December 31, 2007
Theotokos
(Tim Jones)
From my blog Old World Swine;
Tomorrow - January 1st - is more than just the beginning of a new
calendar year in the West. It is, much more significantly, the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God.
The USCCB site gives the SCRIPTURE READINGS for the day.
From the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D. -
"We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational
soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead,
the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the
virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial
with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for
a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ,
one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union,
we confess the holy virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word
took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself
the temple he took from her"
Posted by Tim Jones in Liturgical Year, Mary | Permalink | Comments (34)
May 25, 2007
Sorry, Grunerites
(Jimmy Akin)
THAT'S ALL THERE IS, AND THERE AIN'T NO MO'.
EXCERPTS:
The strange thing, Cardinal Bertone said in the new book, is that Pope John Paul decided to publish the secret precisely to put an end to the wild speculation that had surrounded it.
Good point!
"The most absurd theses" were being spread, mainly presuming that the secret predicted catastrophic world events or widespread heresy at the top levels of the church, Cardinal Bertone said.
"Clearing up the question was a pastoral concern," he said.
EXCERPT:
"There is no fourth secret," he declared yesterday. "Everything has been published and correctly interpreted."
AND HERE'S THE POPE'S FOREWORD TO THE BOOK.
And let it not be forgotten that when the Third Secret was revealed, His Awesomeness Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety.
SOURCE: THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA.
Either B16 is a liar or not.
I know where my money is.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (236)
February 14, 2007
Who's Holding Back Who's Hand?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I’m in RCIA right now, and I have a question that’s been bothering me for a while. I’m hoping you can shed some light. Someone on one of the combox threads posted the following:
“Our lady is holding back the hand of her beloved son from seeking retribution on those who wear the clerical cloth and those that are worshiping as humanists and not God himself.”
Now, the fellow in question may or may not be right, but I’m sure I’ve heard the first part of the quote before.
Here’s my question: I thought (as a Protestant) that it was Jesus who was staying the hand of God (out of love for His Son, God was withholding immediate judgment on the world). The quote makes it sound like it’s Mary who’s staying the hand of Jesus. I know the Church teaches that Mary intercedes for us with Christ, but this is starting to sound like a daisy chain. Help?
It's understandable that this type of image would be a bit perplexing, especially if one is coming from a Protestant background, since many Protestants stress the idea of Jesus turning away God's wrath from us.
Basically, the "holding back the hand" metaphor is just that: a metaphor. As such, it contains elements of truth, but it is also figurative. Mary is not literally holding back Jesus' bodily hand to keep him from physically whacking erring clergymen. Neither is Jesus literally holding back God the Father's hand to keep him from physically squashing us with it. That's a metaphor.
The question is: What does the metaphor mean and what are its limits?
It would seem that the metaphor can refer to the fact that it is through Christ's death (and his ongoing intercession at the "right hand" [another metaphor] of the Father) that we are treated more mercifully than we otherwise would be. In this sense we can say that Jesus restrains the "wrath" (bad consequences) that would otherwise come to us, for God has chosen to make his mercy toward us conditional on the work of his Son. Thus Jesus could be depicted as staying the Father's wrath or holding back his hand.
But the metaphor also has limits. First, God doesn't literally get angry. Anger is a passion, and God doesn't have passions. When Scripture speaks of God's anger, it's using a metaphor to communicate the idea that he will allow bad consequences to occur to those on earth on account of their wrongdoing. He's not literally seething with rage.
Quite the contrary! It is he who sent his Son to die for us on the Cross and thus provide salvation in spite of our sins! God sent his Son because he loves us and wants us to be saved. Thus he's really on our side. It's true that he will allow bad things to happen if we refuse his offer of grace (i.e., he will allow us to choose to reject him if we insist on it; he won't force himself on us), but he wants to provide us with grace, and he sent his Son to make that possible.
Thus if we wish to view what is literally true, we must look past the metaphor of anger and of Jesus restraining his Father from squashing us in a fit of rage. That image is not literally true.
The content of the metaphor seems to consist in two points: (1) We deserve bad consequences for our sins but (2) we don't receive these bad consequences because of Jesus' work on our behalf.
Going beyond the metaphor, we also recognize (3) the Father loves us and (4) it is he himself who sent his Son so that we might receive mercy.
The same exact thing applies if we speak of Mary (or anyone else) restraining divine wrath. That's a metaphor as well, and it communicates basically the same content, with the necessary changes folded in.
God wants to give us benefits, but he has willed that these benefits sometimes be contingent on the prayer of others. Thus he encourages the Christian community to be built up in love and concern for each other by giving it additional benefits when we are drawn out of ourselves to be concerned for and to pray for other people. It's his reward system for turning our thoughts to him and to others, instead of focusing exclusively on our selves.
Based on this fact, it would be possible to modify the metaphor of restraining divine anger such that the intercession of Mary (or anyone else who prays) is pictured as what averts the bad consequences that would otherwise come. As the Mother of Christ, Mary is a particularly powerful intercessor, and so this metaphor is sometimes applied to her, but it could also be applied any time anyone's prayers help us out.
Yet the content of the metaphor is basically the same: (1) We deserve bad consequences on account of our wrongdoings but (2) we don't receive these bad consequences (at least in some cases) because of the intercession of another (Mary, in the case we are considering).
Looking beyond the metaphor, we also realize (3) that God (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) loves us and (4) it was God himself (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) who allows us to be blessed through the intercession of others, based on the work of Christ.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (166)
January 24, 2007
More Help For Mike
(Jimmy Akin)
Mike in Michigan has posted another video (above), updating us on his investigations into the Catholic faith.
He also asks a question about the Immaculate Conception. This was something that I had to research and think about when I was becoming Catholic as well, and I certainly understand the concern for someone from a Protestant background.
He also adds a little bit in the combox down yonder in which he indicates that he understands that Romans 3:23 (the "all have sinned" passage) doesn't mean absolutely all or it would include Jesus, which it obviously doesn't. This is quite correct, and I've often pointed out that later on in Romans Paul refers to a time when Esau (not our Esau) and Jacob were still int he womb and had not yet done anything good or bad, indicating that unborn children are also an exception to the "all have sinned" principle.
The question then is not whether there are exceptions but whether Mary counts as an exception and why.
For Catholics there are two sources by which the faith is passed down to us from the apostles: Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority), while it is not itself a source of the faith, is able to make rulings on what the content of Scripture and Tradition are. That's how we got the canon of Scripture for example: The Magisterium identified certain works as genuine Scripture. It is also capable of determining which Traditions are authentic and which are not.
When it comes to the Immaculate Conception, this doctrine is not taught explicitly in Scripture. It is thus like the Trinity, which is not taught explicitly , either. You have to go around to a variety of different verses in order to build up the evidence that shows that God is a Trinity. It's not stated directly. The Immaculate Conception is also like the Trinity in that it took a while for the concepts and vocabulary needed to express the doctrine to develop. You can't talk about the Trinity if the word "Trinity" hasn't been coined yet, and you can't talk about the Immaculate Conception--Mary's freedom from all stain of original sin--if the term "original sin" has not yet been coined.
It thus took a while for Christian theology to develop the concepts and vocabulary needed to articulate the idea of Mary's unique holiness.
That holiness is something that Christians have always had an insight of--as the writings of the Church Fathers show--but it took a while to figure out the precise nature and extent of this unique gift.
There are indications of it in Scripture itself, the clearest echo of the doctrine being in the Annunciation in Luke 1, where the Angel Gabriel refers to Mary with the Greek word "kecharitomene," which is commonly translated "full of grace," but more literally would be "one who has been graced." This word draws on aspects of Greek grammar that indicate that Mary has, in the past, received God's grace and that this has continuing effects at the present time.
The question is: How far back in the past was she graced and what are the specific effects? As Christians reflected on this and on the writings of the Church Fathers, it was discerned that--because of her unique role in the history of salvation--Mary was graced at the first moment of her existence (her conception) with the effect that she was prevented from contracting any stain of original sin.
Part of the conceptual background for this was the realization of Mary's role as the New or Second Eve, something that the Church Fathers are explicit about very early. It was discerned that, just as God started humanity with a first Adam and Eve, he started redeemed humanity with a New Adam and a New Eve. Thus St. Paul refers to Jesus' role as the New Adam, and the Church Fathers identify Mary as the New Eve. Thus, just as Eve cooperated with Adam in bringing sin to the world (by giving him the forbidden fruit), Mary cooperated with Jesus in bringing salvation to the world (by serving as his mother).
Similarly, just as both the first Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions, the new Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions. The difference is that while the first pair fell from grace, the second remained faithful.
A basis for the Immaculate Conception can thus be discerned in Mary's role as the New Eve.
YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT THAT HERE.
It seems to me that another basis for the Immaculate Conception can be seen in the fact that Mary is the Prototypical Christian. She is the first to say yes to Jesus, which she agrees to become his mother, and this makes her a model of all Christians. In keeping with this, God chose to make her an image of Christian destiny by giving her the gifts that one day all faithful Christians will receive. Specifically, he grave her the gift of being immaculate and he assumed her to be with hi Son. This mirrors the fact that faithful Christians will one day be rendered just as immaculate--just as free of sin and its stain--as Mary, and they will also be caught up to be with Christ (only at the end of the world, not at an earlier point as in Rapture teaching). By giving Mary--the Prototypical Christian--these gifts early, God made her an icon of the destiny of the Christian.
Thus the Catechism refers to Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508) because the gifts of Christ's redemption were given to her in an extraordinary way.
There is also a basis in the fact that she is simply Christ's mother. It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn't choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.
There are no limits to God's ability to grant holiness to someone, and thus if he chooses to make someone extraordinarily holy, he has the power to make the person totally holy. That would be the kind of mother that would be fitting for the Son of God, and thus that's the kind of mother that God chose to make Mary.
These themes rumble through the Tradition that is found in the writings of the early Church Fathers and later theologians, and eventually the matter was brought to the point that the Magisterium of the Church infallibly defined that this--like the Trinity--is, indeed, an authentic Tradition from the apostles, even if the apostles wouldn't have used the vocabulary we use today to express the insight.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (38)
June 28, 2006
Ever Virgin
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones, here.
Several days ago, while commenting on Jimmy's post entitled James White Responds, I replied to a Catholic-basher who wrote -
"You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary's hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ. By agreeing with that ancient heresy, you guys are by implication sayin that Christ didn't have a real human body..."
Now, I knew this was bunk. In my 14 years as a Catholic, I have never heard this taught by anyone. So, I replied-
"Catholics believe no such thing. That is NOT what is meant by Mary's perpetual virginity.".
And I wasn't alone. Another commenter replied
"Nobody in the Catholic church is required to believe this.".
... which is certainly my understanding.
I admit that, though I studied well enough on my way to becoming a Catholic, and though I feel I have a good grasp of the fundamentals (thanks to folks like Ludwig Ott and Jimmy Akin), I am no apologist. I am not widely read, and there are doubtless a number of ancillary topics of which I know little or nothing. I am familiar with the Catechism (and have taught CCD classes, as well as Confirmation prep and RCIA), but I have not delved very deeply into either theology or Church history (the councils and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church).
So, I was very interested to see a later commenter write -
"Actually, Free Grace is close to the mark on the perpetual virginity thing... the dogma of the perpetual virginity states that Mary remained a virgin before, *during*, and after Jesus' birth, and the "during" is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary's virginity..."
He went on to give THIS LINK to an article on the subject, by Fr. John Saward.
I followed the link and read the article. The commenter was right that a good number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church believed and taught that Mary remained physically intact (no disruption of the birth canal) even during Jesus birth. According to the article -
"It is of divine faith for Catholics to hold that our Lady not only conceived the divine Word as man "without seed, by the Holy Spirit" but also gave birth to Him "without corruption."."
The article continues -
"According to the Church's Doctors, this freedom from corruption means that the God-Man leaves His Mother's womb without opening it (utero clauso vel obsignato), without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.".
So it appears that I was wrong in asserting that "Catholics believe no such thing"... some Catholics do. But can this be called the teaching of the Church on this point? Is it, in fact, defined doctrine?
The Church does indeed maintain that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after Jesus' birth, giving birth to Christ "without corruption"... but what does this really mean? I am certainly open to the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way that was unlike natural childbirth... something like the way he could appear and disappear at will after his resurrection, seeming to move through walls.
But opinion has not been unanimous on the subject. The following are from Father Saward's footnotes to the article;
"...St John Chrysostom, for example, is content to assert the fact of the miraculous preservation of our Lady's virginity during childbirth and refuses to delve into the details; "...Although I know that a virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learnt to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech.".
"...Quite a few of the Fathers asked for an unambiguous declaration not only to affirm the Virginal Conception of Jesus—which the Christian faith has never doubted—but also fully to safeguard the aphorism Virgo ante partum, in partu et post partum. The Council thought that the terminology it employed could suffice for this end, without going into biological details. "
"...St Thomas says that the hymen pertains to virginity only per accidens, and that its rupture by any means other than sexual pleasure is no more destructive of virginity than the loss of a hand or foot (cf. ST 2a2ae q. 152, a. I, ad 3). However, he also holds that bodily integrity belongs to the perfection of virginity."
So, it appears to me that, though the council had the opportunity to affirm Mary's virginal integrity through childbirth in clearly physical terms, they chose not to do so.
Also, some saints and doctors of the Church (like St. John Chrysostom, above), while holding that Mary remained always a virgin, were reluctant to delve too deeply into the exact mode of Jesus' birth.
Perhaps for many, or even most, of the early Church Fathers and saints, it might have been impossible to imagine that a woman could be called a virgin once her female parts had been opened, either in the act of sex, or in the act of childbirth. They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary's virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms (just as we may be culturally conditioned to be skeptical of miraculous explanations).
In modern times, we have a narrower understanding of virginity that means merely "never having had sex". Indeed, if most of us today knew of a young woman who had conceived and given birth without the benefit of any male participation (no sex, no male seed to fertilize the egg) we would surely have no problem describing this as a "virgin birth", even though mother and child had experienced normal and natural childbirth. I would certainly never maintain that the woman could no longer truly call herself a virgin.
It seems to me, then, that Catholics, while they must uphold that the Blessed Virgin was truly "Ever Virgin", are free to believe either that,
1) Jesus slipped from his mother's womb in some miraculous way that preserved her from any bodily disruption (in other words, without opening her womb).
or that,
2) Jesus experienced a natural childbirth, but that this in no way disqualifies Mary from the title "virgin".
or some combination of the two (like perhaps it was a natural childbirth, but Mary was miraculously preserved from its physical effects).
This is all new to me, but my understanding at present is that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus slipped out of the womb like a vapor, or that Mary was physically unaltered through the birth process. I am open to either explanation, and can even see a certain poetic symmetry to the assertion, but I am not ready to say that it is anything like a dogma of the Church.
Posted by Tim Jones in Mary | Permalink | Comments (174)
December 23, 2005
Mary, Did You Know?
(Tim Jones)
Mary did you know, that your baby boy
Is Lord of all creation?
Mary did you know, that your baby boy
Will one day rule the nations?
Did you know, that your baby boy
Was Heaven's perfect Lamb?
And this sleeping Child you're holding
Is the Great I AM
From the song Mary, Did You Know?, lyrics by Mark Lowry
Okay...
Tim J here.
I know a lot of people like this song, especially at this time of year, and I am NOT trying to get anyone all twisted up about it, but I have to get something off my chest...
Every time I hear this song, I want to stand up and holler "YES, Mary knew! If ANYONE knew, she did!!"
In my mind, the song conjures up an image of Mary as a nonplussed and naive young girl, caught up in events she can't comprehend or control. This is not surprising, since the song was written by a Protestant Evangelical and this is the prevailing view of Mary among Protestants.
But, consider this from the first chapter of Luke's gospel:
And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers."
Now, even if I didn't believe that Mary was born without sin, after reading her Magnificat, I would begin to suspect that this was no ordinary little Jewish girl. She was perhaps 16 (give or take a year or two) at the time. How many sixteen-year-olds do you know who would put together a psalm of praise like that? Mary's Magnificat demonstrates that she not only knew who Jesus was, but what he meant to the nation of Israel and to the world.
Consider what the angel told her, also from Luke 1:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
But Mary had not just been told who Jesus was, she had direct experience of who he was, having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at his conception. She knew! Boy, did she know!
Now, I am not saying this is a bad song, or that Catholics shouldn't listen to it. I do, however, want to invite those who hear it to consider that Mary DID know precisely who Jesus was. The next time you hear Mary, Did You Know?, go and read the first chapter of Luke, and give thanks for all that God has done for us through our Blessed Mother.
Oh, and pray a Rosary!
Posted by Tim Jones in Mary | Permalink | Comments (99) | TrackBack
November 18, 2005
"Mary Is My Homegirl"
(Michelle Arnold)
In what might be dubbed a sequel to my post Growing Protestant Devotion To Mary, here is a report on teenage girls who are becoming, er, chummy, with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
"They're wearing 'Mary Is My Homegirl' T-shirts and bracelets, and not all of them are Roman Catholic.
[...]
"'Mary Is My Homegirl' T-shirts made by Teenage Millionaire, a California-based clothing company, have become one of the company's biggest sellers nationwide and recently got a mention on The Gilmore Girls, a humorous TV drama about a mother-daughter relationship.
"The shirt sports a figure of the Virgin Mary, some made in gold or silver lame on a black background.
"'In the past, there have been reservations about what some people see as "Mary-olatry [sic, Mariolatry]," or seeming to worship Mary,' said the Rev. James Lyon, pastor of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in downtown Columbia.
"'The new position is that there's nothing wrong with appropriate devotion. The key is to keep in mind that Mary can be seen as someone who points the way toward her son, Jesus Christ.'"
Although the Rev. Lyon's comments are great and sound downright Catholic (he even calls Mary "an intercessor for the people of God"), a quick peek at the t-shirts the article discusses leaves me thinking that this is less a case of teenage devotion to Mary than a case of fad-following. But if the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, then perhaps this fad might ultimately lead to a religious interest in Mary, which in turn might lead in the direction that the Rev. Lyon noted that all true Marian devotion ultimately leads.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mary | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
November 10, 2005
Growing Protestant Devotion To Mary
(Michelle Arnold)
Catholic News Agency reports a surge in Marian devotion among British Protestants:
"Walsingham is home to two Marian shrines -- one Catholic and the other Anglican -- located at opposite sides of the town.
[...]
"According to the New York Times, the number of Protestant pilgrims visiting the Marian shrine and staying overnight has risen since 1999, from 10,000 to 12,000.
"Protestant worshipers in Walsingham often belong to the Anglo-Catholic tradition, which accords greater reverence to the Virgin Mary than other Protestant sects, and uses the bells and incense like in the Roman Catholic liturgy.
"The shrines also appeal to other Christians, and the Orthodox and Methodist churches in the town are indicative of this."
This Rock ran an article a few years back on how one Catholic teacher presented the reasonableness of Marian devotion to Protestant students.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mary | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
Mary's Assumption
(Michelle Arnold)
Nod to the Curt Jester for this cartoon.
The cartoon reminded me of a letter to the editor in a long-ago issue of This Rock in which a reader proposed that the Assumption of Mary should be understood to mean that "we assume Mary is in heaven."
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mary | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
New Mary Document (ARCIC)
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Jimmy,
Do you kwow if, when the new document, "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ,",will be available and if we can download it anywere?
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=56648
http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory%3Fid%3D762213&hl=en
The document is available now, but it is not available for download.
For those who may not be up on what the reader is asking about, there is a new, just-out document from ARCIC (the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, or the main Anglican-Catholic ecumenical dialogue) called "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ." It's also called "the Seattle Statement" since key work done in drafting it was done in Seattle, where it was released Monday by the Catholic head of ARCIC (Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett) and the Anglican head (Peter Carnley, Archbishop of Perth).
I'd been hearing rumblings about the new document for a bit, but when it came out today, I immediately tried to get a copy.
Unfortunately, it isn't online--and the plans don't seem to be for it to be put online. The source I spoke to stressed the copywrited nature of the work (as have written resources I now have) and indicated that it was being produced by Continuum publishing
ORDERS ARE ALREADY BEING TAKEN FOR IT ONLINE, HERE.
ARCIC thus seems to be going the route of protecting their copyright and trying to make money via standard publishing. I don't know how ARCIC is funded--this may be something they need to do or are contractually bound to do, though for my money--in the Internet age--if you have a new ecumenical or ecclesiastical document that you want to make a really big splash with, the thing to do is slap it up on the Internet.
The source I spoke with was very helpful, though, and I now have a copy of the document, along with some supporting materials. Unfortunately, I can't simply post the whole thing. That would violate good faith with the source (as well as copyright law), but I can write about it (the source expects me to do that) and quote highlights under the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law (also expected).
So here goes . . .
This is a first take, not based on a full, exhaustive reading of the text.
First, the document makes its status clear right up front. It is not an official document of either Church:
It is a joint statement of the Commission. The authorities who appointed the Commission [that includes the Vatican's Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity] have allowed the statement to be published so that it may be widely discussed. It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the Anglican Communion, who will study and evaluate the document in due course.
The document is meant to specifically focus on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which were dogmas that previous ARCIC work had called for further discussion.
The document has a lengthy section on Mary in Scripture, followed by one on Mary in Christian Tradition, which amounts to a history of Marian belief and devotion in the Christian age (including in the Reformation). This section is quite well-written, accurate, balanced, and up-to-date, including things John Paul II did as recently as 2002. This section notes:
Jesus Christ was “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” This Anglicans and Roman Catholics together affirm [MGHC 33].
In receiving the Council of Ephesus and the definition of Chalcedon, Anglicans and Roman Catholics together confess Mary as Theotókos [MGHC 34].
There is then a theological section broaching remaining difficulties. It sets an eschatological framework for considering these difficulties, focusing on Mary's role in God's plan of the ages. It recognizes that God gave Mary graces to prepare her for her role as the Mother of the Messian and acknowledges her acceptance of God's will in this role. It thus states:
With the early Church, we see in Mary’s acceptance of the divine will the fruit of her prior preparation, signified in Gabriel’s affirmation of her as ‘graced’. We can thus see that God was at work in Mary from her earliest beginnings, preparing her for the unique vocation of bearing in her own flesh the new Adam, “in whom all things in heaven and earth hold together” (Colossians 1:17). Of Mary, both personally and as a representative figure, we can say she is “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand” (Ephesians 2:10) [MGHC 55].
It goes on to say regarding the Immaculate Conception:
In view of her vocation to be the mother of the Holy One (Luke 1:35), we can affirm together that Christ’s redeeming work reached ‘back’ in Mary to the depths of her being, and to her earliest beginnings. This is not contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and can only be understood in the light of Scripture. Roman Catholics can recognize in this what is affirmed by the dogma - namely “preserved from all stain of original sin” and “from the first moment of her conception" [MGHC 59].
Regarding the Assumption, it states:
[G]iven the understanding we have reached concerning the place of Mary in the economy of hope and grace, we can affirm together the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture and that it can, indeed, only be understood in the light of Scripture. Roman Catholics can recognize that this teaching about Mary is contained in the dogma. While the calling and destiny of all the redeemed is their glorification in Christ, Mary, as Theotókos, holds the pre-eminent place within the communion of saints and embodies the destiny of the Church [MGHC 58].
It also says concerning these two doctrines:
We have agreed together that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of 1854 and 1950, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of grace and hope outlined here, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions [MGHC 60].
But it immediately goes on to note that Anglicans have a problem regarding these as obligatory for belief.
There is a final section on Mary in the life of the Church. It acknowledges Mary's unique role in the communion of the saints and takes up the subject of praying to the saints. After reviewing many of the passages commonly cited in Catholic apologetic writings on the subject, it states:
It is in this sense that we affirm that asking the saints to pray for us is not to be excluded as unscriptural, though it is not directly taught by the scriptures to be a required element of life in Christ. Further, we agree that the way such assistance is sought must not obscure believers’ direct access to God our heavenly Father, who delights to give good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:11) [MGHC 70].
Citing the "Behold your mother" passage in John, the document notes that Christian believers
may come to see Mary as mother of the new humanity, active in her ministry of pointing all people to Christ, seeking the welfare of all the living. We are agreed that, while caution is needed in the use of such imagery, it is fitting to apply it to Mary, as a way of honouring her distinctive relationship to her son, and the efficacy in her of his redeeming work [MGHC 72].
Regarding Marian devotion, the document says;
Many Christians find that giving devotional expression to their appreciation for this ministry of Mary enriches their worship of God. Authentic popular devotion to Mary, which by its nature displays a wide individual, regional and cultural diversity, is to be respected [MGHC 73].
It adds a discussion of apparitions and the devotion showed regarding them and states:
We are agreed that, within the constraints set down in this teaching to ensure that the honour paid to Christ remains pre-eminent, such private devotion is acceptable, though never required of believers [ibid.]
Summing up the topic of Marian devotion and praying to the saints, it states:
Affirming together unambiguously Christ’s unique mediation, which bears fruit in the life of the Church, we do not consider the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us as communion dividing. Since obstacles of the past have been removed by clarification of doctrine, by liturgical reform and practical norms in keeping with it, we believe that there is no continuing theological reason for ecclesial division on these matters [MGHC 75].
The document concludes by noting that "Our statement has sought not to clear away all possible problems" (MGHC 80), which is a key statement that needed to be there since the document does not report full agreement on all points. It does open the door for Anglicans to believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for example, but acknowledges that Anglicans find it difficult to say that such beliefs should be required.
Early work by ARCIC was found problematic by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (prompting clarifications to be made), but based on the brief look at the document that I've been able to have, I'm not sensing such problems with this one. This document does not seem to be papering over divisions with ambiguous formulae (one of the problems with the early work) and seems to clearly acknowledge when the two groups are not in full agreement.
In terms of what is new in the document that might advance the cause of authentic ecumenism, it strikes me that the Catholic group does not do that much that is new toward answering Anglican concerns. Instead, the document cites a long string of things Catholics have already done that ameliorate the kinds of concerns Anglicans had after the time of the Reformation. In other words, it acknowledges that the kind of hyper-Marian things many Protestants were afraid of regarding Catholic Marian belief and practice have been carefully nuanced already by the Catholic Church.
Most of the reassurances that Anglicans would have sought thus have already been made in different Catholic documents. It helps, though, to have a joint document acknowledging that these reassurances havfe been made.
Most of the "new" things in the document therefore fall on the Anglican side of things. They display a remarkable degree of openness toward Catholic Marian belief and practice. While this stops short of a full endorsement or mandate of the Catholic perspective, it is still a remarkable step forward.
Since this is not an official document of either Church, it speaks only for the actual participants in the dialogue and is presented to the two communions for reflection. Unless there's something that I missed, I don't think that the Holy See will have a problem with what it says (maybe a phrase here or there). What I will be most interested to see is the reaction that it gets in the Anglican communion. If it receives a positive reception there, it could have a significant impact on future relations and lead to a broadening and deepening of Marian belief and practice in Anglicanism.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
April 25, 2005
Our Lady Of The Underpass, Redux
(Michelle Arnold)
Kewly enough, I noticed that my humble post on "Our Lady of the Underpass" has been picked up elsewhere. However, not all readers of this blog have yet picked up on the distinction that JimmyAkin.org is currently a group blog, so my post was mistakenly attributed to Jimmy. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries writes:
"And finally, Dave Armstrong saw my note on Mary stains, and has fulfilled my wildest dreams by telling his fellow Catholics to get a grip (a little paraphrase there). Thank you Mr. Armstrong. Now, if you could be so kind as to go down to Chicago and try that out in front of all those folks lighting candles, I'd like to see their reaction. Or, how about cleaning the stain off the wall while explaining that? Yes, that would be interesting. But maybe Armstrong will comment on this amazing comment cited by Jimmy Akin about the same 'stains.'"
[White here cites the original post. His editorial comment: "Um ... yeah, wow. OK."]
Since the post has garnered a bit of controversy, even within the comments section of my post itself, I decided that a bit of clarification would be helpful:
The commenter I cited, a reader of Relapsed Catholic, implicitly agreed that the stains on the wall in question are just that, stains. As one reader of my post pointed out, when Mary actually appears, she simply appears. In all true apparitions, it's really Mary, not an image in toast, oil, or any other material thing:
"These things ARE NOT MARY. They are nothing, just shadows, oil slicks, water stains. Our Lady NEVER appears IN something, IN some medium. She simply APPEARS. I am really sick of these stories, they really get my goat. Don't these people know ANYTHING about verified Marian appearances? Rant over. For now" (emphasis is the reader's).
(As a quick side note, even the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, miraculously impressed on St. Juan Diego's tilma, is just that: An image. It was an image given as a sign to verify the reality of the apparitions given to St. Juan Diego himself.)
The distinction the person I quoted was trying to make, a distinction with which I agreed, is that it is in line with a genuinely Catholic piety to consider shapes vaguely similar to Mary to be images -- icons, if you will -- of Mary placed within creation. If such shapes are indeed placed within creation, then God does it; something Relapsed Catholic's commenter states whimsically by attributing the deed to the Child Jesus scribbling pictures of Mommy.
The Catholic worldview is an inherently sacramental and incarnational worldview. Because Catholics experience God spiritually through the physical reality of the sacraments, it is natural for them to instinctively see God’s hand at work in the physical order of things. That sacramental experience of God enables Catholics to draw more deeply from the reality of the Incarnation than might non-sacramental Christians who only experience God cerebrally. Thus, Catholics can draw connections that might otherwise horrify non-sacramental Christians. "Our Lady of the Underpass" is one example.
As another example, I once read a book on St. Joseph which quoted a Catholic saying that he especially loved St. Joseph because St. Joseph taught God how to be a man. When I first read that, I loved the idea but realized that this was a deeply Catholic sentiment that might well repulse Protestant Fundamentalists. It's not because they would disagree that Joseph was entrusted by God to raise and rear Jesus Christ; it's because they have not deeply pondered, as Catholics have over many centuries, what it means for God to have chosen to become a man. What it means that he chose to enter humanity as a baby rather than as a man full-grown. The repulsion would be the first instinct, the pious Christian reaction that it is impossible for man to teach God anything, even, to a certain extent, how to be a man. It would take deeper reflection to realize that there is nothing wrong with saying that Christ's earthly father taught him some of what it means to be a man, just as human fathers do for human sons.
Getting back to the original point: In short, yes, designs that appear to resemble Mary should not be mistaken for "apparitions" around which followings presumably develop. At best, such natural designs of sacred images are natural icons open to interpretation by others who may see other, non-sacred designs in them. Just like icons, such images should not be worshipped, but if they point the person onward to Mary and through her to Christ, neither should they be condemned. (And, in distinction to sacred icons, which should be treated with the reverence due such icons, there would be nothing wrong with eating a "Marian" grilled-cheese sandwich or scrubbing a "Marian" oil slick from a wall.)
Those non-sacramental Christians critiquing the Catholic reaction to such images should at least remember that the Catholic worldview is finely attuned to seeing the supernatural within the natural creation of God. Such Christians may not understand the conclusions Catholic draw from such a sensitivity to creation, but should at least be able to agree that it expresses a genuine Christian sentiment that all creation (which includes sandwiches and oil slicks), of which Christ is the firstborn, was created in Christ and for Christ, and thus gives glory to him (cf. Col. 1:15-16).
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mary | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 21, 2005
Our Lady of the Underpass
(Michelle Arnold)
Ordinarily, I don't pay much attention to "sightings" of Mary in all manner of creation. It kind of reminds me of the child's game of spotting pictures in clouds. That's not a bad thing, per se, but certainly not something that should be taken seriously. So, when I saw this story about another such "sighting," I sighed and shrugged.
However, a reader over at Relapsed Catholic had a wonderful comment on the matter, also working in an observation about our new Pope:
"I saw a clip today of a young German woman being interviewed in Rome. I forget her exact words, but she indicated that the election of Benedict represents the redemption of Germany: the country that produced Hitler has now produced a Pope. What a neat thought! [Especially when one remembers that both men were born on Holy Saturday. --MA]
"You probably caught that 'Our Lady of the Underpass' story. I admit I tend to roll my eyes when people see the Blessed Virgin in pieces of toast and parking garage walls. However, lately I've been smiling at the idea of the Child Jesus scribbling pictures of Mommy all over -- just because he can, you know?"
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Mary | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
March 15, 2005
Time On Protestants On Mary
(Jimmy Akin)
Time Magazine is doing a cover story on the Virgin Mary and how she is coming to be regarded in Protestant circles.
For a long time many in Protestant churches (myself among them, back in the day) have downplayed and even dissed the Blessed Virgin, which is rather extraordinary since, y'know, she's Jesus' mom.
Well, the times, they are a-changin.'
Partly due to Mel Gibson's treatment of Mary in The Passion of the Christ, partly due to cooling passions from the Reformation, partly due to Catholic apologetics, and partly due to thoughtful Protestant leaders who have been speaking out on the subject: Mary is now getting more of the respect and devotion she deserves in Protestant circles.
(Even if she does look like she's doing the "wax on, wax off" move on the Time cover--but, hey, they ain't Christian: They's Church of the MSM.)
I've been quite surprised at the changes taking place. One Protestant apologist I know speaks very openly about Mary and sounds very Catholic in doing so, even defending titles like Mediatrix on her behalf.
You thus might want to check out this issue of Time at at your local news stand.
OR USE THIS LINK TO EXPLORE THE PARTIAL MATERIAL THEY MAKE AVAILABLE TO NON-SUBSCRIBERS.
(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent it!)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (74) | TrackBack
March 02, 2004
Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh!
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I'm trying to piece together an apologetics answer involving some Greek and Aramaic and this is getting dangerous. Could you help? It centers on the objection to Catholics claiming that the "brothers of Jesus" actually refers to "cousins or kinfolk" following the indefinite term aha (I think) in Aramaic. Aramaic apparently has no strict term for cousin and the Greek author transliterated adelphos from the Aramaic "brother". So far so good. But someone recently retorted that if there is no term for cousin in Aramaic, why is Elizabeth called Mary's "cousin" (sungenes) in Luke 1, 36? OK, I've learned that "cousin" is only one word used here by English translators- along with kinswoman and relative. So, Elizabeth's not strictly meant to be seen as Mary's literal cousin. But now I'm trying to learn if there is a corresponding Aramaic term for the Elizabeth-Mary relationship as there is for the Jesus-Brothers relationship. It seems that, to be consistent, Luke must have transliterated some sort of Aramaic term to arrive at sungenes for the Elizabeth-Mary relation. Any ideas?First, let me take a moment to comment on the translation in Luke 1:36 in the New American Bible of sungenis (the feminine form of sungenēs) as "cousin." This is a terrible rendering that has caused confusion for countless faithful Catholics. It is just another one of the seemingly countless flaws with this translation. The meaning of the Greek word sungenēs (pronounced sun-gen-ace) is too general to be translated "cousin." "Relative," "kinsman," or (in the feminine) "kinswoman" would be acceptable translations. "Cousin" is simply wrong, and so clearly wrong that in Luke 1:36 in the current version of the NAB, they've stopped rendering it that way and translated it as "relative" instead. If only the translators hadn't been so irresponsible as to do the misrendering in the first place, countless Catholics would have been spared confusion.
Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for "cousin." If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”
Luke could have been translating any one of these more general terms (or, rather, their feminine equivalents) as sungenēs, or he could have been translating a different, general term, or he could have been paraphrasing what the angel said rather than translating from the Aramaic. There's really no way to know which is the case, but there certainly are alternatives.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Mary | Permalink | Comments (9)
