Gregorian chant, Mary and the Blessed offspring (Beata viscera): the evisceration of scripture

A few months ago I bought a Sony turntable and over one hundred classical music LPs at a car boot sale. I removed a pair of speakers from my caravan and bought an amplifier. I connected them all up a few minutes ago. The records are standing stacked next to one another on a high shelf, and so the covers are not visible. I randomly reached up and pulled one out: Gregorian chant from the Benedictine Monastery of Monserrat; my first vinyl for many decades.

I think on my devout Catholic twenty-something years and the monasteries I stayed at in Europe. The Catholic church is sure filled with beauty. If only beautiful music, liturgy, architecture, ceremonies could reconcile us with God! This is not to say that the Reformers and Catholics did not share core biblical beliefs, which are reflected in some of the chants on the record such as “Descendit de caelis” (He came down from heaven), “In principio erat verbum” (In the beginning was he word) and “Verbum caro factum est (The word was made flesh). Several of these chants, however, stick in my throat; for example, “Beata viscera” (Blessed Offspring), a Marian piece sung during the Communion of the Mass. It is sung also on the feast of the Assumption (Mary taken, like Enoch, up to heaven without tasting death) and votive masses of the Blessed Virgin.

Here is the English translation of “Beata Viscera”:

Blessed flesh (inner parts) of the Virgin Mary, (Beata viscera Marie virginis)

at whose breast the king of eminent name,

concealing, under altered guise,

the force of divine nature,

has sealed a pact of God and Man.

O astonishing novelty and unaccustomed joy

of a mother still pure after childbirth (matris integrita post puerperium)

 

Vision does not endure to behold in its radiance

the sun, unconcealed, as he rises forth, pure.

Let the wholly enclosed womb of the mother

behold from the side as it is reflected.

O astonishing novelty and unaccustomed joy

of a mother still pure after childbirth.

 

Beata Viscera,” according to Catholic teaching, is based on Psalm 45:10b,11,12,13,14,15,16

10 a Listen, daughter, and pay careful attention:
 b Forget your people and your father’s house.

11 Let the king be enthralled by your beauty;
    honor him, for he is your lord.

12 The city of Tyre will come with a gift, people of wealth will seek your favor.

13 All glorious is the princess within her chamber;
    her gown is interwoven with gold.

14 In embroidered garments she is led to the king;
 her virgin companions follow her—
    those brought to be with her.

15 Led in with joy and gladness,
they enter the palace of the king.

16 Your sons will take the place of your fathers;
 you will make them princes throughout the land.

If you believe Mary is not only the mother of all mankind but also the Queen of heaven (as Catholics do), how on earth do you see the “Queen of heaven” as one of the several virgins sent in to share King David’s bed. No doubt she will be “led in with joy and gladness (when) she enters the palace of the king,” for what can be more joyful for her than to share her King’s bed? For one brief night – at least – she will be queen. And when she wakes up in the morning, yes, she’ll still, as a legitimate concubine,  be pure, but will she still be a virgin?

 Like many of the abuses of scripture in rabbinism, “mea viscera” not only distorts, scripture, it eviscerates it.

 

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Gregorian chant, Mary and the Blessed offspring (Beata viscera): the evisceration of scripture

  1. I like the words of this chant. I have to go out in a little while to a show where there will be chants of a different kind :-). When I came back I will consider your position but even if I completely disagree I think that to mention this chant was quite worth it…even if only for its beauty 🙂

  2. Dear Bog,
    When I wrote my first message I didn’t understand why I wanted to communicate to you that I was going to hear other ‘kind of chants’. But I let my unmotivated impulse run his way, something that in my past I didn’t do it and that I regret deeply now. Well when I was at the theatre at one point I understood why 🙂 I knew the ‘chants’. They are internationally well known. What I didn’t know and I don’t think it is biographically correct ( anyway I didn’t know in general the biography) it is that in the show there would have been introduced an important note about ( perhaps out of the blue) South Africa and Cape Town, JJohannesburg, the apartheid. Well as we know this territory I am writing now on it is connected geographically to that sphere of the globe. What does this mean ultimately? That my trust in the veneration of the Virgin Mary does have something to do with unpredictable impulse but not for this unjustifiable reasoning and reasons that go beyond our presently limited perspectives. I already wrote extensively about Her on this blog, in the Catholic section and here https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/mary-highly-favoured-mother-of-the-son-of-god/
    What can I say about this chant now? Well…for example that the Queen mother was considered extremely important in the Jewish tradition, in the David /Salomon’ kingdom tradition for example the power, prestige, consideration, honor of the mother exceeded any other presence at his court. The coronation of the Mother was second only to the coronation of the Son somehow culturally speaking in that historical background. The wife daughter and any other female and male presence around the king didn’t have more influence of the Mother. Not speaking in this case specifically only historically but also theologically there are many passages of the Scriptures where the presence of a female, many times abstract, figure is quite important and to the core of the coming of the Messiah. Since I don’t want to indulge in many citation I am considering citing the Ecclesiasticus: “Ecclesiasticus, also called the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, deuterocanonical biblical work (accepted in the Roman Catholic canon but noncanonical for Jews and Protestants), an outstanding example of the wisdom genre of religious literature that was popular in the early Hellenistic period of Judaism (3rd century bc to 3rd century ad). This book appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, though it was later rejected as apocryphal by Jews. Like other major wisdom books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, and Wisdom of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus contains practical and moral rules and exhortations, frequently arranged according to …
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/177810/Ecclesiasticus
    And now from the Ecclesiasticus Capt 24: “From the beginning, and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling pla
    ce I have ministered before him. [15] And so was I established in Sion, and in the holy city likewise I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem. [16] And I took root in an honourable people, and in the portion of my God his inheritance, and my abode is in the full assembly of saints. [24] I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. [25] In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. [24] I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. [25] In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. [30] He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. [31] They that explain me shall have life everlasting. [32] All these things are the book of life, and the covenant of the most High, and the knowledge of truth. [33] Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justices, and an inheritance to the house of Jacob, and the promises to Israel. [34] He appointed to David his servant to raise up of him a most mighty king, and sitting on the throne of glory for ever
    I don’t think that the chant you mention does say anything more of this Mother than the Ecclesiasticus…and after all the fact that has not been considered this book by Jews and Protestants does say something about the importance of this book 

    • So, Mary for you is

      “And now from the Ecclesiasticus Capt 24: “From the beginning, and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling place I have ministered before him. [15] And so was I established in Sion, and in the holy city likewise I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem. [16] And I took root in an honourable people, and in the portion of my God his inheritance, and my abode is in the full assembly of saints. [24] I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. [25] In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.”

      You conclude: “I don’t think that the chant you mention does say anything more of this Mother than the Ecclesiasticus.” You are right, “Beata viscera” doesn’t say more than this: 1. the mother of Jesus was created before the world began, 2. “I was established in Sion, and in the holy city likewise I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem. 3. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.”

      In sum, Mary, for you (and many Catholics) is the way, the truth, the hope and the life. “Beata viscera” as I said is an evisceration of the Gospel, that is, it tears the guts out of it. What you have just told me persuades me even more that this is so.

      Jesus is the way the truth and the life. And he is the only person among those who came into this world to have existed before the world began. Jewish mysticism, which teaches the pre-existence of “Jewish souls,” might have been comfortable with the idea that Mary’s soul pre-existed the world if she had not been the mother of Yeshua the Nazarene.

      • Bog,
        In fact I told what I told because I knew what it meant for you  You know that I am not a protestant preacher or daughter of a preacher who goes around spelling out the word of God at every turn of the road 🙂 Theologically speaking….If I am giving life to the truth what does it mean about my being? I am also the truth perhaps? If I give the way to the world? I am also the way? It is not at all theologically and philosophically speaking contradictory…the vector is also part of what it brings theologically speaking…for the good and the bad. Think about it…if it is actually in my viscera that I procreate the human flesh of God what do you think theologically would it mean? Come onnnnn….it is so consequential that it becomes inconsequential (not derivative of logical sequence) if you don’t accept it 🙂 but since I am a woman I have a good way and a bad way of being inconsequential (not logical but extremely perceptive) your being inconsequential it only means that it is almost ‘stupid stubbornness’ . My inconsequentiality as I told you it is part of what historically speaking we would assume as not important, marginal in the eyes of supremacy, leadership and so on but in the eyes of God perhaps this is an important traits of being a woman and not a man if it is not linked to mere ‘stubbornness’. Also since we are so peculiar about the precise meaning of words I would like to expose what does for me means vector:
        MathematicsJ
        a. A quantity, such as velocity, completely specified by a magnitude and a direction.
        b. A one-dimensional array.
        c. An element of a vector space.
        2. Pathology An organism, such as a mosquito or tick, that carries disease-causing microorganisms from one host to another.
        3. Genetics A bacteriophage, plasmid, or other agent that transfers genetic material from one cell to another.
        4. A force or influence.
        5. A course or direction, as of an airplane.
        tr.v. vec•tored, vec•tor•ing, vec•tors
        To guide (a pilot or aircraft, for example) by means of radio communication according to vectors.
        ________________________________________
        [Latin, carrier, from vehere, vect-, to carry; see wegh- in Indo-European roots.]
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vector
        She is the vector, the carrier of not a ‘mosquito’ that carries disease…she is the carrier of God…she is the ‘direction the one-dimentional array the ‘plasmid’ that transfer genetic material from one cell to the another (biologically speaking if Jesus was God the only biologically human information given to Him would come from Her), she is the force of influence, she is the course of direction (than she is the way also) she the guide SHE IS THEN THE CARRIER…..She is then what the Ecclesiastiche told about the Mother in Hebrew before the translation in Greek and Latin were present…but the word vector does have some Indo-European roots in itself.Then the substance of what does say the ecclesiastica is semantically semitic and I gave her my own translation in the Indo-European language calling her THE VECTOR. But tell me why do you think Jesus would be diminished by all this? What is the consequential logical frame of mind that would bring you to think like this? Because I don’t really inconsequentially see it  But if I had to speak as a man I would tell you “ Mister I am not speaking gibberrish. Actually I am investing a lot of time in this discussion and it is then for me worth a lot of effort. From my standing strong point of view you are completely inconsequential in what you are thinking,the vector is.the carrier and then the direction of whatever you want to direct anyway you want it. By the way have a wonderful 2013 signed in my calendar by my Indo-European origin”.
        As a woman instead I would tell you” Have a wonderful 2013 signed in my calendar by the event of the birth of Jesus who was semitc in his dna because the Mother was.. Tuesday the first of January is in the theological catholic calendar signed as the day dedicated to the Mother of God because she is the beginning of the only way. I know I am quite inconsequential in my thinking but it is ok for me to be like this”

        • Maria, your “Tuesday the first of January is in the theological catholic calendar signed as the day dedicated to the Mother of God because she is the beginning of the only way.”

          The mother of Jesus is not the beginning of the Son of God.

          • “She had to accept’ it doesn’t mean that she didn’t accept it willingly….by her own choice.

            She is beginning of His incarnation, if you believe he became flesh. I don’t think that even if you are an unbeliever you would not consider her the beginning of his being on earth. Anyway I am speaking from my personal point of view that perhaps could be argued by the Catholic Church too. But the fact taht she had to accept His conception did mark a beginning. But for the moment I rest my case

            • Now that you have had a good rest on your (suitcase) – always arriving always departing – what do you mean by “She had to accept’ it doesn’t mean that she didn’t accept it willingly….by her own choice.”

              Do you mean that God saw from eternity past that Mary was going to be willing to accept, or what?

              • I mean what you mean and perhaps something more that I am not going to expose. The predetermination and free will was my first topic in philosophy I got interested into …and I think I almost exhausted in all these years any energy to pour into it again. 🙂 I am happy that it is somehow visible the coming and going. It is beneficial for the hit counts.

                • You say you have no more energy to “pour it out again.” The problem is your term “had to” (accept the conception of Jesus). You say it is “perhaps” more than a question of God’s foreknowledge, but you are not willing to talk about it. So be it, but there is no way you can escape the fact that this “more” can only be a sovereign divine decree; that is, it has absolutely independent of what God foresaw what Mary would do.

                  On the issue of your exalted view of Mary, I am reminded of the several places in the Gospels where Jesus seems to have pre-empted such exaltations. for example,

                  Mark 3:32-35
                  multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

                  • You are incorrigible in wanting to take detours. Well I think He was speaking not about His mother…but perhaps all the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who have withstand in His ways and you know perhaps more about than I do. He didn’t come to save His mother  He was God he knew how strong the family blackmail could be. How what we do is not for the truth but to conform to people we care about it or perhaps we don’t care about but we depend from it. I see it every day every corner..don’t you? We are in flocks with bad shepherds…be them our own fathers Then please don’t consider her part of it. She was not in his way…never took anything for herself. And anyway why do you think he could consider everybody brothers and sisters? She only stored everything in her heart from the beginning and this in silence, speaking about how inconsequentially beautiful she was.

                    “But the fact taht she had to accept His conception did mark a beginning” What I meant it was simply that without Her acceptance there would be no story to tell…as we are telling it.. And I would not sell this for Luther or Calvin or anyone long the road. I would pay my homage and follow the vector, the vessel. But who am I? I am not Luther or Calvin or John Smith…Thank God for my inconsequentiality too 🙂

                    • We have been talking about the Magnificat (Luke 1): Mary’s yes to be the mother of the Saviour.

                      You say

                      “He didn’t come to save His mother.” You said it! That is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church’s elevates Mary. Alas, the CC is dead wrong; it does what it likes with the Bible – that, it maintains, is its mandate:

                      Luke 1:46-47
                      And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR.”

                      The saviour is Mary’s saviour. Mary, by her own admission, is not immaculate. She is a sinner saves by grace.

                    • I already sent the same link in Catholicism…but to refresh the memory about it :-). But after this, it would be nice to wave the white flag for both of us ok? I am ok with it 🙂

                      http://roshpinaproject.com/2012/10/24/rabbi-j-immanuel-schochet-on-original-sin-and-the-new-adam/#comment-43971

                      “I like this comparison: “Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain”
                      What you have written before it makes sense. This is why we have to consider Mary unique in her being the Mother of Christ. She was saved before being stained. God wouldn’t have liked to have been conceived in a place stained by the original sin and I know it because if i were God, I would not have wanted to share my first dwelling in a stained womb since the first incident with a man and a woman accured…and if this would have been my preference even more so would have been the preference of the Son of God, don’t you think?

                    • There is no scriptural basis for your view. What is more, the following popes rejected your (and the modern RCC) exalted view of Mary:

                      Leo I

                      Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5.
                      … when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.

                      Gelasius I

                      “Lib. contra Pelagium,” which I found elsewhere cited as as “dicta adv. Pelag. haeresin.,” which in any event means it is a work against the Pelagians. It states:
                      It belongs alone to the immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all.

                      Gregory I
                      Innocent III
                      Innocent V
                      John XXII (or Benedict XII)
                      Clement VI

                      Also, Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor of the Church, who is studied more than any other theologian in seminary, also disagrees with your view.

  3. I checked on line. It is mentioned in the biography that there are connection to South Africa but I didn’t know. Among a bunch of season tickets that I could have used and I already went, I had this show for this evening too and I actually didn’t have a great interest in to it. It was programmed for me too. As you see we make our world connect ( even in our ignoring outcomes) but somehow if there is faith it becomes part of the impulsive feeling of the divinity in us and around us. I mention very very rarely or perhaps never that I go to any show on line anywhere  I didn’t know but somehow I wanted to mention it this time. South Africa is part of our territory here mister Bog and the not religious ‘chants’ became then part of it too  Mary as Mother of God since she was a woman she had to have some sort of inconsequential way of dealing with reality that surpassed the way men do usually :-). I think God wanted her to be part of His glory more then anybody else:-) Jesus of course was already God.

    • Maria, your “Mary as Mother of God since she was a woman she had to have some sort of inconsequential way of dealing with reality that surpassed the way men do usually.”

      If her way of dealing with reality surpassed the way of men, then perhaps you mean that men regard her way of dealing with reality as inconsequential (ineffective). Ottherwise, as the words stand, you are saying that Mary is ineffective.

  4. And this seems to be the possible conclusive thought for Thomas eventhought he goes one some more:
    “I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,” as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.”

    From this to say that he was completely against well it is quite fetched 🙂

    • He was completely against the immaculate CONCEPTION. He did, however, maintain that original sin was removed in Mary’s mother’s womb. Here is Thomas:

      Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from original sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with original sin, inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits original sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.

      Some men are cleansed from original sin after their birth from the womb, as is the case with those who are sanctified in baptism. Others are reported to have been sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, in virtue of an extraordinary privilege of grace. Thus we are told with regard to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb of you mother I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you” (Jer. 1:5). And in Luke 1:15 the angel says of John the Baptist: “He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb.” We cannot suppose that the favor granted to the precursor of Christ and to the prophet was denied to Christ’s own mother. Therefore we believe that she was sanctified in her mother’s womb, that is, before she was born.

      • You are right and this on the bases that she could not have been saved if she had been without the sin from her conception for Saint Thomas. But as I told you this is for me a proof that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit because there are different opinions of great minds that are solved in time in an arrow way direction, such as the glorification of Mary as Mother of God. Also events and circumstances that are not only human made, as for the miracles of Lourdes where the Virgin Mary called herself as such “I am the Immaculate Conception” make this direction more visible. I know as a fact that Thomas would not have been contrary to any decision the church would have made regarding the being without sin of Mary before or after conception. He knew that his reason was not necessarily the reasoning of God and he trusted that the Catholic Church was the Church of Christ. In fact there are many prayers and commentaries dedicated to Mary by him. There has been many instances of contemporary saint men and women who have been very devoted to her as for example Kolbe who died at Auschwitz,( provided shelter for 2000 Jews and other victims among other valuable enterprises in defense of the church) who is also honored by the Lutheran Church and the Anglican church.
        “Kolbe’s life was strongly influenced by a childhood vision of the Virgin Mary that he later described:
        That night, I asked the Mother of God what was to become of me, a Child of Faith. Then she came to me holding two crowns, one white, the other red. She asked me if I was willing to accept either of these crowns. The white one meant that I should persevere in purity, and the red that I should become a martyr. I said that I would accept them both.[7]”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe
        And I think this is actually the conclusion that was given to me because I feel there is momentum that connects everything in this entry from my first intuitive speaking about a singer connected to the fight of apartheid in Cape Town. the injustice and fallacy of our human being and the help that has been granted to guide us in His mother. Do you want to believe or not.

        You had your momentum when you found the gregorian chant vinyl perhaps 🙂

        • Maria, your “I know as a fact that Thomas would not have been contrary to any decision the church would have made regarding the being without sin of Mary before or after conception.”

          I infer that from the time of the Apostles to Thomas (1250 years), the Holy Spirit kept the church in the dark, as He kept the writers of the NT in the dark, that Mary was to become the mediatrix between what the NT describes as the only mediator between man and God – Jesus.

          • I write something strong sometimes because I think it is necessary. Yes I would assume it is correct what you tell me from your point of view 🙂 and she is not the only mediatrix. She is considered the best but without being a dogma 🙂
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix“Mediatrix is an ancient title that has been used by a number of saints since at least since the 5th century.[3] Its use grew during the Middle Ages and reached its height in the writings of saints Louis de Montfort and Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century (…)The use of the title Mediatrix and the doctrine of Mary having a higher level of saintly intercession (owing to her special relationship with her son Jesus) is distinct from the theological issues involved in the establishment of Mediatrix of all graces as a dogma, which is still being debated among Catholic theologians, but has not received Vatican approval.[2][6]

            You have only to ‘pray’ that will not happen because it would be outrageous for you and others and perhaps the Holy Spirit will never want this for His Mother. He didn’t need her as you say to speak to Hs apostels…He needed her more when He went away and left her as a mother to John and to other…but He may manage without her too…I hope. Otherwise you are losttt , gnashing of teeth in hell ….ohhhh… I laugn. Do not worry many many people and most of all young children are gnashing now their teeth on this earth already,( truly during the night) for them it can’t be hell in the other life with this attribute.

            By the way it is said (for me it is true) that she gave at Fatima a prayer for the Rosary that says: ” O my Jesus, forgive our sins, save us from the fire of hell, bring all souls to heaven expecially those most in need of your mercy” Isn’t sweet from Her? 🙂

            • Maria, your “By the way it is said (for me it is true) that she gave at Fatima a prayer for the Rosary that says: ” O my Jesus, forgive our sins, save us from the fire of hell, bring all souls to heaven expecially those most in need of your mercy” Isn’t sweet from Her?”

              I focus on “bring all souls to heaven expecially those most in need of your mercy.”

              If Mary said that, this is proof that this “revelation” is a spoof. The real Mary could never say this, because it is flagrant contradiction of Scripture. “MOST IN NEED of your (Jesus’) mercy!” Firstly, every sinner is under equal condemnation. Secondly, God says, “I will have mercy on whom I (want to) have mercy” (Romans 9).

              But then, whatever the RCC says is true is true – in your book.

  5. “She listens to what it says – at all times. So should we”
    WOWWW I found the footprint…of what is about you and Calvinism and Judaism. You feel the call in your Christianity of the old ways..God does have to be subjected to His own word…poor God so usuless after he spoke the Word…I am sorry for Him.

    The words of God are also written on hearts for the new covenant?…Did you hear the Old Testament news? Nope I suppose you haven’t otherwise how would you miss it?

    • Maria. your “God does have to be subjected to His own word…poor God so usuless after he spoke the Word…I am sorry for Him.”

      I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that God would be limited if he were to declare something that appears nowhere in scripture – by any stretch of the imagination. Recall that the dogma of the “immaculate conception” was only declared in the 19th century, which for you means revealed by God in the middle of the 19th century.

      On a related issue, would you be happy if (when?) the Pope announced (ex cathedra) the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix?

      • He is not subjected to anything if it is God this is what I mean, not even His words. In fact in the Old Testament he does have a way of changing His intentions and words. I would be not happy and not unhappy if the Church declared her Mediatrix. It is would be a matter of fact. Perhaps she doesn’t want any more theological discussion about her :-). The dogma about the Immaculate Conception honors very much God, He decided to make her sparkles for His own purpose of being conceived without any human flaw to account for. The Mediatrix I don’t know as well. I never thought about it.

        I thought about it long enough (one minute)
        It would be more for Her to be a Mediatrix. Actually it would be the only dogma that would be about her. Her virginity and conception were for honor of God.

        For me she has been the Mediatrix and the Vessel to Her Son but when there were already too many complication to account for in relationship to God. For Kolbe for example it was more immediate. He was a child when he started speaking to Her and I still haven’t seen any vision of Her and I don’t expect to but I am very grateful

        • Maria
          – “He is not subjected to anything if it is God this is what I mean, not even His words.”

          Would 1 Timothy 2:5 be an example. It says:
          “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

          Since the Gospels, the RCC teaches that the best way to Jesus is through Mary. So, you, as a member of the RCC already regard Mary as “mediatrix.” So, for all practical purposes, if or when the papal bull is declared on the issue, it will make no practical, or theological, difference. But, for the sake of argument, if you think it will make a big difference, then this possible bull would mean, for you, that 1 Timothy 2:5 would no longer be valid, proving that God is not subject to his words.

          • 1. Mary is the mother of God.

            2. Mary was conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception).

            3. Mary remained a virgin her entire life (Perpetual Virginity).

            4. Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life.

            How do these four dogma interfere with Timothy:
            “For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus
            It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens.”

            We are speaking about dogma, not propensity of personal experience and relationship with Mary, as I told you befoe, I could see her as my advocate without considering it a dogma, meaning that you could still not find in her your mediatrix. And by the way where is in the Scriptures written in stone that there is a Trinity? As we have learned to consider it? Is it interfered in the Scriptures not explicitly stated? It is then derived from the entire body of the Scriptures, Old and New. Do you know why for many theologians Lucifer did rebel? They say it could see as God in the future they say… It was for her and Jesus…whom he considered not worth enough for him to serve. Well…as you see there is a circular value in this discussion. Evil is able to snick more easily in without her presence. But this pessimist note I am actually completely over with this topic. Before I had rest my ‘suitcase’ in such a better place. You didn’t like that ending…and now we are at the devil..

  6. It instead makes a very practical difference. Without the bull you would still be able to speak to God without regard for her. With a bull there would be the practical difference of been always misled without considering her high status in regard to God. As we said, in Jewish tradition the Queen had a very important place standing close to the Son in matter of governing. The king son would not have allowed disrespect or disregard to his mother. But I don’t think that the Savior Son has the same mentality toward the structure of his reign, hierarchy is not humanly conceived in a strict way but I don’t have the presumption to know anything about it 🙂 Therefore Christianity in the eyes of the RRC could still be communicating with God in the way of the Universal Church, even though not in best possible way. Strange to say since the consideration of Mary has been higher in the order of dogmas in the RCR so it has been the consideration of all human being in relationship to God, meaning the Ecumenism it seems to be aligned (with all the bad things that you consider related to this) with the progressive veneration of the Mother of God, perhaps because humanly speaking the idea of a human Mother of God makes all men more humanly in relationship to God? This is why I am still hopeful for you 🙂

    • How would what th idea of a mediatrix resonate with 1 Timothy 2:5?: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” and “Since the Gospels, the RCC teaches that the best way to Jesus is through Mary. So, you, as a member of the RCC already regard Mary as “mediatrix.” So, for all practical purposes, if or when the papal bull is declared on the issue, it will make no practical, or theological, difference. But, for the sake of argument, if you think it will make a big difference, then this possible bull would mean, for you, that 1 Timothy 2:5 would no longer be valid, proving that God is not subject to his words.”

      Regarding your “idea of a human Mother of God makes all men more humanly in relationship to God,” I wrote elsewhere:

      In Luke’s Gospel, the angel Gabriel comes to Mary and says:

      Luke 1:28 The angel went to her (Mary) and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Jerome translated the Greek charitoō (highly favoured) as “full of grace.” This Vulgate mistranslation of the Greek is one of the buttresses of the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary such as she was conceived without sin (the Immaculate Conception) and she was taken up bodily (assumed) into Heaven (the Assumption), and several more.

      The question is why would Jerome make such an obvious translation error? The problem was almost certainly not an ignorance of Greek. Was it his compunction – encouraged by other sympathisers – to fill the mother of Jesus with grace, because he confused Jesus the “Son of Man (humanity)” with Jesus the Son of a man (masculine gender). Men can be so stern about things of the heart.

      A man knows about courage, truth, strength, wrath, but what does he understand about gentleness, lovingness, virgin purity and affection? That’s the woman’s domain, isn’t it? Mary, the meek, loving, obedient highly favoured woman, pierced by sorrow becomes the Mother of God, “Can we not feel that it must have been so right…a living object of devotion, faith and hope” (F.W. Robertson, 1924. “The Glory of the Virgin Mother” in Sermons on Bible Subjects, p. 224. Everyman’s Library). When I was a devout Catholic, I used to feel that it was so. I never cared about biblical exegesis. Like most Catholics, I didn’t read the Bible much. There was no need to; the Church said it was so, and that was that. Besides, the mother of Jesus had that feminine touch that no man – not even Jesus – could match. But is this true? The Son of Man was a perfect embodiment of both the masculine and the feminine of humanness. Here is what I consider one of the best descriptions of the Son of Man’s “womanly heart.” It appears in “The Glory of the Virgin Mother” by Frederick W. Robertson (1924. “The Glory of the Virgin Mother” in Sermons on Bible Subjects, p. 224. Everyman’s Library).

      https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/mary-highly-favoured-mother-of-the-son-of-god/

  7. The only reason why those four dogmas, and anything else about the Bible, is believed by Roman Catholics is because they have used their private judgment to relinquish their private judgement to papal authority.

    None of those four dogmas can be inferred from scripture, whereas the Trinity easily can.

    The vast majority of Roman Catholics pray to Jesus through the mediation of Mary, dogma or not; that’s my point. The Bible is clear: there is only one mediator between man and God: Christ Jesus. No priest, no pope, no saint, no one can and should come between. Of course, you can and should ask living people to pray for you, but those people do not have any special powers or favours with God.

    In the end, your whole position comes down to your belief in papal authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s