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.

[big'ol_freeper]

I would answer your post if it were anywhere near related to the point I was making....alas it isn’t.

[Desdemona]

For a time, to make ends meet and for professional development, I worked for a protestant church as a soloist. On a personal level, I did like the majority of the people in the congregation, even if I disagreed with them on everything from religion to politics to what constitutes decent wine.

One of the sermons the pastor gave sticks with me re protestant understanding of Mary. He said of the passage from Luke below that this is Mary's song. It is not for us to understand. That struck me as rather odd. It was almost a dismissal of one of the most recited passages of the entire Bible. It's sung or said in every Office and at every vespers. Yes, according to the Evangelist she predicts her own veneration. This translation is the Douay-Rheims, one of many that was done following the protestant revolt to correct scriptural errors in the vernacular.

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

From the Douay Rheims commentary: 48 "Shall call me blessed"... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.

51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Actually, I think the translator in the commentary asks a good question. Is there any concern for the prophesy? That's what it is.

[AnAmericanMother]

O.K., then, genoito moi kata to rhma sou.

[AnAmericanMother]

Nope, born and raised a sixth-generation nosebleed high Episcopalian, more Roman than Rome . . . .

. . . and lots of Catholics on FR talk about accepting Christ as their Saviour, you just were too busy looking for symptoms of Mariolatry to notice. . . .

[AnAmericanMother]

I saw “speciosior sole” and figured it was Rev. 12:1 without reading further — thanks for the translation and the cite!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You’re wrong, of course...Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...There wasn’t a Gentile in the bunch when Jesus made the reference to Gentiles...Hence, no Catholic church...”

Your comment makes no sense. Jesus was speaking to Jewish Apostles. It was perfectly appropriate to use a reference to Gentiles as an example of how to avoid people since every Jew would know what Jesus meant. The existence of the Catholic Church, however, is not dependent upon the participation, membership or even the existence of Gentiles. If Christ had founded a Church that was NEVER to seek out Gentile converts it would still be the Catholic Church in that it would be the true Church. It just wouldn’t be exactly as we know it today.

Also your point that “Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...” is nonsensical in the way you appear to be using it. Yes, Jesus told the Apostles not to preach to the Gentiles in Matthew 10. But that was to fulfill prophecy.

Acts 13:40-42 “Beware therefore, lest that come on you which is spoken in the prophets: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will in no way believe, if one declares it to you.’ “ So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.”

It was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles were sent to the Gentiles as well by Jesus’ command: Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:16.

The Catholic Church has always known this, of course, and teaches it:

CCC 543 Everyone is called to enter the kingdom. First announced to the children of Israel, this messianic kingdom is intended to accept men of all nations.251 To enter it, one must first accept Jesus’ word: “The word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear it with faith and are numbered among the little flock of Christ have truly received the kingdom. Then, by its own power, the seed sprouts and grows until the harvest.” 252
(252 LG 5; cf. Mk 4:14, 26-29; Lk 12:32.)

[big'ol_freeper]

Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business, which relies on wild interpretations and abridgments of Holy Scripture....just the way the deceiver would want it.

[Always Right]

Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business, which relies on wild interpretations and abridgments of Holy Scripture....just the way the deceiver would want it.

Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.

[MarkBsnr]

***Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.***

Peter was made the steward. Notice the symbolism of the keys. That is what the caretaker of the kingdom was given when the King departed in Biblical times throughout the Middle East (and later in Europe).

[RobbyS]

If Jesus was a child, he was a child. That means he was—literally—a normal human being. That means he learned his language from her. That means he playd with other children. Furthermore if she was a pious woman from, as the story goes, a priestly family, she was the one who taught him his prayers. He grew up as a Jew among Jews, was from a family of Judeans who probably had settled in Galilee during the time after the Macabees had won independence from the Syrians. It goes without saying that he had resources that no other child had, but he definitely was not a superman.

[RobbyS]

Well, she may have spoken Greek.

[big'ol_freeper]

[Iscool]

Your comment makes no sense. Jesus was speaking to Jewish Apostles. It was perfectly appropriate to use a reference to Gentiles as an example of how to avoid people since every Jew would know what Jesus meant. The existence of the Catholic Church, however, is not dependent upon the participation, membership or even the existence of Gentiles. If Christ had founded a Church that was NEVER to seek out Gentile converts it would still be the Catholic Church in that it would be the true Church. It just wouldn’t be exactly as we know it today.

You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn't exist until 400 A.D....It's the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn't...

Peter's ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That's what the first three Gospels teach...

And that's where your church is at...

After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn't follow Paul's gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...

And you guys are stuck in Peter's gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it's still a mystery to your church...

[Iscool]

Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business,

Not at all...It's the difference between studying the scripture and studying your catechism...

[Iscool]

Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

He didn't learn this stuff from Mary...

Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

[Iscool]

So you’d like to squash us, eh??? Lucky for us; not that many years ago, you would have burned us alive at the stake...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn’t exist until 400 A.D....”

Actually it existed since Christ founded it and that was more than 3.5 centuries before A.D. 400. It was already mentioned or discussed (by 400) by Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Lactantius, the author of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Athanasius just to mention a few. But you say it didn’t exist until long after some of these men were dead?

“It’s the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn’t...”

No, It is the Catholic Church I am referring to and it is my Church. While you are a member of a Protestant sect - which may or may not even be a century old - I am in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, led by the Holy Ghost and made great and brought to the ends of the earth by the saints and martyrs of nearly 2,000 years.

I know many Protestant anti-Catholics hate that sort of triumphalism, but too bad. The various Protestant sects out there are exactly that - sects. Here today, changed tomorrow, replaced the next day by some other sect.

“Peter’s ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That’s what the first three Gospels teach...”

What? 1) Peter’s ministry was to Jews and Gentiles (or have you forgotten the centurion Cornelius?). I am often surprised by how many anti-Catholics don’t remember that Peter ministered to Gentiles as well as Jews. At one moment, these same anti-Catholics throw up Paul’s rebuke of Peter at us as if it refutes papal infallibility and then moments later forget that Peter’s transgression was treating his Gentile converts differently from his Jewish ones! Peter ministered to anyone interested. St. Paul, likewise, was the Apostles to the Gentiles, yet he went to Jews first - always!

“And that’s where your church is at...”

The Word of God tells us that we are a people who in grace have faith and perform works. Hence Paul’s use of the phrase “obedience of faith”.

“After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...”

No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ). One faith would necessitate ONE GOSPEL. If there were two gospels, then there would be two faiths. Sorry, but what you’re saying makes no sense whatsoever.

“Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn’t follow Paul’s gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...”

Paul did call it his gospel (e.g. Romans 2:16, 16:25). But it did not come from him. It came from God and His Church and all Paul did was preach it - he did not invent it nor did he teach a gospel of his own as separate from that of Christ and His Apostles. Jesus’ every act and word made His enemies jealous. The idea that He would allow two different gospels to be taught by the Apostles just to make the Jews jealous is simply wrong. There can only be ONE gospel. If there are two, then one is wrong. Paul made this clear enough in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.

“And you guys are stuck in Peter’s gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it’s still a mystery to your church...”

Paul formed no Church other than what Christ gave to him. You are actually claiming Peter opposed Paul, that Paul opposed Christ. Nonsense. Christ sent one Church and it taught one gospel through both Peter and Paul.

In the ideas you offered we see the destructive power of anti-Catholicism. Anti-Catholics are so desperate that they would even set Paul against Peter and Paul against Christ just to attack the Catholic Church. How sad.

[PatriotGirl827]

Beautiful post! Thank you.

[RobbyS]

I didn’t say he did. although Luke may have learned about this from her. And One may assume that he learned about the circumstance of his birth from her and many other things, such as reverence for Torah. His humanity was no mere cloak for a god. He chose to share our weakness, to come as a babe and to become a man as we do. He was as tradition says, true God and true man.

[Iscool]

What? 1) Peter’s ministry was to Jews and Gentiles (or have you forgotten the centurion Cornelius?).

Like I said, Peter's ministry during Jesus' walk on earth (the Gospels) was to the Jews only...

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

I don't know what to tell you...God says Peter's ministry was to the Jews only...Apparently your church tradition disagrees with that...You'll have to take that up with God...

No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ).

But more than one Gospel...Gospel doesn't mean Lord, Faith or Baptism...

Paul's gosple was the Gospel of Grace...

I. In itself, the word Gospel means good news.

II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant: (2Sa_7:16): a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.
(See) - (Mat_3:2).

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mat_24:14) during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that, by Him, all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel...

"of God" (Rom_1:1) because it originates in His love;
"of Christ" (2Co_10:14) because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;
of the "grace of God" (Act_20:24) because it saves those whom the law curses;
of "the glory"; (1Ti_1:11); (2Co_4:4) because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory; (Heb_2:10);
of "our salvation" (Eph_1:13) because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"; (Rom_1:16);
of "the uncircumcision" (Gal_2:7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace"
(Eph_6:15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.

(3) The everlasting Gospel. (Rev_14:6). This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations (Mat_15:31). It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved; (Rev_7:9-14); (Luk_21:28); (Psa_96:11-13); (Isa_35:4-10).

(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" (Rom_2:16). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.

III. There is "another Gospel" (Gal_1:6); (2Co_11:4) "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one -- it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism (Col_2:18); etc. In any form, its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.