timeimmortal

Pope Benedict XVI delivered this sermon on August 15th, which is the feast day of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the oldest Marian Feast, returns every year in the heart of summer. It is an opportunity to rise with Mary to the heights of the spirit where one breathes the pure air of supernatural life and contemplates the most authentic beauty, the beauty of holiness. The atmosphere of today’s celebration is steeped in paschal joy.

“Today”, the antiphon of the Magnificat says, “the Virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven. Rejoice, for she reigns with Christ for ever. Alleluia”.

This proclamation speaks to us of an event that is utterly unique and extraordinary, yet destined to fill the heart of every human being with hope and happiness. Mary is indeed the first fruit of the new humanity, the creature in whom the mystery of Christ — his Incarnation, death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven — has already fully taken effect, redeeming her from death and conveying her, body and soul, to the Kingdom of immortal life.

For this reason, as the Second Vatican Council recalls, the Virgin Mary is a sign of certain hope and comfort to us (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 68).

Today’s feast impels us to lift our gaze to Heaven; not to a heaven consisting of abstract ideas or even an imaginary heaven created by art, but the Heaven of true reality which is God himself. God is Heaven. He is our destination, the destination and the eternal dwelling place from which we come and for which we are striving.

St. Germanus, Bishop of Constantinople in the eighth century, in a homily given on the Feast of the Assumption, addressing the heavenly Mother of God said: “You are the One who through your immaculate flesh reunited the Christian people with Christ…Just as all who thirst hasten to the fountain, so every soul hastens to you, the Fountain of love, and as every man aspires to live, to see the light that never fades, so every Christian longs to enter the light of the Most Blessed Trinity where you already are”.

Mary follows Jesus to God’s glory

It is these same sentiments that inspire us today as we contemplate Mary in God’s glory. In fact, when she fell asleep in this world to reawaken in Heaven, she simply followed her Son Jesus for the last time, on his longest and most crucial journey, his passage “from this world to the Father” (cf. Jn 13:1).

Like him, together with him, she departed this world to return “to the Father’s House” (cf. Jn 14:2). And all this is not remote from us as it might seem at first sight, because we are all children of the Father, God; we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus and we are all also children of Mary, our Mother.

And we all aspire to happiness. And the happiness to which we all aspire is God, so we are all journeying on toward this happiness we call Heaven which in reality is God. And Mary helps us, she encourages us to ensure that every moment of our life is a step forward on this exodus, on this journey toward God.

May she help us in this way to make the reality of heaven, God’s greatness, also present in the life of our world. Is this not basically the paschal dynamism of the human being, of every person who wants to become heavenly, perfectly happy, by virtue of Christ’s Resurrection?

And might this not be the beginning and anticipation of a movement that involves every human being and the entire cosmos? She, from whom God took his flesh and whose soul was pierced by a sword on Calvary, was associated first and uniquely in the mystery of this transformation for which we, also often pierced by the sword of suffering in this world, are all striving.

The new Eve followed the new Adam in suffering, in the Passion, and so too in definitive joy. Christ is the first fruits but his risen flesh is inseparable from that of his earthly Mother, Mary. In Mary all humanity is involved in the Assumption to God, and together with her all creation, whose groans and sufferings, St. Paul tells us, are the birth-pangs of the new humanity.

Thus are born the new Heaven and the new earth in which death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more (cf. Rv 21:1-4).

Christ conquered death with love

What a great mystery of love is presented to us once again today for our contemplation! Christ triumphed over death with the omnipotence of his love. Love alone is omnipotent. This love impelled Christ to die for us and thus to overcome death. Yes, love alone gives access to the Kingdom of life! And Mary entered after her Son, associated with his Glory, after being associated with his Passion.

She entered it with an uncontainable force, keeping the way behind her open to us all. And for this reason we invoke her today as “Gate of Heaven”, “Queen of Angels” and “Refuge of sinners”. It is certainly not reasoning that will make us understand this reality which is so sublime, but rather simple, forthright faith and the silence of prayer that puts us in touch with the Mystery that infinitely exceeds us. Prayer helps us speak with God and hear how the Lord speaks to our heart.

Let us ask Mary today to make us the gift of her faith, that faith which enables us already to live in the dimension between finite and infinite, that faith which also transforms the sentiment of time and the passing of our existence, that faith in which we are profoundly aware that our life is not retracted by the past but attracted towards the future, towards God, where Christ, and behind him Mary, has preceded us.

By looking at Mary’s Assumption into Heaven we understand better that even though our daily life may be marked by trials and difficulties, it flows like a river to the divine ocean, to the fullness of joy and peace. We understand that our death is not the end but rather the entrance into life that knows no death. Our setting on the horizon of this world is our rising at the dawn of the new world, the dawn of the eternal day.

“Mary, while you accompany us in the toil of our daily living and dying, keep us constantly oriented to the true homeland of bliss. Help us to do as you did”.

Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends who are taking part in this celebration this morning, let us pray this prayer to Mary together. In the face of the sad spectacle of all the false joy and at the same time of all the anguished suffering which is spreading through the world, we must learn from her to become ourselves signs of hope and comfort; we must proclaim with our own lives Christ’s Resurrection.

“Help us, Mother, bright Gate of Heaven, Mother of Mercy, source through whom came Jesus Christ, our life and our joy. Amen”.

The Pope also noted the following, after leading the Angelus:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today, in the heart of what Latin-speakers called the “feriae Augusti”, the August holidays, from which the Italian term “ferragosto” derives — the Church celebrates the Assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul.

The last reference to her earthly life in the Bible is found at the beginning in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which presents Mary gathered in prayer with the disciples in the Upper Room, waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14).

Subsequently a double tradition — in Jerusalem and in Ephesus — attests to her “Dormition”, as Eastern-rite believers say, that is, her “falling asleep” in God. This was the event that preceded her passing from this earth to Heaven, professed by the uninterrupted faith of the Church.

In the eighth century,by establishing a direct relationship between the “Dormition” of Mary and Jesus’ death, for example, John Damascene, renowned doctor of the Eastern Church, explicitly affirms thetruthof her bodily assumption.

In a famous homily he wrote: “She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles” (Sermon II: On the Assumption, 14, PG 96, 741B).

As is well known, this strong conviction of the Church culminated in the dogmatic definition of the Assumption affirmed by my venerable Predecessor [Pope Pius XII] in the year 1950.

As the Second Vatican Council teaches, Mary Most Holy should always be seen in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. In this perspective: “the Mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pt 3:10)” (Lumen Gentium, n. 68).

From Paradise, especially in difficult times of tribulation, Our Lady always continues to watch over her children whom Jesus himself entrusted to her from the Cross before dying. How many are the testimonies of this motherly concern found in visiting shrines dedicated to her!

At this moment I think especially of the unique citadel of life and hope that is Lourdes. I shall be going there in a month’s time, please God, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Marian apparitions that took place there.

Mary assumed into Heaven points out to us the final destination of our earthly pilgrimage. She reminds us that our whole being - spirit, soul and body - is destined for fullness of life; that those who live and die in love of God and of their neighbour will be transfigured in the image of the glorious Body of the Risen Christ; that the Lord will cast down the proud and exalt the humble (cf. Lk 1:51-52).

With the mystery of her Assumption Our Lady proclaims this eternally. May you be praised for ever, O Virgin Mary! Pray the Lord for us.

Reposted here given its relevance to other topics under discussion. Are not the fruits of the promises of the Lord made so wonderfully manifest when we contemplate the Blessed Virgin?

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

That’s not just some whimsical Catholic invention, mind you; it is right there in the Bible. Looking back at what we covered regarding hermeneutics, and reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we can see that Scripture itself justifies the belief that Mary is indeed the New Ark: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

Brant Pitre notes that “a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.”

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, let’s think about where we’ve gone before, up to this point. We noted that in the Book of Leviticus, even a sexual act between husband and wife would result in ritual defilement until the next evening, provided that there was a discharge of semen that resulted from it. We also know, from numerous descriptions and passages within the Bible, that Jews held the Ark of the Covenant not only in high regard, but in fearful esteem; the power of the Ark was well-attested, and in the common practice of the Jewish Religion only the high priest could enter into its holy presence. It was death to the enemies of the Hebrew people, and full of the power of God.

In short, the Ark ought to have inspired reverence, and yet a most dreadful fear, in the hearts of all who knew its purpose and power. And for the average Jew, it did just that.

We know from Scripture that Joseph was a faithful, righteous Jew who followed the law of Moses. For Joseph, the Ark would indeed have been the holiest of holies, something which he would be (rightly!) fearful to approach, if he beheld it. Of course, at the time that Joseph learned that Mary, his bride-to-be, was with child, the Ark had long been absent from the Temple. But the tabernacle was still present, and every Jew understood its meaning. Joseph certainly would have understood it.

And it is Joseph who provides us with our first hint, in the New Testament that Mary was indeed a virgin for all her days after the birth of Christ. Joseph feared to take Mary as a wife, and had to be reassured by the angel that it was the Lord’s will that he do so (c.f. Matthew 1:20). Why would Joseph feel fear? Granted, the passage appears in the context of Joseph suspecting Mary of adultery, and in our modern, sex-saturated culture it would be only too easy to eisegetically assume that this was the source of his fear; the law of Moses imposed a harsh penalty on any man who consorted with an adulteress.

But that isn’t really what the angel is saying, is it? The angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife — that is, Joseph is not to be afraid of Mary herself. And while it seems strange to our sex-saturated culture to think so, the view of Christians throughout history has been that what Joseph actually feared was Mary’s sanctity. The angel assured Joseph that the child within her womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to expect that Mary, once Joseph learned of her pregnancy, had shared with him the angel’s own words to her (c.f. Luke 1:35). Taken together, these facts would have surely given Joseph pause, and would certainly have made him piously fearful of the body of his wife-to-be, as surely as any faithful Jew would be afraid of the power and sanctity of the Ark.

Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself, knowing (as he would certainly have known) that for him to engage in even normal marital sexual relations with Mary would have brought about a customary, temporary ritual defilement upon both her and him?

Now, up to this point, O Reader, we haven’t directly examined the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity as can be justified directly from Scripture. That is coming up next, and will take us first into the Gospel of Luke. With a little luck, I’ll even get it written today…if not, rest assured that it will be the first thing I work on come tomorrow.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is “the New Ark”. In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary’s revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ’s plan of salvation for all people.

Brant Pitre, over at Singing in the Reign, has an excellent article up concerning some of the symbolism within the Bible, drawn from both the Old Testament and the New Testament that demonstrates that Scripture itself justifies this belief: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

When the New Testament is read in light of the Old, a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don’t have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke’s account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and “overshadow” (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High “overshadows” (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David “arose and went” to the hill country of Judah to bring up “the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary “arose and went” into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David “leaped” before the Ark as it was brought in “with shouting” (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John “leapt” in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice and Elizabeth cried “with a loud shout”: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for “three months” (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth’s house, “three months” (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and “tabernacles” among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary’s body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God’s Temple “in heaven.” Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the “child” (Jesus) and the “dragon” (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new “Ark” of the Covenant.

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Indeed, I have always rather enjoyed Mark Shea’s take on the matter: “As an Evangelical, my own tradition found it remarkably easy to detect bar codes, Soviet helicopters, the European Common Market, and the Beatles encoded into the narrative of Revelation. But when Catholics suggested that the woman of Revelation might have something to do with the Blessed Virgin occupying a place of cosmic importance in the grand scheme of things, this was dismissed as incredible. Everyone knew that the woman of Revelation was really the symbolic Virgin Daughter of Zion giving birth to the Church. A Jewish girl who stood at the pinnacle of the Old Covenant, summed up the entirety of Israel’s mission and gave flesh to the Head of the Church saying, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” — what could she possibly have to do with those images? Why, that would suggest that she was the Virgin Daughter of Zion and the Flower of her People, the Model Disciple, the Icon of the Church, the Mother of Jesus and of all those who are united with Him by faith and…”

Oh, wait.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary’s pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, here we have to take a foray into the Book of Leviticus, specifically to the fifteenth chapter. Verse 18 reads thusly: “If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.”

Now, given that elsewhere in the Levitical Law, adultery is condemned in the harshest possible terms, the passage above can safely be assumed to refer to legitimate sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife. Bearing that in mind, let’s state plainly what the above law means: normal sexual relations between a husband and his wife, under the Law of Moses, render husband and wife temporarily unclean (”until the evening”). Within the Jewish law, there is an implied defilement in the sexual act.

Good Reader, given that Joseph was a faithful Jew, he was likely mindful of this law of Moses, as surely as he was mindful of all such laws. Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself?

Now, I also mentioned the Assumption of Mary, which was the feast celebrated last Friday, August 15th. Brant Pitre goes on to explain the connection between Mary’s being the New Ark and the belief that she was assumed, bodily, into Heaven.

…the evidence suggests to me — others may differ — that one reason ancient Christians may have believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven is that they recognized her as the New Ark of the Covenant.

The Church continues to teach that “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 966). The resurrection, our hope, is at the heart of this dogma. If ancient Christians identified Mary as the Ark and knew about the Jewish tradition that the Ark would be the first to be “resurrected,” then it may have provided theological support for their belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into the heavenly Temple. In fact, they would not even have had to know the Jewish tradition, since the Psalms themselves describe the “ascent” of the Ark into the Temple alongside a prophecy that was interpreted by ancient Christians as referring to the resurrection of Jesus:

Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place,
You and the Ark of your might…
For your servant David’s sake,
Do not turn away the face of your messiah. (Psalm 132:8-9)

With these words, our reflection comes full circle: Where else could the Ark belong, but in the Heavenly Temple?

I sometimes get impatient with those who attack the Catholic faith as pagan and/or un-Biblical, and when I do I sometimes challenge them to come up with one paragraph from the Catechism — one doctrine or teaching of the Church — which cannot be defended biblically. It’s kind of a trick question, but there is ultimately only one direct answer which is possible, and paragraph 966 of the Catechism is it. Of all Catholic doctrine, only the belief in the bodily Assumption of Mary cannot be directly constructed from Scripture.

That’s not to say that the Church just invented the belief, of course. Though the Assumption was “dogmatically proclaimed” (that is: formally confirmed to be a part of Catholic doctrine) only last century, the actual origins of the belief can be traced back to the very earliest days of the Church, even to before the formal canonization of Scripture in 390 A.D.

And even though there is no place in the Bible which states a confirmation of Mary’s assumption, the doctrine itself is not indefensible from Scripture, as Pitre has shown. Scripture doesn’t tell us directly what fate ultimately befell Mary, but it presents us with a number of distinct clues and hints as to her role in God’s ultimate plan, and as to her significance. She was the New Ark, and all nations should rightly call her blessed.

Catholics are often accused of focusing too much attention on Mary, but I wonder if perhaps the reciprocal question shouldn’t be asked: is it possible that non-Catholics focus too little attention on her, given how obviously significant she is not only as the mother of Jesus, but as a unique outward sign of God’s New Covenant with humanity, as the new and first tabernacle, and as the New Ark…the resurrected Ark?

SegaGenesisfan writes in with some rather heated commentary. You know, O Reader, I’ve been a blogger for…well, I’ve been posting stuff online since about the summer of 2004 (so I guess that makes it four years now), and I’ve been blogging about issues related to the Church for around three years.

And now — finally, now! — I have attracted my first anti-Catholic fundamentalist detractor. I think. At least as far as my memory is willing to recall, this is the first.

http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/40_015.htm

“1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”

What your failing to realize that it is jesus talking against tradition in general Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Plain and simple, I tell ye not to replyeth by the way, because all you do is minipulate the words of god to fit your own interpretation. You dont really believe in the living god, just your own version of him. In catholic tradition they say they believe in jesus, but inside they really dont believe because of their traditions make the commandment of god of non effect. Try to spew that towards me? I aint got no traditions, so you completely fail in this.

I love how people who have never met me can deduce the innermost thoughts of my heart better than I can for myself. SegaGenesisfan is very confidently sure that I don’t really believe in God, this despite the fact that I’m on the record as being willing to have the Nicene Creed be my death warrant, in the event of a renewed persecution of Christians. I’ve never thanked God that the issue of who is worthy of salvation has not been left in the hands of internet Christians who are also fans of dead gaming systems, but perhaps I should start.

That first bit is from Matthew 15, by the way, and in it Jesus berates the Pharisees for practicing traditions hypocritically, and thus in vain. Notably, Christ is not attacking tradition itself, for He practiced the traditions of the Jewish faith during His life and ministry, and bestowed upon His disciples at least one major tradition, which He commanded be done in remembrance of Him.

But there SegaGenesisfan goes, rejecting any and all tradition as, apparently, unbiblical and against Christianity.

I’m going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that this is the sort of thing one might expect to be said by a person who harbours a deep-seated animosity toward Catholics, but it is also what one might expect to be argued by a person who believes that only Scripture can interpret Scripture (a common trope). It’s also something one might expect to be told by a person who greatly fears that giving any authority to Church tradition will only result in the message and content of Scripture becoming tainted and perverted. The explicit rejection of tradition is…well…striking.

I ain’t got no traditions. Ignoring the double-negative, this apparently Biblical Christian makes one critical error: he assumes that giving authority to tradition is against the Bible. While I might be tempted to speculate that this is a result of a sola scriptura way of thinking, I will note that the rejection of tradition is itself actually an anti-Biblical concept.

For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

[13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
[17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging — Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of. Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

[7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
[8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
[9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
[10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
[11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
[12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul’s desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

[14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Church — not Scripture — is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That is a Biblical teaching. So let’s tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it.

This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course — each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth, as expressed through God’s Word: the Church.

And where private interpretation leads to a conclusion different than that of the Church that is disharmonious with the teaching of the Church, the Christian should, in humility, submit to the learned judgement of the Church and its interpretation of Scripture, rather than forging out in his or her own new direction. That is, again, beacause it is the Church — and not the individual — who is the bulwark of truth, and the means by which the wisdom of God is to be brought to the world.

And as to what my correspondent has said, it must be noted that no Christian can be both Christian and free of any tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition, in the sense that it was canonized in 390 AD. The very canon of Scripture is the tradition in this case; while there are differences concerning whether or not the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon or not, the point is that each Christian acknowledges a canon of Scripture that has been handed down by tradition, rather than elected by the individual, private judgement of each successive believer.

Moreover, things like sola fide and sola scriptura are traditions, and so anyone who adheres to such beliefs is following in a tradition handed down from Martin Luther. Indeed, such a person gives a great deal of authority to those traditions, as they form a part of the core of that person’s understanding of salvation in Christ, a key aspect of Christian faith.

I weep for Christians who are so deluded as to think that to be Christian means to be free of any form of tradition, for it is by tradition that we — the faithful alive today — are connected in spirit with those who have gone before us in Christ. If we eschew tradition and its authority, we cut ourselves off from those who went before us as believers in Christ. And in so doing, we are rather like the ship which burns the port it leaves, and then casts off its maps and compass as well.

We become, in essence, blinded by our own hand when we reject the traditions of the faith. And we likewise set ourselves against the Bible itself.

Islamist blogger Shaukat Khawja really, really doesn’t like Jews — so much so, in fact, that he would rather that Theodor Herzl’s proposal that all Jews convert (or be converted) to Christianity had gone through back in its day.

Got that? A radical Muslim so hates the Jews that he would rather they had all been converted into infidel Christians, instead of being allowed to remain Jews.

And why?

Speaks Shaukat:

The history of the world would have been so peacefully different if the propsed mass Baptism of European Jewry had gone through.

Because clearly, Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world, right?

How much more true would Shaukat’s statement be, I wonder, were it modified to allow for the possibility that Muhammad had been killed in a tribal skirmish just prior to his first “visitation” from whatever demonic entity decided to temporarily assume the identity of Gabriel?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update - the Meltdown: I seem to have touched a nerve, as Shaukat has now done two things. He had begun by demonstrating the maturity I have come to expect from him now, on par with that of a twelve-year-old casting angry aspersions from atop a playground. But following that up, he says a couple of…well, to be honest, his statements are gems in their own right.

For example:

Without going into Biblical treatment of Jews, which quotes contempt coming from Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul - I wonder why Jews were expelled from almost every European country — England topping the list — expulsion of Jews for almost 350 years. Could it be interpreted as a sign of Christians’ love or hatred towards Jews - and for what reasons???

Poor grammar aside, it is interesting that Shaukat chose to mention Moses — the man who, arguably, was the instrument by which God established the foundations of Judaism — as an example of one who has only demonstrated “contempt” for Jews. I suppose a narrow reading of, for example, the Book of Exodus could lead one to think that, since Moses does spend quite a bit of time castigating the Hebrew people for their sinfulness.

But then, the Hebrew people did sinful things in the desert, not the least of which was to build a golden calf and worship it. Humanity as a whole regularly sins, and periodically needs to be corrected, sometimes harshly. Certainly, Jesus and St. Paul both give example of this, as did Moses in his day.

Following Shaukat’s odd statement, though, is a list of dates in history that supposedly demonstrate Christian persecution of Jews. And, to be fair, many of the dates he lists do in fact accurately mention instances of persecution of Jews by Christian religious authorities. Other dates he lists, however, do not belong on the list.
Read the rest of this entry »

Joel writes in with some follow-up commentary to my previous reply to him. Once again, because it wanders a little bit over several topics, I’m going to break it up and respond in “interlinear” fashion.

So it took me a little while to figure out why and how our conversation had gone the way it had, and was very off-topic (as far as I was concerned). I believe that you and I have been having very different conversations.

I confess that this is possible, O Reader — very often, persons of opposite opinion wind up talking past each other, as opposed to addressing each other. In fairness, though, I think I have responded directly to everything that Joel has said, chiding him along the way for his refusal to engage — in any substantive way — the subject under discussion.

But if there has in fact been a digression (I confess that I do not detect it), let us see if we can perhaps get the discussion back on the topical “rails.”

A while back, Brian Flemming (a reasonably well known, on the web, atheist) took part in something of a debate on another guys website. The website in question was called something like “Ask a calvinist”.

The owner would have various people of different christian denomenations join him in asking each other 5 questions, and allowing each other to reply.

The guy certainly appeared to know his stuff.

Unfortunately, he was illequipped to debate Brian. Not because Brian was smarter or more informed or anything like that. Brian went in to, more or less, say that God doesn’t exist and Jesus almost certainly never existed (divine or otherwise).

The Calvinist went in to debate nuances of theology.

The two conversations just didn’t have a whole lot of contact in many ways, as you can imagine.

Brian: God doesn’t exist and there’s no reason to believe he does and…
Calvinist: I believe that God’s love is based on…

Anyhow, while our two conversations may not be THAT far apart, I do believe there’s a significant gap.

1. A number of times I’ve said I was speaking specifically about the situation in the U.S.. However, I’ve also said that my views on this extend globally. My only area of personal experience of is in the U.S.. Hence I focus on that.

Reciprocal to what Joel notes above, I have said that I consider the global picture preferentially to the more localized picture, and try to keep my “area of expertise” at a higher level than merely national, because there is no way to accurately comment on religion if one cannot consider the global picture (because Religion in America and religion outside of America are often very different things).

Perhaps this is not fair, and perhaps it is not conducive to a proper flow in conversation. But the fact of the matter remains that if one is going to comment on religion, one cannot simply comment on a local flavour only, and I will not stoop to doing so. I realize, then, that I am placing an expectation on those who write in, but equally I do not apologize for doing so — if we cannot respond to a call to challenge and better ourselves on a daily basis, we are not really living, are we?

2. While you see a distinction between various sects of christianity, as an atheist I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in theology between almost any two religions is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between the basis for christianity and the basis for scientology (I see scientology as rather repugnant in that it is determined to scam as much money out of the pockets of its followers as possible. I can say many bad things about many christian churches etc., but credit where credit is due, they are all trying to give away salvation for free). All I care about is how those theologies then interact with the rest of the world. You may say that Islam is a much bigger problem, but any religion, it seems, can be easily twisted into violence. Islam is a problem with that today. The crusades and
inquisition used christianity. Oh, and at least in the U.S., it wasn’t that long ago that christianity was being used as a justification of violence against doctors.

One observes that while one or two rogue fools decided to take it upon themselves, ostensibly in the name of their Christian faith, to hunt down abortion doctors, the vast majority of Christians in America (and elsewhere) — even the ones who were themselves vocally pro-life — spoke out against the killings. Not that I expect this to matter to Joel, who seems interested only in painting with an extremely wide brush, but to any rational person it should come as a significant point. Yes, people have attempted to use religion as an excuse for their hatreds and particular evils in the past, and people likely will continue to do so. That doesn’t prove anything about the truth or validity of the religion as a whole; it merely demonstrates, in keeping with what the Bible observes in many places, that religious people are sinners too.

Not exactly the most shocking revelation, that.

But more importantly, Joel’s refusal to see a distinction between different Christian denominations — or, indeed, between Christian and non-Christian religions (!!) — is foolhardy, and I would even venture that it renders most of what else he has to say virtually meaningless. There is no logic or reason in the statement at all.

“While you see a distinction between various sports, as an non-sports fan I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in rules and methods between almost any two sports is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between playing golf and playing football…”

Reasonable? No. Rational? No. Logical? No. Relevant? No. Indeed, were someone to come up to us and say that to our face, we’d laugh them out of the sports bar (and rightly so). Perhaps the Reader will think me heartless, but I am of no particular mind to let Joel slide simply because he is discussing religions instead of sports. The fact that he cannot engage the debate over religion in so basic a way as to acnknowledge the differences between religions and denominations thereof smacks of a kind a lazy arrogance. And yes, I realize that once again I am placing an expectation on those who write in, and again I do not apologize for doing so — again: if we cannot respond to a call to challenge and better ourselves on a daily basis, we are not really living, are we?

I submit to Joel that if he is not willing to engage the discussion at a sufficient level of academic honesty as to demonstrate even a basic ability to differentiate between different religions and denominations thereof (especially since I am willing to differentiate between “strains” of atheism — i.e. Richard Dawkins‘ atheism as compared to that of Sam Harris), he should not engage in the discussion at all.

Quite frankly, his refusal to engage steeps all his statements in a fundamental illogic and a willful falsehood.

3. While you may believe that the control christianity exerts in the U.S. is not, as I believe you put it, sinister, I beg to differ.

Every atheist does, don’t they, O Reader? And yet most atheists laugh it off when someone points to the rather disproportionate tendency of the ACLU to go after Christians. A curious double standard, no?

I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but the ‘christian right’ in the U.S. exerts a disproportionate amount of power and is very interested in breaking down walls between church and state. How do I
know this? Because their leaders come out and say it.

I observe, as I am sure the Reader has likewise done, that no supporting links accompany this assertion Joel has made. Curious.

That’s not to say that I’m giving the “Christian right” a pass; I too can think of a few glaring errors. But then, I can think of some rather shocking stuff that high-profile atheists have also said. And while Sam Harris is not a politician, and does not hold office in the U.S., his assertions that disagreeable elements in society (including believers, most likely) should be dealt with by way of deadly force, if that is what is necessary to bring about his desired “end of faith,” is far more concerning than any pronouncement I can think of that Bush et. al. have made in recent memory.

How do I know they have so much power? Because one of our two political parties panders to them endlessly. The other party just sucks up to them some.

I agree with this statement, O Reader. Mind you, pace Inigo Montoya, I do not think this statement means what Joel thinks it means. After all, if we examine the current contenders for the next presidential election in the U.S., we observe that it is the two Democratic Party candidates — Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — who have been playing the faith card really heavily. On the Republican Party side, the only remaining candidate is the candidate who has discussed his faith the least, winning the party nomination over an ardent Mormon and a former Baptist minister!

Indeed, looking at the track record of recent Republican governments, I see no real evidence of pandering to religious sentiments, with the one notable exception being the opposition of the Bush government to embryonic stem cell research. But then, embryonic stem cell research has, after a decade, shown no real promise, while Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University has demonstrated that skin cells can be modified into any other type of cell, thus providing a technique to achieve what stem cell research supposedly promises to achieve, but without the need to destroy fertilized embryos.

On most other issues I can think of — torture of prisoners and abortion are easy examples — the American government hasn’t done anything in particular to pander to Christian sentiment (unless one counts the banning of the partial birth abortion method as a major concession to Christian demands, which would be foolish to say given that nothing was done to diminish the number of abortion providers or, indeed, the number of abortions performed). This blogger keeps a pretty comprehensive list of examples.

I swear, my maxim about Rome and Caesar gets a little bit more accurate every day. Muslims see Jewish conspiracies around every corner. Atheists obssess over the looming Christian theocracy that never seems to materialize, but is always So! Very! Close! And yet the examples always seem so…trivial.

It is an era that many of these groups come out and say is a time for christianity to take over the government and make gods kingdom here in the U.S..

All I can really say to this, O Reader, is…”meh.” “Meh,” because even if some nuts-for-brains Evangelical gets into office and takes it upon himself to try and build the New Jerusalem on American soil, he will fail, as surely as the Romans failed to rebuild the Temple. Every human scheme to prematurely usher in Paradise on Earth, whether headed up by evangelical Christians or secular utopian socialists will fail, as surely as such schemes have failed in the past.

And that’s assuming that such a person ever takes office in the first place. Ralph Nader has a better chance of winning a two-term presidency than does any sufficiently misguided Christian have of carrying out any sort of utopian enterprise. And to act in almost paranoid fashion in response to the misguided musings of a minority of American evangelical Christians is…well…paranoid. Irrational. Delusional, even…as surely as all the conspiracy theories surrounding Zionism or the Illuminati are delusional.

That, my friend, is the country I live in and the battle we fight.

Indeed, O Reader…open war has been declared in the streets of America.

These groups truly do try to subvert the will of the American people and they truly do not care what the Constitution says (not that our current administration seems to care much about that either…).

Nor do many atheists, O Reader.

I mentioned before the example of Cartese, which was the online handle of another atheist in the service of the American military, who openly advocated for the government to step in and declare all religious people mentally incompetent and unfit to own property/drive cars/vote. Whither the Constitution? Other atheists lobby for a complete removal of all Christian symbols from the public eye — not just on governmental buildings and the dollar bill, but on private property as well. Whither the Constitution then? A court in the U.S. just compelled a private business owner, a Christian photographer, to pay restitution to a client she refused to do business with (the client in question was a lesbian seeking a photographer for her “wedding”). Whither the Constitution? Sam Harris is on record as saying that unwelcome elements in a new, faithless society might have to be dealt with via the use of deadly force. Whither the Constitution?

More importantly, in all examples: whither the will of the individuals affected? Does will even matter to an atheist? Or is William Provine the more correct when he denies that free will even exists?

Coming briefly back to Cartese, I notice that as this conversation has progressed, Joel’s tone has begun what I should call a predictable shift away from tolerant discourse toward intolerant paranoia. To his credit, he at least began at the level of tolerant discourse, unlike some others that I have debated on this blog. But to his detriment, he is letting something darker and much uglier show through now.

Pity.

And yes, it is organized, and deliberate, and self-conscious, and yes, it IS sinister.

The regular Reader will remember Rehmat, who says much the same thing about Jews as Joel is saying about Christians in the above sentence. Not coincidentally at all, I consider Joel’s assertions to have about the same credibility as I do Rehmat’s. I trust the intelligent Reader will see why.

Honestly, I don’t think people in western countries realize what goes on here in the U.S.. If I recall some recent polls and studies, the U.S. is one of the most religious, industrialized nations. People don’t realize that, every day, there is an organized effort to get the book of Genesis taught in science classes.

Perhaps the Reader will think me callous, but I really can only look on this issue with a bit of a “so what?” attitude. Oh, that’s not to say that I’m a raving Young Earth Creationist; in plain point of fact, I think that particular school of thought is mostly bunk. But equally…so what? So people are trying to get the Genesis stories taught in science classes. It would hardly be the first time that metaphysics has intruded into the realm of scientific education — one recalls Eugenie Scott’s campaign to see removed from biology textbooks the assertion that evolution was a random, unguided process. Scott is herself an atheist, but at least she could recognize that it was beyond the scope of science to decide whether or not evolution was an “unguided” process, and that the inclusion of the statement in a widely-used textbook was careless, problematic, and unfair.

And frankly, atheists have to be willing to stand up and assume a goodly measure of the blame for enforcing the conflict model in the relationship between science and religion. My God, but do they have to assume a measure of the blame! After all, post-Enlightenment atheism latched on to things like the theory of evolution as proof — proof! — that religion was bunk and God a mere fiction. The likes of Thomas Henry Huxley did more damage than good when they latched on to Darwinian theory and established a conflict model as the dominant mode of the relationship between two fields of study that need not have ever been in conflict.

(Interestingly, the Church never really saw a problem with evolutionary theory, noting that a truth and another truth cannot contradict; Catholicism, in particular, has always left it up to individual Catholics to decide whether they accept the reality of biological evolution, and the tone of the Church’s official statements has always recognized the theory’s probable validity. Protestantism, on the other hand, went in two directions, with some Protestant denominations taking essentially the same view as the Catholic Church, while others decided to push back.)

Can we really blame some evangelical Christians for biting back at people who would abuse a scientific theory by drawing a metaphysical conclusion (i.e. the non-existence of God) out of it?

I am a Catholic first and foremost, but I see no fundamental conflict between my faith and my education in the sciences. I wholeheartedly accept that God is the creator of all the Universe, and I wholeheartedly accept various evolutionary theories, be they concerned with biological evolution or stellar evolution.

They don’t know that doctors hide medical options from their patients (not simply refuse to
give them these treatments, but actively hide the options) because of religion. They have no idea how thoroughly christian dogma has invaded our society.

I might point out to the good Reader that modern American society has not been “invaded” by Christians — this is but paranoid rambling on Joel’s part — any more than it has been “invaded” by white people. America — by which I mean the United States of America, the extant nation in its present form — was founded, colonized, and peopled by people who were, for the most part, Christians! They are not the invading cultural archetype; they are the prevailing cultural archetype. And it should come as no surprise, in a nation where over 70% of the population professes some manner of Christian belief, that the government of America should occasionally hint at Christian influence.

That’s called “representative government” O Reader, and I am led to believe that, by and large, it works very well. God forbid that a government which purports to represent the people of the land should in some way share the beliefs held by a significant majority of the populace!

As to whether doctors hide medical options from patients, I again observe that Joel has been lax in citing sources to corroborate his claim. Perhaps it does happen; if it happens in a manner which endangers the patient, that is immoral. I can understand a doctor refusing to perform a procedure he or she might consider immoral (i.e. sex-change operations, abortions) — refusing to discuss treatment options may well be a different ball of wax.

But sadly, I have no data to work from, and cannot speculate any further on the matter. Perhaps Joel will be good enough to furnish us with some additional information, although given the downward trend in the tone of this conversation, I find myself doubtful that this will prove to be the case.

(don’t even get me started on the fate of Madeline Kara Neumann)

The Reader may think me cold and heartless, but I fail to see what the death of a child of parents who were es has to do with a systemic conspiracy perpetrated by the religious in American society. This is why I keep stressing to Joel, and to others, the importance of being able to tell one’s apples from one’s kiwi fruits.

For example, here is a Catholic blogger decrying what happened to poor Madeline. Personally, as a Catholic and as a human being, I am disgusted at what happened to this young girl, whose parents forbade her from receiving life-saving treatment because of the peculiar tendency of the cult to which they belong to refuse different forms of medical treatment, including blood transfusions. I can’t abide that aspect of the JW movement, and consider it immoral when it jeapordizes the life of any person, young or old.

The Catholic Church has not promulgated any doctrine forbidding treatments of this nature to its members, and for good reason — Catholicism does not set itself in opposition to the sciences, including medical sciences; it understands science as an alternative vehicle for learning what God seeks to teach to the world (we term it “natural revelation”).

I am routinely derided when I (somewhat jokingly) point out that the nation-states which have been the most murderous throughout history have been those nations of the 19th and 20th centuries which have made atheism the explicit policy of the state (i.e. China, North Korea, the Soviet Union when it was still around). It is not fair, I am told, to tar and feather all of atheism based on a few rather glaringly large bad apples. Perhaps it is not…but then, it is even less justifiable for Joel to attempt to tar all Christians with the bad decisions of two members of a pseudo-Christian cult, is it not?

Seriously, what is it with atheists? It always begins so well…and it always goes downhill. Whether they verge into theodicy (a non-issue for Christians), Euthyphro (also a non-issue for Christians), guilt by association (a logical fallacy), or historical criticisms that have to look back more than 250 years in order to find something with meat on its bones (so to speak — and then the poor dears hate it when someone points out to them that the hands of atheism, by the same criteria, are even bloodier), the discussion always spirals downward.

And then the insults start.

So, I’m in Vancouver at present, celebrating Easter with Grace’s family there. Obviously, then, I’m not at my computer able to compose a suitable reflection on the idea of Easter and the meaning of the resurrection of Christ. Given a slightly less hectic week, I might have been able to compose just such a reflection, but as it is I will have to settle for re-iterating a point I made last year:

It is perhaps fitting to examine, then, how Easter completes the whole of the Christian year and unifies the faith. Christianity is not a series of beliefs, each atomically isolated from the others, but is rather one unified faith out of which flow many teachings that complement and enhance each other, and all of which are completed and joined by the pivotal historical event that is remembered this week: the death and resurrection of Christ. There is, within Holy Week, a smaller example of this same phenomenon, in our observance of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday), His institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Thursday) and his re-statement of the need for the Sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation (also Holy Thursday), to His death (Good Friday) and resurrection (Easter Sunday). Within the week now almost over, the whole of Christianity and the whole of the Catholic expression of that faith finds its core, its foundation.

And to their credit, most Catholic churches emphasize the Sacraments during this season, as they ought…indeed, it is not by accident that adult baptisms take place during the Vigil Mass.

The need for baptism is, as noted, re-iterated by Christ in poignant fashion on Holy Thursday, when He washed the feet of the disciples. “One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet,” our Lord taught, and as with everything Christ said there is a deeper message being conveyed in that teaching than just the necessity of personal hygeine. Baptism is our first washing, the Sacramental sign of the way in which we are cleaned by the Lord, and water is the symbol of cleansing which we use. I’ve always been mystified by Protestants who declare confidently that water baptism is not necessary for salvation; while it is doubtless true that God, in His mercy, welcomes into His Kingdom those infants which die before being baptized (but then, to what extent are infants capable of sin?), it is equally true all the same that God desires, and that Christ taught, that baptism is necessary.

Likewise, many churches offer special penetential services during Holy Week, and again they do well to do so, because Christ likewise commanded that we return again and again to be cleansed, and commissioned His disciples to forgive sins in His name, and through His grace. Confession — the Sacrament of Reconciliation — is necessary as well in a fully-lived Christian life. “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me,” Christ cautions Peter, following it up with the teaching outlined previously, and again the Lord is not here talking about personal hygeine. We too must seek to be cleansed of our sinfulness in Christ, and must do so repeatedly, just as in Hebrew custom the feet were to be washed regularly. If we do not seek that repeated cleansing, we too will have no share in Christ.

And of course, Catholic churches offer the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, the literal and truthful Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, which Christ Himself gave to us in His transformation of the Passover Meal into the Feast of the Lamb and the food by which all might know salvation.

All of those are elements, but they are all given their whole meaning not only in Good Friday, but in what we celebrate on Easter Sunday — the risen Christ, the resurrection, Christ (and, by extension, God’s) victory over death won for the sake of all mankind, that we too might be able one day to join the chorus of angels in glorifying God in the Kingdom that is to come. It is in Christ’s death and resurrection that the Eucharistic meal is given its meaning, its form, and its power, for as it marks Christ’s being broken and shedding blood for our sake, so Christ was actually broken, and did actually shed blood, for our salvation.

At the same time, it is in Christ’s death and resurrection that we are truly cleansed from our sinfulness, for in His death and resurrection Christ took upon Himself the full weight of all human sin — past, present, and future — and made it to die with him, that we too might be dead to sin and risen in Christ, just as he later arose in glory.

And just as water and blood poured from our Lord’s pierced side, so too do we baptise with water, that all who share in baptism might have a share in due time in the life that is to come, which Christ’s resurrection has secured for His faithful.

Everything ties together in this one week, and as I have said this is an atomic expression of the whole of Christian year, and the whole of the Christian faith, and the way it ties together as well.

Catholicism is a complete, whole, unified faith, the Christian faith among all Christian denominations out there, and the Church is the means by which God’s fullest revelation is given to humanity. It is my prayer, this and every Easter season, that more and more people will be called to conversion during this time and throughout the year. For the Church is the light, and in her is found freedom and salvation. All else is darkness.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

A stone seal bearing the name of one of the families who acted as servants in the First Temple and then returned to Jerusalem after being exiled to Babylonia has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem’s City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said Wednesday.

The 2,500-year-old black stone seal, which has the name “Temech” engraved on it, was found earlier this week amid stratified debris in the excavation under way just outside the Old City walls near the Dung Gate, said archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, who is leading the dig.

…

The Bible refers to the Temech family: “These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city.” [Nehemiah 7:6]… “The Nethinim [7:46]“… The children of Temech.” [7:55].

The fact that this cultic scene relates to the Babylonian chief god seemed not to have disturbed the Jews who used it on their own seal, she added.

The seal of one of the members of the Temech family was discovered just dozens of meters away from the Opel area, where the servants of the Temple, or “Nethinim,” lived in the time of Nehemiah, Mazar said.

“The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archeology and the biblical sources and serves as actual evidence of a family mentioned in the Bible,” she said. “One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the biblical source as seen by the archaeological find.”

The Bible: more than just a collection of fairy tales and myths! Hey, Robert…guess that kind of chips away at your theory that my faith has no basis in reality, eh?

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Mark Shea)