OCR Text |
Show EXAGGERATED NOTIONS OE CATHOLIC DEVOTION Confounding Such With Dogmatic Teaching and Misinterpreting Real Meaning of the Church. (Writien fur Intermountain Caiholic.) Objections to devotions sanctioned by the Catholic Cath-olic church toward the Blessed Virgin arise from two sources. First; coufounding all these devotions with the dogmatic teaching of ihe church; and, secondly, exaggerating and misinterpreting the real meaning of what the church wishes to encourage. Whether intentionally or otherwise, this falsifying falsify-ing of the church's teaching has been so persistent and continuous that many non-Catholics have been convinced that Catholics give to the mother the honor, homage and adoration "which belong to the Son. Devotions are numerous, but only few come within ihe range of dogma. Certain devotions may have a special attraction for one class of individ-jj individ-jj uals. but for others none. The latter (who may ' V never practice those devotions) are not, in the least, considered weak in the faith, or wanting in Cath-- Cath-- olic sentiment. It is entirely different when it is a queston of some teaching that is declared to be an article of faith. To exemplify what is here meant we take the '.tsary. which is a very popular devotion. A good 'Catholic may never recite the Rosary; nor Mould one, who should declare that he did not believe in tin's particular devotion, be considered outride the pale of the church. His standing, in the church I . Mould not be in the least affected, nor the integrity X- f n's faith be questioned. But a denial of the Immaculate. Conception, or that Mary is the mother ct God, and always remained a spotless virgin would be a heresy, because contrary to the defined articles of fahh. Whilst one may without separating sepa-rating himself from the body of the church" reject certain devotions, no one denying a defined article which has been published to ihe world can be any longer a member of the church. f Devotions, like discipline, are amendable, and I may be changed. The former, though tolerated, are not jdways sanctioned by the church in her4 teaching teach-ing capacity, and not infrequently are disapproved or condemned when carried to excess. The present supreme Pontiff has expressed himself a bej;;; opposed op-posed to the multiplication of new devotions. Why Because many persons aitribute to these "devotions certain efficacy which they do not possess, and are more superstitions. Those who would suppose that :' the wearing of a medal or scapular, along with the formal recital of a certain prayer, meant salvation in ihe end. are as ignorant of true Catholic sentiment senti-ment and teaching as those who oppose, through misunderstanding, defined articles of faith. That , there are such members who are extravagant in the. ; manifestation of their devotion is undeniable. They will aitribute more virtue to visiting a shrine or the i application of a relic than 1o the sacraments which are ihe channels of grace. This is superstition, and a very dangerous one. There are many devotions j that arc useful in ihe sense proposed by the church: j but with individuals of exaggerated notions, what is 1 true and good in the proper sense and use is re- duced to superstitious practice. When asked to defend the atiitude of the church regarding these superstitious practices of some of f its members, ihe answer should be that the church is in no wise responsible for the exaggerated notions i of individuals. She does not encourage or sanc- ; - tion many external applications to excite devotion or pious sentiments. She invariably appeals to rea-: rea-: son. and in all that she encourages directs the mind ' to the great mystery of the Incarnation, which is f the center of 'all Caiholic devotion, and which produces pro-duces manly and robust faith. To the qucrv. win-do win-do Catholics do so and so. the answer, in many instances, in-stances, is lx-cause they follow the bent of their own inclinations rather lhan the directions and V teachings of the church. But when there is question of what the church in her leaching capacity presents for the belief of the faithful, then a defence is1 in order. We here ; introduce the title "Mother of God." as applied to the Blessed Virgin. The very words; at first sight i seem to imply a contradiction, and would, if used by ihe church in the sense attributed 1o her by tho.-e who look 1o the words and to their meaning as interpreted by them, and not in the sense intended by the church. The doctrine was defined de-fined by the Council of Ephesus in 431. against Xestorious, who objected to the title "Mother of God,' because, as he claimed, the Blessed, Virgin had given birth to ihe man Jesus, in whom the Son of God dwelt as in a temple; ihat in Christ were two persons really distinct, the Son of God and the man Jesus, and that between both there existed onlv , an external union. This new heresy, for the first , time broached by the patriarch, of Constantinople (ZS'estorius) in 4i'S. was condemned as being opposed op-posed to the whole economy of Redemption, because be-cause if there were two persons, then neither could effect, man's salvation. The definition of. the council condemned Xetorius' heresy. The teaching of the council of the church will appear clearer by showing first what it excludes. In styling Mary ''Mother of God"' it docs not mean that she was in any sense the mother of the divinity divin-ity of Christ. To suppose that the church would attribute this meaning to her definition would be to conclude that the church in her general councils and in the teaching of her venerable and learned doctors was lacking in ordinary common sense. i Who knows or could know better than her profound and learned theologians that Mary was not the mother of God in His divine nature, namely, of his divinity, in which sense, according to Catholic faith, God is eternal, an independent, necessary, i. e., not contingent,- but self-existent being, not Mary's son, but her Creator. To attribute to Mary the maternity ma-ternity of the divinity in this sense, from which modern Protestantism shrinks, is as absurd as it is foreign to Catholic faith. In this sense there can be no controversy, for the objection, when properly prop-erly explained in the Catholic sense, is but a confirmation con-firmation of Horaces proverb: "Parturient ntontes, nascetur ridiculus mus." (The mountains desire 4 to bring forth, and a ridiculous mouse is horn!) The j ' meaning of the poet was that where much is prom- Continued on Tage 5.) ' EXAGGERATED NOTIONS OF CATHOLIC DEVOTION (Continued from Page -1.) ised but little is performed, which is applicable in this case. But why style her "Mother of God, pray for us," in her litany of praises? Because Jesus, who was God, in his human nature was truly the son of. Mary. No mother could in reality be more the mother of h'-r child than Mary was the mother of .Tcsii-. i10 was not a mother in the sense of Nestonus or ot the adoptionists of the eighth century, namely, ot a son united to God. i. e., of a human son united with Gcrd, which would imply that Christ possessed a human-personality, which was not the case. It is true that human nature can not exist without personality and that the human nature of Christ had its personality, but it was a divine person, i. e., the eternal person of his divine nature. He had two natures the human and divine. These were united in one person, which was divine, and therefore adored as the second person of the Blessed Trinity. When Jesus became the son of Mary, his human nature conceived and born of her was a divine person, per-son, and therefore God. In this sense she is termed "Mother of God." It would be as unreasonable as it would be absurd to maintain that the divine nature na-ture of Jesus, or his divinity, was born at all, or even died' 011 Calvary, because that divine nature in its very essence is eternal and immortal. 'But his human nature through the Incarnation became really and substantially the nature of God: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us," and in this sense Mary, who was the mother of her son s human nature, is' styled "Mother of God." A denial of this teaching which dates back to the very root of Christianity, namely, the Incarnation,' Incarna-tion,' isto deny the fundamental principle of Christianity Chris-tianity and the part taken in man's redemption. Why the eternal Son of God, the second person of the "ever adorable Trinity, condescended and deigned deign-ed to assume human nature in the chaste womb of a simple virgin, is one of the mysteries which transcends trans-cends human' intelligence, but the fact that it was so, every one professing to be a true Christian must admit. ' Coupled with the knowledge of this mystery is also the fact that the union of the Son's two natures na-tures hi one divine person entitles the mother of his humanity, which was the complement of the divine person, to be styled "Mother of God." F. D. |