Posted on 06/11/2007 8:11:53 PM PDT by markomalley
| CHURCH GREW IN UNDERSTANDING OF MARY’S ROLE |
| Pope John Paul II |
|
|
Down the centuries, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has sought to understand more clearly the revealed truth about the Mother of God "The sparse information on Mary's earthly life is compensated by its quality and theological richness, which contemporary exegesis has carefully brought to light", the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 8 November, as he continued his reflections on the Virgin Mary. The Pope's catechesis on Mary in Sacred Scripture and theological reflection was the fourth in the series on the Blessed Mother and was given in Italian. 1. In our preceding catecheses we saw how the doctrine of Mary's motherhood passed from its first formula, "Mother of Jesus", to the more complete and explicit, "Mother of God", even to the affirmation of her maternal involvement in the redemption of humanity. For other aspects of Marian doctrine as well, many centuries were necessary to arrive at the explicit definition of the revealed truths concerning Mary. Typical examples of this faith journey towards the ever deeper discovery of Mary's role in the history of salvation are the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, proclaimed, as we know by two of my venerable predecessors, respectively, the Servant of God Pius IX in 1854, and the Servant of God Pius XII during the Jubilee Year of 1950.
Mariology is a particular field of theological research: in it the Christian people's love for Mary intuited, frequently in anticipation, certain aspects of the mystery of the Blessed Virgin, calling the attention of theologians and pastors to them. Mother of Jesus had role in salvation history 2. We must recognize that, at first sight, the Gospels offer scant information on the person and life of Mary. We would certainly like to have had fuller information about her, which would have enabled us to know the Mother of God better. This expectation remains unsatisfied, even in the other New Testament writings where an explicit doctrinal development regarding Mary is lacking. Even St Paul's letters, which offer us a rich reflection on Christ and his work, limit themselves to stating, in a very significant passage, that God sent his Son "born of woman" (Gal 4:4). Very little is said about Mary's family. If we exclude the infancy narratives, in the Synoptic Gospels we find only two statements which shed some light on Mary: one concerning the attempt by his "brethren" or relatives to take Jesus back to Nazareth (cf. Mk 3:2 1; Mt 12:48); the other, in response to a woman's exclamation about the blessedness of Jesus' Mother (Lk 11:27).
Nevertheless, Luke, in the infancy Gospel, in the episodes of the Annunciation, the Visitation, the birth of Jesus, the presentation of the Child in the temple and his finding among the teachers at the age of 12, not only provides us with some important facts, but presents a sort of "proto-Mariology" of fundamental interest. His information is indirectly completed by Matthew in the account of the annunciation to Joseph (Mt 1:18-25), but only with regard to the virginal conception of Jesus. Moreover, John's Gospel deepens our knowledge of the value for salvation history of the role played by the Mother of Jesus, when it records her presence at the beginning and end of his public fife. Particularly significant is Mary's presence at the Cross, when she received from her dying Son the charge to be mother to the beloved disciple and, in him, to all Christians (cf. Jn 2:1-12; Jn 19:25-27). Lastly, the Acts of the Apostles expressly numbers the Mother of Jesus among the women of the first community awaiting Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:14). However, in the absence of further New Testament evidence and reliable historical sources, we know nothing of Mary's life after the Pentecost event nor of the date and circumstances of her death. We can only suppose that she continued to live with the Apostle John and that she was very closely involved in the development of the first Christian community. 3. The sparse information on Mary's earthly life is compensated by its quality and theological richness, which contemporary exegesis has carefully brought to light. Moreover, we must remember that the Evangelists' viewpoint is totally Christological and is concerned with the Mother only in relation to the joyful proclamation of the Son. As St Ambrose observed, the Evangelist, in expounding the mystery of the Incarnation, "believed it was better not to seek further testimonies about Mary's virginity, in order not to seem the defender of the Virgin rather than the preacher of the mystery" (Exp. in Lucam, 2, 6: PL 15, 1555).
We can recognize in this fact a special intention of the Holy Spirit, who desired to awaken in the Church an effort of research which, preserving the centrality of the mystery of Christ, might not be caught up in details about Mary's life, but aim above all at discovering her role in the work of salvation, her personal holiness and her maternal mission in Christian life. Faith of the simple recognized Mary's holiness 4. The Holy Spirit guides the Church's effort, committing her to take on Mary's own attitudes. In the account of Jesus' birth, Luke noted how his mother kept all these things, "pondering them in her heart" (Lk 2:19), striving, that is, to "put together" (symballousa), in a deeper vision, all the events of which she was the privileged witness. Similarly, the people of God are also urged by the same Spirit to understand deeply all that has been said about Mary, in order to progress in the knowledge of her mission, intimately linked to the mystery of Christ.
As Mariology develops, the particular role of the Christian people emerges. They co-operate, by the affirmation and witness of their faith, in the progress of Marian doctrine, which normally is not only the work of theologians, even if their task is indispensable to deepening and clearly explaining the datum of faith and the Christian experience itself. The faith of the simple is admired and praised by Jesus, who recognized in it a marvellous expression of the Father's benevolence (cf. Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21). Down the centuries it continues to proclaim the marvels of the history of salvation, hidden from the wise. This faith, in harmony with the Virgin's simplicity, has led to progress in the recognition of her personal holiness and the transcendent value of her motherhood. The mystery of Mary commits every Christian, in communion with the Church, "to pondering in his heart" what the Gospel revelation affirms about the Mother of Christ. In the logic of the Magnificat, after the example of Mary, each one will personally experience God's love and will discover a sign of God's tenderness for man in the marvels wrought by the Blessed Trinity in the woman "full of grace". |
If the Holy Spirit was indeed “Mary’s spouse,” then both Mary and Joseph were guilty of adultery by their subsequent marriage. Would not the idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming wed to another have been repulsive and have all the ingredients of sacrilege to Him?
My point is you might want to rethink your rationale there, friend.
= = =
Sorry, but this kind of begs for the following . . .
Now Fru, you can’t go expecting such things to be logical—especially at the spiritual serf level. We just have to take things from the magicsterical ON FAITH—whether they make sense, or not! Harumph!
[IOW, excellent points.]
This multitude of competing, conflicting denominations is no sign of God’s work; therefore, it must be the work of the Evil One. Somewhere in the midst of these 30,000 denominations, there is one true church, and the rest are in sin and rebellion.
What balderdash.
God used Paul and Barnabas’ split for the Good of the Gospel. He’s been able to do that even with church splits.
The above assertion ignores the fact that within the RC edifice as well as within the Proty geography there are great pockets of truth and great pockets of error.
It has to do with . . . drum roll . . .
BEING HUMAN.
And last I checked, the RC’s had not found any more effective insurance against being human than have the Proties.
Claiming that Jesus designed the RC edifice
is not the same as it being fact.
I don’t find it close to fact, actually.
Help me understand what you are saying . . .
Are you saying that, the RC edifice, the magisterium
has declared that . . .
really a kind of what . . . Mormonish sort of phenomenon was Holy Will . . .
that Joseph, Mary and Holy Spirit constituted a threesome?
And Proties are supposed to be the horridly shocking folks. Goodness!
Amen!
They is I.
I intentionally didn't make it a caucus. You know why?
Because a caucus thread is essentially an "amen corner." Theology should involve the discussion and exchange of ideas. Ideas that don't necessarily agree. Ideas that occasionally clash.
I, for one, learn a lot from these threads. I don't enjoy reading Denzinger. I don't really enjoy reading the Catechism. I don't really enjoy reading the Fathers. I prefer Tom Clancy. But I study from those documents. I find that an environment that is somewhat confrontational, in a Christian sense, is an environment where 'iron sharpeneth iron.' I learn in such an environment. You challenge me. I have to rely upon my somewhat feeble memory or go hit the books.
None of that happens in a caucus thread.
So, with the exception of some, few, posts which are pure avian compost, I like the challenge. These threads make me a far better Christian equipped with Christian (historic, apostolic) doctrine. Put on the whole armor of God. So I, for one, thank you for challenging me. And doing so in the spirit of Christian charity.
Yet we are accused of baiting.
Did the article here make accusations against any Protestant denomination? Did it falsely state any doctrine preached by your ecclesiastic community? Then how can I be accused of baiting? I didn't force you to come here and help me out. You weren't required, to defend a misrepresentation of your beliefs, to come here and correct a misstatement of your beliefs. You came here of your own free will. And I appreciate it.
IF I posted an article written by a Catholic that misrepresented what your community (non-Catholic) believes, particularly if that misrepresentation was inflammatory, then that would be baiting. But I haven't baited anybody. Particularly by posting this article.
But seriously, I do appreciate you challenging me. Particularly when you do so in a spirit of Christian charity. Please don't stop doing so. Particularly in an attitude of Christian charity.
The passage tells us where Scripture came from, not how it is supposed to be used, but you need to look down to verse 21 to see it. I think the word “for” was added to verse 20 in the translation posted & KJV seems to have added the words “of any” in its place, which Strongs doesn’t address.
Private is only highlighted, because it was the word I used in my search.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=private&Version=KJV
21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
You know, I cite those verses all the time...as a justification why we need to understand the Scripture in light of the Magesterium.
In fact, there are those who cite the fallout from not following those verses as the reason for the proliferation of Protestant denominations (each new denomination being founded based upon a slightly different private interpretation).
And, no, I'm not trying to inflame anybody by saying that. But if you think about it...
Fair enough.
I largely agree.
And, you are right, this article was not particularly overtly baiting.
But IF some Proties related to it as SOME RC’s relate to some of our posts, then they would call it baiting.
I think the whole issue of baiting is much overwrought.
If you don’t like the heat—stay out of the kitchen. If you want to play iron sharpening iron as I also love,
then take the sparks as they come and go on
with Christian charity. As, I think, you essentially say.
You are really a lot more likeable than I’d always want to let on like. Can’t allow that hat size to increase dramatically and all.
Thanks for your kind msg.
When both verses are together they do not make for a convincing argument, though I coulda been had by the Douay Rheims translation of verse 20 used alone.
Litany of Humility
O Jesus! Meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed; Deliver me, Jesus
From the desire of being loved; Deliver me, Jesus
From the desire of being extolled; etc.
From the desire of being honored‚
From the desire of being praised‚…
From the desire of being preferred to others‚…
From the desire of being consulted‚…
From the desire of being approved‚…
From the fear of being humiliated‚…
From the fear of being despised‚…
From the fear of suffering rebukes‚…
From the fear of being calumniated‚…
From the fear of being forgotten‚…
From the fear of being ridiculed‚…
From the fear of being wronged‚…
From the fear of being suspected‚…
That others may be loved more than I; Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I; Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease; etc.
That others may be chosen and I set aside‚…
That others may be praised and I unnoticed‚…
That others may be preferred to me in everything‚…
That others may become holier than I, Provided that I may become as holy...
as I should‚…
Amen.
I try to pray the above at least once a week. More if I start having trouble getting my head through an average-sized doorframe.
Excellent.
I think I’ll save that in a special Word file folder.
I’m amazed at how much work The Lord has done on several of those things the last 30 years.
Much appreciated.
I’m truly humbled and blessed by how much of that was cause for rejoicing.
Thanks so enormously. What a treasure of a surprise.
Thanks Big.
“And you?”
Dear quix, why do you ask?
The less I say about myself the better.
Sufficient to say, my roots were Protestant and much of my extended family still is.
I have no brittle coating, no shoulder chip and no desire whatsoever in my heart or soul to sow seeds of dissension or to belittle the beliefs of others who also call themselves Christian.
But in the end, it isn’t about me, at all. It’s about all of us who profess belief in the Lord Jesus and His Redemption of us, and how we respond to that marvelous gift.
I can only pray that He does not find in me shallow ground, or shifting sand, or the kiss of Judas.
Enough said.
If you pursue the Eric Svendsen analysis a little further, you’ll see that the final figure he arrived at was 21 Protestant denominations and 16 Catholic denominations. In any event, I believe that Catholics should be more judicious in using the “thousands” of denominations argument, especially when you realize that this kind of number has been reached not entirely out of good will, and is arrived at by counting “jurisdictional boundaries”, e.g., Southern Baptists, Conservative Baptists as different denomations, and in some cases each independent Baptist church as a separate denomination, even though they agree in Faith and Practice.
I would contend that it's more than that. Please notice what John Paul stated:
This expectation remains unsatisfied, even in the other New Testament writings where an explicit doctrinal development regarding Mary is lacking.
However, in the absence of further New Testament evidence and reliable historical sources, we know nothing of Mary's life after the Pentecost event nor of the date and circumstances of her death. We can only suppose that she continued to live with the Apostle John and that she was very closely involved in the development of the first Christian community.
As Mariology develops, the particular role of the Christian people emerges.
It's rather curious that the Catholics often charge us Protestants with interpreting scripture apart from a Magesterium. Yet, here is a clear examine documented by the Pope of how Marian doctrine is developing apart from scripture and historical traditions. Fascinating.
Anglais, s’il vous plait?
Well, the “Catholic” groups that you mentioned are not considered Catholic. They’re not in communion with the Church, and Catholics are not permitted to receive Communion in their churches.
As for Protestants, who is to decide? I’m not sure what constitutes “core Reformation doctrine.” But I’m sure it would be a real surprise to some of the flakier little charismatic country churches around here that they’re “not Protestant,” because they certainly consider themselves to be so. The schismatic formerly Catholic groups you mentioned above, however, know perfectly well that they are not in communion with Rome.
The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).
You may have been reading some of the discussions of the liturgical forms lately: these are areas where there is legitimate difference of opinion, and even variation in practice. But then there are groups, such as the SSPX, that go beyond that, and then they become schismatic, and separate themselves from the Church by rejecting its authority. So you see there is an authority to reject, and the consequence of rejecting it is that you do not merely become a “dissident Catholic group,” you become not Catholic at all and are outside of the Church.
Just thought I’d spice up #38 for you a bit, FRiend.
;-o)
F
***************
Yes, it remains a mystery to me why they do not. The explanations given do not persuade me.
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.