Again a Catholic theologian reached into the catechism box and tried to explain what the incarnation of Jesus Christ is all about. It seems as if this was an attempt to pack as little biblical statements as possible into a maximum of Catholic dogmas. Exactly what characterizes such a catechism course.
Inhalt / Content
The gospel actually gives information
Mary, the betrothed of Joseph, was visited by the angel Gabriel to bring her the message that she would give birth to a son. Mary will become pregnant through the action of the Holy Spirit. At least that is the very rough outline according to the gospel. The Apostle Luke reports in detail about the delivery of this message by the angel Gabriel. Details and dialogue are already described in the first chapter. Mary was still a virgin, so untouched by Joseph.
The Catholic pastoral theologian Andreas Wollbold reproduced this event of the “Good News” in the catechism podcast of the Catholic magazine “Die Tagespost” in his variant.
It already hooks with the “Archangel”
Wollbold explains why this miraculous event was necessary at all. For this purpose, the pastoral theologian raises the angel Gabriel to the “archangel”. However, if you search the Bible, you will only come across one Archangel and that is Michael. Other archangels, like the fat little children’s angels, come from the realm of the fantasies of many “romantic” contemporaries.
Luke 1:26-27:
“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.”
Nothing about an Archangel Gabriel can be found in the “rest” of the Bible either. On the other hand statements like in Jude 1:9:
“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”
Procreation by the ear
The Catholic theologian explains that “the normal way” between a man and a woman to conceive a child cannot produce anything that is completely new. However much virtue they may possess, “a human procreation by two sinful men” cannot provide for a new beginning in Jesus Christ. At this point the “omnipotence of the third divine person is necessary”, according to the pastoral theologian.
Since the point here is not “to assert something which would be against all human experience and against all reason”, it is a question of a miracle and not a miracle. Because it’s about saying, “Something begins here solely from the power of God.”
Maria conceived her son “through the ear,” according to Wollbold, based on a “pious tradition” that was transmitted without citing a source. According to the theologian, this is not at all a strange idea. Because the ear is “the organ of hearing, of receiving the word”. Spiritual motherhood was truly realized here, according to “he who obeys the will of the Father is father and mother to Jesus”.
On this point the “catechism course” comes to an end.
Again, arrogance comes to the fore
Apart from the infantile thought that one only needs to hear through the ear in order to become (spiritually) related to Jesus Christ, the transferred image is completely wrong. In this context, “hearing” not only stands for an acoustic perception, but also for obedience. So also following what one has heard or read from the father. To learn what the will of God is, one need only turn to the Bible (not the catechism).
Anyone who reads the written words of God will also come across the appropriate Bible passage. However, the “theologian” simply reinterpreted this passage according to the Catholic view. In the original it says in Matthew 12:50:
“For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.“
Man can be brother, sister or mother of Jesus, but never the father. But the Roman Catholic Church is known not to take this very seriously and admonitions are simply ignored or rewritten by this institution if they don’t fit into their own stuff. So, for example, recognizable in Matthew 23:9:
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.“
It is logical that only Father (in Heaven) can be the only Father and never a man. But the Roman Catholic Church simply ignores this, even calling its “supreme” “Holy Father” and even encouraging people to do the same with their presumption and arrogance.
Mary defiled or undefiled?
But the Catholic theologian surprised with one statement. While it is correct to portray the procreation of Jesus Christ as a human being by “two sinful human beings” as futile, does this not contradict the Catholic dogma of an “immaculate Mary” according to the Catechism? Either the theologian has lost the thread of the Catholic textbook, as in relation to the gospel, or he has not completed the thought. Even if this idea of the “immaculateness” of the “Mother of God” is a very recent inspiration of this church raised as a dogma, this story has been the official belief since 1854 by the “infallible” pontifex Pius IX in the catechism at passage no. 491. Accordingly, Mary was “filled with grace” already redeemed at her conception. According to Catholic teaching, the “Blessed Virgin Mary” was freed from “every stain of original sin” at the moment of conception.
Incidentally, the world had to wait until Pope Pius XII for the “good news” about Mary’s bodily ascension. Through “his infallibility” the pontiff only recognized in 1950 that Mary had certainly ascended to heaven body and soul and added this inspiration to the Catholic dogmas without further ado. Until then, this fiction was celebrated almost unofficially.
The gospel was probably not meant at all
It is always amazing how many teachings that are completely alien to the gospel can be packed into such a small package of supposed explanations. The Catholic theologian does not seem to have been concerned with handing down the Scriptures at all, but rather with warming up or impressing Catholic dogmas.
However, the question remains as to when exactly Mary was freed from her “original sin” according to Catholic teaching. Just before Gabriel’s words hit her ear to the eardrum, or at exactly the same time? Because the “immaculateness” of Mary must be ensured before conception, otherwise she would still have her “original guilt” attached. Is Francis already in the process of clarifying this question on the basis of inspirations gained through the spiritual exercises of his order’s founder?
Bible verses from King James Version
