Chapter XV: Marian Theology
From
here, Chick attacks the Catholic Church’s Marian Theology. Essentially, his attacks focus on the
Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s similarities with female
deities, and the idea of Mary as the “co-redemptrix.” Let me begin with the Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception
The
Immaculate Conception of Mary was officially defined as a teaching of the
Catholic Church in the 1854 encyclical Ineffabilis
Deus [Ineffable God] by Pope Pius
IX. Essentially, here is the teaching:
According
to traditional Christian theology, Jesus of Nazareth is understood to be “fully
human” and “fully God.”[1] His human side would, of course, come from
his mother, Mary, because another traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus
is a product of a virginal conception, as Jesus had no Earthly father (Matthew
1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38).
Following
this understanding, another traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus is the
perfect sacrificial offering for sins (Hebrews 5:7-10, 9:23-10:18). But in
order to be the perfect sacrificial offering for sins, Jesus had to have had
“perfect human flesh.” As mentioned
previously, Jesus received his humanity from his mother, because, according to
traditional Christian theology, he had no Earthly father. Therefore, in order for Jesus to have had
“perfect human flesh,” his mother must have also had “perfect human flesh” to
have given him.
This
is the basis behind the theology of the Immaculate Conception. Essentially, when Mary was conceived in the
womb of her mother, St. Anne,[2] God
prevented her from inheriting what is known as “original sin.”[3] From here, Jesus is conceived, asexually, in
the womb of Mary, which is where he receives his “human flesh,” and later, he
becomes the “savior of the world,” as the perfect sacrificial offering for
sins.[4]
Mary was a Sinner like the Rest of Us
Chick
attempts to rebuke the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by stating “Mary
admitted she was a sinner just like us.”
He argues that Luke 2:22-24 and Leviticus 12:8 shows this—even though,
in the passage from Luke, Mary admits nothing.
In any case, Luke 2:22-24 references the Torah ritual that Mary had to
undergo, which is found in Leviticus 12:8.
Essentially, Mary is a “sinner,” because she had to undergo the Torah
ritual. The problem with this
interpretation is that Chick does not seem to understand that the word “sin” in
this context is misleading, but he may have understood this point if he looked
at Leviticus Chapter Four and have had a good biblical commentary. Let me explain.
In
the opening of Chapter Four of Leviticus, the author, traditionally Moses,[5] states,
“The Lord spoke to Moses saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel, saying: “When anyone sins unintentionally in any of
the Lord’s commandments…”’” (Leviticus 4:1-2).
The use of the word “sin” in this context is misleading. A better translation would arguably be
“purification offering,” which is what is being discussed in Chapter 12 of
Leviticus.
When
we use the word “sin,” we often refer to it as “personal moral failing,” but,
if anything, it actually means “becoming out of order.”[6] This is the situation Mary found herself in.
Basically,
whether Mary of Nazareth was, or was not, how Catholics view her, she still
would have had to undergo the Torah ritual for the simple fact that she gave
birth and “became out of order/polluted.”
But giving birth is not a personal moral failing. It is just part of the natural world, which
is what is referenced in the opening of Chapter Four of Leviticus, when the
author(s) mention about someone sinning/becoming out of order unintentionally
through no fault of their own (Leviticus 4:2).
But All Have
Sinned…
While
Chick does not reference this particular passage in the Letter to the Romans,
it is frequently used as an attack on the teaching of the Immaculate
Conception. Let me quote it from the
KJV: For all have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The
key words in that passage are “all have sinned.” That means Mary, just like everybody else,
was/is a sinner. There is a problem with
this interpretation.
If
we take “sin” to be “personal moral failing,” which is how the term is often
used, some individuals cannot sin.
They cannot sin, because they do not understand the concept of what
“sin” is. For example, individuals below
the age of reason cannot sin. Likewise,
individuals with severe mental health issues cannot sin. And Paul would have
been aware of such individuals during his lifetime.[7] To think of it another way, in a general
sense, “all have sinned,” but there are always exceptions.[8]
But “No One is
Righteous…”
While not referenced by Chick, this passage from Romans (Romans
3:10)—which is a reference to the Psalms (Psalms 14:1-2)—has been as an attack
on the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.
There are, however, problems with this criticism.
First,
Paul is discussing the Jewish Torah/Law, and how no one can fulfill it by his
or her own merits. Second, the graces
that Mary received, according to this theology, come from God, not anything
she, herself, did or earned—which would, ironically, put Mary in harmony with
the author of The Letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 2:8-9).
But “My Spirit
Rejoices in God my Savior…”
Chick
also does not reference this passage from the Gospel of Luke, but it is also
used as an attack on the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, which is
ironic, as it is frequently recited by Catholics. The passage has gone down in history as the
“Canticle [or song] of Mary” (Luke 1:46-55).
The portion of this passage, which is referenced as an attack on the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception are the words, “My spirit rejoices in God
my Savior” (Luke 1:47). While Luke’s
Mary does not state what it is she is being “saved from,” the understanding is
that she is being saved from “sin.”[9] However, this understanding neither proves,
nor disproves, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Let me explain.
Let
us say, along a path, there is a pit.
Let us call this pit “sin.” Now,
let us say that an individual falls into the pit, while walking along the path. However, if another person, pulls the
individual out of the pit, one can state that the person saved the individual
from “sin.” Now, let us give another
scenario.
Let
us say, another individual is walking along the same path, but, this same
person, guides the individual away from the pit. In this scenario, the person also saves the
individual from “sin.”
In
the scenarios given, the “individual” is a human, and the “person” is God. In one scenario, God saves the person
who had committed sin. In the other
scenario, God saves the person from committing sin. But, in both scenarios, God is the savior.
But Mary
Experienced “Birth Pains”
This is a reference from the many visions of John of Patmos (Revelation
12:2). Chick does not reference this
particular passage in his tract/comic, but it is used as an attack on the
Marian teaching of the Immaculate Conception.
The argument is based on Genesis 3:16.
Essentially, after the disobedience, or sin,
of Adam and Eve, God informed Eve that, due to her disobedience/sin, her
“pangs” in childbirth would increase (Genesis 3:16). In the Book of Revelation, the woman is described
“crying out in birth pangs” (Revelation 12:2).
The woman is identified as “Mary,” and because “Mary” is crying out in
birth pangs, she must have sinned. The
problem with this interpretation is that it neither proves, nor disproves, the
teaching of the Immaculate Conception for three reasons.
First, even if Mary was how
Catholics, and others, view her, she may still have experienced pangs at
Jesus’s birth. Depending on how one
wants to interpret the passage in question from Genesis, and how it is translated
from Hebrew into English, it is possible that if Adam and Eve engaged in sexual
relations in the Garden of Eden—and Eve became pregnant and bore children in
the Garden of Eden—Eve still would have experienced birth pangs, just not as
bad.[10] If Mary is the new Eve, which is one of the
traditional understandings of her, it is likely that her birth pangs could have
been what Eve’s would have been before the “fall of humanity” (Genesis Chapter
Three).[11]
Second,
from the Catholic perspective, texts—in this case, the Bible—can be
“polyvalent”; that is to say, it can represent “multiple meanings at once.”[12] In the case of the “woman” from the Book of
Revelation, she is not only identified as Mary, but also the Church.[13] Because the woman also represents the Church,
and the Church was subjected to off and on persecutions during the time period
that the Book of Revelation was composed,[14]
it would make sense why the woman/Church would be in “pain.”
Third,
the Book of Revelation is heavily metaphoric, not meant to be taken
literally. Consider the “dragon” that is
waiting to devour the “child of the woman” (Revelation 12:3-4). No such “dragon” occurs within any of the
accounts, both canonical and non-canonical, of Jesus’s birth (Matthew 1:18-25,
Luke 2:1-7, Infancy James 17:10-19:16).[15]
In
truth, there would only be a few individuals who would know if Mary actually
experienced any pangs during the birth of Jesus: Mary herself, and any other eye
witnesses. And these individuals did not
leave behind a written eye witness account.[16]
Mary Compared to Female Deities
It
should be noted that the Catholics—along with the Orthodox and the Anglicans—do
not, in any way shape or form, view Mary, or any of the other saints, as
gods, and any attempt to do so has always been considered heretical and
idolatry.[17]
[18] But Chick tries to make a comparison with
Mary to various female deities. His
source is his comic Angel of Light,
which has as its source Alexander Hislop’s The
Two Babylons.
As
mentioned previously, Hislop’s The Two
Babylons has long been refuted for making arguments that are not historic
and using the logical/rhetorical fallacy of Hasty Generalization. In the case with Chick’s comic Angel of Light, he tries to make a
comparison of artwork depicting the Canaanite goddess Asherah, holding her son,
Baal; and the Egyptian goddess Isis holding her son, Horus; to artwork
depicting Mary holding her son, Jesus, and claiming that they are “one in the
same.”[19]
Once
again, this is an example of the logical/rhetorical fallacy of Hasty
Generalization. A mother holding her
child is depicted in artwork all over the world, because it is natural human
emotion. It has nothing to do
with a religious belief of any kind; it is a natural human emotion.
In
the case of the comic/tract in question, Chick tries to make a comparison in
the artistic similarities between Mary and Isis—in this case, the halo and the
serpents—trying to argue how they are “one in the same.” Once again, this is an example of the
logical/rhetorical fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
A
halo is used in religious artwork all over the world to indicate that a
particular individual is considered “holy” to a particular group. It does not mean, however, that all
individuals would consider this person to be “holy”—only those that are part of
the particular group in question.
For
example, a Christian would not consider Siddhartha Gautama, better known as the
Buddha, to be “holy,” even though he is depicted with a halo in Buddhist
artwork. Likewise, a Buddhist would not consider Jesus of Nazareth to be
“holy,” even though he is depicted with a halo in Christian artwork.[20]
In
the case of the serpents in artwork that depicts Mary and Isis, there is a
different understanding of what the serpent means. With Isis, the serpent is
understood to represent her creation, which was used to bite Ra, the Egyptian
Sun god, and weaken him. With Mary, the
understanding is how her offspring, Jesus, will crush the serpent, which is
understood by Christians to be Satan/The Devil (Genesis 3:15). But, once again, the understanding behind
Mary, Isis, and the serpents are not “one and the same.”
Mary as “Co-redemptrix”
In
his tract/comic, Chick declares that the Catholic Church made Mary a
co-redeemer. It must be pointed out that
the Church has never officially approved of this title for Mary, in part
because of potential ecumenical misunderstandings.[21] Essentially, Mary is understood as a
“co-redemptrix” in four ways:
First,
in her role as the “theotokos,” or “God-bearer”—that is to say, her role in
being the mother of Jesus, who, in traditional Christian theology, is “God
incarnate.” Second, in her role as the
“new Eve” and the “new Ark of the Covenant.”[22] Third, in her own personal suffering from
watching her son die on the cross (Luke 2:25-35, John 19:25-30).[23] Fourth, by her intercession in Heaven, as
part of the Communion of Saints (First Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-13;
Hebrews 12:22-24; Revelation 5:1-8, 8:1-4),[24] she
continues to distribute the fruits of Jesus’s redemption to those on Earth.[25]
Chick,
however, calls such an idea “blasphemous,” and he attempts to use a portion of
a handbook from The Legion of Mary to emphasize his point. The problem with Chick’s charge of
“blasphemy” is that he does not understand the teaching being made in that
handbook.
As
mentioned previously, Mary is understood to be the “new Eve,” because it is
through her that the “new Adam,” Jesus, was born (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke
1:26-38, 2:1-7; Romans 5:12-21; First Corinthians 15:44-49).[26] Likewise, as mentioned previously, Jesus of
Nazareth, according to traditional Christian theology, had no Earthly father;
therefore, his humanity (his flesh and blood) would come solely from his
mother, and it was that flesh and blood, which suffered and died on the
cross. While Chick may not agree with
this theological understanding, even though he arguably would have agreed with
some of it, for him to call it “blasphemous” is solely due to the fact that he
did not understand it.
Mary was Deliberately Exalted to Get Catholic Eyes Off of Jesus
No,
it is because of Jesus that Mary is venerated in the manner which she is. It is because of Jesus that Mary is
considered the “Queen of Heaven,” because Jesus, her son, is considered to be
the “King of Heaven.” It is because of Jesus that Mary is considered “full of
grace” and “blessed among women.” It is
because of Jesus that Mary is considered the “new Eve.”
While
Chick may not agree with the exaltation that Catholics and other Christians
(Orthodox and Anglican/Church of England) give to Mary—even though ironically,
he probably would agree with some of that exaltation, if he understood it
properly—he can no more prove it wrong than somebody who does agree with it can
prove it right.
Are Precious Catholics Christians?
Well,
they, along with the Orthodox Church, are the form of Christianity that “won,”
and all modern-day Christians descend directly, or indirectly, from
Catholic-Orthodoxy. Obviously, the
Adoptionists/Ebionites and the various forms of Gnosticism would disagree, but
they were the “losers” in terms of Christology.
Plus, in the case of Jack Chick, he would agree more with
Catholic-Orthodoxy than he would with the Adoptionists/Ebionites and the
Gnostics.
If They Truly Believe What Their Church Teaches to Get to Heaven, the
Answer is NO!
Considering
how wrong Chick has been about their Church certainly calls into question his
statement.
Millions Have Been Deceived by This False Religion
If this religion, Catholicism, truly
is false, and if millions of people have truly been “deceived by it,” one would
think that God—as an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful being—would take
pity on these “poor deceived souls,” since they were deceived by something
beyond their control.[27]
[1]Officially defined at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325
CE/AD, but here are some of the canonical New Testament passages to support
this point of view (John 1:1, 1:14-18; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20).
[2]The traditional names for Mary’s parents are Anne (Mother) and
Joachim (Father).
[3]“Original Sin” is the traditional Christian teaching that due to
the disobedience, the sin, of the first humans (Adam and Eve), humanity is
essentially “born into sin.” Judaism
would eventually reject this teaching. Islam, also, rejects the idea of
Original Sin.
[4]Throughout Christian history, not all Christians have agreed with
this particular theological understanding.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), for instance, held a point of view that
Mary was conceived with Original Sin, but before the infusion of her soul—which
took place while she was still in the womb—God removed the “stain” of Original
Sin, and God “shackled” any potential desires she had to sin. See Thomas Aquinas “Sanctification of
Christ’s Mother” in Compendium of
Theology [book online], trans. Cyril Vollert (St. Louis & London: B.
Herder Book Co., 1947). Accessed from https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/Compendium.htm#224. Accessed on 11 August 2024.
Within the Orthodox Church, many hold to the
notion that Mary inherited Original Sin, but never “acted upon it,” which would
make her, more or less, perfect. But when the Archangel Gabriel arrived to
inform Mary she was going to have a child, God “removed the stain of original
sin,” which then gave Mary “perfect human flesh,” which was then passed on to
her son, Jesus.
[5]Moses is traditionally the author of the Torah/Law
(Genesis-Deuteronomy), which is why it is sometimes referred to as the “Mosaic
Law.” However, beginning in the Middle
Ages, historians, both Jewish and Christian, began to question the Mosaic
authorship.
[6]The literal Hebrew meaning behind the word “sin” is “missing the
mark.”
[7]For example, his reference to Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:10-11).
[8]This would also be true with First John 1:8.
[9]In Matthew’s Gospel, the angel informs Joseph that Mary’s child is
to be named “Jesus,” because he will save people from their sins (Matthew
1:20-21). The name “Jesus” in Hebrew can
be translated as “Lord/Yahweh/Jehovah Saves.”
However, this is absent in the Gospel of Luke.
[10]The key word from the passage in Genesis
(Genesis 3:16) is the word “increase.”
Essentially, Eve would have experienced birth pangs regardless of her
disobedience/sin, but due to her disobedience/sin, God “increased them.”
[11]At the same time, one has to realize that
creation stories, such as the story of Adam and Eve, are what are known in
Religion Studies as “myths.” In
Religious Studies, a “myth” is a “story of great importance, regardless of how
historically accurate it might be.”
[12]Catechism
of the Catholic Church,
sections: 115-117.
[13]Besides Mary and the Church, the woman has also
been identified as Eve and the united tribes/Kingdom of Israel.
[14]Dates for the Book of Revelation vary among
historians. The earliest dates are during the persecution of Christians by the
Emperor Nero (64-67 CE/AD), but most historians hold that, at least in its
final form, the Book of Revelation was written around the year 95 CE/AD.
[15]For the Gospel of Infancy James, I am using a
translation known as the Scholars Version.
[16]In the Gospel of Infancy James, written, at
earliest, near the end of the First Century CE/AD, the text does turn to the
first person perspective of Joseph, Mary’s husband, right before the birth of
Jesus; however, Joseph does not literally view the birth of Jesus, due to a
“dark cloud” and “intense light,” which took place inside the cave where Jesus
was born (Infancy James 18:1-19:16).
[17]Catechism
of the Catholic Church,
sections: 971 and 2114.
[18]One such group was known as the Collyridians. The group viewed Mary as a goddess, and
offered her a “thin cake of bread”—which would explain their name in
Greek. They were active on the Arabian
Peninsula, and were likely the group condemned by Muhammad of Arabia, the
historical founder of Islam, in the Koran (Koran 5:116).
[20]Some Western Buddhists do consider Jesus to be an enlightened
being, or Buddha, but this point of view is not shared by Buddhists worldwide.
[22]Mary is understood as the “new Eve,” touched on in the Gospel of
John (John 19:25-27), and the “new Ark of the Covenant” in her role as the
“Mother of God [Jesus].” Through Mary’s
offspring, Jesus, new life was given, and a new covenant was made.
[23]It should be noted that the passage in Luke is traditionally
understood as a prefigurement of Jesus’s crucifixion.
[24]The Communion of Saints is the teaching that the members of the
Body of Christ pray with and for the faithful to Jesus Christ, the ultimate
mediator between God and humanity (First Timothy 2:5)—both on Earth and in
Heaven.
[25]“Coredemptrix,” in The
HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism.
[27]Just like God would hopefully take pity on those who literally
believe the comics/tracts of Jack Chick and other works of Chick Publications,
publications, which, in many respects, have been shown to be “demonstrably
false.”
Comments
Post a Comment