THE EARLIEST BRIDE AND GROOM
When the Pope reminded the nuns that the Church is married to Jesus the Bridegroom, what was that all about? 1
The Vaticanites have arranged their whole belief system, their liturgy, and their administration around the idea that maleness matters and females don’t matter. At the altar, the priest supposedly acts “in persona Christi Capitis,” that is, in the person of the head of the Christ, who is Jesus the Bridegroom. So a woman could not do that priestly job because she is a woman and because she is not a man – like Jesus the Bridegroom. That’s their line.
Where does this idea of the Bride and Bridegroom come from? From the Pagans before Christianity. S Pagans had a sacred marriage ceremony that involved a sex ritual commemorating how the Bride (the Goddess) miraculously resurrected her Bridegroom (her son) and mated with him. Now in the Catholic Church, the Bride is “the People of God.” Don’t ask me how the priest personifying Jesus mates with the People of God. Far too complicated for this page.
There is an exciting archeological discovery of stone circles in Bruniquel Cave in France, constructed approximately 176,500 years ago by Neanderthals. 2 I wonder if the circles have something to do with the Bride and Bridegroom. The article on the discovery does not mention this. However, it says there are two circles. Could a circle represent a Bride (a pregnant womb??) and could the numerous posts represent the Bridegroom (phallic symbols??). Could this be the first Bride and Bridegroom art ever?
This is the photo C I am commenting on. Do you see a circle and posts?
Maybe not the earliest Bride and Bridegroom if you take a look at the photo that may come up when your Windows 10 starts – the scene of a cave with a view of the ocean, location unknown to me. (Go to Settings > Personalization > Lock screen. Under Background, select Picture – if you want to add it.) In the cave wall you see a mini-cave, debris filled, and its entrance is the precise outline of a chevron (female vulva) and next to it on the upper right, the outline of a phallus in bas-relief. Out in the ocean two rocks protrude, eroded by the elements, but perhaps at one time shaped to the same designs, one male, one female. How old is this art? No way for me to tell.
This is a clip of the photo I am commenting on. M Do you see the chevron?
The circles, pillars, and posts at Stonehenge in England and a much earlier set of circles and pillars at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey are both well known. Amazing that there is the same basic pattern of circles and pillars even though these constructions are separated by thousands of years. Did these represent wombs and penises?
Are the ornate and very tall candlesticks at a Catholic Mass vestiges of posts? And why is the baptismal font always round?
Well maybe sometimes a circle is just a circle and a cigar is just a cigar.
But since Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, perhaps more than their genes were shared – perhaps their concepts of art and religion were shared also.
The Pope put wombs in the spotlight with his famous quote, “In this sense, I like to describe the feminine dimension of the Church as a welcoming womb that regenerates life.” 3
Oh, that’s interesting. Maybe the Neanderthal womb-circles in Bruniquel Cave could represent “regeneration,” sort of like resurrection. Perhaps by placing their dead within the symbolic womb-circle in the cave, the Neanderthals hoped in some sense to preserve the life energy of their loved ones and allow them to be born again.
Maybe after so many tens of thousands of years it is time for less emphasis on a simple biological function – sex. Is sex overrated? Time for less emphasis on birthing. Enough already with the sacred, welcoming, regenerating wombs.
Maybe we need a spirituality that goes beyond girls must wear pink and boys must wear blue. And women are walking wombs and men are priests. And women with their supposed “feminine genius” are “complementary” to men – just Vaticanite code for women are not welcome at the altar because they lack that all-important male genius.
Did the Neanderthals let their females participate in whatever ritual went on in the cave? Maybe not, if their females were complementary
Some residue of the Goddess remains in the various Mary’s in the Gospel. The Goddess was both Bride and Mother to her son. But Mary is not Mother-Bride. Rather, there is Mary the Mother and there is Mary the Magdalene and other Mary’s.
While we know that Mary is the mother of the Church and the mother of Jesus (Vatican Catechism #963), it does get confusing to hear that the Church is Holy Mother Church and “she” is the Bride. Obviously the mother of Jesus is not the same mother as his Church-Bride.
But do the Vaticanites all know this? How many Catholics know what the Vatican has posted on its website in its Catechism. Would you bet that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all Catholics have read the Catechism?
Pardon me while I scold a bit and say that the Vatican could do much better to explain the beliefs of millions of Catholics in a way that is correct. The errors in the Catechism should be corrected.
Consider this error in the Catechism: #813 “there is . . . one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her ‘Church.’” While the Church has been called virgin and mother, she is not the only one, not unless you want the Virgin Mother of Jesus to be his bride.
In this next Catechism quote, Jesus marries his mother’s “humanity.” #2675: “. . . . the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused.”
A first step would be to clean up the Catechism so that the mother is not the bride, and also eliminate all passages that have the bride confused with the mother (such as #773), or the bride compared to the mother (#2618), or the bride becoming more and more like the mother (#829, 972 and more??).
These passages are unseemly and harken back to Pagan times when that savior’s mother was his bride. S
The Gospel itself allows its Pagan audience to get a bit confused. John does not say who is the Bride at Cana – and only names one woman – the mother. John keeps the suspense going until the last moment in Chapter 20. Then we see Mary the Magdalene weeping at Jesus’ tomb, so is she the Bride, fulfilling the traditional role of weeper? But then she leaves and the “disciple Jesus loved” appears. Is that disciple (male word in Greek so translated “he/him”) really a woman – the mother? Then that disciple goes away and a “Mary” is suddenly there (20:11). Which Mary? To which Mary does Jesus say, “Mary, don’t touch me.” Then finally, in 20:18, we learn it is the Magdalene who had somehow returned to the scene and gets the commission to tell the other disciples about Jesus’ resurrection.
There is at least the possibility in John that both his Mother and his Bride were at Jesus’ tomb.
There is more confusion along these lines in the Roman Missal that the priest uses to say Mass. The illustration opposite the Eucharistic Prayer shows a Mary. Is it the Mother, maybe as Mary-Priest – She who brings Her son into the world in order to obtain his saving blood for us – She lifts the chalice on high to catch the spurting blood from the one crucified. Or is it the Magdalene, with her hands superimposed on Jesus’ loincloth, suggestively draped as a phallus symbol. Is the woman in the picture the Mother or the Bride? Or both?
Did the author of the Book of John have an Oedipus Complex? I guess not. Rather, he or she was trying to lead people away from the Mother/Bride. S/he wrote in riddles to get attention and entertain.
By scarcely mentioning the Bride and Bridegroom, the Paulists were trying to lead people away from that incest.
Why not retain the Bride and Bridegroom – a sanitized version, not the incestuous one – and bring them out for liturgies for actual wedding ceremonies? At all other times, let them stay in the dust bin of history.
Oh alright, we can still lay a circular wreath on a fresh burial to symbolize regeneration in Her eternal womb. We can still place a circular wreath on a door at Christmas to commemorate the Virgin birth when She brought forth all creation and then her savior son from Her sacred womb.
The Vaticanite notion of a Bridegroom with no Bride other than “People” or “Church” would have to be a bizzare distortion of the original tradition of uncountable millennia. Even the Book of John (3:29 (Mounce)) says, “It is the bridegroom who has the bride,” (Jesus and a Mary??). It does not say there is a Bridegroom with no Bride, other than people in the pews. But I admit a priest-people hookup is better than having the congregation view a Pagan sex ritual – with real sex.
The Bride does evolve into the “New Jerusalem” in Revelation, but that is different from a nuptial between priest and pew potatoes. The New Jerusalem serves as the home for the Lamb and its Light. This is not marriage but rather womb imagery – the Great Mother/Bride holding in Her sacred womb her savior son. Or the believer holding in her consciousness the Spirit. Or the pew potatoes holding in their hearts the living God. Not pew potatoes marrying the priest.
If this view of Revelation is slightly different from what I have elsewhere on this blog, forgive me. I am evolving, too.
Has anyone noticed how unseemly this bridegroom stuff is?
Pope Francis says, “The Church is woman … she is a woman married to Jesus Christ, she has
her Bridegroom, who is Jesus Christ… . And a woman’s consecration makes her the very icon of the Church and icon of Our Lady.” We all know the Church is the “Bride” and we all know the Church is “Holy Mother Church.” So who exactly is the Bridegroom married to? A Bride who is a Mother. When the Pope says that the consecrated woman is the icon of the Church AND the icon of Our Lady, doesn’t that make Our Lady an icon of the Church? (a=b, a=c, therefore, b=c) Didn’t the Pope just make Mary into the Bride?
Pope quote from: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/its-time-be-honest-about-pope-francis-and-women May 19, 2016 NCR by Jamie Manson
Am I naïve to think that Catholicism should be what I learned in Catholic high school, not what these guys have on their website? It is bad enough that these guys are so disrespectful of women, but disrespect for the Queen of Heaven? Maybe this is religion for adults Vatican-style, patriarchy accompanied by smirks and winks about a woman they call holy, who is after all, just the village maiden. The one who is “obedient.” What a travesty.
Probably this Mother/Bride stuff tells us everything we need to know about the Vaticanites and tells us nothing about God.
Frankly, we don’t need gender roles in religion, especially not if the female roles are “complementary” as the Vaticanites phrase it; women limited to being supplemental.
I feel like I am a whole person made in the image of God, not an accessory to maleness.
1. National Catholic Reporter – what the Pope said about Jesus the Bridegroom
2. The Atlantic – Astonishing Bruniquel Cave in France
3. National Catholic Reporter – women as welcoming wombs
C. Link to original photo of Bruniquel Cave in France
M. Link to original photo of Microsoft ocean cave
S. Impressions on ancient Pagan religion drawn from Merlin Stone, When God Was A Woman, Barnes & Noble Books, NY, 1976, 1993.
Z. Link to CNS photo of illustration in Roman Missal
CH. Catholic Herald page with cite to Roman Missal photo by Nancy Phelan Wiechec of CNS and no photo
Links to Vatican Catechism passages above regarding Mother and Bride:
This is confusing because “the bride without spot or wrinkle” obviously refers to the Bride, yet this phrase, at least in English, appears to modify “Mary” rather than “Church,” because the reader sees that “Church’s mystery” modifies “holiness,” and the reader does not connect “wrinkles” or lack thereof with “mystery” or a “Church,” but rather with a woman, “Mary,” and makes the assumption that “Mary goes before us . . . as the bride.”
“What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her “Church.’”
This is a Catechism error: “there is . . . one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her ‘Church.’” While the Church has been called virgin and mother, she is not the only one, not unless you want the Virgin Mother of Jesus to be his bride.
“’But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. and so they turn their eyes to Mary’:306 in her, the Church is already the ‘all-holy.’”
I’m not sure what this is saying – the Church-Bride strives to attain holiness, but in some sense it is already the all-holy Mother Mary? The Bride is already like the Mother?
“Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”
“. . . looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own ‘pilgrimage of faith,’ and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, ‘in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,’ ‘in the communion of all the saints,’516 The Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.
In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God”
May I ask how Mary can be the “image of the Church” when the Church is the Bride? So Mary looks like the Bride?? Or Mary looks like how the Bride will look when she is “perfected”? There will come a time when Mary and the Bride are indistinguishable from one another?? And where is the Bridegroom in this picture??
“At Cana,89 The mother of Jesus asks her son for the needs of a wedding feast; this is the sign of another feast – that of the wedding of the Lamb where he gives his body and blood at the request of the Church, his Bride.”
The wedding where the Mother asks Jesus for something is compared to the wedding where the Bride asks Jesus for something. At Cana the Mother asks for wine (the color of blood). At the wedding of the Lamb, the Bride asks for blood. The Cana wedding is supposedly a “sign” of the other. How can the Mother be a sign of the Bride, and this still be a Christian explanation?
Jesus marries his mother’s “humanity.” Here Mary is both Bride and Mother. She is human, not divine. So when Jesus marries his mother’s humanity, he marries her.
Vatican Catechism Compendium
“30. . . . the Church is Mother and Teacher. ‘No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.’”
So the Church is our mother. Got it.
“100. In what way is the spiritual motherhood of Mary universal? 501-507, 511
“Mary had only one Son, Jesus, but in him her spiritual motherhood extends to all whom he came to save. Obediently standing at the side of the new Adam, Jesus Christ, the Virgin is the new Eve, the true mother of all the living, who with a mother’s love cooperates in their birth and their formation in the order of grace. Virgin and Mother, Mary is the figure of the Church, its most perfect realization.”
So Mary is our mother. Got it. And Mary is the figure of the Church. So the Bride looks like the Mother?
“142. What is the work of the Spirit in Mary? 721-726, 744
“The Holy Spirit brought to fulfillment in Mary all the waiting and the preparation of the Old Testament for the coming of Christ. In a singular way he filled her with grace and made her virginity fruitful so that she could give birth to the Son of God made flesh. He made her the Mother of the “whole Christ”, that is, of Jesus the Head and of the Church his body. Mary was present with the twelve on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit inaugurated the “last days” with the manifestation of the Church.”
So Mary is the mother of the Church his body. She is “fruitful.” See next quote where the Bride is “fruitful” and the mother of all the children of God, who are the body of Christ (members) with Jesus as the Head. So both Mary and the Bride are mother of all the pew sitters and also both Mary and Bride are fruitful.
“158. Why is the Church called the “Bride of Christ”? 796, 808
“She is called the “Bride of Christ” because the Lord himself called himself her “Spouse” (Mark 2:19). The Lord has loved the Church and has joined her to himself in an everlasting covenant. He has given himself up for her in order to purify her with his blood and “sanctify her” (Ephesians 5:26), making her the fruitful mother of all the children of God. While the term “body” expresses the unity of the “head” with the members, the term “bride” emphasizes the distinction of the two in their personal relationship.”
Actually, Mark 2:19 does not say “spouse.” Did you notice that here the Church is the “mother of all the children of God,” whereas above in #100 it says of Mary, “her spiritual motherhood extends to all whom he came to save, “ and she is “the true mother of all the living.” Thus, both the Mother and the Church-Bride are our mother. And that means logically, if one can only have one mother, she is Mother/Bride.
“197. How does the Virgin Mary help the Church? 965-970, 974-975
“After the Ascension of her Son, the Virgin Mary aided the beginnings of the Church with her prayers. Even after her Assumption into heaven, she continues to intercede for her children,“
In the previous item’s heading, #196 (not shown), Mary is the Mother of the Church. But here she is also the mother of the “children” who comprise the Church, even though the Church is mother and teacher.
“199. In what way is the Blessed Virgin Mary the eschatological icon of the Church? 972
“Looking upon Mary, who is completely holy and already glorified in body and soul, the Church contemplates in her what she herself is called to be on earth and what she will be in the homeland of heaven.”
So someday the Church-Bride will be indistinguishable from the Mother of the Church. Where is the Bridegroom in this picture?
“546. How did the Virgin Mary pray? 2617, 2618, 2622, 2674, 2679
“Mary’s prayer was characterized by faith and by the generous offering of her whole being to God. The Mother of Jesus is also the new Eve, the ‘Mother of all the living’. She prays to Jesus for the needs of all people.”
Again, Mother of all the living.
“547. Is there a prayer of Mary in the Gospel? 2619
“Along with the prayer of Mary at Cana in Galilee, the Gospel gives us the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) which is the song both of the Mother of God and of the Church, the joyous thanksgiving that rises from the hearts of the poor because their hope is met by the fulfillment of the divine promises.”
Here it says that is the prayer of both the Mother of God and of the Church. So both the Mother and the Bride have the same prayer. Well, two mothers can have the same prayer, just not the same children. Unless a surrogate mother?
The Vatican Catechism/Compendium and the whole notion of Bride and Bridegroom need a thorough re-evaluation. These documents need to be rewritten by someone who knows Catholicism.
Posted on: September 10, 2016