tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post2286715191922407681..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: Virgins, Kings and Questions UnansweredServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-10064584507277351792015-12-04T11:15:38.525-06:002015-12-04T11:15:38.525-06:00I definitely agree with you that Epiphanius is sev...I definitely agree with you that Epiphanius is severely limiting his conception of what it means to be a priest; it is clear that he is speaking from a Christian tradition rather than an Old Testament one in his discussion of priests performing rites like baptism, communion, etc. I also agree that key to the portrayal of Mary as a priest is Luke’s description of her as the “servant of the Lord” (or, rather, her description of herself within the gospel of Luke). I would argue that Luke himself would have been working from an Old Testament tradition of what priesthood means and, if we also take this view, Mary as a priest makes a lot of sense. If Epiphanius disagrees, maybe it is because he is pretty well locked into the necessary interpretation of a patriarchal society. Perhaps the problem isn’t so much that the tradition does not support the idea of Mary as a priest but rather that, because Mary is female, it is for Epiphanius intrinsically impossible for her to ever be a priest. Besides that, if he is to confirm this idea that Mary is a priest, it weakens his diatribe against the female priests he so rails against. Maybe the effect is in fact the cause in this case.<br /><br />RLServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-40906304624492416892015-10-12T11:51:54.330-05:002015-10-12T11:51:54.330-05:00Cause and effect are all intricately bound up here...Cause and effect are all intricately bound up here, as the previous comments note. What causes what? We talked in class about the way in which the early Christians attempted to defend their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14: as they argued, a "young woman" giving birth would not be a sign in the way that a "virgin" giving birth would. So, by this reasoning, Mary has to be a virgin because otherwise her giving birth to Jesus would not be the sign they were looking for. In this sense, the virgin birth is necessary only if it is the sign that was promised; everything else is an argument after the fact of accepting this sign. RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-81512238552527825412015-10-10T09:18:01.335-05:002015-10-10T09:18:01.335-05:00You've posed a number of interesting questions...You've posed a number of interesting questions here, which open the doors for a lot of fruitful further analysis. So many questions, in fact, that I'd wish you had focused on one or two in particular in more detail. I especially liked your exploration of the parallels between Eve and Mary, and the distinction between physical and spiritual virginity which you draw. However, it might be wise to take more care around the margins of your argument, as some questionable statements call into question what you're arguing as a whole. For example, are Eve and Mary really "essentially the same person"? Is it not precisely their differences which make the parallel between them so striking? Similarly is Mary Immaculately Conceived <i>because</i> of her virginity? The way you've described it appears that the "virginity" (in the spiritual sense) that led to Mary's miraculous conception was on the part of Joachim and Anna. Later thinkers will argue that Mary was miraculously conceived as a consequence of her "fiat", her acceptance of God's mission for her, a sort of before-the-fact consequence of the Incarnation, and it is perhaps in this sense that her virginity caused the Immaculate Conception. This, of course, leads to even more questions and interesting areas of investigation. dyingsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087241514388178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-87881175923227681822015-10-09T21:07:07.665-05:002015-10-09T21:07:07.665-05:00The question of Mary’s priesthood is an interestin...The question of Mary’s priesthood is an interesting one, and – as the author noted – Mary in some ways could be thought of as the ideal priestess in that she is not only depicted as the temple for Christ but also as a handmaiden or servant of the lord. Personally, I likewise find this interpretation rather compelling despite Epiphanius’ somewhat narrow objections. <br /><br />One argument I found a bit less convincing was the latter reason given for Jesus’ birth by the Virgin Mary. On one hand, it’s true that it fulfills scriptural prophesies as the King of Man from the line of David. However, the idea that the virgin birth is necessary to display “magnitude of his power in the fact that his creation is powerful enough to create himself in human form” – for me – seems to follow from the virgin birth, but it is not the reason for it. That is to say, through the virgin birth we can see his power and his humility in emptying himself of that power by becoming human. As I have understood it, the main reason why he was born through Mary was so he could share in humanity to be a perfect sacrifice for humankind, and the author does make this point later on in the paragraph. However, this line of reasoning seems to put the cart a bit before the horse on how it claims the act of kenosis follows from the need for a physically manifestation of God’s capacity for creation.<br /><br />-LDD<br />Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com