Marijino brezmadežno spočetje
Spisal fr. Bruno Korošak OFM

*


Vir: rutars.net

     
v slovenskem jeziku - in Slovenian language

        V Katekizmu katoliške Cerkve beremo, da je »blažena Devica Marija bila v prvem trenutku svojega spočetja obvarovana vsakega madeža izvirnega greha«, kar pomeni, da je bila »obdarjena od prvega trenutka s sijajem edinstvene svetosti« [1]. Da bomo te izjave bolje razumeli, bo treba najprej orisati razvoj nauka o izvirnem grehu, potem pa dodati še nekaj razlage o sijaju edinstvene svetosti Marije.

         I – Izvirni greh

        O izvirnem ali začetnem grehu človeka so teologi v dveh tisočletjih izdelali dve razlagi: eno klasično, drugo moderno. Obe se v nekaj bistvenih točkah strinjata, v vsem drugem pa razlikujeta.

            A – Klasična obrazložitev
        Veliki katekizem [2] iz leta 1901 takole povzema nauk o prvih dveh človekih in njunem padcu:
        »Ko je Bog ustvaril prva človeka, bila sta dobra in srečna…Imela sta posvečujočo milost božjo, bila sta sveta in pravična in tako nadnaravno Bogu podobna…Bila sta otroka Božja in imela sta pravico do nadnaravnega zveličanja v nebesih… Imela sta globoko spoznanje in voljo nagnjeno k dobremu… Živela sta v raju, prosta vsakršnega trpljenja in neumrjoča tudi po telesu… Od Boga podeljenih darov nista prejela samo zase, temveč tudi za svoje potomce, ki bi jih bili po njih podedovali…
        Prva človeka nista ostala dobra in srečna, hudo sta se pregrešila in sta tako postala nesrečna na duši in na telesu… s tem, da sta, zapeljana od hudobnega duha, jedla od drevesa, ki jima je Bog prepovedal… tako sta izgubila posvečujočo milost božjo, in zato tudi nista bila več nadnaravno Bogu podobna… Nehala sta biti otroka božja, izgubila sta pravico do večnega zveličanja, in zaslužila sta večno pogubljenje… Njuno spoznanje je oslabelo, in njuna volja se je nagnila k hudemu… Izgnana sta bila iz raja, morala sta mnogo trpeti in nazadnje umreti…
        Adamov greh ni škodoval samo prvima človekoma, s svojimi hudimi nasledki je prešel tudi na nas, ki smo Adamovega rodu… Grehu, ki je prešel od prvih starišev tudi na nas, pravi se izvirni ali podedovani greh, ker ga nismo storili sami, temveč smo ga tako rekoč podedovali«.

            B – V zadnjih stoletjih popravljena obrazložitev
        Po tridentinskem koncilu, posebno pa v zadnjem stoletju, so vse znanosti silno napredovale, med njimi tudi biblične in teološke. Ko bi danes kdo hotel napisati strnjeno katehetsko razlago o istem predmetu [3], bi jo mogel takole formulirati:
        Po sv. Pavlu (Kol 1, 17-20) je Kristus podoba nevidnega Boga, in vse je bilo ustvarjeno v njem, po njem in zanj, tudi prva človeka, imenovana mož in možinja (iš in iša, 1Mz 1, 27), katerih potomci naj bi po dolgi dobi razvoja svojih duševnih in duhovnih moči dosegli sposobnost sprejeti evangeljske kreposti. Zato jima je priporočil, naj si ona sama in potem tudi njihovi otroci najprej toliko izurijo svoj um in voljo, da bodo sposobni pridobivati si hrano iz »zelišč s semenom in sadnih dreves«, predvsem pa od vseh živali na zemlji (1 Mz 1, 28-30). V kamniti dobi se je med leti 35000 in 10000 pred Kristusom v človeku pričel prebujati tudi duh ali sposobnost dojemanja verskih resnic, kakor se to da razbrati iz umetniških slik v podzemeljskih jamah, ki nam pričajo, da je prazgodovinski človek veroval v neko nadzemsko silo, v neko višje bitje, ki združuje v sebi vso moč in je v tesni zvezi s človekovim omejenim bivanjem na svetu. Nebesni svod z vsemi svojimi različnimi pojavi je pa tudi povsem naravno vplival na to, da je primitivni človek tej nadzemski sili začel pripisovati transcendenco in veličastnost.
        V 7. tisočletju pred Kristusom se je na Bližnjem vzhodu dopolnil prehod človeka k poljedelstvu in živinoreji, in zadnji redaktor 1. Mojzesove knjige postavlja v to dobo Adama in Evo (2 pogl.) ki sta živela v »vrtu proti vzhodu v edenu« (2, 8). Besedo eden Grki prevajajo z razkošjem, latinski prevodi z rajem, neko primitivno pleme v Avstraliji pa kot življenje brez vseh prepovedi in greha [4]. V takem okolju je, po sveti knjigi Perzijcev Bundahiš Adamova žena porodila dvojčka (»sad drevesa življenja«) in ju v želji, da si zagotovi zdravo in obilno potomstvo, ubila in ju skupaj z možem použila [5]. K temu jo je zapeljal talisman z izrezljano kačo, ki je bila vedno simbol življenja: pozneje so jo nosili na svoji tiari faraoni, Mojzes jo je izobesil na bronasti drog kot edino zdravilo proti zastrupljenjem (4 Mz 21, 6-9), in še danes je znamenje ozdravljanja pred apotekami. Iz Evinega nespametnega dejanja se je pri Kanaanski plemenih razvilo prepričanje o izredno dobrodejnih posledicah ubijanja prvorojencev (Mdr 12, 3-5). Tako se je tudi Abraham odločil, da ubije svojega prvorojenca in ga daruje Bogu (1 Mz 22), in vsi Hebrejci so potem bili prepričani, da je to Božja volja in da je treba prvorojence od Boga »odkupiti« s primerno daritvijo (2 Mz 13, 1-13; Lk 2, 23). Evin postopek namiguje tudi na skrivnost vitalne hrane, zauživanja evharističnega Telesa Prvorojenega.
        Ob tej priliki je človek spoznal, da je brezosebna nadzemska veličastna Moč v resnici človeku prisotni osebni Bog, ki dobro plačuje in hudo kaznuje. Pred tem dogodkom Eva in Adam nista še imela pojmov o dobrem in zlu, o smislu duševne smrti, po njem pa je, kakor trdi sv. Pavel (Rim 5, 12), dobesedno »prišel na svet greh in po grehu smrt na vse ljudi, ki grešijo«.
        Adam in Eva sta se svoje neumne pregrehe srčno pokesala (Mdr 10, 1). Eva je vrgla v smetišče talisman s kačo in po rojstvu Kajna je vzkliknila:»Dobila sem moško dete po Gospodu« (1 Mz 4, 1); prav tako je po porodu Seta rekla: »Bog mi je dal drugega potomca namesto Abela« (1 Mz 4, 25). Adam in Eva sta svoje otroke versko vzgajala, ki sta oba že Bogu opravljala daritve. Kajn se je po pokolu svojega brata Abela pokesal in se zaupno obrnil k Bogu za pomoč (1 Mz 4, 12-15).
        Adam pa si ni mogel kaj, da ne bi svoje bojevitosti in izurjenosti v orožju, že podedovano od svojih prednikov, z vzgojo prenesel na svoje otroke. To nagnjenje k nasilnosti imenujemo izvirno, ker je od vsega začetka poljedelstva v vseh prisotno [6]. Po pričevanju svetega Pisma je eden od Kajnovih potomcev, Lameh zatrjeval, da bo ubil vsakega dečka, ki bi mu »prizadel prasko« (1 Mz 4, 23). Slavni Mojzes, ki ga častimo kot svetnika, je svojim rojakom strogo zabičeval, da morajo neizprosno pobiti svojega lastnega brata, svojega sina, svojo lastno ženo, ali svojega prijatelja, ki bi jih hoteli zavajati k malikovanju (5 Mz 13, 7-10); morajo tudi popolnoma iztrebiti prebivalce svojih mest, v katerih častijo malike, to je ne samo moške, ampak tudi ženske, vse otroke in celo vse njihove domače živali (v. 13-18). Veliki svetniški prerok Elija je zapovedal poklati 450 Baalovih svečenikov (1 Kr 18, 40) in prerok Zaharija je staršem zapovedal, da morajo sami pobiti svoje otroke, ki bi jih zasačili pri malikovanju (Zah 13, 3). V 16. in 17. stoletju krščeni Španci in Portugalci niso hoteli slediti Jezusovim smernicam, ampak so pod pretvezo navedenih starozaveznih zapovedi o pobijanju malikovalcev tudi oni neusmiljeno mučili in klali prvotne indijanske naseljence v Ameriki [7]. V prejšnjem 20. stoletju sta višek nasilja dosegla krščena kristjana Hitler in Stalin, ki sta oba ne samo dala pobiti ampak tudi znanstveno mučiti v zloglasnih taboriščih nedolžne ljudi, 6 milijonov Hitler, 20 milijonov Stalin. In kaj naj rečemo o naši dobi, ko nam statistike poročajo, da je vsako leto spolnih posilstev žena okoli 80 milijonov, splavov pa 46 milijonov, ki jih tudi neštete krščene matere povzročijo? Kaj o tolikih v cerkvi poročenih parih, v katerih od nasilja možje dobesedno podivjajo in se znašajo nad svojimi ženami in otroki?
        Iz teh par vrstic bi se morda že dalo razbrati, kaj reči o prekletstvu, s katerim škofje na vesoljnem cerkvenem zboru v Trentu, 17 januarja 1546, pretijo vsem, ki bi proti nauku svetega Pavla trdili, da Adam ni prenesel svojega greha na ves človeški rod [8]. V resnici sveti Pavel tega ni učil v svojem pismu Rimljanom 5, 12, saj je dobro poznal Božjo besedo v Jeremiji 31, 29-30 o strogo osebni odgovornosti za greh: »Vsak bo umrl zaradi svoje krivde« in v Ezekielu 18, 20: »Sin ne bo nosil očetove krivde«. Vatikan je indirektno preklical ta tridentinski kanon, ko je leta 1979 v uradni latinski izdaji Neovulgata Pavlov tekst pravilno citiral [9]. Dobro bi bilo, da bi to tudi pastoralni delavci imeli pred očmi in ne govorili več, da je oblivanje otrok s krstno vodo nujno potrebno za odpuščanje izvirnega greha. Saj je recimo Henoh, ki je bil potomec Kajna in pogan, ki bi torej po mnenju tolikih naših teologov moral po smrti iti pred pekel, ker ni bil krščen, pa je vendar po svetem Pismu stare in nove zaveze (1 Mz 5, 24; Sir 44, 18; Heb 11, 5) bil vzet v nebo kakor Marija; ni pa bil vpisan v seznam svetnikov kakor Elija, ker so temu nasprotovali teologi iste struje.
        Po svetem Avguštinu (+ 430) velja za vse razprave o Materi Božji to temeljno pravilo: »O sveti devici Mariji nočem obravnavati nobenega vprašanja o grehih zaradi časti dolžne Gospodu« [10].
        Vendar je tudi njega zavedel fantastičen prevod Psalma 50, 7 kakor ga še danes molimo v našem brevirju: »Glej, človek podeduje krivdo že ob rojstvu, z grehom je omadeževan že od začetka«. Zato je trdil, da se vsi zakonci pri spolnem objemu omadežujejo z orgazmom [11] in tako mnoge nasledke izvirnega greha prenašajo na svoje otroke. Zato so nekateri umetniki Marijina starša upodabljali kot zakonca visoke starosti, da bi Marijino spočetje bilo brez madeža. To napačno mnenje je trajalo vse do leta 1984, ko je papež Janez Pavel II v enem od svojih nagovorov proglasil spolni akt katoliških zakoncev, opravljen s pravim namenom, za liturgično dejanje [12]. Nekateri biblisti, kakor n.pr. ameriški izdajalci sv. Pisma, ki je izšlo leta 1999, so isti verz (51, 5) že takole prevedli: »Grešil sem in nápak delal od dneva, ko sem bil rojen«.
        Sv. Cezarij, škof v Arles-u (+542), je v svoji 229 pridigi, ki jo tudi beremo še dandanašnji v naših brevirjih 9 novembra, trdil, da smo vsi pred krstom bili hudičev tempelj, da smo pa s krstom postali Kristusovo svetišče, ker je takrat »Kristus izgnal hudiča iz naših src« (tako v latinskem izvirniku, ne pa v slovenskem prevodu). Ker so pa ta govor nekoč pripisovali sv. Avguštinu, so liturgisti v krstni obred brž uvedli tudi obredno izganjanje hudiča iz novorojenčkov. Ko bi se škof Cezarij pri branju sv. Pisma malo ustavil, bi pri molitvi psalma 21, 11 lahko bral: »Od materinega telesa si ti moj Bog«, gotovo pred krstom; glej tudi Ps 71, 6: »Nate sem se opiral od materinega telesa, od naročja moje matere si moj varuh«. Posebno bi mu pomagal sv. Pavel, ki v pismu Galačanom 1, 15 trdi: »Bog me je poznal že v materinem telesu in me poklical«; in Luka 1, 13 ve, da je Zaharijev sin Janez bil že »v materinem telesu napolnjen s Svetim Duhom«. Moderni znanstveniki nas opozarjajo, da vse moralne, etične in estetične norme prihajajo v posameznika od zunaj, in da je posebno mati tista, ki v devetih mesecih nosečnosti s svojimi čustvi in mišljenjem lahko oblikuje bodočo osebnost zaplodka v dobrem ali tudi v slabem smislu [13]. Gotovo pa je sv. Ana vse napravila, da so se vse umske in duhovne osnove njene hčerke Marije že v njenem telesu tako lepo razvile, da je tudi ona že takrat lahko dojemala prisotnost Svetega Duha.

        II – Brezmadežno spočetje

        Nauk o začetni brezmadežnosti Device Marije je razglasil za versko resnico papež Pij IX dne 8. decembra 1854. takole: »Določamo… da je bila blažena Devica Marija v prvem trenutku svojega spočetja obvarovana vsakega madeža izvirne krivde« [14]. V izbiri besed: »madež« in »krivda« se jasno razvidi poseg Svetega Duha; dovoljujejo nam namreč razlagati, da Marija od prvega trenutka svojega življenja ni imela nobenega madeža nagnjenja do magije, do vedeževanja, posebno pa ne do nasilnosti v svojem značaju, ki bi ji ga lahko vtisnila sveta Joahim in predvsem sveta Ana, in ki jo vsi podedujemo iz dobe preadamitov in od Adama. Ker so pa teologi imeli v glavi neko drugo razlago, so v raznih prevodih drzno popravljali papeža in prav v definiciji namesto besede »krivde« pisarili: »greha« [15]..
        Kmalu po tej definiciji je bila posodobljena stara molitev »Tota pulchra es Maria«, katere verzi so se ponavljali, in ki smo jo vsi radi prepevali. V 2. verzu je odlično rečeno: »in izvirnega madeža ni na tebi«. V angleškem prevodu pa si neki teolog ni mogel kaj, da ne bi za razlago ubogim vernikom po besedi »madeža« dodal še »greha«. Tako na Internetu iz enciklopedije Wikipedia: »and the original stain [of sin] is not in you«.
        Za zaključek pa še nekaj, kaj pravi o tem sama Blažena Marija. Kakor je po strogo znanstveni metodi zbiranja in razlage vseh virov in dokumentov o prikazovanjih Marije pastirici sv. Bernardki v Lurdu objavil znani profesor teologije René Laurentin [16], je marca 1858 Marija rekla Bernardki, da je »Immaculada Counchetsiou« - Brezmadežno Spočetje. Ker so se krajevni duhovniki dobro spominjali, da je 4 leta poprej Pij IX razglasil, da je Marija bila brez madeža »spočeta«, niso nikoli mogli razumeti, kaj je hotela Marija reči, ko je o sebi rekla, da je brezmadežno »spočetje«. Treba je imeti pred očmi, da v francoščini (in italijanščini) beseda conception pomeni tudi koncept, zamisel, zasnova, pojmovanje, ideja. Morda pa je Marija hotela povedati, da si jo je Bog Oče zamislil kot ideal brezmadežnosti, saj je celo življenje, od spočetja do vnebovzetja bila brez katerega koli duševnega in duhovnega madeža.
________

Opombe
[1] Slovenska škofovska konferenca, Katekizem katoliške Cerkve, Ljubljana 1993, št. 491-492.
[2] Anton Veternik, Razlaga velikega katekizma ali krščanskega nauka, Ljubljana 1901, str. 124-139.
[3] Il nuovo Catechismo olandese, Torino 1969, p. 311-324; Johannes Feiner-Lukas Vischer, Nuovo libro della Fede, Brescia 1975, p. 286-297; Commissione episcopale per la Dottrina della Fede, la Catechesi e la Cultura, Signore da chi andremo? Il Catechismo degli adulti, Roma 1981, p. 65-66, 512-516; Bruno Korošak, Saggi di teologia dogmatica, Gorizia 2007, p. 82-118, 158-171; Gérard Du Ry van Beest Holle & Co., Zgodovina v slikah, I: Prazgodovina, Ljubljana 1974; Mircea Eliade, Storia delle credenze e delle idee religiose, vol. I, Firenze 1979.
[4] Eliade, Storia, I p. 44.
[5] Bundahis or The original Creation, 15 pogl.; in: The sacred Books of the East, vol. 5. Delhi 1880, str. 57: “From them was born in 9 months a pair, male and female, and owing to tenderness for offspring the mother devoured one and the father one. And afterwards Aüharmazd took tenderness for offspring away from them, so that one may nourish a child and the child may remain”. – Običaj pobijanja in použivanja otrok je še vedno živ pri nekaterih primitivnih plemenih v Južni Ameriki; glej Luigi Cocco, Parima, dove la terra non accoglie i morti, Roma 1975, p. 240.
[6] Glej Du Ry, Zgodovina v slikah I, stolp 71-74; Giuliana Parotta, Religione e violenza, Trieste 2007; D. G. Dutton, The abusive personality. Violence and control in intimate relationship, New York 2007: Bruno Korošak, Teološki esej o genocidih, Nova Gorica 2006; Christian Gostečnik, Relacijska paradigma in travma, Ljubljana 2008, p. 71-188; Internet, splet Žorž Bogdan, Nasilje.
[7] Glej Korošak, O genocidih, str. 12-13.
[8] Glej Concilium Tridentinum, sessio V, 17 Ian. 1546 (in: Henricus Denzinger–Adolfus Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus Fidei et Morum, Barcinone 1967, n°. 1512): “Si quis Adae praevaricationem sibi soli et non eius propagini asserit nocuisse… et poenas corporis tantum in omne genus humanum transfudisse, non autem et peccatum, quod mors est animae, anathema sit, cum contradicat Apostolo dicenti: ‘Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt´ “.
[9] Namesto “in quo” (Adam), Neo-Vulgata ima v Rim 5, 12:“eo quod omnes peccaverunt”, točno tako, kakor ima že Dalmatinova biblija iz leta 1584: “zato, ker so vsi grešili”. Če se spomnimo, da je treba v modernih jezikih grški aorist včasih prevesti s sedanjikom, bi morali latinsko prevesti tako: “In omnes homines qui peccant mors (animae) transit”, po slovensko: “vsi ljudje ki grešijo, (duhovno) umirajo”, kakor ima tudi moderni ameriški prevod iz leta 1999: “… and so everyone must die”.
[10] Augustinus, De natura et gratia, 36, 42 (Patrologia Latina 44, 267).
[11] Augustinus, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 1, 24 (Patr. Lat. 44, 429).
[12] Internet, splet Giovanni Paolo II, Udienze, 4 luglio 1984; splet christofer west.com/works.
[13] Glej Thomas R. Verny & John Kelly, Vita segreta prima della nascita, Milano 1981; Joaquin M. Arragó Mitjans, Psicologia religiosa e morale del bambino. Genesi e sviluppo della sua religiosita e moralita, Torino 1970; Sestra Dorothy M. Berridge, Crescere in maturita, Sviluppo morale ed educazione cristiana, Assisi 1971.
[14] Izvirno latinsko besedilo definicije iz bule “Ineffabilis Deus”, glej v Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion definitionum, No. 2803: “… definimus doctrinam quae tenet Beatissimam Virginem Mariam … ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam”.
[15] Glej npr. Anton Strle, Vera Cerkve, Dokumenti cerkvenega učiteljstva, Celje 1977, št. 479; angleški in francoski prevod v: Pius IX, Kije Manito – Ineffabilis Deus. Translation in Ojibwa… by Friderik I. Baraga, followed by English translation, suivi de la traduction française, Ljubljana 2000, str. 22 in 80. Isto v vseh novih Katekizmih katoliške Cerkve; glej slovenski prevod na začetku tega članka.
[16] Glej René Laurentin, Lourdes, Cronaca di un mistero, Milano 1996, pgs. 221-224.

+++


Mary’s Immaculate Conception
By Bruno J. Korošak OFM

*


Vir: rutars.net

     
in English language - v angleškem jeziku

        In the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 491) we can read that “the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception... preserved immune from all stain of original sin”, which means that she was “enriched from the first instant of her conception” by the “splendour of an entirely unique holiness” (No. 492). To understand this statement more easily, an outline of the teaching on Original Sin will be presented, followed by some additional explanations on the splendour of Mary’s unique holiness.

        I – Original Sin

        In the course of two millennia theologians have formulated two explanations for the original sin of mankind: one is classical, the other is modern. Both agree on a few fundamental points, while in other areas they are somewhat opposed.

            A – Classical Explanation
        Rev. P. Collot in his Catechism, printed in New York, 1904, summed up the teaching on the first two human beings and their fall from grace as follows:
        »We are conceived in original sin… It is called original, because we have it from our origin, because we receive it from Adam, who is the origin and the source of all men. It is the sin in which we are conceived and of which Adam rendered us guilty by his disobedience… All men are conceived in this sin, with the exception of Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin: our Lord by right, and the Blessed Virgin by privilege, Our Lord could not possibly contract this sin; the Blessed Virgin could, and would really have contracted it, had not God by his grace preserved her from it… All men bring with them into the world original sin. We must, however, except St. John the Baptist, who was sanctified in his mother’s womb, and also the prophet Jeremiah, according to some authors…
        The consequences of original sin are ignorance, concupiscence, that is to say the inclination to sin, the miseries of life, and the necessity of dying… Ignorance is the want of light and of knowledge. If Adam had not sinned, we should come into world with a mind fully enlightened and adorned with much knowledge… Concupiscence is the inclination to sin. If Adam had not sinned, our flesh would have been subject to our spirit and our spirit to God, consequently with pure inclination to virtue… The miseries of life are all that we have to suffer from the cradle to the grave, whether in mind or in body. If Adam had not sinned, we should have had none of these sufferings… The necessity of dying is the obligation under which all men are of losing life. If Adam had not sinned, we should have gone to heaven without dying; but because of sin we cannot enter there without passing through death. There is no man who is not either dead, or to die. Enoch and Elias are not dead, but they shall die…
        These consequences of original sin remain after it is effaced in order to exercise our virtue: ignorance to render us docile and laborious, concupiscence to render us vigilant and attentive, the miseries of life to make us patients and submissive, the necessity of dying to make us humbles and detached from the world” [1].

            B – Modern Presentation
        After the Council of Trident, and especially in the previous century, all fields of knowledge, including biblical and theological, advanced immensely. If one wished to compose a condensed catechismal explanation on the same subject today [2], he would have to formulate it like this:
        According to St. Paul (Col. 1:17-20) Christ is the image of the unseen God, and all was created in him, through him, and for him, even the first human being, a man and a woman (“ish” and “isha” in the original, Gen. 1:27). The descendants of the first humans would, after a long period of mental and spiritual development, achieve the ability to internalise the virtues of the gospel. For that reason God recommended first of all that they “have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky and every animal on the earth. I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat” (Gen. 1:28-29). In the stone age, between 35,000 and 10,000 years before Christ, there awoke in humans the ability to comprehend spiritual truths, as can be discerned from artistic paintings in underground caves, which tell us that prehistoric man believed in some kind of unearthly force, some kind of higher being, which was itself a unification of all power, and was closely connected with man’s limited existence in the world. The firmament, with all its various phenomena, also exerted a completely natural influence on primitive people, who began to assign transcendence and magnificence to these unearthly powers. In the same caves little stone sheets with figurines were found, indicating their belief in magic powers.
        In the 7th century before Christ, in the Middle East, a period of transition of man to agriculture and breeding of animals began, and the last editor of the book of Genesis places Adam and Eve in the “garden in eden, in the east” (Gen. 2:8). The word ‘eden’ was translated by the Greeks as pleasure, by the Latin as paradise; a primitive tribe in Australia defined it as life without any prohibitions or sin [3]. In that kind of environment, according the Persian holy book Bundahish , Adam’s wife gave birth to twins (“the fruit of the tree of life”) and in the desire to ensure for herself healthy and abundant descendants, she killed and consumed them together with her husband [4]. She was led to do this by a talisman, on which there was a carving of a snake. This has always been a symbol of life: later it was worn in the tiaras of pharaohs, Moses hung it on a bronze pole as the only cure against poison (Num. 21:6-9), and to this day, it is a sign of healing, placed in front of drugstores. Eve’s action resulted in a conviction, which developed among the Canaanite tribes, that it might be unusually favourable to kill firstborn (Ws. 12:3-5). In that way, even Abraham came to the decision of killing his firstborn and sacrificing him to God (Gen. 22). All Hebrews were from then on convinced that this was God’s will, and that it was necessary to “redeem” their firstborn from God with a suitable offering (Ex. 13:1-13; Lk. 2:23). Eve’s actions also hint at the mystery of consuming the Eucharistic Body of the Firstborn.
        It was at this occasion that humans realised that their impersonal, unearthly, and magnificent Power was actually a personal God, present to man; a God which rewards greatly and punishes severely. Before this event, Eve and Adam still had no concept of good and evil or about the meaning of spiritual death, but now, as St. Paul states (Ro. 5:12), “sin” literally “entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”.
        Adam and Eve “were saved from their sinful act” (Ws. 10:1). Eve threw the talisman with the snake into the refuse pile, and after the birth of Cain she cried “I have gotten a man from the Lord” (Gn. 4:1); and in the same way, after the birth of Seth she said “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel” (Gn. 4:25). Adam and Eve raised their children in the faith, which had made offerings to God. Cain, after the slaughter of his brother Abel, repented and trustingly turned to God for help (Gn. 4:12-15).
        Adam could not do anything to prevent that his aggressiveness and his art in using weapons, in which he was skilled by his ancestors, passes on to his children through their upbringing. It is this inclination to violence which we call original, as it has been present from the very beginnings of agriculture [5]. According to the accounts of the Holy Bible, one of Cain’s descendants, Lameh, asserted “I have killed a young man for bruising me” (Gn. 4:23). The famous Moses, whom we recognise as a saint, strictly imparted to his own believers that they must kill “their own brother or their son or their daughter or the wife they have or their closest friend” who “encourages them to worship other gods” (Dt. 13:6); still more, when the idolatry is diffused in the whole city, all the inhabitants “and the cattle of it” must be destroyed (v. 15-16). The great and saintly prophet Elijah gave orders to massacre 450 of Baal’s priests (1 K. 18:40), and the prophet Zechariah commanded all parents to kill any of their children, which might be caught in the act of idolatry (Zec. 13:3). In the 16th. Century AD. baptised Spanish and Portuguese chose not to follow the guidelines of Jesus, and, under the pretence of the abovementioned Old Testament commandments concerning the killing of idolaters, they too mercilessly tortured and slaughtered the Indian native inhabitants of America. In the previous 20th century the peak of violence was achieved by the Christians Hitler and Stalin, who both not only ordered the death of innocents, but also their “scientific” tortures in various extermination camps: Hitler 6 millions and Stalin 20 millions. And what can we say about our age, when statistics report that there are 80 million cases of sexual assault on women every year, and 46 million abortions, also caused by countless baptised mothers? What about all the husbands, married in church weddings, who, out of violence, literally become savage and vent out their anger on their wives?
        From these few lines it would likely also be possible to discern what could be said about damnation, with which the bishops at the 5th Session of Catholic Council of Trent in 1546 threatened all, who would assert against the teaching of St. Paul that Adam did not pass his sin on to the entire human race [6]. In actual fact, St. Paul did not teach this in his letter to the Romans (5:12), as he was well acquainted with the word of God in Jeremiah (31:29-30) concerning the strict personal responsibility for sin: “Everyone shall die for his own sin”, not to mention Ezekiel (18:20): “Only those who sin will be put to death. Children won’t suffer for the sins of their parents”. The Vatican indirectly revoked that particular canon of Trident in 1979, when in the official Latin edition of the Neo-Vulgata, Paul’s text was correctly cited [7]. It would also be good if pastoral workers kept this in mind and no longer spoke about how pouring children over with baptismal water is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of original sin. There Enoch, for example, who was a descendant of Cain and a Pagan, and would therefore, according to the opinion of so many of our theologians, have to go to Hell after death, as he was not baptised; but was, on the contrary, according to the Holy Bible’s Old and New Testaments (Gn. 5:24, Si. 44:16, He. 11:5) taken up to Paradise just as Mary was. He was not, however, written into the list of saints like Elijah, due to the opposition of theologians from the same old trend.
        According to St. Augustine (+ 430), there is a fundamental rule which applies to all debates on the Mother of God: “We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord” [8].
        However, even he was mislead by the fantastic translation of Psalm 51:5, which is to this day still prayed in our breviary: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” For that reason he asserted that all married people in sexual embrace are tarnished by the orgasm [9], and in that way they pass on many consequences of original sin to their children. For that reason certain artists depicted Mary’s parents as a married couple advanced in years, so that Mary’s conception could be without sin. This erroneous opinion lasted until 1984 when Pope John Paul II, in one of his addresses, proclaimed the sexual act of a Catholic married couple, when carried out with the right intentions, to be a liturgical act [10]. It is with relief that we can ascertain that the American Holy Bible, published in 1999, translated the same passage (51:5) as follows: “I have sinned and committed wrongs since the day I was born”.
        In his 229 sermon, which we still read nowadays in our breviary on the 9th of November, St. Caesarius bishop of Arles (+542) stated that “before baptism we were all shrines of the devil; baptized, we have become temples of Christ”. Since this sermon was, for a time, attributed to St. Augustine, liturgical scholars also introduced into the baptismal rite the ritual banishment of the devil from newborns. But bishop Caesarius, while praying psalm 22:10, could have read: “From the time of my birth you have been my God”. which certainly applies to life before baptism; see also Ps. 71:6 “I have relied on you from the day I was born. You brought me safely through birth”. It is certain that he must have been familiar with St. Paul who affirms in 1:15 of his letter to the Galatians: “God in his grace chose me even before I was born, and called me to serve him”; then there is Luke 1:15 which states of Zacharias’ son John that “of the Holy Spirit he shall be full, even from his mother’s womb”. Modern and authoritative scientists tell us that it is precisely the mother who, during the nine months of pregnancy, can contribute to forming the future personality of the embryo with her emotions and thinking, for good or for bad [11]. Surely St. Ann did everything she could, so that all the mental and spiritual foundations of her daughter Mary could develop well in her body; so that she might, already at that early time, perceive the presence of the Holy Spirit.

        II – The Immaculate Conception

        The teaching on the initial immaculate nature of the Virgin Mary was solemnly defined as dogma by Pope Pius IX on 8 December, 1854, as follows: “We declare... that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, 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 fault” [12]. In the choice of words “stain” and “fault” the intervention of the Holy Spirit is clearly perceivable; we are therefore allowed to explain that Mary, from the first moment of her life, did not have any stain of propensity to magic or to divination, still less to violence in her character, which could have been impregnated into her by St. Joachim and St. Anne, and which all of us otherwise inherit both from preadamitic ages, and from Adam himself. Since theologians had another explanation in mind, in various translations they boldly corrected the Pope and, directly into the definition, wrote “sin” instead of “guilt” or “fault”, as it appears clearly from the words of Catechism quoted at the beginning of this paper [13].
        Shortly after the creation of this definition the prayer “Tota pulchra es Maria” was rejuvenated, with its repeated verses, which we all enjoyed singing. In the second verse the prayer states magnificently: “and the original stain is not in you”. Later, in the English translation some theologian could not help himself from adding “sin” after the word “stain” in his misinterpretation for the ill-fated faithful. So, even on the Internet, in the encyclopaedia Wikipedia we can read: “and the original stain [of sin] is not in you.” [14].
        In conclusion, here is something Holy Mary herself had to say about this. According to the strict scientific method of official church investigation, which took place in connection with the young shepherdess St. Bernadette of Lourdes, well-known professor of theology René Laurentin wrote in Lourdes [15], that on the 25th of March, 1858, Mary said to St. Bernadette that she was the “Immaculada Counchetsiou” or the Immaculate Conception. Since priests remembered all too well how Pope Pius IX declared that Mary was “conceived” without stain only four years prior to that, they were never able to understand what it was that Mary was attempting to convey, when she said of herself that she in fact was the immaculate “conception”. It is necessary to keep in mind that in French (and Italian) the word “conception” also means “concept”, thought, plan, idea, etc. Perhaps Mary was trying to say that God the Father conceived of her as an ideal of “stainlessness”, as her entire life, from her conception to her asumption was without any stain whatsoever.
________

Footnotes
[1] P. Collot, Doctrinal and Scriptural Catechism, or Instructions on the Principal Truths of the Christian Religion, New York 1904, pp. 374-375.
[2] Il nuovo Catechismo olandese, Torino 1969, p. 311-324; Gérard Du Ry van Beest Holle & Co., Welt-und Kulturgeschichte, I, Baden Baden 1970; Mircea Eliade, Storia delle credenze e delle idee religiose, vol. I, Firenze 1979; Johannes Feiner-Lukas Vischer, Nuovo libro della Fede, Brescia 1975, p. 286-297; Commissione episcopale per la Dottrina della Fede, la Catechesi e la Cultura, Signore da chi andremo? Il Catechismo degli adulti, Roma 1981, p. 65-66, 512-516; Bruno Korošak, Saggi di teologia dogmatica, Gorizia 2007, p. 82-118, 158-171.
[3] Eliade, Storia, I p. 44.
[4] Bundahish or The original Creation, ch. 15; in: The sacred Books of the East, vol. 5. Delhi 1880, p. 57: “From them was born in 9 months a pair, male and female, and owing to tenderness for offspring the mother devoured one and the father one. And afterwards Aüharmazd took tenderness for offspring away from them, so that one may nourish a child and the child may remain”. – The use to kill and eat their children is still practised today by some aborigenes in South America; see Luigi Cocco, Parima, dove la terra non accoglie i morti, Roma 1975, p. 240.
[5] See Bruno Korošak, Teološki esej o genocidih, Nova Gorica 2006; Giuliana Parotta, Religione e violenza, Trieste 2007; D. G. Dutton, The abusive personality. Violence and control in intimate relationship, New York 2007; Christian Gostečnik, Relacijska paradigma in travma, Ljubljana 2008, p. 71-188.
[6] See Concilium Tridentinum, sessio V, 17 Ian. 1546 (in: Henricus Denzinger–Adolfus Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus Fidei et Morum, Barcinone 1967, n°. 1512): “Si quis Adae praevaricationem sibi soli et non eius propagini asserit nocuisse… et poenas corporis tantum in omne genus humanum transfudisse, non autem et peccatum, quod mors est animae, anathema sit, cum contradicat Apostolo dicenti: ‘Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt´ “.
[7] Instead of “in quo” (Adam), the Neo-Vulgata has in Rm 5:12: “eo quod omnes peccaverunt”, exactly as the King James version from 1611: “for that all have sinned”. If we take regard that the Greek aorist should be in modern languages sometimes translated with present tense, we could correct the latin text: “In omnes homines qui peccant mors (animae) transit”, as it has the modern American version of 1999: “… and so everyone must die”.
[8] Augustinus, De natura et gratia, 36, 42 (Patrologia Latina 44, 267).
[9] Augustinus, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 1, 24 (Patr. Lat. 44, 429).
[10] Internet, website Giovanni Paolo II, Udienze, 4 luglio 1984; website christofer west.com/works.
[11] See Thomas R. Verny & John Kelly, Vita segreta prima della nascita, Milano 1981; Joaquin M. Arragó Mitjans, Psicologia religiosa e morale del bambino. Genesi e sviluppo della sua religiosita e moralita, Torino 1970; Sister Dorothy M. Berridge, Growing to maturity, London.
[12] For the original Latin text of the definition from “Ineffabilis Deus”, see Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion definitionum, No. 2803: “… definimus doctrinam quae tenet Beatissimam Virginem Mariam … ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam”.
[13] The word “culpae”, meaning fault, but also mistake and error, was translated “sin” in all translations. See for ex., Pius IX, Kije Manito – Ineffabilis Deus.Translation in Ojibwa… by Friderik I. Baraga, followed by English translation, suivi de la traduction française, Ljubljana 2000, pg. 122 and 80.
[14] Internet, website Tota pulchra es.
[15] See René Laurentin, Lourdes, Cronaca di un mistero, Milano 1996, pgs. 221-224.

*



A.D. MMXII

Copyright © 2012 - Vse pravice pridržane - All rights reserved - korosak.eu
Oblikovano pri rutars.net - Designed by rutars.net

*