I learned from watching Speed too many times that, before you can attempt to change the course of a runaway bus, you first have to learn how to drive a bus.
Posted on 04/11/2007 10:43:02 AM PDT by NYer
[CMQ editor's note: The following feature is written in the form of letters to a friend. Though many today believe faith to be a simple emotional matter with no connection whatsoever to man's reasoning faculty, the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. It is the conviction of us here at CMQ that the Catholic religion makes sense, has impeccable historical credentials and explains the human condition. We believe that it is true, beautiful and good, and considering ourselves not so much different from the average man on the street, we think you will come to view it that way as well. Cited quotes are from Fr. John Hardon's The Catholic Catechism, published by Doubleday & Co., Inc. in 1975.]
Dear friend,
Have I yet convinced you of the reasonableness of Catholicism? I've lain out the proofs for the existence of God, examined the life and claims of Jesus Christ and made the case that He is the Son of God, that He did found a Church, the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church, as the one founded by God, is equipped by its Founder with all the "tools" necessary to get us, me and you, into Heaven.
Along the way, through these letters, I have tried to demonstrate that concluding the Catholic Church is the one founded by God is an exercise of reason very much rooted in history, but that seeing how God has set up His Church necessarily involves us in the supernatural. But the mistake people make in this "rationalistic" age is that when once someone mentions the term "supernatural," they automatically assume that the use of reason must be dispensed with.
When I call these letters, "A Common Sense Faith," I don't mean to imply that every aspect of the Faith can be "proven" by the use of reason. No, otherwise the very word faith would be rendered meaningless. Rather, my claim is that arriving at a satisfactory intellectual conviction that the Catholic Church is what She claims to be is possible, nay, probable when the evidence is looked at dispassionately.
When once you get into the particular claims of the Church involving those "things unseen" such as grace, miracles, the soul etc., the claim to common sense is made on two levels: 1) A fair inquirer has no right to dismiss them out of hand. I maintain that the belief in the supernatural, the very existence of those things unseen is the common patrimony of mankind such that it can be considered the "received wisdom of the species," our own, most vital cultural knowledge as human beings. Those who deny the existence of the supernatural, of the soul, of the possibility of miracles, are in such a minority in the history of the race as to be, as I've mentioned elsewhere, "freakish." The burden of proof that the material world is all there is should be, and is, on them.
2) That said, when once the possibility of a supernatural order is admitted, the claims made in that realm can and should be examined "reasonably" in two ways. First, check them out on their own merits. Does any particular religion's scheme or explanation of things jibe with your understanding of human nature, your notions of justice, your own "common sense" experience? (Not that these are the ultimate yardsticks — God's sovereign Will is — but people today think like this, and the Catholic Faith has nothing to fear from such inquiry, provided it is undertaken by a sincere seeker of the Truth.) And, secondly, do the supernatural claims of a particular belief system make sense within the logic of its own system. Does the system, in other words, "hold together."
Catholic beliefs about Mary, the Mother of God, very readily lend themselves to a discussion based on the last criteria, for the dogmas regarding her are vitally important to preserving the true belief concerning the nature of her Son. It has been beautifully expressed that Catholic beliefs about Mary constitute a "moat" built around our beliefs concerning Christ.
The Immaculate Conception...the Virgin Birth...the Assumption into Heaven. At least two of these three Marian dogmas cause endless trouble for non-Catholic Christians, and yet, they not only make perfect sense within the inherent logic of Christianity, they are indispensable to the preservation of the Faith.
Mary was and is the Immaculate Conception; in other words she was conceived without sin. Many people confuse this with the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but no, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception in the womb of her mother. Though both her parents were subject to sin, God, through a singular act of mercy and favor, preserved Mary from Original Sin from the moment of her conception. Though she was conceived in the natural manner, the Immaculate "aspect" of her Conception had nothing to do with her human parents; it was a free gift from God, all part of the divine plan.
After the fall of Adam and Eve, all of mankind enters the world tainted with Original Sin, a sort of twisted invisible birthmark on the soul passed on down the human line. All of us have been born with this Original Sin, with one exception other than Jesus Himself... a young Jewish woman who was to conceive and bear the Christ Child. Why did God deem it suitable to preserve Mary from Original Sin? Is it not common sense? The Son of God, who has nothing to do with sin, entered this world in such a way that neither of His parents could pass on the "genetic flaw" because His mother did not have it and, well, God is God. It would be beneath the dignity of God to enter the world through anything but a spotless vessel.
"Why did Christ have to be born of a human mother?" you might ask. "If God is so into miracles why didn't He just appear out of thin air?" Well, I suppose you are right. God could do things anyway He likes. He's God. But the way in which He did enter human history as a man makes sense. Had he "appeared out of thin air," Christ would not have been both human and divine. Remember, His purpose in coming was to redeem us, to free us from our sins, to "make up for" the original fall of Adam.
A human fault calls for a human remedy. Thus Christ's humanity. But the gravity of the fault — a lowly creature (Adam) offending the sovereign Creator — required something, ahem, greater than a mere human could provide. Thus Christ's divinity. The God/Man Jesus Christ was the perfect sacrifice...because He, though God, shared in and elevated our humanity by assuming it and took our burden upon Himself. So, because it was most fitting and appropriate, Jesus would and did come into the world through a human mother, and, yes, she was "Immaculate."
The Virgin Birth refers to the Catholic belief that Mary remained a physical virgin throughout the entire process of her Son's conception and birth, and we Catholics rightly believe that she remained a virgin throughout her life. The reality of the Virgin Birth is contested by rationalists and non-Christians, but it is telling today that many of those who have lost the Catholic Faith, be they tenth-generation Protestants or people who still call themselves "Catholics," have trouble with the concept as well.
But, like the Immaculate Conception, it is fitting, as Fr. Hardon, quoting St. Augustine, makes clear: "When God vouchsafed to become Man, it was fitting that he should be born in this way. He who was made of her, had made her what she was: a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth; a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child — a virgin ever virgin." Given the fact of the Incarnation, its manner becomes a matter of course (p. 151). In other words, given Who Christ is, the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth make sense. Just as He preserved Her spiritually through the Immaculate Conception, so did He preserve her physically through the Virgin Birth.
But what of the Assumption?
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary refers to the fact that she was "assumed" into Heaven, body and soul at the moment of her passing into eternal life. (We don't say she "died," because death is a consequence of sin and she was without sin, original or otherwise.) For the rest of us, when we die, our bodies go to the ground (to be resurrected later) while our souls go to be judged. The two separated aspects of the human person will only be reunited later.
Unlike Mary's, our bodies are subject to decay because of sin. Mary, being free from Original Sin lacked the strong inclination to commit sin which we have, and never in fact did so, thus making her Assumption possible, the natural consequence of belief in the story of her life and that of her Son. The old saying "weighed down by his sins" describes the rest of us, not the Mother of God. This "sinless weightlessness," if you will, makes the image of the Holy Mother rising into the heavens one that we can embrace rather than doubt and cherish rather than scorn. The bodies of many saints have been found to be incorrupt years and years after their deaths. We Catholics view incorruptibility as a heavenly indicator of the person's holiness. But the privilege of the Assumption, again the consequence of absolute purity, is reserved to the Blessed Virgin.
The interconnectedness of the various dogmas of Catholicism and their inner logic was made clear by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Fulgens Corona. Fr. Hardon writes, "According to Pius (XII, ed.), the Assumption was a consequence of die Immaculate Conception, not merely in the superficial sense of something suitable, but in the logic of supernatural merit and providence.
These two singular privileges (her Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, -ed.) bestowed upon the Mother of God stand out in most splendid light as the beginning and the end of her earthly journey. For the greatest possible glorification of her virgin body is the complement, at once appropriate and marvelous, of the absolute innocence of her soul, which was free from all stain. Just as she took part in the struggle of her only-begotten Son with the serpent of hell, so also she shared in his glorious triumph over sin and its sad consequences." (p. 162)
So, my friend, the Catholic beliefs concerning Mary serve not only to protect the authentic, traditional view of Jesus Christ, they also are intimately related one to the other. The Immaculate Conception best satisfies what thought asks of us in considering the mystery of Christ's two natures, human and divine; the Virgin Birth extends to the physical realm the spiritual preservation of the Most Perfect Vessel through which God chose to be born; and the Assumption naturally follows from that spiritual and physical preservation.
Hail Mary, full of grace....
What an interesting line of thinking.
Just because people disagree with some of the dogma of the Catholic Church does not make them anti-Catholic, but just non-Catholic. I don’t accept extra-Bilbical dogmas created by any church. If Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary’s Assumption into heaven were essential beliefs, they would have been included in the Bible and not added to the official dogma in the 1850’s. I don’t understand how core beliefs can be a moving target.
I am not very familiar with the Biblical basis for the Assumption. However, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the Immaculate Conception is clearly spelled out in the Bible.
The fact that the term is not there doesn’t make a bit of difference, the term Trinity isn’t there either.
And that is a problem for me, because it all needs to start from what God said.
Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed." This refers to Jesus (the "emnity") and Mary (the "woman"). The phrase "her seed" (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
Gen 3:15 / Rev. 12:1 - the Scriptures begin and end with the woman battling satan. This points to the power of the woman with the seed and teaches us that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.
John 2:4, 19:26 - Jesus calls Mary "woman" as she is called in Gen. 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. This woman's seed will crush the serpent's skull.
Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is "parthenos") will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means "God is with us." John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.
Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.
Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God (the "Theotokos").
Luke 1:28 - "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.
Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase "full of grace" is translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene." This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.
Luke 1:38 - Mary's fiat is "let it be done to me according to thy word." Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.
Luke 1:42 - "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus." The phrase "blessed are you among women" really means "you are most blessed of all women." A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.
Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth's use of "Mother of my Lord" (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used "Adonai" which means Lord God) is the equivalent of "Holy Mary, Mother of God" which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus' Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus' human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).
Luke 1:44 - Mary's voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth's womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.
Luke 1:46 - Mary claims that her soul magnifies the Lord. This is a bold statement from a young Jewish girl from Nazareth. Her statement is a strong testimony to her uniqueness. Mary, as our Mother and intercessor, also magnifies our prayers.
Luke 1:48 - Mary prophesies that all generations shall call her blessed, as Catholics do in the "Hail Mary" prayer. What Protestant churches have existed in all generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions?
Gal. 4:4 - God sent His Son, born of a woman, to redeem us. Mary is the woman with the redeemer. By calling Mary co-redemptrix, we are simply calling Mary "the woman with the redeemer." This is because "co" is from the Latin word "cum" which means "with." Therefore, "co-redemptrix" means "woman with the redeemer." Mary had a unique but subordinate role to Jesus in salvation.
Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - the word "saints" (in Hebrew "qaddiysh") means "holy" ones. So Mary is called Holy, the greatest Saint of all.
Luke 2:35 - Simeon prophesies that a sword would also pierce Mary's soul. Mary thus plays a very important role in our redemption. While Jesus' suffering was all that we needed for redemption, God desired Mary to participate on a subordinate level in her Son's suffering, just as he allows us to participate through our own sufferings.
Luke 2:19,51 - Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart. Catholics remember this by devoting themselves to Mary's Immaculate Heart and all the treasures and wisdom and knowledge contained therein.
"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead." Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).
"Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).
"And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God." Athanasius, Orations III, 14(A.D. 362).
"Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting." Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 14 (A.D. 370).
"He reshaped man to perfection in Himself, from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit." Epiphanius, The man well-anchored, 75 (A.D. 374).
"Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God?" Ambrose, Virginity, II:6 (c. A.D. 378).
"If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead." Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius, 101 (A.D. 382).
"To the question: 'Is Mary the bearer of Man, or the bearer of God?' we must answer: 'Of Both.'" Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation, 15 (ante A.D. 428).
"And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God." John Cassian, The Incarnation of Christ, II:2 (A.D. 430).
"But since the Holy Virgin brought forth after the flesh God personally united to the flesh, for this reason we say of her that she is Theotokos, not as though the nature of the Word had its beginning of being from the flesh, for he was in the beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God...but, as we said before, because having personally united man's nature to himself..." Cyril of Alexandria, To Nestorius, Epistle 17:11 (A.D. 430).
"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, 'The Word was made flesh': let him be anathema." Council of Ephesus, Anathemas Against Nestorius, I (A.D. 430).
"For by the singular gift of Him who is our Lord and God, and withal, her own son, she is to be confessed most truly and most blessedly--The mother of God 'Theotocos,' but not in the sense in which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains, that she is to be called the Mother of God for no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards became God, just as we speak of a woman as the mother of a priest, or the mother of a bishop, meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say, was the holy Mary 'Theotocos,' the mother of God, but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 15 (A.D. 434).
"So then He was both in all things and above all things and also dwelt in the womb of the holy Mother of God, but in it by the energy of the incarnation." John Damascene, Source of Knowledge, III:7 (A.D. 743).
Mary in Feminist Theology: Mother of God or Domesticated Goddess?
Feast of Mary, Mother of God (not a Holy Day of Obligation this year)
MARIAN DEVOTION - Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God
A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
Why not?
If Immaculate Conception of Mary or Mary’s Assumption into heaven were essential beliefs, they would have been included in the Bible and not added to the official dogma in the 1850’s.
How does that follow? Using that reasoning, if the Gospel were an essential dogma, then it would been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
I don’t understand how core beliefs can be a moving target.
Do you understand how the Church can *grow* in its understanding of its core beliefs? I recommend Newman's An Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
-A8
Were these Scripture citations intended for me as well?
“The Immaculate Conception best satisfies what thought asks of us in considering the mystery of Christ’s two natures, human and divine;”
Now there’s a reason why a reunion with orthodoxy won’t work! (Does that count as a Catholic bash?:))
Dunno. Alex seems remarkably tame compared to many that grace these threads. I think it’s the tightrope walk he likes. Span.. never mind.
I learned from watching Speed too many times that, before you can attempt to change the course of a runaway bus, you first have to learn how to drive a bus.
There are plenty of people praying for Alex’s conversion, he’ll be a good Catholic yet. :-)
Sure he does!
Hail Mary, full of grace....
This comes directly from Luke 1
26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The archangels are messengers that stand before the throne of God. St. Luke wrote "kecharitomene". This is a perfect passsive participle, and as such, is very strong. It is of the verb "charitoo". The verbs in "oo" normally mean to put a person or thing into the state indicated by the root. That root here is "charis", which means favor or grace. But if we translate favor, we must keep firmly in mind that it does not mean God just sits there and smiles, giving nothing, so the person does something by his own power. That would be Pelagian. So it is best to use grace.
Very importantly, the word is used in place of a personal name. That is comparable to our English pattern of saying e.g., he is Mr. Tennis - meaning the ultimate in the category of tennis. So she is Miss Grace - the ultimate in the category of grace.
Not quite correct. Unless you reject the duterocannonicals. That particular consturction also shows up in Sirach 18:17, but only there: "Is not a word better than a gift? But both are with a justified man" Kecharitomene being rendered here as Justified, but still meaning completely, once and for all time. In Sirach it refers to an ideal man; In Mary the ideal made flesh.
They'll have to repeal the anathemas of Trent first :>P
How about this portion of the Magnificat - verse 47...
"And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." - New American Standard
"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" - New International Version
"my spirit rejoices in God my savior." - New American Bible
It appears that Mary knew that she needed a Savior, doesn't it?
Yes. Whoever said she didn’t?
Well, if Mary had an Immaculate Conception, she would not need a Savior because she would not have any sin to be saved from.
But in her own words, she acknowledges the need of a Savior.
Salvation is a gift, not something you can earn.
from fellow Freeper Patrick Madrid -
Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)
Centuries ago, theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, “Thank you for saving me,” recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord “stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag” (Psalm 40:2-4).
A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, “Thank you for saving me” (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less “saved” than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.