tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.comments2024-03-05T06:16:30.628-06:00Mary and MariologyServant of Maryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comBlogger671125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-78914125157257354592022-03-04T17:28:00.395-06:002022-03-04T17:28:00.395-06:00Casino and sports betting on the go: When and how ...Casino and sports betting on the go: When and how to bet on it<br />For an expert's guide to the online <a href="https://www.mapyro.com/%ea%b3%84%eb%a3%a1%ec%b5%9c%ec%83%81%ec%9d%98-%ea%b4%80%eb%a6%ac%ec%b6%9c%ec%9e%a5%ec%83%b5.html" rel="nofollow">계룡 출장안마</a> gambling industry, we outline some <a href="https://drmcd.com/%eb%aa%a9%ed%8f%ac%ec%b6%9c%ec%9e%a5%eb%a7%88%ec%82%ac%ec%a7%80%ea%b0%80%ec%9d%b4%eb%93%9c.html" rel="nofollow">목포 출장마사지</a> of the key questions you <a href="https://www.mapyro.com/%eb%85%bc%ec%82%b0%ec%b6%9c%ec%9e%a5%ec%95%88%eb%a7%88%ea%b0%80%ec%9d%b4%eb%93%9c.html" rel="nofollow">논산 출장마사지</a> need to <a href="https://drmcd.com/%ec%86%8d%ec%b4%88%ec%97%90-%eb%8c%80%ed%95%9c-%ec%9a%b0%ec%88%98%ed%95%9c%ec%b6%9c%ec%9e%a5%ec%95%88%eb%a7%88%eb%a6%ac%eb%b7%b0.html" rel="nofollow">속초 출장마사지</a> know before <a href="https://drmcd.com/%ea%b5%b0%ec%82%b0%ec%b5%9c%ea%b3%a0%ec%8b%9c%ec%84%a4%ec%b6%9c%ec%9e%a5%ec%95%88%eb%a7%88.html" rel="nofollow">군산 출장안마</a> wagering.saadyajagodzinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726489253571607951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-1013161034258430452021-07-29T03:14:03.260-05:002021-07-29T03:14:03.260-05:00I really love the way you discuss this kind of top...I really love the way you discuss this kind of topic.~..:- <a href="https://formary.org/" rel="nofollow">for mary</a>Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16957284277484551382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-23697608247373165002019-11-15T02:40:53.123-06:002019-11-15T02:40:53.123-06:00As a complement to this, the younger you are, the ...As a complement to this, the younger you are, the more resistance you have to accompany the small offspring throughout their growth. Each stage requires the necessary skills to take care of them and guide them in their development.<br /><br />karthikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610565857798670391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-10434416997130910202017-03-04T21:09:41.989-06:002017-03-04T21:09:41.989-06:00I looked up Damian and Mariology and found your bl...I looked up Damian and Mariology and found your blog. I had downloaded a pdf about Mariology icons/paintings of the Andes Mountains. It unfortunately offers no contact source. <br /><br />Possibly it was written by Damain you speak of and have studied.<br /><br />Could you suggest an image online I could see of the quartz statue of Our Lady of the Andes Mountain?<br /><br />It is said to not have been made by human hands and had previously been venerated by indigenous peoples of the Andes. <br /><br />I am not able to find an image of that statue art piece. Thank you in advance for your help. Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17485723388981258659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-72364721524877318542016-12-25T20:23:01.115-06:002016-12-25T20:23:01.115-06:00Dear Sir/ Madam
APPLICATION FORM
Do you need a q...Dear Sir/ Madam<br /><br />APPLICATION FORM <br />Do you need a quick long or short term loan with a relatively low interest rate as low as 2%? We offer Xmas loan, business loan, personal loan, home loan, auto loan, student loan, debt consolidation loan, Business loan e.t.c no matter the amount needed apply<br />1.NAME..........<br />2.SEX..........<br />3.AGE..........<br />4.CONTACT..........<br />5.COUNTRY..........<br />6.PHONE..........<br />7.AMOUNT NEEDED..........<br />8.LOAN DURATION:.........<br />9.PURPOSE OF LOAN..........<br />10.OCCUPATION..........<br />11.GENDER..........<br />12.YOUR MONTHLY INCOME..........<br />13.MODE OF REPAYMENT:.........., <br />Apply through :- DR BROWN LOAN AND INVESTMENT <br />The Linenhall,<br />32-38 Linenhall Street<br />BT2 8BG , Belfast<br />United Kingdom<br />brownclark176@gmail.com<br /><br />DR BROWN CLARK<br />Director<br /> (Field work)(On Roaming) +91828746096<br /><br /><br />DIRECTORS Dr. Astrid JUNGE (Chairman), Alhaji D.N.Dangoze, (Vice Chairman), Pastor F C. Kumayor, Dr. Adam Smith Chief Wolfgang NIERSBACH (Director) Finance, Dr James Kelly, Steffi JONES (Secretary), Helmut SANDROCK<br />Director) Finance, Dr James Kelly, Steffi JONES (Secretary), Helmut SANDROCKzz<br /><br /><br />BROWN CLARKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12874046350860966773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-31889216475898863832015-12-16T07:39:42.877-06:002015-12-16T07:39:42.877-06:00I love that you decided to take on Warner’s claims...I love that you decided to take on Warner’s claims about Mary and femininity! You focus on Hildegard and Elizabeth of Schonau here, but I think these claims could be extended to Gertrude of Helfta and complicated by Mechthild of Magdeburg, particularly as Gertrude’s visions were also highly liturgical, occurring during the offices and on feast days, for example. Of particular interest in regards to imitating Mary’s relationship with Jesus might be Gertrude’s vision during the liturgy of the Annunciation, which Gertrude believes overemphasizes Mary’s role and does not place enough importance on the role of Christ (104). Certainly Gertrude doesn’t feel pressured to imitate Mary as a humble woman if she criticizes Mary for getting too much attention! While I think Gertrude’s texts might help your claim here, Mechthild’s seem to problematize it; of the four female authors, Mechthild places the most emphasis on Mary as a mother with her references to fertility and milk. Though Mary as the bride of the Trinity is an image we’ve seen male authors deal with previously, Mechthild’s visions of Mary as suckling the prophets and protecting sinners as if they were orphans do seem more exclusively female. Does this imply Marian imitation in a way that only women could commit, or could these images also be extended to male worshippers, as the bride of Christ image has been?<br />-KMServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-36851374639752457352015-12-16T06:55:23.816-06:002015-12-16T06:55:23.816-06:00I think you do a great job here of summarizing the...I think you do a great job here of summarizing the theological stakes that surround the Theotokos debate and the different arguments of Proclus, Nestorius, and Cyril. I am inclined to agree with you that Nestorius’s separation of the human and divine aspects of Christ is problematic; if Jesus only died as a human, then how could God have entered death and in doing so offered salvation? 1 Corinthians 15:26 seems to support this: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” How can God truly defeat death if He does not die himself in some way? I’d also be interested to see how Nestorius’s arguments regarding Mary as Christotokos might have come into play during the Reformation, for just as Nestorius claims that Mary gave birth to Christ’s human form, Luther (over 1,000 years later) came to criticize Mary’s holiness in regards to her as the bearer of God and the Word.<br />-KMServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-36066382201386664262015-12-16T02:33:39.488-06:002015-12-16T02:33:39.488-06:00It’s really interesting that you focus on the idea...It’s really interesting that you focus on the idea of servii here; not only does it reinforce the idea of servants and servitude in relation to priests/the Temple that we’ve seen before, but it also reinstates Mary’s role as intercessor. As you mentioned, Mary’s role here is extremely physical; as opposed to being a mirror of God or the light by which we might understand divine will, Mary is literally stepping in on behalf of the faithful. I think your point about the inept cleric and Mary “bringing apparently disproportionate good to her ‘servants’” is interesting; you say that the bishop who punishes the cleric (and who is in turn punished by Mary) seems just in his verdict, but Damian is writing to defend the addition of the Marian office. Damian seems to be speaking directly to those who would criticize the Marian office as excessive, novelty, and inconsistent here; the cleric may have “no tact for religious life” and no groomed regularity in his prayers, but his devotion to Mary is sincere, and that is why she acts on his behalf. The recitation of the Office of the Virgin is a service, and as Damian demonstrates, Mary always protects her servants and those who would harm them.<br />-KMServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-46665638195587869262015-12-16T01:51:23.173-06:002015-12-16T01:51:23.173-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-28885735798679603632015-12-16T01:51:01.547-06:002015-12-16T01:51:01.547-06:00Your focus on the Reformation emphasis on Mary’s r...Your focus on the Reformation emphasis on Mary’s role as a vessel (and only as a vessel) is a fascinating point, and leads nicely into your point that “Although [Luther] acknowledges the singularity of [Mary’s] position, he refuses to accord to it any extraordinary standing.” As we discussed in class, if Mary is not a mirror or lens through which we understand scripture any longer, then any Christian can be equally worthy a divine intercessor. Luther’s efforts to “remove the veil” between Christians and scripture have in fact shifted the role of vessel; scripture is the means through which we can understand God, not Mary (see pages 206-207). Of course, this complicates the idea of “vessel” itself, which would be really interesting to look into--is “vessel” to Martin Luther still a privileged position now given to scripture, or has it been downgraded to the “sack” that you mention in Mary? I’m a little confused about what you’re saying when you say that “the entirety of scriptures only follow suit because a very specific vision of Biblical interpretation has been set in place by Reformation writers.” Are you referring to the point that you made earlier about the Reformation interpretation of the Song of Songs and other Old Testament verses?<br />-KMServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-59286542185585131872015-12-09T14:00:45.189-06:002015-12-09T14:00:45.189-06:00This post and the conversations around it are inte...This post and the conversations around it are interesting because the issue they raise is greater than just Marian devotion. I see Henry Adams as believing that the underlying occult, life-giving forces that power the Western mind have been transmigrated from one object of devotion into another. This general metempsychosis from the Virgin Mary into modern technology, if that really is the right word to use, points to an even larger shift, one that encompasses how we think about the world, religion, morality, and even ourselves. I don't read Adams as feeling nostalgic or trying to recapture the past, but admiring the various forms this ahistorical "force" has taken across history. This isn't to say that Adam's discussion of Mary as a gendered Venus is just window-dressing; rather, he sees Mary's womanhood as an essential part of this premodern dynamo, though he might have argued it clumsily.<br /><br />Then again, how else could someone like Adams treat the subject of Mary's gender? With Mary no longer where she was in the medieval cosmology, how can we even think about femininity the same way? Adams, both directly and indirectly, points to a categorical shift in the way we look at devotion, and all the things it entails, and I'm inclined to believe that Adams was right. To some extent having "faith" (in the sense we discussed in class), as well as letting Pius XII's arguments resonate with us, entails letting go of some of the modern prejudices we hold. Letting go of modern prejudices is something we've attempted to do for the whole class, but I doubt if we can fully comprehend Mary the way a medieval devotee could, or even Pope Pius.<br /><br />F.G.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-9891480972102243362015-12-07T20:29:36.425-06:002015-12-07T20:29:36.425-06:00I really enjoyed your exploration of the weaving m...I really enjoyed your exploration of the weaving metaphor in connection with Mary. I think the strong association between Mary and textiles becomes very intreresting in light of her later interpretation as the symbolic representation of Woman because textile arts, and weaving in particular, are also seen as symbolic female attributes. This association perhaps provides some grounding for the symbolic interpretation of Mary or at least helps point to where that reading is coming from. Mary's association with weaving and textiles is also significant in light of how often she is identified or recognized by her clothing. In the modern Marian apparitions we read about her clothing is often described in great detail and is frequently a point of intense questioning by the Priests and other authority figures attempting to validate the apparition. The fact that Mary weaves both the physical and the metaphorical garments for the high priest feels very appropriate because she herself also fills the structural role of priest, and was seen by Bernard of Clairvaux as a model for those who dedicated themselves to a life of service to God. <br /><br />-M. CokerServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-8818411888605926302015-12-07T15:43:31.701-06:002015-12-07T15:43:31.701-06:00One thing that jumped out at me in the Diarmaid Ma...One thing that jumped out at me in the Diarmaid MacCulloch reading is his assessment that the Reformers (insofar as they can be thought of as a cohesive group) often adopted a sort of "guarded agnosticism" in matters of scriptural interpretation. Often, this was an attempt to find a happy medium between what Reformers saw as a bloated and irrelevant Catholic exegesis, and a rash and dangerous overreaction by radical theologians who threatened to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As the Reformist zeal continued to spread throughout Europe, radicals ran the risk of butting up against issues on which both Protestants and conservative Catholics were unabashedly in agreement. One of these cases, as MacCulloch mentions, is the point of Mary's perpetual virginity. Despite the generally iconoclastic rhetoric and actions of the early Reformers, the idea that Mary had not always been a Virgin was considered foundational to Christianity and too sensitive to be taken up by anyone except extremists and drunkards. But this is only one case among many where the Reformers had to fight a battle on both fronts; Reformed beliefs had to be protected from radicals who took things too far, as well as from Catholic doctrine. In many cases, it would have been easiest to take Mary out of the equation altogether. In light of this point, I see the absence of Mary in the Book of Common Prayer as an attempt to expurgate a problematic element from a context where it would have caused controversy. Based on the Christological focus in the liturgy, the authors of the Book (Cranmer et. al.) would have regarded Mary's presence in the story as accidental relative to Christ's position at the forefront of worship.<br /><br />F.G.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-85925784438891479502015-12-07T14:43:37.922-06:002015-12-07T14:43:37.922-06:00I think that it is interesting that the Modern tre...I think that it is interesting that the Modern trend toward a localization of Mary mirrors one possible origin story for her tradition. Barker postulates that Mary might have her roots in an ancient Jewish female figure of divine nature, whose presence is hinted at in the Old Testament and by the archeological record. The Queen of Heaven postulated by Barker was a local Deity, belonging in her specifics to the religion of a single people. She was however recognizably related to similar female figures who appear among neighboring people; much as how these modern apparitions are closely tied to unique local tradition, but are all also associated with Mary. Her flexibility plays a large part in her enduring popularity and prominence. The ability to adapt to different circumstances allows her to be what is needed at any given moment. This is not a new aspect of Mary, it can be quite difficult to get a handle on medieval Mary because she was being read in different ways for different purposes then as well. Mary contains the uncontainable. Perhaps she can handle filling all these different roles and versions of herself without loosing her core identity because she contains creation. <br /><br />-M.CokerServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-15476439594947503792015-12-07T13:00:41.942-06:002015-12-07T13:00:41.942-06:00
I definitely agree that there is a difference bet...<br />I definitely agree that there is a difference between Mary reflecting and being God; however the idea of God as the Temple, and the ramifications that would have for thinking about Mary really struck a cord with me. What if the Temple contains God because it is God. It is not a shell within which he resides but his body, into which he is imbued. This way of thinking may be able to help make sense of Mary containing the uncontainable. If she is the Temple, then she can hold God within her body without it being an act of restraint. He is there because that is where he should be, somehow an integral part of her being, rather than an external intrusion. Mary is the place where God is made present. The difference between saying that God is the Temple and the Temple is Mary, and that God is Mary, may be admittedly difficult to delineate but I do think that it provides a useful perspective on a tough problem.<br /><br />-M.CokerServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-5065631595038173392015-12-05T15:45:53.398-06:002015-12-05T15:45:53.398-06:00It's interesting how you identify the modern-d...It's interesting how you identify the modern-day controversies that we've studied over the past few classes as Western Christianity's way of asking, "Why Mary?" The author mentions the Lumen gentium of Vatican II as addressing this explicitly, but I'd say this sentiment dates back to the turn of the century with Henry Adams' writings. Nevertheless, this is a relatively new sort of question we're asking. Earlier theologians, even Martin Luther, always took it for granted that Mary meant _something_, but it's only in these latest works that we've had everyone, from popes to genteel agnostics like Adams, grappling with an awareness that Mary as a thing within Christianity needs to be explained. I identify this issue with the broader trend that began in the 18th and 19th centuries, a trend that tried to provide rational explanations for Christianity as a cultural phenomenon. It's not limited to Mary alone; the effort to place Jesus within his socio-historical context has identified him variously as a doomsday prophet, nationalist hero, etc., yet these explanations fail to account for the sheer magnitude of Jesus' impact on humanity as a whole. These explanations are also doomed to be unsatisfactory to the theologian. But as we saw in previous discussions, many of the responses to these modern historians and writers' arguments are on the same "plane of discourse" as them; that is, we tend to think of the Lumen gentium as a direct response to Adams' assessment of Mary, even if the writer isn't mentioned once. <br /><br />Unfortunately, this modern discourse is also incommensurate to the language we have seen used in the distant past. Not only do we talk about Mary in a different way, but we also reason about her differently. I wonder whether Marina Warner was aware of the irony of describing Mary as a "mirror...reflecting a people and the beliefs they produce, recount, and hold." (xxiii) We have seen Mary described as a mirror before, but not in her role as an anthropological tool. To writers like Warner, Ratzinger's response, that Mary's "unexplainability" is comprehended in her greatness, is bound to be inadequate. Whether it succeeds in convincing everyone or not, I feel like Ratzinger's work is also an attempt to escape our usual way of talking about Mary, and possibly about Christianity as a whole. I'd be very interested in seeing whether the work of the future pope was the first blast in a coming paradigm shift, one that will change the way historians and philosophers, as well as theologians, think about Christianity.<br /><br />F.G.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-37043567142379168622015-12-05T00:48:38.802-06:002015-12-05T00:48:38.802-06:00There are quite a few aspects of Marian devotion t...There are quite a few aspects of Marian devotion that remind me of certain beliefs and images in Islam. It would be interesting to study the correspondences there. Mirrors are frequent images in mystical strands of Islam and holy people in Islam are called "Friends of God," like Mary. I'm curious about the extent of influence on Marian devotion by Islam, particularly in Spain. The angels in the Mystical City of God seem to rely on a well-developed mythos or "angelology" that could probably be traced to a lot of different sources, including Judaism and Islam. (In the Qur'an, God creates angels before humans and makes them bow before Adam. One of them refuses to bow and "falls" like Lucifer.) Most of all, I see correspondences between Mary and Muhammad, because they are both defined simultaneously by their humanity and their exceptional status. Neither is an object of worship on the level of God, but they are perhaps more special because of their proximity to other humans despite their incredible importance. Some similarities are coincidences, I'm sure, but I also suspect there was a lot of borrowing and theological posturing between the two religions as Marian devotion developed. - JFServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-35724866995351380672015-12-05T00:22:55.237-06:002015-12-05T00:22:55.237-06:00A book we didn't read for class has an interes...A book we didn't read for class has an interesting--though possibly tangential--interpretation of the concern for Mary's perpetual virginity. It points out that the section of the Protevangelium of James in which Mary gives birth parallels the postresurrection story in John, where Jesus passes through the closed doors of the disciples' meeting place without opening them (Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Mary -- The Feminine Face of the Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977, p.55.). The midwife, Salome, plays the role of "doubting Thomas" when she tests Mary's virginity by physically inspecting her, as Thomas does with Christ's wounds. In the case of the closed doors, temple imagery might still be the foundation of both stories. The doubting Thomas/Salome detail could be an allusion to the death of one of the carriers of the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:3-7. A man named Uzzah touches the Ark to steady it and God instantly strikes him dead. Salome doesn't die, but her hand withers until she prays for forgiveness. - JFServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-66016030388568989682015-12-04T23:56:40.919-06:002015-12-04T23:56:40.919-06:00One of the most significant (and repeated) aspects...One of the most significant (and repeated) aspects of Luther's critique was the need for "justification through faith alone." This is a theological notion that actually intertwines nicely with the economic aspects that GT identified. Luther was concerned with the idea that Mary could intercede on anyone's behalf when they appealed to her through any action, because he interpreted portions of Paul's writing as a denial of the salvific power of any law or good deed. He insisted that a person's "goodness" (and God's favor) can only be reached through belief. (i.e. "Good people do good things," not "Good deeds make a person good.") Offerings and donations would be a waste of money not just because the money would be useful elsewhere, but because they wouldn't have any impact on a person's soul. They're also very obviously physical or worldly things, whereas the focus of religion for Luther was the spirit and belief. (Of course, these are his arguments; they don't mean that the pre-Reformation church in its entirety lacked spirituality or emphasis on belief.) -JFServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-37955102179327685432015-12-04T23:38:17.328-06:002015-12-04T23:38:17.328-06:00I forgot to add my initials.
- JFI forgot to add my initials.<br />- JFServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-58583623651426720372015-12-04T23:33:50.501-06:002015-12-04T23:33:50.501-06:00In another class I'm taking, I've been rea...In another class I'm taking, I've been reading about European witch trials during the Inquisition and elsewhere. One of the difficult things about interpreting them is how to understand phenomena that we would deem supernatural or paranormal now but seem to have been accepted in other times and places. Did anyone actually think that their neighbor was meeting Satan at night or was it just a convenient way to remove someone who had caused a problem? Were the clergy involved in the trial consciously imposing a view of reality that would maintain the Church's power?<br /><br />Similar questions seem to apply to the apparitions of Mary. I think the answer may be that what people believe to be true often corresponds to what benefits them, and not necessarily in a self-aware or purposefully manipulative way. I can imagine a bishop examining the evidence for a possible apparition sighting and using the criteria of its utility for the Church as clear proof of its truthfulness. After all, why would Mary appear in a way that was dubious and made the Church look bad? In other words, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation; the witnesses of an apparition and those who approve it afterward can be utterly convinced of its truth and also benefit from it in some way without seeing the convergence as a contradiction. If a shrine is constructed over the place where Mary appeared and bring more people and money to the area, then it may actually be interpreted as more proof of the veracity of the vision because it means God (or Mary or both) wanted the area to prosper. Of course, there can also be cases of cold calculation and fraud or beliefs held without any regard for personal gain, but I don't think those are the only options.Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-4892714997704910702015-12-04T23:03:10.580-06:002015-12-04T23:03:10.580-06:00Part of this post and the discussion in class this...Part of this post and the discussion in class this week left me with questions that I'm still wrestling with. Quite a few people argued against Daly and Warner because of what they saw as the misuse of the history of Marian devotion for a different (perhaps political or personal) purpose. There were also people who tempered those comments with defenses for aspects of the two authors' arguments, particularly Daly's, if I remember correctly. I think what left me wanting further discussion was the very positive reception of Ratzinger among many of those who spoke in class.<br /><br />I agree that there are problems with the respective arguments of Daly and Warner and that they could be rightly accused of ignoring or selectively choosing evidence about devotion to Mary in earlier periods. However, I also want to defend them to some extent. First, I want to say that neither author had the benefit of some of the translations and research that we've had, as Professor Fulton Brown mentioned. Both women wrote in the 1970s. Feminism and ideas about history have changed in that period, even if it is recent in the scope of this class's timeline.<br /><br />Also, they were both writing in a genre removed from those we've focused on; these aren't devotions intended primarily for those with similar beliefs and traditions. They certainly had political purposes and personal histories as motivations and perhaps biases, but so did every other writer. Think of the Christological debates from earlier this quarter. This doesn't mean that Daly and Warner should be excused from contributing well-researched scholarship, but it also doesn't mean that their projects should be rejected entirely.<br /><br />On Ratzinger: his reflections were very thoughtful and, as the author of this post showed, they brilliantly bring together aspects of Mariology that are beneficial to the Church. I can absolutely see how his essay would be meaningful from the perspective of faith and personal reflection, but we can also analyze it for what it accomplishes for Ratzinger and how he, like Daly and Warner, has biases. In his case they happen to relate to his livelihood, vocation, and identity, as they presumably also did--perhaps to a lesser extent--for Daly and Warner. The sense I came away with from Ratzinger's reflections was that of cautioning and reigning in excess, a response that shows the influence of Protestant critiques. He seems to be treading a careful line between praising the distinctly positive aspect of Mariology and making sure it doesn't get out of hand. These are understandable concerns, but while there have been a few figures in early or medieval Church who were similarly preoccupied with Mary "overshadowing" Christ (which is my reading of Ratzinger's anxiety and not something he overtly mentions, by any means), the majority of Mary's devotees didn't seem to be concerned about this. Ratzinger has, like Daly and Warner, brought his contemporary point of view to his interpretation of Mary. If Daly and Warner have artificially flattened the identity of Mary as "Woman" with a capital "W," I think they certainly aren't alone, and they did it in an attempt to mend what they saw as an intolerable power imbalance. -JFServant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-18135924857276638912015-12-04T22:44:45.567-06:002015-12-04T22:44:45.567-06:00I would like to push back on the author’s point th...I would like to push back on the author’s point that brings the apparition at Lourdes into question. E.C. claims that Mary’s humility is compromised because she declares herself to be the Immaculate Conception and instructs the children that she wants a church built on the spot where she is appearing. There are two things to consider that refute this. First, historically we have seen Mary appear and ask for a church to be built in her honor. A few hundred years earlier Mary appeared to Juan Diego and also asked for a church to be built on the sight of her appearing. Second, it is important to consider what humility is. True humility is many times understood as conforming to the truth. Seeing yourself and your conditions for how they are. Thus we have come to interpret humility using this mindset as being lowly and small and not imposing because most people the truth about ourselves reveals our many faults and all that we can’t do. For Mary then, the opposite is true. Humility permits her to declare herself the Immaculate Conception and ask, and even demand, a Church to be built in her honor. This behavior corresponds with the truth of who she is and humility acknowledges and recognizes this. <br />M.B. Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-19592823551051916342015-12-04T21:46:27.687-06:002015-12-04T21:46:27.687-06:00With regard to GT's post, I think your point t...With regard to GT's post, I think your point that Mary's uniqueness ties in well to Ratzinger's point brought up by AN in the original post, that "Mariology may be Christology and Ecclesiology, but it is more than that too." One can not account for Mary's uniqueness as a being, her perfection as a model, nor her being an object of veneration for centuries by placing her into a simple binary of Christ or Church - she's her own being proper, as RLFB argues. I too like the idea of Mary being a mystery and think that it lends credibility to the idea that we have undoubtedly been chasing after all quarter - why is Marian tradition not an entirely separate thing, why is it always held in subservience as a discipline to an overarching discourse about either the Church or about Christ? AN's glossing of Ratzinger is poignant here, because reading Mary as the original yea-sayer in Christ's narrative does give us a convincing reason for why we might be paying more attention to her. I find myself curious as to what Daly, Warner and company would say about such an assertion, whether the "yes" that slips from Mary's lips does give her any more possibility for being accepted by feminism or not. My guess is that, as this is not something we have necessarily seen as part of an overarching historical tradition, it might not be on consequence to them.<br /><br />KO<br />Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7155226280212467063.post-26626028740440873392015-12-04T21:28:58.080-06:002015-12-04T21:28:58.080-06:00I don't think it's so much that Mary relie...I don't think it's so much that Mary relies on the angels; rather, she commands them, due to her special place in the hierarchy of creation (whether she is aware of that place or not).<br /><br />Angels are beings of pure reason. They have free will [1] but no base passions to interfere with the pursuit of virtue. [2] Before Mary, angels were the closest beings in creation to God: humans only ever encountered the weakest of them (at least in a Dionysian understanding of the angelic hierarchy), presumably because the highest orders - cherubim, seraphim, and ophanim or thrones - are all too busy experiencing the beatific vision of God to be distracted by earthly affairs. [3] Most medieval writers seem to think they were created before the world was made or at the same time, so they would naturally occupy the 'highest spot' before humanity came around, and again after the Fall.<br /><br />As far as Mary's "need" for angels is concerned, I think this simply proceeds from the fact that no matter how perfect, she is still a human being. Presumably she had a guardian angel; when she died, although she was personally escorted to heaven by Christ, she was also helped along by angels, just like everyone else. More associations pop up when we look at typological interpretations of Mary: for example, if Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, and the old Ark of the Covenant was adorned with two golden cherubim, what is more natural than that she should be always accompanied by angels? Their frequent occurrence in Christian literature, though, can be explained in a similar vein to that of Mary's frequent appearances. Mary's proximity to God makes her a model for everyone else: she is the absolute best a human being can ever aspire to be, so if you try to imitate her and still fall short of the mark, there's a good chance you still ended up being pretty saintly. Angels work the same way. Monks, especially, are thought of and encouraged to be like angels: they reject or are immune to the passions of the flesh, they sing unceasingly the praises of God, and they help other humans on their way towards heaven. If imitating the Mother of God was too much of a challenge, maybe imitating the bodiless multitude of God's immortal, invisible servants might be more manageable (at least for an aspiring medieval Christian).<br />_____<br />[1] At least presumably - Germanos and Andrew of Crete seem to imply Gabriel *could* have disobeyed God's order to announce the Incarnation to Mary, even if he didn't.<br /><br />[2] I mean, generally - Lucifer clearly contradicts this trend, as well as the grigori/nephilim from the Enochian tradition, but I'm not sure exactly how closely Christians associate/d these groups with angels like Michael and Gabriel.<br /><br />[3] When Faust asks Mephistopheles how he got out of Hell, Mephistopheles replies: "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it. Think'st thou that I, who saw the face of God...am not tormented with ten thousand hells in being deprived in everlasting bliss?" (Doctor Faustus, 3.76-80)Servant of Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13686441055922333147noreply@blogger.com