Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the
subject of some of the more egregious myths about the Catholic faith: that Catholics
consider her another mediator between God and man, another redeemer, equal to
the Holy Trinity, etc. Evangelical Christians, believing these myths to be
true, often react by preaching the other extreme which is just as false—that
Mary holds no importance at all in the life of a Christian.
As always when faced with two
extremes, the truth is found somewhere in the middle. Let’s begin to sort this
out by taking a look at what the Catholic Church really teaches about Mary, and
how Evangelical critics miss the mark.
We’ll begin with the myth that
Catholics believe Mary is another mediator between God and man, another
redeemer, or has a divine nature equal with the Holy Trinity. These excerpts
from The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (“Lumen Gentium”) issued at the
Second Vatican Council in 1964 dispel these notions fairly simply (emphasis
added):
“There
is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, ‘for there is
one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself
a redemption for all’. (1 Timothy 2:5-6) The maternal duty of Mary
toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ,
but rather shows His power…. In no way does it impede, but rather does
it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ…. For no
creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and
Redeemer…. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role
of Mary.” (Lumen Gentium #60, 62)
With Mary’s subordinate role to Jesus
clearly spelled out in Catholic Church documentation, as well as the denial of
her as a mediator between God and men or another redeemer, let’s examine the
role that Mary does play in the life of a Christian, notably how she assists
in the work of her Son.
Let’s first address that very idea—how
can anyone assist Jesus in his work, since his work as the mediator and
redeemer is something only Jesus can do? Let’s look to Paul for an answer, who
wrote this to the Colossians:
“I now rejoice in my sufferings for
you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,
for the sake of His body, which is the church…” (Colossians 1:24)
On the surface this may seem like an
outrageously arrogant statement—that not only is there something “lacking” in
the afflictions of Christ, but that Paul presumes to fill up this alleged deficiency
in his own flesh, completing something Christ cannot finish by himself.
Of course that’s not what Paul is
saying. He means that while only Jesus could win salvation—and that work is
finished once and for all—Jesus purposefully left the work of bringing his
salvation to all the world unfinished, and he calls others to participate
in that work. That’s why Paul is traveling and writing and, in the midst
of it all, suffering, because Jesus sent him to carry on the unfinished work of
bringing the saving Word (which the Gospel of John tells us is Jesus
himself) to all nations.
Evangelical Christians will readily
let Paul off the hook, understanding what he means by “I fill up in my flesh
what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,” and will not accuse him of
claiming to be another mediator or redeemer equal to or even better than
Christ. But they are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to Mary, who filled
up in her flesh the actual, literal body and blood of Jesus Christ that would
be sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins and released him to the world,
playing an even more critical and intimate role than Paul in bringing the
salvation of Christ to mankind.
Lumen Gentium puts it this way
(emphasis added):
“Just
as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and
by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated
in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation
of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation
which is but a sharing in this one source. The Church does not
hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly
experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that
encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the
Mediator and Redeemer.” (Lumen Gentium, 62)
Also:
[Mary]
conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father
in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross.
In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and
burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural
life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace. (61)
The unique role of Mary in bringing
Christ to the world needs to be examined closely, and from a proper
perspective.
No Bible-believing Christian can deny
that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child with the Holy Spirit
instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing Christian belittle or
diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons who conceive a child in
a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate interaction between persons
involves a permanent commitment of love and trust, and a distinct role to play
in and for the duration of the lives of each other and the child.
The conception of Jesus established Mary
in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive relationship to
which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that Mary enjoys this
uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the Holy Spirit
conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through her consent—is
first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also reduces Mary to
merely the “ovum donor” for the Son of God; yet this is what the Evangelical
treatment of Mary implies.
This term, of course, is a reference
to the expression “sperm donor,” which in modern parlance is understood in both
a literal and figurative sense as someone who merely gives a physical element
so conception can take place, but has no further or significant relationship
with either the mother or the child. In at least the figurative sense it is a
pejorative term, castigating someone who should be involved but isn’t.
Yet Mary as merely an “ovum donor” is
what Evangelicals imply in many of their arguments to downplay or even
eliminate her importance. They often point to Matthew 12:47-50 and Luke 8:19-21,
claiming these passages deny any motherly role for Mary or fraternal role for the
so-called “brothers,” that Jesus dismisses his actual family by saying that anyone
who does the will of God is mother and brother to him. (The irony here is
interesting. Mary accomplished the will of God by giving flesh and blood to the
Word, so she certainly retains her motherhood according to this definition. Any
evangelical who calls himself a follower of the Word thus claims brotherhood
with Jesus, and as such necessarily claims Mary for his mother.)
Evangelicals like to point out that
Mary isn’t mentioned very often in the New Testament—not at all in the
epistles—and that the Scriptures do not show Jesus giving his mother a role in
the Church.
(Of course part of the problem is the
reliance on Sola Scriptura, whose many weaknesses are explored in three other
articles on this blog.)
Evangelicals imply that despite the
Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive spousal
union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed among women
(Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that Mary shares
in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the redemption of the
world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he grew in wisdom and
age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her intercession (John 2:1-5),
that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and the womb, because anyone
who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing unique or efficacious
about the motherhood of Mary.
(In fact, to reduce Mary to merely an
“ovum donor,” one must still acknowledge that the Savior of the world came to
the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving Jesus to the
world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had no use for her
from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses a woman for a
temporary purpose and then lets her go.)
Evangelicals also object to Mary being
referred to as the “Mother of God.” To refuse her this title is to either deny
that she is the mother of Jesus or to deny that Jesus is God, or to claim that
certain things can be said of Jesus’ human nature that can’t be said of his
divine nature, that these are separate entities without unity, none of which
complies with basic Christian theology.)
The quality, if not quantity, of
Scripture passages about Mary show her unique relationship with the Trinity, as
well as the many practical implications of that.
Most notable among these is what we
read in John 2:1-5, when Jesus performs his first miracle after the
intercession of his mother. John, to whom Jesus gave his mother upon the cross,
lists Mary first when speaking of the wedding guests. This is not to indicate
she is more important than Jesus, but that she has a prominent role.
John shows us in this episode that
Mary is an advocate, which leads us to another Catholic teaching about her. We
read in Lumen Gentium (emphasis added):
“The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the
Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This,
however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds
anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.” (Lumen
Gentium 62)
The titles of Advocate, Helper, and
Benefactress should be self-evident to anyone with knowledge of the Bible. The
Bible says repeatedly that God’s people should pray for one another. It also
tells us that the Body of Christ is not divided, so we are still connected with
the members of the body that have gone to heaven, that they are aware of what
happens on earth, and so it is proper to ask them to pray for us as our
advocates, helpers and benefactors.
What may not be so self-evident is the
term “Mediatrix,” which is different from “Mediator.” As noted above Mary, like
Paul and others, shares in the work of Christ. Since she cooperated in a
unique way with the Holy Spirit to conceive and bear the Father’s only Son, she
cooperates in a unique way in helping to dispense the graces won only by the
Son. (This is also why mary is sometimes called “co-redeemer.” It does not mean
she is another redeemer, but is called—like Paul—to a special role of helping
to spread the redemption won by her Son. Since she is the one the Holy Spirit
engaged to bring the Father’s only Son to the world, she shares uniquely in
this mission.)
There is a classic traditional
three-fold argument against Mary as “Mediatrix,” and a classic response to it,
and here it is.
Objections:
Mary as Mediatrix
differs on all three counts:
1. Mary is human, not God. But it is appropriate for God to choose her as Mediatrix because he made her Mother of the Redeemer. Since Mary was intimately associated with her Son’s acquiring grace for us, she also shares with him in distributing that grace to us. It was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God's plan of salvation by proclaiming herself “the handmaid of the Lord.”
2. Her role as Mediatrix is not necessary, since Christ was
and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. God did not need Mary at
all, except that if he decreed the incarnation, he necessarily decreed a
Mother. But everything else in which God has employed her is not needed.
He wants to.
God wants everything in our life to be as rich as possible, so that he will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. (Why be satisfied with what is good when you can have what is great?) Even though God did not need Mary, he willed to employ her to enrich us. Even though there is no need of any other saints, God wills to add them—all to make everything as rich as possible.
3. Her ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son.
