The Bible says there is but one Mediator. I'm guessing that would be Jesus Christ, right? (And I got that before 7:30 in the AM! I am sharp today!)
Did you note Kolo's response to my rant? Not only was it extremely gratifying to me (which is unimportant) but I think it conveyed how deeply this line of thought goes in our shared tradition and how "getting" it is a critical part of "Getting" what we proclaim and how we 'think' (if you'll pardon the self-flattery).
As I thought of how to respond to you, I thought that there could be an interesting category of "'apostolic' theological 'worm-holes'". "Eternity" would be one and "in" would be another.
Yes, there is one and only one mediator, and — from the first creative Word of the Father's through until the end when He hands everything to the Father — what He does is mediate between God and Creation and make reconciliation. That the Father's intention that there be light comes to pass in creation is through His mediatory work. And that at the end God will be all and in all is through His mediatory work.
And in these latter days, that some of us hand our sinful selves to Him and that He accepts and amends them is that aspect of His mediation which touches us most nearly in time and in our hearts.
But, I think we would say, we are "in" Christ (and He in us.) And so we share or participate in His mediatory work.
Let me lower my head and take another run at it, this time using the "eternity" wormhole. As I said earlier, the Son throughout time is mediating. When we close our prayers with "through IHS XP our Lord," we are "drawing on" that mediating work. Another way of saying that is we are "applying" not only the 3 hours on Calvary, but everything about the Son to our prayer so that our prayer may be, as we might say, conveyed to God.
We do this in obedience, sure, but we do this almost "by nature" -- by our new nature, that is. We are Baptized into Christ, and, at least for those of us who would claim some kind of "born again" experience, that incorporation has reached our consciousness, our hearts and wills, at least partially and fleetingly. So we, sometimes at least, will and assent to that incorporation.
In this "schema", my big line, Col 1:24, is able to mean (almost) what it seems to say in the simplest sense. Leaving aside the "Free will" or resistability of Grace" questions (which we can do because however they come out, certainly the "saved" are given grace willingly to assent to their salvation, right?), what can figuratively be said to be "lacking" in the sufferings of Christ as far as each one of us is concerned, is OUR participation. This would be like saying, that only thing left to do with this morsel is eat it. All has been given, now all that's left is for us to receive it. (And even that is given, just as a good dancing partner can follow her partner's lead best when she stops trying to.)
All this, I think, is packed into "in". But wait, there's more:
I just can't imagine sharing in something only God can do.I think imagining doing it is not so hard. Imagining how it could be ... that's a different thing. We do not know how to pray as we ought, so the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. And this promise is part of Paul's advancing on a broad argumentative front to show in how many ways we cannot be separated from the Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Why, His Spirit is IN us! Even US! Our weakness and incapacity against internal and external enemies is not just compensated but taken up and used as one of the means God draws us ever more deeply into His Son.
So it is not by my capacity or sanctity (since I have none of either but what I am given at each instant) that enables me to make up what is lacking or to unite my tears to Christ's Blood. It is His grace which not only sweeps away all that filthy barrier I built up between Him and me, but fills me with new life, with HIS life, which declares me a son, and if a son, then an heir, and which then grants substantial tokens of the full inheritance which is promised to the sons.
Between the person and God! Yes, even you, even THAT! I don't know if you have little ones, but if you do, you know you are their first evangelist and evangelism is a work of mediation. NOt a complete work, to be sure.
, then Mary would be the greatest, thus having something I won't have.
Distinguo: She will have nothing that is denied to the other saints,. She has it in a greater degree, but it's the same stuff. A Jeroboam and a thimble both can hold the same wine.
But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God,
HECK no! Theologically impossible even before we get to the all-sufficient sacrifice! Everything Joe Namath or John Elway have is from God and we rejoice in His wonderful work in them, as touching football. And we might send our thuggish sons to their football camp to learn what they could teach. But if anyone thinks that muscles the size of anchor hawsers and reflexes and judgment and all that are not gifts, he's a dunce. (Oops, okay, that wasn't parliament'ry, I confess it.)
Mutatis mutandis with our Lady: It is as the declaration says, by "a singular grace of God" (or words to that effect), that she is as she is, and not by her work. Allow me to repeat: Heck no. (This is Dawg's new cleaned up language. In previous versions published in the European markets, the word Heck was replaced with *@#$(**#$!)
The Bible actually surprises me a little in how NOT like this the relationship between Jesus and Mary was described. That's why it is extra-hard for me to see it your way.
We're always going to come up against the Bible's not being a comprehensive work even of some critical points (in our humble opinion).
Since the Bible is silent on it, I'm not sure that we can or should expect anything in particular. Mary appears to behave as any honorable mother who truly loved her son would.
See I think we're allowed to use our heads (once and as long as we offer them to God, minute by minute.) A lady touches the hem of IHS garment (and that lady was probably NOT a sophisticated Calvinist theologian and no doubt her Christology was severely lacking) and is healed. Can we not reasonably think that His lips at her teats would be doing more than receiving?
The whole "elevation" section. (Thank you for your kind words about my chaplaincy. Sometimes I wonder why I ever tried any other kind of ministry. It was da BOMB!)
Elevation is funny. I have had some funny eperiences. George Allen, the politician, is form my part of VA and he rides in our $th of July Parade (which wins the funkiest parade of all time award) When he Congressional seat was gerrymandered out of existence (see previous posts for "being" and "existence") I yelled (we'd met a few times and corresponded) to Him, "Run for Governor!" and he looked from his horse and said, "I will." There had been no announcement at that time.
Paul Harris, who was our State Delegate (in George's former seat) until Dubya hired him for some job in the executive machine, know each other a little and we engaged in a ridiculous finger-pointing "You da man!" pantomime exchange during one of the parades, both grinning like idiots. His successor, Rob Bell, and I cracked jokes whenever we were in court together, he as attorney and I as bailiff. All this commerce with the "powerful and famous" is fun, but it's a bagatelle. Those guys are sure a whole lot better at getting elected than I would ever be, and I sort of kind of abase myself to them, sort of kind of, because they "represent(ed)" me. But I know I'm a better thinker than George, and Paul and Rob couldn't shear a sheep to save their lives (and would probably lose the poor sheep's life as well as their own) and I have other gifts they don't have.
So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom.
Problems always come up when free will is linked into the discussion.
That there is a HUGE 10-4!
FK, MD spoke of the way we, meaning the Latins and the Orthodox, think about theology and theosis. It can never be said enough that if you observe how and what we pray you will see and understand, if not accept, what we believe. Here is a theotokion we Orthodox chant at every Divine Liturgy just after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos,
ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
More honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim.
Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word.
True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
Having read that, FK, understand that we Orthodox and Latins see her womb as the throne of the universal, beginningless, Creator of all Creation, the Pantokrator and that her outspread arms, as depicted in so many of our icons, enfold all of us as truly her children. We love our mother, FK and in the words of a marvelous prayer, we are wont to flee to her as “poor banished children of Eve.”
Yeah, but that'd be too easy. Anything worth having is worth working for, ...... umm ...... except salvation of course. LOL! :)
And in these latter days, that some of us hand our sinful selves to Him and that He accepts and amends them is that aspect of His mediation which touches us most nearly in time and in our hearts. But, I think we would say, we are "in" Christ (and He in us.) And so we share or participate in His mediatory work.
Yes, what "in" entails is a difficult subject. There are notions of "along for the ride", "equal partners", "used as a tool but with benefits", "loyal subordinate deserving of individual credit", and others.
Clearly, at least on the surface, we participate. When I witness my mouth moves, hopefully good words come out, and God's work happens. I participate. I give myself no credit whatsoever since it would never occur to me to ever witness to anyone but for everything that God has done for me and IS doing through me now. Theologically, but not experientially, I consider myself a blessed observer.
If that's what "sharing" means, then all is well. :) However, my impression is that "sharing" in Apostolic thought involves shared credit since there are separate and distinct free wills in operation and cooperating together. I.e., good thing "A" would not have happened but for the free wills of a human and God being on the same page and agreeing to work together. In that case, both would be deserving of merit, even if grossly unequally.
Now, how does Mary fit in to my supposition? I see that Mary is venerated in part for her deeds, her "Yes". I also see that she has the unique titles of co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix. So, in light of sharing and HER free will, if she was free to say "No" to the angel, then she must be free to decline salvation (to not co-redeem) to an individual if she so chooses. This may very well NOT be what Catholicism teaches, and I am just trying to show the conclusions that can be drawn from what things look like. Millions of prayers and petitions are made to Mary every day. Presumably, she is free to decline them as God well does decline some (not to put them on the same level). To me, this would be an uncomfortable level of "sharing". :)
We are Baptized into Christ, and, at least for those of us who would claim some kind of "born again" experience, that incorporation has reached our consciousness, our hearts and wills, at least partially and fleetingly. So we, sometimes at least, will and assent to that incorporation.
Sure. We would say that happens at the moment of baptism by the Spirit, that is, belief, but the idea sounds the same.
[Re: Col. 1:24] ... what can figuratively be said to be "lacking" in the sufferings of Christ as far as each one of us is concerned, is OUR participation. This would be like saying, that only thing left to do with this morsel is eat it. All has been given, now all that's left is for us to receive it. (And even that is given, just as a good dancing partner can follow her partner's lead best when she stops trying to.)
I suppose that is plausible. We would say that after God has changed our hearts we freely come to Him. I can easily liken that to eating a morsel of food put in front of me (with instructions). :)
So it is not by my capacity or sanctity (since I have none of either but what I am given at each instant) that enables me to make up what is lacking or to unite my tears to Christ's Blood.
In principle I would fully agree with this. However, this leaves me confused about the idea of "wounded but not dead". My impression was that you all say that to leave room for some innate "capacity".
FK: "But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God, ..."
HECK no! Theologically impossible even before we get to the all-sufficient sacrifice!
All I can say is that I have seen writings from the Fathers up to modern Catholics which exhort Mary to a high level of grandeur for her choice to say "Yes". For example, here is an excerpt from an article from last year: Pope: the Annunciation, Mary’s and the martyrs’ “Yes”
According to PB XVI, how was God ABLE to take human form? In part, because of Mary's (presumably free will) "Yes". None of this means that God didn't equip her and help her, etc. But, she was the final "decider" on whether Jesus would come into the world, it seems. If she could have said "No", then I think Catholics perceive that she has earned merit, independently of God. Just my opinion. You can imagine how this passage "sounds" to us. :)
FK: "Since the Bible is silent on it, I'm not sure that we can or should expect anything in particular. Mary appears to behave as any honorable mother who truly loved her son would."
See I think we're allowed to use our heads (once and as long as we offer them to God, minute by minute.) A lady touches the hem of IHS garment (and that lady was probably NOT a sophisticated Calvinist theologian and no doubt her Christology was severely lacking) and is healed. Can we not reasonably think that His lips at her teats would be doing more than receiving?
That would depend on what we think makes the thing "active". Was Jesus' garment "active" just because it touched His skin? I would guess not since as He walked through crowds it is certain that many people touched His clothes without anything happening. Plus, we read nothing about some chair He built with Joseph having magical healing powers years later. From the story, I infer that the woman's faith is what made the garment "active" for her.
Now, the development of Mary's faith, as a Christian faith that we would recognize, is actually unclear to me. We are given little to work with in the Bible. One of the few examples we are given was when Jesus was 12 and teaching in the Temple courts. This was obviously at a "post-suckling" stage :), and she did not appear to demonstrate correct faith. So, I am unsure whether the "contact" you describe would have had supernatural effects. :)
George Allen, the politician, is from my part of VA and he rides in our 4th of July Parade (which wins the funkiest parade of all time award)
I LOVE George Allen. I was crushed when he got macacca'd out of his Senate seat. I would have supported him for president. I think that whole thing was totally unfair. That's cool that you got to meet him a couple of times. Any idea what he's doing now? I haven't heard anything.
So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom.
Well, I would of course agree that that's the way it should be ultimately. How then, do we describe Mary and the Saints (decent girl-band possibility)? I don't get any impression that Catholics have any envy towards them. Yet, I perceive that they are thought of as being "above" or elevated over the rest of us.