Adam, where are you?

One of the things I love about reading Sacred Scripture is that there are often hidden gems – some hard to find, and some not so hard. To find them, we often have to read passages that are familiar to us with a fresh set of eyes, so to speak.

There is one such gem contained in the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. After Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. And when God came walking through the Garden in the cool of the day, they hid. At this point in the story, God does something very interesting. As He walks, He calls out to Adam and Eve: “Where are you?”

“What is so interesting about that?” you may ask. Well, consider this....if God is omniscient (knowing everything) and omnipresent (present everywhere) then He already knew that Adam and Eve had sinned, that they were now hiding...and He even knew WHERE they were hiding. So why would an omniscient and omnipresent God ask “Where are you?”

One possible reason could be that God was calling for Adam and Eve to take ownership of their disobedience – which I think is a perfectly plausible explanation. But, I wonder if God’s question isn’t even more theologically loaded.

Think about it this way. God was obviously not asking the question for His own benefit.  Which means that He was asking the question for the benefit of Adam and Eve. I think that was God was saying to Adam and Eve is that they were now LOST.

Then, upon finding them, God provides a way of hope and a promise of redemption in what is commonly called the Protoevangelium (first pronouncement of the Gospel):

“I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and hers; she will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel.” – Gen 3:15

This redemption is brought to fruition with the Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. I think that it is possible that the Lord Jesus, the New Adam, had Genesis 3 in mind when He said in Lk 19:10:

“For the Son of Man [i.e. the Son of Adam] came to seek out and save the lost.”

Just as God walked through the Garden of Eden seeking out Adam who was lost, so now, God the Son came in the Incarnation to seek and to save the sons and daughters of Adam who were lost by the sin of their first parents.

The Gospel reading in Mass today (5^th Sunday of Ordinary Time) also has some bearing on this subject; because we are told that when the disciples told Jesus “Everyone is searching for you” (Mk 1:37); Jesus responds in a way that implies that it is in fact He that is looking for them:

“Let us go on to the neighbouring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” – Mk 1:38

Jesus’ mission of seeking the lost race of Adam didn’t end when He ascended into Heaven. The mission is continued through His Body, the Church – which is why we are told in the New Testament reading today that St. Paul felt such a great compulsion to be a slave to all so that by any means possible He might win some by His preaching of the Gospel (see 1 Cor 9:16-23).

So, following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and all the Saints throughout history, may we never be ashamed of proclaiming the Gospel – remembering that once we too were lost. And now that we have been found by God’s grace, may we also be found worthy to be called Christians; preaching the Gospel often...and if necessary, using words.

When did the Catholic Church Apostatise?

Earlier this week, I was engaged in another interesting discussion – this time with a Protestant friend who claimed that the Catholic Church is apostate, and it all started going wrong from 325AD with the edict of Emperor Constantine when he declared Christianity as the State religion. From that time forward, he claims, the Church became more and more nominal until it ultimately became so debased that it ultimately became apostate i.e. it rejected the truth of the Gospel for superstitions, lies, and heresies.

This is not an uncommon argument from Protestants, who claim that with the edict of Constantine, the Church fell away from the truth taught by the Apostles; and that this state of apostasy prevailed until the Church was rescued by men like Martin Luther during the time of the Protestant Reformation.

If this view is correct, then it means that the Church was in a state of apostasy for almost 1200 years before Martin Luther came on the scene; and it ends up making a liar of Jesus who said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into ALL truth (Jn 16:13).

This lie would be compounded by the fact that Jesus said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18); whereas, according to their claim, the Church that Christ founded ended up being apostate for about three quarters of the time that had elapsed between Christ’s founding of the Church and the time of Protestant Reformation.

Now we know that God cannot lie, so this position held by many Protestant falls flat on this point alone.

However, to further prove how untenable their position is, it must be remembered that significant points of orthodox theology were officially declared only AFTER Constantine’s edict e.g. Arianism (rejected in 325AD); the New Testament Canon (declared after 325AD); Pelagianism (rejected in 416AD); Nestorianism (rejected in 430AD); Monophysitism (rejected in 451AD); Monothelitism (rejected in 680AD) – to name just a few.

Such monumentally important theological decisions could never have been upheld correctly by a Church that had become apostate; unless, the Church was divinely protected by God from teaching error on these points – which is exactly what the Catholic Church has held all along i.e. the Catholic Church can never become apostate because she is led, and always has been led, by the Holy Spirit ever since she was established by the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, we can see that their position is even less tenable when examined in light of the Church Fathers before 325AD. I have provided several quotes from the Church Fathers below which clearly show that they held doctrines which are unreservedly Catholic – the same doctrines which Protestants often claim only crept in AFTER 325AD once the Church had “slipped into apostasy”.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

“They [people with heterodox opinions] abstain from the Eucharist...because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” – St Ignatius of Antioch, AD110

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too...the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” – St. Justin Martyr, AD128
[Please also notice the reference to baptismal regeneration].

The Eucharist as Sacrifice:

“He [Jesus] took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “This is My Body”. The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant of which Malachi prophesied [Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people [Israel] will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one.” – St. Irenaeus, AD180

“Also in the priest Melchisedek we see the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of the Lord prefigured...when He offered sacrifice to God the Father, He offered the very same which Melchisedek had offered, namely bread and wine, which is in fact His Body and Blood!” – St. Cyprian, AD252

The Primacy of Rome:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate the succession [from the Apostles] of all churches, we shall here point out the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul....For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her [the Church of Rome] that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” – St. Irenaeus, AD180
[In the very next verses, St. Irenaeus lists the Apostolic Succession of Rome from St. Peter onwards...the same succession which leads to Pope Benedict XVI today.]

Apostolic Succession:

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness...who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever think you shall bind...[Matt 16:19];” and by this: “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven...[Jn 20:22-23]. Therefore the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.” – Firmillian of Caesarea, AD255

[Also note the reference to the forgiveness of sins, as well as the inference of the primacy of St. Peter and his successors].

Infallibility of the Church (i.e. the Church cannot teach doctrinal error):

“For the Lord received anointing on His head in order that He might breathe incorruptibility on the Church. Do not be anointed with the evil odour of the teachings of the prince of this world...” – St. Ignatius, AD110

“Grant, then, that all have erred [as Protestants suggest]; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church as to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ, who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth; that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ neglected his office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?” – Tertullian, AD200

And just for icing on the cake, here’s a couple on prayers for those who have died:

“We offer sacrifices [talking about the Eucharist] for the dead on anniversary of their death.” – Tertullian, AD211

“A woman, after the death of her husband...prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice.” – Tertullian again.

The above quotes are just the tip of the iceberg from the Church Fathers. The more we read the Fathers, the more we will see that what they were taught by the Apostles, and what they were martyred for, was nothing less than the True Faith which the Catholic Church continues to hold to this day.

One final point, in respect of the accusation of nominalism that crept in after 325AD...

Whilst it may be true that more Christians were becoming nominal after 325AD, this does not disprove the validity of the Catholic Church. To paraphrase what Fr. Barron said in a recent video: Finding sin and abuse in the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church is like shooting fish in a barrel. It really isn’t difficult. After all, the Church is filled with sinners...and sinners sin.

Additionally, we also need to remember that as nominal, and oftentimes wicked, as Old Testament Israel was, she was still considered the people of God. In fact, if we are talking about the Protestant Reformation, a Scriptural equivalent to Martin Luther would arguably have been King Jeroboam who ended up severing the Northern Kingdom from Israel and subsequently changed the way that the Northern Kingdom believed and worshipped (sounds very much like what happened in the Protestant Reformation). As a result, Jereboam became responsible for leading the people further away from God.

However, the difference between Old Covenant Israel and the New Covenant Church is that God promised that, under the New Covenant, His people would never again fall away in apostasy (contrary to what Protestants may claim happened following 325AD). [For more on this, see the blog I posted recently which touches on this very topic.]

In summary, it seems quite evident that Protestants either have to admit that the Church was never apostate – the doctrines post 325AD were very much the same as pre 325AD (albeit that they had developed, as theology does); or they have to amend their position and hold that the Church became apostate well before 325AD, and even within the first century – making Jesus Christ an even bigger liar than mentioned above. Surely we should be able to see that there is only one viable option...

Purgatory and the New Covenant

This blog is inspired by a conversation I had with a friend recently. He mentioned that non-Catholics sometimes bring up Jer 31:34 (and it’s counter-quote in Heb 8:12) when trying to refute the doctrine of Purgatory. Personally, I have never come across this exact argument, but I have come across similar arguments. So, I thought that it would be a good opportunity to blog on the topic.

The verse that is raised says:

“...for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.”

Based on this verse the argument basically claims that Purgatory goes against the Bible because in Purgatory there is a “remembering of sins”.

There may be a few ways to refute this “anti-Purgatory” argument, but really the argument fails on two basic levels:

1) Firstly, Jer 31:31-34 must be read in context. The book of Jeremiah was originally intended for the remnant of Israel (i.e. the Southern Kingdom of Judah). Just like the Northern Kingdom had gone into exile under the Assyrians because they were unfaithful to God; now God was about to do the same to the Southern Kingdom because they had broken His covenant (particularly by the sins of idolatry and false worship). The prophecy was fulfilled when the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem, destroyed Solomon’s Temple, and led the people into captivity.

So, what does this have to do with Jeremiah’s words in Jer 31:31ff? Basically, Jeremiah is saying that because Judah had been unfaithful by not remembering God’s covenant, He was about to impose the covenant curses upon them by “remembering their sins” and sending them into exile (Jer 31:32). In exile they would be free to worship the false gods that they had forsaken the true God for (cp Ezek 20:32).

But Jeremiah’s words are not all doom and gloom. Part of God’s message to His people is that there is hope. In His rich mercy, God does not completely forsake His people. Instead He makes the promise of a New Covenant (Jer 31:31ff) which would by far surpass the Old Covenant. And part of what would make the New Covenant better than the Old was that under the New Covenant, God’s people would no longer break covenant with Him because He would inscribe His law on their hearts (v33).

The New Covenant came into effect with the Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and was formally instituted on the night before His death when, in the Eucharist, He gave His Body and Blood to His Twelve Apostles (as representatives of the New Twelve Tribes of Israel). And so it is that the Church, built upon the foundation of the Apostles, is the New Covenant people that Jeremiah was talking about. And what Jeremiah is saying in Jer 31:31-34 is that the New Covenant Church would never break covenant with God again by virtue of the fact that His law would be inscribed on their hearts (which St. Paul tells us is the work of the Holy Spirit e.g. 2 Cor 3:3). In this way, God would never have to “remember the sins” of His people again. Our Lord Jesus said the same thing but in different words when He said that He would send His Spirit to guide the Church into all the truth (Jn 16:12); and elsewhere that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt 16:18).

2) Secondly, in light of the above, the argument fails because Purgatory is not for individuals who have broken covenant with God (e.g. through mortal sin); rather, the Catechism tells us that Purgatory is for those who “die in God’s grace and friendship” but are still not completely or perfectly purified. So, whilst we haven’t broken covenant with God, there may still be venial sins that haven’t been confessed (or that we aren’t even aware of – because sins of ignorance are still sins despite the fact that culpability is lessened).

In addition, there is also the issue of making reparation for our sins. Forgiveness of sins is one thing, but reparation is still necessary. For example, if someone confessed to me that they had stolen $20 out of my wallet, I would gladly forgive them, but justice requires that they would still need to make amends by restoring the $20 to me. The forgiveness precedes the restoration of the money, but it doesn’t negate it. In this sense Purgatory is also about making reparation for sins which have been confessed and forgiven, but complete reparation has not yet been made.

If we acknowledge that God is so completely holy that He cannot look upon sin, then it follows that it is necessary to have some form of purgation after we die to cleanse us completely from sins that haven’t yet been confessed before our death and/or to make reparation for the demands of God’s righteous justice where we haven’t sufficiently done so whilst alive on earth.

Purgatory is thus a complete purification so that we “may attain the beatific vision of God”. Even C.S. Lewis, an Anglican theologian widely renowned by Protestants of all denominations, believed in Purgatory saying that any Christian who had a right understanding of the holiness and justice of God, and our own unworthiness because of our sin, would gladly welcome the doctrine of Purgatory as a preparation and purification so that we could enter the Most Holy Presence of God.  

In summary, an anti-Purgatory argument based on Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:12 does not stand because it misrepresents what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches about Purgatory, and it also fails to take into context what Jeremiah was actually saying.

On the contrary, Jer 31:31ff actually proves to be one of the many passages of Sacred Scripture which affirms that the Catholic Church is the true Church which will NEVER fall because it is the New Covenant Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And, unlike Israel of old, the New Israel of God will especially never break covenant with God by idolatry and false worship (despite what Protestants have to say about Catholic worship and devotion).

So let us thank God for His Holy Catholic Church which has stood through the ages by His good grace; and let us never cease to praise Him for the wonderful gift of gathering us into this Glorious Body of Christ so that He can continue to pour His grace into our lives by means of the Sacraments.

The Incarnation is more than the Nativity

Over the last few days, I have seen more than a few blog posts preparing us for the celebration of Christmas. This really is wonderful because Christmas is one of the great Feasts of the Church which celebrates the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. It is a reminder to the world that God the Son emptied Himself to become a man; and that He humbled Himself to suffer the death of the Cross (Phil 2:7-8).

As I have been reading the various blogs, I have noticed an interesting pattern i.e. when thinking about the Incarnation, many Protestants tend to focus solely on the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, this is not altogether a bad thing because the Nativity is certainly one aspect (and an important one at that) of the Mystery of the Incarnation. But what I think our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ miss is that before He was born in the stable in Bethlehem, He had already been God-Incarnate for nine months in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is what we mean when we profess in the Nicene Creed that the Son of God was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary.

Because they miss this fact, Protestants sadly also miss the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ took His flesh from the Blessed Virgin. Why do they miss this vital point? I’m not completely sure, but I think one possible answer is that they are so averse to the Apostolic truth of the Catholic understanding of Mary that they go to the extreme of relegating Our Lady to nothing more than a surrogate mother.

In other words, many Protestants miss the full import of the Mystery of the Incarnation because their focus is limited to the Feast of Christmas, to the exclusion of the Feast of the Annunciation.

Without Mary’s Fiat (“Let it Be”) there would be no Incarnation. As Blessed Mother Teresa reminds us: “No Mary, no Jesus”.  This is why God, in His Wisdom, gave to the Church the Feasts of the Annunciation and Christmas – so that we could learn the full Mystery of the Incarnation. Before Jesus gave Himself on the Cross of Calvary, He gave Himself as a poor helpless babe in a manger. And before that, He was a poor helpless babe in the womb of His Mother. But even this does not go to the heart of the scandal of the Incarnation.

The true depth of the scandal of the Incarnation is not just that God humbled Himself to become man. And it is not even that He lay completely helpless in the womb of Holy Mary for nine months. Rather, the depth of the scandal lies in the fact that the salvation of the entire human race hung upon the thread of Mary’s “Yes” to God.

That’s right! Whether we accept it or not, our salvation relied on Mary’s act of faith and obedience. But there’s more! Now, as then, our salvation continues to be reliant on the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Incarnation bears testimony to this fact. Just as a baby unwittingly relies on his mother for life, protection, and sustenance; so our Lord relied completely upon the Virgin Mary. As true followers of the Lord Jesus, we too are often unaware of just how much we rely on Our Blessed Mother for the graces necessary to bring us to eternal life.

Just as Mary was responsible for training our Lord in the right way (Prov 22:6); as our Mother, she also teaches us what it means to remain faithful followers of our Lord. If we listen to the direction of Our Lady, we will find that her instructions are always the same – “Do whatever He tells you” (Jn 2:5).

Sacred Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). Logically, this means that if Christ came to the world through Mary, He will continue to come to the world through Mary. And on the flip side, if the world wants to come to Christ, it must also do so through Mary.  

Acknowledging this truth, may we confidently ask Mary to lead us to Jesus just as the Magi did; so that like the Magi we too can present ourselves as gifts of tribute to Him who is eternally King of Kings.

And finally, as we celebrate Christmas giving thanks to God for His great gift of grace, let us also remember to give thanks for His great gift of Mary “full of grace”.

May God richly bless you and yours this Christmas!

"Outside of Wedlock" Explained

In a recent blog, I made the comment that because of her acceptance of God’s will Mary was pregnant with Jesus “outside of wedlock”. Following a question from a friend and a discussion with another Catholic blogger, I thought that it would be pertinent to clarify exactly what I meant when I said that Jesus was conceived “outside of wedlock”.

I don’t claim to be a scholar on Ancient Jewish customs, so I may be wrong about this. In which case, I am more than happy to be corrected. In any event, whether I am right or wrong doesn’t really concern me too much. What really matters to me is that I remain faithful to the Church’s teachings, which includes the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

So, without further ado, here is my understanding of the Ancient Jewish custom regarding marriage:

To the Jew, there was a difference between marriage and betrothal (or espousal); however, the difference was not the same as what we would consider the difference between engagement and marriage today. Rather, espousal was considered as a binding marriage - but there was still an aspect in which the marriage was not completely ratified. Following the period of espousal, there would be a wedding ceremony during which the marriage covenant was completely ratified. Up until the point of the ceremony, the espousal was still considered as a fully binding marriage - but not completely ratified.

This seems to fit with the Biblical record which says that Mary and St. Joseph were espoused rather than married (see Matt 1:18). If marriage and espousal were exactly the same, then surely Matt 1:18 would read that Mary was married to St. Joseph rather than espoused to him. Also, the Angel's words to St. Joseph in Matt 1:20 tell him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. This could imply that the full ratification of the marriage espousal still had to take place. Furthermore, if an espoused couple had conjugal relations before the full ratification of the marriage, it was considered as an act of unchastity.

Most people (unless they had specific light from the Holy Spirit) would naturally have thought that if Mary was pregnant, it was because she had had relations with a man. They would simply be putting two and two together (without knowing that the equation in actual fact was NOT “2+2”). It is also possible that there could have been those who knew that Jesus was not St. Joseph’s child. If this was the case, their assumption would have been that Jesus was another man’s child.

The Pharisees could have had either of the above options in mind in Jn 8:41 when they said that Jesus was an illegitimate child (or “born of fornication” according to the Douay-Rheims Version). However, my personal tendency is to lean towards the first option because even the people of Jesus’ hometown (Nazareth) presumed that He was the son of Joseph (see Mk 6:3). So, it seems that the Pharisees’ perception of Jesus being born illegitimately, or “of fornication” makes sense if conjugal relations during the betrothal period was considered as unchaste.

Now, I'm not sure exactly when Mary and St. Joseph had their marriage fully ratified. The Scriptures don't tell us. There may however be something within the Church's tradition that could answer the question. Either way, I'm at least certain that it was before Jesus' birth in Bethlehem because it is obvious that by this time they were living together.

It is in this sense that I mean Jesus was conceived "outside of wedlock". Mary and St. Joseph were married at the time of the Annunciation; but at the same time they weren’t completely married yet. I know it sounds strange, but it makes sense in my head...but, maybe that’s the problem...

The Model of Faith

Our parish priest made a wonderful observation at Mass today. During the introductory rite, he pointed out that as the time draws near for a baby to be born, all the attention is focussed on the mother.

With Christmas being only a week away, the Church’s focus is directed towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why the Gospel reading for today is Lk 1:26-38 in which the Angel Gabriel announced to Our Lady that she would give birth to the Son of God.

In this passage of the Annunciation, we are reminded of Mary’s great faith when she says “Amen” to God’s word. But something that we often overlook is the depth of her faith when she said “Be it done to me according to thy word”. In saying “yes” to God, Mary was most likely aware that her obedience would open her up to ridicule. She was engaged to St. Joseph and now she was going to be pregnant with a child "outside of wedlock". Our Lord Jesus was subject to this same ridicule when the Pharisees accused Him of being a bastard son (see Jn 8:41).

The extent of the ridicule would have been compounded by the fact that Mary was a consecrated virgin (see Lk 1:34). Imagine the scandal of the Mary falling pregnant after having made the vow of perpetual virginity. It would be something like the scandal that would’ve been caused if Blessed Mother Teresa had been found to be pregnant.

So even before St. Simeon the Righteous uttered his words regarding Mary’s soul being pierced through by a sword (Lk 2:35), she would’ve started sharing in the ridicule and rejection that would later be suffered by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Such was the faith of our Most Blessed Mother. She showed herself to be God’s perfect daughter, the handmaid of the Lord. And this is why the Church honours her as the model of all believers. She was the first to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ – and her perfect faith is an example for us all to follow.

Perhaps one way that we could do this is by taking the time over this final week of Advent to follow the Church’s tradition of reciting the Angelus three times a day (at 6am, noon, and 6pm). By doing so, we would be reminding ourselves of her great faith, and asking for God to bless us with the same faith.

V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
R. And she conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.
R. Be it done unto me according to thy word.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

V. And the Word was made flesh.
R. And dwelt among us.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray: Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His Resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be world without end. AMEN.

Love Mary and you will love Jesus

Since my last blog a few weeks ago  I have been working my way through a book about St. Maximilian Kolbe entitled “For the Life of the World”. For most of us, St. Maximilian is known for his volunteering to take the place of another man who was sentenced to execution in the Auschwitz concentration camp in Nazi Germany in 1941. But what many of us don’t realise is what it was that drove the Saint to make this great sacrifice of his life. [I certainly didn’t know myself until reading this book.]

For the Life of the World shows that it was St. Maximilian’s theology which drove him in his pursuit of following the Lord Jesus so completely that he ultimately gave his life as a ransom for someone else. Seeing the depth of St. Maximilian’s theology and how it TOTALLY transformed his life has given me a deeper realisation of how undeveloped my own theology is; and even in its shallowness, I realise that it hasn’t really begun to penetrate the depths of my own being. Reading this book has aroused in me a greater sense of my own unworthiness when I compare it to the lives of the Saints – who even themselves were “worthless servants doing only what they ought to have done” (Lk 17:10). [Of course, this is not a bad thing, because God has used it to challenge me in my walk with Him.]

There are two things that sum up the theology of St. Maximilian. They are (1) complete and utter consecration to Our Lady; and (2) uncompromising love of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. The really interesting thing though is that St. Maximilian didn’t see these as two separate ideas at all; rather he saw that they were ultimately one and the same. He firmly believed that “consecration to Christ is not possible objectively without consecration to the Immaculate”. This is because “perfect devotion to Mary coincides with adoring love for Christ really present, in His divinity and in His humanity, under the Eucharistic species. To love Mary is the equivalent of loving and praising her Son, Jesus.”

That little phrase is so important that it bears repeating:

 “To love Mary is the equivalent of loving and praising her Son, Jesus”

Like St. Louis Marie De Montfort, St. Maximilian firmly believed that the surest way to Jesus is through Mary. So, if we want to be firm in our devotion to Our Lord, the best way to achieve this is by being completely consecrated to Our Lady who will ALWAYS lead us to Jesus.

In the life of St. Maximilian, he became so united with the Lord Jesus that, like our Lord, he was prepared to follow Him in giving his own life in an act of sacrifice for another. It was St. Maximilian’s reception of our Lord in Holy Communion with a thorough understanding of what takes place in Holy Communion that ultimately led him to offer himself in sacrifice.

St. Maximilian understood in a most profound way that the Eucharist is nothing less than the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary made present for us; and it was precisely because of his love for the Lord’s Sacrifice made present in the Eucharist that St. Maximilian taught that love of the Eucharist is not genuine if it is not sacrificial. In other words, our love for the Lord Jesus Christ is measured by the extent of sacrifice for Him and others in our lives.

Thanks be to God, St. Maximilian loved our Lord to the utmost – leaving for us the example of what it really means to love our Lord Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Where did this love begin? It began with a totally consecrated love of and devotion to Our Lady.

Like St. Maximilian, may we learn to imitate him in devoting ourselves completely to the Blessed Virgin Mary because she will always teach us to “love Jesus with her heart.”

St. Maximilian Kolbe...pray for us.

NOTE: Quotes (or paraphrases) from the book are indicated above by the use of “inverted commas”.