Posted on 08/19/2013 3:01:40 PM PDT by NYer
Monsignor Pope, ping!
The Church depicted as a woman?? Would this be the same woman as in Rev.12? That suffered persecution?
Not even close...That woman in Rev 12 is the Nation of Israel...The woman you are referring to is in Rev. 17...
In NT times, the Church picked this up immediately, with Paul choosing this image of the church as mother, which reappears in four places in the New Testament. First and most obviously in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 as he contrasts the enslaved descendants of Hagar with the free descendants of Sarah. While Hagar corresponds to earthly Jerusalem, Sarah represents heavenly Jerusalem --- personified as the Church.
The Church is always honored with the title of the Bride of Christ and referred to as "she" (rather than "it"). Mary the Mother of Christ is also seen as the Mother of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother; so all disciples find her their own. And as Mary gave birth to Christ, the Church gives birth (through baptism) to all believers; this is why we use the phrase, "Holy Mother the Church."
The passage in Rev. 12 is a good example: the imagery refers simultaneously to Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, and to the Church.
It is not at all unusual for Biblical imagery to apply to multiple references: often past, present and future, as well as both individual and collective.
Did you read the article? The Church is the Bride of Christ.
Its an effective take-down of this article.
Mystical uh huh . . if you say so
Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother;
Whoa, back up the truck. John was already Marys son. John and Jesus were half-brothers through Mary.
so all disciples find her their own.
Nowhere does the Bible say that. They all had their own mothers.
Just getting some clarification.
"Mary the Mother of Christ is also seen as the Mother of the Mystical Body of Christ... Mystical uh huh . . if you say so"
The Epistles of St Paul deal with this extensively (a good place to start is "In Christ we form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:5.) Really revealing when you look at the depth of meaning of such an image.
"Christ gave her to his disciple John to be his mother"... Whoa, back up the truck. John was already Marys son. John and Jesus were half-brothers through Mary.
You may have your Johns mixed up. We're speaking of the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater. In the Gospels the two brothers are often called "the sons of Zebedee" after their father.
"
So all disciples find her their own..". Nowhere does the Bible say that. They all had their own mothers.
You are taking an honorific title too literally. Of course the disciples had their own mothers, just as John has his mother Salome, the wife of Zebedee.
To use a rather puny analogy, it's like calling George Washington the Father of his Country. It's not that he had rampant paternity issues with pregnant women throughout the 13 colonies; it's that he played a role which brought the United States of America "to birth."
A similar thing is said of Mary. She brought the Messiah to birth. She was also espoused by the Holy Spirit, whose overshadowing of her caused her to be with Child. Notice that this "handmaid of the Lord" is also with the Apostles in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit comes again, this time at Pentecost, the birthday of the Church. Hence the maternal title.
This is not about biology, but about grace. Mary was "Full of Grace." That should help us see the connection. We honor her with such unprecedented titles only because she --- a lowly creature --- was so honored by God.
Interestingly enough the THREE Marys seem to cover all the women: Mary, Jesus'/God's mother, Mary Magdalene, holy, virtuous woman who followed Jesus and Mary, the repenting whore who wept on Jesus' feet and anointed His feet.
Included among those holdouts is the entire USCCB, of which Msgr Pope's superior, Donna Cardinal Wuerl, is a member.
Ignoring the usual disrupters and trying to go back to his point, I really sympathize with Msgr. Pope. Personally, I do think Vatican II is to blame for a lot of our problems because it destroyed the link with tradition, both in the Mass as well as in thing like Catholic theological teaching, popular devotions, the dress and discipline of religious orders, etc. However, there was a rot that had already infected the Church and this was what made it so easy for Vatican II to destroy things.
I was originally very sympathetic to the traditionalist movement - until I came to know some of them better and also when I saw the vicious way they reacted to the election of Pope Francis. Even now, they spend all of their time waiting for something to attack him on.
This makes me think that perhaps one of the things that was quietly wrong with the Church before Vatican II was precisely these people or, at any rate, their predecessors who shared their attitudes: narrow, accusatory, seeking out the errors of others rather than trying to enhance their own faith, and completely obsessed with externals.
I agree that things are improving. And it’s not the traditionalists carrying out their personal inquisition who are responsible for it. If anything, they have now marginalized themselves and made themselves so disliked and mistrusted that I think they’ve effectively excluded themselves from making any contribution.
Au contraire! The Bishop of Rome, as he prefers to be called, wasted no time to attack the Franciscans of the Immaculate, even though the Franciscans had never attacked Pope Francis.
Meanwhile, regarding homosexual priests in general, and a homosexual head of the Vatican Bank in particular, he has the attitude of Alfred E. Neuman.
The bible says New Jerusalem will come down out of heaven as a bride. (Revelation 21:2)
The bible nowhere says it is the “church.”
fantastic news ... as the church is repenting, we will know something has changed when we see a public Act of Contrition from the duo who arranged the “state funeral” for Edward Kennedy.
I know many here in CT who occasionally will say, “many of the local priests don’t like Catholicism much, do they?” And to avoid getting into negativity, well we often pretend it isn’t so. Is this called cognitive dissonance?
Please send missionaries to Connecticut. And pray for the poor pagan children. In CT suburbs.
The woman in Rev 12 is not the “nation of Israel.”
Galatians 4:26 says that Sarah, symbolic of the Jerusalem *above*, is the “mother of us all”. (Yes it does). Paul explains that Jesus Christ is the child/seed of promise (Gal 3:16). And those who believe in him are also children by virtue of “being in Christ.”
Not Mary; not Eve (though a good guess), and definitely not the rejected “children of the bondwoman”. But faithful Sarah.
I read this article yesterday and really felt for Msgr. Pope. Sometimes I think that the world can be divided into two kinds of people: those who are in a FUSS, and those who aren’t. It’s hard for everyone, from parents to priests, to deal with the fuss-people.
And that has nothing to do with the woman in Rev. 12...THAT woman is the Nation of Israel...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.