Shameless Popery

Ash Wednesday Motivation

Morning Prayer this morning in the Liturgy of the Hours contained a particularly beautiful prayer for Ash Wednesday and the start of Lent:
Grant, O Lord,that we may begin with holy fasting this campaign of Christian service, so that, as we take up battle against spiritual evils, we may be armed with weapons of self-restraint.  Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,one God, for ever and ever.– Amen.I loved the prayer, because it has the theme of spiritual warfare, but is clear that this is a war of love and self-giving, and fought with weapons like self-restraint.

Are the Immaculate Conception and Assumption Post-Reformation Innovations?

Diego Velazquez, Immaculate Conception (1618)

An Anglican reader with a love for Mary described her concerns about the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption:
I appreciate that Mariology grounds our understanding of Christ's human nature, and that without her assent the incarnation could not have happened. We should call her blessed. Out of obedience to that call, I have given much time and thought to Marian devotion. I appreciate that doctrine develops over time from principles embryonically present in scripture. However, the post reformation doctrines of the immaculate conception and assumption puzzle me, not because they inherently contradict scripture, but because I cannot find their embryonic form. The barrier that this presents to Christian unity saddens me.This is a reasonable question, and it deserves a straightforward answer. It's also a question that I'm sure many Catholics have wondered as well: do we find a belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, at least in an embryonic form, in the early Church? Yes and yes. Let's look at each doctrine in turn.

I. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
This is the doctrine that Mary was preserved from original and actual sin from the moment of her conception. I've written before on the way that Scripture depicts Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Temple Gate, and the builder of the Temple.

All of these are images of purity and sinlessness, and total consecration to God:
Eve was without original or actual sin while she was still named “Woman,” the Ark and the Temple were made with the finest materials, and consecrated totally to the Lord, andthe builder of the Temple had to have hands free of blood (which is why David couldn't build the Temple). 

Theotokos Panachranta (c. 1050)

This is also why Mary is a Virgin: her Virginity is a symbol of her sinlessness, and of her unadulterated devotion to God. Yesterday, I talked about another Marian image that the early Christians pointed to: that she's an Icon of the Church, which is also a Virgin, Bride, and Mother.

The Church Fathers immediately pick up these things, as I've noted before in the context of the Eve imagery. By the time St. Augustine lays out the doctrine of original sin, he's careful to exempt the Virgin Mary, and doesn't feel any need to explain why. The early Church already knew she was sinless.

This was the universal belief of the Church, and hardly a post-Reformation development of some sort. Even Luther believed in Mary's sinlessness (although he was contradictory on whether or not he believed in the Immaculate Conception). It would be much more accurate to say that the post-Reformation development was Protestantism diminishing Mary more and more. If you don't believe me, read the immediate pre-Reformation writings on Mary, and tell me which Church would be comfortable proclaiming those things today.

Where, prior to the Reformation, there was resistance to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, much of it centered around two issues: (1) the doctrine of original sin, and (2) the point at which the soul enters the body. On the first of these, you'll occasionally find those (like many Eastern Orthodox today) who admit that Mary never sinned, but believe she still suffered the taint of original sin. This raises broader questions about how the East and West tend to understand original sin. On the second, you'll occasionally find those, like St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that “the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb,” but believed that this occurred after conception, at the moment of “ensoulment,” in which a rational soul was infused in her body.

This is all a far cry from Protestantism for two reasons. First, even these objections presuppose that Mary never sinned. But second, Protestants tend to agree with Catholics (rather than Orthodox) about original sin, and don't believe in the idea of post-conception “ensoulment.”

II. The Assumption of Mary

Jean Fouquet, Death of the Virgin (c. 1455)

As for the Assumption, there are passages that are understood as prophetic of this event.  For example, in John 14:3, Jesus says of the Church, “if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” If Mary is the icon of the Church, as the early Christians believed, the Assumption is a fulfillment of this promise.

But it should be admitted up front that it's true that Scripture doesn't record it happening, in the sense of describing it as a historical event.  But this makes sense: it probably occurred after the Gospels and Acts were written, and was certainly outside of the time period covered by those writings.   This is true of other significant early-Christian events: namely, the Destruction of Jerusalem, which was of enormous impact for the Church, but which is never described (only prophesied). 
There's a decent chance that the only Book of the New Testament written after the Assumption was the Book of Revelation.  In Revelation, we see what appears to be Mary, in her glorified body, enthroned in Heaven (Rev. 12:1). I don't think it takes eisegesis to conclude that the woman of Revelation 12, depicted as the Mother of Jesus (Rev. 12:5), is Mary.

So Revelation 12 seems to assume the truth of the Assumption, although I can certainly see the ambiguity. In any case, we're not believers in sola Scriptura. It's enough to say that Scripture is consistent with the doctrine of the Assumption, and that the doctrine is of Apostolic origin. Within the early Church, the Feast of the Assumption (or Dormition) was celebrated in art and Liturgy throughout various parts of the global Church.  Again, it's impossible to write this off a post-Reformation development, because the Feast is celebrated by Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts alike, and we haven't been in a unified Church since the mid-400s.
Is it possible that the Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts are all wrong on this? I'd say no: to claim that every part of the Apostolic Church is in error is to simply cut oneself from the Apostolic Church.

Conclusion
There's a common misunderstanding that because the Church didn't dogmatically define the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption until a later date (1854 and 1950).  But an honest examination of the evidence shows quite clearly that innumerable early Christians held firmly to these dogmas.  True, as with every Christian doctrine, there was occasional dissent.  The very reason it's necessary for the Church to make the effort to settle a particular topic is precisely because dissent and confusion arises from time to time.  But the idea that these are some sort of post-Reformation innovations is historically false.

Update: I'm going to be on Son Rise Morning Show next week, talking about this post.  More details later.

The Virgin Mary, Icon of the Church

The first half of this is taken from an earlier post, but I wanted to give its own post, for future reference:
Mary is a living image of the Church, which is why we refer to both Mary and the Church as Mother.  St. Ambrose describes Mary in this way, in explainingLuke 1:27:

Presentation of Jesus at the Temple (Kastoria icon) (14th c.)

Well [does the Gospel say]: married but a virgin; because she is the type of the Church, which is also married but remains immaculate.  The Virgin [Church] conceived us by the Holy Spirit and, as a virgin, gave birth to us without pain.  And perhaps this is why holy Mary, married to one man[Joseph], is made fruitful by another [the Holy Spirit], to show that the individual churches are filled with the Spirit and with grace, even as they are united to the person of a temporal priest.Lumen Gentium picks up on these themes, showing the New Eve imagery to be a both/and, not an either/or, between Mary and the Church:
63. By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.(18*) For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. (19*) By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God's messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren,(299) namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.So both Mary and the Church are Virgin Mothers. St. Paul uses virginal imagery to describe the sinlessness of the Church in Ephesians 5:25-27, depicting the Church as a pure and spotless Bride awaiting Her Souse, Christ.  And, of course, Mary is a Virgin (Lk. 1:34).  Yet both become Mothers: biologically, in the case of Mary, and spiritually, in the case of both Mary and the Church.

Mary and the Child (Sinai icon) (13th c.)

This Virgin Mother imagery is found interweaved throughout the Old Testament.  We hear echoes in Genesis 3:15 (about the Seed of the Woman, suggesting that a man wasn't involved).  We also hear it in Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2:5, in which Hannah cries out,
She who was barren has borne seven children,
but she who has had many sons pines away.More obviously, we can see it in Isaiah 54:1-5, in which Zion is depicted as a Virgin Mother:
"Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD.

"Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes.  For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your descendants will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities.

"Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.

For your Maker is your husband— the LORD Almighty is his name— the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."And this is why it's important that the Virgin Mary was a Virgin -- why it was worth specifying in the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14. Because her Virginity is an external symbol of her sinlessness, and utter devotion to God.

Disingenuous Arguments for the HHS Mandate

I've more or less said my piece in response to the HHS Mandate -- it's about all I blogged about last week, and I'm pleased to move on to other topics, short of any major developments.  But I wanted to say one thing in passing: the arguments I've heard in favor of the HHS Mandate haven't just been bad. In many cases, they've been outright disingenuous.

For example, the Times has descended to putting religious liberty in scare quotes and claiming that opposing the Mandate would “deprive [the Church's] followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.” That argument is utterly asinine: a fine example of false parallelism.  Consider.  It's a functional violation of my right to be pro-life, if I'm conscripted to pay for what I believe is murder.  But in what world is it a violation of a pro-choicer's right to be pro-choice if I don't pay for her abortion?  Is anybody willing to defend the Times' editorial here? Or are they just assuming their readers won't think too hard about what they're being fed?

Others have responded to some of the howlers (like the idea that 98% of Catholic women use contraception), but I wanted to directly tackle those who claim that we're just against the HHS Mandate because we're (a) conservative, (b) Catholic, or (c) against birth control:

Cardinal Mahoney at the “May 1st Immigration Rally”

This isn't a Left / Right Issue.   The New York Times referred to this as “a phony crisis over "religious liberty" engendered by the right.” That's just not a serious claim.  Prominent liberal pundits like E.J. Dionne, Michael Sean Winters and Chris Matthews came out against the HHS Mandate.  Even within the Obama Administration, numerous high-profile figures tried to stop the Mandate from going forward: Politico names Vice President Joe Biden and then-Chief of Staff Bill Daley as two who tried to stop Obama from doing this, while ABC also mentions Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.  And neither the USCCB nor the American bishops can be pigeonholed as simply conservative.  For example, Cardinal Mahoney, who appears to have been the first to voice his objection, is a beloved icon of the religious left for his work marching with Cesar Chavez, and encouraging civil disobedience over Bush-era immigration laws (in fact, the New York Times even permitted him an Op-ed for this latter cause).

Albert Mohler

This isn't a Catholic / Non-Catholic Issue.  Just as the opposition to the HHS Mandate cuts across party lines, so too does it cut across religious lines.  Numerous non-Catholic religious leaders have spoken out, like Rick Warren (Saddleback Church), Chuck Colson (Prison Fellowship), Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary), Richard Land (Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty commission), Albert Mohler (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), and so on.  Nor is it just religious leaders.  James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, who has come out swinging against the Mandate, is an agnostic.  Evangelical former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee captured this well by declaring, “We are all Catholics now.”

This isn't a Birth Control Issue.  Many of those folks that I just mentioned, whether non-Catholics or liberal Catholics, are fine with the use of contraception.  They oppose the HHS Mandate because it's a violation of religious freedom, whether they share those same religious beliefs or not (Chris Matthews captures this well in his reaction). This is about religious freedom, pure and simple.  James Taranto captured this well, calling one of his editorials against the Mandate, “Birth Control Yes, Government Control No.”  So did Paul Gleiser, who wrote:If a practicing Catholic or a Catholic institution in the United States can be compelled by the government to act against religious faith, it’s only a matter of time before some equally offensive compulsion is brought down upon you by the same heavy hand of a government that refuses to respect its limits. That’s why we’re all Catholics now.Ironically, Obama finally seems to have achieved his dream of uniting people of every race, creed, and political affiliation -- but this is probably not how he envisioned it playing out.

The Arab Spring's Pietà

The 2011 World Press Photo of the Year is this one, by Samuel Aranda:


The caption: “A woman hugs a wounded relative inside a mosque used as a hospital during clashes in Sana, Yemen on Oct. 15, 2011.”   You can read more about why this photo was chosen from World Press Photo or the New York Times.

 It's hard to look at this photo and not think of the Pietà.  While Michaelangelo's is the most famous, in my opinion, the photo is actually closer to Luis de Morales', or this one, an 1876 painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau:


Both images are high-resolution, so feel free to click on them to make them larger.  Personally, I've found the comparison between the two images fascinating, both in terms of what they depict in common, and in how they differ.  That's all I'll say for now.