Questions about St Joachim, St Anne, the Immaculate Conception and the theology of Mary

[Prodigal1984]

It depends.
Some are highly regarded, were in the Vulgate and are used in liturgy such as 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. Others have never been condemned such as books Orthodox accept, 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 etc.
Others are called apocryphal yet are orthodox and teach nothing heretical.
Still others are Gnostic in nature and are to be avoided.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Others are called apocryphal yet are orthodox and teach nothing heretical.

I’ve recently read the Book of Enoch and it seems fine. It is part of the writings found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Same with Psalm 151.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Yah Enoch, and Jubilees are fine. In fact the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church considers them scripture. Seeing as they are part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, which Rome has come a long way with in the past 50 years, it shouldn’t be viewed as heretical.

Both were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enoch and Jubilees were very popular in the early Church. Them along with the Orthodox books were on the fringe of canonicity.

 

[po18guy]

If you can find a good, 20th century English translation, read what John Duns Scotus had to say.

Edit: neuropathy and cataract-related typos. Praise God!

 

[jack63]

@po18guy…thanks for the helpful response. I did just read the part on the immaculate conception that you linked. I remember during one of the masses on about Mary…the one about the Assumption…I think. The priest gave exactly this…the theology of Duns Scotus. I had no idea where it was coming from…I didn’t know it was from Duns Scotus. These arguments are beautiful and simple. I’ll need to think about them further and perhaps read more as you suggest.

 

[po18guy]

You are very kind. An idea: Go before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and let Him know of your doctrinal struggles. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive your illumination; your consolation by the Holy Spirit, you will be changed.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes, and following Luke’s genealogy, the father of Mary is named Heli.

That is Joseph’s father not Mary’s.

 

[jack63]

At the moment I’m approaching this intellectually. No doubt there is another side of this search that should be based on prayer.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Well my understanding is most scholars consider Like’s genealogy to be Mary’s and Matthew’s genealogy to be Joseph’s.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Well my understanding is most scholars consider Like’s genealogy to be Mary’s and Matthew’s genealogy to be Joseph’s.

That’s true in as much as Mary & Joseph would have married within their own kin. But the geneology is literally Joseph’s. It was his father that was Heli. In Matthew it is Jacob! This is explained by some that one was an adoptive father while the other was the natural father.

Although some have also said that Heli was Joseph’s Father in Law (Mary’s Father) and therefore is HER geneology, as you have said. But then that would not agree with Church Tradition that says Joachim is her father (Joseph’s Father in Law.)

It is a puzzle!

 

[po18guy]

I am certainly no spiritual master, but an illumination by the Holy Spirit is simply indescribable. In any event, the faith is actually faith+reason. Intellectually, one may be satisfied, but there are times when limitations on information and the human intellect fail to satisfy. Spiritual consolation, on the other hand, being supernatural, is best experienced, since human language utterly fails to accurately portray it.

As a Catholic, as a Christian, as a human being, time spent in the Presence of Christ cannot be valued.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Although some have also said that Heli was Joseph’s Father in Law (Mary’s Father) and therefore is HER geneology, as you have said. But then that would not agree with Church Tradition that says Joachim is her father (Joseph’s Father in Law.)

One possibility is that Heli and Joachim are the same person. Just like Bartholomew and Nathaniel are the same person.

 

[jack63]

Taking about Faith+Reason, I still have one or more questions here. I’m no theological expert, but I’d like to understand my faith. Basically my question is whether Blessed John Duns Scotus and the Anglican theologian John MacQuarrie are saying the same thing. Are their ideas about the Virgin Mary compatible?

From the Wikipedia page on John Duns Scotus Duns Scotus - Wikipedia

Duns Scotus devised the following argument: Mary was in need of redemption like all other human beings, but through the merits of Jesus’ crucifixion, given in advance, she was conceived without the stain of original sin. God could have brought it about

From Fr. Longenecker’s article he states the views of the Anglican theologian John MacQuarrie

The theologian John MacQuarrie has an interesting take on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. While acknowledging God’s hand intervening in the action, he also acknowledges the involvement of the human dimension and the human will conforming to God’s providence. In other words, Joachim and Anne were responding to God’s plan and living their lives within his will and call to holiness. The Blessed Mother was conceived naturally, but that natural conception also had to be full of grace and truth. Joachim and Anne’s marriage was sacred and therefore their physical union was sacred. Furthermore, MacQuarrie speculates that their union was not divorced from the whole action of God’s providence in the world. Galatians 4:4 says “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son born of a woman.” That “fullness of time” also reflects back on the conception of the Blessed Virgin. If Jesus was sent forth in the fullness of time, then his mother also was conceived at the fullness of time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Where exactly are you seeing any incompatibility between the two statements?

Duns Scotus is talking about Mary’s “preventive redemption”, the doctrine of which was spread by the Franciscans, adopted by Blessed Pope Pius IX when he defined the Immaculate Conception, and has since been referenced also by Pope Benedict and probably others as well.

I see nothing in the MacQuarrie quote discussing whether Mary needed a redeemer or anything about “preventive redemption”. He is simply noting that Joachim and Anne also had to follow God’s will for them and live holy lives as a married couple in order to conceive Mary. So you’re kind of asking “does this apple here conflict with this orange over there?”

Furthermore, why would Fr. Longenecker quote a theologian, especially a non-Catholic theologian, who gave any views about Mary that conflicted with the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Fr. Longenecker doesn’t do stuff like that. He also wasn’t writing any sort of a ground-breaking theological article here, it is just a nice reflection on God’s will and free will and Sts. Joachim and Anne.

 

[jack63]

Where exactly are you seeing any incompatibility between the two statements?

I’m not.

I’ve heard one “very good” approximately 10 minute homily on the subject and I’m trying to understand more. For example “What is new?”, “What is different?”, and “Are people saying the same thing?” Basic questions one might ask. I’m not trying to find a “Gotcha” here. I honestly don’t know have enough of a theology background to do that.

So you’re kind of asking “does this apple here conflict with this orange over there?”

That’s a good one. I’ll have to use that saying again. I’m glad you see these two theological points of view that way. In other words you are saying the points of view aren’t incompatible.

Duns Scotus is talking about Mary’s “preventive redemption”, the doctrine of which was spread by the Franciscans, adopted by Blessed Pope Pius IX when he defined the Immaculate Conception, and has since been referenced also by Pope Benedict

That is interesting. Where did you read about that?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I looked it up because somebody in another book made a statement that Christ “redeemed” Mary. That’s a controversial thing to say because she never had original sin, and never sinned in her life, so for what did she need redemption? Many Catholics say she didn’t need redemption at all. But this “preventive redemption” I described above is in the document defining the Immaculate Conception and has been cited more recently by Pope Benedict. So yes, according to the Vatican, Mary was redeemed by Jesus, preventively, before she was ever conceived.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: earlier comments in this thread –

Anna and Hannah are the same name. The Proto-Evangelion of James makes great play on Anna praying for a child in a way similar to Hannah, the mother of Samuel, and dedicating Mary to God and sending her to the Temple, just like Samuel.

Heli is the same name as Eli, who raised Samuel.

Joachim (meaning “YHWH establishes”) is the same name as Eliakim (meaning “God establishes”). Eli is probably the short version of Eliakim.

 

[JohnR77]

Belief in Joachim and Ann is considered Catholic tradition and them being saints and the parents of Mary is endorsed by the Church. We are not free to reject that.

With respect to the generally accepted source for this belief, while it’s true the Gospel of James is not considered canon, it is generally cited

To be more precise some protestants would look to this as the source but the Catholic Church would never say its source is from an apocryphal work.

Some would say that it is the oldest extant document giving collaborative Support.

Now, correcting myself based on Mintaka’s fantastic post above, We would have to say it is the 2nd oldest with Luke’s gospel predating that.

Catholic historians Nicephorus and Hippolytus Support this Catholic tradition.

As for Luke’s Gospel and genealogy , I now Remember that it was my father who told me that Mary’s father Joachim spiritually adopted Saint Joseph as his son, and so that’s why that the geneology goes through Mary’s father. I don’t know where he read that but he never misled me on spiritual things.