It shouldn’t be shocking to me anymore, but it was.
A “professor of public theology” at a Catholic institution criticized another person on social media encouraging people to evangelize. What was the problem? Was he advocating deceitful means? The use of force? Offering people money to convert?
None of these.
This person had posted a handy poster distinguishing between Christ’s Ascension and Mary’s Assumption. The key is that Christ rose by His own power while Mary was raised up by Christ’s power. The distinction is very important, especially in dealing with Protestants who think Catholics consider Mary an independent deity. This misunderstanding is a scandal—a stumbling block—to being open to seeing the fullness of Christianity in Catholic faith. Yet the professor scoffed that “rote memorization of obscure theological factoids unrelated to living a Christian life” has nothing to do with evangelization. “Winning Catholic Jeopardy! won’t bring the Reign of God.”
In a very literal sense, the professor is partially correct. Simply knowing doctrines is not the same as living them. Even believing them true isn’t enough. “You believe that God is one,” St. James writes in his Epistle; “you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19). But knowing that “God is one” is not a mere obscure factoid for a trivia game.
So, too, the distinction between Our Lord’s Ascension and our Lady’s Assumption, which is built upon the orthodox understanding of who Jesus is. Our Lord rose by his own power, or “ascended,” because He is a divine person who took his perfected human nature into Heaven by His own power. Mary, though sinless, was “assumed”—taken up!—into Heaven by the power of God.
Jesus is God and Redeemer. Mary is a creature fully redeemed.
Knowing this difference has a lot to do with living a Christian life and thus with welcoming the Reign of God into our own lives. He gives grace; she receives it. She points to Him as the source of life and says, “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5). Again, we worship Him because He is God who ascends by Divine Power and is the source of all goodness. We venerate and imitate her because she is the disciple par excellence.
How on earth could a “professor of public theology” think this a trivial point? Alas, it’s a very common view among nominal Christians and those who consider themselves “progressive” that faith and doctrine are two entirely separate things. Many define faith in a way very similar to the old liberal Protestants—a feeling of utter dependence or wonder at the mystery of the universe, often allied to a certain kind of morality that is based in the Christian vision but has shed the inconvenient bits. For them, theological doctrine itself is a kind of official record of how Christians as a whole have thought about their experiences with God. Many think of it as a purely historical record, but not one that is binding or a record of truth.
But even for those who don’t quite go this far, theology is treated as a purely secondary matter. For them, like the professor, knowing theological distinctions is treated as a matter of trivial pursuit. Being precise about some doctrine will invite the same scorn that the professor showed. You’ll hear snarling comments about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” or “not making one iota of difference.” And these jabs are made to indicate what the professor indicated: doctrine may be fun as a game (if you’re into such things) but in no way connected to actually being Christian. Yet like the difference between Christ’s Ascension and Our Lady’s Assumption, what’s behind these teachings is very important.
The former phrase refers to debates in the Middle Ages about the nature of angels: whether they are like humans, with physical as well as spiritual natures, or are purely spiritual. If they are purely spiritual creatures, as St. Thomas Aquinas thought, the answer to the question of dancing is simple. Spiritual creatures don’t take up space, so all of them can dance on the head of a pin.
The latter phrase comes from the debates at the Council of Nicaea in 325, where the debate was whether to label the Son homoousios or homoiousios with God the Father. The first term—without the “i” or “iota” in Greek—means consubstantial or “of the same substance.” The second term means “of a similar substance.” In other words, this is a big question about that one God to whom St. James refers. Is Jesus God made man? Or is he merely godlike—a big angel who became man? St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who held that Jesus is God, argued that if He is not, he cannot really save us. If He is not, we can venerate Him as an exalted creature but not worship Him as our Lord and God.
That one iota really does make a big difference. If the Word was God (and not just “with God”), then his taking on a human nature made possible our taking on the Divine Nature. No, we don’t cease to be creatures. But we do take on, to the extent possible, both the glory and the power of God. And this connects us back to the Assumption and the Ascension. As the first of the redeemed, Mary took on that glory and power. But she didn’t cease to be a creature. She needed to be raised to Heaven.
No, knowing doctrines intellectually is not sufficient for a full Catholic life or evangelization. But knowing them to the best of our ability is necessary. We act on truth as we know it. That’s why the Church has been so careful with her doctrines. She is dealing with truths guaranteed by God, truths that will give light to our path if we only pay heed to them, learn them, teach them, and live them.
(Reprinted with permission from The Catholic Servant.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We “hear snarling comments about ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’…” So much for medieval theologians.
But, wait, today we hear from modern science that the entire universe—pins and decimal points and all—began as a very dense and totally silent “big bang” no larger than a single atom!
The theory begins after one billionth of a second with the four forces of the physical universe (gravity, electromagnetic forces and small and large nuclear forces) already existing as an intensely compact and single super force—actually much smaller than a single atom! Disintegration yields simple atoms after three minutes, atomic radiation after 380,000 years, and with matter and gravity combining into star formations and our universe, after nine billion years.
Modern atheistic and anti-metaphysical scientists then resort to the pre-scientific fiction that even maggots arise spontaneously (!)—from rotten meat! Behold the new, and entire, and non-contingent cosmos. The pseudo-scientific doctrine (!): “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing” (Stephen Hawking, “The Grand Design”, 2010, p. 180).
Meanwhile some pre-medieval Catholic, the first pope, reminds us: “do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). Mind?
And then there’s the problem of internal universes in the form of one unborn child or another—not quite so small or simple as a single-atom, external universe, or a written iota. Like the so-called and silent “big bang,” does he exist before we give him a name or decide exercise our “right” and rite of extinction?
The idea of the Universe beginning as a point smaller than an atom is years out of date and does not take into account the inflationary epoch.
Thank you for your passionate advocacy of Catholic doctrine. As a lay person I often find it very difficult to express this level of our devotion.
Not surprisingly, he has no credentials in theology whatsoever. “Public” theology is code for “not theology,” it seems. More like “political ‘theology,” if anything. There’s a whole breed of these smug, partisan types in the cesspool of social media, unfortunately.
He habitually posts snarky, dishonest, and superficial attacks on conservative Catholics, I see. Not a good look for someone who professes to be a scholar, and a Catholic one at that.
I appreciate this article but he’s demonstrated himself to not be worth anyone’s time. Thank you for not mentioning the name, which I won’t, either.
Thank you for the above article. It’s interesting.
Indeed theology is not a trivial pursuit but a grand pursuit.
However, theology must not become the understandings of the learned but indeed with them and the understandings of other theologians, the ones of whom God said “ I have written my laws on their hearts they are my people and I am their God(Jer;31:31-33). These theologians may not know the words of scriptures, church father fathers, modern university theologians but they do have and live the laws written on their hearts. The learned theologians bring to life the”word” written. The written on heart theologians live visibly the word intellectually, painstakingly sought. Together, the words of God is alive.
If it were only that easy. Like St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, I also have doubts, I am not comparing myself to the Saint, I just take solace in the fact that she also had doubts.
“A thousand difficulties do not constitute a doubt” (Cardinal John Henry Newman).
Deavel is correct. Solely on the Eucharistic mystery our love for God is deepened by the knowledge that Jesus is really present to us. That the bread and the wine actually become Christ. That we receive the living, resurrected Christ just as he walked by the Sea of Galilee and as he now exists in paradise. He gives us himself as our nourishment in the fullness of his reality in the form of bread and wine. Which we can readily consume. A mystery St Thomas Aquinas called a miracle of love.
Respectfully I would say and not agree with Fr Morello that we receive the resurrected Jesus but the human Jesus who sat at table with his apostles and prayed, broke, and gave to his apostles to eat and likewise to take and drink wine his signature on the new covenant. All covenants at that time were sealed in blood.
It was / is the human Jesus who fulfilled perfectly the final of the seven covenants which no past human chosen one could fulfil because of sinfulness. In Jesus and his humanity his seal was perfect for the covenant to be ratified and valid.
Today as through past present and future
( anemnesis) Jesus gives and we hear and receive as did the apostles did on that night. How? Like the time in Jericho 10:11-14 time stood still for a time. Regarding blessed Eucharist time has stood still and stands still at words of consecration so that it is still the same Jesus saying and giving as on that night.
The priesthood was instituted so that this can be repeated as they stand in his place to again humanly utter the words on his behalf.
This is why I understand that this is the reason why I/we believe that the Mass is valid even when celebrated by sinful priest because at that time, few moments, it is Jesus l, the very same Jesus who speaks as he did over 2000 years ago.
Anne, when we receive the Holy Eucharist we receive the same divine person who offered his body and blood at the Last Supper. Jesus always had, at the time he offered his body and blood during the Last Supper, when crucified, and when he rose from the dead, and continues to have a human and a divine nature. His glorified body after the resurrection was also a human body with a divine and human nature. That is why he asked the Apostles to give him something to eat when he appeared to them after the resurrection. He was never a human person without a divine nature.
Additionally Ann, it’s true that it required a human person, a man to redeem us. Although it also required the divine Word, Christ’s divine nature to achieve this. When I offer the Holy Eucharist at the consecration my thoughts are indeed reflective of this sacrifice offered by the Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth.
My emphasis in my comment is on the living Christ who is really present to us at the words of consecration.
And indeed my thoughts are the same as yours I never said that they weren’t. He never said to his apostles “ here that a bite and eat my human body”. He found a way in which the divine him was able to give of himself in a manner not scandalising the human.
He chose eating as a means of redemption because it was in the eating that sin was committed.
The method of reversing “ death” used what was used at the time and not as in our time.
He needed human body suffer the death promised and body to pass on his divinity and hence priesthood. In the style of OT priesthood and sacrifice.
He needed priesthood a set apart man like himself to say the words for consecration which he himself said.
That is why there cannot be female priests. It’s really an aberration. It’s almost like a physical intimacy.
Anyway, I keep studying. And words, ideas are given to me.
And yes have officially studied theology. Much.
Anne, You are getting deep into the Eucharistic mystery!
I have a gem of a book offering doctrinal theology of the Eucharist according to Aquinas. (A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist by Abbot Vonier, Zaccheus Press, 2003-04) Vonier discusses Summa, III, q.76, a.6, that the esse of Christ in Himself and under the Eucharistic sacrament are not the same, “because when we say that He has an esse under the sacrament there is signified a relationship of Himself to the sacrament.”
Vonier quotes the theologians of Salamanca: “…the term towards which the act of Transubstantiation tends is the Body and Blood of Christ, with a new substantial mode of being, a mode of being different from the one Christ has in heaven, a mode of being acquired (in the sacrament) through the change and in virtue of the change….It is clear, then, that Christ, as He is in Himself and as He is in heaven in his natural mode of being, is really distinct from Himself in as far as He claims for Himself and owns that substantial mode of being which He has in the sacrament.”
Abbot Vonier, in “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” summarizes and further explains: “This duality in the mode of being—the natural mode and the sacramental mode—belongs to the heart of the mystery….Sacraments, as has been said before, belong to a sphere of reality which has nothing in common with the natural plane of reality. Could Christ be present in His natural reality both in heaven and on earth? I speak now of His human presence. St. Thomas would say that it is not possible…But why make that supposition? We are not treating of natural presences, but of sacramental presences and the new substantial mode of being…is nothing else than the sacramental state, as opposed to the natural state.” (p. 133-34).
I hope you can find and savor the fruit of this book as I throughout the years.
“
Meiron, nevertheless whether he is related to himself in a different mode of being in the sacrament we are required to believe it is the same presence of God. God cannot be distinct from himself. There is always one God.
My post was to Anne. No one but you yourself has claimed that God was distinct from himself. My quote from Aquinas was that a relationship exists between God and His sacramental self.
Our human words and work relate to our beings, but they are not the same exact essence as that we experience within us as our being.
In the Aquinas quote offered, Aquinas clearly speaks of the ‘HUMAN’ presence as distinct from the sacramental presence. You argue with Aquinas, not me. You have the last words.
Meiron, my intent was not to challenge you. I was questioning Vonier’s quote of the theologians of Salamanca, “It is clear, then, that Christ, as He is in Himself and as He is in heaven in his natural mode of being, [is really distinct from Himself] in as far as He claims for Himself and owns that substantial mode of being which He has in the sacrament.” Aquinas in 76 5 says Christ’s proper appearance in heaven [differs] from his sacramental appearance on the altar.
Personally, I found your response to Anne interesting with the prospect of increasing my knowledge. Aquinas’ Summa is not dogma. Vonier asks a legitimate question regarding Christ’s natural appearance on this earth, which is legitimate speculative theology. My intent was to clarify the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as different in appearance but similar in substance.
Hi Meiron, sorry haven’t responded earlier, it’s Sunday and family.
Regarding Vonier’s book on Eucharist. I think I may have read it or have it amongst my hundreds of books or loaned it and never got it back. But I do know the name.
I have a deep love, passion for scripture and have read it and about it for over 50 yrs.
I wrote a reflection on The crucifixion snd he loved so much he will meditate on it every day of his life.
He believes that we are happy to read vote believe early authors but not modern ones. This remained with me.
I love trying to understand God. His love for us. Ps 8
And Jesus and Oh so much Jesus.
Before I simply understood that it is the very real Jesus who is present with us sitting around the table with him and he speaks, blesses and gives to us his own flesh to eat and drink as he did 2000 years ago.
Today when our priest raises the body and the blood I look and gaze at him, knowing that he is really here.
Or, is it the words of Christ as repeated by the ordained priest as alter Christus (not Christ, but another Christ), “sent” by Jesus Christ and whose words are concurrent with the working of the Holy Spirit—who is One with Christ and the Father? And, therefore, the consecration as truly and substantially the “body and blood, soul and divinity.”
And, yet (with you and with Fr. Morello, both, and echoing points made), an early Church Father has explained that when Christ—as the Second Person within the Triune One—came from the Father to us, He never left the Father; and when He returned to the Father from us, He has never left us.
About the covenants, then, here’s a meditation by Benedict XVI:
“‘I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me’ (Gal 2:20). Under the Old Testament, the term used for the Jewish covenant is ‘berith,’ a term which maintains a distance between the oneness of the Creator and his creatures. But of the New Covenant, the term used is actually ‘chaburah,’ meaning more than a covenant [!] in the old sense of contractual subordination. Implied is a relationship of communion between God and Man ‘in and through the person of Jesus Christ’” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, “Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith,” Ignatius Press, 2005. P. 74).
As St. John Paul II stresses, too, every Mass is one and the same sacrificial act as at Calvary and the Last Supper, “the continuation and extension” of the one divine self-donation. Yours truly is not a theologian, but I recall the theological expression that it is the very same, but also/only “numerically distinct.”
So, is it that time “stands still,” yes in a sense, or is the singular Incarnation the more embracing and mysterious “fullness of time” (Galatians, 4:4-7)?
Peter, as in the Trinity of persons it is always the same God who is present as each person. God can be anywhere at any time. He’s not constricted to time or space. You’re correct in referring to the early Church father that Christ never left the Father when he was with us.
Studying theology is much more than a mere intellectual pursuit. Accoring to St. Ignatious of Loyala, “God freely created us so that we might know, love, and serve him in this life and be happy with him forever.” What better way to get to know God better than to study theology. The study of theology coupled with prayer from one’s heart and reception of the sacraments is the key to being a well educated Catholic.