T
TimothyH
Guest
More logic… OK, I think I can put it together using the logic of the Bible. This builds on ryanoneil’s post (which I thank you for brother.
I’ll have to read Isaiah again regarding the virgin daughter Israel.)…and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34-35)
Mary’s heart was pierced at the vision of her son crucified. And the Church teaches that the blood and water which flowed from the side of Christ at that Crucifixion was the sacramental birth of the Church.
For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth 'the wondrous sacrament of the whole Church." (CCC 1067)
Mary gave birth to Christ. Christ has one body. That body is the Church. When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was not just giving birth to a human body, that of her son, but to his entire body; giving birth to the entire Church. She may not have had labor pains when her pregnancy was over and her son Jesus was born, but that’s not the point. The Church IS her son’s body, and the Chuch was born sacramentally at the crucifixion when blood and water flowed from Christ’s side. Mary sat there and watched that, and experienced great pain. That’s why the Church teaches that Mary is the co-redemtrix. Cannot Mary’s pain at the crucifixion, when the waters of baptism and the blood of the Eucharist flowed from Christ’s side giving sacramental birth to the Church also be labor pains, pains experienced at the birth of her son’s body which is the Church?
There is no magesterial teaching here. All of this is only my opinion and I don’t mean to put anyone down and really don’t wish to be uncharitable here. But the book of Revelation was placed at the end of the Bible by our Holy Church for a reason; they assume that you read the rest of the book first. And this brings me to my original point, which I’ll state again. We can try to muscle scripture, to reason it, and to make it fit into flow charts and neat little bulleted lists of verses which back up our own views, but that is not the way it was meant to be read. And we must be very careful before we rule out one meaning absolutely. People are still pulling gleaming diamonds out of the mine of Scripture 2000 years after it was written.
Sure, there is a lot to be gained from studying the sacred texts logically, through exegisis, literary styles and understanding the historical, social and economic context under which the authors and their intended audience operated, but they are also deep spiritual works. The proper context for parsing each word and studying the deepest meaning of the texts is to do so spiritually. Lectio Divina, praying the bible slowly is one way to do that. The Brother’s at the monastery I visit occasionally call it “Feasting on God’s word”. One Brother said to me, “Scripture is like a giant buffet. You know you aren’t going to get to everything but you eat as much as you can anyway.”
A great pair of ten minute videos about lectio divina by Archbisop Thomas Collins is at **archtoronto.org/events_news/lectio_video_intro.html **for anyone who is interested.
-Tim-