Acts 2 [25] For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved. [26] For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. [27] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. [28] Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. [29] Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. [30] Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. [31] Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.
What does the Prophecy of King David say of the Blessed Virgin?
When St Peter, the first Pope, spoke these words, he could not speak of her Dormition and burial and of St Thomas the Twin finding Her tomb empty on the third day but Her veil and belt left behind. It had not happened yet.
The Blessed Virgin was still alive, and since 52 days living with one John, St John the Theologian, whether it was the son of Zebedee as most think, or another man, not of the Twelve, but either way, with the author of the Gospel of St John. She was his stepmother and he Her stepson, according to the words of Christ.
You can of course pretend, if you like, the prophecy of King David referred to Christ only.
Er ... no ... blessed and holy are synonyms.
The holy one of whom King David principally speaks is Our Lord, of whom Elisabeth, and through her the Holy Ghost said "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb".
But before that, she had said - and the Holy Ghost had said : "blessed art thou among women".
This means, the Mother and Her Son are a team. If God was not leaving the one in the grave, neither the other. If God did not allow the one to be touched by corruption, neither the other.
A Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist tradition is "Scripture interprets Scripture". Or "let Scripture interpret Scripture". It is often misapplied by them, it is inadequate when separated from the continuing CHurch of God, the Catholic Church, but it is not per se false, and has been used more than once by the Church Fathers. It applies to the words of the Holy Ghost.
It cannot be applied to the factual information of [Mark 3:17] because the only place in which either Boanerges or the entire phrase "The sons of thunder" is found in all 73 books is Mark 3:17. There we need other information, if we want an interpretation. But this is not the case with the designation twice given the Blessed Virgin and a third time over accepted by Herself from us, from all of our generations.
So, for "blessed among women" can and should be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.
She was not "blessed among the women of Israel", because She was of Judah, while Judith was of Israel. She was not "blessed among women who dwell in tents", because She lived in houses. But Jael and Judith are the two cases in which an even similar phrase is mentioned about a woman.
In the case of the Blessed Virgin there is no restriction similar to "of Israel" or "who dwelleth in tents". This means, She is blessed among women overall, among all of them.
What did it mean in the case of Jael and Judith? They were war heroines. They had killed and therefore utterly defeated a major enemy of the People of God, Sisera and Holophernes.
You can bet that this background, certainly known to Her whose cousin was the wife of one High Priest, at least Priest, of the Old Covenant, would have made Her wonder what the angel Gabriel had meant. She had killed no Sisera or Holophernes ... only utterly defeated - with the fruit of Her womb - the old serpent. Which She didn't get until the second time over, when She could see the similarity to Genesis 3:15.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
In Hebrew, the word for woman and the word for seed are both feminine, so the pronoun or rather verb form used is the one for "she". LXX translates "autos" or "he" because taking it of the seed, of Our Lord (this translation was prophetic, since before Christ actually came). Vulgate of Saint Jerome translates it as "ipsa" or "she" - taking it of the woman. I recommend the study of Heinz-Lothar Barth on this point - Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15) (Buch auf Deutsch)
The word She used about Herself, of what we were to call Her or even praise Her is also restricted. The word is used for two women connected to King David : Ruth and Abigail.
Ruth was called "blessed" because, while a young widow, she took an old man, Ruth 3:10, which, if Proto-Gospel of St James is genuine was the one connection the Blessed Virgin could have even started to make at the words of the angel, humanly speaking, from Her situation.
And Abigail was called "blessed" because she held back the hand of King David from killing an Israelite in wrath. Yes, we call the Blessed Virgin blessed, all of our generations, so often Christ could kill us according to "I will spit you out" and who is holding back His hand? I am letting the words of King David to Abigail interpret the words of the Blessed Virgin in the Magnificat.
So, this in mind, She as much as Her Son is definitely eligible for the worth prophecied by King David as cited by St Peter :
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.
Now, watch the next words of King David, spoken inspired by the Holy Ghost:
Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
And now watch the first words of Our Lady in the Magnificat:
Luke 1:[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Life and soul are near synonyms and joy and rejoice are two forms of same root.
Yes, the Psalm cited by St Peter is referring to Magnificat. I am letting Scripture interpret Scripture. I am letting the words of Her, inspired by the Holy Ghost, comment on the words of him, Her ancestor, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
If you say "you only say this because of tradition, you do not dare interpret Bible yourself" no, definitely no. If you deny it, you deny it only because of your Protestant tradition. If you say it is unconvincing, you are blinding yourself to correctly applying your own principle, "let Scripture interpret Scripture".
If you say "you only say this because you think Pius XII was successor of Peter and because he said so in Munificentissimus Deus" no, fifteen years or more over times no.
I had read something like (what I remember, giving first the wrong text):
Quae quidem immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo,
I had criticised this as wrong, as saying either She did not even in any sense die (denying the Dormition, which the Latin Church had up to 1950 commemorated on the day before Feast Day of Assumption, while Eastern Christians* commemorate it on August 15 itself) or all other saints at least somewhat rot (denying the info on Two Witnesses from Apocalypse 11:8-11, or how I remembered it, but I don't think they will rot at all).
Here is what it says:
Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit. (This is what it says)
Ah, it is the immaculate conception and by it defeating sin (even all the years before She conceived Christ) which is "by a totally singular privilege" - no problem!
So, if between 2001 and 2018 I have been critical of the Bull, only recently seeing what I misread, obviously while I was believing this all the time, it was not because Munificentissimus Deus. It was not because I allowed Pius XII to think for me.** It was because of Apostolic Tradition or at least very probable such, as summarised above. And I never found it contradicted the Written Word of God, nor do I do so now, obviously.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Holy Forty Martyrs
10.III.2018
* Definitely all Schismatics of Eastern type, probably also or to recently also, Uniates. ** I have vacillated between considering him an Antipope and thinking local bishops (and sui iuris abbots) are successors of St Peter, this last between 2006 and 2009, when I returned to Roman Catholic, and some doubt lingering on to 2010.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar