In section 27 of the Synod Against the Family (h/t Ann Barnhardt for coining that), almost immediately there is near blasphemy. “Near”, simply because we are so far from basic catechesis that people are not aghast at reading it. Without the comprehension of a problem, we further remove ourselves from it. There was a time when such statements would have Saints clamouring to defend the honour of the Mother of God, while demanding correction for obvious mistakes. In ages past people knew and loved their Mother. Would they have allowed such a statement? Would they have noticed it? Has anyone else? So far I have seen nothing on this. A layman with these ideas would have be corrected. How much worse from men professing to hold the faith? The very ones teaching, protecting and promulgating it need stern condemnation. They should be the ones that know better.
The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51).
There are errors here. The most basic scriptural error is having the verse refer to memories, and specifically to birthing Christ. Mary is absolutely not reflecting on birthing Christ and holding it in her heart, going over and over it again silently. The second verse here should not be included: this verse is not just out of context within the Nativity scene, but entirely out of context biblically. We will begin with the context of Luke 2:51.
[41] And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, [42] And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, [43] And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. [44] And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’ s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. [45] And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. [48] And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’ s business? [50] And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them [51] And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. [52] And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.
This scene is no where near the Nativity. Christ is twelve years old. His birth is not involved in what she is thinking about or pondering or feeling. In fact the surrounding context makes it clear she is specifically meditating silently and obediently, contemplating what Christ said to her. When Mary kept all the words of Christ in her heart when he was twelve, it is specifically the words Christ spoke, at that time. The same phrase is used in 2:19. This does not mean it is the same object of wonderment or focus.
[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. [18] And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. [19] But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. [20] And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Here, Mary is being spoken to by those who are glorying the newborn Christ, and everything that had been said (just previously an Angel had spoken with the shepherds) about Him. She is absorbing what they are saying, holding the words close to her. She mulled over them, reflected interiorly on the proclamations. In silence and obedience, she accepts and considers all that was. There was no speaking out, questioning, or refutations. It was simple, quiet, graceful compliance with God’s will. Absolutely no where does this directly or indirectly refer to her thinking, or stewing upon, Christ’s birth. There is not even an abstract hint of such a thing. To make any of this work, the Synod writers had to change “words” to “things”, and even within context “things” still reads as “what Mary is being told”. It is not a difference between scripture versions either. It is quite clear in differing translations that thinking about Christ’s birth was not the focus of Mary’s ponderings; not in the Nativity, not in the Temple when he was twelve.
That alone should be enough for a humble, shamefaced retraction by those in the Vatican. Apparently learned men do not know the difference between listening to words about a child, listening to words from a child (over a decade apart), and giving birth. Is it possible men who claim to be theologians, educators, leaders, lawyers, could not comprehend the difference? Was this a purposeful pass under the radar in hopes that people would absorb without consideration? This is a dangerous line of reasoning, as if it is so, the purpose would be to diminish Mary within the Church. As her seed will crush the head of the serpent, disparaging Mary can only help the devil.
By using verses out of context, the document gives the impression that Mary experienced childbirth as any woman would. That she is no different from the fallen daughters of Eve. This is a sneaky downplaying of Mary to that of common woman, on par with the rest of us. Experiencing life, feelings and thoughts, on par with the sinners. Mary is full of grace, she did not experience birth the way the rest of us do. The inference attempted here is to put Mary on equal footing with the rest of womankind. “The mother guards memory and feeling”. She is a generic representation of all women, all memories of birth, all feeling. We are actually, really, just like her.
This is the blasphemy. Equating all mothers, and the experience of Motherhood, with Maryhood. Using out-of-context quotes about Mary to defend their statement about mothers in general. As doctrine stands, Mary birthed Christ as women were supposed to before the fall:
Genesis 3:[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children
After the fall, God tells Eve that becoming a mother will be sorrowful, painful, a trial. Before the fall it is accepted that this was not the case. Mary was without the stain of original sin, therefore she was free of the punishments of Eve. Mary did not experience giving birth as the rest of us, and likely had nothing to think about in relation to it. While women do go over labour hours, how much pushing, the pain, the methods, in the end it is all about the baby and the rest is unimportant. What did Mary have to consider in her labour? It would have been nothing, she would have been entirely focused on the Christ-child. Not a non-event of the non-struggles of birth.
This is a lowering of Mary, to remove the supernatural from the faith. It is the next move in the “the multiplication of loaves was really a story about sharing”. Mary didn’t “really” have a supernatural birthing of Christ, as spoken of by God in Genesis. She gave birth just as every other woman does. And this is blasphemy.
wolfskinlamb 