Evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and he hears my voice. [Ps. 55:17]
Yes, it's me. I'm sorry I haven't been keeping pace with all of the wonderful things you all have been writing. Though bls wrote about my favorite Psalm recently, and I obtained some weird track of it being sung to the proto-Tonus Peregrinus. Are you surprised that the First Song of Moses (Miriam) is my favorite Canticle.
I've been trying to prepare for the high stakes exam looming not very far into my future. Something else has popped up rather suddenly, which might take up most of my leisure time that isn't used for prayer. Or might not. But I did want to write about something that popped into my head over the last few days.
On August 15, we had the Feast of the Dormition or Assumption or something. My usual kalendar just said it was the Feast of the Virgin Mary. And James Kiefer's piece had a link to womenpriests.org and various articles on the idea of Mary Priest, which *Christopher brought up some time ago. What was amazing to me that the basic idea of Mary Priest or Mary Protopriest is of incredible antiquity but was discarded by Rome less than a century ago. The implication of the admittedly highly biased source was that it was discarded for fear that it might be used as an argument for women's ordination, which was coming to be controversial in the Protestant churches. But the basic merits of the case seems impossible to spin. As late as 1908, an indulgence was granted for saying a prayer that referred to Mary Priest, but a very few years later, the doctrine was repudiated. Does anyone know why or was it simply by fiat?
Being unbound by decisions of the Roman Pontiff, I considered the ancient sources on the issue. One of them noted that Mary had "offered Christ" at both the morning and evening sacrifice, i.e., at the Dedication and the Cross. As I was walking to the office this evening, it occurred to me, "But what about the noonday sacrifice?" The sacrifices of the Temple and of synagogue prayers are performed thrice a day (at the third, sixth, and ninth hours). Our BCP preserves this in the noon devotions, and the custom of the Angelus among the Roman Catholics seems related. And then it occurred to me: at Cana, Mary literally offered Jesus (before the beginning of his ministry) to the servants at the wedding, despite Jesus' objections. Note that the language of time enters here: "my hour has not come," i.e., the full and complete evening sacrifice of Himself on the Cross by which he is revealed fully as the Christ at the evening sacrifice of the Sabbath per tradition. But she pays no attention, having dedicated him to God when He could not speak for Himself. Of course, He has to cooperate. But I would wager that the Theotokos didn't enjoy the third sacrifice as much as He did. The third was His will.
But what's most odd to me is that the role of Mary seems more like that of deacon than priest. She defines her ministry as that of a servant through the entire Birth Narrative. And in the proto-Eucharistic narrative of Cana, she does nothing but point to him as she is always said to point to her Son (the first literally and the second philosophically). She reminds me strongly of the Orthodox deacon, "Master, give the blessing..." She does not act herself but reminds her Son of what he ought to do. And in the evening, as she stands at the foot of the Cross, she knows the secret and proclaims silently as the Deacon does in some liturgies those words of the Baptist (her kinsman and fellow pointer), "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." and "Happy are they who are called to his wedding banquet."
But whether Mary Deacon or Mary Priest, it is clear to me that these ideas are very deeply interwoven into the fabric of the chief action. Mary is indeed the second Eve, whose obedience crushes the head of the adder and gives her place beyond the dignity of women to the post-Fall world. What those who are against the ordination of women have missed is that the Patristic protestations about Mary as special case are greatly problematic. I believe that she restored the dignity of all women, making them fit for the altar. But this is problematic to many of those who support women's ordination, who cannot imagine that there was a time when women justly could be considered inferior or unworthy in any way. I find this sad. The story of the Theotokos, especially with respect to her diaconal and sacerdotal actions, is a powerful reminder of the reconciling work of Christ and His restoration of the primal order in which both men and women were created in the image of God to govern as equals. But to want to deny there was a time when women had a different status seems to diminish the wonder of this Mystery. Perhaps, we might consider that superior-inferior relations can reflect poorly on both superior and inferior and that a male priesthood was not a sign so much of male dignity etc. but of the brokenness of relations between men, women, and God.
Our understanding of restoration in Christ is just beginning...
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may find strength in the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who offered herself to God as a living sacrifice that the fruit of her womb might be God, man, and a living sacrifice without equal.
2 comments:
I think Mary doesn't just represent all women, but all humanity, that culmination of a "yes" at the pinacle of the human race through which the Logos takes flesh. It is dangerous to conflate her only with women theologically and anthropologically without also recognizing she represents all men as well, perhaps male monastics see this better than most men. Men too were unworthy and unjustly held overlordship over women in the Fall in a way unworthy of men who were to be companions not dominating possessors. It was never just that women should be treated as lesser human beings or not as likely capable of being images of God; this was never God's will but a result of the fall of all humanity, not only women. Given Mary often represents the Church, again, we can never conflate her with women only, and that is the danger of over ontological understanding that places gender at the heart of the matter in a rigid way. Having seen and experienced the dangers of the type of theologizing on Mary and the treatment of women by men in Christianity, a certain reticence is in order in my opinion. Only when Mary represents all of humanity, indeed, Creation, are we fully theologizing at a theoanthropological level...and then we must begin talking about the work of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, we end up with insipid gender divisions that reinforce fallen relating rather than lead to their undoing.
"Given Mary often represents the Church, again, we can never conflate her with women only, and that is the danger of over ontological understanding that places gender at the heart of the matter in a rigid way."
Exactly.
"Men too were unworthy and unjustly held overlordship over women in the Fall in a way unworthy of men who were to be companions not dominating possessors."
Of course. But this is not immediately obvious to those still consumed by a gender-focused theoanthropology. I'm still being rather controversial when I suggest that the all-male priesthood of the Law was the consequence of the Fall and not eternal. It's hard to be less theologically rigid about gender until you realize that a woman saying "yes" in particular has importance, not just as a human being saying "yes."
Post a Comment