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". |
“We believe that infallibility comes through the Holy Spirit.”
Protestants and Evangelicals believe that as well.
= = =
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
“Hermanos” (brothers) is still used in Spanish to indicate brothers and cousins in a family. The full title of a cousin is “primo hermano” (abbreviated to primo). It is not and was not unusual in many languages for the title “brother” to encompass all male relatives who were roughly in the same age cohort.
Dear Brother,here is something for you to think about...
The Holy Spirit is Mary,s spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.
I,ll try and get to the typology of this towards weeks end
I wish you a most Blessed Day.
It actually is the issue that undermines the entire Protestant claim. The fact that there exists an infinite number of Protestant spin-offs, ranging from one end of the religious spectrum to another in doctrine and often mutually exclusive in their truth claims, with each asserting itself to be the true Christian church and based on the true Scriptural teaching, shows you exactly how "Scripture and plain reason" without authority can mislead.
If you think the word "cousin" is confusing you should read Jeromes' 11 page explanation about the word "until" in Matthew 1;25.
Not my construction on reality.
Doesn’t fit the evidence, imho.
Doesn’t fit the culture.
Doesn’t fit God’s statements about marriage.
Doesn’t fit God’s priorities re the marriage bed.
Your description of reality fits much more our current culture of single parent mothers.
God has used many of us . . . and thereby our bodies . . . in numerous ways. He used Mary’s body and home in a unique way.
Doesn’t mean God abandoned and trashed His other priorities for marriage—including Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage.
Doesn’t sound like God.
Doesn’t track like God.
Doesn’t play like God.
Isn’t consistent with God’s priorities for marriage. Just isn’t.
For God to have made such an outrageously inconsistent exception for Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage, I’d have thought a whole book of the New Testament would have been devoted to it—AT LEAST A CHAPTER.
Ridiculous.
BTW, I do much appreciate your tone.
I just don’t have an enormous amount of patience on this dogma. It jangles my spirit on so many levels. I find it an offensive affront to Christ as well as to common sense and to Scriptures. That’s just my construction on reality. Not trying to offend you. But throwing a thread like this in my face will often get a forceful response.
Chinese has some similar customs.
But that’s not my point.
My point is to build such a critical dogma on such flimsy evidence is horrendously silly.
I don’t know why God didn’t emphasize the blood sibling relationship but He didn’t. NEITHER DID HE MAKE CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE the interpretation the Roman edifice layers on it.
Therefore, building a supposedly infallible dogma on such flimsy a foundation is . . . spiritual, religious malpractice of the worst kind, imho.
Guess I have an incapacity to make points clear to you.
Doesn’t fit the evidence, imho.
Thank you for admitting that it's your mere, fallible opinion.
Doesn’t fit the culture.
In your opinion. And who are you to force fit the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY into mere human culture? May GOD rebuke such nonsense!!!
Doesn’t fit God’s statements about marriage.
Opinion
Doesn’t fit God’s priorities re the marriage bed.
Opinion
Your description of reality fits much more our current culture of single parent mothers.
Opinion
God has used many of us . . . and thereby our bodies . . . in numerous ways. He used Mary’s body and home in a unique way.
Unique indeed. In more ways than some folks are willing to admit.
Doesn’t mean God abandoned and trashed His other priorities for marriage—including Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage.
Opinion
Doesn’t sound like God.
Opinion
Doesn’t track like God.
Opinion
Doesn’t play like God.
Opinion
Isn’t consistent with God’s priorities for marriage. Just isn’t.
Opinion
For God to have made such an outrageously inconsistent exception for Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage, I’d have thought a whole book of the New Testament would have been devoted to it—AT LEAST A CHAPTER.
Again, thank you for admitting that you are merely voicing your own personal, fallible, opinion. That's truly rare around here.
Ridiculous.
I agree ... but not in the way you mean it.
I don’t think that was really the foundation of the doctrine. Like many doctrines, it was something that existed in oral tradition and the belief of the first Christians, and was later “codified,” if you will, in a doctrinal formulation. The canon (of Scripture) obviously came after the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, so this was probably something that was known to or circulating in the early Christian world, and was not something retroactively extracted from the written Scriptures after they had been solidified and approved by the Church.
You can certainly see why individual interpretation went astray! I'm a translator, btw, and determining exactly how a word is being used is a very difficult task, even in modern languages. You have to get it from context, that is, both the context of the document (which is often useless) - and the context of your knowledge of the culture, the issue in question, the conditions surrounding it, and what you have learned from speaking that language and traveling in that country. In other words, even in modern translation, you're relying on "tradition" to give you an accurate understanding of written words.
Guess I'll have to make my ascii emoticons bigger!
I disagree.
There are at least what . . . 1/7th, 1/5th, 1/4th, half as many conflicting factions, congregations, orders etc. within the RC edifice as in the major sections of the Proties.
This homogeneous fantasy re the RC’s is essentially that—a fantasy. There’s lots of things in writing in lots of groups that supposedly equal thoroughgoing agreement.
But the living individuals and leaders in the different congregations and groups routinely differ in small and large ways from what’s written. Especially what was written 100’s of years ago.
. . . . WITHIN the RC edifice.
I can imagine.
Personally, I think I’d rather Holy Spirit and even LaHaye enlighten me on that! LOL.
The NAB gives this commentary on Mark 6:3
The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters; cf Genesis 14:16; 29:15; Lev 10:4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v 17, “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas.
I didn’t realize I had so much in common with so many priestly,
Opinions
on so many RC encyclicals . . .
One either has parroting
or one has
opinions and nuances of opinions.
Then there can be anointed opinions . . . and even anointed transcriptions . . . all of which can be considered
flawed opinions by those not convinced of such anointing.
It appears that you really believe that the RC edifice is far less plagued with
OPINIONS
than the Proties are.
LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM
But there is one Catechism and one Bible.
People are free to think, to postulate, to argue and to adopt various positions, but there is one Magisterium to keep the Church on the right track.
As a matter of fact, what do you consider conflicting factions? And how did you come up with speculative numbers of 1/7 to 1/2? And how does the Church act differently than its written documents indicate that She should?
Your sequencing narrative is likely plenty correct . . . though I wouldn’t say “known.”
Just be at a Pentecostal special meeting where Holy Spirit moves in very persistent dramatic power and miracles.
Watch then, how the faithful treat the servant of God through whom Holy Spirit has moved.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all that SOME around the time of the early church would humanly elevate Mary in a list of ways.
Doesn’t mean God did.
And, as we have seen, as late as 1940’s . . . such elevation was still being . . . embellished, added to etc.
That fact alone indicates to me the level of nonsense involved.
Ahhhhh . . .
I try to avoid putting too much weight on the emoticons. Such critters seem inherently small to bear so much.
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.