Did Mary Write the Bible?

Was Mary an author of Scripture? In one sense, we can obviously say "no". However, in another sense, we can affirm that she is the sole source for a significant portion of Scripture. Why? St. Luke starts off his gospel by saying:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

In the second chapter of St. Matthew's gospel, we are given an account of the magi's flight and the entire predicament with Herod. The level of detail accords an intimate knowledge of the situation.

Why are both of these accounts important?

The accounts are important because the Gospels aren't theological novelties. They are eye-witness accounts, theological accounts, but accounts of witnesses to the events nonetheless. St. Luke compares his task to that of the Old Testament writers ("those who from the beginning"), that the "lover(s) of God" (Theophilus) would know the exact truth about the things [they[ have been taught. Yet the question is still begged as to how St. Matthew and St. Luke acquired their knowledge of the infancy narratives of Christ.

There are only two options: Mary or Joseph.

The problem with St. Joseph being the source is that by the time the Apostles are on the scene, Joseph is out of the picture. We have no evidence that he was a confidant of the Apostles. However, we have copious evidence that the Blessed Virgin was in the confidence of the Apostles.

Why is this important?

This is important because it helps us understand Mary's role in the Church. From Scripture, on the one hand, we get the idea that the Virgin Mary is quietly behind the scenes: silently pondering the mystery of the Incarnation in her heart (Luke 2:19), a sword inconspicuously piercing her soul (Luke 2:35), her quietly releasing her Son into ministry (John 2:5), her discrete solicitude for our Lord throughout his life, her private anguish at the foot of the cross (John 19:23), and St. Luke's subtle mention of her in the upper room at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14).

Christ Giving Us Everything

On the other hand, we can notice something happening in the background of Scripture that gives us quite another view of the Blessed Virgin. Unlike the synoptic gospels, St. John's gospel exposes us more intimately to the interior life of Christ than any of the other gospel accounts. Of course we know that St. John was the beloved disciple of our Lord, but who would know better the interior life of Christ than his mother? It is not mere coincidence that the Blessed Virgin was put in the care of St. John, nor is it merely a coincidence that St. John unpacks the mystery of the Incarnation better than any other (see John 1)--something Mary had "pondered in her heart" for possibly seven decades before the composition of St. John's gospel (see Blessed Pope JPII reflection here on this fact).

Yet the main thrust of this post is that there is really no good explanation for the account of Christ's first 12/13 years other than the Blessed Virgin. During these early years, we could expect that Jesus spent most of his time with Mary, and we should pause and ask why we do not get more information about Christ for the span of 18 years after his Jewish coming of age.

Moreover, when comparing the Greek word choice and syntax in the infancy narratives of Luke as compared to other parts of Luke's gospel account, his word choice belies a different source. Scholarship by Joachim Jeremias has demonstrated that while Luke's hand is all over the infancy narratives, the word choice and vocabulary reflects his reliance upon an earlier semitic (jewish) source, and subsequent scholarship continues to affirm Jeremias's analysis. So while some of the infancy narratives of Luke are written in St. Luke's style and syntax, most of the infancy narratives are written in a slavish style to a source that does not follow Lukan conventions. This is underscored by the fact that scholarship has generally arrived at the conclusion that St. Mark's gospel is the primary source of the other gospels. Luke, in various places, copiously uses certain Markan language and/or treats Markan language certain ways that he oddly resists in the infancy narratives (e.g., of the 8 times Luke comes across a certain word, he chooses to change it 6 times; when that word appears in the infancy narratives he resists the word-substitution; for Jeremias see Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums, for an examination of the pre-Gospel infancy narrative tradition see Birth of the Messiah by Raymond E. Brown and The Gospel According to Luke I-IX by Joseph A. Fitzmyer).

Could this pre-Gospel, semitic tradition be from the Virgin Mary? I think common sense says "yes". Evidently, the Greek agrees.

Practically, the fact that an entire portion of Scripture is indebted to the witness of Mary should demonstrate her central role in the life of the early Church. She was no surrogate Mother, and we should take careful note that St. Luke is still calling her the Mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14) after His glorious ascension! The fact that the Apostles--each of them in their own way--were indebted to Mary for their inspired and inerrant witness to the life of Christ, should cause us pause to consider her central role in the development of the New Testament.

Think about it. The canticle of Mary was her interior prayer to God. How would St. Luke know it other than that Mary told him what she said? We should reject the idea, that some propose, that the Magnificat was some kind of Lukan innovation of "Hannah's Song" (1 Sam 2:1-10), but rather that it was the appropriate response of a well trained Jewish girl who had just recently encountered the angel of the Lord and had come into union with the third person of the Blessed Trinity. She was not only filled with the Spirit, but literally filled with the Word Incarnate.

Thus, it is seemingly apparent that upon the ascension of our Lord, the Apostles attended to Mary, seat of wisdom, as an infallible guide to penetrate the reality of our Risen Lord. At the cross, our Lord gave the Church gifts: His Spirit, His Body and Blood, and His Mother.

So next time you read the Bible:

"Behold, thy Mother"

John 19:27

The First Family Reunion

Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right.

The Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture

I recently read a blog post by Devin Rose, author of If Protestantism if True, where he notes the futility of Bible thumping a Bible thumper. I agree with Devin's basic premise, but I felt like a follow up post was necessary. Devin didn't want to teach a class at his parish about "using the Bible to counter Protestant arguments for their beliefs and defend our Catholic ones."

Devin replied:

"But I don’t plan to teach such a class. Why not? Quite simply, I’ve learned in my ten years as a Catholic that, while it is helpful to present verses and the Catholic interpretation of them, this method of discussion can quickly devolve into a verse-slinging competition. And those go nowhere. That’s why I focus on the meta-level questions: Who has the authority to interpret the Bible in the first place?"

I'm going to agree with Devin that verse slinging is counterproductive. However, I think that the overall point can unintentionally put forward a false dichotomy that puts sound exegesis at odds with Catholicism. At the end of the day, Scripture shouldn't be slung on anyone by anyone; however, there is a place for Catholics to understand just how Catholic their Bible is and to be able to effectively communicate their faith using the Scriptures. Catholics can talk about their faith with their separated brothers and sisters using the Bible without it devolving into verse-slinging. This is important because the Scriptures are something for which we have common reverence, and thus it can serve as a common ground.

My problem with only focusing on the "meta-level" questions (e.g., authority) is that it in a way can imply the Catholic stance on Scripture is only valuable in relationship to the Church's authority to interpret it. In other words, the Catholic position on a doctrine makes sense biblically because the Church has authority. That's not accurate. The Catholic position binds the conscience because of authority, but the Catholic position makes sense because...well...it make sense.

Bare in mind, when I say "makes sense" I mean that it is a reasonable interpretation of Scripture, not that it is a rationally unassailable position. By rationally unassailable, I mean that it is binding on the conscience because the evidence is such that the cause of its conclusiveness can be found in the text. More simply put, a rationally unassailable doctrinal position would have to be found in Scripture in such a way that no other possible interpretation could compel the intellect to assent to it. That is not what I am talking about.

Becoming Catholic isn't counter-intuitive or anti-intellectual, nor does it require you to check your brain in at the door so that Rome can send your mind instant uploads. Submission doesn't imply that. If I don't understand the "how" or "why" of what the Church teaches with regards to the deposit of faith, it is incumbent upon me as a follower of Christ to pursue the Truth that Christ is revealing by the power of the Holy Spirit through His Church. The Anselmian axiom "faith seeking understanding" comes to mind, and it is truly faith, hope and charity that can aid our intellect in obtaining a good will for the truth taught by the Church.

THE BIBLE: GOD'S GIFT TO HIS CHURCH

If I wrote my wife a letter, and some guy picked it up and started interpreting it and getting it all wrong, it would be true that I would have the authority to interpret it correctly. However, my only and sometimes best recourse would be to explain to the misguided why my interpretation makes the most sense given both what is in the text, and what the text implies outside of the text (Sacred Tradition).

I think as Catholics we need to learn how to be conversant about Scripture--which doesn't include slinging texts. Someone who quotes Shakespeare may have simply googled Shakespeare but may have actually never read Shakespeare. Even more, slinging proves that the one who is slinging is unaware of the purpose of that which he is slinging and therefore resorts to misusing whatever it is that is in question--by slinging it. Rocks are meant for slinging, not words.

The Bible works in the Catholic Church because the Bible was meant for the Catholic Church. Like the letter, when understood from the vantage of the writer, who it was intended for, and the tradition in which it was written, the Bible does truly "make sense" in the Catholic paradigm (CCC 109). I emphasize Catholic paradigm, because so much of the Bible just doesn't make sense outside of that paradigm. Again using the letter analogy, some dude would never get the nuances of my letter since the letter was never intended to be read or used by him. That's why the catechism says (97): "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." Thus we see the absolute necessity for Tradition, the Scripture that emerged from it, and the Church Christ established to faithfully lead the pilgrim people of God into all truth (John 16:13; 1 Timothy 3:15).

Here are a few suggestions for talking about Scripture with a separated brother or sister:

• Know where Catholic dogmas are supported by Scripture: there's no excuse. "My Church has authority"--right or wrong--will not foster brotherly love or gain a sense of respect from a separated brother or sister. It's a good question, but can cause the conversation to devolve just as quickly as verse slinging. If you don't know where it is in the Bible, find out.
• Don't sling, converse.
• Listen more than you talk.
• Only talk about one topic at a time.
• Remember that sola scriptura is not in the Bible.
• Your goal should be to get agreement, at the least, that the Catholic position is reasonable.

To the last point, this is a very charitable goal and one that will not likely lead to conflict. I am not trying to get you to agree with me in such a way that you give up your position. However, by getting you to admit that the Catholic Church does seem to be taking into account the full data of Scripture, you are planting a very important seed. As St. Paul says:

"Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."-1 Cor 3:7

The goal isn't to win. The goal is to plant seeds or water seeds that are already there, keeping in mind that we are truly nothing compared to the one who can make the seed grow. We must believe that it is Christ who is bringing his Church back together, and that it is His prerogative to do so (Luke 13:34, John 17:21). Moreover, rarely if ever does an argument win a convert. God who sees the heart, wins the heart. It is our job to simply make sure our bucket is full of water or seeds, and as Catholics, we should not be afraid to fill that bucket with the Sacred Scriptures (Luke 8:11).

___________________________________________________________

Note: Today I "saw" Ephesians 5:26-27 in a whole new light regarding baptism:

"That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish."

Through Sacrament--Word (Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Matt 28:19) and Matter (Water, baptizo)--we are renewed as His Bride because "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph 5:30). Just as water (Red Sea) was used by God to bring the children of Israel out of slavery, so too God uses what is ordinary to free us from the bondage of sin and death that we might rise again (Col 2:12).

Mary's Song: The Verse I Never Saw

On August 3 at 2pm est, my interview from Marcus Grodi's radio show Deep in Scripture will air. The theme of the show is "The Verse(s) I Never Saw", and I've selected three scripture passages that I would like to discuss with Marcus. As a preview of the show, one of the passages I've selected is Luke 1:46-55, or what we refer to as the Magnificat or Canticle of Mary. The passage reads:

And Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever."

More than a year before I ever considered the Catholic Church, in a time of prayer and Scripture reading, I came across this passage. Immediately, the Lord convicted me.

How could I be so callous to the mother of Jesus? I claimed to love him, have a relationship with him, but thought very little of his mother. Moreover, at the most important point in the history of salvation up until this time, Mary was declaring that "all generations will call me blessed". I had a background in the Hebrew language from my undergraduate, and so I knew that this word blessed didn't mean "awesome job" or "nice one" or "Mary, you sure are a great incubator". No this implied a prophetic reality, and unfortunately last I remembered there was no place in my tradition where we call her blessed, or more specifically invoked the blessing of the Lord upon her.

What is the blessing of the Lord on her?

Just a few verses above in Luke 1:28, we get a record of the heavenly blessing delivered by the Angel Gabriel from heaven to earth so that no one could dispute it:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: 
blessed art thou among women."

Whoa nellie. We definitely DID NOT say that phrase. We did not return to Mary the blessing declared by Gabriel's mouth, the word that brought salvation to the world, the word that revealed the one "set apart" as the Woman prophesied about in Genesis. We were not a part of the prophetic fulfillment of Mary's song. Sadly, Her chorus had fallen on deaf ears.

Further, how was it that Mary could rejoice in God her savior (past tense) and what were the great things he had done for her? At this point in my journey, that was just food for thought.

At the word on the lips of the Blessed Virgin, recorded in Holy writ, my theology changed that day. As a Protestant, I loved Mary from that moment forward. I could not resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Even more, I knew that I had to find that Church that returned to Mary, in every generation, the blessing delivered through the angelic oracle. Actually, I had yet to come to that conclusion, but I knew at the least that my tradition, nowhere, called her blessed in every generation, and that was a problem I should probably look into.

Hat tip to the czar for the pic

Confession in the Bible: 4 Replies to 4 Theories

We will now pick back up the topic of the Sacrament of Confession. Previously we considered whether or not Confession is a Christian-kind-of-thing to do. Now we will consider a seminal passage in Scripture regarding the Sacrament of Confession:

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." - John 20:21-23

Honestly I feel like just stopping right here and opening up the comboxes. As a protestant and someone who studied the Scriptures ardently, studied theology professionally, and had an active prayer life, I did absolutely nothing with this passage.

Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. It was like a bad birthday present from your estranged Aunt who was coming to dinner--you don't know what to do with it but you're afraid to throw it away in case she looks for it when she visits. So some grotesque looking gnome sits in your bedroom for the rest of your life. When you get married that's an awkward conversation. That was John 20:21-23. Especially verse 23 (you can read a sermon that does just that here). For other examples of a gloss of this passage see Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, John Darby's Synopsis, or the Geneva Study Bible.

Let's imagine for a moment what one could do to hack--I mean interpret--this text in order to achieve at some level a meaning that could contradict the Catholic position regarding the Sacrament of Confession.

Theory One: The Apostles had now been given the power to forgive people who offend them
Before Jesus breathed on them, no one could forgive anyone. Forgiveness in general is only a Christian behavior.

Reply to Theory 1

Even if one could only forgive if they were a Christian, it would still not follow that this passage is about that. Nowhere does the passage reference that the sin is against the Apostles. Rather, in most translations, the word "of any" describing the "who" is included which implies that the Apostles had the power to forgive or retain the sins of anyone. Since every sin is not a sin against the Apostles per se, this passage is not about sins against the Apostles.

Theory Two: The Apostles could forgive sins, but only the Apostles. It ended after they died.
Classic cessationist argument whereby the Apostolic Church and post-Apostolic Church are night and day different. The Holy Spirit is given to them in unique and miraculous ways, but after the Apostles there were no more miracles since the Gospel had already been delivered. I call this the Humean-hide-and-seek move. John Gill's commentary says so much and Matthew Henry agrees in that they believe Catholics who try to imitate the passing on of this gift to be in error. Henry goes as far as to say that even though St. Peter had this gift, it did not vouchsafe his infallibility in any way of using it.

Reply to Theory 2

In the next post we will consider in Church history how in fact the Apostles handed off their divine ministry to their successors. Scripture also motions at the necessity of the continuation of the Apostolic Church in both the narrative dynamic in Acts (the story doesn't end) but also by the multiple allusions to the ministry of the Church existing "until the end of time". Even more, the classic use of 1 Corinthians 13 by cessationists fails because it assumes what it argues: namely that what is "perfect" has come and so the Apostolic ministry passes away with the coming of the Gospel. However, this type of realized eschatology goes against a basic protestant hermeneutic (that eschatology is not realized) and more importantly implies that Christ's life was somehow less than the "perfect" which 1 Cor 13:10 references. Yet, both readings of the passage are wrong, and what we do know from the passage is that the dynamic ministry of the Church will end, but that end is not arbitrarily at the death of the Apostles but at the glorious return of Christ--yet even then the Church will rule and reign with Him.

Theory Three: This is some type of quasi summary of the Gospel.
(From the Gevena Study Bible) The publishing of the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ, and the setting forth and proclaiming the wrath of God in retaining the sins of the unbelievers, is the sum of the preaching of the gospel.

Reply to Theory 3
That's a whiff t-ball style.

Theory Four: The Apostles never used this power
This is John Wesley's argument. Despite the fact that, (a) this is one of the few acts Jesus does after his Resurrection and (b) has a Biblical significance of gigantic proportions given its direct parallel to God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Genesis, Christ's act here is some type of cosmic theatre meant to be read about like Odysseus or Macbeth. ["Wasn't that so awesome! All right, time to go home the movie is over."] While it happened, it never happened, and though we read about it, the Church never experienced the ministry.

Reply to Theory 4
(a) There is no other parallel to this in scripture, (b) it makes Christ impotent or at least the Church a type of window-dressing, and (c) wreaks of anti-Papist filth doing damage to the scripture no matter the cost.

What do you do with this passage?

spurious passage of Scripture
that doesn't fit my paradigm

Infant Baptism in the Bible

My daughter Gemma Grace after baptismal regeneration

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Collosians 2:9-12

This is part 3 of 4 on infant baptism. If you haven't, I suggest you read the first and second posts here and here. In the above passage, St. Paul--the Catholic theologian--does a lot of work in a few words. The key is to look at how the clauses are linked.

He is the head over all rule and authority
AND
in Him we are circumcised with a [circumcision made without hands]
IN
The removal of the body of the flesh
HAVING BEEN
buried with Him in baptism
IN WHICH
we are also raised up with Him
THROUGH
faith in the working of God
WHO
raised Him from the dead

1. Christ can do what He wants and He has a circumcision that doesn't involve, well you know "hands" (see here for more info). Let's just say a Jew in the 1st century would know what that meant.

2. His Circumcision is about the "body of the flesh". This has nothing to do with the body as evidenced by #1. It does have to do with our sin nature (think works of the flesh).

3. How does this happen? St. Paul says that it was a "having been" experience. (See picture of my daughter). However it is not enough that through baptism we enter into the covenant of his death and burial.

4. We must have faith in the working of God who raised Him (and us) from the dead.

I see water. I see Gemma. I see water. I see Gemma. I see by faith the unseen Resurrection of the soul.

I see picture of my daughter above. So, if you've been to a baptism and realized, "I didn't see anything change, hmm?" Oh you of little faith, we walk by faith and not by sight.

So, why offer this to infants?

I think there are three solid Biblical reasons (besides the reason that the Church teaches it):

1. Baptism is the New Covenant Circumcision

When do you circumcise someone? How do parents "place" their children into the family of God? The direct link between O.T. circumcision and baptism is a strong witness to its rightful New Covenant context.

2. Baptism was offered to everyone in the family of the jailer in Acts 16:33.

"He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once."

It's unconscionable that the disciples, who had been chastised by our Lord for resisting the children (Matt 19:14), would now walk into a 1st century home and according to Scripture baptize "all his family" EXCEPT THE CHILDREN. No my friend, that is called adding to the text what is not there. It is not conjecture to assume the children were baptized, but it is conjecture to ADD to the text by saying that all = everyone but the children.

3. Christ taught that the faith of the Church (others) could save someone.

We are all familiar with story of some friends who lowered their paralyzed friend through the roof to see Jesus. "When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven." (Luke 5:20).

So, next time you see a picture of this:

THINK THIS:

Cloud Baptism and Baptism in the Bible

Before I continue considering the reasons for the Catholic teaching of infant baptism, I wanted to try to explain more thoroughly from Scripture what is taught regarding baptism in general. My next two posts after this will deal with infant baptism in the Scriptures and Tradition.

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:2, makes an allusion to an Old Testament baptism. I think this is very important because St. Paul takes note of two baptisms: water (the sea) and cloud. We are all familiar with the water baptism. What is cloud baptism?

A friend of mine has instructed me that cloud baptism has traditionally been understood to reference the cloud of fire and as an analogy to the sacrament of Confirmation.

However, in Exodus 40:35 and other places, the cloud signifies that the glory of God. A cloud descended upon the mountain of God when He revealed His covenant (the Law). The cloud was where Moses would "appear...over the atonement cover" (Lev 16:2). A pillar of cloud concealed the revelation of God from the people when Moses was on the mountain (Ex 33:9). This of course was after God had ordained that the cloud would help the people "hear when I speak with you (Moses) and may believe in you forever", but the people would respond by worshiping a golden calf (Ex 19 and 32).  In Numbers 16 we learn that during Korah's rebellion, the cloud descends to bring justice, but the Priest who has been given authority by God (despite the people's objections) makes atonement for the people; yet many die.

Fast-forward to the New Covenant.

When Jesus is baptized we see our first instantiation of the Holy Trinity. The Father speaks, the Spirit descends, and the Son is present. Of course the Eternal Logos (Christ) had been in the water before John that day, so what is especial to this moment is the dove (The Father's Word was already present before he said "This is my son..."). It hearkens back to Noah and reminds us that "peace and goodwill has come to humanity" and that God has come again, like in the first garden, to reconcile with us. Let us take note that it is the Spirit that descends this time in approval and this time to show (not conceal) to the people the definitive Revelation of God--Jesus Christ. Yet this act in time will gain its ultimate existential meaning a few years later.

So it is that in Romans 6:4, St. Paul declares, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death through the glory of the Father (the cloud) so we too might walk in newness of life." (see also Col 2:22).

John's baptism foreshadowed what would come. It prepared the way for the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Through Christ's death and glorious resurrection, baptism is transformed beyond mere symbol or theatric. The sea and the cloud--water and The glory of God--are now one in the One who has come to make all things new, and it is that baptism that He will commission His disciples to go and do. Grafted into the Holy Trinity, we enter into the Way of the Father, through the passion and death of the Son, and rise again to new life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Look at Romans 6:4 again. Notice that it is the "glory of God" that allows us to "walk" in newness of life. This glory is not set aside for the eschaton, the end, but rather is meant to come to us now. While our bodies certainly groan for their redemption, what then is redeemed if not our bodies? Unlike Christ, our resurrection does not include (yet) a new body, but what is made new "through baptism"?

So then St. Peter teaches us, "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pet 3:21). Let's consider then what we can learn from this passage and from what has preceded:

• Our baptism is salvific in that it is our participation in the life, death and resurrection of Christ
• It cleans us, but not externally but internally by the power of the Holy Spirit in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the glory of the Father)--Phil 3:10
• Whereas the cloud and water were distinct in the Old Covenant; In Christ the Glory of God is manifest in the waters of baptism.
• Thus in Baptism, the glory of God descends upon the baptized making them a new creature; the water is not mere symbol but is the means by which Christ transmits his supernatural power. What was foreshadowed by the O.T. acts is realized in New Covenant Baptism.

[Note: When the glory of God comes you are either (1) purified or (2) destroyed/punished not (3) legally accounted as righteous. This is alien to all of the Old Testament imagery of baptism and the manifest glory of God.]

Korah's Rebellion

Interestingly enough, it is in Jude 1:11 that we learn I think about those who will reject the Church's teaching on baptism. Of course I do not mean those who happen to believe that infant baptism is not true, but rather those who originally espoused that doctrine.

"Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah..." Who are these that "care (only) for themselves" and are "carried along by winds" and are "without fruit" (Jude 1:12)?

So, I'll stop for now and start again considering infant baptism in the Scriptures and how a rejection of it is un-Biblical.

Catholic Saints and the Bible

The Psalms

Christian prayer. David leads us into the heart of what it means to pray in the Psalms. Christians of every ilk can admit that. In Psalms 103:20 we read, "Bless the LORD, you His angels, Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word!

Is David talking to the angels in this prayer?

In Psalms 148, David continues in his heavenly salutation, "Praise him all his angels, praise him all his hosts."

There are the angels again. Who are the hosts? In the Hebrew language, the word is masculine and denotes a mass of people gathered for a strategic purpose. What is their purpose?

In Revelation 5:11, we get a glimpse of this company, "I looked again and heard the voices of many angels who surrounded the throne and the living creatures and the elders. They were countless in number". In this passage there are three categories of beings: (1) angels, (2) living creatures, and (3) elders.

We already know that David speaks directly to the angels in prayer. However, if he invokes the "host" in prayer, he is also invoking the living creatures and the elders.

Just a few versus before (Rev 5:8) and in Revelation 8, we are informed that the angels and elders in heaven bring before God the prayers of the "holy ones" (Saints). In a recent post, I talked about the nature of how the early Church viewed their departed brethren. In the light of Christ's victory over death, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to understand the Sacred Tradition and Scripture it had received, taught that the Saints were in heaven and that we needed their prayers. Further, it was not until the end of the world and the creation of the new heavens and earth that all would be united in heavenly bliss. Until that time, those in heaven would play a strategic intercessory role in the Church.

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:21 says that the "eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you'". Just because our brothers and sisters are in heaven--out of site and out of mind, maybe--we still need them. Even more, because they are perfectly united to Christ in heaven, their prayers are most effectual (James 5:16, "the fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful").

"But, they are dead, they cannot do anything," one might argue. Besides the evidence above that they are doing something, Jesus said that "God is not the God of the dead but the living" (Mark 12:27). Remember, "we walk by faith not by sight (2 Cor 5:7). Death is not the end of anything eternal, but only the end of what is temporal. In Christ, death has been disarmed from delivering its fatal blow. So, should we cry when someone dies? Of course. We cry on this side of glory, but it is on that side of glory that they deliver the tears to the throne of God.

If you don't believe that we can ask the Saints for prayers, that they aren't in heaven praying for us, or that as Christians we cannot know either way, I hope you are willing to at the least admit that (1) it isn't against Christian sensibilities, (2) that there is evidence in the early Church for it, and (3) that Sacred Scripture isn't void of any direct or indirect references to it.

Though in the face of such evidence, I hope you would prayerfully ask your departed brother and sisters in Christ for their prayers and that you would ask Christ to forgive you for ignoring them. And, that you would consider coming home (or back home) to the Catholic Church.

Purgatory in the Bible

In the last post, I ended with a reference to Christ's words in Mathew 12:32 where Christ makes reference to a repayment for sin "either in this life or the next." Of course, this cannot be referring to hell because hell is not a repayment for anything but rather a punishment. Repayment implies reconciliation and restitution; punishment does not.

When God reveals himself to Moses, Moses hears God's voice from a burning bush (Exodus 3). Later this fire will lead the children of Israel in the desert (Ex 14). In Hebrews, the author (likely Paul) encourages us with the lives of the "cloud of witnesses" and concludes this discourse about the kingdom of God we receive that is "unshakable" (12:28) describing God as a "consuming fire". Just a few verses beforehand, he warns us that God "scourges every son he acknowledges" (12:6). What is this scourging? How is God a "consuming fire"?

Let's look at a few scripture passages that allude to an interpretation terminating in the idea of a postmortem purgation :

• Matt 5:26, 18:34; Luke 12:58-59- Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge (God) and thrown into prison and will not get out until ou have paid the last penny

• Matt 5:48- "Must be perfect"; Jesus makes it clear that perfection is an ontological requirement

• Luke 12:47-48- "some will receive heavy beatings but live"; for those who know the Master's will but don't act accordingly

• Luke 16:19:31- the dead rich man is suffering but has compassion (which means he cannot be in hell because compassion is a virtue of the Spirit)

• Phil 2:10- "every knee shall bow in heaven earth and "under the earth"

• Heb 12:14- "without holiness no one will see the Lord"; We must possess holiness. Do you possess it perfectly now? 

• 2 Tim 1:16-18- Paul asks for mercy "on that day" for Onesiphorus who is dead 

• 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6- Jesus preached to the spirits in "prison"

• Baruch 3:4- prayers for the dead

• 2 Macc 12:43-45- prayers are offered for the dead to help free them from sin (Luther removed Maccabees because of this)

• 1 Cor 3:10-15- works are judged after death and tested by fire

• Jude 1:23- people are being saved "out of the fire"; but hell is eternal separation from God (CCC 1035) therefore the fire cannot be hell
• Also see Matthew 12:32

(there were numerous other passages I could have included but did not so you could still read this comfortably on your iphone)

Where do we go from here? Where could I go? The Catholic Church claimed that purgatory existed. The early Church proclaimed that a place of purgation for the elect was impending if the temporal penalty of their sin wasn't paid. The Bible hardly makes a case against it. It wasn't against my Christian sensibilities nor did it diminish the work of Christ. No, purgatory affirmed Christ's commitment to me, the perfection of God, and my responsibility for my actions. Christ is the sacrifice that atones for my sins appeasing the justice of God. However, my actions still have temporal consequences and God requires justice. Did I reject Purgatory because of a man-made tradition that renders the word of God of no effect?

When one is faced with the reality that they may be so wrong, when their faith as they know it as containing certain propositional values has been unearthed with a flower spade revealing its shallow roots; one has two options. I'll explain them in my next post. Until thin, thank God for purgatory or pray to God to help you understand this beautiful but oft misunderstood dogma.

The Angelic Salutation

"Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with you." I will never forget the first time I ever really "heard" those words. I was outside the doors of St. Mary's of the Lakes about to go to my first Mass. They sounded like a cultic chant; some type of Christian prater. Was this really where God was calling me? I opened the door and peered in and then closed it quickly afraid of what might happen as if their words might cast some spell. "Breathe", I told myself as I paced outside the parish doors, now perspiring as I waited for my friend Dominic to arrive.

Why would I have such a reaction to these words, especially hearing them in prayer? 

Why would I have both an intellectual and visceral reaction that was so negative?

What is the Angelic Salutation?

The beginning of the "Hail Mary" is taken right out of the Angel Gabriel's mouth. We know that angels are messengers for God. Therefore, we know the words in Gabriel's mouth were straight from God's mouth. Why does he send the message and what does it perform?

St. Paul reminds us that God "sent" His son "in the fullness of time" (Gal 4:4). How did he do this sending? It was done by none other than Gabriel and through Mary's fiat ("be it unto me, according to your word") that salvation came into the world. So, there are two hinges to the door of salvation opening to humanity: (1) the word of the Lord and (2) Mary's free response to it.

The Angelic Salutation, St. Louis de Montfort instructs us, "is so heavenly and so beyond us in its depth of meaning that...no mere creature could ever possibly understand it, and that only Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Who was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary can really explain it" (The Secret of the Rosary). What this great saint and millions of others (including those praying in St. Mary's of the Lakes that morning) find in these words is the entire Gospel, the entire Good News. What is this news? It is that God has sent his Son and that mankind can accept the gift and be saved. This hope is found concomitantly in the Annunciation (Gabriel's message) and the Incarnation (Mary's fiat). When Gabriel announced salvation to the world, creation stood still awaiting humanity's response. Would salvation come to men? 

IIn very much the same way that the serpent's offer to Eve awaited her response and so fell mankind, God's message through Gabriel awaited Mary's response. What would men say? Would this woman make the wrong choice again?

And creation rejoiced! She was The Woman who had been promised in Genesis. Salvation has come to men! In the Angelic Salutation we find the true inbreaking of God's salvation. It is what, since the beginning, has been anticipated. In this moment, the door to the Tree of Life is being granted access again. What the Angel in Genesis guarded against our entry, now the Angel was offering for our salvation. In Mary's fiat, the door was swung wide open! Come, all you who are weary and heavy laden. Come the poor, sinner, broken, and sick. Come and be refreshed. You banished children of Eve, as children of the New Eve, salvation has come to your house. The Virgin predestined about from the beginning has come and she is bearing a "seed" that will crush Satan, death, hell, and the grave.

Be not Afraid

How could it be that the very words that bring me salvation made me pace in fear? Who else do these words make tremble? As I reflect upon this, I can clearly see that the serpent, the one who was anticipating this moment of failure, this moment of defeat, hates to hear those words, hates to see Christians praying those words especially with Mary. Why with Mary? Because, it is with Mary that Satan cannot question the fruit of the Angel's words. Mary is the instrument of God who "watches over" His word to perform it (Jer 1:12). Could Satan be the father of lies that makes men so hardened to the "Hail Mary" since it is such his enemy?

Yes, he is the father of lies. Yes, the fact that I was so afraid of those words that morning shows that somehow I had bought a lie. But there is hope.

Although you may find the words "Hail Mary" troubling, you are in good company. At first, Mary was also disconcerted by what the Angel said. However, Gabriel continued, "Do not be afraid, you have found favor with God."

I walked into the parish that morning. Somehow, the Angel's words reached my ears. When you hear the words "Hail Mary", do not be afraid as well. The door to the Tree of Life has been opened, salvation has come to men!

The Assumption in the Bible

The "B.I.B.L.E., yes that's the book for me, I stand upon the word of God the B.I.B.L.E". Children's songs. As a Protestant, I grew up singing this one. You may have as well. So, obviously on a journey to Catholicism, one must stop and ask about the Assumption or any Catholic doctrine, "Where's that in the Bible?"

Biblical Precedent

For starters, Elijah and Enoch were both assumed into heaven (2 Kings 2:1-12, Hebrews 11:5). Thus, we have historic Biblical precedent for this particular miraculous phenomena. We also have no place in scripture that says, "Enoch and Elijah were the only ones assumed into heaven"--no where to be found. In turn, we can say at this point that the Assumption of Mary is (1) not against Christian sensibilities, (2) is an instance of an historical event, and (3) has a typology in Scripture. Not a real slam dunk case against it, right?

You can imagine that all of this would make a Protestant become a little uncertain. They might have to say that "I still don't see it in the Bible" or "that's fine if you believe it, but I don't think it's necessary." But, if it's true, and Jesus is the Truth, the necessity of assent is correlative to the seriousness or commitment of the inquirer. You or I may care less about the orinthological implications of a study of a Red-footed Falcon, but if we were bird lovers we would care. The Mother of Christ's journey to her eternal beatitude for a Christ lover should barely seem obscure, and if this truth is attainable, we should long to know it since Jesus is The Truth (Psalms 42:1) and the truth sets us free (John 8:32).

Are there any allusions to Mary's Assumption in the Bible? First, Scripture is abundantly clear that we should hold fast as Christians not only to the written word but the oral traditions of the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Jn 2:24, 1 Jn 4:6). To abnegate this responsibility is to cease to act Biblically and to nullify the word of God by the man-made modern tradition of rejecting Apostolic tradition. Second, Psalm 132:7-8 has traditionally been interpreted by Catholics as a prophecy about Mary's Assumption. In the passage, Mary as the Arc of the New Covenant is brought back to heaven by God. 

Apocalyptic Message of Hope?

As we consider the actual historical date of the Assumption, we notice that it may have likely coincided with great persecution and then a time of brief relief. In Revelation 12 we notice something like this being wrought by God for "The Woman". In Revelation 12:13, the dragon "pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child". She is then given "two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert" (v.14) and "Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments (works) and bear witness to Jesus (faith)" (v.17).

If John is writing this after the Assumption, writing it in the apocryphal language of his day to "codify" the events of the Church in common mythological language that would be easily understood by his audience, and writing it to give hope to those under persecution, it is hard to imagine what other interpretation of this passage makes sense. Could John be motioning to those under persecution that the Virgin is now in heaven and that their prayers for her protection have been answered? Would the Holy Mother's bodily Assumption into heaven bring great relief to those who were watching their fellow believer's bodies being mutilated and tortured? 

Moreover as we converge upon the multiplicity of probabilities, considering the historical, philosophical, theological, and liturgical movement in time that brings one to a belief in the Assumption of Mary, it is in that paradigm of probabilities that this passage is rendered the most intelligible. However, it is not enough as an article of faith for it to be the most intelligible from the data. Rather, the Church is the "ground and pillar of truth." As such, it was in the solemn pronouncement of the dogma by Pope St. Pius XII that the Church was bound to believe it. May it also bring us great hope in our time of trial as we see the body persecuted by the cult of hedonism and debauchery. May we see in the Blessed Virgin, the true end of the our bodies: union with God.

Even more, may the dogma of the Assumption of Mary stand as a sign of contradiction in a world constantly throwing off God and that we, too, will "mount up with wings like eagles" like our Blessed Mother as we "hope in the Lord" (Is 40:31).