What exactly is that extant Marian prayer you mentioned?
The Latin incipit is
Sub tuum praesidium. Wikipedia's translation from the original Greek is: "Beneath your compassion, we take refuge, O Mother of God: do not despise our petitions in time of trouble: but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one." To be honest, the Mariology here is too maximalist even for me, which is saying something.
I'm not an expert on this, and not
super-interested in the subject, but here's what #analysis I have:
First and most importantly: The entire Bible, regardless of when and why its human authors put pen to paper, is Divinely inspired and is normative for Christian faith and morals.Pauline epistles: Mostly written when and under what circumstances they say they were, possibly with a few exceptions.
Mark: Written around the same time as the Pauline epistles,
i.e. ~50s, probably under the circumstances in which it's traditionally said to have been written.
Matthew and Luke: Recensions of Mark adding other firsthand accounts, probably ~60s or ~70s. My crackpot Catholic hack theory is that the authors were probably close to the Virgin Mary (which is in fact traditionally said to be true of Luke).
John: Written by John, the beloved Apostle, towards the end of his life in the ~80s or ~90s.
Acts: Continuation of the narrative of Luke by the same author.
Johannine epistles: Also written by John.
Revelation: May also have been written by John, but, if it was, removed in date from the Gospel and epistles by a number of years, hence the significant stylistic differences. Alternately, written by another man named John working within the same tradition. I favor a signifcantly earlier date for Revelation than most historical-critical scholars.
Miscellaneous epistles: No idea so I tend to default to the traditional view.
Bonus, non-canonical:
Protoevangelium of James: Mostly true events, but written by some insufferable hack who wanted to promote Mary even more than was deserved, presumably without her involvement because she never committed a sin.
I really don't know, sorry. I wonder this too. I certainly hope so.
In Adams, Massachusetts, there were historically two Catholic parishes, Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs (traditionally Quebecois) and St. Stanislaus Kostka (traditionally Polish). In 2009, the Diocese of Springfield, led by the unbelievably slimy and now thankfully retired Bishop Timothy McDonnell, consolidated the parishes into one, Blessed John Paul II (now, of course,
St. John Paul II), which was supposed to exclusively use the Notre Dame building. I suspect the name of the new parish was intended to be a bone thrown to the Poles whose (absolutely beautiful) church was being shuttered; if that was the case, then it was an unsatisfying bone, because the former St. Stanislaus parishioners started a round-the-clock vigil to protest the closing of their church, which went on for
three years. Finally the diocese agreed to reopen the church and have the combined parish celebrate the earlier of its two Sunday morning Masses there. Similar accommodations were reached in Northampton, in which
five parishes were conglomerated into one, but some of the other buildings continued to be used for certain purposes (there are things I love about Northampton but the sea of faith has pretty much gone the way of the Aral there). I think these sorts of accommodations are a far better, more culturally and historically responsible solution than just shuttering parishes and calling it a day.
