Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

affirmative love if that love is to flourish. When a marriage loses for a time its bodily dimension, when the emotions “run dry,” what remains when there is love is regard for the unique value of the person, appreciation that he or she exists. The emotional connection very often returns when the spouses stop demanding the sexual and the emotional from each other all the time.

Affirmation & marriage Affirmation is the perception on one human being’s part of another’s uniqueness as a person, the perception of his goodness, the perception of his value, and then the expression of this perception to that person which comes out, verbally and non-verbally, something like this: “you are good and it is good that you exist, it is good that you are alive, I take enjoyment in seeing and experiencing your goodness, your value, your uniqueness.” The opposite of affirmation is alienation. A Christian psychiatrist Dr. Conrad Baars has described what he calls deprivation disorder, the profound alienation of people from one another in the modern world: alienation in marriage leading to a 50% divorce rate, the increasing tension and misunderstanding between the sexes, the breakdown of neighborhood structures, alienation from God, but particularly lack of affirmation in the family. The incidence of people who have not been affirmed, who have not been loved unconditionally for their own sake, is very high. This gives rise to various kinds of symptoms: deep senses of insecurity and inferiority, forms of depression, forms of behaving inadequately, inability to organize one’s life. All these symptoms are directly related to lack of affirmation from one or both parents — who often have suffered from this same lack of affirmation themselves. Today, people often enter marriage with one or both “lungs” missing — one is the maternal affirmation lung and the other is the paternal affirmation lung. Where is there hope for us in all of this? I am of one heart and mind with Pope John Paul II. He says, “Do not be afraid.” Don’t be afraid to marry, don’t be afraid to love, don’t be afraid to do what is necessary for happiness. Don’t be afraid to open your life to Christ. Don’t be afraid to do what is necessary to make love happen, to be people of affirmation. In the beautiful play, The Jeweler’s Shop, by the Holy Father, the character Christopher says to Monica, whose family life has left her cynical about love: “Love is a constant challenge, thrown to us by God, thrown, I think, so that we should challenge fate.” That’s it. We must go bravely ahead, not blindly, but with God’s love. What can I say to young people more practically? The first thing I would stress is the profound value of premarital preparation, even for people who are not yet engaged but who are seriously dating each other. In this preparation, we first open up the family of origin and the past, and ask if there are any major, not minor, injuries or deprivations. Are there any rejections that still hurt very deeply? What we find is that if people are willing to open this up and have this healed and come to peace with themselves, this not only helps them to love but also increases the stability of their future marriage, because the person is not going to bring into the marriage these unhealed wounds. The second area is learning from one another how to communicate and resolve conflict on a whole variety of issues before getting married. How often I have seen couples, very intelligent couples, who did not share fundamental things in life and got married! The third area is the exploration on both people of love. How do they see love? How have they experienced love? How have they not experienced love in their loves? Is it connected with a lot anxiety, guilt, shame, fear, addictions of any kind, insecurities? The fourth area is: are both people authentically committed to Jesus and have an intimate relationship with Christ and the teachings of the Church? These couples have the highest rate of marital happiness and stability. In fact, they are able to overcome more issues in their lives because of their faith.

Marriage- the value of the institution Marriage is strictly a feature of man’s physical and terrestrial existence, so that it is naturally dissolved by the death of one of the spouses. (p. 212) Although remarriage after the death of a spouse is justifiable and permitted, to remain a widow or widower is nonetheless altogether praiseworthy since (among other things) it emphasizes more fully the reality of the union with the person now deceased. The value of the person, after all, is not transient, and spiritual union can and should continue even when physical union is at an end. (p. 212) One of the possible reasons (infidelity is a particularly serious one) why husband and wife cannot go on living together there is only one possibility — temporary separation, but without dissolution of the marriage itself. (p. 214) Thus marriage preserves its character as an institution facilitating the personal union of man and woman, and not merely sexual relations between them. (p. 214) The norm demands that the union be maintained until death. Any other view of the matter in effect puts the person in the position of an object ‘for use’, which amounts to the destruction of the objective order of love. (p. 215) Without integration [of love] marriage is an enormous risk. A man and a woman whose love has not begun to mature, has not established itself as a genuine union of persons, should not marry, for they are not ready to undergo the test to which married life will subject them. (p. 215) The inner and essential raison d’etre of marriage is not simply eventual transformation into a family but above all the creation of a lasting personal union between a man and a woman based on love. (p. 218) Marriage serves love more fully when it serves the cause of existence, and develops into a family. This is how we should understand the statement that ‘procreation is the principal end of marriage’. (p. 218) If their love is already more or less ripe procreation will ripen it still further. (p. 218) This institution [of marriage] is necessary to signify the maturity of the union between a man and a woman, to testify that there is a love on which a lasting union and community can be based. The institution is needed for this purpose not only in the interests of society, of the ‘other people’ who belong to it, but also, and mainly, in the interests of the persons who enter into a marriage. Even if there were no other people around them they would need the institution of marriage. (p. 220) Sexual relations outside marriage automatically put one person in the position of an object to be used by another. Which is the user, which is the used? It is not excluded that the man may also be an object to be enjoyed, but the woman is always in that position in relation to the man. (p. 221) A ‘marital’ sexual relationship outside the framework of marriage is always objectively a wrong done to the woman. Always — even when the woman consents to it, and indeed even when she herself actively desires and seeks it. (p. 221) 🔗source: Love ana Responsibility

Love is demanding The love which the apostle Paul celebrates in the First Letter to the Corinthians — the love which is “patient” and “kind,” and “endures all things” is certainly a demanding love. But this is precisely the source of its beauty: by the very fact that it is demanding, it builds up the true good of man and allows it to radiate to others... Only the one who is able to be demanding with himself in the name of love can also demand love from others. Love is demanding. It makes demands in all human situations; it is even more demanding in the case of those who are open to the Gospel. Is this not what Christ proclaims in “his” commandment? Nowadays people need to rediscover this demanding love, for it is the truly firm foundation of the family, a foundation able to “endure all things.” What is important is not so much individual actions (whether selfish or altruistic), so much as the radical acceptance of the understanding of man as a person who “finds himself” by making a sincere gift of self. A gift is, obviously, “for others.” We thus come to the very heart of the Gospel truth about freedom. The person realizes himself by the exercise of freedom in truth. Freedom cannot be understood as a license to do absolutely anything: it means a gift of self. Even more: it means an interior discipline of the gift... Utilitarianism, based on an individualistic under- standing of freedom — a freedom without responsibilities — is the opposite of love... When this concept of freedom is embraced by society, and quickly allies itself with varied forms of human weakness, it soon proves a systematic and permanent threat to the family. In this regard, one could mention many dire consequences, which can be statistically verified, even though a great number of them are hidden in the hearts of men and women like painful, fresh wounds. The love of spouses and parents has the capacity to cure these kinds of wounds... This capacity depends on the divine grace of forgiveness and reconciliation, which always ensures the spiritual energy to begin anew. For this very reason family members need to encounter Christ in the Church through the wonderful sacrament of penance and reconciliation. In this context, we can realize how important prayer is with families and for families, in particular for those threatened by division. We need to pray that married couples will love their vocation, even when the road becomes difficult, or the paths become narrow, uphill and seemingly insuperable. source: John Paul II, 1994 Letter to Families #love #marriage

Therefore, from Irenaeus we see the cornerstones of the apostolic tradition in Christianity already forming by the mid-2nd century C.E.  From Irenaeus we see an early canon which includes the Greek Septuagint, the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, and the Pauline Epistles.  We also see from Irenaeus a widespread rejection of the “gnostic gospels” because few are aware of these texts.  When the Bible was finally canonized, one of the principles was precisely this: universality.  Texts that were well known to Christian communities as far away as Gaul and Iberia, to North Africa and Greece, to Egypt and Palestine were the texts that were canonized – the gnostic texts were almost always isolated and known only to small sects in Rome, Greece, and especially Egypt, but never had much outward influence beyond their immediate communities. Furthermore, Irenaeus’s “Rule of Apostolicity” is already in full force: if communities and their leaders are teaching beliefs and ideas that run counter to those of the Apostles, they are not apostolic communities.  And finally from Irenaeus we also see the issue of open community vs. closed community as a hallmark of apostolicity.  Those communities that are open to anyone interested follow the apostolic tradition, while communities that are closed, speak with mystery language, and demand tests for membership (to prove that you were among the “spiritual people”) should be avoided.

The importance of St. Irenaeus in the formation of orthodoxy and early Church diversity St. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon in Gaul (modern day France).  Gaul was an early center for Christianity in the West, and a very unique center too – having already developed its own organic liturgy that is remembered as the Gallican Rite (now defunct).  Gallican Christianity was developing around the same time of North African Christianity and Roman Christianity.  In fact, this seemingly polarizing diversity was famously addressed by Irenaeus, who laid out the quintessential Catholic maxim that influenced Augustine and his doctrine of the mixed church – “Unity in faith, diversity in practice.” As testified by the early Church Fathers themselves – and especially Irenaeus – the principle unity in faith but diversity in practice reflects the fact that there were already a multitude of different religious and liturgical practices that had developed in the early church by the mid and late second century C.E.  The Gallican, Punic, Latin, and Greek rite liturgies were already off the ground and running.  From Irenaeus, who took one of the more historical and literal approaches to Scriptural hermeneutics, to Origen and Augustine, who both took far more allegorical approaches, we see a diversity in hermeneutical traditions as well. One of the most important events in early Christian history which is important to historians and scholars is the invitation of Irenaeus to Rome to settle a brewing controversy over episcopal leadership in the city.  Valentinus, a leader of Roman Gnosticism (called Valentinian Gnosticism after him), was one of the candidates for bishop.  When he was passed over in favor of the eventual Pope, Anicetus.  As a result, Velentius left the formal church in Rome and started his own movement, to which Irenaeus was called to Rome to help settle the dispute between Valentinianism and Catholicism.  Marcion of Sinope did the same, bringing his theology to review in Rome where the Roman church leaders rejected it, and Marcion subsequently broke away to found his sect of Gnosticism – so we see a common theme in the early heretical movements, when their theologies are rejected they break away first.  Only Arius was met with formal expulsion among the early heretics, the rest (especially the Gnostic sects) always broke away first when their ideas were rejected. Irenaeus’s works, Against Valentinus and Against Heresies in particular, are important in the visibility of early Christian apostolicity.  Irenaeus attacks Valentinus for using texts to base his teachings on that were not well-known to the Christian community as a whole.  Irenaeus quotes from the Greek Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible in Greek that included other books from the Hebraic Tanakh.  He also quotes extensively from the letters of the Apostle Paul.  Already with Irenaeus we begin to see an early canon that comprises of the Greek Septuagint (Christian Old Testament), the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of the Apostle Paul.  Part of what led to these works being chosen for the canon was their universality – they were well known to all Christian communities, from those in the east to those in the west.  The “Gnostic gospels” were always small and scattered, not known, which is why they were looked at suspiciously.  Irenaeus even called the Gnostic gospels being used by Valentinus as pseudo-historical. Furthermore, Irenaeus established the rule of apostolicity.  Irenaeus argues that those Christian movements that are deviating in their teachings from those passed down from the Apostles are to be avoided.  Here we see the heart of the Apostolic tradition – that there is a basic set of beliefs and teachings handed down from the Apostles to the next generation of Christian leaders (the bishops) which is the unity that unites all Christian congregations.  However, as time goes on, as Irenaeus says, these Christian communities are working to try to understand the finer details of these beliefs. 🔗continued

Jewish Roots - Queen Mother - Gebirah [1/2]   Q. 1. What does the term “Gebirah” mean in the Jewish context?    A. Gebirah (גְּבִירָה) literally means “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother.” It was the title given to the mother of the Davidic king in Israel and Judah, who held an official dignity and role in the court.    Q. 2. What was the role of the Queen Mother in Ancient Israel?    A. Gebirah played the role of intercessor and advisor to the king. In 1 Kings 2:19, we see Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, entering before the king and being received with honor: the king rises to greet her; orders a throne to be brought for her; and places her at his right hand. She intercedes on Adonijah's behalf, demonstrating her role as a royal mediator.    Q. 3. Did the Queen Mother have political authority?    A. She did not reign as sovereign, but she held moral authority and political influence. In the Davidic dynasty, the king could have several wives, but only one mother, which cemented the unique dignity of the Gebirah.    Q. 4. How did Jewish tradition view this figure?    A. In prophetic and historical literature, the king's mother is often mentioned by name when introducing a new king (cf. 1 Kings 14:21; 2 Kings 12:2). This indicates the importance of the Gebirah in royal identity and dynastic legitimacy.    Q. 5. How does this Jewish tradition connect with the Catholic view of Mary?   A. In the logic of the Davidic covenant, the Messiah would be an eternal king on the throne of David (cf. 2 Sam 7:12-16; Luke 1:32-33). If Jesus is the definitive Davidic King, then his Mother, Mary, is the Gebirah of the messianic Kingdom. Thus, the Old Testament provides the theological root for the Catholic doctrine of Mary as Queen of Heaven.   Q. 6. What biblical passages help us see Mary as Queen Mother?    A. Luke 1:32-43: The angel announces that Jesus will inherit the throne of David, and Elizabeth calls Mary "Mother of my Lord" (Lord = royal and messianic title).    Revelation 12:1: Mary appears as a woman crowned with twelve stars, a sign of royalty.   John 2:1-11: At the wedding at Cana, Mary intercedes with the King (Jesus), as the Gebirah did.    Q. 7. Are there liturgical and devotional parallels?    A. Yes. In the Jewish tradition, the Gebirah was honored in the royal court. In the Catholic tradition, Mary is honored as Queen of Heaven and Earth, being invoked in the Litanies of Loreto as "Queen of the Angels," "Queen of the Patriarchs," and "Queen of Peace."    Q. 8. Which Church documents confirm this parallel?    Pope Pius XII, "Ad Caeli Reginam" (1954): proclaims Mary as Queen, basing her on the biblical tradition of the Gebirah.   Catechism of the Catholic Church, §966 and §973: teaches that Mary participates in the royalty of Christ, reigning alongside Him.   Q. 9. What is the difference between the Jewish and Catholic views?   A. Ancient Judaism: The Gebirah was a dynastic function, linked to the earthly throne of the kings of Judah.   Christianity: Mary is the Gebirah of the messianic throne, which is eternal and universal. In other words, Catholicism elevates and fulfills the symbol of the Old Testament, applying it to the economy of salvation.   Q. 10. What is the importance of this Jewish root for the Christian faith?   A. It shows that Catholicism did not invent Mary's title as Queen, but received it from Scripture under the key of the Davidic covenant. Thus, Mary is the Queen Mother of the Messiah, a sign of continuity between Israel and the Church. 🔗[2/2] @ecclesiadiscens #mary