OCR Text |
Show ! PERPETUAL PURITY Of THE BLESSED VIRGIN Even John Calvin Supported Catholic Doctrine Ipon This Point The Trouble i Heividius Caused. I i (Written for Intermountaiu Catholic.) j In all religious que-tions there are two points I that-should be care fully observed: (1) Xot to be I swayed by sectarian animosity or prejudice, and (i) not to misrepresent an opponents views, or what he must believe. In all branches of knowledge there are honest differences of opinion. It is so in philosophy. Over and above the exact sciences how many theories are daily advanced in which learned men honestly differ dif-fer as to real science. The sa me applies to political parties, in religious matters it is only necessary tc appeal to facts past and present. In all religious controversies truth should be the objective point j and in endeavoring to reach the truth there should j be no bitterness. The end to be attained is to separate sep-arate truth from error, and hold fast to the former when rationally convinced that it is the truth. "Error is harmless," wrote Milton, "where truth is free to combat it."' but not so when truth is misrepresented, mis-represented, or distorted. This leads up to the subject to which the writer has already directed attention, viz., what the churcb sanctions regarding devotions to tho Blessed Virgin, Vir-gin, also what is included in her dogmatic teaching on the same subject. Xo church should be judged by the conduct of its members or the exaggerated views they may entertain of the church's teaching. Abuses in church come through excess or superstitious supersti-tious notions as well as through denials. The line-may line-may be clearly defined between what faith com mands, what is permissible in certain devotions and what is really superstitious, but as long as persons per-sons are free to follow the bent of their inclinations, inclina-tions, and follow the guidance and direction of the senses rather than reason, there will be superstitious notions or exaggerated ideas of what the churcb ; permits and sanctions. Objections to these excessively excess-ively credulous practices are simply objections to what the church in her teachiug capacity objects. Before coming to the third denned article of faith regarding the Blessed Virgin, namely, her virginity, an explanation of the principle upon which devotion devo-tion to her rests is necessary. In honoring Mary the real object of the church is to honor God in his works. All creation, animate ani-mate and inanimate, is the work of the Creator. From the tiniest insect up to the highest specimen intellectually, physically and morally of mankind, we see the impress of the Creator. The supreme honor due to God exacts all the love and affections of the heart, and this includes also respect and honor for all creation, which is God's work. Whoso despises or condemns any work despises and condemns con-demns the workman, and vice versa, all praise and honor bestowed on any work, whether performed with a pick and shovel or the artist's brush, are reflected re-flected back on the workman. All creation being fashioned by the hand of God. and owing its existence exist-ence to His fiat, is highly honored, and cannot be dishonored without in a measure dishonoring it? Creator. When excluded from man's respect and veneration, it diminishes the love and affection of the heart that is due to God. because it excludes from that love and affection His property, or hi3 work. The works of God are two fold material and spiritual. All creatures are included in the first; the latter embraces all goodness and virtue. Goodness Good-ness and virtue are the effects of God's grace in tho soul. The homage, respect and veneration paid to Mary because of her goodness and many virtues are not paid to her personally, i. e., independent, of God, but to God Himself, through whose grace Mary was what she was. To subvert this principle, upon which Catholic devotion rests, is to fail to recognize the relations that exist between the Creator Crea-tor and creatures, goodness and evil; and to suppose sup-pose that the Catholic Church teaches or sanctions any honor or veneration to any creature, no matter how exalted they may be in the scale of virtue (even 'full of grace" as was the Blessed Virgin) independently inde-pendently of God. the author of grace, would be to display the grossest ignorance of Catholic faith since according to that faith, the giving to anv creature of honor, homage and adoration that justlV belongs to Him would be idolatry. The accusation then, that the Catholic Church, in any way. sanctions sanc-tions divine worship or supreme honor to Mary is supreme nonsense ; or that the Church is idolatrous because she sanctions her children to pray to her would be equivalent to saying that any person who asks another to pray for him is guiltv of idolatrv A prayer is simply a petition. Would it be idolatry idola-try for the citizens of any country to assemble peaceably and petition the lawmakers to redress their grievances i Is it idolatry on the part of the president of the United States to petition two reigning monarchs now at war to make peace in the name of humanity and Christian civilization i j C DOt' 611 a Petition to tne throne of mercv and the fountain of grace, through Marv, the purest pur-est and most exalted of creatures, is not idolatry. Fraying to her means this and nothing more We come to her virginity, which is a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Before and after her marriage, as well as after she became the mother of Jesus, Mary remained a virgin. This teaching of the Church, which dates its origin with the apostolic apos-tolic age, was first questioned by Heividius in the fourth century. St. Jerome's answer to the crude objections still holds good. They who deny Mary's perpetual virginity are swayed more by an opposing spirit to or a desire of protesting against Catholic truth than a desire to be honest and fair with Scriptural texts that are quoted. We are referred to Matthew I, 1S-25. In the first the evangelist, relating how the birth of Christ occurred, say3: "When Mary, His Mother, was espoused (or W trothed) to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child." In the second text it is stated that: "Joseph did as the angel of the Lord I ' commanded him. and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son." To strengthen these we are also referred to Mat hew xiii, 55, where the Jews, after he -taught in .(Continued on Page 5.) " PERPETUAL PURITY OF ' THE BLESSED VIRGIN (Continued from Page 1.) the synagogue, said: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren breth-ren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude." These are the only texts, and the objections founded on these to justify the protest against Catholic teaching teach-ing may bo rendered in the following syllogistic form: (1) ,The text states: "Before they came together." Therefore they came together after. But there is nothing in the premises to justify this conclusion. It is no sense a logical deduction. The fact that Joseph was not with Mary before the birth of her child is simply a negatiA-e premise, and from nega-tiAe nega-tiAe premises" no conclusion can bo drawn, according accord-ing to one of the rules of syllogism. On this very point Grotius, Avhom no one will suspect of the least partiality toAvards the Catholic Church and its teaching, has WTitten: "The negation of Joseph's having been with Mary before the birth of her child does not in any Avay iriiply an affirmation Avith regard re-gard to what took place subsequently. We are shoA-n by a multitude of examples, that this was a common and familiar expression with the Jews, as results from the interpretations by some of their most learned doctors, of passages of a similar nature, na-ture, such as those of Genesis, 49, 10; and 28, 15; Psalm 103, 2; Job 28, 5; etc.'' Then he adds: "The obvious intention of the evangelist obliges us to limit our attention to the period of the birth designated by him, since his only aim was evidently to show clearly that Joseph had no participation therein. Whereas, the mention of any posterior circumstances had nothing to do Avith the fact he endeavored to establish." Another defender of the Catholic doctrine on this point is no less a personage than John Calvin, Avho could not be swerved from the ancient faith on this point. In his commentary upon the harmony har-mony between the gospels he said: "Under cover of this passage: 'And he knew her not till she hal brought forth,' Helvidius caused, in his time, serious seri-ous troubles in the ohurch, because he attempted to prove from it that Mary Avas a virgin only up to the birth of Jesus Christ, and that she had afterwards after-wards other children by her husband. St. Jerome has stoutly maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary, and written lengthily upon the subject. Noav it suffices to say that such is not the meaning of the evangelist, and that it is absurd to persist in inferring from this passage what happened subsequently subse-quently to Christ's birth.' (2) The same reasoning applies to the text, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born Son." The answer both of Grotius and Calvin takes in the sophistrj of the objection contained in the Avord "till." On this point Calvin writes: "Ho is called firt born for no other reason but that we know Him to be born of a Virgin Mother, Avho had no child previously. It is said that Joseph knew j her not till she brought forth; and that, too, Avas j limited to the same period. The evangelist does not say a Avord about Avhat occurred after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is Avell known that, according to the common custom of Scripture, those modes j of speaking ar to be construed in this way. Cer- ; tainly this is a point which none but the blockheads i or buffoons Avould ever think of disputing." J The last objection to Mary's perpetual virginity i is taken from the mention in the Gospel of the j brothers of Jesus. Not only among the Hebrews. but among the Greeks and Romans, it avus a com- i mon custom to designate cousins by the name j brothers. So Ave are informed by Grotius, Avho made this one of his chief studies. Referring to this cus- j torn, Calvin wrote: "We haA-e already said else- ! where, that according to the custom of the Hebrews, j all relations are called brothers. Consequently llc l-A"idius l-A"idius gave a proof of his profound ignorance in i saying that Mary had several children merely bt- I cause of the Gospel speaking of the brothers of Christ." j But in pressiii"- the objection it may be said that the views of Grotius and Calvin are persona!, therefore there-fore simply a negative reply to the objection. In the Gospel itself Ave have a very positive reply, showing that by brothers the evangelist meant cousins. In Mathew xiii, 55. Avhere the brothers of Jesus are named, James and Joseph are among the group. But James and Joseph (according to Mark xv, 4(J) Avere the children of Mary of Cleophas, Avho (according to St. John xix. 25) was the sister of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore James and Joseph mentioned as brothers of Jesus, Avere, according to the Gospel narrative, first cousins of Je.-us, not brothers in the serine of the objectors. To this might be added many more cogent arguments showing show-ing that tlie. doctrine of the Catholic Church, regarding re-garding Mary's perpetual virginity, though assailed as-sailed by heresy and impiety, is in conformity with what has been taught and believed from the beginning, begin-ning, and isin no way affected by the objections of those Avho have strayed awav from the old faith. V. D. : |