Last updated on: March 3, 2020 at 5:34 pm By Dave Armstrong
I was challenged on this point by an Orthodox Christian in my discussion group. His words will be in blue.
*****
Sources Used
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931 edition.
Louis Bouyer, The Seat of Wisdom, translated by A. V. Littledale, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960.
Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol. 1, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963.
William Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954.
***
I should make one comment on comparing the Assumption to the new proposed dogma of Coredemptrix etc. The Assumption as a devotion does not have the major Christological implications that the potential new dogma of Coredemptrix would have. The Assumption can be viewed as a form of piety that does not necessarily have to be dogmatized but does not raise the same number and magnitude of issues as Coredemption does.
Be that as it may (from your perspective), my original point was in response to your contention that new dogmatic Marian proclamations hindered unity and ecumenism. I suggested — just in passing — the Assumption proclamation as a counter-argument, since nevertheless ecumenism has proceeded at an exponential pace since 1950.
In addition, Most Orthodox do not believe that the Assumption or for that matter the Immaculate Conception are dogmas that should have been proclaimed without the consensus of the entire Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We would say the same, of course, about your dogmatic denial of papal supremacy. We can’t stop our legitimate theological and spiritual development simply because Orthodox disagree with us (although we do try to do all we can to work with you). If that were the case, then we would have stopped developing in the 11th century, like you basically did. We believe that the Holy Spirit is still active in expanding the Church’s faith and understanding, just as He always has been. We tried to achieve reconciliation at the Councils of Lyons and Florence, but the masses of the East would allow no such thing (as if they knew more about the filioque et al than the Orthodox theologians). ‘Tis a pity . . .
I hope that we do not want to get into saying that from an Orthodox point of view that Rome became heretical and therefore is no longer genuinely Catholic and Apostolic. Neither do we want to hear from the Catholic side that the Orthodox by not being in direct communion in Rome are not Catholic and Apostolic.
Excellent. It is this negative attitude which I have always strenuously fought. Catholics cannot claim that the Orthodox have lost apostolicity, since we officially accept the validity of your sacraments. The present pope’s very high regard for the Orthodox is well-known.
The development within the Latin Church for the new doctrines of Mary as Coredemptrix and as Mediatrix of ALL GRACES occurred primarily during the 19th and 20th centuries.
It may have developed more rapidly recently, but that doesn’t prove in and of itself that its roots were not planted long ago, and even developed to a considerable degree. I have documented that beyond all doubt from the Church fathers of east and west, Eastern liturgies, and medieval Catholic and Orthodox theologians.
Although quotations from the previous centuries and even from the Patristic age might be cited to suggest some components of these new developments, the fact of the matter is that the development itself is relatively recent.
There has been more rapid development, yes, but I continue to maintain that the patristic “components” are quite explicit and numerous enough (per my compilation) — in fact comparable or more prevalent than that for several doctrines which both our communions (and even Protestants) accept. So if your criticisms hold, they would also apply to some doctrines you yourself uphold.
The case for trying to show that the Patristic age or that Eastern Orthodox writers have provided the direct support for this development is very weak.
This is easily said, but until someone goes down the list of citations in this paper and comments variously on what I have compiled, I will remain utterly unpersuaded of your assertion (and I would hope those reading this are, too).
Stray quotes do not a doctrine much less a dogma make. However, such quotes might indirectly support a devotion of sorts.
And no point-by-point examination of such allegedly “stray” quotes do not a refutation make. Bald assertions of summary are not argument, but rather, unsubstantiated opinion. And this is what I have often complained of getting from the Orthodox. This is what is done with our tons of patristic evidences for the full-blown Roman conception and Tradition of the papacy, too. Sweeping statements . . .
The only really compelling basis within the Roman communion for these new doctrines is ultimately the dogma of Papal Infallibility…
“Only?” Not if the doctrine is well-established in Tradition and the Fathers (even in the ancient liturgies), which I believe to be the case. I haven’t quoted a single pope, though I’ve cited their encyclicals which touch upon the subject.
In my humble opinion, these doctrines were not fully developed until recently…..
This is a fairly straightforward development from the concept of the Second Eve, and of Simeon’s prophecy that “a sword shall pierce your heart.” Depending on what one believes the extent of knowledge of the Blessed Virgin to have been at the Annunciation, it might even be traced in some fashion back to that moment. You could hold that the Blessed Virgin was largely ignorant about Christ and His mission, but I would say that is itself a rank heresy. If she knew about what was to come, then I don’t see how the notions of Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix are far-fetched or objectionable at all.
I can see how Protestants would object, since they want everything explicit in Scripture, but Orthodox? I don’t get that, except on the grounds of a misunderstanding of development, and an antipathy to raising beliefs to the level of absolutely binding dogma — both common opinions / tendencies among Orthodox. But patristic and medieval Marian thought in the East is very explicit and advanced, often surpassing the development in the West (as demonstrated above).
St. Maximilian Kolbe completed the development of these doctrines in 1923 when he proposed that Mary was the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” and therefore this explains why she was the mediatrix of all graces. The whole concept that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is completely new and has no precedent in either Roman Catholic or in Eastern theology. Therefore, the main foundation for proclaiming Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces and a Coredeemer is ultimately based on a series of developments and assertions that are new doctrinal developments grounded on the premise of the dogma of Papal Infallibility . . .
If the Pope is Infallible within the Latin communion…what does it matter that these doctrines were developed recently or that they are innovations? Does it matter…since the Pope is Infallible anyway? [bolding added]
In another post, my Orthodox friend added:
However, I do not have a conclusion on whether St. Maximilian’s teaching is right or wrong yet. It could still potentially be a correct teaching even if it is unprecedented in Western or Eastern Traditions.
You said the same about the Mediatrix doctrine in general, until I proved otherwise with many patristic and early Orthodox citations (which you have dismissed as insufficient and “very weak”). Now you have come up with a new theory, a more specific assertion, which is contradicted by the biblical and patristic evidence below. You only refute yourself by making sweeping historical statements which can easily be shown false. It’s always good to understate one’s case!
First of all, it is not too much of a stretch to regard Mary (somewhat figuratively) as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the following passage, connected with the universal Christian belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ:
Luke 1:35 (RSV) And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Secondly, there is much patristic evidence of Mary being regarded as the Bride of Christ, and sometimes as the Bride of God (the Father). All three Persons of the Trinity are God, so how is there any qualitative difference between these relationships and that of Mary being “Spouse of the Holy Spirit?” The Church itself is often regarded in Scripture as the Bride of Christ, and Mary is a symbol of the Church. All of these notions are extremely interrelated.
I am also mother / For I bore thee in my womb. I am also thy bride . . . (Hymn on the Nativity, 16, 9-10, in Graef, pp. 57-58)
[in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386)] “Mary is called ‘bride’, but in a general sense, as Israel was the bride of Yahweh. In a similar sense the word occurs also in many later Greek authors.” (from Mystagogical Catechesis #26 — somewhat doubtful as to authorship: some attribute it to Cyril’s successor, John of Jerusalem (386-417); comment by Hilda Graef, in Graef, p. 68)
The unwed Virgin espoused the Spirit (innuba virgo nubit spiritui). (Apotheosis, 571-572 [link] )
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [link] (c. 634-733 or 740):
You alone, Theotokos, are the highest on the whole earth; and we, O Bride of God, bless you in faith . . . (Second Sermon on the Assumption, in Graef, p. 149)
Rupert, Abbot of the Benedictines at Deutz [link](c. 1080-c. 1135):
[Mary was] the best part of the first Church, who merited to be the spouse of God the Father so as to be also the type of the younger Church, the spouse of the Son of God and her own Son. (On the Trinity, in Graef, p. 228)
Hermann of Tournai [link] (d. after 1147) called Mary the “spouse and mother of God.” (Graef, p. 234)
Aelred of Rievaulx, Cistercian Abbot [link] (1110-1167)
Following St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Aelred writes:
God [the Son] is the Bridegroom, the Virgin the bride, and the angel the best man. (Sermon on the Annunciation, in Graef, p. 249)
Albert, too, sees her not only as the Mother but as the Bride of the Son, who has received all the gifts of the Spirit and whose inner life was perfectly well ordered. She is the mother of all the faithful, who owe their virtues and merits to her intercession. (Tractatus de Natura Boni, commented on by Hilda Graef, in Graef, p. 274)
Ubertino of Casale, Franciscan [link] (1259-c. 1329)
[Graef summarizes his view:]
At the Annunciation, moreover, the Father took her as his spouse and communicated his paternal fecundity to her, making her ‘the mother of all the elect’ and the ‘mother and associate’ (socia genitrix) of his Son. No grace is given which she does not dispense. (Tree of the Crucified Life of Jesus, in Graef, p. 293)
Direct reference to Mary as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit also exists, at least as early as the 11th century, contrary to the assertion that St. Maximilian Kolbe “proposed” this in 1923, as if it were a novel doctrine at that time:
St. Amadeus of Lausanne, student of St. Bernard[link](1110-1159)
Your Creator has become your Spouse . . . your Spouse is coming, the Holy Spirit comes to you . . . For you, most beautiful Virgin, have been joined in close embraces to the Creator of beauty, and . . . have received the most holy seed by divine infusion. (Third Sermon on Mary, in Graef, p. 245)
St. Louis de Montfort (1673-1716), in his True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, §36, speaks of “the Holy Ghost, her Spouse.” (in Most, p. 194)
St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787)
[I]t was also becoming that the Holy Ghost should preserve her as his spouse.
St. Augustine [354-430] says that ‘Mary was that only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse of God.’ [Sermon 208] For St. Anselm [c. 1033-1109] asserts that ‘the divine Spirit, the love itself of the Father and the Son, came corporally into Mary, and enriching her with graces above all creatures, reposed in her and made her his Spouse, the Queen of heaven and earth.’ [De Excell. Virg. c.4]. (St. Alphonsus, pp. 304-305)
Fr. Louis Bouyer summarizes:
The idea that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost is found, at least adumbrated, in certain writers, e.g., St. Peter Damian [1007-1072] . . . They tell us that Mary can be looked upon as the Spouse of the Holy Ghost in so far as his intervention took the place of the normal process of conception; and they hasten to add that the comparison stops at that point . . . (Bouyer, p. 177)
The only way I could believe any of these new doctrines or proposed dogmas with any confidence is to ask the Mother of God herself to reveal what is true about herself. It will take a miracle…for me to accept these new doctrines. But with God all things are possible.
What about God’s own inspired words in Scripture — if you want to dismiss the Fathers (East and West alike), the Byzantine liturgy, and medieval Orthodox theologians? The doctrines can be supported Scripture before we even get to the issue of the Church fathers’ views. I maintain that both are more than sufficient for a Christian to hold these doctrines. See my articles below.
Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
(originally posted in 1998)
Photo credit:The Annunciation (15472), by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) [public domain / Needpix.com]
Last updated on: March 3, 2020 at 11:00 am By Dave Armstrong
The following is a compilation of some of the more explicit patristic, medieval, and post-Renaissance statements of Fathers, Doctors, and other eminent theologians, on the subject of Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces, Advocate, and Co-Redemptrix. Vatican II, papal encyclicals, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are also cited.
Sources Used
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931 edition.
C. X. J. M. Friethoff, A Complete Mariology, Westminster, Maryland: Westminster Press, 1958.
Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol. 1, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963.
W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, vol. 1, 1970.
W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, vol. 3, 1979.
Mark Miravalle, editor, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations, Santa Barbara, California: Queenship Publishing, 1995.
William Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954.
***
I. Western Church Fathers and the Second Council of Nicaea (787)
***
St. Irenaeus (130-202), in his famous work, Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:
[S]o also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. (III, 22, 4; from Jurgens, vol. 1, p. 93, #224)
[F]or in no other way can that which is tied be untied unless the very windings of the knot are gone through in reverse: so that the first joints are loosed through the second, and the second in turn free the first . . . Thus, then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary. (III, 22, 4; from Most, p. 25)
Just as the human race was bound over to death through a virgin, so was it saved through a virgin: the scale was balanced — a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience. (V, 19, 1; cited in Most, p. 274)
William Most comments:
Mary, says St. Irenaeus, undoes the work of Eve. Now it was not just in a remote way that Eve had been involved in original sin: she shared in the very ruinous act itself. Similarly, it would seem, Mary ought to share in the very act by which the knot is untied — that is, in Calvary itself. (Most, p. 25)
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397):
Let us not be astonished that the Lord, who came to save the world, began his work in Mary, so that she, by whom the salvation of all was being readied, would be the first to receive from her own child its fruits. (Miravalle, p. 14; from In Lk. II, 17; ML 15, 559)
Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world — operata est mundi salutem — and when she conceived the redemption of all — concepit redemptionem universorum. (Miravalle, p. 14; from Epist. 49,2; ML 16, 1154)
She engendered redemption for humanity, she was carrying, in her womb, the remission of sins. (Miravalle, p. 14; from De Mysteriis III, 13; ML 16, 393; De instit. Virginis 13,81; ML 16, 325)
She stood before the Cross and looked up full of pity to the wounds of her Son, because she expected not the death of her Son but the salvation of the world. (Exp. in Luc., 10, 132; in Graef, p. 82)
When the Lord wanted to redeem the world he began his work with Mary, that she, through whom salvation was prepared for all, should be the first to draw the fruit of salvation from her Son. (Exp. in Luc., 2, 17; in Graef, p. 82)
The Virgin has given birth to the salvation of the world, the Virgin has brought forth the life of all. (Ep. LXIII, 33; in Graef, p. 83)
Hilda Graef comments:
He interprets the sword in the prophecy of Simeon quite differently from Origen and the Greek fathers following him. In the view of Ambrose this sword is rather Mary’s foreknowledge of the Passion, because she is ‘not ignorant of the heavenly mystery.’ (Graef, p. 81)
St. Jerome(c. 343-420)
Death came through Eve, life through Mary. (Ep. XXII, 21; in Graef, p. 94)
Every torture inflicted on the body of Jesus was a wound in the heart of the Mother. (De 7 Verbis D. tr. 3; in St. Alphonsus, Part 3: The Dolors of Mary; Reflections, p. 519)
St. Augustine (354-430) wrote:
[J]ust as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both. (Jurgens, vol. 3, p. 50, #1578; from Christian Combat, c. 397, 22, 24)
. . . plainly she is [in spirit] Mother of us who are His members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that Head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is Mother of that very Head. (Jurgens, vol. 3, p. 71, #1644; from Holy Virginity, A.D. 401, 6, 6)
The cross and nails of the Son were also those of his Mother; with Christ crucified the Mother was also crucified. (St. Alphonsus, p. 519)
St. Peter Chrysologus (c. 400-450; an influence on the Council of Chalcedon in 451):
‘Hail, full of grace’; . . . the Angel offered her this grace. The Virgin received Salvation so that she may give it back to the centuries. (Miravalle, p. 16; from Sermon 140)
[A] young maiden receives as a reward of the womb (Ps 126) salvation for those who were lost: — salutem perditis pro ipsius uteri mercede. (Miravalle, p. 17; Sermon 140, 6)
Commenting on this text, St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:
It is difficult to state more explicitly, although rhetorically, that the Blessed Virgin has fulfilled a real meritorious cooperation, a participation with the reversing of the fall as its price. (Miravalle, p. 17; from “Letter to Pusey,” in Difficulties of Anglicans, II, pp. 43 and 42, London, 1900)
The Second Council of Nicaea (787), the seventh Ecumenical Council, which is fully accepted by the Orthodox, declared:
The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers . . . If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access (parrhésia) to our God born of her, let him be anathema. (Miravalle, p. 30; Session IV; Mansi XIII, 346)
Fr. Bertrand de Margerie, S. J. comments:
This important, and no doubt little known, declaration of an ecumenical council presupposes, implicitly but surely, the acknowledgement of a privileged participation of Mary, as Mother of God incarnate, in the work of our salvation. (Miravalle, p. 30)
II. The Witness of Early Eastern Christian Tradition
***
Fr. Bertrand de Margerie, S. J., sums up:
Since the fourth and especially the fifth centuries, the Greek Fathers, expounding the views of Irenaeus, have become the clearer and more active witnesses of the unfathomable mystery that constitutes the privileged and unique mission of the Virgin Mother in the economy of Redemption. This role was magnificently summed up by the fifth century Fathers in these statements: Mary is the ‘Mother of the Economy’ (Theodosus of Ancyra, MG 77, 393 C), the ‘Mother of Salvation’ (Severien of Gabala, MG 56, 4) and ‘the one who gives birth to the Mystery’ ( [Patriarch] Proclus of Constantinople, MG 65, 792 C). “All these expressions signify that Mary was, in dependence of the unique Savior and Redeemer, an active cause of our redemption. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the more abundant testimony of the Greek Fathers adds nothing essential. It will be enough here to quote Saint Andrew of Crete: Mary is ‘the first reparation of the first fall of the first parents’ (MG 97, 879). (Miravalle, pp. 20-21)
St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) taught that Mary is the only virgin chosen to be the instrument of our salvation [Sermo III] and called her the “dispensatrix of all goods.” (Most, p. 48)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-c. 395):
Eve brought in sin by means of a tree; Mary, on the contrary, brought in Good by means of the tree of the Cross. (Miravalle, p. 18; from Sermon for the Nativity of Christ; MG 46, 1148 A, B)
St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407)
A virgin [Eve] has cast us out from paradise; through a virgin [Mary] we have found eternal life. (Expositio VII in Ps. XLIV, vol. 5, 171D; in Graef, p. 75)
Whoever then was present on the Mount of Calvary might see two altars, on which two great sacrifices were consummated; the one in the body of Jesus, the other in the heart of Mary. (St. Alphonsus, p. 519)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (which both Orthodox and Anglicans accept), prayed:
Hail, Mary, Mother of God, . . . by whom the human race reaches the knowledge of the truth. (Miravalle, p. 12)
Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved [sozetai]. (Miravalle, p. 13; from MG 77, 992, and 1033; also from Ephesus)
In what some consider the greatest Marian sermon of the patristic period, St. Cyril states:
[I]t is through you that the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored, through you the precious cross is venerated and adored throughout the world . . . through you that churches have been founded in the whole world, that peoples are led to conversion. (Miravalle, p. 134; from Homilia in Deiparam; PG 65, 681)
Theodotus of Ancyra (d. c. 445), a prominent Father at the Council of Ephesus, called her “dispensatrix of good things.” (Most, p. 48)
The expression Mediatrix or Mediatress was found in two 5th-century eastern writers, Basil of Seleucia (In SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 444AB) and Antipater of Bostra (In S. Joannem Bapt., PG 85 1772C), 500 years before any Latin writer used it (apart from a direct derivation from the east). The theory developed in the work of John of Damascus (d.c. 749; see Homilia I in Dormitionem, PG 96 713A) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.c.733; see Homilia II in Dormitionem, PG 98 321, 352-353). (Miravalle, pp. 134-135)
The Protestant reference Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (edited by F. L. Cross, 2nd edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 561), states concerning Patriarch Germanus:
Mary’s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and her universal mediation in the distribution of supernatural blessings, are his two frequently recurring themes.
St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 634-c. 733)
No one is saved except through you, O Theotokos; no one secured a gift of mercy, save through you . . . in you all peoples of the earth have obtained a blessing. (Hom. in S. Mariæ Zonan, MG 98, 377; in Miravalle, p. 283)
St. Andrew of Crete(c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the “Mediatrix of the law and grace” and also stated that “she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.” (Nativ. Mariæ, Serm. 1 and Serm. 4, PG 97, 808, 865; in Miravalle, p. 283)
St. John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the “office of Mediatrix.” (Hom. S. Mariæ in Zonam, PG 98, 377; in Miravalle, p. 283)
Hail Thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse. (PG 86, 658; in Friethoff, p. 221)
O Mary, whose mediation is never refused, whose prayer is never denied . . . through you we obtain, as long as we linger in this crumbling world, the means to do good works . . . (PG 96:647; in Friethoff, p. 268)
III. Eastern Liturgies
***
Concerning the Byzantine Liturgy, Fr. Bertrand de Margerie writes:
It does not hesitate to implore the Virgin herself for salvation. The following expression is often repeated in the liturgy: ‘Most Holy Mother of God, save us.’ Surely – numerous texts express it – if Mary can save us, it is because of her intervention with her Son, the only Savior . . .
In fact, . . . no mention of salvation in the liturgical prayers is ever made without invoking the intercession of the Virgin. Such frequency and insistence are not found to the same degree in the course of the Mass in Western liturgies . . .
[T]he recourse to the mediating intercession of Mary reveals the faith of the Church in her unique participation, through divine Motherhood, in the mystery of Redemption.
While exalting the powerful intercession of the Mother of Christ, the Byzantine liturgy does not ignore the created finitude of the Virgin. As proof, the astonishing prayer of the Byzantine Church for Mary; linked, besides, to the recourse to her intercession . . .
[S]ince the Church prays for Mary, it is obvious that she is not adored. Mary is not a goddess, but a pure creature . . . Mass is not a sacrifice offered to the Virgin, but to God alone. (Miravalle, pp. 26-28)
Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
In the Liturgy of the Catechumens, the people cry out: “By the intercession of the Theotokos, Saviour, save us.” Before distributing Holy Communion, the priest prays: “May Christ, our true God (who rose from the dead), as a good, loving and merciful God, have mercy upon us and save us, through the intercession of his most pure and holy Mother.” (Miravalle, pp. 133-134)
IV. Medieval Catholic Theologians and Doctors
***
St. Peter Damien (1007-1072)
As the Son of God has designed to descend to us through you [Mary], so we also must come to him through you. (Serm. 46, PL 144, 761B; in Miravalle, p. 283)
St. Anselm(c. 1033-1109)
I seek you help as being the best and most powerful, after your Son’s, that this world can offer . . . What all others can do with you, you are able to do alone without the others . . . If you pray, everyone will pray, everyone will help. (PL 158:943-4; in Friethoff, p. 268)
God is the Father of all created things, and Mary is the Mother of all re-created things. God is the Father of the constitution of all things, and Mary is the Mother of the restitution of all things . . . For God generated him through whom all things were made, and Mary gave birth to him through whom all things were saved. (Or. VII; in Graef, p. 213)
Eadmer (c. 1060-c.1128)
[Mary] merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world. (De Excellentia Virg. Marie, c.9; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; from Most, p. 284)
Rupert, Abbot of the Benedictines at Deutz(d. c. 1135)
Because there were truly ‘pains as of a woman in labour’ [Ps 47:7] and in the Passion of the only begotten Son the blessed Virgin brought forth the salvation of us all, she is obviously the Mother of us all. (Comm. in Jo., 13; PL 169: 789C; in Graef, p. 228)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153)
God wished us to have nothing that would not pass through the hands of Mary. (Sermon on the Vigil of Christmas; PL 183,100; in Most, p. 48)
As every mandate of grace that is sent by a king passes through the palace-gates, so does every grace that comes from heaven to the world pass through the hands of Mary. (Apud. S. Bernarin. Pro Fest. V. M. s. 5, c. 8; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, p. 160)
Through her man was redeemed. (Serm. 3 super Salve.; in Friethoff, p. 221)
St. Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280)
To her [Mary] alone was given this privilege, namely, a communication in the Passion; to her the Son willed to communicate the merit of the Passion, in order that He could give her the reward; and in order to make her a sharer in the benefit of Redemption. He willed that she be a sharer in the penalty of the Passion, in so far as she might become the Mother of all through re-creation even as she was the adjutrix of the Redemption by her co-passion. And just as the whole world is bound to God by His supreme Passion, so also it is bound to the Lady of all by her co-passion. (Mariale, Opera Omnia, v. 37, Q. 150, p. 219; in Miravalle, p. 259)
She sacrificed her own Son and the Son of God for us all, freely consenting to his Passion. (Mariale 51; in Friethoff, p. 238)
The Blessed Virgin is very properly called ‘gate of heaven,’ for every created or uncreated grace that ever came or will ever come into this world came through her. (Mariale 147; in Friethoff, p. 250)
St. Bonaventure (c. 1217-1274)
Her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so she did suffer, with Him, that, if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent. (I Sent., d.48, ad Litt. dub.4; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; from Most, p. 285)
Just as they [Adam and Eve] were the destroyers of the human race, so these [Jesus and Mary] were its repairers. (Sermon 3 on the Assumption; Opera Omnia, v. 9, p. 695; in Miravalle, p. 259)
She paid the price [of Redemption] as a woman brave and loving – namely, when Christ suffered on the cross to pay that price in order to purge and wash and redeem us, the Blessed Virgin was present, accepting and agreeing with the divine will. (Collatio 6 de donis Spiritus Sancti, n.16; in Miravalle, p. 259)
As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in the world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice. (Spann. Polyanth. litt. M. t.6; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, pp. 159-160)
That woman (namely Eve) drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one brought us back again and bought us. (de don. Sp. S. 6; 14; in Friethoff, p. 221)
Abraham! You were willing to sacrifice your son, but you offered a ram! But this glorious Virgin sacrificed her Son. (de don. Sp. S., 6:17; in Friethoff, p. 238)
John Tauler, Dominican mystic (c. 1300-1360)
He foretold to you [Mary] all your passion whereby He would make you a sharer of all of His merits and afflictions, and you would co-operate with Him in the restoration of men to salvation.(Sermo pro festo Purificationis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, in Miravalle, p. 259)
First Recorded Use of Co-Redemptrix
Although the concept was present earlier (as clearly demonstrated above), the first known use of the word itself appears in a liturgical book dating from the 14th century, found in St. Peter’s in Salzburg, Austria:
Loving, sweet, and kind / Wholly undeserving of any sorrow / If henceforth you chose weeping / As one suffering with the Redeemer / For the captive sinner / Coredemptrix would you be. (Miravalle, p. 260)
St. Bernardine of Siena(1380-1444)
Every grace which is communicated to this world has a three-fold course. For, in accord with excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us . . . I do not hesitate to say that she has received a certain jurisdiction over all graces . . . They are administered through her hands. (Sermon V de nativiate B.M.V., cap. 8; op. omn., v.4 [Lugduni, 1650], p. 96; cited by Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, 1894; first portion from Most, p. 49; second portion from Miravalle, p. 284)
For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body. (de Evangelio aeterno, Serm. X, a. 3, c. 3; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; in Most, p. 49)
V. Orthodox Theologians of the 14th Century
***
St. Gregory Palamas (d. 1359)
Mary is the cause of what had gone before her, the pioneer of what has come after her; she distributes eternal goods . . . She is the glory of earth, the joy of heaven, the ornament of all creation. She is the principle, the source, the root of ineffable good things. She is the summit and the fulfillment of all that is holy. (Miravalle, p. 135; from In Annunt., PG 151, 177B)
No divine gift can reach either angels or men, save through her mediation. As one cannot enjoy the light of a lamp . . . save through the medium of this lamp, so every movement towards God, every impulse towards good coming from him is unrealizable save through the mediation of the Virgin. She does not cease to spread benefits on all creatures . . . (Miravalle, p. 136; Edition of Sophocles Oikonomos, Athens, 1861, 159; PG 151, 472A)
Nicephorus Callistus (d. 1335), a Byzantine church historian, in his poems used titles such as Sovereign Lady, Queen, Helper, Mediatress of the faithful, Mediatress of the world, Consoler, and his favorite, Protectress.
Nicholas Cabasilas (d.c. 1390)
Being assumed as a helper not simply to contribute something as one moved by another, but that she should give herself and become the fellow-worker (sunergos) of God in providing for the human race, so that with him she should be an associate and sharer in the glory which would come from it. (Miravalle, p. 137; In Annunt. 4 PO 19, 499)
[Mary’s partnership was] in all the sufferings and affliction, He, bound on the Cross, received the lance in his side; the sword as divinely inspired Symeon foretold, pierced her heart.(Miravalle, p. 137; In Dormit. 12, PO 19 508)
Isidore Glabas (d. 1397)
And truly the Virgin, without doubt, was for all a cause of restoration to a better state. (Miravalle, p. 138; PG 139, 13C)
Theophanes of Nicaea(d. 1381)
Just as she gave our nature directly to God the Word, so God the Word to her directly repaid the deification of all; just as the Son of God through the mediation of his own Mother receives from us our nature, so through her mediation we receive his deification. It is therefore impossible that anyone in any way may become a sharer in the gifts of God other than in the way that we have set forth. (Miravalle, p. 139; Sermo in Sanctissimam Deiparam, Lateranum, Nova Series, 1, Rome 1935, V, 55 [Fr. Martin Jugie] )
This neck [Mary] pleasing to God and illumined by the rays of the divine Spirit, alone truly preeminent over the whole Body, has no equal in order or place, but, as has been said, holds the place second in order, next after the Head, playing the part of intermediary and bond between the Head and the Body. Accordingly since, it has no equal, it becomes capable and receptive of the whole divine, life-giving fullness which from the head is communicated to all the members. (Miravalle, pp. 139-140; from Jugie, ibid., X, 131)
She receives wholly the hidden grace of the Spirit and amply distributes it and shares it with others, thus manifesting it . . . [No one attains the fullness and the goal of life in Christ] without her cooperation or without the Spirit’s help.(Miravalle, p. 141; from Jugie, ibid., XIV, 195)
[Mary] is the dispenser and distributor of all the wondrous uncreated gifts of the divine Spirit, which make us Christ’s brothers and co-heirs, not only because she is granting the gifts of her natural Son to his brothers in grace, but also because she is bestowing them on these as her own true sons, though not by ties of nature but of grace. (Miravalle, p. 141; from Jugie, ibid., XV, 205)
VI. Catholic Theologians and Doctors: 16th to 18th Centuries
***
St. Peter Canisius(1521-1597)
Truly great things were done to Mary by him who is mighty, so that she . . . sacrificed Christ as real and living victim for the sin of the world. (de Maria V. incomp. 4, 26, 5; in Friethoff, p. 238)
Francisco de Suarez, Jesuit theologian (1548-1617)
The intercession and prayers of Mary are, above those of all others, not only useful, but necessary. (D. Inc. p.2, d.23, s.3; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, p. 162)
Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world; thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God. (D. Inc. p.2, d.23, s.1; in St. Alphonsus, p. 166)
St. Louis de Montfort (1673-1716)
It is by her that He [Jesus] applies His merits to His members, and that He communicates his virtues and distributes His graces. She is His mysterious canal; she is His aqueduct, through which He makes his mercies flow gently and abundantly.(True Devotion to Mary, n. 24; in Miravalle, p. 285)
To Mary, his faithful spouse, God the Holy Ghost has communicated His unspeakable gifts; and He has chosen her to be the dispenser of all He possesses, in such wise that she distributes . . . all His gifts and graces. The Holy Ghost gives no heavenly gift to men which He does not have pass through her virginal hands. Such has been the will of God, who has willed that we should have everything through Mary. (True Devotion to Mary, n.25; in Miravalle, p. 298)
. . . Mary, whom he has appointed to be . . . Treasurer of his riches, Distributor of his graces, Worker of his great miracles, Restorer of the human race, Mediatrix of men, Detsroyer of God’s enemies, and faithful Companion of his great works and triumphs. (W.G. 28; in Friethoff, p. 278)
St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787)
God, who gave us Jesus Christ, wills that all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men to the end of the world through the merits of Jesus Christ, should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary. (The Glories of Mary, ch. 5; in Miravalle, p. 284)
During her whole life this sublime Virgin collaborated in the salvation of men through her love for them, especially when, on Mount Calvary, she offered up her Son’s life to the eternal Father for our salvation. (Contra hereticos, 25:1; in Friethoff, p. 238)
VII. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)
***
For those non-Catholics (and Catholics) who think that the proposed definitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate are radically new in concept and advanced by only a few “ultraconservative” Catholics on the fringe of the Church, the following excerpts from the section on Mary, from Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) should be most illuminating. Vatican II dealt with Mary in greater depth and length than all previous Ecumenical Councils combined:
II. THE FUNCTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION
§55. The sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments, as well as venerable tradition, show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the plan of salvation in an ever clearer light and call our attention to it The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. The earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of a woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. Considered in this light, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin (cf. Gen 3:15) . . . After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion and the new plan of salvation is established, when the Son of God has taken human nature from her, that he might in the mysteries of his flesh free man from sin.
§56. The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This is preeminently true of the Mother of Jesus, who gave to the world the Life that renews all things, and who was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role. It is no wonder then that it was customary for the Fathers to refer to the Mother of God as all holy and free from every stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.[5] Enriched from the first instant of her conception with the splendour of an entirely unique holiness, the virgin of Nazareth is hailed by the heralding angel, by divine command, as “full of grace” (cf. Lk. 1:38), and to the heavenly messenger she replies: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word” (Lk. 1:38). Thus the daughter of Adam, Mary, consenting to the word of God, became the Mother of Jesus. Committing herself wholeheartedly and impeded by no sin to God’s saving will, she devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption, by the grace of Almighty God. Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”[6] Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was united by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”[7] Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “Mother of the living,”[8] and frequently claim: “death through Eve, life through Mary.”[9]
§57. This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death . . .
§58. . . . the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold thy son” (Jn. 19:26-27).[11] . . .
III. THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE CHURCH
§60. In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: “for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it.
§61. The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God was associated with the incarnation of the divine word: in the designs of divine Providence she was the gracious mother of the divine Redeemer here on earth, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.
§62. This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.[15] By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.[16] This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.[17]
No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.
The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.
VIII. Papal Encyclicals: 1758 to the Present / Catechism of the Catholic Church
***
This overall teaching is even more explicitly laid out in the encyclicals of several popes, thus (far from being “novel”) it already qualifies as binding under the ordinary magisterium:
1) Benedict XIV (Gloriosae Dominae, between 1740-1758),
2) Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854),
3) Leo XIII (Iucunda semper, 1894 / Adiutricem populi, 1895),
4) St. Pius X (Ad diem illum, 1904),
5) Pius XI (Explorata res, 1923 / Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928),
6) Ven. Pius XII (Mystici Corporis, 1943 / Munificentissimus Deus, 1950 / Ad Caeli Reginam, 1954),
7) St. Paul VI (Signum magnum, 1967 / Marialis Cultus, 1974),
8) St. John Paul II (Redemptor Hominis, 1979 / Salvifici Doloris, 1984 / Redemptoris Mater, 1987 / Veritatis Splendor, 1993).
It is also reiterated in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (#410-411, 488, 494, 502, 511, 529, 964, 967-970, 973, 975, 2618), which quotes frequently from Lumen Gentium.
Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
(originally posted in 1998)
*
Photo credit:The Virgin in Prayer (bet. 1640-1650), by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609–1685) [public domain / Wikipedia]
[all verses RSV, from my original manuscript (the final book version used KJV) ]
***
Matthew 16:19 . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . .
Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Matthew 18:18 . . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven . . .
John 20:23 . . . if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 16:22 If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!
2 Corinthians 2:5-11 But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure –not to put it too severely — to you all. For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
2 Timothy 2:16-18 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.
2 Timothy 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.
Titus 1:10-11 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.
Titus 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
Last updated on: February 17, 2020 at 4:55 pm By Dave Armstrong
It’s been stated that anti-Catholic, if used at all, is properly utilized only as an adjective and not as a noun (e.g., “the anti-Catholics on the Internet often blast Catholic Mariology”). The much more frequent usage is indeed as an adjective, but it is not altogether improper to also use it as a noun. As an analogy, take, for example, anti-Communist. That word can be either an adjective or a noun, in the same form, too:
1) adj.: characterized by opposition to Communism.
2) noun: one who is opposed to Communism.
To illustrate, a Canadian news source included this sentence in an article from 25 July: “In Berlin, Obama almost sounded like Ronald Reagan, who became a strong anti-Communist by fighting them in Hollywood.”
Or, see an article by Rich Lowry, from 2-29-08, where he wrote: “[the late William F.] Buckley was an anti-Communist to the marrow of his bones, whose lifelong mission was to crush totalitarianism.”
Anti-abortionist is habitually used in the same way. And anti-Catholic works similarly, by straightforward analogy:
1) adj.: characterized by the viewpoint that Catholicism is not Christian.
2) noun: one who believes that Catholicism is not Christian.
So we could say, “John Knox’s position on the Catholic Church was anti-Catholic: that is, characterized by belief that it was not a Christian system of theology or Christian worldview.” That’s a lot of work, especially if multiple use is involved. So we can express the same sentiment by using a noun instead: “John Knox was an anti-Catholic.” I don’t see anything ungrammatical about that at all. If I did, I certainly wouldn’t use the word in this fashion myself.
For some reason, dictionaries often don’t list anti-Catholic. This is the case in my huge 2129 page volume, that looks like the New York white pages. But it has several analogous “anti” terms listed (in identical form) as both noun and adjective, or noun only:
antiabolitionist n. one who opposes abolition. (no adjective listed) antichristian a. opposed to Christians or Christianity. antichristian n. one opposed to Christians or Christianity. Antifederalist (both forms listed) anti-Gallican (both forms listed) anti-imperialist n. (no adjective listed) antimason n. (no adjective listed) antinomian (both forms listed) antisabbatarian n. (no adjective listed) antislavery (both forms listed) antitrinitarian (both forms listed)
That’s sufficient to more than rest my “grammatical case” on this, I think, but I can also cite (non-Catholic) scholars using anti-Catholic as a noun:
. . . in 1688, anti-Catholics in and around Maryland . . . (p. 85)
Anti-Catholic memories were long and hatreds were deep . . . anti-Catholics in America conveniently portrayed the church as a juggernaut poised to crush the United States . . . the editor of the Protestant Home Missionary picked up the cry for the West, where was to be fought a great battle “between truth and error, between law and anarchy — between Christianity . . . and the combined forces of Infidelity and Popery” . . . Samuel F.B. Morse, both the inventor of the telegraph and the noisiest anti-Catholic around . . . (p. 273) (Martin Marty [widely respected Protestant Church historian, University of Chicago], Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, New York: Penguin Books, 1984)
Bigotry, especially by anti-Catholics, has been so common that any criticism of Catholicism is likely to be labeled by intellectuals as well as by pro-Catholics as intolerant and unfair . . . (p. 300)
Many anti-Catholics are convinced that long-range plans of the Catholic Church include repeal of the First Amendment . . . (p. 304) The Protestant Irish from Ulster were among the most fervent anti-Catholics a century ago. (p. 312)
Christian controversy with science has not involved Catholics alone, as anti-Catholics sometimes imply. (p. 331) (David O. Moberg [professor of sociology at Marquette University], The Church as a Social Institution: The Sociology of American Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd ed., 1984)
Catholic historian James Hitchcock wrote an article in Touchstone Magazine: July/August 2000:, entitled “The Real Anti-Catholics”.
Christian Research Institute, founded by Protestant anti-cult researcher Dr. Walter Martin; review of Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, in the Christian Research Journal, by Kenneth R. Samples (current President of CRI is Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man”):
How should evangelicals view Roman Catholicism? This is an extremely controversial question, and often emotionally charged. The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations), to those who dismiss Catholicism outright as an inherently evil institution. It would seem, however, that those of the latter persuasion (“anti-Catholics”) are in the ascendancy. . . .
An additional criticism is that the book does not always distinguish carefully enough between anti-Catholics and those who are merely critical of Catholic doctrine. If this distinction is not made, then all Protestants become anti-Catholic. By the same reasoning, all Catholics become anti-Protestant. In Keating’s defense, however, I do believe he normally makes this distinction . . .
I’m not trying to do beat this topic to death, but since I have been so criticized by anti-Catholics themselves for my use of the term (whether as adjective or noun), I wanted to do a little research on this aspect as well.
Generally speaking, I think the meanings and definitions of words are extremely important to any discussion. Again, since I am so often challenged in this regard, I have made another defense, that I think can stand up very well to scrutiny because I approached the topic from several angles.
Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 2:47 pm By Dave Armstrong
This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).
What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.
*****
Part II, Article V: Chapter 1: The Authority of the Ancient Fathers is Venerable
Theodosius the Elder found no better way of putting down the disputes of his time concerning religious matters than to follow the counsel of Sisinnius, — to bring together the chiefs of the sects, and ask them if they held the ancient Fathers, who had had charge of the Church before all these disputes began, to be honest, holy, good. Catholic and Apostolic men. To which the sectaries answering, yes ; he replied : Let us then examine your doctrine by theirs ; if yours is conformable to it let us retain it, otherwise let us give it up. There is no better plan in the world. Since Calvin and Beza own that the Church continued pure for the first six hundred years, let us see whether your Church is in the same faith and the same doctrine.
And who can better witness to us the faith which the Church followed in those ancient times, than they who then lived with her, at her table ? Who can better describe to us the manners of this heavenly Spouse, in the flower of her age, than those who have had the honour of holding the principal offices about her ? And in this aspect the Fathers deserve that we yield them our faith, not on account of the exquisite doctrine with which they were furnished, but for the uprightness of their consciences, and the fidelity with which they acted in their charges.
One does not so much require knowledge in witnesses as honesty and good faith. We do not want them here as authors of our faith, but as witnesses of the belief in which the Church of their time lived. No one can give more conclusive evidence than those who ruled it : they are beyond reproach in every respect. He who would know what path the Church followed at that time, let him ask those who have most faithfully accompanied her. The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will he occupied in the prophets. He will keep the sayings of renowned men (Ecclus. xxxix. i, 2). Hear what Jeremias says (vi. 16) : Thus saith the Lord : stand ye on the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk ye in it ; and you shall find refreshment for your souls.
And the Wise Man (Ecclus. viii. 11): Let not the discourse of the ancients escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And we must not only honour their testimonies as most assured and irreproachable ; but also give great credit to their doctrine, beyond all our inventions and curious searchings. We are not in any doubt as to whether the ancient Fathers should be held as authors of our faith; we know, better than all your ministers do, that they are not. Nor are we disputing whether we must receive as certain, that which one or two of the Fathers may have held as opinions. Our difference is in this : You say you have reformed your church on the pattern of the ancient Church ; we deny it, and take to witness those who have seen it, who have guarded it, who have governed it: — is not this a straightforward proof, and one clear of all quibbling ?
Here we are only maintaining the integrity and good faith of the witnesses. Besides this you say that your Church has been cut, and reformed according to the true understanding of the Scriptures ; we deny it, and say that the ancient Fathers had more competence and learning than you, and yet judged that the meaning of the Scriptures was not such as you make out. Is not this a most certain proof ? You say that according to the Scriptures the Mass ought to be abolished ; all the ancient Fathers deny it. Whom shall we believe — this troop of ancient Bishops and Martyrs, or this band of new-comers ? That is where we stand. Now who does not see at first sight, that it is an unbearable impudence to refuse belief to these myriad Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, who have preceded us ? And if the faith of that ancient Church ought to serve as a rule of right-believing, we cannot better find this rule than in the writings and depositions of these our most holy and distinguished ancestors.
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm By Dave Armstrong
This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).
What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.
*****
Part II, Article IV: Chapter 2: How Holy and Sacred is the Authority of Universal Councils
We are speaking then here of a Council such as that, in which there is the authority of S. Peter, both in the beginning and in the conclusion, and of the other Apostles and pastors who may choose to assist, or if not of all at least of a notable part ; in which discussion is free, that is, in which any one who chooses may declare his mind with regard to the question under discussion ; in which the pastors have the judicial voice. Such, in fact, as those four first were of which S. Gregory made so great account that he made this protestation concerning them : ” I declare that like the four books of the Holy Gospel do I receive and venerate the four Councils.”
Let us then consider a little how strong their authority should be over the understanding of Christians. And see how the Apostles speak of them : It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us[Acts 15:28; Jerusalem Council]. Therefore the authority of councils ought to be revered as resting on the action of the Holy Ghost. For if against that Pharisaic heresy the Holy Ghost, doctor and guide of his Church, assisted the assembly, we must also believe that on all like occasions he will still assist the meetings of pastors, to regulate by their mouth both our actions and our beliefs. It is the same Church, as dear to the heavenly Spouse as she was then, in greater need than she was then, — what reason therefore can there be why he should not give her the same assistance as he gave her then on like occasion ?
Consider, I beg you, the importance of the Gospel words : And if he will not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the heathen and the publican[Mt 18:17]. And when can we hear the Church more distinctly than by the voice of a general Council, where the heads of the Church come together to state and resolve difficulties ? The body speaks not by its legs, nor by its hands, but only by its head, and so, how can the Church better pronounce sentence than by its heads ? But Our Lord explains himself : Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. . . . For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them [Mt 18:19-20].
If two or three being gathered together in the name of Our Lord, when need is, have so particular an assistance from him that he is in the midst of them as a general in the midst of his army, as a doctor and regent among his disciples, if the Father infallibly gives them a gracious hearing concerning what they ask, how would he refuse his Holy Spirit to the general assembly of the pastors of the Church ?
Again, if the legitimate assembly of the pastors and heads of the Church could once be surprised by error, how would the word of the Master be verified : The gates of hell shall not prevail against it[Mt 16:18]? How could error and hellish strength more triumphantly seize upon the Church than by having subdued doctors, pastors, and captains, with the general ? And this word : I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world[Mt 28:20] — what would become of it ? And how would the Church be the pillar and ground of truth[1 Tim 3:15] if its bases and foundations support error and falsehood ? Doctors and pastors are the visible foundations of the Church, on whose ministry the rest is supported.
Finally, what stricter command have we than to take our food from the hand of our pastors ? Does not S. Paul say that the Holy Ghost has placed them over the flock to rule us [Acts 20:28] and that Our Lord has given them to us that we may not he tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine [?] [Eph 4:14] What respect then must we not pay to the ordinances and canons which emanate from their general assembly ? It is true that taken separately their teachings are subject to correction, but when they are together and when all the ecclesiastical authority is collected into one, who shall dispute the sentence which comes forth ? If the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be preserved ? If the chiefs are blind, who shall lead the others ? If the pillars are falling, who shall hold them up ?
In a word, what has the Church more grand, more certain, more solid, for the overthrow of heresy, than the judgment of General Councils ? The Scripture, — Beza will say. But I have already shown that ” heresy is of the understanding not of the Scripture, the fault lies in the meaning, not in the words.” [St. Hilary of Poitiers] Who knows not how many passages the Arian brought forward ? What was there to be said against him except that he understood them wrongly ? But he is quite right to believe that it is you who interpret wrongly, not he, you that are mistaken, not he ; that his appeal to the analogy of the faith is more sound than yours, so long as they are but private individuals who oppose his novelties. Yes, if one deprive the Councils of supreme authority in decision and declarations necessary for the understanding of the Holy Word, this Holy Word will be as much profaned as texts of Aristotle, and our articles of religion will be subject to never-ending revision, and from being safe and steady Christians we shall become wretched academics.
Athanasius says that ” the word of the Lord by the Ecumenical Council of Nice remains for ever.” S. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the Apollinarists who boasted of having been recognised by a Catholic council : — ” If either now,” says he, ” or formerly, they have been received, let them prove it and we will agree, for it will be clear that they assent to the right doctrine, and it cannot be otherwise.” S. Augustine says that the celebrated question about Baptism pressed by the Donatists made some Bishops doubt, ” until the whole world in plenary council formulated beyond all doubt what was most wholesomely believed.” ” The decision of the priestly Council (of Nice),” says Rufinus, ” is conveyed to Constantine. He venerates it as settled by God, in such sense that if any one were to oppose it he would be working his own destruction, as opposing himself to God.”
But if any one supposes that because he can produce analogies, texts of Scripture, Greek and Hebrew words, he is therefore allowed to make doubtful again what has already been determined by General Councils, he must bring patents from heaven duly signed and sealed, or else he must admit that anybody else may do as he does, that everything is at the mercy of our rash speculations, that everything is uncertain and subject to the variety of the judgments and considerations of men. The Wise Man gives us other counsel : The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd. More than these, my son, require not[Ecc 12:11-12].
Part II, Article IV: Chapter 3: How the Ministers Have Despised and Violated the Authority of Councils
Luther in the book which he has composed on the Councils is not content with tearing down the stones that are visible, but goes so far as to sap the very foundations of the Church. Who would credit this of Luther, that great and glorious reformer, as Beza calls him ? How does he treat the great Council of Nice ? Because the Council forbids those who have mutilated themselves to be received into the clerical ministry, and presently again forbids ecclesiastics to keep in their houses other women besides their mothers or their sisters : — ” Pressed on this point,” says Luther, ” I do not allow [the presence of] the Holy Spirit in this Council. And why ? Is there no other work for the Holy Spirit to do in Councils than to bind and burden his ministers by making impossible, dangerous, unnecessary laws ? ” He makes exception for no Council, but seriously holds that the Curé alone can do as much as a Council. Such is the opinion of this great reformer.
Beza says in the Epistle to the King of France, that your reform will refuse the authority of no Council; so far he speaks well, but what follows spoils all : ” provided,” says he, ” that the Word of God test it.” But, for God’s sake, when will they cease darkening the question ! The Councils, after the fullest consultation, when the test has been made by the holy touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their determination is received, will not another also be wanted ? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled ? After the test has been applied by the Council, Beza and his disciples want to try again ? And who shall stop another from asking as much, in order to see if the Council’s test has been properly tried ? And why not a third to know if the second is faithful ? — and then a fourth, to test the third ?
Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their understandings. We are not hesitating as to whether we should receive a doctrine at haphazard, or should test it by the application of God’s Word. But what we say is that when a Council has applied this test, our brains have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private individuals, — as many persons, so many tastes, so many opinions.
The article of the real presence of Our Lord in the most Holy Sacrament had been received under the test of many Councils. Luther wished to make another trial, Zwingle another trial on that of Luther, Brentius another on these, Calvin another, — as many tests so many opinions. But, I beseech you, if the test as applied by a General Council be not enough to settle the minds of men, how shall the authority of some nobody be able to do it ? That is too great an ambition.
Some of the most learned ministers of Lausanne, these late years. Scripture and analogy of faith in hand, oppose the doctrine of Calvin concerning justification. To bear the attack of their arguments no new reasons appear, though some wretched little tracts, insipid and void of doctrine, are set a-going. How are these men treated ? They are persecuted, driven away, threatened. Why is this ? ” Because they teach a doctrine contrary to the profession of faith of our Church.” Gracious heavens ! the doctrine of the Council of Nice, after an approbation of thirteen hundred years, is to be submitted to the tests of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, and there shall be no trial made of the Calvinistic doctrine, quite new, entirely doubtful, patched up and inconsistent !
Why, at least, may not each one try it for himself ? If that of Nice has not been able to quiet your brains, why would you, by your statements impose quiet on the brains of your companions, who are as good as you, as wise and as consistent ? Behold the iniquitousness of these judges ; to give liberty to their own opinions they lower the ancient Councils, while with their own opinions they would bridle those of others. They seek their own glory, be sure of that ; and just as much as they take away from the Ancients do they attribute to themselves.
Beza in the Epistle to the King of France and in the fore-mentioned Treatise, says that the Council of Nice was a true Council if ever there was one. He says the truth, never did good Christian doubt about it, nor about the other first three ; but if it be such, why does Calvin call that sentence in the Symbol of the Council — Deum de Deo lumen de lumine — hard ? And how is it that that word consubstantialem was so offensive to Luther — ” My soul hates this word homoousion ; ” a word, however, which so entirely approved itself to that great Council ?
How is it you do not maintain the reality of the body of Our Lord in the holy Sacrament, that you call superstition the most holy sacrifice of the same precious body of Our Saviour which is offered by the priests, and that you will make no difference between the bishop and the priest, — since all this is so expressly not defined but presupposed, there, as perfectly well known in the Church ? Never would Luther, or Peter Martyr, or Ochin have been ministers of yours, if they had remembered the acts of the great Council of Chalcedon ; for it is most expressly forbidden there for religious men and women to marry.
The Council of Constantinople attributes the primacy to the Pope of Rome, and presupposes this as a thing of universal knowledge ; so does that of Chalcedon. But is there any article in which we differ from you, which has not been several times condemned either in holy General Councils, or in particular ones received generally ? And yet your ministers have resuscitated them, without shame, without scruple, not otherwise than though they were certain holy deposits and treasures hidden to Antiquity, or by Antiquity most curiously locked up in order that we might have the benefit of them in this age.
I am well aware that in the Councils there are articles concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline, which can be changed and are but temporary. But it is not for private persons to interfere with them ; the same authority which drew them up is required for abrogating them ; if anybody else tries to do so it is in vain, and the authority is not the same unless it is a Council, or the general Head, or the custom of the whole Church. As to decrees on doctrines of faith they are invariable; what is once true is so unto eternity ; and the Councils call canons (that is, rules) what they determine in this, because they are inviolable rules for our faith.
But all this is to be understood of true Councils, either general or provincial, approved by General Councils or the Apostolic See. Such as was not that of the four hundred prophets assembled by Ahab [1 Kings 22:6]: for it was neither general, since those of Juda were not called to it, nor duly assembled, for it had no priestly authority. And those prophets were not legitimate or acknowledged as such by Josaphat, King of Juda, when he said : Is there not here some prophet of the Lord that we may inquire by him ? [1 Kings 22:7] — as if he would say that the others were not prophets of the Lord. Such, again, was not the assembly of the priests against Our Lord ; which was so far from having warrant in Scripture for the assistance of the Holy Spirit, that on the contrary it had been declared a private one by the Prophets ; and truly right reason required that when the King was present his lieutenants should lose authority, and that the High Priest being present the dignity of the vicar should be reduced to the condition of the rest.
Besides, it had not the form of a Council ; it was a tumultuous meeting, wanting in the requisite order, without authority from the supreme head of the Church, who was Our Lord, there present with a visible presence, whom they were bound to acknowledge. In truth, when the great sacrificer is visibly present, the vicar cannot be called chief; when the governor of a fortress is present, it is for him, not for his lieutenant, to give the word. Besides all this, the synagogue was to be changed and transferred at that time, and this its crime had been predicted. But the Catholic Church is never to be transferred, so long as the world shall be world ; we are not waiting for any third legislator, nor any other priesthood ; but she is to be eternal.
And yet Our Lord did this honour to the sacrificial dignity of Aaron that in spite of all the bad intention of those who held it the High Priest prophesied and uttered a most certain judgment (that it is expedient one man should die for the people, and the whole nation perish not) [Jn 11:50-51], which he spoke not of himself and by chance, but he prophesied, says the Evangelist, being the High Priest of that year.
Thus Our Lord would conduct the Synagogue and the priestly authority with singular honour to its tomb, when he made it give place to the Catholic Church and the Evangelic priesthood : and then when the Synagogue came to an end (which was in the resolution to put Our Lord to death), the Church was founded in that very death : I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do[Jn 17:4], said Our Lord after the Supper. And in the Supper Our Lord had instituted the New Testament ; so that the Old, with its ceremonies and its priesthood, lost its force and its privileges, though the confirmation of the New was only made by the death of the testator, as S. Paul says [Heb 9].
My intention has been to destroy the force of the two objections which are raised against the infallible authority of Councils and of the Church, the others will be answered in our treatment of particular points of Catholic doctrine. There is nothing so certain but that it can meet with opposition, but truth remains firm and is glorified by the assaults of what is contrary to it.
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm By Dave Armstrong
This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).
What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.
*****
Part II, Article III: Chapter 1: That we Need Some Other Rule Besides the Word of God
Once when Absalom [2 Sam 15:2-4] wished to form a faction against his good father [David], he sat in the way near the gate, and said to all who went by : There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee … O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, and I might do them justice. Thus did he undermine the loyalty of the Israelites. But how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distract the people from obedience to the Church, and to lead Christians into revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France : There is no one appointed by the Lord to hear and resolve differences concerning faith and religion ; the Church has no power in this matter ! If you consider well, Christians, you will see that whoever holds this language wishes to be judge himself, though he does not openly say so, more cunning than Absalom.
I have seen one of the most recent books of Theodore Beza, entitled : Of the true, essential and visible marks of the true Catholic Church ; he seems to me to aim at making himself, with his colleagues, judge of all the differences which are between us ; he says that the conclusion of all his argument is that “the true Christ is the only true and perpetual mark of the Catholic Church,” — understanding by true Christ, he says, Christ as he has most perfectly declared himself from the beginning, whether in the Prophetic or Apostolic writings, in what belongs to our salvation.
Higher up he had admitted that there were great difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, but not in things which touch faith. In the margin he places this warning, which he has put almost everywhere in the text : ” The interpretation of Scripture must not be drawn elsewhere than from the Scripture itself, by comparing passages one with another, and adapting them to the analogy of the faith.” And in the Epistle to the King of France : ” We ask that the appeal be made to the holy canonical Scriptures, and that, if there be any doubt as to the interpretation of them, the correspondence and relation which should exist among these passages of Scripture and the articles of faith, be the judge.”
He there receives the Fathers as of authority just as far as they should find their foundation in the Scriptures. He continues : ” As to the point of doctrine we cannot appeal to any irreproachable judge save the Lord himself, who has declared all his counsel concerning our salvation by the Apostles and the Prophets.” He says again that ” his party are not such as would disavow a single Council worthy of the name, general or particular, ancient or later, (take note)—” provided,” says he, ” that the touchstone, which is the word of God, be used to try it.”
That, in one word, is what all these reformers want — to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen : but we say that our difference is not there ; it is here, that in the disagreements we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say : but we do not ask how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but — who shall be the judge ?
For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt, xvi.), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God : you say, on your side that this passage : The kings of the nations lord it over them . . . but you not so (Luke xxii.), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority) : No one can lay another foundation &c. (i Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes you detest a chief minister.
The two of us follow one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in this question — namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord — and yet I have arrived at the affirmative, and you, you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me. I quite admit, be it said in passing, that he who shall enquire of Theodore Beza will say that you have reasoned better than I, but on what does he rely for this judgment except on what seems good to himself, according to the pre-judgment he has formed of the matter long ago ? — and he may say what he likes, for who has made him judge between you and me ?
Recognise, Christians, the spirit of division : your people send you to the Scriptures ; — we are there before you came into the world, and what we believe, we find there clear and plain. But, — it must be properly understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole to the Creed ; — we are at this now fifteen hundred years and more. You are mistaken, answers Luther. Who told you so ? Scripture. What Scripture ? Such and such, collated so, and fitted to the Creed. On the contrary, say I, it is you, Luther, who are mistaken : the Scripture tells me so, in such and such a passage, nicely joined and adjusted to such and such a Scripture, and to the articles of the faith.
I am not in doubt, as to whether we must give belief to the holy Word ; — who knows not that it is in the supreme degree of certitude ? What exercises me is the understanding of this Scripture — the consequences and conclusions drawn from it, which being different beyond number and very often contradictory on the same point, so that each one chooses his own, one here the other there — who shall make me see truth through so many vanities ? Who shall give me to see this Scripture in its native colour ? For the neck of this dove changes its appearance as often as those who look upon it change position and distance.
The Scripture is a most holy and infallible touchstone ; every proposition, which stands this test”^ I accept as most faithful and sound. But what am I to do, when I have in my hands this proposition : the natural body of our Lord is really, substantially and actually in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I have it touched at every angle and on every side, by the express and purest word of God, and by the Apostles’ Creed. There is no place when I do not rub it a hundred times, if you like. And the more I examine it the finer gold and purer metal do I recognise it to be made of. You say that having done the same you find base metal in it. What do you want me to do ? All these masters have handled it already, and all have come to the same decision as I, and with such assurance, that in general assemblies of the craft, they have turned out all who said differently.
Good heavens ! who shall resolve our doubts ? We must not speak again of the touchstone or it will be said : The wicked walk round about (Ps. xi. 9). We must have some one to take it up, and to test the piece himself; then he must give judgment, and we must submit, both of us, and argue no more. Otherwise each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care lest with regard to these words we be drawing the Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If the salt hath lost its savour, with what shall it he salted (Matt. V. 13) ? If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide ?
Ah ! whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds and of the tide, instead of giving us a skilful pilot perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and com pass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. Let him have placed therein the most excellent compass and the most correct chart in the world, what use are these if no one knows how to gain from them some infallible rule for directing the ship ? Of what use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to move it as the ship’s course requires ? But if every one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks good, who sees not that we are lost ?
It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe ; it is our glosses; our conclusions, understandings, interpretations, conjectures, additions, and other such workings of man’s brain, which, being unable to be quiet, is ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do not want a judge to decide between us and God, as he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man such as Calvin, Luther, Beza, and another such as Eck, Fisher, More ; for we do not ask whether God understands the Scripture better than we do, but whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augustine or S. Cyprian.
S. Hilary says excellently : ” Heresy is in the understanding, not in the Scripture, and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words.” and S. Augustine : ” Heresies arise simply from this, that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptuously given forth.” It is a true Michol’s game; it is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes of David (I Sam xix.) He who looks at it thinks he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but he is mistaken ; it is not there. The words are there, but not the meaning.
” The Scriptures,” says S. Jerome, ” consist not in the reading but in the understanding “: that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. I say as much of Traditions ; for if each one will bring forward Traditions, and we have no judge on earth to make in the last resort the difference between those which are to be received and those which are not, where, I pray you, shall we be ? We have clear examples. Calvin finds that the Apocalypse is to be received, Luther denies it ; the same with the Epistle of S. James. [Luther considered removing both from his Bible, but in the end did not] Who shall reform these opinions of the reformers ? Either the one or the other is ill formed, who shall put it right ? Here is a second necessity which we have of another rule besides the Word of God.
There is, however, a very great difference between the first rules and this one. For the first rule, which is the Word of God, is a rule infallible in itself, and most sufficient to regulate all the understandings in the world. The second is not properly a rule of itself, but only in so far as it applies the first and proposes to us the right doctrine contained in the Holy Word. In the same way the laws are said to be a rule in civil causes. The judge is not so of himself, since his judging is conditioned by the ruling of the law ; yet he is, and may well be called, a rule, because the application of the laws being subject to variety, when he has once made it we must conform to it.
The Holy Word then is the first law of our faith; there remains the application of this rule, which being able to receive as many forms as there are brains in the world, in spite of all the analogies of the faith, there is need further of a second rule to regulate this application. There must be doctrine and there must be some one to propose it. The doctrine is in the Holy Word, but who shall propose it ? The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this : the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore Baptism is necessary for salvation. The 1st Proposition cannot be gainsayed, we are at variance with Calvin about the 2nd ; — who shall reconcile us ? Who shall resolve our doubt ? If he who has authority to propose can err in his proposition all has to be done over again. There must therefore be some infallible authority in whose propounding we are obliged to acquiesce. The Word of God cannot err, He who proposes it cannot err; thus shall all be perfectly assured.
Part II, Article III: Chapter 2 (first part): That the Church is an Infallible Guide for Our Faith
Now is it not reasonable that no private individual should attribute to himself this infallible judgment on the interpretation or explanation of the Holy Word ? — otherwise, where should we be ? Who would be willing to submit to the yoke of a private individual ? Why of one rather than of another ? Let him talk as much as he will of analogy, of enthusiasm, of the Lord, of the Spirit, — all this shall never so bind my understanding as that, if I must sail at hazard, I will not jump into the vessel of my own judgment, rather than that of another, let him talk Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Tartar, Moorish, and whatever you like.
If we are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to run it rather by following his own fancy, than by slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther ? Everybody shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously about amongst opinions the most diverse possible ; and, indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.
I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever heard this doubted of ?
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
Last updated on: February 6, 2020 at 1:05 pm By Dave Armstrong
This is one of a series of extensive excerpts (with my occasional commentary) from The Catholic Controversy (1596): a classic of Catholic apologetics (originally a collection of pamphlets), written by St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622): a Doctor of the Church [see all the installments by searching “Salesian Apologetics #” on my blog sidebar search function]. Any comments of mine (apart from lists of related links) will be in blue. The rest is from the online, public domain text (3rd revised edition, New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909; translated by Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.).
What I present is an edited abridgment, designed for modern readers: so I will dispense with the constant tedious use of ellipses (“. . .”). I will cite the section of the book used, so that anyone who desires it may consult the full text and/or particular contexts, patristic references (which I omit), etc. I will follow the custom of my paperback TAN Books edition: of italicizing scriptural passages.
*****
Part II, Article II: Chapter 2:That There are Apostolic Traditions in the Church
We confess that the Holy Scripture is a most excellent and profitable doctrine. It is written in order that we may believe ; everything that is contrary to it is falsehood and impiety : but to establish these truths it is not necessary to reject this which is also a truth, that Traditions are most profitable, given in order that we may believe ; everything that is contrary to them is impiety and falsehood. For to establish one truth we are never to destroy another.
The Scripture is useful to teach ; learn then from the Scripture itself that we must receive with honour and faith holy Traditions. If we are to add nothing to what our Lord has commanded, — where has he commanded that we should condemn Apostolic Traditions ? Why do you add this to his words ? Where has our Lord ever taught it ? Indeed so far is he from having ever commanded the contempt of Apostolic Traditions that he never despised any Tradition of the least Prophet in the world.
Run through all the Gospel, and you will see nothing censured there except Traditions which are human and contrary to the Scripture. But if neither our Lord has written it nor his Apostles, why would you evangelise unto us these things ? On the contrary, it is forbidden to take anything away from the Scripture ; why then would you take away the Traditions which are so expressly authorised therein ? Is it not the Holy Scripture of S. Paul which says : Therefore, brethren, hold fast the Traditions which you have received, whether by word or by our epistle ? (2 Thess. ii. 14). “Hence it is evident that the Apostles did not deliver everything by Epistle, but many things also without letters. They are, however, worthy of the same faith, these as much as those,” are the words of S. ‘ Chrysostom in his commentary on this place.
This S. John likewise confirms : Having more things to write to you, I would not by paper and ink : for I hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face (2 Jn 1:12). They were things worthy of being written, yet he has not done it, but has said them, and instead of Scripture has made Tradition. Hold the, form of sound words, which thou hast heard from me . . . Keep the good deposited[“guard the truth that has been entrusted to you” – RSV], said S. Paul to his Timothy (2 Tim 1:13-14). Was not this recommending to him the unwritten Apostolic word ? and that is Tradition. And lower down : And the things which thou hast heard from me before many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall he fit to teach others also (ii. 2). What is there more clear for Tradition ? Behold the method ; the Apostle speaks, the witnesses relate, S. Timothy is to teach it to others, and these to others yet. Do we not see here a holy substitution and spiritual trusteeship ?
Does not the same Apostle praise the Corinthians for the observances of Tradition ? If this were written in the 2nd of Corinthians, one might say that by his ordinances he understands those of the 1st, though the sense of the passage would be forced (but to him who does not want to move every shadow is an excuse) ; but this is written in the 1st (xi. 2). He speaks not of any gospel, for he would not call it my ordinances. What was it then but an unwritten Apostolic doctrine ? — this we call Tradition.
And when he says to them at the end : The rest I will set in order when I come[“About the other things I will give directions when I come” – 1 Cor 11:34, RSV], he lets us see that he had taught them many very important things, and yet we have no writing about them elsewhere. Will what he said, then, be lost to the Church ? certainly not ; but it has come down by Tradition. Otherwise the Apostle would not have deprived posterity of it, and would have written it.
And our Lord says : Many things I have to say to you, hut you cannot bear them now (John xvi. 12). I ask you, when did he say these things which he had to say ? Certainly it was either after his Resurrection, during the forty days he was with them, or by the coming of the Holy Spirit. But what do we know of what he comprehended under the word: — I have many things, &c. — if all is written ? It is said indeed that he was forty days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God ; but we have neither all his apparitions nor what he told them therein.
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
Last updated on: January 16, 2020 at 12:44 pm By Dave Armstrong
My friend Tony Gerring offered an excellent guest post on my blog, entitled, Raising of Tabitha: Proof of Purgatory. This was a follow-up discussion of that article on my Facebook page. Words of Scott Fleischman will be in blue.
*****
Fascinating! The key point for me is that Tabitha died after Jesus’ resurrection (which opened the gates of heaven).
Other instances of Jesus’ raising people from the dead (Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter) don’t carry the same weight because it can be argued they went to the same place of the dead as all did before Jesus.
Then given one’s position on the afterlife, one can outline a few possibilities:
1) There is only heaven. Then Tabitha was taken from the bliss of heaven back to the sufferings of earth, which is an unpalatable interpretation. This seems to be the main force of the argument.
2) There is heaven and hell. Then one could hypothesize Tabitha went to hell, and Jesus brought her back from that place of torment. This is plausible but puts Tabitha in negative light.
3) There is heaven, hell and some other place. The Catholic understanding of purgatory fits the bill here nicely. This allows Tabitha to be an honorable person and coming back to earth allows for her own growth, without it being a punishment.
Great point. I don’t see how she could go to hell, though, and be brought back. She would never go there unless she were eternally condemned: in which case there would be no return.
Ah, that is a good point. Indeed the permanence of one’s state in the afterlife does make the situation more complicated than I initially outlined above. In fact, it might end up ruling out the passage pointing to purgatory specifically, depending on how purgatory is conceived.
Augustine makes a good point about the assurance in heaven–would it really be heaven if we had the possibility of losing it in the future? It would seem not. Therefore someone going to heaven and coming back to earthly life where one could sin and go to hell does not fit that viewpoint.
With hell, a common perspective is that God doesn’t send people there–the people send themselves. Given that, one might be inclined to say God could give someone a second chance (which if you allow that kind of opens up that idea that hell might be emptied out at some point in the future).
Granted, our will for or against God is one-and-for-all in the afterlife, much like the angels and devils. So in that sense, one could not have a “second chance” if that permanence of choice is due to something that would imply a contradiction (such as something within our nature, something about our souls).
Given the permanence of decision for-God or against-God in the afterlife (like the angels and devils), it would seem neither heaven nor hell are reasonable possibilities for where Tabitha went.
However, does purgatory also have that same sense of permanent choice for-God? It would seem so, since the usual description amounts to a purification of our souls on the way to heaven. It would seem rather contrary to the promised joy, to be able to fall off that road again back to hell.
So given the above, it seems to me that raising someone from the dead where they come back to life as normal on earth more likely points to some sort of temporary holding spot, where God sort of covers their eyes, so to speak, from making the final once-and-for-all choice for-God or against-God, like the angels and devils.
Another option is that Tabitha went to heaven and came back to earth with an internal assurance of her place in heaven, and God preserved her according to that internal promise. And she came to earth to suffer more in union with Christ for the redemption of the world, with the assurance she would join Him again.
I don’t see that there is any difficulty in purgatory. Say (for the sake of argument) that Tabitha was destined to go to purgatory first (like most of us). In God’s providence, Peter raised her, thus bringing her back from a temporary stay in purgatory. When she dies for good, she goes back there, en route to heaven. No difficulties there that I see. This life is itself similar to purgatory (as I have argued in papers), since God chastises us.
Having been removed from purgatory to return to earthly life with the possibility of sin, would Tabitha have the ability to mortally sin and go to hell when she dies a second time?
That makes me tend to either of two possibilities:
1) Maybe they didn’t face their personal judgment somehow. I would think purgatory would happen after personal judgment, so then they didn’t quite make it to purgatory, I would argue.
2) They did go to purgatory or heaven, and God preserves them from final sin in their return to earthly life.
or 3) it’s a mystery! Let us fall in adoration before the mystery of God, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”
She would have that ability. I don’t see why she would not. But because purgatory is not a final state (nor is the limbo of the fathers, before Christ), then it’s a possibility to go there and return from it: precisely because it is not intrinsically eternal. And also it’s possible that someone could return from it and end up in hell.
You also have examples of people who saw visions of heaven, or were “there” in some sense (before — presumably — ending up there for eternity): like St. Paul being caught up to the “third heaven” or St. John in writing Revelation.
I can see where there could conceivably / possibly be scenarios where someone temporarily went to purgatory, without their *final* state being determined. It would be an exception to the rule.
But God could have arranged it in His providence simply for Tabitha to be a person who was one of the elect.
It sounds like we are in agreement about the possibility of Tabitha being assured of her ultimate salvation after being raised and returned to earthly life. So in that sense she could have went to purgatory or heaven and returned to earthly life with that assurance.
And as far as visions and experiences go, I would distinguish between visiting heaven in a vision and actually being there in soul after your personal judgment. Maybe you might call the latter “belonging” there. In Paul’s case, I would consider that a visit/vision without belonging there per se. And I suppose one could hold Tabitha visited with her personal judgment being withheld till her final earthly death.
However, I do believe it is inconsistent with the CCC’s description of purgatory to hold that she could have went to purgatory after her first death, but then could go to hell ultimately. The CCC describes those in purgatory as assured of their salvation (1030,1031). Therefore they could not ultimately end up in hell.
So however one explains where Tabitha went while dead the first time, I guess I would have to conclude that she could not have went to purgatory after personal judgment in the “normal” way.
At the very least, there would have to have been some concession to her presence in purgatory: A) either not judged or B) having assurance of her ultimate judgment.
Which is kind of unfortunate, because I rather liked the original argument in the article, but now I don’t find it that convincing as a reference to purgatory per se.
But the passage does point to something that is not heaven or hell in the afterlife. And that possibility of some place that’s not heaven could also help discussions of purgatory (unless one takes the position she didn’t fully die).
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.
God could have also put her in a state of soul sleep, where she didn’t go anywhere.
I don’t see that the argument is lessened at all. It’s obviously an exceptional situation, anyway you look at it. If anyone in purgatory (even temporarily) is assured of haven, then God simply would have caused in His providence, Peter to raise a girl who was always of the elect from the start, as I have said.
There is no unsolvable difficulty here (except for Protestants).
Yes I agree there is no insoluble difficulty. There are several options but none of them are a great fit, it seems to me.
However, due to our discussion (for which I am grateful, even though it appears we have some disagreement?) I do not think the passage is a great one for pointing to purgatory, except to ask the question, where did she go?
Also even if one only believes in heaven (no hell nor purgatory), I think one could make a very plausible argument she returned to earth with assurance of her salvation after having belonged to heaven.
So as you say, the passage isn’t problematic–there are answers that one could posit that are consistent. And I would take that further to say it’s not problematic in most common worldviews, if you allow for assurance of salvation on earth.
But as with many things, it’s just problematic to try to determine /which/ is the actual one. And at that note, I have no conclusive answer, . . .
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
(originally March 2015 on Facebook)
*
Photo credit:Saint Peter raises Tabitha (1611), by Fabrizio Santafede (1560-1623 or 1628) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Last updated on: January 15, 2020 at 2:03 pm By Dave Armstrong
Dr. Mark Miravalle holds the St. John Paul II Chair of Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, and is Professor of Mariology at Ave Maria University. He is the President of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, which seeks the solemn papal definition (at the highest dogmatic level) of the Spiritual Maternity of the the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God.
I’m honored and delighted to host this recent paper of Dr. Miravalle on my blog. I have greatly appreciated and cited his work for over twenty years in several of my apologetic / theological writings on the topic, in defense of the same Marian doctrines (which I will link to below).
*****
In light of Pope Francis’ December 12, 2019 non-scripted, spontaneous comments concerning the traditional Marian title “co-redemptrix,” coupled later with a more vague inference to its proposed dogmatic definition (see National Catholic Register, Dec 23, 2019; La Stampa Vatican Insider, Jan. 8, 2020), a high-spirited worldwide discussion has ensued regarding the legitimacy of this Marian title, and the doctrine which it seeks to identify: namely, the unique human cooperation of the Mother of Jesus with and under Jesus Christ, humanity’s sole divine Redeemer, in the historic work of Redemption.
Most of the global discussion has focused upon the question of the authenticity of the classic Co-redemptrix title, which expresses in a single term the unique human role of Mary in the historic salvation of humanity accomplished by her divine son. What has not been discussed is the proposed rationale for a possible solemn definition or “dogma” of Mary’s role in the Redemption, along with her consequent motherly role as Spiritual Mother of humanity.
The unparalleled role of the Mother of Jesus in the saving work of Jesus Christ indeed already constitutes the authoritative doctrinal teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council repeatedly teaches this unique coredemptive role of Mary with and under Jesus, and her consequent intercessory roles as Mediatrix and Advocate for humanity:
…the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth (Lumen Gentium 58).
And again:
She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls. Therefore, she is a mother to us in the order of grace (Lumen Gentium, 61).
St. John Paul II referred to Mary as the human “Co-redemptrix” with Jesus, the only divine Redeemer, on at least seven occasions. The great John Paul would further teach and preach the greatest quality and quantity of the theology regarding Marian coredemption in the history of the Church.
The prefix “co” comes from the Latin word, cum, which in its first denotation means “with” and not “equal.” The title “co-redemptrix” applied to the Mother of Jesus never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ, the world’s sole divine Redeemer. To place Mary on a divine
level of equality with Jesus constitutes both Christian heresy and blasphemy!
The biblical and the liturgical sources also confirm that the prefix “co” does not predominantly mean equal. St. Paul refers to all Christians as “co-workers with God” (1 Cor. 3:9) but is not teaching that we are “equal workers” with God. The Liturgy refers to Christians as “co-heirs” with Jesus, but is certainly not signifying that we are “equal heirs” with Jesus. Pope St. John Paul II repeatedly called the Catholic faithful to be “co-redeemers in Christ” (e.g., May 8, 1988). Again, “co” signifies “with” and not equal, as it appropriately used biblically, liturgy, papally, and in the Marian title, “Co-redemptrix.”
Again, the Co-redemptrix term applied to Jesus’ human mother denotes Mary’s singular human participation with and under Jesus, the one and only divine Redeemer, in the saving work of Redemption (redimere: to “buy back”) for all humanity. Her subordinate human participation depends entirely upon Jesus’ divine and infinite saving act.
No one shared in the Redemption accomplished by her divine Son more than his human mother. Mary alone was the Mother of Jesus, giving the Word his flesh, the very instrument of our Redemption. (cf. Heb. 10:10). Further and most importantly, Mary alone was the “Immaculate Conception.” Her fullness of grace allowed her to be the perfect sinless partner with her son in the work of the Redemption, and also provided for Mary the opportunity of a perfect human choice, freed from sin, to cooperate with the Redeemer to save souls through a suffering of love united to her Son.
If Mary’s unique role in the Redemption is already an official doctrine of the Church, what then would be the benefit of the Holy Father declaring it as a new dogma?
The following constitute 7 fruits by which the contemporary Church and world would greatly benefit from a solemn definition of Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples (inclusive of her three motherly roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate).
1. Releasing historic graces for the Church and the world: Fully Activating Mary’s Motherly Intercession
During the horrors of World War I, the renowned Belgian Cardinal Desìre Mercier initiated a petition drive to Pope Benedict XV for the dogmatic definition of Mary’s universal mediation. What was Mercier’s rationale for this new Marian dogma? He argued that a solemn declaration of Mary’s roles of intercession would lead to “great graces for the world,” especially the grace of “world peace.” By 1925, over 450 cardinals and bishops, and hundreds of thousands of clergy and faithful had sent petitions to Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI in support of the Marian proclamation.
Also in the 1920’s, St. Maximilian Kolbe joined his strong support to his international Army of the Immaculate. Three papal commissions produced over 2500 pages of theological support for the new Marian dogma. Theological defense for the Marian doctrines of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces dominated the Mariology of the 1940’s and 1950’s. Although Pope St. John XXIII made it clear from the offset of the Second Vatican Council that it would not be a council defining new dogmas (but rather a pastoral council,) the doctrines of Marian coredemption, mediation, and advocacy are nonetheless explicitly and repeatedly taught (again, cf. Lumen Gentium, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62).
Since 1993, over 8 million petitions from the People of God spanning some 180 countries have been sent to the Holy See in support of a fifth Marian dogma. Just in the last 25 years, over 600 bishops and 70 cardinals have joined the People of God in their petition to the Holy See. These millions of faithful and hundreds of prelates generally share the same belief as the movement’s founder over a century ago: this papal proclamation of Mary’s universal spiritual motherhood will lead to a historic release of grace for the Church and for the world. An August, 2019 open letter to Pope Francis by cardinals and bishops representing the six contents requesting the fifth Marin dogma voices precisely the same spiritual conviction (www.openletterformary.com).
What is the theological justification for the expectation of historic graces through a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix and her resulting universal Spiritual Motherhood?
God the Father so respects human freedom that grace cannot be forced upon humanity. The free consent of humanity is required for Our Lady to most fully and completely intercede on our behalf. The Holy Father, therefore, as Vicar of Christ on earth and supreme authority of the Church, must freely and solemnly acknowledge Mary’s unique human role in the Redemption and her consequent maternal functions for humanity as Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate in order for Our Lady to fully and most powerfully exercise these three motherly roles of intercession for world today.
Do we not see the exactly the same theological principle manifested in the biblical institution of the papacy? In Mt. 16:15-20, Jesus asks the apostles the question, “Who do they say that I am?” Jesus, of course, knew who He was, yet Jesus wanted to hear the truth freely proclaimed by Peter. Then and only then, upon the condition of free human consent, does Jesus institute the papacy, which as a result leads to all the historic graces that will flow to the Church and world through the papacy.
The millions of faithful presently petitioning Pope Francis believe that a similar phenomenon of a historic grace will flow upon the world once the Holy Father freely and solemnly proclaims Our Lady as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples: an act of free human consent by the Vicar of Christ which will lead to a new and monumental release of grace through Our Lady’s newly proclaimed roles of intercession.
2. The Completion of Marian Dogma:Declaring Mary’s Relationship with Humanity
Up to this point in history, the Catholic Church has proclaimed 4 dogmas about the Mother of Jesus: that Mary is Mother of God (“Theotokos”), that is, true human mother of God the Son made man in Jesus Christ (Council of Ephesus, 431); her Perpetual Virginity, which proclaims that Mary was virginal before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ (Lateran Council, 649); her Immaculate Conception, that Mary was conceived without original sin (infallibly defined by Blessed Pope Pius IX in 1854); and her Assumption, which proclaims that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life (infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950).
These four dogmas, sublime in their articulation of Our Lady’s unique prerogatives, nonetheless, say nothing explicitly about her relationship to humanity, nor about her role in the Redemption of humanity. This fifth Marian dogma which would solemnly define Our Lady’s role as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples and incorporate her three foundational maternal roles as Co-redemptrix (the “Mother Suffering”) Mediatrix of all graces (the “Mother Nourishing”) and Advocate (the “Mother Interceding”) would thereby effectively bring to dogmatic completion the “whole truth about Mary,” to use the expression of Pope St. John Paul II.
How appropriate that during what many contemporaries believe to be the historical climax of the “Age of Mary,” an age which boasts of more Marian dogmas declared, more Marian apparitions approved, and more Marian popes than in any other single period of the Church’s history, her coredemptive role with Jesus for humanity and her relationship with humanity as our Spiritual Mother would be solemnly defined.
Additionally, authentic love of Mary must always be grounded upon authentic truth about Mary. For example, The Rosary, Marian Consecration, and the Scapular devotion are all theologically based upon the doctrine of Our Lady’s Spiritual Maternity. It would thus be appropriate to have a dogmatic definition of the Marian doctrine upon which the greatest contemporary manifestations of Marian devotion depend.
3. Declaring the Redemptive Value of Human Suffering:Mary Co-redemptrix and the Christian’s role as “co-redeemer in Christ”
A papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix would manifest to the world the fundamental Christian truth that “suffering is redemptive.” This dogma would inherently highlight the redemptive value of human suffering, which, in an age faced with ubiquitous suffering both spiritual and physical in nature, could provide a quintessential pastoral message in a concrete human expression to the contemporary Church and world.
While Our Lady’s suffering with her Crucified Son was unparalleled in its depth and in its merit, all Christians are called by St. Paul to “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, which is the Church (Col.1:24). Each of us within the Body of Christ has the privilege and responsibility to join the redemptive mission of Jesus and Mary, and by the patient enduring of our sufferings and spiritually uniting them to the sufferings of our Redeemer, can contribute to the mysterious release of graces for human salvation.
St. John Paul repeatedly called all Christians to become “co-redeemers in Christ,” and Pope Benedict XVI likewise invited the sick at Fatima to become “redeemers in the Redeemer” (Homily of Fatima, May 13, 2010). A solemn proclamation of Mary as the human Co-redemptrix with Jesus offers the People of God a perfect human example to imitate in their Christian call to offer our daily sufferings for the redemption of others.
In an age where the evils of euthanasia and suicide are massively on the rise, the world needs a powerful reminder that human suffering is not useless and hopeless, but rather can be both supernaturally redemptive and eternally meritorious.
Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix as the perfect model for all Christians to actively be “co-redeemers in Christ” is not limited to our participation in human suffering. Her unique cooperation in the redemptive work of Christ powerfully illustrates the overall and central Catholic principle of participation, where creatures can share in an attribute or work of God, but without adding, subtracting, or competing with God through that participation. For example, every Christian participates in the very nature of God by sharing in his divine life through sanctifying grace (cf.2 Peter 1:14), but without adding, subtracting or competing with divine life of the Trinity. All Christians likewise participate in an entirely dependent and subordinate way in the “one mediation between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5) through, as St. Paul urges a few verses earlier, our own “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving” for one another (1 Tim 2:1). A Christian who prays for the salvation of another; who evangelizes the saving Gospel to another; who brings the love of Christ to another in the form of food, shelter, comfort, love—these are all acts of Christian coredemption which can bring the saving mercy of Jesus to the world through our own human participation.
Couples “co-create” with the Eternal Father when they have children; bishops “co-sanctify” with the Holy Spirit when they administer Confirmation; and all Christians “co-redeem” with Jesus by offering their prayers and sacrifices in union with Jesus for the salvation of souls. Defining Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix would exponentially accentuate this key Christian truth.
4. Highlighting the Dignity of the Human Person and Human Freedom:The Human Imperative to Cooperate with Grace
Proclaiming Mary’s free and personal role in the Redemption would also inherently proclaim the dignity of the human person as well as the dignity of God’s most precious gift to the human person: freedom. This dogma would recognize in a solemn expression that a free decision of a human being was a necessary element within God’s providential plan for human Redemption.
Numerous contemporary ideologies deny both the dignity of human freedom and the dignity of the human person—from totalitarian regimes like Communist China, to western syndicates of human trafficking, where its principal market is found in the West. A dogma founded on God’s respect for human freedom joined with Our Lady’s perfect exercise of it would innately pronounce the transcendent dignity of the human person and the imperative to respect human freedom in all circumstances—as does the Creator himself. As beautifully articulated by Pope Leo XIII: “The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect
Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity” [cf. Summa theologiae III, q. 30, a. 1], (Octobri mense, n. 4).
This Marian declaration would moreover underscore the perennial Catholic teaching on the human necessity to cooperate with grace for our salvation. As St. Augustine conveys in his famous maxim: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us” (Sermo 169, 13; PL 38, 923).
In fact, the Co-redemptrix title may well be the single greatest term that most completely embodies the full Catholic doctrinal teaching on personal salvation, as it necessarily includes authentically Catholic justification principles such as the proper relationships between human freedom and divine providence, grace and free will, faith and works.
Human freedom exercised with human dignity in perfect cooperation with God’s plan of salvation—therein lies the supreme witness of Mary Co-redemptrix.
5. Proclaiming the True Dignity of Woman:Authentic Christian Feminism as Embodied in Our Lady
This proposed dogma would sublimely underline that the greatest act of human history—the redemption of the human family— is the result of a woman’s active and feminine “yes.”
It was the will of God that the human person to partake most intimately in the greatest divine act for humanity would not be a pope, nor a bishop, nor a priest, nor a man—but rather a woman and a mother. This speaks volumes regarding both the dignity of woman and the true theological, anthropological, and social nature and dignity of authentic Christian feminism.
The providential necessity of a woman’s contribution to the Redemption has been acknowledged throughout Christian history. In 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus refers to Mary’s feminine contribution as “the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” In 1918, Pope Benedict XV authoritatively teaches: “We may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ” (Inter Sodalicia). In 1993, Mother Teresa succinctly conveys the same truth in her common quip, “No Mary, no Jesus.” (Conversation with Author, Calcutta, August 14, 1993).
St. Thomas Aquinas also recognized that Mary’s assent to become the Mother of God was given “in place of all human nature” (loco totius humanae naturae) [Summa theologiae III q. 30, a. 1]. Thus a woman spoke on behalf of the entire human race in order to bring the Savior into the world.”
Particularly in a time of the Church when questions and confusions regarding the nature and role of women in the Church are reaching their crescendos, the answer and remedy is Mary. Proclaiming the greatness of Mary and her roles of maternal intercession for humanity will clarify the proper role of women in the Church, leading to their powerful, yet humble service to the Body of Christ.
The Redemption of the human race is therefore both a gift from the Divine Redeemer to humanity, and at the same time a gift from a woman to humanity. As eloquently expressed by personalist philosopher, Josef Seifert:
This dogma would express a dignity of a woman’s action which exceeds in activeness, sublimity and effectiveness the deeds of all pure creatures and men: of all kings and politicians, thinkers, scientists, philosophers, artists and craftsmen from the beginning of the world to the end of doom, and in a certain manner even of all priests except Christ. For all other priestly actions render only present Christ’s redemptive grace and action but Mary’s act rendered our redemption itself possible and thus mediated for mankind the most high gift of our divine Savior himself (Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issue Today, p. 77).
6. Applying Authentic Christian Ecumenism to Mary:A Mother Unites her Children
A new dogma on Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood would actually serve authentic Christian Ecumenism, apart from initial appearances to the contrary, as genuine Ecumenism is designated by the Church’s Magisterium.
The Second Vatican Council teaches:
It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its assured genuine meaning (Unitatis Redintegratio, 11).
In his papal document on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, Pope St. John Paul II describes truly Catholic ecumenical activity in terms of prayer “as the soul” and dialogue “as the body” in pursuit of true and lasting Christian unity within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ (cf Ut Unum Sint, 21, 28). In regards to areas of doctrinal disagreement such as Marian dogma or doctrine, John Paul strongly condemns any form of doctrinal “reductionism”:
With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented …Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided (UUS, n. 36).
And again:
The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (Jn.14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? (USS, 36).
Fullness of doctrinal truth and greatest possible clarity of doctrine thereby constitute two essential pillars of legitimate Catholic ecumenical activity.
If the expressed purpose of a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role in the Redemption is precisely to articulate the fullness of doctrinal truth and the greatest possible clarity of this true Marian doctrine, it cannot, by definition, constitute a violation of authentic Catholic Ecumenism.
To hold as such would be to de facto rule out the legitimacy of the last four Marian dogmas, as well the charism of papal infallibility itself regarding Marian truth.
The late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, in his letter to Pope John Paul II for the fifth Marian dogma, well expresses the dogma’s potential service to authentic Ecumenism:
Clearly, a formal papal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology that other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately between Mary’s unique association with Christ and the redemptive power exercised by Christ alone (Letter to Pope John Paul II, Feb. 14, 1994).
7. Confirmation from Church Approved Private Revelation:Our Lady desires this Dogma
Marian Private revelation, even when approved by the Church, can never constitute the theological foundation for a Marian dogma. Yet it can serve as a supernatural confirmation for its appropriateness, importance, and even necessity.
We should not be surprised when the Holy Spirit’s gift of prophecy manifested through private revelation confirms heaven’s desire and/or condition by which to grant a historic grace for the Church. For example, the Rosary and the Scapular first revealed through private revelation. The acclaimed Fatima apparitions requested a consecration in order to bring momentous grace to the world. The apparitions of Our Lady of Grace and the Miraculous Medal (1830) served as a prophetic revelation to Blessed Pope Pius IX to declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius XII receiving solar miracles in the Vatican gardens (October, 1950) as prophetic signs of encouragement and confirmation to declare the dogma of the Assumption.
Hence, we should not be surprised, but almost come to expect, some form of supernatural confirmation for great ecclesial acts which lead to historic graces for the world.
The locally approved apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam, Holland (1945-1959), which were declared as “consisting in essence of a supernatural origin” by Bishop Punt of Haarlem-Amsterdam (May 31, 2002, https://www.de-vrouwe.info/en/bishop2002 ) could provide such a heavenly confirmation. Not only do the Amsterdam apparitions ratify the appropriateness of a fifth Marian dogma for our time, but they further specify this Marian dogma as a heavenly condition for eventual world peace.
On April 29, 1951, the Lady of All Nations articulates heaven’s desire for a new dogma of Mary as Co-redemptrix:
I stand here as the Co-redemptrix and Advocate. Repeat this after me: the new dogma will be the “dogma of the Co-redemptrix.” Notice I lay special emphasis on the word, “co.” I have said that it will arouse much controversy. Once again I tell you that the Church, “Rome” will carry it through and silence all objections. The Church, “Rome,” will incur opposition and overcome it. The Church, “Rome” will become stronger and mightier in proportion to the resistance she puts up in the struggle (April 29, 1951).
On May 31,1954, the Lady of All Nations further instructs the People of God to work and petition to the Pope for this fifth Marian dogma:
Work and ask for this dogma. You should petition the Holy Father for this dogma…The world is dominated by the spirit of Satan. When the dogma, the last dogma in Marian history has been proclaimed, then the ‘Lady of All Nations’ will give peace, true peace,
to the world.
And again in this Amsterdam message of May 31, 1955, the Lady of All Nations calls for this dogma and associates its proclamation with the eventual gift of world peace:
The world has lost its bearings? Well then, nations, put your trust in your Mother. She is allowed to come to you under this new title: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. …Once the dogma has been pronounced, the Lady of all Nations will give her blessing…Then, the ‘Lady of All Nations’ will bestow peace. She will help you when this dogma has been proclaimed.
Our Lady’s approved apparitions in Amsterdam are later confirmed by a second Church-approved apparition involving the Lady of All Nations in Akita, Japan. From 1973 to 1981, Our Lady began a series of mystical phenomena in Akita where a wooden statue of the Lady of All Nations wept tears on 101 different occasions (several times in the presence of the local bishop, Bishop John Ito). Bishop Ito approved the supernatural authenticity of the Akita events in 1984, and confirmed that these two Church approved apparitions possess an essential unity when he stated: “Akita is the continuation of Amsterdam.”
Conclusion
From Cardinal Mercier’s initial inspiration of great graces of peace for the Church and world, to Our Lady’s confirmation through private revelation that the dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood would lead to eventual graces of global peace, one can testify to great contemporary fruits for the Church through a fifth Marian dogma.
Those who would like to join with the millions of faithful People of God worldwide in the respectfully petitioning of Pope Francis for this dogma may do so by writing a brief note to our Holy Father at the following address:
His Holiness, Pope Francis,
Vatican City State
00120
Most contemporary commentators agree that we will need “help from above” in order to remedy the ubiquitous crises threatening the world and the Church today. The 2020 conflict between Iran and the United States and their respective world allies only accentuates the peaceful urgency for this fifth Marian dogma and its resulting promised graces.
Let us follow the wisdom of the early Church. Let us fly to the protection of the “Holy Mother of God” in this contemporary crisis. Let us also follow Our Lady’s present plea to “work and ask for this dogma” so that she may be “freed” by our human consent to do for the world that which we simply cannot do for ourselves: to intercede for peace, true peace, for the world.
Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In