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". |
The protestants who think Mary had other children probably don,t realize that even Luther, Calvin and Zwingly believed in Mary,s perpetual virginity
Here is what they said
JOHN CALVIN —
“We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called ‘brethren.’ Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as ‘brethren’ of Christ.” (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
“There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!
MARTIN LUTHER —
“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, AND SHE REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THAT.” (LUTHER’S WORKS 22, 23)
[Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life]
“...A virgin before the conception and birth, she REMAINED a virgin also AT the birth and AFTER it.” (February 2, 1546 Feast of Presentation of Christ in the Temple)
ULRICH ZWINGLI —
“I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God AND REMAINED A VIRGIN PURE AND INTACT IN CHILDBIRTH AND ALSO AFTER THE BIRTH, FOR ALL ETERNITY. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels.” (from Augustin Bea “Mary and the Protestants” MARIAN STUDIES Apr 61)
“I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY.” (January 1528 in Berne)
“There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS!
Two points of clarification:
1. Don't forget that Protestants do not view Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or any other theologian as infallible. Presenting a case for them believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary neither undermines the correctness of the rest of their theology nor necessitates that any of us adopt that doctrine.
2. That quote in particular from Calvin does not prove that Calvin held the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. All it says is that he did not believe the Scriptures in question in Matthew disproved the notion of her perpetual virginity.
So much comes down to ecclesiology and authority. It's interesting: as a former Prot clergydude (Episcopal variety) I finally contacted an assoc of RCs similarly situated. And the barraged me with heaps o' material the vast majority of which dealt with questions of authority.
And this is part of why I think much of our conversation should be along the lines of, "Here's what it looks like from here," and "What do you guys think of that?" rather than,"I'm right and you're not." because outside of a very few confessional agreements ("Jesus is Lord,") we are really looking at things from VERY different perspectives.
Waiter! One paume'd'or with oak leaf clusters for my friend here!
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91
The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.
The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).
"From now on, I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you, or even an angel from heaven, to judge my teaching or to examine it. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world--1 Peter 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by an angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angel's judge through this teaching, as St. Paul say--1 Cor. 6:3--so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved--for it is God's and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine, but God's."
Actual words of Luther, "Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called." July, 1522. Quoted in "The Catholic Verses," Dave Armstrong, Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, NH, pg 35. 2004.
BINGO! Give that man a Cupie Doll for post of the day. Too bad, Roman Catholics refuse to understand this point. If they believed in her perpetual verginity, they were wrong.
I understand your perspective.
I just disagree with it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Some of us HAVE studied some of these issues a lot more extensively than you seem to think.
Excellent points, as usual.
Thanks.
Please allow me to make a few points from a historical Christian perspective.(hopefully it will give you something to reflect upon)
I,m going to borrow a few things since I am pressed for time
Mary’s womb is the sacred “chalice” containing the Divine Humanity of God the Son; her womb is to be used only for that Divine purpose — because of the Holiness of God (God in the Judeo-Christian understanding is different from His Creation; and Holiness is the attribute of this difference). So there is a religious “logic” of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for Divine use or purpose, therefore never for ordinary use. It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.
Thus there are at least two sets of reasons for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The first is the one just mentioned: the Holiness of Mary’s womb to be used for no other purpose but a thoroughly Divine one, never to be desecrated by ordinary use or purpose. Second, manifesting the Divine origin of her Child. If she had other children the ordinary way then why wouldn’t her first child be just a human with a human father like His brothers and sisters? He must be a unique son of Mary to manifest being the unique Son of God the Father, having no biological father.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is in no way an implication that sex and marriage are anything less than what God designed them to be.(To make it clear, let me add that this is a sacred marital covenant which unity is expressed by the intimate relations between husband and wife.) Contrary to the usual either-or thinking found in Protestantism, Catholicism has always said that its both/and, and this is seen in the Church’s teaching re the Virgin Mary.
If I get the time in the next few days I can show you some Biblical typology in relation to Mary as the ark of the New Covenantand the importance of Mary,s perpetual virginity All the early Christians recognized this.
I wish you a most Blessed Day!
When somebody says read this it explains what I mean, I know it doesn’t.
= = =
I usually agree with that pretty wholesale.
Occasionally there are exceptions.
Of course, it's easy to make this quote seem to say something it does not given the forceful language Luther uses.
Makes me wish the FR interface had a cc line...
So, it’s your conviction that there was one
and only one available word
for all relatives of the male gender . . . cousins, uncles, brothers, nephews etc?
LOL
ROTFLOL
I suspect God insured which word was used because He meant THAT word. Cultural things can muddy it, in this case. But they are not so convincing as to build an outlandish, silly dogma on.
ST PAUL MADE VERY CLEAR that God's perspective was that the wife's body belonged to the hubby and vice versa. And that withholding one's self from one's spouse was UNCHRISTIAN.
So, either Mary was NOT A SAINT on that score and rebelled against God's standard . . . in which case she would not have warranted ascension etc.
or she was not a perpetual virgin.
“We believe that infallibility comes through the Holy Spirit.”
Protestants and Evangelicals believe that as well.
ST PAUL MADE VERY CLEAR that God's perspective was that the wife's body belonged to the hubby and vice versa. And that withholding one's self from one's spouse was UNCHRISTIAN.
So, either Mary was NOT A SAINT on that score and rebelled against God's standard . . . in which case she would not have warranted ascension etc.
or she was not a perpetual virgin.
Your point is?
;)
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.