Advent 4 - Mary

EnochEnoch Shipmate
edited December 2018 in Ecclesiantics
It's the 4th Sunday in Advent, the last Sunday before Christmas. Perhaps other peoples' calendars are different, but nowadays, in the CofE, this is the fourth candle and Mary's Sunday. Preachers, even the proddiest and most evangelical ones, are more or less obliged to preach about her.

What did shipmates get who were at church today?

Comments

  • Well, we heard a Very Orthodox Homily from a visiting priest, who homed in on the traditional doctrine of Jesus being both God-And-Man, thanks to the obedience etc. of Our Lady, truly termed Theotokos, or Mother of God.

    Our Ims reflected this - no mention of such taradiddles as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Mary as 'Fourth Person of the Trinity (sic)', 'Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist' etc. etc.
  • We had a very thought-provoking homily about Elizabeth: about being childless generally and how meeting a pregnant Elizabeth would have underlined to Mary that her own pregnancy was indeed the Holy Spirit.
  • We had Christmas carols, the birth narrative from Luke and a sermon on the incarnation. Not bad but a bit premature by my reckoning. It's like parts of the Church of Scotland have finally got their heads around celebrating Christmas but haven't quite mastered the nuances yet.
  • Well, we had the Visit to Elizabeth for the Gospel reading - as TheOrganist implies, rather more appropriate for just before Christmas!
  • No sermon at our place today. (Yes, I really said no sermon.) Instead, we had a very nicely done Christmas pageant from the children and youth, with help from a few others, including son home from college.

    Perhaps a wee bit early, but Christmas pageants here almost always occur before the 24th in my experience. (My honetown’s Episcopal parish’s pageant on Jan. 6 bring the one exception I can think of.) But to the extent the pageant was premature, so to speak, that was offset by the singing of Advent hymns only, save one round of the angel’s chorus.
  • I preached on the Magnificat, making parallels with Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2 and stressing its subversive (even revolutionary) elements.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Mostly on Mary and the Visitation. How did Mary get there from Nazareth? What she was like, down to cracked heels. The usual contrast between Mary and Elizabeth. The Magnificat, which we had had in place of a psalm. In other words, a good solid sermon with lots of substance to it.
  • In our calendar yesterday was the Sixth Sunday of Advent, which is also the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, so there was still a focus on the Mother of God throughout our service.

    The nature of our mission at present is such that any homily must be catechetical, so the short address I gave was really about the basics.
    As we sing in the antiphon on the Magnificat for Vespers of this feast:

    "Today is the beginning of our salvation,
    and the manifestation of the mystery which is from eternity:
    the Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin
    and Gabriel announces grace.
    Therefore, with him let us also cry to the Mother of God:
    'Rejoice, O Full of Grace! The Lord is with you!"

    "The beginning of our salvation" - how is this the case?

    Throughout the Old Testament - in creation, in apparition, in prophecy - we see the interaction of the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity with humankind, and particularly, with God's chosen people.

    However, these manifestations were but glimpses, allusions to the fullness of our salvation which was yet to come.

    In the Annunciation, that fullness is revealed for the first time in the words of the holy archangel and in the free consent and willing obedience of the Virgin. The God Who is shrouded in mystery, Who is incomprehenensible, invisible, unable to be constrained by time and space, now enters time and space, and becomes visible. The Word becomes flesh and lives among us.

    Living, as we do, two millennia after these events took place, where that celebration is so often clouded by the annual secular jamboree of December, and where even many Christians see Christmas as little more than a commemoration of the birthday of a sort of VIP figure of their faith community, it is very easy for us to lose a sense of the awesomeness of this event. Yet what we are actually celebrating is nothing less than the fact that this unknowable, invisible God becomes known and visible, and enters our world, becoming flesh like us, and making Himself dependent on his creation for his human life. We must never lose sight of this.

    This mystery is summed up perfectly in this verse of a well-known 19th-century Christmas carol:

    "O wonder of wonders! which none can unfold,
    the Ancient of Days is an hour or two old;
    the Maker of all things is made of the earth;
    man is worshipped by angels and God comes to birth."

    This is the Mystery of the Incarnation, and it is this that the Archangel Gabriel announced to the Theotokos. How can our response be anything other than to fall down in awe and worship the Lord?

    And the response of the Holy Virgin to this mind-blowing annunciation? 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord: let it be with me according to your word'.

    Let this also be our response to God's call to do his will.
  • Thanks, Cyprian.

    Very well said, Sir!
  • I'm a member of the Church Of The Larger Fellowship, an on-line Unitarian Universalist congregation. This was the homily sent to our inboxes.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Wow.
    :flushed:

    Very, very, powerful stuff.

    Thank you, Stetson, for sharing this with us. The best Christmas homily I've heard this year!

    And not at all incompatible, IMNSHO, with what Cyprian says....
  • You're welcome, BF. Glad you liked it.

    As for compatibility with what Cyprian said, I think the two sermons are parallel to one another, but in different spheres. Cyprian focuses on Mary's role as "the handmaid" of the Incarnation, whereas Rev. Riley talks about Mary's imparting to Jesus the love that is so apparent in the Gospel narratives, but does not discuss the Incarnation in any depth, if at all.

    Of course, if you do believe in the Incarnation(most Unitarians don't, or even anything close to it), the homily on Mary's role in raising Jesus can be a needed supplement to the focus on her role in bringing about the Incarnation. Personally, as someone who appreciates the Jesus story as myth, I like it better as a myth that includes the Incarnation. I think the rest of his story makes the most sense if you have that as the starting point.
  • Well, horses for courses.....

    I don't (personally) have too much trouble in accepting Mary as the means by which Our Lord was made incarnate (however that might have actually been physically accomplished!), but I do rather recoil from the stuff that results - the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, her Real Presence in the Eucharist etc. etc.

    'Mother of God' - yes, in a sense. The Orthodoxen seem to have a much more balanced and far less 'romantic' view of her!

    Material for another thread, maybe, but please don't burn me in the meantime. I know how emotive these thoughts can be.....
  • I will always fondly remember the usual words of a late rector on the feast of the Conception of the BVM: "Today we celebrate that God did whatever God needed to do to prepare Our Lady to become the Mother of Our Lord." That's enough for me.
  • LOL! I've heard something similar, and yes, it's enough for me, too.

    Anyway, the details are surely something very personal between Mary and God....no?
    :wink:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    My apologies. Even though it was me who set it running, I've been a bit silent on this thread.

    Ours was, I think, impeccably orthodox in a small 'o' CofE sort of way. So like Bishop's Finger no
    "Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Mary as 'Fourth Person of the Trinity (sic)', 'Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist' etc. etc."
    It homed in on what incarnation means, and what it says for God's reaching out to us that he is prepared to be incarnate in his Son in Mary's womb, and be born the same way as we are. So his holiness and divinity are not lessened by human contact. They may be a threat to us, but we don't diminish him. Encouragement to imagine what it must be like to carry the unborn Son of God and Son of Man within you, but an acceptance that we don't actually know what Mary felt about it all. Scripture does not record what it felt like for her.

    Thank you @Stetson for the Unitarian link. It's for me quite a challenge to consider whether Mary has a role in salvation history if Jesus is not actually the incarnate Son of God. But, then, I'm sorry, I'm not a Unitarian.


    Surely (I hope) there's nobody theologically respectable who claims Mary as a 'Fourth Person of the Trinity' or that she is present in the Eucharist? I've not met either of those. Some shipmates may be shocked but I'm very doubtful about the Immaculate Conception. Being CofE, I'm not required to believe in it. Mary is unique. Her calling was a special one for which she alone was chosen, for which she was especially suited and for which she would have been - perhaps quite unwittingly - prepared beforehand. But there's no basis for there being anything having been unique going back a generation previously. If the wonder of the Incarnation had to be done in two stages, does that even perhaps diminish its wonder? It's understandable how and why speculation might have arisen about how a human womb could encompass the divine, but it almost seems that it is trying to fence about the awesome wonder of the event.

    Besides, isn't it the bearing of the Son of God that makes Mary and her womb holy, rather than the other way round? Until she said yes to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, wasn't this only potentially so?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Besides, isn't it the bearing of the Son of God that makes Mary and her womb holy, rather than the other way round? Until she said yes to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, wasn't this only potentially so?
    That makes sense to me. And it begs another question: did Mary have a genuine choice between saying "yes" and "no"? And what would have been the consequences of her refusing?

  • What is a genuine choice? This is a serious problem. My father and mother used to disagree on this. The problem was that what we experience is usually a constrained choice. That is a choice where predilections favour one option. The question is then is this free choice or predestinarian. We may be aware of the other option but is there really a possibility we will take it. We are rarely if ever faced with a choice where all options are equally palatable.

    I do not know what would have happened, God may not know because in creating the Universe that moment was created along with all other moments. That might not mean that Mary had to do God's will just that her doing it is part of the process of creation.
  • Enoch wrote: »

    Surely (I hope) there's nobody theologically respectable who claims Mary as a 'Fourth Person of the Trinity' or that she is present in the Eucharist? I've not met either of those.

    Besides, isn't it the bearing of the Son of God that makes Mary and her womb holy, rather than the other way round? Until she said yes to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, wasn't this only potentially so?

    Well, there are elements of the Roman Catholic Church which do indeed appear to espouse these doctrines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church

    And the idea of Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix' is by no means new:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

    It is only fair to say that these are 'fringe' groups/thoughts, by no means wholly accepted by the wider RCC, as far as I know.


  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Enoch wrote: »
    Besides, isn't it the bearing of the Son of God that makes Mary and her womb holy, rather than the other way round? Until she said yes to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, wasn't this only potentially so?
    That makes sense to me. And it begs another question: did Mary have a genuine choice between saying "yes" and "no"? And what would have been the consequences of her refusing?

    We wouldn't know about it, coz God would have chosen someone else?
    :grey_question:

    And maybe He already did? But it was Mary who said 'Yes'? And not the others?
    :confused: :flushed:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate

    Well, there are elements of the Roman Catholic Church which do indeed appear to espouse these doctrines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
    According to that entry, the Palmarians are openly schismatics, with their own pet pope, self-elected and with hardly any followers.
    And the idea of Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix' is by no means new:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix ...
    Again, that account makes it clear that every time anyone has tried to change official doctrine on that one, it has been turned down, in one case by 23-0 at a Mariological Congress in Poland, at Częstochowa no less.


    But like you, I've once or twice speculated, what if the Angel Gabriel had already approached somebody else who had said 'No'. Of course, we have no way of knowing. Scripture only tells us what God thinks we need to know.

    It would be inconsistent with the doctrine of an Immaculate Conception. So possibly would be any suggestion that Mary had a genuine choice, but if she didn't, does that reduce the theological significance both of her 'Yes' and of Jesus's in Gethsemane? And if so, would that call into question a lot of the fundamentals about the Incarnation. It would skew Jesus into a Docetist version of himself and suggest that only those that can first get themselves into the right place are capable of being saved.

    There's a lot else where I can't help thinking we neither need to know nor to understand, but rather to receive by faith with thanksgiving + perhaps just a little awe and wonder.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch, an interesting line,and one to think of. I keep going back to Luke 1, 38 with its parallels with Christ's words in Gethsemane.
  • Enoch wrote: »

    Well, there are elements of the Roman Catholic Church which do indeed appear to espouse these doctrines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
    According to that entry, the Palmarians are openly schismatics, with their own pet pope, self-elected and with hardly any followers.
    And the idea of Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix' is by no means new:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix ...
    Again, that account makes it clear that every time anyone has tried to change official doctrine on that one, it has been turned down, in one case by 23-0 at a Mariological Congress in Poland, at Częstochowa no less.

    I did make the point that these are fringe groups/ideas, but ISWYM, of course.

    Every church grouping/denomination seems to have its very own fruitloops!

  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Thanks, Cyprian.

    Very well said, Sir!

    Bless you!

    Our little group is very new and not all have an Orthodox or even any Christian formation at all. Those who are Orthodox haven't been thoroughly catechised. All of that is ok but it does mean that my starting point for any exposition of anything has to explain the fundaments of what we believe about the events we celebrate. It's actually quite exciting.

    Epiphany, here we come.
  • Enoch wrote: »

    Well, there are elements of the Roman Catholic Church which do indeed appear to espouse these doctrines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
    According to that entry, the Palmarians are openly schismatics, with their own pet pope, self-elected and with hardly any followers.
    And the idea of Mary as 'Co-Redemptrix' is by no means new:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix ...
    Again, that account makes it clear that every time anyone has tried to change official doctrine on that one, it has been turned down, in one case by 23-0 at a Mariological Congress in Poland, at Częstochowa no less.

    I did make the point that these are fringe groups/ideas, but ISWYM, of course.

    Every church grouping/denomination seems to have its very own fruitloops!

    What were you referring to when you said "Fourth Person of the Trinity" and "Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist"? Are you talking about any preaching or teaching that you have encountered in the C of E or the RCC? Seriously, where have you ever heard of these? Are you only talking about the Palmarian Church?

    The notion of co-redemptrix is another matter, but the concepts I ask about above are not ones I have ever heard of within the RCC or Anglo-Catholicism.
  • Not personally encountered by me, although I do know a member of the RCC (formerly our - CofE - churchwarden) who inclines towards these views.

    Google is your friend, and entering 'Mary as fourth person of the Trinity' leads to some interesting links.

    Here, too, is a link about the idea of Mary's presence in the Eucharist:
    #https://forums.catholic.com/t/the-virgin-mary-is-in-the-holy-eucharist-physically/137504

    Once again, I emphasise that I realise that these are the thoughts of certain groups/individuals, and NOT the official teaching of the RCC, as far as I can see.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 8
    I did the advised google on "Mary as fourth person of the Trinity", and found this discussion thread, which seems to be a bunch of non-Catholics who THINK that Catholics believe that, and dislike them for it.

    I linked to Post 10, where a poster states that in Spain Catholics use a version of the Bible that states Jesus and Mary ascended into heaven together. I'm guessing she got that from Alberto Rivera.
  • Not personally encountered by me, although I do know a member of the RCC (formerly our - CofE - churchwarden) who inclines towards these views.

    Google is your friend, and entering 'Mary as fourth person of the Trinity' leads to some interesting links.

    Here, too, is a link about the idea of Mary's presence in the Eucharist:
    #https://forums.catholic.com/t/the-virgin-mary-is-in-the-holy-eucharist-physically/137504

    Once again, I emphasise that I realise that these are the thoughts of certain groups/individuals, and NOT the official teaching of the RCC, as far as I can see.

    I guess I misunderstood the OP because I thought it was referring to something that people you knew had encountered in homilies on the Fourth Sunday or Advent or some other day on the liturgical calendar.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    @stonespring - the fourth Sunday in Advent, in the CofE, focuses on Mary in the readings, hymns and prayers. That doesn't mean she is prayed for, but her role in the incarnation is remembered.
    Week 1 - the patriarchs
    Week 2 - the prophets
    Week 3 - John the Baptist
    Week 4 - Mary
  • @stonespring - the fourth Sunday in Advent, in the CofE, focuses on Mary in the readings, hymns and prayers. That doesn't mean she is prayed for, but her role in the incarnation is remembered.
    Week 1 - the patriarchs
    Week 2 - the prophets
    Week 3 - John the Baptist
    Week 4 - Mary

    The thread is about preaching on the Fourth Sunday of Advent, so when the OP mentioned Fourth Person of the Trinity and Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist, I thought it was referring to some homily someone had heard somewhere, perhaps on the Fourth Sunday of Advent. I know what the readings are and I have been to both RC and Episcopal services on that Sunday in multiple years. I have never heard about Mary as the Fourth Person of the Trinity or about the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist. I now think that the mention of these ideas was not to any specific homily anyone posting here or their acquaintances has ever experienced, but maybe I am wrong!
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    The phrase 'Fourth Person of the Trinity' came from the first reply:
    Well, we heard a Very Orthodox Homily from a visiting priest, <snip> -
    no mention of such taradiddles as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Mary as 'Fourth Person of the Trinity (sic)', 'Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist' etc. etc.
    This post does not suggest this should be part of the sermon. Nor did the further rebuttals on the thread.
  • Thank you, @Curiosity killed . That's what I mean, but I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'd actually heard this stuff preached.

    I've heard it discussed, but that's another thing altogether, of course.
  • The phrase 'Fourth Person of the Trinity' came from the first reply:
    Well, we heard a Very Orthodox Homily from a visiting priest, <snip> -
    no mention of such taradiddles as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Mary as 'Fourth Person of the Trinity (sic)', 'Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist' etc. etc.
    This post does not suggest this should be part of the sermon. Nor did the further rebuttals on the thread.

    By saying there was no mention of it, there was an implication that such things have been mentioned in sermons. I am sorry for sounding prosecutorial. The truth is, I hold pretty extreme, perhaps heretical, views about Mary along with very, very liberal, perhaps heretical views about gender and sexuality. The notions I mentioned just seemed so unlike anything I have ever heard preached that I had to ask if anyone had heard them coming from a pulpit.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 9
    @stonespring , fair points.

    Without wishing to step on your toes, as it were, would you care to enlarge on your 'heretical' views, perhaps on another thread?

    I had to remind our rather 'conservative' (to say the least) Father F***wit that what he condemned as a heresy was, in fact, merely a different POV, and therefore IMHO, equally valid! He did NOT agree....

    The whole business about Mary, gender, sexuality etc., is a Thorny Thicket, I know.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Whilst of course I have heard of such 'taradiddles' ( a lovely new word for me !) as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, I have never, ever in over 70 years ,heard of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist nor of Mary as the fourth person of the Trinity.
    How can you have four persons in a group of three. ? The overwhelming majority of Christians are 'Trinitarian' and the doctrine of the Trinity is, as Athanasius reminds us, the cornerstone of the Catholic Faith.
  • 'Taradiddle' is best translated as 'pretentious nonsense', but YMMV, and I apologise for any offence inadvertently caused by my use of the word.

    @Forthview, yes, of course, you are right, which is why these somewhat weird ideas seem so....well, weird.....

    IOW, what's the point of them?
  • @stonespring , fair points.

    Without wishing to step on your toes, as it were, would you care to enlarge on your 'heretical' views, perhaps on another thread?

    I had to remind our rather 'conservative' (to say the least) Father F***wit that what he condemned as a heresy was, in fact, merely a different POV, and therefore IMHO, equally valid! He did NOT agree....

    The whole business about Mary, gender, sexuality etc., is a Thorny Thicket, I know.

    I apologize for this, but my beliefs vis a vis Mary are pretty emotional and personal for me, so I am not very comfortable debating them, especially online. I just wanted to show that I am pretty open minded about all kinds of beliefs, and was not approaching my discussion here from a dogmatic high horse.
  • @stonespring , fair points.

    Without wishing to step on your toes, as it were, would you care to enlarge on your 'heretical' views, perhaps on another thread?

    I had to remind our rather 'conservative' (to say the least) Father F***wit that what he condemned as a heresy was, in fact, merely a different POV, and therefore IMHO, equally valid! He did NOT agree....

    The whole business about Mary, gender, sexuality etc., is a Thorny Thicket, I know.

    I apologize for this, but my beliefs vis a vis Mary are pretty emotional and personal for me, so I am not very comfortable debating them, especially online. I just wanted to show that I am pretty open minded about all kinds of beliefs, and was not approaching my discussion here from a dogmatic high horse.

    No, please don't apologise! Your reticence is respected, and your point taken.


  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Reticence about the Immaculate Conception, I understand: it relies on an acceptance of the teaching of Original Sin. No Original Sin: no preservation from the same in any Immaculate Conception.

    But may I respectfully ask what objection there might be to the Assumption?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    How can you have four persons in a group of three. ?

    I think when people say things like "Is Mary part of the Trinity?", it's a linguistic trimming for "Is Mary part of what we now consider to be the Trinity?"

    You could probably eliminate the surface oxymoronicism by saying "Is Mary part one of the Persons of God?" or "Is Mary part of the Godhead?" (Not sure about "Godhead"'s familiarity to most Christians, however.)

  • This.
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Reticence about the Immaculate Conception, I understand: it relies on an acceptance of the teaching of Original Sin. No Original Sin: no preservation from the same in any Immaculate Conception.

    But may I respectfully ask what objection there might be to the Assumption?

    As regards the Assumption, I really don't feel up to initiating a discussion on this topic, which might (in any case) be suitable material for a separate thread, given the differences between RCC and Orthodox traditions and teaching, AIUI.

    Suffice to say, perhaps, that the Assumption is not mentioned in Scripture - whereas other matters concerning Mary are mentioned.

    Our Place has a Cell of Our Lady of Walsingham, and we have a monthly Cell Mass (usually on a Saturday morning). The book of readings, propers, etc. that we use concentrates on those Scriptural references to Mary, which seems to me to be both seemly and edifying.

    YMMV!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    No it's not mentioned but it seems a reasonable conclusion that Mary's human life came to an end - whether by death or falling asleep, it's a time to observe the fullness of her life (as opposed to a few incidents in it.

    I once mentioned it in passing at a social gathering and was picked up on by the local minister of the continuing Presbyterian Church. He was concerned that the Assumption was close to idolatry. He changed rather when I pointed out that Elijah was swept up in a chariot without suffering death, and it was reasonable to conclude that Christ's mother would have been even more one to be so favoured.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    No it's not mentioned but it seems a reasonable conclusion that Mary's human life came to an end - whether by death or falling asleep, it's a time to observe the fullness of her life (as opposed to a few incidents in it.

    That expresses my own thoughts on the matter rather well.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    No it's not mentioned but it seems a reasonable conclusion that Mary's human life came to an end - whether by death or falling asleep, it's a time to observe the fullness of her life (as opposed to a few incidents in it.

    I once mentioned it in passing at a social gathering and was picked up on by the local minister of the continuing Presbyterian Church. He was concerned that the Assumption was close to idolatry. He changed rather when I pointed out that Elijah was swept up in a chariot without suffering death, and it was reasonable to conclude that Christ's mother would have been even more one to be so favoured.

    I think it all hinges on whether you believe:

    a. Nothing should be believed regarding Mary that is not clearly stated in Scripture

    b. It's ok to believe things about Mary that are not clearly stated in Scripture, as long as they have some evidence in Scripture (but you don't have to) .

    c. It's ok to believe things about Mary that hardly have any evidence at all in Scripture, as long as they do not run contrary to Scripture (but you don't have to).

    d. It's ok to believe things about Mary that seem to contradict Scripture, as long as the Church teaches it (and explains - often in a way that others find hard to believe - how it does not in fact contradict Scripture).

    e. The same as d. - but you actually have to believe those things about Mary

    I'm not saying where I fall here. :wink:
  • f. treat the whole Marian devotion as containing poetic truth and often used as a metonymy for the nature of the Church.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    f. treat the whole Marian devotion as containing poetic truth and often used as a metonymy for the nature of the Church.

    That, and a whole lot more. Stonespring's list seems to me to look at the thread issues too categorically and to rely upon much unsaid to get my thinking far.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    f. treat the whole Marian devotion as containing poetic truth and often used as a metonymy for the nature of the Church.

    That, and a whole lot more. Stonespring's list seems to me to look at the thread issues too categorically and to rely upon much unsaid to get my thinking far.

    I guess my list was more appropriate for a Pugatory-esque discussion of Marian doctrine rather than an Ecclesiantics discussion of preaching on the 4th Sunday of Advent.
  • Not really that, you have adopted an understanding of 'belief' that does not equate with the way the majority of Christians understand it in the modern world and only ever had traction within Western culture.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Not really that, you have adopted an understanding of 'belief' that does not equate with the way the majority of Christians understand it in the modern world and only ever had traction within Western culture.

    And (I would venture to say) within the Roman Catholic culture......

    IOW, I suspect that this might apply to the majority of MOTR or High Church C of E parishes which celebrate the major Marian feasts.

    Back to the OP, though - surely, a service/sermon centring on Mary, and her part in the Incarnation story, is highly appropriate for the last Sunday before Christmas, however you express the subject.
  • Back to the OP, though - surely, a service/sermon centring on Mary, and her part in the Incarnation story, is highly appropriate for the last Sunday before Christmas, however you express the subject.
    Well, I thought so, though this year I concentrated a bit more on the Magnificat than Mary herself.

Sign In or Register to comment.