Another Letter to a Jehovah's Witness

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father from all eternity. Amen.

Many people today are very confused concerning the nature of Christ and have fallen prey to the teachings of cults and non-Christian religions who understand Christ only according to the flesh. “...even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16b) Many modern organizations originating in the 19^th century have repackaged the Arian heresy that the Son is a mere creature, and in the case of the Watchtower and Tract Society the Son is believed to have existed as the Archangel Michael. To the contrary, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?” (Hebrews 1:5a)

This question is of vital importance for we are told “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) And it is God's will that we come to understand the true nature of the Son. “...who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Unfortunately, there is a great deception that are leading people away from the correct understanding of the Greek of the New Testament which has obscured the true nature of the Son. The Watchtower and Tract Society, starting with the doctrinal assumption that the Son is a creature, has read this preconceived notion into the text and have incorrectly rendered the English in their New World Translation.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) Scripture reveals to us that God is what the Word is. “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) The Son is God in the fullest sense which is why the Nicene Creed uses the term 'homoousios' to communicate that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance. God took on human flesh becoming incarnate... “'The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' (which means 'God with us').” (Matthew 1:23) The New World Translation incorrectly renders John 1:1 as saying, 'and the Word was a god'. There are no reasons on the basis of the Greek to rending it into English in this way which is why most translations read 'and the Word was God'. The Greek simply says καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (meaning 'and God was the Word'). ὁ λόγος is in the nominative case so it is rendered as the subject, but it is the order of the Greek which emphasizes that God is the nature of the Word.

This is why it is said of the Son “For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily...” (Colossians 2:9) Likewise, “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17) He has all the rights of a first-born, a Son who shares in the power and authority of God through whom all things were created. The Son is not the first to have been created as is argued by the Watchtower and Tract Society, rather the term 'first-born' refers to the rights of the Son in relation to the Father.

Consider the erroneous insertion of the word 'other' in the New World Translation “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist...” (Colossians 1:16-17) The word other is not found in the Greek text, it was added in order to force the text into a doctrinal bias. The Greek simply states that all things were created by the Son, but since the Watchtower and Tract Society teaches that the Son is a created being they are forced to alter the text in order to obscure the biblical doctrine that the Son created all things.

Thankfully, the New World Translation of John 1:2-3 retains the doctrine that the Word created all things where it says: “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” In order to avoid the force of the text it is reasoned by the Watchtower and Tract Society that 'him' is interpreted to be God. But the entire passage is talking about the Word, that all things came into existence through the Word.

Again it says, “...but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:2-3a)

We can see that the Son is God with the following parallel which can still be found in the New World Translation:

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” But in Revelation 22:12-13 we see that the one who is coming soon, the one who will bring judgment is the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga and we see in verse 16 that this is “I, Jesus...”

Revelation 22: 12-13 “‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work. I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

The Watchtower and Tract Society only began in the late 19^th century and since its inception it has perpetuated the Arian heresy that the Son is only a creature. The early Christian writings definitively demonstrate that they understood that the Son was God. Even the immediate disciple of the apostle John says concerning the Son: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Letter to Ephesians Chapter 7.)

If you would like to learn more about the nature of the Son as demonstrated by the biblical authors and early Church Fathers, please feel free to write me back and we can discuss these sources.

Dialogue with an Agnostic upon Necessity

 I Stated:

“Perhaps it is better simply to state that all which is and can be observed, that is, anything observable, and therefore known empirically, is contingent, that if it exists now, it one day will not exist, and at one time did not exist, and therefore requires a necessary being, an unmoved mover who moves a thing from merely being potential to be actual. If a thing is not the cause of its own existence, which only nothing comes from nothing, but rather receives its existence from another, does not have the power to give existence to something that does not have it, since it does not have it within itself. Therefore, that which is contingent, anything with potentiality and therefore subject to change, can not move a thing from potentiality to actuality.”

Agnostic Reply:

“Energy is observable and therefore known empirically. All the things that we observe coming into existence forms by some sort of transformation of energy, or a change of some state or process.

'therefore requires a necessary being, an unmoved mover who moves a thing from merely being potential to be actual.' This is a claim that has no support.

And when you exempt a god from being contingent as a foregone conclusion, this is Special Pleading.”

My Response:

“If we were to use a rational demonstration as to why a chair is contingent, we would agree that we are not exempting the chair from being necessary without justified cause, but more accurately we would rather say that the chair was determined to be contingent and by logical necessity is not necessary? Would you agree with this? It certainly would be inappropriate to simply assume that a chair is not necessary without a justified cause, that is, without a rational demonstration that determines the nature of the chair, which proves that it is indeed contingent.”

Agnostic Reply:

“What makes a chair a chair is its ability to be sat on. An object is only in its category of objects so long as it fulfills its defining use to people.

What one person calls a chair another person might call a rock, step stool, a door stop or to be used to start a fire if made out of flammable material.

While the materials of this hypothetical chair are necessarily made out of atoms or molecules which did not form until about 300,000 years after the initial start of the most recent big bang event.

So, while the chair is contingent, what makes the atoms of the chair is necessary and even those atoms are contingent on the events that took place one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, which is when gravity, then the strong force, which holds nuclei of atoms together, followed by the weak and electromagnetic forces started to affect the universe.

Which itself is contingent on a form of energy that can suddenly push out the fabric of space.

Now, the trouble is, we do not know for sure what this "form of energy" actually is or where it came from. But what ever it was, it was necessary to continue the formation of space that we have today.

To postulate that this "form of energy" is a god or from a god will need some very strong evidence to support that hypothesis. Not some philosophical nonsense that only gets you to a nebulous god concept that could easily be Mbombo, Pangu, Brahma, some other creator deity or even The Invisible Pink Unicorn.”

My Response:

“In order to keep ourselves from speaking passed each other, I will state the following again because it was a question that I posed to you directly in response to your comment that 'excluding God from being contingent is special pleading'. "If we were to use a rational demonstration [that] a chair is contingent, we would agree that we are not exempting the chair from being necessary without justified cause, but more accurately we would rather say that the chair was determined to be contingent and by logical necessity is not necessary? Would you agree with this?"

I was hoping for a response because it would lead into a discussion about 'special pleading', which I will speak to in this response. If you are arguing against theism as a cogent philosophical system, I would actually recommend against positing other possible gods, beings, imaginary objects/animals. The attempts of Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion to critique Aquinas' 5 ways was very weak, and similar critiques along these same lines I find to exhibit a lack of understanding of exactly what is meant when a monotheist demonstrates God.

Just from looking up mbombo, it says that 'Mbombo was a giant in form and white in color" and that this being experienced pain in their stomach and vomited out aspects of creation. It also says that this being was "alone, darkness and primordial water covered the earth". Like many of these creation myths, they speak of creation via pre-existing matter, that the being was troubled in some manner even opposed by the elements, or in conflict with other beings, as we can see with beings like Apsu and Tiamat in Babylonian mythology.

Likewise, Pangu is also seen as a "hairy giant who has horns on his head". This being was said to have emerged from an egg that formed from a primordial state, created some things, and in this case is said to have died.

Brahma is said to be "one of the principal deities of Hinduism" and together with Vishnu and Shiva are referred to as Trimurti. It is a henotheistic idea that posits more than one divine being. Depending upon the legend one reads Brahma is depicted as having "created himself in a golden egg", as "emerging from the navel of Vishnu", or was "born from Shiva" or created by "Devi".

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the most ancient being and its legends pre-date existence itself, lol. I joke, but this is my favorite. You mentioned special pleading in your original post and I would agree with you if for instance I proposed an Invisible Pink Unicorn and an Invisible Blue Unicorn but simply stated that the Invisible Blue Unicorn was contingent or non-existent but that the Invisible Pink Unicorn pre-existed all things and was a necessary being. Why? I like pink lol. This would be a very clear case of special pleading because there is no rational explanation for it, no justification for why the Invisible Pink Unicorn is different than the Invisible Blue Unicorn.

I would argue that in each of these creation myths there is a being with some contingent form. I would not argue for any of these myths because as I stated above, 1) there is primordial matter, sometimes that primordial state actually brought forth the being, 2) opposed or resisted by the primordial matter or even their subsequent formations, 3) there are rival beings in which they are in conflict. Much of this is seen in the Roman and Greek Pantheons, where human-like beings are born and are in conflict with one another. Of all these creation myths Scripture actually has aspects that are unique that distinguishes itself from the others. 1) God is the actual creator of all things and is not rivaled by any other god, because there are no other real gods, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", likewise He was not born from nor existed along with a primordial state of which He was a part, nor did He take this primordial matter and form it to exist as our universe. 2) he is ruler over the elements, "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" - He controls, manages, subdues it, He is not in struggle with it, nor does it fight back against Him, 3) and creator of all beings/animals/etc "God created the great creatures of the sea" - God is not in tension against a Leviathan or a Behemoth, he would have been the one who created them. This leads me to posit a unique God that created all contingent things out of nothing, that is, not formed from pre-existant matter from a primordial state, nor from His own being, which actually has philosophical significance.

What makes God more profound of an idea than an Invisible Pink Unicorn is that God has within Himself all perfections, and let's be honest, the unicorn is just not very impressive, no matter how pink it is lol. In other words, God must be Subsistent Being Itself, the necessary cause of all being in contingent things. Being subsistent and being necessary, in God existence and essence is identical, that is, the essence of what God is is the explanation for his eternal existence. It is the very nature of His essence to exist, unlike contingent things that have existence given to them by something outside of itself. The answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing' is therefore as simple as 'there is something that is necessary' otherwise nothing would exist. How do we know? Because it is the very nature of contingent things to change, that is, from being to non-being, or from non-being to being, and therefore could not eternally exist, and would therefore direct us to an unchanging, eternal, necessary thing otherwise there would be no one around to ask, 'why is there nothing at all?' It certainly would be special pleading if we were to arbitrarily attribute necessity to one thing among others, but again, that is the point isn't it, God isn't just another 'thing' among others as if He belongs to a primordial state or came into being, or was in any way contingent. Consider this, an unchanging, eternal, necessary being would be infinitely what He is, that is, His essence does not limit His existence, and therefore there can only be one of what He is, because none other can have that nature, nor could He share a part of Himself through an emanation, or any other conception that makes God composite. God must be simple, must be Spirit, in which there is no potentiality, He must be pure actuality. There is this supreme idea in the mind, so profound, that it has not escaped our notice, and how much greater it is to exist outside of the mind.”

Agnostic Reply:

“Long post, so going to short cut, each number is the paragraph I am responding to:

1. No, and my reply still stands. Do not care about what Richard Dawkins said. But Thomas' 5 ways have been philosophized to death and are not compelling. Each time someone brings them up, they tend to bring up a refined version that needed to happen due to the first 5 being weak in a certain area.

3,4,5. Each of those deities can be substituted for "He" in your original claim that a god created the universe. Each one has just as much evidence for creating the universe as the other and you need to provide a method to filter out any other imaginary being that you or others want to fill in the small gap in knowledge that we have in the original formation of our current presentation of the universe. Current understanding of the STBBC (Scientific Theory of Big Bang Cosmology) does show that there was energy there at the start of this universe, what that energy actually was or how it acted is the small gap in our knowledge that you are trying to fit in a deity.

6. From the IPU vs IBU demonstration you seem to not know what "special pleading" means. "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle. This is the application of a double standard."

7. While YOU would not argue for any of them, they still fit into what you are arguing for. You make a claim, yet offer no reason why the claim should be accepted. The only evidence of the claim is the writings of Genesis. Those books are flawed in their history, science attempts and also seems to have mixed multiple prior religions into one.

8. An all perfect being would not create a world that it knew would not be perfect. Even the claimed fall of man is imperfect and thus not the work of a perfect being. This is where you start to go on with the special pleading. You give attributes to this being that you have no evidence for nor have any method to show that the being has those attributes. So, just like the IPU vs IBU you have picked your personal choice and then made faulty arguments for why your choice is better in a form of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

My Response:

“You still have not yet answered my question directly regarding the rational demonstration that a chair is contingent. If rational demonstration is sufficient then it is not special pleading to exclude the chair from being necessary, because there is sufficient reason that it is not necessary, namely the law of non-contradiction that a chair can not both be contingent and necessary. The point of the question is that if a rational demonstration is sufficient to explain that a chair is not necessary then it logically follows that rational demonstration is sufficient to explain the existence of something that is non-contingent, reasoning from the existence of contingent things, and that this whole constitutes as an evidence. If rational demonstration can be given that God is necessary then it is not a matter of special pleading, the rational basis is the justification for its distinction. We need to agree with a definition of 'special pleading'. I am saying that if I were to arbitrarily propose one thing over another "without providing adequate justification" then this would be a clear case of special pleading, and in which case I would agree with you that I was in fact doing this. But since I am demonstrating 'adequate justification', then the case is even more simple, you simply do not wish to follow reason where reason will take you, and you are using the term 'special pleading' to avoid having to address these distinctions and instead you are left with having to confound proposed contingent beings found within various myths with the philosophical argument I am making, instead of interacting with what I am saying on its own merit. And let's be honest regarding the definition of special pleading which you shared above, that it should be stated as the following: "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard." - This is the citation directly from Wiki. What is the source of the definition you are using? Here is another definition which I alluded to earlier: "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification." And yet another: "Special pleading occurs when someone dismisses a specific case as an exception to a rule without adequate reasons." In each case, you left out the one way for something not to be a case of special pleading, namely, that there must be "adequate justification, sufficient reason", otherwise any and all distinctions which deviate from a norm would be a case of 'special pleading'. In which case, the term would be useless and be without practical meaning for the purpose it is being used.

These proposed contingent beings would not fit into what I am arguing specifically because they are contingent. Anything that is contingent, such as a horned giant, or a being that dies, or had an origin, has a rival, etc, is not a sufficient explanation for all contingency. As I demonstrated before with the question 'why is there something rather than nothing', there are only contingent things presently in existence precisely because there is something that is necessary, a thing in which it is impossible for it to not exist, in other words, it has no potentiality for non-being, otherwise there would be nothing at all. All that which is contingent is not sufficient to explain its own existence, precisely because it does not have existence of itself, it has been given existence to it by something outside of itself. What I am saying is that if all that which is contingent is not sufficient reason for its existence then we must logically look to something that is not contingent for an explanation, and this would be something that exists necessarily.

We do not see this in these so-called "creation myths", because from what I have been shown here is that the myths do not believe in creation at all, at least not creatio ex nihilo, but they posit some eternal primordial state which was formed by some being which is limited, is born, dies, and therefore contingent, or it was this being, or the being is used to personify said state, or this state brought about a being, once again, contingent. Of course, if there are other myths of this sort which you wish to propose I will be more than willing to assess them as well but for the most part you will find more of the same. But let me circle back to that which is necessary, and determine what must be true of this necessity. It is the nature of a thing that is necessary to have no potentiality for non-being, it would be impossible for it not to exist, and therefore it is eternal, and the primary cause of being in all contingent things, otherwise contingent things would not exist. It could not have any of the attributes of contingency such that it can not be composite, and therefore must be simple spirit. It must also not be limited in any way of what it is, comprising in perfection what is natural to it, therefore it could be the only thing with its nature, and it would be infinitely what it is. It would be incorporeal, so it would not have a specific form and therefore beyond empirical observation. This rational demonstration leads us from all which is contingent to something that is necessary, not having any of the attributes of contingent things, and logically what are the attributes of a thing that necessarily exists. This explanation which is necessary, pure spirit, eternal, creator of all contingent things, and implies intellect such that this creation produced intellectual beings and that all which we observe is intelligible, purposely ordered in a manner to be apprehended by an intellect, naturally leads us to wonder what this explanation is. This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about God.

Your final thought is based in the question: Is this the best of all possible worlds? Some point to the existence of imperfection in this world in order to argue that God could not be a perfect being, comprised of all perfections, who freely choose to create this world out of His goodness to the exclusion of all other possible worlds. The most obvious question to ask is what do you consider to be the best of all possible worlds? If God was the sole cause of every effect, or that the cosmos ultimately is comprised of a single will, then I would certainly agree with you that this world would tell us more about God than it would tell us about ourselves. But, while God is the primary cause of being, the basis for our existence and activity, contingent things engage in secondary causation. God, in being the primary cause, is not to be confused with the first cause in a chain of causation, but rather that God is the uncaused cause of all causation itself. God did not create a world in which there was only one will expressing itself through all the merely apparent wills of human beings, who are said to be created in the image and likeness of God, having will and intellect. Rather, the best possible world would be one where God truly shares His goodness with others, who in turn can freely participate in that goodness and direct it back to God and towards others. Unlike a necessary being who always acts in accordance with its own nature, contingent beings can direct their wills toward their proper end or not. It remains possible for contingent beings to change for the better or for the worse, to live in accordance with virtue or to degrade itself in vice.

Consider this, can a necessary being create another necessary being? The answer is clearly no because it is self-contradictory. It is like asking if God can create a square circle. It is only the nature of contingent things to be moved from non-being to being, from potency to actuality, and this excludes things that are by nature necessary, and therefore pure actuality and Subsistent Being Itself. There is and can only be one thing that is necessary. That means, that anything which God creates would be contingent, and those things would have all of the attributes of contingency. God having created a world of contingency implies that the best of all possible worlds would be one that is contingent and have all the attributes of contingency. To point to a thing done by something contingent, a thing that is possible to a contingent thing, such that it moves from potency to actuality, denotes that all that which is actualized logically excludes the actualization of the contrary, and here lies the basis for free will. As I asked above, "what do you consider to be the best of all possible worlds?" Would you claim that the only way you would consider God to be perfect is if he did not create anything at all? Especially since if He were to create anything at all it would be contingent, and therefore have all the attributes of contingency, including the potency to do good and to do evil, to direct things towards their natural end or to pervert them, to engage in the practice of virtue or to fall into depravity. Perhaps you are imagining a world in which all contingent things always willed the good and never actualized the potential for evil. I would propose this, it seems very unlikely that everyone, everywhere, and always would always choose to actualize good, and even though it was always possible to actualize evil it was always avoid. I would argue 1) that if God were to create at all it would be contingent, and 2) that the nature of contingent things implies that they will not act necessarily. And it would seem highly improbable that we would get the same result from contingent things as if they did act necessarily. It seems more plausible that contingent things would eventually actualize a wide variety of potency, perhaps exemplified by various expressions, though in a much more pessimistic manner, such that "if it can go wrong, it will go wrong" and again, "given enough time, all possible things will become actual". I certainly would not claim that God is somehow imperfect if a contingent thing acts contingently, having the possibility to do a thing or not to do it. Therefore, I disagree with your proposal that a perfect being would not create if the only possible world had the potential not to be perfect. Like I said, you would need to be more specific in what you mean by perfect, because it is the nature of a necessary being to have within Himself all perfections, yet it is the nature of contingent things to be limited and not be comprised of any perfections at all, but only participating in said attributes but only to varying degrees.

Building upon this understanding of the nature of contingent things, is the understanding of the potential that is created in contingent things when they are faced with adversity. To use a line from John Wesley's sermon God's Love to Fallen Man, he says "...mankind in general have gained, by the fall of Adam, a capacity of attaining more holiness and happiness on earth than it would have been possible for them to attain if Adam had not fallen." Again he says, "As God’s permission of Adam’s fall gave all his posterity a thousand opportunities of suffering, and thereby of exercising all those passive graces which increase both their holiness and happiness; so it gives them opportunities of doing good in numberless instances; of exercising themselves in various good works, which otherwise could have had no being. And what exertions of benevolence, of compassion, of godlike mercy, had then been totally prevented!" We would not know God as a savior, we would not know forgiveness, nor would we know what it would be to act heroically in the face of evil. Perhaps the best of all possible worlds is that world in which we have "a capacity of attaining more holiness and happiness on earth than it would have been possible for them to attain if Adam had not fallen."

Letter to a Jehovah's Witness

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father from all eternity. Amen.

I appreciate you taking the time to write a letter to me, and I share with you a common love for God and His revelation. I too have a passion to contend for that faith which was once and for all given unto the saints. I likewise wish to always avail myself to give a reason for my hope with patience and charity. And to this end I wish to send to you this reply inviting you to consider the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The question of authority has been a very divisive one in the recent history of Christianity. Within the last 500 years we have seen a plethora of translations and interpretations of Scripture, multiple claims of authority, various understandings of the nature of the Church, and numerous Christian sects claiming to be the real Christians. Unfortunately there are as many theologies as there are those to conceive them. This has especially been true in America affording religious freedom, becoming a breeding ground for new cults and spiritualities, many of which originated during the 19/20^th century. All claiming to be God's prophets with the true teaching of Christ. The Mormons were started by Joseph Smith (1805-1844), Religious Science was started by Ernest Holmes (1887-1960), the Unification Church was started by Sun Myung Moon (1920-2012), the Christadelphians was started by John Thomas (1805-1871), and the Jehovah Witnesses originated with the teachings of Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916). Historically, a person will privately interpret Scripture and then construct their own version of Christianity, and then it becomes popularized and eventually the movement solidifies into an institution which still exists today. My point is that these institutions claim to properly understand Scripture and that they are God's authority but all of them contradict one another and are all very recent. I would propose that instead of allowing ourselves to be influenced by these modern religious movements that have recent origins, that instead of creating our own version of Christianity with our personal, private interpretations of Scripture that we would look to the early Church to see exactly what the Church was and where we can find it today.

Consider for a moment the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, writing in the 5^th century as he addresses this question of interpretations.

“I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.”

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

Let's consider for a moment a modern doctrine and movement which you and I agree is false. Ellen G. White (1827-1915) along with some others were the originators of the Seventh Day Adventists. Like Charles Russell, the movement is highly influenced by the writings and interpretations of their originators. The SDAs believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, that one day in the near future Jesus will have an invisible coming prior to his second coming where he will take all the believers off the earth to heaven where they will remain until the second coming. The interpretation of certain passages of Scripture are proposed as teaching this doctrine, but these interpretations are novel and more recent, meaning that in the history of interpretation there is no historical basis for it. These interpretations can not be historically seen prior to John Darby. According to history, 'Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.' (Wikipedia) The early Church knew nothing of this doctrine, none of their commentaries ever speak of it, and so it should be considered to be incredibly suspect. It is a clear example of 19^th century religious creativity which gave birth to a whole new theology originating in the private interpretations of an individual. In one sense, there is no need to debate them on exegetical grounds because there is no historical evidence for their interpretations. The early church fathers, those great lights of antiquity, those most authentic commentators of Holy Scripture, are completely devoid of any doctrine resembling a pre-tribulation rapture. What the early Church thought is very instructive for our purposes because what we have seen so far with all these modern movements based on private interpretations completely devoid of a historical basis is that it has caused great confusion. Many people follow these modern organizations as if they are the most accurate interpreters of Scripture when in reality they have sowed confusion and contradiction among people. And sadly people end of following one of these modern groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The early Church can be understood not only by reading its history contained within the book of Acts, but we also have a lot of writings from the early Christians that inform us about that faith which was preached to them by the mouth of the apostles. The Church is apostolic because the apostles deposited into the Church teachings in the same manner as one would deposit funds into a bank. This is the Apostolic Tradition.

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.” - St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 4. (Irenaeus was the Bishop of Lyon in the 2^nd Century, a disciple of Polycarp, who tutored directly under the Apostle John.)

Ignatius of Antioch, who was the direct disciple of the Apostle John, stated “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” - Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8. From the mouth of John's disciple, we know that the faith which was once and for all entrusted unto the saints was deposited into the Catholic Church.

Likewise, he says...

“For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; all who repent and return to the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers. If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not obtain the inheritance of God’s kingdom; if anyone lives by an alien teaching, he does not assent to the passion of the Lord. Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God.” - Ignatius Letter to the Philadelphians

Consider for a moment Ignatius' teaching that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead with that same flesh and blood which was crucified.

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

That Jesus was raised from the dead with the same flesh and blood is reflected in the same letter to the Smyrnaeans: “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3)

Not only this but the disciple of John affirms that it was God who became incarnate in this flesh and blood.

Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.” (Letter to Ephesians Chapter 1.)

Again he says: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Letter to Ephesians Chapter 7.)

Where did Ignatius, the disciple of John, receive these teachings concerning the incarnation of God. He received it not only by Scripture, the writings of John, but by the very preaching of the apostles. This is how the disciple of John interpreted his writings and sermons. In a letter by Irenaeus this preservation of the Apostolic Tradition is beautifully expressed... “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.”

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.”

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Listen again to Irenaeus, writing in the 2^nd century... “This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes.”

What this means is that Christ established an authoritative Church which was endowed with the attributes of authority, and in order to do this effectively, to preserve the truth deposited into the Church, which includes proper interpretation of Scripture, the Church was also endowed with infallibility and indefectibility, otherwise the gates of Hades would prevail. Christ promised that the Church would exist in perpetuity, and so we should expect to be able to discern where it is today.

One day I hope that you will join me in reciting that portion of the Nicene Creed which states so beautifully of our Lord that has so graciously saved us by His blood on the Cross, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by His own blood. I hope that one day you will be more influenced by those interpretations that have been passed down to us by the early Church, and not be moved by every wind of teaching that flows to us by modern religious movements which originated in the 19/20^th century.

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

My challenge to you, is why maintain interpretations proposed to you by the Watchtower and Tract Society when those interpretations are contrary to the early Church, particularly St. Ignatius, the disciple of the apostle John?

If you are interested in learning more about the teachings of the Catholic Church please feel free to write me at my address.

May the Lord bless you, protect you from all evil, and bring you into everlasting life.

7 Questions on Vatican II: A Response to Dr. Taylor Marshall

 

Dear Dr Taylor Marshall,

I wanted to take a moment and reflect upon your Article “7 Questions for Pope Francis regarding Vatican 2”.

Introduction

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic. I send all my children to Catholic schools. I attend a Byzantine Catholic divine liturgy, and I pray the rosary every day. As a father and a husband I am dedicated to ensuring that my family remains faithful to the Church, and I often go to great lengths to study theology in order that I may better pass on my faith to others.

Like you I have encountered a great deal of heresy and liturgical abuse in the Church. I have been called a “liturgi-cop” and a “pharisee” in the confessional. I have been told that I can use birth control. I had a priest tell me on the day of my daughter's baptism that I could go to one of the extraordinary ministers for a blessing as we were waved away when we approached the priest for this purpose. During an attempt at spiritual direction the priest told me that a lot of what the Church teaches is “monkeyrod”. I have had to listen to homilies that criticized the new translation of the Novus Ordo “we should have told Rome to take a hike”. I have heard John Lennon's Imagine played on piano while we took communion. I have had to tolerate liberal biblical scholarship in the RCIA when the director led people to question Paul's authorship of a few of his epistles. I have sat and watched horrified as a priest, during his homily, performed yoga positions on the floor telling us that he “channels the Holy Spirit through his body like energy”. I have even watched a bishop turn a blind eye to a New Age teacher that was working within his diocese.

Believe me when I tell you that I am appalled at priests, bishops, and even popes who say and do the worst things imaginable. I wonder all the time how people like James Martin is not formally recognized as being in a state of excommunication from the Church. A great deal of perversion and abuses have been done in the name of Vatican II. I have heard very disturbing stories about the council and its circumstances, much of which I read in Lefebvre's A Letter to Confused Catholics. I am well aware that the Modernists intended to utilize any ambiguity to their own benefit. You and I share a passion for tradition and long for a stronger magisterium that will stand up against progressivism and remain faithful to the deposit of faith.

I was hoping that you would take the time to consider my reflection upon your article, as I have taken the time to reflect upon it, and ask that you would offer a response when time permits. The focus of my analysis will mainly examine the usage of quotations from Nostra Aetate. Notice that my sole concern is the meaning of the text. I do not make any attempt to address any other question other than the meaning of these texts within the document. Whatever we may think or feel about Francis or the events concerning Vatican II are not the focus of my analysis. I make the effort to be as specific and as direct towards this end as possible so as to avoid equivocation and the many tributaries that could easily cause us to drift away from textual interpretation. Therefore, my method was to quote and explore the text as it is without considering external factors. I endeavor to apply what I consider to be basic interpretative reasoning in order to find the most coherent meaning that fits the plain sense of the text. In the following I share what has been my understanding of the issues you raised in your 7 questions in the hopes that we could have some fruitful dialogue.

Church Authority

You first raise the question whether or not Vatican II “falls under extraordinary magisterium” or if it “bear[s] the mark of infallibility? To these questions you have quoted the following:

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.” - Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January 1966.

“But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity.” - Pope Paul VI, Discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December 1965

I can determine from these quotations that Vatican II did not intend to establish any new dogmas but that it did intend to offer pastoral responses to interesting questions. But it does not absolutely follow that since the council did not proclaim any new dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility in an extraordinary manner that it was not an authentic council, this does not exclude that it did nothing at all in an extraordinary manner. The teaching authority simply did not wish to issue any “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements”, but it did intend to set forth “authoritative teaching on a number of questions...”. This fact should not necessarily be of great concern for there are several Catholic teachings that have never been dogmatically proclaimed. Throughout Church history there have always been degrees of certainty placed upon certain doctrines which have not been formally taught as dogmas. “If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.” Yet there are also teachings that are (sententia fidei proxima), that is “a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.”

To conclude more fully with Lugwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable.” And we can see that this is true for Vatican II. The council could have acted de fide definita, in defining new dogma but they didn't. “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, decisions of the Roman Congregations are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.” (Ott, 9-10)

To answer your first questions: Vatican II did involve the extraordinary magisterium but it did not issue any “extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore none of its teaching carries the mark of infallibility, because only teaching declared as dogma bear the mark of infallibility. But as I pointed out before, not all Catholic teaching is dogma. For example, as to the question of the relation between grace and freedom we find among Catholic thought the Thomistic teaching, Augustinianism, Molinism, Congruism, and Syncretism. Catholics are free in their theological speculation on these subjects none of which are considered dogma and therefore none of them carry the mark of infallibility.

The Liturgy

As for the liturgy you have correctly pointed out the following:

Latin: Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1. “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

Gregorian chant: Sacrosanctum Concilium 116. “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

It would be appropriate to say that the complete removal of the use of any Latin at all, and the complete neglect of Gregorian chant is not an action that was encouraged by Vatican II, and as you have shown here is that in response to the council it would be required that the Novus Ordo immediately begin to implement these directives from Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Meaning of Nostra Aetate

Your final set of questions relate to the opening paragraphs in Nostra Aetate, which is the Vatican II document “Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions”. We shall examine these passages using the translation by Fr. Killian as found in the Flannery edition.

The broader context of these passages will help us understand the purpose of these statements, which I can assure you is the plain sense of the passages and by no means constitutes a “massaging of the passages to make them sound more traditional.”

“People look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence. The problems that weigh heavily on people’s hearts are the same today as in past ages. What is humanity? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behaviour, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what end does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and towards which we tend?”

The opening paragraphs of section 1 lays the philosophical foundation of a shared experience between humans. People have pondered the deepest questions of reality in attempt to discover meaning and purpose, in search of an overarching explanation for all of existence. This is deep longing that is shared across space, time, and culture. It is this shared intellectual exploration that characterizes the deepest longings of the human heart. No man can be faulted for considering such questions, for these are the questions which we all seek to answer, and it is certainly understandable that men, who have a greater or lesser degree of that “light which enlightens all men”, would come to various conclusions even if those conclusions do not immediately and completely conform to that fullness which is only in Christ. We can not fault a man for longing for such answers, and we certainly can not fault a man for falling into error during this process, this intellectual journey which often has pitfalls, diversions, and detours.

“Throughout history, to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times, there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavour by way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.”

It is important to highlight that the attempts of other religions to “answer these questions”, to ponder the mysteries of the universe is that part of all of us that searches for meaning and purpose, it is that common experience among men to explore and penetrate more deeply the loftiest ideas which reason can produce.

This last excerpt brings us to your quotations of the text. But before we consider the passages you mentioned I shall conclude this premise with the ending of section 2, the text that immediately follows, which serves as the broader context for our assessment, bookends for this discussion. Section 2 ensures that we keep the most important point in mind: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflects a ray of truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”

The document clearly states that the Catholic Church believes and proclaims that Christ is the way, the true answer to these deepest longings of our heart and the fulfillment of all our philosophical considerations. To ensure that this is unambiguously clear I will quote Unitatis Redintegratio 1.4: “For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated...” Again it says: “...the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace...” It is within this context that the Catholic Church is the one true faith that we now consider your quotations from Nostra Aetate.

Fr. Killian Translation: “Thus in Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trails of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence and love.”

It is more clear in the statement on Buddhism that “it proposes” an answer, and mentions “So, too, other religions... attempt in their own way...” by means of what they consider for themselves to be “doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.” It should be important to note that no attempt is made in the document to demonstrate that the understanding of Hinduism is the exact same as Catholic teaching, as if there is no difference in these teachings. There is no formal declaration here that we are to accept the falsehoods of non-Christian religions, no directive to affirm that their understanding is without error. When the text says “divine mystery” it is not at all claiming that what they consider to be “divine mystery” is synonymous with what a Catholic means by divine mystery. The text does seem to draw general parallels of intent and method. For instance, in Hinduism, which the documents of Vatican II already consider deficient, there is a shared desire to know the mysteries of the divine reality. Yes, we go about it in different ways, and yes, Catholics come to understand divine reality correctly, since we have divine revelation, but nevertheless the claim is that they make attempts to do this though imperfectly and with imperfect understanding, some measure of truth mixed with great error.

The point is not that we engage in ascetical practices with the same understanding, but that there are some, if not very small and minor, parallels that could be drawn. Is there error contained therein taught by demons? Yes. Are those errors detrimental to their spiritual life? Of course, but the point is the general attempt to pursue truth and to better understand reality through an overarching explanation, even if they have been misguided in these pursuits, even if by following those teachings they unfortunately end up worshiping demons. I think the council is in agreement that those elements in other religions which are contrary to Church teaching is to be rejected, but if we recognize some glimmering ray of truth, a faint light as small as a mustard seed, it can serve as a basis for evangelism. We would both agree that some of the most convincing falsehoods are only appealing because they contain a partial truth. Just as many Protestant converts to the Catholic Church will tell us, “we did not have to abandon absolutely everything in order to become Catholic, rather we simply embraced the fullness of truth and came to walk in the fullness of light.” Some of the teachings we used to believe were in error but the longings underneath were as authentic now as they were then, for this longing comes from God and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. This is a true desire for truth, and the passion to pursue it, even if imperfectly at first.

Fr. Killian Translation: “Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way of life by which men can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.”

Killian's translation seems more clear when it says “it proposes”. It is only a statement of what the religion claims for itself, not what a Catholic should conclude about it. The entire context of these passages is not to expound upon these issues with great detail, but rather to only briefly mention that while some people may not yet have attained to the fullness of truth we can nevertheless recognize their efforts to seek and understand truth, and maybe draw some vague parallels that can serve as a point of evangelism. If a strong emphasis within Buddhism is the inadequacy of this world, that it is not to fully satisfy us, we can easily find a point of contact with them since Catholics maintain that while we can be reasonably happy in this world, we will only be ultimately happy in the next in the beatific vision. I can not emphasize enough that these passages are only speaking of the attempts made by these religions in order to answer these questions for themselves, not that a Catholic can believe as they do, or that their teaching is identical to ours, or worse of all, neither is the document proposing other religions as another means of salvation. It is only in and through the Church that the fullness of truth is to be found as it says in Nostra Aetate 4: “...the cross of Christ as the sign of God's universal love and the source of all grace.” Again it says: “...[The Catholic Church] proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”

Fr. Killian's Translation: “So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts, and sacred rites.”

Even using your own quotation, the “likewise” directs us to form a connection here to the examples we have already considered. These other religions “attempt in their own ways”, and allow me to write this properly, that in their own way and in their own understanding have established what they consider to be doctrine, moral precepts and rites which they consider sacred. It isn't as if their rites are sacred according to Catholic teaching but that those rites are considered sacred by those who follow those religions. The text goes out of its way to ensure that these statements are interpreted in this manner when it states: “ attempt in their own ways”. We are not being asked to accept these ways as alternative methods to salvation, as the Modernist would have us believe, they contain error but we are to recognize that those ways are important to those who hold them.

Two Concluding Remarks

It seems fitting to have higher regard for a Jew than we would for an atheist. It seems right that we would be willing to appreciate that the Jew at least claims to be worshiping the one true God, and at least attempts to follow the Old Testament as they understand it. I would much prefer that I shared this amount of common ground with the Jews than to have them all be atheists. It seems that it would be much easier to lead a theist to conclude that the most relational thing that God could possibly do is to become incarnate, than to convince an atheist since for him you would have to also demonstrate that there is a God. At least with the theist you are much closer to the truth, and I do hold those who have a greater measure of the truth in much higher regard. While the people we encounter are not Catholics today, perhaps they might within 5, 10, or 20 years if we were charitable, built connections, shared common ground, and patiently stirred the pot of theological discourse. Even the most beautiful of roses appear to lose their scent and color when it is immersed in mud. The scent and color remain but since it was presented in the worse manner possible we may have just done these people a great disservice and loaded our best ideas with emotional baggage that turns them off any time they are influenced by it in the future. By our demand for immediate conformity we often present truth in the least charitable manner imaginable and by doing so we greatly wound their journey which God has established in His own time. We should lovingly engage in open dialogue, develop mutual understanding, establish trust that leads people to greater openness, and be a vessel through which the love of Christ compels them seeing such beauty within our soul.

Brevity often leads to ambiguity, an author attempting to say too much in too short a space. While attempting to be concise end up leaving the text without a lot of context. Such a text requires you to bring more to the text than what the text offers itself. Being familiar with all the documents of Vatican II it is much easier to see how they are to be read together. Pulling a short passage or two without the broader context of the other documents and the immediate context of the surrounding text can lead to misunderstanding. I do agree that the documents are in need of in-depth commentary in order to not misread them. I would suspect that the manner in which you seem to have interpreted these passages is the exact same way a Modernist would attempt to use it to justify their heretical indifferentism, to which I would offer the same analysis demonstrating that they are misusing the documents. Even though the intent behind the use of these quotations may be different, the result is ultimately the same.

With much respect and charity I offer this explanation in the hopes to create further dialogue on these subjects.

Did Jesus rebuke a woman for calling Mary “blessed”?

Introduction

As a preparation for this article I had recently written several responses to a claim that Christ specifically told us not to refer to Mary as blessed, that no Christian should ever refer to her as the 'blessed Virgin Mary'. It came to my attention that this was not a rare claim but one that is often made by some Evangelicals so it seemed fitting to write a full response out of love both for them and the Scriptures.

In accordance with the Wesleyan theological tradition I had believed, even as a Protestant, as John Wesley had expressed in his A Letter to a Roman Catholic: “I believe that he was made man...and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” I had a firm commitment to the primacy of God's inspired Word which clearly reveals to us that referring to Mary as 'blessed' is very biblical, and that her blessedness is unique.

I first encountered the idea that we should not be referring to Mary in any special way many years ago while reading Fr. Mateo's Refuting the Attack on Mary: A Defense of Marian Doctrines. In this work the author responds to the critiques made by the Christian Research Institute in which they cite Luke 11:27-28 as proof that Christ himself specifically forbade us to honor his mother in referring to her as blessed. When the opportunity arose in my own life to offer a reasoned defense to my understanding of Scripture on the matter, I was determined to set the record straight, reflect upon the pertinent Scripture verses, and write a clear and thorough response.

Ecumenical Dialogue

It is very true that the English word 'rather' is often used to translate μενοῦν for it is one of the renderings by some translators, but what has been a common attitude among some Evangelicals is an anti-Catholic bias that inhibits them from being open to other possible renderings of μενοῦν in verse 28, which leaves them unwilling to see the statement by the woman in verse 27 in any other way than “exactly what Catholics are doing, which is worshiping and honoring Mary in any way”, and leaves them unwilling to see Jesus' response in verse 28 in any other way than “a clear rebuke to Catholics for calling Mary blessed”. Because of the English word 'rather' some Evangelicals have interpreted Jesus to mean “everything you just said is completely incorrect, to the contrary, blessed only are those...” The problem, as we shall see, is that the anti-catholic reads all of this back into the text instead of examining the text on its own basis in conformity with what Luke has already written concerning the blessedness of Mary.

The strongest anti-catholic argument of this text that I have found is presented in Ron Rhodes' Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics. He states: “There is nothing in this verse to support such veneration of Mary. In fact, after an anonymous woman in the crowd called out... Jesus immediately replied, 'On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it' (verse 28). Instead of supporting the veneration of Mary, this verse argues against it. The Greek word for 'on the contrary' (menounge), according to Friberg's Greek Lexicon, is used especially “in answers to emphasize or correct on the contrary,' and carries the idea of 'rather'. The Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon says the word is a marker of contrast, carrying the idea, 'but, on the contrary, on the other hand.'”

This bias makes open dialogue and mutual understanding between two Christians exceedingly more challenging and often leads the individual to shut down what could have been a very profitable conversation before it can even start. This bias leads to resistance to any ideas that seem remotely similar to Catholic thought and leaves them relatively closed to even Protestant commentaries if the information is being presented to them by a Catholic.

A person who is generally unwilling to explore the possible meanings of μενοῦν reveals that they are more interested in preserving a translation than they are in being open to the actual inspired text. This narrow-minded approach acts as if the English word 'rather' absolutely and perfectly overlaps the semantic range of μενοῦν. As we shall see shortly, this is far from the case. The anti-catholic bias is apparent when the individual is more interested in their own ideas and using a translation for the purpose of supporting those ideas than they are in being open to the inspired Word of God which was inscripturated in Koine Greek.

The Greek Text of the New Testament

It may not be commonly known that it is only the Greek text that is the inspired Word of God. While we do have several English translations which attempts to accurately reflect the wording and meaning of a text, none of these translations have been directly penned by the inspired authors. Paraphrased attempts to convey the meaning of the Greek often involves more interpretation than usual, and more word for word attempts often are forced to use English words that do not have the exact semantic range as the Greek.

For example, the Greek word αδελφός has a broader semantic range than does the English word 'brother'. The Greek term is widely used in the NT and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) as a nearly related cousin (1 Chron 23:21-22), a more remote kinsman (Deut 23:7; 2 Kings 10:13-14), an uncle or a nephew (Gen 13:8), the relation between men bound by covenant (2 Sam 1:26), or even the relation of Christians with one another (Rom 8:29). But if an American reads the English word 'brother' and interprets it strictly to mean a male person sharing a common parent then the entire range of the Greek word is reduced and limited to only one understanding. In fact, I had a friend once appeal to the English word 'brothers' in relation to Jesus, and their anti-catholic bias would not allow them to consider the actual Greek term.

It is for this reason that many Greek tools are available for pastors and scholars so that they can dive more deeply into the inspired text and attempt to better draw out the full meaning of the Greek when preaching to their congregations. The Greek text often has nuances and intricacies that are not fully available to a reader who do not have these basic and indispensable tools.

At the end of the Lord's Prayer we say “but deliver us from evil” but the Greek states ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. ἀπὸ means from, and πονηροῦ means evil, but what is τοῦ doing there? ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ literally means 'from the evil'. τοῦ is a definite article and when it is placed in from of a word like πονηροῦ it functions substantively and is more accurately translated “the evil one”. Theologically this makes a lot more sense because as Christians we are protected from the power of the evil one, while we do in fact face the effects of evil in our lives all the time. Without any knowledge of the Greek people would not know this fact. Despite translations and the common English rendering of this prayer used in the Catholic Church, I say “but deliver us from the evil one” even though I am the only one doing it.

It is vitally important that we do not fall into the fallacy of idolizing one particular English translation but should consult multiple translations and utilize Greek study tools to help us truly listen to the inspired text as it is. Our goal should be to never limit possible renderings of the Greek but to remain open to that text which is God-breathed. Building our entire understanding of a passage based solely on an English word with no knowledge of the actual inspired word in the Greek is incredibly dangerous and can lead to restricting God's Word.

God speaks to us through the Greek words, and if we only concern ourselves with a single English translation, then we are closing ourselves off from the nuances and subtleties of what God is trying to tell us. The examples that are shared in this article are just a few of many, many examples of why a growing familiarity with the Greek is vitally important. It is not the English or any translation of the Greek that is the inspired Word of God, it is the Greek text itself!

The Passage: Luke 11:27-28

"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (NIV)

I am quoting this passage initially in the New International Version because 1) people often focus their attention upon the English word 'rather', 2) it is one of the common translations that people may encounter, and 3) many translations render the text similarly.

Alternative English Translations

The Greek of Luke 11:28, according to the Critical Text tradition, is Μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες. This is our starting point.

Our initial text was presented in the New International Version: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." (NIV)

Now consider the wording of the New King James Version: "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (NKJV)

Other translations similar to the New King James Version...

New Living Translation

Jesus replied, “But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.”

Contemporary English Version

Jesus replied, "That's true, but the people who are really blessed are the ones who hear and obey God's message!"

Now look at the King James Bible: “But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”

In these three translations we see that the Greek is being translated variously, 1) confirmatory (NKJV), 2) corrective (NIV), and 3) a combination of both (KJV).

The point of examining these various translations is that it would not be appropriate to presume that the English word “rather” has an exclusive claim upon the Greek text, and likewise to quote it as the definitive explanation of the passage is rather presumptive. Consider a Protestant who has only read the New King James Version their entire life and had read these words of Jesus as 'more than that' over and over again. Are they deceived because the word 'rather' is not used? Is 'rather' inspired by God simply because it happens to be one person's translation of choice? When 'rather' is used as a proof for their argument should a person abandon the NKJV for the NIV? I would bet that a person who has only seen the English word 'rather' are not at all aware of the confirmatory aspect of μενοῦν or μενοῦνγε.

Textual Variant – Is it μενοῦν or μενοῦνγε?

Μενοῦν in

א Sinaiticus 4th

A Alexandrinus 5th

B Vaticanus 4th

Δ Sangallensis 9th

Ξ Zacynthius 6th

Μενοῦνγε in

C Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th

Dea Bezae 5th

X Monacensis 10th

... and others (.al) The source of these are found in The Expositor's Greek Testament

Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus are said to be "the three most important codices preserving an early copy of the whole bible in Greek." (Essential Guide to Bible Versions, Comfort 77) They are also the earliest of all the uncial manuscripts.

Rhodes only mentions μενοῦνγε because he only examined the Greek of the Textus Receptus textual tradition. It is also important to note that most of the stronger 'corrective' language in various lexicons are associated with μενοῦνγε and not with μενοῦν. So he was quite biased in his book because 1) he only quotes the English as “on the contrary”, 2) he did not explain the affirmative nature of μεν, and 3) he did not mention that a textual variant existed.

The main reason for this is that Rhodes was more interested in teaching Evangelicals in how they might draw Catholics away from the Catholic Church than to fully examine all the pertinent material related to the interpretation of the passage. And his methods are no doubt effective because consider the lengths to which I have had to go just to respond to it. Most Catholics will not have these facts readily available to them when readers of Rhodes' book come asking questions and sharing information. This is why I have spent the time writing this article in the hopes to help Christians, especially Catholics, understand all the particulars related to this text and what its most probable meaning.

The Greek Word μενοῦν

Of the entire New Testament we find μενοῦν exclusively in Luke 11:27-28. And if μενοῦνγε is original, which I do not think that it is, it is only used here and in Romans 9:20, Romans 10:18, and once in Philippians 3:8 as μὲν οὖν γε, or in some manuscripts it is just μὲν οὖν. The closest we find μενοῦν in Scripture, beyond our text, is in the form of μεν οῦν, as two distinct particles.

Philippians 3:8 ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν γε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μου, δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω

Here is how the inspired Greek text is translated into English by the NRSV: "More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake, I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ..."

You can clearly see the parallel between the μενοῦν in Luke 11:28 rendered as 'more than that' by the NKJV and the μὲν οὖν γε of Philippians 3:8 rendered as 'more than that' by the NRSV.

μεν is just a weaker form of μην which may sound rather familiar since it is associated with αμην (amen). John uses αμην αμην twenty-five times in the mouth of Jesus throughout his gospel. “Verily, verily I say unto you...” expresses a very strong emphasis upon the truthfulness of the statement that Jesus is about to make. Perhaps it would be a fun side study at some point to explore all twenty-five of these occurrences within the Gospel of John. Importantly, we can clearly see the affirmative aspect of μεν and it is often not translated because it simply affirms what has been said which is implied in saying it.

οῦν is best explained by Thayer: “a conj. Indicating that something follows from another necessarily; [al. Regard the primary force of the particle as confirmatory or continuative, rather than illative...] Hence it is used in drawing a conclusion and in connecting sentences together logically, then therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so...”

According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, μεν οῦν means “so then, now therefore, verily, etc.) (where μέν is confirmatory of the matter in hand, and οὖν marks an inference or transition...”.

So are there any substantive differences between μενοῦνγε, μεν οῦν γε, μενοῦν γε, etc? Dr. Daniel Powers, New Testament professor with Nazarene Bible College explains the manner in this way:

In the Koine Greek language, there are “compound words” that are formed by joining words together. This happens most often with a preposition and a verb, but it also happens sometimes with smaller particles. Thus, the three small particles/conjunction μὲν οὖν γε can be written separately or as one word. It does not really change the meaning at all, but it is more of a stylistic preference of the writer... Interestingly, the particles μὲν and γε are often untranslatable, which makes their inclusion in this compound word even more challenging to know precisely how they are supposed to be understood.

We can see how μὲν οὖν can function in Luke where you can see how it may not be necessary to translate them at all.

Luke 3:18: And with many other exhortations he preached to the people.

Greek: Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἕτερα παρακαλῶν εὐηγγελίζετο τὸν λαόν·

Translation: Many indeed therefore other things exhorting, he was preaching the good news to the people

As with the lexicons quoted by Rhodes, we do find the language of 'rather' often associated with μενοῦνγε . The Analytical Lexicon To The Greek New Testament by William D. Mounce “also spelled as two words, μενοῦν γε, a combination of particles serving to take up what has just preceded, with either emphasize or to correct; indeed, really, truly, rather...”

How can these terms carry such an idea with them? According to A Manual Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament μὲν οὖν “in narrative, summing up what precedes or introducing something further (Bl., § 78, 5), so then, rather, nay rather”. The key here is “introducing something further”. As we have seen before the NKJV translated the term as “more than that” and the KJV translates “yea, rather”. Are these substantively different? Dr. Daniel Powers examines these renderings in this manner:

I’m not sure I can detect much of a difference between the meaning/nuance of “yes, rather” and “more than that.” Within the context of the passage, Jesus does not contradict what the woman has said, but he qualifies it by emphasizing an element that is even more important than what she said. In this sense, it seems to me that “yes, rather” and “more than that” are saying essentially the same thing. The phrase “more than that” also affirms what a person has said, but it stresses that there is an even more important or significant understanding to be gained. This seems to be what Jesus is saying in his response to the woman’s declaration. I really don’t see Jesus’ words to this woman as a “rebuke” at all. Jesus certainly refocuses her comments about blessing away from only Jesus’ mother who gave birth to him and nursed him to ALL who hear and obey God’s word. But this is not a rebuke. Instead, it widens the scope of the blessing to an arena of faith instead of merely an arena of childbirth.

George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary puts it this way: “Our Saviour does not here wish to deny what the woman had said, but rather to confirm it: indeed how could he deny, as Calvin impiously maintained, that his mother was blessed? By these words, he only wishes to tell his auditors what great advantage they might obtain by attending to his words. For the blessed Virgin, as St. Augustine says, was more happy in having our Saviour in her heart and affections, than in having conceived him in her womb.”

Margaret E. Thrall, a Protestant scholar, in her study Greek Particles in the New Testament, suggests the following interpretation of μενοῦν in Luke 11:27-28: “What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies.”

The Expositor's Greek Testament shows that “μενοῦν might be confirmatory (utique) or corrective (imo vero), or a little of both...”, which is why the KJV translates it as 'yea rather'. And as we have already seen that the 'corrective' aspect is not in the complete negation of what has been stated, as if Christ here negates Scripture, but as we shall see relates to people concerning Him according to the flesh only.

Scripture is quite clear about the blessedness of Mary. This is why Christ was building upon the woman's statement as grace builds upon nature. Christ is expanding upon her words and is drawing her natural understanding of Him and his mother into its proper context.

1. Gabriel's words to Mary “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

2. Elizabeth's words to Mary “...Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

3. The prophecy of Mary in her Magnificat “For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me...".

The Woman in the Crowd

When the woman in the crowd says "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" she is actually complimenting Jesus! We must not forget that without Christ we are nothing, and this is true in the case of Mary as it is for any of us. All theological implications about Mary are in relation to who Christ is.

For example, Mary is called the Queen Mother because she is the mother of the king. “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” This subject is highly interesting and biblical but goes beyond our purposes here. It is sufficient at this point merely to state that Mary is exactly who she is because of Christ and not because of anything that is inherent in her apart from Christ. If Mary had born a mere man in the flesh it would dim in comparison of that high honor which she has in being the Mother of God (theotokos).

The woman in the crowd saw how great Jesus spoke among the people and as the Pharisees were attacking Jesus, this woman in the crowd interjects just how much she esteemed Jesus, was impressed by him and his discourse, and it was what she thought of Christ, who he was in her eyes according to the flesh, that led her to consider how great it would be to have a son like him.

Matthew Henry Commentary puts it this way: “What an admirable, what an excellent man is this! Surely never was there a greater or better born of a woman: happy the woman that has him for her son. I should have thought myself very happy to have been the mother of one that speaks as never man spoke, that has so much of the grace of heaven in him, and is so great a blessing to this earth."

John Nollard in Word Biblical Commentary, also explains it in this manner: “'Oh to be the mother of such a great son!' This is roughly the sentiment expressed by the woman from the crowd, and as she reflects this maternal sentiment, unbeknown to herself, she fulfills in her words Mary's predication in 1:48. Jesus has clearly made quite an impact on her, and as far as it goes her effusive expression cannot be faulted."

Mary is certainly blessed in the manner stated by the woman and Jesus does not rebuke her as if the substance of her praise of him was misplaced. It is certainly an honor to be the Mother of God. While other Christians have been called to preach or to work miracles, or participate in gifts and roles that are commonly shared among Christians, only one person has the honor which no man ever could, nor anyone else. It must have been amazing to feel God kick in the womb for the first time, to give birth to the King of the Universe, to look upon his cute little face as He nursed at her breast, to watch him take his first step and to speak His first word. I could continue along these lines for an entire article but suffice it to say that Mary pondered all these wondrous things within her heart, and it pierced her soul to offer her son to God to be brutally beaten and crucified, to look upon her own flesh and blood hanging on that cross for the salvation of humanity. Christ will always be her baby. Any mother reading this will understand precisely what I am saying.

In fact, with this woman in the crowd, we are seeing a slight example of the honor that would be given to Mary in fulfillment of her prophesy. However, even though this woman in the crowd does speak well, she does so in a "womanly" manner and from a mere natural perspective since she states that Mary is blessed but it was not for the reason that people would call Mary blessed today, that reason is given in the Magnificat "for he who is mighty has done great things for me". The woman in the crowd would not have fully understood the incarnation of God, nor would have been familiar with Gabriel's announcement to Mary, and Mary's response "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

So with that said, yes, there is great blessedness in being the Mother of God, and how Jesus responds actually gives honor to his mother because she is a glaring example of one who hears the word of God and keeps it.

Jesus says: "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

We see all of this in what Elizabeth said: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” And then ends with “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” We see here that Elizabeth's words, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit captures the entirety of her blessedness, and so when the woman in the crowd only speaks in part, Christ fills in the rest and says “more than that”.

Mary herself rightly responds to Elizabeth's greeting: "...From now on all generations will call me blessed..." but then explains why: “for the Mighty One has done great things for me...”

In other words, it is the work of God in and through Mary in bringing about the incarnation and using her flesh and blood to redeem to human race. It is not, as the woman in the crowd suggests, while regarding Christ in the flesh only, the mere biological connection to Christ. It was not Mary alone who gave the world such a man, originating in mere biology, apart from the notion of the incarnation, which the woman in the crowd certainly would not have understood. We are called not to regard Christ in the flesh only.

Matthew 13:54-58 shows us a bit of this concern and how those who knew Him and his family, regarding Christ in the flesh only, actually served as an impediment for them to see Him as God incarnate.

"Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith."

One of the main concerns was that people would regard Christ according to the flesh only, and not see His glory as was clearly shown to Peter, James, and John on the mount of Transfiguration. As Paul expresses in 2 Corinthians 5:16b: "even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way."

In no manner should we take Christ's words to negate the honor given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, since such honor is given to her through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and it is this same Spirit that inspires us and moves us to exclaim in the very words of Elizabeth!