Visiting Our Lady of the Seas again in the Outer Banks, the place of the first Mass Tourism post. In terms of architecture, the building has a nice simplicity to it with a wooden interior and a beautiful view of the sound above the altar.  It’s stained glass and theme on things related to the beach is a bit much, almost as if it were a vacation rental—which in some ways it is.

The last time I came was on the Saturday vigil, probably during the off season. It was way less formal than that which I am accustomed but I was expecting it to be. This time was on a Sunday morning and I found the church to be packed with people, likely from out of town looking at the license plates in the parking lot. With black jeans and red collared oxford shirt, I was possibly over dressed given that the standard was shorts, t-shirts, and tennis shoes.

Two things made me cringe: the women in front of me taking flash photos of the front during the Mass—no shame, no reverence; I exhaled audibly in exasperation to get my subtle message across. The second was when the priest was preaching the homily using a telephone as a prop for his message on prayer. Not that I object to the visual except that he placed it on the altar as if it were his office desk.  For those who don’t know, the altar is suppose to be a sacred object consecrated and sometimes holding the relics of the patron saint of the church–(although this one had a crashing wave theme to it which made it hard to take too seriously–still.)

I was thinking of retaliating as an orthodox “troll”, and say all the responsorials in Latin really loud so that everyone around me could hear and be totally annoyed.

Ite Missa Est.

Deo Gratias

If you’ve been reading the paradigm shift series, particularly on topics of Marian Theology, and if I am persuasive, you may concede some Catholic points: maybe it’s fine to venerate Mary; and maybe she should be rightfully called Mother of God; maybe Jesus draws his human nature from The Virgin. And maybe she can intercede on our behalf as part of the communion of saints—maybe.

But Queen of Heaven?

This is where Protestants think that Catholics have stepped over the line, believing this title equates Mary to the likes of Juno, Hera, Frija, and other consorts of the old pagan gods.  But the notion of Mary as the Queen of Heaven is not extra-biblical nor something cooked up in the imagination of the medieval Catholic mind. Not only is it a logical conclusion to be drawn from widely accepted Christian theology, but quite Biblical and not in some misfit deuterocanonical book.

The first thing to learn about the title “queen” is what it meant in the ancient Near East, particularly in the Davidic lineage. Unlike the European monarchies which are most familiar to us, the queen was not the one and only wife of the king, but the mother of the king. Why? Because the practice at the time was polygamy and the king had many, many wives and so many, many “queens”.

In fact, the wives of the king, also called a harem, was something of sign of one’s kingship. We see this in the Bible, particularly in 2 Samuel 16 after Absalom usurps power. What does he do to signify his new status? He avails himself of the remaining portion of the harem of the palace and does so in full view of Israel. We also see a prototype of this in Genesis where Noah’s son, Ham, sleeps with Noah’s wife (and Ham’s mother) as a play for power. The fruit of that illicit union was Canaan. Ever wonder why he was cursed (Gen 9:25) or why Canaan is mentioned with the other sons (Gen 9:18)? This passage about nakedness was a euphemism for sexual relations, not about nudity. And let’s not forget about the countless wives king Solomon amassed as a matter of political maneuvering (and against Mosaic Law at any rate).

The queen (or more precisely the Queen Mother or Dowager Queen) on the other hand, was the mother of the king and one of the most powerful position next to the king himself. This is also evident in the Bible. The mother of king Solomon, Queen Bathesheba had special deference from and special access to the king as illustrated in 1 King 2 regarding the intrigue of Adonijah.

Perhaps for this reason, whenever a king is introduced to the historical narrative, the queen mother is also introduced. After Solomon’s reign we are introduced to a sequence of kings in the divided kingdom starting with Jeroboam in Israel and Rehoboam in Judea. And often with every introduction of the king, we see the king’s mother introduced as well:

1 Kings 11:26 Jerobo’am the son of Ne’bat, an E’phraimite of Zer’edah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother’s name was Zeru’ah, a widow, …

1 Kings 14:21 Now Rehobo’am the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. His mother’s name was Na’amah the Am’monitess.

1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of King Jerobo’am the son of Ne’bat, Abi’jam began to reign over Judah. 2He reigned for three years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ma’acah the daughter of Abish’alom.

1 Kings 15:9 In the twentieth year of Jerobo’am king of Israel Asa began to reign over Judah, and he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ma’acah the daughter of Abish’alom.

Whoa, was this lady the mother of her grandson too?  Here we see another example of incest. So powerful was the queen, certain women held on to it for as long as they could, apparently. Here’s another at the end of 1 Kings:

1 Kings 22:41 Jehosh’aphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of A’hab king of Israel. 42Jehosh’aphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azu’bah the daughter of Shilhi.

We see this pattern appear many times and at the end of 2 Kings where we introduce the last kings just before the Babylonian captivity.

2 Kings 24:8 Jehoi’achin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehush’ta the daughter of Elna’than of Jerusalem.

2 Kings 24: 18 Zedeki’ah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamu’tal the daughter of Jeremi’ah of Libnah.

And in the lineup of the exiles out of Judea we see the mother mentioned in the pecking order second to the king himself.

2 Kings 24:12 and Jehoi’achin the king of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his palace officials.

But now we have Jesus, the Lion of Judah, the king of kings, whose kingdom is to have no end. By the same logic, who would be the queen mother in this Davidic dynasty? The Church thinks Mary has this title if you believe she is the Mother of Jesus and, by extrapolation, the Mother of God. Temporally, perhaps that lands her the rightful title of queen mother. But Queen of Heaven?

If the kingdom of God transcends and is not of this world (John 18 36), then in what kingdom would she be queen? If that is not enough we have Revelation 11:19 – 12:

19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 12 :1 And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3And another sign appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

The argument here is that the mother of the male child caught up to God is Mary and, we might surmise, that this is Mary (prefigured in the Old Testament by the Ark) who appears “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”, appears as a queen. Critics would say that this female figure is not Mary but the Church, the Bride of Christ, and that would be true too—this interpretation meshes with Catholic teaching as well. But like much of scripture there are potentially multiple meanings in each verse, this part of Revelation being such a case.

To a lesser extent, the language of redemption includes such terms as “coheirs”, “judges”, “reign” as well as “children of God” and “a kingdom and holy Priesthood” hinting to a promise that all of us will be nobility in the kingdom of God. If this is orthodox for rank and file Christians, why is the special title of Queen withheld from the woman which all nations are instructed to call blessed?

So one may or may not believe in the Mary Queen of Heaven coronation. The point of this essay is to at least show that the Catholic teaching on the subject is not cut from whole medieval cloth as Protestants would claim. Indeed, there is a lot of biblical basis to support this Catholic claim and at least make the idea plausible.

The nature of personal and corporate prayer changes significantly when moving toward Catholicism. This Paradigm Shift will examine some of the prayers that Catholics recite and objections non-Catholic Christians raise regarding those prayers.

Prayers offered in evangelical churches are always improvisational and often conclude with some form of the phrase “in the name of Jesus”. I believe this practice derives from the passage John 14:13

Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Prayers in the Catholic Church can also be improvisational but more often the Church draws from its huge tradition to say composed prayers, particularly at Mass, but on just about any occasion.  Catholics don’t typically pray “in the name of Jesus” but more often in Trinitarian form, e.g., “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Analysis

Catholic prayers are criticized by Bible Christians as being formulaic, mechanical, extra-Biblical and repetitive—especially the Rosary, labeling it “vain repetition” citing:

Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Some have tried to make Jesus’ words into a universal condemnation of long or repetitious prayers, however, according to Catholic theology, this is not the intent. In ancient times there was a pagan belief that the gods could be controlled by special incantations and the enunciation of the right divine title at the right time. We see this in 1 Kgs 18:25-29 when Elijah stands against the prophets of Baal.

And they took the bull which was given them, and they prepared it, and called on the name of Ba’al from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered.

Elijah mocked them:

“Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, or he has gone aside, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”

Although the verse above in Matthew condemns vain repetition it does not condemn repetition—in prayer, in worship, in meditation and in other areas. Like it or not, repetition is a large part of life and learning. Without repetition how would we learn the alphabet, words, reading, and for that matter, the Bible. Are not Bible Christians taught to memorize and recite verses of scripture? And how can one accomplish that without repetition? And why is this not vain repetition too?

And why should prayers be any different than verses of Scripture? The Lord himself encourages perseverance in prayer (Luke 11:5-12; 18:1-14), and he himself prays all night (Luke 6:12), and repeats one of the most solemn prayers of his earthly ministry (Mark 14:39-42). And we are exhorted by St. Paul to pray constantly (1Thes 5:17).

So let’s look at the Catholic practice of repetition in prayer, specifically the Rosary, which includes a number of standard prayers often repeated. Is this vain?

More than just a medium of prayers, the Rosary is an educational tool used to pass on the faith, especially at a time when books and literacy were uncommon. The rosary (lower case) refers to the associated prayer beads used to recite the prayers. These beads are grouped into decades and upon each decade, one is to meditate on a particular mystery in the life of Christ and Mary from annunciation, conception, nativity, crucifixion, resurrection and beyond. With four sets of mysteries of five decades each, that’s 20 episodes from the life of Christ (and Mary as part of that life) that Christians are good to meditate upon. Bible Christians might even like the Scriptural Rosary (ca. 1500’s) which recalls a verse of scripture for each bead totaling 150 verses of scripture in the full blown meditation.  In the earliest prototype of the Rosary, monks developed a mechanism with a bag of pebbles to recite the 150 Psalms. Lots of scripture, lots of meditation and to be sure, lots of repetition.

How about the prayers themselves?

The Rosary starts with the sign of the cross—another topic—followed by the Apostles Creed. This creed is an old prayer not found in the Bible but few Protestant denominations object to it. Many even recite it in their church services even though it uses the adjective “catholic” which they take to mean “universal” in the lower case.

Then the Lord’s Prayer is said at the beginning of each decade—still no objection other than what words are to be used for “debts” or “trespasses”—not a game changer.

Then the Hail Mary which is the most repeated prayer of the Rosary and one that Protestants object to a great deal. But the first part (“Hail Mary full of grace…”) is straight from the Bible in the gospel of Luke—so why object to it? The second part was added in the Middle ages (“Holy Mary Mother of God….”) which is only objectionable if one does not believe in the communion of saints or intercessory prayer (See Paradigm Shift on the Communion of Saints)

Then the Glory Be which was a prayer composed by the ultimate Bible scholar of all time, St. Jerome. This prayer is Trinitarian and should not be objected to by Protestants.

Finally, not always but often, the Fatima Prayer which is directed to Jesus Himself. Although stridently Catholic, no one should be offended by a prayer to keep one and others out of the fires of Hell. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

To conclude the Rosary is the Salve Regina (not repeated) which would cause Bible Christians to recoil in horror. This is a prayer to Mary, Queen of Heaven, which is another topic altogether.  Obviously the requirement would have us believe that Mary is the Queen of Heaven and why Catholics believe it so. And yes, it is Biblical.

So understanding what Jesus was saying when he was talking about “vain repetition” is important and that repetition itself is not condemned. Then understanding the origins and nature of Catholic prayers is also important to dispel false perceptions of Catholic teaching.

This paradigm shift discusses personality and how much it shapes a denomination or church.

In many Protestant churches, particularly non-denominational or Bible churches, the influence of a singular personality on the church and its members is pretty high. Because preaching is so central to many of these communities, it figures that the experiences, characteristics and charisma of the one doing the preaching becomes the identity of the church itself. It is not uncommon for one to attend such a church solely to hear the preacher preach.

Some of these charismatic leaders become superstar televangelists like Joel Olsteen, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Joseph Prince, Jim & Tammy Bakker and many others who go on to establish mega-churches, mega-ministries and, to be sure, mega-corporations. Frequently, these become family dynasties that the second generation usually bungles. At any rate, the existence of the church is tied to the existence of the pastor and when the latter retires, dies, or gets caught in a sex scandal, the church and its members fade away like lilies in the field.

As far as television personalities that are Catholic and could be described as televangelists, I can only think of two: Bishop Fulton Sheen who pioneered using television to spread the Gospel from 1951-57 and Mother Angelica who started the EWTN network in the 1970’s. The former eventually became archbishop and is posthumously venerated en route to beatification; the latter was a wimple-wearing nun who recently died after a decade of health problems, and most of the shows on EWTN do not feature her; she too will likely be venerated.

Generally speaking, the Catholic Church doesn’t feature preaching as much as it features the Mass which features Jesus Christ more than anyone. The celebrant priest wears a chasuble over a number of other vestments during Mass—not to look impressive – but to “cloak” his individual identity and become more of what the church terms the alter christus (another Christ). This is why only men are ordained in the Catholic Church and why priests are suitably unmarried and celibate. That is why the congregation stands when the priest stands up during Mass—to defer and honor the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why the priest reads the Gospel passages which represent the preaching of Jesus Himself. That is why only he presides over the liturgy of the Eucharist and intones the words of the Last Supper as Jesus did (and does) at the institution of the New Covenant. And most all the words of the liturgy are pre-arranged for a three-year cycle so that any priest anywhere is doing pretty much the same thing—and it is never to be varied or personalized. No!

In addition, there is a general directive for those attending the Mass not to stand out in any way but to strive to become one in unity during the Rite. To maintain this unity, responses and gestures of the faithful are prescribed to a large degree: one should bow only with the head when receiving communion, knell after the Sanctus, stand after the great Amen, say the responsorial, pray the Our Father, kneel again after the Agnus Dei, etc., etc. —and always together. When music is performed for the Mass, there is to be no applause because it is not performance or an exhibition of talent.  It is void of personality so that Jesus becomes the personality from start to finish.

The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. On the face of it, this seems rather quaint and, like Church teachings, a relic of the past emblematic of an irrelevant and outmoded institution. Indeed, as many are wont to believe, Latin is a dead language befitting a dead Church.

I routinely attend the novus ordo Solemn Latin Mass at my parish. Dead or alive, the Latin adds to the beauty and art of the sacred rite and I love it so much that I have committed to memory the Latin liturgical formulas, the major Catholic prayers, Vulgate scripture and a few motets. I also take a Latin class every Saturday morning. But aside from this bizarre personal proclivity, why is Latin important?

Why is any language important? Language is not only relevant to the manner in which thought is expressed but also how thoughts are shaped in our minds. Even today as progressives try to eliminate the use of the feminine and masculine pronouns of our language to blur gender lines, language is used to shape society. Some words are even being outlawed. Language can add to the beauty of a culture or take away from it. Language can be used to elegantly express a concept or create a blind spot as we often hear of a word in one language that has no direct translation in our own.

Sociologically, language can unify and divide. Remember the Tower of Babel? The subsequent division in people was a side effect of the division of language. What about the reverse—Pentecost? The Church was born upon the unions of disparate peoples hearing their native language. The preservation of language is a preservation of a people and their culture. There is a reason Denmark, Iceland, France, and Japan go to great lengths to preserve their language from the onslaught of foreign languages, particularly English. What about the reverse—the United States that refuses to even recognize an official language? Let’s not think upon that …

At any rate, Latin is not a dead language. We find it latent in English when we say “vulnerable” (L. wound) or “nautical” (L. sailor). We find it explicitly in words like “et cetera”, “alma mater”, and “pro bono”. Ever wonder why the abbreviation for pound is lb.? It is short for libra, the Latin word for scale. Latin is used in the fields of law, science, botany, taxonomy and medicine. It is incredibly instructive in terms of grammar and smart parents make their kids learn Latin. At least for many centuries, Latin was the language of the academy and many a great paper by the likes of Aquinas, Newton or Copernicus were written in Latin to communicate science to an educated world. Thomas More, an Englishman of the 16^th century, corresponded with Erasmus of Rotterdam, a Dutchman, using Latin though neither was familiar with the others native tongue. Thomas more could also vilify and insult Martin Luther in Latin, which he did quite generously.

As the language of the Church, Latin has been helpful in shaping theological concepts that English may have difficulty expressing. For example, in the Credo said at every Mass the phrase “ex Maria Virgine” is uttered in bowed reverence. This doesn’t just mean Jesus popped out of the Virgin Mary but that he “came out of” or “drew his humanity from” her. It is rich in significance and intended to be so.

More significantly, Latin is indicative of a catholic church—that is, one which is “universal”. Encyclicals and teachings must be conveyed to a world consisting of bishops in Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa. Not only does Latin unify the body of Christ geographically and culturally, but as a stable and ancient language, Latin also unifies the Church temporally. As G.K. Chesterton observed, tradition is the highest form of democracy since it enfranchises the dead. Latin allows us to consult with our past and build upon it, not discard it outright as our modern world does and much to its peril.

Sadly, the Church which once conducted the Roman Rite Mass in Latin exclusively has discounted this invaluable treasure which it alone possesses. An older gentleman in my Latin class remembers the time when one heard the Mass in Latin and followed along in the Roman Missal with Latin on one page, the vernacular on the other—all beautifully illuminated. One could travel clear around the world and participate in the Mass more or less as one did in his hometown.

Things are changing. Since Benedict XVI (who is reputed to speak Latin extemporaneously), the use of Latin in the ancient Rite is experiencing a renaissance. Several parishes in Northern Virginia conduct the Tridentine Mass, a number of these very close to my home. The Roman Missal pre-Vatican is available on Kindle and after having read some of it, I can tell you how amazing the prayers and liturgies once were. It’s time to bring it back.

The following is a college mission statement. Let’s see if you can guess the institution it comes from:

The scheme, then, is first, an educational institution in its most comprehensive sense. Its definition of education is that it is the united symmetrical development and instruction of the religious, the intellectual and the physical qualities of the man. It recognizes the whole man, in all the departments of his being, as the object of its care. Its aim is not to instruct merely, not to impart knowledge merely, but to awaken, to develop, to train, and to discipline all the latent inborn powers and faculties of the man, that he may command them for the high and noble uses of which they may be capable or for which they were designed… a home for the virtuous, where morality, industry and a thirst for knowledge shall unite for the advancement of the student and the prosperity of the institution.

Hard to believe that this was from my alma mater, the University of Maryland back in 1862 when it was called the Maryland Agricultural College. Let’s update the statement to fit its current mission 2016:

The scheme, then, is first, an educational environment in its most subjective sense. Its definition of education is that it is the indoctrination and inculcation of iconoclasm, over-sensitivity and the sexual preference of the evolved person. It recognizes one’s authentic self, in all the departments of her being, as the object of its care. Its aim is not to instruct at all, not to impart knowledge at all, but to deaden, to destroy, to ruin, and to eradicate all the socially constructed morals and narratives of human tradition, that she may shed them for the unequal and enslaving uses for which they were designed… a home for the empowered, where relative moralism, solipsism and a disdain for everything sacred shall unite for the individual rights and entitlement of the student and the overpriced bureaucratization of the institution.

Yep, sounds about right.

Social, political, academic and media establishments frequently ridicule and malign the deniers of evolution when just about everything those same establishments promote is in direct conflict with the tenets of the theory.

First, according to the prophets of modernity and pop scientists like Bill Nye, evolution is a scientifically settled fact and anyone that denies it is a superstitious, small-minded idiot unworthy of air, a job, or public office.  In full disclosure, I used to routinely deny the science of evolution mostly because every book I read on the topic (Leakey, Asimov, Coyne and others) usually had an ax to grind against theism, faith and Christianity up front. It was not until I read Collins’ Language of God that I could let my guard down long enough to understand why Christians, of all people, should be on the forefront of scientific knowledge as they were in all previous ages. I soon accepted the science of evolution while still refuting the specious philosophy that usually accompanies it.

Indeed, evolution goes far to answer the questions of biology, atavism, morphology, and vestigiality. But nothing in science is ever, ever settled. That’s what makes it science—ideas constantly challenged by the scientific community and evolution should be no exception. Consider the following present and past topics that constituted or challenged so-called “settled science”: geo-centrism, aether, time dilation, static universe, contracting universe, dark matter, multiverse, Higgs boson, the rationality of numbers, the quintic, quantum mechanics, and so forth. Nothing in science is settled and to quell dissent is to quell scientific inquiry.

But supposing that the theory of evolution is a firm and settled fact, who really denies it in the present age?  Is it the fundamentalist clinging to his guns, religion and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis? Consider these modern lines of thought that course against the scientific grain of evolution:

• Men and women are the same and society should blur the lines delineating the sexes.
  • Evolution provided gender diversity and the unique roles of the male and the female to vary and propagate life. Men are physically stronger, women are nurturing. Men do stupid and dangerous things; women think it through.
• Pregnancy is a pathology.
  • Pregnancy and lactation are the normal and natural state of mature women. To thwart pregnancy by contraception and abortion is to deny nature and, by extension, evolution. Without pregnancy and offspring, evolution is stalled.
• There are no differences between human races.
  • The full title of Charles Darwin’s seminal work is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The topic of varieties and race, including humans, was one of the major points.
• It is wrong for a large and powerful country to overtake a weaker one.
  • In the evolutionary struggle for limited resources, to have one nation, race, tribe take over, subject, or destroy another would be the natural consequence of the fittest surviving.
• Denying someone their rights is immoral.
  • Where do rights and morality come from? According to evolution, the only rights and morality is the expression of the selfish gene. Coercion and the removal of competition is an extrapolation of evolution, so who denies what and why is it wrong?
• Homosexuality is normal
  • Human heterosexuality is the substrate of human evolution. To breed is to contribute to the evolutionary process and to breed a lot is tantamount to the fittest surviving. Homosexuality lacks fecundity, is not productive, and doomed on the science of evolution despite what Jeff Goldblum says in movies.
• Diversity is favored
  • Evolution does not favor diversity; evolution favors the fittest: mint, horseradish, English Ivy (and, quite frankly, the English themselves), kudzu, the American chestnut, the cane toad, and hundreds of other extinct or invasive species have demonstrated that diversity it not the end game. The panda should be extinct, naturally, but we take great strides at great cost to preserve the species, unnaturally. Together we can stop evolution.
• Evolution explains the origins of life.
  • Evolution explains the diversity of life. The self-replicating molecule is the locomotive of evolution and its origins are not quite “settled science”.

The list of policies and ideologies that thwart nature and natural law seems to grow on a daily basis. So who really denies evolution? In some measure, don’t we all?