Category: Mary

Are the 15 Promises of the Rosary Reliable?

15promises (Originally appeared on my blog at ncregister.com)

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering if you could comment some time about some of these spiritual promises that allegedly attach to certain prayers or devotions. The 15 promises of the rosary seems to be the most common example, but of course there's more.

There are more–and the reader goes on to name some–but for this post let's look at the alleged 15 promises regarding the rosary.

First, here is a commonly given text of them.

Before we go further, I should comment about a phrase that occurs in the very first promise, because it is not in common use today and startles everybody who runs across it for the first time. According to the first promise, those who pray the rosary faithfully shall receive "signal graces." What are "signal graces?" people ask.

The term "signal," used as an adjective, is not common in contemporary English, but what it means is "notable," "out of the ordinary," "uncommon" (cf. its entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

So "signal graces" just means "notable graces" or "unusual graces."

The 15 promises were, according to the common claim, "Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan." St. Dominic is a familiar figure, but "Blessed Alan" is less well known. He is Alanus de Rupe–also known as Alain de la Roche, and variants. He lived in the 1400s, over 200 years after St. Dominic's time. He reportedly received private revelation that showed him certain things about the life of St. Dominic, including the revelation of the 15 promises. This is why they are claimed to have been "given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan." We don't have evidence–apart from Alan–that St. Dominic received these promises. The matter comes down to how much credibility one places in Alan's reported private revelation.

So how reliable are they?

It does not appear that there are any significant magisterial documents dealing with the subject. At least, advocates of the 15 promises do not seem to have identified any papal or curial documents affirming them (and there are certainly none from ecumenical councils). There might be some that are not commonly available in English, but until such can be identified it does not appear that the promises have ecclesiastical approbation on the global level.

What about the local level?

Here advocates of the 15 promises have identified something: a commonly printed pamphlet of the promises (pictured) that carries the imprimatur of "Patrick J. Hayes DD Archbishop of New York." (This pamphlet may possibly be excerpted from an earlier work carrying Hayes' imprimatur.)

The imprimatur is not dated, but Hayes was archbishop of New York from 1919 to 1938, so it would presumably have been granted in this period.

What weight would such an imprimatur have?

Actually, not a great deal. Imprimaturs do not mean that something is correct, and they are not the same thing or the equivalent of an ecclesiastical affirmation that a private revelation is authentic. As an archbishop living almost 500 years after Bl. Alan, in a country that had not even been discovered in Alan's time, Cardinal Hayes would not have jurisdiction to judge the authenticity of Alan's private revelation. His granting of the imprimatur, then, must be understood in terms of what imprimaturs normally signified in his day.

So what was that?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law was in effect during Hayes' time as the archbishop of New York, and under this code (as under the present, 1983 Code), there was a two-stage process in which a work would first be examined by a censor of books who would then make a recommendation to the ordinary (in this case, Cardinal Hayes) as to whether the book should be published. In issuing a favorable judgment, the censor would grant what is known as a nihil obstat, which is Latin for "nothing obstructs"–meaning that there is nothing int he book that would obstruct (prevent) its publication. In response to this, the ordinary would then (apart from unusual circumstances) issue the imprimatur which is Latin for "Let it be printed."

Now, the 1917 Code is rather clear on the criteria according to which censors are to grant the nihil obstat (BTW, gotta love the gangster character in a couple of Tim Powers' novels named "Neal Obstat"–nothing obstructs this gangster in pursuit of his ends! He's ruthless.):

 

Canon 1393

§2. Examiners in undertaking their office, leaving off all consideration of persons, shall have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common Catholic doctrine that is contained in the general decrees of the Councils or constitutions of the Apostolic See or the prescriptions and the thinking of approved doctors.

§3. Censors shall be selected from both clergies [who are] commended by age, erudition, ad prudence, and who in approving and disapproving doctrines, will follow the careful median.

As you can see, the criteria by which a censor is to evaluate a work are rather narrow. His own opinion of the correctness does not come into the matter. If it does not contradict (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors then he is not to disapprove it. Instead, he is to "follow the careful median," meaning that as long as the idea in question can claim a reasonable place in the spectrum of Catholic thought, it gets approved.

This understanding is reflected in John Abbo and Jerome Hannan's classic commentary on the 1917 Code, The Sacred Canons. Their commentary on this canon (vol. 2, p. 627) notes:

 

Censors are to be guided, as to matters in which the Church has not spoken, by the unanimous or almost unanimous views of authors. In controverted questions, they shall not refuse a favorable opinion because the book adopts a position at variance with their own. Nor shall they refuse it because they think the publication of the book inopportune, though they may inform the local ordinary of their opinion in this respect.

We may infer from the granting of the imprimatur that the 15 promises got through the nihil obstat stage, but you can see that this does not indicate that the censor believed in the authenticity of Bl. Alan's private revelation or that the promises are genuine–just that they aren't contradicted by the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and approved authors. Not being contradicted by these is not remotely a guarantee of truth.

It could very well be that the validity of these promises was a disputed question and the censor was bound by his obligations to grant the nihil obstat even though he did not personally agree with them.

In fact, there are hints that this may have been the case.

First, the promises were disputed. There had been significant controversy concerning Bl. Alan's purported revelations. According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia,

 

His vision of the restoration of the devotion of the Rosary is assigned to the year 1460. Alanus published nothing during his lifetime, but immediately after his death the brethren of his province were commanded to collect his writings for publication. These were edited at different times and have occasioned much controversy among scholars. His relations of the visions and sermons of St. Dominic, supposed to have been revealed to Alanus, are not to be regarded as historical.

This volume of the encyclopedia, incidentally, also carries the imprimatur. In fact, it carries the imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes's predecessor, John Cardinal Farley, who was Archbishop of New York from 1902 to 1918. The nihil obstat that preceded this imprimatur would have been similarly granted whether the censor believed in the promises or not. It was a controverted question, and within a few years of each other the same archdiocese issued nihil obstats (and imprimaturs) on publications coming down on both sides of the issue–the pamphlet (obviously) approving of them and the Catholic Encyclopedia disapproving of them.

There is also another hint that the censor of the booklet may not have personally agreed with the promises, which is this: His name doesn't appear. The 1917 Code contains a provision which states:

 

Canon 1393

§4. A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing, to which, however, shall be attached the judgment of the censor signed in his name. Only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary can mention of the censor be omitted.

The meaning of the statement regarding the omission of the censor's name was unclear to commentators of the day. Some took it to mean that the censor's name and the nihil obstat need to appear in the published work, along with the imprimatur, unless "only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely" the bishop deemed it prudent for this to be omitted.

"I don't agree with these promises, and I don't want my name on them lest people think that I do" would be such a circumstance, and Archbishop Hayes may have withheld the censor's name for that reason, leading to it and the nihil obstat not appearing on the pamphlet.

In fact, for all we know, the censor who approved the pamphlet may have been the same one who reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia piece disapproving of the promises. We do know that man's name: Remy Lafort, S.T.D. (i.e., "doctor of sacred theology").

That's just speculation, and we can't even ultimately know why the censor's name was withheld, since publishing practice regarding this was inconsistent.

Thus far we've been considering the granting of the nihil obstat by the unknown censor, but what of the imprimatur granted by Cardinal Hayes?

As section 4 of the canon (quoted above) indicates, the granting of the imprimatur by the ordinary is treated as almost automatic: "A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing."

While imprimaturs were, and still are, routinely granted based on the recommendation of the censor, there are signal cases (remember that word?) where this isn't the case. Abbo and Hannan note:

 

The appointment of censors does not prohibit the bishop of the vicar general from inspecting books themselves; and even after they have received the opinion of the censor, they may refuse permission for publication, if motivated by a serious justifying reason (ibid.).

What's more, if permission to published was refused, they had to say why it was refused:

 

Canon 1394

§2. But if it seems that permission is to be denied, the reason shall be indicated to the requesting author, unless for a grave cause something else is indicated.

So put yourself in Cardinal Hayes's position: The validity of these promises is a controverted question among Catholic authors, but censors aren't supposed to base the nihil obstat on their own opinions and the nihil obstat has been granted. The Code expects that the imprimatur will follow the nihil obstat unless there is a serious reason why not, and you have to be prepared to tell the publisher what that reason is unless there is a grave reason why not.

"I personally don't think these promises are authentic" is not particular serious reason when the promises have been in circulation, in no doubt numerous publications in different languages, for about 450 years. The publisher could easily respond, "But what about all these other publications they have appeared in? Doesn't that show that these are mainstream enough that the imprimatur should be granted?"

We thus can't infer much about Cardinal Hayes' view of the promises (and, unlike the censor, he could not keep his name off them if he granted an imprimatur). He may have been a big supporter of them–or not. All we can conclude is that he didn't think them so problematic that he would refuse the imprimatur, given the circumstances.

In view of all this, it does not appear that we have sign off on the authenticity of the private revelation or the promises. Unless other documents–with something more than an imprimatur–can be produced, all we can say is that in the view of the Archdiocese of New York sometime in the tenure of Cardinal Hayes it was judged that the promises are not contradicted by (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors and that the promises were of a controversial nature, with some (like the publishers of the pamphlet) affirming them and others (like the Catholic Encyclopedia) rejecting them.

What are your thoughts?

Are the 15 Promises of the Rosary Reliable?

15promises

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering if you could comment some time about some of these spiritual promises that allegedly attach to certain prayers or devotions.  The 15 promises of the rosary seems to be the most common example, but of course there’s more.

There are more—and the reader goes on to name some—but for this post let’s look at the alleged 15 promises regarding the rosary.

First, here is a commonly given text of them.

Before we go further, I should comment about a phrase that occurs in the very first promise, because it is not in common use today and startles everybody who runs across it for the first time. According to the first promise, those who pray the rosary faithfully shall receive “signal graces.” What are “signal graces?” people ask.

The term “signal,” used as an adjective, is not common in contemporary English, but what it means is “notable,” “out of the ordinary,” “uncommon” (cf. its entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

So “signal graces” just means “notable graces” or “unusual graces.”

The 15 promises were, according to the common claim, “Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” St. Dominic is a familiar figure, but “Blessed Alan” is less well known. He is Alanus de Rupe—also known as Alain de la Roche, and variants. He lived in the 1400s, over 200 years after St. Dominic’s time. He reportedly received private revelation that showed him certain things about the life of St. Dominic, including the revelation of the 15 promises. This is why they are claimed to have been “given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” We don’t have evidence—apart from Alan—that St. Dominic received these promises. The matter comes down to how much credibility one places in Alan’s reported private revelation.

So how reliable are they?

It does not appear that there are any significant magisterial documents dealing with the subject. At least, advocates of the 15 promises do not seem to have identified any papal or curial documents affirming them (and there are certainly none from ecumenical councils). There might be some that are not commonly available in English, but until such can be identified it does not appear that the promises have ecclesiastical approbation on the global level.

What about the local level?

Here advocates of the 15 promises have identified something: a commonly printed pamphlet of the promises (pictured) that carries the imprimatur of “Patrick J. Hayes DD Archbishop of New York.” (This pamphlet may possibly be excerpted from an earlier work carrying Hayes’ imprimatur.)

The imprimatur is not dated, but Hayes was archbishop of New York from 1919 to 1938, so it would presumably have been granted in this period.

What weight would such an imprimatur have?

Actually, not a great deal. Imprimaturs do not mean that something is correct, and they are not the same thing or the equivalent of an ecclesiastical affirmation that a private revelation is authentic. As an archbishop living almost 500 years after Bl. Alan, in a country that had not even been discovered in Alan’s time, Cardinal Hayes would not have jurisdiction to judge the authenticity of Alan’s private revelation. His granting of the imprimatur, then, must be understood in terms of what imprimaturs normally signified in his day.

So what was that?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law was in effect during Hayes’ time as the archbishop of New York, and under this code (as under the present, 1983 Code), there was a two-stage process in which a work would first be examined by a censor of books who would then make a recommendation to the ordinary (in this case, Cardinal Hayes) as to whether the book should be published. In issuing a favorable judgment, the censor would grant what is known as a nihil obstat, which is Latin for “nothing obstructs”—meaning that there is nothing int he book that would obstruct (prevent) its publication. In response to this, the ordinary would then (apart from unusual circumstances) issue the imprimatur which is Latin for “Let it be printed.”

Now, the 1917 Code is rather clear on the criteria according to which censors are to grant the nihil obstat (BTW, gotta love the gangster character in a couple of Tim Powers’ novels named “Neal Obstat”—nothing obstructs this gangster in pursuit of his ends! He’s ruthless.):

Canon 1393

§2. Examiners in undertaking their office, leaving off all consideration of persons, shall have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common Catholic doctrine that is contained in the general decrees of the Councils or constitutions of the Apostolic See or the prescriptions and the thinking of approved doctors.

§3. Censors shall be selected from both clergies [who are] commended by age, erudition, ad prudence, and who in approving and disapproving doctrines, will follow the careful median.

As you can see, the criteria by which a censor is to evaluate a work are rather narrow. His own opinion of the correctness does not come into the matter. If it does not contradict (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors then he is not to disapprove it. Instead, he is to “follow the careful median,” meaning that as long as the idea in question can claim a reasonable place in the spectrum of Catholic thought, it gets approved.

This understanding is reflected in John Abbo and Jerome Hannan’s classic commentary on the 1917 Code, The Sacred Canons. Their commentary on this canon (vol. 2, p. 627) notes:

Censors are to be guided, as to matters in which the Church has not spoken, by the unanimous or almost unanimous views of authors. In controverted questions, they shall not refuse a favorable opinion because the book adopts a position at variance with their own. Nor shall they refuse it because they think the publication of the book inopportune, though they may inform the local ordinary of their opinion in this respect.

We may infer from the granting of the imprimatur that the 15 promises got through the nihil obstat stage, but you can see that this does not indicate that the censor believed in the authenticity of Bl. Alan’s private revelation or that the promises are genuine—just that they aren’t contradicted by the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and approved authors. Not being contradicted by these is not remotely a guarantee of truth.

It could very well be that the validity of these promises was a disputed question and the censor was bound by his obligations to grant the nihil obstat even though he did not personally agree with them.

In fact, there are hints that this may have been the case.

First, the promises were disputed. There had been significant controversy concerning Bl. Alan’s purported revelations. According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia,

His vision of the restoration of the devotion of the Rosary is assigned to the year 1460. Alanus published nothing during his lifetime, but immediately after his death the brethren of his province were commanded to collect his writings for publication. These were edited at different times and have occasioned much controversy among scholars. His relations of the visions and sermons of St. Dominic, supposed to have been revealed to Alanus, are not to be regarded as historical.

This volume of the encyclopedia, incidentally, also carries the imprimatur. In fact, it carries the imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes’s predecessor, John Cardinal Farley, who was Archbishop of New York from 1902 to 1918. The nihil obstat that preceded this imprimatur would have been similarly granted whether the censor believed in the promises or not. It was a controverted question, and within a few years of each other the same archdiocese issued nihil obstats (and imprimaturs) on publications coming down on both sides of the issue—the pamphlet (obviously) approving of them and the Catholic Encyclopedia disapproving of them.

There is also another hint that the censor of the booklet may not have personally agreed with the promises, which is this: His name doesn’t appear. The 1917 Code contains a provision which states:

Canon 1393

§4. A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing, to which, however, shall be attached the judgment of the censor signed in his name. Only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary can mention of the censor be omitted.

The meaning of the statement regarding the omission of the censor’s name was unclear to commentators of the day. Some took it to mean that the censor’s name and the nihil obstat need to appear in the published work, along with the imprimatur, unless “only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely” the bishop deemed it prudent for this to be omitted.

“I don’t agree with these promises, and I don’t want my name on them lest people think that I do” would be such a circumstance, and Archbishop Hayes may have withheld the censor’s name for that reason, leading to it and the nihil obstat not appearing on the pamphlet.

In fact, for all we know, the censor who approved the pamphlet may have been the same one who reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia piece disapproving of the promises. We do know that man’s name: Remy Lafort, S.T.D. (i.e., “doctor of sacred theology”).

That’s just speculation, and we can’t even ultimately know why the censor’s name was withheld, since publishing practice regarding this was inconsistent.

Thus far we’ve been considering the granting of the nihil obstat by the unknown censor, but what of the imprimatur granted by Cardinal Hayes?

As section 4 of the canon (quoted above) indicates, the granting of the imprimatur by the ordinary is treated as almost automatic: “A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing.”

While imprimaturs were, and still are, routinely granted based on the recommendation of the censor, there are signal cases (remember that word?) where this isn’t the case. Abbo and Hannan note:

The appointment of censors does not prohibit the bishop of the vicar general from inspecting books themselves; and even after they have received the opinion of the censor, they may refuse permission for publication, if motivated by a serious justifying reason (ibid.).

What’s more, if permission to published was refused, they had to say why it was refused:

Canon 1394

§2. But if it seems that permission is to be denied, the reason shall be indicated to the requesting author, unless for a grave cause something else is indicated.

So put yourself in Cardinal Hayes’s position: The validity of these promises is a controverted question among Catholic authors, but censors aren’t supposed to base the nihil obstat on their own opinions and the nihil obstat has been granted. The Code expects that the imprimatur will follow the nihil obstat unless there is a serious reason why not, and you have to be prepared to tell the publisher what that reason is unless there is a grave reason why not.

“I personally don’t think these promises are authentic” is not particular serious reason when the promises have been in circulation, in no doubt numerous publications in different languages, for about 450 years. The publisher could easily respond, “But what about all these other publications they have appeared in? Doesn’t that show that these are mainstream enough that the imprimatur should be granted?”

We thus can’t infer much about Cardinal Hayes’ view of the promises (and, unlike the censor, he could not keep his name off them if he granted an imprimatur). He may have been a big supporter of them—or not. All we can conclude is that he didn’t think them so problematic that he would refuse the imprimatur, given the circumstances.

In view of all this, it does not appear that we have sign off on the authenticity of the private revelation or the promises. Unless other documents—with something more than an imprimatur—can be produced, all we can say is that in the view of the Archdiocese of New York sometime in the tenure of Cardinal Hayes it was judged that the promises are not contradicted by (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors and that the promises were of a controversial nature, with some (like the publishers of the pamphlet) affirming them and others (like the Catholic Encyclopedia) rejecting them.

What are your thoughts?

Members of Medjugorje Commission Announced

Italy-vatican-museum

The Vatican Information Service has announced that the new Medjugorje commission has had its first meeting.

The press release stating this also contains a list of the members of the commission. Here is the text, reformatted to make reading the names easier:

“The International Investigative Commission on Medjugorje met for its first session on 26 March 2010.”

“The Commission, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, His Holiness’ vicar general emeritus for the diocese of Rome, is composed of the following members: 

  • Cardinal Jozef Tomko, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples;
  • Cardinal Vinko Puljic, Archbishop of Vrhbosna, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina; 
  • Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb and vice-president of the Council of European Bishops’ Conference; 
  • Cardinal Julian Herranz, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts;
  • Archbishop Angelo Amato, S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; 
  • Msgr. Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in Social Psychiatry; 
  • Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy; 
  • Fr. David Maria Jaeger, O.F.M., consultant to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; 
  • Fr. Zdzislaw Jozef Kijas, O.F.M. Conv., relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; 
  • Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M., teacher of Mariology at the Pontifical Marianum Faculty of Theology; and 
  • Fr. Achim Schutz, professor of Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University as secretary. 
  • Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, an officer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith serves as additional secretary.”

“Other experts have also participated in the commission’s work: 

  • Fr. Franjo Topic, professor of Fundamental Theology in Sarajevo; 
  • Fr. Mijo Nikic, S.J., professor of Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Philosophical and Theological Institute of the Society of Jesus in Zagreb, 
  • Fr. Mihaly Szentmartoni, S.J., professor of Spirituality at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and 
  • Sr. Veronica Nela Gaspar, professor of Theology at Rijeka.”

“As announced previously, the work of the Commission will be carried out with the utmost reserve. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for study.”

I’m not a veteran Medjugorje watcher, so I don’t have a feel for the individuals on or working with the commission when it comes to Medjugorje.

Does anybody have thoughts on how the members lean–or if they’re all neutrals, or what?

Theotokos

From my blog Old World Swine;

Songangelsl
Tomorrow – January 1st – is more than just the beginning of a new
calendar year in the West. It is, much more significantly, the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God.

The USCCB site gives the SCRIPTURE READINGS for the day.

From the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D. –

"We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational
soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead,
the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the
virgin, according to his humanity,  one and the same consubstantial
with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for
a union of two natures took place.  Therefore we confess one Christ,
one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union,
we confess the holy virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word
took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself
the temple he took from her"

Sorry, Grunerites

MOSCOW (AFP) – The domestic and exiled branches of the Russian Orthodox Church reunited in a ceremony here Thursday in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, ending an 80-year split over communism.
Link:
Russian church reunites, ending 80-year split

THAT’S ALL THERE IS, AND THERE AIN’T NO MO’.

EXCERPTS:

The strange thing, Cardinal Bertone said in the new book, is that Pope John Paul decided to publish the secret precisely to put an end to the wild speculation that had surrounded it.

Good point!

"The most absurd theses" were being spread, mainly presuming that the secret predicted catastrophic world events or widespread heresy at the top levels of the church, Cardinal Bertone said.

"Clearing up the question was a pastoral concern," he said.

MORE HERE.

EXCERPT:

"There is no fourth secret," he declared yesterday. "Everything has been published and correctly interpreted."

AND HERE’S THE POPE’S FOREWORD TO THE BOOK.

And let it not be forgotten that when the Third Secret was revealed, His Awesomeness Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

Thus we come finally to the third part of the “secret” of Fatima which for the first time is being published in its entirety.

SOURCE: THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA.

Either B16 is a liar or not.

I know where my money is.

Who’s Holding Back Who’s Hand?

A reader writes:

I’m in RCIA right now, and I have a question that’s been bothering me for a while. I’m hoping you can shed some light. Someone on one of the combox threads posted the following:

“Our lady is holding back the hand of her beloved son from seeking retribution on those who wear the clerical cloth and those that are worshiping as humanists and not God himself.”

Now, the fellow in question may or may not be right, but I’m sure I’ve heard the first part of the quote before.

Here’s my question: I thought (as a Protestant) that it was Jesus who was staying the hand of God (out of love for His Son, God was withholding immediate judgment on the world). The quote makes it sound like it’s Mary who’s staying the hand of Jesus. I know the Church teaches that Mary intercedes for us with Christ, but this is starting to sound like a daisy chain. Help?

It’s understandable that this type of image would be a bit perplexing, especially if one is coming from a Protestant background, since many Protestants stress the idea of Jesus turning away God’s wrath from us.

Basically, the "holding back the hand" metaphor is just that: a metaphor. As such, it contains elements of truth, but it is also figurative. Mary is not literally holding back Jesus’ bodily hand to keep him from physically whacking erring clergymen. Neither is Jesus literally holding back God the Father’s hand to keep him from physically squashing us with it. That’s a metaphor.

The question is: What does the metaphor mean and what are its limits?

It would seem that the metaphor can refer to the fact that it is through Christ’s death (and his ongoing intercession at the "right hand" [another metaphor] of the Father) that we are treated more mercifully than we otherwise would be. In this sense we can say that Jesus restrains the "wrath" (bad consequences) that would otherwise come to us, for God has chosen to make his mercy toward us conditional on the work of his Son. Thus Jesus could be depicted as staying the Father’s wrath or holding back his hand.

But the metaphor also has limits. First, God doesn’t literally get angry. Anger is a passion, and God doesn’t have passions. When Scripture speaks of God’s anger, it’s using a metaphor to communicate the idea that he will allow bad consequences to occur to those on earth on account of their wrongdoing. He’s not literally seething with rage.

Quite the contrary! It is he who sent his Son to die for us on the Cross and thus provide salvation in spite of our sins! God sent his Son because he loves us and wants us to be saved. Thus he’s really on our side. It’s true that he will allow bad things to happen if we refuse his offer of grace (i.e., he will allow us to choose to reject him if we insist on it; he won’t force himself on us), but he wants to provide us with grace, and he sent his Son to make that possible.

Thus if we wish to view what is literally true, we must look past the metaphor of anger and of Jesus restraining his Father from squashing us in a fit of rage. That image is not literally true.

The content of the metaphor seems to consist in two points: (1) We deserve bad consequences for our sins but (2) we don’t receive these bad consequences because of Jesus’ work on our behalf.

Going beyond the metaphor, we also recognize (3) the Father loves us and (4) it is he himself who sent his Son so that we might receive mercy.

The same exact thing applies if we speak of Mary (or anyone else) restraining divine wrath. That’s a metaphor as well, and it communicates basically the same content, with the necessary changes folded in.

God wants to give us benefits, but he has willed that these benefits sometimes be contingent on the prayer of others. Thus he encourages the Christian community to be built up in love and concern for each other by giving it additional benefits when we are drawn out of ourselves to be concerned for and to pray for other people. It’s his reward system for turning our thoughts to him and to others, instead of focusing exclusively on our selves.

Based on this fact, it would be possible to modify the metaphor of restraining divine anger such that the intercession of Mary (or anyone else who prays) is pictured as what averts the bad consequences that would otherwise come. As the Mother of Christ, Mary is a particularly powerful intercessor, and so this metaphor is sometimes applied to her, but it could also be applied any time anyone’s prayers help us out.

Yet the content of the metaphor is basically the same: (1) We deserve bad consequences on account of our wrongdoings but (2) we don’t receive these bad consequences (at least in some cases) because of the intercession of another (Mary, in the case we are considering).

Looking beyond the metaphor, we also realize (3) that God (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) loves us and (4) it was God himself (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) who allows us to be blessed through the intercession of others, based on the work of Christ.

Hope this helps!

More Help For Mike

 

Mike in Michigan has posted another video (above), updating us on his investigations into the Catholic faith.

He also asks a question about the Immaculate Conception. This was something that I had to research and think about when I was becoming Catholic as well, and I certainly understand the concern for someone from a Protestant background.

He also adds a little bit in the combox down yonder in which he indicates that he understands that Romans 3:23 (the "all have sinned" passage) doesn’t mean absolutely all or it would include Jesus, which it obviously doesn’t. This is quite correct, and I’ve often pointed out that later on in Romans Paul refers to a time when Esau (not our Esau) and Jacob were still int he womb and had not yet done anything good or bad, indicating that unborn children are also an exception to the "all have sinned" principle.

The question then is not whether there are exceptions but whether Mary counts as an exception and why.

For Catholics there are two sources by which the faith is passed down to us from the apostles: Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority), while it is not itself a source of the faith, is able to make rulings on what the content of Scripture and Tradition are. That’s how we got the canon of Scripture for example: The Magisterium identified certain works as genuine Scripture. It is also capable of determining which Traditions are authentic and which are not.

When it comes to the Immaculate Conception, this doctrine is not taught explicitly in Scripture. It is thus like the Trinity, which is not taught explicitly , either. You have to go around to a variety of different verses in order to build up the evidence that shows that God is a Trinity. It’s not stated directly. The Immaculate Conception is also like the Trinity in that it took a while for the concepts and vocabulary needed to express the doctrine to develop. You can’t talk about the Trinity if the word "Trinity" hasn’t been coined yet, and you can’t talk about the Immaculate Conception–Mary’s freedom from all stain of original sin–if the term "original sin" has not yet been coined.

It thus took a while for Christian theology to develop the concepts and vocabulary needed to articulate the idea of Mary’s unique holiness.

That holiness is something that Christians have always had an insight of–as the writings of the Church Fathers show–but it took a while to figure out the precise nature and extent of this unique gift.

There are indications of it in Scripture itself, the clearest echo of the doctrine being in the Annunciation in Luke 1, where the Angel Gabriel refers to Mary with the Greek word "kecharitomene," which is commonly translated "full of grace," but more literally would be "one who has been graced." This word draws on aspects of Greek grammar that indicate that Mary has, in the past, received God’s grace and that this has continuing effects at the present time.

The question is: How far back in the past was she graced and what are the specific effects? As Christians reflected on this and on the writings of the Church Fathers, it was discerned that–because of her unique role in the history of salvation–Mary was graced at the first moment of her existence (her conception) with the effect that she was prevented from contracting any stain of original sin.

Part of the conceptual background for this was the realization of Mary’s role as the New or Second Eve, something that the Church Fathers are explicit about very early. It was discerned that, just as God started humanity with a first Adam and Eve, he started redeemed humanity with a New Adam and a New Eve. Thus St. Paul refers to Jesus’ role as the New Adam, and the Church Fathers identify Mary as the New Eve. Thus, just as Eve cooperated with Adam in bringing sin to the world (by giving him the forbidden fruit), Mary cooperated with Jesus in bringing salvation to the world (by serving as his mother).

Similarly, just as both the first Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions, the new Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions. The difference is that while the first pair fell from grace, the second remained faithful.

A basis for the Immaculate Conception can thus be discerned in Mary’s role as the New Eve.

YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT THAT HERE.

It seems to me that another basis for the Immaculate Conception can be seen in the fact that Mary is the Prototypical Christian. She is the first to say yes to Jesus, which she agrees to become his mother, and this makes her a model of all Christians. In keeping with this, God chose to make her an image of Christian destiny by giving her the gifts that one day all faithful Christians will receive. Specifically, he grave her the gift of being immaculate and he assumed her to be with hi Son. This mirrors the fact that faithful Christians will one day be rendered just as immaculate–just as free of sin and its stain–as Mary, and they will also be caught up to be with Christ (only at the end of the world, not at an earlier point as in Rapture teaching). By giving Mary–the Prototypical Christian–these gifts early, God made her an icon of the destiny of the Christian.

Thus the Catechism refers to Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508) because the gifts of Christ’s redemption were given to her in an extraordinary way.

There is also a basis in the fact that she is simply Christ’s mother. It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.

There are no limits to God’s ability to grant holiness to someone, and thus if he chooses to make someone extraordinarily holy, he has the power to make the person totally holy. That would be the kind of mother that would be fitting for the Son of God, and thus that’s the kind of mother that God chose to make Mary.

These themes rumble through the Tradition that is found in the writings of the early Church Fathers and later theologians, and eventually the matter was brought to the point that the Magisterium of the Church infallibly defined that this–like the Trinity–is, indeed, an authentic Tradition from the apostles, even if the apostles wouldn’t have used the vocabulary we use today to express the insight.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.

Hope this helps!

Ever Virgin

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

Several days ago, while commenting on Jimmy’s post entitled James White Responds, I replied to a Catholic-basher who wrote –

"You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ. By agreeing with that ancient heresy, you guys are by implication sayin that Christ didn’t have a real human body…"

Now, I knew this was bunk. In my 14 years as a Catholic, I have never heard this taught by anyone. So, I replied-

"Catholics believe no such thing. That is NOT what is meant by Mary’s perpetual virginity.".

And I wasn’t alone. Another commenter replied

"Nobody in the Catholic church is required to believe this.".

… which is certainly my understanding.

I admit that, though I studied well enough on my way to becoming a Catholic, and though I feel I have a good grasp of the fundamentals (thanks to folks like Ludwig Ott and Jimmy Akin), I am no apologist. I am not widely read, and there are doubtless a number of ancillary topics of which I know little or nothing. I am familiar with the Catechism (and have taught CCD classes, as well as Confirmation prep and RCIA), but I have not delved very deeply into either theology or Church history (the councils and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church).

So, I was very interested to see a later commenter write –

"Actually, Free Grace is close to the mark on the perpetual virginity thing… the dogma of the perpetual virginity states that Mary remained a virgin before, *during*, and after Jesus’ birth, and the "during" is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary’s virginity…"

He went on to give THIS LINK to an article on the subject, by Fr. John Saward.

I followed the link and read the article. The commenter was right that a good number of Fathers and Doctors of the Church believed and taught that Mary remained physically intact (no disruption of the birth canal) even during Jesus birth. According to the article –

"It is of divine faith for Catholics to hold that our Lady not only conceived the divine Word as man "without seed, by the Holy Spirit" but also gave birth to Him "without corruption."."

The article continues –

"According to the Church’s Doctors, this freedom from corruption means that the God-Man leaves His Mother’s womb without opening it (utero clauso vel obsignato), without inflicting any injury to her bodily virginity (sine violatione claustri virginalis), and therefore without causing her any pain.".

So it appears that I was wrong in asserting that "Catholics believe no such thing"… some Catholics do. But can this be called the teaching of the Church on this point? Is it, in fact, defined doctrine?

The Church does indeed maintain that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after Jesus’ birth, giving birth to Christ "without corruption"… but what does this really mean? I am certainly open to the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way that was unlike natural childbirth… something like the way he could appear and disappear at will after his resurrection, seeming to move through walls.

But opinion has not been unanimous on the subject. The following are from Father Saward’s footnotes to the article;

"…St John Chrysostom, for example, is content to assert the fact of the miraculous preservation of our Lady’s virginity during childbirth and refuses to delve into the details; "…Although I know that a virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learnt to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech.".

"…Quite a few of the Fathers asked for an unambiguous declaration not only to affirm the Virginal Conception of Jesus—which the Christian faith has never doubted—but also fully to safeguard the aphorism Virgo ante partum, in partu et post partum. The Council thought that the terminology it employed could suffice for this end, without going into biological details. "

"…St Thomas says that the hymen pertains to virginity only per accidens, and that its rupture by any means other than sexual pleasure is no more destructive of virginity than the loss of a hand or foot (cf. ST 2a2ae q. 152, a. I, ad 3). However, he also holds that bodily integrity belongs to the perfection of virginity."

So, it appears to me that, though the council had the opportunity to affirm Mary’s virginal integrity through childbirth in clearly physical terms, they chose not to do so.

Also, some saints and doctors of the Church (like St. John Chrysostom, above), while holding that Mary remained always a virgin, were reluctant to delve too deeply into the exact mode of Jesus’ birth.

Perhaps for many, or even most, of the early Church Fathers and saints, it might have been impossible to imagine that a woman could be called a virgin once her female parts had been opened, either in the act of sex, or in the act of childbirth. They might, therefore, have been culturally conditioned to understand Mary’s virginal purity through childbirth in physical terms (just as we may be culturally conditioned to be skeptical of miraculous explanations).

In modern times, we have a narrower understanding of virginity that means merely "never having had sex". Indeed, if most of us today knew of a young woman who had conceived and given birth without the benefit of any male participation (no sex, no male seed to fertilize the egg) we would surely have no problem describing this as a "virgin birth", even though mother and child had experienced normal and natural childbirth. I would certainly never maintain that the woman could no longer truly call herself a virgin.

It seems to me, then, that Catholics, while they must uphold that the Blessed Virgin was truly "Ever Virgin", are free to believe either that,

1) Jesus slipped from his mother’s womb in some miraculous way that  preserved her from any bodily disruption (in other words, without opening her womb).

or that,

2) Jesus experienced a natural childbirth, but that this in no way disqualifies Mary from the title "virgin".

or some combination of the two (like perhaps it was a natural childbirth, but Mary was miraculously preserved from its physical effects).

This is all new to me, but my understanding at present is that Catholics are not required to believe that Jesus slipped out of the womb like a vapor, or that Mary was physically unaltered through the birth process. I am open to either explanation, and can even see a certain poetic symmetry to the assertion, but I am not ready to say that it is anything like a dogma of the Church.

Mary, Did You Know?

Weyden18_1 Mary did you know, that your baby boy
Is Lord of all creation?
Mary did you know, that your baby boy
Will one day rule the nations?

Did you know, that your baby boy
Was Heaven’s perfect Lamb?
And this sleeping Child you’re holding
Is the Great I AM

From the song Mary, Did You Know?, lyrics by Mark Lowry

Okay…

Tim J here.

I know a lot of people like this song, especially at this time of year, and I am NOT trying to get anyone all twisted up about it, but I have to get something off my chest…

Every time I hear this song, I want to stand up and holler "YES, Mary knew! If ANYONE knew, she did!!"

In my mind, the song conjures up an image of Mary as a nonplussed and naive young girl, caught up in events she can’t comprehend or control. This is not surprising, since the song was written by a Protestant Evangelical and this is the prevailing view of Mary among Protestants.

But, consider this from the first chapter of Luke’s gospel:

And Mary said:
   "My soul glorifies the Lord
    and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
      of the humble state of his servant.
   From now on all generations will call me blessed,
    for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
      holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
      from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
      he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
      but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
      but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
      remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
      even as he said to our fathers."

Now, even if I didn’t believe that Mary was born without sin, after reading her Magnificat, I would begin to suspect that this was no ordinary little Jewish girl. She was perhaps 16 (give or take a year or two) at the time. How many sixteen-year-olds do you know who would put together a psalm of praise like that? Mary’s Magnificat demonstrates that she not only knew who Jesus was, but what he meant to the nation of Israel and to the world.

Consider what the angel told her, also from Luke 1:

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

But Mary had not just been told who Jesus was, she had direct experience of who he was, having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at his conception. She knew! Boy, did she know!

Now, I am not saying this is a bad song, or that Catholics shouldn’t listen to it. I do, however, want to invite those who hear it to consider that Mary DID know precisely who Jesus was. The next time you hear Mary, Did You Know?, go and read the first chapter of Luke, and give thanks for all that God has done for us through our Blessed Mother.

Oh, and pray a Rosary!