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". |
Your reasoning looks sound. Your desire to be & become more pleasing to God looks to be coming from a good place. But you're still walking, while I told you to sit down. Sit down & listen with your heart. Thy will be done!
Whether or not you offer testimony as worthy as +Paul's, reason takes us, makes us try to be what we want ourselves to be. Let go, put it all in His hands, what you want no longer matters. Consider all of the "rational" things that Saul (+Paul) had to let go of. He made himself an outcast. Don't fight against arrogance & pride, face them down. (I'll have you standing out on some street corner with a sandwich board that says "Jesus loves You" in no time flat.)
Agreed, and I thought your earlier observation (and this one) was an excellent conclusion drawn from the "soul sleep" belief.
Actually, my mom isn't dead (well, not yet anyway), and I had no idea that either of them were mentioned in Psalms! I know my mom may look old, but you've got to be kidding me!
There is little talk in the Old Testament of what the soul experiences following death, and it's from this limited POV that the "soul sleep" idea takes it's origin. More often than not, the psalmists talk about "sheol" (sometimes translated "the grave") as the final resting place for the departed believer. Because the OT usually discusses individuals as whole beings, and not as spirits and bodies, no demarcation is made between the cessation of body functions and the continued existence of the spirit. It isn't until the NT that we find this theme elaborated on.
For the "soul sleep" adherent, verses that talk about a post-death consciousness are either understood as occurring post-resurrection, or are understood in the light of an absolute literal interpretation of the OT "whole man"/"absolute death" idea, and the idea of a "soul consciousness" pre-resurrection understood to be only an allegory/parable.
Yes. You are quite blessed.
AND I have noticed that many RC clergy folks are as you describe. And I’ve been personally blessed by a number of them—their Christ-like lives and their testimonies.
And, I’ve been uncomfortable often feeling that my . . . thrownness . . . and at some point, essentially, The Lord . . . have compelled me to respond to situations and individuals when I’d much rather run and hide.
All the more so knowing I’m a flawed critter who daily makes mistakes. All the more so knowing that even as a counselor with supposedly uncommon skills according to many . . . change . . . positive lasting change . . . is durned difficult to nudge, facilitate, provoke, lead, encourage etc.
It would be much easier and MUCH, MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE to walk on by the other side of the road.
Particularly in areas at dissonance between RC’s and Protys.
Alas, interestingly . . . having been reared with a fear of RC’s . . . THEN coming into contact with some absolutely lovely wonderful RC’s very easy to love . . . some of whom were just nice people of nominal Christianity and some of whom were very Christ-like in word and deed . . . often quite like you, Mad Dawg . . . I had to resolve the dissonance.
Over some significant time, God began to rake me over the coals in some respects. He showed me that either I or other Pentecostals were JUST AS GUILTY of MOST of the chronic things that Proties accused RC’s of—with justification—as were the RC’s and often worse. The slight exception is a lot of the Mary stuff.
But even on the Mary stuff . . . while Pentecostals have no one seen as being a perpetual virgin etc. they HAVE HAD and often still have spiritual or RELIGIOUS leaders whom they revere, adore, acclaim, bow and scrape before, pontificate ad nauseum about . . . etc.
Well, that was quite a period of revelation. Very sobering. And, there was a period when I almost treated RC’s with special affection and deference. For some illogical reason, they began to take on an aura with me personally of being seen as automatically more saintly as a group, than my own primary reference group of Pentecostals.
I’ve virtually always found them some of the most productive counseling clients because they tend to do what is suggested and get rapidly better. Proper authority is not a foreign or automatic point of rebellion with most of them—especially the earnest, authentic, spiritual ones.
Then . . . The Lord begain to show me that there WERE STILL SERIOUS PROBLEMS with MANY, not all, RC’s and that I must have compassion for them and reach out and speak up as called for when He put things in my lap. That to fail to do so was to fail as a watchman and as a brother caring for his brother falling in a ditch.
Add in to this a number of RC’s I’ve come across who have left the RC edifice. The allegation is usually that they were not properly cathecized sp? In many cases, that’s not true—some were long term priests or even seminary professors. But at a point in time, Holy Spirit interrupted their traditional path and took them down another road. They had the good sense and serious Priority Love of God sufficient to follow.
These folks, as a group, have been much harsher in their assessments of the problems with the theology and the practices of their former cohorts than a lot of Proties are.
Then there’s the ‘bridgers’ like you two . . . you don’t appear to have the same problems—at least not the same degree of problems—some RC’s have with others between you and God the focus of too much out-of-order attention and devotion. Yet, you defend tooth and nail the very doctrines and practices which from the extternal perspective and the perspective of most of those who have left the edifice . . . are so UNBiblical and soooo problemmatic for a lot of the RC’s still within the edifice.
There is another discernable group of RC’s in my life experience—folks still within the RC edifice who do not buy into the excesses and UNBiblical stuff but who have felt led to stay within the RC edifice. There are some of those hereon. They tend to lay low.
In my experience, there are quite a number of RC’s who have either left the edifice or who remain within it who greatly love God above all others AND who are thoroughly . . . dismayed at the excesses. Those who have left the edifice tend to be most shrill but to write off their former cohorts as unreachable.
Those within the edifice who have NO affinity for the exccesses tend to also believe that most of those on the other end of the spectrum are unlikely to be helped toward a more discerning and Biblical perspective.
All this to just say that Proties are not the only ones raising serious concerns about the excesses. The allegation that RC’s who do were not properly taught is just bogus hogwash.
There are real issues that we are foolish or brazen enough to try and dialogue about. Some of us more fierce and shrill than others.
Hopefully, most of us [would prefer all—and maybe it is all] do so out of deep caring for RC’s as I hope they do in their efforts toward the ‘misguided ignorant Proties.’
Therefore what . . .
I don’t think anyone is going to roll over and play dead or just walk away. The issues and the people are too important.
Certainly we can all likely improve on communicating caring along with our fierce convictions.
But a lot of the time, the RC’s hereon give the impression that unless and until we kowtow and agree with a core of the doctrines that are so offensive to a lot of us Proties that the RC’s will then continue to scream about Proties hating RC’s, attacking the RC edifice wholesale etc. etc. etc.
Hogwash. We have the capacity to deplore what we see as deadly doctrines without hating the individuals or the group as a whole. If we can’t love the sinner and hate the sin then Christianity as a whole has a big lot to correct.
I realize it’s not pleasant or fun or comfortable to have folks fiercely assault pet doctrines. Pentecostals experience that all the time. But it goes with the territory.
I also feel there’s another super priority which I think Mark affirms. Times are looming when ALL WHO TRULY LOVE GOD MUST SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER. There will be NO other viable option.
Proties and RC’s used to walking on the other side of the street from one another need to adjust their sensibilities. Doesn’t mean we become wimpy about our concerns and perspectives. Does mean we emphasize the caring Christ died for and places within those who truly love and follow Him.
I’m still committed to such. I won’t always please RC’s in my living that out. I won’t become a covert RC in Pentecostal clothing. I won’t become a closet Marian sympathesizer. It’s not in the cards. But I can be counted on to deeply care for RC individuals whether they agree with me, or not.
I’m also happy to be some measure of a boundary worker helping Pentecostals and any other interested Proties to relate more caringly to RC’s.
Anyway—I realize I’m behind on a lot of posts and am going to rush off before too long to go to pot. Maybe I can get more caught up on Sunday and maybe some things will fall by the wayside. If I miss a post someone wants me to comment on, please let me know.
Read and noted.
Not my construction on reality.
Also, imho, not your best post to me or anyone else.
What happens (IMHO, others’ opinions may vary) is that they take 1 Th 4:15 all out of proportion.
???? Worship?
Besides my question about worshipping saints, the theory comes from parsing Scripture a certain way. I don't think it's a commonly held belief.
Once one thinks that all we know of the Gospel is contained in the words of the New Testament and once we have accepted Luther’s or Calvin’s gloss on those words, then the theory follows.
Luther or Calvin's gloss on what words?
I have here a document in which the Romaing Claflick Church specifically disavows me AND anything I've ever done.She respectfully declined.
How about soul naps? I could use one of those about now.
Well, okay, maybe just not looking too good lately? But don’t tell her I said so, okay?
Hon, y’all know where to go to getcher rest.
The problem you have is lack of understanding that The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament.
Typology bears this out
God Created Ark Of Covenant WITHOUT STAIN
Here is a comparison of Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament Mary who is the “Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT
A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)
Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)
King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)
Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).
Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).
Pretty overwhelming evidence. Right?
If you don,t think so I have a bridge in NY to sell you -:)
Here, I posted a detailed explanation earlier on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1848700/posts?page=168#168
Jesus is NOT going to be sitting on a wooden box covered with gold when he comes back -;)
I don’t back off on that term. In English one can “worship” a woman without ascribing to her godly powers. Celebrities have their worshipful fans. Thr Protestant problem is a kind of mariolotry turned upside down. As Chesterton expressed it in his “Lepanto,” “Christians hated Mary.” They will deny it, but they give the mother of Jesus less respect than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.
I'll try to remember that in case it comes up again.
Thr Protestant problem is a kind of mariolotry turned upside down. As Chesterton expressed it in his “Lepanto,” “Christians hated Mary.” They will deny it, but they give the mother of Jesus less respect than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.
Good think y'all can read all of our minds and hearts, so we can be told what we believe. I'd hate to go through life without knowing something as important as the way I feel about Mary.
One more thing. You didn’t answer the question I asked about Luther’s & Calvin’s glossing. What did you mean?
I wonder what motivated Chesterton's remark? You know the story of Lepanto - the way we tell it?
No need to apologize by proxy or otherwise. I didn't say or mean all y'all & I woulda if I had. In light of the goings on around here, Robby's comments struck me as very funny. If you think I should muster up feeling hurt or become offended, let me know & I'll work on it.
I wonder what motivated Chesterton's remark?
I have no doubt that he was motivated by the way "we" act or more properly, how "we" react. If you guys showed yourselves as devoted to Sarah as you are to Mary, we'd be just as obnoxious about that, trust me.
You know the story of Lepanto - the way we tell it?
No. If you have time, I have an ear.
Good thought. Mxxx
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.