Gospel Prism

Je vous salue, Marie, pleine de grâce,
Le Seigneur est avec vous.
Vous êtes bénie entre toutes les femmes,
et Jésus, le fruit de vos entrailles, est béni.
Sainte Marie, Mère de Dieu,
priez pour nous, pauvres pécheurs,
maintenant et à l’heure de notre mort.

Au nom du Père et du Fils et Saint-Esprit.

I had to memorize this prayer and recite it every day of my first three years of high school. What was it for? My French class, that’s what it was for and it was nothing more than a mere ritual. In fact, I can still recite most of it because it was drilled into my brain so deeply. In English, the ‘Hail Mary’ goes like this:

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 2675) says about the Hail Mary:

Beginning with Mary’s unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the Person of Christ manifested in His mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first “magnifies” the Lord for the “great things” He did for His lowly servant and through her for all human beings. The second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused.

In many ways, this small statement summarizes the conundrum that Mary presents to Protestants whenever we think about Mary’s place for RCs. The latter part of the statement focuses on the Lord’s magnification. And yet, somehow Mary as the “Mother of God� claims a focus that seems even superior to that of Christ. How does did this happen in the RCC?

Well, this will not be an in-depth study on Mariology (the study of Mary in the RCC), but rather an overview on the main points concerning Mary and then a biblical response. I hope it helps to clarify RCC and Protestant views of Mary. Here are the questions I have concerning Mary:

1. Who was Mary?

2. Was she a virgin her whole life?

3. Was she the ‘Mother of God’?

4. Was she herself ‘immaculately conceived’?

5. Did she die as all people die?

6. What role does Mary play for the Church today?

I think this essentially deals with the top 7 distinctives between the RCC and Protestant views of Mary.

Who Was Mary?
According to Matthew 1:18, she was a young woman who was the one chosen to give birth to Jesus, God’s one and only Son. We know she was a virgin at birth (1:23). She was betrothed to a man named Joseph at the time she conceived of a child (1:18). We know the Holy Spirit came upon her (Luke 1:35). Mary was also born into the priestly family, as she was cousins with Elizabeth who was the wife of Zechariah ultimately from Aaron’s lineage (Luke 1:5, 36). Finally, May was at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25-26).

Was She a Virgin Her Whole Life?
One day in eighth grade, as I was reading my Bible, I came across Matthew 12:46 which said: “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.� This seemed to contradict everything I had learned in religion class. Sister David (another nun) was my religion teacher and so I asked her, “Sister David, it says here that Jesus had brothers. I thought Mary had no other children except for Jesus.� I wish I could remember her exact response, but all I can remember is that the response was far from satisfying. But for a non-precocious eight grader who had no true interest in spiritual things, I promptly took what she said, went off to play with my friends, and forgot the whole incident.

But this feature of Mary is one of the hallmarks of the RCC teachings on Mary. The Catholic Encyclopedia (of which I will be referring to throughout) writes about the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity:

There can be no doubt as to the Church’s teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first. According to St. Luke (1:34-35), “Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The intercourse of man is excluded in the conception of Our Blessed Lord. According to St. Matthew, St. Joseph, when perplexed by the pregnancy of Mary, is told by the angel: “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost” (1:20).

I don’t know about you but when I read Luke 1:34-35 according to this text, I don’t see how the writer of this article can say, “There can be no doubt.� I see evidence for Mary’s virginity at the time of Jesus’ birth, but to call it perpetual virginity seems non-biblical and abiblical. The Encyclopedia makes this point as well:

As to Mary’s virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew’s expressions “before they came together” (1:18), “her firstborn son” (1:25), nor by the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to the “brothers of Jesus”. [66] The words “before they came together” mean probably, “before they lived in the same house”, referring to the time when they were merely betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that the Incarnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that it did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]

The same must be said of the expression, “and he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his birth. [68] The name “firstborn” applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal name [69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.

Finally, the “brothers of Jesus” are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives. [70] The Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but consecrate the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purification). The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this privilege of Mary. [71]

Matthew 1:25 is a crucial text that the RCC simply tries to brush aside. It reads: “But knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.â€? The key word is “untilâ€? or hoes hou in the Greek. The word seems to propose that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The RCC as from this article says that this does not suggest what happened after the birth. I am not a Greek scholar so instead I’ll just summarize the points concerning the word ‘until.’ The word in Matthew and the NT does not have the nuance that the RCC argues. When it says ‘until’ (heos hou), it means in the future there us a time when something does occur. Ronald Tacelli, a Boston College professor wrote an article entitled, “He’s an Only Child: A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the roundsâ€? to try to refute Eric Svendsen’s exegesis on this text. Tacelli writes in his critique of Svendsen’s argument that ‘until’ means the way most people think the word means: “But suppose all this is wrong. Suppose that, apart from Matthew 1:25, every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament clearly indicates a reversal of the main clause. That would still not prove that reversal is implied by Matthew 1:25. It would merely prove that Matthew 1:25 may be the only place in the New Testament where reversal is not implied.â€? Do you see the implications of this statement? It means that exegesis should be thrown out the window. Who cares whether every instance defines heos hou as ‘until’, if he wants it to mean something different, that’s his prerogative and the RCC’s as well. This technique of superimposing RCC doctrine over the biblical text is an essential difference between the RCC and Protestantism, and it covers the doctrine of Mary as well.

The same is true for Jesus’ brothers (adelphos). Francis Moloney, an RC scholar says:

The New Testament text itself is open to either interpretation. The Church’s traditional teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary must guide both the faithful and the exegete in their interpretation of these passages� (Mary: Woman and Mother [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1988], 7 n. 10).

Again, it’s the ‘who cares what the exegesis shows’ mentality. Concerning the fact that most NT scholars and instances of adelphos show that brothers refers to Jesus’ physical brothers, he notes that the Church’s teaching on perpetual virginity must guide both the faithful and the exexgete! Is this any different to Scripture than the Buddhist who thinks that Jesus is a great teacher and so interprets the Bible from that grid, finding Jesus nothing more than the reincarnation of something other than God Himself? If the reader defines meaning, then meaning can mean anything or nothing at all.

Perpetual virginity is a doctrine not from Scripture, but from the RCC that wants to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

Was Mary the ‘Mother of God’?
Every good Catholic believes to be so. The ‘Hail Mary’ recites this. And the logic behind this statement goes like this: Jesus is God. Mary was His mother. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. It seems simple enough. Except there is one problem. It is inherently misleading. It gives the idea that Mary, as being the ‘Mother of God’, is divine in her own right. But perhaps even more misleading that that idea is the fact that God came into being because of Mary. RC scholars argue that this is not the case because Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus and not the divine nature of Jesus. The problem with splitting these natures is that it is not what the Bible teaches, since the Bible teaches that both human and divine natures are in the person of Jesus. The splitting of natures was the basis of Apollinarianism that the Council of Alexandria in AD 362 and the Council of Constantinople rejected in AD 381 (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 544-555). To find more info concerning the arguments against Mary as ‘the Mother of God’, check our Eric Svendsen’s excellent article entitled, “The “Mother of God” and the New Roman Catholic Apollinarimonophysites.â€?

Was She Herself ‘Immaculately Conceived’?
No, and that is a straightforward answer. The Catholic Encyclopedia begins it’s “proof from Scripture� on this doctrine by making this statement which I think says it all: “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.� It then lists Genesis 3:15 which talks about the Eve’s descendents crushing the head of the serpent and Luke 1:28 which says Mary is the “favored one� as the texts to show Mary was sinless or ‘immaculately conceived’. The article then lists a whole litany of “Proofs from Tradition� where many traditionally believed Mary was sinless. Again, this is nothing but evidence of the fact that for the RCC, creating doctrine from tradition rather than Scripture, is a hallmark of the RCC.

Concerning sinlessness, one only need to read Romans 3:9-18 to see that Mary could not have been the sole exception to the depth of original sin:

9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13″Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14″Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15″Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18″There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

I guess I want to think that Paul (and the Psalmist from Psalm 14:1-3) means what he says “NONE is righteous, no, NOT ONE.�

Did She Die As All People Die?
The Feast of the Assumption became official church dogma on November 1, 1950 in the papal bull Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII. He “declared infallibly� this to be a true doctrine and anyone who refuted this would be a blasphemer and could lead to a loss of one’s salvation. The idea that Mary never died stems from the fact that Scripture is silent about her death. So even though there is absolutely not a shred of biblical evidence concerning Mary’s supposed escape from death, silence on this issue has led to a doctrine by the RCC that has the stiffest of penalties for those who deny it, a lost salvation. William Webster has gone into some detail in describing the history of this doctrine. But once again, the Church’s traditions and the Pope’s shield of infallibility trumps what the Bible has to say about Mary.

What Role Does Mary Have for the Church Today?
There is no doubt Mary was a blessed girl/woman. She was significant in that she was clearly a virgin when she conceived. In Luke 1:46-56 (often known as the Magnificat) she tells us in her song that she is of low estate (1:43, 48). She wasn’t anyone special. She did not have wealth or position. She probably had no dowry of significance so marrying her probably did not make Joseph a rich man. She did not have connections in high places. But that low estate referred to more than mere external circumstances. She was a personal of internal low estate. She was humble, and that humility was what made her favored among all women.

In fact as she says in verse 48, she is a “humble servant� or “slave.� A slave succumbs to the will of his or her master, and that is exactly who Mary was. She willfully succumbed to the will of the Lord, making her own life, her body, the most personal and private arenas of her life, available to the Lord’s will.

Something to notice about the Magnificat is the fact that there are over 50 possible OT references within this text alone. This has led some scholars to conclude that Mary couldn’t have possibly created this song. It must have been Luke’s intervention. But what these scholars fail to see about Mary is 1:35 which says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.� In other words, if God could cause a virgin to be with child, doesn’t giving a young girl words of OT images seem like a piece of cake. On top of this, it is more than likely that like all Jewish girls, she too was educated in the Scriptures. So it is far from unimaginable to assume that Mary was endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit to say these words.

If we can just try to imagine Mary’s state of mind. As a fifteen year old (think of 15 year olds you know, or maybe yourself as a 15 year old), she was told she would be with a child mysteriously and that this child would be the Savior of the world. It’s no wonder that when she sees her cousin Elizabeth, she bursts into this Spirit-inspired song.

Mary was a model for many women to see as a person who trusted in God. She was a person of incredible faith, who utterly depended on God. She was a worshipper of God and submitted willfully to whatever God would do and wherever that would lead her. And ultimately, she too would be a disciple of Christ and would count Jesus, the son she gave birth to, as her Savior.

She was also a dignified and gracious and trusting, even as she watched her Son die. Again, during the most horrific time of her life, she trusted God. And that speaks to all who trust in Christ, yes, even to us Protestants. Mary is someone to follow as she pursues Christ, like Paul. But she is not someone to worship. I don’t believe she would have ever dreamed that so many people would have lifted her up virtually next to Christ Himself. Because even she knew that she could never mediate grace the way Jesus does. This is why the Hebrews writes says this of Jesus, and not Mary, or the ‘Saints’, or the RC priests:

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. (9:15)

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. (9:24)