August 15 is the day that the Church has traditionally celebrated the Assumption of Mary--the Blessed Virgin's being taken up into heaven without experiencing death. There are a couple of views on how this happened. The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that the Blessed Virgin actually died but was not confined to the grave. Her body was inexplicably removed from its tomb and assumed to heaven. I think the story of one Eastern tradition goes something like this: the same apostle Thomas, who doubted Jesus' resurrection, wanted to see the dead body of Mary after her passing. When they took him to her tomb, the body was gone. The Orthodox do not view this as a resurrection. Rather, Mary's body was simply taken up into heaven as Enoch's and Elijah's were.
The Western Church, on the other hand, has mixed views. The Catholic Church claims that Mary was assumed before she ever died. And from what I understand, this view solidified as the cult of the Virgin grew in popularity in the Western medieval church.
The Western Church, on the other hand, has mixed views. The Catholic Church claims that Mary was assumed before she ever died. And from what I understand, this view solidified as the cult of the Virgin grew in popularity in the Western medieval church.
Of course, most Protestant denominations do not recognize Mary's assumption--mostly due to their belief in Sola Scriptura. However, the Anglican church--especially Anglo-Catholic churches--do pay some attention to it--though I believe their observance of it tends to be more private than public (I could be wrong). Lutheran churches, on the other hand, I think, do have a place for its observance in their calendar.
I like the position that the Orthodox take. It is not an official teaching, or dogma, of their church, and seems to be a via media between the Catholic view of perhaps honoring Mary to much and the extreme Protestant view of not viewing her as "Favored One" and "Blessed among women" but as just another one of us. Any thoughts?
6 comments:
Michael, you always make me think. Sometimes my mind cannot go where your posts want to take it, but I love how you strive to make us think on a deeper level. Today is no exception.
I read a fiction novel a few years ago about Mary. It was written as if the author had a bird's eye view into Mary's personal life. It actually made me mad while I was reading it. You see, I picture Mary as the perfect wife and mother. But the book portrayed her as a "normal, everyday" woman. A woman who gets frustrated when her husband is late for dinner or who yells at her children for making a mess of the house. I don't want Mary to be like me. I want her to be someone above me, in a place that I can look up to but never attain.
However, I don't think that is what God intended for her. She was highly favored and blessed among women. But she was not perfect...only her son was. I have to remind myself of that when I get down for being average or normal.
I guess I did not really answer your question, but those are my thoughts on the mother of Christ.
I also have to remember that I am a child of God and therefore I am highly favored as well.
Thanks for this post and it's reminders.
Dawn: I guess if you think of her in the category of a Elijah (which is the category in which I put her in my post b/c of her assumption into heaven), then you can probably surmise that it was not necessarily her 'perfection' that made her favored but it was first God's favor toward her. But, she did say (paraphrased) "Be it unto me as thou hast said" to the angel. That was an extraordinary act of faith for a young girl whose reputation was on the line and who had a good chance of offending her family--as well as Joseph and his family. I think that is what the focus is on (her faith--not her mothering) when so much attention and honor is given to her. She was, in a way, the first Christian.
This is a good one… and a tough one.
There is a problematic, structural foible of text in that it is a linear format and where that is wonderful for a linear narrative and for delving into specific facets of a subject, it is really inadequate for conceiving things as a whole.
As far as views of Mary and whether or not she enjoyed a pre-or-postmortem ascension ar any physical ascension at all, that depends partially on whether one believes in Sola Scriptura or in the papacy or patriachy of the Orthodox church as continuing revelations of the Divine.
To me, it is moot, because, it is impossible to know for sure in any capacity. With that said, I can appreciate the metaphor and Beauty of the story itself and the humanity of the desire for her to be more than just an ordinary girl given an extraordinary opportunity.
What one believes about her anyway will, to a great extent, be a self-made fabrication . She is what we want her to be, what we can relate to and make sense of in relation to our understanding of Jesus and of the Divine Father. All of our comprehensions of her are going to be mostly wrong, but essentially true to some extent. Caravaggio caught it big time, because, he once portrayed the Virgin as being homely, slightly plump and already pale and dead.
Many people in the Catholic church at that time couldn't fthom Mary being ordinary. Caravaggio also caught it because he made the apostles actually look like fishermen instead of Greek philosophers.
The problem isn't the fact that we create more belief than is revealed to us, but that we kid ourselves into thinking that the belief we create is completely true.
Kudos on the grey colour. [I love what British spellings do to the spell-check]
I really enjoy you posts. We have similar interests.
—R
Rich: I think the first paragraph you wrote in this most recent comment is in response to a comment I put to your comment about Wilbur's comments on Poets and painters. No?
Re: Mary...actually, your view of her--especially on something like her assumption--depends completely on how closely you subscribe to Sola Scriptura. And, to just clarify, one need not hold to the authority of the Pope or patriarchy of the Orthodox Church for your authority--or to believe in Mary's assumption, for that matter. You can simply look to tradition. Before there was a Pope or Patriarch as we know them, there was tradition. The earliest Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus, etc.) claimed that there was a tradition handed down to them by the apostles (BTW, this was before there was a solidified NT canon).
Moreover, this tradition is a "self-made fabrication," to use your words. But what's so wrong with that? Is there anything that we know or believe that is not mediated through some "fabrication" or artifice? No. Anything we claim to know--and ultimately, believe--comes through the vehicle of some human construct (God, in his mercy, allows for it). And these constructs are validated by the Church through the doctrine of the Incarnation. The unseen, holy God of the OT is made flesh in the NT. The point? In the Incarnation, creation is validated and reaffirmed. Thus, the stuff of creation--despite their being tainted by the Fall AND their being finite and limited--is still "good." It still has value--even our minds, which produce ideas, and myths, and images and words to help us grasp the unseen and the mysterious--especially God--but even other mysterious things of our existence (such as Mary's assumption).
To me, and nothing personal here, but you sound agnostic--not Christian--when you say that "it is impossible to know for sure in any capacity" [if Mary was assumed, in this case]--and--"She is what we want her to be, what we can relate to and make sense of in relation to our understanding of Jesus and of the Divine Father." I appreciate your sensitivity to the limited nature of our reason and ability to know things for certain. But to end it all there is not Christian. B/c ultimately, Christians believe that reason, yes, it is limited, but it is valuable, AND, when you've done the hard work or searching and reasoning (which you should do), at the end of the day, one is called to belief--even if your an atheist. Of course, we can't know everything. The question is: whose story of the way things are is more reasonable, yes, but also, whose story do you believe? The agnostic believes his ostensibly neutral account of things just as much as we believe our religious account of things.
I like Carvaggio and his work a lot. Have you seen Simon Schama's Power of Art on PBS? He did an episode on Carvaggio. I think it was my favorite one.
Thanks for your comments. It's fun to have people actually read your posts and respond. :)
BTW, my wife is an artist--majored in studio art in college.
[long]
Michael,
Again, the imperfect linear structure of textual discourse has left me being able to cover but a limited number of facets on a topic and has left my argument being perceived as that of an agnostic.
This is not the case.
Too many Christians believe things because they are "tradition" rather than revealed truth, or the result of an authentic search for God's truth. I too am a visual artist who creates work based on spiritual [read Christian] essences, so I have no problem delving into the abstract or the sublime, but I strongly believe, as I glean from your posts do you, that Reason supports a case for the Divine.
Now to specific points:
a: the topic, though simplistic in form, is very complex and touches a great deal of theological thought as well as traditions. Therefore the first part of my comment about the linear structure of text applies to the previous post but also to this current one for which it was intended.
b.I don't believe ones view of Mary is completely dependent upon ones acceptance of Sola Scriptura. I myself come from a tradition that would hold SS to be true, but to say that Mary couldn't have ascended because the story wasn't included in a Bible published by Zondervan would be putting myself [or anyone else] in a position of feigned knowledge. I can honestly say I am not sure what to believe, because I know that I CAN'T know [in a cognitive, rational sense] what to believe. Whether or not she ascended and in what form is [to me] not an essential part of the nature of our purpose here as Christians. It is something that you and I can discuss esoterically, but it has little relevance to the vast majority of humans on this planet. [I, however, find it quite interesting.]
c. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a self-made fabrication. I believe you can glean my stance on the subject by the title of my blog, The Shaper Fables which also has a nice gray background, by the way.
Christ used fabrications extensively. Most Christians call them parables, not to mention the excessive typology extant in the Scriptures.
d. The comments about Mary being who we want her to be. This is exactly the type of "human construct" to which you are referring. "We look as one through a glass darkly," so we fill in the missing information with what we know and what is familiar and what we have learned from experience at that slice of moment in our lives. It offers but a snapshot and not the definition of belief, because belief is ever-evolving as are ones feelings about the assumption of Mary or her depiction in the mind's eye as the Queen of Heaven or as a simple, humble, scared but obedient teenager.
I use reason to try and figure out why I believe what I believe. It is a great tool from God and one of His facets in which we are reflective of His image. To the world though, Christianity defies the laws of nature and terrestrial rationale, because the god of this world tells it denizens that this world is all that there is. I was raised in the church, but I believe to one foreign to its teachings and traditions the stories would seem truly fantastical.
So why would anyone believe that Christianity was the one and only way?
I have my convictions on this, but it is something that each Christian MUST find an answer to, otherwise it's just their mamma's religion.
I actually think we are fairly harmonious in thought, but we are taking different approaches. We are still trying to figure out each others approach.
If you like Caravaggio, Are you familiar with his two version of St. Matthew writing his Gospel? He did one version [rejected by the monks] that showed a rather ordinary-looking, overwhelmed and confounded Matthew. C actually depicted the angel grabbing Matthew's arm and manipulating it to write the gospel as he stared on in amazement and maybe a little insecurity. The second version that he did showed the more stoic philosopher type Matthew taking, as it were, minor suggestions from an angel. There is a distinct and palpable gulf of visual black space between the bodies of the angel and Matthew in the second version. All that wonderful Baroque naturalism has been stripped away and the image is far more sterile than the original. This one the monks accepted as being fitting of the event of the writing of the Gospel.
Unfortunately the original version was destroyed during WWII.
Cheers! [and not-so-agnostically yours]
—R
P.S.
Keep up the good posts.
That's quite an assumption they're making.
Yes. I did it.
Come on, somebody had to.
Post a Comment