Church Life and Traditions: Mary
Salve Regina
Hymn originating c. 11th Century
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this vale of tears.
Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
The Magnificat
My soul glorifies the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior.
He looks on his servant in the lowliness;
henceforth all ages will call me blessed.
The Almighty works marvels for me.
Holy his name!
His mercy is from age to age,
on those who fear him.
He puts forth his arm in strength
and scatters the proud-hearted.
He cast the mighty from their thrones
and raises the lowly.
He fills the starving with good things,
sends the rich away empty.
He protect Israel, his servant,
remembering his mercy,
the mercy promised to our fathers,
to Abraham and his sons for ever.
Luke 1:46-55
It is perhaps one of the most tragic mysteries in the history of the church that the figure of Mary should have been in so many ways a source of division and strife. The person who might be expected to provide us with such a clear link to our Lord has so often been instead an emblem of warring factions. For those who hold a simple (in the best sense) devotion to Our Lady this is a cause of bewilderment and distress. But alongside these there are others who see the use of Mary as symbol to justify the repression of women, or a reflection of a degree of theological confusion that amounts to idolatry. They are equally hurt and maybe even angry.
Whatever our personal devotion and position, if we are to be true to our desire to grow in faith together, then we have to make the attempt to understand why such utterly divergent understandings of Mary have arisen. Perhaps by the grace of God we may then contribute a little to healing some of the hurt that has been caused in her name.
This therefore may be the most challenging of all the topics we cover.
Our Catholic tradition is certainly rich in devotions related to Mary. The use of these devotions is one of the things that has changed most obviously in the day-to-day life of the Church in the last generation. Whether that is a source of concern or a harbinger of renewal is one of those divisive issues that we should put to one side for now.
The internet is now a source for every conceivable type of information, so it is not surprising that it should also catalog the titles of Mary. One site lists about 50. Among the better known are the following:
- Mary as Virgin
- Mary as Mother
- Mary as Our Lady
- Mary as Disciple
- Mary as Prophet
- Mary as Mother of God
- Mary as Mother of the Church
- Mary as Mediator – to Jesus the Judge
- Mary as Queen of Peace
- Mary as Queen of Heaven
- Mary as Star of the Sea
- Mary as Morning Star
Despite the strong sense of tradition associated with such Marian titles and associated devotions, many are of relatively recent origin within the last three hundred years. So let us go back further and look first at the question of how the understanding of Mary and her position in the life of the Church and of the faithful has changed over time. As with all things in the Church we should not start with the assumption that current views, or the views of a prior generation, represent a previously unchanging perspective.
The historical perspective on Marian devotion
The position of Mary immediately after the Resurrection is clearly reflected in the Acts of Apostles, which refers a number of times to the apostles and Mary meeting together. The early outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was a gift not only to the apostles as male followers of Jesus who were to carry on His preaching and teaching work, but also to women and specifically to his mother. Thus it is clear that Mary was held in honor in the earliest Church. However even at this time, this position is somewhat ambiguous. Some Gospels have her in attendance at the crucifixion and others don’t. It is therefore also clear that the role of Mary in salvation history was not well defined, or even really an issue of concern to the early church. She is never mentioned in Paul’s letters, for example.
Following the apostolic period, the early Church paid little regard to the person of Mary, at least in its theological thinking, until the christological debates of the 4th and 5th Centuries.[1] At that point the debate about Christ’s nature spilled over into a polemic about the appropriate title for his mother: Theotokos (“the one who gives birth to God”) vs. Christotokos (“the one who gives birth to Christ”). Theotokos was confirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 as part of the determination that Christ had a single nature rather than a dual human-divine nature.
The focus of that discussion from a theological perspective was entirely on Christ. However the popular reaction to the debate shows that behind what most people must have considered a fairly arcane argument, was a very strong devotion to Mary. We have no direct record of the beliefs of ordinary people, since of course they did not write anything that was recorded for posterity. However from comments made by theologians attempting to counter what they considered popular superstition it seems likely that during these first few centuries of the church there was a considerable mingling between Christianity and the ideas of mystery religions which often included female deities and rites related to fertility. The lack of recognition of the feminine within Western culture, as it derived from the Romans, did nothing to suppress the power of such beliefs.
The Fathers used Mary as a model for the Church, but it seems that was more in terms of taking the idealized view of the church and “retrofitting” it to Mary. The idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin developed analogically alongside the idea that the Church was “perpetually chaste” i.e. would avoid heresy. Again the focus was much more on ecclesiology (the theology of the Church) than it was upon Mary as a person.
In the West there was a great flowering of Marian devotion in the 11th and 12th Centuries and a huge number of churches dedicated to Our Lady (perhaps the grandest is Notre Dame in Paris). The reasons for this are not entirely clear but could be related to the changing status of women at this time. Although women were still entirely subject to men from a legal perspective, in practice there were a number of very significant, powerful, and visible women, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine[2] and Hildegard of Bingen.[3]
During this period the idea of Mary as an intermediary (“mediatrix”) in relation to Jesus developed – along the lines of asking a mother to make a request of her son because she was felt to be more approachable. This is perfectly natural in terms of human psychology but it is theological challenging if it is seen as altering the nature of the relationship between God and His incarnate Son and ourselves. God became man in Jesus, and we are saved by the relationship that is offered to us with Jesus. We may ask for Mary’s help and support, as we might of any fellow Christian, but we should not consider that Mary is a required intermediary between us and Jesus, with a misplaced sense that Jesus is too important for us to approach directly. This distortion becomes apparent when Jesus is viewed solely as sitting in judgment over us, losing his saving character, or where the role of the Holy Spirit as our continuing link to the divine is overtaken by that of Mary. In this sense understanding Mary remains a christological issue, not an independent topic.
In the Reformation period, the protestant leaders maintained many traditional attitudes towards Mary. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all spoke approvingly of devotion to Mary as the mother of God. Reformers did reject the notion of intersessionary prayer to Saints and the idea of Mary as mediatrix. However popular emotions and the revolt against shrines and images were the main factors leading to rejection of Marian devotion within Protestant traditions.[4] Once again Mary seems to have been a surrogate for other disputes. While some were fervently in her favor, as expressed in statues, processions, pilgrimages, and much of the religious framework of the Middle Ages, others were equally opposed to the Medieval framework, the power of the Church, the processions and the statues – and thus by extension to devotion to Mary. St Ignatius provides an interesting insight into the passions aroused in his account of his time while studying at the university in Paris. During this period the desecration of a Marian shrine and subsequent counter-attack by the Archbishop of Paris who arranged massive demonstrations in the form of processions carrying statues[5], shows the extent of the popular conflict.
Behind this, there was little doctrinal dispute around Mary. Most reformers did not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but these were not established doctrines of the Catholic Church either at this time. Subsequently, as Marian devotion grew in the Catholic Church and declined in the Protestant Churches, “Mariology” became a point of polemical dispute, not just at a popular level but also in theological terms. This hardening of positions has been aptly described by Elizabeth Johnson: Regarding Mary, Catholics developed a severe case of fixation, while Protestants developed a severe case of amnesia.[6]
The Catholic Church has only recently taken doctrinal positions on many of these issues. Some regard this as a belated official acquiescence to the clear mind of the Church as demonstrated in popular belief. Others see it as an attempt to define in doctrine things which are clearly beyond any scriptural support and thus unhelpful in developing an authentic Christian faith. What is clear is that Marian doctrine is the clearest case where theology over a very long period has followed popular belief, rather than leading it.
Marian dogmas
The current state of doctrines related to Mary reflects this turbulent history.
- Mother of God – accepted by all Christians
- Perpetual Virginity of Mary – accepted by Catholic and Orthodox but not Protestants
- Immaculate Conception of Mary (that Mary was born without original sin) – Catholic only (promulgated 1854)
- Assumption of Mary (that Mary on her death was taken body and soul into heaven, in the same way as Jesus ascended to heaven) – Catholic and Orthodox (promulgated 1950)
- Mediatrix (Mary has a special role or influence as an object of prayer, having greater influence over her son than other saints) – Catholic only, and still subject of debate. A more extreme version of this idea which proclaims Mary as “Co-Redemptrix” has been argued by some Catholics but never obtained any status as doctrine.
Some of these are a huge stumbling block for non-Catholics, and even for many Catholics who struggle to understand what is really meant by these claims – or even why the Church wants to insist on them. Others find such apparent unwillingness to accept the clear statements of the Church a sign of lack of faith, or worse.
If we start with the one doctrine that is non-controversial, we can perhaps find a path to clearer understanding, or at least a basis for greater tolerance than has sometimes been exhibited in these matters.
The statement that Mary is the mother of God quite obviously isn’t intended to mean that God had a mother – God is on any understanding a non-created being who didn’t have parents. So we should immediately be on alert that when we say Mary is the mother of God, we don’t really mean that “Mary was the mother of God”. We can’t interpret that statement in a literal sense. One of the curses of our times is that we are very literal people and so this causes us some discomfort – but in this case the point is so obvious we could hardly deny it.
So what do we mean when we say Mary is the mother of God? Firstly “mother of God” is a title, not a description – equivalent to a phrase such as “father of the nation”. As explained above, the origin of this title lies in debate about the nature of Christ, but in regard of Mary herself it clearly expresses her pre-eminent status among humankind. Her relationship to the divine was (and is) of a different nature than that enjoyed by any other human creature. That much is unproblematic. The challenges come in deducing implications of that status.
Popular piety, leading theology and official Church teaching, derived the beliefs in Mary’s perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption. As with “mother of God” we need to be careful in considering how these can be interpreted.
The perpetual virginity of Mary arose, as we noted earlier, in the context of analogies with the Church. Just as references to the Church as Bride of Christ cannot be understood as statements about Jesus’ marital status, it is not appropriate to consider Mary’s virginity as a statement about the nature of the sexual relationship (or lack of one) between she and Joseph. Divine revelation does not consist in such intimate personal details. Beyond that, it also cannot be used to deduce a general principle that virginity has greater value than sexuality, or that celibacy is preferable to marriage for a Christian.[7] Conversely we should not use an (erroneous) belief in the greater value of virginity to declare that Mary’s unique status could only be upheld by asserting her continuing virginity after the birth of Jesus. Such views reflect more on some human attitudes to sexuality than any understanding of the nature of the relationship between women and men and the divine.
However an acceptance of the unique purity of Mary’s spirituality (and the unique suffering she endured alongside her son) could hardly be controversial. Virginity interpreted that way has a power that literal readings totally miss.
The Assumption claims that Mary has a special status in regard of human existence between the time of Jesus’ death and the Second Coming[8], in some way similar to the status of the risen Jesus. That final status is not unique to Mary, or Jesus, since it is held to be the common future for all Christians when the redemption of humankind is completed at the Second Coming of Christ. The Assumption however claims that in the time before the Second Coming, Mary has a continuing existence more equivalent to that of Jesus than that of other people who have died in this interim period. In our current life we cannot have any concrete understanding of what that status is, for Mary or for Jesus. The doctrine is doing little more than finding another way to express the unique character of Mary, this time in regard of her death.
The Immaculate Conception similarly reflects a claim that Mary’s role in salvation requires us to consider that even in her conception she was unique – she did not at some point in her life become a suitable person to act as the means for God’s incarnation, but had that nature from her very beginning.
All these doctrines therefore express essentially the same belief – that Mary has a unique status in relation to God. We cannot explain that status in any more detail that has practical implications for us, other than to take inspiration and encouragement from her example. For those drawn to polemics this may be an unsatisfactory conclusion, but is very much in keeping with the ancient tradition of Christian mysteries – we are called to belief on the basis of faith (an experience), not explanation.
We can however find further insights, beyond this core theological (dogmatic) perspective, if we also reflect on Mary as a member of the Church community, as an individual human, in her own time, and in her relationship to Jesus.
The Historical Mary
Mary was a 1st Century Jewish woman living under Roman occupation in Galilee, in the insignificant settlement of Nazareth. The Gospel accounts are far too limited to attempt a reconstruction of the “historical” personage, and it is very clear from the major differences between the Gospels that their references to Mary have much more theological import than historical intent.
Nevertheless the theological messages are clear and significant, and give us important pointers to Christian attitudes about the family, and the role of women both in the family and in society. In saying this we have to be careful to avoid simply taking social attitudes from first Century Palestine or Rome and applying them to modern society. Likewise we have to guard against reading back into those circumstances our present day desires and expectations.
Thus we should not expect to obtain rules and regulations for appropriate behavior. We can however see principles and ideals, and those are most powerful where they clearly align with other aspects of Jesus’ life and teaching.
The first and most striking, and certainly not to be taken for granted in his time, was the clear respect that Jesus gave to women. Not only to his mother and to close friends, but even to women who were social outcasts – the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman with a bleeding disorder, the woman caught in adultery, the woman who washed his feet with ointment. It is clear that even the disciples regarded his behavior with these women as scandalous.
Beyond the accounts which give a picture of Jesus’ own interaction with women, there are the stories that the Gospel writers chose to tell and the roles assigned to women in these. Again most striking are John’s use of Mary as the trigger for her son’s public ministry at the wedding at Cana, and the role of women in supporting Jesus at his crucifixion, while the men deserted him. Perhaps even more significant than Mary’s initiating role at Cana, is Mary of Magdala’s role in attesting to the resurrection. To give a woman such prominence as the first to recognize and proclaim Christ’s resurrection is almost absurd, since women had no legal status as witnesses at that time. Thus Saint John is presenting the Resurrection not just as a fact, to people for whom it would be considered incomprehensible, but attested by a woman. There could be little clearer statement that the evangelist was declaring a new world order, not only in relations with the divine, but also between people.
What of the stories of Mary prior to the birth of Jesus and of the early family life? The use of an angel as a messenger to Mary of a major divine intervention has many parallels in Hebrew Scripture, from Abraham onwards. This cements the declaration of Mary’s special role in salvation history, but not in itself a unique role. The uniqueness is contained both in the content of the angel’s message and the recognition accorded the child in his infancy by all sectors of society. What is often overlooked[9] in the nativity narrative is the declaration by Mary herself, the Magnificat (as quoted before this chapter). This is striking for its radicalism, both in theological terms and in social terms. The Divine overthrow of the powerful and support for the poor and disenfranchised has clear parallels in the Psalms and the Hebrew prophets. It positions Mary clearly in that tradition as one expecting to disrupt the social order, a prophetic role, not always obvious in many later views of Mary. Mary the prophet is probably the least familiar to us of the titles listed earlier, but it is the one most clearly suggested by Luke after Mary as mother.
The story of Jesus as a teenager on a family trip to Jerusalem[10], provides for clear identification between his human family and ours, in terms of inevitable tensions between parents and children as they seek for independence and self-awareness. Also striking is the call to mutual respect in family life, a more egalitarian model than found in many periods of history. This is reflected in later life also in the mother-son bond described by John at Cana, and at the crucifixion, the ultimate test of this unique relationship between an historical woman and an incarnate God. That test receives its answer in the presence of Mary at Pentecost where she can clearly be identified as Mary the disciple, perhaps the pre-eminent disciple. We do however know that God loves and calls all equally, and Jesus had little time for claims of eminence or hierarchy.
So we might regard Mary as prophet, challenging us to live justly; as disciple, constant follower of Jesus; as mother living for and with others, in joy and sorrow; and as the bridge from and to the divine, leading where we will also follow.
Questions for Consideration
Footnotes (Click footnote number to return to text.)
[1] See Patristic Period
[2] Lived 1122 – 1204, Queen of France as wife of Louis VII, and subsequently Queen of England as wife of Henry II
[3] German abbess, lived 1098 –1179, also composer, with recorded works in the catalog today, naturalist, author
[4] Except, to a limited extent, within Anglicanism
[5] These traditions remain very much alive in Spain and Central and South American countries. Thousands of people are involved in processing with statues. Many, if not most, of these rarely attend church or show any other form of religious observance. The challenges related to devotion to images, which started with the Sacred Calf destroyed by Moses, continue today.
[6] E. Johnson: Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints
[7] Despite misreading of St Paul, and outrageous claims to that effect by St Jerome and others, this view has always been a source of embarrassment to those who seek an understanding of sexuality which goes beyond the asceticism of late Roman society.
[8] As the Nicene Creed says: … he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in his glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
[9] Which is curious, given its use every day in the “Divine Office” or Liturgy of the Hours, the series of psalms and readings recited daily by religious and priests
[10] Luke 2:41-53