I
could not help thinking in class about such a wonder as is Mary.
Professor Brown asks us to consider how Mary could contain the
fullness of divinity in her womb; similarly, I wonder how such a
creature could be exalted to such a height as is Mary. And yet, all
that we have learned of the presence and power of Almighty God from
the Old Testament suggests that, in fact, Mary is the perfection of
communion which God has desired for humanity from all time.
The tree of life was less than a human, a mere plant, holding on it the fruits of eternal life. And yet, we are repulsed in our souls by the mention of the final tree of life, Mary, who bears the True Fruit of eternal life? Mere wood, carried by human hands, brought the ark through the desert, and yet our minds are scandalized by the ultimate ark, Mary? Mere stone and cloth guarded the Holy of hollies, the presence of God Himself with His chosen people Israel, in the temple of His own design. Yet, we reject the most perfect of God's works, Mary – knit together in the womb – when she is rightly called the temple, the Holy of hollies. We cannot believe God to so humiliate Himself in the union with wood, stone, plant, and cloth; did the ancient people of God engage in clothiolatry or stoniolatry in the devotions given them by God for worship in the first and second temples? If not, we must banish the notion that mariolatry may be applied to our devotions at the third and final temple. If the Christian is to reject the honor due to Mary, he must reject the Old Testament, and so invent his God, instead of the one given us by God through Mary; oh singular vessel of devotion!
Tomorrow we will find that the necessity of the divine Trinity is born out of the need for communion in Godhead. If there were no Son, the Father is meaningless; if there were no Spirit, then the Father and Son would not love one another (as the Spirit is that love). But today we rest our eyes on the creature of His choice: Mary Immaculate. I wish to show that the intimacy of the divine Trinity is mirrored for the relation between God and man (as Our Lord prayed for in the seventeenth Chapter of John's Gospel), in the relationship between Jesus and Mary.
The tree of life was less than a human, a mere plant, holding on it the fruits of eternal life. And yet, we are repulsed in our souls by the mention of the final tree of life, Mary, who bears the True Fruit of eternal life? Mere wood, carried by human hands, brought the ark through the desert, and yet our minds are scandalized by the ultimate ark, Mary? Mere stone and cloth guarded the Holy of hollies, the presence of God Himself with His chosen people Israel, in the temple of His own design. Yet, we reject the most perfect of God's works, Mary – knit together in the womb – when she is rightly called the temple, the Holy of hollies. We cannot believe God to so humiliate Himself in the union with wood, stone, plant, and cloth; did the ancient people of God engage in clothiolatry or stoniolatry in the devotions given them by God for worship in the first and second temples? If not, we must banish the notion that mariolatry may be applied to our devotions at the third and final temple. If the Christian is to reject the honor due to Mary, he must reject the Old Testament, and so invent his God, instead of the one given us by God through Mary; oh singular vessel of devotion!
Tomorrow we will find that the necessity of the divine Trinity is born out of the need for communion in Godhead. If there were no Son, the Father is meaningless; if there were no Spirit, then the Father and Son would not love one another (as the Spirit is that love). But today we rest our eyes on the creature of His choice: Mary Immaculate. I wish to show that the intimacy of the divine Trinity is mirrored for the relation between God and man (as Our Lord prayed for in the seventeenth Chapter of John's Gospel), in the relationship between Jesus and Mary.
Everything which is human of Jesus is taken on through union with Mary. We saw yesterday that Mary brings together the high priestly function of Jesus together with his redemption of the Davidic royalty. And so herein does Jesus gain access to such roles. Even his position as the victim Sanctam, Puram, Immaculatam is made possible only by union with spotless flesh which can endure this pain (let us here bracket the question of the sufferings of those without flesh). And indeed Mary does find this pain in the prophesied piercing of her heart by the sword. Just as the Father so desired to be in perfect union (let none say that the Trinity is not inherently this perfect union) with His human Son, Jesus Christ, so Jesus experiences perfect union with a mere creature as the God man. As Mary is the indwelling of the fullness of beatitude, she perfectly engages in the relationship which God made to mirror the relation of Himself to Himself. This reality emerges from her containing the vision of God within herself.
And so the little office of the blessed virgin Mary, the 150 names of Mary, the 150 Ave Marias of the most holy rosary all reflect firstly that devotion given to the temple of the LORD in the Old Testament; secondly they perfect those devotions by uniting the metaphorical delights of the psalms in the temple with a person who brings them to their completion.
“Lord,
who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? Or who shall rest in thy holy
hill?” (Psalm 14:1) Oh Jesus, who shall find refuge in the shadow
of Mary's cloak as have the hosts of her devotees?
“He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bridal chamber,” (Psalm 18:6).
“He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bridal chamber,” (Psalm 18:6).
Veni
de Libano, veni amica mea, columba mea, formosa mea.
O quam tu pulchra es.
Veni, veni, coronaberis.
O quam tu pulchra es.
Veni, veni, coronaberis.
“May he send thee
help from the sanctuary; and defend thee out of Sion.” (Psalm 19:3)
Defend us, O Mary, who the LORD has sent out from His sanctuary to
bring forth the salvation, rush to our aid. I exclaim with the
Magnificent Marian Doctor: we need thee Mary, be quick with your
response lest we perish eternally!
“And that I may dwell in the house of the LORD unto length of days.” (Psalm 22:6). Would that I could find my way to the safety of Mary until the end of my days, there dwelling as I await the end of time and the consummation of the world.
“And that I may dwell in the house of the LORD unto length of days.” (Psalm 22:6). Would that I could find my way to the safety of Mary until the end of my days, there dwelling as I await the end of time and the consummation of the world.
“Who shall ascend
into the mountain of the Lord: or who shall stand in his holy place?”
(Psalm 23:3). We can say nothing but she whom God has chosen to do
this task, yet joyfully she carries us with her: Mary, Mary Mary.
Nicholas Duffee
Nicholas Duffee
While reading your post, I recalled a remark professor Fulton Brown made in her article about the medieval devotion to Mary: that it is not, at bottom, an attempt to say that Mary is a type of the Church. The relationship you suggest here provides an account of how this devotion was seen instead: that the temple is a type of Mary. For the temple is the dwelling place of God among men, and looks always toward this point in history where God dwells among men, as a man, in a completely unqualified sense. So it is that we should wait with baited breath, as Bernard suggests, for her fiat. While this special importance in salvation history does not mean that we ought not to speak of Mary as a type of the Church, it does mean that we cannot speak of her merely as such. Indeed, that very Church which she typifies by her perfect obedience and bodily assumption only exists because she, in fact, consented to give birth to God in the flesh. In this sense, she is not only a type of the Church, but also its origin.
ReplyDelete-TvB
Reference: Rachel Fulton Brown, Mary and the Art of Prayer (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017). 52
I am intrigued that you found yourself bursting into liturgical response—what other response can there be to the one who contained the Lord in her womb? Very nice comparisons with the other containers of the presence—the tree of life, the ark, the temple, the Holy of Holies. Indeed, how is it that it is okay to accept that the Lord became present in his temple of stone and not in his temple of flesh? I would have liked to hear more about what you think of the other titles given Mary in the lists of Aves, and how her status as a creature affects what we understand about God. RLFB
ReplyDelete