Comments on: Mary Consoles Eve

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:59:14 +0000

There’s actually a pretty cheesy 19th century poem called “Ireland’s Queen” where, on a far-flung battlefield, in the lull of fighting, several soldiers are discussing their queens and praising them; the Frenchman produces a picture of Marie Antoinette; the Scotsman one of Mary, Queen of Scots; the Englishman, one of Queen Victoria; and the Irishman, a picture of Our Lady

Ireland was the only occupied country. Our population, clergy, language and heritage had gone through hundreds of years of theft, occupation and genocide by a foreign invading regime. The Protestants in there various disguises (Church of Ireland, Quakers, Presbyterians etc) were integral to this ethnic cleansing. Hardly surprising an Irishman would hold up an Image that would outlast all your worldly “Queens”. May Victoria continue to rot in Hell.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:49:14 +0000

Nice picture, someone should make a calender of it. Someone is getting their mythologies mixed up. Anyway I was thinking:
Interesting that Mary, a young woman had an immaculate conception as a virgin. Therefore without male sperm.
Elizabeth, described as an old woman who could not conceive (post-menopausal) conceived without an egg, but presumably sperm from her husband. A highly ranked man in THE temple, where he was told a Prophet would be born to him, and was then struck dumb.
Mary, and Joseph from the Galaliee, a seperate jurastiction were the lowest of the low carpenter family. Just how were they related? And how did Mary know to go and stay with Elizabeth for the final 3 months of her pregnancy.
The Sperm fertilizes the egg, just as the Prophet John the baptist fertilized Jesus into Christ conciseness. Awakening in him the divine that is within. (The kingdom of God is at hand (meaning NOW), The Kingdom of God is within you (not outside, or in any other space/time)

One more note. Elizabeth was told that john was not to Drink Alcohol. No fully realized Prophet would drink (then as now), yet that order was not given to mary. Because Jesus would not be a realized spiritual being until his baptism. Until then, unlike john, he was a gifted, yet quite ordinary boy.

By: Aaron Armitage

Aaron Armitage — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:37:45 +0000

Fr. Ernesto;

“the first and second Eve theme in St. Paul”

Say what?

I remember reading Paul talking about the Second Adam. It’s your inference that a Second Adam requires a Second Eve. It may be a valid inference, but it’s not Paul’s.

By: Bob Brague

Bob Brague — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:41:46 +0000

Very. And I will look into Athanasius (I’m not totally unfamiliar with it).

By: Petra

Petra — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:23:17 +0000

Bob, maybe this ancient drawing, called "the Shield of the Trinity" will help you out, as well as studying the Athanasian Creed. The major thing in order to remain within the limits of orthodoxy is to understand that there is only one God, yet that He is three Persons, which are distinct, yet "form" (if we can speak of that) one God, Who is Triune. It is only the Son Who became Man, not the whole Trinity, so Mary is only the Mother of God the Son incarnate. Jesus is God, not some lesser being, as Arius thought (this is what "fulness of the Godhead" means); but He, as God Incarnate, is not identical with the Trinity. I hope this was helpful...

By: Bob Brague

Bob Brague — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:56:37 +0000

This leads me to another thought — one that is new to me — that since the scripture says that in Him (Jesus) dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, maybe Mary is the mother of the Father and the mother of the Spirit, as well as the mother of the Son. (See my first comment much earlier in this thread, which said just the opposite.)

Can someone straighten me out, please? I seem to be a doctrinal mess.

By: Bob Brague

Bob Brague — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:52:09 +0000

Jason Cebalo @ 8:24 a.m., 01/01/2009: If what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t) then I won’t be using those particular analogies any more. The last thing I want is to be guilty of perpetuating a second-century heresy. I was just casting about for ways to better explain the concept of the Trinity. If, as you say, God is three persons existing in an eternal relationship with one another, it sounds like Scot McKnight’s perichoretic interpenetrating dance (I don’t know whether that is the exact quote) is a more accurate phrase even though I find it almost incomprehensible.

Maybe that is the point: the Trinity is, after all, a mystery — one that human words and thoughts can probably never grasp.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:48:21 +0000

When an OT type is repeated in the NT, fine. When it’s not explicitly repeated, I’d just prefer “This is what church tradition says.” Makes a lot more sense.

I would agree with the general sense of the comment. It is true that many people do and have gone off the deep end with the “typological” reading of the OT. As you infer, though, it is a valid method of reading the OT, given that it is one used by St. Paul et al. And, in fact, one finds that this particular method of reading the OT carried from St. Paul onwards. It never stopped with St. Paul. Though certainly many may wish it did.

My other point would be that your comment kinda “hermeneutically seals” off tradition from Scripture, as if they were two complete and distinct subsets of revelation. But that is certainly not the Catholic take, anyway (or at least, not the only one). An example would be the tradition of Mary as the New Eve. As Cardinal Newman points out, this is a tradition that dates back to at least the mid-second century, and crops up in writings from all around the Mediterranean. But where it is mentioned in detail, it is put forth as the fruit of a meditation on Scripture (namely Genesis and St. Luke).

By: Martha

Martha — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:22:58 +0000

To be serious, I do want to say how much I appreciate the courteous and civil tone of the discussion on here.

Those who can’t understand our notions have expressed their views without rancour or abuse, and believe me, that’s very welcome.

Thank you all for that.

By: Martha

Martha — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:14:07 +0000

I admit, I get a certain naughty pleasure in teasing sensitive Protestant sensibilities by quoting the Litany of Loreto; if titles like “Queen of Heaven” rock your boat, then how about the likes of:

“Mirror of justice/Seat of wisdom/Cause of our joy/Spiritual vessel/Vessel of honour/Singular vessel of devotion/Mystical rose/Tower of David/Tower of ivory/House of gold/Ark of the covenant/Gate of heaven/Morning star/Health of the sick/Refuge of sinners/Comforter of the afflicted/Help of Christians”?