The Papists

Recorded by Olivier and Phillip

Apologetics-a-thon #2: If the Bible is a Catholic book why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28)

TL;DW: Adoration is reserved for God alone, though Mary deserves a special veneration for having a unique role in the history of salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 971: “All generations will call me blessed”: “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.” The Church rightly honors “the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs…. This very special devotion … differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.” The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

Read more about Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia at Catholic Answers.

Canon 1186: To foster the sanctification of the people of God, the Church commends to the special and filial reverence of the Christian faithful the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, whom Christ established as the mother of all people, and promotes the true and authentic veneration of the other saints whose example instructs the Christian faithful and whose intercession sustains them.

Luke 11:27-28 (RSV-CE): As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!

St. Josemaría Escrivá’s commentary: These words proclaim and praise the Blessed Virgin’s basic attitude of soul. As the Second Vatican Council explains: “In the course of her Son’s preaching Mary received the words whereby, in extolling the Kingdom beyond the concerns and ties of flesh and blood, he declared blessed those who heard and kept the word of God (cf. Mk 3:35, Lk 11:27-28) as she was faithfully doing (cf. Lk 2:19, 51)” (Lumen Gentium, 58). Therefore, by replying in this way Jesus is not rejecting the warm praise this good lady renders his Mother; he accepts it and goes further, explaining that Mary is blessed particularly because she has been good and faithful in putting the word of God into practice. “It was a compliment to his Mother on her fiat, her ‘be it done’ (Lk 1:38). She lived in sincerely, unstintingly, fulfilling its every consequence, but never amid fanfare, rather in the hidden and silence sacrifice of each day.

Read the full Magnificat (or Canticle of Mary) from the New American Bible

Archbishop Fulton Sheen: God who made the sun also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. The moon would be only a burned out cinder floating in the immensity of space, were it not for the sun. All its light is reflected from that glowing surface. In like manner, Mary reflects her Divine Son, without whom she is nothing. On dark nights we are grateful for the moon; when we see it shining we know there must be a sun. So, in this dark night of the world, when men turned their backs on Him Who is the Light of the World, we look to Mary to guide our feet while we await the sunrise.’

There are two main things to think about here:

1) Will what I do harm my body?

As St Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:19, our bodies are “temples of the  Holy Spirit,” and that we do not own our bodies. Since God created us and our bodies, it’s fair to say that we have to treat what He created with love and respect. If smoking marijuana leads you to get lung cancer or anything that’s mortally dangerous like that, then I’d say it’s putting yourself in the occasion of sin.

2) Will what I do lead me to the occasion of sin?

This one is connected to the first condition. If you’re at a party, and you smoke a lot of marijuana, then have premarital sex, are you still committing a sin? It’s far to say that you are, because you consented in the action that put you in a state where you were more likely to sin. After we receive the sacrament of Reconciliation, the priest tells us to “avoid the near occasion of sin.” This means that whatever we do, even if what we do in itself is not a sin, it cannot lead us towards sin. It’s like driving outside even if you know there’s going to be a snowstorm and you know that because you’re a shaky driver, you’ll get into an accident.

—-

I think that these two conditions combined (treating your body like the Temple of the Holy Spirit it is, and avoiding situations that could make you sin) would result making the smoking of marijuana a sin. If you take it for medicinal purposes, obviously that’s different, but I’d advise to stay away from it. And besides, there are lots of other ways to get “high.” You’d be surprised at what a few hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament can do for your happiness levels!

I hope I didn’t seem to judgemental. I’m personally against the abuse of marijuana, so maybe if any other Papist would like to make a rebuttal, that’d be okay too?

God Bless!

-Olivier

Afterthought: If marijuana is proved to be “as harmful” as alcohol, and alcohol is condoned in the Church, then there’s no logical reason why marijuana shouldn’t be allowed. But I don’t think there’s any evidence that it’s good for you, either (besides pain relief). 

Well, for starters, let’s talk about the two different types of sins: venial sins and mortal sins.

Venial sins are the little sins that chip away at our connection with God. They hurt him, but they don’t completely cut us off from God. We can be forgiven from venial sins in the penitential rite during Mass, in receiving the Eucharist, in saying a rosary, etc… (different types of prayer, fasting and almsgiving) because they’re just little offenses.

On the other hand, mortal sins completely sever the connection between us and God. Without a specific concrete act, we can’t return to communion with God. The way to do this, though, is by receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation, also known as Confession. 

John 20:23 recalls Jesus commissioning his disciples:

If you forgive anyone [their] sins, they are forgiven; if you retain them, they are retained.

This was basically a direct order from Jesus to hear sins and absolve  sinners on His behalf. The Catholic Church carries, to this day, this tradition of Jesus’ disciples (the priests, directly handed down authority from Saint Peter through apostolic succession) formally forgiving peoples’ sins.

That’s the theological and scriptural answer.

For me personally, the answer is because there’s literally nothing greater than hearing these words: “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Go in peace.”

When the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), he is simply doing what Jesus told his disciples to do 2000 years ago. And praise God, because the sacrament of Reconciliation is a darn good one.

-Olivier

And your proof is where? 

The Bible is a historical piece of work, actually. How could so many different writers have the exact same opinion about the same man(Jesus and the Gospels)? How could they have all sent the same message but written about different details? 

For example, in John 8:1-11, Jesus meets the woman who committed adultery. While everyone is freaking out because this woman slept with another man, Jesus just stoops down and writes in the dirt with his finger. I mean, seriously, what kind of fiction writer would add a tiny detail like that? The Gospels are all eyewitness accounts of the three or so years that Jesus spent in public ministry. As such, they all vary in the details, but the message of Love stays the same.

And where is your proof regarding the man-made creation of Hell?

Further Information on “Sexual Outlet Marriages”

Following up from this post.

The following quotation is from Christopher West’s The Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching.

Disclaimer: I don’t unconditionally endorse West. From what I know, he is, however, better than Jason Evert.

Q: Didn’t the Church used to teach that one of the specific purposes of marriage was the relief of sexual tension?

A: Traditional formulations of the Church taught that there are three ends of marriage: the primary end of procreation, the secondary end of mutual help between spouses, and the third end of remedy for concupiscence. The Latin “remedium concupiscentiae” is translated by some as “relief of concupiscence.” This has led some to claim that marriage somehow provides a legitimate outlet for “relieving” sexual tension in the sense of indulging concupiscent desire.

Concupiscence, however, refers to our disordered sexual desires. By itself, concupiscence only leads toward the use of others for the sake of selfish gratification. In no way does marriage justify this.

Quite the contrary. The grace of the sacrament of marriage, if we’re open to it, provides a remedy for concupiscence. That is, it provides us with the power to experience a transformation in the very character of our sexual urges, so that such urges becomes the desire to love and not merely “relieve” ourselves as if we were scratching an itch. This understanding of the third end of marriage alone does justice to the dignity of the person.

We know that we’re not meant to be used, especially by the ones who claim to love us most. Far too many marriages lie in ruins because of the general mistrust, suspicion, and conflict between spouses that stem from treating sex as merely an opportunity to “relieve concupiscence.”

In other words, marriage is a path of sanctification, like all vocations.

And in regards to the passage quoted in the original question, West says this:

We must understand that no Scripture verse stands alone. All verses and passages of Scripture must be interpreted in light of the entire Bible. When St. Paul talks about marrying, he’s talking about the moral order. […] As much as love is better than lust, marriage is better than being “aflame with passion.” 

Allow me to clarify another point. God made sexual union to be an experience of heightened tension and climactic relief. Sharing the joy of this as husband and wife is an integral part of the sacramental symbol of married love. A “crisis in love” only arouses when a spouse seeks that relief as an end in itself and treats his spouse as merely a means to that end.

- Q

Those verses are talking about the consequences of individual sin, not original sin.

In context, Numbers 14:18 is part of Moses’ plea to God to be merciful to Israel after the people, once again, rebel and fall into idolatry.

In Ezekiel 18, God himself speaks. The immediate context is verse 19: “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statues, he shall surely live. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer…” etc etc. This is in response to older forms of Jewish judgment, where sons were held accountable and in disgrace of the wicked actions of their fathers. 

Original sin works the way it does because by nature of being the first human beings, Adam and Eve made decisions that affected all of humanity, in our very nature. Original sin is not to be confused with personal guilt but is rather a broken state of being that inclines us to sin, to repeat the bad decisions of our first ancestors.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.²⁹³ By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.²⁹⁴ It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,²⁹⁵ original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)²⁹⁶ and at the Council of Trent (1546).²⁹⁷

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.²⁹⁸ Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action²⁹⁹ and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.³⁰⁰This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.³⁰¹

In short, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Final thought: Some personal or individual sins visit their effects and consequences upon no one but the sinner; and in other cases, the effects/consequences reverberate for generations. It’s one thing to spend all my own money; but if I should gamble away a family savings account, that affects my children, too. It has to do with the nature of the individual sin, which is of course separate from the human nature that we cannot help but pass along to our offspring, even in its broken condition.

God bless!

- Q

This is a really good explanation of the treasury of merit.  I recommend reading it.

http://thepapists.tumblr.com/post/16330202606/so-tell-me-about-this-treasury-of-merits-thing

—-

ETA:

I had half an answer typed when tumblr informed me this had already been posted, so I’ll just add it in here:

Purgatory is the state after death (the separation of the soul from the body) during which any final sins are atoned for that were not atoned for during life, and where any temporal punishment that follows those sins is also suffered. Souls in purgatory are on their way to heaven, without question—they just need more purification. 

As the previous post mentioned, after death a person can no longer “earn” or “lose” “merit.” In eternity, there is literally no “time” for such things. Thus the prayers of the saints in heaven and Christians on earth come to the aid of the souls in purgatory.

No one knows, and the Church has never claimed to know, who goes to purgatory or who goes immediately to heaven. In some special cases, however, God chooses to reveal this to us. For example, in Genesis and 2 Kings (I think) Scripture states that there are at least three people who were assumed directly into heaven—obviously they did not go to purgatory first. Pious Tradition tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary was also assumed into heaven, body and soul, so she did not experience purgatory either. Since Mary was conceived without original sin and lived a sinless life, there was no chance of her needing further purification anyway. (For more on that, see this.)

“Merit” isn’t a mechanical, quantifiable thing. It’s not as if some people have “seven points of merit” so they “donate two points” to those less fortunate. Not at all.

People only ever get to heaven by freely choosing to cooperate with God’s free gift of salvation. Those in heaven, even those once in purgatory, and those on earth in right relationship with God, can pray efficaciously for others that they may be saved, as well. That’s all the treasury of merit is: the entire force of prayers of the saints and Christians in a state of grace petitioning God for his mercy on sinners, and for sinners’ change of heart.

God bless!
- Q 

Hello Anon! I’m going to quote myself from this post:

First, I want to make clear that Catholics do not believe anyone can “earn” salvation. The popular idea that if someone does enough “good works” they will go to heaven is incorrect. Salvation is a free gift from God, a grace, that human beings could never deserve.

There was a heretic in the early Church who thought otherwise. His name was Pelagius, and the heresy of earned salvation is known as Pelagianism. A Father and Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, ofConfessions fame, wrote extensively against Pelagius. He stressed the absolutely gratuitous (free) nature of grace while allowing for the necessity of free human will, though he doesn’t develop a theology of free will the way he develops a theology of grace. Augustine, like St. Thomas Aquinas after him, is one of the gold standards of Catholic Theology (hence the titles “doctor” and “father” of the Church.) His understanding of grace and salvation as a free gift has always been affirmed by the Magisterium (the official teaching body of the Church.) Naturally, the idea that salvation is a radically free gift predated Augustine—as a professor of mine says “There’s not much in Augustine that’s not in Paul,” but it was promulgated with greater clarity of thought thanks to his writings. So it’s safe to say Catholics do not believe that salvation can be earned. Anyone who says otherwise has been misinformed.

The phrase “treasury of merits” isn’t one I’ve heard thrown around a great deal, so I did a little digging to make sure I had it right. Defined correctly, the short answer to your question is that yes, the “treasury of merit” is a Catholic teaching that, like all Catholic teaching, is supported by Scripture and the understandings and practices of the earliest Christians on. It ties in to a whole bunch of different concepts that each deserve their own book-length posts, but I’ll try to get to the essentials of each relevant concept.

The “treasury of merit(s)” is a metaphor for describing how the relationship between the Body of Christ and Christ, and among members of the Body, functions in regard to salvation. The essential idea is that God, specifically in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, is the source and summit of all salvation, which is freely offered out of no obligation to all humankind; and that holy persons, the saints, share in this free gift of merit/salvation, and can pray efficaciously that others may become saints and also share in it. 

So the treasury of merits has nothing to do with earning salvation and a great deal to do with this little passage from Paul, Colossians 1:24-25:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office.

In my RSV 2nd Catholic Edition Bible, the footnote for “lacking” reads:

Christ’s sufferings were, of course, sufficient for our redemption, but all of us may add ours to his, in order that the fruits of his redemption be applied to the souls of men.

Michael J. Gorman (a Protestant whose Pauline scholarship, far as I know, is flawless by Catholic standards) writes briefly about the passage in his excellent book on Paul, Apostle of the Crucified Lord:

In the context of this letter that exalts the completeness of Christ’s person and work, this claim cannot mean that Christ’s passion was somehow deficient. Rather, it suggests that because Christ’s suffering and death were definitive of God’s self-revelation and activity in the world, they must be continued in the life of the apostle (cf. 2 Cor 1:5). Just as Paul constantly reminds his readers that Christ (suffered and) died for them, he now reminds them that he suffers for them, for Christ’s body. His role of suffering servant is complemented by his preaching and teaching ministry (1:25) in which he participates in the full revelation of God’s mystery to those who believe the message (God’s “saints”), especially among the Gentiles (1:26-27).

About merit, specifically, the Council of Orange had this to say:

The reward for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be performed meritoriously.

(Quoted in John A. Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary.)

In other words, God freely chooses to offer His grace to us; we freely choose to accept; and the good that we do by the grace of God has true merit.

Hardon continues:

Certain conditions must be present to make supernatural merit possible. The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the natural law in its object, intent, and circumstances. It must be done freely, without any external coercion or internal necessity. It must be supernatural, that is, aroused and accompanied by actual grace, and proceeding from a supernatural motive. The person must be a wayfarer, here on earth, since no one can merit after death. 

Further reading that may be of interest:

Primer on Indulgences 
Myths about Indulgences

Hope that helps! God bless.

- Q