Ship of Fools: (Immaculate) Conception: December 8th

Thread: (Immaculate) Conception: December 8th Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028731

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I wonder if you keep this fest in your own prayer life or at your church.

I know its important to some Christians and I wonder what sort of prayers and thoughts it 'sparks off'.

I'd like to discuss this, not as a contentious thing, but more is the day helpful or not spiritually, and liturgically, for you.

I ask because I feel there is something in it - about God working unseen within history, within human biology... and I'd want somehow to see that aspect brought forward in worship / prayer.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I always wish I was in Sevilla and could see authentic liturgical dance!

At 17:30 hours today and every day this week of the Immaculate Conception the following is on offer:

CELEBRACIÓN DE LA PALABRA Y ADORACIÓN EUCARÍSTICA CON BAILE DE SEISES

[ 08. December 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: american piskie ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

St Magnus the Martyr London Bridge, which currently features on another thread. The Society of Our Lady of Salve Regina (I quote that from memory) has an annual observance of the Immaculate Conception at that church on the nearest Saturday to the feast.

I have looked in vain on-line for details of that for this year; I would have gone along if I were able. It might have been Saturday just gone, or it might be this coming Saturday if it is on.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Solemn High Mass tonight, followed by reception.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Walsingham Mass tomorrow( vicar's day off today).

Tis feast is very important to me and my reasons are here.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Its not a feast that enters much into popular culture is it? I mean there are not folk customs or home customs associated with it.

I guess because its mainly doctrinal.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Perhaps we should invent some? A good way to begin would be a special (yummy) food to be served at the holiday, the way Yule Logs are tied to Xmas, turkey to Thanksgiving and ham (and candy) to Easter.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

And what food would you suggest for this feast, I wonder [Smile]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

In Ireland it is a public holiday and I believe the traditional day for a Christmas shopping trip to Dublin. A pint of Guiness and Dublin Bay Prawns in a basket? (Fish in Advent.)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I dread to think....... [Confused]

The Conception of the BVM was duly observed at Morning Prayer today, as per the Franciscan Office (and C of E Common Worship ).

No mention of any immaculateness - A Fond Thing Vainly Invented, IMNSHO. Even our former Churchwarden (now across the Tiber, and one of Our Lady's most devoted devotees) reckoned the idea was not essential to salvation! (I keep wanting to ask him if he has accepted Mary as his personal Co-Redemptrix, but Father says I mustn't be naughty....).

Ian J.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

What Xmas, and Easter and such, have managed to do is to get the consumer culture behind it. It is necessary to buy the (tree, eggs, gifts, baskets, etc. etc.) to celebrate the holiday. And therefore all the businesses and stores are strongly invested in reminding you of the holiday, having sales to help you buy the stuff, and so on.

So! To popularize Conception, we need to get commerce behind it. Food is clearly the easiest to get going from a grass-roots level The Conception food should be vaguely appropriate, absolutely delicious, and essentially give the populace the excuse to consume it. (I have to eat these chocolates, my boyfriend gave them to me for St. Valentine's Day. Well it is incumbent upon me to eat the turkey, after Mother worked so hard to roast it for Xmas...)

Roman-era Palestine was not especially noted for thrilling cuisine, so we have here a blank slate upon which we can write anything. How about flan? A milk-and-egg custard with burnt sugar on the top?

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
I wonder if you keep this fest in your own prayer life or at your church.

I know its important to some Christians and I wonder what sort of prayers and thoughts it 'sparks off'.

I'd like to discuss this, not as a contentious thing, but more is the day helpful or not spiritually, and liturgically, for you.

I ask because I feel there is something in it - about God working unseen within history, within human biology... and I'd want somehow to see that aspect brought forward in worship / prayer.

I love this comment. Its spirit and intent is kind of quietly creative, istm.

I too am stuck by its inwardness.,

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :

Maybe some form of Conception Cake would do the trick, Brenda ?!

I wonder what recipe would be best. [Smile]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

God does indeed work within, and through, the human biology which he has created. I find no problem with the idea that the creator of the multiverse could arrange for Mary to become pregnant with Jesus, through the 'working' of the Holy Spirit - but why the need to take it any further back? If Mary was Conceived Immaculate, what about Anne and Joachim (traditionally thought of as her parents)?

Ian J

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

If I were celebrating today, it would be the Conception of the BVM. I'm not opposed to its immaculateness, but I don't see a pressing reason to affirm it either. My world certainly wouldn't collapse either way.

Last year it fell on Advent II, and was duly commemorated at Sunday Mass.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
God does indeed work within, and through, the human biology which he has created. I find no problem with the idea that the creator of the multiverse could arrange for Mary to become pregnant with Jesus, through the 'working' of the Holy Spirit - but why the need to take it any further back? If Mary was Conceived Immaculate, what about Anne and Joachim (traditionally thought of as her parents)?

Ian J

It doesn't work like that. If you read the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus (I recommend it: it's a good read) then you'll see it's not about necessity. It's actually about Mary's ability to freely choose (on behalf of humanity) to participate in salvation. A sinful Mary could not agree of her own accord (i.e. without compulsion) to her role in the Incarnation.

In my view it's not necessary for the Christian faith, but it makes more sense than celebrating the conception of Mary.

If you look at the calendar, the only conceptions celebrated are Jesus' and Mary's. The only nativities are Jesus', Mary's, and John's. This is because they were considered "sinless" occasions.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I find no problem with the idea that the creator of the multiverse could arrange for Mary to become pregnant with Jesus, through the 'working' of the Holy Spirit - but why the need to take it any further back? If Mary was Conceived Immaculate, what about Anne and Joachim?

You're not confusing (are you?) the notion that Mary, "by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX), with the false notion that she was conceived in Anne's womb without Joachim and Anne having had intercourse (a belief not taught by the Church)?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
If I were celebrating today, it would be the Conception of the BVM. I'm not opposed to its immaculateness, but I don't see a pressing reason to affirm it either. My world certainly wouldn't collapse either way.

I'm definitely with you on that. And I can't help but think that somewhere in the heavenly realm, Ss. Joachim and Anna are squirming with embarrassment that we continue to make a big celebration about that one particular time they had sex.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
If I were celebrating today, it would be the Conception of the BVM. I'm not opposed to its immaculateness, but I don't see a pressing reason to affirm it either. My world certainly wouldn't collapse either way.
I'm definitely with you on that. And I can't help but think that somewhere in the heavenly realm, Ss. Joachim and Anna are squirming with embarrassment that we continue to make a big celebration about that one particular time they had sex.

But surely making the feast about the conception rather than its immaculateness places the emphasis precisely on what SSA&J did rather than on God's gracious action?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
But surely making the feast about the conception rather than its immaculateness places the emphasis precisely on what SSA&J did rather than on God's gracious action?

That. She would have been free of original sin if she had sprung from a seashell, or if the stork had brought her, or if Anne and Joachim had "done it" -- whatever.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I kept (keep) the feast because it is my birthday, also the birthday of one of my oldest friends (Feast of the Virgin, how apt the cry!).

We kept the feast yesterday by downing 3 bottles of good champagne, interspersed with girolles & black truffle ravioli in a delightful sauce, some freshwater crayfish with sauce verte, etc. All rounded off with coupe noire - thats ice cream with hot chocolate sauce to you.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Immaculate or otherwise, I am sure that the BVM is the only saint who has his or her conception commemorated in the Church's Kalendar. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

That surely makes Mary's conception unique in some way or other.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It features in the C of E's Common Worship calendar, perhaps as a sop to those of the A-C persuasion (who, probably, keep to the RCC observance, anyway)!

It does not feature in the list of Marian observances in our 'Masses of the Holy House of Our Lady of Walsingham' booklet. These are:
1. The Annunciation
2. The Visitation
3. The Word made Flesh (the Johannine Prologue)
4. The Visit of the Shepherds
5. The Wedding at Cana
6. Our Lady, Type of the Church (Mary at the cross)

All scriptural, you note.......... [Two face]

Ian J.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Champagne, there you go. Exactly what one should serve to commemorate the feast. If we could create a champagne cocktail that would be even better.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

What about Kirsch Royale? Champagne and kirsch liqueur - a French concoction, AIUI, and extremely more-ish.......

Ian J.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Immaculate or otherwise, I am sure that the BVM is the only saint who has his or her conception commemorated in the Church's Kalendar. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

That surely makes Mary's conception unique in some way or other.

Correct. And, historically, her conception is celebrated precisely because it occurred without sin.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It features in the C of E's Common Worship calendar, perhaps as a sop to those of the A-C persuasion (who, probably, keep to the RCC observance, anyway)! ...

Somewhat surprisingly, that is not the case. It's one of a number of Saint's Days etc that have always been in the calendar at the beginning of the 1662 BCP. They aren't mentioned in the text and nothing is provided for them. But they are there. I can confirm this by checking against a prayer book from 1803, which is a clear generation before even Keble's Assize Sermon.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

So it is, in my 1828 edition of the BCP!

Well, well. I stand corrected...

Ian J.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Here in Brazil, Our Lady of Immaculate Conception is identified with Yemoja, the Orisha of the seas. Thousands of people go to the beach in white clothes to offer her flowers. It's very beautiful.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Here in Brazil, Our Lady of Immaculate Conception is identified with Yemoja, the Orisha of the seas. Thousands of people go to the beach in white clothes to offer her flowers. It's very beautiful.

But not by faithful Catholics, who (one hopes) would be trained to reject Santería, Candomblé, and other syncretistic or pantheistic religious practices--no matter how ingrained in the popular culture, or dressed up like Catholicism, they may sometimes be.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The genius of the Catholic Church has been to build on folk religion and inculturate it, not reject it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Flowers seems appropriate for the BVM, and you know the floral industry will play. Liquor is always good. So, champagne and flowers, which is bringing this notional holiday closer and closer to Valentine's Day.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It features in the C of E's Common Worship calendar, perhaps as a sop to those of the A-C persuasion (who, probably, keep to the RCC observance, anyway)! ...
Somewhat surprisingly, that is not the case. It's one of a number of Saint's Days etc that have always been in the calendar at the beginning of the 1662 BCP. They aren't mentioned in the text and nothing is provided for them. But they are there.

Certainly, anyone looking for Mass readings (never mind MP and EP) in the RCL will be disappointed [Disappointed]

I mean, other festivals get their own readings, but the Conception got a blank space next to the word "or", with only the Mass readings for the (Advent) day being offered.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Simon Kershaw's online lectionary (via Oremus) gives the Exciting Holiness mass readings for the BVM.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ceremoniar: But not by faithful Catholics, who (one hopes) would be trained to reject Santería, Candomblé, and other syncretistic or pantheistic religious practices--no matter how ingrained in the popular culture, or dressed up like Catholicism, they may sometimes be.

Not often. There are different views within Catholicism of course, but many are rather open towards Candomblé. For example, a friend of mine here is a Catholic priest and he openly wears a necklace in the colors of Yemoja. He's no exception.

It's different with Evangelical churches. Most of them are often very anti-Candomblé here, but Catholicism not so much.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Simon Kershaw's online lectionary (via Oremus) gives the Exciting Holiness mass readings for the BVM.

I went on to do EP after posting that, and spotted that there wasn't a blank space, rather "Common BVM". In general the ECL doesn't want to be specific about her death, birth and conception. I think we have the same collect for each one as well.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
If you read the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus (I recommend it: it's a good read) then you'll see it's not about necessity. It's actually about Mary's ability to freely choose (on behalf of humanity) to participate in salvation. A sinful Mary could not agree of her own accord (i.e. without compulsion) to her role in the Incarnation.

Having just read Ineffabilis Deus, I did not see that at all. But then I got rather confused by being told that Mary was Noah's Ark, the burning bush, etc.

But, if it is true, does that mean that we cannot freely choose to participate in our salvation?

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Its not a feast that enters much into popular culture is it? I mean there are not folk customs or home customs associated with it.

I think that depends on the culture. I gather from a Filipino friend that in the former Spanish Empire, it's a much bigger deal. (Girls born on the day are liable to be named Concepción or Conchita). F.X. Weiser seems to back this up on p. 294 of this pdf:

quote:
Because of its very recent establishment as a holyday of obligation, this feast has not developed any popular customs and traditions except in Spain and Spanish-speaking countries where it has been a great public feast day for the past three hundred years.

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Immaculate or otherwise, I am sure that the BVM is the only saint who has his or her conception commemorated in the Church's Kalendar. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

That surely makes Mary's conception unique in some way or other.

In the Western Church, that is indeed so. In the East, both the Conception of the Theotokos or Conception of St Anna and the Conception of the Forerunner are celebrated. (Neither is called "immaculate" because they don't have to cut that particular Augustinian knot).

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tis feast is very important to me and my reasons are here.

I've grown rather fond of the defence given in F. Hastings Smyth's "eirenic essay".

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
If you read the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus (I recommend it: it's a good read) then you'll see it's not about necessity. It's actually about Mary's ability to freely choose (on behalf of humanity) to participate in salvation. A sinful Mary could not agree of her own accord (i.e. without compulsion) to her role in the Incarnation.
Having just read Ineffabilis Deus, I did not see that at all. But then I got rather confused by being told that Mary was Noah's Ark, the burning bush, etc.

But, if it is true, does that mean that we cannot freely choose to participate in our salvation?

Not in the same way as Mary, no.

Since the fall nothing we do is pure. Out of any given congregation at any given time how many are there because they sincerely want to worship the Lord Jesus? How many are there because they want to gas to their friends? How many are there out of sheer habit? How many are there because they want to blag their kids into the local church school? One mustn't despair about the salvation of any of them because if God insisted all of us had pure motives for everything we did we'd all be a bit stuffed.

Now, imagine one day an angel turns up and announces: "Fear not! I bring glad tidings! God's got a little job for you!" Now part of you may well think. "My soul rejoices! My Lord has called me to his service!" But part of you thinks. "Do I have to?" and another part thinks "Fuck me! An Angel! I don't want to piss him off!" You see, mixed motives. Now the older school of theologians thought that it was meet and right that Mary should assent freely to the incarnation. Which is, er, meet and, indeed, right.

But there's also the point that in most cases when an Angel turns up and announces: "Baby! Incoming!" it involves a couple who have been trying for a baby and are bitterly disappointed with the outcome. In this instance it involves a young woman who knows not a man. It is, therefore, pretty meet and right that the young woman concerned has complete freedom in the matter. By and large, it is not generally considered appropriate in enlightened societies to tell women that their job is to pop out sprogs and their opinion in the matter is frankly irrelevant.

It's quite a good thing that Mary was not subservient to the Lord Of This World, when she assented to become the Mother of the Word Made Flesh. It's an even better thing that God Almighty did not behave like The Lord Of This World in making her the Mother of the Word Made Flesh, IYSWIM.

God saves most of us despite ourselves. He doesn't make us have babies despite ourselves. Which may be a reason for the difference.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It's quite a good thing that Mary was not subservient to the Lord Of This World, when she assented to become the Mother of the Word Made Flesh. It's an even better thing that God Almighty did not behave like The Lord Of This World in making her the Mother of the Word Made Flesh, IYSWIM.

God saves most of us despite ourselves. He doesn't make us have babies despite ourselves. Which may be a reason for the difference.

Wuh? Who is The Lord Of This World if not the one who created it and saw that it was good? If you mean the Devil isn't that Dualist and heretical?

Besides which

quote:
From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.

doesn't suggest to me that Mary had much say in the matter.

On the other hand, if she was not fully human, then I can stop beating myself up for not being the perfect wife and mother as she was. [Two face]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[qb] It's quite a good thing that Mary was not subservient to the Lord Of This World, when she assented to become the Mother of the Word Made Flesh. It's an even better thing that God Almighty did not behave like The Lord Of This World in making her the Mother of the Word Made Flesh, IYSWIM.

God saves most of us despite ourselves. He doesn't make us have babies despite ourselves. Which may be a reason for the difference.
Wuh? Who is The Lord Of This World if not the one who created it and saw that it was good? If you mean the Devil isn't that Dualist and heretical?

You're quite right. That should have been The Prince Of This World. If you think that is Dualist and heretical I suggest you write to the Inquisition denouncing a certain St. John the Evangelist. You may wish to denounce the gentleman that he was denouncing, a certain, Lord Jesus Christ whom, I imagine, is the second son of the Duke of Christ.

quote:
Besides which

quote:
From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.
doesn't suggest to me that Mary had much say in the matter.

On the other hand, if she was not fully human, then I can stop beating myself up for not being the perfect wife and mother as she was.

There is a difference between freedom and unpredictability. God foresaw that Mary, given perfect freedom would respond to the message of the Angel without needing to have a Plan B up his sleeve. "OK, guys, she said no! Let's get on to the Virgin Tracy!". But the decision was made in perfect freedom, by Mary.

Another analogy. At services of Lessons and Carols with limited resources I generally persuade a young lady with a pleasant voice to start us off with a solo rendition of 'Once in Royal David's City'. Now quite often we go through this little drama whereby the young lady concerned is very intimidated by the request but eventually accedes and then, on the date in question, is a bit initmidated and has to be persuaded that I have perfect faith in her and then launches into a heartbreakingly beautiful rendition of the first verse before the organ crashes in and the congregation come in with the second verse and we all go on from there. Now the thing is I choose my young ladies with care and the whole thing, to me, runs like clockwork but to the young ladies concerned it often feels like an agonising Kierkegaardian leap into the dark until the first note leaves their throat and they realise that they can do this. As I say, it is an analogy. The whole point of the immaculate conception is that this has been willed where what is willed must be and also it is a completely free decision. There is somewhere, a very good illustration of this point by an unknown 17th Century Artist where a warrior angel Gabriel kneels in anxious anticipation at the feet of Mary (rather than the other way around) who is studying the scriptures, (presumably looking at the Prophecy of Isaiah).

In a sense, if there is a synthesis between the claims of freewill and the claims of predestination they happen at the moment when Mary responds: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord".

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with our failures as parents. I hope I'm not a complete dead loss and I'm sure you are not either but it's not difficult to see why God might have taken extra trouble with the rearing of the saviour of humanity.

[ 11. December 2014, 20:32: Message edited by: Callan ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0