The Queen (Part 1)

For the past month I have been studying Marian consecration.  In the beginning, I was actually quite upset.  There were a lot of things that I felt should have been taught to me when I was first learning about the faith, if, in fact, they were true.  The Church makes some bold claims about Mary.  BOLD.  Pun intended. :)  Anyway, I was viscerally upset when I started it.  Then I stopped and took a good hard look at myself.  I don't get viscerally upset over anything, almost ever.  This feeling was foreign to me.  This feeling was not something that I experience on a day to day basis.  That's how I knew... That's how I knew it wasn't from God...  That feeling I had of anger was not a gift of God, and that's how I knew I was getting close to the truth.  The devil doesn't want you to learn the truth, it takes away his power.  After I let go of that, the understanding blossomed, and I found that the Church's bold claims were not only quite sound, but remarkably biblical.  And so, let's begin there.  How is the Church's teaching on Mary biblical?

The First Woman:
Any study of Mary must begin at the first woman, Eve.  Let's go back to Genesis and recount a couple passages that will be important.  Genesis 2:21-23

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man, the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.”

Notice a couple things.  First, this is before the fall.  She was created without sin, just as Adam was.  Second, her name was "woman".  It wasn't until later, after the fall, that Adam named her Eve.  Speaking of the fall, what happened next?  The serpent tempted Eve (and Adam, he was there), they ate the fruit, they brought sin into the world, and then God found out (so to speak).  Look at what he says to the serpent.  Genesis 3:15

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.

This passage contains something known as "the protoevangelium" or "the first gospel".  It is the first promise that mankind will be redeemed.  A few things are interesting here.  In context, this woman isn't Eve.  God will put "enmity between" the serpent and the woman.  But, Eve, just made a covenant with the serpent.  If you want to read more, take a look at the post I did called How Bad Was The Fall of Man?  So this woman isn't Eve.  It is a new woman that is promised by God.  The next thing to notice is the "between your offspring and hers".  In another, probably better, translation it says, "between your seed and her seed."  The general effect is the same.  Offspring=seed.  However, to whom do we refer to as the "seed giver?"  This is definitely the task of the man.  It is always the seed of the man.  Take a 5th grade lesson in the anatomy of the reproductive system and you will know why.  The seed is "planted" by the man.  But, here, the seed is that of the woman.  The woman's offspring will be of her "seed".  

As we will see, this "woman" is in fact Mary.  And this is a reference to the conception of Jesus.  There is some difficult theology here too.  Don't dismiss it.  If you get Mary wrong, you will inevitably get Jesus wrong too.  Jesus was all God, but he was also all man as well.  In His conception the only "man" part he was given was from Mary; God provided the rest.  Hence, it is the "seed" of the woman.  Jesus' only DNA came from Mary, as that was his only human parent.  Jesus' divinity is that of God.  The hypostatic union is the fancy word for the way in which Jesus is both all God and completely divine, and all man.  So, Mary is the woman, Jesus is the seed.  This is how the Church comes to say that Mary is the "Mother of God".  Jesus is God.  However, don't confuse this with the "Mother of the Trinity."  That isn't what is going on here.  She is the true mother of Jesus, and he got his seed from her.  Therefore, Mary is the mother of the second person of the trinity, Jesus.  Since Jesus is God, Mary is the Mother of God. 

The Annunciation:
Let us fast forward to the annunciation.  It will be even more jam-packed full of information than the protoevangelium.  I want to isolate two verses in particular.  Luke 1:28 when the angel Gabriel says to Mary,

Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with you!

It is amazing how much can come from a mere handful words of the bible.  Where to begin.  When the Angel first greets Mary his word is "Hail".  What kind of greeting is this?  Actually, it is a greeting that is afforded to royalty.  If you look at the greek (this is clearly is hearsay as I know not Greek), the word "hail" is the same one used later on in the new testamant for "Hail, king of the Jews" when Jesus was on the Cross.  The word Hail was reserved for royalty.  Mary is being refrenced to with words used for a Queen by an Angel.  Not just a mere man.  Mary is the queen of the Angels too.  She is the Queen of heaven (more on this title in another post).  Second, the angel says "full of Grace."  Not "with grace", not "favored one," not even her name.  Unless, this IS her name.  That would be the appropriate thing to put there in the sentence.  Her given name is Mary, but her real name is "Full of Grace."  She is FULL of grace.  No grace is lacking.  No sin.  No fallen nature.  Full of Grace.  She was born without the stain of original sin.  She was the created immaculate conception.  If you want more on those choice words, read Maximilian Kolbe's reflection on the Immaculate Conception.

Gabriel goes on to explain that Mary will be with child conceived of the Holy Sprit.  And Mary's reply is, in Luke 1:34

"How shall this be, since I know not man?"

Get that "How shall this be".  Shall.  I have done a little bit of contract reading in my line of work and I know what the word "shall" means.  It is a guarantee.  If I say that I "shall drop a student" and I don't, then I have violated the terms of the syllabus.  Her reply is remarkable.  Mary doesn't use any kind of questioning tone, her first impression is that it WILL happen, and her question is How.  When she says "How shall this be" we can see her complete "yes" to God's invitation, the unity of Mary's will to God's.  She is ready and willing to perfectly do the will of God.

What about the question: "since I know not man?"  If you have read a little bit of Genesis, the word know will be familiar.  To "know" your husband was a word for sexual relations.  She says "Since I know not man."  At this point, she and Joseph were already betrothed.  The Jewish betrothal period was quite a bit more formal than our "engagement" period.  They were, for all intents and purposes, married.  Joseph would have gone off for a period to build a house for the couple.  Then, after that, their official marriage ceremony would have taken place.  If her relationship with Joseph had been one that was going to be a sexual one, then the question is completely asinine.  God didn't give the 4th grade talk "Well, Mary, when a man and a woman really love each other..."  She knew how children were made.  Her question doesn't fit.  The obvious answer is "When you and Joseph know each other."  But, that isn't what transpires.  It looks as though Mary isn't planning on having relations with Joseph at all, and that Mary was a consecrated virgin to begin with.  That is the only context in which her reply makes sense.  In fact, that is the teaching of the Church.  That Mary was a perpetual virgin.  She knows not man, forever, and that is the only way her comment makes sense.

We can see that from a few simple exegetes we have come to see biblical evidence of the immaculate conception, the mother of God, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as hitting on the point of Mary's queenship (though, admittedly, there is more about the queenship that I didn't get into).

Ephesians 5

Anyone who has been to church on a day when Ephesians 5 has been read probably has some bruised ribs.  Elbows fly back and forth as Paul recounts the duties of both a husband and a wife.  Naturally, we all fall short somehow, so the finger pointing and elbow punching begins during the reading as you and your spouses shortcomings are put on display.  Just in case you don't recall the discourse, here it is (verse 21-33):

[21] Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.  

[22] Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. [24] As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 

[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her [26] to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, [27] that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [28] So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” [32] This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. 

[33] In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

There are 3 distinct sections to this text.  Part 1: Paul speaking to both husbands and wives, Part 2: Paul speaking to wives, and Part 3: Paul speaking to husbands, and then back to part 1 at the end.

It is this second part that seems to cause the most uproar.  "Wives be subordinate to their husbands."  You can almost hear the feminist movement screaming now.  Subordinate?  What the heck is this?  I must admit, to our 21st century ears, this does sound a little suppressive.  But, is it really?  I heard/read the most beautiful, and I mean beautiful, commentary on this verse.  It comes from Pope Pius XI from his Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubi (pages 26-28)

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact. 

The emphasis was mine.  What a great quote.  Note that this submission is not that of a slave, but rather that of order.  A successful company has a visible head, the CEO.  The one who makes the final decision on matters of the company.  The CEO is not in charge of many of operations of the company, there are other people to which that task is entrusted.  Is the CEO's job more important than that of a Manager or Supervisor?  One could say yes, but we think only in terms of responsibility, not function.  The company could no more function without its workers, supervisors, & managers than without its CEO.  The point I am trying to say is that every person in a company has an important role.  If every person understands their role, embraces it, and carries out their task, the company can only be successful.  The same goes for a marriage.  Note the Pius XI is not saying that the head is more important than the heart.  In fact, what are the two organs that you cannot live without? The head and the heart.  You can do without almost everything else, at least temporarily.  The heart is every bit as important as the head.  This "subordination" that Paul is talking about is not that of a slave, it is that of order, for the good of the family.  If everyone in the family knows their role, embraces it, and carries it out, the family will be successful.

What happens if, in a tire company, a manager decides that he wants to make brake pads, and carries out his desire.  If this did not come at the directive of the CEO, this could jeopardize the companies' capitol and the company could be left in ruin.  We recognize the value of having someone in charge of the decisions in the business world.  Why not also in the family?  We see what happens when husbands and wives both make decisions independent of one another.  A separation happens.  To use a slightly colored phrase: "too many chiefs and not enough indians."  This will almost always result in some form of family disfunction.

One might say that the wife knows more about the children and should make decisions concerning them.  This is perfectly true in the sense that the wife has keen insights into many matters of the family, not least of which is dealing with the children.  The successful family, however, is the one where that is communicated to the husband, and a plan of action can be decided upon and put into place.  It isn't that the wife can't or didn't make decisions for herself, it is that the authority of the father is greater in this regard.  In my own family, no matter how much discipline is given by my wife, the kids know that when dad's discipline get here, we mean business.  It is't harshness or severity, but rather order.  Kids recognize the visible head of authority in the family whether or not that has been communicated to them.

Let's not leave out the husbands though.  While verses 22-24 cause the most uproar, notice how much more Paul talks about the role of the husband, verses 25-32, at least twice as much.  What does he say about them?  Husbands Love your wives.  Husbands sitting in the pews think, "nice, looks like my job is done here, she needs to be a bit more subservient."  Those men are too quick to take in the first sentence and turn off the attention.  It ends with "as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her..."  Woah.  Christ got up on a cross for his love for the church.  And, he expects the same from the husband.  Yes, husbands still have work to do.  We need to be ready and willing to get up on that cross for our wives.  Are we ready for that?  I have work to do...  We all have work to do...  This isn't the "love" feeling, this is the love of the will and the love of self sacrifice, very different from the mere feeling of affection that many of us like to think is love today.

There is another interesting aspect to this.  According to marriage counselors the number one complaint of husbands about their wives is "she doesn't respect me," and the number one complaint of wives about their husbands is "he never chooses me."  The part that is interesting is that in Ephesians 5, Paul actually gives us a remedy to each of these problems.  For the husbands "she doesn't respect me," Paul says to wives "be submissive to your husbands."  That is, respect him and his role as the head of the family.  For the wives "he doesn't choose me," Paul says to the husbands, "love your wives."  That is, love her so much that you always choose her.

It shouldn't be news at all that men and women still have the same marital problems after 2,000 years.  Men are men and women are women.  We can't change our nature.  In fact, we can be even more bold.  Men and women haven't changed since the beginning!  The very beginning!  I wrote a post about this earlier called Adam's Sin of Omission.  Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve.  Adam was silent.  In other words, Adam failed to lead.  He failed to die for his spouse, Eve.  It was Adam's sole responsibility to lead Eve away from sin, and he failed.  St. Paul offers us the solution to all marital problems; a way to leave the ways of sin and love one another; a way for a husband to lead his family to Christ.

The Acts Church

I was listening to a Christian radio station the other day (in the week following Easter) and I heard an interesting comment by the K-Love DJ.  They were talking about what it would have been like to live during the time of Jesus.  That it would have been exciting to see the empty tomb.  Before I get to the quote, I must interject that while it would have been nice to witness the extraordinary events of the resurrection, I don't think it would have been a good time to live at all... Christians celebrated Mass underground not just for fear of persecution, but fear of death!  We live very comfortable, naive lives now, especially here in the US.  I digress...

Back to the quote.  The guy said, "How cool would it have been to be part of the 'Acts Church'?"  This took me back for a moment.  The Acts Church? Did he mean that it would be cool to be part of the Church that Jesus founded?  If so, this is a very interesting admission from a protestant radio station.  Jesus didn't say "don't forget to read my book!"  He founded a Church, which I suppose they are calling the Acts Church, from the book, The Acts of the Apostles.  Moreover, what if that Church still existed?  I wonder if protestants have ever thought about this.  Did the Acts Church survive?  If so, how would you tell?

I have heard people on the radio say that the Church that is "closest to the scripture" will be the real, true, Church.  However, I think a better measure would be that of "closest to the Acts Church."  There are two things are important to note here.  First, in the Acts Church, there wasn't a bible.  We are only call it the Acts Church because we have the bible.  The the same bible that was written after the Acts Church existed.  Think about it, the Acts Church was not a "church of the written word," but rather a book of the "oral tradition."  It couldn't be closest to the scripture, because there wasn't any scripture (of the new covenant).   Second, is it possible to know what the Acts Church looked like?  Sure, you can get quite a lot about it from Acts, but you can get even more from the Church fathers.  Those who wrote about the Church before the Canon of Scripture was established late in the 3rd century.  Read books by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and many, many others.  Even some of the later ones like John Chrysostom, Jerome, Agustine, and Gregory the Great.  You will notice one thing... There is a Church that looks a lot like the Acts Church 2,000 years ago.  It is the Catholic Church!

If you don't believe me, just look at what the Church claims.  The number one claim is that it is "Apostolic".  That is, there is apostolic succession.  Every pope, bishop, and priest can trace his predecessor back to Peter, the first Pope, the one whom Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom and build his Church upon.  That Peter.  If you want a list, here you go: List of Popes.  It cites the popes and years of reign from the first pope, Peter, all the way to the 266th pope, Francis.  In John 14:16 Jesus says, "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever."  The spirit of truth was not only promised to the Apostles, but to their successors through all generations.  If the Catholic Church isn't the Acts Church, then Jesus didn't fulfill his promise.

So, when I heard him say "How cool would it have been to be part of the Acts Church," all I could think was "YES!  It is cool indeed!"  

Heresy is in the "not".

One of the tricky things about Christianity is all of the versions that are out there.  They all seem to have similar beliefs and it can be hard to separate exactly what each one is trying to say.  The first thing we need to discuss is a little logic, and vs. or.  The words "and" and "or" are actually very technical terms.  The word "and" is used to describe an intersection and the word "or" describes a union.

If you go to an ice cream shop and tell the attendant "I would like chocolate and vanilla". If they just give you a scoop of chocolate, you will be unhappy.  If they just give you a scoop of vanilla, you will not be happy.  Only a scoop of each will satisfy your demand.  Thus, the word "and" describes a scenario where both conditions must be met.

If you say to the attendant, "I would like chocolate or vanilla," you will be happy with a scoop of chocolate, and you will be happy with a scoop of vanilla, because you said "or".  However, this is where people often get confused; How would you feel if the attendant gave you a scoop of both?  Did they meet your request?  Yes! They actually did.  There are two kinds of or, an exclusive or and an inclusive or.  The exclusive or means "one, but not the other".  The inclusive or means "one, or the other, or both".  Whether the "or" in question is inclusive or exclusive is largely taken from context.

Here is an example of a clearly inclusive or:
"The students that are in math or physics classes this term."
This would be all of the students who are in math or physics or both.

Here is an example of a clearly exclusive or:
"Two movies are playing at 7pm tonight, do you want to see Spider-Man or Super-Man?"
Clearly you can't be in both theaters at the same time, so it is one or the other.

In general, I think as a society we get a bit confused because we usually only see the "or" as being exclusive. I don't have any study to back this up, but think about whether you have said "or both" before.  The "both" is implied with the "or" and is logically speaking, completely unnecessary.  Since we feel like we need to say "or both" if it is indeed an option, I think this is strong empirical evidence that we are an exclusive-or culture.

This all applies directly to Christianity.  Take, for example, Faith and Works.  The protestant community teaches that we are saved by Faith alone, and that works are not necessary.  This argument is exacerbated by the misunderstanding of the word "and".  It is often viewed as an exclusive or.  If it isn't faith alone, then it must be work alone.  But that isn't what Catholics are saying either.  Catholics believe that it is by Faith and Works.  Not just by faith, not just by works.  When we say "and" we really and truly mean both.

This point can be seen in many, many cases.  The interesting thing is that Catholics can largely agree with what protestants affirm.  It is what protestants deny that is the problem.  The problem is with the "not".  "Saved by Faith alone" can be re-stated as "saved by Faith, but not works".  So, we affirm the positive, but reject the negative.  In fact, most, if not all, heresies are of this form.  The misunderstanding of the "both-and" is prominent in protestant-Catholic dialogs.  Here is a list of "affirm but reject" statements by various ecclesiastical communities.  For each and every one of them, the Catholic teaching is "both-and".  We affirm the affirmation, but reject the "not".

• We are saved by faith, but not by works.
• Jesus was a man, but not God.
• Jesus is the redeemer, but not divine.
• Communion is a memorial, but Christ is not present.
• Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but not bodily.
• Scripture is authoritative, but not tradition.
• Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but not the Saints.
• The world can be understood by Science, but not philosophy and Religion.
• It is about relationship, not religion
• Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of Mary
• We believe in the New Testament, not the Old
• The Eucharist is a community meal of thanksgiving, not a sacrifice.
• Creationism, but not evolution (or commonly vice-versa)
• God is merciful, but not just.

I say again... Each of these is a heresy to the Catholic faith.  The Catholic position on every last one of them, and many, many more, is both-and.

The communication begins to break down when a Catholic says "No" to one of these claims.  The feeling is that we believe that some version of the "opposite" must be true; that if it isn't (A and not B) it must be (B and not A).  However, we aren't arguing that, we say (A and B).  And, so I conclude by fixing the above statements to the Catholic view:

• We are saved by faith and by works.
• Jesus was all man and all God.
• Jesus is the redeemer and he is divine.
• Communion is a memorial and Christ is present.
• Christ is spiritually and bodily present in the Eucharist.
• Scripture and tradition are authoritative.
• Jesus and Saints (through Jesus) are mediators.
• The world can be understood by Science and philosophy and Religion.
• It is about relationship and religion
• Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary
• We believe in the Old and New Testament
• The Eucharist is a community meal of thanksgiving and a sacrifice.
• Creationism and evolution
• God is merciful and just.

Who says?!

In my first post, I said that I wasn't going to get into the history of why I am now Catholic, but as this seems to be a topic of continual discussion in my current studies, now is the appropriate time to tell some of it...

After I decided that God existed when I was about 18, I went searching for him.  I started with what was most familiar to me with my nominal presbyterian exposure, that is to say,  I started with the protestant denominations.  I went to several Churches and heard sermon after sermon (most of which turned out to be about tithing) all which claimed to "know what the bible meant."  But this caused some inner turmoil for me.  What did the bible mean?  They all understood that this book was the "law of the land," but if it was so clear, why did they interpret it in different ways?  How long had people been interpreting scripture the way they had?  And most importantly: Who SAYS?!?!  I mean, if it is so easy to understand, why doesn't everyone see it the same way.  If the Holy Sprit is truly in charge of making sure that we all understand the scripture properly, then the only conclusion is that we would all agree!  No, something was mightily wrong with this perspective.  To add to that, nobody ever seemed to be able to explain where on earth this book-of-books came from.  I mean, why were those books in there and not other books?  Again, who says?!?!

My then-girlfriend-now-wife and her family were Catholic, so I decided to give that church a fair shot at these questions.  I should mention that having been raised by a Presbyterian and an Agnostic, my spoon-fed views on the Catholic church were, well, not good; not good at all.  They were the birthplace of heresy and tyranny!  :)  But, as nothing else seemed to make sense, I thought they should be given a fair chance to explain themselves and address my questions.  The sermons (or homilies as they called them) were frequently about how the people of the day would have interpreted the day's readings and how that applied to us here and now.  Oh, and each day had it's own reading that was read everywhere in the world, so there was terrific unity. This community that they were a part of that was much bigger than a block-party.  I enrolled conditionally in RCIA (the rite of Catholic initiation for adults).  I could attend classes with no-strings-attached, if I wanted baptized, great, if not, that was fine too.  Sweet!  I get to hear from the horses mouth what all of their nonsense is about.  And so it began...

My biggest questions were addressed right away.  Apostolic succession and the bible.  The Church didn't claim to be the best interpretation of the bible, it claimed to be THE church that Jesus founded when he said to Peter in Matthew 16:18, "You are my rock, and on this rock I will build my Church."  He didn't write a book, he founded a church.  And the Catholics claimed to be THAT CHURCH!  This was a bold claim.  But, then came apostolic succession.  They had a list of popes, a genealogy if you will, that listed pope to pope, the handing down of the church and the "keys to the kingdom" from Peter all the way to John Paul II (at the time).  Holy Smoly!  Evidence?  What is this?!  They too had claims to the bible.  My protestant friends never told me (or maybe they didn't know, or didn't want to admit) that the bible was actually produced by the Catholic Church!  Go look it up for yourself.  It was in 382 AD at the council of Rome, held by Pope Damasus I, that the canon of scripture was formed.  This is actually public knowledge, but seems to be a better kept secret of Protestant communities.  The Catholic Church was the Christian church of old, and the protestant bible actually belonged to the Catholic church.  (Until they, i.e. protestants, changed it; which is another post for another day...)

The rest of the story can be left for another day.  The Church not only had answers to all of my objections/complaints/misunderstandings, but they were strong answers.  The bible, in some ways, is like the Constitution of the United States.  What would happen if the forefathers wrote the constitution and then left it up for everyone to interpret on their own?  Pandemonium.  So, what did they do?  They left someone/something in charge of interpreting it:  The judicial branch.  It is in their charge to keep the spirit of the constitution alive and tell everyone what it means.  The Magisterium of the Church is a lot like the judicial branch.  It is the living teaching of the Church.  It tells us how we should interpret the bible.  We can see this analogy break down pretty quickly as men run the judicial branch.  But do men run the church?  Yes, and no.  Men are the physical and visible head, but as Jesus said in John 14:16-17

"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.  But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you."

In short, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.  It is up to the Holy Spirit through the work of men to maintain the teachings of the Church and a proper interpretation of the bible.  When will the Holy Spirit leave the Church?  We go back to Matthew 16:18 "... and the gates of Jell shall never prevail against it."  Never.  The Holy Spirit didn't guide the Church until the Reformation in the 16th century.  He stays with it now and will stay with it until the end...

Adam's Sin of Omission

I am sure we are all familiar with the story of creation, and that of the fall.  In Genesis chapter 3 we have the story,

Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

There are a couple of things I have learned that I want to point out.  First of all, in the first verse the devil says "You shall not eat...".  I don't know hebrew, but those that do have said that the "you" in this sentence is actually plural in Hebrew.  And so, if it were translated into a Texas accent it would say "Y'all should not eat..."  This is significant in the sense that Adam was present.  In most children's picture books, we see Adam off tilling the garden whilst Eve is conversing with the serpent.  But that isn't the whole truth.  Adam was there.  He was with Eve.  In verse 6 it said "... she took some of its fruit and ate it, and she gave some to her husband, who was with her..."  My bible did not have this part, but I am glad to see that the online version does have it.  The point is that Adam was there, and he didn't say a word.  As Eve was his bride, his silence was the first sin of omission as he did not stand up to protect her.

The next question is, what gives?  Why was Adam silent? I heard Dr. Pitre give a talk on his take on why Adam was silent and it was rather compelling.  What happens EVERY time an angel appears in the bible?  Here are some examples:

• Joshua 5:14: In this passage, an Angel appears to Joshua and he falls on the ground in worship.
• Isaiah 6:5: Two Seraphim spoke and the door shook and the house was filled with smoke and Isaiah said "Woe is me, I am doomed!"
• Daniel 10:2-21: Two things happen here.  An angel appears and only Daniel can see him, then "but great fear seized those who were with me; they fled and hid themselves, although they did not see the vision." The people who didn't even see the angel fled!!  Then when Daniel saw the angel he "fell face forward unconscious.
• Matthew 28:4: When the angel appears to the guards at the tomb, they were shaken for fear of him and "became like dead men," i.e. they fainted.
• Luke 2:9-11: When the angel Gabriel appears to Mary he says, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people."  Get that, the first thing he says is "Do Not Be Afraid."

What is the common theme of these passages: fear.  Whenever an angel appears, the people are afraid.  Now, who exactly is the serpent?   He is the evil one, Satan, the Devil, who was a fallen angel named Lucifer.  Of the 9 choirs, he was most likely from the choir of Cherubim.  The highest choir is Seraphim, and they praise God singing "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of Hosts." (which we actually just looked at in Isaiah 6).  As Lucifer chose an existence that is eternally separated from God, I can't imagine that he ever said this.  Cherubim, on the other hand, are described as having knowledge of God.  And, as we just saw in Genesis, this is what the serpent knows all about...  Knowledge and pride are linked at the hip.

If we put these two concepts together, "fear of angels" and "the serpent was an angel", it isn't hard to imagine that Adam was scared!  Almost everyone else who saw an angel fainted!  We might ask, why didn't Adam just say out loud, "Hey God, this angel over here is bothering me."?  Have we ever acted contrary to God when we were afraid?  All. The. Time.  In fact, one could argue that all sin is rooted in some kind of fear.  Moreover, you can actually make a very good case that all sin is rooted in the fear of death in particular!  Just read the creation story again.  Remember the quote above "Y'all shall not die."

At the very least, I think we can sympathize with Adam at this point.  After all, we do the same thing day in, and day out.  But, we need to learn from that experience.  We need to remember that whenever we are face-to-face with temptation, we need to lean on the Lord for assistance; for it is written, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13)

Aspect of the verb

Let's get a little "down and dirty" with linguistics.  Let's talk about aspect.  I am certainly not an expert, if you want a better explanation of this, do a google search.  I found this one, and I think it suffices:

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/aspectterm.htm

The two important forms of verbs are the perfect and the progressive.  The perfect aspect describes events that have already been completed at a previous time (here the verb "have" is perfect).  The progressive aspect describes events that are ongoing; events that may have been taking place, but are not yet complete (ing is often an ending).

For a couple examples:
"I have completed a blog post on counting to 3." (have is perfect)
"I am working on a blog post about the aspect of a verb." (working is progressive)

We have a little trouble with this in English.  Lord knows my English knowledge is a work in progress.  Other languages have this too, Greek in particular.  The greek word for "repentance" is "metanoia".  And the word metanoia carries with it an aspect...  And its aspect is, progressive.  Before I get into what that means for us, lets talk about the following scenario of table behavior.

As anyone who has dined with a toddler will know, there is a common theme to their dining routine, standing at the table.  We adults recognize that standing on our chair is bad, not just for etiquette, but for safety!  We know that if a toddler stands on a chair for long enough, they will likely tip the chair over, or at the very least, fall off.  So, what do we tell them as responsible adults?  "Sit."  We may or may not use an exclamation point instead of a period if this is the second time, or third time, or fourth time, or....  What happens if the toddler sits down and then stands back up?  Technically speaking, they did what we commanded.  We said, "sit," and they sat.  But is that what we really meant when we told them to sit?  NO!  What we meant by the command "sit" was actually something more along the line of "Sit, and keep sitting until I tell you to stop!" (If you get to the point where you actually utter these words to the kid, it will always have an exclamation point).  What this means is that the verb "sit" is progressive.  We don't mean it with the intention that you get to be done following directions the moment you comply.  We mean something that is ongoing and continuous.

Back to metanoia.  If this verb is progressive, what will that imply?  When Jesus says, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."  It doesn't mean, "Repent, and then go about your business as usual."  It means "Repent, and keep repenting until I tell you to stop!"  Jesus doesn't command us to simply repent one time and then be "saved" forever.  He wants us to continually repent, and not stop.  This intrinsically implies that what we do really matters, otherwise we wouldn't need to keep repenting.  And so, we can rightly say,

I have been saved, (Ephesians 2:5)
I am being saved, (Philippians 2:12)
and if I endure to the end, I shall be saved. (Matthew 10:22)

If I endure to the end... That is, if I repent, and keep repenting until Jesus tells me to stop: Metanoia.

(Thank you to Fr. Richard Simon for the content of this post.  He talked about it in his homily recorded in the "He Must Reign" CD set.)