Replies

In my last letter, O Theophilus, I raised the difficulties and problems of the idea of "necessity," as applied to God and His actions. But, as is my wont, let me begin with a digression about a problem that I, as a Xtian theist, experience in discussions with atheists and, as a Catholic, experience in discussions with Protestants.

I am told that in both the original and the remake of Sagan's "Cosmos" there is a hint that in thinking that among all these billions and billions of stars, man would be the only rational animals is ego-centric. But a fortnight ago I urged my, ahem, auditors to consider that maybe, just maybe, God is 'crazy in Love with us.' Maybe we should look at all these splendors and wonders as something like the extravagant expressions of love which adolescent boys used to liable to.

In other words, what the atheists think is ego-centrism or vanity is not something we think about ourselves, but something we think about the ever-astonishing generosity, extravagance, one might even say profligacy of God.

Okay. Mutatis mutandis, despite the clear language of Ineffabilis Deus

... beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, ...
... the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, ...

people strangely persist in saying that there was something other than (to be redundant) gratuitous grace involved -- grace flowing through the saving act of IHS -- in Mary's immaculate conception. I can understand how one might disagree with the dogma. I cannot understand how anyone could say that WE TEACH that this had to do with intrinsic merits or characteristics of our Lady. Just as her being Theotokos, Dei Genetrix, and Dei Para depends not on her but on the gift and "operation" of the Holy Ghost, so also the only source of her freedom from sin is God Himself and His act in IHS XP.
===

Another reason to consider this dogma is to think about God and Time. In the union of the two natures in One Christ there are interesting aspects concerning time and eternity:

Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity,
and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer, in respect of his humanness.

The relationship of time and eternity leads to interesting problems of theological expression. As an example, the Sin of Adam is from Creation to Easter, an utter disaster. But from Easter to the Consummation it is the "felix culpa," the happy fault which led to so astoundingly great a redemption:

O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum, quod Christi morte delétum est!
O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

(I think I should say that I have been copared to jukebox. Put in a question, and I blab for half an hour.
But this is enough for one post.)

So, AFTER the Nativity, what we see is that Christ, in whom ALL the Grace and the PERFECTION of grace is embodied, came to us through Mary. While "hypothesis contrary to fact" arguments are almost always useless (Aslan doesn't talk about what might have been) we see what happened.

So it is not totally off the wall, in contemplation of events as they happened, to say that Mary is the gate of Grace. Personally, on both 3/25 and 12/25 I often find myself thinking of Ps. 24 and the entry of the King of Glory -- into the womb and into the world.

Daniel1212 balks at the idea of IHS owing thanks to Mary. If he has been married and fathered a child, maybe he should talk to his wife about it. I know that I thanked God more than daily for the privilege and delight of serving my infant child, and my gratefulness to her for being and to God for making her was not diminished by thinking she owed me some thanks -- even though I was in many respects her unprofitable servant since I did only what was required of me.

And though in some sense she SHOULD love me, the first time she actually said so, I practically melted into the floor for joy.

People say, and sometime we Catholics deserve it, that we have too much of a bookkeeping approach to merit and grace: one rosary = so many quanta of grace.

I think this, and Daniel1212's balking arise from an impoverished notion of justice and grace. Certainly at the first peel of the onion, all things come from God, and we only give Him what is His. But it is not for nothing that we more often speak of God as Father than as King.

It is altogether fitting and proper that my daughter should give me a gift on Father's Day -- even if I have to give her the money and drive her to the store. And as Father, when I receive the gift I provided, I love my daughter all the more and give her a big hug or two or a dozen.

So while the first peel of the onion is that I cannot owe my daughter anything, the second peel is that because of my great love for my daughter, I am delighted to owe her my love and thanks.

We present an inaccurate picture of God, IMHO, if we present him only as the Roman paterfamilias with all power, even of life and death, over his children. It's true, to be sure, but not true enough.

I'm too tired even to begin to talk about Pauline mysticism. I'll say this, that a word study on Paul's use of "in" and "into" and another on his use of "spirit" and "flesh" lead to interesting thoughts.

God does not lie. If he says we are sons and heirs, he means it to come to pass. The ontology of the perfected saint is, well, something to consider.

And all this, Daniel1212, is why I said we would have to start writing books. I have only skimmed the surface here.