Mary's Assumption and the Latest Scandal

The sickening revelations just keep on coming; 70 years worth of credible allegations, settlements and secrets. Some of the details are so revolting they cry to Heaven for vengeance. I can feel helpless, unless I go to the Lord in a spirit of reparation, to offset, in union with the Eucharistic Jesus and his infinitely precious sacrifice, some of that horrible debt of justice. I created a prayer guide for personal or group Eucharistic Adoration in Reparation which you can download and copy. (It is a bit long, so you might prefer to just download it to a device rather than print it all out!)

I can't help but relate the sins committed in and against the body to the feast we celebrate tomorrow: Mary's Assumption, body and soul, into Heaven. It is not only a dogma of faith that Mary was taken up into Heaven with her human (and now glorified) body: it is a dogma of faith that is surprisingly unknown to many Catholics, even Sunday Massgoers, that our own bodies are destined for the same kind of resurrection and glorification. When Paul had to scold the Corinthians about their lax sexual morals, he did so in the light of the resurrection of the body: "The body is not for immorality: it is for the Lord, and [amazingly] the Lord is for the body" (1 Cor 6:13).

In the words of Pope John Paul (July 9, 1997):

Mary’s Assumption reveals the nobility and dignity of the human body. In the face of the profanation and debasement to which modern society frequently subjects the female body, the mystery of the Assumption proclaims the supernatural destiny and dignity of every human body, called by the Lord to become an instrument of holiness and to share in His glory.

Mary entered into glory because she welcomed the Son of God in her virginal womb and in her heart. By looking at her, the Christian learns to discover the value of his own body and to guard it as a temple of God, in expectation of the resurrection. The Assumption, a privilege granted to the Mother of God, thus has immense value for the life and destiny of humanity.

7 Things Every Catholic Should Know about the Papacy: #4 (the big one: infallibility!)

Infallibility is the big one; it's rare, but it's there.

When I've gone to the store to purchase electronics, invariably I'm asked if I want the “product protection plan” --a guarantee. It's not something I plan on using, but it's good to know it's there in case of need. Infallibility is something like that. Rarely invoked, it gets all the attention.

“Infallibility” gets thrown around a lot when the papacy is in the news. It's easy to understand why the terms is so often misunderstood. “Infallible” seems to mean “incapable of falling” (etymologically, it's failing). That must mean moral failure, right: An infallible Pope is one who can't make a mistake, commit a sin, or exercise poor judgment, right?

Wrong.

Infallibility refers only to teaching; the Pope cannot “fail” when teaching under certain carefully defined circumstances:

• it is a matter of revealed faith or moral truth: something that comes to us from Christ himself
• the Pope makes it clear he intends to teach “ex cathedra”: from the teaching chair of Peter
• the truth (dogma) is explicitly said to be binding on all the faithful “with the assent of faith”--faith in God

This “charism” (special gift of the Holy Spirit) is at the service of the Gospel, of the whole Truth about Christ and us. The Pope does not have the option to “invent new truths” out of thin air, or create new doctrines on a whim: his teaching authority is subject to the Bible, not “over” it. It is a matter of “guaranteeing” the truth (a problematic area in an time when relativism has taken such deep root we cannot all agree that there is “one” truth).

I found this terrific image of Peter on his
teaching chair via Facebook; don't know
whom to credit.

The charism of infallibility is limited to teachings that are divinely revealed, even if those truths had not previously been expressed in the same terms. Infallibility itself, while exercised throughout Church history, was only defined infallibly in 1870! That is because dogmas are usually “defined” only when the truth they uphold is facing a grave challenge. That was the case in the late 19^th century, when the very notion of truth was being undermined by the glamor of “free thought” (relativism). It was also the case when the pivotal dogmas about Jesus Christ were defined in the 4^th century—those truths we restate every Sunday in the Creed, using the dogmatic language of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The Council of Trent (16^th century) was also rather generous in making infallible pronouncements.

When you think about it, infallibility makes sense. The whole Church has a share in Christ's infallibility, his complete trustworthiness (indeed, he is the Truth). In teaching infallibly, the Pope is acting as visible head of the Church. That is also why infallible pronouncements are unlikely to be occasions for the Pope to act alone. They are much more likely to be expressed by a Church Council (in union with the Pope, of course) than by a Pope acting without reference to the college of bishops (though he can, if need be).

Infallibility is not an excuse for ignoring or dismissing the “Ordinary” teaching authority of the Pope and bishops. It is an exceptional kind of teaching, not the norm; a guarantee of not being misled in the most fundamental matters of faith. The “ordinary” magisterium is still a unifying power in the Church; a way of keeping in touch with the Truth that makes us free.

This is Part 4 of a 7 part series. Earlier posts are:
#3, Bad Popes
#2, The Bishop of Rome is the Pope, not the other way around
#1, It was Jesus' idea

St Paul and the Assumption

One of the stickiest issues related to today's Solemnity of the Assumption is the ecumenical conflict over the dogma itself. Bible Christians just don't see where we got this, since it is not directly testified to in the Scriptures, their only source of doctrine. Surely, if Mary had been taken into heaven before the Apostles' eyes, as the legend says, that would have made it into the Bible! Can you imagine St. Paul not testifying to something like that?

Given that today's second reading is from St. Paul, it would seem to be a weak point (if the upper-case T Tradition were not so unanimous in what it tells us about the end of Mary's earthly life). But this morning two very different thoughts came to me.

For one, the (lower-case t) tradition says that Mary lived into her early 70's. That means that she would have still been alive during most of Paul's ministry. He couldn't very well be expected to write about a fact that hadn't happened yet. That same tradition also suggests that Mary's death and Assumption took place not that long before Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. This letter contains Paul's most highly developed thought about Christian hope, and the implications of Christ's resurrection for all of us.

I mean, his very earliest letters, 1 Thessalonians, for example, use standard apocalyptic language and express Christian hope in a really rudimentary way—correct but undeveloped, and vague enough that a 2^nd Thessalonians was necessary. By the time we get to Romans, Paul is saying that Christ's resurrection set the “pattern,” and everyone who is conformed to his death will share in the likeness of his resurrection. This is the very meaning of the Assumption.

Is it too outlandish to suggest that Mary's actual, historical Assumption (or, as the Eastern Churches call it, “Dormition”) was a further gift of Divine Revelation in which the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:12-14) taught the Apostles that the Risen Christ really was meant to be the “firstfruits” of the Resurrection, the “firstborn” of many brothers and sisters, and not a unique example of God's power and grace?

What if those very passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul spells out the implications of the Resurrection of Christ were the fruit of Paul's meditative reflection on the “experience” of Mary's unexpectedly anticipated entrance into full glory with her Son?

It is really inspiring to me today to imagine that as Paul wrote those hope-filled passages in Romans 6-8, he was reflecting on what God had done not only for his divine Son (the one who, being in the nature of God, did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at), but also for the one who was his first and best handmaid.