Your observations highlight some of the key differences between Catholic and Protestant thought. Stated from the viewpoint of a traditional Protestant, a Protestant is wary when departing from the explicit teachings of Scripture. Stated from the Catholic perpective, a blessing of Holy Tradition and the Magisterium is that they provide a guide to the interpretation of Scripture so that error is avoided.
I am familiar with the Scriptural references to Christ being the new Adam. Where does it say that Mary is the new Eve?
Sacred Tradition. . . (and this is not said in a sarcastic way.)
I mean, we know from the Bible itself that Jesus spoke, and did, more than is recorded in the gospels. And from 33 AD (or so) until 380 AD, there was no ‘written’ record, no canon of written Scripture. Oral, sacred tradition is one of the two ‘branches’ of “the word” and was such for all Christians. Orthodox also have sacred tradition. It was only with the rise of ‘sola scripture’ which is a comparatively recent development that the idea came about that if it wasn’t “in the book” it just ‘wasn’t so.’
We are told in Genesis 3:15 that the serpent will strike at the offspring of the woman. Now, we know that Adam and Eve sinned, falling short of the glory of God. We know that Jesus is the new Adam. Now, if we have a new Adam, we need a new Eve as well, do we not? Who is the mother of that “new Adam”, the first fruits, the first born of many brothers? It is Mary. Mary is the new Eve.
Much as the word “Bible” is never found in the Bible, or the nature of the Trinity spelled out that Father is equal to Son is equal to Holy Spirit, Mary is the new Eve.
Not that I am ‘denigrating’ the Scripture, which is a very important part of all Christian life. But Christ founded a church, not a book. He gave authority to a man, not a book. He told us to make disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, not in the name of a book.
Is it ‘necessary’ to believe that Mary is the new Eve in order to achieve salvation? In one way, no. After all, Christ is the way, truth and life, and we are given no other name by which we may be saved.
But on the other hand, Christ came to us through Mary, did He not? One of the characteristics of God is that He is eternal and unchanging. So Christ came to us through Mary, comes to us now through Mary, and will continue to come through Mary. (which does not make Mary equal to Christ; she is God’s most perfect creature, not God herself).
Knowing that God chose her to be the Mother of His Son for all time, not just from AD 1-AD 33 ish, our outlook for Mary becomes a little different. She isn’t ‘just’ a vessel. She isn’t just someone ‘ordinary’ or even worse than ordinary, who had her 15 minutes of fame and then either faded or is seeking some sort of prima donna comeback.
Giving the honor to Mary that she deserves as Mother of God, as the holy vessel, as the new Eye, is giving honor to the God who made her this.
Honoring Mary is honoring Jesus even more, because all that she is, is through him.
Out of the rib of Adam, God created “the mother of the living”. But Adam and Eve sinned, and lost paradise, and their children were under the power of death.
Out of an immaculate conception, God create the Mother of His Only Son. Because of Jesus, death has no more power over us. We know that we are all brothers and sisters (as Paul said).
Well, don’t brothers and sisters have the same mother? If Jesus is our brother, isn’t Mary our heavenly mother as well?
Just wanted to add my two cents…
I agree with the posters who siad you were over anylizing the song. Its a beautiful and well constructed song. And Of Course she knew. The asking seemed to me to be like a child asking a question that they already knew the answer to. You know, just to have the answer given to them again. Like when I ask my husband “Do you love me?” When I give him a kiss goodnight. He always says yes, and I knew he would say yes, its just reassuring.
For me, I am wary of any “explicit teaching” of Scripture. What may be explicit to one might be an interpretation to another. We know that Jesus spoke in parables, which to me is not explicit teaching.
Jesus says, Knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been granted to you; but to the rest, they are made known through parables so that ‘they may look but not see, and hear but not understand.’ (Luke 8:10)
This child that youve delivered
Will soon deliver you
I thought the very same thing this year when I heard the song on the radio.
I couldn’t remember if the choir had sung that song at mass before, I checked the missal and music issue, and did not see it listed.
After some thought of that line of the song, I also can see that it may not contradict the Immaculate Conception.
Mary was cleansed from sin at the moment of conception in her mother’s womb. And it was because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that cleansed her of all sin, even though God allowed it to happen to her before that actual earthly event happened. The song could be referring to the fact that the crucifixion will soon take place (in about 33 years), and saying that she will be delivered of sin at that time, but that the event will happen at that time.
Does this make sense?
You’re very welcome! Glad I could be of assistance.
Okay, here’s my :twocents: :
I’m not a theologian, but I always considered that Our Lady had infused knowledge (via the Holy Spirit) about all that was to occur from the time of the Annunciation to the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Her Divine Son.
I believe She would have needed to know and understand all that would happen in Her life and the life of Jesus in order to be able to give Her perfect “Fiat”. And I believe She did it because She surrendered Her will, completely, to the will of the Father.
A worthy point.
Maybe you’re right. I’ll have to read up more on what the term infused knowledge is. My reasoning is that if Mary knew and understood all that would happen, how could she have Faith?
Maybe you’re right.
Probably not. No one will know until we behold the Beatific Vision.
My reasoning is that if Mary knew and understood all that would happen, how could she have Faith?
I don’t know. All that comes to mind is: Adam and Eve were sinless, they knew God, they even walked with God, yet they didn’t have enough Faith in God not to “eat of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge”.
They didn’t have the Faith to surrender completely to God.
And according to Tradition, God revealed His Divine Plan to Lucifer and all the angels, yet he didn’t have Faith; didn’t want to obey and took 1/3 of the angels with him.
So how did She have Faith? I don’t know but apparently She did.
She knew She was going to conceive; that the Holy Spirit would “overshadow” her, but how? If She knew Our Blessed Lord would rise from the dead, She didn’t know the “how” of it.
Many things are known only to God.
Maybe the “particulars” required Faith.
I don’t know. Like I said; it’s just something I take into consideration.
One can get an enormous headache trying to overanalyze and/or figure out the Mysteries of God. And I have the empty Aleve bottles to prove it.
God Bless, Dominic!
But I believe her YES without knowing everything shows true faith and Trust in God. I don’t know how much she knew or how many details. BUT I know that she too needed a saviour. As our Priest said at Mass today she didn’t immaculately concieve herself.
I think the more accurate way of characterizing it is that the Catholic Church’s position is the logical one–for the professing Christian. That’s one of the things that caught my attention about the Church in the first place. You can follow any theological or doctrinal position of the Catholic Church and discern a complete and utter consistency between faith and reason. I like to call it a perfect dovetailing of faith and reason. Not to digress too much again… But take the Culture of Death, for example. Protestants understand a little piece of the picture, since they recognize the terrible sin of abortion. But few Evangelicals or Protestants in general (with the notable exception of those such as Dr. Amy Laura Hall) connect the dots and catch the moral similarity between abortion and the use of birth control.
The issue of Mary is really a lot similar. One can either say that this understanding of her is all Catholic in its origination–an intellectualy cowardly way of neutralizing opposing arguments, by the way–or you can follow the line of reasoning honestly yourself and see where you arrive. If you’re honest with yourself and you are willing to really to read the Bible (and everything else) with a voracious spiritual appetite, you might be surprised…
I agree with your priest 100%. Our Lady, too, needed a Saviour. She was immacuately conceived in virtue of Jesus’ Death on the Cross. (That’s what I was taught, anyway)
As far as the rest of my other posts on this thread; again, it’s just my opinion. It’s not something I teach or anything like that.
I don’t expect anyone to take it to heart or agree with me.
It’s simply my thoughts added to the others here.
I don’t mean that Catholic interpretation of the bible is any less rational, or more so for that matter, than interpretation by Protestants. Any way that you look at it though, Catholic Marian theology is not explicitly biblical. You can connect the theological dots if you want–and you may even by right in your conclusions although I don’t think that you are–but the result is not explicitly biblical. Unfortunately, in other areas, you see Protestants doing much of the same thing now, connecting the dots and arriving at positions that are also not biblical, such as supporting abortion, ordaining active homosexuals, etc. The historical Protestant appproach of Sola Scriptura was designed to avoid these types of diversions, although many Protestants seem to have abandoned Sola Scriptura and the results are not pretty.
And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.” And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
I think you can safely conclude she knew.
Hi, thanks everyone for the wonderful comments/posts. They are all though provoking. I should be using this site more often.
Anyway, (my opinions of course….) it is highly significant that since Simeon was inspired by the Holy Spirit and/or the Holy Spirit was upon him, it is, or almost is, as if God is speaking to Mary/Joseph. When Simeon says “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed", then God has announced the Cross which is symbolized by the sword. Mary, (I’ll also include St. Joseph), will have to decide for or against God’s revelation in Jesus.
But do they realize that the sword is actually the death of Jesus at this point in time? I believe they didn’t know for sure. Whatever ***form ***that sword takes, God’s words are taken to heart; St. Joseph allows it happen, Mary accepts it. Now I don’t know/read Greek or Hebrew versions of the Bible, but if you read the scripture closely, you can also argue that the rise and fall of many will be through Mary as well. And this rising and falling of many in Mary is only possible if Mary always gets you to Jesus. As a mother, that is her purpose/mission, to make her “adopted” sons like Jesus, or Jesus-like. Mary is the great stepping-stone to the Lord. In support of our Protestant friends and even not to offend then, can you jump over Mary to Lord? Probably, but why do things the hard way.
But if we step back (40 days I think) from Simeon’s prophecy to Gabriel’s annunciation, does Mary fully know about the Cross (as in Luke 1:30-35)? Also, the Cross means nothing without the Resurrection. In other words, does Mary know about the Resurrection at the annunciation? Does she know she is our Mother at the annunciation? Does she know she will be assumed Body and Soul into Heaven at the annunciation.
You can argue that since Mary did not break the Old Testament law, and that since Jesus is prefigured in them, then she must know everything about the Messiah and the Cross.
I don’t have the answers, only what I believe at this point. Mary was a pilgrim like us; growing in her Faith. But, unlike us, she did God’s will at all times while on the journey to Heaven.
Sorry folks I was away for a week
As a good Jew and as a person free from the effects of Original Sin she would have known much. While she would not necessarily have known all the particular details she would have had a perfect insight into the prophesies. She would not have needed prophetic knowledge to get to this point due to her pre-lapsatian state. Once it was announced to her that she would be the virgin in whom the savior would be born she would have known the ramifications of this and would have been able to articulate it in a similar way that Christ demonstrated all that was foretold about him to the men on the road to Emaus. No amount of supernatural knowledge would have been needed by one who did not have a dulled intellect. Without that her fiat looses the completeness that was necessary to account for the non serviat of Eve.
Interesting opinion, but what kind of sources do you base this theory upon? Are you suggesting that Mary was not human and had something akin to omniscience and supernatural understanding of what was going to take place–a foreknowledge? If true, wouldn’t this detract from the nature of free will and actually lessen Mary’s selfless contribution?
I saw the “Nativity Story” this weekend with some Catholic friends, and I have to say that I think that movie’s portrayal got it right. Otherwise, you reducing Mary’s contribution, the meaning of her “yes”, to something much less profound and much less meaningful.
I believe that he was noting that Mary would not have been subject to the loss of the preternatural gifts of a clear intellect.
Mary was just as human as Adam and Eve prior to the Fall, with all the gifts that God bestowed upon them.
Mary would have been able to see the prophesies of the OT Testament exactly as God intented them to be read. This does not mean that she had any omniscience, only that she would have the clearest understanding of God’s Word as was humanly possible
I understand that, but I still suggest that this line of reasoning reduces the part played by Mary’s free will–in other words, there would then be no choice for her to make. Why would you lessen the incredible importance of Mary’s “yes”?