Posts

Now that we’ve looked briefly at the case for Saint Joseph as an older man in our last post, how about the other side of the argument? Is it possible that Saint Joseph was a younger man when he became the adoptive father of Jesus? Under this view, it would still be possible to hold the opinion that Joseph knew about Mary’s prior commitment to consecrated virginity, or (far more unlikely) that they were planning a “normal” marriage prior to Mary’s discovery of her unique vocation to be the Mother of the Messiah?

Here’s what St. Josemaria Escriva, who had a tremendous devotion to St. Joseph, said about the matter in a homily about St. Joseph in 1963:

“I don’t agree with the traditional picture of St Joseph as an old man, even though it may have been prompted by a desire to emphasise the perpetual virginity of Mary. I see him as a strong young man, perhaps a few years older than our Lady, but in the prime of his life and work…You don’t have to wait to be old or lifeless to practice the virtue of chastity. Purity comes from love; and the strength and gaiety of youth are no obstacle for noble love. Joseph had a young heart and a young body when he married Mary, when he learned of the mystery of her divine motherhood, when he lived in her company, respecting the integrity God wished to give the world as one more sign that he had come to share the life of his creatures. Anyone who cannot understand a love like that knows very little of true love and is a complete stranger to the christian meaning of chastity.”

I suppose an important question in this debate is this: How old is old? perhaps a type of “hybrid” view makes the best sense. For example, Joseph could have married Mary when he was about 25-30 years old (with Mary being, in all likelihood, no more than 16, according to the majority of New Testament scholars). Joseph would have still possessed a relatively “young body”, as St. Josemaria put it, able to withstand the rigors of the flight into Egypt and the journey back to Nazareth some time later. He would have been capable of working hard for many years and protecting Jesus and Mary, as well as providing for their necessities.

The average life span of men in the first century in the Roman Empire was considerably less, however, than what we enjoy today. Thirty years later, when Jesus began his ministry, it is more than concievable that Joseph, approaching sixty, may have already passed away.

The recent Solemnity of Saint Joseph on March 19 was a welcome feast within Lent – and we’ll have another one next week: the Annunciation. When contemplating Saint Joseph, one of the many interesting unanswered questions about him is this: How old was he? Was he an older man who served as a guardian to the Virgin, or was he younger and more robust? I’ll lay out the two competing views in the next couple of posts. First up: the view that he was older.

The Eastern wing of the Church has traditionally held that Saint Joseph was an older man, who betrothed and married Mary not for the purposes of romance, but protection – to be her legal guardian, as it were. The thinking here is that Mary had always planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the service of God. Admittedly, this was a relatively rare position to take in Israel in the first century. But there are other examples, even in the same generation: Jesus himself (obviously), Saint Paul, and some of the Essenes, for starters. One could also add the prophetess Anna mentioned by Luke (2:36-38), who, although briefly married in her youth, lived out the rest of her days worshipping in the temple, consecrating herself to the Lord. She ostensibly could have sought remarriage, but didn’t. Mary may have been planning a similar life for herself.

But being an unmarried woman in the first century, especially if one was without extended family members to rely upon, may have been a precarious position to be in. Having a guardian, in the form of an older Saint Joseph, would have been a boon. Mary’s question to the archangel Gabriel, when told she would be the mother of the Messiah (“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” – Lk 1:34) is quite an odd question for an engaged woman to ask. Gabriel has said nothing at this point about the conception of Jesus being miraculous in nature – he does that a few verses later. Odd, that is – unless she was planning on remaining a virgin all along.

The concept of Joseph as an older man also carries explanatory power in other ways: most notably, it explains his absence from the adult ministry of Jesus. The presumption is that he had died by this point. Although the mother of Jesus is mentioned at key points in the ministry of the Lord, Joseph is nowhere to be found. This is felt most acutely at the crucifixion, where Jesus gives the care of his mother into the hands of – not Joseph, but the apostle John – inconceivable if Joseph had been living at the time (Jn 19:26-27). As well, in some strains of this tradition, Joseph is said to have been a widower, whose first wife had died some time before, when he married the Virgin. This may shed some light on who the alleged “brothers and sisters” of Jesus might have been. Certainly, they were not other children of Mary, but they may have been Joseph’s children from his previous marriage.

What do you think? Sound off in the comments box, but don’t forget to stay tuned for the other side of the argument, which I haven’t even presented yet – that Joseph was a much younger man. We’ll tackle that argument in the next post.

Today’s Gospel reminds us of the incredible power of Jesus the exorcist. He casts out a “legion” of demons from the Gerasene demoniac. There have been many modern scholars who wish to rebrand the New Testament cases of demonic possession as merely misdiagnosed mental illness. The thinking is that the ancients had no concept of such diseases,as we “enlightened” 21st-centry people do. This theory is preposterous on many levels, but there are two facts in this particular case that make such a diagnosis impossible.

One, as those who study demonology know, those possessed by malevolent spirits often exhibit enormous physical strength, disproportionate to their natural capacities. In this case, check.
Also, the fact that Jesus sent the demons into the pigs, who rushed headlong over the cliffs into the sea (what a hogwash!), is an objective physical manifestation that cannot be explained away by an interior, subjective mental state.

The freed man is so grateful to the Lord that he desires with all his heart to join the Apostolic band – the hierarchy of the nascent Church, if you will. But Jesus says no. That’s not his vocation, as it were. Jesus wants him to engage in a personal apostolate, telling everyone he meets about what Christ has done for him.

We are all called to the same mission. Our baptism demands that we seek two things: holiness and apostolate. If we don’t have that fiery passion to tell others about Christ, we may be in danger of falling into lukewarmness and eventually spiritual death.

Break those fetters, your own chains of fear that prevent you from speaking to your friends about the Lord. As Saint Paul says in another place, “the word of God is not chained” (2 Timothy 2:9).

After celebrating morning Mass at the Vatican, Pope Benedict announced that Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins will be made a member of the College of Cardinals. Archbishop Collins will be given the famous red hat and garments (signifying the readiness of the cardinals to shed their blood, if necessary, in defence of the truth of Catholicism) at a consistory (gathering of bishops) in Rome which will take place February 18-19. By far the most important task of the cardinals is, following the death of a pope, to elect a new pontiff. All cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote in the conclave, the closed meeting in which a successor is chosen. You can check out the mini-site from the intrepid Communications Director for the Archdiocese, Neil MacCarthy, here.

Archbishop Collins, who hails from Guelph, Ontario, was ordained a priest in 1973, and previously served as the Bishop of St. Paul, Alberta, and also as Archbishop of Edmonton. He was named the 10th Archbishop of Toronto in 2006.

On a personal note, I’m absolutely overjoyed for His Grace. He’s a dynamic preacher and teacher, well-known for his Lectio Divina scripture lessons here in Toronto at St. Michael’s Cathedral. For a taste of that teaching, check out the clip below. It’s uncanny how his charism of spiritual fatherhood comes across – one feels as if he is in the presence of the head of a household, imparting precious life lessons to his children. Archbishop Collins also gave invaluable support to me in giving his endorsement to The New Mass app, which I created for the new English translation of the Mass. I’ll be forever grateful for his blessing on the project.

Hi Everybody,

Check out our inaugural podcast for The Faith Explained below. Andy Walker and I discuss the new Mass translation and The New Mass app for iOS and Android, explaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the phenomenon that is Tim Tebow!

Today’s Gospel is the famous account of the Annunciation from Luke 1:26-38. It includes some indirect proof for two major Marian dogmas of the Church – the Immaculate Conception (which was recently celebrated on Dec. 8), and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. It also gives us part of the biblical roots of the “Hail Mary”.

When the archangel Gabriel greets Mary, it marks the only recorded incident in scripture that an angel greets someone by their title, not their name. “Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). This, of course, is the first line of the “Hail Mary”, with the second line, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb”, from Luke 1:42. So much for the ridiculous argument that the prayer is “unbiblical”.

But what of those dogmas? Speaking of the phrase, “Full of Grace”, in the original Greek of Luke’s Gospel, it is an interesting term: “kecharitomene”. It means, literally, “one who has been made full of God’s grace” (biblical translations that render this term “highly favored one”, or something to that effect, don’t cut it) . It’s a past perfect, meaning that, at some point in the past, Mary was made perfectly full of God’s grace. This condition extends out into the future, into eternity. This is exactly what the Immaculate Conception is all about  – that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin. If one is perfectly full of the grace of God, there is no room for sin.

With respect to the perpetual virginity, Gabriel explains to Mary that she will bear the Messiah, and at this point he has said nothing about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. Yet, Mary says, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (Lk 1:34). A very strange question for a young woman to ask, who, as we have already been told, was engaged to be married. Unless, that is, she had already intended to remain a virgin, consecrating herself wholly to God.

I have written elsewhere in these pages about Tim Tebow, and let me say on record that I’m a fan. To say that Tebow is the most polarizing athlete of our time is no understatement, and much of this is due to the way he articulates his faith. Robert Mixa, over at the fantastic Word on Fire blog, makes some very thought-provoking comparisons between the way Tebow speaks about his beliefs, and the new English Mass translation – both of which are making some people very, very uncomfortable. You can check it out here. Be sure to leave your thoughts in the combox below. Big HT to Jasmin Lemieux-Lefebvre (@jasminll) for alerting me to this story.

I recently had a radio conversation with the always entertaining Pedro from Salt and Light!  Our chat shed some light on the creation of The New Mass app for Apple and Android, as well as our thoughts on the new English Mass translation itself. You can listen for yourself, or download the podcast here. Spread the word!

About.com Awards featuring The New Mass appAnd so it begins….I really can’t believe it, but I’m a finalist in four categories in the About.com Catholicism Reader’s Choice Awards! It’s so easy to vote, and it only takes a moment. I’d be so grateful if you would vote for me in the following categories:

Best Catholic iPhone app: The New Mass

Best Catholic blog: The Faith Explained with Cale Clarke

Best Catholic to follow on Twitter: @CaleClarke

Best Catholic Facebook Page: The Faith Explained

You can click on any of the above hyperlinks to start voting, or go to this url:

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/ss/2011-About-Com-Catholicism-Readers-Choice-Awards-Finalists.htm

Have fun, and, as always, thank you, thank you, thank you for all your support. Without you these pages simply wouldn’t exist!

The wait is over for book two in Taylor Marshall‘s three-volume Origins of Catholicism series! You may recall my review of book one, The Crucified Rabbi, which focused on the organic links between Judaism and the Catholic Church. Christmas came early for me this year when volume two, The Catholic Perspective on Paul, arrived in my mailbox recently. Since a particular interpretation of Paul’s writings by Luther touched off the Protestant revolution in the first place, it’s crucial to understand Paul correctly to ascertain (to borrow a phrase from N.T. Wright) what Saint Paul really said.

Look for my full review in Catholic Insight magazine in early 2011, but let me give you a sneak peek at Paul from Taylor’s Perspective:

It has been said that Paul’s entire theology is an expansion upon the particular words of Christ pronounced to him on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 26:14). With these words, Christ revealed that to persecute any of His disciples is to persecute Him. When Saul approved of the murder of Stephen, he had approved of the murder of Christ. When Saul imprisoned Christians, he had imprisoned Christ. From this intimate union between Christ and his disciples, Saint Paul extrapolated his entire theological system. Accordingly, Paul’s doctrine of the believer’s union with the person of Christ is the bedrock of Catholic theology because it presents salvation in terms of participation. Christ’s statement to Saul reveals that the Christian believer participates in the life of Christ. This is the center of Paul’s message. “So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another” (Rom 12:5). The epistles of Paul constantly and consistently resound with the phrase “in Christ” and “in him”. This phrase is more common than any other topic in the letters of Paul combined. This means that Paul discusses the believer’s participation in Christ more than justification, faith, works, law, or predestination. Union with Christ is the ubiquitous theme of Paul’s theology.

When we understand Christianity as a participation in Christ, we begin to read Paul’s epistles in a new light, or rather under the ancient light of the Church Fathers who lived before us. We find that the “old perspective on Paul” articulated by the Catholic Church had it correct all along. Saint Paul presents the Church, baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, faith, works, justification, sanctification, and regeneration as participations in the person and work of Christ…this interpretation confirms that Paul’s teachings are in fact the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Paul’s paradigm of “union with Christ” can be contrasted with what I call “zero-sum theology”. Let me boldly suggest that all theological misunderstandings regarding the Catholic faith can be attributed to the adoption of “zero-sum theology”. By “zero-sum theology”, I mean that theological framework that views salvation, grace, life, and love as a pie with only so many pieces. Christ either gets all pieces or loses the remaining pieces to Mary, saints, sacraments, priests, popes, etc. Naturally, Christ as God should receive all the pieces – not merely some of the pieces. He is the whole of salvation, right?

Of course, Christ is the whole. He is “all in all” as Saint Paul beautifully teaches (Eph 1:23). However, Catholics do not subscribe to a “zero-sum” approach to Christ. Rather than using a “zero-sum” model, Catholics use Saint Paul’s paradigm of participation. Christ is “all in all”, but this means that all other aspects of redemption participate in and through Christ – not apart from Christ. Catholics thus believe that the sacraments, Mary, saints, and priests participate in and through Christ, and thereby lead the Christian to embrace Christ more deeply.

This difference between Catholicism and Protestantism accounts for almost every doctrinal difference between Catholic theology and Protestant theology. Catholicism is framed by a doctrine of participation – Protestantism is generally framed by the zero-sum paradigm.

– Taylor Marshall, The Catholic Perspective on Paul, pp. 26-28