Posted on 05/14/2003 7:00:12 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Recently I heard about an organization that was founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe called the Knights of the Immaculata (Militia Immaculata). The purpose of the Knights is to do all one can for the conversion of sinners, heretics, schismatics, and so on, above all the Masons, and for the sanctifcation of all persons under the sponsorship of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Their website is http://www.consecration.com.
I found an article on their site at the link at the top of the page that was written by St. Maximilian himself. It is an explanation of the prayer of (Marian) total consecration that Kolbe wrote. This is the prayer:
Immaculata, Queen of heaven and earth, refuge of sinners and our most loving Mother, God has willed to entrust the entire order of mercy to you. I, N..., a repentant sinner, cast myself at your feet humbly imploring you to take me with all that I am and have, wholly to yourself as your possession and property. Please make of me, of all my powers of soul and body, of my whole life, death and eternity, whatever most pleases you.
If it pleases you, use all that I am and have without reserve, wholly to accomplish what was said of you: "She will crush your head," and, "You alone have destroyed all heresies in the world." Let me be a fit instrument in your immaculate and merciful hands for introducing and increasing your glory to the maximum in all the many strayed and indifferent souls, and thus help extend as far as possible the blessed kingdom of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus. For wherever you enter you obtain the grace of conversion and growth in holiness, since it is through your hands that all graces come to us from the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
V. Allow me to praise you, O sacred Virgin.
R. Give me strength against your enemies.
In his commentary on the prayer, he explains the prayer by dividing by key parts and explaining each part. In the part where he explains "...our most loving Mother...," Kolbe writes the following:
The Immaculata is the mother of our entire supernatural life because she is the Mediatrix of the grace of God, hence our mother in the sphere of grace, in the supernatural sphere. She is a most loving mother, because you do not have any mother so affectionate, so loving, so godlike, so Immaculate, so wholly divine.
Tantumergo - you should be a priest ;-)
Fleischerei (literally "fleshery") - which I assumed was a house of ill reputeI'm still laughing ... Reminds me of a date in college at the Bronx Zoo. In my enthusiasm to see the tigers, I pulled at my girlfriend's elbow and bellowed out, "Let's go the cat house now!"
So at first glance, it seems wrong to call her "so wholly divine." What do you think?
I wouldn't worry too much about it - unless speaking with Protestants :-)
Taking into consideration the time and place that he wrote this, I think the context is orthodox. Just like the term "sanctification" is used, the term "deification" used to be used a lot in terms of our final goal in life. That is, to be made godly. In other words, to have a share in the Divine Life of the Blessed Trinity as sons and daughters in the Son. That's what Grace is - the life of Christ (God) in us!
Think of the Preparation of the Gifts in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the Priest pours a small amount of holy water into the altar wine before the Consecration. What does he say? (Paraphrase) "Christ shared in our humanity so that we can share in his Divinity". Through Grace, our goal in life to to be made gods! Not in the sense of, say, the Mormons, who teach that they can be individual gods of our their own worlds, or in the sense that we will be the One True God, or even the pantheistic concept of us being part of a "universal soul" or some such. But in the sense that in the Beatific Vision, where we will see God "face to face", we will have a full share in the Divinity of Christ.
Mary, who was conceived without Original Sin (whence humanity fell from and lost the Grace of God in our souls), and was "full of Grace" (a singular title pronounced to her as her name by the archangel Gabriel), and who was Assumed into Heaven and made the Queen-Mother of all Creation as the ever virgin mother of Christ, can then be said to be wholly divine in that sense.
Here's the Catholic answer to your question, from Catholic Insight
Mary, Spouse of the Holy Ghost
Former Catholic Eric Svendsen keeps looking for reasons to persist in his rejection of the true Faith. He has before tried to deny Mary the rightful title "Mother of God," but his arguments are fully refuted here and here. Basically, his errors concerning this issue lie in his inability to grasp deductive logic, in his inability to grasp the fallacy of equivocation, and in his heresies concerning Jesus Christ. As is always the case, people who reject Mary's title "Mother of God" do so ultimately because they are wrong about the nature and personhood of Christ. In fact, I think that in almost all cases, opposition to Catholic Marian doctrines is rooted in heretical Christology, for mariological doctrines are mere corollaries of the truths about Christ.
Anyway, Svendsen's latest endeavor is to disprove the Catholic teaching that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. In his article, “What Do You Think About the Christ? Whose Son is He?” he tries to prove that Mary cannot be the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. But as he lost the debate on Mary being the Mother of God, so he is also losing this one, as I will demonstrate using philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, and historical facts.
Svendsen asks:
If Mary is the “Mother of God” because of her “parenting” role in the Incarnation, and if Mary is the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” because of His “parenting” role in the Incarnation, then doesn’t it follow that Jesus must be the Son of the Holy Spirit? Put another way, doesn’t the same reasoning that leads Roman Catholics to conclude that Mary is the “Mother of God” (viz., her biological relationship to Jesus) also lead us to the conclusion that since the Holy Spirit, as the true “Spouse” of Mary, is the biological “father” of Jesus, then He must also be the Father of God? Can Jesus have two heavenly Fathers; God the Father as well as God the Holy Spirit? When Jesus refers to His “heavenly Father” is he really referring to the Holy Spirit, the “true” Spouse of Mary, and hence His “true” Father? Or perhaps Modalism is correct, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are really one person sharing two different modes?
.....Or perhaps Eric Svendsen is simply wrong in his analysis here. Mr. Svendsen seems to have a very hard time grasping the concept of the Most Holy Trinity. Now, certainly, it is the greatest mystery ever, and I don't profess to "know" it in any strict sense of the term. However, there are certain things we know about this great mystery, and that is that the Trinity means One Divine Substance, i.e. One God, in Three Divine Persons.
Now, according to Catholic teaching, which Svendsen does not seem to have bothered to check, the work of the Incarnation in Mary's womb is the work of the entire Trinity: "Jesus Christ [was made] incarnate by the WHOLE TRINITY IN COMMON, conceived of Mary" (Lateran Council IV, Denzinger #429; emphasis added). Also, the Eleventh Council of Toledo decreed: "We must believe that the ENTIRE TRINITY accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable" (Denzinger #284).
We find this confirmed also by Holy Scripture, which likewise tells of the Incarnation as effected by all three persons: the Father in Hebrews 10:5; the Son in Philippians 2:7, and the Holy Ghost in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35.
No doubt, the impregnation of Mary is particularly attributed to the Holy Ghost, as the above two Gospel citations make clear, but it is nevertheless a work of the entire Trinity.
This needs some clarification. Since God is one in substance, whatever one Person does, the other two also do, in virtue of their being the same God. Thus we have the dogmatic teaching of the Church that "All the ad extra Activities of God are common to the Three Persons" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 72). Biblical support for this dogma is found in John 5:19 and John 14:10, for instance. And of course we also find this teaching rooted in the Tradition of the Church; so, for instance, St. Augustine teaches that "As the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are inseparable, so they work inseparably" (De Trinitatae I. 4, 7; qtd. in Ott, p. 72).
Nevertheless, throughout Scripture and Catholic teaching, we find so-called "appropriations." Dr. Ott states: "By appropriation is understood a mode of predication in which the properties and activities of God which are common to the Three Persons, are attributed to an Individual Person. . . ." (p. 72; emphasis added). Thus, for instance, we speak of the creation of the world as particularly associated with the Father, the "Creator," even though, technically speaking, the Son and the Holy Ghost created as well, since God is one (see John 1:3; Psalm 103:30 [104:30]). St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of whether the doctors of the Church have correctly appropriated which divine actions to which divine Persons in his Summa Theologica I, q. 39, a. 8.
The next important consideration is that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God BEFORE ALL AGES already. His Sonship did not come into being with the Incarnation. And there is only ONE Sonship (vs. the heresy of Adoptianism), since there is only one Son, and one divine Person. Christ was eternally begotten of the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds from both Father and Son. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus is the Son of the Father, not of the Holy Ghost. So that settles Svendsen's question about whether Christ is the Son of the Father or of the Holy Ghost. Christ cannot be called the Son of the Holy Ghost for the very reason that Christ was begotten from all eternity by the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both. That's why. It has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
But of course Svendsen wants to press us into a dilemma, for he now insists that then Mary cannot be the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost is not the Father of Christ. So how do we answer this?
Well, this is how:
Since the entire Trinity brought about the Incarnation, and since this was possible only since all Three Divine Persons are of One Divine Substance, the Holy Ghost is no less involved in the Incarnation than the other two Persons. Nevertheless, it is fitting that certain actions should be appropriated to one particular Person of the Most Holy Trinity rather than another, as demonstrated above. Thus, Mary is the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, since it is mentioned explicitly that the HOLY GHOST came upon Mary to impregnate her, even though it was, technically, a work of the entire Trinity (cf. with the above Bible citations again).
So, just as it is appropriate to say that the Father is the Creator, even though, technically, the entire Trinity created, it is likewise correct to say Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, even if the Incarnation was accomplished by all Three Divine Persons.
Now, let no one think that the role of the Holy Ghost was similar to--excuse the yucky analogy (which comes from Svendsen himself)--that of a physician implanting a seed in vitro. Svendsen claims such an in vitro procedure does not make the physician the bridegroom of the woman receiving the seed, and hence the Holy Ghost's impregnation of Mary does not make Him the Spouse of Mary either. But there is an essential difference here because, unlike God, the physician does not implant his own seed into the woman, but someone else's. That's the essential difference to the Incarnation, and hence Svendsen's analogy fails.
Finally, let me offer bits and pieces of a theological treatise on Mary's bridal motherhood by Fr. Matthias Scheeben, taken from his excellent work Mariology, Vol. I (St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1945), to reflect on the Incarnation being the work of the entire Trinity, and also to further expose the errors of Eric Svendsen:
The relation of the mother to her divine Son must be traced not alone to the mother's natural activity, but primarily to the activity of her divine Son Himself, who makes and accepts her as His mother, and gives Himself to her as her Son. From this angle the motherhood of Mary is formally founded on the idea of the divine Logos who infuses Himself in the virginal womb of the mother through His hypostatic infusion into the flesh taken from her. Through this, Mary is as much anointed and made the Mother of God as the flesh, taken from her, is made the flesh of God, for the Logos is so taken up in her that she herself is taken up in Him in an analogous way as the flesh taken from her. Consequently the relation of the mother to the divine Son appears as a marriage with His divine person. Here now the Bridegroom gives Himself to the bride as her Son and dwells in her in virtue of this gift. Thus the union possesses the full force and closeness of that relation in which the ordinary mother stands to the person of her child taken up in her bosom. [pp.162-63]
....the mother of the Son of God can also be called in a special manner "bride of the Father." For, as mother she has received the Son of the Father through donation from His side as her Son; she possesses Him conjointly with the Father and is therefore connected with the Father by His Son as being hers also. These expressions indicative of the union of Mary with God are more unusual, and rightly so. Through the very fact that the mother of the Son of God is characterized as connected through marriage with God as Father, the thought arises that, as with a human marriage, here also not only the dynamic influence of the Father on the mother, but also the substantial relation of the mother to the Father, is the foundation of the substantial relation of Mary to the Son and precedes this one. In reality the former is first accomplished by the latter. We could even go so far as to think that the Son of the Father is also first produced with the cooperation of the mother, and that the mother is therefore also associated with the Father in the generatio Verbi. Some modern writers have expressed themselves thus. Precisely to obviate the forming of such erroneous opinions is one of the reasons why the bridal state of the Mother of God is usually referred to the Holy Ghost instead of to the Father. Through the fact that the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Logos, appears as bridegroom, the production of the Logos is formally presented as complete in itself. The relation also of the mother to the Father is presented as effected by the Logos Himself. [pp. 174-75; bold print added]
Oh, Mr. Svendsen. The Trinity and the Incarnation are so much more mysterious than your evangelical heresies allow. You cannot accept the Marian teachings and you cannot cherish their beauty because you are blinded by your heretical views about Christ. But I believe that your true motivation in rejecting the Catholic Faith is not so much the dogmatic theology as it is the moral theology. With your essay defending contraception, you have pretty much told the world why you are no longer Catholic. It is only conjecture, but I believe the root of your rejection of Catholicism lies there. Alas, how many people want God in their lives but not in their bedrooms.
To sum up, Svendsen is wrong because he misses the following essential points:
(1) Christ has been the Son of the Father from all eternity; He didn't become the Son at the Incarnation
(2) The entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation
(3) Through appropriation of God's ad extra actions, we can say that the Mary's Spouse is the Holy Ghost, rather than the Father or the Son
And these considerations resolve Svendsen's query. QED.
a full share in the Divinity of Christ ... "full of Grace"From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #375:
375. "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original 'state of holiness and justice'.[Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.] This GRACE of original holiness was 'to share in. . .divine life'.[Cf. LG 2.]"And Lumen Gentium 2:
2. The eternal Father, by a free and hidden plan of His own wisdom and goodness, created the whole world. His plan was to raise men to a participation of the divine life. Fallen in Adam, God the Father did not leave men to themselves, but ceaselessly offered helps to salvation, in view of Christ, the Redeemer "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".(2) All the elect, before time began, the Father "foreknew and pre- destined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren".(3) He planned to assemble in the holy Church all those who would believe in Christ. Already from the beginning of the world the foreshadowing of the Church took place. It was prepared in a remarkable way throughout the history of the people of Israel and by means of the Old Covenant.(1*) In the present era of time the Church was constituted and, by the outpouring of the Spirit, was made manifest. At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and "from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,"(2*) will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church."
I realize the rationale, but in so extrapolating have you distorted the truth and introduced confusion at best. My problem with theotokos is that the term while true in one sense lends itself to many wrong conclusions and deductions.
Ohh, gotta run, but quickly...
There's a history to wrong conclusions and deductions, and then there is the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the Church into all Truth.
The issue here, historically speaking, is the hypostatic union of the Divine and Human natures in the one Person of the Eternal Son of God. That is, the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity as Jesus Christ. The mystery of the Theotokos, is the mystery of the Incarnation of God.
In order to understand correctly Who and What Jesus is exactly, requires the understanding of Mary as the Theotokos, the "God bearer". If Jesus is truly the Son of God, and if He truly became a Man without changing His Divinity, then Mary is truly the Mother of God! This, of course, assumes you have a hold on the impossible to comprehend mystery of the Blessed Trinity first!
The Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon. The heretics Nestorius, Julian the Apsostate, Apollinaris, etc, etc. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Sixtus III, St. Celestine, Pope Leo the Great. Origen, Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, Ephrem, etc, etc. This battle has been fought and won long ago - despite wrong conclusions and deductions.
Jesus' first miracle, and the start of his public ministry was at the initiation of His Mother. Why did he perform the miracle if it was a sin? Mary commands us to Do whatever he tells you, what is wrong with that?
52 God, who "dwells in unapproachable light", wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.
The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously "by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other"4 and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.
Jesus is an intercessor to all of us. But sometimes Jesus and the Holy Spirit work through other people. This does not diminish Their role at all. For example, St. Paul and the Gospel writers have played a roole in your salvation, no? Their role, given to them by the Grace of God, in no way diminishes the connection between you and Jesus.
If you met a nonChristian, would you witness to them? Would you help them to become Christian? If you would, then you are a mediator between them and Christ. That doesn't lessen Christ's role in their salvation. To the contrary, that was God's plan. Why is it diminishing God's glory to admit that he works through people on this earth?
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.