Sunday, August 15, 2010

Farm Street Jesuit On The Assumption Of Mary

The definition of the Assumption in 1950 caused some dismay. As I recall, Protestants were angry because it wasn’t in Scripture. The Archbishop of York, standing beneath his cathedral’s 600 year old Assumption roof-boss, deplored it as an innovation. The position of the Orthodox was more nuanced: they believed it, of course, but were furious that the Pope had defined it. Decades later, earnest Catholics were wont to lament it as the regrettable climax of a sad period of outdated and retrograde Mariology (they didn’t know JPII was coming soon). So what do we believe? 
“The Immaculate Mother of God, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.” 
Why do we believe it? Briefly, because the Church tells us, and what the Church teaches from revelation. God teaches. (“O my God I believe in you and all your Church teaches, because you have said it and your word is true”.) What the Church teaches, notice; not the best guess of every theologian. 

If you have a New Testament handy, look up Mt 16:17-19 and Mt 28:18-20.
Link (here) to the full article in the Catholic Herald by Fr. John Edwards, S.J.


Anonymous said...

Fr John Edwards is a brilliant Jesuit of the old school, legendary in England. You should track down more about him.

Anonymous said...

By the way, in the same issue of the Catholic Herald another Jesuit, Fr Anthony Symondson SJ, has written a brilliant article on the architectural projects inaugurated by the English Oratorians to commemorate Newman in their churches. He, too, is old school and well worth tracking down. Look him up on Google.

Both he and Fr Edwards are a refreshing change from the post-Arrupe Jesuit norm.

Joseph Fromm said...

I will track them down

Anonymous said...

You know what's also not in Scripture? The protestant principle of "sola scriptura." It ain't in there. Food for thought.