|
|
|
As we reflect on the theological truths of Mary's divine maternity and her virginity, we are, in fact imitating Mary. Luke has recounts that the angels appeared to the shepherds, giving them the good news that a Child was born in a manger Who was their Savior, Messiah, and Lord (Luke 2:11, 15). Luke informs us that the shepherds came to the manger and that they "made known the message they had been told about this child" (Luke 2:17). Luke then relates that "Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart" (Luke2:19). What are "these things," except the wonderful events that she has been a part of, the conception and birth of the Savior, Lord, and, Messiah, as well as the words communicated to her and to others regarding this birth? In prayer and in theological reflection, we also ponder "these things," the wonderful words and events that occurred when the Word became flesh. We "ponder" as Mary did, realizing that we are in the presence of a mystery which in many ways is beyond our fathoming, yet this is not a totally unfathomable mystery because it is the mystery of God's revealing Himself in the Person of His only Son and thus a mystery in which God's desires that we come to ever deeper levels of understanding. As Catholics, we believe that we are never alone, but we are always
part of a larger family, worldwide family, and a family that We look especially to the early reflections on these mysteries in the Fathers of the Church, recognizing their proximity to the earliest traditions and realizing that many insights of contemporary theologians are the fruits of seeds sown in Patristic reflections. The unanimous consensus of the Fathers carries a special significance (DS 1507, 3007). We look to the reflections of our sisters and brothers in the faith through the centuries and especially in our own times, in the study of theology but also as faith in these truths has been celebrated in the liturgy. Since our subject is the Marian dogmas, we give particular attention to the formulations of the Councils and the Magisterium. As the document of the International Theological Commission, "On the Interpretations of Dogma," has stated: "Within the Church it belongs to bishops, since they are in apostolic succession (Lumen Gentium, 19), to interpret the tradition of faith authentically (Dei Verbum, 10). In communion with the bishop of Rome, who is obliged to serve unity in a special way, they may define dogmas collegially and interpret them authentically. This may be done both by the whole body of bishops together with the pope and also by the pope, the head of the college of bishops, by himself (Lumen Gentium, 25).2 As we discuss these mysteries and call upon the reflections of the Church's theologians, each one of us must recall that we too must take an active role in this process. Each one of us must ask, "What does this truth mean? How does this truth relate to the other truths of the faith? What does this truth contribute to the essential message of salvation in Jesus? These truths are not wall paper that is meant to decorate the background. These truths are maps that indicate to each one of us how we must go. The significance of Mary's virginity and maternity is not limited to the historical fact of the conception and birth of Jesus at a certain point in history. These truths have a significance for us today, and we can only find it by repeatedly pursuing that significance. The International Theological Commission calls our attention to the central truth of Revelation: "The truth of revelation, as witnessed by Holy Scripture, is God's historical fidelity truth (emeth); ultimately it is the self-communication of the Father, through Jesus Christ, to the present in the Holy Spirit."3 The document also reminds us that the teachings of the faith must be weighed in respect to the revelation given in Jesus: "That coherence results from the center of unity in the tradition and its manifold forms. He is the criterion of distinction and interpretation. From this center Scripture and tradition as well as individual traditions in their changing expressions must be seen and interpreted."4 Are the Marian dogmas a diversion from the center? Many non-Catholics and some Catholics believe that this is so. The Church believes that reflection upon Mary leads to a better understanding of Jesus. Thus, Lumen Gentium affirms: "Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation."5 We come to a deeper appreciation of the Incarnation by exploring it through the experience of the one person who was most deeply affected by it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates this principle: "What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines, in turn, its faith in Christ."6 2) Unity of Virginity and Maternity (Scripture)
What does it mean that Mary was a virgin and a mother? Matthew and Luke are aware that they are relating what is indescribable. Luke informs us of Mary's call and her response, as well as the birth of the Child yet communicates the truth without saying too much. Matthew, who recounts Jesus' birth from Joseph's experience, does not offer us any insights as to what the experience of virginal childbirth and child-rearing was for the virgin-mother. We simply learn from Joseph's inner struggles that he is not the human father as we come to understand that this Child has been conceived through the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:20). Luke and Matthew communicate the inconceivable, a virgin gives birth, and then do not return to the fact for the rest of their Gospels, other than Luke 3:23. Nor does Luke include the Virgin Birth in the kerygma found in the book of Acts. John, who assures us the Word was with God in the beginning and was God (John 1:1), does not touch upon the role played by the woman he identifies as the "Mother of Jesus" (John 2:3) in the process by which the Word became flesh (John 1:14). We want to know more. Suppose someone were to tell us that as he or she was stopped at a red light several trees walked across the street. And if the person then went on to say that the light turned green and proceeded to tell us about the rest of his or her day, we would say, "Did you say several trees walked across the street? Could you go back to that?" Matthew and Luke tell us that a virgin gave birth to the Messiah and then they proceed on with the story of salvation. We would like them to back up a bit. We feel that we have been given a taste of a great mystery but want more. Matthew and Luke take off their shoes and approach the incomprehensible mystery solely with reverence and silence. We can appreciate their reverent delicacy of the Gospels, when we compare their accounts of Jesus' virginal birth with the overly explicit account found in the Protoevangelium of James. But why, we may ask, do Matthew and Luke inform us of the fact of Mary's virgin birth? What is their purpose? Our authors are not communicating incidental information to us. Mary's virginal maternity pertains to Who Jesus is and what His mission is. His conception and birth from a virgin forcefully manifests that the mission of this Child is rooted in Who this Child is. In Matthew's Gospel, the angel tells Joseph that "He will save the people from their sins" (Mt 1:21). We are also told that "His name will be Emmanuel," that is, God is with us (Mt 1: 23). In Jesus, God is present with His people and is reconciling His people. When Jesus will say, "Your sins are forgiven you," (Mt 9:2), He will not be promising a future forgiveness as the prophets might but rather He will be efficaciously giving forgiveness through an authority rooted in Who He is. In Luke's Gospel, Mary is told that the Child will be called the Son of the Most High (Lk 1:32) and that the Spirit will overshadow her (Lk 1:35). This Child's being is the result of the Spirit's over-shadowing. Three titles applied to God by Mary in the Magnificat are applied to Jesus in other passages of the first two chapters of Luke. Mary calls God "Lord," xov Kupiov (1:46), and "my Savior," aooxfipi u.ou (1:47), and says that His name is "holy" dyiov (1:49). These three expressions are also applied to Jesus: dyiov (l:35)Kupiov (1:43) and atoxrip (2:11).
When the religious leaders of the people take offense at the authority Jesus assumed over their religious practices "but I say to you" (Mt 19: 8) and even over the Sabbath (Mt 12:12), they were accurately surmising that the issue was accepting Who Jesus is not just His various teachings. Ultimately, the question, "Who do you say I am?" remains the decisive theological question. Everything else follows upon that. 3) Patristic Reflections on Virginity and Maternity As the Patristic foundations for Marian dogma have already been explored, we will note the assumption of these authors that Mary's virginal birth-giving actually happened. If, as some authors suggest, Matthew and Luke were using a literary form in presenting Jesus as being born of a virgin, then the key to understanding that metaphor quickly disappeared with the sacred authors and their first readers. We must not overlook the indications of belief in the truth of the virginal motherhood in the writings of the early Church and must also note that no early Christian authors assert that Jesus had a natural conception and a human father. The first stage was simply to assert that Mary really was a mother to Jesus in a physical sense. The Gnostics, who considered material things to be opposed to the spiritual, could not accept the fact that Jesus had a physical body and therefore Mary could not have been a real mother. One sub-group of Gnostics, the Docetists, whose name comes from the Greek word "to seem," explicitly asserted that Jesus only seemed to have a body, only seemed to be born, and only seemed to suffer, yet, even in opposing the Gnostics, the early Fathers did not downplay Jesus' birth from a virgin, although the idea of a virgin birth might lend itself to the arguments of the Gnostics. For our early authors, Jesus' birth from a virgin indicated His divine origin even as His birth from Mary indicated His human origin. Ascertaining the right balance in understanding the two natures of Jesus was the project of the first centuries of Christianity. As we will see, Mary was often a help in giving the needed clarity.
The early apologist Aristides of Athens (d.c.145) also attests both to Jesus' nature as the Son of God as well as to the reality of Jesus' human birth: "He is confessed as the Son of the highest God, descending from heaven through the Holy Spirit; and of a virgin, He took flesh..."7 Justin (d. c. 165) addresses the heretical belief that the Father and the Son were the same, but also asserts that the Son is God but also man by His human birth: "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe had a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God... having become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him."8 According to Irenaeus' (d. c. 200) theory of recapitulation, Christ would have to assume the same nature as Adam in order to heal the nature weakened in Adam. Irenaeus explains that this was a real body made of Mary: Why then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up, (in Christ as had existed in Adam), the analogy having been preserved. Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err (since) in order that they might cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy.9
Tertullian (d. after 200) attests to the faith of the Church in
North Africa that Jesus truly was
born of Mary: "You say that he was born through a virgin not
of a. virgin, and in the womb, not of a. womb,
because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, 'That which is born
in her (not of her) is of the Holy Ghost.' But the fact is,
if he had meant 'of her,' he must
have said 'in her;1
for that which was of her was also in her."10
Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) affirms the
reality of Jesus' divine nature as well as the reality of His human
birth: "The Son of God -- of Him Who made the universe -- assumed
flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body
was produced)..."11
The belief in the Virgin Birth is present in the early creedal formulas, the articulated canons of beliefs. The "Apostles' Creed," which was so named because of a tradition that its origin was rooted in apostolic times, is apparently the developed text of the profession of faith in the Roman Baptismal Rite. It seems to have taken form towards the close of the second century and to have been standardized by the fourth century. St. Hippolytus (d. 235), in his Apostolic Traditions, written between 215 and 217, asserts that one of the questions in the Roman Baptismal rite was: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary?"12 Rufinus (d. 404), in his commentary on this Creed, says that it was used in Rome and Jerusalem and is not much different from the one to which he is accustomed. He furnishes us the text of the Creed, which states of Jesus, "Qui natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine."13
On this basis, we can affirm
that by the beginning of the fifth century, but very likely, by the
beginning of the third century, this early creed, which was accepted
as having an authority by such fathers as Rufinus and Ambrose, made
explicit the belief in the roles of both the Holy Spirit and Mary.
The fact that Mary is plainly called "virgin" in this early creedal
statement indicates that the Church considered this fact important
enough to be professed by new Christians at Baptism. We may ask why
this particular fact was given its position in the creed. Its
importance would seem to be that the formula succinctly maintains
both Jesus' divine and His real human origins.
This can be seen in the Council
of Nicaea, where 318 bishops responded to the call of Constantine to
clarify the relationship of Christ to the Father in response to Arius'
teaching that Jesus was a semi-divine creature. As a result of their
sessions, held between June 19 and July 25, 325, at the imperial palace
at Nicaea, the bishops composed a creed that would especially clarify
Jesus' divine origin. In reference to the Incarnation, this original
Creed did not make mention of Mary but only Jesus, of Whom it says "incarnatus
est et homo factus est."14 This expanded formula, Et incarnatus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine, summarizes the two- fold truth about the Incarnation. Jesus is made incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. The words ex Maria Virgine assure us that Jesus truly is a human being, even if His origin is unlike that of any other person. Gnostics, such as Valentinus, taught that Jesus assumed a heavenly body that passed through Mary as water through an aqueduct. The Church, by contrast, asserted Jesus' heavenly origin but also the reality of His humanity. Even today, we acknowledge the important ramifications of this formula by the fact that when the Creed is recited at Mass, the members of the congregation bow their heads at these words, and on Christmas and on the Solemnity of the Annunciation, they genuflect. 4) Theotokos : Mary as Mother of God Since the next Council, Ephesus, (431) focused on the Divine Maternity, in this section, we will try to follow that theme, recognizing that existentially, Mary's maternity is intimately bound with her virginity. The earliest Fathers made reference to Mary in order to show Jesus' humanity. By the time of the Council of Ephesus, Mary was invoked to show Jesus' divinity. We will not explore the historical development of the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius in any depth, except to consider the theological ramifications that were evoked by the word, Θεοτόκον. Θεοτόκον is generally understood to mean "God-bearer" but it can also mean "Birth-Giver of God," "God-bearing Mother," or the "Bringer-forth-of-God."16 Jaroslav Pelikan, in his work, Mary Through the Centuries, asserts that this title was not a pagan idea carried over into Christianity: "The history does not in any direct way corroborate the facile modern theories about the 'mother goddesses' of Graeco-Roman paganism and their supposed significance for the development of Christian Mariology. For the term Theotokos was apparently an original Christian creation that arose in the language of Christian devotion to her as the mother of the divine Savior and that eventually received its theological justification from the church's clarification of what was implied by the orthodox witness to him."17 Pelikan maintains that it was not only the Conciliar definitions but the liturgical and devotional life of the Church that advanced the Church's understanding of Mary: "But for the development of the doctrine of Mary that, according to Athanasius, was implied in the decrees of Nicaea, the lead had been taken by the devotional and liturgical development of the Church, which in its ascription of the title Theotokos to the Virgin Mary had anticipated the formal Conciliar promulgation of the doctrine by more than a century."18 A possible indication of this truth may be found in the first certain reference to the use of the word Theotokos. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (d. 328), writing against Arianism between 319 and 324, describes Jesus, as "having taken in truth and not in appearance a body from the Theotokos, Mary."19 Alexander does not explain his use of the term, Theotokos, which suggests that the name was already in use, possibly in the liturgy and in popular devotion. One rather unusual reference to the spread of the expression, Theotokos, does indicate that the term was more widespread than we might suspect from the preserved documents. The Emperor Julian, in his attack on Christianity around 361, entitled, Against the Galilaeans, asks: "But why do you not cease to call Mary the Θεοτόκον...?"20 We find this term in writings of two Cappadocian Fathers who had been influential in refining the Church's understanding of the relationships of the members of the Trinity. St. Basil (d. 379) states: "I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the economy of the Son in the flesh and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God (Theotokos)."21 Gregory Nazianzen (d. 390) uses the expression Theotokos in an effort to bring out Jesus' divinity: If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Theotokos, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless. If any assert that the Manhood was formed and afterward was clothed with the Godhead, he too is to be condemned....If any introduce the notion of two Sons, one of God the Father, the other of the Mother, and discredits the Unity and the Identity, may he lose his part in the adoption promised to those who believe aright. For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are, not two Sons or two Gods.22 This term became especially significant during the struggle that led to the Council of Ephesus. Nestorius (d. ca. 451), the patriarch of Constantinople, took offense at a homily that Proclus preached in the cathedral, sometime between 428 and 429, in which Mary was called the Theotokos. Nestorius attempted to distinguish between Jesus' human and divine natures, insisting that the better title for Mary was Christotokos, since Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature, not His divine nature. We cannot be certain how Nestorius understood the interplay between the two natures, since most of the Nestorian writings have been destroyed, and since our understanding of Nestorius comes down to us through those who opposed him. Certainly, coming from the Antiochene school, he was wary of blending the two natures. In the fourth and fifth centuries, there were two great centers of Christian teaching, Antioch and Alexandria. Luigi Gambero observes: "These opposing schools were engaged in a struggle rendered even more difficult by mutual misunderstandings and the ambiguous theological vocabulary of the time. Both parties were pursuing legitimate objectives. The school of Alexandria stressed the unity of the subject Christ; the Antiochenes emphasized the differences between divinity and humanity."23 Was Nestorius' purpose in rejecting the title Theotokos an attempt to distinguish between Jesus' two natures or did he actually not accept the unity in Jesus' person? Nestorius had been a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had been a disciple of Diodorus of Tarsus. These bishops seemed to say that the Word dwelt in the man Christ as in a temple so there was a distinction between the Word and the humanity in whom the Word dwelt. What Nestorius could not see is that Mary was the mother of the person, Jesus, who had two natures.
A theological principle that Nestorius did not appreciate was the
communicatio idiomatum, the "communication of idioms."
He did not consider it to be appropriate theological language about Jesus. By means of the communicatio idiomatum,
what is true of one nature of Jesus is applied to the
other, as in saying that "God wept at the tomb of Lazarus" or "A carpenter raised a man from the dead." Of
course, such language requires a definite understanding of what is being
said and what is not being said. While weeping applies to Jesus'
human nature and raising the dead applies to His divine nature, He is
one person. Aloys Grillmeier points out that clarification of such usages
was needed in the period just before the Council of Ephesus: "We
must note that it was at just this point that the discussion of the
so-called communicatio idiomatum in Christ began in earnest.
The
time had come to give a theological criticism and vindication of a way
of speaking which had hitherto been merely traditional and had been
employed since the Apostolic age without further thought."24
The Council did not explicitly affirm the title by itself. In its
first session, the bishops
present approved Cyril's second letter to Nestorius as the orthodox
formula. That letter states: "For
in the first place no common man was born of the holy Virgin; then the
Word thus descended upon him; but being united from the womb
itself he is said to have endured a generation in the flesh in order
to appropriate the producing of his own body. Thus
(the holy Fathers) did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the
Mother of God.'25
As the Church attempted to articulate more clearly its beliefs on the nature of Christ in the face of Gnosticism, Arianism and Nestorianism, the Church came to a clearer understanding of Mary.
The Gnostics, who
considered material things to be opposed to the spiritual, could not
accept the fact that Jesus had a physical body. The Docetists, whose
name
comes form the Greek word "to seem", were a sub-group of Gnostics who held
that Jesus only seemed to have a body, seemed to be born, and seemed
to suffer. Aristides of Athens, an apologist who died about 145, also attests to the reality of Jesus' human birth: "He is confessed as the Son of the highest God, descending from heaven through the Holy Spirit; and of a virgin, He took flesh..." Justin (d. c.165) describes Jesus as the eternal Son of the Father: "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe had a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God... having become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him."37 Irenaeus (d. c. 200) addressing the Gnostics, emphasizes the reality of Jesus' flesh taken from Mary: Why then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up, (in Christ as had existed in Adam), the analogy having been preserved. Those, therefore, who allege that he took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err (since), in order that they might cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy.38 The Roman Creed, which was used in the third century, also affirms Jesus' birth from Mary: "I believe in God, the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary." Tertullian (d. after 200) attests to the fact that Jesus truly was born of Mary: "You say that he was born through a virgin not of a virgin, and in the womb, not of a womb, because the angel in the dream said to Joseph, 'That which is born in her (not of her) is of the Holy Ghost.' But the fact is, if he had meant 'of her,' he must have said 'in her;' for that which was of her was also in her."39 Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) affirms the reality of Jesus' divine nature and the reality of His human birth: "The Son of God -- of Him Who made the universe -- assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body was produced)..."40 The Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine and met at the imperial palace in Nicea between June 19 and July 25, 325. The Council was called to deal with the teachings of Arius (d. 336), a priest of Alexandria, who taught that Jesus was the perfect creature of God through whom God had created all other creatures. The original Creed formulated at the council did not mention Mary but did affirm the divinity of her Son, as having one being with the Father. The First Council of Constantinople, which met in 381, added to the Nicene Creed the words, "of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary." While the reality of Jesus' birth from Mary was attested to earlier, in the fourth century we see the use of the expression Theotokos, which technically means, "God-bearer". Pelikan, in his book, Development of Christian Doctrine, asserts that this was not a pagan idea carried over into Christianity: "The term Theotokos is apparently a Christian creation that arose in the language of Christian devotion to her as the mother of the divine Savior and eventually received its theological justification from the Church's clarification of what was implied by the orthodox witness to him."41 Socrates (d. after 450) in his History of the Church states; "The ancients did not hesitate to call Mary the Theotokos... .Origen in the first book of his Commentary on the Letter of Paul to the Romans explains the reason she is called Theotokos at length."42 The first certain reference to the use of the word Theotokos is found in the letter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (d. 328), against Arianism written between 319 and 324, in which he states that "Our Lord Jesus Christ, having taken in truth and not in appearance a body from the Theotokos, Mary"43 The manner in which Alexander makes use of the word Theotokos suggests that the word was already in use, possibly in the Liturgy. His successor to the see of Alexandria, Athanasius, also uses the term Theotokos in a number of his writings. Athanasius was the outstanding defender of the divinity of Christ against the Arians. In his First Discourse Against the Arians, Athanasius professes his belief in the divinity of Christ:
The notion of the Theotokos serves Athanasius' purpose in bringing out the fact that Jesus was divine in His origin. Athanasius writes: "As Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary bearer of God (Theotokou)..."45 And also, "For us he took flesh of a Virgin, Mary bearer of God (Theotokou)."46 Pelikan attests to the role of both Athanasius and the liturgy in developing the understanding of Mary: "But for the development of the doctrine of Mary that, according to Athanasius, was implied in the decrees of Nicea, the lead had been taken by the devotional and liturgical development of the Church, which in its ascription of the title Theotokos to the Virgin Mary had anticipated the formal conciliar promulgation of the doctrine by more than a century. "47 One rather unusual reference to the spread of the expression, Theotokos is found in the Emperor Julian's attack on Christianity around 361, entitled, Against the Galilaeans. In this work, Julian asks: "But why do you not cease to call Mary the Θεοτόκον...?"48 St. Basil (d. 379) states: "I believe in one God the Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the economy of the Son in the flesh and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, was Mother of God (Theotokos)."49 Gregory Nazianzen (d. 390) uses the expression Theotokos in an effort to bring out Jesus' divinity: If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Theotokos, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless. If any assert that the Manhood was formed and afterward was clothed with the Godhead, he too is to be condemned." If any introduce the notion of two Sons, one of God the Father, the other of the Mother, and discredits the Unity and the Identity, may he lose his part in the adoption promised to those who believe aright. For God and Man are two natures, as also soul and body are; but there are not two Sons or two Gods.50 In the fourth and fifth centuries, there were two great centers of Christian teaching, Antioch and Alexandria. Luigi Gambero observes: "These opposing schools were engaged in a struggle rendered even more difficult by mutual misunderstandings and the ambiguous theological vocabulary of the time. Both parties were pursuing legitimate objectives. The school of Alexandria stressed the unity of the subject Christ; the Antiochenes emphasized the differences between divinity and humanity."51 Nestorius (d. ca. 451) was the patriarch of Constantinople and had been trained in the school of Antioch. Between 428 and 429, in the presence of Nestorius in the cathedral at Constantinople, Proclus preached a homily in honor of Mary in which he employed the word Theotokos. Nestorius attempted to distinguish between Jesus' human and divine natures, arguing that the better title for Mary was Christotokos, since Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature not His divine nature. Since most of the Nestorian writings have been destroyed, and since our understanding of Nestorius comes down to us through those who opposed him, it is often difficult to decipher exactly what Nestorius was asserting. Was his purpose in rejecting the title Theotokos an attempt to distinguish between Jesus' two natures or did he actually not accept the unity in Jesus' person? It seems clear that he did not appreciate the communicatio idiomatum, the "communication of idioms," as appropriate theological language about Jesus. By means of the communicatio idiomatum, what is true of one nature of Jesus is applied to the other, as in saying that "God wept at the tomb of Lazarus" or "A carpenter raised a man from the dead." Of course, such language requires a definite understanding of what is being said and what is not being said. Aloys Grillmeier points out that such a clarification was needed in the period just before the Council of Ephesus: "We must note that it was at just this point that the discussion of the so called communicatio idiomatum in Christ began in earnest. The time had come to give a theological criticism and vindication of a way of speaking which had hitherto been merely traditional and had been employed since the Apostolic age without further thought."52 What Nestorius could not see is that Mary was the mother of the person, Jesus, who had two natures. Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, began a correspondence with Nestorius and took up the cause with great vigor. It is possible that Cyril was influenced by rivalry between the two important sees. In a letter to his priests, deacons and monks, Cyril reports: I am disturbed beyond measure because I heard that certain troublesome rumors have reached you, and that certain men go about destroying your simple faith, making close inquiries, and saying that it is necessary to specify whether or not the Holy Virgin Mary is to be called the Mother of God (Theotokos)....1 am amazed if some should question at all whether the Holy Virgin should be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the Holy Virgin who bore him not the mother of God?53 In the same letter, he maintains: "The Holy Virgin alone...is considered and called both mother of Christ and Mother of God. For she has borne, not a mere man, as we are, but rather the Word of God the Father made flesh. "54 In a letter to Succensus, bishop of Diocaesarea, Cyril tries to give an explanation of Nestorius' failure to comprehend the unity of the two natures: Nestorius became the disciple of this Disidore, and then with mind darkened by his books he pretends to confess one Christ, Son and Lord, but he himself also divides the one into two, saying that the undivided man was connected to God the Word by the same nature, by the same honor, and by dignity. And so he separates the sayings made about Christ in the evangelical and apostolic proclamations and says that some ought to be attributed to the man, obviously the statements proper to the humanity, and others alone are suited to God the Word, obviously those proper to divinity. And since in many places he divides and successively regards the one begotten from the Holy Virgin as man separately, and likewise separate and successively the Son, the Word of God the Father, for this reason he says that the Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God but rather the mother of a man. But we are not disposed to hold these as true, but we were taught according to the divine Scripture and the holy fathers and we confess that one Son and Christ and Lord, that is, the Word of God the Father, was begotten of him before the ages in a divinely fitting and ineffable manner and that in recent ages of time the same Son was begotten for us according to the flesh from the Holy Virgin, and since she gave birth to God made man and made flesh, for this reason we also call her the Mother of God. Therefore there is one Son, 'one Lord Jesus Christ' both before his Incarnation and after his Incarnation.55 In his letter to Valerian, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, Asia Minor, Cyril asserts: "This likeness in every way he would properly have and, above all other similarities, his birth from a woman, which in us is considered proper to human nature and is like us, but in the only-begotten it is perceived as going beyond this, for God was made flesh. Accordingly the holy Virgin is called Theotokos. "56 In his letter to Nestorius, Cyril insist on the use of the expression Theotokos: And since the Holy Virgin brought forth as man God united to flesh according to the hupostasis, we say that she is the Mother of God, not because the nature of the Word had a beginning of existence from the flesh, for 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,' and He is the creator of the ages, co-eternal with the Father, and creator of all things. As we have stated before, having united the human to himself according to the hupostasis, He even endured birth in the flesh from the womb. He did not require because of His own nature as God a birth in time and in the last stages of the world....If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is God in truth, and because of this does not confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for she bore according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father was united to flesh substantially, and that there is one Christ with His own flesh and that He manifestly is God, the same one as is man, let him be anathema.57 At the Council, Cyril delivered a homily in praise of Mary: I see here a joyful company of Christian men met together in ready response to the call of Mary, the holy and ever-virgin Mother of God. The great grief that weighed upon me is changed into joy by your presence, venerable Fathers...Therefore, holy and incomprehensible Trinity, we salute you at whose summons we have come together to this church of Mary, the Mother of God. Mary, Mother of God, we salute you. Precious vessel, worthy of the whole world's reverence, you are an ever shining light, the crown of virginity, the symbol of orthodoxy, an indestructible temple, the place that held him whom no place can contain, mother and virgin. Because of you the holy gospels could say: 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' We salute you, for in your holy womb, He, who is beyond all limitation, was confined. Because of you the holy Trinity is glorified and adored; the cross is called precious and is venerated throughout the world; the heavens exult; the angels and archangels make merry; demons are put to flight; the devil, that tempter, is thrust down from heaven; the fallen race of man is taken up on high; all creatures possessed by the madness of idolatry have attained knowledge of the truth; believers receive holy baptism; the oil of gladness is poured out; the Church is established throughout the world; pagans are brought to repentance. What more is there to say? Because of you the light of the only-begotten Son of God has shone upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; prophets pronounced the word of God; the apostles preached salvation to the gentiles; the dead are raised to life, and kings rule by the power of the Holy Trinity. Who can put Mary's high honor into words? She is both mother and virgin. I am overwhelmed by the wonder of this miracle. Of cours,e no one could be prevented from living in the house he had built for himself, yet who would invite mockery by asking his own servant to become his mother? Behold then the joy of the whole universe! Let the union of God and man in the Son of the Virgin Mary fill us with awe and adoration. Let us fear and worship the undivided Trinity as we sing the praise of the ever-virgin Mary, the holy temple of God, and of God Himself, her Son and spotless Bridegroom. To Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.58 6) Mary's Maternity in St. Thomas In III, 35, 3, Thomas discusses whether Mary can be called Christ's Mother with regard to his temporal birth. He raises objections that Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting Christ, but rather supplied the matter for his being, and that the begetting was miraculous. He concludes that Mary is Christ's mother because Christ was formed from her blood. Mary's role was natural as she carried Jesus for a length of time but the Holy Spirit's role was supernatural. In III, 35, 4, Thomas raises the question: "Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?" He begins with the objection that the term is not scriptural as is the "mother of Christ" or of "the Child," (Mt. 1:18). Secondly that "Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin." Thirdly, that the word "God" is predicated in common of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Mary is not the Mother of the Trinity. He then points out: "In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: 'If anyone confess not that the Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word of God made flesh, let him be anathema.'" Thomas responds to these questions: I answer that, As stated above (16, 1), every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature. Now, since the union of the Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as above stated (2, 3), it is manifest that this word "God" can stand for the hypostasis, having a human and a Divine nature. Therefore whatever belongs to the Divine and to the human nature can be attributed to that Person: both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying the Divine Nature, and when a word is used signifying the human nature. Now, conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature in which it is conceived and born. Since, therefore, the human nature was taken by the Divine Person in the very beginning of the conception, as stated above (33, 3), it follows that it can be truly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin. Now from this is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him and gave birth to him. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly called the Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the Son of God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, as Nestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God. In his reply to the first objection, Thomas answers: "This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," as may be seen 1 John. 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed in Mt. 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God." Furthermore, he comments: "Again, it is written (Rm. 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews "according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the Blessed Virgin as of His Mother." In reply to the second objection, Thomas answers: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius answers it thus: 'Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wishes to say that the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: but because He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman.' Consequently we must say that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature." Replying to the third objection, he notes: "Although the name 'God' is common to the three Persons, yet sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes only for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (16, 1; I, 39, 4). So that when we say, 'The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God,' this word 'God' stands only for the incarnate Person of the Son." 7) Theological Discussion of the Divine Maternity Within the Last Century Can the language of dogmas or dogmas themselves be flawed? Kari Borresen, a Norwegian Catholic theologian, has been critical of the expression Mater Dei. She observes that ©eoxoKoq (God-bearer) and the Latin equivalents, Dei Genetrix (the one who gives birth to God) and Deipara (parere means to give birth) emphasize the physical act of giving birth with the emphasis on the One who is borne or given birth to. The expressions Mater Dei and "Divine Maternity" seem to Borresen to place more emphasis on Mary than the early councils had intended.59 Borresen points out that the term Mater Dei appeared in the liturgy in the sixth century and then was introduced into theology by St. Ildelaphonsus of Toledo in the seventh century. Dei Genetrix was used more frequently even when it was used interchangeably by the scholastics. The councils have used the terms Dei Genetrix and Deipara. The first council to depart from this practice and use Mater Dei was Vatican II in the document, Lumen Gentium.60 In general, Borresen is critical of the androcentrism of the councils themselves, seen in the male/active female/passive assumptions of its language. She provides the interesting information that it was only in 1827, that Karl Ernst von Baer "discovered the mammalian ovule, demonstrating the equal roles of both parents. She questions whether the terms Mater Dei and "Divine Maternity" are adequate to express what the early councils intended, given the present understanding of conception.61 Borresen believes that, if present understandings are applied to the traditional language, Mary would be divinized. She notes that instead of the adage that the child is like the mother, in this case, the mother becomes like the Son, implying that Mary is considered to be more like her Son than she is like other humans, basking in His divine qualities.62 Borresen concludes: "When the androcentric assumptions that underlie them have broken down, it will become impossible to use the traditional terms for Mary or the Church. Theotokos or mater ecclesia will no longer have connotations of female dependence and so will not be applicable, since to use them in a post-patriarchal society would raise the status of the human to an extent that is irreconcilable with the primacy of the divine."63 It is my understanding of Borresen that, given contemporary understandings of conception, to say that Mary is "Mother of God" in a real sense puts her on an equal status with God, which Borresen asserts we cannot do. Borresen raises a number of questions including whether doctrinal statements made at a particular time can be flawed because of mistaken assumptions on the part of those making the judgment. We need to ask how we identify what is essential in the Church's proclamation of truths. As Catholics, we assume that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church even when working through vessels that are earthen. We also need to ask ourselves to what extent we allow ourselves to be judged by the dogmas and to what extent we judge the dogmas. The dogma should not be a dead relic from times past; rather it should become fruitful in the life of the Church. For this reason a dogma should not be seen only in its negative, limit-setting sense, but should also be understood in its positive truth-revealing sense. Such a contemporary interpretation of dogmas must take into account two, at first sight, contradictory principles: the abiding validity of the truth and the actuality of the truth. Thus neither should the tradition be given up or betrayed, nor under the guise of fidelity should what is but a petrified tradition be passed on. It is important therefore that hope for the present and the future come from memory of the tradition. A statement can only be ultimately meaningful in the present to the extent that it is true. Without doubt the permanent and valid content of the dogmas is to be distinguished from the way in which they are formulated. In any age the mystery of Christ surpasses the possibilities of formulation and thus eludes any final systematization....Nevertheless, no clear-cut separation can be made between the content and form of the statement, The symbolic system of language is not mere external apparel, but to a certain extent the incarnation of a truth....Of its nature, that proclamation takes concrete form by way of articulation and thus as a real symbolic expression of the content of faith, contains and makes present what it designates. Therefore the images and concepts (employed by that proclamation) are not arbitrarily interchangeable.64 Is the maternity the basic principle of Mariology? One question that has appeared in various forms at different times concerns the relationship between Mary's holiness and her maternity. Jesus' response to the woman who praised His mother's womb and breasts, that rather those who hear the word of God and keep it are blessed would suggest that Mary's role as disciple was the more important than her role as mother. Augustine's words seem to support this priority: "The blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been His mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood...She kept God's truth in her mind, a nobler thing than carrying His body in her womb."65 In recent years, Mary's role as a disciple has been highlighted and her maternity has been somewhat accepted but not reflected upon. On the other hand, Pius IX, in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception, asserts that Mary's maternity was predestined; "From the very beginning, and before time began, the Eternal Father chose and prepared for His only-begotten Son, a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, He would be born into this world."66 If Mary's maternity was predestined, then it would seem to follow that everything else flows from that. Cyril Vollert, S.J., in his study, "Fundamental Principle of Mariology," acknowledged that there did not exist a consensus and that even papal documents had not asserted one. Nevertheless, from his research, he concluded: "Thus from the basic truth that Mary is the Mother of God, everything else follows....The divine maternity is the basis of Mary's relationship to Christ; hence, it is the basis of her relationship to the work of Christ, to the Whole Christ, to all theology and Christianity. Therefore it is the fundamental principle of Mariology."67 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., makes a theological argument that Mary's maternity was a greater dignity than her grace by analogy with Christ: "Just as in Jesus the dignity of Son of God, or Word made flesh, surpasses that of the plenitude of created grace, charity, and glory, which He received in His sacred soul as a result of the hypostatic union of two natures in Him by the Incarnation, so also in Mary the dignity of Mother of God surpasses that of the plenitude of grace and charity, and even that of the plenitude of glory which she received through her unique predestination to the divine maternity."68 We can see Garrigou-Lagrange's concern, that the spiritual graces and gifts which were given to Mary would not seem to outweigh in importance the graces and gifts given in the person of Jesus to the world through her, yet there is a certain awkwardness in weighing heavenly mysteries with human scales. One of the difficulties with speaking of "divine Maternity" is that we seem to be emphasizing more ontology or a state of being rather than the existential being the Mother of Jesus. Discussions of Mary's maternity before the Second Vatican Council were often more speculative whereas those after the Council tend to be more existential. Raniero Cantalamessa illustrates how Mary's maternity and spirituality were in accord: |
spans the centuries. Thus, our reflection on 
For
greater clarity, we will often examine Mary's virginity and her
maternity separately. 
Elizabeth
greets Mary as "Mother of my Lord," even as the Child is still in
the womb 
In
their efforts against the Gnostic teachings, the early Fathers
emphasize the reality of Jesus'
birth from Mary as an assurance that He truly had a body and truly
was human. 
Even
before He became man, He was worshipped by the angels and the whole
creation in virtue of being proper to the Father...For as Christ died
and was