RESPONDING TO THE USUAL MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT "PRAYING TO MARY"

Christianity.com posted the following article:

There were the usual responses. 

 

 I left the following comment. 

The words of the Hail Mary don’t “pray to Mary,” the words ask her to pray for us. “Pray for us now and at the hour if our death.” They are the same words we use to ask others to pray for us.

HOW CATHOLICS "PRAY" TO MARY

In today's Opinion section of the Pacific Daily News, Diane tells us why we shouldn't pray to Mary. I responded in the comment section and am copying the reply here:

Dear Diane, 

Let's review. Our prayer to Mary goes like this:

"Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." 

At this point we are simply quoting Scripture, Luke 1:28. Yes, I know your bible probably does not say "full of grace", but the original Greek (Luke wrote in Greek) does: kecharitoméne. Let us go on.

"Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." 

Again, except for the addition of the name "Jesus", we are still just quoting Scripture: the words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:42. And I'm assuming saying the name "Jesus" is okay. 

Let's go on.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God." 

Okay, stop right there. How dare we refer to Mary as the Mother of God, right? 

Well, there's a lot to that, but the easiest way to understand this is that we are simply restating what Elizabeth says in the very next verse. After Elizabeth says "Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", she says in Luke 1:43: "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Elizabeth calls the child in Mary's womb "my Lord". As a good Jew, Elizabeth could not have addressed anyone as "My Lord", other than God. So, we Catholics simply say the obvious along with Elizabeth. 

And in case you have trouble with the word "Holy" as in "Holy Mary". "Holy" simply means "set apart." In Latin, it's "sancta" as in "sanctuary". Mary was chosen to be a "sanctuary", set apart, singled out, etc. So we simply call her that. Going on.

"Pray for us now and at the hour of hour death." 

Up till now, we have only been quoting Scripture, and simply restating who Scripture says she is (Holy, Mother of God), but now we ask her to pray for us. Do you ever pray for anyone? Has anyone ever asked you to pray for them? Do you say "Oh no, don't ask me, ask God"? I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you pray for them and pray fervently. But then aren't you, by your definition of "pray", coming between them and God? Are you not interceding in their behalf? Of course you are. But you are not wrong in doing so. In fact you are being obedient to the many commands in Scripture to pray for one another. 

James 5:16 is one of those scriptures. James exhorts us here to not only pray for each other, but to even confess our sins to one another. Wait a minute, I thought we were supposed to confess our sins only to God? Well, we'll get back to that another time. Let us look at the very next thing James says in 5:16: "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This means that prayer are effective relative to the degree of righteousness of the person doing the praying. Thus we ask particularly holy and "anointed" people to pray for us, believing, and believing rightly, as per James 5:16, that their prayers are particularly effective. 

Thus because of who Mary is, "Mother of my Lord", we believe that her prayers for us are uniquely powerful. In the Scriptures, the Scriptures you tell us to search, we see Jesus even upsetting the divine order of things by performing his first miracle at Cana ("my hour has not yet come") simply because it was his Mother's desire. Here we see Mary interceding for the bride and groom and for all the people at the wedding. In fact, Mary doesn't ask Jesus to do anything. She essentially expects him to do her will by saying to the servants "Do whatever he tells you." That's pretty powerful.

And it is because of this power, the power we find in the Scriptures you tell us to search, that we continue to seek Mary's "intercession" ("pray for us now and at the hour of our death"), simply because we have in Scripture the clear fact that Jesus listens particularly to (and even obeys) his mother. 

So you see, Diane, when we "pray" to Mary, we are, for about 3/4 of the prayer, simply quoting Scripture, and the last bit, is simply asking for prayers. We hope that is okay with you. 

However, we Catholics, do owe you an apology. I am willing to guess that what I have just explained was never explained to you, even though you were a Catholic for 50 years. Sadly, there is a disconnect in our Catholic faith between what our Church officially teaches (which is what I have just shared) versus what Catholics actually are often taught, which is often very little. Shame on us for not sharing the riches of the Catholic faith, as found in our true teachings. We will be held accountable for that. 

If you would like to know, though, what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and get beyond what you think it teaches (again, not your fault), it's extremely accessible. I operate a Catholic bookstore in the Cathedral. You can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church for as little as $10 (or even access it free online). No, don't worry, the ceiling will not cave in if you walk in. That's reserved for Catholics who know better but do not do what they know. 

In fact, I'm going to give you one for free. Come by our store. I probably won't be there, but I'll set aside a Catechism with your name on it and leave it behind the counter. I'm going to give you the more accessible version. It's called the Compendium to the Catechism. Kind of breaks it down into more bite size chunks. I'll leave it there for a week. Just give the clerk your name and it's yours. 

Feel free to contact me if you have further inquiries. I'm at timrohr.guam@gmail.com. God Bless.

ENGAGING THE CHALLENGE TO THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

In a previous column, entitled THE ATTACK ON MARY, we noted that of all the things that drive anti-Catholics nuts about Catholic beliefs, the thing that drives them most nuts is what we believe about Mary.

The Aeiparthenos (Ever Virgin)

And of those things which we believe about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption, the most irksome, to non and anti-Catholics, is our belief in her Perpetual Virginity. In fact, the very words “Perpetual Virginity” seem to provoke a cringe similar to that provoked by the sound of fingernails scraping a chalkboard.

The intent in this column is to share a few thoughts on how to engage the “Protestant” disbelief in the Perpetual Virginity, but we should first note that a disbelief in the value of consecrated virginity in general is, at its root, a fundamental Protestant tenet promulgated by “the First Protestant”, Martin Luther.

While Luther may have had some legitimate beefs relative to the so-called “sale of indulgences”, it seems that his real itch involved celibacy. In 1521, Luther wrote: I see myself insensible, hardened, sunk in idleness, alas! seldom in prayer, and not venting one groan over God’s Church. My unsubdued flesh burns me with devouring fire. In short, I … am devoured by the flesh, by luxury, indolence, idleness, somnolence.

A few years later, Luther wrote to a group of nuns: “In such cases (no longer wishing to remain celibate) it is time to run away, leaving the convent and all it entails behind.” Luther went  on to explain: “Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this... a woman has no control over herself. God has made her body to be with man...”

Apparently Luther had his own body in mind for he eventually helped himself to the nuns, taking one for his wife and offering another to the Bishop of Mainz (if he would convert) during a Luther-inspired pogrom against celibacy in which scores of German monks and nuns were “liberated” from their monasteries, convents, AND their vows. The story goes downhill from there.

But what about that? What about Luther’s claim that God made a woman’s “body to be with a man.” Ummm, well, yah, and visa versa. However, and without a long dissertation on celibacy: “With God, all things are possible”. So of course, with God’s grace, a man or woman can give his or her body (and soul) entirely to God.

So you might say that Catholics, since we are the only Christians to institutionally place a value on consecrated virginity, are the only true “Full Gospel Church”, i.e. we actually believe that “all things are possible with God”, including consecrated virginity,  and take seriously - for those engaged in particular ministries - St. Paul’s Corinthian exhortation to celibacy (1 Cor 7:8-9). But Luther’s personal peccadillos aside, how do we engage a challenge to our belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Usually the challenge is based on one of the ten instances in the New Testament wherein “brothers (and/or sisters) of the Lord” are mentioned. A simple response to this is to point out that Aramaic had no word for “cousins”, and “brother” and/or “sister” was used to reference several degrees of kin.

Another challenge is based on Matthew 1:25 which says: “And he (Joseph) did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son.” The implication is that the word “until” assumes that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

This argument is also easily dispatched by simply referencing other instances in Scripture wherein the word “until” is used, but does not mean that anything different followed: e.g. no one knew the location of Moses’ grave “until this present day” (Deut. 24.6). We still don’t know.

And then of course there is the matter of Jesus, on the cross, entrusting his mother to the apostle, John. If Mary had other children, there would have been no need for Jesus to do this.

Perhaps the easiest and most useful reply, though, is to simply ask the challenger to show you in the Bible where it says that Mary had other children. He or she will resort to the memorized lines about the “brothers of the Lord”. But stay with the program: continue to ask where it says that Mary had other children. Of course, the Bible never says that she does.

The reason this works is because of the “Protestant’s” own belief in “the Bible alone”, i.e. “if it’s not in the Bible, it didn’t happen”. “Protestants” use this principle to discredit the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and other doctrines which are not explicit in Scripture. You are simply asking them to use this same principle of “sola scriptura” to prove that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin. They can’t. End of conversation. (Unless of course you’d like to invite him or her to join the one, true Church!)

THE ATTACK ON MARY

As you may be aware, a local anti-Catholic pastor regularly makes the Catholic veneration of Mary a frequent target on his ubiquitous “drive time” radio spots. He’s not alone of course. Mary-bashing is almost a sport amongst many anti-Catholics, and any recognition of her, other than honorable mention for her role in the Christmas story, seems to drive them mad.

The thinly veiled disgust with which these people speak of Mary is a source of pain for many Catholics who not only regard Mary as the Mother of God, but as their own Mother as well. It's like these guys are saying bad things about your own mom, and there is nothing that quite boils the blood as when some jerk is messing with your mom!

I can remember my own mother crying after a fruitless conversation with a neighbor who had left the Catholic Church for one of those born-again church-in-an-abandoned-gas station deals. The neighbor blasted Mary with all the regurgitated venom she could recall from the anti-Marian diatribe she probably had heard from her “gas station pastor” the night before.  I was just a boy then, but even today, I can still feel the rage that welled up within me, seeing my mother wounded, but also smelling the evil I still smell today when someone attacks and degrades the Mother of God. Perhaps you know the “smell” as well.

But what to make of it? From whence comes this hostile disgust? This knee-jerk attack? What is it that drives these people nuts about the veneration of the Blessed Mother and impels them to degrade, impugn, muddy, and malign the Woman through whom the Son of God took flesh? Is it just a lack of understanding? Misinformation? Invincible ignorance? Perhaps all of the above. But perhaps something else too. And here's my thought.

In Genesis 3:15, God informs Satan of his doom: “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman and thy seed and her seed and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel.”  In short, it’s curtains for Satan, and Mary is at the center of it.

Some believe this verse (as found in the Vulgate) to be translated in error, that it is not Mary who will crush the head of Satan but her seed: Jesus. Thus later translations change the “she” to a “he”. But translation debates aside, God undeniably chooses to crush Satan through Mary. (Thus the centuries of paintings and statues showing her doing so.)

Without getting too theological here, it is necessary to understand that salvation is ongoing: that Christ has saved us, is saving us, and will continue to save us (should that be our desire) until the end of time; and he does so, he comes to us, as he first did, through his Mother. Thus John Paul II says: [it is] “in Mary and through Mary (that) the situation of humanity (sin) has been reversed...” (The Protoevangelium of Salvation). And this is why Satan hates her.

However, Satan cannot harm Mary directly because she is sinless. God has put “enmity” - total opposition - between Satan and the Woman. Since Satan is pure evil, total enmity in this case means the total opposite of pure evil which is pure good, sinlessness, which is precisely why Mary is the “Refuge of Sinners” and why we “flee to thy  (her) protection”.

As humans, it is impossible to imagine the cosmic proportions of Satan’s hatred of Mary. But I believe we get a glimpse of it when the Mother of God is attacked, either in the pornographic “art” of a Marian image splattered with elephant dung (as displayed in the Brooklyn Museum), or the diseased harangue we hear from the likes of the anti-Catholics already noted.

To Satan, it matters not how or through whom the Mother of God is discredited, demeaned, and disavowed. The fewer sinners that seek her refuge, the more for him to devour. Don’t be one of them.

Mary and the Moslems

This was printed in the Umatuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Hagatna, Guam, September, 25, 2011.

Last week’s column, entitled the “Long War”, concluded with a message from the Taliban vowing to assign the U.S. to “the dustbin of history”, and my promise to share a uniquely Catholic answer to the challenge of Islam.

First, we should clarify what we mean by the Long War, or Endless Jihad. Islam holds that all Muslims must wage Jihad until the whole world is subject to Allah. The fact that some Muslims believe Jihad to be a spiritual struggle and not a violent one does not negate the belief of Muslims who believe otherwise. 

The problem is that Islam has no central authority to definitively define Jihad or anything else in the Quran. Thus, interpretation of Quranic teaching is either the domain of the Imams (clergy), or, as is the Wahhabite view to which Bin Laden subscribed: “whoever can read the Quran can judge for himself in matters of doctrine.” In other words, the interpretation of verses like "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Surah 9:5), is up for grabs. 

Islam considers Christians to be idolaters because Christians worship Jesus as God. Thus, we see the renewed persecution of Christians now unfolding in the Muslim world as secular regimes fall. In Iraq, Christian children are killed and nailed to crosses staked in front of their homes, and in Egypt, Christians are massacred at Christmas Mass. (Arab Spring?)

Moderate Muslims might decry such violence, but the Quran also has strong instructions about what to do about them: “If you do not go to war, he [Allah] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men" (Surah 9:38-39). 

But regardless of the conjecture of Muslim scholars, the actions of Muhammed provide the definitive understanding of Jihad, and there can be no doubt as to how he understood it. Europe may have been able to hold off Islam at the gates of Vienna and eventually drive the Moor from the Iberian Peninsula, but Christianity in northern Africa and the Middle East has never recovered from the sword of the Saracen.  

In 1953  Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote: “The Christian European West barely escaped destruction at the hands of the Moslems. The Church throughout northern Africa was practically destroyed by Moslem power, and at the present hour, the Moslems are beginning to rise again.”

Sheen also observed that Islam has never declined either in numbers or in the devotion of its followers, and warned: “At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power.”

Today, with European economies collapsing, a Muslim majority in Europe assured by 2050 with Muslims out-birthing Europeans 3 to 1, and the U.S. on the verge of moral and economic implosion and about to commence a weary retreat from a decade of war in the mountains of Afghanistan, Sheen’s 1953 assessment is frighteningly real.

Sheen believed that the only answer to Islam is Christianity, but he believed that the conversion of Islam would happen “not through the direct teaching of Christianity, but through a summoning of the Moslems to a veneration of the Mother of God.” 

In “Mary and the Moslems”, Sheen relates that Muslims already hold Mary in high regard and that Muhammed himself placed her as the highest woman in Heaven. Sheen notes that there is more said about Mary in the Quran than our own Bible. Also, the daughter of Muhammed, “Fatima”, is regarded as the second highest woman in heaven next to Mary. In this, Sheen sees a sign:

“I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as ‘Our Lady of Fatima’ as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too”. 

This is why I promised a “uniquely Catholic answer”.  Only Catholics regard Mary as the door to Christ, and, as regards Islam, she may well be the only door.

Sheen concludes: “Missionaries in the future will...see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ Himself is born...our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son.”

Let us pray.

Dealing with some assumptions about the Assumption of Mary

Published in the Umatuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam on August 21, 2011.

There are four main things the Catholic Church holds to be true about Mary: 1) Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), 2) Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless (the Immaculate Conception), 3) Mary remained a virgin (Perpetual Virginity of Mary), and 4) Mary was taken into heaven, body and soul (the Assumption of Mary). These four teachings are Dogmas. A Dogma is a matter of Faith which Catholics must believe and cannot hold otherwise.

They are also the favorite targets of those who wish to populate their churches with former Catholics.

Why is this? Why do Catholic antagonists almost always first “go after Mary”? Well, because it’s easy, that’s why. Despite the many popular expressions of Marian piety, few of us know how to explain or defend what we believe about Mary.

Part of the challenge in defending Mary is that Mary herself is so “quiet” in the Scriptures, and much of what the Scriptures say about Mary is figurative and implicit (e.g. “the woman” of Genesis 3:15, and “the woman clothed with the sun” in Revelations 12:1).

Thus theologians and apologists, in defining and explaining the Marian dogmas, rely mostly on figurative references, “antiquity of belief”, and the argument that Scripture does not contradict what we believe (e.g. though the Assumption is not found in the Bible, the Bible does not contradict it, so we can believe it).

While these explanations may suffice for Catholics, they are rejected by those who hold the “It has to be in the Bible” view of Christianity (Sola Scriptura). So what to do?

In regards to the challenge that the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, we might first ask:

1. “Do you believe that God is all-powerful?” (Yes.)
2. “Then, do you believe that God could have taken Mary into heaven, body and soul, if He wanted to?” (They will have to answer yes, but will still contend that “it is not in the Bible”.)
3. Continuing: “It is true that the Assumption of Mary is not in the Bible, but then of course, John 21:25 tells us that Jesus did many things that are not in the Bible. Do you think taking His Mother, body and soul, into heaven could have been one of them?”

At this point, the antagonist would have to agree with you on the possibility, but, would most likely stick with “it’s not in the Bible”. We might then make a case for a precedent for the Assumption of Mary by referring to three accounts in the Bible wherein bodily assumption is in evidence.

In Genesis 5:24 we read: "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

Here we see that Enoch was "taken". Taken where? We have to assume that he was taken into heaven since Scripture states he "walked with God", and that he was taken bodily because he was “seen no more.”

In 2 Kings 2:11 we read : "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."  

We don't have to assume  where Elijah went, for Scripture says he “went up into heaven.” We also have a confirmation from an eye-witness in the next verse: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…"

So here we have two instances, recorded in Scripture, of God taking two humans, body and soul, into Heaven. So not only COULD God do it, He DID do it. “BUT”, our antagonist argues, “the Bible still says nothing about Mary being taken into Heaven.”

So we now turn to Matthew 17:1-9, where we read the account of the Transfiguration. And who do we see there? Elijah and (wait for it)...MOSES. Now how did Moses get there! There is no record in the Bible of Moses being taken into Heaven, yet he’s at the Transfiguration with Elijah and Jesus.  

At this point, we have determined two key things from the Bible alone:

1. There is a biblical precedent for the Assumption of Mary in the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah; and 
2. Not everything God does is recorded in Scripture (e.g. the assumption of Moses). 

So if God took three old guys into heaven, body and soul, do you think He might have done the same for His very own Mother?

We have many reasons to believe that He did, not the least of which is there is no church or shrine dedicated to the burial place of Our Lady.

There is also one more important matter.

Jude, in his Epistle, alludes to a dispute between St. Michael and Satan over the body of Moses which some ancient writers believed to be recorded in a manuscript entitled the Assumption of Moses. Jude also directly quotes from the Book of Enoch. Neither book is in our Bible, yet both are known to Jude, and in the case of Enoch, directly quoted.

This raises the question of who had the authority to dogmatically define which books got into the Bible?

Answer: the same Church that dogmatically defined (in Munificentissimus Deus, 1950) how Mary got into Heaven. Ave Maria gratia plena.

Catholic-Muslim History and the Holy Name of Mary

For the last nine days in traditional novena fashion, the parish of Agana, has been celebrating its patron saint, the Blessed Virgin Mary - under the title of "Dulce Nombre Maria. The novena culminated on September 12, the actual feast day, and of which the actual name of the feast is "The Holy Name of Mary".

It might come as a surprise for some Agana parishioners to know that they were celebrating the defeat of the Muslims at the Battle of Vienna on September 12, 1683. But surprise or not, this is the reason for the feast. The feast had been celebrated in various countries and within various religious communities and on various days since 1513.

However, upon the defeat of the "Turks" (the medieval name for Muslims) by the forces assembled by King John Sobieski of Poland, Pope Innocent XI moved the feast of The Holy Name of Mary, under whose banner Sobieski had fought, to September 12 and extended the feast to the Universal Church.

This wasn't the first time a Pope had instituted a feast in honor of a Muslim defeat in the name of Mary. October 7 is the Feast of the Holy Rosary and indeed October has come to be known as the "Month of the Rosary" because of the Christian defeat of the Turkish navy at the Battle of Lepanto in 1517, a date honored with a feast instituted by Pius V and extended to the Universal Church.

To read more see: http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/marys-name.htm and http://www.thefreelibrary.com/We+go+way+back:+the+history+of+Muslim-Catholic+relations+is+one+of...-a0158388374

Our Lady of Wolf River (and the "Diego Code")

No it’s not a new apparition; it’s an old one, and an approved one at that. As a matter of fact, Our Lady of Wolf River is one of the most beloved “Our Lady’s” in all the world. Her appearance occasioned the largest single mass conversion in history (8,000,000 people) and the subsequent conversion of many more millions over the past five centuries.

In 1544 a pilgrimage of children to her shrine resulted in the cessation of a deadly plague that had already killed at least 12,000. A painting of her image played a significant role in the world-turning battle of Lepanto. (We might do well to employ this same “Our Lady” and her sacred image in our modern day Lepanto – look it up if you know not to what I refer.) In 1737 a typhus plague that had claimed 700,000 lives ceases when she is proclaimed Patroness of the country.

In 1921, there was a miraculous preservation of her sacred image when a bomb, planted by an anti-religious government agent, exploded directly beneath the sacred image and did not even crack its glass cover.

Many more miracles and pontifical honors can be accorded the Lady of Wolf River, but perhaps the most wonderful and amazing thing is what she herself has revealed to us through the name she chose. Three hundred years before Lourdes, Our Lady of Wolf River identified herself to a dying Indian as the “Immaculate Conception” and the woman of Genesis 3:15.

The old Spanish word for “river” is “guada” (today it means bog or marsh), and the Spanish word for “wolf”, which today is “lobo”, is etymologically descended from the old Spanish word “lupe”. “Guadalupe” literally means “Wolf River”. Our Lady of Guadalupe! Our Lady of Wolf River! So how did she get this name and what’s the connection with “Immaculate Conception”?

What follows is speculation, but extremely well documented and professional speculation. (See The Wonder of GUADALUPE by Francis Johnston.)

In Spain, there is a statue of the Blessed Virgin holding the Child Jesus in one hand and a crystal scepter in the other. The pose signifies Mary’s Divine Motherhood. Tradition has it that Pope St. Gregory the Great venerated it in his private oratory. He eventually gave it as a gift to the Bishop of Seville where it was venerated until the Moorish invasion of 711 A.D. Legend has it that it was hidden away in a cave on the banks of the Guadalupe, “Wolf River”, and probably so named for obvious reasons. In 1326, Our Lady is said to have appeared to a herdsman and revealed the statue’s location. The statue was entrusted to the Franciscans and a monastery was built on the spot. It soon became the most celebrated shrine in Spain. Christopher Columbus is said to have prayed there before he embarked on his momentous voyage. Indeed, he christened the island that providentially saved him, “Guadalupe”.

Now, back to Mexico. Though Juan Diego became the hero and now saint of the “Our Lady of Guadalupe Story”, it was not to him that Our Lady revealed her name, but to his uncle, Juan Bernardino, whom she visited and miraculously cured at the very moment she was instructing Juan Diego, many miles away, to gather the flowers that were to turn into her sacred image on his Tilma.

Like, his nephew, Juan Bernardino was an Aztec. He did not speak Spanish, but the Aztec language of Nahuatl. Of course our Lady spoke to him in his own language and the word she used to identify herself was most likely not “Guadalupe”. Johnston (in the aforementioned book) points out that not only does the word “Guadalupe” have no connection at all with Mexico; the word itself was not pronounceable in the Aztec language because it had no letter or sound for D or G. (The Aztecs have always rejected the Spanish name and have given their beloved Virgin various Aztec titles.)

In 1666, when depositions on the apparition were forwarded to Rome to Pope Innocent X, it was pointed out by the coordinator of these Apostolic Proceedings, that Our Lady in fact did not use the word “Guadalupe”, but most likely used the phonetically similar Aztec word Tequantlaxopeuh (pronounced Tequetalope), which literally translates as “Who saves us from the Devourer”.

A little bit of Aztec history here in order to understand what a baptized Aztec, such as Juan Bernardino would have understood. The great “Devourer” was the dreaded Aztec feathered serpent god, Quetzalcoatl. Over 20,000 live victims every year had their living hearts gouged out of their chests to appease this fearful, blood thirsty Aztec deity. To the baptized Juan Bernardino, “the great Devourer” meant both Satan and this terrible pagan god, behind whom, of course, was Satan.

A history of the apparitions, “Estrella del Norte”, published in 1688, concurs with the earlier speculation about the use of the Aztec word and its meaning, and the author further inferred that Our Lady had identified herself as the “Immaculate Conception”, the One who would vanquish Satan, indeed the Woman of Genesis 3:15. Though the actual institution of the dogma was yet a couple centuries away, this description of Our Lady was known well enough for the then Bishop of Mexico, Bishop Zumarraga, to refer to her as the “Immaculate Conception” in a communication to Cortes (yes, that Cortes) in 1531, inviting the Conqueror to participate in a procession with her sacred image.

Before we go on and tie this all together, it is important to note and easy to see how the phonetically similar word used by Juan Bernardino in his native Aztec language and spoken through a Spanish translator (Juan Gonzalez) would invoke the word “Guadalupe” from the Spanish mind as devotion to Our Lady of “Wolf River” in Spain was well known, and indeed, at its peek at the time.

More recently (1895) an intensive study of the word Guadalupe was undertaken with the conclusion that the Virgin used the word Coatlaxopeuh, which means “she who breaks, stamps or crushes the serpent”; again, the equivalent of the Immaculate Conception. Johnston also points out that in their catechesis of the Aztecs, the Franciscans at the time referred to the Virgin as “she who crushes the serpent”, knowing that the Aztecs would draw the obvious parallel between Satan, and their own horrific pagan god.

One last study and I’ll get to my point. Helen Behrens, credited as the 20th century’s foremost authority on the sacred image, studied the Aztec word even further and made the following observation. The words “te Coatlaxopeuh” which the Aztec Juan Bernadino probably used, and which sounded like “de Guadalupe” to the Spanish ear, can be translated thus: “te” means “stone”; “coa” means “serpent”, “tla” can mean “the”, and “xopeuh” means “crush, or “stamp out”. Thus the Virgin of the Tilma should be known as “Our Lady who will crush, stamp out, abolish or eradicate the stone serpent”.

So, in a way, Our Lady was trying to tell us, exactly what the Catholic Church has always told us, and eventually proclaimed, that she is the Immaculate Conception, the Woman of Genesis 3:15, through whom redemption would come. And just as our Redemption did come through her body in the person of Jesus through her to us, He still comes through her to us.

However, we have a modern problem. Modern translation have either virtually eliminated or effectively downsized the Woman of Genesis 3:15 as the One who will “crush and “stamp out” the serpent”. The Bible that the Church has used for 1,600 years, the Old Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome says: “…ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius” , or, in English, as translated in the Doauy Rheims Bible, “…she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”.

This of course fits perfectly with everything our Church has taught about the role of the Blessed Mother in salvation history. All those statues of her crushing the head of the serpent come from this verse. And of course, it fits exactly with what she revealed about herself in the above account. However, perhaps to appease our separated brethren in the name of ecumenism, modern Catholic biblical scholars have opted to leave Jerome and nearly two millennia of Catholic tradition in the following translations:

“He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel” – NAB
“…he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” –CSRV
“It will crush your head and you will strike its heel.” – JB & NJB

Perhaps Our Lady of Wolf River anticipated this rewriting of her redemptive role in her visit to Tepeyac Hill in 1531. Perhaps we should listen to her name. Perhaps we should learn to pronounce “Coatlaxopeuh”.

The Assumption & Immaculate Conception in Scripture

The Assumption

A well known Catholic apologist recently characterized the Feast of the Assumption as that which is "best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as 'the Marian dogma that isn't mentioned in Scripture'." He also rightly conceded: "it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption--while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption."

The appeal to Tradition ("antiquity of the belief") and the fact that Scripture does not contradict the belief is standard apologetic fare when it comes to defending this dogma. However, I have never been able to make much headway with it.

Non-Catholic Christians pretty much tune out the Tradition argument because it falls into their standard "Catholic box of errors". In other words, they expect us to go there and by our "going there" their Catholic "mis-preconceptions" are reconfirmed.

Catholics should also understand that the Dogma of the Assumption is a favorite target not only because "it's not in Scripture", but also because it is a "Defined Dogma" (a Catholic MUST believe it and cannot hold otherwise). It is also the most recent "Defined Dogma" (Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII) - thus it is fairly "fresh meat" for the antagonist.

I'm a great advocate of challenging the "it has to be in the Bible" but I have often wondered why we (Catholics) don't make more use of Scripture in the defense (and advocacy) of what the Catholic Church teaches when it is quite easy to do so.

As we know, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not in conflict and everything the Church teaches (Tradition means "teaching") can be found either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. However, there is little need to resort to the "implicit" when the "explicit" is readily available. And the Scriptural basis for the Assumption (I think) is actually quite "explicit".

Perhaps I can offer a little help with how to explain the Assumption to folks who do not accept the authority of Church, but who do accept only the "authority of Scripture".

The word "assumption" (small "a") means a thing supposed, a postulation, or proposition. The word derives from the Latin "assumere" which means "to take". The Ecclesiastical use of the word, with which we are concerned here, means a "taking into heaven".

Though the word "assumption" does not appear in Scripture (at least in the English versions), the act of a person being taken into heaven (assumed) does.

In Genesis 5:24 we read: "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." (KJV)

Here we see that Enoch was "taken", "assumed". Taken where? We have to "assume" that he was taken into heaven since Scripture states that he "walked with God". Even if you refuse to "assume" that Enoch was taken into heaven, you still have to admit that he was in fact "assumed", "taken".

In 2 Kings 2:11 we read about a better known instance of an "assumption": "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (KJV)

We don't have to wonder where Elijah was taken as we did with Enoch, for Scripture explicitly says where he went. We also have a confirmation that he was taken body and soul for we have an eye-witness: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…" (the very next verse)

Before we move on we should mention that there is also clear evidence for the assumption of a third Old Testament prophet. Though we don't have the clear reference to an "assumption" of Moses in Scripture as we do with Enoch and Elijah, we can be fairly sure that Moses was assumed otherwise it is difficult to explain how he came to be one of the two Prophets present at the Transfiguration (the other being Elijah - Matthew 17:1-9)

Note: There is also an ancient book entitled "Assumption of Moses" - a book that didn't make the cut for the Canon (books of the Bible) but is nevertheless thought to have been referenced in the canonical epistle of Jude. (Actually a discussion of this book and St. Jude's allusion to it, as well as his use of the Book of Henoch -another canon loser, bears on the whole issue of who got to decide what went into the Bible in the first place.)

So now to the Assumption of Mary. We have established that "assumption" has clear biblical precedent. The next step is to pose the question: If God could take Enoch and Elijah into Heaven, do you think he could have also taken Mary? The answer is of course, yes, since God can do anything. So the next question is: Do you think He would have wanted to?

Summary:
1. There is biblical precedent for bodily assumption into heaven
2. God could have done the same for Mary that He did for Enoch and Elijah and given who she was, would have had greater reason to do so.
3. There is no evidence from Scripture or history that contradicts the assumption of Mary.
4. The belief in Mary’s assumption extends back to the earliest centuries of Christianity.


The Immaculate Conception

Happily, an honest look at the reality of Assumption of Mary in the Bible lays the foundation for an easy explanation, if not proof, of the other favorite target: the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Having recounted the Biblical accounts of the Assumption in the cases of Enoch and Elijah the next question is "How is that Enoch and Elijah got to go to heaven before Christ died to open it?"

Enoch and Elijah were stained by original sin, "unclean", as was all mankind after the Fall. And since Revelations 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean shall enter heaven: "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth…" (KJV), how did they get in?

We also know that the only way that one could be cleansed of the stain of original sin and restored to God's friendship would be through the merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection. But of course that hadn't happened yet.

So what to make of Enoch and Elijah? Is God not true to His word? Did He "cheat" in their case? Of course not. But how to reconcile? Catholicism offers the only available answer…an answer incarnated in the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary was in fact "saved": ("I rejoice in God my Savior") from original sin at the moment of her conception. She was saved in the only way that she could be saved, as we all are saved, by the passion, death, & resurrection of Jesus. But that hadn't "happened yet" either.

The words "happened yet" are the key. As we know, God, being the creator of Time is not subject to it. As an eternal being there is no past or future for Him. All is an eternal present. So though for us the salvific mission of Jesus on earth happened at a particular point in historical time, the merits of that mission are not subject to historical time and can be applied by God as He wills.

This is the only way to explain how Enoch and Elijah could be taken up into Heaven to “walk with God". Since God's Word will "not be mocked", we have to acknowledge that Enoch and Elijah were "saved". And since the only way to be "saved" is through the merits of the Paschal Mystery; and since that Saving Event hadn't "happened yet" (in time), the only answer left us is that God, who is not subject to time, chose to apply those merits to Enoch and Elijah, which, in effect, meant that they were "pre-redeemed".

The Church hasn't defined this "pre-redemption" of Enoch and Elijah, but She has defined it in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The saving merits of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection are applied to Mary by God at the moment of her conception.