Miryam of Nazareth would not, by most standards, seem to be a memorable person. She lived an obscure life. She is mentioned barely a handful of times in the documents of the Church her Son founded. She turns up briefly in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts and then vanishes (with the exception of a cameo in Revelation). During her earthly life she was a peasant woman, living on the eastern fringes of the Roman Empire, in a town of no importance, widowed, and with a single Son who would die brutally under the double condemnation of both her countrymen and their foreign oppressors. She never wrote a book, gave a speech, made a scientific discovery, won a battle, made a fortune, or demanded rights for Jews, women, peasants, or oppressed peoples anywhere. Indeed, the stigma her countrymen attached to her Son seems to have rebounded on her, so the chattering classes spoke of her, when they did, as someone who conceived her Son under shady circumstances involving a Roman soldier. Her chances of success in this world were simply non-existent and it's quite literally a miracle she did not wind up as utterly forgotten as all the other nameless, toiling peasants who spent their days in the dust and diapers of ordinary life only to flop down at night, worn out, to sleep a few brief hours and begin the grind again.
Pontius Pilate, on the other hand, was very close to the top of the food chain. There was nothing he didn't know about Roman power politics and What It Takes To Make It in the World. He had a long resume of accomplishments in the Roman bureaucracy and had led a life of Distinguished Public Service.
If Barbara Walters had shown up at his door to do a profile on him and asked, "What will you be remembered for?" he would have given a sober, thoughtful assessment of his economic policies, his achievements in the military, his grace under political pressure from Special Interests — the usual Blah Blah. The camera would have zoomed in on his handsome tanned face, his distinguished gray temples, his dark brown eyes, his sharp aquiline nose. It would have panned over the certificates and awards on his wall and then past the Smiling Pictures of The Wife and Kids (essential adornments for every politico). There would be the normal brief photo montage of his Rise to Success. There would be the normal shots of Pilate, walking along the Sea of Galilee with his dog and talking about his days on the football team or his early career as a Crusading Reformer against the Italian Wine Cartels. Barbara would lob him some softballs about his marriage and his wife's struggle with sleep disorders. There would have been the normal probing about his alleged involvement with the secretary and the chittering this caused for the gossip columnists. He would shrug it off with a "Let's not talk about what happens in private. I'm not perfect, but I believe in family values and my wife stands by me." There would be the reverent retrospectives on Pilate's brave support of the Roman "choice" to expose infants, his deep pride over the new aqueduct system ("I knew I had to stand tall on those issues"). There would be the controversy over his "alleged" harsh treatment of fundamentalists ("Barbara, there are times when you have break a few eggs to make omelettes"). There would be brief interviews with friends and old opponents ("Ponty's always been a straight shooter. We don't always agree. Heck! Sometimes I think he's dead wrong. But he's a hard worker and a dedicated public servant!"). We'd hear from local religious fanatics about some alleged unfairness in handling the trial of an up-country preacher a few years back, but we would be assured with nods and winks that this is just sour grapes from members of a cult who, it's widely believed, practiced cannibalism. It would end with the de rigeur faux humility we expect from "public servants": "I'm not saying I'm perfect. But I know I've tried to do the best darn job I know how." Then Babs would sign off with an appropriately empty TV coda: "Pontius Pilate: A Man to Remember."
And so he is — every day, in every Mass and Rosary, in every language of the world: "Crucified under Pontius Pilate." It's a passage that seals him into our memories as surely as a slightly earlier passage in the same creed reminds us that God was "born of the Virgin Mary."
The Virgin Mary and Pontius Pilate are the only two mortals mentioned in the Creed. In the end, these two people image the only two possible destinies we mortals ultimately can choose. Whether we are rich or poor, talented or klutzy, lowborn or high society, mighty or weak, we shall be remembered for displaying either the Power of the Powerless Virgin who said "Yes" to God or the Powerlessness of the Powerful Pilate who used his power to crucify the Son of God -- her Son.
Comments
Post a Comment
I never realized that…that the only two mortals mentioned are Mary and Pontius Pilate. Much to think about.
“Ponty’s always been a straight shooter…” Hilarious. But I second what mk said above, and appreciate the insight, and serious reflection at the end. Thank you.
The reason She is mentioned only briefly in the Gospels is because she appeared to each of the Gospel writers before they began writing and cautioned each one not to mention anything more about her than was necessary to confirm the virgin birth of her Son. She allowed St. Luke a little more leeway. You are wrong about her early life. When she was three years old, Joachim and Anne took her to the temple in Jerusalem to live until she was betrothed to Joseph to allow her to leave the temple because she was an orphan. Joachim died shortly after she went to the temple, and Ann died when Mary was 12. Mary was transported to be with her mother at her death. Anne alone knew before the incarnation that her daughter was to be the Mother of God.
Bob:
You entitled to your opinion. But the fact is the private revelation you cite are not binding on any Catholic conscience.
I know you don’t have to believe it Mark, That is your loss not mine. I am sure you would understand the joy of Simeon and the prophetess Anne, Mary’s teacher, more st the Presentation of our Lord if you were aware that they were the ones that cared for for Mary and knew she was someone very special during her stay in the temple. What is it that seems to obviously bothers you about Marian devotion. What do you really think of Mary?
@Bob
Why, Mark is obviously a chameleon-like double agent under orders from the Protestants. He is secretly plotting to turn Catholics against the Church, as you so wisely picked up on when he reminded you that private devotions are not dogma, nor should be used to pillory other Catholics who don’t happen to have an attachment to them.
But seriously dude, try not to insinuate that faithful Catholics might have something to hide when they don’t share your views..
Good work! I always enjoy your perspective Mark.
@bob
CCC 67: Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”
Bob,
Please read this very carefully. It might help you understand?
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/emmerich.htm
Ed: I have studied most recognized stigmatics including the one you mention – They have been a special interest for many years. What would you have me understand?
dmw: All the private revelations that I am interested in have been approved by the Church and some covered by approbations. I am allowed to believe them. I am well aware they are not a part of the deposit of faith, and I know the Church teaching concerning them very well. Tha apparitions at Fatima have played a major part in my life for many years. I suggest the world had better listen to what was said and promised there.
Bob:
I spent 10 years of my life researching and writing a trilogy of books on our Lady called Mary, Mother of the Son. I think very highly of her and hope all everyone comes to know her as our Blessed Mother.
[“What would you have me understand?”]
Well, for one thing Bob… it appears to me that you have been having some difficulty understanding why Mark keeps commenting on your posts. IMO, he hasn’t been picking on you…just making *certain* that his readers understand how to treat your *continuous* Mary of Agreda posts.
So… I simply thought it might be helpful for you to read Colin B. Donovan’s explanation on how Mary of Agreda’s writings should be treated today?”
Especially this part:
[“First, as private revelations such writings must not be accorded equal or greater authenticity than the Gospels themselves. Private revelations are not given by God to satisfy curiosity or to fill in the gaps of the historical details left out of the Scriptures.”]
It hasn’t appeared to me over these last few weeks that you *fully* understand this point properly?
In any case, if it helps you… great.
If not… hey, at least I tried my friend.
Thank you for your efforts, Ed, I do appreciate it. I have never said that private revelations were a part of the deposit of faith or superior to thr Gospels only that I was allowed believe those that are approved by the Church or have an approbation which certifies they have no error. Why do you suppose God allows private revelations if they have no meaning?. Why do you suppose Mary performed a miracle at Fatima in 1917 so everyone would believe. I suggest we heed her warnings at Fatima. The only reason I bring them up is to make people aware that they exist. I shouldn’t need a disclaimer from anyone for that. I assure you I do know what the Church teaches, and I am not violating any part of it. I am glad to know about your trilogy concerning Mary, Mark. That was a very commendable undertaking.
[“I have never said that private revelations were a part of the deposit of faith or superior to thr Gospels only that I was allowed believe those that are approved by the Church or have an approbation which certifies they have no error.”]
Bob, I could be wrong… but for some reason (?) I *still* think there is a possibility that you don’t fully understand something that’s very important here. Some of your posts over the previous weeks (see Mark’s ‘Meditations on the Rosary: The Finding in the Temple’) seem to suggest that you might not truly get this whole “no error” thing. That’s why I sent you the link to Colin’s explanation on how to treat Mary of Agreda’s writings. Did you read it?
If you did… then I hope you agree with this part:
[“This accounts, for example, for the variety in the details of the same events among different mystics. Some details may have been supplied by God, others taken from the presuppositions of the mystic. Since God’s purpose is not to improve upon Scripture but to inflame the will with love, the source of the details are ultimately irrelevant to that purpose. In the end, the Church judges the authenticity of such writings not by these details but whether anything is contrary to faith and morals. It does not, therefore, guarantee that every detail is true, only that it is theologically safe.”]
Do you agree… or do you have a different understanding of “no error”?
its astounding how the catholic church has made so much of Mary on so little that is known about her.
Ed: Approbation says that a document contains no error. In The City of God, almighty God said to Mary of Agreda: “I do not intend that thy descriptions and declarations of the life of the Blessed Virgin shall be mere opinions or contemplations, but reliable truth. They that have ears to hear, let them hear.” Take up your questions with Him. I chose to hear and believe Him. Have you ever seen Him quoted thus in any other document about Mary. We have reached an impasse.
The church should elevate the The City of God to the same level as the bible.
[Ed: Approbation says that a document contains no error.]
Bob, obviously, you *still* (?) have a serious problem understanding what this actually means. So… I won’t bother wasting my time any further.
I suggest you discuss this whole topic with a good priest. It might (?) help you understand.
Take care
Ed: You may never know or understand the exalted nature of the Mother of God. That is your problem, not mine, and that is a pity. I wish you well. I have been well governed by very good priests
Never won any battle - except, with her Son, Calvary.
Miryam of Nazareth would not, by most standards, seem to be a memorable person - except of course the standard of the Church, who remembered her.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.