Posted on 10/16/2009 8:26:49 AM PDT by NYer
But if we have to make up a couple of possible explanations (because Scripture is not explicit on the question), why don’t we just assume that after Christ was born, Mary had other children the regular way? I can’t see how that taints her special calling from God to be the mother of the Messiah. I’m not arguing just to argue, I can’t see why it’s so important to maintain her virginity when Scripture doesn’t explicitly support it. It does not detract one whit from her status, IMHO.
The reason there's a pink candle is liturgical. In the Roman Rite the penitential season of Advent has four Sundays, three of which (1, 2, 4) take violet vestments (hence the 3 purple candles). The third Sunday is called "Laetare Sunday" with rose (not really pink) vestments--it is a slight break in the penitential mood with some anticipated joy for the Savior's imminent arrival.
I've never heard about this idea that the pink was for Mary, although I can see why it came about. It's not a bad symbolism actually.
Couple of things on that. First, we've sorta lost the historical notion of monarchy in this country for obvious reasons, but typically the mother of the king had the distinct title of "Queen Mother." If Christ is the King, then she kinda has to be the Queen Mother automatically.
Second of all, the idea of Queen of Heaven is embedded in the imagery of Revelations 12: a woman with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars. On one level, that's symbolic of the new Israel/Church of course. Yet it's hard not to draw some kind of analogy with Mary because she is the actual person who gave birth to the male child. We have a nice literary metonymy here: the individual representing the corporate.
For both reasons, I think that the Queen of Heaven idea is quite fitting for Our Lady.
The tradition that Joseph was married before and had children is not "made up" in the sense that somebody thought it up recently. Like the perpetual virginity of Mary, it's a very long standing tradition (though not as important or as universal).
I know that there's a tendency for Bible-centered believers to think that every tradition not explicitly founded on the Bible is 'made up' and hence worthless, but unless you acknowledge some tradition, you don't even have a Bible. And of course the Bible itself (especially in the letters of St. Paul) assumes and refers to an ongoing tradition existing outside of and side by side with the written word. And that tradition exists in unbroken continuity from the Apostles to the present day.
Remember that until the rise of the middle class in the 16th and 17th centuries, most people couldn't read. The only way they got their religious instruction was through the teaching tradition of the Church.
There is a tendency for those who put the Bible first to ignore the many centuries when (a) there was no Bible; and (b) nobody could read it even if they had one. So if the Bible is all there is, there is a break in continuity that lasts about 1400 years. Not good. And think of all those people who were lost because they didn't have a Bible . . . not good.
If you simply acknowledge the traditions that were maintained by all believers, Catholic and Protestant, until very recently (mostly, the 19th century, the German theologians started it and the popular Evangelicals like Moody and Sankey continued it), then the problem is solved. Not to denigrate Scripture at all, but it does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.
Mary shares a special relationship with God that no other human past, present of future will ever experience. Like God, Mary suffered the death of Her son on a cross for our salvation. All of us have either witnessed suffered the loss of a child or witnessed the pain in others. How much greater the pain and loss when the child is Jesus Christ.
Good answer, and thanks. I still have trouble with why it’s important that Mary be an eternal virgin. As I mentioned, it doesn’t affect her participation in Christ’s immaculate birth one teeny bit, and she’s important only because He’s important, IMHO.
By Jove, you’ve GOT IT!! God Bless you.
OMG! SO TRUE!! I never heard it put that way!! 2nd. Luminous Mystery....so thankful that PJPII added those Mysteries to the Rosary!
Anything that has been used for the holy and honored should be ever after kept separate. We don't use communion chalices for drinking anything else -- even after communion is over, even if the church is closed and they go into storage. In a more general vein, you would never fly the flag placed over your veteran grandfather's casket again -- you would put it in a special case and put it in a place of honor in the living room with his medals.
You mentioned that the Magi gave the presents of gold, frankinsence and myhrr to Jesus.......but he was a BABY, so Mary and Joseph had to ACCEPT FOR HIM.
Don't you ever ask a friend or relative to say a prayer for you to Jesus for something????? That's what we do with Mary.....I can't say this enough, and I don't have any idea of why people insist,stubborn hearts maybe, but WE DON'T WORSHIP MARY!!!!!
*** I was disturbed by the image of Jesus bowing to Mary, offering her a crown while on His knees. I don’t see anyway to support this image based on scripture or the creeds.***
“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” Exodus 20:12
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:16-18
“Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.” Proverbs 31:30
Jesus is the King; therefore, Mary is the Queen Mother. Reference Solomon and his mother Bathsheba: “Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand.” I Kings 2:19
What you have to understand is that "worship" seen in old documents (or in Vatican documents translated from the Latin) means something quite different -- you run into these change of meaning problems all the time in the King James Version -- some words, like "let", actually have the OPPOSITE meaning from what they had then.
It derives originally from the term "worth," and in that sense it means only the honor you might pay to a worthy officer or other person holding a title. In Chaucer's day, it meant merely the reverence due to a civil official, and Mayors, JPs and magistrates are still addressed as "Your Worship" in England and most former British colonies. And we still speak of "that worthy citizen" - and of course Masons address the master as "Worshipful Master".
People get confused about "worship" because in English it has two different meanings, in terms of degree. But the Catechism points out the distinction between latria and dulia -- the former being the worship owed only to God, the latter the honor one pays to saints:
"This worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (Latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration. Adoration is different from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence."
Sometimes the Virgin Mary is given what is called "hyperdulia" - honor greater than that of the other saints, but less than that due to God.
Mary is what YOU make of her. She is there, full of love and concern, like your own Mother. She waits for you. You don’t necessarily need her to survive or get into Heaven.
But her motherly love, concern, and blessings certainly enrich our lives. Her support is very helpful and healing.
So call your Mother!
I’m so thrilled you wrote this. I have had many arguments with people who think Jesus is from the line of David through Joseph. Since men’s lineage was what mattered then, it was essential that Joseph, as father, be of the Davidic line. That way the Jews, who knew all the predictions intimately, would be able to recognize that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise.
But God promised that the Messiah WOULD be of the Davidic line. That’s one of the reasons Mary is so important. She gave her genetic code (code from the line of David) to her Son and fulfilled the prophesy.
God bless you for your open mind and your ecumenical attitude!
May I ask why you are sending commercial messages about Mary to me?
Mary isn’t what I make of her. She is a woman of God and
most blessed among women, regardless of what anyone “makes
of her”.
1. She doesn’t wait for you - the Bible never says such a thing.
2. The Bible never says she supports us or heals us.
3. She was Christ’s mother. She isn’t my mother. I honor her as God foretold. I don’t make her into an idol or place
her between myself and Christ Himself.
As I said, Protestants tend to make too little of Mary,
Catholics too much. Marionites way, way too much. At times
is seems some of you guys want to make her equal to God.
I suspect you mean well. I appreciate your well wishes.
It’s just that they aren’t Biblical.
best,
ampu
Perhaps the mosaic showed that because it was teaching the idea that we must honor our father and our mother. Christ subjected Himself to the authority and parenting of Mary and Joseph.
I believe Christ came and lived in the womb; was born and lived as an infant, an obedient child, a young man; worked and begged; became a teacher; lived through pain, loneliness and injury, and endured death in order to sanctify and validate every aspect of our human existence and experience.
The mosaic may have been showing Him giving honor to His parent, as well as establishing her role in Heaven.
Actually, it is Biblical. She was foretold. She initiated Christ’s first miracle, the first sign of His mission. He said, “Behold your mother.” She was in the room with all the men when the Holy Spirit came. I think that’s pretty huge. Why did the Holy Spirit want her there?
Now add in all the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes. These are proven medical miracles that no one refutes. They have been thoroughly examined by skeptics of every faith. So she does heal. Her messages during those apparitions are all about longing for us, waiting for us, wanting us to know her Son, asking us to pray to know her Son better.
I wasn’t sending you a commercial message about Mary. I was telling you about her; about how most Catholics see her.
Not everything is Biblical. The New Testament states that a book of everything that Christ said and did would fill a room. Many of the things we know about Christ are from that wealth of knowledge that wasn’t written down, but was known, by the Apostles.
Gaudete Sunday is the 3rd Sunday in Advent and Laetare Sunday is the 4th Sunday in Lent. Both are Sundays for which rose vestaments are worn, rose altar hangings are used and flowers adorn the altar. They offer a refreshing break amid the penitentinal seasons.
The other children are absent from the Gospel narratives during (a) the census and journey to Bethlehem, and (b) the flight into Egypt.
I know that there's a tendency for Bible-centered believers to think that every tradition not explicitly founded on the Bible is 'made up' and hence worthless, but unless you acknowledge some tradition, you don't even have a Bible. And of course the Bible itself (especially in the letters of St. Paul) assumes and refers to an ongoing tradition existing outside of and side by side with the written word. And that tradition exists in unbroken continuity from the Apostles to the present day.
Remember that until the rise of the middle class in the 16th and 17th centuries, most people couldn't read. The only way they got their religious instruction was through the teaching tradition of the Church.
There is a tendency for those who put the Bible first to ignore the many centuries when (a) there was no Bible; and (b) nobody could read it even if they had one. So if the Bible is all there is, there is a break in continuity that lasts about 1400 years. Not good. And think of all those people who were lost because they didn't have a Bible . . . not good.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Many Evangelicals seem to be convinced that believers in times past had as ready an access to printed Scripture as they themselves do.
Some 20 years ago, there was a popular illustrator (name escapes me for the moment) whose work appeared in Christian book and gift shops. This artist did her work in soft pastels.
One of her works showed a family (Old Testament) at home: father, mother and child. Father was seated outside the home with the other two. Father had a scroll (Torah?) in his hands and was reading from it to them. All looked rather Anglo-Saxon in appearance.
It impressed me as a touching sort of historic revisionism. No family that humble would have a copy of the Torah in their home to pull out to read from now and then, as a modern Christian would be able to read from his/her Bible. If anything, I think, the family in that picture would have been more appropriately pictured at their local synagogue listening to the rabbi present and read from the Torah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.