The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church commemorate the Assumption of Mary tomorrow. If I were limited to attending church only five or six times per year (hmm, not a bad idea), I would choose Assumption Day as one of them. I cannot become excited over the Immaculate Conception of Mary (December 8) nor the Solemnity of Mary (January 1), but the Assumption I can, because it's cosmological and eschatological in its scope as it tells humans something important about the destiny of themselves and the world.
The Assumption story does not appear, of course, in the four gospels. So, e.g., tomorrow's gospel readings (two different ones for two different times) in church are Luke 1:39-56 (the visit of the pregnant Mary to her pregnant cousin, Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist) and Luke 11:27-28 (in which the audience of the adult Jesus briefly praises his mother, and he deflects the praise to anyone who hears and follows his preached word).
I cannot ever remember my homilists in past years taking a few seconds to explain to the congregation why the gospel readings on Assumption Day do not mention the Assumption. Unfortunately, I predict the homilist tomorrow again will fail to do so. I also predict that, despite these two mentioned gospel readings which emphasize Mary's humble, quiet faith, and which emphasize the priority and power of God's activity, my homilist will emphasize Mary's glorious, queen-like role, even to the point of being the unofficial Co-Redeemer with Christ. And as I listen to the preacher, I'll also be thinking in the back of my mind about the definition of the Assumption, namely, the entrance of Mary's soul AND BODY into heaven---and thinking of how some MATERIAL dimension of her is in what is supposed to be a place or state of existence inhabited by NON-material beings (God, angels, souls)---and hoping that the homilist will make some small acknowledgment of this problem of cosmological-theological physics for his professionally educated congregation.
Well, the Assumption IS Mary's birthday into heaven. So on with the birthday party!
-Old Gargoyle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Immaculate Conception poses a similar cosmological question, namely, Mary could only have been conceived without sin as a result of Jesus' redemption through death on a cross. How is it, then, that Mary could have been conceived without sin BEFORE her redeemer died and resurrected? Don't use the much-hackneyed response you complained of on Trinity Sunday--the mysterious nature of God. The only logical explanation I have for the immaculate conception of Mary is Boethius's explanation that all time happens all at once. That, of course, poses it's own problem, videlicet, when did sin enter the world--certainly not simultaneously with Jesus' death and resurrection?
With love and a splitting headache,
Jennifer
You strain my brain, Grasshopper. It's not I but the Church which invokes the mystery or power of God to explain Mary's freedom from original sin before the occurrence of the Redemption. Like the Eastern Orthodox Church, which honors Mary probably more strongly than does the Catholic Church, I have two problems with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (I.C.): (a) the time sequence of Mary's birth predating the Crucifixion; and (b) the doctrine implying that Mary was not a regular human if she was conceived without original sin, even though she certainly was a descendant of the original human couple.
The reason or motivation for the I.C. is, of course, the Church's desire to protect the dignity of the birth of the Son of God, and to promote the dignity of his mother.
Your reference to Boethius is not without value. It's only in the last few years that Christian theologians in general and Catholic ones in particular have begun to give serious consideration to the implications of science, especially cosmological physics and quantum physics, to traditional theology--see, e.g., Diarmid Murchu, John Polkinghorne, William Lane Craig; the theological meaning of "all time happens all at once" was explored a few years ago by the German theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg. The atheistic professor of math and physics at Tulane University, Frank Tipler, who drew much criticism and praise for his book, "The Physics of Immortality," has a new book, "The Physics of Christianity," in which he analyzes (successfully or not) the physics of such miracles as the I.C. and the Resurrection.
(Watch your "it's" and "its," ma petite. I haven't seen "videlicet" in a long time.)
-Your arrogant servant,
Old Gargoyle
Yes, I noticed the "it's" error immediately upon re-reading. Ugh. Thankfully I have defected to the social studies department where I can no longer harm students of English with my grammatical ineptitude.
Thank you for the bibliography. I will ask my sister for one or more of the suggested books for Christmas. I always enjoy a little light reading over the break. On that note, what say *you* about the Tippler tomes?
And, can I take it from your response that you, as I, see no good reason for the doctrine of the I.C.? By my reasoning, whether Mary was conceived with or without original sin is immaterial. What matters is that her son was. Is it any more a leap of faith to believe that Jesus was conceived without sin (whether or not his mother was) than to believe that He is the product of a virgin birth; that He literally died and was resurrected; that the bread and wine we consume at mass are, in fact, His body and blood; or that He is God? Ditto for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I suppose, if there is no necessity for either the I.C. or perpetual virginity of Mary, that we ought to defer to the magisterium of the Church.
You're killing me here, 'Hopper.
Yes, I guess we should defer to the magisterium, though the lack of doctrines of the I.C. and V.B. wouldn't destroy other beliefs about Christ. Recall, though, that anything blessedly special said about Mary implies that other humans, who were/are as non-divinely human as she, potentially can be recipients of similar blessings (hence the importance, I think, of the Assumption, which implies that all blessed human body-souls are capable of the same eternal destiny).
As for other doctrines about Christ, I return to science. Even with my superficial understanding of quantum physics, I see the potential in it; and I predict that in the future miracles and other so-called supernatural events will be seen to have been special natural events understandable within the context of quantum. Let me back up: Almost all Western believers (Jews, Christians, Muslims) still labor under a cosmology and a concept of the deity shaped by medieval thought which strongly separated spirit from matter, which placed God outside his creation, and which thought that the purely spiritual is ultimately the only reality. And at the same time we people have been influenced by the scientific worldview of the last two centuries, a view which says that only the empirically demonstrable is real. Now enter scientific thought of only the last fifty years or so, and we have, when connected to theology, is a closing (not yet closed) gap between matter and spirit, between the "supernatural" and the natural.
You ask about Frank Tipler. Let me end here (because it's time for "Mad Men") by quoting his astounding statement: "It's time for theology to become a branch of physics." This will not ultimately destroy the definition of faith because, as scientists themselves emphasize, scientific findings are generally held to be tentative anyway (in contrast to theological "findings," many of which are thought to be absolute).
To believe or not to believe, even with improved scientific evidence, still will be the question, my dear Yorick.
-Your Mad Man,
Old Gargoyle
I see no Biblical reference to sins of a mother being transferred onto her children. Correct me if I'm wrong here but, all references I see point to only the sins of the father having a generational impact. So I suppose it is immaterial whether Mary had sin or not.
Post a Comment