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.

[AnAmericanMother]

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

Not surprising. They were probably out on their own already. If Joseph was in his fifties, say, he probably would have been married around age 20, and his kids would have been between the ages of 20 and 30 and already married themselves. Remember Herod was looking for the babes under two years old.

[AnAmericanMother]

About the only time reading from a scroll is mentioned in the New Testament is when Jesus reads from the roll of Isaiah in the synagogue and then says, "This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears."

So yes, the synagogue was where you expected to find the Scriptures, not at home.

[Claud]

Ack...yes you’re right Gaudete. Friday afternoon brain...no work real good.

[kalee]

I understand. :)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“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?”

I agree with all that - but that doesn’t prove any of the
claims you made.

“Now add in all the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes.”

You, and others ASSUME they were miracles from Mary.

“These are proven medical miracles that no one refutes. They have been thoroughly examined by skeptics of every faith.”

You assume they are more than psychosomatic healing.

“So she does heal.”

You assume it was Mary who healed.

“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.”

You assume the messages were from Mary.

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

Thank you for the clarification, but you were doing more
than telling me what you thought. You were exhorting me
to enter into more that God Himself says about our lady.

“Not everything is Biblical”

! In this case, we could rephrase that as, “nothing here
is Biblical.”

“The New Testament states that a book of everything that Christ said and did would fill a room.”

Yet, we have everything He chose to record for the Church.
The fact that not everything was recorded doesn’t mean
that you can just make it up and it carries equal weight
to what God inspired the writers of the Scriptures to record.

“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.”

You assume these things are true.

In reality, there is much that was not the practice of
the first and second second century Church that was
added as doctrine after that. It is believed today as it
it were always there. It was not.

Best,
ampu

[Melian]

“You were exhorting me to enter into more that God Himself says about our lady.”

What God said about Mary was that she was blessed among all women. Ever. She had been foretold in prophesy. That she was “full of grace” and that He was with her. She had found favor with Him above all other women- or humans for that matter. He took her body and worked a miracle, the ultimate miracle, with it. She was perfect in her obedience to God.

We also know Jesus loved her. She asked Him to do His first miracle and, though He expressed reservations, He did it! We know she was with Him on the road to Calvary and our redemption. He gave her to the Apostle He loved most. We know she, a woman, was in the room with the Apostles during the Pentecost. That’s pretty huge, don’t you think?

What other New Testament woman do you know more about? Why do you think the Holy Spirit wanted us to know so much more about Mary than any other woman in the New Testament? Do you think holding God inside you, touching Him daily for 30 years, listening to Him speak for 30 years, watching His every action for 30 years, as a mother does, would not have an effect on someone?

Even if God had NOT told us Mary was holy, she would have been extremely holy after 30 years of exposure to God’s presence, don’t you think? Can you imagine being that close to God for your entire adult life? We can only imagine the effects. I think it is very logical to assume Mary had a unique, close, and miraculous relationship with God.

If we accept that Mary’s relationship with God was unique and miraculous, we can then logically ask the next question: wouldn’t He allow her to do miraculous things? He allowed the Apostles to do wonders. He’s allowed believers all through the ages to do miracles in His name. Why wouldn’t he allow the woman who was blessed among all women, who had found His favor, who lived her life completely for Him, and who loved Jesus more than anyone, to do wonders also?

Catholics believe He does. We believe He allows Mary to continue her service to Him even now and to do miracles that point us to Him. We believe she is still being allowed to tell us, “Do whatever He tells you to do.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“If we accept that Mary’s relationship with God was unique and miraculous, we can then logically ask the next question: wouldn’t He allow her to do miraculous things? He allowed the Apostles to do wonders. He’s allowed believers all through the ages to do miracles in His name. Why wouldn’t he allow the woman who was blessed among all women, who had found His favor, who lived her life completely for Him, and who loved Jesus more than anyone, to do wonders also?”

Everything you wrote is interesting, mostly true, but
doesn’t lead to your conclusion. You have, simply, an
opinion. If you wish to hold that opinion, of course
it is your right. That in itself, however, doesn’t make
it Biblical or true. In effect, you have a doctrine that
is based on a foundation that is not commanded in Scripture,
or even taught, as every major doctrine of the Church
is. Again, if you wish to believe it, I am not trying to
lead you to believe anything else - I’m just responding
to your posts, which you have initiated with me.

“Catholics believe He does. We believe He allows Mary to continue her service to Him even now and to do miracles that point us to Him. We believe she is still being allowed to tell us, “Do whatever He tells you to do.”

Oh, I know what Catholics believe. I’m just responding that
I read what you write, which I’ve read and heard before,
and I’m simply responding as I did in the very first post,
“I’ve concluded that Protestants make too little of Mary
and Catholics make more of her than is revealed.”

Blessings to you,
ampu

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Calvin worked in Geneva to outlaw all idolatrous veneration of Mary.

While Luther and Calvin may have believed Mary did not have any more children in addition to Jesus, they did NOT believe the errors the papacy teaches -- they did not believe in Mary's immaculate conception; they did not believe Mary was born and died sinless; they did not believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven; they did not believe prayers should be offered to Mary; they did not believe Mary was a mediator between God and men; and they did not believe Mary was a "Co-Redeemer" or a 'Dispensatrix of all Grace."

And they sure didn't believe Mary was on the cross with Jesus Christ, helping her son to redeem His flock, as displayed on this cross at the main Mary basilica in Rome....

[the_conscience]

This is what caught my eye:

"By "Protestant" I'm thinking particularly of our Evangelical friends who are, in doctrinal seriousness and many other ways, close to us...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."

What kind of pyschobabble is that?

[ArrogantBustard]

Just remember, the worst piece of advice in the history of the human race was also given by a woman.

"Here, Adam ... eat this fruit."
-Eve (formerly of Paradise).

I guess there's some sort of typology going on here.

[Ann Archy]

NO KIDDING!!!