Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States comes at a time when Roman Catholic seminary enrollment is down 60 percent since 1968. Two seminarians talk with Michele Norris about the shrinking pool of priests and other issues facing the U.S. church.
Firstly, may God bless these men as they step out in faith. I have to say, though, even as one who is quite Catholic-minded, (within an Anglican context) I am still able to feel quite stunned by certain expressions of Marian devotion. The sentence (paraphrased): “I bring all of these problems to God and give them to him, through the Blessed Mother,” is an example of this kind of expression.
I can understand honoring Mary; I can understand asking Mary (and the saints) to join their prayers to yours. I am disturbed, though, by any scheme which places Mary in a position that belongs to Christ alone… mediatorial or otherwise. We come to the Father through Christ, and no one else.
It is also interesting to wonder about what these excessive Marian devotions say about the feminization of Christianity – an all male priesthood that more readily identifies with a maternal, feminine, wifely symbol than with a conquering, warrior, masculine King.
While I share #1’s concerns about [b]excessive[/b] Marian piety, I don’t know of any corner of Anglicanism that is at risk for that, but I know a lot of places that could do with [b]more[/b] devotion to the BVM. When there is a connection to the Transcendent Feminine (i.e. the Theotokos), there is greatly lessened temptation to feminize God (or at least neuter Him). Our Roman cousins are much less vulnerable to tinkering with the theological language of liturgy than we are (withness EOW and later editions of BOS and the more recent collects in LFF).
Nos. 1 and 2, these are fair comments, politely stated. As an Anglo-Catholic, I am favorable toward Marian devotion, especially since there is plenty of evidence that it was part and parcel of the life of the Undivided Church (witness its presence in the Orthodox communion today).
There have been places and times where Marian devotion has bordered on divinization, but I think it’s important here to remember that *official* Roman Catholic doctrine in this area has always been sound. It is no more fair to take, for example, the erroneous extreme veneration of Mary present in (perhaps) some Latin American Roman Catholic community, and universalize it, than it is to take the apostasy of a Jack Spong and claim that it is the doctrine of the Anglican Church.
Fr Dan (#3),
I hear what you are saying, yet conservative evangelicals (for whom Mary is important insofar as her role in the incarnation, and is certainly considered blessed by God in being so chosen) are not noted for feminizing God either. Cultural capitulation is more to blame, I would think, than one’s view on the BVM, for this particular problem. Could you also expand on what you mean by “Transcendental Feminine” with regard to Mary as Theotokos? I’m not entirely sure I’m tracking with you there.
Ouroboros (#4),
I am agreed with you in re: the practice of the undivided Church in re: devotion to Mary. Yet I also note that Marian devotion in Eastern practice is markedly different from that which we often see in Roman practice. You are right– it is unfair to view the whole of the Roman Church through the lens of a few extremists. Nonetheless, I think you will admit that the kind of Marian devotion referenced in the first post is by no means uncommon.
On a brighter note, Pope Benedict seems to be calling the Church to a more Christocentric understanding of the faith, as per his most recent book… and his disciplining certain Marian radicals. May God bless him in his work.
I’m just wrapped up a Marian gab-fest last week, so I’m going to lurk on this one, except for this comment, which is to bring this essay on the history of Marian devotion to your attention. It was an eye-opener to me just how little has changed in the Catholic tradition over time.
Words Matter,
Thanks for the essay. It didn’t hit me in quite the same way as it did you, though. I see little within the first few centuries that needs disturb. I am happy to see Mary as Eve recapitulated, with Irenaeus (and thus the Mother of the Church in Christ, with Jerome); I am happy to honor her as Theotokos. More, I see no reason why the Assumption of Mary need threaten anyone (all would agree, for instance that Elijah was taken up in this way– why not the Mother of our Lord?).
I do struggle with the essay’s tendency to read such ideas back into texts that would most naturally be understood otherwise, though– see, for example, Ephraem’s poetry (which is drawing upon Deuteronomy’s imagery of God carrying his people on the pinions of eagles). This same “reading back” can be seen in the assumption that the Collyridians (who were heretics) are somehow representative of a wider tendency within the Church towards overly worshipful devotion to Mary. Most of the arguments surrounding the first centuries are arguments based upon silence. What we see in the first centuries is a high regard for Mary and (perhaps) a growing tendency to seek her intercession together with the saints.
Its a few (8-10?) centuries before we see full-blown Marian devotion coming into its own– not without opposition, either. More, it seems to me that Duns Scotus (13th-14th centuries) is the one who finally gave such devotion its intellectual rationale.
And more, it seems to me that this era saw the birth of the idea that we can only come to Christ through Mary, which strikes me as a fairly abominable tangent away from the historic faith of the Church. You’ll recall that King James (who was no mean theologian) wrote against these abuses in his letter to Emperor Rudolf II. He writes:
[i]And first for the Blessed Virgin Mary, I yield her that which the Angel Gabriel pronounced of her, and which in her Canticle she prophecied of herself, that is, That she is blessed among women, and That all generations shall call her blessed. I reverence her as the Mother of Christ, of whom our Saviour took His flesh, and so the Mother of God, since the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confess that she is in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is both God and man) only excepted. But I dare not mock her, and blaspheme against God, calling her not only Diva but Dea, and praying her to command and control her Son, Who is her God and her Saviour…[/i]
Today one frequently hears that coming to Jesus through Mary is the surest way to answered prayer (often using the Wedding at Cana as a proof text). This is counter to everything we read in the New Testament, the Fathers, and even most Medieval writers. We come to the Father through Christ, and by the Holy Spirit.
Sorry if this is has become an overly long post. I am just trying to articulate as best as I can where I see Marian devotion crossing certain lines that earlier Christians would not have dared cross.
Thanks for these good comments, everyuone. fI believe in the Assumption, and believe that the IC is very reasonable, and that Mary is first among the saints. And I pray to her, asking her favor. I should draw the line also at declaring her Co-Redemptrix, which I don’t think the RC Church will ever do, or also that She is the only way we can approach Her Son.
The RC insistence that Marian devotion is wholesome but her cult is optional merely flames the fire of inquiry. If the common practice is the result of the free embrace of the people (rather than compulsory dogma), then it is all the more interesting to find out why Mary’s cult is so pervasive ? What does this free choice tell us about the actual state of Romanism? Why do so many priests / religious / laity self-identify so closely and so stridently with St. Mary prior to Christ?
BTW, for full disclosure, I accept Roman doctrine concerning Mary and the saints. I even think Pope JPII was reasonable in his articulation of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. So the problem doesn’t seem to be Mariology; the problem, I would argue, is a pervasive extremism toward veneration of the ultimate feminine which seems at least at first glance to have a connection with our culture’s obvious feminization and rejection of masculinity.
Bluntly, why are these men so desperate for their Mother, and so apparently lackadaisical in following Christ into battle? Its analogous to the the question: what if after that famous wedding the Apostles had gone home with Mary instead of following Jesus? Would that have been proper, healthy, reasonable?
I’m just wondering?
No. 6, I haven’t had the chance the read the essay yet, but thank you for posting it!
No. 5, on your point about the difference in Marian devotion in East and West, my first thought is “yes” and “no.” The East does not use certain terms, or maintain devotion to body parts (e.g. the “Immaculate Heart of Mary”), but the Orthodox too are very strong in their language, for example, “O Theotokos, be our mediator.” (See Bishop Kallistos Ware’s article on the “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” issue.) Of course, they respond that in this sense they do not mean “Mediator” with a capital “M” (which only Christ is), but “mediator” in the sense that any other Christian who approaches God for you is a mediator. My point here is that the force of Marian devotion in the East is just as strong as in the West. Different in some aspects, yes, but still far, far, far more than the post-Reformation churches would like to admit. Simply panning Marian devotion as a “late corruption of Rome, fondly invented” just does not cut it. If, as Archbishop Fisher said, we Anglicans have no doctrine of our own, but only the doctrine of the Undivided Church, than our church needs to rediscover a boatload of healthy Marian devotion.
For me, I have seen no argument against “official” Roman teaching concerning devotion to Mary that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would not also preclude many things Protestants agree are scriptural and healthy. For example, “prayer to Mary.” First, in old English, this simply means “asking,” as in, “I pray thee, bring me some bread.” If we cannot ask Mary to pray for us, than we should not ask fellow Christians to pray for us either. Or, for example, the title, “Queen of Heaven.” If David was King of Israel, and his mother was therefore Queen Mother, and Jesus is King in David’s line, is not Mary Queen Mother as well? And so forth.
Ouroboros (#10),
Thank you for your response. The devotion you describe, to me, is a
positive one and one which seems to reflect the understanding of the undivided Church. Two points, though:
1) The West-East distinction between the upper and lower case “M” in mediator is a profound one. I have no problem with the term “mediator” in the Eastern sense (which seems to be the sense in which you are interpreting it). I do have a problem with the term “Mediator” insofar it seems to be a term which denies Christ’s unique mediatorial role between the Christian (and creation, for that matter) and the Father. This is the concern which I was expressing in the posts above.
2) I agree with you that “Marioloatry” of this sort has no place in the official Roman teaching; it does, however, have a (very) significant place in the spirituality of many Roman Catholics. This, for me, is the issue– the disjunction between official teaching and normal practice. I myself do not believe that Mary would be pleased with the kind of devotion which takes away from the unique glory of her Son. But I suspect we are all agreed on that point.
No. 11, completely agreed.
I guess a fair summary of my view on this matter is that I’d rather deal with some non-officially-sanctioned excessive devotion to Mary, hopefully correcting it on a pastoral level, than simply chucking a very ancient part of the Catholic Christian life out the window, which is sadly what most of the reformers did.
#12, I agree. And we haven’t even broached the abominable teachings coming out of certain (too many) sections of our own branch of the Church. Rather like the days when Arianism hijacked the Church… would that the ABC could take a note out of Athanasius’ diary. Or Benedict XVI’s (God bless him).
“If the common practice is the result of the free embrace of the people (rather than compulsory dogma), then it is all the more interesting to find out why Mary’s cult is so pervasive ? What does this free choice tell us about the actual state of Romanism? Why do so many priests / religious / laity self-identify so closely and so stridently with St. Mary prior to Christ”
The Protestant backlash against women is what makes you feel that the veneration of St. Mary is a “cult”. It used to be (in the Middle Ages, before Luther) NORMAL for healthy young men to venerate the women they loved. It was considered not only manly, but chivalrous for a knight to joust carrying his lady’s “favour”. Well, priests consider themselves spiritual knights, and they go jousting with the Devil (and protestants) with their lady’s favor, and that lady is St. Mary.
Unfortunately, the Protestant break with the Catholic church not only resulted in the rift with Rome, but the wearing of dull clothes, the banning of incense, the forbidding of dance, and the round of Catholic saint feast days, but also the consignment of women to the role of temptress without redeeming qualities. Thus, not only Mary, but most of the non-male saints simply vanished from the Protestant church.
The way Catholic priests act toward St. Mary now has not changed in 500 years. (Or in a thousand years).
#14
If you read through the posts again, a bit more carefully, you’ll notice that no one has assaulted such a veneration as you have described. The only issue that I see being questioned in this particular thread is a devotion that often seems to side-step Christ. The example given at the beginning of the thread is the reference to bringing our burdens to God through Mary. Equivalent examples are (again) certain statements regarding the necessity of coming to Christ through Mary. This is simply not right– it is common practice, but it is contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Smooth your feathers down– this is hardly a “Catholic bashing” thread. Most of us, it seems, would identify ourselves as Catholics (albeit Anglican ones). And not a few of us will have cast our eyes to Rome a few times over the last years.
Well, I lied; I’m going to make a comment, though not in defense of Catholic doctrine nor even practice. For one thing, I agree that this is not a Catholic-bashing thread; what I see is principled disagreement, rather than prejudice. That’s nice.
Moreover, although I am a Catholic, I’m not all that comfortable with the sort of Marian piety of bringing everything to the Father through Mary. Perhaps it’s my protestant childhood, but I tend to think of Jesus in that place, since he is the Way to the Father. On the other hand, the seminarian’s comment was something of a throw-away line; were he pressed to a full theological exposition, I suspect he could nuance the comment to. Catholics are, I think, prone to see an connection between the mother and the Son – for that matter between the Son and His body the Church – that is so intimate, and so connected the Incarnation itself, that distinctions are difficult, and, perhaps, irrelevant.
I’m almost at the point where I wonder if this is just Catholic-speak that I don’t understand yet. Twenty-one years and you would think I’d speak really fluent Catholic, but… 🙂
Yet,these same people talking about Mary sing, or say this at least weekly:
For you alone are the Holy One
You alone are the Lord
You alone are the Most High
Jesus Christ…
You’d think that someone would wake up and notice this (purported) disjunction between “Christ alone” and “all through Mary”.
Finally, on the history thing, the Sub Tuum comes from the mid-3rd century and displays a well-developed Marian piety not unlike that which we are discussing here. This pray exists in the East and West and is still prayed by monks today.
We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; Despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
Thanks for that, Words Matter. I’m glad you decided to comment. 🙂 Interesting note on the Sub Tuum– I’m going to have to look into that a little more deeply.
Every Blessing,
fs