The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

31 Wednesday May 2017

Posted by Patrick E. Devens in Faith, Marian devotion, Saints

Tags

Immaculate Conception, Marian Devotion, Marian veneration, Mary (mother of Jesus), The Catholic Thinker

Originally published on The Catholic Thinker:

https://whysoseriousdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/the-immaculate-conception-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus on December 8, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” (1)

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. (2)

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as formally defined by Pius IX, states that Mary was sinless her entire life from the beginning of her conception. This doctrine proves to be a “stumbling block” for many non-Catholics, as they counter with the statement that God alone is sinless.

If God alone were sinless, this means that either Mary could not have been sinless, or she would have been God, correct?

Well, it isn’t as simple as that. For instance, any “Christian” will have to admit that God is not the only being to have ever been sinless, when taking a look at Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created by God, and for a time, before their Fall, were sinless creatures. They were sinless, and yet they were not God.

Angels presently in heaven are not God, and yet they are sinless creatures. They were created without sin, and have remained sinless ever since. A person cannot just simply say that God alone is sinless, when there have been and are other sinless creatures.

Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid says of the Immaculate Conception:

“The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths: (1) Mary did need a savior; (2) her savior was Jesus Christ; (3) Mary’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and (4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are.” (3)

After hearing something like this, many non-Catholics ask, “Why would Mary need a Savior if she was sinless?”

The Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary did not need Christ as her Savior. All men, after the Fall needed Christ as their Savior, including Mary, as she says in Luke 1:47.

Catholic Apologist Tim Staples explains:

“Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

” ‘Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever.’ (Jude 24-25)

“Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.” (4)

Pat Madrid goes on to add:

“Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)” (5)

The usual counter argument made by non-Catholics is in reference to Romans 3:23 which says:

“For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.”

Is this a rule with absolutely no exceptions? Everyone has sinned? Well, no “Christian” would say that Christ sinned. He is a major exception. What of children below the age of reason, those who do not know what sin is? Have they voluntarily sinned? Have aborted babies sinned? Have the mentally retarded sinned, even though they cannot comprehend sin itself? There seems to be many exceptions to what Paul is saying. It is either there are exceptions or he was not speaking of literally the entire human race.

It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind, which would allow the exceptions listed above. If not that be the case, then perhaps he is referring to everyone being subject to Original Sin, which would still have a few exceptions. (6)

The only point here is that, with all obvious exceptions to “all have sinned”, one cannot conclusively say that it is impossible for Mary to be free of sin.

After dealing with a few arguments using logic, one must wonder what is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception. A Catholic Life blog elaborates:

“As we look at the Hail Mary we see part of the Archangel Gabriel’s address in the exclamation: “full of grace”. Grace is defined as a supernatural gift from God’s infinite goodness given by God to His sinful people for their eternal salvation. Mary is addressed as “full of grace” which shows that she must be in complete favor of God to have earned the fullness of God’s grace. This particular instance is a special one, in which God chose Mary to be conceived sinless to make her a house for God to dwell within.” (7)

In Luke 1:28, Gabriel greets Mary with “hail, full of grace”, the Greek being kecharitomene. If Mary is full of grace, then how can she be sinful? One cannot have Christ’s life of grace within them while being in the state of sin.

Catholic Answers, in its article Immaculate Conception and Assumption comment:

“The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.” (8)

The next piece of biblical evidence in found in Genesis.

“We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.” (9)

If Mary were not free of sin, why should the angel Gabriel call her “full of grace”? By being under sin, how could there be enmity between Mary and Satan? One cannot merely look over these verses.

The Immaculate Conception is reasonable from a logical stand point. If God was to be born as a man, why would he be born in a creature of sin? God’s eyes can’t stand evil (Habukkuk 1:13). How could he be created within a creature under Satan’s power? Does that even seem logical?

If you were to create your own mother, as God the Son did, would you not make her perfect? That’s what God did.

“O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin didst prepare a worthy dwelling place for Thy Son…”

(Collect for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1962 Roman Missal)

(1) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

(2) Ibid.

(3) http://patrickmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Madrid_ark_newcov.pdf

(4) https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

(5) http://patrickmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Madrid_ark_newcov.pdf

(6) https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

(7) http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2005/10/immaculate-conception.html

(8) https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

(9) http://patrickmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Madrid_ark_newcov.pdf

Pope St Leo the Great and the development of the Papacy

11 Thursday May 2017

Posted by John Charmley in Catholic Tradition, Faith, Pope, Saints

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Faith, history, Leo the Great

13 May is the centenary of the first appearance of Our Lady at Fatima, and we shall have a post on that. After that there will be a short series on the Council of Chalcedon, but as some background to the latter might be in order, especially around the claims made for the powers of the Pope, it seemed appropriate to deal with those wider questions in a short post, before proceeding to deal with Chalcedon,

It is easy (which is no doubt why it is done so often) to assume that from the beginning the Papacy based itself on the Petrine verses in St. Matthew’s Gospel. The Eastern Orthodox like to point out that those claims were cast in terms of ‘primacy’; they are correct. But what did that much-disputed word mean to those who used it in the early Church? If we are to understand this, we need to understand something about Roman ideas of inheritance and authority – ideas which were shared across the whole Empire – including Constantinople.

St. Leo the Great made two main contributions to the developing understanding of what ‘primacy’ mean. The first amounts to an assertion that the past existed in the present, not just because he was Peter’s successor, but in the form of a direct and present link between the Apostle and the Pope. As he put it in his sermon on 19 September 443 (Sermon 3.4)

Regard him [Peter] as present in the lowliness of my person. Honour him. In him continues to reside the responsibility for all shepherds, along with the protection of the sheep entrusted to them. His dignity does not fade even in an unworthy heir.’

This is what Leo understood by the saying of the Chalcedonian Fathers: ‘Peter has spoken through Leo. (See here also W. Ullmann, ‘Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy’, Journal of Theological Studies 1960, pp. 26-28).

Under Roman jurisprudence, a person was supposed to be present in his legal representative, even as the deceased was in his heir. The same jurisprudence was present in the eastern empire, so to argue that anyone in Constantinople would have been ignorant of this conception of what it meant for Leo to have said what he had said seems to strain credulity. Indeed, as K. Shatz puts it in Papal Primacy From Its Origins to the Present (1996), Leo made ‘the “church of tradition … into the church of the capital city that extends its laws to the whole world.’ (pp. 33-36 for the argument).

On this understanding the Pope was not simply Peter’s representative but his living successor – Peter spoke through him. Thus, Rome’s judgments and decrees were rendered universal because the Holy Apostle was understood to be present in Leo and in the system of justice he administered. As Leo put in in that same sermon on 19 September 443 (3.3):
Persevering in the fortitude he received, blessed Peter does not relinquish his government of the Church. He was ordained before the others so that, when he is called rock, declared foundation, installed as doorkeeper for the kingdom of heaven, appointed arbiter of binding and loosing (with his definitive judgments retaining forces even in heaven), we might know through the very mysteries of these appellations what sort of fellowship he had with Christ. He now manages the things entrusted to him more completely and effectively. He carries out every aspect of his duties and responsibilities in him and through him whom he has been glorified.

So, if we do anything correctly or judge anything correctly, if we obtain anything at all from the mercy of God through daily supplications, it comes about as the result of his works and merits. In this see his power lives on and his authority reigns supreme. This, dearly beloved, is what the confession has obtained [Matthew 16:18]. Since it was inspired by God the Father in the apostle’s heart, it has risen above all the uncertainties of human thinking and has received the strength of a rock that cannot be shaken by any pounding.

It is Peter’s presence that brings about the Christian universalism that Leo envisoned himself exercising. If we look at his letter to the bishops of Illyricium, 12 January 444, placing them under Anastasius, the bishop of Thessalonica, and telling them that serious disputes must be referred to Rome, we see him exercising that power of which his sermons spoke.

The primacy of Rome was not simply the result of Apostolic succession, or of inhertance from St. Peter, but of this very special relationship which ensured that Peter spoke through the Pope. As Leo says in a sermon given on 29 September: [Sermons 5.4]
our solemnity is not merely the apostolic dignity of the most blessed Peter. He does not cease to preside over his see but unfailingly maintains that fellowship which he has with the eternal Priest. That stability which he received from Christ the rock (by having himself been made ‘rock’) has poured over onto his heirs as well. Whenever there is any show of firmness, it is undoubtedly the shepherd’s fortitude that appears.
Leo’s views are set out in fuller form in a sermon preached on 29 June 443 (Sermon 83.1) in which he makes it clear that since Peter exercises the Lord’s power on His behalf, so too does the Pope exercise the powers of Christ Himself, as Peter speaks through him.

This is not a claim made by any other Bishop. It was made in public by Leo in his sermons and letters, and it was based firmly upon Scripture, patristic testimony and the common law of the Empire. How this impacted upon the background to Chalcedon will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.

St Athanasius the Apostolic

02 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by John Charmley in Early Church, Faith, Saints

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

history, orthodoxy, St Athanasius, The Fathers

Athanasius

We have lately been examining the career of St Cyril of Alexandria. Today, the Church celebrates the feast day of his great precedecessor, St. Athanasius (c. 296-373), the greatest champion of Christian orthodoxy, who was the 20th Patriarch of the See of Alexandria.

He first comes to our notice when Patriarch Alexander observed him playing on the sea shore with some friends. The boys were celebrating Mass and the young Athanasius was taking on the role of the priest, and baptising his peers. Alexander talked with the boy, and saw to it that his desire to serve God would receive fulfilment. As a young priest, Athanasius attended the Council of Nicea in 325 as assistant to the aged Alexander, whose excommunication of Arius had provoked it. The Council agreed that Christ was not ‘created’, but was rather ‘consubstantial’ with the Father. Despite this, within a few years, the Arians had rallied and, after the death of Constantine, secured the support of his sons. Across the Empire bishops hurried to accommodate themselves with the new order, seeking to devise phrases which would allow of a compromise: this Athanasius would not do. As Patriarch of the great See of Alexandria, he was a formidable thorn in the side of the Arians and semi-Arians.

His many enemies did not hesitate to bring charges against him, including one of murder – this last evaporated when, at the trial, Athanasius was able to call in aid the testimony of the man he was supposed to have murdered. His enemies conspired to bring about his death, but thanks to a merciful providence, he survived unscathed, although he suffered much, spending 17 of his 45 years as patriarch in exile. Between 339 and 346 he lived in exile in Rome under the protection of the Pope, Julius I. His defiance of the might of the Roman Empire in the cause of the Truth caused men to say he was ‘Athanasius contra mundum’ – Athanasius against the world. Neither threats, nor bribes, nor the opinion of the men of power prevailed against Athanasius’ faith in Christ and the truth that He was of one substance with the Father.

Despite eating the bitter bread of exile, Athanasius proved a good shepherd to his sheep. A much-beloved pastor, he was also a great theologian. His Life of St. Anthony is the model for all hagiography; his On the Incarnation is one of the defining works on Incarnational theology; his Paschal letter of 367 contains the first list of the canon of the Bible as the Church has received it. It was on his authority that St. Jerome added the Epistle to the Hebrews to his Vulgate; the book had been doubted in the West, but seeing that St. Athanasius accepted it, as the East always had, the Blessed St. Jerome also accepted it.

His writings, like his life, bore witness to the truth that God was made man so that we might become God:

We are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit (for ‘as many as received Him,’ he says, ‘to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name Jn1:12), and therefore also He is the Truth (saying, ‘I am the Truth,’ and in His address to His Father, He said, ‘Sanctify them through Thy Truth, Thy Word is Truth’ Jn 14:6); but we by imitation become virtuous and sons: — therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say ‘that they may be one as We are;’ but that as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so that we too, taking an exemplar and looking at Him, might become one towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts (Acts 4: 4, 32), who were as one.

St. Athanasius, Discourses Against Arians, discourse III, Ch 25, p.404-405..

A fearless defender of the True Faith, St. Athanasius came back to his beloved Alexandria in 366 and lived there until his death in 373.

Father,

you raised up St. Athanasius
to be an outstanding defender
of the truth of Christ’s divinity.
By his teaching and protection
may we grow in your knowledge and love.
Grant us this through Our Lord, Jesus Christ, your son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
AMEN.

Ash Wednesday

01 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by Neo in Catholic Tradition, Lent, Lutheranism, Saints

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

Ash Wednesday, Christianity, Grace, Lent, love, Shrove Tuesday

dewi-sant-3 It is, of course, Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Many of us will end the day with a cross on our foreheads in oil and ashes from burning the palm fronds. It’s a good tradition, in my tradition, it is not required, but I think it serves to remind us of the humility that goes with following Christ.

Here, yesterday was Shrove Tuesday, in the UK and much of the Commonwealth it was Pancake day. Both hark back to medieval days when it was time to use up food stock which would not keep through the penitential season of Lent. Remember, refrigeration is something of the last half of the twentieth century. Besides, the flour and foodstuffs from the last harvest would have by now begun to go rancid. In those days, there wasn’t food to waste, and so it was much better to eat it, than throw it away.

In fact, Carneval also comes from this point, meaning the end of meat, as we enter the fast days of Lent. And in Medieval Christianity, fast days were never a shortage item, although food often was. Our forebears were much tougher stock than we are.

But today is Ash Wednesday, and there are plenty of others to tell you about it. I’ll just add this, which I sent it to several of my friends who are facing tough going in their lives for various reasons, this morning by email. It is one of the readings in the Lutheran Historic Lectionary for today.

Wisdom 11:24-26 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

24 For you love all things that exist,

and detest none of the things that you have made,

for you would not have made anything if you had hated it.

25 How would anything have endured if you had not willed it?

Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?

26 You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.

Oh, and for you few, you happy few, that claim Welsh ancestry:

Bendigedig Ddydd Gŵyl Dewi!

If I got it right, it’s cause I’m brilliant, if not, well it’s Google’s fault! 🙂

St Teresa of Calcutta

04 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Saints

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Christianity, controversy, St Teresa of Calcutta

a_mother_t

As Christ’s kingdom is not of this world then we should not be surprised that the world holds confused ideas about our newest saint – Mother Teresa. Anyone who starts off writing about her as a ‘brand’ reveals both his hand, and his inadequacy for the task he has been set. Her views were, we are told ‘unpalatable’. Good. Had she advocated abortion on demand, euthanasia and the abolition of religion, the world would have praised her ‘palatable’ views: the culture of death does not like to be reminded that, historically, it is its views which are ‘unpalatable’; still, its advocates are dying out, and unless it can make fresh converts, eventually it will achieve its existential aim – it will cease to exist.

The cynic sees in her fame a marketing exercise. This is the same mindset that sees ‘Brexiteers’ as people not fit to be trusted with a decision that only the elite can be trusted with. Such is the solipsism in which this mindset exists that is fails to get to first base on realising that it its own many failures which has brought people to the point at which they no longer believe the ‘spin’. The admiration St Teresa of Calcutta inspires is to do with something so simple that it takes very clever people to miss it. She lived among the poorest and most neglected of this world and she showed them God loved them. To judge her as though she were an NGO is to begin with the wrong yardstick. The world may not understand the love of God, and it may not be interested in it, but if its wise men and women are going to judge a Saint, they need to begin by understanding that simple fact; she was a light in the darkness.

Since her death we have discovered that she herself underwent a long dark night of the soul – but instead of discouraging her and driving her in the direction of unbelief, she used it to empathise with those who lived with the darkness of this world, and she brought love to the unloved, care to those for whom no one else cared; and she witnessed to God’s love, even though she, herself, felt far from it. When they have lived among the poor and spent time helping them, that will be the moment for the armchair welfarists to make their comments and expect some respect. But those less inclined to think their views are the yardstick by which to measure others understand something the wise men and women of this world don’t – they recognise simple goodness and saintliness. In the old days saints were made locally and sometimes there would be a cry for that to happen at their fineral – we heard it with St John Paul II ‘santo subito’. The ordinary people of the world recognise what those who elect themselves as their spokesmen and women are too cynical to see – which is that she was a saint who cared: and that goes a long way with those who know that what this world needs is more people like her and fewer like her critics. She helped others; they help themselves.

St Isaac and a merciful heart

01 Thursday Sep 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Saints

≈ Comments Off on St Isaac and a merciful heart

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, Grace, love, St. Isaac the Syrian

St Isaac sand

It is some time now since we had anything from St Isaac the Syrian here, and this is a reminder of how radical God’s mercy is for him.

What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists. By the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful person pour forth tears in abundance. By the strong and vehement mercy that grips such a person’s heart, and by such great compassion, the heart is humbled and one cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in any in creation. For this reason, such a person offers up tearful prayer continually even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth, and for those who harm her or him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner such a person prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns without measure in a heart that is in the likeness of God.

Stay with me: a meditation

21 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by JessicaHoff in Faith, Prayers, Saints

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, Meditations, Padre Pio, Testimony

After I receive Holy Communion, I pray Padre Pio’s Stay with me. It expresses better than any prayer I know the reality of my own life as a Christian. Recently I have been putting some thoughts together on this, which I want to share with you.

So, here goes.

Stay with me, Lord, for it is necessary to have
You present so that I do not forget You.
You know how easily I abandon You.

How true that is. AT the church I now attend, they have a ‘communion hymn’, and I just want to remain quiet and ponder my Lord, whom I have just received. But the world seems determined to move on; are we that frightened of the silence and the thoughts of our hearts that we cannot linger a moment?

Stay with me, Lord, because I am weak
and I need Your strength,
that I may not fall so often.

At the centre of my need for Christ is the recognition that I do fail often, I fall, I falter even when I do not fall, and in the words of the old general confession of the Church of England: ‘I have done those things which I ought not to have done, and I have not done those things which I ought to have done, and there is no health in me’; without my Lord’s help, there is no hope. I am weak, but if I lean on him, I can be strong.

Stay with me, Lord, for You are my life,
and without You, I am without fervor.

How often is there ‘fervor’ in my faith? How often does it become something apart from the rest of my life? I read my Bible, I pray, I go to church. But is there a fervor there, or is it a routine? I know the truth in this verse from Padre Pio, for there is no fervor without him.

Stay with me, Lord, for You are my light,
and without You, I am in darkness.

Of the the names of God, that he is eternal light is the one which means the most to me. When the darkness seems complete, when it threatens to overwhelm me, I light a candle before my statue of the Blessed Virgin, and then I am not afraid. Light will overcome the darkness.

Stay with me, Lord, to show me Your will.

How easily I forget his will when I leave church, or when I leave my prayers. What a weakness it is, how much at that point I feel the sin of Adam and Eve. How tempted I am to rely on my own will – though it is frail and feeble. If he stays with me, I go straight.

Stay with me, Lord, so that I hear Your voice
and follow You.

That still, small voice beneath the storms of life; it is there always – if I will just make the place and the silence where I can hear it. How tempting our modern world is with its instant access to noise. If I listen I can try to follow; I do not always succeed. But If I can’t hear, I hear only the devices and desires of my own heart.

Stay with me, Lord, for I desire to love You
very much, and always be in Your company.

I want to love God, always, but I am forgetful and sinful and I don’t do as I want to do; but if he is with me and I am in his company, I am conformed to him.

Stay with me, Lord, if You wish me to be faithful to You.

If Padre Pio can confess that, it emboldens me – for I forget so easily, and I am unfaithful so easily too. I confess my weakness and ask for forgiveness.

Stay with me, Lord, for as poor as my soul is,
I want it to be a place of consolation for You, a nest of love.

I am made to know God and to love him, so my soul longs for him and apart from him is desolate and without consolation.

Stay with me, Jesus, for it is getting late and the day is coming to a close, and life passes;
death, judgment, eternity approaches. It is necessary to renew my strength,
so that I will not stop along the way and for that, I need You.
It is getting late and death approaches,
I fear the darkness, the temptations, the dryness, the cross, the sorrows.
O how I need You, my Jesus, in this night of exile!

This valley of tears, this place of exile, where we sit by the waters of Babylon and mourn – darkness, temptation, dryness and sorrows – all can be healed only by the Cross – but how much I fear that Cross, that my strength will not be equal. I pray for strength to bear the burdens, but my faith is weak. My strength is in him.

Stay with me tonight, Jesus, in life with all its dangers. I need You.

How often is that my night prayer. Only he saves from the perils and dangers of the night, and if I feel him with me I can sleep, and hope to wake refreshed to do his work.

Let me recognize You as Your disciples did at the breaking of the bread,
so that the Eucharistic Communion be the Light which disperses the darkness,
the force which sustains me, the unique joy of my heart.

That captures exquisitely the sublime joy of receiving the Lord at the Eucharistic feast. At that moment I am lost, and happily lost, to the world. For a brief, but timeless moment. I am one with him – as I hope to be at the end of all earthly things.

Stay with me, Lord, because at the hour of my death, I want to remain united to You,
if not by communion, at least by grace and love.

At the last we can none of us escape the consequence of the sins of our first parents, and we are all heirs to death. But if we can die in him, we shall rise in him too.

Stay with me, Jesus, I do not ask for divine consolation, because I do not merit it,
but the gift of Your Presence, oh yes, I ask this of You!

There is no health in me, and if I were to get my just deserts, then how awful my fate; but his presence is consolation here on earth and hope hereafter.

Stay with me, Lord, for it is You alone I look for, Your Love, Your Grace, Your Will, Your Heart,
Your Spirit, because I love You and ask no other reward but to love You more and more.

In Him, his love, his grace, his sacred heart, alone is hope to be found. In Him I am brave, and as I know Him more, I love Him more.

With a firm love, I will love You with all my heart while on earth
and continue to love You perfectly during all eternity. Amen.

My will may fail, my actions fall short, my body be frail, but love will triumph – feeling the love, his love, which drew me to him, draws from me love in return. In that is my hope of salvation – that he knows how much I love him and will forgive my transgressions for the sake of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone is salvation to be found.

Thank you for reading my thoughts – and I’d be so interested in knowing yours.

St Athanasius: feast day

02 Monday May 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Faith, Saints

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Christianity, history, orthodoxy, St Athanasius

st_athanasios

2 May is the feast day of St Athanasius (c. 296-373) the 20th Patriarch of the See of Alexandria. Most of the early Christian saints were martyrs. Athanasius was one of the first saints to be canonised without that ordeal – although the early church, rightly, felt his entire life had been a martyrdom in the cause if orthodoxy.

He first comes to our notice when Patriarch Alexander observed him playing on the sea shore with some friends. They were reenacting the Divine Liturgy on the beach, with Athanasius playing the part of the priest. The Patriarch was struck by this choice of play, and recognising something in the young boy, took him under his wing and brought him up in his household. This was at the time when Alexandria was the intellectual powerhouse of early Christianity, and Athanasius came to manhood at a time when one of the priests of the diocese, Arius, was preaching that Jesus was not one with the Father, but was, rather, the first of creation. Alexander tried to persuade Arius of his error, but proud of his learning, the priest preferred the ‘truth’ he had come to to the advice of his bishop. When the Emperor Constantine called the first great ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, Athanasius went along as assistant to the ageing Alexander.

The Council agreed that Christ was not ‘created’, but was rather ‘consubstantial’ with the Father. Despite this, within a few years, the Arians had rallied and, after the death of Constantine, secured the support of his sons. Across the Empire bishops hurried to accommodate themselves with the new order, seeking to devise phrases which would allow of a compromise: this Athanasius would not do. As Patriarch of the great See of Alexandria, he was a formidable thorn in the side of the Arians and semi-Arians.

His writings, like his life, bore witness to the truth that God was made man so that we might become God. He championed the Trinity and his courage ensured that the doctrine triumphed over error. His method of reasoning (taken here from a letter to Serapion (letter 1) is worth illustrating:

let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative ; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, “who is over all, and through all, and in all” (Eph 4:6) “Over all”, as Father, as beginning, as fountain; “through all”, through the Word; “in all”, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Trinity not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being.

St Athanasius, champion of orthodoxy, pray for us!

Traditionalists vs Liberals: Acts 15

01 Sunday May 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Faith, Saints

≈ 107 Comments

Tags

Acts of the Apostles, Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, controversy, Council of Jerusalem, orthodoxy

2013-0607-apostle-james

There has been a deal of discussion this week here about a subject which occupies far too much space on the Internet – traditionalism. Those who want to believe in a hermeneutic of rupture will, in my long experience, do so whatever arguments are adduced for the hermeneutic of continuity. I recommended to Jessica this site which has some exellent pieces, not least on the issue of the older versus the newer Mass. It has a great deal of excellent material on it, and for anyone either flirting with Sedevacantism, or coming to the Catholic Church for the first time, I recommend it. I don’t, myself, find ‘discussions’ over the form of Liturgy useful, not least since, as an amateur liturgiologist, I am very aware of how liturgy has developed across the last nearly two thousand years. I have very little doubt that when the Church in Rome stopped using Greek, someone grumbled and thought it was a sign the Church was going to the dogs (Greek, is, after all, a much better language in which to discuss the Infinite mysteries of God than Latin, and it is no accident that only the genius of Augustine and St Leo put them in the same bracket as the many Greek Fathers).

One of the things I like about the post Easter Mass readings is we get selection from one of the most neglected books (from the point of view of Mass readings), the Acts of the Apostles. Today’s reading provides us with a glimpse of the first great clash between traditionalists and innovators.

It is very easy to forget (which is why it is done so often) that the very first Christians were mostly observant Jews, they went to the Synagogue, they observer the Law, and they did not see themselves as somehow separate from their fellow Jews. They knew the Messiah, and they wanted to share that Good News with their fellow Jews – but that this early stage they would probably have been horrified if someone had told them that their activities would lead their descendants out of Judaism. So, imagine if you will for a moment, the horror such men would have felt at hearing that Gentiles were coming into the Jesus movement who were not circumcised and who did not keep kosher. We know, for example, that wherever he went, Paul preached first to the Jews, and then, if they would not receive him to the Gentiles, and we can presume that many of the latter came from the ranks of the God-fearers – that is Gentiles who attended Synagogue but were not Jews. As more of these became believers, tensions grew within the movement. The question of what made a good Christian was posed – and for many of the original converts, the answer was that you could not be one of you were not a Jew first – so converts should go through the whole process of converting to Judaism. That Paul was letting men in without that provision, and that Peter was eating non-kosher food with them was, to the traditionalists, a scandal. Nowhere in Scripture (and here we are talking about what we call the Old Testament) or tradition (Jewish tradition of course) was there warrant for such things. The protests of such men prompted Peter to go back on his new practice – and Paul to angry responses.

The question posed here is one with which the Church has wrestled through its long journey through the ages. What does it take to be a good Christian? Is it enough to obey the ten commandments and to love God and your neighbour as yourself, and to confess Christ is Lord? Or, is it necessary, on top of these things, to abide by sets of rules and practices which we have inherited from our forefathers in faith? Do we prove our fidelity to Christ by the fervour with which we adopt practices about praying, fasting, dressing and the like?

Here it is clear where the traditionalists were coming from – in two ways: they were from Jerusalem, and they were what Paul called Judaisers. James, the ‘brother’ of the Lord (who has been variously seen as either a son of Joseph from a first marriage or the son – my own views are set out here) was head of the very conservative ‘home’ Church in Jerusalem, and clearly had to take into account the views of its members, although, from the account in Acts, he may, himself, not have been of their opinion; but like all church leaders, he found he had most trouble from those who shouted loudest.

It is interesting to see how the early Church resolved this dispute. All sides were allowed to speak. Peter spoke simply and passionately of his mission to the Gentiles, pointing out that the Holy Spirit of God who brought men to him made no distinction between Jews and gentiles, which was, he explained, why he did likewise – adding yokes to the necks of the people was, of course, precisely what the Lord had preached against. He, like Paul and Barnabas who followed him, were effectively saying their job was to make men more like Christ, not to make them like themselves; it was to Christ we are to be conformed, after all.

No doubt those Pharisees in the movement had expected such arguments from those who were living among Gentiles, but they could not make the same criticism of James, who was famously devout and orthodox – and his declaration was effectively for Paul, Peter and Barnabas. He pointed out, referring to Amos 9:11-12 that what was happening with the Gentiles was what the prophet had foretold, and so advised that greater yokes should not be put on them. It was enough, he said, that they should abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality and from meat from beasts which had been strangled.

The process here is interesting. The elders who had reached the decision put it to the Jerusalem community, who approved of it. We see here pastoral sensitivity by James. His decision amounted to less than a full ‘victory’ for either side. No doubt some from the Pharisees went away grumbling about James going soft, and perhaps Paul was less pleased than he might have been. But guided by the Spirit, James had managed to guide the Church to a decision which took into account the views of all parties, but managed to avoid schism. That suggests that the grumblers (and it is impossible to believe there were none) put their own views second to the interests of the Church. An example for all time – which had it been followed, might have avoided much distress.

Too many Marys?

26 Saturday Mar 2016

Posted by JessicaHoff in Bible, Faith, Reading the BIble, Saints

≈ 90 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, history

crucifixion-1

There are too many Marys in the Bible, although of course, not one of them was called Mary in real life – that is our translation of the Hebrew Miryam, Maria or Miriam – one of the most common names given to girls in the Holy Land. It is so common that, ironically, it has led to some confusion. In my meditations for Holy Week here, done on the Ignatian model, I have had to make some choices as to which Mary was which. This is ironic because St Mark (14:3-9) has Jesus tell us that whenever the story of the anointing of his feet was told, people would remember Mary who did it; it tells us something that the Church has not remembered this and, for a long time, and even now, there is some confusion.

It was Pope Gregory the Great who, if he did not begin the confusion (we can see as early as Ephrem the Syrian that Mary Magdalene was being conflated with Mary the sinner at Bethany), consolidated it, in 591 when he identified Mary of Magdala with Mary of Bethany in a sermon:

She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?

That set the poor Magdalene’s fate until modern times. Despite there being no Biblical evidence she was a fallen women, she became one posthumously. As one scholar has put it, Mary, a powerful woman who helped support the ministry of Jesus became:

the redeemed whore and Christianity’s model of repentance, a manageable, controllable figure, and effective weapon and instrument of propaganda against her own sex.

The Orthodox Church, like some Western monastic orders, never accepted the ‘composite Mary’, and continued to identify Mary of Bethany as being separate from Mary Magdalene, and that is the tradition I have preferred for my meditations, although, with the latter, my meditation cannot free itself entirely from 1500 years of identification of her with fallen women. In 1969 the Roman Catholic Church caught up, making it clear the two women were not the same.

Jesus wanted us to remember the name of the woman who anointed his feet, and we have forgotten her – which some women think reflects the attitude of the patriarchal societies in which the Bible was written – women were of lesser importance than men, as we can see from the horrid story in Judges 19 of the Levite’s concubine, and the way Suzannah was treated.

We can, of course, identify Mary, the mother of Jesus, and if we accept the separate identification of Mary Magdalen, her too, but who were the others at the foot of the Cross? I have written before about this, so won’t repeat what I said then, but for those interested, the posts are here and here. Mary of Clopas seems to have been the sister of the Virgin Mary, but is, of course, identified for us only by reference to her husband. She stood with her sister in solidarity, and it may well be that Salome was another sister. It gives us some idea of how close to Jesus the Magdalen was that she was allowed to stand there with the mother of the Lord and her sisters.

None of that, of course, should be taken as giving the slightest credence to the Dan Brown like stories, although they are based on ancient and non canonical texts. Brown, and others, have an agenda which, to my mind they push too far. But where they do have a point, is that we have not done what the Lord wanted, we have not remembered these women aright. Modern scholarship sometimes gets a bad name, but here, in disambiguating the plethora of Marys, it has done us all a favour.

My final meditation will be tomorrow, and again, has the Magdalene as its subject. Thank you to everyone who has liked the posts – it is very encouraging. A happy and joyous feast of the Resurrection for tomorrow to all our readers.