September 2006 Archives

I’ve often heard statements such as “The Church didn’t start worshipping Mary until the Middle Ages.” There are obviously two things wrong here: (1) the Church doesn’t worship Mary and never has; and (2) Devotion to Mary started much, much earlier. In fact, from the earliest moments of the Church we see the faithful adoring Mary.

The Beginning of Marian Devotion
Let’s start with Mark Miravalle’s Introduction to Mary:

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is present in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the right half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; and at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the woman of prayer.

From early on the faithful saw Mary as a woman chosen by God to bear His Son. Remember that at the point these were done the Apostle John was still alive and the Apostles Peter and Paul were crucified in Rome around this time. They were without question spending much of their time in the catacombs where this art was done.

And there’s another point here: clearly the early Christians did not believe that statues, pictures, or other depictions of holy men and women were idolatry as some modern-day protestants believe.

Miravalle also adds:

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco is the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church.”
[snip]
It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that Mary was seen not only as an historical person but also as a sign of protection, of defense, of intercession. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs.

And it Continues
Marian art exploded in the early Church after 313 A.D. (when Christianity stopped being persecuted). And since then it hasn’t stopped. The importance of the Virgin Mary in our Christian history cannot be overstated – she brought the Christ Child into the world and serves as Theotokos or God-bearer.

The art in the early started while the Apostles were still alive. I think it would be difficult to mount an argument that the Apostles fell away from Christ that quickly (much of anti-Catholic argument hinges on the notion that the Church fell away at some point).

You can read more of the book cited here.

God bless,
Jay

Don't miss this week's Catholic Carnival. It includes some more thoughts on Pope Benedict's Muslim remarks, but it also has a lot more. Be sure to check it out.

God bless,
Jay

We're still on the Pope Benedict comments since it is creating quite the controversy in the world. And the Wall Street Journal published an excellent analysis of the situation today (registration required). Some key points:

[Regarding the Pope's quote] Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn't endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which millions of outraged Muslims didn't bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist's life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn't the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions.

This is a big problem for Muslims in the world: they are protesting something that didn't actually happen. Not just protesting - they are threating to kill someone over remarks that they either don't understand or didn't bother to understand. There's more:

The question raised by the pope is whether this convergence has taken place in Islam as well. He quotes the Lebanese Catholic theologist Theodore Khoury, who said that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound up with any of our categories." If this is true, can there be dialogue at all between Islam and the West? For the pope, the precondition for any meaningful interfaith discussions is a religion tempered by reason: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures," he concluded.

This is not an invitation to the usual feel-good interfaith round-tables. It is a request for dialogue with one condition--that everyone at the table reject the irrationality of religiously motivated violence. The pope isn't condemning Islam; he is inviting it to join rather than reject the modern world.

The whole piece is good, so read it here.

Glad to see someone in the media is paying attention.

God bless,
Jay

Today a Cardinal at the Vatican spoke out about Pope Benedict's comments:

In the passage of the speech that has roused so much anger, the Pope was quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, and the Pontiff "did not intend "to make that opinion is own in any way," the Secretary of State said. What the Pope intended, the Italian cardinal emphasized, was "a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come."

Pope Benedict is dismayed, the cardinal said, because his words were "interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions." Far from belittling the faith of Muslims, he noted, the Holy Father had explicitly warned, in that same speech, against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom."

You can read the key part of Pope Benedict XVI's talk in our post on his Muslim comments.

There are some other good blogger opinions on this as well. Start with The Curt Jester's look at the controversy. As always his points are humorous, but don't miss the very valid points. And Relapsed Catholic has even more. And Open Book by Amy Welborn has everything you want to read about it. She points to even more outside bloggers and the insights are amazing.

The world is mad. Pray for us.

God bless,
Jay

Apparently Pope Benedict XVI has stirred up Muslim anger over comments made in his speech last Tuesday. Is the anger justified? Well, we can read the entire speech here. But what offended Muslims was this section of his talk:

[Initial part speaks of the University where he is speaking and where he once taught] This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the [Logos]. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, [not readable in English] (T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

The quote is necessarily extensive, since our Holy Father builds the discussion throughout the talk. But I think it's clear: to quote a historically accurate quote is not to accept the quote at face value. To say the Pope's talks are being taken out of context for political gain is an understatement. The Pope, to be sure, is not Muslim and would argue that Islam is not correct and Christianity is correct [obviously].

However, it seems that the very Muslims who call for violence have decided to use this to incite more violence. Never mind that they are lying by taking the words out of context - they don't really believe anyway or they would not be terrorists. What bothers me is the lack of Islamic believers who refuse to quietly allow their faith to be taken over by these terrorists - who do not follow many of the teachings of Islam. Where is your backbone?

The irony here is that one of the Pope's comments are being ignored by those that most need to hear them. Violence, especially in the name of religion, is incongrous with the concept of God. And violence is now being pushed by some in the name of God over the Pope's comments.

What a world we live in. Much, much prayer is needed.

God bless,
Jay

It’s always good to host the Catholic Carnival. This week’s Carnival seems to have focused inwardly on prayer and historically on 9/11 that occurred 5 years ago this week. This is a great collection of posts:

c.a. Marks starts us off with a personal goal in My Mission. The goal: A visit to Rome, Italy and the Vatican – if the fear of flying can be overcome. I’ve been twice and couldn’t recommend it more!

Within the Garden is another first-timer (I believe) with Hail, Jack-O-Claus Turkey!. It’s a reflection on sacred time, seasonal celebration, the jack-o-claus turkey, and the bane of all holiday treats - candy corn.

Help With Everything gives us some practical advice in How to be Happy. A straightforward list of eight things you can do today to be more happy.

Just Another Day of Catholic Pondering takes a seasonal look at Unsharpened Pencils. Sarah reflects on her life as an unsharpened (and sharpened) pencil – or tool in God’s hands.

HMS Blog is the first to touch on 9/11 with VINDICATION. It’s a reflection on the readings for Sunday 9/10, focusing on the meaning of the divine “vindication” mentioned by Isaiah, in the context of the 9/11 anniversary.

Kicking Over My Traces continues on that vein with Praying for Our Enemies. The post ponders our role in prayer on the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Wheelie Catholic takes up the prayer theme with Vegetable Soup and a Prayer. Ruth expresses gratitude for the fact that she can work, which she took for granted before becoming disabled. But now, after years of adjusting the way she does things, and seeing how many people with disabilities still have enormous barriers in front of them before they can work, Ruth has a completely changed attitude.

Castle of the Immaculate continues with The more one prays, the more there is time to pray. It’s the first post in a series on prayer. How does a busy mother make time for prayer? Read and find out.

From the Anchor Hold gives us some history with Martyrs? Memphis, Tennessee?. It’s the story of Constance and her companions, the Martyrs of Memphis, Catholic and Episcopalian sisters and parish clergy who gave up their lives for the Lord's poor during the 1878 yellow fever epidemic which took the Memphis population from 46,000 pre-epidemic to 800 after.

50 Days After reminds us of Christian persecution in Persecution for His Sake. The post points out that persecution continues in many areas of the world.

Adoro Te Devote takes us back to 9/11 in We Will Never Forget. The post explains why we cannot and should not forget what happened 5 years ago on 9/11.

A Penitent Blogger explores excommunication in Over the line, but ultimately reflects on our obligation to truth, love and salvation.

Crusader of Justice brings us back around to 9/11 with Confiteor. It’s a personal confession prompted by the anniversary of 9/11.

Santificarnos is back this week with Ordinary Saints. Besides using the aliases of Andrews and Draper, impersonating a priest, and being a jailbird, Nicholas was known to associate with outlaws. On paper he was anything but a saint.

Living Catholicism ends this Carnival with A Prayer for 9/11. Written by a Navy chaplin, it is a simple prayer for our country concerning 9/11.

Hope you enjoyed!

God bless,
Jay

The Democratic Party has a problem: Church-attending voters tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. So, they've launched a new website to counter the problem, FaithfulDemocrats.com. Why? Because they believe that the problem is ultimately political: more faithful Christians vote Republican because Democrats aren't getting the message out. What's the real problem? The real problem is that the Democratic Party is diometrically opposed to the Christian faith. They are the party of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and public displays of religion. The only thing they seem to get right is poverty and you could make a strong argument that Republicans are doing that better these days, too.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Democrats are tackling the problem from the wrong direction. They assume it's political and it is not. The answer is simple: Let pro-life Democrats run for office. The Party founded on blue-collar Christian workers has become the party of abortion, first and foremost. Al Gore was required to drop his pro-life stance in order to run for Vice President (and he wasn't the first). When was the last time Democrats allowed a strong pro-lifer to run for a big office? It's been a long time, because they are too worried about upsetting their far-left base.

Want to capture the Christian vote? Don't try and change Christian values, rather try and emulate them. Allow Democrats to run on pro-life, pro-family platforms that don't require faithful Christians to give up their religion to support you. In these times, a pro-life Democrat could be a strong competitor. If you're willing to let him run.

God bless,
Jay

Be sure to check out this week's Catholic Carnival. There are a couple of apologetics pieces in there and a ton of other good stuff - good even for non-Catholics.

God bless,
Jay

A common disagreement between Catholics and protestants is over the “brothers” of Christ. Catholics argue that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children than Jesus, whereas protestants point to a few passages in the Bible to argue she did. Here are my five Biblical proofs showing that Jesus did not have actual brothers (each argument – in my mind – gets stronger). Let’s get started:

One: Brother doesn’t mean Brother
This is weak as a “proof,” but is an important Scriptural consideration. “Brother” – especially in the Bible – doesn’t necessarily mean brother in the English sense of the word:

From An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Adelphos (the Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:

1. male children of the same parents
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
3. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
4. any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
5. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
6. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
7. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
8. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
9. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)

So we can clearly conclude that Scriptural passages noting Jesus’ brothers aren’t necessarily “brothers” in the English sense of the word (children of the same parents). The Old Testament is full of examples where men are called brothers that clearly are not brothers (Gen 11:26-27, 14:14, 29:10, 29:15; Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9).

You can argue that Jesus had brothers, but the reality of the Scriptural word “brother” must be taken into consideration. To further advance this argument, you can look at Matthew 12:49-50, 23:1, and 23:8. In all of these passages Jesus refers to obviously non-brothers as brethren.

At this point a non-Catholic is likely to point at Matthew 13:55 where James and Jude are referred to as Jesus’ brothers. However, if you add in your analysis Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, you’ll see that they are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Most argue that Clopas and Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, were related, which makes James and Jude Jesus’ cousins or other near relative. But not His brothers.

Two: Nowhere to be Found
We know from various sources that Joseph was an older man when he took Mary as his wife. Christian tradition teaches that Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins, so Joseph was accepting Mary as his wife in order to simply provide her with a home, something unwed women at the time needed. It was not unusual in that time to see two consecrated virgins marry. Why does this matter? Fast forward to Luke.

In Luke 2, we have the story of Mary and Joseph searching for Jesus when He was lost at the temple. One notable oddity of this passage is the lack of other children. I think we can all agree that Jesus was the first child (otherwise Mary wasn’t a virgin), so at this point Jesus was about 12. Where are his brothers? Not one other sibling is mentioned or even referred to in this passage and with an elderly Joseph you have to call into question the potential brothers of Jesus.

Three: Subtle but True
As a more subtle argument (that is still valid), I would point to Mary’s reply to the Angel Gabriel:

Luke 1:34. And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”

When she was told she would bear the Christ Child her response was “How can this be, since I have no husband?” Clearly Mary was aware that she was about to get married. Why would she ask this if she were not a consecrated virgin? As St. Augustine famously pointed out, “if she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”

Was Jesus an only child? Yes, and His mother was a perpetual, consecrated virgin.

Four: A Mistake by God?
This is the classic response to the argument that Jesus had brothers:

John 19:26-27. When Jesus saw his mother [from the cross], and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his home.

In the times that Christ lived in, brothers would take care of their mother when the Father died. It was a strict practice among the Jews – the oldest brother would have been the first to take over. But if the eldest died, it would have naturally passed to the next eldest brother. You only gave your mother to another person if you had no brothers. It’s that simple.

So here Jesus gave John (a non-brother) responsibility for His mother. Some protestants claim that James (a follower of Christ) was one of the brothers of Jesus, which would invalidate any argument that Jesus had non-believing brothers (a typical response when you point this out). Even so, it would have been an odd mistake to give this responsibility away if Jesus had brothers. This is another clear Biblical example that He did not have brothers –this is much clearer and stronger than the two passages that suggest He did have brothers. Note also that this clearly suggests Joseph had died by this time (most put Joseph’s death around the 15th birthday of Jesus). This ties in with the point that Joseph was significantly older than Mary.

Five: An Odd Response
If Jesus did have brothers, this is the oddest response ever by Mary Magdalene:

John 20:16-18. Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that He had said these things to her.

If Jesus really had brothers, then Mary Magdalene disobeyed one of His last instructions to her. Clearly she was a very close disciple and would have known whether or not Jesus actually had brothers. And furthermore, John in writing this passage acts as if Mary did exactly the right thing – he does not explain why she went to the apostles rather than Christ’s brothers.

This passage is the clearest example that Jesus did not have brothers. He did have cousins, nephews, etc. and He had disciples that he considered His brethren.

Bonus: 2,000 Years of Christian Tradition
This isn’t Scriptural, so I add it as a bonus. From the earliest times of the Church, it was believed that Mary was an ever-virgin and Jesus had no brothers – these two beliefs are tied together. In Writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary we cite some of the many Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Virginity and Jesus’ lack of brothers. It provides some extra details that flesh out the reality of the situation.

Conclusion: Jesus was an Only Child
Let me quote a protestant source, Commentary on the Whole Bible:

The word till [Matthew 1:24-25] does not necessarily imply that they [Mary and Joseph] lived on a different footing afterward (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word firstborn decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.

And Dave Armstrong in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (a book I highly recommend) points out:

John Calvin used this very argument [cited above] to establish the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly protestants (such as John Wesley). No one ever denied this doctrine until the late fourth century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus’ supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which “higher criticism” has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.

In terms of individual arguments, not all of these draw a perfect conclusion. However, when you combine these arguments together, you see the picture that Jesus was an only child. Outside of the Bible there is no evidence that Jesus had a brother. Recently, even the famous “Brother of Jesus box” was proven a forgery (it attempted to prove that Jesus has a brother, James). There is simply no reason to believe that Jesus had siblings.

God bless,
Jay