Did Mary Know?

[tafan]

I have done a little more research on this topic, and have come across the following paragraph in John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

14. Mary's faith can also be compared to that of Abraham, whom St. Paul calls "our father in faith" (cf. Rom. 4:12). In the salvific economy of God's revelation, Abraham's faith constitutes the beginning of the Old Covenant; Mary's faith at the Annunciation inaugurates the New Covenant. Just as Abraham "in hope believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations" (cf. Rom. 4:18), so Mary, at the Annunciation, having professed her virginity ("How shall this be, since I have no husband?") believed that through the power of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Spirit, she would become the Mother of God's Son in accordance with the angel's revelation: "The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Lk. 1:35).

Now, since we know who John Paul II was writing to (ie. us), and our understanding of the term Son of God, it is clear that JP II taught that Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate at the time of the annunciation.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by tafan

...your post...is a combinationof ad hominen attacks...

My apologies if you read my response this way as that was not intended. It is my experience that when strongly held views get equally strongly challenged it can seem like a personal attack and perhaps that is the case here.

I will not respond re your “questions” raised above as the negative tone is suggestive of neither an open heart nor an open mind consequent to your emotion. In any case, if you are willing to follow up on the leads I have given you above the answers to your questions will become readily apparant.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by tafan

I have done a little more research on this topic, and have come across the following paragraph in John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

Mary, at the Annunciation, having professed her virginity ("How shall this be, since I have no husband?") believed that through the power of the Most High, by the power of the Holy Spirit, she would become the Mother of God's Son in accordance with the angel's revelation: "The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Lk. 1:35).

Now, since we know who John Paul II was writing to (ie. us), and our understanding of the term Son of God, it is clear that JP II taught that Mary knew that Jesus was God incarnate at the time of the annunciation.

Tafan
Just as we have to be careful not to brutalise the NT text and context when interpreting it -so too with Encyclicals.

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

Tafan
Just as we have to be careful not to brutalise the NT text and context when interpreting it - so too with Encyclicals.

The plain sense is plain enough. We don't need modern "scholars" and their fancy imaginations to reinterpret it into something that science would be able to explain, as if science were the highest good, rather than faith.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by jmcrae

The plain sense is plain enough. We don't need modern "scholars" and their fancy imaginations to reinterpret it into something that science would be able to explain, as if science were the highest good, rather than faith.

jmcrae
If we research and reflect on the enormous task/contribution from modern Catholic scholars, researchers and intellectuals that made it possible for the NJB or NRSV translation Bibles to end up sitting on our bedside table...we would be very humbled and grateful for their long and dedicated service.

Without them you would not have a Catholic Bible worthy of the name. You would be left to read Greek - and as there is no single original but a lot of copies dating from 100s of years later (that of course don't always match) you would have quite a dilemma as to which was the "true" one. And of course the meaning of Greek text changes over time so you need Greek scholars, au fait with the latest archeological research and findings of ancient extra Biblical texts, to truly understand what those Greek words really meant at the time of the Evangelists. This is just the tip of the complexities involved ... just so we can read our bedside Bible.

These same types of scholars provide extensive commentaries because the Bible text alone is not enough to replicate the depth of instruction that twould have been plainly understood by the Evangelist's target audience at that time.

As past Popes have stated, the "plain text" only becomes plain when one does one's homework. That requires an expertise impossible to the lay reader unaided. We must do our homework using the latest acceptably Catholic expertise available to us.

Anything less is surely disrepectful to God's Word and leads to a pious Luddite-ism - acceptable enough if its in accord with the Catechism and we keep our interpretations to ourselves.

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

jmcrae
If we research and reflect on the enormous task/contribution from modern Catholic scholars, researchers and intellectuals that made it possible for the NJB or NRSV translation Bibles to end up sitting on our bedside table...we would be very humbled and grateful for their long and dedicated service.

Without them you would not have a Catholic Bible worthy of the name. You would be left to read Greek - and as there is no single original but a lot of copies dating from 100s of years later (that of course don't always match) you would have quite a dilemma as to which was the "true" one. And of course the meaning of Greek text changes over time so you need Greek scholars, au fait with the latest archeological research and findings of ancient extra Biblical texts, to truly understand what those Greek words really meant at the time of the Evangelists. This is just the tip of the complexities involved ... just so we can read our bedside Bible.

These same types of scholars provide extensive commentaries because the Bible text alone is not enough to replicate the depth of instruction that twould have been plainly understood by the Evangelist's target audience at that time.

As past Popes have stated, the "plain text" only becomes plain when one does one's homework. That requires an expertise impossible to the lay reader unaided. We must do our homework using the latest acceptably Catholic expertise available to us.

Anything less is surely disrepectful to God's Word and leads to a pious Luddite-ism - acceptable enough if its in accord with the Catechism and we keep our interpretations to ourselves.

I have great respect for the ancient scholars, and for scholars who have faith in God, but there are many modern scholars who deny the plain sense of the Scriptures in favour of "what makes sense:" in their own minds, so as to deny the Creation, the virginal conception of Christ (the modern hypothesis is that she was raped by a Roman soldier and lied to hide the fact) Resurrection, and pretty much all the power of God, in order to make it sensible to "scientific man."

As to the original question - did Mary know that her child was destined for the rising and the falling of many? Did she know that he was David's heir, and the Messiah that had been prophesied? Yes, she did. She didn't know the details of how everything would unfold, but she wasn't an idiot, and she wouldn't have agreed to become pregnant by the Holy Ghost unless she thought that the child she would bear had power greater than that of the world, since the sentence was surely death for her, to be found pregnant out of wedlock. She would not have risked death for anything less that God Himself.

[tafan]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon

My apologies if you read my response this way as that was not intended. It is my experience that when strongly held views get equally strongly challenged it can seem like a personal attack and perhaps that is the case here.

I will not respond re your “questions” raised above as the negative tone is suggestive of neither an open heart nor an open mind consequent to your emotion. In any case, if you are willing to follow up on the leads I have given you above the answers to your questions will become readily apparant.

Lady, you are a piece of work. Not intended to be a personal attack? I have too limited knoweldge in biblical scholarship and am overly self-confident in an unsophisticated use of scripture, am not brave enough to seek alternative understanding, and I brutalize NT passages and encyclicals. As such, you have made it clear I am not even worth your time to tell us what you think about the topic of the thread. Why keep responding then?

You point me to followup on leads you have given, I have looked at all of them. I have so far found one reference to that you have provided that is relative to the subject matter of this thread. I have already commented that it was not out of line with one of the references I provided (and you ignored).

Besides that, you have pointed me to generic information of your idol, Fr. Raymand Brown, and other generic information on historical analysis of scripture.
Well, you complain about my "tone": although I have provided several arguments and references pertaining to what Mary did and did not know. We still do not know exactly what you think on the subject of this thread and we do not know what Raymand Brown thought on this subject.

As I said before, if you want a thread about modern Biblical scholarship, Fr Brown, or about my shortcomings, start a thread(s) to discuss those matters. This thread has a very specific topic; please help us with the topic at hand.

[Blue Horizon]

Originally Posted by jmcrae

... there are many modern scholars who deny the plain sense of the Scriptures in favour of "what makes sense:" in their own minds, so as to deny the Creation, the virginal conception of Christ (the modern hypothesis is that she was raped by a Roman soldier and lied to hide the fact) Resurrection, and pretty much all the power of God, in order to make it sensible to "scientific man."

jmcrae
Yes you are right if it is understood that this has been a weakness in some sectors of Modern Protestant Biblical studies who do not have the other great source of divine truth that we look to - the Magisterium.

You may know that it was Protestantism that first attempted to bring the new scientific disciplines of textual/historic "criticism" of the 17th and 18th centuries to bear on the Sacred Texts. Catholic Church authorities at that time (and up until the very early 1900s)reacted in horror to some of the more outlandish conclusions. This tainted the nascent and developing scientific methods they used as well.

However during the course of the 20th century increasing numbers of very loyal and competent Catholic scholars arose - even attaining such prestige in this scientific field that they gained credence even when attacking Protestant "scholars" for lack of scholarship on some of the sorts of anti-dogmatic statements you mention above.

More importantly Church authorities no longer fear this "new" field of Biblical "historical criticism" and in fact supports such scholarship. Church Dogma really has nothing to fear from its findings. Why should it? If Church dogma is correct how can true scientific scholarship/study of the New Testament and its times find anything to absolutely contradict Church Dogma? This does not mean the New Testament will clearly affirm all Church Dogma - let alone at the time of Jesus. This is the hard part that us traditionalists often find hard to accept.

You have raised the specific question of the virginal conception of Jesus and whether modern Catholic scholarship and historical criticism would identify this truth as clearly taught in the Gospels and held as such by the Evangelists and their church communities at that time?

If you really wish to do your homework on this do try reading R. Brown's book of 1985 that I mentioned above - he tackles/summarises the "landscape" wrt your virginal conception concern directly. He maintains that on the grounds of true Biblical scholarship/"science" alone that the dogma cannot be denied and is taught in the text as a historical fact.