Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/misc/answers/answers.014

Text File | 1990-07-10 | 16KB | 265 lines

              Immaculate Conception and Assumption

     The Marian doctrines are, for fundamentalists, among the
most annoying of the doctrines most people identify as peculiarly
Catholic.  Fundamentalists disapprove of any talk about Mary as
the Mother of God, as the Mediatrix, as the Mother of the Church.

In this tract we'll examine briefly two Marian doctrines that
fundamentalist writers frequently complain about, the Immaculate
Conception and the Assumption.
     Catholic exegetes, in discussing the Immaculate Conception,
first look at the Annunciation.  Gabriel greeted Mary by saying,
"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28).  The
phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek
kecharitomene.  This word actually represents the proper name of
the person being addressed by the angel, and it must on that
account express a characteristic quality of Mary.  What's more,
the traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate
than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament,
which give something along the lines of "highly favored
daughter."  True, Mary was a highly favored daughter of God, but
the Greek implies more than that.
     The newer translations leave out something the Greek
conveys, something the older English versions convey, which is
that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is
charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind.
The Greek indicates a perfection of grace.  A perfection must be
perfect not only intensively, but extensively.  The grace Mary
enjoyed must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete
as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the
whole of her life, from conception.
     That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace
from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full
of grace."  If she was merely "highly favored," in the normal
connotation of those words, her status would have been
indistinguishable from that of some other women in the Bible,
such as Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, or Sarah, the
wife of Abraham, or Anna, the mother of Samuel--all of whom, by
the way, were long childless and were "highly favored" because
God acceded to their pleas to bear children.
     (By the way, one should keep in mind what the Immaculate
Conception is not.  Some non-Catholics think the term refers to
Christ's conception in Mary's womb without the intervention of a
human father; the proper name for that is the Virgin Birth.
Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary herself was
conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus
was, but it does not.  The Immaculate Conception means that Mary,
whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived
in the womb of her mother without the stain of Original Sin.  The
essence of Original Sin consists in the lack of sanctifying
grace.  Mary was preserved from this defect; from the first
instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying
grace.)
     Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the
Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness--which is
what her life-long state of sanctifying grace implies--is that
Mary was but a creature, and we are told that "All have sinned"
(Rom. 3:23).  Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices
in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.
Since Mary was a sinner, she couldn't have been immaculately
conceived.
     Take the second citation first.  The Church has a simple and
sensible answer to this difficulty.  It is this:  Mary, too,
required a Savior.  Like all other descendants of Adam, by her
nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original
Sin.  But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the
instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of
Original Sin and certain of its consequences.  She was therefore
redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by
anticipation.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus
does not contradict Luke 1:47.
     But what about Rom. 3:23, "All have sinned"?
Fundamentalists, as a rule, think it means more than that
everyone is subject to Original Sin.  They think it means
everyone commits actual sins.  They conclude it means Mary must
have sinned during her life, and that certainly would speak
against an Immaculate Conception.
     But is the fundamentalists' reasoning solid?  Not really.
Think about a child below the age of reason.  By definition he
can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the
ability to intend to sin.  If the child dies before ever
committing an actual sin, because he isn't mature enough to know
what he is doing, what act of his brings him under their
interpretation of Rom. 3:23?  None, of course.
     Paul's comment to the Christians in Rome thus would seem to
have one of two meanings.  Despite the phrasing, it might be that
it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of
mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like
Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out).  If
not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is
subject to Original Sin, which is true for a young child, for the
unborn, even for Mary--but she, though due to be subject to it,
was preserved from its stain.
     It took a positive act of God to keep her from coming under
its effects the way we have.  We had the stain of Original Sin
removed through baptism, which brings sanctifying grace to the
soul (thus making the soul spiritually alive and capable of
enjoying heaven) and makes the recipient a member of the Church.
We might say that Mary received a very special kind of "baptism"
at her conception, though, because she never contracted Original
Sin, she enjoyed certain privileges we never can, such as entire
avoidance of sin.
     On occasion one will hear that the Immaculate Conception
can't be squared with Mary's own description of herself: "he has
looked graciously on the lowliness of his handmaid" (Luke 1:48).
How could she be lowly if she were, as Catholics say, the highest
creature, what the poet Wordsworth called "our tainted nature's
solitary boast"?  If she understood herself to be lowly, doesn't
that mean she understood herself to have sinned?
     The key is that sin is not the only motive for lowliness.
Compared to God, any creature, no matter how perfect, is lowly,
Mary included.  Jesus, referring to his human nature, said,
"Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart" (Matt.
11:29).  Certainly he was without sin, and if he could describe
himself as lowly, there can be no argument against Mary
describing herself the same way.
     The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially
defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.  When fundamentalists claim that
the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both
the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from
time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or
morals.  They are under the impression that no dogma is believed
until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement
about it.
     Actually, dogmas are defined formally only when there is a
controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium
(the teaching authority of the Church) thinks the faithful can be
helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-
existing belief.  The definition of the Immaculate Conception was
prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because
there were widespread doubts about the doctrine.  Pius IX, who
was highly devoted to the Virgin, hoped the definition would
inspire others in their devotion to her.
     As they reject the Immaculate Conception and Mary's
perpetual virginity, so fundamentalists reject the dogma of the
Assumption, but they don't worry about it much.  What little
thought they give to it concerns why Catholics think Mary didn't
die.  That isn't the Catholic position, of course, but
fundamentalists think it is, and they are concerned about a
privilege which finds no warrant in Scripture.
     They note that Enoch "walked with God, and he was seen no
more because God took him" (Gen. 5:24).  He was translated so as
not to see death (Heb. 11:5).  And then there was Elijah, who was
taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot (4 Kings 2:1-13).  But
the Bible says nothing about what happened to Mary, and doesn't
it seem that there would be some mention of her never dying?
After all, it would have been truly "remark-able."
     There is a certain sense in their argument, and if the
doctrine of the Assumption were what they think it is, the
argument would carry some weight.  But it is beside the point
because Catholic commentators, not to mention the popes, have
agreed that Mary died; that belief has long been expressed
through the liturgy.  (The Church has never formally defined
whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the
Assumption would not impaired if she did not die, but the almost
universal consensus is that she did in fact die.)
     The Assumption is therefore simpler than fundamentalists
fear, though still not acceptable to them.  Pope Pius XII, in
Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the
completion of her earthly life"--note the silence regarding her
death--"was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven."  In
short, her body wasn't allowed to corrupt, it was not allowed to
remain in a tomb.
     True, no express scriptural proofs for the doctrine are
available.  But the possibility of a bodily assumption before the
Second Coming is not excluded by 1 Cor. 15:23, and it is even
suggested by Matt. 27:52-53: "and the graves were opened, and
many bodies arose out of them, bodies of holy men gone to their
rest: who, after his rising again, left their graves and went
into the holy city, where they were seen by many."
     And there is what might be called the negative historical
proof.  As every fundamentalist knows, from the first Catholics
gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know
nothing.  Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of
the most famous saints.  Rome, for example, claims the tombs of
Peter and Paul, Peter's tomb being under the high altar of the
Basilica that bears his name.  Other cities claim the mortal
remains of other saints, both famous and little-known.
     We know that the bones of some saints were distributed to
several cities, so more than one, for example, are able to claim
the "head" of this or that saint, even if the "head" is only a
small portion of the skull.  With a few exceptions (such as
Peter, who was only claimed by Rome, never, for example, by
Antioch, where he worked before moving on to Rome), the more
famous or important the saint, the more cities wanted his relics.

     We know that after the Crucifixion Mary was cared for by the
apostle John (John 19:26-27).  Early Christian writings say John
went to live at Ephesus and that Mary accompanied him.  There is
some dispute about where she ended her life; perhaps there,
perhaps back at Jerusalem.  Neither those cities nor any other
claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her
(temporary) tomb.  And why did no city claim the bones of Mary?
Apparently because there weren't any bones to claim and people
knew it.
     Remember, in the early Christian centuries relics of saints
were jealously guarded, highly prized.  The bones of those
martyred in the Colosseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up
and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies
of those who gave their lives for the faith.  Yet here was Mary,
certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the
most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being
venerated anywhere.
     Most arguments in favor of the Assumption, as developed over
the centuries by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, concern
not so much scriptural references (there are few that speak even
indirectly to the matter), but rather the fittingness of the
privilege.  The speculative grounds considered include Mary's
freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity,
and--the key--her participation in the salvific work of Christ.
It seems most fitting that she should attain the full fruit of
the Redemption, which is the glorification of the soul and body.
     But there is more than just fittingness.  Pius XII said the
Assumption is really a consequence of the Immaculate Conception.
"These two singular privileges bestowed upon the Mother of God
stand out in most splendid light at the beginning and the end of
her earthly journey.  For the greatest possible glorification of
her virgin body is the complement, at once appropriate and
marvelous, of the absolute innocence of her soul, which was free
from all stain. ... [S]he shared in [Christ's] glorious triumph
over sin and its sad consequences."
     "But," ask fundamentalists, "if Mary was immaculately
conceived, and if death was a consequence of Original Sin, why
did she die?"  Although she was wholly innocent and never
committed a sin, she died in order to be in union with Jesus.
Keep in mind that he did not have to die to effect our
redemption; he could have just willed it, and that would have
been sufficient.  But he chose to die.
     Mary identified herself with his work, her whole life being
a cooperation with God's plan of salvation, certainly from her
saying "Let it be done to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38),
but really from the very start of her life.  She accepted death
as Jesus accepted death, and she suffered (Luke 2:35) in union
with his suffering.  Just as she shared in his work, she shared
in his glorification.  She shared in his Resurrection by having
her glorified body taken into heaven, the way the glorified
bodies of all the saved will be taken into heaven on the last
day.
     (It is also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is
not.  Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into
heaven.  That's not correct.  Christ, by his own power, ascended
into heaven.  Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God.
She didn't do it under her own power.)
     Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from
Scripture?  Strictly, there is none.  It was the Catholic Church
that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach
them infallibly.  The mere fact that the Church teaches the
doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a
guarantee that it is true.
     Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter,
the question of sola scriptura.  There is no room in this tract
to consider that idea.  Let it just be said that if the position
of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura
is false.  There is then no problem with the Church officially
defining a doctrine which, though not in contradiction to
Scripture, cannot be found on its face.  (After all, the Bible
says nothing against the Assumption; silence is not the same as
rejection, though, to be sure, silence is not the same as
affirmation either.  Silence is just--silence.)

                                        --Karl Keating
                                          Catholic Answers
                                          P.O. Box 17181
                                          San Diego, CA 92117