If she was raised as first fruits of general resurrection, wouldn’t the New Testament documents mention it? Also, wasn’t the resurrected Christ called the first fruits in some epistles? Sometimes I worry that Christians overemphasize Marry simply because they want the feminine, motherly aspects in the church and that it’s not really based on the reality of the very earliest church.
Thanks for the comment, always appreciated. You’re right, Christ alone is the “firstfruits” in the strict New Testament sense. Mary’s Assumption isn’t meant to compete with His primacy but to show His victory already bearing fruit in one uniquely united to Him. Scripture doesn’t narrate it, but the early Church preserved the tradition in liturgy and teaching. And her role isn’t about projecting what we feel is missing, but about Christ Himself: the councils defended her precisely to safeguard His divinity. The Church honors her because in her we see what it means to let grace have its full way in a human life.
Heavenly. Ethereal. Simpleness. Holiness. Perfection because, and in spite of, our imperfections. We are called to be Marys. Dear God, bless us with your annunciations!
Personhood, like Saint John, we are all called to be little fore-runners of Christ. Like Mary, we are all called to be little God-bearers into the sphere of our world. ("do whatever he tells you" - are [chronologically] her last recorded words in the Gospels - John 2, Cana 🏺🍷)
⚜️ MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS, PantaNassa - Queen of All, save us! 👑 ⛪ ❤️🩹 🔥 ⛲ ☦️ 📖
I loved this thought: "And so the one we know the least may be the one who most perfectly shows us what it means to be a disciple: to vanish into God so that His light shines without obstruction." That's so true!
I am not convinced that 'the greatest saint' is a person almost completely unknown in history. I do not see this model of disappearing into God embraced by Jesus. The Beatitudes give us Jesus' model of an ideal disciple, but we don't have much historical evidence about how Mary lived this message in her own life. Jesus is remarkably distinct in history; his words, actions, death and resurrection are recorded in four different gospels and have been endlessly discussed. It's hard to argue that Jesus had a particularly close relationship with his mother given the little information we have about their encounters in the Gospels. On a deeper level, did the Creator really want us to dissolve as individuals in space and time into God? For me, the memorable saints are those who have genuine personalities: Peter, Paul, Augustine, Francis, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King. I understand the mythological and theological significance of the Assumption and I will be at Mass today. But I admit to discomfort with your glorification of Mary.
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, perspective and admission, Diana. I do appreciate it. I understand why you find the lives of the saints you mention as more compelling. They all stand out precisely because their distinct personalities, public witness, and recorded words give us so much to admire and emulate. I too have a special devotion to Teresa.
What I hoped to offer in this piece was not a replacement for these models, but a complementary vision of sanctity… one rooted in a life so transparent to God that the self becomes a clear window for His presence. The Gospels give us only brief glimpses of Mary, but in those moments we see her radical consent, her steadfastness at the Cross, and her quiet fidelity after the Resurrection. The absence of abundant detail is, to my mind, telling. She did not seek to build a name for herself, yet the Church has consistently called her the greatest of saints (Regina Sanctorum Omnium, Hyperdulia) because she is the perfect disciple, the one in whom Christ’s life found no resistance.
And when I speak of her “disappearing into God” I do not mean the loss of identity in some abstract void, but the fullest flowering of identity, where the human will is so aligned with the divine that God’s life can move without obstruction. This, I believe, is why the Church gives her preeminence among the saints. Not for public achievements, but for the unparalleled purity of her union with her Son.
I am grateful for your kind and thorough reply. I realize my education and embrace of history makes much of your assertions about Mary questionable in my mind. I don't see "(Mary's) radical consent (Jesus appears to ignore her unique status in Mark 3:31-35) or her steadfastness at the cross" (Mary is only present at the cross in the Gospel of John and she is silent). There are no resurrection appearances recorded in the Gospels that include Mary. We just don't know. That said, I also confess to a shriveled mythological sensibility. If I try to confess "the unparalleled purity of her union with her Son" I must do so as Hebrews argues: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
If she was raised as first fruits of general resurrection, wouldn’t the New Testament documents mention it? Also, wasn’t the resurrected Christ called the first fruits in some epistles? Sometimes I worry that Christians overemphasize Marry simply because they want the feminine, motherly aspects in the church and that it’s not really based on the reality of the very earliest church.
Thanks for the comment, always appreciated. You’re right, Christ alone is the “firstfruits” in the strict New Testament sense. Mary’s Assumption isn’t meant to compete with His primacy but to show His victory already bearing fruit in one uniquely united to Him. Scripture doesn’t narrate it, but the early Church preserved the tradition in liturgy and teaching. And her role isn’t about projecting what we feel is missing, but about Christ Himself: the councils defended her precisely to safeguard His divinity. The Church honors her because in her we see what it means to let grace have its full way in a human life.
Most Holy Theotokos save us! ✨🌐🪽
Please check out this reference on Shakti or The Goddess
http://beezone.com/adida/shakti/theshaktiherplaywithadida.html
Two related references
The Pleasure Dome Principle
http://beezone.com/adida/quandramamashikhara/thelawofpleasuredomeedit.html
The World as Light
http://beezone.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The-World-As-Light-Introduction-to-the-Art-of-Adi-Da-Samraj.pdf
Heavenly. Ethereal. Simpleness. Holiness. Perfection because, and in spite of, our imperfections. We are called to be Marys. Dear God, bless us with your annunciations!
Personhood, like Saint John, we are all called to be little fore-runners of Christ. Like Mary, we are all called to be little God-bearers into the sphere of our world. ("do whatever he tells you" - are [chronologically] her last recorded words in the Gospels - John 2, Cana 🏺🍷)
⚜️ MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS, PantaNassa - Queen of All, save us! 👑 ⛪ ❤️🩹 🔥 ⛲ ☦️ 📖
Amen.
I loved this thought: "And so the one we know the least may be the one who most perfectly shows us what it means to be a disciple: to vanish into God so that His light shines without obstruction." That's so true!
Thanks Traci! Yes, sometimes it’s the lives with the fewest words that speak the loudest about what it means to belong entirely to God.
I am not convinced that 'the greatest saint' is a person almost completely unknown in history. I do not see this model of disappearing into God embraced by Jesus. The Beatitudes give us Jesus' model of an ideal disciple, but we don't have much historical evidence about how Mary lived this message in her own life. Jesus is remarkably distinct in history; his words, actions, death and resurrection are recorded in four different gospels and have been endlessly discussed. It's hard to argue that Jesus had a particularly close relationship with his mother given the little information we have about their encounters in the Gospels. On a deeper level, did the Creator really want us to dissolve as individuals in space and time into God? For me, the memorable saints are those who have genuine personalities: Peter, Paul, Augustine, Francis, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King. I understand the mythological and theological significance of the Assumption and I will be at Mass today. But I admit to discomfort with your glorification of Mary.
Look beyond the obvious and you will find Mary
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts, perspective and admission, Diana. I do appreciate it. I understand why you find the lives of the saints you mention as more compelling. They all stand out precisely because their distinct personalities, public witness, and recorded words give us so much to admire and emulate. I too have a special devotion to Teresa.
What I hoped to offer in this piece was not a replacement for these models, but a complementary vision of sanctity… one rooted in a life so transparent to God that the self becomes a clear window for His presence. The Gospels give us only brief glimpses of Mary, but in those moments we see her radical consent, her steadfastness at the Cross, and her quiet fidelity after the Resurrection. The absence of abundant detail is, to my mind, telling. She did not seek to build a name for herself, yet the Church has consistently called her the greatest of saints (Regina Sanctorum Omnium, Hyperdulia) because she is the perfect disciple, the one in whom Christ’s life found no resistance.
And when I speak of her “disappearing into God” I do not mean the loss of identity in some abstract void, but the fullest flowering of identity, where the human will is so aligned with the divine that God’s life can move without obstruction. This, I believe, is why the Church gives her preeminence among the saints. Not for public achievements, but for the unparalleled purity of her union with her Son.
Maintaining her personhood in the Kingdom ✅
I am grateful for your kind and thorough reply. I realize my education and embrace of history makes much of your assertions about Mary questionable in my mind. I don't see "(Mary's) radical consent (Jesus appears to ignore her unique status in Mark 3:31-35) or her steadfastness at the cross" (Mary is only present at the cross in the Gospel of John and she is silent). There are no resurrection appearances recorded in the Gospels that include Mary. We just don't know. That said, I also confess to a shriveled mythological sensibility. If I try to confess "the unparalleled purity of her union with her Son" I must do so as Hebrews argues: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."