Co-Redemptrix
#51
(05-07-2012, 04:23 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Is it possible that some of our problems with devotion to the BVM are due in part to a change in context? In the past, it seems that devotion to the Virgin Mary was most intense amongst less educated peasants living in agrarian communities. The nobility and the better educated, on the other hand, always tended to be somewhat more reserved.

Eh, I think that is a false generalization.
Reply
#52
(05-07-2012, 04:23 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Is it possible that some of our problems with devotion to the BVM are due in part to a change in context? In the past, it seems that devotion to the Virgin Mary was most intense amongst less educated peasants living in agrarian communities. The nobility and the better educated, on the other hand, always tended to be somewhat more reserved.
Read the Thomist philosopher of science Charles de Koninck's excellent intellectual work on Mary Ego Sapientia: The Wisdom that is Mary.
Reply
#53
This isn't really a post-Tridentine idea. It's prominant in the Fathers, especially those in the East (and of those, it's especially explicit in those of the Syriac tradition, including those considered Doctors). It gained more prominence in Western writings between the 900s and 1300s. 

Of course, controversy often leads to a doctrine being more often explicitly stated and explained.  The Protestant attacks on the Blessed Virgin would certainly lead to an uptick in the doctrines about her being the topic of various works.

EDIT: yeah, it wasn't dummies who promoted these doctrines--again, it is often some the most brilliant and faithful men the Church has known.
Reply
#54
The brilliance of the individual theologians or fathers who explicitly or implicitly proposed such doctrines is not in question. The question is rather if such doctrines are genuinely part of revelation, the deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles.

Intelligence and piety are excellent virtues but in and of themselves are insufficient to produce divine revelation.
Reply
#55
(05-07-2012, 04:25 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-07-2012, 04:23 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Is it possible that some of our problems with devotion to the BVM are due in part to a change in context? In the past, it seems that devotion to the Virgin Mary was most intense amongst less educated peasants living in agrarian communities. The nobility and the better educated, on the other hand, always tended to be somewhat more reserved.

Eh, I think that is a false generalization.

Well, I didn't mean to cast Marian devotion in a negative light if my post came off that way. A particular practice being more common amongst certain classes of people doesn't make it any less worthy. Anyway, I'm sure it is a bit of an overgeneralization, but wasn't the Rosary historically associated with the piety of the lower orders while the piety of the nobility was more likely to focus on the Mass and the Divine Office? Later on, a greater emphasis on the Virgin Mary spread to all Catholics, but it started out with the peasantry. I'm sure putting it that way misses a lot of nuance, but it does seem to have at least some degree of truth in it. Although, it is possible that this narrative really just suits our prejudices more than anything else.

I guess you might also fit it in with Dumezil's tripartite division of indo-European societies, where farmers and other manual laborers would worship figures associated with fertility. But in that case you have to ensure that your overarching theories don't blind you to the particularities of a culture or religion, which often happens when scholars try to fit Christianity into large, reductionist theories that are supposed to explain the essence of all religions or what have you.

(05-07-2012, 04:26 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(05-07-2012, 04:23 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Is it possible that some of our problems with devotion to the BVM are due in part to a change in context? In the past, it seems that devotion to the Virgin Mary was most intense amongst less educated peasants living in agrarian communities. The nobility and the better educated, on the other hand, always tended to be somewhat more reserved.
Read the Thomist philosopher of science Charles de Koninck's excellent intellectual work on Mary Ego Sapientia: The Wisdom that is Mary.

I'll have to check it out. It looks interesting, and I've heard some good things about Koninck. I didn't mean to imply that devotion to the BVM was intellectually indefensible or merely for uneducated idiots, though. I only meant that seems to have started as a more popular development before being taken up by theologians and the hierarchy. I don't think that would somehow reduce the role of the Virgin Mary if it turned out to be the case. Christianity has never put the rich over the poor, after all.
Reply
#56
(05-07-2012, 04:41 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: This isn't really a post-Tridentine idea. It's prominant in the Fathers, especially those in the East (and of those, it's especially explicit in those of the Syriac tradition, including those considered Doctors). It gained more prominence in Western writings between the 900s and 1300s.
Yes, it isn't a novelty.
(05-07-2012, 04:41 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Of course, controversy often leads to a doctrine being more often explicitly stated and explained.  The Protestant attacks on the Blessed Virgin would certainly lead to an uptick in the doctrines about her being the topic of various works.
The Orthodox would love it and probably re-unite. It's sad that the real reason people oppose it is because they worship "tolerance." Κύριε ἐλέησον.
Reply
#57
Some of us DO oppose it because we're not comfortable with a perceived conflation of redeeming roles in the Incarnation.

Not because we love "tolerance".

Mary had a huge role to play in the incarnation/creation of Christ, yes, but her predetermined salvation from sin and selection to bear the Christ-child were just that: predetermined and selected. 

I get uneasy about some of the comments thrown around by people enthused about Our Lady and "Mary's yes", up to the idea that it was some choice that could have "gummed up the works" of the whole incarnation if Mary had said "no".  God knew that she wasn't going to.
Reply
#58
(05-07-2012, 06:24 PM)Norbert Wrote: Some of us DO oppose it because we're not comfortable with a perceived conflation of redeeming roles in the Incarnation.

Not because we love "tolerance".

Mary had a huge role to play in the incarnation/creation of Christ, yes, but her predetermined salvation from sin and selection to bear the Christ-child were just that: predetermined and selected. 

I get uneasy about some of the comments thrown around by people enthused about Our Lady and "Mary's yes", up to the idea that it was some choice that could have "gummed up the works" of the whole incarnation if Mary had said "no".  God knew that she wasn't going to.

Exactly.
Reply
#59
(05-07-2012, 03:53 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
Resurrexi Wrote: How did the Filioque lead to confusion? It seems pretty clear to me.

It contributed to a major schism and required not one, but two ecumenical Councils to clarify what it really meant. A plain reading of it can reasonably lead one to think it is creating a double spiration or two principles. It's actually very ambiguous--you can't say one way or another just by looking at the phrase, which is why "and the Son" has often been clarified as "through the Son" not to mention the more in depth clarifications of those two Councils (Lyons II and Florence).

Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father does not imply two spirations. If the Orientals weren't willing to accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that was their problem. The Filioque was absolutely necessary to reject any notion of subordinationism; since the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Father and the Son are equal in all things; the Father is in no way greater than the other two Persons.
Reply
#60
(05-07-2012, 03:54 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-07-2012, 03:44 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 10:26 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-06-2012, 04:05 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I consider her a mediator with all the saints, taking up our supplication to God, but will never hold her to be co-redemptrix.

So when She is dogmatically proclaimed Co-Redemptrix, you will leave the Church?

It seems unlikely that she will ever by dogmatically given that title since, "a 1996 Vatican appointed theological commission voted 23-0 against the proposed dogma" (Wiki) and since Benedict XVI doesn't support it.

So you are convinced that the modernists and the false ecumaniacs have won and the Church will never return to sanity? As was pointed out, it would probably have happened in the 60s had they not fought the move.

I don't think Benedict XVI or others that oppose the "co-redemptrix" title are modernists, nor do I think that they necessarily do so out of ecumenical motives. Some of the bishops may genuinely think that it detracts from the essence of Christianity as passed down from the Apostles, which it is their duty to perserve.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)