.... contemplates the mystery of Mary in a Trinitarian perspective so that everyone of her prerogatives appears to be related to One of the Divine Persons. The Immaculate Conception is the new creation, sublime work of the Father in Christ and in the Spirit. …. The divine maternity is relative to the Incarnate Word and the foundation of every other gift granted to the Virgin …. Her mediation of graces finds its origin in her profound union with the Holy Spirit. ….
Maximilian Kolbe, who has marvellous insights about Mary’s relationship with the Father and the Son, is fascinated in a very special manner by the mystery of her relationship with the Holy Spirit. Kolbe loves very much the title “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” …; however, he warns us that even when we speak of “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” we cannot absolutely stop at human language. This title expresses an analogical concept which seeks to explain the unfathomable mystery of the Incarnation by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. This is the moment when the Spirit takes full possession of Mary, fills Her with his presence to the point that he makes her his habitual dwelling. ….
At the Annunciation Mary responds to God’s gift completely. She becomes the “representative” of humanity in giving this perfect response of love to God Who awaits to make a covenant with man. …. Mary opens herself to God the Trinity becoming the Handmaid of the Father, welcoming the divine maternity, and making herself totally available to the action of the Spirit.
Paraphrasing Saint Paul, we could say: It is no longer Mary who lives, but the Spirit Who lives in Her.
….
In Father Kolbe’s thought, then, Mary appears as the new Ark of the Covenant in whom God the Trinity dwells and the Spirit enters without obstacles, filling Her to the point of making Her his Spouse. From that moment the bond between Her and the holy Spirit is indissoluble. The Spirit dwells within Her, fills Her with himself, and associates Her with his sanctifying mission, so much so that one can say that the Spirit works “through” the Immaculata. This is to be understood in the sense that Mary, being the Spirit’s dwelling, is not only the person in whom the Word takes on human flesh, but also the “place” of the Spirit’s manifestation, the “place” where every other mystery is fulfilled and the fruits of divine grace mature:
At the appointed time for Christ’s coming [into the world], God the Trinity creates the Immaculate Virgin exclusively for Himself, fills Her with grace, and the Lord takes his dwelling in Her. With her humility this Most Holy Virgin so fascinates the Divine Heart, that God the Father gives Her his Only-Begotten Son as her son; God the Son descends in her virginal womb while God the Holy Spirit forms the most holy body of the God-Man within her womb. The Word became flesh as the result of the love of God and of the Immaculata…. And no soul is reborn in Christ in any other way except by means of the love of God toward the Immaculata and in the Immaculata…. No word ever becomes flesh, no perfection or virtue assumes concrete shape in a human person, except through the love of God for the Immaculata. Just as Christ, the Source of graces, had become her property, so She has the right to distribute graces….
[End of quotes]
The prerogatives of Mary, her Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, and her Divine Maternity, were also the primary focal point of the Communion of Reparation (or Five First Saturdays) program as explained by Our Lord to Sr. Lucia at Tuy (Spain) on May 29, 1930. When asked “Why five Saturdays?”, Jesus explained:
"My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
1. Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception. 2. Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity. 3. Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men. 4. The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother. 5. The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.
"Here, My daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little act of Reparation . . ."
At the heart of this is the Divine Mercy’s thirst for sinners, even for those who scorn and outrage his Mother:
"See, My daughter, the motive for which the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little Reparation, and in consideration of it, to move My mercy to pardon souls who have had the misfortune of offending Her. As for you, always seek by your prayers and sacrifices to move My mercy to pity for these poor souls”.
-----------------------------------
Now, a disturbing situation relevant to Mary’s prerogatives has recently been raised regarding the newly appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller. In an article entitled 'Do Dogmas Retain Their True Meaning in Today's Vatican?', published in the American fortnightly Catholic paper, The Remnant (August 27, 2012, pp. 8-9), the author (writing only as 'Father X') has researched what exactly Archbishop Müller originally said about Mary's virginity in partu. He finds it very disturbing, coming as it does from the papally appointed judge of orthodoxy for the rest of the Catholic world.
Excerpt reproduced from "Father X's" article:
One’s suspicion that our new chief “watchdog” for orthodoxy may be prone to giving non-traditional meanings to theological words is reinforced when we examine what he has written, and what he now says, about Our Lady’s virginity in partu (during the birth of Jesus). For in this case, Archbishop Müller’s statement is actually more scandalous in the original German than in the truncated and inaccurate Wikipedia English version. On page 498 of his 900-page work Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie (Freiburg, 5th Edition, 2003), we read:
”Es geht nicht um abweichende physiologische Besonderheiten in dem natürlichen Vorgang der Geburt (wie etwas die Nichteröffnung der Geburtswege, die Nichtverletzung des Hymen und der nicht eingetretenen Geburtsschmerzen), sondern um den heilenden und erlösenden Einfluß der Gnade des Erlösers auf die menschliche Natur, die durch die Ursünde»verletzt« worden war.“
Here (with emphasis added) is an accurate translation of this passage of a book that has now gone through no less than five editions in forming German-speaking seminarians:
“[The virginity of Mary in partu] is not concerned with [or is not about] abnormal physiological peculiarities in the natural process of birth (such as the non-widening of the birth canal, the lack of rupture of the hymen, and the absence of birth pains), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature, which was 'wounded' by original sin."
Now, the Wikipedia version not only replaces with an ellipsis the entire parenthesized passage, but also gratuitously inserts the words “so much” between “not” and “concerned”. This of course has the effect of softening the statement, leaving room for it to be read as perhaps just ‘de-emphasizing’ the said “abnormal physiological peculiarities”, rather than as calling in question their historical reality. But Müller’s blunt assertion that the in partu aspect of Mary’s perpetual virginity “is not concerned with” the non-rupture of her hymen certainly does call in question its historical reality. No doubt Mr. Jeffrey Mirus, along with other neo-Catholics who feel obliged to defend every papal decision come what may, will plead that there is still some wiggle-room here, since Müller’s dogma text at least stops short of a flat-out denial of this miracle.
However, even supposing that such perilous flirtation with heresy were acceptable for any Catholic theologian (never mind the head of the Holy Office!), and even discounting Müller’s description of the birth process as “natural” when the Church teaches it to be supernatural and miraculous, how could any dogma “not be concerned with”, or “not be about”, what is in fact its own very essence? The very idea is transparent nonsense. And this particular “physiological peculiarity” that I have emphasized in the parenthesized passage – that Our Lady’s hymen was left intact – is indeed the very essence of the de fide truth of Our Lady’s virginity in partu. (The other “peculiarities” mentioned by Müller, regarding the birth canal and labor pains, are evidently not what is meant by the word “virginity”, and hence are to be seen as secondary, derivative aspects of the miracle which have not so far been proposed as de fide by the magisterium.)
Now, in his interview, Müller is just as adamant in upholding the above teaching found in his dogma text as he is in regard to his strange eucharistic teaching. All he said to the interviewer by way of supposed clarification is this: “The Church is also equally clear on the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ.” But precisely because this statement is not accompanied by any retraction of the scandalous published opinion we have been examining, we are once again led to suspect that the archbishop is changing the accepted meaning of this dogma, reinterpreting Our Lady’s “perpetual virginity” to mean nothing more than that she never at any time had sexual intercourse.
But while that of course is what the dogma means as regards “before” and “after” the birth of Christ, it is emphatically not what the Church means by Mary’s virginity in partu. For it is inconceivable that the Church could solemnly propose for our belief, on God's authority, a truth so obviously knowable (and universally known) from natural reason as that Our Lady had no sexual intercourse during childbirth! Such pomposity in affirming what is already crudely obvious to everyone would simply make a laughing-stock of the magisterium. No, the true and only possible meaning of Our Lady's virginity in partu is that Christ's birth was miraculous, with the hymen remaining intact. For its intactness or rupture is precisely what differentiates virginity from non-virginity in this context. (See Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, #57. and the accompanying references in footnote #10 to other papal and conciliar teachings, which make this true meaning very clear.)
Blogger Carl has also written a strong comment on this same subject:
Carl Grillo said...
The "virginitas in partu" (virginity in giving birth) is a Catholic Dogma "de fide divina et catholica" - which must be believed by "Divine and Catholic faith," infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium; whose denial on the part of Muller is therefore - formally heretical and presumably malicious: he cannot be excused on account of ignorance. The specific contents of this Catholic dogma are as follows: non-rupture of the physical virginal integrity (I omit the biological term "ex reverentiam"); the absence of labor pains; AND... the "sine sordibus" - the absence of the biological accidents of natural birth: placenta, umbilical cord, etc. By using arrogant pretexts and clever circumlocutions, Muller just indicates his degree of hatred for Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Most Holy and Immaculate Mother... [cf., Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis: "...it was a miraculous birth." Vatican II: "..whose birth not only did not diminish his Mother's virginal integrity, but augmented it;" repeated by John Paul II in his catechetical and Marian discourses...]
No comments:
Post a Comment