tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post6272540530933923243..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: "A mystery only metaphor could contain"Servant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-84584089162064035092012-05-21T20:32:13.161-05:002012-05-21T20:32:13.161-05:00I think this passage is really excellent:
>The...I think this passage is really excellent:<br /><br />>The answer, I think, is both; the contradictions open up new cognitive associations as we attempt to align them into something that is a unified, comprehensible whole, and in moments when that is simply untenable, we are forced to acknowledge that she is both and she is neither because she herself is simply not containable in metaphorical terms. The dissonance created by these metaphors creates a larger space in which she may dwell. <br /><br />I wonder if this space between the terms of a paradox is not only intended as revelatory of Mary, but of Christ and if this second order of revelation is actually the ultimate end. The veiling and unveiling within (about? around?) the figure of Mary seems to map closely on to notions of apophatic and kataphatic understandings of God. Every affirmation of God only serves to veil Him, as our concepts cannot approach the divine except “clouded, bleary, and blind.” I think the connection between apophatic/kataphatic contemplation of God and Mary lies in the repeated positioning of Mary as a gateway for the divine, a mirror of the divine, someone utterly infused and permeated by the divine light. The incomprehensibility of Mary, which forces us to consider her in terms of paradox and contradiction, is a reflection of the even deeper incomprehensibility of God. Realizing this in Mary can lead us deeper into contemplation of the divine, by understanding the mirror, we can understand at least in part what is reflected within. So your classification of Mary as “an agent of human understanding,” I think, is really spot on and operating at a very high level. Mary is an agent of understanding of the divine incomprehensibility, especially as it is made Incarnate in her son. <br /><br />DAYServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-81167833247509143362012-05-10T18:59:39.529-05:002012-05-10T18:59:39.529-05:00Very impressive close look at the two Walter of Wi...Very impressive close look at the two Walter of Wimborne passages. Yes, by “veiling” the Word in flesh Mary “reveals” God to the world, AND it would seem (based on centuries of debate and exposition up to this point) that this is the only way that it could have happened. Fantastic explanation too, with this: “she ‘clouds’ the Word so that the ‘clouded’ human thought process can keep up.”<br /><br />A thought about the conflicting metaphors: The light (especially as a torch) and cloud metaphors, of course, resonate with Jehovah leading the children of Israel through the desert as a pillar of fire by night and a cloud/shadow by day. So on the one hand, we could ask if there is really no more to these particular metaphors of William than mobilization of familiar forms and imagery. On the other hand, at the very least, these comparison would equate Mary with God (on a metaphoric level, anyway). <br /><br />In the end, however, I prefer your reading. <br />~TAServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-39897921621511440032012-05-09T15:17:53.597-05:002012-05-09T15:17:53.597-05:00I really enjoyed this blog post! I particularly li...I really enjoyed this blog post! I particularly like the way you compare verses and point out the seeming contradictions that help to, in a strange way, clear up the conception that these poets had about Mary, in terms of her inconceivability. This relates also to our discussion in class about humans' capacity to relate to her, as well as the constant mystery that she is shrouded in, especially concerning the texts about Mary that are accessible to the majority as well as texts that are intellectually demanding and require a sophisticated understanding and thought process. <br /><br />It's interesting that this contrast and seeming inconsistency might be deliberate; however, I don't know that it would be “productive” - if I correctly understand the term “productive cognitive dissonance”–that the descriptions are contradictory to one another. As a non-Christian, I might not be able to speak to this particular situation, but I know I would feel frustrated if I were presented with this depiction of a divine figure that, to me, clouds more than unveils.<br /><br />I think that you are right, that she is both veil and mirror, light and cloud, but at the same time uncontainable in language – even metaphor which is possibly our best way of drawing these sorts of comparisons and finding a way to describe something that is seemingly indescribable. <br /><br />ACServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-11567499362147115622012-04-29T19:22:00.568-05:002012-04-29T19:22:00.568-05:00"Mary is an agent of human understanding"..."Mary is an agent of human understanding"--I'm going to use this! Wonderful meditation on Walter's imagery, exactly the kind of ruminating that I think he was aiming for. I particularly like the way you point to the contrasts in his imagery (veiling and unveiling, logic that is beyond logic) and how they allow him to say something about Mary, even as he recognizes that it is wholly inadequate. There is the piling up of images, and then there is the mystery expressed through each individual image. Fully to appreciate Walter (and through Walter, Mary) we need to take account of both.<br /><br />RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com