Are you aware that the Greek verb used to indicate that “we know Christ in the Eucharist” (ginosko) is the same verb that is used to describe intimate sexual relations between husband and wife?
More precisely, on her being the Theotokos.
Good point, Marduk - like even in the story of Sodom where that word is falsely interpreted to mean sexual relations. It creates a lot of problems.
Take it easy for a sec, let’s listen to him and try to understand then explain it with charity, because he actually has some good points with the whole issue with overemphasis. There’s more to Jesus than hugging sheep.,
Does Theotokos mean “cult of Mary?”
Good point. After all, the East and West both share that time in history where Mary as Theotokos was emphasized.
I’m saying the Western Augustinian emphasis on the “sweetness” of Heaven and encountering God has informed the West a little too heavily when it comes to Mary. This background leads to an undue focus.
No, it’s more that we’ve put too much weight on her being the Queen, and not enough weight on Christ being the King. We have a feast for our Lord’s kingship, but Mary is Queen of Heaven every day (the Rosary)…
Of course I wasn’t aware of that… I’m young, and ignorant of languages other than English. Thank you for showing me. It is very groundbreaking for me to see and understand that. I guess it’s the East that’s become evil and the West that’s totally perfect and saintly…
Anyway, could this not just be another case of a non-Germanic verb with double meanings depending on context? I don’t see the Bible using such carnal language very often when it comes to our Lord?I’m not too familiar with St. Augustine but I have to agree with you when you talk about the undue focus. Honestly I love and respect Mary a lot, but I do feel uncomfortable with the kind of devotion that I experience being an RC. When I started becoming Eastern, I was able to attend a Catechisis on the Feast of The Entrance of the Theotokos to the Temple. How Mary is viewed in the East I find more agreeable with me. We never lose focus on her role as the Mother of God and always see her in that perspective. I think some of the Western focus have isolated Mary from Christ which led to Protestants believing that Catholics worship Mary as a goddess. True that is not the case, but to those who aren’t catechized well and doesn’t know any better, its hard to make that distinction. I find that the Eastern praxis has made my love grow for Mary.
What exactly is Carnal about your quote?
What exactly is your problem? I love western portrayals of Virgin Mary. They are just different types of art.
It should not matter to you what the East does. You should be more concerned with the truth than what makes you most comfortable. Some people had problem with the Eucharist and left Christ because it sounded too cannibalistic. In this case you, seem to have a problem with this “softness”.Nothing is bothering me per se. The question was “does the East do this?”, and is not really part of my personality. Just ignore me, and answer the question.
FIRST
Well you have to understand, honor must be given to those who deserve honor. Similarly, teachings must be taught no matter how controversial the teaching is. Teachings like the Eucharist may be controversial and unexplainable fully but yet it is taught and believed.
Yes of course.
God wanted the Word to be flesh and have a human nature. How would he have been human if he were dropped from the sky?
Agreed.
Yes, we are.
Yes, Mary as spiritual mother is awesome.
Why must we ask Mary to lead us to Christ? Is Christ unapproachable?
I am not against Marian intercession and veneration. However, the primary focus is Christ. And I can approach Jesus directly.
Don’t read something about God that turns you on I guess? In the mean time, talk to a psychiatrist, because that has to be unhealthy.Friends
Forgive me for the potentially-scandalous title, but it gets the point across.
Lately, I’ve been delving very far into the depths of post-Augustinian Western mysticism. The neo-platonic theology expounded by that man seems to lend itself to passionate eroticism when considering God. I have been led to some of his writings in Confessions and The City of God. He speaks of the “embrace” of God’s “sweetness”, and how he was “seduced” by our Lord. Being a man who is trying to overcome disordered desires, I don’t see how this particularly helps me form a masculine, yet servile and loving relationship with God.
Wow…
Have you read the Canticle of Canticles? It is a love song with VERY sexual overtones that has often been compared to God’s relationship with his people: as a Bridegroom to his Bride the Church.Is the East and its mysticism like this? Does it fall into the carnal trap of kissing, cuddling, and holding, like the West seems to have done?
Do these quotes also “revolt” you because they use amorous allusions to refer to God?
Okay… then I guess a spousal approach to God isn’t for you. Approach God some other way. No one is saying that you can only approach him as a Spouse and there’s really not some substantial amount of Catholics who do approach him as such, even if some saints who were consecrated religious did.
What do you mean? “Wide-eyed caricature” sounds more like something that someone would accuse the Eastern tradition of (not me, mind you, I think Icons are beautiful!). And what do you mean by “fawned over and embraced”? I can honestly say that I’ve never seen a depiction of the Holy Virgin and thought, “Whoa… hot.” or whatever you are trying to insinuate about Western depictions of Mary. Anyone who has probably has something wrong with them psychologically…
Ummm…
What do you mean? Christ did not have a biological father, does that make him any less human?
Well, the simple answer is, God thought we did. Otherwise he would have just given us Christ, without a mother or a father. Why did he chose to give us Christ through Mary?
I think this question could be more broadly asked along the lines of, why can’t we pray to Christ directly instead of ask saints.
No one says you cant. Just merely pointing out that there are others more righteous than you and I who can pray for us and therefore will be answered.
I am not so sure about that because I really can’t judge what is in those people’s hearts. Most of them ask Mary to intercede for certain graces. There is nothing theologically wrong with that.
And Mary is the mother of Christ. Christ honored Mary and loved her. So we do the same as we imitate Christ
There’s a difference between kindness and a forgiving disposition on the one hand, and doe-eyed nonsense on the other. I find the image of Divine Mercy, for example, to be somewhat typical of pre-Raphaelite Holman-Hunt-like boyish Christ, with those effeminate features very common in the West. Our Lord was 33 when the events of salvation were wrapped up, so I doubt He looked anything as soft and young as Western art tends to depict. This looks like a culture-wide tendency, expressed both in painting, philosophy, mysticism, and literature.
I have a problem with consistently describing the “Ancient of Days”, the almighty, glorious, mysterious, and immortal king - in terms of “sweet kisses” and “seductions”. The deer may pant for water in a manner similar to the Psalmist wishing for God, but the language isn’t so sensual as in later Western mysticism.
You might say “oh well, Augustine is just one man in his own philosophical world”, but he most certainly is the Father of the West, in terms of perceptions and popular assumptions.You are quite right. What do you expect from a neophyte, especially a neophyte who has always had problems with accepting authority unquestioningly? I like to think things out. Many people do. It doesn’t mean our type is rebelling against God and His Church. We have ways of going about learning!
Ok, ok! Has the Latin-Rite Roman Catholic Church gone astray in terms of mystical theology?
Thanks. I love you, too, my Christian sibling.
Of course I have a problem with softness. St. Paul condemns effeminacy and uncleanness among men. St. John tells us not to be lukewarm, and softness is often derided in Leviticus. We’re supposed to follow an ancient manly ideal here. That’s the whole point of the grand story God has been painting… to not worry, to trust in God, to not be afraid, and to forge forward in trust and courage. These values are not soft.
Do you consider what a grave logical fallacy the argument against the messenger is? Do you ever consider the book of Wisdom, which says: “The age of a man is not counted by the hairs on his head. Wisdom is grey hairs”? Should I assume that you need a psychiatrist because I disagree with you? Don’t be ridiculous. If anything makes our Lord Jesus Christ weep, it’s snotty sarcasm among His children.
The very point is that I object to the use of sensual and carnal language, even in figure. This thread is constructed on the assumption that these saints’ words are figurative. I never disputed that. Different types of analogies and metaphors and figures exist, though. I’m asking whether the East uses the same typology and way of figuring that the West does. I’ve not really been answered properly yet…First of all, you do realize that all of these people are consecrated religious, don’t you? … It’s figurative language, not literal.
Dear me, I should have read the Song of Songs before making this thread. I do apologise. It looks like Solomon was pretty Augustinian… or Augustine was very Solomonic!
Well I was just asking whether the East takes the Western view(s) on this or not. My opinion wasn’t initially the center of the thread. Let’s hope that changes!
Why are you so full of irony and vitriol? Say what you mean without calumny.
Perhaps it would be better to confine myself to Western art from the last 300 years, as styles became softer in religious art.Friend, this is not a thread about Mary and the saints. The B.V.M. was brought up as an example, not a goal! Your quote from Scripture, though, is an interesting example of what I mean about perceived Western effeminacy. The reaction you give is indicative of the Western view vs. the Eastern prominence.
Ok listen, why don’t you ask the question that you really want to ask instead of hiding behind these very weird accusations that are making you look like someone with a sexual disorder to many who have replied.
Messenger of what? All I see is someone criticizing saints who had a different understanding of God from himself. What is your message? That saints are sexually attracted to Christ because they discuss their unique relationship to him in metaphorical terms as a marriage?
When did I ever bring up your age?
I’m not the one who has my mind in the gutter while reading literature about God.
But criticizing his Holy Ones for their expression of Divine Love doesn’t hurt him?
I just don’t see why you object so strongly to use of spousal metaphors in relation to the Divine. Solomon’s work is bridal mysticism par-excellance and it’s a part of Sacred Scripture!
Agreed!
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with bridal mysticism in Eastern Christianity. Hopefully I will learn something of their perspective on this thread, as I am sure they have some form of it since nearly every religion does (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism…).
What did I say that was so calumnious? That people who are sexually excited by images of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God have something wrong with them? Do you think people who feel that way about her images are normal???
I really don’t see how so, other than perhaps the popular art in holy cards and other kitschy objects of the lay people (which I personally kind of enjoy
). Could you provide an example of what you mean? Like a specific painting?A lot of it has to do with the Counter-Reformation, honestly. We were accused of putting saints and the Blessed Mother on a pedestal and turning them into divinities, so we started portraying them in a more human, relaxed manner. The East never had much of a problem with this, so they were able to maintain the mystique of their Icons easier.This is after a certain point of course, since we can hardly call Medieval and Renaissance images childish, being so rigid and mysterious as they often are.
You seem to be very concerned about being compared to a woman in relation to God. This makes no sense to me. It is merely an allusion. It’s not like anyone is asking you to wear a dress, put on a veil, and play Mary in a Christmas play. I don’t see how taking Mary as a role model would emasculate a man in the same way that I don’t see how a woman following the example of Christ would defeminize her. Why are you so opposed to feminine symbolism?My dearly beloved brethren in Christ, don’t imagine I’m saying there’s no place for love. The complaint is not of love, but of exaggerated love. I hear many traditional Catholics talking about the blessed Virgin being our mother in the most forceful terms. Franciscans especially seem to emphasise the Nativity of our Lord (for example) and our need to feel that we’re carrying Jesus in our “womb”, even if we’re males. Everything I’ve encountered in Western liturgy and life has been hyperbolised, made personal and ‘sweet’ to the senses. There are “children of Mary” aplenty, but no “knights of Christ”, if you know what I mean.
In the East, I see more of the “sons of God”, but in the West I’m sensing more a “daughters of Mary” attitude. Does this clarify things a little?