Time Immortal

So why does Mary matter to Catholics? Indeed, why should Mary matter to Christians, of any kind, at all? There is actually a very good reason, and it has quite a lot to do with Jesus‘ instruction to the beloved apostle at the foot of the Cross: “behold your mother.” It also has a lot to do with Mary herself, and her role in God’s plan of salvation. Because Mary is not just another human being — she is, for Christians, a special example, and also a marker.

Because Mary, you see, always points us to Christ. Mary glorifies Christ. And Satan is well aware of this, because historically, those heresies and false teachings which have sought to undermine the full divinity of Christ have often begun by attacking some aspect of the theology concerning Mary.

Let’s begin, though, by considering an objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary advanced by some Christians.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

The key thing here to which I wish to draw attention is the isolation of the belief in Mary as the Theotokos — the God-bearer, the Mother of God — as a solely Catholic belief. Note the implied rejection of the belief in Mary being the Mother of God on the grounds that it is apparently unbiblical.

We’ve addressed the matter of the above author’s lack of understanding of sex in the Bible already, and nothing further needs to be said on that matter. But let’s look at the rejection of the Catholic belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. This sounds like something fairly new, but it is actually a very old fallacy indeed.

As Mark Shea notes, “in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But consider, O Reader: Nestorianism was a heresy that the Church had to address fairly early on in its life (indeed, it happened not long after the formal canonization of Scripture!). Something goes awry when we reject Mary as the mother of God, as the concerned Christian above has done.

Shea continues: “The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.”

John 1 makes it very clear: the Logos (the Word) is God. Jesus is God. Only the es make the mistake of separating God and the Word, incorrectly modifying John 1 to read “the Word was a god.” For all intents and purposes, all Christians today accept it as a basic article of faith that Jesus, the Word, is God, one in being with the Father and the Spirit in the blessed union that is the Holy Trinity, which God ultimately is.

And all the Gospels make it equally clear: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Word (who is God) made flesh. It’s right there in the Bible: Mary is the mother of God (the Word) made flesh; she is the Mother of God. And to deny this actually begins to deny the very divinity of the human person of Christ. And to this heresy, notes Shea, “the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.”

Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine, and these two aspects of Him were, and remain, inseparable. He was born in a very human birth. He lived a very human life. He suffered through and died a very human death. And He rose again as a human, at all times the Word and flesh perfectly united, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

It isn’t easy, at first, to see the machinations of the devil in the Nestorian heresy, but we can see the devil’s intent in looking at the implications of what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly innocuous teaching concerning a somewhat perplexing statement concerning Mary. For if we deny, as some Christians unfortunately continue to do (apparently in their zeal to condemn Catholicism), that Mary was the Mother of God, we must necessarily deny that she was not the mother of the Word, only of the flesh and blood in which the Word was clothed.

Which means that Jesus, the Logos, did not have a fully human birth.

Which means that Jesus, the Word, did not live a fully human life.

Which means that Jesus, the Christ who is God, did not suffer through and die a fully human death.

Which has, I submit to the Reader, disastrous implications for our salvation prospects as Christians. I believe Paul had something to say about us being most pitiable in just such a circumstance. And yet just such a circumstance arises out of what seems to be a straightforward rejection of a doctrine that doesn’t even directly concern Christ! But that is the devil’s cunning, for Satan knows that if the mother can be undermined, the Son can be undermined because of it.

Now, why is this important to Christians? Well, there’s two reasons. The first, of course, is that we are told we are to defend the faith against false teachings, and it behooves us to do so. Denial of Mary’s status as Theotokos is just one such false teaching, but it is a particularly vicious and odious one because of its far-reaching implications. But it is also important to us because we are commanded to honour our father and our mother. And that doesn’t just apply to our blood parents either, I might point out. We are to honour our Father in Heaven as well…and likewise, our Mother.

Possible Objection #7: wait, what? Our Mother in Heaven???!!

Response to Objection #7: yes indeed.

The author of the Gospel of John notes that he did not record everything that transpired in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ word-for-word, nor did he include every event in his account of Jesus. In John 20, he disclaims his work:

[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

[31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John is giving us a bit of a hint here: not everything about Jesus or His life was recorded in the Gospel, but enough of significance was recorded, that we might believe. The author is suggesting to us that everything within his account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has significance above and beyond simply being a relating of who Jesus was, and what He did — every event in John’s Gospel has significant theological meaning.

So when Christ tells the beloved disciple “behold your Mother,” John doesn’t record it, as Mark Shea notes, “because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows…For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ.”

The whole of the Gospel of John is written in an odd perspective; though it has been long-held by almost all Christian theologians that the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used, in John’s Gospel, in a self-referential capacity, John’s choice of phrasing has always been understood to mean that what is true for the beloved disciple is true for all whom Christ loves, and who follow Christ. When Jesus tells John, the beloved, “behold your mother,” He tells us that as well. He entrusts care of Mary to us, and presents her to us as our mother, and our example.

In the normal family model, the mother is the principal example that children have to draw upon, especially at younger ages. Mom is the teacher, the witness, and the person whom young children should first begin to imitate when they begin to strive to behave morally. This is God’s “very good” design in action, O Reader, and it comes as no surprise that Christ would, in His desire that humanity continue to learn of and draw near to Him, present His mother to us to be our mother, to be our example, and for us to imitate in her surrender to (and participation in) the will of God, and in God’s salvific grace.

Because there is one thing Christ cannot do directly: he cannot show us what a follower of Christ looks like. And as Shea notes, “the first and best model of the disciple of Jesus is the one who said and lived “Yes!” to God, spontaneously and without even the benefit of years of training or the necessity of being knocked off a horse and blinded. And she continues to do so right through the agony of watching her Son die and the ecstasy of knowing Him raised again.”

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?

Jeff Miller, over at The Curt Jester, adds his thoughts to the whole PZ Myers/Eucharistic desecration brouhaha. In perhaps typical fashion, Myers’ intent in desecrating “a Jesus cracker” (his term for the host) was to prove that the host (and presumably, by extension, Jesus) had no real power in this world. The sense one got, in reading him, was that he would conclude, in the absence of his being struck down for engaging in the desecration of something so sacred, that nothing existed which could strike him down.

Or, more plainly: he was trying to goad God into action. Because as we all well know, O Reader, God can be goaded thusly. One wonders exactly how Myers and his disciples can profess, with a straight face, that they are adherents and practitioners of rationalism and reason?

Satan tried to tempt Jesus and his reply from Deuteronomy was “You shall not put the Lord your God to the Test.” This is precisely what the professor is attempting. That Jesus who would not come down off the Cross will in this case do something to prevent his being abused in this manner. That somehow we can make God appear at will by threatening to do something evil.

So the professor is trying to do some materialist’s demonstration that only proves God’s love for us if it proves anything at all. That he loves us so much that he will allow us to abuse him in his sacramental form. He felt the weight of our sins in the Agony of the Garden and continues to bear the weight of our sins that good may prevail. There is Eucharistic desecration daily as people receive Communion unworthily and even those of us who believe can receive Communion can do it without the preparation Communion deserves. Yet he allows alls of this and continues to give us graces to bring us out of of spiritual stupor.

As an ex-atheist I can totally understand P.Z. Myers attitude and ignorance and the only outrage he invokes in me is a turn to prayer for him. So I won’t be making any death threats, just life-after-death threats in that I am praying for him and hope to see him on day in the Beatific Vision.

Just so. In the end, the only thing Myers will prove with his planned desecration is that he is an anti-Catholic bigot and that, just like in the Bible, Jesus willingly bears the insults and slurs of bigots.

For such a man, all we can do is pray. Hardness of heart is a most terrible state of being, and one can only hope that Myers recants of his hatred and pride and is one day welcomed into the glory of the Lord. Failing that, God help him.

It never ceases to amaze me how a minor little blog such as mine (seriously: check out the Technorati rating on the sidebar…mid-to-high 30s? Pathetic!) attracts the notice, on occasion, of folks in the news. Not that David Kahane is exactly a household name. Then too, he hasn’t exactly managed to avoid the spotlight either, and he writes in to remark on something I wrote about a class he teaches.

“St. Joseph’s College strives to engage everyone in the experience of those human values that encourage a respect for all persons, promote social justice, service, and friendship, and foster a desire for truth that includes the sacred.”

Hear hear. And yet I’m not feeling this ethos in your condemnation of me. Sorry.

I wish that you weren’t so quick to categorize me as your enemy, and to dismiss my work based on very limited information.

For the record, O Reader, I am but a former student of St. Joseph’s College at the University of Alberta — I am not currently a student of that institution, nor am I a member of the staff or faculty there. I am a member of the College chapel parish, as it is a Catholic church in addition to being an institution of learning, but that is about as far as it goes.

To be fair, I generally align myself with the ideals expressed in the statement of purpose that Mr. Kahane has excerpted above, especially in regard to “a desire for truth that includes the sacred.” To be equally fair, my intent in my earlier article was not specifically to offer condemnation, nor was it to define myself explicitly as the enemy of another person.

Rather, it was meant as a commentary on a certain…shall we call it liberal smugness? Fundamentally, what was at issue was that a philosophy class — in which students were encouraged to, among other things, think positive self-referential thoughts in a meditative style and to spend time sitting in public directing these “positive energies” as passers-by — was being touted as an experiment in social justice, when in fact it was nothing of the sort. Had it been billed as an experiment in liberal self-absorption, I’d have not bothered to take issue with it, because that latter classification would have been closer to the truth. But as it was billed as an experiment in social justice, I chose not to remark upon the untruth.

Sitting around thinking happy thoughts and hoping that the people walking past are getting your vibes is not social justice; it’s hippie-dippy claptrap. Social justice is spending five hours in a meager kitchen serving the best damn meal possible to a few hundred homeless people. Social justice is volunteering to take persons with out for various recreational activities. Social justice is joining [insert profession here] Without Borders and going to Africa for a year or two to do your very damndest to improve the lot of as many people as you can through the use of what technical skills you have amassed.

I’m not interested in being the enemy of anyone but Satan. I’m not trying to make enemies with what I write (as hard as that might be for some to believe). But equally, I have no tolerance for bullshit. If that sets me at odds with the “ethos” of the mission statement of St. Joe’s College (the educational institution, not the church), that’s something I’m willing to risk.