In my previous post in response to Onesimus, I had to cut things short because of other obligations. When I returned and started to read some other post (just to get my thoughts straight) I see things got a little ugly. Hopefully, if circumstances permit I will address some comments directly.
Again, I want to state what I am writing are reflections on my own devotion to Mary and why I think this devotion in not only reasonable but scriptural as well. And of coarse in line with actual Catholic Dogma.
I ended my previous post by trying to show that inorder to understand Mary, as found in scripture, I have to understand her faith in the context and fulfilment of the faith of Abraham, a faith I think tested to its fullest at the foot of the cross. However, from the scriptures I have read, Mary’s understanding of the full implication of her “Fiat” her trust in God’s plan was a life long process. I see this right at Jesus’ birth - Simenon declares a sword shall pierce her, shortly afterwards, she, Joseph and Jesus must escape Herods plans to kill Jesus (which having read a little history on Herod would have meant her death as well). I read when Jesus was at the age of 12 and in the incident of the finding at the Temple, Mary actually receive a rebuke from Jesus and Jesus not only implies she should know what he was about but actually states it, but Luke tells us she did not understand but keep these things in her heart.
Through out the gospels, I found Mary, at times, still not fully realizing the totality of her “Fiat” and of Jesus’. At times, on the face of it, we find Jesus again rebuking or correcting his mother. Consider Jesus’ first mircle at Cana and his initial response to Mary’s request. Instead of say OK I will handle it, it asks her what business is it of his and reminds her his “hour” has not come. I will talk about Mary’s response later. In Mark and Luke, we find again Mary not fully understanding Jesus’ ministry and again he seemily rebukes her in public with the words to the effect that she is not my true family, only those who hear the word of God and keep it are his true family.
But isn’t this exactly what her whole life was about? Didn’t she so totally accept God’s Word that in her the Word became Incarnate? And from what I wrote above doesn’t this show that just as from the moment of conception until birth God’s word developed, literally, during Jesus’ ministry we find the development of God’s Word proclaim in the person of Jesus also developing, not in doubt but in a growing understanding, which I think may not have been all that easy for her.
I think incidents from the gospels (plus more if you care to study, example, in Luke/Acts it is only Mary who is physically present at the birth of Jesus and the Church) are the foundations of the Dogmas on Mary.
These Dogmas come the Church’s reflection on the scriptures and Mary’s role in the History of Salvation and it should be noted that in each Dogma at the core of the Church’s teaching is always Christ Paschal Mystery (i.e. Christ passion, death and Resurrection). I wrote in my previous post about the Immaculate Conception. Again, could Mary have given her full consent to become the Mother of God if she was not free from Original Sin given the fact of the effect of Original sin of our Free Will? And, if she was conceived with out Original Sin (being highly favored and found favor with God) where then does the scriptures say she sinned besides Paul but if you take his statement just as is and not in the context it was written even Jesus sinned, as opposed to taking on sin which is the stuff of another thread. This brings me to the question, then, what does the literal term “One having been favored” mean and how is this substantially different from “Full of Grace”? I personally do not see a substantial difference in the translation of the literal greek into the English “Full of Grace”. Perhaps I am wrong and I am interested in reading where the substantial difference lies (by the way, sometimes I see a criticism of the prayer “Hail Mary” that this was not the actual greeting of the angel. This is true, but then who was Gabriel talking to?) But this passage from Luke also makes me think about what is the meaning of the term mediator? Doesn’t the fact that it was through Mary, and no one else, Christ was born, came into his human existance? Isn’t this the role of a mediator? Also, when we ask a fellow Christian to pray for us is this not asking that person to be a mediator for us? When I ask someone to pray for me or a special intention I have, I do so knowing full well that that person is not God, this brings me to question why would people immediately think that praying to Mary elevates her to a divinity, it just does not make sense. Perhaps it is because The Church has given her the title “Mother of God” that would lead some to this conclusion, but then that child which she had given birth to was God Incarnate, so you really cannot seperate Jesus’ two natures. But maybe I am off on this observation?
. Honestly, I forgive you.
