Follow
Last week, we highlighted the attempts by Fr. William G. Most to extract an infallible teaching from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. (The Magisterium is essentially the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.) By studying the teachings of the Magisterium, William Most thought he had discovered how to arrive at an infallible teaching. By way of example, to prove that it is an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary’s physical virginity was uncompromised when Christ was born, all Most had to do was demonstrate repetition by popes and councils. Surely, Fr. Most thought, repetition is evidence of an intent to teach infallibly:
A doctrine taught with multiple papal approval plus that of Vatican II should be called infallible, for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.
By this standard, we can conclude that it is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Church that it is Mary who will crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. After all, multiple popes and at least one council have confirmed this. The Council of Trent made Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome’s translation of Genesis 3:15 indicates that it is Mary who will crush the head of the serpent. Here is the English rendering of the Roman Catholic translation of that verse:
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Genesis 3:15, Douay Rheims)
This was confirmed by Pius IX in Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus:
[T]he Most Holy Virgin, … most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.
…and then by Pius X in Encyclical Ad Diem Illum Laetissium, at the Jubilee of the Immaculate Conception:
Adam, the father of mankind, looked to Mary crushing the serpent’s head, and he dried the tears that the malediction had brought into his eyes.
…and by Pope Leo XIII in his Prayer of St. Michael:
The glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands you; she who by her humility and from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception, crushed your proud head.
Thus, to borrow William Most’s argument, “A doctrine taught with multiple papal approval plus that of the Council of Trent should be called infallible, for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.”
We note that the diligent Roman Catholics at The Last Days News did exactly as William Most suggested, and also appealed to multiple venerable Roman Catholics, including St. Augustine, John Cardinal Henry Newman, St. Louis De Montfort, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, and St. Maximilian Kolbe to show that the Roman Church had always taught this. The Last Days News concluded exactly what William Most’s method would have predicted—they had found the official teaching of the church:
The Council of Trent declared “that this same old and Vulgate edition, which has been approved by being used in the same Church for so many ages, should be accounted authentic in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one should dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.”
… As we have seen there are different schools of thought concerning this extremely important passage which the Church has declared the first gospel. Modern scholars and Protestant bible experts often say he or it while numerous Doctors and Fathers of the Church—including the great trio of Mariologists St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Louis De Montfort—say she. Whom shall we place our stock in? This definitely deserves a closer look.
… We—Catholics especially—should hold dear to the word “she,” for she is our Mother.
… With such powerful and forceful words of truth from these Marian saints, could anyone outdo them? Only the popes in their teaching authority. And what a grand role the popes have played in proclaiming Mary to be the woman of Genesis! (emphasis added)
These devout Roman Catholics then proceeded to cite even Pope John Paul II’s January 24, 1996, General Audience in order to bolster their position. John Paul II stated,
In the light of the New Testament and the Church’s tradition, we know that the new woman announced by the Protogospel (Genesis 3:15) is Mary, and in ‘her seed’ we recognize her Son, Jesus…
But there is just one problem—The Last Days News wasn’t just trying to prove that Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15 (something John Paul II agreed with). They were trying to prove that it is Mary who crushes the serpent’s head. But in that same General Audience, John Paul II formally denied that Genesis 3:15 has Mary crushing the serpent’s head! Here’s what John Paul II said, quoting the (apparently) wrong version of Genesis 3:15:
“…he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” … Exegetes now agree in recognizing that the text of Genesis, according to the original Hebrew, does not attribute action against the serpent directly to the woman, but to her offspring. (emphasis added)
We hope our readers can see what a dilemma Roman Catholics face as they try to discern what, precisely, their Roman Church is teaching them. Is the Church teaching that Mary is or that Mary is not the one who crushes the serpent’s head? In light of this, pragmatic Roman Catholics like apologist Shawn McElhinney have concluded that maybe it just doesn’t matter who crushes the head of the serpent—besides, he says, “we need to be careful not to either imply or actually dogmatize areas that the Church permits free speculation in.” But the people at The Last Days News beg to differ.
What would be helpful is if there was an infallible teaching authority that could resolve this for them. Yes, that would be very helpful indeed. Very helpful!
But there is an infallible teaching authority—the original Text! But in the eyes of The Last Days News, the original text is the cause of the problem:
It must be noted that the Latin Vulgate was the official translation during the time of Vatican II, and into the 20th century and our generation. Since the Greek and Hebrew versions do not enjoy this distinction, the Vulgate possesses the greatest authority.
It is a shame that to Roman Catholics seeking authoritative revelation, the original Text is the problem, not the solution, in resolving matters of faith and morals.
I think you are coloring a little outside of the lines with your underlined quote. By saying Christ crushes the serpent is not to deny that Mary crushes his head in and through her Son. Go back and re-read the Pope’s entire document.
As for Fr. Most, he also brings out elsewhere that the doctrine of the New Eve, from which so much of Mariology ( not mariolatry ) flows, is infallible because it was believed universally for a time by the whole Church. He then quotes Church Fathers in the West, East and North Africa who spoke of Mary as the New Eve and her role in salvation.
Thank you, Jim,
I have read the Pope’s document, and I have read the arguments at Last Days News. The Pope’s document was entitled “Victory over sin comes through a woman,” so there is no doubt that John Paul II believed that Mary is the New Eve and Genesis 3:15 refers to her in that way. But the Last Days News said that to render Genesis 3:15 as “he or it” is “scriptural revisionism,” and a departure from the teachings of the church:
Their point is that this modernism is from the devil and is a departure from the truth, and rendering it as “he or it” is wrong. Indeed, using Fr. Most’s method, they could easily prove as much.
My point is to show that, as much as Fr. Most wanted to prove something to be infallibly taught, no method is equal to the task—it is still just a fallible man trying fallible methods to determine what his church is teaching him infallibly. Your comment, when contrasted with the convictions of Last Days News, is illustrative because it still leaves each Roman Catholic reading various teachings and wondering which is the infallible truth. I have read the pope’s statement, and the people at The Last Days news have read many papal statements as well. Citing Scripture, Councils, Popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, they conclude that Genesis 3:15 says “she,” and that this truth must be preserved and protected from the wiles of the devil. Others say it doesn’t matter. My point is not whether Mary has or has not been justifiably elevated in the church—the point, rather, is that “infallibility” as a guardian of truth simply doesn’t work because it is impossible to know if one has been taught infallibly. You say it could go either way, but equally faithful Roman Catholics argue differently. Both believe they have understood the infallible teachings of the church.
Thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate you time to stop by, and please let me know if I have misunderstood what you are saying.
Kind regards,
Tim
Well said, brother.
In my own experience, reading the Bible daily, and resources like this proved most helpful.
Blessings.
Thanks, Andrew.
Tim
Try this; When you were a little Catholic kid wearing your salt and pepper cords, sitting in Sister Mary Aloysius’ 3rd grade class, was there statue of Our lady of Grace on the window sill? Did the nun ever reward you with Miraculous Medal for learning your Catechism?
Since that particular image image is/was known and venerated universally by the bumpkins, it is part of Tradition.
Thanks, Jim,
This sounds more like an ecclesial tradition (small “t”) than like Apostolic Tradition (capital “T”). As you know, the Catechism (p. 83) differentiates between them:
The reason I highlight this is not to instruct you (I am very confident that you are aware of this), but rather to show how difficult it is to discern the mind of the church.
If I were to show you any number of Roman Catholic “traditions” that are practiced around the world—many of which would offend the sensibilities of Christians as well as American Catholics—you could respond that those are not “official teachings” of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore are not considered “Apostolic,” and therefore they are not infallible, and cannot be imputed to the Catholic Church.
In Lumen Gentium, Pope Paul VI spoke on the issue Marian devotion and taught that “this council urges all concerned to remove or correct any abuses, excesses or defects which may have crept in here or there, and so restore all things that Christ and God be more fully praised.” He did not specify any abuses, so we are left guessing, but we might imagine that he meant to bring “tradition” more in line with the Apostolicity that should govern it. Fair enough.
But you have provided me with an ecclesial tradition that you have determined to be in line with Apostolic Tradition, in order, I presume, to show that you can discern an infallible church teaching. As that is the case, the fact that the “bumpkins” practiced it universally is not sufficient to demonstrate its apostolicity. We need to go back to the sub-apostolic era to determine just how universally “the bumpkins” practiced image veneration back then.
We can use Epiphanius as an example. He found in a church “an image either of Christ or of one of the saints,” and destroyed it because it was contrary to Apostolic tradition, as he understood it, to use images at all:
That the “bumpkins” are enthusiastic in their practice, I do not deny. But that it was “universally” received in the church since the days of the Apostles is easily falsifiable.
Best,
Tim
By the way, Timothy, your post reminds me of another lapsed Catholic who now busies himself carrying Calvin’s gospel who also is an expert on “mariolatry” and the Fathers. William/Bill Webster. I bet you know him or know of his work.
I used to phone him up 25 or 30ish years ago when he lived in the Pacific Northwest.
One of his favorite secret weapons is to tell the poor unsuspecting papist how a pope condemned the Assumption of Mary as a heresy in the 5th century or so.
What Webster just couldn’t get through his head was that the Transitus material was condemned as spurious but not because of its account of the Dormition. I see his name pop up on the net now and then. Decades on he is still impressing Protestant audiences with his erudition.
Pope JPII’s statement does not take away from his Mariology. The motto of his pontificate was Totus Tuus for crying out loud.
Read Louis Marie de Montfort’s little book to learn from whence that Pope got his Marian piety.
Dear Jim,
Yes, I know Bill Webster.
Your comment puzzles me:
I know very well where John Paul II got his Marian piety—he never tired of reminding people of it. My use of John Paul II was not to disprove his devotion to Mary. The point was to show that the people at The Last Days News quoted his January 24, 1996, General Audience to support their view on Genesis 3:15. Their entire article was about Mary crushing the serpent’s head, and they cited John Paul’s General Audience because he acknowledges that Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15. But acknowledging that Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15 is not the same as acknowledging that Mary is the one who crushes the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15. I just found it ironic that in their attempt to prove that something is or ought to be “the official” teaching of the church, they ended up citing a pope who basically said it was not “the official” teaching of the church.
Thank you for your kind inquiries. I enjoy reading your comments.
Best,
Tim
Tim, I want to reiterate my appreciation at your having this blog. There’s a lot about RCism I have yet to learn. I’ll be reading your posts and the comment sections, brother. You’ve got a great grasp, in my opinion, of reformed theology.
Best,
Andrew
Thanks, Andrew,
I appreciate your support.
Glad to have you around!
Tim