Some complaints about the Faith strike me more as temper tantrums than as calls for repentance, much less as rational criticisms.
Over on the Book of Face a reader complained about Catholic celebration of the Immaculate Conception:
Ludicrous… The Catholic Church’s rituals and so-called “traditions” are the reason they are regularly pushing people away from the Christian faith, even though they do not practice it.
Why on earth would the Immaculate Conception push anybody away from the Faith? If you want to complain that Catholics are hypocrites, knock yourself out. No argument here. To be a sinner who professes to love God is, by definition, to be a hypocrite. That is the existential condition of every human who has ever professed faith in Jesus Christ–except for the Blessed Virgin Mary. But what on earth does her Immaculate Conception and preservation from all sin original and actual have to do with the fact that the rest of the Body of Christ sins and fails? She is the one disciple of Jesus who is not a hypocrite. Why make that the basis of your complaint about Christian hypocrisy?
Also, what on earth is the sense of calling Catholic teachings “so-called ‘traditions'”? That is what the Faith is: tradition handed down from the apostles in written and unwritten form and developed over time by people who have devoted two thousand years of thought, practice, and prayer to its meaning. There is nothing “so-called” about Catholic Tradition. If the reader wants to complain that a Faith which trusts in Tradition is bad, then again, he can knock himself out. That’s called “Evangelical Protestantism”: a form of Christianity that differs from Catholic Faith, not in that Catholics believe in Tradition and Evangelicals don’t, but in that Catholics believe in Tradition and know they do, while Evangelicals believe in Tradition and don’t know they do. (For more information on that, see my book BY WHAT AUTHORITY?: AN EVANGELICAL DISCOVERS CATHOLIC TRADITION.) But where on earth is the sense of calling Tradition “so-called” and hedging it with scare quotes when Tradition is simply what the thing is?
Finally, there is the bizarre complaint that Catholics “do not practice” the Immaculate Conception, which has strong irrational temper tantrum energy, since the only three ways to “practice” the Immaculate Conception are 1) to be immaculately conceived, 2) to immaculately conceive the Mother of God (both of which are right out) or 3) to celebrate the Immaculate Conception, which the reader is complaining at Catholic for doing while accusing them of somehow not doing it. It’s a completely incoherent gripe.
Advertisement
31 Responses
Wait, if Mary was without sin, why did she age and die? Doesn’t that go against the whole thing about original sin being the cause of those things?
There’s no official teaching from the Catholic Church Tradition on that. A popular devotion is that Mary fell asleep and was presumed to have died, but then was assumed to Heaven. Many Orthodox Churches do hold it as a core belief.
And we don’t know if and how Mary aged, the Scripture is silent on that, and even if it was known that She did not age, it would not be mentioned, specifically to avoid Her being deified in life.
I’m pretty sure the ancients did have a pretty good idea of the concept of linear time, though. I mean, they weren’t going to be calibrating GPS satellites to account for Relativity, but they did have a general idea of when things happened relative to other things and how old people were. See, for instance, the beginning of Luke chapter 3.
Interestingly, the Church is agnostic on the subject of Mary’s death. The east tends to speak of her as having died, the west not so much. The definition of the Assumption only says that she was assumed into heaven “at the end of her earthly existence” (or words to that effect). But opinions are acceptable.
I’m sorry, I just can’t get over the idea that a story I read over a decade ago, which portrayed Mary as a foul-mouthed, gun-wielding, immortal demon hunter, was not as implausible or outlandish as I initially thought, at least according to Catholic tradition.
I’m also tickled at the idea that the Catholic Church, with all its exorcists, relics, apparitions, saints and miracle investigations, would shy away from proclaiming to the four winds a genuine miracle in their midst.
But what I really find amusing is the way you guys are all so nonchalant about it all, like its no big deal that for all you know, Mary might’ve been unaging and functionally immortal. Meanwhile, I’m over here doing a figurative spit-take. I’m like: “wait, what? I have so many questions”.
It would be one heck of a retcon if they tried to add that detail into any movie about Jesus.
> “wait, what? I have so many questions”
Exactly! I can see you finally understand!
Assuming that Mary has not aged, spreading this fact would lead to a lot of people flocking to Her and wanting to worship Her instead of Her Son. Indeed, this would have been idolatrous and Protestants would have a point that this kind of veneration of Mary leads people away from Jesus.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that Mary did not age. Also, the notion that the Church just goes around inventing and proclaiming miracles for the hell of it is remarkably deaf to how the Church tends to function. The Church is, in fact, deeply disinclined to define dogmas unless it is absolutely necessary That is precisely why the Assumption of Mary, though believed since antiquity was not defined until 1950 (driven by the biggest assault on human dignity in history: the mass slaughters of the 20th century). What the Church in the east preserved was the conviction that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. It was a universal belief in the eastern Church (since it took place in the east) and was celebrated in the Feast of the Dormition (ie, “falling asleep”) of Mary. In the west, it took a while for the feast to percolate across the increasing culltural and linguistic barriers of the decaying Empire. But eventually it was accepted everywhere.; However, for precisely the reasons you note, western theologians tended to wonder whether Mary could be subject to death or if she was simply translated into her glorified body without dyiing. (Paul, recall, had stated “We will not all die, but we will all be changed.”) But that argument was never resolved. What *was* taken for granted though as a feature opf apostolic tradition, was that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. So we already find even in the NT that Mary is understood to be a cosmic heavenly intercessor (see Revelation 12) and that she embodies both the Virgin Daughter of Zion and the Church as the Iconic Disciple. We also notice something else: absolutely no veneration of an occupied grave and no relics of her. If the tradition is a late development, her relics would already have been in circulation for centuries. It’s like she was assumed into heaven or something. Indeed, we have a story from the patristic Church in which one potentate had exactly this brainwave: Let’s get Mary’s relics and bring them to our city! That will really put us on the map! Sadly, his bishop had to inform him that no such relics exist since, you know, she was assumed bodily into heaven.
There’s nothing I am aware of in the Tradition that commits us to the notion of either her dying or not dying, still less to her not aging. it could be that her sinlessness was rewarded by direct translation to a glorified body without death. It could also be that as the model disciple, she shared in Christ’s suffering and death (we know she did that at the foot of the Cross, after all). What the Church thought mattered was her glorification and Assumption. And as with all Marian dogmas (there are only four if you don’;t count the Virgin Birth) the point is not about Mary, but about Jesus–and about us. If the point of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the dignity of our *origins* in God, the point of the Assumption is about the dignity of our *destiny* in God. That’s why the Church decided to triple underscore this millenia-old feature of her tradition in 1950, right in the midst of the century that witnesssed the biggest assault on the dignity of the human person Christ came to save.
>I’m not sure where you get the idea that Mary did not age.
Guilty. I suggested this could have been a possibility in my first answer. The Church would not record that simply because it would take the focus away from Christ and Mary would have been the first to demand to not spread this.
3vil5triker just hyper-focused on that, which ironically, proved my point.
A Guy said:
>Guilty. I suggested this could have been a possibility in my first answer. The Church would not record that simply because it would take the focus away from Christ and Mary would have been the first to demand to not spread this.
3vil5triker just hyper-focused on that, which ironically, proved my point.
@A Guy:
Or maybe, the Church didn’t entertain notions about an unaging Mary, because they took the time to think about it, and considered the implications and ramifications that such a thing would entail. You talk about the Church keeping it a secret, but here’s the problem with such a theory: its not the Church’s secret to keep. Before the Church was formed, Mary lived and interacted with that community for 30+ years at the very least. And we know from the account of the wedding at Cana that Mary wasn’t exactly what you would call a recluse, who hid away from society.
Its not that I’m “hyper-focusing” on this; its that your offhand suggestion would drop a huge elephant in the middle of the room with massive shockwaves that would extend far beyond what the Church could foresee or control, yet you’re expecting that such a development would elicit no change whatsoever to anything.
I don’t know; I’m thinking that when the Catholic Church officially incorporates something into their tradition, they do try to take all these things into account. and as such, they understand that inviting the possibility of an unaging Mary would be problematic in ways that doing the same for her deathless Assumption would not, which is why you have one and not the other.
Genesis 3:17d-19a would still apply to Mary even if she was not affected by the original sin. It’s not like she would have angels spinning yarn for her so that she would not have to lift a finger. Mary would be expected to work just like everyone else. If she bore the difficulties of human nature and human condition, it follows that it’s not at all illogical that she would age.
But let’s entertain the notion that she was unaging.
Look at young adults who worked hard since their early childhood. They look much older than they actually are because hard work takes toil on a person. I’m 43. At that age, my parents looked like my colleagues from work in their mid-50s. My grandparents who were ~50 when I was born, looked like pensioners forever.
When you look around, you’ll notice people who look a good 10-20 years younger—or older—than they actually are. It’s not a big issue, it’s just the way people are.
You say that Mary was not a recluse, but the ancients really had no good concept of timekeeping when it came to what year it was and how old one was. They could have seen Mary when she was 20 and looked 20, then saw her again at 30 and she didn’t change at all, and nobody would bat an eyelid. After all, she’s still just a kid. And even 20 years later, oh, she’s just keeping really well.
Mary was ca. 47-53 under the cross. Hardly that old, and if she stayed with John and even if she was interviewed by Luke — his gospel includes certain details that only Mary would have known and the tradition of icon-making is traced to Luke who painted (wrote) the first icon of Mary. In the icons, she’s invariably young and Luke couldn’t have known her before he was called by Jesus, well, you can draw your own conclusions, I guess.
I can only assume that Mary would stress that if she still looked young, it needed to remain a secret. She didn’t go around proclaiming to everyone that she’s a virgin (Mark wrote about that here), she wouldn’t go around proclaiming her agelessness. From what I’ve read, the Assumption happened somewhere between 51 AD and 63 AD, Mary would have been between 71 and 85 years of age.
You are saying this would send shockwaves, I don’t think it would matter nearly as much as you think it would. Mary is mentioned in the Bible, but doesn’t preach or teach, she doesn’t have disciples of her own who would leave any description of her. And it’s doubtful they would. Note that even when it comes to Jesus, the only description we have of His appearance is at His transfiguration. The only other description regards His passion with the parallels to Isaiah 53:2-5, and there’s nothing else than that (other than what He wore when it pertained to His actions, like at washing the feet of the Apostles).
I simply don’t think it would have been problematic if Mary had been unaging. I just think the Church wouldn’t preserve that memory because it wasn’t the core message of the gospel.
And there are plenty more details missing from the gospels. Like why don’t we have the names of the 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I think you’ve misread the intent of his or her last sentence… I believe they are suggesting that what we “do not practice” is Christianity.
I’m not sure what was originally meant by this statement, it’s like a random mashup of words that appear to make sense but fail on closer examination. One thing that’s for sure is that the sentence is definitely oozing contempt.
I mean, going by your meaning (which is evident when breaking up the sentence syntactically), this statement completely lacks self-awareness.
If Catholics don’t practice Christianity, how can they be pushing people away from it? If that’s the case, just explain to those pushed away that it’s not Christianity and you will see converts come pouring through the doors.
It says that people are being pushed away by relatively tiny idiosyncrasies like what tradition teaches and by rituals, not by the blatant hypocrisy of a lot of [people that describe themselves as] Christians.
And saying that rituals and traditions are THE reason that push people away? Puh-lease!
Oh, straightforward enough. What we Catholics practice claims to be Christianity but is, in fact, not, so it will pull people away from real Christianity – see?
Oh, so in other words, this rant can be understood that our rituals and traditions pull people towards the Catholic Church and thus away from a true Christian faith? Interesting.
I think an *awful lot* of Christians don’t practice Christianity and by their execrable examples push people away, in an “If that’s what Christianity is, I don’t want anything to do with it” sense. I don’t want to give the screed more credit than it deserves for coherence, but I’m pretty confident that’s what the last bit is getting at. Those awful “so-called traditions” (about which more below) are so terrible that Catholics claiming to be Christian while practicing them are thereby scaring people away from Christianity.
There’s also, of course, the use of “so-called” as a generic insult word, ignoring that it has the specific meaning that the thing being insulted is not the thing it claims to be. Stripping words of meaning and using them as generic insults is something I’ve noticed a lot of from the Good Conservative Christian demographic; see also “woke” and “socialism.”
@Linebyline: And it is absolutely fair to be driven away from Christianity when exposed to the witness of life of some »so-called« Christians.
I’ve been having this argument with people that this is driving people away and they pointed out that the Church is a Holy Community of Absolute Sinners, to which I replied that while it’s true, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to improve, otherwise we’re not showing what Grace does in our lives.
I’m finally getting through to some that the anti-witness of some people is absolutely driving people away. If you’re claiming that being Christian makes you X, and you’re not-X, proscribes you from doing Y and you’re doing Y, expects you to do Z and you’re not doing Z, this means that you’re selling a lie and placing burdens that you won’t lift yourself.
The witness of first Christians was enough of proof to people around them that Christianity is true. Without that witness, Christianity cannot possibly exist. And that witness was not that they were all haughty and demonstrated their intimate knowledge of intricate Rituals&Traditions™ aka Smells&Bells®.
In a sense, it’s true that Rituals&Traditions™ are driving people away from *real* Christianity (and towards Catholicism). But it is the mentality of a failure and trying to get the biggest cut of a shrinking pie. If there are people that want to be Christians *despite* the failings of Christians, and they decide to be Catholics, the *real* Christians from the *real* Christian denominations lose out on a potential adherent.
And it completely lacks any self-awareness. A lot more people would want to become Christians if we changed the way we live to be more Christlike. And NOT in the “He drove the money changers from the temple” way, but in the “He washed the feet of his Disciples”.
Instead of taking the boat into deep waters and fishing there, this is trying to catch the few fish that *want* to be caught so badly that they are jumping to the shore and complaining that there are some with nets and buckets that are doing it more effectively.
Exactly. I’ve heard from some Vangies, who are trying to be polite, that, “well, *some* Catholics are Christians”. What they think we are, I don’t know — I’ve never had much luck sorting it out.
That’s my read as well. The old “Catholics aren’t real Christians” thing.
@A Guy:
You got it! Bells and smells! Although the bells and smells more scared me away than anything. I was driven by what I knew to be truth – despite bells and smells.
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2016/08/loss-and-gain/
“I already knew Greek and taught myself Hebrew.”
!!!
I’m enjoying reading your conversion story. Thank you for posting it!
Mark has been a core part of our becoming Catholics. It was my, in fear and trembling, on my 51st birthday – 22 September 1993 – using the then-primitive Internet to contact Mark. I said something like: from things you have said in this group, you’re a Catholic, is that correct? I need to talk to someone. It was, for me – and my family! – a momentous event.
It makes no sense to me that Mary wouldn’t be subject to all of the forces of the universe. What, like Jesus didn’t catch colds, get sunburned or feel tired because he was sinless?
Mary would have been in complete solidarity with her son. I have read that she specifically refused to be granted a grace that would prevent that solidarity. Her mortal body was assumed into heaven and didn’t suffer decay just like her son. He was able to transfigure his own body before death to demonstrate his power over his human state, but obviously didn’t exert that power on the cross.
Physical death was always part of the plan. Fundamentalists are reading the scripture like fundamentalists always do. Our birth is when we die. It is up to us to become our authentic selves in this life, in order to be born in a state that is ready for eternal communion.
Mary was always her authentic self.
@JJ,
What a gift Mark has been given! What a grace that you stumbled upon his work. My husband and I feel blessed by his gift as well.
Our current pastor in Tiburon is a convert from I think Calvinism. He is “growing” the Church, but I worry that he is resorting to a “prosperity” gospel to attract followers. Who doesn’t like a good pep talk…(?)
Sometimes I look at the flashy big screens he uses, the expensive musicians he employs and I think “this isn’t the Catholicism of my youth” but my kids like it and don’t want to go to the parish further away that is more traditional.
If you ever had a minute to check out his sermons (his masses are online) I’d be curious to see what you think about all the pep talks. We usually listen to Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon on the way there to balance things out, but I’m a bit uneasy and wonder if we should haul our lazy bums to the Dominican parish in San Francisco that a priest of the work recommended.
Don’t worry if you have no time to give any input on the matter.
Thanks,
Anna Lisa
@Taco:
The world is connected. Each of us is a link to others.
Our parish is pretty low-key, but I decided, when I knew I was going to become a Catholic, I was not going to keep searching for the church with the right sermons, the best feeding, etc. I was going to be an ordinary local parish member. We only go out of parish if we’re travelling somewhere or something.
Yeahhhhhhh
Sigh
Thanks. I needed to hear that. I’ll stick with it. But the parish closest to us is out of the question. That pastor is completely nuts. Even the Arch made him apologize to us for his antics. He also threatened to quit the priesthood if they transferred him, and laughs about how they didn’t want to ordain him. I get that the Church is desperate for men who will give their lives, and the fields are white and all, but come on. Vet them a little better. Ughhhhhh. No more midlife-crisis- hothouse-flowers.
We had a priest who sounds a bit like that, for five years. But we survived. I said, when I became a Catholic, that I will trust the Church.
At the end of the day, these antagonistic details (priests that are prima donnas) are like tiny footnotes in the greater picture.
On another note, I was thinking about what you wrote, and realized that as a cradle Catholic I experienced a conversion to my own faith at the age of 16 or so. I suddenly realized how much I’d taken it all for granted, and felt utterly called out for my presumption. The entitlement part was incompatible with Christ despite my faith.
I’m still not totally cured, but I never stop asking for help, and truly hope it is all accomplished before I die.
@3vilstriker
The problem with what you say is that the Church declares what she believes to be true. Don’t you think it possible that the Church does not declare Mary’s non-aging because she doesn’t believe that is what happened?
I know I’m not 3vil5triker, but since I’m responsible for starting this discussion, I feel like I have to comment this final time.
What the Church believes of the question of Mary’s aging is not relevant to the matter. What is relevant is whether this is something at the core of the Faith or not. Therefore, whether it is necessary to declare anything or not.
I don’t think it’s central to the Faith, both possibilities are equally valid and congruent with Church teaching, so there is no reason for the Church to declare anything binding to the faithful.
In such a case, the faithful have complete freedom believing or not believing that Mary aged normally or was unaging. This is simply not core to the Faith and as such it is not a matter that the Church needs to establish.
One thing the Church does warn against is a monomaniacal attitude towards any such question. It’s not important and it takes away time and energy from the important matters. And having a monomaniacal belief is a straight road to heresy which is why I’m not going to discuss this further.
I don’t think this is going to spark an offshoot in the Church where this question is central to their beliefs, but on the off chance that it does happen, I’m sorry in advance.
To those curious, at least the Church will declare Her opinion on the subject and the matter will be settled — at least for me (Roma locuta, causa finita).
There is something very odd about needing to believe that Mary wouldn’t age because she had no sin. Kind of horrifying.
I’m reminded of the fanciful book(s) that didn’t make it into the New Testament because the child Jesus is depicted performed gratuitous acts –like turning stones into birds –just because he could.
When I asked my confessor (years ago) about the sudden stampede to wear mass veils, citing the writings of St. Paul, he shook his head and said, examine your conscience and “*do what is natural*…”