorious agreement.

This is not one of those times. But, dang it, it should be!

The subject of controversy in this case is the Catholic appellation for Mary: “the Mother of God.” We Catholics are so keen on this title that we have actually dedicated the first day of every calendar year to Mary under this name, not surprising, since Catholic theology teaches that all of Mary’s prerogatives stem from this divine maternity of hers. According to the Catholic Church:

Called in the Gospels ‘the mother of Jesus’, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as ‘the mother of my Lord ‘. [Lk 1:43; Jn 2:1; 19:25; cf. Mt 13:55; et al.] In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ (Theotokos).” [cf Council of Ephesus (431): DS 251.] CCC 495

Compare and contrast that explanation of Mary as “God-bearer” (Theotokos) with two pretty standard-issue criticisms made by anti-Catholics:

Criticism #1: Catholics worship Mary, claiming that she has “divine maternity” (“Dogmatic Constitution…,” 1964, 8.3).

Criticism #2: There is not a single verse in the Bible that describes Mary as the ‘Mother of God.’ In fact, none of the inspired writers of either the Old or New Testament gave even a hint that she should be regarded as such.

Seems like no matter how many times Catholics reiterate that we do NOT worship anybody but God, that old canard keeps refluxing, the “Big Lie” which people will believe when they might be skeptical of smaller ones; repeated frequently enough, it becomes “common knowledge.” This particular quote purports to give proof of this iniquity from a Catholic source, the “Dogmatic Constitution” (they mean the document known as “Lumen Gentium“). I can guarantee you, dear reader, the folks who spew this goo are counting on the fact that the average reader isn’t going to actually read Lumen Gentium, because Lumen Gentium explains the opposite of what they are claiming. So, lest we be counted as average, let’s read a bit of it for ourselves. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) 8:3 informs us:

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.

There’s more, but before we continue please note that in Catholic parlance the word “cult” means “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure,” and not “a suspicious group of weirdos trying to brainwash your children and bilk them out of their money.”

Lumen Gentium 8:4 gives us this to understand:

Placed by the grace of God, as God’s Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church. Clearly from earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful took refuge in all their dangers and necessities. Hence after the Synod of Ephesus the cult of the people of God toward Mary wonderfully increased in veneration and love, in invocation and imitation, according to her own prophetic words: “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me”. This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially
from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine, according to the conditions of time and place, and the nature and ingenuity of the faithful has approved, bring it about that while the Mother is honored, the Son, through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly known, loved and glorified and that all His commands are observed.

See the part about worshipping Mary? Of course not – WE DON’T. Never have. That’s something that those who have a vested interest in scaring you away from Catholicism won’t tell you. She’s not God, she’s not a goddess, she isn’t even a godlet. There’s no “fine line” here – there is a vast chasm between worshipping and adoring the Eternal Creator of all things, and honoring and loving the Blessed Virgin above all other creatures. We venerate Mary, something which is essentially different from worshipping her, because we are well aware that while she is the Mother of God, she is not God. To worship her would be to break the First Commandment. How can the statement “… no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer” ever be reconciled with the assertion that “Catholics worship Mary”?

Yet that’s the entire basis for the fear-mongering that goes on whenever Mary is addressed by this title – the hysterical insistence that if Catholics refer to Mary as the Mother of God, they must be worshipping her! The people who insist this despite all evidence to the contrary feel that they are boldly defending their version of Christianity against Catholic error. A 4^th-century Catholic bishop, St. Gregory Nazianzen, claimed however that anyone who denied Mary the title “Mother of God” wasn’t opposing the Catholic Church, but rather “If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead.”

NOT something you want to be at odds with! But how does denying Mary’s divine maternity put you “at odds with the Godhead”?

I’m so glad you asked, because this is the reason that Protestants and Catholics should all be in agreement on this point.

The Catholic Church has always maintained that while the Scriptures are “God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” they are not necessarily easy to understand. Christians spent the first few centuries arguing over how best to understand who and what Jesus really is. Early on, some folks misunderstood Jesus’ humanity, claiming that He was God, but that He wasn’t really a man – He only appeared to have a body (the heresy of Docetism). Others veered off to the opposite conclusion, claiming that while of course Jesus was a real man with a real body, He wasn’t really God (the heresy of Arianism). Jesus was God’s greatest creation, they said, not a Divine Person, not consubstantial with the Father. Arians took the Bible verses which appear to call into question Jesus’ divinity (like John 17:3, John 20:17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:5-7, 2 John 1:3 and Revelation 7:10) as their starting point, and then built a theology which forced them to tweak the Scriptural evidence for His divinity (Matthew 9:2, John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, 2 Peter 1:1) to make it mesh with what they thought the Bible was really trying to say about Jesus. After all, Jesus Himself never said, in so many words, that He was God.  Yet despite this, Christians firmly believe that He is God (after all, St. Thomas cried out to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ and Jesus accepted his words without rebuking him). Thus St. Ignatius, a Catholic bishop in 2^nd-century Syria, referred to Jesus as “God” over and over again in his writings. When the concept of Jesus’ divinity was challenged in the 4^th century, the Church came out with a definitive statement to that effect: “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.” All that fuss really wouldn’t have been necessary if Holy Scripture stated unequivocally that Jesus is God. Anti-Trinitarians see this doctrine of the divinity of Christ as a late invention and claim that it’s a perversion of the obvious meaning of Scripture. The 4^th-century Council of Nicaea was forced to issue their statement to protect the deposit of faith written and unwritten. Catholics and Protestants of the 21^st century join forces in proclaiming this truth of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yet Protestants balk when confronted with similar difficulties surrounding the doctrine of Mary’s divine maternity. Never in Scripture is Mary referred to, in so many words, as the “Mother of God” (which is partially attributable to the fact that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus call Himself “God.”) Yet, Mary is the Mother of God precisely because her Son, Jesus, is God. St. Irenaeus, a Catholic bishop in 2^nd-century France, referred to Jesus’ conception thus: “… so did the latter [the Virgin Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should bear God, being obedient to his word.” The doctrine of the Theotokos was solemnly defined in circumstances similar to the solemn definition of the divinity of Jesus. The 5^th-century Council of Ephesus felt compelled to issue a definitive statement defending this truth: “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Many Protestants decry this doctrine as a late invention and a perversion of the obvious meaning of Scripture. On the contrary – it is a defense of the hypostatic union of Jesus’ two natures, under attack by 5^th-century heretics called Nestorians who claimed that the human person and the Divine Person of Christ are separate, and insisting that Mary be referred to as the Mother of Christ, as she was the mother of His human nature only. The Church, however, teaches that Jesus possesses two natures united in one Person, meaning that Mary must properly be referred to as the Mother of God, as summarized in the Creed of Ephesus:

Before the worlds begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary according to the Manhood; consubstantial with the Father in the Godhead, consubstantial with us in the Manhood; for a union of two natures took place, wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to the understanding of this unconfused union, we confess the Blessed Virgin to be Theotokos, because the Word of God was incarnate and made man, and through her conception united to Himself the temple He received from her. And we are aware that the words of the Gospels, and of the Apostles, concerning the Lord are, by theologians, looked upon some as applying in common [to the two natures] as belonging to the one Person; others as attributed to one of the two natures; and that they tell us by tradition that some are of divine import, to suit the Divinity of Christ, others of humble nature belonging to His humanity.

When the Scriptures do not speak absolutely plainly concerning the divinity of Christ, the Church insists that He is consubstantial with the Father, and when the Scriptures do not speak absolutely plainly concerning the two natures of Christ united in one Person, the Church insists that there is “one Christ, one Son, one Lord” and insists that therefore the Blessed Virgin bore God. The doctrine of Mary as the Mother of God does not glorify Mary – it glorifies Jesus and defends the doctrines of His humanity, His divinity and the hypostatic union of those two natures, something every Christian in Heaven and on earth should be eager to defend. Attacking the divine maternity is aiding and abetting the enemies of the Faith, putting one “at odds with the Godhead” as Gregory Nazianzen warned. Asserting Mary’s divine maternity is not the same as asserting that she is God – it’s asserting that HE is God, and she’s His mother. That’s something that Catholics and Protestants can surely agree upon.

Because the second ‘criticism’ proves to be as bogus as the first: “There is not a single verse in the Bible that describes Mary as the ‘Mother of God.’ In fact, none of the inspired writers of either the Old or New Testament gave even a hint that she should be regarded as such.”

Aww, come on! Not even a hint?

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” Mt 1:23

The Virgin shall bear God.

 

On the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God

Deo omnis gloria!

Mary, Did You No?

Back in my Baptist days I attended the church which was home to the lyricist of the popular modern-day Christmas song, “Mary, Did You Know?” The words to the song were penned in 1984; it wasn’t until 12 years later that music was added to create the song that we know today. “Mary, Did You Know?” is now as much a staple of the Advent season as “Deck the Halls” and “What Child is This,” although a tad more controversial, at least in Catholic circles. You see, many Catholics have an objection to the words of this Evangelical carol, pointing out that the Evangelical Protestant concept of Mary and the Catholic understanding of the Blessed Virgin are two very, very different things.

The song poses a series of questions concerning Mary’s “fiat” – her “yes” or “amen” to the message of the angel. Some of the questions are quite innocuous: Mary, did you know that your baby boy would some day walk on water? Mary, did you know that your baby boy would give sight to a blind man? Not really controversy-provoking ponderings – unless you believe that the Almighty rendered Mary psychic, no, she didn’t know. Other questions, however, rub Catholic theology the wrong way: Mary, did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new? This child that you’ve delivered, will soon deliver you!

Let’s parse that. Catholics and Protestants alike agree that Mary was saved by Jesus. After all, she declares plainly in her Magnificat that her spirit rejoices in God, her Savior. But while Evangelicals believe that Mary was simply a random woman (a “dirty, rotten sinner” as one rather rabid Protestant website puts it) chosen by God to bring His Son into the world, Catholic theology teaches that Mary was preserved from sin in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive work.

Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life. CCC 411

The lyrics to “Mary, Did You Know?” claim that Her Son Whom she delivered would one day deliver her – Catholics would certainly not dispute the fact that Mary was “delivered” by her Son, but we would have to argue with the timeline!

Another Catholic quibble with the song is that because Mary, at the moment of her Immaculate Conception, was endowed with the same gifts that Adam and Eve possessed before the Fall, she would have had “infused knowledge,” meaning that she would indeed have understood the ramifications of the Incarnation. If this is correct, then the answer to many of the questions posed by “Mary, Did You Know?” would be an unqualified “Yes!” She did indeed know that her Baby Boy was the Lord of all creation, that the Child Whom she was agreeing to bear would one day suffer and die for the sins of the world, whereas the Protestant answer to those questions posed in the song would be “Of course she didn’t know! The angel told her that she was bringing the ‘son of the Most High’ into the world, but like every other Jew of that day, Mary thought the Messiah would be an earthly ruler who would set up the continuation of King David’s rule.” The Protestant take on Mary’s fiat is that God roped some woman (a godly woman, most likely, but nobody special) in off the street who then cluelessly agreed to bear God Incarnate, with no concept of the world of suffering she was getting herself into. She certainly didn’t “know,” Protestants will tell you, but as a sinner she often stubbornly said “NO!” to God – just (fortunately) not at the pivotal moment of the Annunciation.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that Mary in her fiat said yes to everything – to the Incarnation, to the Virgin Birth, to the flight into Egypt, to the loss and finding of Jesus in the Temple, to the betrayal in the Garden, to the scourging, to the Crucifixion. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Mary knew all the details beforehand – while she may have possessed infused knowledge, she wasn’t clairvoyant. She wouldn’t have known when she gave her fiat, for example, which specific miracles her Son would perform. Yet Mary said yes to everything, we Catholics believe, because Mary always said yes to everything God proposed. His Will was her will. The Blessed Virgin, preserved from all stain of sin, lived in perfect conformity to the will of God. All the promises of God are “Yes!” in Jesus Christ, and so through Him, her Deliverer, the “be it done unto me according to thy word” was spoken by His Blessed Mother at every moment of her life, as well as at this incredible juncture in history in particular.

And this isn’t just arcane theological knowledge to be filed away in anticipation of your upcoming appearance on the American Bible Challenge. The import of St. Paul’s “amen” passage in 2 Corinthians 1:19-20 should make it clear to you that at each and every moment of your life the “annunciation” is taking place all over again. At every moment God is announcing His Holy Will to you – nothing so grand as the angelic messenger and the fulfillment of prophecy, yet an annunciation all the same. In your life, the messengers generally look more like a pink slip, a child vomiting in the night, an acceptance into grad school, a neighbor who’s learned that she is developing dementia, an opportunity to move overseas, a friend asking if you’ve ever considered religious life. Your annunciation may come through answered prayer, or even more often through unanswered prayer. When we experience these annunciations of God’s will, what we “know” isn’t the question; the important thing is that we do not “NO!” We are not clairvoyant; we have no way of knowing which of our fiats may be the one which changes the world. Honestly, it doesn’t matter, because each and every time a follower of God Incarnate participates in His “Yes,” the world is changed….

Which is why, going back to that song, we need to modify those lyrics slightly – the question asked of us is “Sherry, did you no?” “Gary, did you no?” “Larry, did you no?” “Carrie, did you no?” because each moment of our lives is our own personal annunciation. Did we know? Heck, no – but by the grace of God may our response to Him always be “Yes!”

“Renée, did you know?” No, of course I didn’t know what I was letting myself in for when I said “Yes” to Him. It was a blind trust, yet not a foolish one. It was in imitation of my Blessed Mother; it was a participation in the life of Him Who is the Great Amen to the design of God the Father. It cost me, which made it all the more precious. And because I said “Yes,” I have in my own obscure life done what my Blessed Mother did illuminated by the floodlights of history – I have brought Jesus into the world.

And you have, too. And on that note, a joyous Christmas to all you who have joined the Blessed Virgin in her fiat, her “Yes” to God.

 

On the memorial of St. Peter Canisius

Deo omnis gloria!

Magnification

Many wannabe Catholics find one little-known nugget of Catholic teaching shocking but very comforting – shocking because they never would have guessed that it was so, and comforting because they think it will help them avoid the thing they fear most. This amazing Catholic fact is that the same Catholic Church that asks catechumens and candidates to declare that they “believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God” does not require anyone to have a devotion to Mary.

Say that again?

Catholics are not required to have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

But… I thought Catholics were all about Mary….

Catholics are all about Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. It is because we are all about our Lord Jesus that we take an interest in Mary. And she would be the first to tell you that.

I think the reason Mary sticks out like a sore thumb to Protestants is because, with one annual exception, she is so completely absent from their Christian experience. So are all the other saints except Paul, who because he wrote the portions of the New Testament that Protestants base most of their doctrine on, gets more than his fair share of airtime on Sunday mornings. Yet we Catholics have it on good authority that Mary’s soul “magnifies the Lord.” Who wouldn’t want to get closer to someone with a soul like that?

One thing potential converts fret over is a Catholic practice which they believe runs contrary to the clear message of Scripture. Catholics ask Mary to pray for them. We ask all the saints, as well as the angels, to pray for us, but most Protestants worry about Mary because they worry about the Rosary: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death” and that sort of thing. How can Catholics ask Mary to pray for them when the Bible clearly tells us:

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Based on this verse, Protestants claim that it is simply wrong to try to go through a “saint” to get to God, and so the Rosary is patently unbiblical. There is only one way to get to God, and that is through His Son, Jesus. The Bible says so.

The Bible actually says:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

So, as St. Paul clearly states in his letter to St. Timothy, there are two types of mediators between God and men. Only Jesus could give Himself as a ransom for all; in that capacity He is the unique Mediator – blessed be His Holy Name! Catholics have absolutely no problem grasping that concept. But Protestants have a problem grasping the second, very biblical concept of saints (that is, holy men and women) mediating on our behalf through their prayers. Asking other people to pray for us is exactly what we’ve been commanded to do. Protestants do it all the time; they have prayer meetings and prayer chains for the express purpose of getting others to bring their requests before the Throne. The Catholic position on this is simply: why not go straight to the top of the prayer chain? As St. James assured us, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” As the ultimate righteous person (Hail, Mary, FULL of grace!), Mary’s prayers are the most effective, and she loves us like the mother she is to us (Jn 19:27). Of course, there is the Protestant quibble concerning rote prayers, again answered by the Bible itself. Look up Psalm 136 – what you’re looking at is a litany, right smack-dab in the middle of the Bible, repetition and all! Matthew 6:7 is not condemning repetition in prayer; it is condemning VAIN repetition – mindlessly babbling prayers because you think there is something magical about just saying the words. There is simply nothing wrong with praying the Rosary – Catholics are asking a Christian in Heaven to pray for them (1 Tim 2:1) using a set pattern of prayer consisting of Bible verses (Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42), with a request that Mary, Mother of Jesus Who is God, pray for sinners (that would be us) now and when we are about to die. Amen.

That said, the Catholic Church doesn’t require anyone to pray the Rosary, or to have any kind of a devotion to Mary. It’s optional, so if you’re considering the claims of the Catholic Church, and our Mariology makes you nervous, don’t sweat it. Converts will be asked to assent to the Marian doctrines (that Mary was immaculately conceived, that she is a perpetual Virgin, that she is the Mother of God, that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven) just as you will be asked to assent to everything else the Church teaches, but you can live and die a Catholic in good standing and never own a set of rosary beads.

Don’t say I didn’t remind you, though, that you are shunning a practice about which it has been said:

The rosary is the book of the blind, where souls see and there enact the greatest drama of love the world has ever known; it is the book of the simple, which initiates them into mysteries and knowledge more satisfying than the education of other men; it is the book of the aged, whose eyes close upon the shadow of this world, and open on the substance of the next. The power of the rosary is beyond description. (Venerable Fulton Sheen)

The greatest method of praying is to pray the Rosary. (St. Francis de Sales)

If you say the Holy Rosary every day, with a spirit of faith and love, our Lady will make sure she leads you very far along her Son’s path. (St. Josemaria Escriva)

Some people are so foolish that they think they can go through life without the help of the Blessed Mother. Love the Madonna and pray the rosary, for her Rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today.. (St. Pio of Pietrelcina)

When we pray the Rosary, we take a walk through the events of our Savior’s life with His Mother as our guide. Meditating on the Mysteries of the Rosary, we allow Mary to tutor us in faith, hope and love. The effects can be profound. When I first got up the courage to pray the Rosary, it was a Friday, so I began with the Sorrowful Mysteries. When I got to the final Mystery, Jesus’ crucifixion, I was suddenly overwhelmed with horror, because I am a mother, and I have a son. I realized that I sent Jesus to the Cross, my indifference tormented Him, my perverse love for my sins cost Him His very life, and I was kneeling there asking His Mother to pray for ME, the woman who crucified her Son.

At that moment I learned more about forgiveness than I had in the preceding 48 years of my life, as Jesus’ Mother forgave me from the depths of her heart, and took me as her own child.

No, the Catholic Church won’t require you to pursue a relationship with Mary – don’t worry about that. But her soul really does magnify the Lord. If you have any interest in getting a closer look at God, you’re going to want to begin looking at Him through Mary.

 

On the memorial of Our Lady of the Rosary

Deo omnis gloria!

The Point

One week ago today Catholics were celebrating a holy day of obligation, a solemnity honoring the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into Heaven. Similarly, although today is not a holy day of obligation, it is the day set aside to contemplate the Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and of the Angels. Protestants tend to get a tad cranky at the mention of these commemorations. After all, they huff, none of this is in the Bible!! All this talk of Mary detracts from the Main Point, Jesus! That’s what Catholics just don’t understand! MARY IS NOT THE POINT!!

And Protestants are absolutely right about that – to a point.

Many Evangelical difficulties with Catholic theology stem from a reluctance to think the Incarnation through, which is odd, since the Incarnation is a doctrine which Evangelicals embrace. You can’t find an Evangelical who denies the Incarnation. Jesus Christ, God Eternal, became man. It is a solid point of agreement between Protestants and Catholics – no problem there. Yet, Evangelicals want to leave it at that, while Catholics have taken the Incarnation and run with it, connecting it to all of our other doctrines. It behooves the inquirer to always keep the Incarnation firmly in mind when puzzling over the Marian doctrines.

That said, these Marian doctrines aren’t found in Scripture – and yet, they are.

A quick review of the Incarnation: in order to redeem mankind, God sent the archangel Gabriel to a virgin to ask her permission to bring His Son into the world, using her DNA to form His body just as every mother’s DNA is part of the formation of their children’s bodies. That’s as far as the Evangelical understanding of the Incarnation usually goes (if it goes that far – some Protestants insist that, had Jesus’ body been formed using Mary’s DNA, He would have inherited Original Sin from His mother, and therefore the Blessed Virgin was actually just a surrogate mom to the Son of God, an “incubator,” if you will. Had that been the case, however, Jesus would not have been a member of our species, but rather a species unto Himself – and would not have been able to offer up His life as one of us to redeem mankind). The Catholic understanding is that Jesus received a human body from His mother, Mary, so that all human beings might become a part of His body. It should come as no shock to anyone that St. Augustine expressed this far more beautifully than I ever could:

All men are one man in Christ, and the unity of Christians constitutes but one man. Let us rejoice and give thanks. Not only are we to become Christians, but we are to become Christ. My brothers, do you understand the grace of God that is given us? Wonder, rejoice, for we are Christ! If He is the Head, and we are the members, then together He and we are the whole man.

That is the meaning of the Incarnation. The Incarnation wasn’t just a blip on the salvation radar screen, necessary solely to make Christ’s death on the Cross for our sins possible. The Incarnation lay at the root of God’s inscrutable plan to make us His children and heirs, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). In order for the creature known as man to participate in the life of the Holy Trinity, he has to become a member of the body of the Second Person of that Trinity. That body goes by various names: the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the household of faith, the Church of the living God.

In that body, Catholics believe, Mary occupies the place closest to Jesus; that is to say, Mary is the “neck” of the body of Christ. As St. Bernardine of Siena put this: “‘For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body.” In the sadly all-too-common Protestant understanding of the believer’s relationship with Christ as “me and Jesus,” the idea that one member of the body might be closer to the Head than the other members rankles. Yet, we are not particles floating through space, unconnected one to another; participation in the Divine life is impossible for a disembodied particle. Christians are a body; that body has a defined shape and parts. Understanding Mary as the metaphorical “neck” of the body helps to put into perspective Catholic claims that she mediates graces. Just as electrical impulses from the brain must pass through the neck (via the spinal cord) to get to the little toe of the left foot, so also do the graces God distributes to members of His body pass through the hands of Mary on their way to us. Just as it is God’s will that I, at certain times, may be His instrument in conducting grace your way, so also is it His will to route all graces through Mary, the body’s “neck.” In that light, St. Louis de Montfort’s “To Christ through Mary” makes a great deal of sense; if she is the “neck” of the body, then the other members’ connection to the Head is necessarily through her.

Catholics further believe that Mary is a “type” of the Church, just as King David in the Old Testament served as a “type” of the Messiah. That sheds light on the feasts of the Assumption and the Coronation. The Assumption and the Coronation are, simply put, down-payments on Christ’s promises to the Church.

Take the Coronation as an example (Rev 12:1). Evangelicals howl at the mention of all the preposterous, undue honor paid to Mary in this scenario – yet they themselves firmly declare
that believers will receive crowns in Heaven. A popular Protestant singing group has named itself “Casting Crowns” in reference to the fact that we will cast our crowns at the feet of Him Who gave them to us (riffing off Rev 4:10). So why should the fact that Catholics insist that Mary, “type” of the Church, has received her crown in Heaven cause a stir?

Same with the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Protestants and Catholics profess the belief that Christians will, in the words of St. Paul

…be caught up together with [the dead in Christ] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

From this perspective, doctrines like the Assumption and the Coronation, far from being preposterous, are examples of exactly what all those who believe God’s promises should expect will happen! We will be resurrected (1 Cor 15:42-44), we will be assumed into Heaven (1 Thess 4:16-17), and we will receive crowns (1 Pet 5:4) and rule (Lk 22:30, 2 Tim 2:12, Rev 20:4-5), even judging angels (1 Cor 6:2-3). The Bible says quite clearly that God will reward us according to our works (Mt 16:27, Rev 22:12). The Catholic Church is simply saying that Mary, as the preeminent member of the body of Christ by virtue of her fiat and sinless life, went first. What the Church is NOT saying is that Mary is somehow equal to her Savior, or more important than her Lord, or that she is a goddess whom the Church has deified. God forbid! Mary is NOT the point, but Mary is NOT beside the point, either – anymore than the head of a man is the “point,” while his body is merely “beside the point.” Mary is NOT beside the point because the Incarnation of Jesus is NOT beside the point. Jesus’ relationship with her as her Savior (Lk 1:47) made possible her incorporation into the body He is preparing for Himself, and that made possible the events in her life which Catholics celebrate in the month of August. The Incarnation is what makes possible our participation in the supernatural life of God as well; only as members of Christ’s body can we experience that participation. The reality of the Incarnation animates the body of Christ in the world today, and is the guarantee of our place in Heaven for all who are found to be members of that body.

And THAT’S the point of the Assumption and the Coronation.

 

On the feast of the Queenship of Mary

Deo omnis gloria!

A Flawed Assumption

A Protestant friend of mine considered entering the Catholic Church a couple of years ago. She had a very good grasp of Catholic teaching, and tried to connect this with praxis by attending Mass at several parishes in her part of the country. Sadly, after making the rounds of the local parishes, she became truly confused concerning what the Church teaches in the area of morals, specifically concerning reproduction. A priest told her that she and her husband should continue using contraception. A member of a marriage tribunal told her the same thing, advising her that she needed to make her own decision on the issue of contraception; as long as she did not trespass against the dictates of her own conscience, she was okay. In desperation, she looked online for guidance, and found a supremely unhelpful article by Catholic theologian Daniel C. Maguire, a man with a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching as it pertains to reproductive issues, who presented the Catholic understanding of “conscience” in a very misleading way, elevating dissenting Catholics to the position of role models:

The birth rates in so-called “Catholic” nations in Europe and in Latin America are close to or below replacement levels and, as Gudorf wryly puts it, “it is difficult to believe that fertility was cut in half through voluntary abstinence from sex.” Such dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching. The sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful, is one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. This means that the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult.

The sensus fidelium is “the sense of the faithful” (also referred to as sensus fidei or “the sense of faith”); Dr. Maguire is right about that at least. Pope Benedict XVI described the sensus fidei as “that capacity infused by the Holy Spirit that qualifies us to embrace the reality of the faith with humility of heart and mind. In this sense, the People of God is the ‘teacher that goes first’ and must then be more deeply examined and intellectually accepted by theology.” Maguire’s claims, however, that “dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching, ” and “the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth” are based on a seriously flawed assumption. Sadly, it is his definition to which multitudes of Catholics cling in their search for a Catholicism that will wholeheartedly endorse the lifestyle they have chosen.

The doctrinal reality of the sensus fidelium was addressed by the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Note how the Council’s definition differs from Dr. Maguire’s:

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

To put it succinctly, Catholics believe that the Church – that is, “the entire body of the faithful…from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” – cannot err in matters of belief. This is the concept of infallibility upon which Catholics insist: God will not allow His Church to authoritatively teach error; if His Church were to teach error as truth, the gates of hell would have prevailed. But we must pay careful attention to the qualifying statement: the ENTIRE BODY of the faithful. This is what keeps the concept of sensus fidelium from becoming a Barna poll with results which uproot Tradition and rewrite Catholic dogma, something which theologians like Dr. Maguire are betting is going to happen. The Church’s understanding of the sensus fidelium serves to affirm the calling of the laity to full participation in the life of the Church, but does not somehow make the claim that it is disaffected laity (or dissenting clergy, for that matter) who from here on out will be steering the Barque.

Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of the sensus fidelium in 2012 in an address to the International Theological Commission:

The Second Vatican Council, while confirming the specific and irreplaceable role of Magisterium, stressed, however, that the whole People of God participates in Christ’s prophetic office, thus fulfilling the inspired desire expressed by Moses, “If only all the people of the LORD were prophets! If only the LORD would bestow his spirit on them!” (Num 11:29).

This gift, the sensus fidei, constitutes in the believer a kind of supernatural instinct that has a connatural life with the same object of faith. It is a criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition. It also has a propositional value because the Holy Spirit does not cease to speak to the Churches and lead them to the whole truth.

To give a concrete example of sensus fidei in action, this “criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition” came into play in a big way in Venerable Pope Pius XII’s decision to “pronounce, declare and define” the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heavenly glory – the basis for the solemnity which we celebrate today. The pope knew that the belief in Mary’s Assumption was ancient; in the 5^th century the Feast of the Assumption of Mary was already being celebrated in Syria. According to the writings of St. John Damascene, “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” The pope knew that many Church Fathers had professed a belief in the Assumption, including St. John Damascene, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours. Great Catholic theologians and saints had championed the doctrine, among them St. Anthony of Padua, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernadine of Siena, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Peter Canisius. Venerable Pius was aware of the absence of any definitive statement in Scripture concerning the completion of Mary’s life here on earth (although no passage in Scripture serves to rule out the dogma of the Assumption); he also was familiar with an important correlated doctrine, the traditional Christian understanding of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant:

At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested. St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236 A.D.)

As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother. St. Dionysius of Alexandria († 264 A.D.)

The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296- 373 A.D.)

The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.)

The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly. St. Ambrose (c. 339-397 A.D.)

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant wasn’t just the theological rhapsody of a few early Church Fathers – the early Christians arrived at the concept by comparing the narrative of the Visitation in Luke 1: 39-45 with the story of the journey of the Ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6:11-19. The events were separated by centuries, but the geographic locations were quite close; both took place in the “hill country of Judah.” Among the parallels:

• Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah.
  
• And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God.
  

• And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
  
• How can the ark of the LORD come to me?
  
• When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb.
  
• Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD.
  
• And Mary stayed with her about three months.
  
• Thus the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months.
  

The glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle in the Old Testament. The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The early Christians couldn’t help but see the twin “overshadowings” as evidence for Mary as the New Ark. This concept has a direct bearing on the dogma of the Assumption, for the book of Revelation tells us:

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

The early Christians understood this Ark and this Woman to be one and the same. Since Mary was the New Ark, and the Ark had appeared in the temple of God in Heaven, then it seemed clear that Mary had been assumed into Heaven.

And there was strong earthly corroboration of this miracle which should not be overlooked. The early Christians were very, very keen on relics; the “Martyrdom of Polycarp” from the mid 2^nd century makes this clear. Christians risked their lives to secure relics of holy men and women. By the time Christianity was legalized, churches in far-flung areas of Christendom were advertising the relics they possessed, relics of the apostles and other martyrs, relics of the Cross and the manger. Of course, no one ever ventured to claim that they were in possession of a first-class relic (a piece of bone, for example) from the body of Jesus, since it was a non-negotiable tenet of the Faith that Christ was risen and had ascended into Heaven. The apostles, the martyrs, St. Joseph, St. Mary Magdalene – they were all fair game. Yet in all of relic-collecting Christendom, no one EVER claimed to possess a first-class relic (except of her hair) of the Blessed Virgin. There is only one explanation for that – everyone KNEW that she had been assumed bodily into Heaven. Even those tempted to fakery knew that claiming possession of the bones of the Blessed Virgin would never fly.

Add to that the fact that Mary was seen as a “type” of the Church. Did Jesus not promise that each member of His body would be resurrected and caught up to meet Him in the clouds at His return? And was this Assumption not a “down-payment” on that promise? When confronted with the absence of earthly remains, and with the knowledge that this woman had been hailed as “full of grace” and “blessed among women,” remembering that the Old Testament figures Enoch and Elijah had themselves been taken up to be with God, why would the notion that Mary had been assumed into Heaven strike you as implausible?

The belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into Heaven had been held all over Christendom from antiquity to the 20^th century. According to Venerable Pius, “for a long time past, numerous petitions (those received from 1849 to 1940 have been gathered in two volumes which, accompanied with suitable comments, have been recently printed), from cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, religious of both sexes, associations, universities and innumerable private persons have reached the Holy See, all begging that the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin should be defined and proclaimed as a dogma of faith. And certainly no one is unaware of the fact that this was fervently requested by almost two hundred fathers in the Vatican Council.” This is truly a case in which “the whole People of God,” not just the laity, nor solely the members of the hierarchy, not just contemporary Catholics, nor merely a handful of Church Fathers hundreds of years ago, but all the faithful concurred in their belief. This was the sensus fidelium upon which Pius XII relied when defining the dogma of the Assumption.

Great! So now that we know that the Vatican takes the sensus fidelium seriously, so seriously that it was a major factor in the 20^th-century promulgation of a dogma, all that Catholics have to do is agitate, dissent, protest, whine, flaunt and rebel, and the next thing you know Pope Francis will do a 180 on contraception! It’s inevitable! So goes modern-day dissenters’ logic.

What’s seldom mentioned about the process that Venerable Pius XII went through before defining the doctrine of the Assumption is that he wrote to his bishops, asking them for input. In his request he wrote the following:

…we earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary.

The phrase in red is the key to understanding the slippery concept of sensus fidelium. In other words, Venerable Pius was a just a little bit picky about who had a say in this. According to Servant of God John Hardon, S.J.:

…whether they realize it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth, under the guidance of the sacred magisterium, belong to the faithful.

What are the requirements for a genuine sensus fidelium? To begin with, you have to be one of the faithful. Father Hardon continues:

Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.

So, Professor Maguire’s concept of “the consciences and experiences of good people” being a “guidepost to truth” runs into a major roadblock – define “good people!” As he would define them, good people are Catholics who realize that the Church forbids the use of artificial contraception, yet don’t give a fig. In other words, the truth doesn’t really interest them. And that’s the crux of the whole issue. It’s not “truth by majority vote” – it’s Truth, eternal, unchanging Truth that we submit to. It forms us – not the other way around! That’s the secret that people like Professor Maguire don’t get….

Pope Benedict warned:

It is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.

So, no, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin isn’t just some goofy “assumption” by biblically ignorant Catholics. Yes, the sensus fidelium did play a part in the definition of the dogma. But, no – the sensus fidelium isn’t going to somehow be instrumental in overturning Church teaching on women priests, homosexuality, abortion or contraception, no matter how many liberal Catholic theologians tell you that it is. Because the sensus fidelium – the REAL sensus fidelium – owes its allegiance to the Magisterium of the Church. So don’t fret – Truth will prevail.

He promised that He would.

 

On the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Deo omnis gloria!

Earwax

Ever feel like you’re not communicating?

Imagine that you are the chancellor of a university who devises some method by which certain high-school students are able to attend your university tuition-free. Excited, you start advertising this tuition-free option for qualifying students, and before you know it you have a small group of eager would-be enrollees at your institution. You open the matriculation process, and soon start to receive some angry phone calls from parents crying foul. “You said it was FREE!” they snarl. “My kid just told me he’s going to have to pay upwards of $1,000 dollars this semester for books, lab fees and meals!” Baffled, you explain to the irate callers that you were advertising a tuition-free opportunity for eligible students. You NEVER claimed that their books would be paid for, or that they’d get free food, and lab fees have never fallen into the category of “tuition.” All you get for your trouble is hung-up on.

Where did you go wrong?? You stated as clearly as you could in your advertising that the offer was for free TUITION. Then it begins to dawn on you. As an educator, you are well-versed in university lingo. Others may not be. And apparently when these parents heard “4 years tuition-free,” this translated in their minds to “4 years of free college.” Free, as in “I don’t pay ANYTHING.”

It’s a misunderstanding. Not your fault. No one’s going to be hauling you into court on charges of misrepresentation. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re going to be fielding angry phone calls for the foreseeable future….

Things like this happen because people confuse terms. They have only a passing familiarity with the actual definition of certain words. We see it every time a huge windstorm blows through town, wreaking havoc, and the National Weather Service announces that it was NOT a tornado. “Not a tornado!!” huffs your cousin Melba. “Then why is my barn in my neighbor’s yard???” Because when the NWS says there was no “tornado,” what your cousin understands them to be claiming is that there was no windstorm – and she’s here to tell you that there most certainly was.

Cousin Melba and the Weather Service aren’t the only ones quibbling over terms, and confusion of terms isn’t the only reason people miscommunicate; the reasons are legion. In fact, it’s a wonder anything gets communicated at all sometimes. The issue can be as simple as a vocabulary deficit. When I as a Protestant started attending Mass, I heard words like “paschal” and “oblation.” I had no clue what they meant, but fortunately I did care enough to find out. Not everyone is all that interested, and many people simply wander off mumbling something about mumbo-jumbo rather than learn a few new words. Another problem that surfaces in Protestant-Catholic dialogue is when Evangelicalese meets Catholicspeak. Huh?? So much of our vocabulary is the same, yet the meanings assigned to various terms differ. Take “grace” and “justification” for starters. Evangelicals and Catholics define these differently, so your Protestant neighbor may be hearing something slightly different that what you think you’re saying when you explain that Catholics believe that we are saved by grace and justified by faith. Sometimes the problem is a matter of ineptitude on the part of the communicator, and other times it’s a hearing impairment on the part of the listener. Why else would we bother to coin the lament, “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”?

Our best-laid plans to explain Catholicism to Protestants often go astray because of this – we try to explain what we believe, but the listener just can’t hear what we’re actually saying. It’s as if they have mental earwax. You explain to our next-door neighbor that Catholics don’t buy into the “secret rapture” doctrine so dear to Evangelical hearts. She goes home and tells her husband that Catholics don’t believe in the Second Coming of Christ in glory to judge the living and the dead. Is that what you said? No, but that’s what she thinks she heard. Her husband sees you that evening in the supermarket and asks you where the Bible says that Mary was conceived without sin. You ask him where the Bible says that every doctrine must be found in the Bible, and explain to him that Catholics don’t accept the self-refuting doctrine of sola Scriptura. He buys his avocadoes, goes home and tells his wife that Catholics don’t believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Is that what you said? No, but that’s what he thinks he heard.

I wonder if you can buy an ear trumpet cheap on eBay….

One real impediment to communication is know-it-alreadyism. You would assume that one of mankind’s primary motives for engaging in conversation is the exchange of information, right? Sounds great in theory, but how often does that correspond with conversational reality? Communication relies to a certain extent upon an openness of mind. If you already know everything, you kind of lose your incentive to exchange information. It could be that your neighbors have already been misinformed, having been told that Catholics don’t believe in the Second Coming or the inerrancy of Scripture. When you talk to them, they can see your lips moving, but they “hear” what they already believe.

When I lived in Germany, I had a conversation with two guys from Asia Minor. We were discussing life in the U.S. when one of them casually mentioned something about the 51 American states. I politely corrected him – there are 50 American states. He stared at me quizzically. He and his friend exchanged glances and discussed the matter between themselves. “Yep!” was the conclusion to which they came – there are 51 states.

Well, gee, don’t mind me! I’m just a native of the U.S.A.! Hard to believe that I might know how many states are in my own Union!

This helps to explain the ongoing battle Catholics wage against Protestant confusion over our doctrine. Back to your next-door neighbors again. You can clarify as patiently as Job to your neighbor that, no, Catholics don’t worship Mary. God forbid! That is an obvious violation of the First Commandment. God alone is to be worshipped! Catholics do, however, venerate Mary. That means that we give her honor, more honor than we give to any other human being, because of the role we believe she played in salvation history. We sometimes pray to her. Just as one of your Protestant ancestors might have asked a godly friend, “Pray assist me, dear Elizabeth, in beseeching our Lord for the life of my child,” we often “pray” (that is, “direct petitions” to Mary), asking her to take our concerns to her Son and plead for us. That doesn’t mean that we think she’s God; it means that we think she can intercede on our behalf, just as you believe that your fellow Christians can intercede on your behalf. We study Mary’s life, we sing about her, and in the month of May we may even bring flowers to statues of Mary because we love her as the “mother” Jesus gave to us as He hung on the cross (Jn 19:26-27). The Bible tells us that we are her children (Rev 12:17)! You might occasionally see someone in a Catholic church kneeling before a statue of Mary. They aren’t worshipping Mary or the statue. If you want a pop-culture reference, think “Star Wars,” where Amidala went down on her knees before Boss Nass, asking for his aid, because she knew that without his help her revolt was pretty much dead in the water. She wasn’t worshipping him; she was humbly imploring his assistance. So, you explain to your neighbor, Catholics simply DO NOT worship Mary. Got it?

“Uh-huh,” responds your neighbor. “You guys worship the pope, too, don’t you?”

Don’t mind me, I’m just Catholic.

And that’s how it goes sometimes in the Catholic-Protestant dialogue. Terms need to be defined; prejudices must be addressed. It’s an uphill battle, and we charge into the fray wielding Q-Tips, in the form of prayer, patience, prayer, charity, prayer, perseverance and… prayer. It helps if more than one person is working to communicate the truth to a given individual. Sometimes it’s that 15^th refutation of justification by faith ALONE that finally does the trick. I know it can be mighty tempting to just give up when your neighbors ignore everything you say and persist in insisting that Catholics worship Mary. You want to shrug your shoulders and retreat. It’s hopeless. Don’t mind me – I’m just Catholic! Remember, though, your neighbors may be hearing more than you think. They may be uncomfortable because you are starting to making sense, and your patience, charity and perseverance are a witness of God working in you. Believe it or not, some scientists actually believe that anxiety and stress may increase the production of earwax!

“To the hard of hearing you shout,” wrote Flannery O’Connor, “and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.” Clearly, communication crises call for bold measures. Storm the heavens, and persistently petition the Holy Spirit, the Divine Hearing Aid, to aid your communication efforts and to assist your neighbors in listening as well as hearing.

And don’t forget – ear trumpets make stylish and affordable presents for birthdays, anniversaries or any gift-giving occasion!

Available at your local Catholic religious goods shop!

 

On the memorial of St. Josemaría Escrivá

Deo omnis gloria!

Postscript:  George from Convert Journal suggests this link to ear trumpets on eBay.  Who knew?

Photo credits: A pack of 54 counts Q-tips cotton swabs, made in USA by Geographer

Surprise!

One item of profound concern to me back when I was contemplating entering the Church was the note of dire warning in the collective voice of Protestantism. No daughter was ever more seriously cautioned against rash elopement – he’s not serious about you, he’ll mistreat you, he’ll get tired of you, he’ll leave you, you’ll come crawling home, you’ll rue the day…. The gloom-and-doom prognostication is enough to give any would-be convert grave pause; after all, conversion is a serious step, and anyone who undertakes it lightly has no real comprehension of the potential eternal consequences. I was worried, especially since I was bringing children into the Church with me. What if the warnings proved true?

Next Easter will mark our 10^th anniversary as Catholics, and after nearly 10 years I think I can speak with some authority on this subject. Did the Protestant misgivings hold water? Let’s examine them one by one – you might be surprised:

Protestants warned that by submitting myself to the teaching of the Church I would make of myself an intellectual slave.

Surprisingly, since proclaiming that “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God,” I have been freed to ponder and explore doctrine like never before, securely tethered to “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Protestants warned that by using set prayers, I would be putting a chokehold on my devotional life.

Surprisingly, written prayers proved to be the trellis upon which my frail prayer life has grown and borne fruit.

Protestants warned that by participating in the liturgy I would lose any sense of a personal relationship with Christ.

Surprisingly, by participating in the Church’s worship at Mass, my personal relationship with Jesus has been greatly strengthened, as I now have the assistance of the Church teaching me how better to pray and to worship my Lord, and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist to change me from the inside out.

Protestants warned that when I began striving to obey the commandments of Christ, I would become bound up in works and lose sight of grace.

Surprisingly, in attempting to obey Christ’s command to love God and love my neighbor as the Church teaches us to do, I have been overwhelmed by the necessity of God’s grace to fit me for this otherwise impossible task.

Protestants warned that by embracing a belief system that proclaimed the existence of a ministerial priesthood, I would betray my understanding of the “priesthood of the believer.”

Surprisingly, when I accepted the idea of priests who offer up the once-for-all sacrifice of the Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, I became profoundly aware of my own responsibility as a member of the priesthood of believers, most especially when I assist at Mass, and when I pray, “Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.”

Protestants warned that by confessing my sins to a mere man, I would forget that only God can forgive sins.

Surprisingly, by taking seriously my responsibility to confess my sins to a priest, I have become profoundly convinced of God’s love and forgiveness in the confessional.

Protestants warned that by forsaking their “once-saved/always saved” theology, I would lose all sense of “blessed assurance” and live in constant fear of hell.

Surprisingly, by admitting that the Bible does teach that we can lose our salvation, I have been freed to embrace a constant, trust-filled reliance on the only One Who can keep sin from ruling over me (Ps 119:133, Rom 6:12) rather than pretending that this One will turn a blind eye no matter what I do….

Protestants warned that my Christian walk would suffer as I embraced the notion of “a second chance” at salvation after death known as Purgatory.

Surprisingly, as I came to understand that the doctrine of Purgatory proclaims a final, thorough cleansing for those already headed to Heaven, I began joyfully offering up my sufferings in this life in cooperation with the God Who loves me too much to leave me the way He found me.

Protestants warned that I would be taught to consider 7 uninspired books to be Holy Scripture, books that the Church added to the Bible after the Reformation in support of false doctrines.

Surprisingly, the historical truth turned out to be the opposite of what I had been warned, and I began studying the 7 inspired books that Protestants removed from Holy Scripture, books that had been there since the New Testament canon was settled.

Protestants warned that I would end up praying to Mary and the saints rather than to God.

Surprisingly, as a faithful Catholic I have been taught to ask Mary and the saints to pray for me to the Lord our God that I would love Him above all things.

Protestants warned that I would lose sight of Christ when I cultivated a devotion to Mary.

Surprisingly, by drawing closer to Mary, my relationship to Christ has become deeper and wider and more profound than ever, as I ponder the events of her Son’s life through her eyes.

Protestants warned that I would become disillusioned with Catholicism when I found out what Catholics were really like.

Surprisingly, as I receive my Lord in Holy Communion Sunday after Sunday, I have been given special insight into the sins and failings of one Catholic in particular – myself. I am far too busy fighting to overcome that which displeases God in my own life to worry about what other Catholics are really like, although I suspect that they are for the most part a lot like me. “What is that to you? You follow Me.”

Protestants warned that I might get “left behind.”

Surprisingly, it turned out that the novel doctrine of the “secret rapture” so dear to Evangelical hearts is nothing more than theological speculation on their part, heavy on eisegesis and devoid of historicity. As a Catholic I await with the Church the glorious Second Coming of our Lord.

Protestants warned that I was leaving the Truth behind.

When I entered the Catholic Church, I left behind nothing that was true in all the Protestant denominations I had loved throughout my life. I entered into MORE truth, into the very Fullness of the Truth, when I was reconciled to the Church. After all, the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ the Lord, and so there is

no surprise about that at all!

On the memorial of St. Francis Xavier

Deo omnis gloria!