2020-03-25T10:18:10-04:00

Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching

[Bible verses: New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise indicated]

* * * * *

1) Jesus: Illness Not Necessarily Due to Sin

John 9:2-3 His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

2) Enduring Sickness and God Smiting With Disease

Proverbs 18:14 The spirit of a man can endure his sickness.

Why endure if God intended for us never to be sick? The Hebrew is machaleh, defined by Strong’s Concordance as “sickness, disease, infirmity” (word 4245), and by Gesenius’ Lexicon as “disease” also (word 4245). It occurs in 2 Chronicles 21:15, 18: “and you will suffer sickness, a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the sickness, day by day . . . So after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness.”

Here God gives a man a disease, which isn’t supposed to happen, according to this false teaching; only the devil is supposed to do that. But God is Judge: he can certainly give an illness to someone, just as He can kill them, if He should so choose, as He is our Creator, and life and death is in His hands.

3) The Apostle Paul Recommends Wine Instead of Healing

1 Timothy 5:23 Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments.

Why didn’t Paul heal Timothy, or tell him he must be in sin, or that he lacks faith for healing?

4) No biblical passage teaches that Christians should never have illness.

5) Apostle Paul Again Unable to Heal

2 Timothy 4:20 Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

Why couldn’t Paul heal Trophimus (or Timothy) if Jesus said His disciples would have the power to heal? Two reasons. There is a limitation on our powers, and God sometimes chooses not to heal, for reasons above our understanding.

6) No Death?

Consistent, so-called “faith” doctrine would mean that followers would never have to die! The person with enough “faith” could theoretically heal himself indefinitely. Yet, we know that this is obviously absurd. Everyone dies; and most people have some sickness from which they will die. Thus, for most people, there is one sickness of which they will never be healed — their last one. Death and sickness came about in the first place as a result of the fall. God decides ultimately when someone dies, and He decides whether to heal or not. But perfect health will not be achieved until the Kingdom arrives.

7) Prophet Daniel’s Lack of “Faith”

Daniel 8:27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days . . .

Another example of a saint without enough faith to be healed.

8) Prophet Elisha Also Succumbs to Faithlessness?

2 Kings 13:14 Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die.

This destroys the notion of the righteous (Elisha was God’s prophet) always dying of old age.

Exodus 4:11 And the Lord said to him, “who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”

This verse simply should not exist if “faith” teachers are correct. They say that Satan produces all physical abnormalities, and that God wills for no one to have these defects. The above verse renders this belief biblically absurd and false.

10) Aging

Aging is itself a degenerative disease which is irreversible, constantly occurring and ultimately fatal. This is a medical and scientific fact, and one which contradicts the “faith” doctrine, which teaches attainable perfect health. Such a state is not possible for fallen man and fallen creation.

11) Mentioning False Teachers by Name

This finds biblical sanction in Paul’s writings. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander in an unfavorable light. In 2 Timothy 2:17-18, he names Hymenaeus and Philetus, “men who have gone astray from the truth” . . . And in 2 Timothy 4:14, he writes, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.” Thus, one can rightly name false teachers such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, for the sake of orthodoxy and true doctrine, and to prevent injury to souls.

12) Church History

No key figure in the history of the Church and Christianity has ever taught freedom from all disease as a result of the atonement, God being “bound,” our positive confession, etc.

13) Relation of Healing to Faith

We find that healing is sometimes related to faith and sometimes not, in the NT. Many scriptures can be found where Jesus says “Your faith has made you well” or some other similar phrase. But other passages don’t mention faith at all. Thus we cannot establish an absolute relation between faith and healing (or, conversely, a correlation between sin and sickness). These beliefs are not biblical, and are constructed by illogically reading into Holy Scripture what is not there. Let’s examine a few passages in this regard.

In Matthew 8:13, the centurion’s servant was healed with no mention of his faith whatsoever. Now, if one believes that the centurion’s faith brought about the healing and goes on to set up an ironclad rule or principle that faithful people can heal others with perhaps little or no faith, then Paul’s difficulty with Timothy and Trophimus needs to be explained (see numbers 3 and 5 above).

This is a strange dilemma indeed! In order to salvage the false doctrine, one is forced to conclude that Paul lacked adequate faith. In Matthew 8:14-15, Peter’s mother-in-law is healed with no mention of faith. When Jesus healed whole crowds of sick and disabled people, are we to believe that every single one of them had faith? Matthew 9:25: Jesus raises a girl from the dead (obviously it wasn’t her faith). Matthew 12:13: a man with a withered hand is healed, with no mention of faith. John 11:43-44: Lazarus is raised from the dead (clearly his faith had nothing to do with it, either). Numerous other examples could be cited.

14) Our Prayers and God’s Will

1 John 5:14 If we ask anything according to His will, he hears us.

1 John 3:22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.

James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

We see, then, that our prayers are qualified by God’s will. He is sovereign; He knows what’s best for us. We cannot have whatever we ask, with no limitation. That is obviously not what verses saying “whatsoever you ask” mean. I cannot ask God to let me murder someone, because this is not His will. Therefore, we should pray whether a healing is in God’s will or not. It isn’t always His will: as has been shown above, and will be further substantiated below. Unlimited positive confession would lead to unmitigated personal selfishness. Thank God that He often refuses us!

15) St. Paul Can’t Heal One More Time! (Seems to be a Pattern)

Philippians 2:25-27 I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier . . . because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

Paul again is unable to heal one of his associates. Why?

16) St. Paul’s Sufferings and Example for Us

Colossians 1:24 I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

The Greek for “afflictions” is thlipsis, which Strong’s Concordance (word 2347) defines as “pressure (literal or figurative).” W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary states under “affliction-thlipsis” for Colossians 1:24, “Afflictions of Christ from which his followers must not shrink, whether sufferings of body or mind.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT reiterates the same thing (p. 291 — word 2347). The same word is used referring to the distress of a woman in childbirth in John 16:21.

Paul’s mention of “flesh” would seem to indicate he is referring to physical distress. The Greek for “flesh” is “sarx”, and concerning its use in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states, “the physical nature of man as subject to suffering” (word 456, p. 570). As a cross-reference, 1 Peter 4:1 is cited: “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.” Such physical suffering as part of God’s will is a constant theme in Paul’s writings:

2 Corinthians 4:10 (RSV) Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 . . . the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance . . . if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . . patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer . . . as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

Philippians 2:17 (RSV) Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-10, 11:23-30).

Philippians 3:10 That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. (cf. Gal 2:20).

The Greek word for “fellowship” is koinonia, which means (as in the familiar usage), “participation, or sharing in something” (word 2842 – Strong and Thayer).

2 Timothy 4:6 (RSV) For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come (cf. Romans 12:1).

In 2 Timothy 4:6 and in Philippians 2:17, the Greek word for libation and sacrifice is spendomai. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was the Bible of the early Christians, this term is used with reference to the Messiah, Jesus, in Isaiah 53:12 (RSV) “. . . he poured out his soul to death . . .” It appears, then, that St. Paul is stressing a mystical, profound identification with Jesus even in His death — as also in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Philippians 3:10 above, and Galatians 6:17: “. . . I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.”

The “faith” teacher rather desperately retorts that this suffering was God’s will only for Paul and (especially) Jesus. Apart from the fact that this notion is clearly refuted already in the verses directly above and in #17 below, Paul himself directly contradicts it by urging us to imitate him, and in turn, imitate Christ (Whom he is imitating):

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

The word for “following” is summimetes, which means “co-imitator” (Strong’s, Thayer, and Vine).

2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 . . . you ought to follow our example . . . [we] offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word with much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb 6:12, James 5:10-11).

Galatians 4:12 I beg of you brethren, become as I am.

Philippians 4:9 The things you-have learned end received and heard and seen, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.

1 Corinthians 4:11-16 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.

2 Timothy 1:8 Join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.

2 Timothy 2:3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

The Greek word for “imitator” here is mimetes (usually “follower” in KJV). Greek scholar W. E. Vine stresses that the tense of the verb in many instances of this word, is a continuous tense, meaning that “what we became at conversion we must diligently continue to be thereafter.”

17) Suffering (including sickness) is God’s Will for the Christian

Matthew 10:38 (RSV) And he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 (RSV) Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (cf. Mark 8:34-35).

The disciple of Christ is called to suffer (Matthew 10:22, Mark 10:37-39, Luke 6:22, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3-5, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Philippians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 2 Timothy 1:8, 2:3, 3:12, Hebrews 5:8, James 1:2-4,12, 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2:20-21, 4:12-19, Revelation 1:9). No biblically-informed Christian would dispute that. Controversy only arises over whether such sufferings can improve one’s estate vis-a-vis salvation, or help anyone else in the Body of Christ (see, e.g., Romans 15:1 and 1 Corinthians 12:24-26).

Romans 8:13, 17 (RSV) For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live . . . and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:31, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Peter 4:1,13).

Furthermore, the Bible often stresses the painful experience of being corrected by God, as parents discipline their children (Leviticus 26:23-24, Deuteronomy 8:2, 5, 2 Samuel 7:14, Job 5:17-18, Psalm 89:30-34, 94:12, 103:9, 118:18, 119:67,71,75, Proverbs 3:11-12, Isaiah 48:10, Jeremiah 10:24, 30:11, 31:18, Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3, 1 Corinthians 11:32, Hebrews 12:5-11, Revelation 3:19).

18) Chronically Ill Apostle Paul

2 Corinthians 1:8-10 . . . our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life, indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a peril of death.

The Greek for “affliction” is thlipsis, discussed in #16. Whether the meaning here is physical or not is debatable, but either way, the “faith” teachers would have a difficult time fitting this passage into their doctrine, which maintains that “good” Christians (i.e., faithful and righteous ones, according to their warped definition of what “faith” is) don’t have afflictions of any sort.

19) St. Paul’s “Illness” or “Condition”

Galatians 4:12-14 I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time, and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.

The Greek for “bodily illness” is astheneiaStrong’s Concordance (word 769) defines it as “feebleness (of body or mind): by implication, malady, frailty, disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.” As for its use in this passage, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “feebleness of health, sickness” (word 769, p. 80). And indeed that meaning is quite abvious in all English translations. Here are some of these and their translations of both bolded phrases (20 total):

KJV / Wuest “infirmity of the flesh”
NIV / Moffatt / Williams “illness . . . illness”
RSV “bodily ailment . . . condition”
TEV (GNB) “sick . . . physical condition”
NEB “bodily illness . . . state of my poor body”
Phillips “physical illness . . . disease”
Living Bible “sick . . . sickness”
Jerusalem “illness . . . disease”
MLB “physical infirmity . . . physical condition”
Amplified “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
New American Bible “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
Barclay “illness . . . physical illness”
NKJV “physical infirmity”
Beck “sick . . . sick body”
NRSV “physical infirmity . . . condition”
REB “bodily illness . . . pjysical condition”
CEV “sick . . . illness”

Thus, Paul’s condition is beyond dispute. Its impossible to say his problem was not physical. Of course, the implication of all this is that Paul (again) could not heal himself. Yet his sickness didn’t hinder him from preaching the gospel. If we are supposed to “live above sickness,” then we have more faith than Paul, and perhaps should rewrite his books since we know so much more than he did.

Most “faith” churches would turn Paul from their door, reviling him for his lack of faith and appearance. There is some dispute as to the exact nature of Paul’s infirmity, but virtually all conservative biblical scholars agree that he suffered from some physical condition (and chronic at that). Let’s look at a sampling:

i) New Bible Commentary: either a recurrent illness (2 Cor 12:7) or a weakening disability, or malaria (Acts 13:13).
ii) New Catholic Commentary: possibly malaria; possible connection to Acts 13:13.

iii) New Layman’s Bible Commentary: some ailment.
iv) Matthew Henry’s Commentary: some infirmity.
v) Peake’s Commentary: connected with 2 Cor 12:7-10; possibly malaria, or eye disease.
vi) Pulpit Commentary: chronic sharp physical distress (2 Cor 12).
vii) Barne’s Notes: some bodily infimity (2 Cor 12).
viii) Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles: R.C.H. Lenski: illness, possibly malaria.
ix) Ramsay: malaria with severe headaches.
x) Daily Study Bible Series, William Barclay: likely malaria with severe headaches, same as 2 Cor 12.
xi) Tyndale NT Commentaries, Galatians (Alan Cole): “Paul was constantly plagued by ill health . . . Most scholars have taken ‘trial’ (v. 15) as being synonymous with Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’.”
xii) Zondervan Commentary, Galatians: J.B. Lightfoot: bodily ailment of some sort.
xiii) Expository Messages on Galatians, H.A. Ironside: “Paul was used of God to heal many sick people, but he never healed himself . . . He was a sick man for years as he preached the gospel.” Probably an affliction of the eyes.
xiv) The Gospel in Galatians, C. Norman Bartlett: Either ophthalmia or malaria. “It was probably the thorn in the flesh alluded to in 2 Cor 12.”
xv) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: Some bodily sickness. Probably the same as his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12).
xvi) Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent: “Paul, in his first journey, was compelled by sickness to remain in Galatia . . . bodily infirmity.”
xvii) Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson: “. . . sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15) which was a trial to them or . . . the thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7) we do not know . . . illness and repulsive appearance . . . “

Note how many of these commentators connect this sickness with Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” We will consider this passage next and seek the most reasonable interpretation of it.

20) St. Paul’s “Thorn in the Flesh”

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me – to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this, I entrusted the Lord three times that it might depart from me and He said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I am will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with weaknesses, insults, distresses, persecutions, with difficulties,for Christ’s sake, for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Lets look at the original Greek and try to determine exactly what Paul is teaching. The word for “thorn” is skolops, and this is the only time it is used in the NT. Concerning it, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states. “a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake; appears to indicate some constant bodily ailment or infirmity, which, even when Paul had been caught up in a trance to the third heaven, sternly admonished him that he still dwelt in a frail and mortal body” (word 4647, p. 579).

Vine’s Expository Dictionary states. “His language indicates that it was physical, painful, humiliating; it was also the effect of Divinely permitted Satanic antagonism; the verbs rendered “that I should (not) be exalted overmuch” and ‘to buffet’ are in the present tense, signifying recurrent action. Indicating a constantly repeated attack . . . What is stressed is not the metaphorical size, but acuteness of the suffering and its effects.” (see #2).

Furthermore, the “flesh” (Gk. sarx) is said to refer to the physical body in this context, according to Thayer: “The body . . . signifying the material or substance of the living body . . . 2 Cor 12:7″ (word 4561, p. 570). A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes: “Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted.

All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.) . . . Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once . . . The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God’s will for it to be so.” Marvin R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) concurs: “It was probably a bodily malady . . . Very plausible reasons are given in favor of both epilepsy and ophthalmia.”

The Greek word translated “weakness” three times is astheneia (see #19). Vine mentions the use of this Greek term in this passage, and defines its meaning as “weakness of the body . . . (2 Cor 12:4-10)” (listed under “Weakness”). It may be argued that Paul’s use of the word here is in a larger sense (i.e., taking in non-physical weakness also).

But it is quite often used in an obviously physical sense elsewhere in Scripture. Since “thorn in the flesh” (especially after examining the Greek) would appear to be a graphic description of physical pain, it is very likely that “weakness” includes physical suffering. Also, the equation of power with weakness in verses 9 and 10 would make more sense if the “weakness” was physical. Let’s look at some other uses of astheneia in Scripture:

Luke 1:11 A woman had a sickness caused by a spirit and she was bent double and could not straighten up at all.

John 5:5 A man who had been thirty-eight years in his sickness (vs. 8-9 indicate that he couldn’t
walk).

Luke 5:15 Great multitudes were . . . healed of their sicknesses.

Luke 8:2 Some women-who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses.

John 11:4 This sickness . . . (referring to Lazarus’ sickness).

Acts 28:9 The people who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured.

Luke 10:9 . . . heal those . . . who are sick . . .

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick . . .

Matthew 6:2 . . . those who were sick.

Also, a closely related word, astheneo, from the same root, is very often used in Scripture referring to obviously physical infirmities. In John 5:3 it is translated in various Bible versions as “sick,” “impotent,” “invalids,” disabled,” “ailing,” or “infirm” (see also Mt 10:8, 25:36, Mk 6:56, John 4:46, 5:7, 6:2, 11:1-3,6, Acts 9:37, Phil 2:26-27, 2 Tim 4:20, James 5:14). A third related word, asthenes, is used in a physical sense in Mt 25:31, 43:44, Lk 10:9, Acts 4:9, 5:15-16.

Finally with regard to Paul’s “thorn,” we have the consensus of the overwhelming majority of conservative biblical scholars that it was some physical disease. Although they may disagree on the exact nature of the infirmity, there is a consensus that it was a physical infirmity:

i) New Bible Commentary: possibly malaria.
ii) New Laymans Bible Commentary: most probably ophthalmia or malaria. Possible connection to Gal 4:13-15, 6:11, Acts 13:3 and 23:5.
iii) Barne’s Notes: “Some infirmity of the flesh, some bodily affliction or calamity.” Connection to Gal 4:13-15.
iv) New Catholic Commentary: possibly a “chronic humiliating malady,” such as marsh fever (connection with 2 Cor 1:8 ff. and Gal 4:13-14).
v) Corinthian Letters of St. Paul, G. Campbell Morgan: Some type of physical affliction, for
sure.
vi) Daily Study Bible, 1 & 2 Corinthians, William Barclay: chronic attacks of a certain virulent malarial fever which was common in the eastern Mediterranean area. “By far the most likely thing.”
vii) Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, R.C.H. Lenski: some physical infirmity.
viii) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: some affliction causing acute pain (as “thorn” implies). Connection with Gal 4:13-14.
ix) Ramsay: recurring malarial fever.
x) Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: Some physical ailment, which was painful and disfiguring; possibly ophthalmia.

The implications of all this for the “faith” adherent are (as is always the case with occurrence of disease in Scripture), are obvious: why couldn’t Paul heal himself if he could heal others (but not always: see #’s 3, 5 and 15)? The answer is obvious and occurs right in the passage. God didn’t will to heal him (“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness”).

We have seen how the Greek word for “weakness, which God uses here, is used in Scripture and the overwhelming evidence is that Paul suffered from disease, with God’s approval. This destroys one of the “faith” doctrine’s chief beliefs: namely, that it is always God’s will to heal at all times.

21) The Case Of Job

The book of Job, rightly understood and interpreted, reads almost like a parable of the “faith movement”, and its refutation, for we find much here that cannot be explained by “faith” proponents. Some of the worst arguments in the “faith” literature are put forth in attempts to explain away Job and his sufferings. Lets look at some key verses of Job:

In verse 1:1, Job is described as “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.” In verse 1:8, the Lord Himself repeats these same words, in conversation with Satan, adding the phrase, “there is no one like him on the Earth.” After Job is afflicted with all the calamities described in 1:13-22, God still says the same thing about him that He said in 1:8, in verse 2:3 (adding, “And he still holds fast his integrity”). Note how God says in the same verse, “You incited me against him, to ruin him without cause.”

This is very important, because faith teachers would have us believe that Satan was solely responsible for Job’s troubles, while the Bible, on the other hand, tells us explicitly that God afflicted Job, using Satan as His agent (i.e., allowing him to do evil to Job). Note also, how God proclaims that even though Satan cited Him against Job, there was no cause for it. This wasn’t allowed to come upon Job because of some secret sin, or lack of faith, etc.

In this vein, Job 42:11 is quite instructive: “. . . all the evil that the Lord had brought on him.” What are “faith” teachers to do with this verse, and also Job 2:3? Thus, two false doctrines are exposed. “Faith” teachers tell us that the righteous should not suffer and be afflicted physically, and that Satan is the author of all diseases, which afflict believers only through lack of faith. Thus, they attribute Job’s problems to lack of faith, secret sin, and allowing Satan to “get in.” But the Bible tells us otherwise. Job was righteous because God said so (1:8 and 2:3) in no uncertain terms.

And his afflictions (both bodily and otherwise) were ultimately caused by God (Job 2:3 and 42:11. See also Exodus 4:11, under #9). They were God’s will. There is no indication that Job’s sufferings were a result of his shortcomings or lack of faith. That is pure speculative desperation on the “faith” teachers part, with no biblical basis. James even commends Job for his endurance (James 5:11; see also #28). This is strange indeed if we are to regard Job as an example of a lack of faith!

Job shows his understanding of God’s ways in verse 2:10: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” Now we will look at Job’s ‘comforters.’ We will see how they asserted that the righteous do not suffer, and that therefore, Job must have some sin which is causing his problems. They are exactly, uncannily, like “faith” followers today, who exude a decided lack of compassion toward the suffering because they regard them as second-class spiritual citizens (this is the strong tendency anyway, and the logical outcome of the doctrine).

But we will also see how God severely rebukes these “friends” at the end of the book, and asserts His sovereignty (i.e., “trust Me even though you may not understand some things such as adversity befalling the righteous.”).

Bildad says in verse 8:6: “If you are pure and upright, surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate,” implying that Job was not righteous because God didn’t move immediately. Job, however, although the most righteous man on the earth, recognizes mans inherently sinful nature by saying: “How can a man be in the right before God?” (9:2). He is arguing that since no man is righteous, God’s dealings with men are based totally on His mercy, and not our supposed faith or righteousness.

The hyperfaith doctrine tends to make the Christian walk depend far more on our power and knowledge than on God’s mercy, sovereignty, and grace. Job’s comforters continue to make insinuations about Job’s supposed great sinfulness as the book goes on, getting worse as they go. “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquities without end?” (22:5) And so it goes throughout the book.

Of course we know that these “friends” are dead wrong, because of God’s proclamations of Job’s righteousness at the beginning of the book, and His responses to them at the end of the book. Lets look now at God’s opinion of the discourse which is documented in the book of Job. “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has” (42:7). In verse 42:8, God refers to the friends’ “folly”.

God tells the three “comforters” that Job will pray for them after they offer up burnt offerings, thus vindicating Job and severely rebuking his self-righteous, supposedly “wise” friends. We find in conclusion, then, that the whole of the book of Job is contrary to the “faith” doctrine, and fatally destroys it. Many other biblical verses teach the same thing about God’s relation to evil and affliction:

Exodus 15:26 And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.”

Leviticus 26:15-16 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up.

Deuteronomy 7:15 And the LORD will remove from you all sickness . . . He will lay them on all who hate you.

Deuteronomy 28:61 Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed.

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Schechem; and the men of Schechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. (cf. Isaiah 19:1-4)

1 Samuel 16:14, 23 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him . . . the evil spirit from God came to Saul . . .

1 Samuel 18:10-11 . . . an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and a spear was in Saul’s hand. And Saul hurled the spear for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” . . . (cf. 19:9-10: “evil spirit from the LORD”)

22) Jesus and the “Curse of the Law”

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

“Faith” teachers tell us that the “curse” referred to here is the curse of physical disease, but the context, and the examination of similar Pauline teachings elsewhere point to other conclusions. The whole context of Galatians 3:13 (all of chapter 3) is concerned with faith leading to righteousness, rather than works of the Law. Paul actually defines the “curse” being spoken of, in verse 3:10: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written – ‘Cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”

He goes on to assert, in verse 11, that no one is justified by the law. Thus, the curse of the Law is the fact that no one could ever get to heaven by means of it. Physical infirmities are nowhere spoken of. We are redeemed from hell by the work of Christ on the cross, as the profound statement of Galatians 3:13 tells us (see also Rom 7:6 and 8:1-3).

“Faith” teachers cross-reference Galatians 3:13 with Deuteronomy 28:15 ff. and tell us that Jesus Christ took upon Himself all the curses described there (so that we would never have them again). Beyond the considerations examined in #16, a simple examination of Deuteronomy 28 quickly reveals that this belief is totally absurd: The passage is a warning directed against the Jews alone. It doesn’t even apply to Gentiles!

But even if we did grant that the “curse” might apply to believers today, and that Christ took upon Himself all the curses mentioned, let’s follow this logic for the sake of argument and see what happens: Christ bore our mildew (v. 22), our droughts (v. 24), our battles (v. 25), our madness (v. 28), our adultery (v. 30), our bad crops (v. 39), our being scattered among all peoples (obviously referring to the Jews alone — v. 64), etc., etc.

There is no connection between Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 28, and nothing in Galatians 3 to make us believe that we would be delivered from physical disease. Disease cannot cease yet, because we are still under the curse of the Fall. Thus, Paul says, “We ourselves grown within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23) after speaking of the travail of all creation in the previous three verses.

This curse continues until the time of the New Heaven and Earth, because in Revelation 22:3, we are informed, “There shall no longer be any curse.” Pain and suffering will end at that time (Rev 21:4), not in the present age, as “faith” teachers would like to believe. For now, we are to suffer with Christ, rather than seek to avoid suffering in some ersatz notion of “faith”: 1 Peter 4:12-13: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you, but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation or His glory, you may rejoice with exultation.”

23) Jesus Didn’t Heal Everybody All The Time

At the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9), John mentioned “a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered” (v. 3). Yet when Jesus passed by, he only healed just one lame man (5:5-9). In Mark 1:32-34, we are informed that people “began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed,” but it doesn’t say that all were healed; rather, “He healed many . . . and cast out many demons.” If Jesus wanted to heal absolutely everyone in the whole country, He could have easily done so, just as He healed the centurion’s servant at a distance (Mt 8:13).

All He had to do was say the word. And again, these healings are not (as far as we can determine from the text, at any rate) tied to faith, so that those who lacked faith did not get healed (as hyperfaith doctrine holds). So if folks like Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland are indeed gifted with the marvelous power to heal everyone, what in the world stops them from visiting every hospital in the world and clearing them out? After all, they think it is God’s will that no one should be sick, and that they have the power to heal by their own supposed extraordinary “faith.”

24) The Gift Of Healing

1 Corinthians 12:9 mentions the “gifts of healing,” among the listing of many spiritual gifts. Then 1 Corinthians 12:11 states, “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Thus we see that healings are not earned by our faith (a doctrine of works, or the ancient heresy of Pelagianism), but rather, bestowed upon us by God as a giftwhen and as He wills. This is distinctly different from having a divine “right” or “privilege” to be healed by God.

25) Is Healing Part of the Atonement (Isaiah 53)?

Isaiah 53:4-5 (4a and 5b) Surely our griefs (or, sicknesses) He bore, and our sorrows He carried . . . By His scourging we are healed.

As for Isaiah 53:5, the Hebrew word for “healed” is rapha. This word is by no means restricted to physical healing of our bodies. Here are some examples of its use in different senses:

2 Kings 2:21 I have purified these waters.

Jeremiah 51:9 We applied healing to Babylon.

Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed the wound of my people. (figurative)

Hosea 7:1 When I would heal Israel . . .

2 Chronicles 7:14 I will . . . heal their land.

2 Chronicles 30:20 The Lord heard Hezekiah and hea1ed the people. (used in the sense of “pardon” — see verses 18 and 19)

Jeremiah 3:22 I will heal your faithlessness.

Further uses of this word can be found with the aid of a concordance. Because the word can mean different things, it is essential to arrive at its meaning through context. We cannot lift it out of its surrounding passage, as if each verse (in this case, one-fourth of a verse) exists in a vacuum. And the context (53:5-6 in particular) is undeniably directed toward the atonement for sin, not toward a doctrine of physical healing per se. Verse 5 mentions our “transgressions, iniquities,” and “well-being” — all non-physical concepts.

Verse 6, right after the phrase in question reads, “All of us like sheep have gone astray,” and mentions our “iniquity” falling on Jesus. Verse 8 mentions our “transgression”, verse 11 mentions our justification and “iniquities,” and verse 12 (the last in the chapter) states, “He Himself bore the sin of many.”

Thus, since the whole passage concentrates on the atonement for sin, and since the word for “healed” can mean “pardon” or spiritual transformation, it is logical to interpret the phrase in question as “by His stripes we are saved.” This is more natural than forcing “heal” to be restricted to physical healing. In any case, there is no place for dogmatism on the part of “faith” teachers as to the meaning of rapha here. Furthermore, the chapter makes use of poetic synonymous parallelism.

For instance, Christ is compared to a “tender shoot” in verse 2, and to a “lamb” and a “sheep” in verse 7, while we are referred to as “sheep gone astray” in verse 6. Similarly, “healed” in this passage may simply be a poetic way of saying that our sins are forgiven (such as in 2 Chronicles 30:20 above). And the great Hebrew scholars agree that the meaning intended is indeed as I have argued. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, a standard reference source, notes concerning Isaiah 53:5: “There was healing to us, i.e. God pardoned us” (word 7495, p. 776).

Moreover, the “faith” exegesis of this passage flies in the face of other biblical admonitions to suffer along with Jesus: 1 Peter 2:21: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” Ephesians 5:1: “Be imitators of God.” The doctrine of Christ suffering so that we would not nave to is simply not biblical, as these verses demonstrate. The only thing we don’t have to go through as a result of Christ’s death for us is a life of despair on earth without God and an eternity in hell apart from Him.

26) New Testament Interpretation of the “Healing” of Isaiah 53

1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed.

The Greek word for “healed” is iaomai, which, like its Hebrew counterpart, rapha, is not restricted to physical healing of the body in Scripture. For instance, both Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, and Acts 28:27 all quote from Isaiah 6:10. John reads, “He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their hearts, lest they . . . be converted and I heal them.” Rapha is used for “heal” in Isaiah 6:10. And in all three of these NT quotations of that verse, iaomai is used.

Thus, it can mean spiritual transformation as well as physical healing, since the Isaiah passage is referring to a spiritual, not physical, change. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states about these passages, as well as 1 Pet 2.24, “To make whole, i.e., — to free from errors and sins, to bring about one’s salvation” (word 2390, p. 296). W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words agrees: “Figuratively, of spiritual healing . . . 1 Pet 2:24” (and the other three passages, listed under “Heal”, #2).

As for the context, we find, just as in Isaiah 53, that it is most surely dealing with salvation. The larger passage encourages believers to endure hardship and persecution. Verse 21 exhorts us to suffer like Christ, who is our example, while verses 19 and 20 commend those who patiently endure unjust suffering. If physical healing was referred to, it is in a strange place, since the the emphasis of the passage is not deliverance from trials, but the endurance of them.

The first part of 1 Peter 2:24 is quite obviously talking about Jesus bearing our sins, not our diseases. Note the connecting word “for.” And immediately after the phrase about healing, Peter mentions (like Isaiah) our straying like sheep, and our return to our “Shepherd” and “Guardian” of our souls. Again, since the whole surrounding context is indisputably concerned with salvation, and since the Greek word for “heal” is not restricted to a physical sense, it is much more reasonable to interpret the phrase as referring to salvation, and not to physical healing.

Even the tense (“you were healed”) makes more sense if it refers to salvation. since healing (even among “faith” proponents) is still taking place in the present. Why would Peter quote a phrase having to do with physical healing, if it had nothing to do with the rest of the passage he was writing? His use of the quote leads one to strongly believe that the original Hebrew in Isaiah was dealing with the solution for sin, not disease.

Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel, in his standard, highly-regarded work Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, takes the same view of the use of iaomai in these verses: “The figurative use . . . occurs in the NT only in OT quotations (except in Heb. 12:13). Thus the warning of Acts 28:27 quotes Is. 6:10 and 1 Peter quotes Is. 53:5. In both instances the reference is to restoration through forgiveness and the resultant saving benefits” (abridged, one-volume edition: p. 348).

27) Excesses and Harmful Logical Outcomes Of The Faith Doctrine

Many are the problems brought on by the unbiblical hyperfaith doctrine. We shall now examine how deadly and dangerous this false doctrine is (like all false teachings). If left unchecked, it will destroy the spiritual well-being of many in the Body of Christ. Therefore, it should concern Christians that such a doctrine is gaining ground and stifling the joyful lives of Christians. We must speak out with gentleness, love and forcefulness, lest more lives get caught in this clever web of deceptive teaching.

There are at least seven distinct dangers of this movement, all of which make perfect logical sense (a reductio ad absurdum) once one has accepted the teachings. All have already been manifested, and likely will increase in the days ahead unless we speak out now, with compassion and concern,

i) “Enough Faith” Paradox When physical healing is considered as part of the atonement right along with salvation, and both are attained through “mustering” enough faith, then we must logically assume that the one who “hasn’t got enough faith to be healed” (even a “faith” proponent, though they will deny it) must be in an overall lousy spiritual state and not right with God. This breeds an unhealthy and unethical judgmentalism, and on grounds which are themselves false and unbiblical.

ii) Disenchantment Inevitably, sooner or later, even the so-called “faith” follower will not be healed of something, because this is simply how God operates. He doesn’t always heal miraculously (in fact, He does so rarely). Now when this happens, the person may choose to blame God and fall away from the Lord, out of disenchantment (for the Christian walk didn’t turn out to be all peaches and cream, as they had been told). When this happens, those who taught him or her the false “faith” principles are directly responsible for that persons soul (and of course this is a very serious thing – not to be taken lightly — see James 3:1).

Or, the person may continue on in the Christian life, but with excessive self-condemnation. This person considers himself or herself a spiritual failure and second-class Christian because he or she couldn’t even have enough faith to receive what is supposedly every Christian’s right and privilege: perfect health at all times. This person will never have a victorious and joyful walk with the Lord until he or she is informed of the falsity of the “faith” doctrine. Then, liberation occurs because blame and guilt disappear.

iii) Spiritual Arrogance and Self-Righteousness Directly tied to the last problem is the one of spiritual arrogance. Those who have supposedly attained this wonderful “knowledge” of God’s principles, etc. (dangerously similar to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism) will inevitably look down on those who are having problems in their life, such as the theoretical person just mentioned. Thus, we will have a “distinction” between the “spiritual elite” (who “have it”) and the less fortunate who have not “arrived” yet (due, of course, we are told, to “secret sin” in every case).

Indeed, anyone who does not accept the “faith” teaching is looked down on, and, in extreme cases, despised. Such attitudes, are extremely disruptive of unity in the Body of Christ, in addition to being sinful and wrong in and of themselves. The more one stays in the “faith” movement, the more one tends to develop (or will be pressured to develop) a self-righteous, superiority complex much like that of the Pharisees. It all follows logically from the doctrine.

iv) Lack of Compassion For The Suffering Along with arrogance comes a related lack of compassion. Since blame must be attached to the person who isn’t “prosperous” and/or “healthy,” it is much easier to avoid having any concern, compassion or love for the suffering, than it would be if their suffering was seen not to be their fault. Thus, we witness heartbreaking scenes of those suffering (whether from cancer or emotional hurt or whatever) being accused coldly of “not having enough faith” rather than being consoled and comforted.

Surely the wrongness of this callousness is apparent. Aside from countless commands that we love one another, we are also told by God to “weep with those who weep.” “Faith” doctrine (logically) is diametrically opposed to that end, because it counters the action of love by always placing the blame on the sufferer.

Since time began, the poor, for instance, have always been considered lazy, sinful, or in some other way responsible for their condition, so that compassionate action to help them could be avoided and rationalized away. Now, the “faith” doctrine extends this cold unconcern to those who suffer in any way (financially, emotionally, spiritually, or physically).

I’m not claiming that all followers of the “prosperity” doctrine act this way (I know myself from firsthand experience that this is not true), just that such behavior is entirely consistent with and tends to flow in a diabolical consistent logic from the doctrine, since people are sinners and often succumb to judgmentalism and spiritual arrogance.

The follower of the “faith” movement may, for example, assist another follower (i.e. financially) while he is yet trying to mature into the teachings. The attitude remains that this is a necessary situation only because the newer or less mature follower hasn’t come to a real knowledge of “faith” yet. However, it is always thought that this will not be necessary when the less mature follower “grows” in the Lord and is able to rely on Him in all situations.

v) Self-Delusions One might wonder how a “faith” follower explains away his own disease, broken bone, infection, or any other abnormality. Incredible as it may seem, when such a problem strikes the faithful, he or she simply “claims” their God-given right to be healed, and maintains that the healing has occurred, whether or not the symptoms are present! I once met a girl who said her broken leg was healed even though she couldn’t walk normally across the room!

This type of ultra-irrational thinking is no different than a member of the Christian Science sect claiming that disease is nonexistent. Such behavior, however, laughable as it might be in many cases, could easily lead to tragedy. Envision a person who has fainting spells, for example, denying this, then driving a car, fainting, and killing a carload of people as a result; or a person with a heart condition denying that and over-exerting himself to the point of a fatal heart attack.

We need to condemn absolutely such delusion as this as extremely dangerous. Not only is it harmful to the person who believes it, but also possibly, to others as well, as we’ve seen. Then there is the aspect of “positive confession. versus negative confession — presumably where this delusion stems from, Because “faith” followers are taught that words can create realities, they are discouraged from saying anything negative.

This takes in emotional and spiritual elements as well as physical. Obviously the denial of all negative aspects in our lives will lead to lying, which, of course, can never be condoned if the Bible is to be followed seriously. Any doctrine leading to sin must be false.

Perhaps confessing sins to one another, or to a priest, or to God, is also a “negative confession” (following this mentality). Are we to go against the biblical command to confess sins? Of course, the more this unbiblical and arrogant, silly mindset manifests itself, the more the world will laugh at and dismiss Christians as utter fools (with good reason).

Perhaps this is one of the greatest tragedies, since Christians are called to be Christ’s ambassadors, and we are to reflect the nature of God. We need to show the world that Christianity is not self-delusion and self-righteousness, but rather, a balanced walk with Jesus, including difficult as well
as joyful times.

vi) Death Due To Ignorance The denial of the existence of a physical problem and/or the “certainty” of a healing, can cause, tragically, the unnecessary death of children. Everyone has read in the newspapers about parents “standing in faith” and refusing medication for their children, which, in some cases will lead to the death of a child. This is the ultimate tragedy of a perverted doctrine of faith and healing.

Whether the parents love the child or not (and they usually do, which is the irony), they, will be no less accountable for his or her death than someone who has an abortion. We are called to understand what the Bible teaches, and it does not teach a view of faith which can lead to such events as these.

vii) The Bondage Of Works-Legalism Nearly everything which is false in the “faith” doctrine is oriented towards a legalistic walk of works, in opposition to the biblical teaching of Grace Alone (which, by the way, Catholics adhere to as much as Protestants, over against the ancient heresy of Pelagianism). Healings and blessings are approached on the basis of how much faith we can generate of our own accord. If a person doesn’t live up to what he or she is “supposed to,” they condemn themselves, and are blamed, condemned, and looked down on by other “faith” proponents.

Thus, followers are in a bondage of trying to earn everything God gives to us, the same bondage which Jesus broke by dying for us, and enabling God to freely bestow blessings upon us according to His grace. If God didn’t heal someone, it wasn’t His will, and there is no reason to blame the person who wasn’t healed. Fear is produced in both the successful and unsuccessful followers. The prosperous fear they may fail to live up to prosperity standard in the future, and the unsuccessful fear the condemnation of the spiritual elite.

For the “faith” proponent, everything is black and white, and easily explained. If someone prospers, it’s because they have attained the secret knowledge, unlocked from its mysteriousness by Copeland and Hagin — they have earned it, while those who struggle are being penalized for their lack of faith and secret sin. How vastly different from the biblical picture of the Apostle Paul and a righteous man like Job! The Bible teaches that we’re all sinners and that all good things are undeserved gifts from God (see 1 Corinthians 4:6-8).

28) The Suffering of a Christian (Or, Bible Verses We Like To Forget)

Acts 5:41 They went on their way from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Acts 14:22 Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

The Greek for “tribulation” is thlipsis. See #16 & #18.

Romans 5:3-5 We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance . . . proven character . . . hope, and hope does not disappoint . . .

Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

The Greek for “suffer” is pascho, and, concerning its appearance in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states: “In a bad sense, of misfortunes, to suffer, to undergo evils, to be afflicted.” (word 3952, p. 494).

Philippians 3:8 I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.

1 Thessalonians 3:3 . . . so that no man may be disturbed by these afflictions for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this.

Hebrews 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Hebrews 12:6, 11 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son who He receives. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful, yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

James 1:2-4 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete lacking nothing.

James 5:10-11 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lords dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.

2 Timothy 3:12 All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

1 Peter 4:16, 19 If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. Let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful creator in doing what is right.

29) God’s Opinion of the Hyperfaith / “Name-it-and-Claim-it” Doctrine

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine leading to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

Romans 16:17-18 Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites, and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Ephesians 4:14 We are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.

Colossians 2:4, 8 I say this in order that no one may delude you with persuasive argument . . . see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (cf. Titus 1:8-16, 1 Tim 4:11-15, and Gal 1:8)

30) Afterword

Although my application of the above Pauline condemnations to the so-called “faith” teaching may sound harsh and condemning, I do not wish to condemn individual persons, and this is not my intention. I do intend, however, to condemn the doctrine of which this paper is a refutation. God tells us to speak out against false doctrine, but not to condemn people. I can’t judge the hearts of anyone embroiled in this movement, and chances are my heart is as full of evil as theirs (Jeremiah 17:9). But I do strongly believe that the “faith” doctrine is false, and I’ve just given 30 major biblically saturated arguments (and numerous sub-arguments) against it.

And I absolutely believe in divine healing myself (I mention this because this accusation is almost always brought against any critic of the “faith” teaching), and I was healed of chronic depression in 1977. I believe in divine healing because 1) The Bible teaches it, and, 2) I’ve seen it many times. But God heals when and if He so desires. We have seen enough biblical evidence above to place that fact, and many other related facts, beyond dispute.

***

(originally written in 1982 and somewhat revised and expanded on 5 July 2002)

Photo credit: God the Father: woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2020-03-24T12:04:20-04:00

[from my 2013 book, pictured above (see purchase & general information); available in Spanish and French as well); passages are KJV unless otherwise indicated (RSV)]

The purpose of this book was described in the Introduction:

The notion that arose in my mind was to simply provide  Bible passages (usually one verse; sometimes a few together) that would be (in my humble opinion, anyway) the very best “answers” to a large number of one-sentence questions.

The format might remind one of the popular TV game show Jeopardy, where the contestants are given a piece of information and have to come up with a question that it is the “answer” to. While compiling it, I looked at Bible passages and devised questions that the passages “answered”. . . .

I think somewhere in the back of my mind, I was also perhaps vaguely recalling, particularly, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday Image, 1981), by my mentor, the late great Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. He divided his book into major categories, then subcategories, and finally into 1,701 individual questions. His answers were relatively simple “catechetical” replies that present the basic Catholic teachings or “answers.”

Likewise, my book consists of 18 broad categories (Roman numerals), and 200 numbered subcategories, under which the 1,001 particular questions are found, with each answer being a Bible passage.

***

  1. The Central Place of Works in the Final Judgment

36-1. Are works (performed by justified persons) made a central criterion in the final judgment?

Romans 2:6-8 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: [7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

36-2. Are good fruits required for final salvation?

Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

36-3. Are the saved and damned chosen based on those who do good vs. those who do evil?

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

36-4. Are people damned for not obeying the gospel?

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, [8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

36-5. Is judgment according to deeds?

1 Peter 1:17 (RSV) And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

36-6. Are we judged primarily by how much faith we have or by what we have done?

Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

***

  1. Meritorious Action Enabled by God’s Grace

39-1. Are we “repaid” for good works after death?

Luke 14:13-14 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: [14] And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

39-2. Do we receive differential rewards at the judgment seat of Christ?

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

39-3. Can we purify ourselves in order to be more approved by God?

2 Timothy 2:15, 21 (RSV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . [21] If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

39-4. Can we “build ourselves up” in the faith?

Jude 20-21 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, [21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

39-5. Are we rewarded for righteousness?

2 Samuel 22:21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

39-6. Are we rewarded for good fruits of our works?

Jeremiah 32:19 Great in counsel, and mighty in work: for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings:

39-7. Are secret alms meritorious?

Matthew 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

39-8. Are those who leave their families to serve Jesus especially rewarded?

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

39-9. Are good works meritorious?

Ephesians 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, . . .

  1. Co-Workers with God / Synergy

40-1. Where is it taught that we are God’s “co-laborers”?

1 Corinthians 3:6-9 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.[8] Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. [9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

40-2. Is there a sense in which God works in us, and we work, too?

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

40-3. Do we work together with God?

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

40-4. Does God work in and with us when we do His will?

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

40-5. Do we participate in the “work of the Lord”?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

  1. Participation in Distribution of Grace and Salvation

41-1. Can one Christian help “save” another?

1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

41-2. Can preaching help save souls?

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

41-3. Can wives help save their husbands, and vice versa?

1 Corinthians 7:16 (RSV) Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

41-4. Can we “save ourselves” in any secondary sense?

1 Timothy 4:16 (RSV) Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

41-5. Can we help convert sinners and prevent them from being lost?

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; [20] Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

41-6. Can we help save people by being a good example to them?

1 Peter 3:1 . . . some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

41-7. Can prayer help save souls and extend God’s forgiveness?

James 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

  1. God Enables True Human Righteousness

42-1. Does God help make men righteous?

Psalm 23:3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

42-2. Does God purge and wash us?

Psalm 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

42-3. Does God give us a clean heart?

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

42-4. Does God give us grace and all good things?

Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

  1. Human Beings Are Portrayed as “Righteous”

43-1. Do human beings have righteousness “in” them?

Psalm 7:8 The LORD shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.

43-2. Does God reward according to human righteousness?

Psalm 18:20-23 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. [21] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. [22] For all his judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me. [23] I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.

43-3. Is there such a thing as an “upright” person?

Psalm 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

43-4. Is there such a thing as a “righteous person”?

Psalm 118:20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.

43-5. Are there “undefiled” persons?

Psalm 119:1 Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

43-6. Are there people who keep God’s precepts?

Psalm 119:166-168 LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. [167] My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. [168] I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee.

***

  1. Infused Justification / Sanctification

45-1. Is faith ever associated directly with increased righteousness, in conjunction with salvation?

Romans 1:17 (RSV) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

45-2. Is the absence of sin tied to salvation?

Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

45-3. Is total sanctification possible to attain?

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

45-4. Are we sanctified by faith?

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

45-5. Are we cleansed or purified by faith?

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

45-6. Are we purified and sanctified by the blood of Christ?

Hebrews 9:13-14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: [14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

45-7. Is sanctification directly tied to salvation?

2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

45-8. Is sanctification a process leading ultimately to salvation?

Romans 6:22 (RSV) But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

45-9. Are we sanctified by Jesus’ death on the cross on our behalf?

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

45-10. Does God give believers a new nature, leading to righteousness?

Ephesians 4:24 (RSV) . . . put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

45-11. Does Jesus’ redemption bring about our purification?

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

45-12. Does God cleanse us from our “old sins”?

2 Peter 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

45-13. Are we able to be cleansed from all sin?

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

45-14. Are we able to be cleansed from all unrighteousness?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

45-15. Are we able by God’s grace to purify ourselves?

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

45-16. Is attainment of a degree of righteousness required for heaven?

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

45-17. Are we literally “made righteous” (not just imputed righteousness)?

Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

45-18. Are we merely declared “holy” or are we to be holy?

1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

  1. Faith and Works: Two Sides of One Coin

46-1. How do we know that faith and works are intertwined and inseparable?

James 2:17-20, 26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. [18] Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. [19] Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? . . . [26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

46-2. Is faith itself described as “working”?

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. [7] Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

46-3. Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit tied to our obedience; not just belief?

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

46-4. Do we have to obey the gospel in order to be saved?

1 Peter 4:17-18 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? [18] And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

46-5. Do we prove that we are Christian believers by keeping the commandments?

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

  1. Salvation as a Process

47-1. Does one have to “endure” to be saved?

Matthew 10:22 . . . he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

47-2. Does St. Paul strive after salvation?

Philippians 3:11-14 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. [12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. [13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, [14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

47-3. Can salvation be nearer or further away from us?

Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

47-4. Can we “grow up” to salvation?

1 Peter 2:2 (RSV) Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation;

47-5. Must we “continue in the faith” in order to be saved?

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled [22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: [23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard . . .

47-6. Must we remain “steadfast until the end” in order to be saved?

Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

47-7. Do we need to “hold fast” to salvation?

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

47-8. Do we need to “continue” in the faith?

James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

47-9. Do we have to be faithful till death in order to be saved?

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

47-10. Can our “crown” be taken away if we’re not vigilant?

Revelation 3:10-12 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. [11] Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. [12] Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God,  . . .

  1. Moral Assurance of Salvation

48-1. Does the Holy Spirit give us a moral assurance of salvation?

Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: [17] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

48-2. Do we have assurance if we hope “unto the end”?

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

***

 

2020-03-05T16:53:58-04:00

vs. Douglas Wilson

Lately, with the much-ballyhooed debate between two Reformed Protestants: Douglas Wilson and Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White, concerning whether Catholics are Christians or not, renewed discussion on the legitimacy of Catholic baptism (and thus, no need for rebaptism of a convert to Protestantism) has arisen in Protestant (particularly, Reformed) circles. Wilson says Catholic baptism is valid, while White denies it (but of course, White is a Baptist, so he would deny the validity of all infant baptism, including all Reformed and other Protestant varieties).

Wilson thus asserts that Catholics are part of the “Covenant community” and therefore, “brethren in Christ,” while White denies that also. Both men try to enlist the “Reformers” in support of their positions (I believe Wilson is backed-up to a greater degree by the historical facts than White is, in this regard).

What interests me the most, however (as an ecumenical Catholic and opposer of anti-Catholicism) is how little (not how much) the more “ecumenical” side is willing to grant to the Catholic Church. So we are “brethren in Christ” and can be called “Christians.” That’s surely worth something, and is a considerable improvement.

But when one looks at the overall context and opinions of those (at least this one person: Douglas Wilson) making these “concessions,” it is clear that they can still be categorized as “quasi-anti-Catholics,” if not anti-Catholics (since the most widely-used definition amongst Catholics and historians and sociologists of all stripes is one whereby it means that Catholicism is considered a sub-Christian faith altogether).

I have found this to be true of both Calvin and Luther also, in the course of my studies on this issue. They may acknowledge baptism, yet on the other hand, they maintain the whole range of arguments against Catholicism, based on a host of misunderstandings and incoherent examinations, both theologically and historically. In other words, they hold to a contradictory position, whereas true-blue anti-Catholics are at least consistent (though far more wrong and distant from the overall truth of the matter, insofar as they hold to more falsehoods and errors).

Despite the “minimalistic” (too often quite condescending and patronizing) acceptance of Catholicism on a bare-bones level as Christian, these men state in a hundred different ways that the complete system of Catholic theology is abominable, idolatrous, etc. This is especially true in Calvin’s opinion on the Sacrifice of the Mass (and to a lesser extent, Luther’s), and both men’s reactions to the communion of the saints. It goes without saying that both had a very dim understanding of Catholic soteriology, thus leading to a host of distortions and straw men that have plagued that discussion ever since.

But my immediate point is to reiterate that even with the concessions of this relatively more “ecumenical” position, it is still far closer to outright anti-Catholicism in spirit than to a full-fledged ecumenism such as that seen in Vatican II and the ECT statements and the ongoing Lutheran-Catholic discussions.

Luther, Calvin, and men like Douglas Wilson and those who call themselves “Reformed Catholics” today still (generally-speaking) view Catholics as fundamentally “lesser” (often accompanied by much sheer prejudice and ignorance) in a way that they would not view fellow Protestants. They treat scarcely any other Protestant group with the suspicion and apprehension that they bring with them when they approach Catholics.

It seemingly largely remains the case that whoever is a “true Christian” in Catholic circles, must be so despite all of Rome’s “errors.” They are Christian insofar as they sound like good evangelicals or Reformed Protestants. They can’t be a good Christian by being a good (orthodox) Catholic. And that is the condescension and difference in how Catholics are regarded, over against other species of Protestants, by both schools (who are debating each other presently). I shall show examples of how Douglas Wilson regards Catholics in his recent opening statement in the debate mentioned above (his words will be in blue), with my critical interjections:

Before proceeding to my argument, I would like to begin with an assertion so there will be no confusion about my position concerning the Church of Rome. I detest the errors of Rome, and I pray for the day of her repentance. Among those errors I would include the idolatry of the Mass, the use of images in worship, their profound confusion on the matter of faith and works, Purgatory, Mariolatry, merit, the saints, the papacy, and much more. In preparation for this debate, I read James White’s book The Roman Catholic Controversy, which I thought was quite good. Judging from that book, I do not know of any distinctive Roman doctrine concerning which James White and I would disagree.

Note that he accuses Catholics of idolatry in three ways: the Mass, and veneration of images and of Mary.

I want to begin by setting a scriptural pattern, and I want to show how this pattern can be seen as culminating in a specific apostolic warning to the Church at Rome, which is the subject of our proposition being debated tonight.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29)

The book of Hebrews was written to a new covenant people, and it was written in order to head off a looming apostasy. That is what the entire book is about.

Thus Wilson equates institutional Catholicism with an apostate organization supposedly being discussed here, with scarcely any warrant from the immediate textual considerations.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted (1 Cor. 10:1-6)

In short, our fathers are our examples, and with a number of them God was not well pleased. But what does all this have to do with the Roman Catholic Church? Rome has fallen into the errors it has because she has refused to heed the warning explicitly given by the apostle Paul to that specific church-a warning very much like the ones we have just been considering.

Isn’t this a wonderfully edifying and ecumenical sentiment? Wilson casually assumes that Paul was discussing the historic Catholic Church here. He doesn’t prove it; he merely assumes it. In so doing, Catholics are equated in moral and discipleship terms with the disobedient Jews in the wilderness, and those who lust after evil.

The apostle Paul saw (with remarkable prescience) that the Church at Rome was going to be a problem, and he addressed it forthrightly. And the only thing that is more remarkable than the Church of Rome ignoring these Pauline warnings aimed straight at her besetting sins is that fact that Protestants have also largely ignored the fact that these warning were directed at Rome. [he goes on to cite Rom. 11:16-22]

I submit, rather, that the quasi-anti-Catholic Douglas Wilson argues eisegetically and with remarkably circular logic.

In the past I have maintained (although I cannot find where I said this) that Rome was guilty of a final apostasy at Trent, where in solemn ecumenical council she anathematized any who faithfully held the biblical gospel. This is no longer my position, and if my worthy opponent has found a quotation of mine that says this, and returns to this point to press me with it, I will merely say, “I changed my mind, and it is a practice I commend to you.” It is nevertheless still my position that what happened at Trent deserved removal from the olive tree, that is, from the catholic church. But I am now convinced that such a removal has not yet occurred. God does not always give us what we deserve.

Absolutely classic example of a distinction without a difference . . . Further comment — and I could make several — would be entirely superfluous and an insult to readers’ intelligence.

The Roman church is shot through with theological liberalism, which Machen correctly identified as another religion entirely.

As if Protestantism isn’t? But the crucial difference is that liberalism (which we received from our Protestant brethren in the first place as an extrinsic “hostile worldview”) has not been enshrined or legitimized or sanctioned in Catholic dogma to the slightest degree, whereas we see Protestant denominations — most notably, Anglicanism (particularly in England and America) — institutionally changing, compromising, and caving to liberalism all over the place. Therefore, this criticism is far more damaging to Protestantism and its faulty principles of authority which have arguably caused the massive institutional apostasy of Protestant liberalism, than to the Catholic Church]

Couple this with feminism, the appeal of Mariolatry to the natural man, and it is quite possible that Mary will eventually get her big promotion, and people will be baptized into the name of a Quaternity. [my emphases]

Oh, really? Now Wilson lowers himself to the surreal and ridiculous levels of an Eric Svendsen or David T. King. Mary (it is “quite possible”) is to be promoted to membership into the Godhead and the Holy Trinity. Wow; it’s weird that I, as a Catholic apologist, have completely missed this turn of events . . . Wilson has now lost all credibility in my opinion, as any sort of “expert” on Catholicism. This is shocking and saddening to me, as I thought some progress was being made. But at least this (rather spectacularly) proves my point about ignorance, distortion, and so forth.

Who cares if he acknowledges our baptism, if he can argue on an absurd level like this, and have these ludicrous views of Catholic Mariology? To make matters worse (and more illogical) Wilson tries to place this in the context of an encroaching liberalism. But it is precisely liberalism which cares less and less about Mary (let alone Marian dogmas). The ones who are devoted to the Blessed Virgin and development of Mariology are the orthodox Catholics: who would be the very last persons to compromise trinitarianism and the nature of the Godhead.

When the creedal core has rotted out, the liturgy cannot remain indefinitely the same. We see this in the mainline denominations which abandoned the faith in substance, but kept the old triune form for a time, a form which we should receive.

This serves to prove my point about Protestant liberalism, too. Stuff like this happens in their ranks all the time, but there is no sign that it has occurred in Catholicism. And that should give folks like Mr. Wilson some significant pause, as to why that is the case. Individual stray, heterodox, dissenting Catholics may reject the Trinity, but that has nothing to do with what the Church teaches. Yet Wilson fears that the Catholic Church may switch from a Trinity to a Quaternity (I wonder if he is scared of the boogeyman “getting him” every night, too?). I swear that I have rarely seen such a ridiculous and empty-headed argument from an otherwise intelligent man, who should know far better.

***

(Originally posted on 11-7-04)

*

Photo credit: Protestant theologian Douglas Wilson, Revelation Commentary (7-9-19) [You Tube]

*

***

2020-03-03T17:34:11-04:00

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.

St. Ephraem of Syria [link] (c. 306-73):

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)

Aurelius Prudentius Clemens [link] (348-c. 413):

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)

Philip of Harvengt [link] (d. 1183)

Not only does the Mother most tenderly embrace the Son, but also the Spouse the Bridegroom. (Commentary on the Canticle, in Graef, p. 255)

St. Albert the Great [link] (c. 1200-1280)

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.

***

Related Reading

Mary Mediatrix: Patristic, Medieval, & Early Orthodox Evidence [1998]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

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]
*

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Immaculate Heart of Mary & Mary Mediatrix (Excessive Devotions?): Explanations Especially for New Converts to the Catholic Faith [11-25-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary, “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”: Blasphemy? [9-10-15]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [National Catholic Register, 8-14-17]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

***

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]

***

2020-03-03T11:00:47-04:00


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 GracesAdvocate, 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 LadyQueenHelperMediatress of the faithfulMediatress of the worldConsoler, 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-RedemptrixMediatrix, 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.

***

Related Reading

Reflections on the Spiritual Motherhood & Mediation of Mary [1994]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

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]
*

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Immaculate Heart of Mary & Mary Mediatrix (Excessive Devotions?): Explanations Especially for New Converts to the Catholic Faith [11-25-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

7 Contemporary Fruits from a New Marian Dogma (Mark Miravalle) [1-15-19]

***

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]
*
***
2020-02-21T13:12:39-04:00

From my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (Aug. 2009) [aka “Dave’s Topical Bible“]

[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,

***

Related Reading

*
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]
*
*
*
*
*
 *
*
*
***
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.
*
***
2020-02-17T16:55:43-04:00

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 . . .

If we do a Google Advanced Book Search for anti-Catholics (since the plural form can only be a noun), we find many dozens more examples, including such use by historian Denis G. Paz, in a book published by Stanford University Press, St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in his famous work, The Idea of a University, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, apologist Bertrand Conway, in his bestseller, The Question Box, Cardinal Wiseman, historian George McKenna in a book published by Yale University Press, and many others.

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.

***

Related Reading

Dialogue on the Anti-Catholic Definition of “Christian” (vs. Matthew Bell) [1-11-99; new introduction added on 3-16-11]
*
*

Proper Theological Application of the Term “Anti-Catholic” (vs. Frank Turk) [9-24-05]

Theological / Doctrinal “Anti-Catholicism”: Scholarly Use [7-8-08]

***

(originally posted on 8-4-08)

Photo credit: illustration published in The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy (1925) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2020-01-16T12:44:09-04:00

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, . . . 

***

Related Reading:

Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory [1995]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

Purgatory: A Short Exposition [5-9-02]

New (?) Biblical Argument: Prayers for the Dead [2004]

A Biblical Argument for Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26) [10-13-04]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]

Is Purgatory a “Place” or a “Condition”?: Misconceptions From [Eastern Orthodox] Fr. Ambrose About My Opinion (and the Church’s View) / Also: Development and Alleged Historical Revisionism [7-24-05]

Dialogue with Lutherans on Jesus’ Descent Into “Hell” [2-1-07]

Purgatory: Refutation of James White (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) [3-3-07]

Has Limbo Been Relegated to Limbo? [12-28-07]

Luther Believed in Soul Sleep; Thus He Rejected Purgatory [2-9-08]

Dialogue on Sheol / Hades (Limbo of the Fathers) and Luke 16 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) with a Baptist (vs. “Grubb”) [2-28-08]

Luther: Purgatory “Quite Plain” in 2 Maccabees [3-5-09]

Purgatory is the Waiting Room for Heaven [4-25-09]

Luke 23:43 (Thief on the Cross): “Paradise” = Sheol, Not Heaven, According to Many Reputable Protestant Scholars [5-25-09]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

John Wesley’s Belief in an Intermediate State After Death [7-13-09]

Purgatory: My Biblical Defense of its Doctrinal Development [9-20-11]

John Wesley’s View of Purgatory and Analogous Processes [2013]

Dialogue: Jesus, Peter, Elijah & Elisha Prayed for the Dead (+ a discussion on apologetics methodology and effectiveness) [6-9-13]

Dialogue with an Evangelical on Purgatory [10-7-13]

Multiple Meanings of “Paradise” in Scripture [1-2-14]

Martin Luther’s Belief in Purgatory (1517-1522, 1528) [11-17-14]

Dialogue w Calvinists on Prayer for the Dead & Purgatory [3-18-15]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32) [2-17-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43) [2-17-17]

Purgatory: Exchange with a Presbyterian (Calvinist) [5-11-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #7: Unbiblical / Non-Patristic Purgatory? [10-19-17]

Dialogue on Prayer to the Saints and Hades / Sheol [12-19-17]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

Does Time & Place Apply to Purgatory? (vs. James White) [11-6-19]

***

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]
*
***
2020-01-15T14:03:51-04:00

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.

***

My Related Papers:

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary: Spiritual Motherhood & Rosary: Dialogue w Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

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]
*

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Immaculate Heart of Mary & Mary Mediatrix (Excessive Devotions?): Explanations Especially for New Converts to the Catholic Faith [11-25-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [National Catholic Register, 8-14-17]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

Todd Baker’s Exodus from Rome (Tradition, Mary, Sola Fide) [4-23-18]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

*****

Photo credit: The coronation of the Virgin (1624-1626), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

 

2020-01-13T17:40:20-04:00

“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture

I have heard that Jews celebrating Passover believe that the past becomes present. As such, the Catholic sees a similarity to our notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Jesus’ death on the cross becoming present, and in a very real sense, transcending time altogether. We also believe that the Last Supper, where the Holy Eucharist was initiated, was a Passover meal. Many common notions could be explored with regard to the development of traditional Jewish understanding and Christian belief that is related to these in some fashion. For example, one ecumenical Jewish site stated:

The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality.

The Hebrew word zecher (in Strong’s Concordancezakar or zeker: words #2142-2145), are usually translated as remember or remembrance, or related terms. It seems to have a connotation of more than a mere remembrance. The thing remembered has a direct relation to the present. For example:

Exodus 2:24 (RSV) And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

God “remembering” the covenant “made” it present insofar as it was still in force, thus enabling the Jews to win a battle. Of course, for God to “remember” anything is an anthropomorphism: God using expressions that human beings will understand. Since God knows everything at all times, to say that He “remembers” cannot be taken literally. If it were, this would imply a limitation of God’s knowledge. But this is how it is often expressed: God “remembers” the covenant, which is very much a present (or eternal) thing, so that past and present are in effect merged:

Genesis 9:15-16 I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

Exodus 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold in bondage and I have remembered my covenant.

Psalm 106:45 He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love.

Ezekiel 16:60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant.

1 Maccabees 4:10 And now let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will favor us and remember his covenant with our fathers and crush this army before us today.

Luke 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,

Luke 1:72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,

The “remembrance” is perfectly harmonious with being “present” and “eternal.” It’s the classic biblical, Hebraic “both/and” outlook. Less “sacramental” Protestants, on the other hand, often draw the conclusion that because the terminology of “remembrance” is used in the Last Supper and the Mass, that, therefore, the Eucharist is solely a thing of the past, to be reflected upon, with mere symbolism of bread and wine (or grape juice), as opposed to being a present reality, and the actual Body and Blood of Christ under the outward appearance of bread and wine: a miracle.

*

The Passover was a way for the Jews to remember, or make again present, the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt. Thus, when it was instituted, Moses stated:

Exodus 13:3-10 And Moses said to the people, “Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; no leavened bread shall be eaten. [4] This day you are to go forth, in the month of Abib. [5] And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jeb’usites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month. [6] Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. [7] Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory. [8] And you shall tell your son on that day, `It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ [9] And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. [10] You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.”

Likewise, the Sabbath was an ongoing observance, but the word “remember” is applied to it:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

To “remember” all the commandments is to keep them in the present, and always:

Numbers 15:39-40 and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. [40] So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Psalm 103:18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 119:55 I remember thy name in the night, O LORD, and keep thy law.

There was a spiritual, moral aspect to remembering, with regard to present conduct:

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Deuteronomy 16:12 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Deuteronomy 24:18, 22 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. . . . [22] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Peter 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Jude 1:17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Revelation 3:3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

God “remembers” our acts of worship and prayers:

Exodus 28:29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment upon his heart, when he goes into the holy place, to bring them to continual remembrance before the LORD.

Exodus 30:16 And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves.

Psalm 20:3 May he remember all your offerings, and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices! [Selah]

Acts 10:31 saying, `Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.

“Remembering” God is virtually a synonym for reverence and worship of God:

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?

Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and set out slips of an alien god,

Jonah 2:7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple.

Tobit 1:12 because I remembered God with all my heart.

Given all this background, the institution of the Holy Eucharist can now come into clearer focus:

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass are present realities, not just bare symbolic, abstract thoughts. The Jewish Passover has this characteristic also. Rabbi Yossi Kenigsberg explains:

. . . on no other Jewish holiday are we instructed to have a formalized dialogue and discussion recollecting the relevant historical events of the time. Why did our sages provide us with the Haggadah text and prescribe this lengthy and detailed analysis of our Egyptian experience?

Besides celebrating our physical emancipation from slavery, on Pesach we also commemorate the anniversary of Jewish nationhood and identity. Since the Exodus represents the genesis of our Jewish collective identity, it is vital that we do everything possible to discover and reaffirm our Jewish consciousness at this juncture. In order to achieve this, we must feel a connection to our Jewish past, present and future. The objective of the seder and the Haggadah format is to facilitate the opportunity for us to develop an acute sense of affiliation with the past, present, and future of the Jewish experience. . . .

Throughout the trials and tribulations of Jewish history, God continuously intervenes on our behalf and we are confident that His divine protection will always embrace us. The fusion of the past, present, and future that we created on those first nights of Pesach will provide for us and for our children a glimpse into eternity.

In a book specifically about the Passover celebration, Martin Sicker provides further relevant insight:

The Haggadah then continues with a statement that is also found in the Mishnah that calls upon each participant in the Seder to share vicariously in the experience of the Exodus.

In every generation one is obliged to view oneself as though he [personally] had gone out from Egypt. As it is said: And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Ex. 13:8).

The Haggadah then amplifies this teaching, providing an appropriate biblical prooftext in support of its elaboration.

The Holy One, blessed is He, did not redeem only our ancestors, but also redeemed us along with them. As it is said: And He brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers. (Deut. 6:23).

. . . The Mishnah calls upon each participant in the Seder to make an intellectual leap across the millennia and thereby to share directly in the experience of their ancestors. (A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah, IUniverse, 2004, p. 104)

Another Jewish source concurs:

By participating in the Seder, we are vicariously reliving the Exodus from Egypt. Around our festival table, the past and present merge and the future is promising.

Rabbi Dan Fink provides a further eloquent explanation:

Our sages taught: “In every generation, it is incumbent upon us to see ourselves as if we, too, went out from Egypt.” Pesach is not about remembering the distant past; it is about re-experiencing that past in the present time. It is not the story of our ancestors long ago; it is our story. Our challenge is to consider what enslaves us — anything and everything from money to television to old, stale habits — and find ways to free ourselves from those burdens. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means “a narrow place.” This spring festival of deliverance is the time of our own liberation, an opportunity to renew ourselves.

So this year, don’t ask, “When do we eat?” Savor the journey rather than kvetching your way to the destination. Find creative ways to make your seder a living, breathing experience of redemption. Raise other, better questions: “What can I do to change the world this year? What still enslaves me? How can I help hasten the redemption of others still in bondage?” It’s not about the food. It’s about the freedom. Experience it this year.

Citing some of the same passages from the Talmud, Jewish educator Jennie Rosenfeld wonderfully expresses the same notions:

. . . it is particularly difficult to imagine how anyone so historically removed from the Egyptian exile can personally experience the redemption from Egypt in the same way that the Jewish slaves experienced it. . . . If we use this season in order to tap into our personal need for redemption in the here and now, we can either vicariously relate to or truly experience yetziat mitzrayim (exodus from Egypt) in our own lives. . . .

One type of holiness is kedushat hazman, holiness of time; the time of year in which miracles occurred in the past has within it the potential for future miracles. Jewish holidays both commemorate past miracles and contain the kedushat hazman, the temporal holiness, which we can access to effect miracles now. . . . by believing in the miracle of yetziat mitzrayim, we can experience it again now in our personal lives. Every individual can tap into this season in order to leave his/her personal meitzar (place of narrowness or confinement) or mitzrayim. The fact that Pesach occurs in the spring, the season in which nature renews itself and the flowers begin to blossom, foreshadows this potential for personal growth.

These fascinating aspects of the Jewish self-understanding of Passover have obvious analogical implications relative to the Catholic Mass. The great Catholic writer Karl Adam exclaimed:

The Sacrifice of Calvary, as a great supra-temporal reality, enters into the immediate present. Space and time are abolished. The same Jesus is here present who died on the Cross. The whole congregation unites itself with His holy sacrificial will, and through Jesus present before it consecrates itself to the heavenly Father as a living oblation. So Holy Mass is a tremendously real experience, the experience of the reality of Golgotha. (The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Dom Justin McCann, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954; originally 1924 in German, 197)

In conclusion, here are my thoughts, from my (1996) book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 99-100):

Some verses in Revelation state that the “prayers of the saints” are being offered at the altar in the form of incense (8:3-4; cf. 5:8-9). But the climactic scene of this entire glorious portrayal of Heaven occurs in Revelation 5:1-7. Verse 6 describes “a Lamb standing as though it had been slain.” Since the Lamb (Jesus, of course) is revealed as sitting in the midst of God’s throne (5:6; 7:17; 22:1, 3; cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Heb. 1:8), which is in front of the golden altar (Rev. 8:3), then it appears that the presentation of Christ to the Father as a sacrifice is an ongoing (from God’s perspective, timeless) occurrence, precisely as in Catholic teaching. Thus the Mass is no more than what occurs in Heaven, according to the clear revealed word of Scripture. When Hebrews speaks of a sacrifice made once (Heb. 7:27), this is from a purely human, historical perspective (which Catholicism acknowledges in holding that the Mass is a “re-presentation” of the one Sacrifice at Calvary). However, there is a transcendent aspect of the Sacrifice as well.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb twenty-eight times throughout Revelation (compared with four times in the rest of the New Testament: John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19). Why, in Revelation (of all places), if the Crucifixion is a past event, and the Christian’s emphasis ought to be on the resurrected, glorious, kingly Jesus, as is stressed in Protestantism (as evidenced by a widespread disdain for, crucifixes)? Obviously, the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus’ Sacrifice, which is communicated by God to John as present and “now” (Rev. 5:6; cf. Heb. 7:24)

***

Related Reading:

*
*
Sacrifice of the Mass & Hebrews 8 (vs. James White) [3-31-04]
*
*
*
*
*

Biblical Evidence for Priests [9-13-15]

St. Paul Was a Priest [9-15-15]

Luther Espoused Eucharistic Adoration [9-17-15]

Catholic Mass: “Re-Sacrifice” of Jesus? [11-19-15]

“Re-Presentation” vs. “Re-Sacrifice” in the Mass: Doctrinal History [4-4-18]

Eucharistic Adoration: Explicit & Undeniable Biblical Analogies [2-1-19]

*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not ExistIf 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 7-7-09)

Photo credit: The Last Supper, by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
* * *
Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives