Do We Need Certainty Regarding Dogma?

This post is a slight adaptation of a comment I recently left at the website Called to Communion. If you have not already, I highly recommend making the site a regular part of your reading diet.

_______________________________________

The question of "epistemic certainty" was germane to my own spiritual journey. Albeit, I did not dip my toe in the Tiber because of it, but I certainly did begin to question the basic framework of my ecclesial home which eventually led me to Rome.

Mixer-upper of ontology
and epistemology

Let me just say, that in epistemology there are distinguishable features of “knowing”. For any type of knowledge we have, we can recognize and distinguish (1) the knower, (2) the thing known and (3) the method by which we know a thing. On 1 and 2, we agree with our Protestant friends. I make this point because often questions of epistemology in Catholic and Protestant dialog quickly devolve into conversations about “total depravity” or “the nature of revelation”. I am willing to grant the one who holds to “total depravity” that, in fact, they know stuff despite their theological commitment to a position that seems to undermine the possibility of any kind of certainty with regards to the function of their fallen cognitive faculty. That is besides the point, because I can move that fact to the bottom and top of the fraction for both of us and redact it out of the formula.

We also agree that the deposit of faith comes to us from God, and thus is a supernatural object of knowledge. Therefore, we agree fundamentally as to the nature of the knower and the nature of the thing known. However, we disagree fundamentally on the methodology by which we know the thing. This, I think, is the onus of Michael Liccione's article, and the reason the Protestant should click over to it, read and wrestle with it; keeping in mind the distinct epistemological contention he raises.

In short, the distinction between opinion and dogma, which outside of theology just means opinion or fact, should shed light on what is at stake. In short, the credibility of Christianity is at stake. Think about it. It would appear that for all species of knowledge accessible to the human faculty, there is a principled method by which humans can agree, if used, will result in certain knowledge (e.g., observation, historical study, abstraction, etc. — and in theology, dogma). “Certain” here not meaning the removal of all doubt (for we are irrationally prone to it), but rather meaning a certain trust in the credibility of a method that produces results worthy of assent. The ball drops twice. George Washington is always the first president. A=A. Then comes theology.

The Catholic position does not thrust upon theology something external to itself. It is not, as some have alluded, a wanting for more than God would have us have. It is, in fact, simply asking of theology what is requisite itself for attaining something more than just opinion in general, and since theology is a supernatural object, it is fitting that it would require a supernatural methodology (of courses in harmony with natural processes). This just means we are being human as God has made us. If God did not want us to have certainty regarding theology, then he would have created us without rational minds. If we did not have rational minds, then we would be fine if the ball drops and does not drop, that there is no rational principle in the world or in the mind of God, and that it does not matter what baptism really does as long as you believe something (an approach to the world more resembling Islam than Christianity).

To hold to this principle, the principle of what I will call “theological nihilism”, flavored with a positivism imbued by an evangelical vigor, is to act less than human. It is to look at the image of God in you and to reject it in favor, ironically, of your own opinion. This, of course, is the sin of Adam: to become less than human by becoming the autonomous man. The primacy of the individual conscience bit Adam in his soul, for between the fruit and his mouth was a decision that he knew better — that somehow his latest interpretation of the commandment was more enlightened than his previous interpretation.

The Church, the ground and pillar of truth, is the principled method by which we can distinguish between opinion and fact. I can “tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17), and get an answer that if I reject, I become as a tax collector or pagan.

That is the “difference”.

The Chair of St. Peter

When Church Shopping Makes Sense

I was recently in a doctor's office waiting for a follow up appointment and picked up this issue of Tabletalk, a Reformed magazine, which was available in the waiting room. The theme of the issue was "Authority", and so naturally I was curious as to how this Reformed periodical of sorts would deal with such a loaded topic. In particular, I was interested in the section on "Church Authority" and how the author--whom if memory serves me correctly was John Muether--would broach the subject.

For starters, the author and I share the same concern. He notices how evangelicals who practice ecclesial consumerism (church shopping) are sadly just like the moral relativists they publicly decry. In other words, the same principle that leads one to moral relativism leads to theological and/or ecclesial relativism. If theological truth is grounded in the knower--namely in his or her "bosom burning"--then moral truth is grounded there as well. Thus, the evangelical church shopper and the moral relativist are no better off than the other in terms of giving a principled account for their decision making.

The problem was not in his observation, but came when he tried to present a solution. On the one hand, he would have us to believe that in Protestantism there is a "church" of which one should submit. Of course, one is free to write such a thing, but writing that "one should submit to their church" and saying that such a teaching is in scripture, is quite different than giving me a principled way of finding a church of which I should submit. I will now show that on the Reformed account, one is no better off than the moral relativist in giving a principled account for their decision making.

In his example, the evangelical is criticized for church shopping and also for her dissent form her pastor's teaching. Why should she submit to her local church instead of "separating" from what she sees as illegitimate? The author's answer is that one should submit because the church is the "ordinary" place we receive God's grace.

Perfect! All that our evangelical friend needs to do is submit to her local church--whatever their theology is--and she is now following "church" authority. Right?

This is where this whole thing gets really fishy. No Reformed Christian claims that orthodoxy is irrelevant. The whole point of the Reformation was that Rome was heterodox and needed to be ditched, that the true "church" is the church that teaches the "pure" gospel and holds to biblical orthodoxy. Yet the question is begged that if orthodoxy is the mark of the church, according to the Reformed, how would one know if their church was orthodox? And, if one knew the theological criteria for a church's orthodoxy, how would it really be submission to show obedience to a church solely on the basis that they agreed with what you already knew. In other words, the point of submission is that the church, at times, is suppose to get it right and you are suppose to get it wrong. But isn't that exactly the problem? No one "getting it wrong" thinks they are "geting it wrong", and if they think they are "getting it right"--using Scripture, then they would, under this particular schema, have the right to not submit to their local church.

Moreover, over at the Reformed website Ligonier, an author of a devotional on the topic of church authority says:

"Jesus assures us of His approving presence when two or more gather in His name to make decisions according to His will".

Thus, according to this devotional article, we are to be confident that through the "church", God will direct us to the truth of the matter.

Q: Who is this church?

A: Where two or more are gathered in his name.

The only problem with the thesis is that every ecclesial community gathers in his name, and yet many of them disagree on fundamental theological issues like baptism, communion, and church government--to name only a few. Each community views many of the other community's theological positions as heterodox, and thus not a church worthy of submission. If they did, the Presbyterian would tell the Pentecostal--who somehow aimlessly wondered into Frist Presby--to go back to his or her AG church. Not sure that would happen.

Even more, the evangelical could claim that she is exercising the prudential wisdom of where "two or more gather in His name", and thus she feels led to submit to a group that is on fire for Christ, and will even put the words in their marquee. Ecclesial consumerism, in this paradigm, has to make sense. If I know what makes a church orthodox, then what I know is what I should look for in a church to submit to. Will I make mistakes? You bet. Therefore, when I realize that the church I submitted to that I thought was orthodox teaches something contrary to what I believe, I should leave that church in favor of a church that agrees with what I know to be the true teachings of Scripture.

Do people leave churches for bad reasons? Of course they do. However, in this schema there is no way to argue that a person who believes they know what the Bible teaches on Communion, for example, should have to submit to a church that later he finds out is wrong according to what he knew.

A possible solution to this problem? John McArthur suggests its because there isn't enough Bible preaching. People need more of the word of God. If they had it, they would rightly submit to the Lordship of Christ and become "hussites" of sorts. A church that understands theology like John Huss is a true, Bible-believing church, and one should submit to that kind of church.

[Wait a minute...This just in. John Huss agreed with the Catholic Church on ALOT of doctrines. Hmmm....Nope, can't submit to that church!]

I'm all for more Bible preaching, but I want to make the observation that since the Protestant reforbellion in the 16th century, we've gotten a whole lot MORE Bible preaching. It's the most published book. You can find a Bible behind a toilet, in a night stand at a hotel, on a coffee table, book shelf, in about 5-12 different custom translations, even in ebonics. The evidence that more Bible preaching leads to greater levels of submission to the "church" just doesn't give. In fact, 30,000+ denominations later, we can't help but think that the whole Protestant idea necessarily leads to church shopping and ecclesial entrepreneurism.

The only solution is that some Church, that we could identify like we could identify this (Matt 5:14), has been given the Holy Spirit in such a way that she cannot teach error (Matt 16:19). Thus, she will get it right and, at times, I will get it wrong. That's a church worth submitting to, the ground of which is the veracity of the thing outside of myself. Relativist problem solved. "Church authority" in the protestant paradigm is little more than another way of affirming the primacy of individual conscience. As long as I can resist whatever a church teaches on the grounds that I disagree with it from Scripture, I will always have the "out" to church shop. It would be my God given right to protect my conscience from error. However, if there truly is a biblical mandate to submit to the "Church" which is the ground and pillar of truth, then the primacy of the individual conscience is a lie from the pit of hell. It is, as the author of the Tabletalk article confers upon the evangelical church shopper, the sister of the spirit of this age.

Let us pray that all Christians can find--despite all the noise of "Bible" preaching--the Church who has been protected from error to teach the Truth and truly submit to her as a good son or daughter. Lest, we only bend our knee in a room full of glass, only to find out it was a room of mirrors--bearing only the various angles of our own conscience, a mirage of humility that quickly becomes the indigestible sand of pride in our mouth.

Lord have mercy.

Flying is for Losers

“But they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.”- Isaiah 40:31

“So the last shall be first, and the first last.”-Matt 20:16

In our society, we are obsessed with winning. We race each other to the bathroom, to the top of the slide, even to the ocean as if there isn’t enough for all of us. “Last one to the picnic table is a rotten egg!” So we imagine that the one who trips on his laces, skins his knee, and tags the table last has rotten yoke on his head. Weird.

When the Creator of the universe scandalously hung on a tree, Nietzsche got it right when he said: “God is dead”. He was no modalist. As Catholics, the words should give us chill bumps; the scene should take our breath away. Yet, somehow it doesn’t have that effect. Somehow we stand at the foot of the cross with the Roman soldier–indifferent. Blood staining our clothes, the dream of our life, angry birds, or something else has us so preoccupied we don’t have time to get small. Small enough to see who it is that hangs just above our head. Are we callous? Distracted? What is it that inhibits our perception, and where is it that we make this encounter?

First, I blame winning. The world is enamored with the winner. “Best in…”, “Greatest ever…”, we laude those whom appear, even just momentarily, successful. Sure history is full of failures, but we don’t fête those people. Sunday afternoon is about the “big play”, the moment when an übermensch, on the ground, makes a play and the crowd goes wild. We worship in awe at the ground.

Yet just above the clouds, where our eyes...

Read the rest here @

Mass 201: It's Not About You and It's Really that Simple

As a follow up to my post "Mass 101: It's Jesus and It's Really that Simple", and in response to a thread over at the blog Called to Communion about ecclesial consumerism, I feel compelled to talk about worship. As Catholics, we call this "The Mass" or we often refer to it as the Eucharistic "Celebration".

Maybe the term "celebration" got us confused. It's not The Mass's fault, but rather the poor devolution of the term celebration in our society. If you look at the etymology of the word celebration, you can plainly see the religious connotation. However, today the word celebration typically implies something we are doing for ourselves. We celebrate birthdays, super bowls, or a graduation. We mail out cards, plan games, buy drinks, etc. These are really fun times, times when we feel close to the people around us, times of real community.

Then there is The Mass. Some say The Mass can be kind of boring, or that people don't feel connected, or that priests can be too focused on what they are doing or that in general it could use some updating.

I'm thinking balloons and a good DJ.

Let the worship begin!

So, what is worship anyway? The Hebrew word for worship is transliterated avodah. It literally means work or service. Doesn't sound like a backyard barbecue does it?

Let me point this out, The Mass is a lot of things, for starters it's about Jesus and it's really that simple, but secondly it's not about you and it's really that simple.

It is a celebration, but not for you or I. We do celebrate but not with us in mind. The veil has been torn, the throne of grace is available to us, and in the Mass we celebrate that salvation has come to men. Or rather, we celebrate that God became man, dwelt among men, and we can now behold the face of God. That's why we do all those "boring" readings. It gives us an opportunity to enter into the historical and existential reality of God coming to us--his movement and condescension.

Then there is this turning. Where nothing we can do could make it truly come to pass. Only by the gift of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit and through the authority vested in the Church can we receive the gift. I am, of course, speaking of the Holy Eucharist. It is there that we enter into the mystery of Calvary, that we partake of the divine nature as St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs, it is the Body and Blood of God. He becomes our paschal lamb and we partake of him not as in a type or shadow of salvation but for our salvation (John 6:53). We are not a part of a cosmic foreshadowing like the Israelites in Egypt as the death angel passes over, but rather we experience what that was anticipating. The Creator of the universe stoops so low as to allow us: creature, fool, sinner, beggar, finite, pathetic partake of uncreated, wisdom, sinless, omnipotent, and infinite. And so we begin this work with "Kryie Eleison!"

If you don't get anything out of that, if you find the local pub, party, or picnic more spiritually nurturing than The Mass, if you can't help but nod off during the readings, roll your eyes at the incensing, or check an email during the homily, I suggest you re-read the above paragraph, pray, and ask the Lord to help you experience His descent, His condescension to us and resist that age old tendency to want to ascend, like at the Tower of Babel, brick by brick in our own way to God. Let us not be confused that we will only meet ourselves at the summit of that journey. He has given us the way in the Holy Liturgy, let us simply work at allowing it to envelope us with His infinite mercy.

Is the Catholic Church a Christian denomination?

I've heard this said a few times, and I wanted to go ahead and lay this to rest. The Catholic Church is not a Christian denomination. Rather, She is the Church that Jesus Christ established. AGAIN: She is the Church that Jesus Christ established.

MAJOR DIFFERENCE

I teach fractions to people who need to learn fractions. Math review--two parts to a fraction: numerator and denominator. I call the numerator the "how many" and the denominator the "of what". If you are crying right now because fractions make you need a bottle of Dramamine, that's okay. I'll be done with the example soon.

The "of what" is essential to understand especially when you are trying to add or subtract fractions. Let's try one:

1/4  + 1/7 = 2/11 (FAIL)

This epic fail of a math solution was brought to you by denominations: you gotta be talking about the same thing.

Let's move this back over to Christianity real fast before Sir Isaac Newton makes his cameo to introduce us to alchemy. First, denomination implies plurality. Since we are bringing the Catholic Church into the conversation, let's be clear that no other church (a) makes the claim She makes while also (b) having Apostolic succession, (c) visible unity, (d) the successor of St. Peter 'feeding the sheep', or (e) built all of Western civilization, developed the scientific method....

Second, since (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)...there is no other competing 'type'.

Well, aren't there denominations? Yes, there are.

There are Protestant denominations. Our Holy Father calls them 'ecclesial communities'. They just aren't Churches proper. The good thing is (well, not really good thing), there is A LOT of them! So many, that there is even a denomination called 'non-denomination'. Boo-yah! So, when someone asks, what denomination are you, you can say, "I'm non- denomination". Then everyone will immediately know that you are nothing like the 38,000 other denominations with varying church structure, view of the sacraments, marketing budget, salvation, miracles, etc. You might even go to a building that looks like this which is so non-denominational, if you know what I mean.

A Non-Denominational Church not to be confused with...

A Southern Baptist Church

Or you can say you are Catholic and worship at a place that looks like this...

...and everyone will pretty much know you are not of this world, er, I mean not another Christian denomination.

The Church is God's Sacrament to the World

At about the end of the third minute (2:50), the young crowd begins to chant, "We love you! We love you! We love you!..."

A few years ago I would have looked at something like that with a great deal of skepticism if not contempt. Why show so much affection for a man? Look, yet another example of how Catholics don't love Jesus as much as they should. They have to split their attention between The Saints, Mary, the Pope, and the list goes on and on. It must be exhausting.

This judgment is an example of pure ignorance. On the most basic level, Christians of the non-Catholic ilk might be just as likely to get in a crowd chanting "I love you" to a musician or an athlete. I'm thinking Rascal Flats or Tim Tebow. Or, they might just live in Texas. 

Either way, we all understand what it means to get excited about meeting someone important or being a part of an important moment. So, give a Catholic a break will you, we just happen to take our religion as serious as SEC football.

However, that is not what a Catholic is doing. Well, at least if they understand what's going on.

You see, The Church is God's Sacrament to the World.

Sacraments are efficacious signs of God's grace. They relay the supernatural life of God. They are His abiding promise of His work until His return.

When Christ left us, when He ascended and when the Paraclete descended, the story did not end. In fact,  it really just began. Like the first Adam, Christ too was "asleep" and from His side was born His Bride--the Church. However, as the God-Man and giver of all good gifts especially His sacraments, He endowed His church with real features. What I mean is that the Church was endowed with visibility.

In Pope Benedict XVI homily at the Mass of the Last Supper just a few days ago, he reminded us that "Only by the prayer of the Lord and of the Church can the Pope fulfil his task of strengthening his brethren – of feeding the flock of Christ and of becoming the guarantor of that unity which becomes a visible witness to the mission which Jesus received from the Father."

He goes on to plead, "Grant unity to your Church, so that the world may believe."

In a world of a Christianity of "thoughts and ideas" (Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, p. 226), the Catholic Church's insistence on an en-fleshed faith, one of a Eucharist of His Body and Blood, a headquarters made with ancient stones on an ancient hill that cannot be hidden, and a college of Bishops led in a special way by the successor of St. Peter, is a sign and a wonder in our world that God became Man. As such, she is a Sacrament, a sure promise, of Christ's abiding presence.

When the Vicar of Christ happens to be in my neighborhood, I will not cheer out of some youthful stupidity that someone famous is near me. No. Christ's Church is a sign, a Sacrament of His Bride, a witness to the enduring passionate interest God shows to humanity.

If I ever happen to get an audience with the Pope, and if there is a video camera there, and if it looks a lot like the video in this post, you better believe you can expect you will see one man with tears in his eyes and words of adulation on his lips. The sign in the world that Christ has risen from the dead is in my presence. With every "I love you", may it demonstrate my firm hope that Christ has won, and is winning, and will win when He returns to reclaim His Bride--The Church--who will be without stain or wrinkle.

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.

To Hell in a Heaven Basket

Over at Time magazine online, there is a story rolling off the insta-press titled "Is Hell Dead?". It is a thoughtful article, well written, and I appreciate all of the sentiments. Hell is a scary place and fundamentalists make it the inevitable place for everyone who didn't grown up in a western semi-industrial world where a gospel message via TV is readily accesible and conscious assent to "I love Jesus" is possible.

When I was in college, there was a Kentucky Bible-thumpin mountain preacher who would say "You are all going to hell in a hand-basket." It was a cute country way of saying, 'stop that sinful foolishness'. I think we were making fun of a preacher or something at the time. Though what my blue grass friend was getting at was the simple ways in which the devil wants to lure us away from God's grace in something as ordinary and simple as a hand-basket (or in my case gossip bordering on detraction).

In my last post about Bell, I tried to show that his thoughts just aren't consonant with the first Christians who had the apostolic preaching still ringing in their ears. It is also not consonant with the dogmatic canon of the Second Council of Constantinople against universalism. Either way, Bell is radically effective.

On the one hand, Bell notices something glaringly off in his theology. In his Evangelical, non-denom emo-emergent Christian brand there is no baptism by fire, desire, sacramental grace, or Magisterium to confirm that the Church has a list of Saints but not Damned. However, the Church does teach that some will be damned because that's what Jesus said. Word. While in the article Bell doesn't want to speculate and feels that those who talk about the afterlife are just doing that because we "don't have video footage", his entire exercise is speculation. Maybe he's close to the conclusion that without an authoritative Church all you get is mere speculation, coffee shop chatter, or at best good opinion.

On the other hand, Bell seems to be laying a trap. "Going to hell in a heaven basket" is an awful thought, but it seems like the right phrase. Bell opens up heaven to not only who St. Paul describes in the Romans 1 that act according to God's law written in their hearts (which the Church affirms) but also to those who St. Paul later describes as "such...will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Gal 5:21) by their wicked works (which the Church can never affirm).

Bell concludes his interview for the piece by saying, "My generation wanted truth — these are folks who want authenticity. The whole judgmentalism and harshness is something they want to avoid." I guess instead of truth, Bell is going for the most authentic hand-basket. I'm not saying he's in it himself, but just that it looks like he's peddling hand baskets.

The Saints and Church History

The Council of Constantinople

"May God by the prayers of the Saints, show favour to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God." Letter of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381

Such is the sentiment of those ancient Christians as they emerged from the waters of persecution for over three centuries. Having spent those years meditating on the mysteries, protecting them through codified language, symbolic gestures, and hidden meeting places, the Church could now shine forth like the sun to a world that had given up its pagan dark day.

One can argue that there is not explicit teaching in scripture admonishing one to ask the Saints for their prayers. We will examine this Biblical claim in my next post. However, I think it is foolhardy to put forward a view of a stale Christianity, shackled by a primitive intuition, unable to learn anew what exactly this new Kingdom means particularly as it unfolds.

That is why there is evidence from the very beginning, even when writing was suppressed for lack of time and resources that Christians knew that those who passed through the veil from life to death were not separated from us; that Christ's victory meant a communion whereby "death has lost its sting." Here are just a few examples of this primitive Christian belief:

"[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’" -The Shepherd, A.D. 80

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, A.D. 208

"Beneath thy tenderness of heart

we take refuge, O Theotokos,

disdain not our supplications in our necessity,

but deliver us from perils,

O only pure and blessed one."

Egyptian Liturgy for the Nativity of Christ, 3rd Century A.D.

"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, A.D. 350

As the Holy bishops made their way to Constantinople, emerging from the ruins of a crumbling empire, we know with certainty that they were not estranged from their departed brothers and sisters. No, let us not imagine for even a moment that for one second the early Christians imagined that those who had been beheaded, crucified, lit on fire, tortured, driven to the edges of society unto death for the sake of Christ were now ambivalent to His bride's struggle. Nor did death steal from them the glory of their prayers. As wheat falls to the ground, so too did these great martyrs and teachers fall to the ground, only to fool death and destroy the works of Satan even more.

Their prayers as the "righteous" were most "effectual" for them and are most effectual for us. May we not be ignorant that they see face-to-face the One our hearts long for (Benedictus Deus) and whose prayers, as we rely on them, glorify God who comes to make all things new. May all Christians, whether militant, purging or glorified be One, even as the Holy Trinity is one. And that all God's people would say, "Amen" in the company of so great a cloud of witnesses. But let us remember that it should not be that they gaze at us as if we were their terrestrial witnesses, but that they are, rather, our heavenly witnesses, and that we must turn to them as such guides who have gone before us to enter into their rest in the Holy City.

Amen.

First Reactions: The Pope's Book

click to go to Amazon to buy

Thirty six hours ago, I received this book from my best friend David Williams as an Easter gift. I'm half way through, and no I'm not writing a review but just some of the startling observations of our Holy Father's momentous work so far:

He wants to move beyond the historical critical method which he claims has given us all it can offer. He hopes to fulfill what hasn't been truly attempted which is theological exegesis in the spirit of Vatican II.

The Pope as the Universal head of humanity, affirms pagan, protestant, and jewish notions showing how they all have their fulfillment in the unique person of Christ. Each group has an "Amen" moment, yet each is challenged to confront Jesus in a way relevant to their historical situation.

He compares his work to St. Thomas's Summa and then proceeds in a new type of scholasticism to lay out various exegetical possibilities and show their definitive theological reality in and through The Word made flesh.

The Eucharist is not a meal but rather "a memorial of his sacrifice". Pope Benedict XVI and other scholars notice the historical passing away of the Eucharist being connected with meal (Last Supper) but rather to a new Passover.

The "poured out for many" is the most accurate translation of the words during the Consecration, not to limit the universality of Christ's sacrifice but rather to point to the particular sacramental reality of those words (in the chalice): both in completion in the people of Israel and in each subsequent 'Sunday Morning' Eucharist liturgy.

The Catholic View of the Saints: Is it against Christian Sensibilities?

The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you"- 1 Corinthians 12:21

The Saints. When you didn't grow up Catholic (like me) that means a football team. A not very good football team at that (sans all this new success). It might also conjure up a tune ("Oh when the saints, go marching in...). I digress, but, hey, my kids are dancing now.

In evaluating the Catholic understanding of the Saints a number of issues arise: prayers to them, their role in our lives, who they are, and a few other issues that fall under the sub-domain of one of those. Before I look at the historical and biblical understanding of the Saints, I first want to address what I call "Christian sensibilities".

What I am aiming at is the "gut reaction". To use examples from other orders of experience, when someone of a foreign origin walks into your office what do you think? When someone hands you a strange food, what do you feel? When you walk into a Church and notice paintings and statues of Biblical and Church heroes what is your reaction? I like to think of this as a kind of Christian litmus test in very much the same way it is a litmus test for things like our respect for human life or our true racial sentiments.

Not a Catholic teaching

On my journey to the Catholic Church, I always tried to pause a moment and step back from the rhetoric and debate and ask myself, "Is this a Christian thing to think?" I mean, if the Catholic Church taught that Obi-Wan Kenobi is real and must be obeyed, then we had...well...problems. 

In 1 Corinthians, Paul warns us that we are not at liberty to reject another part of the body. Even more, from our experience and a second grade education we understand that most of what is really happening with our body we cannot see. Some of this is geographical (the back of your head, where you sit, etc.) However, most of what we cannot see happening is because it is meant to be out of our view. In fact, the health of the body is predicated on you not seeing your heart beating, your spleen working, or your bones stressing under the pressure of Thanksgiving seconds.

At this point, I'll suspend my momentum and not delve into Holy Scripture. That is for another day. What I will ask is a few questions. Questions not so unlike the kind of questions one might ask a friend who is a semi-bibliophobe standing outside of Barnes and Nobles. That's the way I felt. Not about books, of course, but about the Saints (and not the football team this time). It's like I was standing out in a storm and I could smell the fresh coffee, see the smiling faces, almost hear the pages turning but I wouldn't go in. I was frozen. Why was I so afraid of my celestial family?

With all the suffering Christians face on earth, are our brothers and sisters in heaven really doing this?

If we asked them for some help, will they do this?

Is heaven a big happy hugfest?

Or, is it more like this?

A heaven full of scholars, noblemen, peasants, husbands, wives, nuns, monks, athletes, soldiers, martyrs and minstrels, all before the face of God in perfect union with Christ filled to the full with the Holy Spirit. And as the Spirit looks upon the earth and groans at our sin and suffering, it is with and through the Saints that we hear the noise.

Yes, the Saints are the pharmacists and Jesus is the doctor. He writes the prescription and the Saints fill it. St. Rose of Lima, patroness of my family and the Americas, pray for us! (and you)

(hat tip to Taylor Marshall for the pharmacist analogy)

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.

Purgatory in Church History

When I was studying the doctrine of purgatory, one of the most interesting facts that astounded me was just how explicit this notion was in the early Church Fathers. More than infant baptism or original sin, the notion of a coming purgation for the elect was eminent in their writings both East and West. 

In my previous post I explored whether or not this doctrine made sense generally as a Christian. Despite what I will convey here and my growing conviction of the apostolicity and orthodoxy of the doctrine during my studies, I still couldn't make the heart movement which I explained in my previous post. Before that movement, I had given assent to the doctrine per my understanding of (a) the authority of the Catholic Church to teach it and (b) the witness I noticed in Church history and Scripture that attested to it. 

In the The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity we are introduced to a "place of punishment". St. Clement of Alexandria in the dawning of the third century describes this place saying:

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."-Stromata

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century about five hundred miles away from Alexandria writes:

"For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.”-Catechetical Lectures 23:9,10

St. Augustine of Hippo a few decades after St. Cyril writes:

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then"-City of God 21:13

 At the Twenty Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, the Church affirmed:

"The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses..."

The Catholic Church continues to proclaim this doctrine of purgation that affirms the dignity of the individuality of the human person and that is copiously present in the writings of the Church Fathers. What I found is that a lot of the historical and theological objections to purgatory had to do with the "difficult and subtle questions, which tend not to edification (or)...increase of piety." The Church certainly had in mind some of the late medieval nominalism that was marked by the most peculiar and subtle questions regarding theology. For example, "If the Eucharist falls on the ground and a mouse picks it up, does the mouse consume the Sacramental species of Christ?" The answers did little more than satiate the inordinate obsession of nominalists with the unending possibility of making language a game. Nevertheless, when the doctrine is understood in its Biblical, historical, and sensible context, it is quite manageable to understand.

Moreover, as the Council of Trent illumines, the doctrine of Purgatory compels us to a life of holiness and penance here on earth. When we sin we not only injure our relationship with God but also our relationship with ourselves and others. Purgation is the process whereby we make right the later two and will make it right either in this world or the next (Matt 12:32).

(Next: Purgatory in Scripture)

Cardinal Burke and the True Pastors of the Church

Recently, Cardinal Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis now Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, was in St. Louis to give the Mass of Thanksgiving for his elevation to the position of Cardinal. After the Mass, hundreds and hundreds waited in line to meet him. My good friend David Williams and his family, 4 small kids in tote, waited in line but simply could not keep all the little ones happy long enough to actually meet him. I totally understand. God bless him for even trying!

The next day, David penned a heart felt letter of gratitude for the truth of the Catholic Church, Her teachings on the dignity of human sexuality and life with regards to contraception, and for his personal installation of St. Gianna Parish in Lake St. Louis, MO. David gave the letter to the rector of the Basilica in St. Louis, Msgr. Pins, to give to Cardinal Burke if possible. It made it to him.

Two months later this is what he got in return via Italia:

Imagine waiting in line for anyone of more than regional significance. Even a do-nothing actor or actress. You leave, like David, and write them a letter and pass it along to a local with connections. Do you think you would get a letter back? Not a chance.

Through schism, heresy, and all matter of betrayal, somehow Christ is still perfecting his Bride--the Church. May we all rejoice that he has given us such great pastors to lead us through the this dark night of evil in our day. As Catholics we are proud to call them "Father". Or to put it another way, in the words of St. Paul:

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 

-1 Corinthians 4:15

My First Mass

After my first Mass, I'll never forget sitting in the coffee shop with my friend. I was staring out a window, sipping some coffee and thinking about what I had just experienced. Tears welled up in my eyes and I asked in bewilderment, "Why are we separated? That was the most Christ centered 'service' I have ever been to."

I remember thinking that this whole Protestant/Catholic thing was a big sham. I grew up my entire life thinking that Catholics were unbiblical, disregarding Jesus, and instead worshiped idols, Mary, and worked their way to heaven. I was expecting something foreign at Mass. But what I got went something like this:

• Prayer and repentance (to Jesus)
• Old testament reading
• Psalm
• New Testament Reading 
• Gospel (we stand up because Jesus is talking)
• Prayer
• Partake of Jesus in the Eucharist
• Prayer

In 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr describes something eerily similar here. I had read that before, but it didn't click; but it would make sense when I would read it later. In Luke 24, after the Resurrection, Jesus does something very similar to this with his disciples.

A question that emerged for me on my journey was "Why do all of the ancient churches practice a somewhat similar liturgy?" Was this a novelty or was it something that Christ taught them? I think the logistical limitations of early Christians make it being a novelty quite impossible. Rather, what makes a lot more sense, is that Jesus taught his disciples how to worship and that they went out and established communities who worshiped within those liturgical frameworks. I think we get more than a shadow of it in Luke 24. What this conclusion also bears is the reality of extra biblical tradition. I will talk about that on another day.

When I considered the Mass, I also noticed a beautiful narrative that unfolds. The story of salvation history. As I started to understand the Mass as heavenly worship brought to earth and as the priest operating in persona Christi (because there is only One High Priest), the procession into the Church of the priest only made sense. When we stood we were acknowledging Father Neff not qua John Neff, we were acknowledging Father Neff qua Jesus Christ. This was his time. And, what the brief run-down above shows is that all of us must enter into the historic unfolding of salvation in time and space to understand the The Good News: The Gospel. However, that is not enough. 

Like the disciples our hearts are "burning for him" (Luke 24:32), but even when Christ himself preached the Gospel to them, their eyes were not truly open until he "took the bread, blessed it ("this is my body"), and gave it to them" (Luke 24:31). At their realizing he vanished from their sight. That morning I will admit that I did not see Jesus in the flesh kind of like the disciples who in receiving the Blessed Sacrament looked up to find their Lord disappeared. However, I was certain that He was there. Somehow, Christ was with us that morning. To the side of the altar was a place where they put the communion that was not consumed after the consecration. Because Catholics believe that it is truly Jesus and no longer bread, they could never disgard it like a common piece of trash. Instead, left over "hosts" are put in a tabernacle. As I peered over in the direction of the tabernacle, I asked myself, "Jesus, could it be YOU?"

If it was, I knew how this story would go.

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).