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!

Re-Evaluation of my Philosophical Commitments

Over the years I have absorbed a great deal of material on apologetics and philosophy to such an extent that it almost shipwrecked my faith. It wasn't that I never should have studied philosophy, but that I never should have attempted to do so on my own without the guidance of the Catholic Church. I admit that even in my best attempts I have failed greatly to properly navigate the minefield of philosophy in a manner that was healthy and would contribute to my knowledge of God. The following is an examination of ideas which I have held that have caused great harm to my Christian faith.

I once wrote the following:

“Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is built upon the foundation of presuppositions. A presupposition is a proposition which is assumed to be true to save from an infinite regress of proofs.

Since within a syllogism, the conclusion is only as certain as its premises, and since at the most basic level all of our worldviews contain a measure of assumption, due to the nature of presuppositions, we can not be absolutely certain that our worldview is a flawless representation of reality, although we maybe reasonably certain to a lesser or greater degree that the construct approximates objective reality.

In general, as adults, those who have reached the age of abstract thought, there is a reciprocal relationship between objective reality, what a thing is in and of itself apart from a perceiving mind, and the constructs which we have formed, either implicitly or explicitly, within the mind. A worldview is the construct through which we have come to interpret our reality, yet it is continually informed and confronted by objective reality. In other words, our worldview is the lens through which we interpret reality. Whereas all that which enters the mind, which first existed in the senses certainly leave an impression of itself upon the mind, these impressions are also filtered through intellectual constructs, hence the reciprocal relationship between the interpreter and that which is being interpreted.”

The following is my critique:

First, I do recognize that there are elements in this text that are true but there is an admixture of error therein.

Second, I do not know precisely where all of these ideas come from but I am aware of at least three sources that have led me in this direction.

1) James Sire’s The Universe Next Door.

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being. i

2) Earl Barrett’s A Christian Perspective of Knowing. This text was published by Beacon Hill Press, which is a publishing company of The Church of the Nazarene.

Every branch of knowledge has is presuppositions, a priori statements or first principles which as ultimate are impossible of theoretical proof, and yet which, regarded as self-evident and necessary, are not only above all necessity of proof but are also basic to all proof, saving from infinite regress in proof.ii

3) I also believe Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, which I once pulled off the shelves in the library at Nazarene Bible College, influenced me under the categories of the phenomena and noumena. That whether the thing in the mind correlates to the thing itself was in question. As I wrote concerning that our worldviews can not be a “flawless representation of reality, although we may be reasonably certain to a lesser or greater degree that the construct approximates objective reality.”

Third, whether I properly understood precisely what was being said in the above texts I developed it into an assumption that no one could be absolutely certain concerning ultimate reality. This placed everything I knew under a continuous skepticism, always drawing into question whether what I thought was really true or not. This was not only confusing and erroneous but very corrosive to my faith.

Additionally, whether I admitted it or not I maintained that it was impossible to demonstrate the existence of God unless one presupposes that God exists, that is, that the arguments for the existence of God were only convincing to those who already held the conclusion. I practically functioned as a presuppositionalist, in that evidence and arguments are only developed after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made. This caused a crisis of faith over and over because I never had a real and true rational basis for my Christian faith. Sire was correct in assessing the various building blocks of how a person comes to view the world, but I wrongly applied Barrett to mean that all worldviews are reducible to a proposition held to save from an infinite regress of proofs, as if, no one could really know for sure about anything, so we just started with an idea and if it seemed to create a consistent worldview then perhaps it was reliable.

I firmly believe that Aristotle will be the cure to this confusion. I had effectively created a post-modern construct which serves relativism and indifferentism. I ran into these errors because I was continuously confronted by different philosophies while never really having or being taught a philosophy which was deemed by the Church to be helpful. Even after taking Philosophy for Theologians I never really abandoned this line of reasoning, but I firmly believe that this re-evaluation was the result of revisiting the material taught in the course.

In this regard, I have been arrogant to my own demise and I ask anyone who may have been influenced by me in this manner to please forgive me my ignorance. I firmly commit myself to the study of Aristotle and firmly believe that the Church's use of his philosophy will guide me. At this time I am enrolled in a Faith and Revelation course that is deeply entrenched in the philosophy of Aristotle and the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas to help remedy this error.



i Sire, James. The Universe Next Door, 17.

iiBarrett, Earl. A Christian Perspective of Knowing, 15.

Thoughts upon the Ordination of Women

Many years ago as a student at Nazarene Bible College there was a female student in our graduating colloquium class that had expressed frustration over how she felt as a minister in the Church of the Nazarene, feeling that she was not as respected as she would be had she been a man. In response, I did my best to help her understand the historical and traditional reason for this reality. The professor at the time, Dr. Matson had suggested that we watch a film that was made by Nazarene professors that speaks to the history of women preachers in the Church of the Nazarene. I watched this film and comment below concerning its content.

Dr. Matson stated: “The name of the video is Ablaze with Love. It traces the biblical and historical roots of women in ministry. The fundamentalist view is that women were prohibited in ministry by the early church and therefore should not be allowed today. That is not true to historic facts. For anyone feeling that they really need to have facts in this issue the cost of the video (from Nazarene Publishing House) would be well worth it.”

My Response:

It took awhile to get the video from the NBC library but I have had a chance to view it. In point of fact, women were not “prohibited in ministry” but they were not allowed to become priests and bishops. This is true to historic fact and I want no one to be deceived by this video. So, allow me to address a few of the biblical and historical points that were mentioned in this video.

The video mentions that Pope Gelasius I wrote a letter (Epistle 14.26) in March 11th 494 AD to three regions of southern Italy addressing a heretical practice of ordaining women by saying: “Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong." It seems precarious to me for the video to argue for the legitimacy of women in ministry (though the video was only showing evidence that women did serve in such roles even if illegitimately) by using a case of aberration that was stopped by the dictates of Rome. This example allows me to make a historical point: There has never been an official document from Rome, a local or ecumenical council, or even one of the Fathers of the Church that approves the practice of ordaining women as priests or bishops. On the contrary, there is historical evidence from all of these sources condemning the practice. It is this very fact why Pope Gelasius I wrote against the aberration.

The video mentions that there is a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Prudentia and Praexedis in Rome that features a woman whom is called “Theodora Episcopa" dressed in what some claim to be priestly garments. This mosaic is being used as evidence that women were bishops in the early Church. Does it seem odd to anyone that the video must appeal to an interpretation of mosaics and art in order to present its point? This fact simply demonstrates the absence of historical evidence anywhere else and leaves those who make such claims reaching for what ever they may be able to interpret to make their point. Interestingly, the video mentions the fact that history shows that Theodora was the mother of Pope Paschal I, who built this particular church in honor of her. Here is the point: Theodora, like many other women who were associated with a priest or bishop, usually the wife of said individual, often times held an honorary title such as “episcopa” or “presbytera”. Never was it understood that these titles in anyway denoted ordination

The video quotes two early church fathers, not to demonstrate their support of women priests, which there is no such support, but to simply say that these two fathers may have had a bias against women in general. The quotes are purported as being from Augustine and another from Cyprian or Origen, I don’t recall at the moment. It is possible that they said what the video said they said, but the viewer would not know because as far as I could tell, forgive me if I missed it, there were no references given for any honest inquirer to double check the primary source. On the contrary, it may have been beneficial for the video to actually quote the church fathers and ecumenical councils in order to show that women were not permitted to the clergy, denoting ordination (holy orders) or to show what the function of a Deaconess in the Church is. The following are some of the quotations that could have been used by the video to give a better historical picture”

The Early Church Fathers

Tertullian

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Hippolytus

"When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation [sacrifice of the mass] and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

The Didascalia

"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).

"Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them" (ibid., 3:16).

"[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ" (ibid., 3:9).

"A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna—those women of great reputation—let her be chosen into the order of widows" (ibid., 8:25).

"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" (ibid., 8:28).

St. John Chrysostom

"Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church...let the entire female sex retire." [On the Priesthood" 2.2]

"Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it." [On the Priesthood" 3.9]

Epiphanius of Salamis

"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).

In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. "Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference' For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," [Gal.3:"28]

The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white. The first time I have seen this verse applied in this manner in history was used by a heretical group, not the early Christians.

Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon

Ecumenical Council of Nicea Canon 19 (XIX): “… Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same from be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.”

There is more to this canon but suffice it to say that when the Paulianists came within the fold of the Catholic Church there was a question as to those who were serving among their clergy whether they would be able to retain their position among the clergy within the Catholic Church. It was affirmed in this canon that those who were among the clergy from the Paulianists were to be examined and when found acceptable were to be baptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church. Here in the text presented, we see that there were deaconesses among them as well, but they were not ordained in the same sense as the clergy and were to be numbered among the laity. The significance of this canon, besides the universal application of it in every diocese of the Catholic Church, is that the role of deaconess was not considered a part of the sacrament of ordination. Not only that but history shows that this role was characterized by a vow of celibacy, either by a woman that was not married or a widow, and the age requirement was at least 40 years of age.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon Canon 15 (XV) “A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her, and has continued for a time in ministry, she shall despise the Grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man who is united to her.”

Interestingly, even though they did not receive the laying on of hands in the manner of ordination, they received a laying on of hands for a blessing setting them apart for this special ministry. The primary ministry of these deaconesses was to prepare women for baptism, teaching them in accordance with the faith. This was the extent of the role of the deaconess in the early church.

Scripture

Many of the verses which were used by the video are interpreted by these fathers and councils in a way that is contrary to the conclusions in the video. We will take a brief and concise look at some of these passages starting with Galatians 3:28 which was quoted by a heretical group in support of ordaining woman by St. Epiphanius in his writing Against Heresies.

Gal.3:28: "There is not among you Jew or Greek, there is not among you slave or free, there is not among you male or female: for we all are in Christ Jesus."

Any time someone shares a verse from Scripture it should always be our habit to at least extend the verses. Gal. 3:26-29: “For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is not among you Jew or Greek, there is not among you slave or free, there is not among you male or female: for we all are in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.” The general context for this section is similar to that which can be found in the book of Romans. Paul’s point is to address the judaizers who claimed that in order to be children of Abraham one had to follow the law, and in this case everyone had to become Jews before they were to become Christians. For it is by faith in Christ, not by the work of Torah, that makes us all children of God. Through baptism, which is the rite of Christian initiation which replaces circumcision as prescribed by the law, that unites us to Christ. Circumcision was laid aside which was particular to males. For God is not the God of the Jews only, but of Gentiles too. For whether one is a Jew or a Greek, they both can come to Christ by faith. For neither ethnicity, social status, or sex precludes the possibility of finding salvation by faith in Christ. I would have to agree with St. Epiphanius who addressed the heretics in misusing this passage to support their illicit practice of ordaining women.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35a: “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”

I have already addressed this passage extensively as well as some of the surrounding texts but I wanted to reinforce a few ideas since this verse was used by the video. It was claimed in the video that this was addressing a local issue or custom, however, scripture states that Paul is writing them “a command of the Lord” which he enforces “in all the churches of the saints”. This point is reinforced by John Wesley’s insight on verse 36: “Are ye of Corinth either the first or the only Christians? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches.” But how is it understood that a woman is not to “speak” and in what manner is she “to be in subjection” particularly since Paul assumes that women will pray and prophesy within the assembly? In what since did Wesley give it in his Notes? “By way of teaching in public assemblies… To the man whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation.” In my previous response concerning the meanings of  the phrase “as even the law says” I had proposed that “The universal application of this passage is also seen in the reference “as even the law says” where by he is applying something concerning the law in order to offer further support of the ordinance. Perhaps this infers that the priests of God, who served in the Mosaic Covenant, were appointed from among the men of Israel – I admit that the meaning of the expression is not yet clear, but that this sense is not completely without merit.” In the light of further reflection I would like to make a new proposal. The phrase “as even the law says” harkens back to the law or Torah, which is the Pentateuch, containing the first five books of the Old Testament. It is in Genesis where we find the concept of submission. Genesis 3:16-19 “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat you food until you returned to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

We had just read in the Apostolic Constitutions where it was understood that this language concerning the relationship between man and woman in marriage is still in effect: “[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just [or right] to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16].” What is interesting about this section in Genesis is that even though it is claimed by Nazarenes that this effect of the fall is changed where as all the other effects are not reversed. Perhaps none of them have been reversed, but rather redeemed. For how is this submission expressed by those two great apostles Peter and Paul. 1 Peter 3:1a, 5-6 “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands…the holy women of the past… were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master.”  It is Paul’s language that I find most interesting particularly as it pertains to the role of the priesthood and the ordained ministry as overseers of the church. Ephesians 5:22-25   “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” Here we see Paul talking about the mystery concerning the relation of Christ to his church, and the church to Christ. In using this profound mystery he connects this dynamic to that of marriage. The role of the ordained must be able to take care of his own house, and then they will be able to properly govern in the church as overseers. The point of these passages is to demonstrate that not only did God nor reverse the temporal effects of the fall such as death, toil, pain, etc, rather he redeems them. For it was with great toil, pain, and death that Christ suffered for us in his passion and crucifixion. There is no evidence in Scripture that this creation order, and redeemed order of headship as an image and type of the New Testament church, has been changed or revoked. This view of “as even the law says” makes sense in view of what immediately follows: “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.” Given the limited scope of this particular passage in 1 Corinthians it would be better to appeal to a more pointed text such as we find in 1 Timothy, the next verse that is mentioned by the video.

1 Timothy 2: 11-15 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

The video doesn’t fully address this passage much at all but rather appeals to a context concerning Gnosticism and focuses upon the word ‘learn’ and “have authority’. I must add that whatever one tries to make ‘learn’ and ‘authority’ to mean it is clear that they can’t violate the ‘silence’, “all submissiveness” and that they are “not permitted to teach or to have authority over men.” Whatever positive spin one wishes to place upon ‘learn’ or no matter how confused one can make the term “authority” what follows in the passage takes us back to Genesis. Whatever attempts are used to subvert the plain meaning of Scripture whether it is to focus upon and confuse a single word or to appeal to Gnosticism so generally without showing the relevance of the claim one must not be distracted from the general textual context to which we now turn. The language of ‘learn’ and ‘all submissiveness’ is reflective of 1 Corinthians “…should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.” What was implicit in the “as even the law says” phrase is made more explicit to the direct appeal to Adam and Eve by name in 1 Timothy. The point of Adam’s formation first is an appeal to the pre-fall created order and so by this point Paul takes the axe to the argument that it is only a post-fall condition. Once again the Apostolic Constitutions follows Paul’s argument: “it is not just [or right] to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children.” Next Paul goes one step further and states that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived…”. Gen 3:13b “The woman said. ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” This is rather interesting. God told Adam that it was because he “listened to your [his] wife” and followed along that he was to incur the punishments. Paul states that he will not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man, and then mentions that the woman was deceived and in Genesis we find that Adam listened to his wife followed her teaching and placed himself under her ‘authority’. In other words, Paul could be saying that Eve was not being submissive by both taking the serpents word over Adams and then by influencing him to listen to her in the matter. This was a role reversal against the created order. This makes sense out of Paul’s next comment: “Yet woman will be saved through bearing children…”, that is to say that she reverts back to the created order. This language of bearing children appeals back to Genesis concerning the pain of child birth, one of the temporal post-fall conditions along with being subordinate to her husband. This language also is used by the Apostolic Constitutions were it states that “she was separated for the procreation of children”. This discussion is left relatively untouched by the video which I considered to violently weaken its attempts.

Jesus and the Culture

I wanted to wrap up this presentation by reasoning with the argument that it was for the sake of culture that Jesus only choose men. The Didascalia explains my point: "For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]). It is claimed by the video that Jesus only chose men because of the culture. If this was the case, then he would only be half right. The chosen people would have been less inclined to follow a woman, but in the case of women in the Old Testament it would not be too hard to see God doing it again, unless of course those roles were different in kind from that of his twelve, which I believe they were. The pagans would be much more receptive since there were many women priestesses in that culture among the gentiles. Even with this in mind Jesus often went against “social norms” concerning women and Samaritans, etc. I personally don’t think that this appeal to culture was too much for God to handle. We are talking about the same Jesus who contributed to himself the divine name of God incurring Jews to pick up stones in holy horror. This is the same Jesus who lost many disciples by teaching that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Thoughts upon the Salvation of Aborted Infants

These are some initial thoughts which I hope to work through as I read the Vatican document on the subject, at which time I will write it more fully in accordance with that document and summarize its content.

It should not be supposed that no possible opportunity exists for infants who die without the sacrament of baptism. For God’s grace is not confined to his sacraments any more than God’s nature can be contained by the universe itself. Salvation is God’s work in us, to act and to will according to his good purpose, and we should not assume for a moment that God’s will that all men be saved has no practical application when an infant, by no fault of their own, is deprived of his very life within the womb of his mother. Rather, we have hope in the mercy and love of God, that through Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross, which is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, He shall work within us that which is pleasing to Him.

While we are all conceived in sin, and that at the very moment of conception, in view of Adam, we share in the loss of sanctifying grace, and so are properly said to be conceived suffering from the effects of original sin, this privation of sanctifying grace. The Church’s teaching of original sin concerning this privation ought not to be imagined to be changed or altered or modified on account of this proposal. To the contrary, it isn’t a claim that such an infant was born without the stain of original sin, though we know that God is more than capable of doing this if He was pleased to do so, but rather we look to that same remedy by which anyone is freed from such a condition, the recovery of sanctifying grace.

The Church’s teaching upon the role of baptism, as the sacramental means by which sanctifying grace is restored to the soul, will likewise be firmly upheld. Baptism is the divinely appointed means by which He has purposed to communicate this grace to us, yet this does not exclude the possibility that He shall give sanctifying grace to whom He will outside of the sacrament, just as we know He did in the case of our Blessed Mother. Even though she, like any other, was destined to lose sanctifying grace on account of Adam, was by a singular act of grace preserved within it. God is as capable within the womb to infuse the body with a soul as he is to infuse the soul with sanctifying grace.

At the moment of our conception let us consider that while we were deprived of sanctifying grace we were not deprived of all grace. To the contrary, we were conceived in grace as well, created at the moment of conception by a most powerful and incredibly loving God. We were enveloped in the grace of God just as we were surrounded by the flesh of another. We must not envision that nothing of God’s grace ever came to effect within the womb, as if no movement of God occurred, no grace stirred, no presence within the soul, but that some how we were totally void of all grace from the moment of our conception to the day of our baptism.

Prevenient grace is all that work of God which precedes the moment when sanctifying grace is restored to the soul.  It is that grace which goes before and paves the way for us unto salvation. It is that grace which is antecedent to all other graces and leads us towards Christ and all that entails. It is the promise of God that He who began a good work within us will bring it unto completion. And such hope we have for ourselves who are capable of reading this proposal given that we offer no hindrance to the work of God, that we do not grieve the Holy Spirit, that we do not turn our wills against Him. 

In the case of infants, they too have such a working upon their heart, as Christ certainly expresses his tenderness towards the children, and especially grieves greatly for them when their life is ended in the womb. In them is no hindrance to that love which God can shed abroad in their heart, no opportunity to grieve the Holy Spirit, nor any chance at all to will against the love of God. Just as there is no opportunity to desire the grace of God, nor to shed their blood for the faith, nor to will according to the will of God, likewise there is nothing within them to act willingly nor knowingly counter to all that grace which God wishes to work within the heart, not because the infant deserves it, nor that it is proper to nature alone, or that he is somehow exempt from being conceived deprived of sanctifying grace, but rather in virtue of the blood of Christ and his universal salvific will that all men be saved. And it is within this theological context that I would propose that God is more than capable to lead an infant within the womb via prevenient grace to a moment of the restoration of sanctifying grace prior to his moment of death, or even at the moment of their death when like martyrs are shedding their blood.

While we do not have certainty in this regard, I write this that you will have hope in your hearts that our God is merciful and mighty to save. That we should pray for all the victims of abortion that God shall grant them not only natural happiness but also the glorious beatific vision. That we can hope to one day meet each and every one of these little ones only to find that they have been with God praying for each of us that they too may see each and everyone of us. Do not let your hearts be troubled when you study original sin, baptism, sanctifying grace, or outside of the Church there is no salvation, rather be encouraged and remain hopeful in the grace of God who can do abundantly more than we could ever hope or imagine.

"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us..." Ephesians 3:20

Thoughts upon Purgatory

Only those who die in a state of grace, meaning those who are 'saved' (divine life in the soul), will enter purgatory if needed. Only those that are bound for heaven will go through a process of purgation, a process that may not be necessary for everyone who dies in the state of grace. Purgatory is not a second chance, or a lesser hell, nor an excuse to postpone our sanctification, but is the porch of Heaven where we hose off the remainder of dirt that has clung to our soul before we stand before God. Since the state of the soul at the moment of death may not be fully prepared for the Beatific Vision, may not be in a state of perfect love, may not have been entirely sanctified, God will purge our souls of any contamination in the soul, such as inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc. 

When we die, our souls may be in such a state which necessitates the completion of our sanctification in love, in order that we may fully love God and enjoy his glorious presence without any of these hindrances in the soul. We are not speaking of contaminates as in unforgiven sin, but we are talking about the effects of sin which have been forgiven, which are the temporal punishments that are due to sin. The destructive nature of sin greatly impacts the spiritual condition of the soul, and even though we go through a process of sanctification while in the body, our soul may not have fully traveled through the entire process whereby the soul is perfected in love. Therefore purgatory is not the remission and forgiveness of sins, by rather the “punishment” or "temporal punishments" that are due for sin, mainly the debilitating effects of sin upon the soul. 

The residual effects of sin must be addressed by an all holy and just God, in order for the soul to be in such a state which is fully pleasing to our almighty God and Father. Since our God is a jealous God, he does not overlook our faults, he does not ignore the state of our souls, but rather ensures our sanctification in order that we may have ‘that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord’. This cleansing, or purging, has been described as fire where by one is saved but as through fire, where the less beautiful aspects of our being are removed from us (1 Corinthians 3:15). This fire can be expressed as the purifying fire of God’s love, in order that after this purgation, only that fire and which it refines may remain in the soul for all eternity. It is the love of God that purifies our hearts and purges us from all sin and its effects.

How is a less than perfect state of the soul dealt with after death? What happens to someone who has not yet been entirely sanctified through relationship with Christ on this side of heaven? How is one who has not yet been made perfect in love in all ways be transformed further in preparation for life with God? Before we address these questions, it is important to address the presence of concupiscence in the soul. Concupiscence is one of the temporal consequences of Adam’s sin, and all those who are not born in the state of Adamic perfection, which is all of us whom God has not preserved from this effect, struggle against this effect. Concupiscence is not sin in and of itself, but it can be referred to as sin only in as much as it is the result of sin and leads to sin. Since this concupiscence lays primarily in the soul, and since we are not cleansed from this effect on this side of heaven then it is in need of cleansing prior to our entrance into heaven. Since not all go through a final purgation on one’s way to heaven and since we are not cleansed from concupiscence on this side of heaven, then in view of purgatory we are speaking primarily concerning other effects such as contamination in the soul, inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc, all which are a result of our lack of mastery over concupiscence which could have been accomplish by the help of God’s grace. It could be said, that unlike the other effects of sin, concupiscence is removed from the soul at the time of death.

Let’s examine the article of death. Human nature is a composite unity of body and soul.  In other words, human nature is not complete without the other constituent part. Therefore, death is the moment at which human nature is torn in two, the ripping of the soul from the body, an experience which is repulsive to us. Nevertheless, Christ, in his act of redemption through his death and resurrection, reveals to us a profound work of God by which he purifies and saves the soul from all effects of sin. Therefore, there is something to be said concerning the moment of death and its immediate effects upon the soul, and it would be in this context when the temporal effect of concupiscence is addressed. But are all the effects of sin dealt with in the mere article of death? Jewish and early Christian thought says no. But how then did they understand the atonement? How is the salvific work of Christ made efficacious in this final purgation? The key concept here is that the article of death does not cleanse a man rather cleansing is done in a relational manner by the fires of God’s love. The work that God does in the soul 'in' purgatory is the application of the Atonement not personal work.

But how should we understand and describe what it is that the soul experiences in this state of purgation? First, the soul is passive as God actively engages and works upon the soul. By analogy, we are like a child, muddied by the world, standing on the porch of our home as our parent hoses us off in order that we may be clean enough to enter into the house. In similar manner, the salvific work of Christ is applied to our soul in an active manner, as we simply stand still for God to work sanctification in our souls. This process cannot properly be characterized as a duration of time since, as far as we know, this process is instantaneous, similar to the notion of glorification which is maintained by Protestants.

Second, since the soul has contamination in the soul, such as inordinate affections, misguided passions, attachment to temporal goods, etc, there will be suffering involved in this process. How is this so? During this purgation, negatively, the soul is in a state deprived of its full nature in union with the body, with which it was created. The soul, which is apart from the body will suffer in this state of deprivity. For example, the soul that may be overly attached to temporal goods will be separate from them, and by analogy, as an individual suffers withdraw from their absence of chemical dependence, in like manner, our souls are deprived of those temporal goods on which we placed the kind of dependence upon them as are proper only to God. During this purgation, positively, the fire of God’s love burns in us much like how the love of a father and his desire for our best impacts our heart, and in a sense, by this love for us, we find that the desire for less than God will begin to be purged from our soul. To the extent to which we can behold God as he is, we become more and more desirous for him, and part of our suffering is that He cannot yet be viewed in his purity, but by it are readied and encouraged through our suffering, and further desire the purification that we are undergoing, and come to further understand its necessity.

It is during this purgation, that the love of God changes the soul, and prepares it for life with him. Therefore at the time of the resurrection, when our soul is united to the body, the soul will be perfect in the sight of God, and therefore the souls union back with the body will not cause any contaminates to the body from the soul. Unlike the state of the soul that is not in the grace of God, where by, at the resurrection, the bodies of the lost will be highly contaminated with a soul that is highly deprived from the love of God, and their nature shall be as a rock, and they shall fall into hell as naturally as a rock falls to the ground when released by a hand.  Interestingly, the only exception to this ordinary continuity of relational cleansing and process of sanctification is the extraordinary moment of the second coming at which time all the souls in purgatory will be completely cleansed by virtue of the power of Christ’s coming, the resurrection of the flesh, and by the working of God’s powerful love in the soul.

On Charity and Dignity

“But every one must follow the dictates of his own conscience, in simplicity and godly sincerity. He must be fully persuaded in his own mind; and then act according to the best light he has. Nor has any creature power to constrain another to walk by his own rule. God has given no right to any of the children of men thus to lord it over the conscience of his brethren; but every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God.” “Hold you fast which you believe is most acceptable to God, and I will do the same.” (The Catholic Spirit, Vol. V496,499.) "Never dream of forcing men into the ways of God. Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love" (The Nature of Enthusiasm, 36). "Condemn no man for not thinking as you think: let every one enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking for himself. Let every man use his own judgement since every man must give an account of himself to God.' (Advice to the People Called Methodist)

Each man must follow his conscience, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. It is hoped that the conscience has been properly formed throughout the years and is properly disposed to the revelation of God. We must also do the best we can with the understanding which God has given to us, that we are faithful to those glimpses of light which he shines upon us, while giving us the supernatural sight to perceive it in all its fullness. Everyone is a capable and rational creature which the Holy Spirit leads from within the depths of the heart to its proper end. This role is properly the work of the Spirit of God, and it is for this reason that each one is to judge for themselves and give an account of themselves to God as one capable of ascending to the truths which are revealed to them. It is important that we allow God his proper place in the spiritual formation of his children, and that no one take it upon themselves to constrain another, to convict them, or to lord it over the consciences of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Such a position is rooted in charity which not only applies to Christians but to all people everywhere.

One of the greatest enemies of charity is the insistence that others adhere to the very convictions which we hold within our own hearts. It is the demand of one man that all other minds must maintain the very same conclusions and follow the same philosophical commitments. One becomes so determined that all men think alike, and that all men act alike, that such conformity stands as a requirement for friendship. As opposed to building bridges and developing mutual understanding one rather emphasizes differences and set out to destroy any common ground they may otherwise would have had. It is an obstinate and intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices in such an absolute sense that there remains no possibility that they could be in error.

Everyone is perfectly capable of sifting through thought to determine what is useful to them. No individual person is to serve as the infallible interpreter of all things, or the final arbiter of truth, nor to represent themselves as comprehending the exact meaning of all things with an absolute certainty. We all believe ourselves to comprehend the truth of things, yet we also maintain a holy skepticism concerning ourselves, lest we at any time make an idol of our own understanding. We ought to continually re-evaluate ourselves in as much as we maintain our views in a tentative manner knowing full well that others are as convinced of their own commitments as we are of our own.

We embrace the virtue of charity when we, 1) acknowledge that reasonable certainty is much more tenable than a claim to absolute certainty, 2) reasonable certainly leads us to maintain our views in a more tentative manner, 3) tentative views allow for the possibility that we can be in error on any particular and creates an openness, 4) that others are subject to this same state of reasoning and that we are all in this together.

To the contrary, there are those who insist upon their own perspectives, demand their own definitions, adhere to their own views and ethics in such a manner as to lead them to act against their own principles and to behave in the very manner they would not wish upon any of their friends. They maintain their views in such an absolute sense there remains no possibility for interpretation, no room for opinion, no chance for rebuttal. Their interpretation of a thing is so absolute, so non-negotiable, so perfect and exact that it is confused with the thing itself. Such a narrow-mindedness not only causes great harm to charity among men, but is often the occasion for justified hatred, acts of aggression, ostracization, harassment, and discrimination towards anyone who even hints at the possibility of alternative interpretations. To this I must issue a caution against bigotry in any form, directed towards anyone in any respect. While we are free to disagree on all particulars it is quite another to act discriminatory towards anyone or to treat them worse than their inherent dignity deserves.

A human person experiences freedom when they are not under any compulsion, not subject to any coercion, threat, force, intimidation, or ridicule. Free from all external pressures a person is more able to explore the world of thought in a safe academic environment where they attend to cool, calm reasoning which shall serve as the sole guide towards understanding. We ought to work together towards such an environment as it will be mutually beneficial and edifying to all.

It must be understood that not all men will be able to agree on all particulars, yet we are called to live at peace with all men as far as it is possible on our own part. We must extend the same courtesy to those who think differently than us as we would extend to ourselves. To the contrary, people too often position themselves in such a manner that to think any differently than themselves is somehow to promote contention against them personally, all the while they militantly proselytize their own views taking all the possible risk to offend anyone who gets in their way.

As a Roman Catholic I have a deep love for all human beings and maintain that we were all created in the image and likeness of God. I maintain the dignity of the human person and our freedom to explore the deepest questions that relate to our humanity free from coercion, threat, force, intimidation, or ridicule. I firmly believe that we must strive to live at peace with everyone and to do all that we can to build bridges and establish relationships based upon common ground and to de-emphasis what divide us. I believe that we can act charitably towards all people regardless of country, creed, or color.

As such nor can I condone anything that is contrary or incompatible with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. As a result, I will not be able to come to agreement with everyone on all matters, nor will I be able to promote and support everyone in the manner in which they wish. While I will not compromise myself, nor go against my own principles, you can rest assured that even in the midst of disagreement I will remain sympathetic and charitable. Since it is not a prerequisite to agree with another in all matters in order to enjoy life long friendship, I commit to remain open to healthy relationships with anyone and everyone regardless of their philosophical commitments.

I implore all people to act towards others in the most charitable manner possible, to interpret each other’s words in the most charitable manner possible, and to respond to all people whom you disagree with in the most charitable manner possible. Act towards others in the exact same manner in which you would have them act towards you without exception, without compromise, without excuse, and without condition. Without charity, without an attempt on our part to treat all people with dignity and respect, then we do ourselves and others a great disservice, for we are all best served by being gracious and charitable towards one another. Love and acceptance of others does not require strict adherence to every conclusion they may have, nor does it involve having to compromise oneself, nor does it mean that one must view and interpret all things in the exact same way. In fact, it takes greater virtue to love those who hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you, and to exercise patience in the face of adversity. 

I understand that there are many teachings of the Catholic Church that are in direct conflict with the views of non-Catholics. Upon learning that I am a Catholic, and upon learning the Church’s stance on subjects like abortion, contraception, sexual ethics, and a plethora of many other subjects, you may be tempted to treat me poorly if you think otherwise on these subjects. As a Catholic I can not support everyone in the manner in which everyone may want to be supported, but that does not mean that I will not love you, nor does it mean that I will treat you poorly, nor will it be a condition as to whether I will be your friend. I also understand that there are those who struggle with anti-Catholic attitudes and struggle not to engage in anti-Catholic bigotry. I understand that there are those who hate and abhor the teachings of the Church and justify hatred towards anyone who maintains Church teaching claiming that the Church is oppressive, and it must be resisted to the point of militantly working against it and attacking people in association with it.

To the contrary, I would encourage everyone to follow the dictates of their own heart in a manner that is the most charitable possible. If anyone thinks differently on any matter it is of necessity that we follow the way of charity, for if we begin to violate the dignity of the human person in the name of championing a particular ideology, or in the name of fighting against particular philosophical commitments then we fail to live out that dignity in which we were created. While our world would certainly be much more peaceful if everyone thought the same on all matters, in reality there is a great deal of diversity in thought in our world. If we are only tolerant with others in as much as their views are compatible with our own, then we are essentially not willing to tolerate those with views different than our own, even those that may be diametrically conflicting with our own. When we see a person, who views themselves in a way different than we would view them this doesn’t mean that we do not acknowledge that such views can exist in the mind, nor does it mean that we inherently discriminate against the individual, nor does it mean that we will go out of our way to persecute people.

The philosophical commitments of a person are their own business, and we are all free to exercise our right to entertain those thoughts and to live out our lives in a manner that is consistent with our philosophy. It is only when philosophizing begins to justify hatred towards others for any reason that we should stand firm upon best principles and embrace charity as the most excellent way. It is when we begin to cleave to vice ourselves in order to address what we perceive to be an injustice that we become the very person we vowed to never become, we have adopted the very same attitudes which we claimed to be fighting against. Every person has the right to sift through human thought, to decide for themselves how to best live their life, and most of all, every person has the choice to treat people based upon their inherent dignity and not on the basis of whether we think alike.

It behooves us to be the change we want to see in the word, to demonstrate charity that knows no bounds, to exemplify the most excellent way of understanding, mercy, and grace. Such a way does not require that we all think alike, nor does it require that we all believe alike, nor does it require that we all act alike, but it does require that we have a willingness to live at peace with everyone in as much as it depends upon us. No matter your philosophical commitments, no matter what worldview you find most convincing, no matter how you interpret any matter whatsoever, if we can not do this much, if we can not be charitable with one another, then we truly fail to live up to our potential.

Why the Panentheistic view of God is deficient

Why the Panentheistic view of God is deficient

A month ago I entered into a discussion with a pronounced panentheist and for the first time I found myself thinking about the best method for explaining why the Christian view of God is more grand and complete, while being sensitive but honest in describing panentheism as a deficient view.

First, let me take a moment to give panentheism a simple definition. It is the view that everything that exists is God. God is viewed as that which transcends the cosmos but also contains the cosmos as a part of himself. Therefore, there is a part of God that is not the cosmos and therefore transcends it, but also there is a part of God that is the cosmos. For this panentheist it seemed vital for him/her that God was immanent, but was under the impression that the only way for God to be immanent is if and only if the cosmos was God. The Christian view obviously rejects this perspective.

Second, according to revelation the second person of the Trinity became man and in this Hypostatic Union both the human and divine nature were united in one person, God the Son. The two natures of Christ were maintained full and complete without any mingling, change, or diminishing of either nature. Christ was fully God and fully man, maintaining both natures in their integrity. Christ could rightly be said to have represented both parties, reconciling the world to God. Christ as God, represented God and so reached out to us in his loving kindness. Christ as human, representing humanity reached out to God and took hold of that for which he had taken hold of us. Christ reveals to us the true nature of the cosmos in relation to God. We are distinct and separate. We are so close to one another that our nature can exist along side his nature in a single person. We are so close that the Word, which holds all of existence in being with his power, is ever near to all of his and in the most intimate manner. For if God were to withdraw his power and presence then the whole of the cosmos would slip back into the nothingness from which it came. However, it was not necessary for me to appeal to revelation in order to express why I am not a panentheist.

I had to express in no uncertain terms that God is ultimate reality, in that nothing can surpass him, and that it is he that created, sustains, governs, controls, and otherwise holds together that which he created. By no means should God ever be seen as just one thing among others in existence, rather he is the very ground upon which our cosmos exists at all. This is why Scripture speaks of us as being created in him, by him, and through him. As the ultimate cause of all creation God is not just the first of many like causes in the chain of causation. He is the uncaused cause of all causation itself.

God is a pure spirit that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal. Such a God as this, so grand and realized, is a necessary being who is pure actuality, where there is no change, alteration, or modification. For such a change within the divine nature would imply either a change for the better or a change for the worse, the possibility to exist or to not exist. A God that can change is contingent, meaning that he can be this or that, or even to be or not to be. Such a God can not bring anything that does not exist into existence, nor would he have existence within him, but rather would have to rely upon a necessary being outside of himself for his existence. Since a necessary being is required to bring something from nothing, to bring something into being from nothingness, we can likewise reject the notion of an infinite regress of contingent causes.

If the panentheist says that God was once all spirit but then changed to also form the cosmos from himself, then this is to posit a change within God, and change of any kind here denotes contingency, a God who is not fully realized. If the panentheist says that God has always been both spirit and comprising the cosmos, which implies that the cosmos is also eternal, then we are identifying God with matter, which is contingent. In order for God to be a necessary being there can be no contingency within God himself.

Identifying God with creation in an ontological manner actually diminishes our view of God. God is more grand, more profound, perfect, holy, good, just, and loving precisely because he is Wholly Other. Since God contains all perfections within himself, any change within him would only be a diminishing of one of these perfections. While we see such characteristics within the cosmos in an analogous manner, we certainly do not contribute the limitations we observe to God. A view of God that predicates limited, contingent, potential, temporal, or material characteristics to him detracts from the grandest view of God possible, the Christian and biblical view of God. A God that contains any of these attributes would mean that he is not necessary, that he does not have existence within himself, that he looks to something outside of himself to explain his own existence, and therefore would cease to be the ultimate reality that the panentheist claims for him. Reason was more than sufficient to explain why the panentheistic view of God is deficient, and these are the reasons why I am not a panentheist.