Glorious Assumption

In honour of Our Lady in her month of May...

GLORIOUS ASSUMPTION

by Father John Macquarrie

In the expression, 'Glorious Assumption', the adjective and the noun go together, traditionally and inevitably. An assumption could not be any thing other than glorious, for it means a taking up from the drabness of earthly life into the unimaginable glory of the divine presence; on the other hand, there could be no greater glory manifested in any human person than that he or she should be so taken up. According to the Old Testament, Enoch and Elijah were both taken up to heaven at the end of their earthly lives as a mark of signal divine favour;' a late Jewish tradition spoke of an assumption of Moses, whose end is indeed veiled in some mystery in the Old Testament and who, before all the Old Testament heroes and prophets, might have been considered the most likely candidate for assumption.2 In the Christian Church, it is of course Mary whose assumption we celebrate, but it is worth remembering that the idea of an assumption was already there in the Jewish tradition, including the canonical scriptures. The idea in itself was certainly no innovation.

We should note the distinction between assumption and ascension. As I have already said, 'assumption' (analepsis) means 'taking up', that is to say, it is an act of God in the performance of which the person assumed remains passive. 'Ascension' (anabasis), on the other hand, means 'going up', which gives an active role to the person who so ascends. The only person who ascended to God, that is to say, went to the Father as of right, was the divine Son. As John's Gospel tells us, 'No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.'3 As we shall see, the assumption of the Blessed Virgin is dependent upon the ascension of Jesus Christ, and indeed, a corollary of it because of the clearing and glorification of our human nature through him.

Off and on, I have been thinking about the assumption for thirty-five years, and if I may be allowed to do so, I think I shall expound the doctrine by tracing the stages in my understanding of it. The first time I was driven to think with any seriousness about the assumption of the Blessed Virgin was when I was serving with the British Army in North Africa just after World War II, and was granted the privilege of two weeks' leave so that I could visit the holy places of Palestine. The actual year was 1946, and this detail may be worth mentioning, for that was not only two years before the founding of the State of Israel, so that I was one of the last people to see the Holy Land as it was in an era now passed away, it was also four years before the dogma of the assumption was officially promulgated by the Vatican, so that at that time it was a 'pious opinion'.

One day we were taken to see the Church of the Assumption, built over the tomb that is said to have received the mortal remains of Our Lady. I did not know at that time that there is a rival site in Ephesus, for there is an alternative tradition which holds that the falling asleep of the Virgin did not take place until after the fall of Jerusalem, by which time she had gone to live in Ephesus in company with the beloved disciple. At any rate, I found myself in the Church of the Assumption, located not far outside Jerusalem and near to the Mount of Olives. This church was for many years in dispute between Latin and Eastern Christians, and finally passed to the latter. I remember it as a singularly gloomy and cavernous church, just about the last place that would lead one to think of a glorious assumption. Yet somehow I found myself kneeling down and praying. I did not understand what an assumption could be, yet somehow I knew that the assumption is an authentic part of that whole fabric of truth that we call the catholic faith, and that some day I might come to understand it better. I remember all this so clearly because among my army companions were some of a skeptical or even ribald turn of mind, and they teased me for having prayed there. To them it was all a joke, an absurd superstition. I did not know how to answer them. Of course, even in 1946, though no one had ever been in space at that time, we knew that outer space is a dark freezing trackless desolation, the very opposite of the nearer presence of God, so the event of the assumption could not mean that the Virgin's body had floated off into the empty wastes. It must be a theological event, to be theologically understood, but I could not make a beginning. But it sometimes happens in the Christian life that one first believes, even if one is not too clear about the belief, and then understanding comes later. I saw that many people believed, and it must make sense to them. We may recall St Anselm's words: 'I yearn to understand some measure of your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand.'4

Four years later, I had to think again about the assumption. In 1950 Pius XII, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, promulgated the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a dogma of the Church. It was declared that 'the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, on completing the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory' (immaculatam Deiparam semper Virginem Mariam, expleto terrestris vitae cursu, fuisse corpore etanima ad caelestem Gloriam assumptam)? The expression 'heavenly glory' indicates that we are talking about a condition, a relation to God, rather than a place. Earlier the reason for this assumption had been stated: 'it seems impossible that she who conceived Christ, bore him, fed him with her milk, held him in her arms and pressed him to her bosom, should after this earthly life be separated from him in either body or soul.'6 The closeness of Jesus and Mary could not be broken by the end of their earthly sojourn, and we see how her assumption follows on his ascension. It is the answer to the promise that 'where I am, there you may be also.'7
Of course, the act of Pius XII in raising the assumption to the status of a formal dogma was not greeted with universal rejoicing. Among Anglicans, there were serious misgivings. I shall mention three.

Some feared that in making the assumption a dogma, a new wedge was being driven between Rome and Canterbury. For many centuries, belief in the assumption was common in both east and west, but was it necessary to make it de fide? I have myself considerable sympathy with this point of view, and question the value of making too many and too precise dogmatic definitions. If a theological proposition is true and an integral part of Christian faith, it will eventually establish itself, but this process will not be helped and may even be hindered by authoritative attempts to make the belief obligatory. There is no doubt that belief in the assumption of the Blessed Virgin had been steadily gaining ground in the Anglican Communion for a long time. In the two branches of the Anglican Communion with which I am best acquainted, the Scottish and American churches, the fifteenth of August has its honoured place in the calendar. In Scotland, it has long been celebrated as the Feast of the Dormition, while in the United States it is known simply as the Feast of St Mary the Virgin, and is the major festival in her honour. Unfortunately the Church of England lags behind her sister churches and makes no official provision for the day, though one may hope that this will change. But it is more likely to change through spreading a better understanding of what the festival is really about, than through forcing the issue by promulgating a formal dogma.

A second misgiving arose from the contention of some scholars that belief in the assumption arose from Monophysite sources in the fifth and sixth centuries. This, of course, raises large questions of historical scholarship, and these have been treated very ably by John Saward in a learned paper.8 Even if some monophysite influence can be demonstrated as historical fact, it would still be the case that the assumption can be shown to be an implicate of orthodox Christian doctrine and could only be rightly understood as such. However, it has also to be remembered that there is now going on a reassessment of the monophysite churches, now more often called the non-Chalcedonian churches, and that it appears that they may be less heterodox than used to be supposed.

A third objection was that 1950 seems pretty late in the day for the discovery of a Christian dogma. This argument is broadened by pointing out that in the earliest centuries, no Christian theologian seems to have heard of the assumption of the Virgin. Only from the late sixth century on do we find a clear tradition of the assumption among orthodox Christian writers. However, even such central Christian doctrines as the Trinity and the incarnation took several centuries to formulate, so we need not be surprised if less central doctrines took longer, especially one so complex and dependent on others as the assumption. Moreover, since Christianity is a living and growing entity and not something static and unchanging, we must not be surprised if new insights and understandings come even in the twentieth and subsequent centuries — these are in fact a tribute to the vitality of the Christian faith and to the inexhaustible riches which it contains.

We go on now from the apostolic constitution of 1950 to the new atmosphere of Vatican II, a little more than a decade later. From the point of view of an inquiry into the assumption, what is important in Vatican II was the designation of Mary as Mother of the Church. To quote the words of the decree on the Church, 'she is hailed as a pre-eminent and altogether singular member of the Church, and as the Church' s model and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. Taught by the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church honours her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.'9

This firm linkage which Vatican II established between the Church and Mary as its mother, type, model and pre-eminent member may now be used to go back and interpret the dogma of 1950. It will be remembered that in that document, a reason given for the assumption was the impossibility of supposing that Mary who conceived Christ, bore him, gave him milk, held him and so on, could be separated from him by the termination of earthly life. Mary's solidarity with her Son is such that his ascension implies her assumption, that where he is she will be also. But now we see that on the other side Mary is inseparable from the Church. So the Church too must be inseparable from Christ, his ascension must imply the assumption of the Church as well as of its Mother and pre-eminent member, Mary, the whole Church is the recipient of the promise that 'where I am, there you may be also,' In saying this, we see that the significance of the dogma of the assumption is immeasurably broadened. It is not just a personal dogma about Mary (though it remains that) but a dogma about the whole body of the faithful of whom Mary is the type. Mary's glorious assumption is the first moment in the glorious assumption of the Church. We recall some further words from John's Gospel: 'The glory which thou has given me, I have given to them... Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.'10 The Feast of the Assumption must be reckoned one of the most humanistic festivals in the Church's calendar. It is not just a celebration of Mary (though it certainly is that) but a celebration of redeemed humanity. Christian theologians have often denigrated the human race, dwelling on our sin and depravity, as if they could only glorify God by putting down man and pointing to the infinite distance between them. But that is not God's way and is contrary to his intention. He created human beings in his own image that they might enjoy communion with him, he sent his eternal Son, the one who descended, that he might also ascend again and bring with him the men and women whom he had gained in the world to share his glory with him. We are now coming in sight of the full meaning of the dogma of the glorious assumption, and we can see it as one of the most hopeful and encouraging items in the Church's belief, and one that gathers up the implications of many other doctrines, christological, soteriological, anthropological and so on.

This was the kind of understanding of the assumption to which I was coming after almost twenty years of reflection since that visit to the dismal old Church of the Assumption in Jerusalem in 1946. In 19661 composed a hymn to the Virgin, which I entitled 'Mother of the Church'. It was not a very good hymn (though it was published in a journal of spirituality n) but it tried to set out the various episodes in the life of our Lady in relation to her role as Mother of the Church. It began:

Hail, blest Mary! Church's Mother!
Virgin Mother, full of grace!
Mother of our elder Brother,
Mother of our renewed race!

I pass on to the last three verses, where I was able to affirm belief in the assumption with an understanding that had not been possible for me twenty years earlier

You, dear Lady, station keeping
At the Cross while Jesus died,
Heard his voice amid your weeping,
'These your children now!' he cried.
With apostles you were praying,
Saw the Church, in finest hour,
Spirit-filled, to men displaying
God's regenerating power.
Blest at last in your dormition,
Jesus called you to his side.
All your labours find fruition,
You are crowned and glorified!

At this point I can imagine some of our progressive friends in the Church holding up their hands in horror — assuming that they would have deigned to come to a lecture on the assumption at all! 'This is sheer triumphalism,' I can hear them say — and, of course, 'triumphalism' has become a very bad word. But I would like to make two replies to our imaginary objectors.

First, we have to consider just what 'triumphalism' means, and in what sense it is a pejorative term. If triumphalism is a pride in the human institution, an arrogant identification of the Church with the kingdom of God, then it is a snare and a delusion, and we have to ask God's forgiveness for betraying his trust. But I don' t think' triumphalism' needs to mean that. 1 would understand 'triumphalism' as the opposite of 'defeatism', and in that sense I would declare myself an unashamed triumphalist. I believe one holy catholic and apostolic church, 1 acknowledge it to be the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, I am convinced that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. In spite of all its sins and errors, the Church remains God's Church and cannot utterly depart from him. We see in it gleams of glory that bring hope and promise. Not least among these gleams of glory are the saints that the Church has known in all ages, and chief among whom is the Blessed Virgin. Whether or not we call it 'triumphalism', a sober hope and confidence in the Church is an essential part of our response to the calling of God. To put it in another way, we have to understand the Church eschatologically. Its unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity, will reach their fulness only in the end when the purposes of God are complete. Yet they are not just dreams for the future. Already in innumerable ways, in deeds of love, in moments of communion, in experiences of grace, there are flashes of the final glory to encourage the Church on its way.

My second reply depends on the first one, but it also deepens our understanding of the dogma of the assumption. It is that assumption is not a once-for-all event, but a continuing
process. That was already implicit when I said that assumption is a theological event, for a theological event is not tied to a moment of time. It can take effect at all times. The assumption began with the dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it continues throughout the history of the Church and it will be complete only when the Church is fully united with Christ, the body with the Head, and his glory is manifest in all.

Incidentally, this means that we need not worry very much whether Mary died within three years of the crucifixion and was assumed from Jerusalem, as one tradition avers, or whether she lived for fifty years and accomplished her dormition in Ephesus. We need not worry either that for about five centuries the Church was silent on this subject of the assumption. These historical questions are not really important when one considers the theological issue. Certainly, we can affirm that at some time in the first century of our era, in some place, the Blessed Virgin fell asleep and went to be with her Son and to receive the glory he had promised to bestow on his own. That is the classic moment of the glorious assumption and is worthy in itself of celebration. But it is the beginning of a vaster, indeed, cosmic assumption. That assumption is going on at this very moment. Wherever in the Church militant here on earth there is a gleam of glory, a faithful act of discipleship, a prayer offered in faith, assumption is going on. We believe too that in the Church expectant, souls are being perfected toward the day of Jesus Christ. Finally, in the Church triumphant, the work will be complete, and with the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the faithful people of God will take their place in his eternal kingdom of glory and light.

In this lecture, I have permitted myself a more autobiographical style than theologians commonly employ. But perhaps all that any of us can do is to testify to what has been significant in his or her own experience, in the hope that it may help others to find meaning in Christian faith. From a vague half-belief, for the most part not understood, I have come to see the dogma of the assumption as the expression in appropriate theological symbols of some of the most hopeful affirmations of the Christian faith. Perhaps a glimpse of the same truths was present however vaguely to the mind of the less than half-believing but nevertheless sensitive poet when he penned the famous lines:12

Ave Maria! 'tis the hour of prayer!
Ave Maria! 'tis the hour of love!
Ave Maria! may our spirits dare
Look up to thine and to thy Son's above!
Ave Maria!

Notes
1. Genesis 5, 24; II Kings 2,11.
2. Deuteronomy 34, 5-6. The Assumption of Moses is a work of the first century A.D., now existing only in fragmentary form.
3. John 3, 13.
4. Anselm, Proslogion, ch. 2.
5. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (Editio 31), p. 716. 6.1bid., p. 715.
7. John 14, 3.
8. John Saward, The Assumption (The Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1976).
9. Walter M. Abbott, S.J, ed., the Documents of Vatican II, p. 86.
10. John 17, 22 and 24.
11. Holy Cross Magazine (May, 1966), p. 23.
12. Lord Byron, Don Juan, Canto III, 102.

Catholic News Service Article

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802540.htm

Deacon Brandon Jones, a transitional deacon for the Diocese of Charlotte, N.C., who will be ordained a priest in June, grew up as a Southern Baptist with his twin brother, Chandler. The Rev. Chandler Jones is now an Anglican minister.

Podcast from the RC Diocese of Charlotte

My brother's impending ordination to the Sacred Order of Priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte is featured in a podcast on his Diocesan website this week. He discusses his vocation and personal history, as well as his identical twin and his Anglicanism! The podcast is an excellent and very professional production. Interestingly, the first part of the podcast regards the reimplementation of the Traditional Latin Mass in the Diocese of Charlotte. Give a listen and in the second half you will hear a voice eerily similar to my own!

The Anglican Province of America is getting more press right now from the Roman Church than from any other news entity, Anglican or otherwise!

http://thedocpodcast.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=336900

'An Anglican Minister' - Zenit

Just for the record, I am a Priest in Apostolic Orders and the Apostolic Succession, not just 'an Anglican minister'!

http://zenit.org/article-22507?l=english

Third of US '08 Ordinands Are Foreign-born

Survey Shows Profile of Those Ordained This Year

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Priests in the United States are as varied as the country in which they live -- some are past retirement age, others were not born Catholics, and others have sought the priesthood after other careers or vocations.

"The Class of 2008: Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood" was performed by the Georgetown University-based Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. The annual survey was prepared for the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations.

"We are blessed with the enthusiasm the newly ordained will bring to the mission of the Church," said Cardinal Sean O'Malley, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations. "We pray that through their good work and example more men will generously respond to the Lord's call to serve as priests."

The report reflects a response rate of approximately 84% of the 401 potential ordinands reported to CARA. These 335 ordinands include 242 for the diocesan priesthood and 77 for the religious priesthood. Another 16 ordinands did not specify whether they were being ordained to diocesan or religious priesthood.

Surprising stories

Some of those to be ordained have unique histories: Hai Duc Din, 46, of the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, spent a year in a Vietnamese labor camp. Doctor Martin Laird, 40, of the Diocese of Alexandria, Louisiana, comes to the priesthood after a medical career. Kevin Bauman, 47, of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, is a former vice chairman of the Romance Language Department at the University of Notre Dame. David Link, 72, of the Diocese of Gary, Indiana, is a former dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School and a widow. He heard the call to priesthood through prison ministry. For some, religious service is a family affair. Thomas Niehaus, 30, of the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota, has two brothers who are priests and a sister in the Schoenstatt movement. Some of the 2008 class began their journey in another denomination. Mark Barr, 29, grew up as an Episcopalian and converted to Catholicism in college. Jeffrey Wharton, 38, a former Episcopalian minister, is being ordained for the Diocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Brandon Jones, 37, of the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, has an identical twin brother, Chandler, who is an Anglican minister. Both were raised as Southern Baptists.

Statistics

The average age is 36 for newly ordained diocesan priests and 39 for newly ordained men in religious orders. About 30% of new priests are between 25 and 29 years of age. About 39% are in their thirties. About one-third of this year's new priests were born outside the United States, with the largest numbers coming from Mexico, Vietnam, Poland and the Philippines. The percentage of foreign-born is nearly the same in 2008 as in 2007 but has increased from the 22% reported in 1999. Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian ordinands are over-represented among diocesan and religious order priests, relative to their proportion of the U.S. adult Catholic population, while Hispanic/Latinos are somewhat under-represented. Asians/Pacific Islanders constitute 3% of U.S. Catholics overall but are 12% of responding ordinands. By contrast, Hispanics/Latinos constitute approximately 35% of U.S. adult Catholics but only 16% of responding ordinands. The ordinands identified a total of 31 countries of origin. Most ordinands have been Catholic since birth, although close to one in ten (9%) became Catholic later in life. Half of responding ordinands (51%) attended a Catholic elementary school. Ordinands are somewhat more likely than other U.S. Catholic adults to have attended a Catholic high school and they are much more likely to have attended a Catholic college. The youngest ordinand is 25 and the oldest is 76. Five ordinands are being ordained to the priesthood at age 65 or older.

On the Net: More information: www.usccb.org/vocations/classof2008

Anglicanism: First Millennium Church or Protestant Sect?

This is precisely what Anglican Catholics have been saying to their own Churches all along...

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000273.shtml

Anglicans must choose between Protestantism and Tradition, says Vatican

By Anna Arco

6 May 2008

The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".

He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism. Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible. "We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."

His comments will be interpreted as an attempt by Rome to put pressure on the Church of England not to proceed with the ordination women bishops or to sanction gay partnerships, both serious obstacles to unity. They have come at an extremely sensitive time for the Anglican Communion, as cracks between different factions in the church are beginning to show ahead of the conference in July.

Dr Rowan Williams faces rebellion from conservative and liberal Anglicans over homosexuality and women bishops. The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Anglican bishop of New Hampshire, whose attempts to enter into a civil union with his gay partner have angered conservative Anglicans, plans to attend the public events of the conference despite the fact that he has not been invited by Dr Williams.

On the other side of the spectrum, rebel conservative bishops, headed by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, dismayed by the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to condemn homosexuality outright, plan a rival conference in the Holy Land in June. Ecumenical dialogue between Rome and the Anglican Communion ground to a halt in 2006. Cardinal Kasper said at the time that a decision by the Church of England to consecrate women bishops would lead to "a serious and long lasting chill". But last month the Church of England's Legislative Drafting Group published a report preparing the ground for women bishops, who are already ordained in several Anglican provinces.

Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin

And now a not-so-succinct presentation on the legitimacy of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of Jesus Christ. I apologise in advance for the terribly lengthy collection of thoughts and ideas herein contained. I pray these thoughts will be useful to you and helpful as you form your own mind on this important subject.

For Anglicans, the theologumenon, or theological opinion, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a Virgin 'before, during and after' (to quote Saint Augustine) the conception and birth of Our Lord, is not held to be an absolutely necessary dogma of the Catholic Faith, to be held definitely, de fide tenenda, that is, for salvation as pertaining to the essence of the Faith of the Scriptures and Creeds. Anglicans who do not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady are still considered to be practising Catholic Christians in good standing and in full communion with the Church. Never fear! Having said that, however, it must be asserted quite honestly that the onus of responsibility and burden of proof lie with those who reject the doctrine to demonstrate that the belief should not be held as an edifying and congruous article of Faith and that it is not actually part of the Apostolic Tradition inherited from the earliest Church and, additionally, an ancient and universally-accepted belief related directly to the Creeds themselves. The doctrine was so important for earlier generations of Christians that even Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and John Wesley all continued to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin, even as they began and promoted their various reformations. Historically, classical magisterial proetstantism professed the Perpetual Virginity. The doctrine was never seriously questioned, even by protestants, until the advent of modern biblical scholarship and criticism, the so-called 'historical-critical' method of biblical interpretation. Anglicans who adhere to belief in Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin keep very good company indeed. In short, I should say that although Anglicans don't strictly have to believe it, they should.

Here are a few splendid examples of the early protestant orthodoxy on this question:

Martin Luther

'Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.' Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

'Christ was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.' Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

'A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ.' That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

'Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity. When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. This babble is without justification; he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.' That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

John Calvin

'Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.' Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562)

'The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words; as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us. No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.'
(ibid.)

'Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.' Commentary on John (7:3)

Huldrych Zwingli

'To deny that Mary remained inviolata before, during and after the birth of her Son, is to doubt the omnipotence of God, and it is right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary.' God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it is her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow.' This is from the Fidei expositio, the last pamphlet from his pen. There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, September 17, 1522

Zwingli printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God': 'I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil. I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.'


John Wesley

I believe Jesus Christ was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.' 'Letter to a Roman Catholic'

The vast majority of Christians living and dead have held and do hold that the Blessed Mother was preserved in her physical dignity, integrity and chastity the unique and singular human agent of the Incarnation. The doctrine is unquestionably part of what we call the consensus fidelium, the whole faith of the whole People of God, the universal, ancient and consentient belief of the whole Church in every time, place and age. The consensus of the Church's greatest Saints, Doctors, Confessors, theologians, teachers and witnesses has always been that the Perpetual Virginity is a genuine teaching of the Gospel. That puts Anglicans who might dissent in a tight spot!

The theological reason why the Church understood from the beginning the history of salvation and the content of Holy Scripture as teaching that the Blessed Mother is Ever-Virgin is the recognition that authentic belief in the Divinity of Our Blessed Lord is intimately connected to, and quite inseparable from, a right belief about the role and ministry of His Mother. The Creeds canonise the title 'Virgin' for the Theotokos, clearly implying as a dogmatic statement of fact that Mary remained a Virgin after Our Lord's miraculous conception and birth. If Mary had had natural marital relations with Saint Joseph and had conceived and birthed other children, the permanent title 'the Virgin Mary' would make little historical or theological sense. The Helvidian doctrine would have necessitated such language as 'Mary who was the Virgin.' Why would Mary remain a Virgin? To remain forever a living testimony in her bodily chastity to the unique Deity of Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. In the Incarnation, Mary became not only an instrument or channel for God the Son, in which and through which He became Man: in the miracle of the Incarnation Mary became God's Mother, the Temple and Throne of God. Her sacred body, and her life, would remain the utterly unique means by which God became Man - Christ having consecrated and sanctified Our Lady's body by His presence in her womb. Out of reverence for her, for the mystery of the Incarnation, and for the received interpretation of the Gospel narratives, the Church has always called Mary aeiparthenos, Ever-Virgin. As Father Alexander Schemmann, the famous twentieth-century Orthodox theologian once quipped when a student challenged the Perpetual Virginity, 'What? Do you think the Blessed Virgin was bored with God?' His point was well taken, and it still is today! Mary gave her life, body and soul, totally to Jesus – and that is the heart meaning of the Ever-Virginity.

The biblical data tells us, if read within the Tradition of the Church, that Mary was the unique Mother of the unique Son, and so the Church ever held until modern times. The strongest evidence in the New Testament regarding the ongoing virginal state of Our Lady is Saint John 19, where we read that the beloved disciple, Saint John, took the Blessed Mother into his home to care for her upon the death of the Lord. The Lord commended Mary to the care and guardianship of John. If Our Lord had had other natural brothers and sisters born of the Blessed Mother, Jewish Law and custom, the goel tradition, would have required Him to commend His Mother to the care and safekeeping of His own blood siblings. The fact that Our Lord did not commend the Virgin to one or more of His brothers or sisters illustrates the fact that He did not have any to whom He could give His Mother, and so the Church has ever held. The references to the 'brothers and sisters' of Jesus in the New Testament have been understood in basically three different ways, only one of which has been deemed heretical by the Fathers of the Church.

1. The teaching of Helvidius and Jovinian: This doctrine is the modern protestant view, condemned as heretical by Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Jerome, which understands the references to the 'brothers and sisters' of Jesus Christ in the literal sense as biological children of Blessed Mary and Saint Joseph, and hence biological brothers and sisters of Jesus. This interpretation of Scripture was held to be entirely novel, and erroneous, by the Church of the fourth century.

2. The teaching of Saint Jerome: Saint Jerome, the biblical expert thoroughly familiar with Jewish tradition and history, as well as Hebrew literary styles and forms, instructs that the references to Our Lord's sisters and brothers are in truth references to blood relations of Our Lord, members of His extended family who are not biological children of Mary and Joseph. Hebrew terminology lacks a specific word for a cousin or more distant relation, and so the New Testament utilises the Greek word adelphos, 'brother', to describe a biological brother or a cousin, a relative in the family unit. Saint Jerome's biblical exegesis takes into account the Hebraicism of the New Testament. Saint Jerome's version is the view usually maintained in the Roman Catholic Church.

3. The teaching of Saint Epiphanius of Salamis: This venerated fourth-century monk and theologian of the Eastern Church asserts that the ancient tradition reveals the brothers and sisters of Jesus to be children of Saint Joseph sired by him in a previous marriage. Ancient Christian traditions describe Saint Joseph, the guardian and foster father of Our Lord, as a much older person than the Blessed Virgin, which explains his rather brief appearance in the Gospel narratives and his quick disappearance from the story of Our Lord and His Mother. Saint Epiphanius teaches that Saint Joseph married earlier in life and had children by his first wife, who later died. Saint Joseph was then called to marry the Blessed Virgin in order to protect her and her Divine Son. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are therefore held to be the step-brothers and step-sisters of Jesus, children of Saint Joseph but not of the Blessed Virgin. Saint Epiphanius' doctrine is today generally held in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Whatever the specific historical situation may have been, the Undivided Catholic Church, without elaborating the precise relationships in the Lord's extended family, proclaimed the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin a dogmatic truth at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II in AD 553. Before that time the doctrine was proclaimed a truth of the Gospel by a multiplicity of local and regional synods and councils of the Church Catholic, such as the Synod of Rome in AD 340. All of the ancient apostolic Churches descending from the Undivided Church of the first millennium, with the possible exception of the Anglican Church, dogmatically profess that the Blessed Virgin was the only Mother of her only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord: the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Old Catholic Churches all maintain the doctrine as part of the deposit of faith.

As I am sure you can tell by now, I am one of those driven Anglo-Catholics who indeed believe, with the rest of the historic Church, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Virgin, before, during and after the birth of Our Saviour. Thank you so very much for your extraordinary patience in persisting with me to the end of this meandering letter. You are most gracious and kind to read all of this. I only hope the perspective exhibited in this dossier will assist you in your Christian pilgrimage of faith. I always certainly welcome your reflections and feedback.

Oprah-ism

My dear friends,

Thank you for your letter and the provocative news article on Oprah Winfrey and her disturbing involvement in the New Age movement. She seems to have succeeded Shirley MacLaine as the popular effervescent spokeswoman for an ever-changing and up-to-date version of that most ancient error of gnosticism! I do not think it is too strong a description to characterise her as a modern pagan. The New Age movement is a carefully and suavely repacked form of the religion of Genesis 3, the primordial, primeval disobedience of man to the life-giving Commandments of God. Called by many names, at heart it is the heresy of gnosticism, an esoteric religious system which offers to its followers the promise of spiritual enlightenment and escape from suffering and evil through a secret knowledge provided only to the initiated. The popular book and motion picture she promoted last year, The Secret, is a perfectly self-described manifestation of the gnostic error, which teaches that man is in fact divine, or a 'spark of the divine,' a being of pure spirit trapped in human flesh and the material world, to be released and liberated from the prison of matter only through the acceptance of secret spiritual truths which only the enlightened and initiated can possess.

The serpent lied to Eve in the Garden of Eden with the same proposition now proffered by limousine-riding multi-millionaires to unwary and naive modern Westerners: 'you will not die, but will be as gods, knowing good and evil.' The religion of the New Age movement is in truth the idolatry and deception of Eastern religious philosophy, Hindu paganism, redressed in western garb and expressed with very Christian-sounding western terminology. Faithful Christians should utterly abhor and reject this false religious system. Many religions and religious movements embraced elements of this variety of the occult long before the advent or domination of Christianity: one thinks immediately of Platonism in ancient Hellenic culture and its related Persian and Middle Eastern cousin, Manichaeism, founded by Mani, the rigourist puritan prophet of the early Christian era. (Even Saint Augustine fell into the gnostic Manichaean sect before his conversion to the Christian Faith). Occultic gnosticism was rampant in the ancient world during the early years of the Christian Church, and for this reason Saint John and the other Apostles forcefully address this error in the New Testament. Many quasi-Christian and pseudo-Christian cults, now mercifully long gone, practised gnosticism to a dizzying degree of different levels of complex mythologies, and their challenge prompted the Fathers of the Church, such as Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, to combat this heresy - from the second all the way to the seventh or eighth centuries... and even today. The Nag Hammadi library of early Christian Coptic Egypt displays the widespread influence of gnosticism in the ancient world - Elaine Pagels mistakenly claims in her popular New Agey books that the earliest, most authentic Christianity was gnostic, but she is dreadfully wrong. Most gnostics held that 'god' was male and female, an androgynous god-force incorporating aspects of human sexuality into the divine. For this reason most pre- and post-Christian gnostic sects ordained women; some of them, either purportedly Christian or explicitly pagan, even employed sexual ritual and temple prostitution - so that men and women could contact the divine male-female force through sexual union (you should recognise this aspect of gnosticism from Dan Brown and his
DaVinci Code).

Eventually gnosticism emerged as two types: puritan and libertine. The puritan form was strictly ascetic and practiced violent self-mortification and self-discipline, in order that the spirit may be forced to eschew and hate the physical world, including the human body. The Manichaeans were strict rigourists, as were the mediaeval Albigensian-Cathari, who in the High Middle Ages, forbade marriage, sexual union of husband and wife, and the procreation of children. The Cathari even sacralised suicide as the maximum level of spiritual advancement! The opposite extreme, the libertines, allowed their followers to do whatever they pleased, since the body and the material world are of no consequence to the soul which is not meant for the physical world but spiritual freedom and enlightenment. The sex cult version of gnosticism is obviously found in the latter category. I would place Oprah's religion clearly in the second category, for it emphasises the freedom of the individual from all religious creeds and dogma and encourages people to 'find their own path to God,' their own self-deification, a classic gnostic tenet.

This occultic form of religious egoism, the worship and service of self, the desire to become God on one's own terms, takes many forms, but is styled in the Oprah Winfrey fashion of modern, wealthy, comfortable America to appeal directly to the most innate desires of modern people, some of whom are looking for a form of religion without obligation, accountability, or sacrifice - the hallmarks of true religion. The New Age religion is a false Gospel, which offers man earthly happiness and prosperity and the hope of eternal bliss, without making any demands on or requiring moral responsibilities for would-be followers. The fancy shined-up new model of the satanic counterfeit religion particularly appeals to the avarice, self-centredness and narcissism of our current rather debased and materialistic age. A religion of ease, comfort and self for a comparatively easy, comfortable and selfish culture...

The actual character of spiritualism or the occult is most directly revealed by its attitude to our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. His claims to be the unique Saviour and King of the universe and sole Redeemer of mankind though Whom alone we approach unto the Father are immediately spurned and even ridiculed by the gnostic New Age elite. In the pagan system promoted by Oprah's friend's books, Our Lord, although He is not so explicitly described, is held to be an avatar, a guru, a spiritual master, a manifestation of the divine force who comes to bring peace, love and enlightenment. He is kept at a safe distance and transmogrified into a harmless agent of tranquillity and self-understanding, and the way in which that is done is categorically to refuse His true nature and His claims about Himself. In this neo-paganism, you see, there is no God but the individual human being, for the New Age has no god but the personal self.

There is no personal God in a westernised Hinduism, only a divine force, and impersonal 'force-field' which holds together all things - may the Force be with you! - a classic form of pantheism and panentheism, the idea that Creation, the world, is 'god' or a 'world-soul.' The New Age system sees all religious leaders of history, including Our Lord, as manifestations or emanations of this god-world, come to show us the way to true enlightenment, the realisation that we are divine and that our human bodies and human lives, that the physical material world itself, do not in the end count for anything. All of this philosophy is taken directly from the ancient gnostic religion. True enlightenment consists, they say, in loving and serving oneself and finding personal satisfaction, happiness and fulfilment through one's own meditative state, not in being united to One True God, the Father, through the Holy Cross of Jesus Christ His only-begotten and unique Son in the Holy Ghost, the Life-Giver and Comforter.

In Oprah's religion, man is God, a projection of the 'god-self,' and the key to his earthly harmony is to get in touch with, to contact through methods of yogic meditation and mind play, the true inner 'deity' inside. What is most frightening about the religious phenomenon outlined above is that, although its language differs and the presentation is certainly far more palatable, its core belief-system and moral and spiritual priorities are exactly the same as that of Satanism. For example, if one reads The Satanic Bible, an unpleasant task to say the least, one will find in its pages in more brutal and confrontational terms the same religion of self-worship and self-promotion so attractively advertised by the Oprah cult. The goal in both is the same: personal accomplishment through magic, the intentional manipulation of the one's environment through the use of occult means and powers to gain what is favourable to and for oneself apart from God. For both, it all boils down (forgive the pun) to witchcraft.

I guess you can tell I do not hold the Oprah movement in the highest estimation!

May the Most High God, the Holy Trinity, One and Undivided, bless and keep you all in this holy Paschaltide!