This is brilliant in its utter complexity and simplicity at the same time. Unfortunately, those who have hearts and minds blind to Mary will not see this, I'm afraid. It's like banging your head on that proverbial wall. I usually end with "Why do you hate His mother? What do you think He would say to you?"
This seems to align with my prayers this week. Strange how that happens. 🤔
Mary is spoken of throughout scripture and if you cannot see that I would encourage you to simply look at all of what is said about her in the NT. The greeting of the Angel, the Magnificat, the prophecy of simeon, the parrallelism between the wedding at Cana and the Crucifixion, the woman clothed in the sun in Rev 12. To write something like this you must me jumping over some really crucial texts in the NT. The OT is also replete with teaching about the Blessed Virgin, but it´s admittedly less obvious. We have only one mediator, Jesus Christ, but even Paul himself in 1 Col 1:24 says Christ´s work is mediated through his suffering for the church. So again, scripture confirms the catholic view. Christ lives in the Saints and works through them.
You didnt really touch my argument above. what did you think of it?
Except that an Archangel addressed her with a royal greeting, "Hail", and called her, "full of grace", which is not declared of any other human in scripture after Adam. Please study Mariology. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, who contained the word and the bread. Don't go into spiritual battle without her. Bad things happened to the Israelites when they forgot the Ark.
You are ascribing to Mary as ideal interpretant a species of comprehensive knowledge. At best this would be created knowledge, not the incommunicable original knowledge of God. I'm struggling therefore to see what Mary as ideal interpretant gives us that Christ in His human and divine natures does not. It would seem that in Christ we have all the access to both the original uncreated and analogical created signs and interpretations that we need.
Its not about what it gives us first and foremost. The foundation of the logical argument are 1. God is perfect. 2. the nature of an act of communication. 3. a perfect act of communication would have a real ideal interpretant. Again, Jesus is the sign to be interpreted which presupposes an ideal interpretant who is distinct from Him. So that is what I was saying she fulfills. So its about God´ s character and the character of the universe or communication. Its more about what Mary gives God, perfect human comprehension, recognition, that we due to sin cannot. The ideal interpretant when you tell your dog to sit is the ideal dog, not a human. So the ideal interpretant for the revelation of God in Jesus is Mary, and to be an ideal interpretant, she need only understand as a perfect human would, not as an angel or God Himself would. The correlary part is that her perfect recognition did shape Jesus Christ, so again its about what she gives back to God first and foremost. Obviously, ad Jesum per mariam! So I think Mary gives us a great deal by way of her example and intercession, the prophecy of Simeon says so as well. So scripture says her heart will be peirced with a sword for the revelation of thoughts in the hearts of many. This is what scripture says she does or gives us, but its a little secondary to my argument here. please forgive me if i didnt fully understand your objection or question here. thanks for your thoughtful considerations.
This clarifies a great deal when you write "she need only understand as a perfect human would, not as an angel or God Himself would." Thank you.
As a corollary, what might the implications be of an ontological proof for the "seed of the woman"? In other words, why stop at Mary? Why not run the proof all the way back through the messianic line to Eve?
well in fact perhaps adam and eve were also ideal interpretants of creation at least, or the other things God communicated to them, in fact they must have been as they were also perfect. but my argument was focused on the revelation in Jesus Christ so I don´t really grasp how it can by run back, can you explain what exactly you mean? mary doesnt need a real ideal interpretant as shes not part of the Divine Sign or Word only perhaps a necessary condition of its appearance.
ok ive never thought about that scripture deeply and thus how it might apply here. but an immaculate line would raise many problems, why wait so long for the Incarnstion? why are the covenants, law, sacrifices necessary if there are still men and women free from sin? i see the religious project of israel in part as seeking to get Mary, to purify to the point of the possibility of the Incarnstion from the devastating consequences of adams fall. i posted this a while back but i really have profited from the visions of blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. here is her vision of the immaculate conception: https://open.substack.com/pub/sanctistulti/p/a-vision-of-the-immaculate-conception?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wubfv
thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments!
Great arguments! I have always loved Mary! Regardless. I catch a lot of flack but it is okay. We all are just trying the best we can. I think Mary being human and our Heavenly Father divine a necessary component for Christ to be both and mediate for us in understanding and mercy instead of harsh judgment. And with the Holy Spirit present God may work in holiness through active prayer and cooperation from humanity. Sweet I feel! I am so grateful for Mary’s yes! Without it we wouldn’t know which way to go. Mary’s yes changed everything!
Ich verbinde gerade das, was Sie über Hegel geschrieben haben, mit dem, was Edith Stein über das Problem der Einfühlung gesagt hat: Einfühlung als notwendige Bedingung für Anerkennung. Aber bevor ich weiter Blödsinn rede, will ich hier lieber schweigen. Ich bin kein Philosoph. Ich kann auch nicht beurteilen, ob der ontologische Beweis gelungen ist.
Maria hilft. Maria führt uns immer wieder zurück. Maria zeigt uns die Liebe des Vaters und des Sohnes, dass es kaum zu ertragen ist. Das ist für mich Beweis genug.
Und eine solche Aussage von einem ehemaligen Protestanten...
herzliche Grüßen! danke für deine kommentär. ich interessiere mich dafür wo genau St Edith Stein darüber gesprochen hat. es wäre spannend für mich dies weiter zu verfolgen.
danke sehr für einen zeugnis. toll. die wunder sind das stärkste argument unseres glaubens, so sagte hl papst Pius X. es schädet niemanden solche beweise auszuprobieren.
In ihrer Dissertation 1916 an der Philosophischen Fakultät in Freiburg. Der Titel lautet: "Das Einfühlungsproblem in seiner historischen Entwicklung und in phänomenologischer Betrachtung". Siehe hierzu das Buch über Edith Stein von Christian Feldmann (2019). Ansonsten empfehle ich Prof. Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz. Sie hat auf Youtube einige Videos zum Denken und zur Person Edith Steins gemacht, z.B. "Einfühlung und Gottesbezug. Zum „Grundriss“ der menschlichen Person".
I followed you back, so I am here, a reader. Perhaps I can identify myself a little by what I am not. Inclusion of Mary in Christian worship, or not, is a strawman argument for me. No Mary, no Jesus,. That's history, accepted.
I am no Euclid either. He started with one working assumption, which was useful even if it was slightly untrue? I am not sure how many are embedded in what I read here. Which brings me to grief. I have read elsewhere that the attribution to Jesus served as a biblical reference to the Servant, an historical antecedent. It appears an essentially reasonable human supposition that Mary certainly was and is in any reckoning 'aquainted with grief'?
Thanks Stephen, I am not all sure I am arguing or should be arguing, so here is a guess. Your definitions of terms seem to provide reasonable starting points given prior proof: 'ideal', 'perfect', 'metaphysical superiority', 'virginal is a spiritual excellence'; that word 'must' is strong. There may be others embedded in semiotics.
For my part, starting with what seems to me a starting point, can we nail an assumption that human procreation equates with sin? Unless ... of course ... and so on? (This could all get somewhat circular. I apologise.) What seems true if I assume there is always a spiritual context and implication? Logic can lead to reasonable enquiry rather than conclusion?
I wish to apologise for intruding on what I now vaguely see as a meditation on the Holiness of Mary. It is not my place to comment. I like the sound of all that walking, perhaps a pilgrimage to a place already waiting for you.
To go further it may be best to focus upon Jesus as sign of Revelation with emphasis on the Holy Family. The nature of marriage and complementarity then emboldening Mary’s title as Theotokos, Mother of God.
The necessity of the Blessed Mother needs shouting from the rooftops, strange and sad as that sounds. I marvel at the voluntary artistic and affective impoverishment of those who reject the Virgin Mother, but it's important to remember that it all stops making sense when Mary, the Mother of God, gets edited down to a walk-on part in theology.
I really enjoyed that and expect to do so again upon the next few reads.
I have seen the book "Peirce's Theory of Signs" (probably your copy) and idly wondered what it was about, so how opportune that you come and give this edifying example. Our Lady as the sole Recognizer of her Son's true role was particularly moving.
thought provoking comment here. i thank you heartily. thy kingdom come is really the Blessed Virgin. wow. i love it. she´s the new jerusalem but ive never turned my attention to her in this prayer.
also some parts of hegels philosophy are excellent. i.e. needing baptism. thanks for the encouragement! all best, stephen
Which kingdom are you two referring to ? Kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God ? This is thought provoking as there is a difference between the two kingdoms. Only Bereans will continue to search this out further.
This is brilliant in its utter complexity and simplicity at the same time. Unfortunately, those who have hearts and minds blind to Mary will not see this, I'm afraid. It's like banging your head on that proverbial wall. I usually end with "Why do you hate His mother? What do you think He would say to you?"
This seems to align with my prayers this week. Strange how that happens. 🤔
Thanks!
Right its always good to give reasons and edifying to explore them. But they rarely convince the unconvinced particularly in our time.
I don't hate Mary, she's the mother of Jesus Christ, and she was present at his birth and death.
There is not much more according to the bible, that's why I can't see why we need to pray to Mary; biblically not confirmed.
The verse regarding the one mediator which is Jesus Christ, this verse is so powerful it shows there is no space for Mary, just Jesus Christ.
Mary is spoken of throughout scripture and if you cannot see that I would encourage you to simply look at all of what is said about her in the NT. The greeting of the Angel, the Magnificat, the prophecy of simeon, the parrallelism between the wedding at Cana and the Crucifixion, the woman clothed in the sun in Rev 12. To write something like this you must me jumping over some really crucial texts in the NT. The OT is also replete with teaching about the Blessed Virgin, but it´s admittedly less obvious. We have only one mediator, Jesus Christ, but even Paul himself in 1 Col 1:24 says Christ´s work is mediated through his suffering for the church. So again, scripture confirms the catholic view. Christ lives in the Saints and works through them.
You didnt really touch my argument above. what did you think of it?
Except that an Archangel addressed her with a royal greeting, "Hail", and called her, "full of grace", which is not declared of any other human in scripture after Adam. Please study Mariology. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, who contained the word and the bread. Don't go into spiritual battle without her. Bad things happened to the Israelites when they forgot the Ark.
You are ascribing to Mary as ideal interpretant a species of comprehensive knowledge. At best this would be created knowledge, not the incommunicable original knowledge of God. I'm struggling therefore to see what Mary as ideal interpretant gives us that Christ in His human and divine natures does not. It would seem that in Christ we have all the access to both the original uncreated and analogical created signs and interpretations that we need.
Its not about what it gives us first and foremost. The foundation of the logical argument are 1. God is perfect. 2. the nature of an act of communication. 3. a perfect act of communication would have a real ideal interpretant. Again, Jesus is the sign to be interpreted which presupposes an ideal interpretant who is distinct from Him. So that is what I was saying she fulfills. So its about God´ s character and the character of the universe or communication. Its more about what Mary gives God, perfect human comprehension, recognition, that we due to sin cannot. The ideal interpretant when you tell your dog to sit is the ideal dog, not a human. So the ideal interpretant for the revelation of God in Jesus is Mary, and to be an ideal interpretant, she need only understand as a perfect human would, not as an angel or God Himself would. The correlary part is that her perfect recognition did shape Jesus Christ, so again its about what she gives back to God first and foremost. Obviously, ad Jesum per mariam! So I think Mary gives us a great deal by way of her example and intercession, the prophecy of Simeon says so as well. So scripture says her heart will be peirced with a sword for the revelation of thoughts in the hearts of many. This is what scripture says she does or gives us, but its a little secondary to my argument here. please forgive me if i didnt fully understand your objection or question here. thanks for your thoughtful considerations.
This clarifies a great deal when you write "she need only understand as a perfect human would, not as an angel or God Himself would." Thank you.
As a corollary, what might the implications be of an ontological proof for the "seed of the woman"? In other words, why stop at Mary? Why not run the proof all the way back through the messianic line to Eve?
ok great.
well in fact perhaps adam and eve were also ideal interpretants of creation at least, or the other things God communicated to them, in fact they must have been as they were also perfect. but my argument was focused on the revelation in Jesus Christ so I don´t really grasp how it can by run back, can you explain what exactly you mean? mary doesnt need a real ideal interpretant as shes not part of the Divine Sign or Word only perhaps a necessary condition of its appearance.
I was more wondering out loud if there could be an immaculate line back to Eve.... to wit: the messianic secret of Romans 16:25.
I think I've moved beyond your initial proof but that's what a good essay does... gets one thinking!
ok ive never thought about that scripture deeply and thus how it might apply here. but an immaculate line would raise many problems, why wait so long for the Incarnstion? why are the covenants, law, sacrifices necessary if there are still men and women free from sin? i see the religious project of israel in part as seeking to get Mary, to purify to the point of the possibility of the Incarnstion from the devastating consequences of adams fall. i posted this a while back but i really have profited from the visions of blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. here is her vision of the immaculate conception: https://open.substack.com/pub/sanctistulti/p/a-vision-of-the-immaculate-conception?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wubfv
thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments!
PS - I'm sorry for not fleshing this out more... I'm in the middle of writing tomorrow's sermon and then we have to get a dinner party!
Great arguments! I have always loved Mary! Regardless. I catch a lot of flack but it is okay. We all are just trying the best we can. I think Mary being human and our Heavenly Father divine a necessary component for Christ to be both and mediate for us in understanding and mercy instead of harsh judgment. And with the Holy Spirit present God may work in holiness through active prayer and cooperation from humanity. Sweet I feel! I am so grateful for Mary’s yes! Without it we wouldn’t know which way to go. Mary’s yes changed everything!
Ich verbinde gerade das, was Sie über Hegel geschrieben haben, mit dem, was Edith Stein über das Problem der Einfühlung gesagt hat: Einfühlung als notwendige Bedingung für Anerkennung. Aber bevor ich weiter Blödsinn rede, will ich hier lieber schweigen. Ich bin kein Philosoph. Ich kann auch nicht beurteilen, ob der ontologische Beweis gelungen ist.
Maria hilft. Maria führt uns immer wieder zurück. Maria zeigt uns die Liebe des Vaters und des Sohnes, dass es kaum zu ertragen ist. Das ist für mich Beweis genug.
Und eine solche Aussage von einem ehemaligen Protestanten...
Gottes Segen
herzliche Grüßen! danke für deine kommentär. ich interessiere mich dafür wo genau St Edith Stein darüber gesprochen hat. es wäre spannend für mich dies weiter zu verfolgen.
danke sehr für einen zeugnis. toll. die wunder sind das stärkste argument unseres glaubens, so sagte hl papst Pius X. es schädet niemanden solche beweise auszuprobieren.
Gottes Segen!
In ihrer Dissertation 1916 an der Philosophischen Fakultät in Freiburg. Der Titel lautet: "Das Einfühlungsproblem in seiner historischen Entwicklung und in phänomenologischer Betrachtung". Siehe hierzu das Buch über Edith Stein von Christian Feldmann (2019). Ansonsten empfehle ich Prof. Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz. Sie hat auf Youtube einige Videos zum Denken und zur Person Edith Steins gemacht, z.B. "Einfühlung und Gottesbezug. Zum „Grundriss“ der menschlichen Person".
Schöne Pfingsttage
I followed you back, so I am here, a reader. Perhaps I can identify myself a little by what I am not. Inclusion of Mary in Christian worship, or not, is a strawman argument for me. No Mary, no Jesus,. That's history, accepted.
I am no Euclid either. He started with one working assumption, which was useful even if it was slightly untrue? I am not sure how many are embedded in what I read here. Which brings me to grief. I have read elsewhere that the attribution to Jesus served as a biblical reference to the Servant, an historical antecedent. It appears an essentially reasonable human supposition that Mary certainly was and is in any reckoning 'aquainted with grief'?
You arent really clashing with my argument well enough for me to know how to respond. What assumptions do you dispute. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks Stephen, I am not all sure I am arguing or should be arguing, so here is a guess. Your definitions of terms seem to provide reasonable starting points given prior proof: 'ideal', 'perfect', 'metaphysical superiority', 'virginal is a spiritual excellence'; that word 'must' is strong. There may be others embedded in semiotics.
For my part, starting with what seems to me a starting point, can we nail an assumption that human procreation equates with sin? Unless ... of course ... and so on? (This could all get somewhat circular. I apologise.) What seems true if I assume there is always a spiritual context and implication? Logic can lead to reasonable enquiry rather than conclusion?
I wish to apologise for intruding on what I now vaguely see as a meditation on the Holiness of Mary. It is not my place to comment. I like the sound of all that walking, perhaps a pilgrimage to a place already waiting for you.
To go further it may be best to focus upon Jesus as sign of Revelation with emphasis on the Holy Family. The nature of marriage and complementarity then emboldening Mary’s title as Theotokos, Mother of God.
Thank you for sharing this work.
Great, thoughtful stuff. Do take more walks.
The necessity of the Blessed Mother needs shouting from the rooftops, strange and sad as that sounds. I marvel at the voluntary artistic and affective impoverishment of those who reject the Virgin Mother, but it's important to remember that it all stops making sense when Mary, the Mother of God, gets edited down to a walk-on part in theology.
I really enjoyed that and expect to do so again upon the next few reads.
I have seen the book "Peirce's Theory of Signs" (probably your copy) and idly wondered what it was about, so how opportune that you come and give this edifying example. Our Lady as the sole Recognizer of her Son's true role was particularly moving.
Where have you come from, young man?
"Who art in heaven" ~ the beginning of creation.
"Hallowed be thy name" ~ Jesus, true man and God.
"Thy kingdom come" ~ Mary, the holy helpmate of God uniting earth and heaven.
Pray big.
Your argument is pretty big.
Cutting Hegel some slack
is a first for me.
Thanks, JBSP
thought provoking comment here. i thank you heartily. thy kingdom come is really the Blessed Virgin. wow. i love it. she´s the new jerusalem but ive never turned my attention to her in this prayer.
also some parts of hegels philosophy are excellent. i.e. needing baptism. thanks for the encouragement! all best, stephen
Which kingdom are you two referring to ? Kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God ? This is thought provoking as there is a difference between the two kingdoms. Only Bereans will continue to search this out further.