On the Immaculate Conception

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8
(repost)
Short history

Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when by the magisterium the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.

It was clear in the first centuries that only a perfect holiness, including absence of sin, was fitting in view of the dignity of her role. By the 8th century belief that Mary’s holiness was both flawless and immense was firmly established throughout the East, and it was in that century that the feast of her conception was first celebrated liturgically. In the West the belief grew more slowly, but by 1099 St Anselm could write: “It was fitting that she be clothed with a purity so splendid that none greater under God could be conceived.”

The belief in the Immaculate Conception was initially met with theological difficulty. If Christ was the redeemer of all, as the Scriptures affirm, he would have been the redeemer of Mary too. But then how was it possible that she was conceived immaculate and therefore was not in need of redemption? St Thomas Aquinas, unable to resolve the difficulty, concluded that Mary was conceived in original sin but was cleansed from it before her birth.

The decisive argument came from the Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1264-1308), who reasoned that Mary too was in need of redemption, but she was redeemed from the moment of her conception through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross many years later. Duns Scotus laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed.( more on Catholic Encyclopedia - Immaculate Conception) .

While theologians continued to debate the question for several more centuries, by the end of the 17th century there was practically universal agreement on Mary’s immaculate conception. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals.

The dogma

In the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

...Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
/
Update: Read Mark Shea's excellent post on the development of the Immaculate Conception dogma.

The dogma of the Assumption of Mary

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly declared:

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

(from the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus)

Thus, the Assumption of Mary was dogmatically defined in 1950. It was clear though, that the belief was already commonly held throughout the church since the earliest days of Christianity.

Here is an excerpt from Catholic Answers which explains this development:

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary's miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary's Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary's death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary's entrance to heaven, "The Memory of Mary," also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary's last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption.
/
Again from Munificentissimus Deus:

43. We rejoice greatly that this solemn event falls, according to the design of God's providence, during this Holy Year, so that we are able, while the great Jubilee is being observed, to adorn the brow of God's Virgin Mother with this brilliant gem, and to leave a monument more enduring than bronze of our own most fervent love for the Mother of God.
/

Seriously merry

Second Sunday in Ordinary Time
The Wedding at Cana
(John 2:1-11)

After commenting on the immortality of the human soul in "The Weight of Glory", C.S. Lewis says:

"This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously."
/



The very first time I read St John's account of the Wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1-11), I was quite mystified at Jesus' response to the concern of mother Mary that the wine has run out:
“Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
It becomes clear however, that Mary's subsequent actions did not regard Jesus' response as a refusal, proven by the fact of her immediate direction to the servants: "Do whatever he tells you."

From the outset, Mary had been aware that the child Jesus was destined for a divine plan. At the earliest times of her blessed motherhood, Mary kept all the sayings and doings of Jesus in her heart (Lk 2:15; 2:51). As Jesus was already "about 30 years old" (Lk 3:23) when he began his public ministry, we can be certain that the special and private bond within the Holy Family enriched and deepened throughout the years prior to Jesus' public ministry,
at the time when "Jesus advanced in wisdom, age and favor before God and man." (Lk 2:52)

When the wine ran out, Mary understood that Jesus would favorably respond to her concern, and Jesus understood likewise, inspite of his initial seeming words to the contrary. There is something special that exists between Jesus and mother Mary, and there are simply so many things in there that are not directly conveyed by the printed word. Now we realize that the Wedding at Cana is a testament to Mother Mary's powerful intercession, in as much as we also understand that Jesus accorded so much love and honor to his mother. And that is why we love and honor Mary likewise. That is also why, all the more, we have much reason to be seriously merry.

Please pass the wine.
/

On Private Revelations

The topic of private revelations, especially where ecclesiastical approvals are in suspense mode, certainly proves to be a touchy and divisive topic even among orthodox Catholics. It is no wonder that Catholic Forums bans discussions on private revelations where no ecclesiastical approvals have yet been given. Recently, CMR posted something on Medjugorje, which elicited an avalanche of entries in the combox (99 and counting). Patrick probably had an inkling of what was about to transpire when he noted at the bottom of his post: Please try not to destroy the furniture here at CMR discussing this one. Lately in CatholicFriends, a similar discussion coincidentally was going on. Well, I could see some furniture flying as well. Anyway, here is my take on the topic as a response to some of those posts.
/
Certainly Catholics are not obliged to believe in private revelations. In this regard, there are two kinds of beliefs that must be taken into consideration: 1) the belief requiring the assent of human faith; and 2) the belief requiring the assent of divine faith. We can not be obliged to give an assent of divine faith in private revelations nor is it possible to do so, for the simple reason that it does not add to the deposit of faith. It is on the assent of human faith that we are afforded some leeway by the Church. In your post above, the Bishop of Lincoln admits "the possibility of venial sins of pride and lack of prudence in such doubt or denial". Since the good Bishop did not state outright that the venial sins of pride and lack of prudence automatically follow with non-belief (he only mentions the possibility), there must be a qualifying condition/s on the part of the disbeliever that could give cause for the instantaneous or subsequent commission of the venial sins mentioned. When Catholics of good standing do not make an assent of human faith to a matter that the Church officially declares as "worthy of belief", there must be a charitable way of doing so while avoiding the venial sins of pride and lack of prudence, and without challenging the decision of the Church. Perhaps you have more Catholic material expounding on this aspect.
/
I think we can all agree that the Church has not come up (yet) with an official, definitive and final declaration for or against the supernatural nature of the facts of Medjugorje. To quote from the article you posted from CUF:

"Until the Church renders her official judgment, the faithful are free to accept (or reject) any private revelation if nothing in the message or concurring phenomena is contrary to faith and morals."

In emphasis, when we claim that something is contrary to faith and morals, we look for guidance from the official statements of the Magisterium. The 1991 declaration made by the Bishops' Conference of the former Yugoslavia supposedly apparently still holds, which partly states:

"On the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations".

The statement does not affirm - yet we must also note that it does not condemn.

Fr Colin B. Donovan, STL, provides an answer for EWTN that is quite instructive, from which I will quote from its ending statements (emphasis mine):

"...This means that once a private revelation has achieved Papal approbation it is unreasonable, i.e. imprudent but not against the faith, to not accept it as authentic. The contrary would also be true. If Rome judged a private revelation to not be supernatural, the reasonable person would be satisfied with that conclusion. Would they sin if they did not accept it? They might sin by imprudence, rash judgement or the like, but not against the faith or the obedience they owed the Holy Father. Catholics must always, however, following the external precepts imposed by the Church in such matters, that is, what they may or may not do, as opposed to what they think.

As far as theological judgments made at the local level, therefore, the standard could not be any higher, and is certainly lower. The issue of Medjugorje, therefore, cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the local Church's finding that there is no evidence to date of supernaturality. This is even more clear in light of the statement of Archbishop Bertone that the Bishop of Mostar's 1998 statement that it is certainly "not supernatural" is his own personal opinion. Others are therefore entitled to their personal opinions, also.

What the Church permits. As the already cited statements note, Catholics may go to Medjugorje. Such pilgrimages may even include priests acting as chaplains, as opposed to officially sponsoring them. Also, the Church has not suppressed discussion of Medjugorje, therefore, it is allowed. Common sense, however, says that Catholics on both sides of the Medjugorje issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of others who believe differently. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgment of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict explained, should it ever be rendered...."
/
Not a litmus test of orthodoxy. Please pass the chair. Oops...
/

Leap for Joy

4th Sunday of Advent
Mi 5:1-4a; Heb 10:5-10; Lk 1:39-45

"...For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy"

I could still remember when I was a kid and my mother was expectant with our youngest sibling. There were times when she made me observe whenever the baby in her womb did some calisthenics. I was delighted when I actually saw my mom's tummy alternately bulging and receding in different places with what I thought was the playful acrobatics of our baby inside our mother’s womb. Amazing!

In the Gospel narrative when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby in her womb "leaped for joy", whereupon she cried out in a loud voice and said:
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.".

Mary greeted Elizabeth. It was not specified what exactly was the wording of Mary’s greeting which elated Elizabeth and the child in her womb, but it was probably the precursor of the earliest “Merry Christmas” greeting of all time. In today’s world, the greeting of “Merry Christmas” has been mostly separated from its rightful meaning. Some even just say “Happy Holidays”, disposing entirely of the reason for the season. The very reason is the child Jesus coming to us - through the “yes” of our Mother Mary. It is really for this that the child in each one of us leaps out in joy. And with that, I greet each and every one of you my dear Catholic friends…

The eyes have it

Mexico City, Mexico, Mar 27, 2009 / 04:59 pm (CNA).-

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe... Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion. After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?”...
/
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay. If the eyes were magnified 2,500 times, one can clearly see the imprint of 13 people. To date, there has been no scientific explanation of the technology existng in the 16 century that can paint with microscopic detail. The composition of the material used to paint the image has so far not been identified likewise. AS a footnote, it is said that within the first few years of the appearance of the Lady of Guadalupe, over 8 million have been baptized. The conversions and devotions continue to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe
http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html
http://catholicism.org/miraculous-image-guadalupe.html

/
Back to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“who painted it?”

..to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”.

After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Mrs. Clinton went to the quemador –the open air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles- and lit a green candle.

That evening after the Guadalupe visit, Clinton was set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization's founder, a noted eugenicist.

Your will be done

March 25, 2009

Today is the feast of the Annunciation (Luke 1:28-38)

..."May it be done to me according to your will"...

Before Mary assented, she pondered for a while and asked with some seeming trepidation: "How can it be?, I have no relations with a man".

I guess it is ok to ask questions first, to study implications, to think with a God-given brain, and to understand. After this process, humility should kick in.

As we ponder this, we will realize that our prayers are not always "according to your will", but "according to MY will". Lord, thy will be changed?

At these times, the angel Gabriel may talk to us in many ways. How often have we turned down opportunities in the past to serve the Lord? Remained deaf and indifferent? On this very day that I turn a year older, I ask myself the same question and conclude: I have done very little. And so this day being also the feast day of St. Dismas, I pray for his intercession in pleading to the Lord: Jesus, remember to include me into Paradise! In the meantime, I pray for grace in hearing, wisdom in understanding, and humility in heeding God's will.

I took this picture of my youngest child early today. As far as he is concerned, I am almost always humbled. He just imposes his will on me, most of the time. I wonder why he gets away with it. Maybe it's because of my full assent. Just looking at him, I guess a more apt word is: surrender.
/

Do you trust me?

THE FOURTH SUNDAY OF ADVENT

..."Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word."
(Lk 1:26-38)
/

In spite of Mary's deep devotion to God, it must have been a startling and fearful experience when the angel Gabriel appeared to her: "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus...".

Today it is easy for us to say that it is natural for Mary to accept outright without any deliberation, as it is obviously an honor to be chosen as the mother of the Messiah. Mary had free will to decide either way, but consider putting yourself in the place of Mary at the time. Do you think anybody would really believe that the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't it be more likely that ill-thinking people will surmise it was borne of an affair with some Roman soldier who were then frequently roaming Nazareth? Mary was then engaged to Joseph. Others might even conclude that Mary and Joseph had gone too far in their relationship with each other and had disobeyed the law of God. In either case, was there not the possibility that Mary could be charged and stoned for fornication?

And what would Joseph think? He would know that he was not responsible for Mary's condition. What would he say? Would he still be willing to marry her? Was she willing to give him up if it would come to that? And what about the child? If these difficult thoughts crossed Mary's mind at the time and made her waver, no one can probably blame her.

Mary was a meditative woman, at least twice we are told that she kept certain things and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51). But she did not take very much time to make up her mind here. She answered forthrightly: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word."
Her decision was to submit to God's will and to trust Him with the consequences. By her obedience, Mary becomes truly the "Mother of God', the "Mother of the living", and the model of our faith.

Submission to God's will, almost always involves some risk. But many times in the bible, God tells his followers from Abraham down to the apostles: do not be afraid. God is always there to work out all the details together, and it is our choice to believe Him if we want to enjoy His peace and power.

Today, God is asking each one of us the same question: "Do you trust me?"

On the Immaculate Conception

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8

Short history

Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when by the magisterium the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.

It was clear in the first centuries that only a perfect holiness, including absence of sin, was fitting in view of the dignity of her role. By the 8th century belief that Mary’s holiness was both flawless and immense was firmly established throughout the East, and it was in that century that the feast of her conception was first celebrated liturgically. In the West the belief grew more slowly, but by 1099 St Anselm could write: “It was fitting that she be clothed with a purity so splendid that none greater under God could be conceived.”

The belief in the Immaculate Conception was initially met with theological difficulty. If Christ was the redeemer of all, as the Scriptures affirm, he would have been the redeemer of Mary too. But then how was it possible that she was conceived immaculate and therefore was not in need of redemption? St Thomas Aquinas, unable to resolve the difficulty, concluded that Mary was conceived in original sin but was cleansed from it before her birth.

The decisive argument came from the Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1264-1308), who reasoned that Mary too was in need of redemption, but she was redeemed from the moment of her conception through the merits of her Son’s death on the Cross many years later. Duns Scotus laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed.( more on Catholic Encyclopedia - Immaculate Conception) .

While theologians continued to debate the question for several more centuries, by the end of the 17th century there was practically universal agreement on Mary’s immaculate conception. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals.

The dogma

In the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

...Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.
/