A Great and Glorious, but Debated, Assumption
August 15, 2011
David Mills
Today is not a holy day of obligation for American Catholics, even though today we celebrate the Feast of the Assumption, because feasts that are normally days of obligation are not obligatory when they fall on a Saturday or a Monday, apparently because someone thinks people shouldn't have to go to church two days in a row, which ignores the fact that obligations are only useful if they are, you know, obligatory, and not sometimes choices or options. Holy days are supposed to disrupt your regularly scheduled programming.
But I grouse. In any case, required observance or not, with our diverse readership it may be useful to give a hit-and-run “Mary 101” review of the dogma, because it is one to which our Protestant friends tend to react. Some assert only that we have no biblical grounds for believing it, though it’s harmless enough in itself, some that even if it is harmless, the practice of making unbiblical teachings into dogma is a very bad thing to do that will lead to worse and worse declarations, and others that the dogma is actually pernicious and not just because we have no biblical grounds for believing it.
The first two I understand, and respect, because they follow clearly from Protestant commitments to the supremacy of Scripture, but I’ve never been able to grasp the logic of the second. Why would the declaration that God has already done for the Mother of God what He will do for the rest of us be in itself a bad thing? I assume they have a good reason for believing this, and respect them for it, but I can’t see it.
The basic declaration is very simple. Issued in 1950, Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus declared as "a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
That’s it. He doesn’t, you’ll notice, say whether or not she died, or in what conditions she was assumed (you’ll have seen the paintings with the traditional setting of the apostles watching her rise and being welcomed by angels), or even what this means for Christian life and faith. Pius simply declares that a particular event happened in human history.
The Assumption of Mary is a difficult matter, from the Protestant point of view, because the traces and hints in Scripture are not easily found, unless you assume that they are there to be found, which somewhat defeats the purpose of using Scripture to convince anyone else. Pius XII said only that the dogma “is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture” and that "various testimonies, indications and signs of this common belief of the Church are evident from remote times down through the course of the centuries.”
As an example of this wonderful accord, he sees the teaching as implicit in Mary as the New Eve. Because she “is most intimately associated” with Jesus, the New Adam, in the struggle against “the infernal foe,” their shared struggle “should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle [Paul] says: ‘When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.’”
While Pius quotes the testimony of a great many Fathers and theologians thereafter, they argue mainly from tradition or from a sense of what is fitting for Mary given what we know of her. In introducing their arguments, in fact, he remarks on those who “have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.”
“Wonderful accord with” does not mean “can be proven from,” and here much popular Catholic apologetics fails because it tries to argue the second. We have to go deeper, to a deep difference in the way Protestants and Catholics understand the Church and the way she carries God’s revelation through history. Both traditions agree that we have been given a deposit of faith, but disagree on what it contains and how it is correctly discerned.
Here the Church, the Catholic would say, has seen the truth without being able to argue for it fully. Which is why arguments for or against the dogma don’t get anyone very far. Belief in the dogma depends upon a prior belief in the Catholic Church as Catholics understand her, as I tried to explain briefly in Delivered From All Stain, a column written last spring for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
To which explanation I’d add that in fact the Catholic and the mainstream Protestant agree that the Church (however conceived) takes a while to understand more precisely what she knows, but that the Catholic in practice takes the longer view. Protestants tend to assume that the period of articulation, if I may call it that, ran for four or five or six centuries, thorough the first four Councils, and then stopped. So the fourth century Nicene Creed with its new extra-biblical word for defining who Jesus is, okay, but the twentieth century dogma of the Assumption, not okay.
That is not a Catholic conception of Church history, which recognizes that the Church has, or indeed is, a living tradition, and that she has a Magisterium that allows secure growth in our knowledge of the Truth, and allows Pius to make the declarations he does. The Church imposes no time-limit on what God may teach her, and does not assume that she can see now everything the deposit of faith contains. There may be treasures hidden in the back of the vault or under other treasures, so to speak.
As the writer Ronald Knox noted, for all we know we are still living in the age of the Fathers. Catholics in the future may look at the declaration of the Assumption in 1950 the way we look at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, as the result of a necessarily time-consuming growth in understanding and articulation, which was finally declared when the Church had a chance and a reason to declare it. They may see the Church needing almost 2,000 years formally to state her belief in Mary’s Assumption into Heaven as no odder than her needing 400-some years to come to the definition of Christ given in the “Chalcedonian Definition.”
As Pius put it, talking about the process of study and consultation that led to his declaration, “These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church.” The ecumenical difficulty, of course, is whether the dogma is contained in the deposit, and that, as I said, is a question that gets at the roots of our differences and can't be settled through an argument about the Assumption of Mary.
I said at the beginning that some of my Protestant friends think the idea that Jesus’ mother was assumed into Heaven is a bad thing in itself, and that I don’t understand why. I would think this a belief one would like to hold even if one couldn’t.
It’s a radically humanistic statement, an affirmation of man in Christ, of what God wants to do for all of us and will do for many at the end of history. It seems fitting, and theologically sensible (as Pius explains), that if God will do this for someone in history, He will have done it for the immaculately conceived woman who bore the Son of God. This is very good news for man, or perhaps we should say it is the Good News dramatized.
David Mills is the Executive Editor of First Things. Discovering Jesus. His previous "On the Square" articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Pope Pius XII’s apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus
David Mills, Delivered From All Stain
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.15.2011 | 12:12pm
Randy says:
I had the impression that since Mary had no scar of original sin, and remained holy always, there's no reason to assume that she ever died. Mary had the same opportunity as Eve, to live in God's presence forever, but unlike Eve, Mary never breached the contract so to speak. So the only question is, did Mary, who was not subject to human death, want (and deserve) to be with her Son? I guess the answer is yes.
8.15.2011 | 1:09pm
Paul Pluth says:
The Mother Church of Christ Scientist, in Boston, has a wall painting in its main worship space depicting the Assumption of Mary into heaven. Underneath it is verse from Paul's Letter to the Romans: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2). The Assumption is perfectly in accord with Christian Science teaching.
8.15.2011 | 1:17pm
EWH says:
Great article.
A very interesting point by Ronald Knox. I am reminded of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, when he addresses the fear that they may have missed the Second Coming. I suppose it's a very human conceit to think that the age we live in is the most important one. We have no idea how long God intends this universe to run, so we very well may be in a nascent stage.
As for the "wonderful accord," I will beg to differ. The Jews wanted the Messiah to be a warrior king who would reestablish their kingdom; what they got in Jesus was a man born to ordinary people in a manger, who was rejected, suffered, and was crucified as a criminal. God chooses the foolish and weak things of this world to accomplish His purposes to show His power. To my mind, it would be in "wonderful accord" with God's modus operandi for Mary to have been quite ordinary. The Assumption doesn't seem to fit that mold.
A very interesting point by Ronald Knox. I am reminded of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, when he addresses the fear that they may have missed the Second Coming. I suppose it's a very human conceit to think that the age we live in is the most important one. We have no idea how long God intends this universe to run, so we very well may be in a nascent stage.
As for the "wonderful accord," I will beg to differ. The Jews wanted the Messiah to be a warrior king who would reestablish their kingdom; what they got in Jesus was a man born to ordinary people in a manger, who was rejected, suffered, and was crucified as a criminal. God chooses the foolish and weak things of this world to accomplish His purposes to show His power. To my mind, it would be in "wonderful accord" with God's modus operandi for Mary to have been quite ordinary. The Assumption doesn't seem to fit that mold.
8.15.2011 | 2:38pm
David Mills says:
*EWH*: Thank you for the kind word. Abt your second point, wouldn't it be in wonderful accord with God's way of treating us to have made an ordinary woman extraordinary, as indeed (as Catholics believe) he had already done in her conception, even if she was still an ordinary woman in the worldly terms of social status and the like?
*David Nickol*: Who is this "we" who is so uncertain about the nature of original sin that this uncertainty raises problems about the dogma? The Church is not that uncertain, though always open, within the limits of human sinfulness which tends to settle for the known, to a deepening understanding of the dogmas she has received. Anyone who wonders what original sin "could possibly be" should simply look around him, or into his own heart. To say that "we" are uncertain seems to me another way of saying "I disagree with it," as many people do, and not any kind of objective argument against the dogma.
I'll be writing something on the old Bultmannian criticism on "First Thoughts."
*David Nickol*: Who is this "we" who is so uncertain about the nature of original sin that this uncertainty raises problems about the dogma? The Church is not that uncertain, though always open, within the limits of human sinfulness which tends to settle for the known, to a deepening understanding of the dogmas she has received. Anyone who wonders what original sin "could possibly be" should simply look around him, or into his own heart. To say that "we" are uncertain seems to me another way of saying "I disagree with it," as many people do, and not any kind of objective argument against the dogma.
I'll be writing something on the old Bultmannian criticism on "First Thoughts."
8.15.2011 | 2:56pm
JDD says:
EWH,
"As for the "wonderful accord," I will beg to differ. The Jews wanted the Messiah to be a warrior king who would reestablish their kingdom; what they got in Jesus was a man born to ordinary people in a manger, who was rejected, suffered, and was crucified as a criminal. God chooses the foolish and weak things of this world to accomplish His purposes to show His power. To my mind, it would be in "wonderful accord" with God's modus operandi for Mary to have been quite ordinary. The Assumption doesn't seem to fit that mold."
But as you say, Christ was quite ordinary and lowly for much of his life - God's glory hidden in Him. But then that glory began to be revealed in miracles, healings - and the Transfiguration.
Note that Mary was one of those ordinary people to whom Jesus was born, and herself 'rejected' - forced to flee - from her hometown for many years along with her husband and Child. She also suffered. At the foot of the cross she suffered. Mary was quite ordinary, as you and I are also quite ordinary on the surface, but as C.S. Lewis remarked are actually being remade in an Image which is quite different - hopefully God's Image.
To say that you and I, and Mary, are being remade in the Image and Likeness of God is not to deny that we are lowly and weak.
"As for the "wonderful accord," I will beg to differ. The Jews wanted the Messiah to be a warrior king who would reestablish their kingdom; what they got in Jesus was a man born to ordinary people in a manger, who was rejected, suffered, and was crucified as a criminal. God chooses the foolish and weak things of this world to accomplish His purposes to show His power. To my mind, it would be in "wonderful accord" with God's modus operandi for Mary to have been quite ordinary. The Assumption doesn't seem to fit that mold."
But as you say, Christ was quite ordinary and lowly for much of his life - God's glory hidden in Him. But then that glory began to be revealed in miracles, healings - and the Transfiguration.
Note that Mary was one of those ordinary people to whom Jesus was born, and herself 'rejected' - forced to flee - from her hometown for many years along with her husband and Child. She also suffered. At the foot of the cross she suffered. Mary was quite ordinary, as you and I are also quite ordinary on the surface, but as C.S. Lewis remarked are actually being remade in an Image which is quite different - hopefully God's Image.
To say that you and I, and Mary, are being remade in the Image and Likeness of God is not to deny that we are lowly and weak.
8.15.2011 | 3:13pm
Martha says:
Enoch walked with God, and was taken body and soul to Heaven without death.
Elijah was carried to Heaven in a flaming chariot, body and soul, without death.
No Protestant argues on these two Biblical Assumption stories. How much more worthy is the obedient, faith-filled, Holy, Immaculate and beloved Mother of God? Not a stretch for me, and I was raised Protestant.
Elijah was carried to Heaven in a flaming chariot, body and soul, without death.
No Protestant argues on these two Biblical Assumption stories. How much more worthy is the obedient, faith-filled, Holy, Immaculate and beloved Mother of God? Not a stretch for me, and I was raised Protestant.
8.15.2011 | 3:44pm
CKG says:
A very sharp point indeed, by Msgr. Knox. In my experience of Protestantism (which includes the first decade-and-a-half of my life being raised as a Lutheran, then a Congregationalist, and then 'fellow-travelling' with Baptists and Pentecostals in my teens), the 'deposit of faith' (if you will) is taken as having come to a close with the last words of the canon of the New Testament (which raises other questions, which we need not discuss here). The first four councils are taken more as commentary on the New Testament than as extra-biblical Truth.
The Knox comments, though, do raise the question as to when, if ever, the biblical injunction against 'adding or subtracting' could ever be taken to be in force. . .
@David Nickol - I believe that the Church has always taught that Heaven is populated by *embodied* saints, although what, exactly, is the correspondence between 'earthly' and 'glorified' bodies has never been specifed with precision. . .
The Knox comments, though, do raise the question as to when, if ever, the biblical injunction against 'adding or subtracting' could ever be taken to be in force. . .
@David Nickol - I believe that the Church has always taught that Heaven is populated by *embodied* saints, although what, exactly, is the correspondence between 'earthly' and 'glorified' bodies has never been specifed with precision. . .
8.15.2011 | 4:02pm
Charles says:
First off, EWH: You are mistaken. Only some sects of Jews expected a "Warrior King." Do not state opinions as facts please.
Second: David Nickol, feel free not to put God in a box. Do you believe that Jesus has a body and resides in heaven? If you do then why not Mary? As to cosmology, this has absolutely nothing to do with that. The Church does not believe she resides on some planet. The Church does not mean for us to take literally that heaven is in the sky. No, wherever she is, she is not apart of our Universe. The laws, or whatever it is that governs where she is has nothing to do with our knowledge here. There is no conflict.
Every Dogma has some difficulty in understanding, because it does not solely depend on reason, but on faith. So, again, try not to put God in a box, or assume your 21st century education has somehow trumped the eternal Trinity.
Second: David Nickol, feel free not to put God in a box. Do you believe that Jesus has a body and resides in heaven? If you do then why not Mary? As to cosmology, this has absolutely nothing to do with that. The Church does not believe she resides on some planet. The Church does not mean for us to take literally that heaven is in the sky. No, wherever she is, she is not apart of our Universe. The laws, or whatever it is that governs where she is has nothing to do with our knowledge here. There is no conflict.
Every Dogma has some difficulty in understanding, because it does not solely depend on reason, but on faith. So, again, try not to put God in a box, or assume your 21st century education has somehow trumped the eternal Trinity.
8.15.2011 | 4:46pm
David Nickol says:
David Mills:
You ask: "Who is this 'we' who is so uncertain about the nature of original sin that this uncertainty raises problems about the dogma?" And further: "Anyone who wonders what original sin "could possibly be" should simply look around him, or into his own heart."
I am talking about what used to be considered the sin of Adam and Eve. The story is now officially considered "figurative," and although "monogenism" is still in the Catechism, it has been all but abandoned. Fr. Komanchek over at Commonweal not so long ago pointed out that if you Google "ratzinger" (or "Benedict XVI") and "heretic," you will find people claiming that he is not a legitimate pope because of his ideas regarding Original Sin.
One might look around (or inward) and say, "Things don't seem right. Something must have gone awry somewhere." But that isn't Original Sin.
You ask: "Who is this 'we' who is so uncertain about the nature of original sin that this uncertainty raises problems about the dogma?" And further: "Anyone who wonders what original sin "could possibly be" should simply look around him, or into his own heart."
I am talking about what used to be considered the sin of Adam and Eve. The story is now officially considered "figurative," and although "monogenism" is still in the Catechism, it has been all but abandoned. Fr. Komanchek over at Commonweal not so long ago pointed out that if you Google "ratzinger" (or "Benedict XVI") and "heretic," you will find people claiming that he is not a legitimate pope because of his ideas regarding Original Sin.
One might look around (or inward) and say, "Things don't seem right. Something must have gone awry somewhere." But that isn't Original Sin.
8.15.2011 | 5:16pm
David Mills says:
*David Nickol*: It is a complex question, but the changes you list do not amount to a confusion so thorough that makes the dogmas under discussion more difficult to understand. As suggested by the fact that Benedict has thought hard about the nature of original sin, as about just about everything else, even if one isn't inclined to take as evidence people writing on the internet, and believes and preaches this dogmas.
8.15.2011 | 5:19pm
patricksarsfield says:
The Protestant conceit of "Sola Scriptura" is not supported by Scripture itself. It was a debating point Luther had to fall back on when his silly positions (such as Sola Fide) were demonstrated false in debate by the consistent prior teaching of the Church. And the unquestionable falsity of both Luther's Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura claims is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the fact that when he was confronted with James's clear teaching (James 2:24) that man was not saved by Faith Alone, Luther tried to read the Epistle of James out of the Canon of Holy Scripture as a supposed "epistle of straw"!
In fact, of course, Scripture was not how Jesus chose to pass on His Teachings. Indeed, Jesus did not waste a single moment of His precious time on Earth writing Word One of the Bible. He had a much more important task: recruiting, training and indoctrinating His (one and only universal) Church so it could baptize and teach the Whole World all that He commanded. When He commissioned that Church (Matt. 28:18-20), He did NOT even mention the writing of any books; rather, He gave the Church a very ecclesiastical commission: baptize and teach all nations. It was up to the Church to decide how to accomplish that teaching mission. The Church's leaders (the apostles and their disciples) did so primarily orally and reinforced their teaching on an ad-hoc basis with a flock of writings, some of which ended up recognized as part of the so-called "New Testament" and some not.
The proof is in the pudding: the New Testament is not a rigorously organized set of lessons. Rather, it is a hodge-podge of often redundant materials (why four gospels instead of a single consistent one that tells the whole story? why Paul's redundancy on faith? why are some of the Catholic epistles duplicative of one another?) In other words, it is a collection of the raw materials the church's teachers put together to reinforce the message that they had been preaching on their journeys throughout the Roman World. Why else would Paul have said that Timothy should heed what he heard from Paul (2 Tim. 2:2; 3:14) instead of saying: "I don't care what you think you heard from me, trust only what I have written and/or what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Jude wrote that is on the secret list you will shortly receive (shortly in a very broad sense since the list will not be finished for a few hundred years from now when Athanasius gets around to putting together the right list that the Church will be able to settle upon)."
Thus, Sola Scriptura may have been a good debater's point, but it has no support in History or Scripture.throughout the Roman World. Why else would Paul have said: ""
In fact, of course, Scripture was not how Jesus chose to pass on His Teachings. Indeed, Jesus did not waste a single moment of His precious time on Earth writing Word One of the Bible. He had a much more important task: recruiting, training and indoctrinating His (one and only universal) Church so it could baptize and teach the Whole World all that He commanded. When He commissioned that Church (Matt. 28:18-20), He did NOT even mention the writing of any books; rather, He gave the Church a very ecclesiastical commission: baptize and teach all nations. It was up to the Church to decide how to accomplish that teaching mission. The Church's leaders (the apostles and their disciples) did so primarily orally and reinforced their teaching on an ad-hoc basis with a flock of writings, some of which ended up recognized as part of the so-called "New Testament" and some not.
The proof is in the pudding: the New Testament is not a rigorously organized set of lessons. Rather, it is a hodge-podge of often redundant materials (why four gospels instead of a single consistent one that tells the whole story? why Paul's redundancy on faith? why are some of the Catholic epistles duplicative of one another?) In other words, it is a collection of the raw materials the church's teachers put together to reinforce the message that they had been preaching on their journeys throughout the Roman World. Why else would Paul have said that Timothy should heed what he heard from Paul (2 Tim. 2:2; 3:14) instead of saying: "I don't care what you think you heard from me, trust only what I have written and/or what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Jude wrote that is on the secret list you will shortly receive (shortly in a very broad sense since the list will not be finished for a few hundred years from now when Athanasius gets around to putting together the right list that the Church will be able to settle upon)."
Thus, Sola Scriptura may have been a good debater's point, but it has no support in History or Scripture.throughout the Roman World. Why else would Paul have said: ""
8.15.2011 | 6:27pm
George Sim Johnston says:
"Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,--for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?--so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were in sin, what do you suppose would be the answer?" Saint Augustine, "De natura et gratia" (On Nature and Grace), 415 A. D.
8.15.2011 | 6:29pm
Joyce Stolberg says:
The comment about otherwise obligatory solemnities being dispensed from obligation on mondays and Saturdays is objectionable. This option, employed at the discretion of the local bishop, does NOT reflect the concept that people should not be expected to attend church two days in a row; rather, it is chosen to acknowledge the real life difficulties involved in scheduling enough Masses to fulfill both obligations in overlapping time frames, with too few exhausted priests. Just think about the logistics, especially in rural areas, where priests must travel many miles to complete their circuts.
If you live in an area where attending Mass both days is possible, embrace the HOLY DAY OF OPPORTUNITY and celebrate the mystery of Mary's Assumption, a forshadowing of our own glorious destiny!
If you live in an area where attending Mass both days is possible, embrace the HOLY DAY OF OPPORTUNITY and celebrate the mystery of Mary's Assumption, a forshadowing of our own glorious destiny!
8.15.2011 | 6:47pm
Todd Speidell says:
*David Nickol*: Nice attempt to resurrect outmoded Bultmannian assumptions under the guise of "21st century cosmology"! Your dualism of spiritual vs. dogmatic truth is a 19th century move: Harnack must be smiling. Have you read TF Torrance regarding a convergence of orthodox Christian faith and modern physics? The Fathers were more "modern" in their insights than a pseudo-scientific dismissive rejection of the putative "place" of Heaven and Hell.
8.15.2011 | 7:16pm
David Nickol says:
It's interesting to note that nobody pointed out that Pius XII does not actually say in Munificentissimus Deus that Mary was bodily assumed into a place called heaven., at least not when he solemnly defines the dogma. He says: " . . . we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." An ancient quote used by Pius XII is as follows: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."
It seems to me it is not necessary, in order to affirm the dogma of the Assumption, to believe that, had one been present at the moment of Mary's death, one would have seen her rising up into the sky (in the manner of the Ascension described in Acts), nor is it necessary to believe that Mary is in a "place" called heaven or even that there *is* a "place" called heaven. I can remember being taught as far back as grade school (1950s) that heaven and hell were more states than places, and the old joke was that a hell for dogs could be easily be combined with a heaven for fleas.
It seems to me it is not necessary, in order to affirm the dogma of the Assumption, to believe that, had one been present at the moment of Mary's death, one would have seen her rising up into the sky (in the manner of the Ascension described in Acts), nor is it necessary to believe that Mary is in a "place" called heaven or even that there *is* a "place" called heaven. I can remember being taught as far back as grade school (1950s) that heaven and hell were more states than places, and the old joke was that a hell for dogs could be easily be combined with a heaven for fleas.
8.15.2011 | 7:19pm
Nate says:
I think one of the Biblical keys to this dogma is the ancient understanding (noted by many Saints) of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Whereas the Ark of the Old Covenant held the Word of God on stone, Mary held the Word of God Incarnate. In fact, Mary's visitation to Elizabeth recounted in Luke 1 and 2 directly mimics, both in content and language, the Ark of the Old Covenant's visitation recounted in 2 Samuel 6. The parallels are many: they both visit the "hill country of Judea"; they both stay for three months; David and Elizabeth receive the ark with near identical questions ("How can the ark/mother of my Lord come unto me?"); both David and the unborn John the Baptist "dance"/"leap for joy" in the presence of the Ark; etc. All of this comes together in Revelation 11 and 12 when John the Revelator sees the "ark of His covenant" in Heaven: "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
My point, ultimately, is that while Biblical evidences are there, I think they're unnecessary in the same way that explicit Biblical references to the co-eternality/co-equality of the Holy Spirit are unnecessary. We accept the authority of the Church on that point, so we should accept the authority of the Church on this one.
Besides, don't you think it's a little curious that Catholics -- who have zealously uncovered, guarded, and venerated relics of all kinds -- have never claimed to have first degree relics of Mary? Which saint's body, pray tell, would be more coveted were there even a remote possibility of its existence?
My point, ultimately, is that while Biblical evidences are there, I think they're unnecessary in the same way that explicit Biblical references to the co-eternality/co-equality of the Holy Spirit are unnecessary. We accept the authority of the Church on that point, so we should accept the authority of the Church on this one.
Besides, don't you think it's a little curious that Catholics -- who have zealously uncovered, guarded, and venerated relics of all kinds -- have never claimed to have first degree relics of Mary? Which saint's body, pray tell, would be more coveted were there even a remote possibility of its existence?
8.15.2011 | 7:45pm
Fr. Basil says:
\\He doesn’t, you’ll notice, say whether or not she died, or in what conditions she was assumed \\
Not so.
Pope Pius XII clearly refers to her suffering physical death being part of the tradition of the Church in the Encyclical.
In the Roman Office for the Assumption promulgated at the same time as the Apostolic Constitution, the fifth Matins lesson is a sermon by St. John of Damascus. He says that the Most Holy Theotokos indeed suffered physical death, not as a result of the sentence for sin, but that she wished to be follow the example of her Divine Son as closely as possible.
Furthermore, all the liturgical texts of the Eastern Churches, including those in communion with Rome, refer to her physical death.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Not so.
Pope Pius XII clearly refers to her suffering physical death being part of the tradition of the Church in the Encyclical.
In the Roman Office for the Assumption promulgated at the same time as the Apostolic Constitution, the fifth Matins lesson is a sermon by St. John of Damascus. He says that the Most Holy Theotokos indeed suffered physical death, not as a result of the sentence for sin, but that she wished to be follow the example of her Divine Son as closely as possible.
Furthermore, all the liturgical texts of the Eastern Churches, including those in communion with Rome, refer to her physical death.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
8.15.2011 | 9:05pm
David Nickol says:
Fr. Basil,
I think David Mills is correct. In actually defining the dogma, Pius XII allowed for either possibility (death or no death) by saying "having completed the course of her earthly life." He refers to Church Tradition, but he does not actually affirm that Mary died prior to the Assumption in the part of the text defining the dogma. So the Assumption itself is infallibly declared, but whether or not Mary died is not infallibly declared.
Also, Munificentissimus Deus was not an Encyclical. It was an Apostolic Constitution, a papal document with greater weight than an Encyclical.
I think David Mills is correct. In actually defining the dogma, Pius XII allowed for either possibility (death or no death) by saying "having completed the course of her earthly life." He refers to Church Tradition, but he does not actually affirm that Mary died prior to the Assumption in the part of the text defining the dogma. So the Assumption itself is infallibly declared, but whether or not Mary died is not infallibly declared.
Also, Munificentissimus Deus was not an Encyclical. It was an Apostolic Constitution, a papal document with greater weight than an Encyclical.
8.15.2011 | 9:15pm
David Nickol says:
CKG,
I don't believe the saints, or any others who have "passed on" (with the exception of Jesus and Mary), are thought to have bodies. All are awaiting the Resurrection of the Dead. But this raises other questions. Can human souls exist apart from bodies? Sometimes the answer seems to be yes, and sometimes it seems to be no.
I don't believe the saints, or any others who have "passed on" (with the exception of Jesus and Mary), are thought to have bodies. All are awaiting the Resurrection of the Dead. But this raises other questions. Can human souls exist apart from bodies? Sometimes the answer seems to be yes, and sometimes it seems to be no.
8.15.2011 | 11:11pm
edmond says:
Protestants make it always a point of faith to say that you can only be saved if you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Nowhere in the scripture are the words "personal Lord and Savior" even found and yet this is their creed inspite of sola scriptura. So why the double standard when it comes to Mother Mary and her assumption into heaven?
8.15.2011 | 11:14pm
Carson Chittom says:
We Orthodox[1], of course, celebrate the "Dormition" rather than the "Assumption" today. At Liturgy (quite early) this morning, our priest didn't really preach a sermon, as such, but he did offer a few remarks, largely a reminder that God is not bound by time—eternity is now. The Theotokos is, as always, an image of the Church. What happened to her is what will happen/has happened/is happening to us.
[1] Or rather, those of the Orthodox on the "new" calendar.
[1] Or rather, those of the Orthodox on the "new" calendar.
8.16.2011 | 12:20am
JARay says:
If one looks at The Catholic Encyclopedia one will read the following:-
"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. "
That is the situation which I have long believed.
"St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. "
That is the situation which I have long believed.
8.16.2011 | 12:35am
Fr Clifford Stevens says:
Someone who writes about the Assumption or any other Catholic feastday or doctrine should at least know the historical and theological roots of the feastday or doctrine. There are three major doctrines of the Catholic Church about Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Theotokos,i in the language of Eastern theology: The center piece is her role as Theotokos, the mother of the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. The first doctrine in time is that of the Immaculate Conception, which was God's preparation of her for her Divine Mission. The Assumption is the crowning of God's work in her, asssuring that the body that bore God Incarnate would not see corruption.
There is a parallel in the fact of the Assumption with the Immaculate Conception in that both priivileges are in anticipation of something. The Immaculate Conception is in anticipation of Mary's redemption by Christ, giving her from the first moment of her existence the fullness of Divine Grace and of the fruits of the Redemption. The Assumption is in anticipation of her Resurrection in Christ, giving her the fullness of Eternal glory and the fruits of His Resurrection. The Assumption, in fact, is the oldest of teaching's about Mary, and her tomb is Jerusalem where she was buried is still there, visited by pilgrims. The first documented mention of the Assumption, besides the site of her burial, is a letter from the Byzantaine Emperor Marcian in 451 a the Council of Chalcedon. He asked the Bishop of Jerusalem to bring with him to the Council the relics of Mary in Jerusalem. The bisho replied that there were no relics since, according to the witness of the Apostles themselves, when they gathered for her burial, her body was asssumed into Heaven and was no longer in the place of her burial.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
There is a parallel in the fact of the Assumption with the Immaculate Conception in that both priivileges are in anticipation of something. The Immaculate Conception is in anticipation of Mary's redemption by Christ, giving her from the first moment of her existence the fullness of Divine Grace and of the fruits of the Redemption. The Assumption is in anticipation of her Resurrection in Christ, giving her the fullness of Eternal glory and the fruits of His Resurrection. The Assumption, in fact, is the oldest of teaching's about Mary, and her tomb is Jerusalem where she was buried is still there, visited by pilgrims. The first documented mention of the Assumption, besides the site of her burial, is a letter from the Byzantaine Emperor Marcian in 451 a the Council of Chalcedon. He asked the Bishop of Jerusalem to bring with him to the Council the relics of Mary in Jerusalem. The bisho replied that there were no relics since, according to the witness of the Apostles themselves, when they gathered for her burial, her body was asssumed into Heaven and was no longer in the place of her burial.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
8.16.2011 | 4:59am
Wolf Paul says:
Just a quick comment on why some Protestants (and it would have to be conservative/evangelical Protestants, don't think the rest care) consider the Dogma about the Assumption of Mary to be "a pernicious thing".
My own uneasiness with the dogma does not stem from any problem with the idea itself; as David Mills says, it simply that God has already done for Mary what has been promised to all the saints.
My problem stems from the fact that the majority of conservative Catholics where I live (and to be sure they are by now a minority of the total Catholic population) tend to have a higher regard for Mary than for Christ, at least as far as the outworking of their piety is concerned. I know folks here who prefer to call themselves a "Marienkind", a child of Mary, in preference to a child of God. I know people who believe that asking Mary for something is more likely to get results than asking God.
A dogma like the Assumption provides (presumably unintentional) support for this attitude.
Now I know that a lot of conservative/evangelical Protestants who object to this dogma do not have a lot of contact with Catholic popular piety; still I believe the main concern with most Marian dogmas is the same: that they tend to elevate Mary above other humans; that they remove her from such biblical statements as "ALL we like sheep have gone astray" and even contradict her own words when she speaks of her Saviour.
My own uneasiness with the dogma does not stem from any problem with the idea itself; as David Mills says, it simply that God has already done for Mary what has been promised to all the saints.
My problem stems from the fact that the majority of conservative Catholics where I live (and to be sure they are by now a minority of the total Catholic population) tend to have a higher regard for Mary than for Christ, at least as far as the outworking of their piety is concerned. I know folks here who prefer to call themselves a "Marienkind", a child of Mary, in preference to a child of God. I know people who believe that asking Mary for something is more likely to get results than asking God.
A dogma like the Assumption provides (presumably unintentional) support for this attitude.
Now I know that a lot of conservative/evangelical Protestants who object to this dogma do not have a lot of contact with Catholic popular piety; still I believe the main concern with most Marian dogmas is the same: that they tend to elevate Mary above other humans; that they remove her from such biblical statements as "ALL we like sheep have gone astray" and even contradict her own words when she speaks of her Saviour.
8.16.2011 | 8:08am
Yahnatan Lasko says:
The author of this post (quite helpfully) likens Munificentissimus Deus to the early councils. In the Catholic understanding, is the "we" of Pius XII's declaration of the same nature as the "we" of the ecumenical councils?
8.16.2011 | 9:25am
Fr. Thomas Buffer says:
In defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII deliberately did not define whether Mary died. This was largely due to the influence of the theologian Fr. Martin Jugie. The idea that Mary did not die does not appear among theologians until the 17th century. Between 1950 and 1964 it was widely discussed. At present the majority of theologians opine that Mary did die. This is also the teaching of Blessed John Paul II, who explains why it was fitting for Mary to die (full text here): http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm
With regard to the text from Augustine given above, if you read it in context you will see that Augustine is here referring to the absence of personal sin in Mary, not her freedom from original sin. The text arose from the controversy with Pelagius.
Theologians did not begin to articulate the idea of what is now called Mary's Immaculate Conception until some centuries later. It's worth noting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception created more controversy within the Church, over the course of centuries, than the dogma of the Assumption.
With regard to the text from Augustine given above, if you read it in context you will see that Augustine is here referring to the absence of personal sin in Mary, not her freedom from original sin. The text arose from the controversy with Pelagius.
Theologians did not begin to articulate the idea of what is now called Mary's Immaculate Conception until some centuries later. It's worth noting that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception created more controversy within the Church, over the course of centuries, than the dogma of the Assumption.
8.16.2011 | 12:08pm
JDD says:
Wolf Paul,
My problem stems from the fact that the majority of conservative Catholics ... tend to have a higher regard for Mary than for Christ, at least as far as the outworking of their piety is concerned. ... I know people who believe that asking Mary for something is more likely to get results than asking God.
A dogma like the Assumption provides (presumably unintentional) support for this attitude."
First of all - agreed this is a problem. I don't know may people like this myself, but I guess I can say I 'know they're out there.' But one could just as easily say that the Christian doctrine of (fill in the blank) provides unintentional support for any number of things - may I suggest that what you'd really mean is that the wrong understanding of that doctrine causes the unintentional support. I don't think it follows to say that therefore this casts doubt on the doctrine, or that the doctrine is at fault. It's a problem of teaching.
"I believe the main concern with most Marian dogmas is the same: that they tend to elevate Mary above other humans; that they remove her from such biblical statements as "ALL we like sheep have gone astray" and even contradict her own words when she speaks of her Saviour."
Catholicism teaches that Mary needed a Savior. Catechism paragraph 491 teaches that the Immaculate Conception of Mary took place "by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race..."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491.htm
And in paragraph 494, St. Irenaeus is quoted, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/494.htm
My problem stems from the fact that the majority of conservative Catholics ... tend to have a higher regard for Mary than for Christ, at least as far as the outworking of their piety is concerned. ... I know people who believe that asking Mary for something is more likely to get results than asking God.
A dogma like the Assumption provides (presumably unintentional) support for this attitude."
First of all - agreed this is a problem. I don't know may people like this myself, but I guess I can say I 'know they're out there.' But one could just as easily say that the Christian doctrine of (fill in the blank) provides unintentional support for any number of things - may I suggest that what you'd really mean is that the wrong understanding of that doctrine causes the unintentional support. I don't think it follows to say that therefore this casts doubt on the doctrine, or that the doctrine is at fault. It's a problem of teaching.
"I believe the main concern with most Marian dogmas is the same: that they tend to elevate Mary above other humans; that they remove her from such biblical statements as "ALL we like sheep have gone astray" and even contradict her own words when she speaks of her Saviour."
Catholicism teaches that Mary needed a Savior. Catechism paragraph 491 teaches that the Immaculate Conception of Mary took place "by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race..."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491.htm
And in paragraph 494, St. Irenaeus is quoted, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/494.htm
8.16.2011 | 12:26pm
William Tighe says:
"In the Catholic understanding, is the "we" of Pius XII's declaration of the same nature as the "we" of the ecumenical councils?"
Of course, since in Catholic understanding the authority of any ecumenical council rests upon its acceptance and promulgation by the Pope. If anything, the "we" of Pius XII's declaration is superior to the "we" of an ecumenical council.
Of course, since in Catholic understanding the authority of any ecumenical council rests upon its acceptance and promulgation by the Pope. If anything, the "we" of Pius XII's declaration is superior to the "we" of an ecumenical council.
8.16.2011 | 1:00pm
Ethan C. says:
Based on my experience, Wolf Paul correctly identifies the main reason that many Protestants consider the doctrine pernicious.
To the Protestant with this viewpoint, the dogmatic pronouncement seems to present two dangers:
First, as Mr. Paul presents, that it appears not to provide comfort to Christians by encouraging them to identify with the blessings given to Mary, but it instead seems to elevate Mary to superhuman status, making her seem more unlike us and more like a kind of goddess.
Second, that it appears, as a dogmatic pronouncement, to require the faithful to assent at the peril of their salvation to a doctrine that is in itself ancillary to the matter of salvation. To wit: it was once possible to be considered a full and faithful believer in the Gospel while disbelieving in the Assumption, but now it is no longer so possible.
While it seems understandable for definitions of things that are central to the nature of salvation to become more clarified over time -- such as the specifics of Christ's nature, or the particular effects of His death and resurrection -- it does not seem so reasonable to hold that the belief in historical events unrelated to Christ's own actions can later come to be so important that to disbelieve in them is to imperil one's salvation.
So in sum, one might argue that the dogma is pernicious because it (1) dilutes the worship of God by elevating another being to de facto divine status; and (2) dilutes the gospel by conflating the importance of belief in a particular historical accident with belief in Christ's salvific action.
Please note that this is not necessarily my own viewpoint; I'm just trying to present that particular position as it is. I am rather young and undecided in this matter personally.
To the Protestant with this viewpoint, the dogmatic pronouncement seems to present two dangers:
First, as Mr. Paul presents, that it appears not to provide comfort to Christians by encouraging them to identify with the blessings given to Mary, but it instead seems to elevate Mary to superhuman status, making her seem more unlike us and more like a kind of goddess.
Second, that it appears, as a dogmatic pronouncement, to require the faithful to assent at the peril of their salvation to a doctrine that is in itself ancillary to the matter of salvation. To wit: it was once possible to be considered a full and faithful believer in the Gospel while disbelieving in the Assumption, but now it is no longer so possible.
While it seems understandable for definitions of things that are central to the nature of salvation to become more clarified over time -- such as the specifics of Christ's nature, or the particular effects of His death and resurrection -- it does not seem so reasonable to hold that the belief in historical events unrelated to Christ's own actions can later come to be so important that to disbelieve in them is to imperil one's salvation.
So in sum, one might argue that the dogma is pernicious because it (1) dilutes the worship of God by elevating another being to de facto divine status; and (2) dilutes the gospel by conflating the importance of belief in a particular historical accident with belief in Christ's salvific action.
Please note that this is not necessarily my own viewpoint; I'm just trying to present that particular position as it is. I am rather young and undecided in this matter personally.
8.16.2011 | 1:20pm
David Mills says:
Thank you, David Nickol and Fr. Buffer, for the correction of Fr. Basil. I was writing of the declaration itself, which is carefully and narrowly worded, though Pius did mention this teaching earlier in *MD*.
And Fr. Stevens, I do know all this, but, you know, that wasn't my subject.
And Fr. Stevens, I do know all this, but, you know, that wasn't my subject.
8.16.2011 | 6:18pm
William Tighe says:
"To wit: it was once possible to be considered a full and faithful believer in the Gospel while disbelieving in the Assumption, but now it is no longer so possible."
Just as it was possible to be one while disbelieving in (and, indeed, rejecting) what was believed to be meant by the words "homoousios" and "transubstantiation" (I have chosen these two examples deliberately), or just as it was possible (a slightly different matter) to believe that those Christians who committed the sins of apostasy, adultery, murder, infanticide and abortion should not be absolved of them in their lifetimes, till they be on their death beds. The question is, who decides: the Church? -- or individuals, scholarly or not, who gather a following based on their own reading of particular Biblical passages, and fancy that they can "correct" what the Church has taught or practiced on such matters.
Hegel once wrote, "the owl of Minerva takes wing only at dusk," which meant that sometimes it is only after intellectual disputes have been played out, or in ecclesiastical terms dogmatic questions have been thrashed out, and ended in definitions and condemnations, that the important matters at stake in those disputes, or even that there were important matters at stake in them, can be discerned -- or perhaps not. The endless Fourth Century quarrels about the Trinity than can be summarized in the word "homoousios" is a case in point, as so many "moderate folk" at the the thought it more pointless logomachy than anything else; and this seems to me to be true of most major later disputes as well.
Just as it was possible to be one while disbelieving in (and, indeed, rejecting) what was believed to be meant by the words "homoousios" and "transubstantiation" (I have chosen these two examples deliberately), or just as it was possible (a slightly different matter) to believe that those Christians who committed the sins of apostasy, adultery, murder, infanticide and abortion should not be absolved of them in their lifetimes, till they be on their death beds. The question is, who decides: the Church? -- or individuals, scholarly or not, who gather a following based on their own reading of particular Biblical passages, and fancy that they can "correct" what the Church has taught or practiced on such matters.
Hegel once wrote, "the owl of Minerva takes wing only at dusk," which meant that sometimes it is only after intellectual disputes have been played out, or in ecclesiastical terms dogmatic questions have been thrashed out, and ended in definitions and condemnations, that the important matters at stake in those disputes, or even that there were important matters at stake in them, can be discerned -- or perhaps not. The endless Fourth Century quarrels about the Trinity than can be summarized in the word "homoousios" is a case in point, as so many "moderate folk" at the the thought it more pointless logomachy than anything else; and this seems to me to be true of most major later disputes as well.
8.16.2011 | 11:39pm
patricksarsfield says:
Wolf Paul disagrees with the Dogma of the Assumption on the ground (among others) that it (and they): "remove her from such biblical statements as "ALL we like sheep have gone astray...."
Isaiah made that statement about a particular group of people (all of whom had gone astray according to his biblical witness), but that does NOT mean all people of all times have all gone astray. Jesus certainly didn't; we can all agree on that, I should hope. Yet Jesus was human. Nor did Mary's cousins, Zachariah and Elizabeth, go astray either. As Brother Luke biblically reveals (Luke 1:5-6): "Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord...."
So, the word "all" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and the proposition that Mary was as righteous and blameless as her cousins cannot be gainsaid on the basis of the Isaiah statement.
Isaiah made that statement about a particular group of people (all of whom had gone astray according to his biblical witness), but that does NOT mean all people of all times have all gone astray. Jesus certainly didn't; we can all agree on that, I should hope. Yet Jesus was human. Nor did Mary's cousins, Zachariah and Elizabeth, go astray either. As Brother Luke biblically reveals (Luke 1:5-6): "Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord...."
So, the word "all" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and the proposition that Mary was as righteous and blameless as her cousins cannot be gainsaid on the basis of the Isaiah statement.
8.16.2011 | 11:53pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ethan C writes:
"So in sum, one might argue that the dogma is pernicious because it (1) dilutes the worship of God by elevating another being to de facto divine status...."
Ethan is mistaken. He apparently has not received the kind of religious education I received (subsequent to Pius XII's 1950 Proclamation of the Assumption) which clearly taught that Mary was not entitled to the adoration (or latria) that belongs to God Alone. We were taught in Catholic School that saints are entitled to dulia; Mary to hyperdulia but God Alone is entitled to latria. A brief explanation of the distinctions can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
This actually is one more proof of the pernicious effect of the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura. People like Ethan fail to appreciate these sensible kinds of distinctions because they refuse to submit to any authoritative teacher except "me and my bible."
"So in sum, one might argue that the dogma is pernicious because it (1) dilutes the worship of God by elevating another being to de facto divine status...."
Ethan is mistaken. He apparently has not received the kind of religious education I received (subsequent to Pius XII's 1950 Proclamation of the Assumption) which clearly taught that Mary was not entitled to the adoration (or latria) that belongs to God Alone. We were taught in Catholic School that saints are entitled to dulia; Mary to hyperdulia but God Alone is entitled to latria. A brief explanation of the distinctions can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
This actually is one more proof of the pernicious effect of the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura. People like Ethan fail to appreciate these sensible kinds of distinctions because they refuse to submit to any authoritative teacher except "me and my bible."
8.17.2011 | 9:56am
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
You say: "People like Ethan fail to appreciate these sensible kinds of distinctions because they refuse to submit to any authoritative teacher except 'me and my bible.'"
You ignored the fact that Ethan said, "Please note that this is not necessarily my own viewpoint; I'm just trying to present that particular position as it is. I am rather young and undecided in this matter personally."
Why those who consider themselves "orthodox" sometimes do their best to alienate rather than win over the uncertain is a mystery to me. I think you owe Ethan an apology.
You say: "People like Ethan fail to appreciate these sensible kinds of distinctions because they refuse to submit to any authoritative teacher except 'me and my bible.'"
You ignored the fact that Ethan said, "Please note that this is not necessarily my own viewpoint; I'm just trying to present that particular position as it is. I am rather young and undecided in this matter personally."
Why those who consider themselves "orthodox" sometimes do their best to alienate rather than win over the uncertain is a mystery to me. I think you owe Ethan an apology.
8.17.2011 | 10:30am
Ethan C. says:
Patrick Sarsfield,
In point of fact, I'm aware of the official Catholic doctrine on the matter. And if all Catholics understood it and abided by it in practice, I don't think there would be much of a problem.
It appears to an observer, however, that significant swaths of the Catholic laity are not quite so careful. Given the human propensity for idolatry, and the evident importance of the First Commandment, is it perhaps a bit understandable that some serious Christians might object to the promotion of a doctrine that gives further fuel to that fire?
In point of fact, I'm aware of the official Catholic doctrine on the matter. And if all Catholics understood it and abided by it in practice, I don't think there would be much of a problem.
It appears to an observer, however, that significant swaths of the Catholic laity are not quite so careful. Given the human propensity for idolatry, and the evident importance of the First Commandment, is it perhaps a bit understandable that some serious Christians might object to the promotion of a doctrine that gives further fuel to that fire?
8.17.2011 | 11:08am
Ethan C. says:
Patrick Sarsfield,
As you seem well-versed in the matter, I'd also be interested in hearing you explain exactly how the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdoulia ought to be expressed in personal piety.
As you seem well-versed in the matter, I'd also be interested in hearing you explain exactly how the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdoulia ought to be expressed in personal piety.
8.17.2011 | 11:55am
Mick Lee says:
Mr. Miller pretty much sums up why Protestants and Catholics will never see eye to eye on this matter. In contrast to the generous and heartfelt verbage Catholics devote to the subject of Mary, Protestants can’t help but note how LITTLE Scripture actually speaks of her. In fact, from the Gospel of John, Acts, through the Epistles, there is scant to total absence of her. For this reason alone, the whole subject is a non-starter with Protestants and a complete waste of time. Even among the most respectful and generous discussions between Protestants and Catholics, “Mary” has a way of sucking all the air out of the room.
On top of this, there is an additional feature within Lutheran theology. Good Lutheran theology ABHORS speculation. It doesn’t just avoid it. It has a visceral antagonism to it. However logical it may appear, to say “it seems fitting” is one of the worst things a Catholic apologist could say. Speculation is a red flag that strongly indicates one is entering the no-man’s-land of error and waste.
I do not know why those Mr. Miller mentions believe such veneration of Mary is harmful; but I think among most Protestants there are three shared, central objections 1.) There is no Biblical command. 2.) There is no promise made. 3.) Keeping one’s eyes on Christ is difficult enough without clouding the landscape with unsupported speculation.
As a Lutheran, I think that the most important ecumenical talks are with Rome—not other Protestant Churches. I and other Lutherans try to listen hard to what Mary means to Catholics such as Mr. Miller. It is important to understand what’s in the Catholic heart; but it is just as important for Mr. Miller and his like-minded brethren to understand that as articulate as they may explain what it means to themselves, it has no resonance in our hearts.
On top of this, there is an additional feature within Lutheran theology. Good Lutheran theology ABHORS speculation. It doesn’t just avoid it. It has a visceral antagonism to it. However logical it may appear, to say “it seems fitting” is one of the worst things a Catholic apologist could say. Speculation is a red flag that strongly indicates one is entering the no-man’s-land of error and waste.
I do not know why those Mr. Miller mentions believe such veneration of Mary is harmful; but I think among most Protestants there are three shared, central objections 1.) There is no Biblical command. 2.) There is no promise made. 3.) Keeping one’s eyes on Christ is difficult enough without clouding the landscape with unsupported speculation.
As a Lutheran, I think that the most important ecumenical talks are with Rome—not other Protestant Churches. I and other Lutherans try to listen hard to what Mary means to Catholics such as Mr. Miller. It is important to understand what’s in the Catholic heart; but it is just as important for Mr. Miller and his like-minded brethren to understand that as articulate as they may explain what it means to themselves, it has no resonance in our hearts.
8.17.2011 | 12:06pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ethan C writes:
"In point of fact, I'm aware of the official Catholic doctrine on the matter. And if all Catholics understood it and abided by it in practice, I don't think there would be much of a problem. It appears to an observer, however, that significant swaths of the Catholic laity are not quite so careful. "
There isn't "much of a problem." I don't know any Catholics who put Mary above Jesus. Baltimore Catrechism 101: Mary is the human mother of God but Jesus is God. This idea that significant swaths of the Catholic laity don't understand the precedence of Jesus over Mary is a fable made up by people who were looking for excuses for their break from the only Church Jesus ever founded so they could stealing its property and set themnselves in charge over it (eg, the German dukes, the Scottish lairds and the English and Scandinavian kings).
But I hasten to add: most of us Catholics do love the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy, very much. One of the best things about the in-migration of so many Mexicans is our greater familiarity here with one of the sweetest Marian apparitions: Our Lady of Guadelupe.
"In point of fact, I'm aware of the official Catholic doctrine on the matter. And if all Catholics understood it and abided by it in practice, I don't think there would be much of a problem. It appears to an observer, however, that significant swaths of the Catholic laity are not quite so careful. "
There isn't "much of a problem." I don't know any Catholics who put Mary above Jesus. Baltimore Catrechism 101: Mary is the human mother of God but Jesus is God. This idea that significant swaths of the Catholic laity don't understand the precedence of Jesus over Mary is a fable made up by people who were looking for excuses for their break from the only Church Jesus ever founded so they could stealing its property and set themnselves in charge over it (eg, the German dukes, the Scottish lairds and the English and Scandinavian kings).
But I hasten to add: most of us Catholics do love the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy, very much. One of the best things about the in-migration of so many Mexicans is our greater familiarity here with one of the sweetest Marian apparitions: Our Lady of Guadelupe.
8.17.2011 | 12:25pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ethan C asks:
"As you seem well-versed in the matter, I'd also be interested in hearing you explain exactly how the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdoulia ought to be expressed in personal piety."
The distinctions among d, h and l can be summarized thusly, beginning at the top: we need to recognize that we adore God Alone (as we say in most Masses (in the universal Latin): "Tu Solus Sanctus; Tu Solus Dominus; Tu Solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe...."), and that Mary is due an intensified (hyper) version of the veneration (dulia) that we offer the saints, but not the adoration accorded to God Alone. God is so high above our ways that we must adore Him. The reason for oure intensified dulia vis-a-vis the other saints is that Mary was chosen by God Himself as the vessel for the Incarnation as the result of the great favor He viewed her in.
As a personal matter, I love the Virgin but when I go to Church, my atttention is always drawn (in every Catholic church I have attended) to the suffering figure of Christ hanging on the Cross for my sins. I adore Him when I view His pierced side and His crown of thorns. One of the great things about the Catholic Church is that we truly "preach Christ crucified...." Not for us, the draped sheet that many Protestant churches offer up in place of the Crucified Christ.
From the time I was a kid, one of my favorite spots in Church has been the Pieta in the ambo of St. Patrick's Cathedral (which evokes but is not a copy of Michelangelo's more famous one). What a chance to thank Mary for her giving us Christ in the Flesh and for staying with Him in His Agony and what a chance to adore Christ Who gave Himself for our sins. Catholics understand Who Christ is and who his mother is. There is no reason to be confused unless one wants an excuse for not belonging to the Only Church Jesus founded.
"As you seem well-versed in the matter, I'd also be interested in hearing you explain exactly how the distinction between latria, dulia, and hyperdoulia ought to be expressed in personal piety."
The distinctions among d, h and l can be summarized thusly, beginning at the top: we need to recognize that we adore God Alone (as we say in most Masses (in the universal Latin): "Tu Solus Sanctus; Tu Solus Dominus; Tu Solus Altissimus, Jesu Christe...."), and that Mary is due an intensified (hyper) version of the veneration (dulia) that we offer the saints, but not the adoration accorded to God Alone. God is so high above our ways that we must adore Him. The reason for oure intensified dulia vis-a-vis the other saints is that Mary was chosen by God Himself as the vessel for the Incarnation as the result of the great favor He viewed her in.
As a personal matter, I love the Virgin but when I go to Church, my atttention is always drawn (in every Catholic church I have attended) to the suffering figure of Christ hanging on the Cross for my sins. I adore Him when I view His pierced side and His crown of thorns. One of the great things about the Catholic Church is that we truly "preach Christ crucified...." Not for us, the draped sheet that many Protestant churches offer up in place of the Crucified Christ.
From the time I was a kid, one of my favorite spots in Church has been the Pieta in the ambo of St. Patrick's Cathedral (which evokes but is not a copy of Michelangelo's more famous one). What a chance to thank Mary for her giving us Christ in the Flesh and for staying with Him in His Agony and what a chance to adore Christ Who gave Himself for our sins. Catholics understand Who Christ is and who his mother is. There is no reason to be confused unless one wants an excuse for not belonging to the Only Church Jesus founded.
8.17.2011 | 1:08pm
Ethan C. says:
Patrick Sarsfield,
I think it's quite fortunate for you that all the Catholics of your acquaintance have such correctly-ordered piety and well-developed theological understanding. As I said, would that every Catholic were so well-taught!
But since you bring up Mexican immigration, the cult of Santa Muerte and the religion of Santeria stand as rather good examples of what Protestants worry about.
I think it's quite fortunate for you that all the Catholics of your acquaintance have such correctly-ordered piety and well-developed theological understanding. As I said, would that every Catholic were so well-taught!
But since you bring up Mexican immigration, the cult of Santa Muerte and the religion of Santeria stand as rather good examples of what Protestants worry about.
8.17.2011 | 3:58pm
patricksarsfield says:
Ethan,
You wrote:
"since you bring up Mexican immigration, the cult of Santa Muerte and the religion of Santeria stand as rather good examples of what Protestants worry about...."
When people depart from Catholicism they often go off into self-concocted insanity. Luther, of course, went off into the "Emergency Control" of the Church by his supporters (the dukes, instead of the bishops) and he even cravenly accepted bigamy for one of those dukes, as well as concocting the biblically unsupportable "Sola Fide" heresy and the crazy "dung-hill" analogy. Santa Muerte is just a Mexican version of a non-Catholic heresy (if it is even Christian in any sense) that should be embarrassing for anyone to believe in. Yet, it is little more bizarre than such (Protestant) English American insanity as snake handling or Mormon polygamy.
As to the need for Catholics to have a well-developed theological understanding: I quite agree. Before the Protestant-inspired assault on parochial schools that began in the 1940-50s with Paul Blanshard and the lavishing of untold billions on their governmentally-run (and tax-supported) "public school" competitors, fully half of US Catholic children were educated in Catholic schools and they generally were well-formed in the Faith. Today, the Catholic school system is on the ropes; consequently, few of our kids are getting well-formed in the Faith. Sad to say, they tend to have the same attitudes/beliefs as their non-Catholic classmates and that is very unfortunate. Yet, I doubt few of those kids believe in Mary more than in Jesus.
You wrote:
"since you bring up Mexican immigration, the cult of Santa Muerte and the religion of Santeria stand as rather good examples of what Protestants worry about...."
When people depart from Catholicism they often go off into self-concocted insanity. Luther, of course, went off into the "Emergency Control" of the Church by his supporters (the dukes, instead of the bishops) and he even cravenly accepted bigamy for one of those dukes, as well as concocting the biblically unsupportable "Sola Fide" heresy and the crazy "dung-hill" analogy. Santa Muerte is just a Mexican version of a non-Catholic heresy (if it is even Christian in any sense) that should be embarrassing for anyone to believe in. Yet, it is little more bizarre than such (Protestant) English American insanity as snake handling or Mormon polygamy.
As to the need for Catholics to have a well-developed theological understanding: I quite agree. Before the Protestant-inspired assault on parochial schools that began in the 1940-50s with Paul Blanshard and the lavishing of untold billions on their governmentally-run (and tax-supported) "public school" competitors, fully half of US Catholic children were educated in Catholic schools and they generally were well-formed in the Faith. Today, the Catholic school system is on the ropes; consequently, few of our kids are getting well-formed in the Faith. Sad to say, they tend to have the same attitudes/beliefs as their non-Catholic classmates and that is very unfortunate. Yet, I doubt few of those kids believe in Mary more than in Jesus.
8.17.2011 | 5:50pm
Nate says:
The most basic, fundamental difference between latria (adoration) and forms of dulia (veneration) is sacrifice. You make sacrifice to the one true God of Heaven and Earth. You do not sacrifice in the context of veneration, even hyper-veneration. Our principle sacrifice, of course, is the Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the Eucharist. It is Christ's once-and-for-all death on the cross extended through space and time. No one -- not a single person -- has ever believed that the Eucharist is directed to the glorification, thanksgiving, adoration, and petition of Mary. Rather, it is ordered to help us enter into the Triune worship of God the Father, in Christ the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit. When we pay homage to Mary (and to all other Christians who have led heroically holy lives), we are not taking away from the glory due to God alone; rather, we are expressing our true belief in a God who is so powerful, so wonderful that he could and has transformed mere matter into something worthy of divine life.
8.18.2011 | 2:30pm
JDD says:
@ Mick Lee:
"However logical it may appear, to say “it seems fitting” is one of the worst things a Catholic apologist could say. Speculation is a red flag that strongly indicates one is entering the no-man’s-land of error and waste."
You know, I recognize the red flag that this might cause - because I experienced the same type of recoil at one time to the way Marian beliefs can be spoken about. I wasn't always a convinced Catholic. But I think part of that recoil is due to a misunderstanding of what is usually meant by "it seems fitting." Typically this refers more to seeing parallels between Old Testament and New Testament passages and persons, to seeing foreshadowing or 'types' of one thing reflected later on in another thing. When Catholics speak of "It seems fitting", it should not be taken as something like, "It feels good" or "It brings some sort of poetic closure, or would be a nice gesture - so it must be true."
"Mr. Miller pretty much sums up why Protestants and Catholics will never see eye to eye on this matter. In contrast to the generous and heartfelt verbage Catholics devote to the subject of Mary, Protestants can’t help but note how LITTLE Scripture actually speaks of her. In fact, from the Gospel of John, Acts, through the Epistles, there is scant to total absence of her."
I'm sure there's not scant to total absence - though I think it's odd that you left out the Synoptics in your list. Nate mentioned some Old Testament parallels earlier in this thread, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. If Protestants and Catholics are going to talk about this, then Protestants need to be made aware of the Scriptures Catholics cite as evidence, and Catholics have to stop nodding their heads when someone says, 'Mary's not in Scripture.' I'm compelled to acknowledge the number of places in Scripture where Mary's particular role is foreshadowed, Mary actually takes the front stage of a passage, or Mary shows up in St. John's vision of heaven.
Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." Christians have no trouble saying that this means there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, in common between Christ and Satan. What then about the woman? Who then are her offspring?
Mary is venerated by Elizabeth in Luke 1:42.
Mary utters a long prayer of praise and thanksgiving in Luke 1:46-55.
Simeon prophesies about her in Luke 2:35.
And she is almost - almost - the center of the story about Jesus's first public miracle. She just about steals the show. At least St. John thinks so - because he mentions her first. John 2:1-2 reads: "On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." I find it absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking that John words it this way - and we all know how the rest of the event plays out. Can anyone image why God would allow Holy Scripture to be inspired this way? I hope it gives people something more to think about about - it certainly does me.
"However logical it may appear, to say “it seems fitting” is one of the worst things a Catholic apologist could say. Speculation is a red flag that strongly indicates one is entering the no-man’s-land of error and waste."
You know, I recognize the red flag that this might cause - because I experienced the same type of recoil at one time to the way Marian beliefs can be spoken about. I wasn't always a convinced Catholic. But I think part of that recoil is due to a misunderstanding of what is usually meant by "it seems fitting." Typically this refers more to seeing parallels between Old Testament and New Testament passages and persons, to seeing foreshadowing or 'types' of one thing reflected later on in another thing. When Catholics speak of "It seems fitting", it should not be taken as something like, "It feels good" or "It brings some sort of poetic closure, or would be a nice gesture - so it must be true."
"Mr. Miller pretty much sums up why Protestants and Catholics will never see eye to eye on this matter. In contrast to the generous and heartfelt verbage Catholics devote to the subject of Mary, Protestants can’t help but note how LITTLE Scripture actually speaks of her. In fact, from the Gospel of John, Acts, through the Epistles, there is scant to total absence of her."
I'm sure there's not scant to total absence - though I think it's odd that you left out the Synoptics in your list. Nate mentioned some Old Testament parallels earlier in this thread, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. If Protestants and Catholics are going to talk about this, then Protestants need to be made aware of the Scriptures Catholics cite as evidence, and Catholics have to stop nodding their heads when someone says, 'Mary's not in Scripture.' I'm compelled to acknowledge the number of places in Scripture where Mary's particular role is foreshadowed, Mary actually takes the front stage of a passage, or Mary shows up in St. John's vision of heaven.
Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." Christians have no trouble saying that this means there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, in common between Christ and Satan. What then about the woman? Who then are her offspring?
Mary is venerated by Elizabeth in Luke 1:42.
Mary utters a long prayer of praise and thanksgiving in Luke 1:46-55.
Simeon prophesies about her in Luke 2:35.
And she is almost - almost - the center of the story about Jesus's first public miracle. She just about steals the show. At least St. John thinks so - because he mentions her first. John 2:1-2 reads: "On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." I find it absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking that John words it this way - and we all know how the rest of the event plays out. Can anyone image why God would allow Holy Scripture to be inspired this way? I hope it gives people something more to think about about - it certainly does me.
So it seems to me on these and other dogmas and doctrines, it is an open question what they really *mean*. They may be seen as important for some kind of spiritual truth they convey, but isn't it possible to have the spiritual truth without the dogmas?