No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
The celebrating of a Marian Year in 1987—8 helped to stimulate reflection on the process by which faith in God is evolving through the medium of the Church’s Marian tradition. By highlighting the figure of Mary, it posed the question: how are the Church’s Marian doctrines able to articulate their truth within the variety of contexts in which they are received?
In the period between Lumen Gentium and Redemptoris Mater* we have witnessed a theological debate concerning the symbolic character of statements made by the Church about Mary—a debate that questions whether the Church’s Marian doctrines are necessarily grounded in historical events. The purpose of this paper is to describe briefly the contours of the debate concerning theological statements about Mary and to suggest that Bernard Lonergan’s notion of conversion can provide a more adequate contemporary understanding of the ongoing role of Marian symbols and doctrines in the lives of believers.
1 Cf. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in Austin Flannery, O.P., general editor, Vatican Council II, Conciliar and Post‐Conciliar Documents. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Redemptoris Mater, AAS, March 25, 1987.
2 Cf.Johnson, Elizabeth, ‘The Symbolic Nature of Theological Statements about Mary’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:2 (1985), 312–336.Google Scholar
3 Johnson, op. cit., p.326.
4 L.G., §53.
5 L.G., §52.
6 L.G., §63.
7 L.G., §65.
8 L.G., §65.
9 For a summary discussion of symbolic language, cf. Dulles, Avery, ‘Symbolic Mediation’, Models of revelation. (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 131–154Google Scholar.
10 Ibid.
11 Johnson, op. cit., p. 313.
12 Ibid., p. 323.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., p. 329.
15 Ibid., p. 330.
16 Ibid., p. 330.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 331.
19 Ibid.
20 The fact that Johnson is publishing in an ecumenical journal obviously colours her presentation; the attempt may well be to demonstrate that while Roman Catholics and others affirm these doctrines as grounded in fact, ecumenical dialogue is possible on the symbolic level.
21 Flanagan, Neal, ‘Mary of Nazareth: Lady for all Seasons’, Listening 22 (3) 1987, 170–180, p. 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Dennis, Doyle, ‘The Symbolic Element in Belief: An Alternative to Tillich’, The Thomist 45 (1981), 449–472, p. 458. Doyle acknowledges that the New Symbol is not original in his work; he introduces it here as a corrective to Tillich's notion of symbols as transitory.Google Scholar
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., p. 466.
26 Ibid.
27 Lonergan, Bernard, Method in Theology. (Minneapolis, MN: The Winston‐Seabury Press, 1972), p. 64Google Scholar.
28 Ibid., p. 65.
29 Ibid., p. 66.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., p. 67.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., p. 106.
34 Ibid., p. 238.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., p. 327.
You have
Access