The controversy within Christianity surrounding the Catholic practice of venerating the Virgin Mary was crystallized and heightened by the pronouncements of two Popes that peppered less than one hundred years of Catholic theological history. At first glance, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption may have instigated more problems than they solved; yet they are the logical conclusion of centuries of Marian and Christological thinking. This brief essay will attempt to identify the essentially Christological emphasis of the Marian dogmas, as opposed to a purely Mariological emphasis. When understood from a purely Christological perspective, the Catholic expression of Marian devotion denies any justification for “ultra-high” Mariology, and disarms the inveterate criticism of Protestants who have argued that the place Catholics give to Mary is at Christ’s expense.

Orthodox Catholicism understands Mary’s role in the Church from its own long-developing Christology. As the new Eve, Mary partners with God in His plan for the redemption of the world. Conceived in God’s imagination after the Fall as the foil of evil and font of salvation, Mary accepts the will of God as announced by Gabriel (Lk. 1:26-38) and prefigured in the “protoevangelium” of Genesis (Gn. 3:15). Conceived and created for one purpose, Mary, by her creative fiat, allows the denoument of salvation history to unfold. She accepts her role as bearer of the Messiah-Redeemer, as the vessel from which the Christ-event will emanate. Outside of the Christ-event, Mary has no prefigured existence, perhaps no existence at all. Nonetheless, by her fiat she is involved in her own creation as well as the creation of the New Covenant.

Mary was a real human person, yet her nature is curious. Conceived in the image of God in response to the post-lapsarian world, Mary must be an extraordinary creature. Notwithstanding the initiation of human history as a result of the Fall, Mary is a pre-lapsarian creature, deliberately conceived that way by God himself. Like Adam and Eve, Mary is conceived without the stain of original sin; and she is without concupiscence (Adam and Eve were conceived without concupiscence but nevertheless sinned by their human propensity to sin); by definition, she is immaculately conceived. And like Adam and Eve before the Fall, Mary enjoys a friendship with God unknown to fallen man. Unlike Adam and Eve, who choose to exist outside the divine plan by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Mary (at her crisis of choice) chooses the fruit of the tree of life: “may it be done unto me according to your word.” Adam and Eve’s choice begets damnation and death; Mary’s choice shall beget redemption and everlasting life.

In describing Mary as the perfect vessel of the Word incarnate, many an apologist has likened Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, the mysterious and near-divine housing of the tablets and scrolls of the Law. This very productive analysis underscores the essence of the incarnation, further defining Mary in Christological terms. To the extent that Mary is compared to Moses and like him a bearer of the Word, no longer of stone but of flesh, she can be viewed as a deliverer, and in this manner, “co-redemptrix.” Indeed she may be thought of as the incarnation of the Ark of the Covenant. Thus her role in redemption is clarified: she is removed from the sacrifice at Calvary which belongs to Christ alone, yet she is responsible for it by bearing the Savior in her womb.

The typological interpretation of Mary as Moses/Ark keeps her safely outside the economy of merit won for the world by the singular, efficacious sacrifice of the Christ on the Cross. Mary’s uniqueness however warrants special consideration. Her pre-lapsarian conception begs the question of human death, for death came into the world for fallen creatures only, and Mary is not fallen; therefore Mary cannot die, at least any kind of death experienced by those who are heir to original sin. Tradition is quite nebulous on the death of Mary; because of her role in the redemption of the world and her conception free from original sin, Mary’s body does not undergo putrefaction. Indeed, the Magisterium is silent about the mode (if any) of Mary’s death. Rather she is assumed directly into the care of her son in heaven. Since Mary does not inherit sin from Adam, what does she need salvation for? The question is difficult and the answer complex. Mary shares with the rest of us humanity, and exposure to the fallen world in which she lives. She needs the Savior, her son, nearly as much as we do; and she must “fulfill all righteousness” (by experiencing a unique resurrection) as Jesus himself did by receiving baptism from John (Mt. 3:13-15). In this way her life and death become an exemplar for all humanity, and fosters hope in the Resurrection.

Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII therefore stated the Marian dogmas ex cathedra to clarify and make comprehensible Mary’s nature, her essence, her life and her death. The dogmas flow from the growth of Christology as dictated by Scripture, Tradition and the teaching Magisterium. Hence, Mary is the ever virgin Mother of the Church, Mother of the Mystical body of Christ, indeed the mother of all who believe in her son (Jn. 19:26-27). She is an intercessor between the faithful and her son, as scripturally documented in John’s account of the wedding feast at Cana (Jn 2:4-11). In this sense, Mary is mediatrix, available to those who ask her to intercede for them in their impetration of the Lord.

Nowhere is Mary so closely defined for the Church and so clearly embodied in the unity of the Old and New covenants than in Luke’s Magnificat, in which the evangelist conflates centuries of messianic thought and salvation history onto the focal point of Mary. With references to 1 Sam2:1, Is 61:10, Hab 3:18, 1Sam 1:11, Gn 30:13, Ps 111:9, Ps 103:17, Ps 89:10, Jb 5:11 and 12:19, Is 41:8-9, Ps 98:3 (and doubtless other references to the Old and New Testaments), Luke has created perhaps the most beautiful canticle in all of Scripture and a truly astounding theotokos (Lk 1:46-55). All generations have gladly called her blessed! Holy Father John Paul II has written eloquently on the proper context of such veneration of Mary in his encyclical, Redemptoris Mater. Making frequent reference to Vatican II and especially Lumen Gentium, the Holy Father teaches how we are to understand Mary as Mediatrix. Through cogent analysis of the Matthean and Lucan infancy narratives and the Magnificat, John Paul demonstrates how these terms naturally flow from Christology: how Mary, by her "fiat" becomes God's co-operator in His plan for the redemption of humanity; how Mary, because she is the mother of Christ, is also the mother of the Church, and in her special maternal relation to all Christians, a mediator well within the confines of the Christ-event she helped bring about.

Mary is indeed much for the Church, but her greatness is limited. Like John the Baptist, she is not the redeemer, but a prodromos of the highest order. She is a creature, and though conceived at the beginning of human history, not co-eternal substance. Made in the image of God, Mary is the font of redemption, not redemption itself; she is the fountain, not the waters of life. She is the conduit to Christ on earth and in heaven. She may be the first recipient of resurrection, even the first Christian, but it is her Assumption that is her reward for saying yes to God, her fulfillment of His plan for her. In heaven, she exists alongside the Trinity, not within it.

As the reformers before them, modern Protestants have felt compelled to protect Christ and his singularly efficacious sacrifice from attenuation by the powerful figure of Mary. By championing a solely Christocentric view of Christianity and defending against the mitigation of the Christ-event, Protestants have had to defend Jesus from his mother as they interpreted her to be defined by Rome. Protestants have remained steadfast in their belief in Christ’s unique sacrifice, and have righteously defended against attempts of the overly-pious to insinuate Mary into that sacrifice and the Trinitarian economy. Yet when Mary is understood from a purely Christological point of view, as the Church teaches, Mary is no threat to the Church; she is a catalyst to genuine piety and she underscores God’s Grace. How else could the Magnificat be interpreted?

Catholics share Protestant angst, perhaps even indignation, regarding “ultra-high” Mariology (a term by which I mean an evolution of the current Church teaching on Mary, one that views her as Christ’s equal in God’s plan for human redemption, one that places Mary in the role of sole mediatrix and dispensatrix of Grace, the only means of finding Christ), which is a threat to Catholicism and to all Christians. The matter is quite controversial and one might argue that there are two high Mariologies, one taught by the Church and embraced by Catholics, and one ultra-high version twisted in the media to generate controversy. For example, during the summer of 1997, Mary appeared on the cover of Newsweek. She was depicted provocatively with her arms stretched out like Christ on the Cross, looking suspiciously like a pagan priestess. Although other publications such as Inside the Vatican, National Catholic Reporter, and Our Sunday Visitor featured reports on the same topic (perhaps less spectacularly), there are those within the Church who seem to agree with the sensationalized Mariology portrayed in the media. Professing to be greater than 4 million strong, the group Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici has been a prime mover of this troublesome, provocative Marian doctrine.

Contrary to the wishes of those Catholics who subscribe to this very high Mariology, the Pope will never define, ex cathedra, “co-redemptrix” and “mediatrix” in terms different from the way these terms are commonly understood in orthodox Church teaching, certainly not in any way that will pave the way for Mary’s quasi-deification or role as high-priestess or sharer in the redemptive sacrifice on Calvary (James White’s Mary, Another Redeemer? is a provocative treatment of some of these issues as seen from an Evangelical position, though from a Catholic perspective, much of his formulations are unfortunate, as they are often a caricature of the legitimate Magisterial teaching on Mary). Ironically, it will be the development of the Marian dogmas themselves that will be the undoing of any brewing Marian controversy. The question, however, remains: must Christological Marian dogmas necessitate Christian disunity?

So where do we go from here? Can Protestants accept the validity of the Catholic view of the Blessed Virgin, or shall this view continue to be a wedge between these Christians? As a role model for all Christians, Mary can inspire our partnership with God in the on-going creation of the world. The charges raised by the humanists that the Virgin Birth denigrates biological motherhood and that the Immaculate Conception condemns human sexuality ring hollow in the face of the Magisterium’s teaching on the gift of marital sexuality, the dignity of human persons and the fecundity of marriage. Surely the modern Church has solved the Original Sin-sex conundrum and Catholics need not inherit Augustine’s sexual guilt in order to continue to cherish this noble Father of the Church. Rather, all Christians can venerate the Blessed Virgin without developing an inferiority complex and loathing of marital sexuality; we can embrace the Song of Songs for its glorious sexual abandon and its rich allegory of God’s love for His Church. Surely we can keep Christ, the Trinity, and Mary in wholesome Truth.
 
 

J. Calandrino
AMDG