The Blessed Virgin in the History of Christianity [Ecumenical]

Insight Scoop ^ | January 1, 2009 | John A. Hardon, S.J.

[NYer]

Christianity would be meaningless without the Blessed Virgin. Her quiet presence opened Christian history at the Incarnation and will continue to pervade the Church's history until the end of time.

Our purpose in this meditation is to glance over the past two thousand years to answer one question: What are the highlights of our Marian faith as found in the Bible and the teaching of the Catholic Church?

New Testament

The first three evangelists were mainly concerned with tracing Christ's ancestry as Son of Man and, therefore, as Son of Mary. St. Matthew, writing for the Jews, stressed Christ's descent from Abraham. St. Luke, disciple of St. Paul, traced Christ's origin to Adam, the father of the human race. Yet both writers were at pains to point out that Mary's Son fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah about the Messiah. He was to be born of a virgin to become Emmanuel, which means "God with us." Luke gave a long account of the angel's visit to Mary to announce that the Child would be holy and would be called the "Son of God" (Luke 1:36).

St. John followed the same pattern. He introduced Mary as the Mother of Jesus when He began His public ministry. In answer to her wishes, Christ performed the miracle of changing water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana in Galilee. What happened then has continued ever since. Most of the miraculous shrines of Christianity have been dedicated to Our Lady.

It is also St. John who tells us that Mary stood under the Cross of Calvary as her Son was dying for our salvation. Speaking of John, Jesus told His Mother, "This is your son." To John, He said of Mary, "This is your Mother." The apostle John represented all of us. On Good Friday, therefore, Christ made His Mother the supernatural Mother of the human race and made us her spiritual children.

Mother of God

In the early fifth century, a controversy arose in Asia Minor, where the Bishop of Constantinople claimed that Mary was only the Mother of Christ (Greek=Christotokos). He was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, which declared that "the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Greek=Theotokos).

St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, was mainly responsible for this solemn definition of Mary's divine maternity. It was St. Cyril who thus composed the most famous Marian hymn of antiquity. It is a praise of Our Lady as Mediatrix with God:

Through you, the Trinity is glorified.
Through you, the Cross is venerated throughout the world.
Through you, angels and archangels rejoice.
Through you, the demons are driven away.
Through you, the fallen creature is raised to heaven.
Through you, the churches are founded in the whole orld.
Through you, people are led to conversion.

Every other title of Mary and all the Marian devotion of the faithful are finally based on the Blessed Virgin's primary claim to our extraordinary love. She is the Mother of God. She gave her Son all that every human mother gives the child she conceives and gives birth to. She gave Him His human body. Without her, there would have been no Incarnation, no Redemption, no Eucharist; in a word, no Christianity.

Mary's Virginity

Logically related to her divine maternity is Our Lady's perpetual virginity. From the earliest days the Church has taught that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, in giving His birth, and after His birth in Bethlehem.

All of this is already stated or implied in the Gospels. In St. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, all the previous ancestors are called "father." But then we are told there came "Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ" (Matthew 1:16). St. Luke twice identifies Mary as "virgin," who "knows not man."

Already in the early Church, those who questioned Christ's divinity were the same ones who denied His Mother's virginity. As explained by St. Augustine, "When God vouchsafed to become Man, it was fitting that He should be born in this way. He who was made of her, had made her what she was: a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth; a virgin with child, a virgin labored of child-a virgin ever virgin."

Given the fact of the Incarnation, its manner follows as a matter of course. Why should not the Almighty who created His Mother have also preserved the body of which He would be born? But this appropriateness of Mary's virginity makes sense only if you believe that Mary's Son is the living God.

Immaculate Conception

Mary's freedom from sin, present at her conception, is already taught by St. Ephraem in the fourth century. In one of his hymns, he addresses Our Lord, "Certainly you alone and your Mother are from every aspect completely beautiful. There is no blemish in you my Lord, and no stain in your Mother."

By the seventh century, the feast of Mary's Immaculate Conception was celebrated in the East. In the eight century, the feast was commemorated in Ireland, and from there spread to other countries in Europe.

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some leading theologians, even saints, raised objections to the Immaculate Conception. Their main difficulty was how Mary could be exempt from all sin before the coming of Christ. Here the Franciscan Blessed John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) stood firm and paved the way for the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Blessed Pius IX in 1854.

In the words of Pope Blessed Pius IX, "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception . . . was preserved from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Four years after the definition, Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette in Lourdes, identifying herself as the Immaculate Conception. The numerous miracles at Lourdes are a divine confirmation of the doctrine defined by Pius IX. They are also a confirmation of the papal primacy defined by the First Vatican Council under the same Bishop of Rome.

Assumption into Heaven

Not unlike his predecessor, Pope Pius XII defined Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven. On November 1, 1950, the pope responded to the all but unanimous request of the Catholic hierarchy by making a formal definition:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare and define as divinely revealed dogma: the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed body and soul to the glory of heaven.

The day after the definition, Pius XII told the assembled hundreds of bishops his hope for the future: May this new honor given to Mary introduce "a spirit of penance to replace the prevalent love of pleasure and a renewal of family life stabilized where divorce was common and made fruitful where birth control was practiced." If there is one feature that characterizes the modern world, observed the Pope, it is the worship of the body. Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven reminds us of our own bodily resurrection on the last day, provided we use our bodies on earth according to the will of God.

Mother of the Church

Never in the history of Christianity has any general council spoken at such length and with such depth about Mary as the Second Vatican Council.
This is not surprising in view of the extraordinary devotion to the Blessed Virgin in our day. What the Council did was put this devotion into focus and spell out its doctrinal foundation.

First a quiet admonition. The council "charges that practices and exercises of devotion to her be treasured as recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries." True Marian piety consists neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain empty credulity.

Rather authentic devotion to Mary "proceeds from true faith by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and are moved to filial love toward our Mother and to the invitation of her virtues" (Constitution on the Church, 67-8).
What are we being told? We are told that true devotion to Our Lady is shown in a deep love of her as our Mother, put into practice by the imitation of her virtues-especially her faith, her chastity and charity.

These are the three virtues that the modern world most desperately needs.

• Like Mary, we need to believe that everything which God has revealed to us will be fulfilled.
• Like Mary, we need to use our bodily powers to serve their divine purpose no matter what the sacrifice of our own pleasure.
• Like Mary, we are to be always sensitive to the needs of others. Like her, we are to respond to these needs without being asked and, like her, even ask Jesus to work a miracle to benefit those whom we love.

No wonder the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this astounding profession of faith: "We believe that the most holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven her maternal role toward the members of Christ." It all depends on our faith in her maternal care and our trust in her influence over the almighty hand of her Son.

[Jaded]

mark

[Jvette]

We should all be grateful for Mary's faith and obedience to the word and giving birth and raising our Savior. But there is nothing to suggest that another person could not have been chosen by God to have done it had Mary not.

You are right, and were it another, she would be the object of Catholic doctrine. The point is that God had to depend on a human woman to acquiesce to His plan, as He does not force Himself on anyone. You throw out the canard with this statement. Mary was the chosen of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. She is whom she is and we are grateful for her.

Why do Protestants reject her so? I have heard it said that Mary, the Apostles, the saints and the prophets are no better than anyone else. True only in the sense that they were human. But, completely untrue in that God chose them for His purpose and that elevates them. What Catholics believe about Mary takes nothing away from Jesus or His mission of salvation. She adds to it. There is nothing lost by devotion to her, only Jesus to gain.

[Jvette]

That is why I perfer the use of the title Mother of Jesus, which is biblical.

Is Jesus somehow separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Where one is, all are. Therefore Mary was Mother to God.

[Jvette]

Just wow!

[Jvette]

Thank you for that translation. What a beautiful verse, it can only be about our Blessed Mother, Mary most holy.

[John Leland 1789]

“Why do Protestants reject her so?”

Seems a very odd question.

Are people told to receive her? You said that she is what she is. Protestants and other Christians believe exactly that.

[Jvette]

I reject the Mother of God line. Elevation of Mary to an exalted status, sharing in any way in our redemption, serving in any way in our access to the Son is bordering on idolatry. It is not Scriptural; it is not acceptable.

It would seem then, that your beef is with God, for it was His actions which elevated her. It was God's choice that Mary should share in the redemptive nature of Jesus' life. Had He so wanted, Jesus could have dropped out of the sky, fully grown. Ah, but that was not as God willed. Instead, He willed that Jesus would be born of a woman. There is nothing in Catholic Marian doctrine that is unScriptural. It is only those outside of the Catholic Church who say so. And, I reject your beliefs as being unScriptural.

[Jvette]

Classic which came first. Peter or Scripture? Oh maybe not, after all even protestants know that Peter did. Right?

[Jvette]

Yes, as a matter of fact we are. Christ offered her as our mother when he was dying on the cross. We can accept her and receive her love and guidance or we can reject her. Protestants do not accept her as she is, they reject the glorious titles attributed to her by the Church. I believe that the rejection is mostly driven as a repudiation of the Church.

[Jvette]

I have been following the discussion between you and iscool and I must say that you have an excellent grasp of Catholic theology. It has been a pleasure to read, thank you for taking the time and energy to write such coherent and thought provoking posts.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Of course you can’t get saved against your will...That’s not even worth a conversation...”

Oh, but it is worth a conversation. If you can’t be saved against your will, then it must be by cooperation.

Now, seeing that it took you half a dozen or more posts to finally admit that a man can’t be saved against his will, I would not be surprised if you try to avoid the import of that point at all costs. Will you merely dismiss your admission? Will you claim it is irrelevant when it is actually at the heart of the matter?

“As usual, you guys take that verse out of context...That verse goes right along with the one that says we must overcome...”

I took nothing out of context and your point just buried you again. If our cooperation is unnecessary, then why must we “overcome” anything? That was your very word - “overcome”. Why “must” we “overcome” anything if we must not “cooperate”?

I thought the Protestant ideal was that we did nothing but “accept” Jesus. Now you’re telling us we must overcome something. Sounds like work to me. And you didn’t even mention God or grace in that overcoming. Interesting.

“But then John throws a monkey wrench into your gears and telss us we have overcome already...”

But James says that we WILL overcome through our endurance - which implies our cooperation with God’s grace. James 1:12:
“Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”

Can we endure temptation on our own? No. But we also can’t do it without cooperating with God’s grace.

And notice how I not only mention something from the Bible, but I actually mention the author, the verse and post the verse itself? So far, all we have from you is an assertion about “John [throwing] a monkey wrench”. But, thankfully, I actually know the Bible, and am more than happy to assist you. You are probably referring to 1 John and his five mentionings of overcoming in chapters 2, 4 and 5. Right?

Are you trying to say that these verses which OSAS believers say show assurance of salvation some how work for your argument? Sorry, no chance there. You see, in verse 28 of chapter 2 John says: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.”

Notice how John tells the Christians to abide in Christ so they have confidence at the judgment? Doesn’t sound like OSAS to me!

“You still don’t get it...Jesus has already paid the price...He didn’t pay just part of it...He payed all of it...”

Yes, He did. And if I resist His work, I won’t be saved. You see, I get it, but you don’t. You admit a man can’t be saved against his will - and that is OBVIOUSLY THE TRUTH - but you can’t see the rest of the truth - that we must cooperate with God or we will not be saved. God paid the price, but we must accept Him (as you’ve admitted)...and we must believe in Him (as you’ve admitted)...and we must commit to Him (as you might admit) and we must repent of our sins (as you’ve admitted). If that isn’t cooperation with the will of God, what is?

“Jesus has made us Righteous...Sin is not imputed to us...Do we commit sin??? Of course we do...We are filled with the Holy Spirit and He helps us fight the sin...”

Only if we cooperate with that help. God does not force grace on us. You want it both ways. On the one hand, in one post, you claim free will exists, but in another post you act as if God helps us against our will. Which is it?

Also, you just shot yourself in the foot again. Can a man lose the Holy Spirit? If a Spirit filled man renounces Christ and becomes a Hindu is the Spirit still dwelling in him as He once was? I ask for this simple reason: If the Holy Spirit can leave a man because the man’s actions are an offense to God, doesn’t that imply that the man must cooperate with the Holy Spirit to keep that relationship intact and full? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim - as I am almost positive you would - that a man through his apostasy can lose the Holy Spirit, but that that same man does not have to cooperate with the Spirit to keep that relationship intact. Apostasy would be the most outrageous form of not cooperating. So wouldn’t cooperating be the bare minimum a man to keep that relationship intact?

Will I have to post the above paragraph a half dozen or so times before you offer a response as happend with my simple point about men not being saved against their own will?

“Nope...Repent is turn to God...I already posted the Greek word and the definition...Commit??? No...God doesn’t want you to commit...God wants you to take HIM...He will do a good work in you...You can not do it...And if you commit (anything), it will be as a debt...That’s what grace is all about...”

So God does good works in men who are not open to Him? To be open to God - to “take Him” as you put it - would require a willingness to cooperate would it not? Again, if God doesn’t save you against your will, then isn’t your cooperation needed?

“Again you are wrong...Repent is not turn from sin...All you have to do is accept what Jesus offered...”

Actually to repent includes turning from sin. Either Christians are supposed to embrace sin (an impossibility and something God would never command us to do) or they are supposed to turn away from sin. There is no chance of it being otherwise. There can be no sincere repentence without a sincere desire to amends one’s ways. Again, we either reject sin or we embrace it. Rejecting it would be part of repentence. Embracing it would be death.

Now, if you actually look in the Bible, this is what you would discover about repentence: In Matthew 3:7–9, John says to the Pharisees: “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? Therefore, bear fruit worthy of repentance.” What can “bear fruit worthy of repentance,” be other than turn away from your previous actions and attitudes? It is a call to turn away from sin. Sincere repentance requires turning away from sin. John makes this all the more clear when he tells them in verse 8 or 9 that their lists of ancestors won’t help them in this. THEY must do something. THEY must turn away from the sins.

I had written:

Again, you flout scripture. How sad. Doesn’t the Word of God tell us to persevere until the end? Have younever read Hebrews 12:1? How about James 1:25? And did you notice the “doer of acts”?

You wrote [without answering any of my questions of course]: “Who is Hebrews written to??? Who is James written to???”

Who do you think? I asked you 4 questions and you answer with 2. Is that how you expect to get out of your corner? Is that how you expect to evade my questions perhaps? How desperate you might be about now, for this is easy for me, but for you so difficult. Again, Hebrews 12:1 - no matter who it is written to - tells us to persevere until the end. James 1:25 - no matter who it is written to - tells us to persevere. And we also saw today that 1 John 2:28 tells us we must abide in Christ so that we have confidence at our Last Judgment.

The scriptures are mounting against you. You did not list a single verse in your post. You have tacitly admitted the scriptures are against you.

“Acts is a transition book...It started out with everyone under the law...Peter didn’t even know Gentiles could come into the fold til ten chapters into the book...”

Almighty God revealed to Peter what he needed to know when he needed to know it in that regard. That belongs to the sovereignty of Almighty God. It is His alone. Still there was but one Gospel even if it were only preached to one people at that time, and there remained one Gospel even when it was later preached to more than one people. There is ONE Lord, ONE Faith, and ONE baptism.

“Acts ends up with the gospel of Grace...It’s a transition...”

No. Jewish Christians were saved by grace. Gentile Christians were saved by grace. There was only ONE Gospel, but two peoples to receive it. There was no transition from one Gospel to another. Both peoples needed Christ and needed grace to be saved and needed to cooperate with that grace to persevere. Jews had an advantage in that they already knew the history and doctrine of Judaism. But that did not preclude the salvation of Gentiles - for grace works on all people who cooperate with it. Nor did the inclusion of Gentile Christians demand a new or different Gospel. All were saved by Christ and His grace and all needed to cooperate with Christ and His grace or else they were damned forever.

“Not according to God...Turning to God is an act of faith...”

Yes, and if it is sincere it would include turning away from sin and cooperating with God.

This is easy for me, but increasingly difficult for you. You no longer even cite the scriptures.

[vladimir998]

Thank you very much! You made my day.

[LiteKeeper]

It was God's choice that Mary should share in the redemptive nature of Jesus' life.

This is the line that I object to. Mary was the means by which God was made incarnate. But Mary had absolutely nothing to do with our redemption beyond that. To say otherwise is to take away from what God alone accomplished. Quote to me any Scripture that says otherwise.

[Iscool]

Cooperate: collaborate: work together on a common enterprise of project

You're going to wear your keyboard out trying to convince yourself that you cooperated with God for your salvation...

Sorry, but no matter how much nor no matter how many times you try to twist and turn it, You don't work together with God for your salvation...

Salvation is a free GIFT...And if you didn't get it for free, without 'cooperating', you didn't get it...God doesn't hand it out to people who think they can work (cooperate) for it...

You use a verse in Matthew for proof that one must turn from sin to attain salvation...Problem is, salvation is no where in the verse...It's not even in the vicinity...Those people were confessing their sins with the goal of coming into the Kindgom of Heaven...They were looking for a King, not a Saviour...There was no Grace involved...And there were no Christians...

One thing you guys are consistant about is your choice of scripture...You guys use one verse out of the Pauline epistles, one verse out of Peter, and spend the rest of your time in Matthew, Hebrews, James, and the first few chapters of Acts...

And yes, you can find verses in those books that state 'works' are necessary for salvation...

But if you go to the Pauline epistles, the books written to the church(es), where the gospel of Grace was revealed, you'll see that works are no longer required...They were replaced by Grace...God's grace...

Are you trying to say that these verses which OSAS believers say show assurance of salvation some how work for your argument? Sorry, no chance there. You see, in verse 28 of chapter 2 John says: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.”

Just to make a point, do you see anything in that verse about salvation??? What you apparently don't know is that there will be many people that make it to Heaven but will be ashamed when they stand before Jesus...That verse has nothing to do with losing Salvation...

Also, you just shot yourself in the foot again. Can a man lose the Holy Spirit? If a Spirit filled man renounces Christ and becomes a Hindu is the Spirit still dwelling in him as He once was? I ask for this simple reason: If the Holy Spirit can leave a man because the man’s actions are an offense to God, doesn’t that imply that the man must cooperate with the Holy Spirit to keep that relationship intact and full? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim - as I am almost positive you would - that a man through his apostasy can lose the Holy Spirit, but that that same man does not have to cooperate with the Spirit to keep that relationship intact. Apostasy would be the most outrageous form of not cooperating. So wouldn’t cooperating be the bare minimum a man to keep that relationship intact?

Of course a Christian can't lose the Holy Spirit...Jesus says were are 'sealed' with the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption...

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

We can not lose the Holy Spirit but we can certainly 'grieve' the Holy Spirit by our bad actions...Our spirit is at war with our flesh...When the flesh wins, it grieves the Holy Spirit...

God would no more kick you out of His family than you would kick one of your kids out of yours...

Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

God may whip you, but he won't run you off...He'll be there waiting for you to come back just like the Prodigal Son...

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

[Jvette]

Yes, Jesus alone was able to open the gates heaven, but we must take the steps that lead us through those gates. Mary was needed, God could not accomplish the incarnation on His own, He is God, not human and though He could have created a human body for Jesus, it would not have been the same as the conception. You are wrong here my FRiend. Mary’s fiat was needed just as ours is.

I think that the confusion is in that some people believe that merely by His life, death and resurrection, Jesus saves all, but if you read carefully, you see that Jesus only makes it possible, we must accept that gift. Mary accepted Jesus even before she knew the fullness of His glory and His mission.

This doctrine does not take away from God. He chose not to accomplish this alone, HE chose to be born of woman. I did not make this choice, you did not make this choice, God did. Why then would He be diminished in any way by our veneration of the woman who said yes to both Jesus’ birth and His death. Remember, Jesus was not alone at His death. His mother was with Him. Remember in her own words, Our Blessed Mother says she magnifies Him. What could that mean other than through her eyes we see Him as He wanted as truly man and truly God?

[Jvette]

The entire New Testament is about how we share in the redemptive nature of Jesus. St. Paul speaks of how they reconcile us to God. Jesus tells the disciples to go out into the world spreading the good news and baptizing others. St. Paul declares that we must finish Jesus’ work, begun with His Incarnation.

While it is certainly true that without Jesus, none of it is possible. While it is certainly true that God at any time could just open the heavens and reveal Himself to all ensuring that every knee will bend to Him, that is not how God chose to redeem us. He has asked us to share in Jesus’ mission. Every time we love someone though we would rather not, every time we help someone, though we don’t really have the means, every time we forgive someone who has deeply injured us, every time we give Him praise and Glory, every time we reach out to Him in prayer, we are sharing in the redemptive work of Jesus.

[LiteKeeper]

You have an amazingly naive theology of redemption!

[FourtySeven]

Welcome home!

[FourtySeven]

Excellent post! That goes for your #155 too.

To “receive a gift” I must accept it. This is the most basic rational logical meaning of the phrase “receive a gift”. To “accept” it. This naturally implies cooperation on one’s part; for if one does not cooperate in the exchange of the gift from the Giver to the recipient, then the gift cannot be “received”. Without cooperation, the gift is rejected.

This follows from reason. If one gives their child a pair of socks for Christmas, and the kid throws them over his shoulder, that means the kid rejects the socks. One could “force” the socks on the kid, but once left alone, the kid would be free *then* to either continue wearing them or take them off. The kid must, at some point, *accept* the gift of the socks for them to be worn. The kid must cooperate with the giving of the gift, or else they will just remain in the drawer (or in the trash).

[the invisib1e hand]

And “home” it is. Thank you.