I’m a quiet admirer of you writings but I particularly enjoyed this. I’ve never really understood the paranoia about Mary in Protestant and even many catholic and orthodox circles. St Lawrence of Brindisi called her “the crowned goddess of heaven”. There’s also a renowned carmelite work that says as much-“if it can be said of the saints they were changed into god by grace, what of her who is the mother of God? let one who reflects on these matters understand that in a real sense can be called and is a goddess”. Maybe it’s my sensibility to reference the feminine side of reality, but it seems clear she is the appointed and created goddess of the universe according to the will of the Trinity. Providing we understand the principles of grace and participation, it seems silly to worry about it. Mary isn’t God as in gif himself, absolute being, but she is the goddess through absolute theosis. Sure we don’t want to over mythologize her as though she wasn’t a historical human, but she became more than human and even “more than a creature” to quote sergius. People intuitively respond to Mary as a goddess once they understand her dignity. It seems awkward falling over ourselves to make sure we don’t give off the impression she wasn’t God. People find Mary compelling and attractive spiritually, I don’t have much to do with the institutional church these days but I have never lost my profound respect for her. I appreciate this great writing abs it was a very devotional experience for me. Thank you!
The poor axolotl getting stepped on, they are sweet little things.
Also very interesting article! I guess I've never thought of the fact that theosis and the theophanic nature of the world do mean Mary is literally a goddess.
On the whole a great speculative and thoughtful interreligious exercise. After reading through it twice, the one aspect that seems to leave me a bit off-put is the line from the goddess as the wife or consort of YHWH in a highly sexualized sense, and that later being "straightforwardly" the Virgin Mary. Some of the through line here starts to feel a bit too generalized, if we are taking something as conceptually loose as the divine feminine as an absolute archetype, and then attempt to create a chain that links it all together, the sequence really just feels chronological and too easy to forge the connections when the bonds are so generalized.
I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with anything here, but something about the sequence of the chain seems to be internally disquieting to me in some sense, so I'm just trying to tease that out in real time.
Nope. (Unless it’s just that you and I have different definitions of the word “goddess,” which seems very likely.) Think about it: what would Mary say if you asked her “Are you a goddess?” She’d lol, probably pat you on the head and send you outside to go play.
Hey, David. I hope you're still reading old comments. Anyhow, I don't know if you have an account on Academia, but Nina S. Heereman has just posted a rather daring thesis, which honestly I've thought about before, albeit in a less organized manner, on reading the Song of Songs as originally a royal marriage between Lady Wisdom as revelatory goddess (Goddess?) to Solomon, on the model of Ishtar to Dumuzi, perhaps in its original intent. Heereman apparently has a fairly long book coming out, about 900 pp., which I hope to read as soon it comes out. I highly recommend it. For a condensed take, see "Where Is Wisdom To Be Found? Rethinking the Song of Songs' Solomonic Setting," ZAW. Anyways, the idea of Wisdom's espousal of the king has a room for a Christian baptismal reinterpretation, which honestly makes me think the Christian Gnostics ironically hit upon some of the best interpretations in their baptismal rites, i.e., the Trimorphic Protennoia, aside and apart from their fallen creator dualism. This also may speak to your recent piece on the incarnations of the divine in kings and prophets.
Looking forward to reading this one. Sophiology one of the main focuses of my YouTube channel Grail Country, got excited when I saw the subject. Know what I am doing on my lunch break.
one of my favorites of yours
I’m a quiet admirer of you writings but I particularly enjoyed this. I’ve never really understood the paranoia about Mary in Protestant and even many catholic and orthodox circles. St Lawrence of Brindisi called her “the crowned goddess of heaven”. There’s also a renowned carmelite work that says as much-“if it can be said of the saints they were changed into god by grace, what of her who is the mother of God? let one who reflects on these matters understand that in a real sense can be called and is a goddess”. Maybe it’s my sensibility to reference the feminine side of reality, but it seems clear she is the appointed and created goddess of the universe according to the will of the Trinity. Providing we understand the principles of grace and participation, it seems silly to worry about it. Mary isn’t God as in gif himself, absolute being, but she is the goddess through absolute theosis. Sure we don’t want to over mythologize her as though she wasn’t a historical human, but she became more than human and even “more than a creature” to quote sergius. People intuitively respond to Mary as a goddess once they understand her dignity. It seems awkward falling over ourselves to make sure we don’t give off the impression she wasn’t God. People find Mary compelling and attractive spiritually, I don’t have much to do with the institutional church these days but I have never lost my profound respect for her. I appreciate this great writing abs it was a very devotional experience for me. Thank you!
The poor axolotl getting stepped on, they are sweet little things.
Also very interesting article! I guess I've never thought of the fact that theosis and the theophanic nature of the world do mean Mary is literally a goddess.
I’m Orthodox.
The saints are gods
The Theotokos is my goddess,
And I Worship her in all humility.
Clothe me with the purple of your purity
As if in the long robe of the priestly vesture
And accept from my mouth this sacrifice
As if it were a libation offered up in a sacred vessel.
On the whole a great speculative and thoughtful interreligious exercise. After reading through it twice, the one aspect that seems to leave me a bit off-put is the line from the goddess as the wife or consort of YHWH in a highly sexualized sense, and that later being "straightforwardly" the Virgin Mary. Some of the through line here starts to feel a bit too generalized, if we are taking something as conceptually loose as the divine feminine as an absolute archetype, and then attempt to create a chain that links it all together, the sequence really just feels chronological and too easy to forge the connections when the bonds are so generalized.
I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with anything here, but something about the sequence of the chain seems to be internally disquieting to me in some sense, so I'm just trying to tease that out in real time.
Nope. (Unless it’s just that you and I have different definitions of the word “goddess,” which seems very likely.) Think about it: what would Mary say if you asked her “Are you a goddess?” She’d lol, probably pat you on the head and send you outside to go play.
Seriously, go ask her. See what she says.
Hey, David. I hope you're still reading old comments. Anyhow, I don't know if you have an account on Academia, but Nina S. Heereman has just posted a rather daring thesis, which honestly I've thought about before, albeit in a less organized manner, on reading the Song of Songs as originally a royal marriage between Lady Wisdom as revelatory goddess (Goddess?) to Solomon, on the model of Ishtar to Dumuzi, perhaps in its original intent. Heereman apparently has a fairly long book coming out, about 900 pp., which I hope to read as soon it comes out. I highly recommend it. For a condensed take, see "Where Is Wisdom To Be Found? Rethinking the Song of Songs' Solomonic Setting," ZAW. Anyways, the idea of Wisdom's espousal of the king has a room for a Christian baptismal reinterpretation, which honestly makes me think the Christian Gnostics ironically hit upon some of the best interpretations in their baptismal rites, i.e., the Trimorphic Protennoia, aside and apart from their fallen creator dualism. This also may speak to your recent piece on the incarnations of the divine in kings and prophets.
Looking forward to reading this one. Sophiology one of the main focuses of my YouTube channel Grail Country, got excited when I saw the subject. Know what I am doing on my lunch break.