Readings 12/22/08 Monday

[LMP]

(This is because cheeto1 doesn’t always like to be the person that starts the topic.)

1Samuel 1:24-28
(I’m skipping the psalm section today
Enough music lyric for one day)
Luke 1:46-56

Do you ever just read hymns? I like to do this.
I like just concentrating on the lyrics without the music, and then, too, I like concentrating on just the music and not the words.

Well today we have just lyrics for the Magnificat.
(Canticle meaning canticulum or song.)
Hey, there is music written for these lyrics. It is traditional chant notation…those little square things on a four-lined staff from way back in early church history because the Magnificat is just not a song…it is a liturgical song. There is a difference. People know instinctively the difference.

We also today have just lyrics for Chapter 3 in Habakkuk. This is the immediate cross reference to the Magnificat. If you read this liturgical song, you get a better drift as to what Mary was singing.
Read Hb 3:17. Gloom and doom then…
vs. 18 Yet will I ++REJOICE++ in the Lord…

Think of Mary’s situation. Hey, she knew that the whole town was going to gossip yadda yadda yadda
She was thinking about what Joseph was going to say, do etc., not to mention her parents.
Yet…(Lk 1:47) “my spirit REJOICES in God, my savior!”

My neighbor “sang” this song. He just got laid off.
Yet…he REJOICED because now he had time to go fishing instead of sitting behind a desk!

As the dollar collapses and the hungry become more plentiful, we need to “sing” because it is a way to raise our spirits and concentrate on the important things of this life. It is a way to experience the prefigurement of our own resurrection.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I wonder why she went away for 3 whole months visiting her cousin. Was this to help Elizabeth while she was pregnant?

 

[LMP]

Gabriel told Mary that her relative was in her sixth month. Gestation for humans is nine months.
6 + 3 = 9 John is born. Mary who never knew anything about cutting an umbilical cord probably had a good learning experience with John’s birth. Do you think God was thinking ahead?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Gabriel told Mary that her relative was in her sixth month. Gestation for humans is nine months.
6 + 3 = 9 John is born. Mary who never knew anything about cutting an umbilical cord probably had a good learning experience with John’s birth. Do you think God was thinking ahead?

Maybe.
I wonder if Mary’s parents wanted to send her away so that everyone wouldnt talk about her questionable pregnancy so much?

 

[Light_Seeker]

Hannah was being tormented by Peninah for being barren. Her song, directed at Peninah, is in retribution to this torment. Likewise, Mary faced stoning and ridicule for being a pregnant virgin, and fled to Elizabeth. In her Magnificat, she rejoices that all will call her blessed because the Lord has done great things, a retribution if you will.

Samuel, born of the barren Hannah, was the last of the Judges to right the wrongs of Eli’s sons and other unholy priests. Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, was the last of prophets and the Messiah, righting wrongs of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and saving mankind.

Hannah’s song praises God, turning the poor & needy into princes with honor. Likewise, Mary’s Magnificat exalts the low and hungry.

If you are in a seat of power, wicked & not serving the Lord … you won’t be in that seat for long

 

[Light_Seeker]

I wonder why she went away for 3 whole months visiting her cousin. Was this to help Elizabeth while she was pregnant?

I’ve noted when my DW was pregnant, seemed she always had several friends around who were pregnant also, & they were always comparing notes. Kind of a pregnant support group

 

[cheeto1]

Mary probably had a good learning experience with John’s birth.

I always wondered why Mary stayed for 3 months and then
left before John’s birth. But now you say you think she stayed.
Well, I guess the bible doesn’t say.

 

[cheeto1]

(I’m skipping the psalm section today
Enough music lyric for one day)

Well today we have just lyrics for the Magnificat.

We also today have just lyrics for Chapter 3 in Habakkuk.

I know my missal is a little old, but it says the Psalm today is
1Samuel 2. It is strikingly similar to the Magnificat.
I didn’t see anything for Habakkuk.

I looked up 1Samuel 2 in the bible because it is so rare they use
something for the psalm that isn’t a psalm, and I found that they
chose to omit a very interesting verse near the end. It says this:
He gives to the vower his vow, and blesses the sleep of the just.
We can’t actually make promises, because we don’t have the
power to make them come true, only God does. And isn’t it the
greatest blessing to have a good sleep, when it happens?

In the first reading, I always wondered how Hannah could explain
to young Samuel that she was leaving him now, forever in the care of someone else. Do you think he cried? Even if she waited till he was 5 to wean him, I don’t see how he could understand.
And why didn’t women think back then to say, “Well, Elkanah, you’re very nice, but I see you’re already married”(and not marry him)

Nothing struck me about today’s gospel. Maybe I’ve heard it too many times.

LMP, you and light seeker have many interesting things to say,
and everyone else too. Isn’t it great to talk about the readings?:bible1:

 

[LMP]

I know my missal is a little old, but it says the Psalm today is
1Samuel 2. It is strikingly similar to the Magnificat.
I didn’t see anything for Habakkuk.

I looked up 1Samuel 2 in the bible because it is so rare they use
something for the psalm that isn’t a psalm, and I found that they
chose to omit a very interesting verse near the end. It says this:
He gives to the vower his vow, and blesses the sleep of the just.
We can’t actually make promises, because we don’t have the
power to make them come true, only God does. And isn’t it the
greatest blessing to have a good sleep, when it happens?

In the first reading, I always wondered how Hannah could explain
to young Samuel that she was leaving him now, forever in the care of someone else. Do you think he cried? Even if she waited till he was 5 to wean him, I don’t see how he could understand.
And why didn’t women think back then to say, “Well, Elkanah, you’re very nice, but I see you’re already married”(and not marry him)

Nothing struck me about today’s gospel. Maybe I’ve heard it too many times.

LMP, you and light seeker have many interesting things to say,
and everyone else too. Isn’t it great to talk about the readings?:bible1:

It is good to question. I certainly don’t know everything and many many times I am totally mistaken. We are all learning.

I do not know for sure that Mary was present at the birth of John. I just always thought that since I was
of the age to know about pregnancy stuff. Maybe she wasn’t.

Hey, if an angel came to me and told me that Elizabeth was an old pregnant lady, I’d make some tracks! That would be something I’d like to see.

I am sure that Mary’s parents were concerned for her safety. I bet, though, if angelic word was going to all the concerned, I bet the parents probably received it as well. The canonized gospel just didn’t record that.

In other non canonized literature, it says that Mary was given to the temple…I’m not sure if this was similar to Samuel or not. I remember reading that a girl at temple learning and becoming educated was NOT usual.

 

[Light_Seeker]

LMP, you and light seeker have many interesting things to say,and everyone else too. Isn’t it great to talk about the readings?:bible1:

Absolutely!!

Reading everyone’s postings on the readings really inspires me … and always gives me things to chew on & think about that I never considered before.

This Advent I decided to not just glance at the readings, but to start really studying & contemplating on them. I look at the different interpretations in my RSV-CE, compare it to the NAB, and Douay-Rheims. I usually then reference the Catechism to see if any of the readings are cross referenced, ensure I pick up those teachings. I’ll then look up Haydock’s commentaries, see what our Church Father’s have to say. Many times I get sidetracked on total different paths searching down a cross-reference, but its a good thing. I usually end it by googling the readings, see if there are any on-line commenteries, & usually can find a few.

After this, I begin to think I really understand!

And then I log in to these threads, and you guys blow me away with your knowledge & observations that never crossed my mind !!!

A very humble Thank You to all!

 

[Light_Seeker]

In other non canonized literature, it says that Mary was given to the temple…I’m not sure if this was similar to Samuel or not. I remember reading that a girl at temple learning and becoming educated was NOT usual.

May not be usual, but it wasn’t unheard of if she was a Nazirite. Hannah vowed Samuel for life as a Nazirite, a ‘special’ class of Nazirites. Perhaps Mary’s parents vowed a similar Nazirite wish for her. Time for this vow could be anywhere from 30 days to life.

I assume you’re referencing Gospel of James… think I remember that somewhere in there.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Queen Helena was a Nazirite for 21 years. Agrippa’s sister Berenice was also at Jerusuleum for her vow as a Nazirite.

The hard thing for a woman Nazirite is that at both the beginning and the end of the allotted time, they have to shave their head and offer their hair in a burnt offering. Now if Mary was a Nazirite as Gospel of James implies, this gives me a whole different mental image of Mother Mary.

Bald!

 

[cheeto1]

The hard thing for a woman Nazirite is that at both the beginning and the end of the allotted time, they have to shave their head and offer their hair in a burnt offering.

Does the bible say anything about a woman Nazirite? I have
never heard of this. Is it in the Jewish Encyclopedia?
So then would the reason a man couldn’t cut his hair be because
it was embarrassing then?

 

[cheeto1]

Absolutely!!

I look at the different interpretations in my RSV-CE, compare it to the NAB, and Douay-Rheims. I usually then reference the Catechism to see if any of the readings are cross referenced, ensure I pick up those teachings. I’ll then look up Haydock’s commentaries, see what our Church Father’s have to say. Many times I get sidetracked on total different paths searching down a cross-reference, but its a good thing. I usually end it by googling the readings, see if there are any on-line commenteries, & usually can find a few.

You do all this every day? And you still have time to come here?
Wow, that’s what I call time management!

 

[cheeto1]

I bet, though, if angelic word was going to all the concerned, I bet the parents probably received it as well.

In other non canonized literature, it says that Mary was given to the temple

These are some interesting ideas. Is there another book to find
these stories in?

 

[Light_Seeker]

Does the bible say anything about a woman Nazirite? I have
never heard of this. Is it in the Jewish Encyclopedia?
So then would the reason a man couldn’t cut his hair be because
it was embarrassing then?

See Numbers 6:2 - “When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite”. This chapter lists the Nazirite rules.

Read that a life-long Nazirite could cut his hair once a year. Heres a link to the Jewish Encylo.

 

[Light_Seeker]

These are some interesting ideas. Is there another book to find these stories in?

Yup. Protoevangelium of St. James. Heres a link to the text.

 

[cheeto1]

See Numbers 6:2 - “When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite”. This chapter lists the Nazirite rules.

Read that a life-long Nazirite could cut his hair once a year. Heres a link to the Jewish Encylo.

Thank you! I did see “or woman” in the book of Numbers, but
neither in the bible or the Jewish encyclopedia did I find different
rules for women. I really appreciate that link, thank you!

 

[cheeto1]

Yup. Protoevangelium of St. James. Heres a link to the text.

Thanks for that. As I was reading it, I got sort of a nervous
feeling, like how I felt when reading the Koran and the Book
of Mormon. Do you know what the church has to say about
this book?

 

[Light_Seeker]

Thanks for that. As I was reading it, I got sort of a nervous
feeling, like how I felt when reading the Koran and the Book
of Mormon. Do you know what the church has to say about
this book?

One of the earlier Popes put it on the apocryphal list in the 4th century. Perhaps because it says Jesus was born in a cave, contradicting the Gospels. The believed author is Jame the Less, which was St. Paul’s traveling buddy. It was wildly popular, there have been many archeological finds of it.

It explains Joseph absence in Jesus life, as he was an old man at the birth. It lists Mary’s parents, but theologians & exegeses may have different theories based on Gospel scripture. It clearly goes into Mary’s perpetual virginity.

It may not be canonical. But the writings of Augustine, Ambrose, or Aquinas weren’t either. These Saints have formed our Catholic tradition & teachings. And I believe much in the same way, the Gospel of James has formed our tradition, as the Church embraces it’s concepts.

 

[cheeto1]

the Church embraces it’s concepts.

Thank you!