tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post6403238424870397773..comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Comments on Mary and Mariology: Gaining Intellectus Through AffectusServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-68692524978718370572015-11-02T12:53:47.101-06:002015-11-02T12:53:47.101-06:00In the context of what you've written, it'...In the context of what you've written, it's interesting to consider just what <i>intellectus</i> is. The word is typically translated as "understanding", but you (correctly, I think) highlight the fundamental connection in our medieval sources of this understanding with love. So what is this connection, why is it essential to "understand" God in order to love him more fully? This is especially interesting if we consider who these authors are. Take Anselm, he's one of the greatest theologians in history, who writes at length on the nature of God, His attributes, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and so on. He certainly seems to <i>know</i> quite a bit about God, so what is he missing that the intellectus attained through Mary provides? And how does it connect to the vision language which is so pervasive in the same sources? dyingsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087241514388178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-59447041882004441522015-11-02T10:09:20.786-06:002015-11-02T10:09:20.786-06:00Very nice account of the way in which the progress...Very nice account of the way in which the progression from "affectus" to "intellectus" plays out in Anselm, the "Stabat Mater," and the "Meditations on the Life of Christ." I was especially struck by your astute observation that Anselm does not, in fact, tell us in the prayer to Christ why he was so dismayed not to have seen Christ at the crucifixion, for, as you point out, it is not for lack of faith, e.g. that he needed to see in order to believe. Rather, he believes and so wants to see/have seen--but to what end? Why should such an emotional response be necessary for understanding? This is the question that (as I argued in class) we need to be able to answer in order to understand the medieval appeal to compassionate Mary! RLFBServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-42420323950863575862015-10-31T14:56:42.844-05:002015-10-31T14:56:42.844-05:00While the “intellectus through affectus” approach ...While the “intellectus through affectus” approach was definitely most pronounced in our readings for Monday, it was also present in previous texts. In particular, Bernard’s “Homily IV” from Homilies in Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary seems to articulate a modified version of it.<br /><br />During his exegesis of Luke 1:35 on page 49, Bernard asks, “What does ‘and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ mean? ‘Let him who can grasp this.’” Drawing from Matthew 19:12, Bernard indicates a scriptural precedent that suggests the importance of understanding Gabriel’s words. He continues by answering his own question, explaining, “Who indeed can, except perhaps she who alone deserved to have this most blessed experience…” (49). <br /><br />In doing this, Bernard connects this notion of “grasping” – or intellectus – with experience. For Bernard, it is not enough to just say what Mary experienced; to really understand one must also experience it.<br /><br />However, Bernard differs from our authors on Monday on one particular topic. He seems to suggest that Mary is the only one who can actually understand the Incarnation. On 49, he explains, “…She alone was allowed to understand it because she alone was allowed to experience it.” While this does not necessarily preclude an affective imagination like that of Pseudo-Bernard or John of Calibus, it is not a resounding call to it either. <br /><br />A. Fialkowski<br />Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com