Sharing the Real Mary (with our Protestant brethren) [Ecumenical Caucus]

ic ^ | October 16, 2009 | David Mills

[NYer]

 

Many of our Protestant friends appreciate Mary in a way their ancestors didn't. This is a good thing. Some of them even like her a lot, and in a way that their ancestors would denounce. This is an even better thing. But there are limits, which too many Catholics just can't see.

 

By "Protestant" I'm thinking particularly of our Evangelical friends who are, in doctrinal seriousness and many other ways, close to us. For centuries they simply ignored Mary, even at Christmas. The only time they thought of her in any substantial way was when they were denouncing Catholic teaching, which they thought idolatrous, unbiblical, superstitious, and a rejection of the Lord Himself in favor of His mother.

 

She was for them, as an Evangelical pastor once said to me, just "the delivery system" needed to bring Jesus into the world. The Incarnation required a human mother; God picked Mary; she agreed, and in nine months Jesus was born. Since He had to have a mother, who it was didn't really matter. Having this child didn't change her in any way. Once Jesus was old enough to take of Himself, her small part in our salvation was over.

 

An Episcopal minister told me that Mary was well down the list of "great Christians." Asked for an example, he said she was well behind a 19th-century British missionary to Canada named Hudson Taylor. If you wanted an example of faithfulness, he said, look to Taylor before you look to Mary.

 

After all, he said, she didn't really do anything. She just had a baby.

 

 

But things are changing. One can guess at the reasons: The culture so promotes women that a heavily masculine tradition will prudently look to its sources for famous women to feature. Mary is the obvious first choice, though some Evangelicals have wanted "stronger" women as their examples of biblical women to follow, because they think of Mary as passive and her calling too typically feminine. (After all, she didn’t really do anything. She just had a baby.)

 

But this new and growing affection for Jesus' mother is also the result of their piety finally free to play itself out, now that many of the prejudices and commitments of the past have lost some of their power. They love their Lord and begin feeling a natural affection for His mother, and often begin to look more closely at who she is in the Gospels. They begin to reflect on what her assent to the angel's news means, and on what the prayer we call the Magnificat says about her; some even begin to look at the Old Testament for ways she may have been anticipated there.

 

The Southern Baptist theologian Timothy George, a leader in that world, has admitted, "We have been afraid to praise and esteem Mary for her full worth." This he wants to change, and offers several substantial suggestions for doing so, stressing aspects of Mary and her work that Evangelicals have not talked about much but that follow from their theological commitments.

 

Writing in the major Evangelical magazine Christianity Today a couple of years ago, he said that an "Evangelical retrieval of a proper biblical theology of Mary will give attention to five explicit aspects of her calling and ministry: Mary as the daughter of Israel, as the virgin mother of Jesus, as Theotokos, as the handmaiden of the Word, and as the mother of the Church."

 

 

So far, so good. Or maybe I should say, only so far, so good. Because the Protestant attitude shifts quickly from such talk of Mary to considering her as the Catholic knows her. They feel themselves drawn to Jesus' mother until they meet her in all her glory, as the Mother of the Church and the Queen of Heaven, immaculately conceived, perpetually virgin, assumed into Heaven. Then, as the saying goes, not so much.

 

Even the irenic George, at the end of his article, can only go so far as to commend this prayer: "And now we give you thanks, Heavenly Father, because in choosing the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the mother of your Son, you exalted the little ones and the lowly. Your angel greeted her as highly favored; and with all generations we call her blessed and with her we rejoice and we magnify your holy name." A good prayer, but not a Marian prayer. He would refuse on pain of death to say the "Hail Mary."

 

This difference matters, and matters a lot more than we might want to think. In my experience, Catholics who love their Protestant friends often exaggerate their points of agreement. They hear polite statements of interest or a curiosity about Catholic teaching and read into them a change in conviction that really isn't there. They take an article like George's as evidence that our Evangelical friends almost accept the Catholic teaching, missing how little, if anything at all, they've actually conceded.

 

In a recent Catholic News Service story, for example, a mariologist was quoted as saying, with all the good will in the world, that "some Catholic doctrines about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception -- the belief that she was conceived without sin -- remain controversial among Protestants." He seems to think that some believe it and others don't, but that as a group they're moving our way.

 

But the belief is not controversial among them at all: Those who understand the matter almost unanimously reject it out of hand. You would have to search long and hard to find any Protestant who believes it. (Outside, that is, of a few high-church Lutherans and Episcopalians, but they're far from the mainstream of their traditions.)

 

Just try talking about Mary's sinlessness to an Evangelical friend. He may simply say politely that he doesn't believe in it, but he may react as if you'd casually urged him to sacrifice his children to Baal. He will tell you that you've denied the Lord, replaced Him with Mary, rejected the biblical teaching, and the like. He thinks the Catholic belief a serious heresy. A fact that is crucial to our friendship with Mary is, to most of our Evangelical friends, an abomination.

 

The desire to find our friends closer to us than before is an admirable impulse, but it prevents the clarity needed for a truly effective exchange. We must be careful not to take a sign of Evangelical openness to Catholic teaching as a conversion -- to treat a friendly wave in our direction as a proposal of marriage.

 

 

Marian doctrine and devotion is not a matter, like some others, where the Catholic teaching is an extension or expansion of something believing Protestants hold already. The Communion of Saints, and by extension prayer to the saints for their help, is one of these, at least at the basic level. The Protestant believes in asking others for their prayers, and he knows mutual prayer to be a sign of the Church at work. The Catholic teaching only expands the number of fellow believers whose prayers he can request, by claiming that God has given us access to them. He probably still rejects it -- and quite firmly -- but it fits what he already believes about the relation of one Christian to his brothers.

 

Marian doctrine and piety are not like this. They rest on several beliefs radically different from those our Evangelical friends hold, not least the ability of the Church to discern through her Tradition truths that Scripture does not teach explicitly in the way the Evangelical requires. Nothing in Protestant piety could lead them to belief in Mary as the Queen of Heaven, and much tells them that she can't possibly be anything of the sort. That kind of belief requires a conversion, in the sense of turning around and walking in the opposite direction, in a way the acceptance of many other Catholic teachings and practices doesn't.

 

But this is something that many Catholics just don't get. Priests and laity ask me about this, as a convert who's written a book on Mary. They confidently give me what they think are winning arguments that are, in fact, hopelessly in-house, deeply Catholic arguments that would leave the inquiring Protestant cold, and in some cases quite offended. The Marian realities are so clear to them that they just can't see how others can't see them as clearly as they do. This keeps them from speaking effectively about Mary.

 

The person called to share the Catholic Faith has to know exactly what the other believes and -- just as important, if not more importantly -- how he feels about this belief. Think of a doctor trying to persuade a patient to try a new therapy, one that sounds worse than the disease it's supposed to cure. If he speaks to the patient clinically, as one doctor to another, he won't be able to convince the patient to try it, and may instead make him dig in his heels. For the patient's own good, the doctor has to know how he thinks and feels. He must understand that the patient will first, and above all else, see the horrors of the treatment and has to be brought to see that the cost in pain and trouble is worth paying.

 

We want our Protestant friends to pay the cost, because the knowledge of the Blessed Mother can only change their lives for the better. But too optimistic a view of what they believe now will blind us to the severe challenge of sharing what we know about her with our Evangelical brethren, who are so close to us in so many ways, but so far from us in this.

[jagusafr]

But if we have to make up a couple of possible explanations (because Scripture is not explicit on the question), why don’t we just assume that after Christ was born, Mary had other children the regular way? I can’t see how that taints her special calling from God to be the mother of the Messiah. I’m not arguing just to argue, I can’t see why it’s so important to maintain her virginity when Scripture doesn’t explicitly support it. It does not detract one whit from her status, IMHO.

[Claud]

I like Mary. I’m in awe of Mary. She gets a pink candle for Advent.

The reason there's a pink candle is liturgical. In the Roman Rite the penitential season of Advent has four Sundays, three of which (1, 2, 4) take violet vestments (hence the 3 purple candles). The third Sunday is called "Laetare Sunday" with rose (not really pink) vestments--it is a slight break in the penitential mood with some anticipated joy for the Savior's imminent arrival.

I've never heard about this idea that the pink was for Mary, although I can see why it came about. It's not a bad symbolism actually.

[Claud]

The revulsion of Marian Worship is sometimes miss directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, when it should be directed at the idea of Mary, the Queen of Heaven.

Couple of things on that. First, we've sorta lost the historical notion of monarchy in this country for obvious reasons, but typically the mother of the king had the distinct title of "Queen Mother." If Christ is the King, then she kinda has to be the Queen Mother automatically.

Second of all, the idea of Queen of Heaven is embedded in the imagery of Revelations 12: a woman with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars. On one level, that's symbolic of the new Israel/Church of course. Yet it's hard not to draw some kind of analogy with Mary because she is the actual person who gave birth to the male child. We have a nice literary metonymy here: the individual representing the corporate.

For both reasons, I think that the Queen of Heaven idea is quite fitting for Our Lady.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, I think your definition of "made up" is a bit skewed.

The tradition that Joseph was married before and had children is not "made up" in the sense that somebody thought it up recently. Like the perpetual virginity of Mary, it's a very long standing tradition (though not as important or as universal).

I know that there's a tendency for Bible-centered believers to think that every tradition not explicitly founded on the Bible is 'made up' and hence worthless, but unless you acknowledge some tradition, you don't even have a Bible. And of course the Bible itself (especially in the letters of St. Paul) assumes and refers to an ongoing tradition existing outside of and side by side with the written word. And that tradition exists in unbroken continuity from the Apostles to the present day.

Remember that until the rise of the middle class in the 16th and 17th centuries, most people couldn't read. The only way they got their religious instruction was through the teaching tradition of the Church.

There is a tendency for those who put the Bible first to ignore the many centuries when (a) there was no Bible; and (b) nobody could read it even if they had one. So if the Bible is all there is, there is a break in continuity that lasts about 1400 years. Not good. And think of all those people who were lost because they didn't have a Bible . . . not good.

If you simply acknowledge the traditions that were maintained by all believers, Catholic and Protestant, until very recently (mostly, the 19th century, the German theologians started it and the popular Evangelicals like Moody and Sankey continued it), then the problem is solved. Not to denigrate Scripture at all, but it does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.

[Natural Law]

"Mary matters to me because Mary mattered to Jesus."

Mary shares a special relationship with God that no other human past, present of future will ever experience. Like God, Mary suffered the death of Her son on a cross for our salvation. All of us have either witnessed suffered the loss of a child or witnessed the pain in others. How much greater the pain and loss when the child is Jesus Christ.

[jagusafr]

Good answer, and thanks. I still have trouble with why it’s important that Mary be an eternal virgin. As I mentioned, it doesn’t affect her participation in Christ’s immaculate birth one teeny bit, and she’s important only because He’s important, IMHO.

[Ann Archy]

By Jove, you’ve GOT IT!! God Bless you.

[Ann Archy]

OMG! SO TRUE!! I never heard it put that way!! 2nd. Luminous Mystery....so thankful that PJPII added those Mysteries to the Rosary!

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, let me put it this way: SHE is important because HE is important, and HE makes HER important because God Incarnate deserves a spotless home for nine months (and the years of his childhood) - spotless always, both before AND after.

Anything that has been used for the holy and honored should be ever after kept separate. We don't use communion chalices for drinking anything else -- even after communion is over, even if the church is closed and they go into storage. In a more general vein, you would never fly the flag placed over your veteran grandfather's casket again -- you would put it in a special case and put it in a place of honor in the living room with his medals.

[Ann Archy]

I have never seen a picture of Jesus kneeling in front of Mary.

You mentioned that the Magi gave the presents of gold, frankinsence and myhrr to Jesus.......but he was a BABY, so Mary and Joseph had to ACCEPT FOR HIM.

Don't you ever ask a friend or relative to say a prayer for you to Jesus for something????? That's what we do with Mary.....I can't say this enough, and I don't have any idea of why people insist,stubborn hearts maybe, but WE DON'T WORSHIP MARY!!!!!

[nanetteclaret]

*** I was disturbed by the image of Jesus bowing to Mary, offering her a crown while on His knees. I don’t see anyway to support this image based on scripture or the creeds.***

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” Exodus 20:12

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:16-18

“Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.” Proverbs 31:30

Jesus is the King; therefore, Mary is the Queen Mother. Reference Solomon and his mother Bathsheba: “Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand.” I Kings 2:19

[Tao Yin]

Catholics do NOT worship Mary! Please search "Marian Worship", a phrase used by the Popes themselves.

[AnAmericanMother]

No, we don't, not in the sense of that worship that is due only to God -- which is the sense in which you mean it.

What you have to understand is that "worship" seen in old documents (or in Vatican documents translated from the Latin) means something quite different -- you run into these change of meaning problems all the time in the King James Version -- some words, like "let", actually have the OPPOSITE meaning from what they had then.

It derives originally from the term "worth," and in that sense it means only the honor you might pay to a worthy officer or other person holding a title. In Chaucer's day, it meant merely the reverence due to a civil official, and Mayors, JPs and magistrates are still addressed as "Your Worship" in England and most former British colonies. And we still speak of "that worthy citizen" - and of course Masons address the master as "Worshipful Master".

People get confused about "worship" because in English it has two different meanings, in terms of degree. But the Catechism points out the distinction between latria and dulia -- the former being the worship owed only to God, the latter the honor one pays to saints:

"This worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (Latinized, latria), for which the best translation that our language affords is the word Adoration. Adoration is different from other acts of worship, such as supplication, confession of sin, etc., inasmuch as it formally consists in self-abasement before the Infinite, and in devout recognition of His transcendent excellence."

Sometimes the Virgin Mary is given what is called "hyperdulia" - honor greater than that of the other saints, but less than that due to God.

[Melian]

Mary is what YOU make of her. She is there, full of love and concern, like your own Mother. She waits for you. You don’t necessarily need her to survive or get into Heaven.

But her motherly love, concern, and blessings certainly enrich our lives. Her support is very helpful and healing.

So call your Mother!

[Melian]

I’m so thrilled you wrote this. I have had many arguments with people who think Jesus is from the line of David through Joseph. Since men’s lineage was what mattered then, it was essential that Joseph, as father, be of the Davidic line. That way the Jews, who knew all the predictions intimately, would be able to recognize that Christ was the fulfillment of the promise.

But God promised that the Messiah WOULD be of the Davidic line. That’s one of the reasons Mary is so important. She gave her genetic code (code from the line of David) to her Son and fulfilled the prophesy.

God bless you for your open mind and your ecumenical attitude!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

May I ask why you are sending commercial messages about Mary to me?

Mary isn’t what I make of her. She is a woman of God and
most blessed among women, regardless of what anyone “makes
of her”.

1. She doesn’t wait for you - the Bible never says such a thing.

2. The Bible never says she supports us or heals us.

3. She was Christ’s mother. She isn’t my mother. I honor her as God foretold. I don’t make her into an idol or place
her between myself and Christ Himself.

As I said, Protestants tend to make too little of Mary,
Catholics too much. Marionites way, way too much. At times
is seems some of you guys want to make her equal to God.

I suspect you mean well. I appreciate your well wishes.
It’s just that they aren’t Biblical.

best,
ampu

[Melian]

Perhaps the mosaic showed that because it was teaching the idea that we must honor our father and our mother. Christ subjected Himself to the authority and parenting of Mary and Joseph.

I believe Christ came and lived in the womb; was born and lived as an infant, an obedient child, a young man; worked and begged; became a teacher; lived through pain, loneliness and injury, and endured death in order to sanctify and validate every aspect of our human existence and experience.

The mosaic may have been showing Him giving honor to His parent, as well as establishing her role in Heaven.

[Melian]

Actually, it is Biblical. She was foretold. She initiated Christ’s first miracle, the first sign of His mission. He said, “Behold your mother.” She was in the room with all the men when the Holy Spirit came. I think that’s pretty huge. Why did the Holy Spirit want her there?

Now add in all the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes. These are proven medical miracles that no one refutes. They have been thoroughly examined by skeptics of every faith. So she does heal. Her messages during those apparitions are all about longing for us, waiting for us, wanting us to know her Son, asking us to pray to know her Son better.

I wasn’t sending you a commercial message about Mary. I was telling you about her; about how most Catholics see her.

Not everything is Biblical. The New Testament states that a book of everything that Christ said and did would fill a room. Many of the things we know about Christ are from that wealth of knowledge that wasn’t written down, but was known, by the Apostles.

[kalee]

Gaudete Sunday is the 3rd Sunday in Advent and Laetare Sunday is the 4th Sunday in Lent. Both are Sundays for which rose vestaments are worn, rose altar hangings are used and flowers adorn the altar. They offer a refreshing break amid the penitentinal seasons.

[thecodont]

The tradition that Joseph was married before and had children is not "made up" in the sense that somebody thought it up recently. Like the perpetual virginity of Mary, it's a very long standing tradition (though not as important or as universal).

The other children are absent from the Gospel narratives during (a) the census and journey to Bethlehem, and (b) the flight into Egypt.

I know that there's a tendency for Bible-centered believers to think that every tradition not explicitly founded on the Bible is 'made up' and hence worthless, but unless you acknowledge some tradition, you don't even have a Bible. And of course the Bible itself (especially in the letters of St. Paul) assumes and refers to an ongoing tradition existing outside of and side by side with the written word. And that tradition exists in unbroken continuity from the Apostles to the present day.

Remember that until the rise of the middle class in the 16th and 17th centuries, most people couldn't read. The only way they got their religious instruction was through the teaching tradition of the Church.

There is a tendency for those who put the Bible first to ignore the many centuries when (a) there was no Bible; and (b) nobody could read it even if they had one. So if the Bible is all there is, there is a break in continuity that lasts about 1400 years. Not good. And think of all those people who were lost because they didn't have a Bible . . . not good.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Many Evangelicals seem to be convinced that believers in times past had as ready an access to printed Scripture as they themselves do.

Some 20 years ago, there was a popular illustrator (name escapes me for the moment) whose work appeared in Christian book and gift shops. This artist did her work in soft pastels.

One of her works showed a family (Old Testament) at home: father, mother and child. Father was seated outside the home with the other two. Father had a scroll (Torah?) in his hands and was reading from it to them. All looked rather Anglo-Saxon in appearance.

It impressed me as a touching sort of historic revisionism. No family that humble would have a copy of the Torah in their home to pull out to read from now and then, as a modern Christian would be able to read from his/her Bible. If anything, I think, the family in that picture would have been more appropriately pictured at their local synagogue listening to the rabbi present and read from the Torah.