tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post8188987630792219381..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Did Jesus appear first to his Mother after the Resurrection?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67604583479275119402014-11-17T13:03:03.508-08:002014-11-17T13:03:03.508-08:00this is very helpfulthis is very helpfulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-21595620979505237962013-10-23T20:06:55.132-07:002013-10-23T20:06:55.132-07:00Thank you father for this article. I was just read...Thank you father for this article. I was just reading Dr. Carroll's Vol.1 on Chistendom and he mentioned the existence of such a tradition of Jesus appearing first to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He didn't give much information but as soon as I Googled it, I was happy to find you had wrote about it :)<br /><br />I noticed in your opening paragraph you mentioned there were private revelations that confirmed this. I was wondering if you remember some of the saints who had these revelations and where I could find some information on it. <br /><br />Thanks in advance! :)Eufrosniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111736255529574527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-83081230959600463562011-09-05T01:55:48.527-07:002011-09-05T01:55:48.527-07:00I strongly believe that, the reason why Mary did n...I strongly believe that, the reason why Mary did not choose to visit the tomb because she was neither anxious nor doubtful about her son's resurrection on the third day. So it does not simply matter whether Jesus met her first or second but i want some one highlight on how she spread this good news to the world though it was not possible to a women and specially a widow considering the systems and rules existing during her time? -Fr.Bala CppSjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00530230715465283722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-4310547018479016642011-05-29T18:44:19.584-07:002011-05-29T18:44:19.584-07:00Fr. Reginaldus:
I am probably the most nonentity,...Fr. Reginaldus:<br /><br />I am probably the most nonentity, or one among them, when it comes to blogging and argumrentation. But somewhat similar to 'I am not Spartacus', I do have thoughts about certain scriptural matters that at the time I was thinking of such, I did not have specific knowledge nor did I do any prior research on it. All I did was ponder about it. But by God's grace, it would turn out later that my thought is not heretical or contrary to the Church teaching, because I always pray not to entertain any thought contrary to the teachings of our Holy Mother Church.<br /> One of this was the nature and truth of our Lord's Resurrection [which, thanks to you, you've already covered in another article, http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/04/lazarus-resuscitation-compared-to-jesus.html]. Although I was approaching it from a different perspective: The question I was reflecting on was, "If Jesus was resurrected and appeared to His apostles and disciples, why was he not being tempted and annoyed by Satan and the evil spirits anymore?" And at that time, I wasn't familiar with the glorified essense of His being. Then, I also pondered on the scientific nature of his passing through the closed door: Did the molecules of His Body kind of interspersed with those of the door and other earthly materials?<br /> It was only later, after I read about our Lord's Resurrection in the Mystical City of God of Sr. Mary of Agreda that I began to be more enlightened about His glorified nature, and among other things, glorified body - His or the elects in the future - can occupy the same space as those of earthly entity. Furthermore, the then Cardinal J. Ratzinger's 'The Truth of the Resurrection' [http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/ratzinger_resurrectionitc_mar07.asp] from his book, Introduction to Christianity, and more recently, the entire Chapter Nine of our Pope's Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2, [pages 241-277] have enriched my understanding of the Resurrection. <br /> The reason why I'm bringing this up is because when I came across the subject about our Blessed Mother as being favored to be the first witness of His Resurrection also in the same book, Mystical City of God, there was an instinctive assent of my intellect, notwithstanding the fact that Sr. Mary of Agreda's City of God took al least 10 years before it was equitably and gradually accepted by many in the Catholic circles. <br /> In contrast to this, even though I'm a convert to the Catholic Church, I never entertained any merit of the Protestant's 'Rapture'. To date, I could not understand why non-Catholics [and unfortunately even the usual theologically onion-skinned 'Catholics'] would even come up with such distorted belief.<br /> So, to recap, I am one of those who are convinced that the 'logic of the faith' seems to support that our Lord favored our Blessed Mother to be the first witness of His Resurrection. After all, Saint John said that there are many things that our Lord did and are not in the Bible.<br /><br />Note about the related issue: I am still interested in finding your reflection about what the devil and his cohorts were doing as our Lord appeared to His apostles. Did he [the devil] sense anything or was he completely made blind by our glorified Christ. In the same venue, did the angelic intellect of the devil allowed him to sense the apparation of our Blessed Mother to the 3 children of Fatima and other visionaries?<br /><br />graciously, nestor [soldierforchrist@winning.com]<br />facebook account: Candid HeartGodAlwaysWatcheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14151444408020502364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-41074742192831616442011-05-22T13:42:50.621-07:002011-05-22T13:42:50.621-07:00I like to think that the SON took his foster Fathe...I like to think that the SON took his foster Father with Him to see Mary- and reunite the Holy Family.... I recall a reference to this from reading some of the early fathers..... on His ascent from the Limbo of the Fathers ... certainly within the scope of possibles for a most devoted obedient SON, to have His mom and ' Dad '. with Him celebrating the fruits of their sacrifices .....<br />Gedda fangedda fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11934506306702772703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3904114728422064162011-05-22T11:15:19.086-07:002011-05-22T11:15:19.086-07:00Perhaps this is not worth the mention but I think ...Perhaps this is not worth the mention but I think we are discussing Mark 16:9...not Mark 9:16...for what it is worth! Anyway without a lot of further blather...who but one unfamiliar with the nature of Jewish moms and their sons would believe for one second Jesus would not deliver, in Person, the Good News first to His mother. End of discussion!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72411110486289925152011-05-17T12:43:12.354-07:002011-05-17T12:43:12.354-07:00Dear Father. I am still searching for it on google...Dear Father. I am still searching for it on google.<br /><br />Because the Saint-to-be has multiple references to Jesus appearing first to Mary in his entries at Paschal time, I just assumed ti referred to His Mother, Mary.<br /><br />But, I specialise in errors, so :)<br /><br />In any event, the Sequence of St Gall begins..."Laudes Salvatoris, Voce modulemur supplici, Et devotis melodiis Coelesti Domino...and when I thought it refered to Jesus first appearing to Mary...<br /><br />""Et victor suis apparens dilectoribus vivens, Primo Mariae..."<br /><br />I'lll keep searchingMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57269134210798649472011-05-17T08:22:59.831-07:002011-05-17T08:22:59.831-07:00I am not Spartacus,
Are you sure that this sequenc...I am not Spartacus,<br />Are you sure that this sequence of St. Gall refers to Mary the Mother of God rather than to Mary the Magdalen?<br />I don't know one way or the other ... I am only saying that the passage you have quoted does not seem decisive.<br />If you could give me the full citation, that would be helpful. Thanks! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-73811041465591572242011-05-17T05:06:30.411-07:002011-05-17T05:06:30.411-07:00Dom Gueranger, "The Liturgical Year," ha...Dom Gueranger, "The Liturgical Year," has another example of Jesus appearing first to Mary.<br /><br />From "Tuesday of the fourth week of Easter," he quotes a 9th century sequence by Saint Gall:<br /><br />"...Jesus triumphs; he appears to them that love him, to Mary first..."Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39254337596381732011-05-13T16:24:07.020-07:002011-05-13T16:24:07.020-07:00[in a comment mistakenly deleted on account of a c...[in a comment mistakenly deleted on account of a crash in the blogger website] I am not Spartacus wrote:<br /><br />"This may sound irrational - much of what I think and write is - but I fancy a symmetry in which The Theotokos is the first to see Him at The Incarnation in a Cave and the first to see Him after The Resurrection in a Cave and Dom Gueranger, in entry after entry, insists that Jesus appeared to His Mother first.<br /><br />But, I do respect the way you laid-out the issue and I appreciate your open-mindedness.<br /><br />At least this ain't a Molinism-Thomism moment :) "Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-10693181757611122472011-05-12T12:56:20.104-07:002011-05-12T12:56:20.104-07:00This may sound irrational - much of what I think a...This may sound irrational - much of what I think and write is - but I fancy a symmetry in which The Theotokos is the first to see Him at The Incarnation in a Cave and the first to see Him after The Resurrection in a Cave and Dom Gueranger, in entry after entry, insists that Jesus appeared to His Mother first.<br /><br />But, I do respect the way you laid-out the issue and I appreciate your open-mindedness.<br /><br />At least this ain't a Molinism-Thomism moment :)Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84746594100870461522011-05-06T17:23:45.290-07:002011-05-06T17:23:45.290-07:00oh! :)
Now I understand ... my point about the &q...oh! :)<br /><br />Now I understand ... my point about the "pious devotion" refers not to the question of WHETHER Jesus would honor his Mother Mary, but HOW Jesus would honor her.<br /><br />To me, it seems entirely plausible that he would honor her through an interior illumination of divine grace -- such that not appearing to her is a testament to the whole world that she is the Woman who alone maintained the faith on Holy Saturday.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is also possible that he honored his Mother by appearing first of all to her.<br /><br />As far as the Church is concerned, either pious belief is acceptable.<br /><br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5771296159842978562011-05-06T17:17:56.098-07:002011-05-06T17:17:56.098-07:00You should be confused, Reginaldus, as I meant com...You should be confused, Reginaldus, as I meant commandment not sacrament. Sorry for the confusion!brencelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393706761520227346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68795745496922274352011-05-05T16:11:54.719-07:002011-05-05T16:11:54.719-07:00brencel,
... ? ...
Which of the 7 sacraments are w...brencel,<br />... ? ...<br />Which of the 7 sacraments are we discussing? <br />... I'm terribly confused ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-55835961003984804102011-05-05T15:44:11.581-07:002011-05-05T15:44:11.581-07:00Reginaldus, we are talking about a sacrament, not ...Reginaldus, we are talking about a sacrament, not a “pious belief.”brencelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393706761520227346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-75275663211734394872011-05-05T15:14:13.969-07:002011-05-05T15:14:13.969-07:00It is the month of May dedicated to Our Lady.
Why...It is the month of May dedicated to Our Lady.<br /><br />Why don't we just ask Her ourselves? Maybe She will tell us.<br /><br />VeronicaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80487067537518532972011-05-04T23:10:07.815-07:002011-05-04T23:10:07.815-07:00Reginaldus,
I am sorry if you got the impression ...Reginaldus,<br /><br />I am sorry if you got the impression I was claiming you are taking a passage out of context. That was certainly not what I meant to say. I in fact stated that you may be correct. Instead, I was communicating that we are at a pre-critical stage in the strictly biblical aspect of the discussion, and much has to be done before the passage can be considered determining. I then continued to speak of Tradition, because it tends to support the interpretation of an apparition (all can see that there are variants, as one would find on almost any theological topic). The strongest part of that argument in my mind is that affirmation of an apparition is completely in line with the major line of Mariology that was used to define dogmatically numerous points about her role. This of course means that denial of it requires an almost completely inverse theological perspective to defend. If the CCC was published under JP II's authority, we should probably not use it as an argument against his position, as that would not be hermeneutically correct however. I would hope everyone reading these comments understands I am not attempting to condemn you, although public discussion on the internet is always awkward, because it is so easy to read things in a 'harder' sense than they are written in. This is certainly the most difficult aspect of your labor here. As you said, + PeaceDr. S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62786507939998382642011-05-04T14:58:29.036-07:002011-05-04T14:58:29.036-07:00Regarding the interpretation of Mark 16:9 "He...Regarding the interpretation of Mark 16:9 "He appeared first to Mary Magdelen" ... I would never intend to interpret this one passage apart from the Tradition or the magisterium ... hence I look to CCC 641, "Mary Magdalene and the holy women [...] were the first to encounter the Risen One."<br /><br />Now, Bl. John Paul II apparently did not see it that way ... and so we are certainly free to think either way on the issue.<br /><br />But it is simply not accurate to present me as taking a single passage of the Bible out of context and interpreting it separate from the magisterium and the Tradition.<br /><br />There is room for diversity of opinion ... neither side needs to be condemned ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-4406210307290372202011-05-04T14:55:05.721-07:002011-05-04T14:55:05.721-07:00Dr. S,
The "sed contra" is cited as the ...Dr. S,<br />The "sed contra" is cited as the divine authority upon which the faith is based [the belief being that no one saw Christ rise because Mary Magdalene was the first to see him and she did not see him rise].<br /><br />However, you are quite right (and I should have said this more clearly before) that St. Thomas does not return to the point. <br />Indeed, it is not so much that St. Thomas Aquinas denies that Jesus appeared first of all to his Mother -- he only presumes (following the most natural reading of the Scriptures) that Jesus "appeared first to Mary Magdalen".<br />Like the early Fathers, the question of whether Jesus appeared first to his Mother does not seem to have even entered the mind of the Angelic Doctor ... it was simply presumed that the Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene.<br /><br />Hence, as you stated, I should not present St. Thomas as though he is opposed to the pious belief, but only as one whose general thought on the subject would preclude the devotion.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40866662123776490392011-05-04T14:47:16.129-07:002011-05-04T14:47:16.129-07:00brencel et al.
Let me be extremely clear: I am not...brencel et al.<br />Let me be extremely clear: I am not saying now, nor have I ever written previously, that Jesus did not appear first of all to his Blessed Mother.<br /><br />I have only written that there is room for multiple views when it comes to this belief -- Bl. John Paul II does not contradict this ... he only says that we "may" believe he appeared first of all to his Mother, not that we "must" believe it.<br /><br />brencel, your argument (that it would have been a sin for Christ not to appear first of all to his Mother) is way out of line.<br />It is one thing to say that it is possible, or even likely, and indeed extremely fitting that Jesus should appear first to his Mother ... but to say that "Jesus would not have been honouring His mother, Mary, if he had appeared to anyone else before" her?! That is just too much ... you are taking a pious belief (one which I am very open to agreeing with) and making it into a sententia certa ...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-44482749909874352492011-05-04T14:34:32.467-07:002011-05-04T14:34:32.467-07:00Reginaldus in his May 4, 9.41AM post writes that “...Reginaldus in his May 4, 9.41AM post writes that “the question of the first post-Resurrection apparition is not primarily point of Marialogy, but of Christology”.<br /><br />Hence, let us examine the issue from Christ’s perspective. Jesus was a Jew who obeyed the Ten Commandments; the fourth being to honour your father and mother.<br /><br />Jesus would not have been honouring His mother, Mary, if He had appeared to anyone else before appearing to His mother. So it is difficult to believe that Jesus did not appear to Mary first.<br /><br />It would have been in keeping with Mary’s character not to mention this post-resurrection visit.brencelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14393706761520227346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-8022687773819506312011-05-04T13:34:26.933-07:002011-05-04T13:34:26.933-07:00I would simply like to repeat that I am not trying...I would simply like to repeat that I am not trying to resolve the issue.<br /><br />My point about Scripture is that it is not correct methodology to presume that something is a dogmatic statement or historically exclusive affirmation without an enormous level critical of demonstration, because the text is always highly complex and subtle, even when it appears simple. You could be right, but it is only an intuition at this point. However, in this mariological question, the Tradition of the Church, not only in her spiritual writers and many of her theologians, but also in her dogmatic proclamations, goes against this type of absolute reading here. Scripture does not stand alone, it must be interpreted within the whole Tradition, which regards in particular dogma and Papal teaching, such as that of John Paul II.<br /><br />My point about Thomas has been missed I feel. This is a sed contra. Thomas is not promoting his own opinion, and he does not return to this passage in the corpus or responses. Further, this was obviously not a burning question of his, and he was not at all attempting to deal with it in the article in question. I will just have to agree to disagree with you about the importance of his theology for Mariology. I love Thomas, and wrote my doctoral thesis on his Trinitarian theology, however, I think the history of dogma shows well enough that the major developments in Mariology, the most important of which were before Thomas, are not from his work. Finally, it is not totally accurate that those who promoted the concept of the Immaculate Conception at that time were stating that Mary was therefore not redeemed by Christ. This was not yet a specific aspect of the debate (perhaps one could find some author...). What was said, quite clearly, is that this was an act of grace, and this grace, as all grace, came through Christ the Head. CF Bonaventure, on this position he does not agree with: <i>Fidei etiam christianae, ut dicit positio praedicta, non repugnat, pro eo quod dicunt, ipsam Virginem ab originali peccato liberatam per gratiam quae quidem pendebat et ortum habebat a fide et, capite Christo, sicut gratiae aliorum Sanctorum.</i>Dr. S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7383389147437269802011-05-04T11:44:34.794-07:002011-05-04T11:44:34.794-07:00I haven't read all the comments in detail but ...I haven't read all the comments in detail but it seems to me if Blessed Mother was intimately united with her Son in ways we will never understand, then she experienced His Resurrection in ways we will never understand; and probably not the way Mary Magdalen experienced it.Kathleen Hockeyhttp://kathleenhockey.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-51593875266587694232011-05-04T09:41:09.812-07:002011-05-04T09:41:09.812-07:00@Dr. S,
Regarding St. Thomas' Marian theology ...@Dr. S,<br />Regarding St. Thomas' Marian theology ... I would have to disagree with your statement that "Marian theology is not his strong point" ...<br /><br />If your PhD is in theology, I am sure you well know that those who were holding to the Immaculate Conception were actually holding to it in a way that we would now consider heretical -- for they (namely, the Franciscans and others) argued that, by the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not need to be redeemed.<br />Among those of his time, St. Thomas' belief is closer to the truth! <br /><br />Moreover, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is largely founded on the principles which are established and developed by St. Thomas in his treatise on Mary -- ST III, qq.27-34.<br /><br />There is no need to enter into the wider debate about St. Thomas' doctrine on Mary ... but I cannot let a red-herring like that go entirely unanswered ...<br /><br /><br />In any case ... the question of the first post-Resurrection apparition is not primarily point of Marialogy, but of Christology -- and, as you stated, Christology is the Angelic Doctors strong point.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-24657918864329248602011-05-04T09:33:18.519-07:002011-05-04T09:33:18.519-07:00@Mary42 and Dr. S,
Regarding the scriptural eviden...@Mary42 and Dr. S,<br />Regarding the scriptural evidence.<br /><br />I think you are both missing an important point ... it is not so much that the Scriptures are silent about an apparition to the Mother of God ... silence wouldn't lead to any conclusion at all.<br /><br />My point (as well as the point of the Catechism and the sed contra of St. Thomas) is that the Scriptures ARE NOT silent when it comes to the first apparition.<br />Mark states: "He appeared FIRST to Mary Magdalen." <br /><br />Now, I am not saying that this one passage decides the issue ... I am only saying that this would at least tend to make us thing that Jesus really did appear first to the Magdalene rather than to his Mother ...<br /><br />I am not making an argument from silence ... I am making an argument from what appears to be a very clear statement.<br />[though I am not necessarily concluding one way or the other]<br /><br />Peace. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com