Q.&A.
Questions and Answers from the Parish Bulletin
Question: What is a profession of
Faith, and who must make one?
Answer:
A profession of Faith is
a statement of belief in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It may be a
fixed set of words, like the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the
Athanasian Creed, or the Tridentine Profession of Faith. The first of these
is recited at Baptism, usually by the God-parents as proxies for the one
being Baptized. It, or something like it, would be required for Baptism is
the admission of a soul to the community of believers. The Apostle’s Creed
is also recited at the beginning of the Rosary. An interrogatory form is
used at the Easter Vigil (Do you believe in ....) The Nicene Creed is
recited or sung on Sundays, many feasts of our Lord and Lady, and on the
feasts of Doctors of the Church. It is required of the priest at such
Masses, and it would seem improper for those participating in the Mass to
remain silent if they are able to say/sing it. The Athanasian Creed,
largely a statement of beliefs about the three Divine Persons is recited at
Prime on Sundays by those who recite the Divine Office. The Tridentine
Profession of Faith is recited by baptized adults being received into the
Catholic Church, and an interrogatory form is required of those about to be
Consecrated bishops.
Apart from these ceremonial occasions, Saint
Thomas Aquinas tells us:
... it is not
necessary for salvation to confess one's faith at all times and in all
places, but in certain places and at certain times, when, namely, by
omitting to do so, we would deprive God of due honor, or our neighbor of a
service that we ought to render him: for instance, if a man, on being asked
about his faith, were to remain silent, so as to make people believe either
that he is without faith, or that the faith is false, or so as to turn
others away from the faith; for in such cases as these, confession of faith
is necessary for salvation.[1]
One would be required to acknowledge one’s
belief before sincere inquirers who want to know more, and before
persecutors who want one to deny the beliefs of the Catholic Faith. There
is a tacit denial of the Faith when the believer allows someone to
publically speak against the Faith or its truths without correction. The
obligation to correct those who espouse errors is stronger for those who
have been Confirmed, and stronger yet for those in religious life or Holy
Orders. We have the example of Saint Paul who “withstood [Saint Peter] to
his face” for tolerating the errors of those who required early Christians
to keep the Mosaic Law of the Jews.[2]
Peter himself told the authorities of the Temple, “we ought to obey God,
rather than men.”[3]
Echoing Saint Peter, Saint Thomas reminds us that God is above every
authority, ecclesiastical as well as civil.[4]
Continued from last month:
Last month we mentioned the newly appointed
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop
Gerhard Ludwig Müller, and the strange notions he has expressed in print:
·
Acceptance of so-called
“liberation theology.”
·
Denial of the perpetual
virginity of the Blessed Mother.
·
Denial of transubstantiation.
·
Acceptance of at least some
Protestants as members in full Communion with the Catholic Church.
Last month we discussed the Marxist leanings
of “liberation theology.” Since that last writing some odd ideas of his
concerning miracles and the bodily resurrection of our Lord have been
brought to public attention. We will address all of these in due time.
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed
Mother
"If
anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and
ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God,
inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the
Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the
Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth
preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."
~ Lateran Council 649 AD (DZ 503)
The concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity
includes a number of aspects. Most importantly, our Lady conceived the Son
of God by the “overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.” No human male was involved
in the conception of her Son Jesus Christ, nor was Mary ever involved with a
man in that way at any time during her life. In giving birth, Mary suffered
none of the damage that one might expect from the passage of a child through
the birth canal of a virgin.
Yet, concerning Archbishop Müller, Marco
Tosatti reports for La Stampa:
In his
900-page work "Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der
Theologie" (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller would have denied the
dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that
the doctrine is "not so much concerned with specific physiological
proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not
having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth
pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior
on human nature."[5]
Catholic theology is not invented by men
sitting in arm chairs, speculating about what the masses are likely to
accept. or what might make an inspiring example for them to emulate. Not
even the Pope can expect new public revelations or create doctrines that are
not based on existing revelation. It is always reasonable to ask “How do we
know that?” or, “On what basis do we know the things we are asked to
believe?” A good example of a Pope anticipating such questions is found in
Ineffabilis Deus, the Apostolic Constitution in which Pope Pius IX
defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.[6]
Only after many paragraphs discussing the history and sources of the
doctrine did Pope Pius define the doctrine which must be believed by all the
faithful.
So then we can ask, “How does the Church
know the truth of the things It teaches about the virginity of Mary.
The first evidence is found in Sacred
Scripture:
[18] Now the
generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the
Holy Ghost. [19] Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. [20]
But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared
to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy
Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his
name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this
was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet,
saying: [23] Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.[7]
The same evidence is found in Saint Luke’s
Gospel:
[30] And the
angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [31]
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and
thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called
the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of
David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33]
And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the
angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel
answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power
of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
[8]
One might still ask how we know that Mary
remained a Virgin after the birth of Jesus—Matthew 18 speaks of Mary and
Joseph “before they came together,” perhaps implying a different
arrangement later—Mark 3 and Luke 8 refer to the “brethren” of Jesus,
perhaps brothers or sisters. The word “until” does not imply a change of
condition later on. “He never took a drink until the day he died” does not
imply drinking after death! The Psalmist prophesied of Christ: “In his days
shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken
sway.”—the peace and justice of Christ do not depend on the presence of the
moon![9]
The word used by Mark and Luke to indicate “brethren” is “ἀδελφοί—adelphoi”
which means “kinsmen”—a blood relative, a relative by marriage, or even a
member of the same ethnic or cultural group.[10]
Perhaps more to the point, Jewish law allowed divorce and remarriage, but
the woman who took a second spouse became unclean with respect to the
first—it is inconceivable that Mary would have done anything that would make
her unclean with respect to God, her “first” spouse![11]
Yet, still, we might ask how we know that
the process of birth would not have damaged the physical aspects of Mary’s
virginity. In the liturgy and patristic writings of both the Eastern and
Western Church there are numerous references to the post partum virginity of
our Lady.[12]
Saint Thomas tells us:
I
answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the
passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to
objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and,
consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in
that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was
much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to
Isaiah 35:1-2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall
rejoice with joy and praise."[13]
In the lessons of our Lady’s Saturday Office
alone, we have the testimony of Saint Ambrose (January and July), Saint
Jerome (February and April), and Saint Augustine (May). Even Luther,
Zwingli, and Calvin professed her perpetual virginity.[14]
Councils in the Lateran and at Constantinople condemned those who denied her
perpetually intact virginity.
“But how did they know?” How did these
fathers, doctors, and bishops of the Church—as well as the heretics—know
that Mary remained perpetually a physically intact virgin? It hardly seems
to be the sort of thing about which anyone would have asked her. Is this
just one of those things which the theologians decided because they thought
it was “fitting”?—a rather tenuous basis upon which to be issuing
condemnations. The actual basis is found in the book of Genesis. “To the
woman also [God] said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in
sorrow shalt thou bring forth children....”[15]
The physical trauma of giving birth is the result of original sin. But as
she was conceived without sin, Mary was subject to none of the pains and
damaging effects of childbirth.
“It is
written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened,
and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath
entered in by it...’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord,
except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man
shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is
this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy
Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of
her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is
a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His
birth.” ~ Saint Augustine (ca AD 430)[16]
Earlier we quoted Archbishop Müller as
saying that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is “not so much
concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of
birth ... but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the
Savior on human nature.” Now really, don’t all of the actions of Christ
among men show forth “the healing and saving influence of the grace of the
Savior on human nature”? Doesn’t the doctrine of perpetual virginity have
its own unique and specific meaning, beyond the general influences of God on
human nature? Doesn’t the doctrine of perpetual virginity, first and
foremost mean that, in actual fact, Mary was perpetually a virgin?!?!
In future writings we will consider that
Archbishop Müller does not recognize miracles as “a breaking of the laws of
nature.”[17]
He seems to think of the miraculous as a sort of delusion on the part of the
observers, and not something that has objective reality: “The contemporary
film camera would have neither recorded the resurrection [of Jesus]
event....”[18]
Likewise he holds that: “The meaning of faith in the virginal conception of
Jesus by the Holy Spirit does not reveal itself in the context of a
biologically exceptional case.” Parthenogenesis (virginal conception) is
very rare in the animal kingdom, and for most species (certainly for
humans!) it is a laboratory curiosity.[19]
In saying that the begetting of Jesus “does not reveal itself in the context
of a biologically exceptional case,” Archbishop Müller is strongly
suggesting that our Lord had a human father.
Perhaps Archbishop Müller’s appointment to
the CDF came during one of Pope Benedict’s “senior moments”—perhaps the Holy
Father thought he was appointing a Prefect for the Contradiction of
the Doctrine of the Faith.
[To be continued.]