A Series of Posts – The Marian Dogmas Part II

Assumption

The dogma states that "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." Some distinctions: We don't know if she died first and then was assumed, or if she was assumed on the verge of death, or if she was assumed before dying. Also, we distinguish her assumption from the ascension of Jesus: Jesus ascended to heaven under his own power and on his own authority; Mary was assumed into heaven by the grace and power of God. It is symbolic of God's hope that all of us will one day be in heaven - that we will make the journey to our true home and bask in God's presence.

Regarding her bodily assumption, we believe that at the end of her life, due to her special place as the mother of Jesus, God lifted her (assumed her) directly into heaven (body, mind, soul & spirit). As the "first fruits" of Christ's redemptive sacrifice, she was able to forego the corruption of the physical body here on earth and proceed directly to the glory of the resurrection.

Perpetual Virginity

The earliest extant manuscript which talks about Mary's perpetual virginity (no sexual intercourse, no further children) is the Protogospel of James from around 150 AD. We see further discussion and development and finally acceptance of this teaching around the middle of the 4th century. Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome & Augustine all defended the doctrine, which was solemnly taught in 553 at the 5th Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople. Like the doctrine of divine motherhood, Mary's perpetual virginity points to the singular nature of her son, Jesus - it is not a detraction from the normal way of life for spouses, it is not a condemnation of married sexual love, and it is not an exaltation of celibacy over sexuality: it is another Marian teaching subsumed under Christology because it helps focus on the unique nature of the incarnation of Jesus.

I’m aware of the texts in the Gospels that talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The word that's usually translated as "brothers" (or “brothers and sisters”) in the NT can also refer to cousins, young uncles, close family friends, etc. - more of a close-knit tribe/family than just biological siblings. Since the word can go either way, and since the Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary (going along with the teaching of the early church) we take it to mean that Mary was indeed ever virgin.

Having said all that, we do not worship Mary, nor pray to her statues, nor offer offerings to her in lieu of God . . . all of the honor given to Mary as the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of God flows exactly from her special, singular and unique relationship to her son: one part of the Holy & Blessed Trinity.

Queen of Heaven (Not a dogma, but it fits well in this section)

Regarding Mary as Queen of Heaven, in ancient Israel it was the king's mother who reigned as queen, not his wife. Most kings had harems full of wives and concubines - none of them were ever called "queen" - it was always the mother of the king (and there was only ever one mother!) who was given that title in relation to her son. In 1 & 2 Kings the name of the Queen Mother is mentioned many times along that of her royal son. In Jeremiah 13:18 the Queen Mother is shown as wearing a crown just like her son the King. The Queen Mother was expected to help her son in his work, and she often served as an advocate for the people, hearing their petitions and taking them to the king. In 1 Kings 2 we have an account of Bathsheba coming in to see her son, the king - she is treated royally, with the king bowing to her and seating her in a place of honor - he listens to her and faithfully follows her wishes.

This is the historical and scriptural background which underscores the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth. For the ancient Jews who saw Jesus as a new Davidic king, Mary would naturally inherit the role of Queen Mother. When Elizabeth greeted Mary she used courtly language: “how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me." In the courtly language of the time "my Lord" was another way of saying "my king" - from the beginning of the gospel accounts we are given hints as to how Mary was regarded by those around her.

Continued in two days :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

A Series of Posts – The Marian Dogmas Part I

Still posting from a short essay I wrote – enjoy :)

We have three Marian dogmas (teachings) in the Catholic Church

a) Her divine motherhood (Theotokos, defined @ the Council of Ephesus in 431)
b) her Immaculate Conception (formally defined in 1854)
c) her bodily assumption into heaven (formally defined in 1950)

Plus one dogma that is not formally defined but still kept:
d) her perpetual virginity (baptismal formulation since the 3rd century)

Now some history & theology :-)

Divine Motherhood

Mary was declared theotokos (from the Greek; literally "to give birth to God"; usually transliterated as Mother of God) in direct contradistinction to the heresy that denied that Jesus was really God, or that he was fully human and fully divine. It is embedded in the church's Christological teaching because it helps describe and delineate the nature and person of Christ Jesus - it is not a separate teaching on it's own.

Regarding "Mother of God", this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos:

Theotokos is a compound of two Greek words, θεος "God" and τοκος "parturition, childbirth." Literally, this translates as "God-bearer" or "One who gave birth to God." However, since many English-speaking Orthodox find this literal translation is awkward, in liturgical use, "Theotokos" is often retained in Greek or translated as "Mother of God." This last is not precisely synonymous, as it does not have the same connotations of physical childbearing. Furthermore, "Mother of God" (Greek Μητηρ Θεου) has an established usage of its own in certain hymns, but especially on icons of the Theotokos, in which case it is usually abbreviated as ΜΡ ΘΥ (see illustration below).

I would add that the term officially first entered the Church's vocabulary in 431 @ the Council of Ephesus, and it entered in as a Christological term, not a Mariological term (that is, the term was meant to affirm something about Jesus, not Mary). Nestorius was preaching that Mary was only Mother to the human side of Jesus and that Jesus had two distinct natures - that he was almost a split being. "Nestorius conceived of the divine Logos and the human Jesus as two separate persons who were joined together in some sort of moral or sympathetic union. According to Nestorius, the Son of God had joined Himself to the child or man named Jesus because of Jesus' own moral excellence. And so Jesus was born, grew to manhood, hungered and thirsted, suffered pain, and was crucified, dead, and buried. The Son of God, on the other hand, endured none of these things. He was with Jesus — so much so that Nestorius taught that the man Jesus ought to be worshipped — but He was a different person altogether, one incapable of experiencing anything human. (From the council)

Immaculate Conception

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin." Again, the dogma doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is also tied into the Christological teaching of the Church. Because of the singular nature of Jesus' birth, because of her anticipated "yes" to God's call, because of the necessity of preparing a vessel of honor for the Son of God to inhabit and enter into our world, we believe that Mary was kept free of original sin (what might be translated as "sin-nature" by some strains of Christianity somewhat captures what Catholics believe about original sin) - that is, she was not radically broken or disconnected from God, not because of her special place, but because she was to be the mother of the savior - again, it sheds light and helps define a Christological function: that Jesus was and is the Son of the living God.

Next week – the rest of the Marian dogmas :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

A Series of Posts

One of the people I work with received a multi-page document arguing that the Catholic Church is erroneous in our teachings about Mary and the saints. I wrote a reply. The next several posts will be taken from that reply. Enjoy :)

I. Catholic Approach to Scripture

My response starts with the way Catholics view Biblical Inspiration. We are not literalists who believe that every word and punctuation mark was dictated by God to a responsive person who wrote it down like a dutiful secretary. God would never destroy our free will by making us automatons who only wrote what he told us to write.

However, we do not view Scripture as a purely man-made endeavor. We see Scripture being inspired by God, but the human authors working with God - using their God given free will - to craft sections of the Bible according to their intelligence, culture, and time. Hence any Catholic approach to Scripture will take into account different questions: who wrote it? why? for whom was it written? when? where? what references (cultural, religious, etc.) could the author take for granted and believe that his audience would also take for granted? We strive to put each book of Scripture into its historical context so as not to read our own limited view of history into the Biblical account.

Coupled with this is the fact that our Bible is not written by one person but by many human authors writing in different ways. Just like a newspaper has different sections, our Bible (which is not one book, but a collection of books, poetry, and letters) has different literary genres. We can see history (many portions of the Old Testament, the Acts of the Apostles), poetry (Psalms, the Song of Songs), fiction (short stories like Job and Jonah), Gospel (a distinct literary style found in, of course, the gospels!), apocalyptic writing (Revelation, portions of the Old Testament), and many others.

We look to the fact that the early Church only had available to them the Hebrew Scriptures – they were all still culturally and religiously Jewish, so references to Scripture in New Testament gospels and letters is always reference to the Old Testament. We have Paul writing his letters starting around 45 AD with the gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation written around 65 – 90 AD.

We have the canon of Scripture (the list of books that are considered the Bible) in nascent form around the year 200. The earliest list we have that matches our current New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. In 382 the Council of Rome set the process to define a definitive list of New Testament books. In 393 the Council of Hippo continues the discussion. In 397 the Council of Carthage compiles a definite list and send it to Pope Innocent to be ratified. In 787 the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea adopted the canon set forth in Carthage (which matches the one used by Catholics today). In 1442 the Council of Florence affirmed and recognized the 27 books that made up the canon of the New Testament for the entire worldwide Church. In 1536 Martin Luther publishes his translation of the Bible, removing four books (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) and placing them at the end of the Bible with a note that they are “less then canonical.” In 1546 the Catholic Church once again affirms the list of 27 books at the Council of Trent, placing the list of books as a dogma of the church.

So the Church affirms that even before there was a New Testament (the earliest that all of the books and letters would have been available to the early Church would have been around 100 AD) there was a Church centered on the verbal teachings (traditions) passed down from the Apostles.

For this reason, the Church never places the Bible at the center of our faith – we place Jesus (the Word of God) at the center of our faith, with Scripture and Tradition as coming from the same font of revealed truth.

Blessings & Peace.
Hugo

Unhub.com

I found a website that consolidates info for those of us that have digital profiles all over the internet. :) The site is called unhub.com, and it let’s you place a bar over your websites with links to all of your other sites. The easiest way to see what I mean is to see it in action – you can find most of my digital hiding places by clicking here: Me :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

Energy Savings for Texans

There's a program for Texas residents (please excuse me if you're a non-Texas resident!) where a repair company will come into your home and do an energy assessment. If they find issues, they'll fix some of them for free :)

They're in my home @ this very moment, and so far they've checked my attic's insulation, checked under sinks, checked windows, checked air vents, checked doors, caulked/sealed several areas around windows/doors, under sinks, and inside cabinets, and re-weather-stripped all of my doors, as well as giving me info on other ways I can help reduce energy consumption.

You can read about it here: http://rlenergytechnology.com/default.aspx or call to set up an appointment @ 866-697-1582. The program is on a first come first served basis (when the funds run out the program is finished), so call soon if you’d like to try and get some services for your home.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo