@johann, a bit of points left brother:
@StephenAndrew @Dr_S
@SincereSeeker
Catholic hermeneutics employs sensus plenior of scripture, recognising that divine revelation unfolds progressively through the Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13 “He will guide you into all truth”). The sensus plenior of texts like Luke 1:28 (kecharitomene) and John 2:1-11 (“They have no wine”) shows an intercessory role. For example, the typological identification of Mary as the “new Eve” (chawwah, Genesis 3:20) by St.Irenaeus draws on Genesis 3:15 (etsvah, enmity between the woman and the serpent), fulfilled in Mary’s fiat (genotio moi, Luke 1:38). The sensus plenior also informs the identification of Mary as the “woman clothed with the sun”, mother of the Church, a doctrine developed through patristic exegesis. (like St.Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity)
The catholic synthesis of scripture, tradition, and Magisterium rests on a realist epistemology, contra the nominalist tendency of the Protestant sola scriptura. Drawing on Thomistic metaphysics, revelation is a participatio divinae naturae (meaning “participation in divine nature”, 2 Peter 1:4) mediated through the Church as the corpus mysticum Christi (Ephesians 1:22-23). The Magisterium, as the intellectus fidei (understanding of faith) ensures that Mariological doctrines such as Mary s role in the dispensatio gratiae remain coherent with the depositum fidei.
**This contrasts with Protestant reliace in private interpretation, which risks hermeneutical fragmentation ( as in 2 Peter 1:20, “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”)
Sola scriptura is a debatable topic, but the canon of scripture itself derives from the Church’s tradition (Council of Rome, 382; Carthage, 397). The absence of explicit Marian titles in scripture doesn’t negate their legitimacy as the sensus plenior reveals implicit truths (as in Luke 1:43, “mother of my Lord”). The Protestant rejection of tradition, I feel, ignores the historical reality that the early Church relied on oral paradosis before the canon’s codification ( eg, Acts 2:42 “the teaching of the apostles”). Mariology, including Marian titles like Mediatrix, is a legitimate development as seen in St.Bernard’s invenitrix gratiae and the Mater Ecclesiae doctrine.
Coming back to the devotional rhetoric of The Glories of Mary such as “Mary is our life because she obtains for us the pardon of our sins” must be understood in its historical context, i feel
Liguori’s 18th century work shows the Baroque spirituality which employs poetic hyperbole to inspire devotion. The phrase “our life” connects with Johannine zōē (spiritual life, John 10:10) signifying grace mediated through Mary’s intercession, not her autonomous power. St.Bernard’s description of Mary as “the finder of grace” clarifies that she obtains grace from Christ. (referred to The Glories of Mary, Chapter 2, section 1).
Liguori cites Helen, a sinner led to repentance through rosary, illustrating Mary’s role in guiding souls to Christ’s sacraments. This aligns with James 5:16 (“pray for one another”), showing intercession as a communal act.
But Im oriental orthodox but here I feel i should take the stance of the Catholic since the orthodox and catholic doctrine on Mary is very similar.
My love with you, @Johann
Peace
Sam