!0,000 volumes on "Mary"?

[Don_Ruggero]

For those reading this thread who might like to have a sense of Mariology and a theological reflection on Mary that is at once easily accessible to those who have not studied philosophy or theology and is also readily applicable to one’s own spiritual life, there is the beautiful encyclical of Saint John Paul II, Redemptoris mater.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html

It was written in the context of the Marian Year that the Holy Father had proclaimed as part of the remote preparation for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000. The document is a remarkable milestone in his papacy and an enduring legacy of his own contributions to the theology of Mary and its place in the life of the Church and the individual believer.

Together with its 147 footnotes, it is itself a worthy work for academic analysis in the field of Mariology.

 

[patrick457]

I’d just be repeating what the folks above me said here, but Steve, just because you don’t think Mariology is a worthwhile field of study or isn’t your cup of tea doesn’t give you the right to diss it or the people that study it seriously. Someone’s trash is another one’s treasure.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My point in asking the original question is this. Based on the actual number of words written in the bible about Mary as the mother of Jesus, there is not enough information for writing a good English 101 report. Come on, 10,000 volumes. I would guess the great majority of them are just pious speculations written by scholars over the years. There is not enough factual or historical information available for even a small research paper.

Actually, one can quite well write a book doing an analysis of the philology – never mind the theology – of the words recorded in Luke: “Χαίρε κεχαριτωμένη”. Such philological analysis is hardly pious speculation. Nor is actual theology.

 

[ericc]

I’m still wondering how, with such scant written information in the bible about Mary, that anyone could write a detailed paper or book on her. A doctoral degree is supposed to be rewarded for new and verifiable information about a subject. Anything written about Mary based the only scant written information available to a researcher, as in the bible, would seem to me to be just idle speculation, pious thoughts, and wishful thinking. I would guess the sources for such doctoral dissertation information are just other pious speculative writings by people who analyze the writings of other speculators from the past. When all is said and done, after reading all these dissertations, we really don’t know any more concrete facts about Mary than what we read in the bible.

Firstly, a lot of stuff about Mary is not in the Bible. It is in Holy Tradition which you failed to mention. Tradition is as credible as the written Word. Why do you omit that as a source? Your presumption that if it is little mentioned in the Bible it must be little elsewhere. The Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Ever Virgin etc her various appearances over the centuries, and miracles attributed to her contain enough information to fill volumes. Each of the Marian Apparitions can spark new knowledge, new study.

Secondly, I wonder is your issue about the quantum of material in the Bible at all. Jesus has millions of volumes written and Mary has thousands. So all in all , pretty much proportional. Is 10,000 too much for the Mother of God, for you? If it is, what would be a reasonable number? And how would you justify that number on what basis? Would that be based on number of times Mary appears in the Bible? Or would it be based on the importance of her role in the salvation of the world? Those in the know knows that Mary’s efforts always points to her son. And Mary’s roles are varied, each of them deserving its own study.

Thirdly, how much do you know about Mariology to make such comments? If you are an expert, I may consider your opinion.

 

[steve53]

I’d just be repeating what the folks above me said here, but Steve, just because you don’t think Mariology is a worthwhile field of study or isn’t your cup of tea doesn’t give you the right to diss it or the people that study it seriously. Someone’s trash is another one’s treasure.

I didn’t say anything bad about Mary herself, did I? Nor was I critical of the official Catholic position on Mary, right?

I am questioning scholars who think they can draw conclusions about Mary that the facts do not even come close to suggesting, or do a rehash to pad their resume.

 

[patrick457]

I didn’t say anything bad about Mary herself, did I? Nor was I critical of the official Catholic position on Mary, right?

I am questioning scholars who think they can draw conclusions about Mary that the facts do not even come close to suggesting, or do a rehash to pad their resume.

I’m just guessing here, but I think the problem is that you seem to look at Mariology as if it’s a sort of analog to historical Jesus studies, when you really should be looking to it as an analog to Christology.