On the Immaculate Conception, I also love the lens/facet that, along with His human body, Christ also received His human nature from Our Lady. And since human nature is, in a sense, inherited, the Christ’s mother needed to be without sin in order to pass along that immaculate human nature to Him.
Yesterday, I read something in St. Gemma's Diary about Jesus' resemblance to Mary, and it was so beautiful. During one apparition from Our Lady of Sorrows, St. Gemma told her, "You should see, dear Mom [this is what St. Gemma called Our Lady, at least in the translation I'm reading], how his beauty resembles yours, your hair is the same color as His."
I love this image of Jesus resembling His Mother. Of course it makes perfect sense, since He inherited his biological genes from her, but it's still such a beautiful reality, and I love thinking about it.
Ahhh, this is such a sweet reflection. That she knew the all-too-human experience of holding Him asleep on her lap and searching to see which of her features He shared. What a lovely thought.
First, I love how you have laid this out in easy to understand format!
Question as a new convert to Catholicism: in my research about the Blessed Mother from Catholic sources, I have found agreement on the 4 dogmas you listed, but some differences in the implications of those dogmas. So I'm interested if some of the details you listed are part of the dogmas and therefore necessary for Catholics to believe, or if they are merely interpretations of the dogmas themselves. Two examples are: Mary the immaculate conception *necessary* or *fitting* to be Christ's mother? (*necessary* would seem to imply a limitation on God's ability to bring about the Incarnation. And possibly lead to an infinite regression of immaculate conceptions?) The second example is Mary as perpetual virgin down to the anatomical integrity even through birth or is there flexibility for not believing in something so specific to her anatomy, rather understanding that she remained chaste and lived as a brother/sister with her husband St. Joseph? Hopefully this question makes sense.
The immaculate conception was both necessary and fitting. And I would further argue this is not a constraint on God!
Treating holy things as holy falls under the purview of morality, and morality makes this a Euthyphro problem from Socrates--God isnt constrained externally but follows his own laws. It is a sin to profane holy places or things--receiving the eucharist in a state of sin, dropping it on the floor on purpose, stealing it and taking it home with you--these are sins. They fail to afford the proper respect and reverence to God in the Eucharist and vis a vis the Mass, the apex of which is the worthy receipt of the eucharist.
Likewise, Mary had to worthily receive the Christ Child. The only way for her to do that was to be immaculate from conception. Mary was merely human, so her mother didnt need to be immaculately conceived--but she was from the Root of Jesse, a lineage ordained and prophesied to bear the messiah.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine so I believe it is an important belief, even though I do not fully understand it. I saw something a while back that described the transcendent birth and how it counterintuitively preserved her integrity at the same time.
Also--I wouldnt say “lived as brother and sister”--this is called a Josephite Marriage. They were spouses, and were chaste spouses. Mary had taken a vow previously so this puts the burden on Joseph, but I imagine proximity to God incarnate provided the necessary graces.
TL;DR when my own views and the churches teaching appear to be in conflict, it is usually the right thing to do to treat my views as wrong and to accept the more difficult teaching of the church until such a time as I come to understand it. The obedience and trust involved in accepting something we don’t fully understand affords us significant graces.
Thanks for the detailed response and clarification! I did hear someone say at some point in my research that God would give Mary the grace of immaculate conception to enable her to truly have freewill in her fiat. And that is one way I can understand it being *necessary* and also reflective of God's goodness! And yes--although my brain is constantly asking questions, I love that I can rest in knowing that I don't have to figure out or even understand everything, but merely to accept the truth with childlike trust.
Lovely. Maybe adding to her peasantly sensibilities - I feel like I've read somewhere that the dogma of the Assumption was, in part, a formal declaration of what had been an informal, popularly-held belief for centuries. I need to dig for my sources on that, but either way, I like it.
I'm pondering much here and therefore am short on comments. I'm truly kind of at a loss for words here. But I assure you, lots of thinking and pondering.
A general question about feasts though... how does one celebrate or honor a feast day? I believe you said yesterday there is a feast for Mary on Jan. 1 (my birthday). What does a feast day look like? I'm asking generally. I'm sure there are many difference based on saint being celebrated.
A holy day of obligation is for the big important stuff--you get to go to Mass on a day other than sunday because the celebration is important. Christmas, jan1, the assumption--there are several but not many.
Then there are solemnities, which are second tier importance but you are not required to go to Mass.
Then theres your average every day feast. These can be celebrated any way you like. My patron saint is St Luke, his feast is October 18th. His symbol is a bull, so i like to buy a nice steak. Its also good to go to Mass on these days as an act of personal devotion but again--not required.
Saints celebrate feasts on the day they died--their birthday in heaven. Other feast days are for important events or occasionally places. Theres feasts for at least 2 buildings on the calendar-- St Mary Major (a church) and St John Lateran (also a church).
You might see some liturgical living people talk about different activities associated with different saints. These are always optional ways of celebrating. Spoilers--Hambone has an article coming soon about how he does feasts and baptizes his calendar, which I think you might enjoy!
Thanks for all the details Scoot and all of my questoins. I know I can be a bit pestering with them but, as a non-Catholic, there is just so much that I don't know and want to learn more about. I appreciate your patience.
Now to look up St. Luke and why his symbol is a bull...... Cool way to celebrate!
The four gospels have as their symbol the Bull (for luke--details of the sacrifice); matthew is an angel; mark is a lion; john is an eagle.
These “four creatures” are prophesied in Ezekiel (1:1-21) and are reiterated in revelation (4:6-8). These four creatures always represent the gospelists.
No worries about the questions, i obviously love talking about it and am happy to answer to the best of my ability!
Upon reading, I now recall that I've come across this idea before and linking the gospel writers to these symbols. But this was laid out easily. Thanks Scoot! This is so cool!
On the Immaculate Conception, I also love the lens/facet that, along with His human body, Christ also received His human nature from Our Lady. And since human nature is, in a sense, inherited, the Christ’s mother needed to be without sin in order to pass along that immaculate human nature to Him.
Yesterday, I read something in St. Gemma's Diary about Jesus' resemblance to Mary, and it was so beautiful. During one apparition from Our Lady of Sorrows, St. Gemma told her, "You should see, dear Mom [this is what St. Gemma called Our Lady, at least in the translation I'm reading], how his beauty resembles yours, your hair is the same color as His."
I love this image of Jesus resembling His Mother. Of course it makes perfect sense, since He inherited his biological genes from her, but it's still such a beautiful reality, and I love thinking about it.
Ahhh, this is such a sweet reflection. That she knew the all-too-human experience of holding Him asleep on her lap and searching to see which of her features He shared. What a lovely thought.
First, I love how you have laid this out in easy to understand format!
Question as a new convert to Catholicism: in my research about the Blessed Mother from Catholic sources, I have found agreement on the 4 dogmas you listed, but some differences in the implications of those dogmas. So I'm interested if some of the details you listed are part of the dogmas and therefore necessary for Catholics to believe, or if they are merely interpretations of the dogmas themselves. Two examples are: Mary the immaculate conception *necessary* or *fitting* to be Christ's mother? (*necessary* would seem to imply a limitation on God's ability to bring about the Incarnation. And possibly lead to an infinite regression of immaculate conceptions?) The second example is Mary as perpetual virgin down to the anatomical integrity even through birth or is there flexibility for not believing in something so specific to her anatomy, rather understanding that she remained chaste and lived as a brother/sister with her husband St. Joseph? Hopefully this question makes sense.
The immaculate conception was both necessary and fitting. And I would further argue this is not a constraint on God!
Treating holy things as holy falls under the purview of morality, and morality makes this a Euthyphro problem from Socrates--God isnt constrained externally but follows his own laws. It is a sin to profane holy places or things--receiving the eucharist in a state of sin, dropping it on the floor on purpose, stealing it and taking it home with you--these are sins. They fail to afford the proper respect and reverence to God in the Eucharist and vis a vis the Mass, the apex of which is the worthy receipt of the eucharist.
Likewise, Mary had to worthily receive the Christ Child. The only way for her to do that was to be immaculate from conception. Mary was merely human, so her mother didnt need to be immaculately conceived--but she was from the Root of Jesse, a lineage ordained and prophesied to bear the messiah.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine so I believe it is an important belief, even though I do not fully understand it. I saw something a while back that described the transcendent birth and how it counterintuitively preserved her integrity at the same time.
Also--I wouldnt say “lived as brother and sister”--this is called a Josephite Marriage. They were spouses, and were chaste spouses. Mary had taken a vow previously so this puts the burden on Joseph, but I imagine proximity to God incarnate provided the necessary graces.
TL;DR when my own views and the churches teaching appear to be in conflict, it is usually the right thing to do to treat my views as wrong and to accept the more difficult teaching of the church until such a time as I come to understand it. The obedience and trust involved in accepting something we don’t fully understand affords us significant graces.
Thanks for the detailed response and clarification! I did hear someone say at some point in my research that God would give Mary the grace of immaculate conception to enable her to truly have freewill in her fiat. And that is one way I can understand it being *necessary* and also reflective of God's goodness! And yes--although my brain is constantly asking questions, I love that I can rest in knowing that I don't have to figure out or even understand everything, but merely to accept the truth with childlike trust.
Lovely. Maybe adding to her peasantly sensibilities - I feel like I've read somewhere that the dogma of the Assumption was, in part, a formal declaration of what had been an informal, popularly-held belief for centuries. I need to dig for my sources on that, but either way, I like it.
The church codified this ancient tradition as it always does after the belief was challenged!
I'm pondering much here and therefore am short on comments. I'm truly kind of at a loss for words here. But I assure you, lots of thinking and pondering.
A general question about feasts though... how does one celebrate or honor a feast day? I believe you said yesterday there is a feast for Mary on Jan. 1 (my birthday). What does a feast day look like? I'm asking generally. I'm sure there are many difference based on saint being celebrated.
So there’s different kinds.
A holy day of obligation is for the big important stuff--you get to go to Mass on a day other than sunday because the celebration is important. Christmas, jan1, the assumption--there are several but not many.
Then there are solemnities, which are second tier importance but you are not required to go to Mass.
Then theres your average every day feast. These can be celebrated any way you like. My patron saint is St Luke, his feast is October 18th. His symbol is a bull, so i like to buy a nice steak. Its also good to go to Mass on these days as an act of personal devotion but again--not required.
Saints celebrate feasts on the day they died--their birthday in heaven. Other feast days are for important events or occasionally places. Theres feasts for at least 2 buildings on the calendar-- St Mary Major (a church) and St John Lateran (also a church).
You might see some liturgical living people talk about different activities associated with different saints. These are always optional ways of celebrating. Spoilers--Hambone has an article coming soon about how he does feasts and baptizes his calendar, which I think you might enjoy!
Really looking forward to that!
Thanks for all the details Scoot and all of my questoins. I know I can be a bit pestering with them but, as a non-Catholic, there is just so much that I don't know and want to learn more about. I appreciate your patience.
Now to look up St. Luke and why his symbol is a bull...... Cool way to celebrate!
The four gospels have as their symbol the Bull (for luke--details of the sacrifice); matthew is an angel; mark is a lion; john is an eagle.
These “four creatures” are prophesied in Ezekiel (1:1-21) and are reiterated in revelation (4:6-8). These four creatures always represent the gospelists.
No worries about the questions, i obviously love talking about it and am happy to answer to the best of my ability!
https://catholicexchange.com/what-are-the-symbols-of-the-four-evangelists/
Upon reading, I now recall that I've come across this idea before and linking the gospel writers to these symbols. But this was laid out easily. Thanks Scoot! This is so cool!