Within two generations

My Mom told me a story when I was in grade school, and told my brother and sister the same story, multiple times. It was a family story (about what her grandmother experienced on her death-bed), and it made quite an impression on her, apparently, as it later did on me. I've since told the story to my kids, more than once; they are now four generations removed from the woman who was the central figure in the story, who had the actual death-bed experience.

The story itself isn't so important. It has the quality of a folk-tale, in fact. If it was someone else's family story, that's what I might think it was. Or if it was in my own family, but about someone a few more generations back, I might think the same thing: legend, myth, a story that has grown with time and retelling.

But I know it's true. And I know it (I have sure belief; I carry solid conviction) because of several reasons:

-- the person who told it to me. Mom. I heard the truth of it in her voice and saw it in her eyes.

-- the simplicity of the story. It was too short, not elaborate enough, to be false.

-- it was verifiable. When it was told to me, an eyewitness to the incident was still alive, Mom's mom, my Grandma.



So, what *was* this story, anyway? I can hear you getting impatient with me.. ;) Sorry to make you wait, but there's a point to this setup, okay?



My Mom grew up on a farm, lived in a big old farmhouse in rural nowhere. Her maternal grandmother lived with them when Mom was younger. I remember the pictures she showed me of this scary-looking old woman who I had never met (thank God!), and who would no doubt have frightened me out of my wits. "That's your Great-Grandma Thoma" she'd say.

Okay, Ma. Whatever. She gives me the creeps. And so does that story you always tell. How does it go again? (Of course I loved hearing it, just because it was creepy.)

"Your Great-Grandma was very sick, and in those days not very many country people went to the hospital, and there was no nursing home in town, so she just stayed in bed in the old north bedroom, and your Grandma Beyer nursed her as best she could. We girls helped, but were sometimes too noisy for Great-Grandma, so were told to stay away when she was feeling poorly.

"One day she was having a hard time of it, and we were shooed away outside to play. Then we heard momma scream from in the house! We ran in to see what had happened, and Great-Grandma was lying there, but with no life in her. Momma (your Grandma) was sobbing and sobbing and we asked what happened. This is what she told us:

" 'I was holding your Grandma's hand, when it just went limp, and her head rolled to one side. I knew she had passed away. I couldn't help myself, I didn't want her to die, so I screamed, I guess. Right as I stopped screaming, her eyes flew open, she straightened her head and said, as clear as a bell: "Why did you call me back? It was so beautiful where I was!", and then she smiled the most beautiful smile and went back to wherever she was.'

"And that's when I knew there was such a thing as life after death, sweetie.. because your Great-Grandma Thoma crossed over and came back to tell us, so we wouldn't be afraid. So never be afraid of death, okay? It's a good place that you go to."



So that's the story. I believe what Mom told me, it had the ring of truth to it. And if I didn't believe it, I could have gone to my Grandma and asked if this was the real story. She was there, she saw what happened, and could have refuted the story, if it wasn't true. My kids, too, when I told them the story, could have gone to my Mom to ask if I was telling it right. Mom wasn't an eyewitness as such, but.. an eyewitness whom she trusted with her life told it to her. And that's pretty good testimony.

Now, I say all that to get to this:

As part of RCIA classes, I've been learning about the Apostolic Deposit of faith, the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, and the difference between infallible teaching and all other. Some of the doctrines concerning Mary are troublesome. Surprising to some, I suppose, the idea of transubstantiation in the Eucharist is not, the idea of Sacramental Grace is not, the notion of Sacred Tradition is not, the communion of saints (living or dead) and their intercession for us is not, nor is the Virgin Birth or the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I'm cool with all those. :)

Even the idea of Mary being assumed bodily into Heaven is not a problem for me, mostly because it has no bearing on salvation, and certainly has other Biblical precedent (ex: Enoch), so.. that one doesn't bother me. However, for the Church to teach on it infallibly.. that's problematic. As I understand dogma (as a newbie, granted..), it is simply a definitive statement of what has already been a long-standing belief in the Church, only made more firm because of some controversy that required a strong action.

Then we get to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the idea that she was preserved by a unique work of God's grace from having any taint of original sin. The dogma doesn't exactly state that she went on to live a perfectly sinless life without need for a Redeemer. My instructors were clear that she is a member of the Church through the salvation secured for her by Christ, just like any other. But the I.C. is addressed more to the idea of her being a pure vessel, fit to carry the Lord, preserved from taint of Original Sin so that she would not pass that taint to her Son through the human nature He inherited from her.

On this one I don't see the point, I guess. If Mary can be preserved by special grace from Original Sin, then so could Jesus, from conception onward, and there would be no need for God to do that twice, would there? It's a happy concept, but.. unnecessary soteriologically.

So where am I going with this?

These last two quarters of Seminary I have seen how theologians make solid and "unquestionable" doctrine out of thin air, and defend it as if it were revealed truth. They sure did it after the Reformation, with sola scriptura getting made up out of whole cloth, just to facilitate a rejection of Sacred Tradition. And then there's the Five (hard-and-fast) Points of Calvinism, and hyper-dispensationalism, and don't even get me started on the pretribulation rapture idea.. how many new denominations have been started over that one?

So how do I know with some confidence that the theologians of the Church didn't do the exact same thing here, with these dogmas about Mary? They certainly derived the doctrines of the Trinity and the homoousios of Christ through the debating and disagreeing and damning that happened at the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, taking some 150 years to bang out the dialectic between all the competing theses.

And all the while this haggling in the Ecumenical Councils was going on, people were coming into the Kingdom of God, lives were being changed. None of these doctrinal machinations were necessary for salvation or fellowship, and they still aren't. So, to me, that which was derived by theologians in the post-Apostolic period is nothing I would consider part of the original deposit of faith given to the Apostles, and nothing I have to concern myself with believing, Teaching Magisterium or not.

How do I know then, what was part of the original deposit of faith handed down by Jesus to the Apostles? That's fairly straightforward. One, it's in the Canonical Scripture (and for me that includes the deutero-canonical books). Two, if not there, then it's contained in the teachings of those who were within two generations of the Apostles, those known as the Apostolic Fathers.

I mean guys like Ignatius of Antioch, Iraneus of Lyons, Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr of Palestine, Melito of Sardis, and at the far outside edge, Tertullian and Clement, both of Alexandria. Even Origen is too late in the game to be connected by word of mouth to the Apostles.

As an example of what I mean, consider Iraneus. He was a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. What John heard from the lips of Jesus, he told Polycarp, who told Iraneus. And if Iraneus doubted anything, he could have gone to John himself and verified what Polycarp said. This is still first hand. Like me being able to talk to Grandma about what happened on Great-Grandma's deathbed. She was an eyewitness - I could have talked to her about what she heard and saw, like Iraneus could have talked to John about what he heard and saw.

So.. what's in the writings of these guys about Mary? The virgin birth? Oh yeah. Loads. Mary's perpetual virginity? You bet. Her assumption into Heaven? Not a word. Her immaculate conception? No sir. Nothing. Seems to me that those last two would have been just as well understood as the first two by the Apostles or (in the case of the assumption) their immediate successors. I mean, didn't John himself take Mary in as his adopted mother? Talk about the family stories...

It's just like the situation on other doctrines, where there is plenty of content in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers about Jesus' full humanity and full divinity, and even content about the divine taking on flesh, but there is nothing about what essence, exactly, Jesus shares with the Father, how His divine and human natures combine into one, what the roles and division of labor are amongst the persons of the Trinity, or what the nature was of the pre-incarnate fellowship within the Trinity.

The first two are needed to understand the incarnation and how Jesus' sacrifice saves us. The rest aren't crucial for belief, and were not part of that original faith deposit (at least based on my simple "two generations" test.) They were hammered out by theologians later. Hundreds of years later.

Fortunately the local priest assured me last week that the only doctrine I am affirming in the Rite of Confirmation and Eucharist is the Nicene Creed. And on that, I have asked God for His understanding and grace as I continue to work through what I believe and why. I have felt that grace, too.. and am ready to go forward, with His promise of further grace. :)

Hm. Guess I needed a break from writing my TS502 papers. huh? Maybe I should just stick to poetry..