The Secret Thoughts of Many: Part 1
10 minutes
“And a sword will pierce your heart as well, so that the secret thoughts of many may be revealed.” (Luke 2:35)
Introduction
I have often struggled intellectually with Marian doctrines. These include Mary’s perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her ongoing, essential intercessory role in our salvation, and her bodily assumption into Heaven. The same doctrines are embraced (sometimes under slightly different terminology) by Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Coptic Christians, and the Ethiopian Orthodox; that is, all the historic and sacramental churches with apostolic succession going back to the Twelve. In all of Christendom, with few exceptions, only a tiny minority of very recent Christian assemblies have disputed these basic teachings, while the great mass of Christians in the last two millennia have regarded them as basic. But the intellectual justifications for this have not always been obvious to me, and I was once frustrated that they were not more clearly stated in Scripture.
Having finally come to some light about these matters, I here share the fruit of my intellectual struggles for the benefit, first, of Catholics (and their fellow sacramental Christians,) and second, of Protestants who may wonder how and why such things are believed, let alone considered so important. What follows is not so much an apologetics essay, but a scattered meditation on who Mary is to Christ, and, therefore, to Christians.
Let me start by explaining why I found them difficult. Like any Catholic, I have always found it natural to have affection for Mary, and have not been put-off or offended by these doctrines as ideas. On the contrary, they feel almost genetically programmed. But I have a fatal flaw; fatal because it is so useful in day-to-day life in a world of deceivers and truth-spinners (politicians, media people, religious hucksters, etc) but not so useful in approaching the Christian Faith. Call it “analytical suspicion,” or “truth reductionism.”
This is the pattern of mind whereby the truth is seen as so elusive, so easily manipulated, and so hard to come by, that in practice, one only trusts what one can personally verify, and that, in a boiled-down, “no frills” form. I am used to people lying, or spinning, or even exaggerating with the best of intentions, and so I tend to carve down claims to their lowest common denominator, to whatever content remains after the fog of assertion has been reduced to its primary elements in the Bunsen burner of my brain. Yet the Marian doctrines are the product of a totally different kind of reasoning, one that is expansive, and eager, and – contrary to my default disposition – incredibly hopeful.
And, as I will try to illustrate in Part 2, the Marian doctrines are actually the consequence of two things: good Christology, and an expansive Christian hope as manifested in the meditations and prayer lives of the faithful over time. The former allows us to think correctly about Christ, and the latter about the things and people who relate to Christ. My conclusion will be that if we know who Christ is, and if our hope is of the supernatural kind, we will eventually arrive at certain truths about Mary. To show this, I will zig-zag through the doctrines. In Part 1, I’ll illustrate my own natural misgivings, and in Part 2, the truly Christian thinking that overcame it. I’ll close in Part 3 by addressing some of issues directly related to that main line of argument, especially the question of why Mary’s great role in the Church is “hidden” in Scripture.
Part 1: The Problems Posed by Essential Marian Doctrines
I’m not always happy with the way Catholic writers and apologists approach these matters, because they do not always follow St. Thomas in stating the best argument that can be made against their positions. They don’t always admit the full weight of the difficulties. Therefore, I’ll start by illustrating each of these doctrines, and by admitting the paradoxes/arguments that my “truth reductionism” once suggested to me, leaving me frustrated that a stronger case could not be made. After going through each doctrine in this way, I’ll circle back in Part 2, and I’ll try to show how a deep Christology, combined with an expansive Christian hope, leads one to the traditional Marian teachings. Here goes:
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
From the earliest days, there have been at least some Christians who went out of their way to emphasize that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, and that the brothers of Jesus were not her biological children. One sees this idea in The Infancy Gospel of James (A.D. 145) and The Odes of Solomon (A.D. 100-200,) and in The Ascension of Isaiah (A.D. 70.) I am not aware of any other first or second century writings, including Scripture, which directly mention or allude to Mary’s miraculously preserved physical virginity (in partu) or subsequent perpetual virginity (ex partu.) Saint Ignatius, writing in 107 A.D., may allude to Mary’s virginity in partu in his Letter to the Ephesians (19: 1-2,) but it’s hard to tell. Now there is a single passage from John’s Gospel (19:26-27) which would be difficult to square with Mary’s having had other biological children after Christ, yet there are multiple passages that on their face, according to a casual reading, tend to suggest the opposite, because they either use grammar that implies a change of state (Matthew 1:25,) or else present Mary alongside the brothers and sisters of Jesus (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and others.)
Yet a passage in Luke (1:34), when read thoughtfully, is hard to explain if Mary was expecting to have children even after she was married. Here Mary is betrothed to a man from the house of David, when an angel prophesies to her that her son will be the Messiah. Now Mary is already betrothed to Joseph, and knows that Joseph is David’s descendant, and she is scheduled to get married to him soon. So why does she express surprise at the fact that she would get pregnant at all? The angel doesn’t say, “You will become pregnant now, before your marriage takes place.” He says, “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and call his name Jesus…etc.” In context, Gabriel’s words would most naturally be understood as something happening in the near future, after she’s united to her David-descended husband. Yet she seems confused by the idea that she would even get pregnant. In the context Luke provides, the statement, “How can this be, since I know not man?” sounds like a question about how she will maintain her virginity if she is to become pregnant. That is, it implies that she believes her virginity to be an ongoing, permanent state of affairs despite her upcoming marriage..
If so, there would have to be something else going on with Mary “off screen.” The traditional view is that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity (which was not unknown among some first century Jews, such as the Essenes,) and that Joseph’s marriage to her was meant to be of a unique kind. The non-scriptural Infancy Gospel of James presents a version of this scenario. According to that pious story, Joseph was an older widower with children, and his marriage to Mary was a means of protecting and providing for her in her virginal state, because she’d taken a vow of virginity. If correct, this would help explain why Joseph was apparently no longer living by the time Jesus began his ministry. It could also explain who some of the brothers and sisters of Jesus are, and why they and Mary all appear together in certain passages.
Now the thing is, Scripture itself does not give us a slam-bang case either for or against Mary’s perpetual virginity. There are passages suggestive of either possibility. In other words, Mary’s perpetual virginity (which I accept, as a Catholic, on the authority of the Church) is at best hidden in Scripture. It is not obvious. But then why is it so important? Why is it an essential teaching, and not just a pious opinion (like the view held by a tiny minority of Catholics that St. John the Baptist was also preserved from venial sin?) As we’ll see, this quality of hiddenness shows up in every Marian doctrine.
Mary’s Sinlessness
All the apostolic-sacramental churches that are still around today teach that Mary was without personal sin. The exact “mechanism” believed to be behind this sinlessness has been more varied. Even Aquinas, who believed in Mary’s sinlessness as much as any modern Coptic Christian believes it, was dubious of the proposed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because he held different (and actually incorrect) philosophical views about physical ontogeny. Yet one finds language of “sinlessness,” “spotlessness” and the like very early on in the Church, and from the East to the West. By the time of Nicaea, this view was nearly universally held. Yet it was not universally held, for St. John Chrysostom is a notable exception. And this exception bothered me, for it seemed that it could not exist if Mary’s sinlessness were regarded, at that time, as an essential Christian teaching (as opposed to a pious opinion, worthy of belief, but still up for debate.) If Mary’s sinlessness is a basic Christian belief, how could Chrysostom not have know it? For that matter, how could the later-dogmatized explanation for that sinlessness – her Immaculate Conception – also be an essential Christian belief? We Catholics are not required, on pain of sin, to hold an opinion about whether Mary underwent death before her bodily assumption. Why then are we required, on pain of sin, to hold the view that she was sinless (and immaculately conceived) if this is not plainly stated in either Scripture or the writings of all the Church fathers?
After all, one can easily see how the proper doctrine of Christ – that He is true God and true man – could be essential to Christian faith, and incumbent upon every Christian conscience, even before a full Christology had been worked out. It doesn’t bother me if, say, St. Peter didn’t confess that Christ was homoousios with the Father, because he would not have put it in those words, yet it would be a serious blow to the continuity of the Faith had Peter said, in one of his letters, that Christ was “not fully divine,” or something along those lines. Likewise, it does not seem a problem to me that Aquinas, who believed in Mary’s sinlessness, bodily assumption, special role in our salvation, etc., did not accept the Immaculate Conception. He had a flawed understanding of when the soul entered the body, which is fine, because Aquinas was a mere mortal, and didn’t know everything. Meanwhile, Chrysostom, and presumably some other Christians in good standing, were capable at one time of not believing in Mary’s freedom from all personal sin. That seems more problematic to me. If this doctrine is part of the Deposit of the Faith, and Chrysostom was a great saint, how can he not have known it? More to the point, could something that was essential to the Catholic Faith, also remain hidden for centuries?
Of course, there are other Marian doctrines (or “sub-doctrines”) which have clearly been present from the beginning, and which are directly alluded to in Scripture. The fact that both St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr called Mary the Second Eve (or the female counterpoint to Eve) shows that the earliest Christian apologists regarded her so, and this they must have received from the Apostles, or from their direct successors, just as they did the writings that eventually were put together as the New Testament. John’s treatment of Mary, in both his gospel and in Revelation, also alludes to Genesis, and places Mary opposite Eve. And of course, Eve was sinless and free of original sin prior to the Fall, and she became the mother of all the living (according to the flesh,) whereas Christ’s commending Mary to John as his mother, and scene with the woman in Revelation 12 (whose child is Christ, and whose children are said to be all Christians) both clearly allude to Mary as a kind of new mother for Christians.
So, as I will later argue, the materials for the common Christian doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness, and even for the specific dogma of the Immaculate Conception, were all there from the time of the apostles. But the fact, the specifically held doctrine, does not seem so clearly to have been there. To my boiled-down, analytical mind, this seemed to be a problem. If certain truths about Mary are so important, how can they have remained (partially) hidden, even to a great saint like Chrysostom?
Mary’s Ongoing, Essential Intercessory Role in Our Salvation
Nothing is more natural to a Catholic than to fly to Mary in times of trouble. We have a personal, familial love for her, as do those of the separated Eastern Churches. And this is more than just a belief that Mary, like the millions of others who are alive in Christ (whether on Earth or in Heaven) can help us with her prayers. Rather, Catholics believe that Mary is the intercessor par excellence, and that her intercession plays a vital, ongoing role in our election, sanctification, and salvation. In other words, by Christ’s design, she has been given the role of Mother of the Whole Christ forever, and she plays some role in giving birth to us in Christ. Yes, God could have done things in a different way, but this happens to be the way he chose to do them. But when reading the New Testament, this doctrine does not jump out at you; at least it didn’t jump out at me.
On the contrary, just as with Mary’s perpetual virginity, her ongoing role in every Christian’s salvation is only alluded to in a few passages, whereas it seems to be denied or downplayed elsewhere. True, there are also a few Old Testament passages and typological parallels that could support it, but, being a matter of symbolism and interpretation, these do not generally suggest much to a person who does not already believe in the Marian doctrines. Once again, this seemed problematic for the continuity of the Faith, and not especially useful for persuading a skeptical Protestant, or anyone with a “just the facts, ma’am” approach to truth.
Consider these passages:
“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God, and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28; emphasis mine)
and:
But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matt 12:48-50)
and, again:
“...And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12-14)
This is a small selection of the passages that leave one wondering where Scripture implies – or the Apostles themselves believed – that Mary also plays an essential, ongoing role in salvation. The first two quotes make it look as if Christ is actively directing piety away from Mary!
Now, we actually have plenty of evidence that credible early Christians – bishops, martyrs, apologists, the head of the first Christian academy – did believe in Mary’s special, ongoing intercessory role, but a straight-forward reading of the apostles’ own writings gives the impression that, at best, a few of them had bits of Mariology in mind, but that they did not feel the need to go very deep into the matter. Yet if there is at least some good early Marian theology that supports her unique intercession and her present maternal role towards all Christians, there seems to be zero early evidence to support the doctrine of her bodily assumption into Heaven.
Mary’s Bodily Assumption into Heaven
All the historical Churches confess that at the end of her time on Earth, Mary was taken body and soul into Heaven. A Protestant who, through reading the Church Fathers, discovers the universality of belief in the Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, the other sacraments, apostolic succession, Sacred Tradition, etc., and who wants to join one of these ecclesial bodies (say, the Orthodox, because at least they’re not Catholics!) will still not be able to escape the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption. Indeed, he’ll have an even rougher time of it within Orthodoxy, since the Orthodox generally make stronger and more detailed statements about the event than we Catholics do. All we Catholics confess as a point of doctrine is that Mary, at the completion of her mission on Earth, was taken up body and soul into Heaven. The Catholic Church has not ruled on the question of whether she died first, nor endorsed a specific tradition as to the events surrounding her glorious assumption. Pius works that tell of the Apostles being summoned to witness her falling asleep, or of her tomb being opened, are just that: pious works. We don’t know how or when it happened.
In a way, this universality among sacramental Christians makes the doctrine more inescapable, and yet in a way it doesn’t. The problem the doctrine posed to me is that it wasn’t clearly alluded to in Scripture, excepting one or two potential Old Testament prophecies and parallels (and, again, the interpretation of these is nested within the interpretive structure of Catholic Tradition.) How one longs for at least one New Testament passage mentioning the event! Even the Woman in Revelation 12 is too complex of a symbol for her presence in Heaven to be read as proof of the Assumption. And if any of the Apostles knew that Mary was assumed into Heaven, it surely would have been John, especially by the time he wrote Revelation. Some of what he says about the Woman can and must be read as applying to Mary, yet some of it seemingly does not refer to her only, but rather to the Church. Consequently, we cannot, without cherry-picking according to a set of prior theological assumptions, be certain that John is seeing the Blessed Virgin Mary already glorified in Heaven.
The Apostolic Fathers (the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries) are no help either. As far as I can tell – and I am happy to be proven wrong here – not one of them mentions the bodily assumption of Mary. Did they know, and not mention it (perhaps out of fear of confusing people?) or did they not know? If the former, then this could imply that there are secret Christian doctrines, known only to the elite – which is a terribly Gnostic-sounding idea! If the latter, and the doctrine is actually the conclusion of some theological reasoning, however sound, this suggests that there can be essential Christian doctrines that weren’t even widely known or realized until a few centuries after the apostles died.
But how does that square with the idea of a Deposit of the Faith that ended with the death of the last Apostle, and was subsequently passed down? Of all of the Marian doctrines we’ve mentioned, this one seems to cause the most problems to the sort of “facts only” approach toward which I am naturally inclined. It also seems to be hardest to square with the notion of a fixed Deposit of the Faith, a notion that all Trinitarian Christians accept. (Leaving aside, of course, dissidents and practitioners of moral perversion who disingenuously claim the title Christian, while refusing to accept clear theological and moral teachings.)
Problems Summarized
First, if Mary was ever-virgin, sinless, was assumed bodily into Heaven, and if her ongoing intercession is necessary for our salvation, why were not these facts stated clearly in the Apostles’ writings, nor confessed universally (and, in the latter case, at all) in the earliest patristic writings? Second, if these are essential doctrines, then what is implied about the Deposit of the Faith, and the continuity of the Faith, in order for these things to be binding on Christians now? These are the problems I will take up, and attempt to answer in Part 2.
© 2022 Joseph Breslin All Rights Reserved