The Men of St. Joseph: Mary

Showing posts with label Mary. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Pat Arensberg: Mary's Virginal Intent

“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” -Luke 1:34

I believe, although this is certainly not taught authoritatively by the Church, that Mary was planning to remain a virgin even though she was betrothed to Joseph. We may take up the issue of why she would be married if intending to remain a virgin, but for now let us simply say that there were no convents and people could not survive alone. There was no Winn Dixie to run to for groceries.

I am struck by the tense of the verbs in the discussion between Mary and Gabriel. He comes to a woman who is engaged to be married and tells her that she will get pregnant (in the future). Her answer is, in essence, “Wait a minute. How can that happen (in the future) since I am a virgin?” She clearly gets the connection between sex and pregnancy. She clearly does not understand how she is going to get pregnant in the future.

Look if the angel told her, “Mary, behold you are with child” her question would make sense. She was a virgin at that point. But the angel points to a future time when a pregnancy would occur. If a girl who was engaged to be married was visited by an angel and told that she would bear a son and that son would become the president, she would have many questions. But, I would be willing to bet that she would not ask how she was supposed to get pregnant. The assumption would be that she would get pregnant with her husband. Mary’s question, I would argue, points to an intention to remain a virgin even after her wedding to St. Joseph.

In a certain respect the issue is a moot point. As soon as Mary became pregnant by the power of the Most High she belonged to him in a spousal way, and was therefore off limits to Joseph. We know that Mary remained perpetually a virgin, and this truth is because of transcendence of the Incarnate Word.

About Pat Arensberg
Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Mary: Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question: My brother, who has left the faith, is particularly hung up on Catholic teaching about Mary. He gets really irritated by all of the various titles we give Mary: Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Ark of the New Covenant, and so on. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can say to him about all of this?

Answer: This week I’ll speak about Mary as Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), it states the following: “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix,” (CCC #969).

Mary is called Mediatrix because she continually aids us, her children, through her prayers and intercession. Lest anyone should think, however, that by calling Mary “Mediatrix” we are putting her on an equal par with Jesus, the Mediator, the Catechism specifically addresses that complaint: “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power…No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer, but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful…so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source,” (CCC #970).

In other words, Mary cooperates with the unique mediation of Christ between God and man, as do many others. Mary is given the special title of “Mediatrix,” though, because of her unique role in that cooperation with her Son. It was, after all, her, “Yes,” to God that allowed Jesus to become the one Mediator between God and man.

And that is the reason she is also referred to by many as Co-Redemptrix. This is the title that I have found most often offends the sensibilities of other Christians, and is most often misunderstood by many Catholics. I had a Catholic caller to my radio program last week (2:00-4:00 PM, Mondays, on 1480 AM in Birmingham), who objected to calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” because “that puts her on an equal footing with Jesus.” I asked her one simple question: “Does the co-pilot of an airplane have the same standing and authority as the pilot of the plane?”

She thought for a second and then said, “No.” The same logic applies to the title of Co-Redemptrix.” The prefix “co,” means “with.” It does not mean “is equal to.” In a few of Paul’s letters he mentions his “co-workers.” These people do not, however, have equal authority and standing with Paul, rather they are simply working with him. Neither does Mary have the same standing or authority as Jesus. Rather she worked with Him, she cooperated with Him, in a unique way, in His role as Redeemer. Thus the title, Co-Redemptrix – “with” the Redeemer.

Mary played a unique role in our redemption. God gave us His Son, through Mary. Salvation…Redemption…came into the world through Mary. That can be said of no one else in the history of mankind. That fact of salvation history is what the title, Co-Redemptrix, reflects. That title in no way declares, or even implies, that Mary is equal to Jesus.

About John Martignoni
John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice. If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org. And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Martin Luther and Immaculate Mary

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Q:
I have been told that Martin Luther actually believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is that true?

A:

Martin Luther by Lucas Cranach. The Protestant...

Image via WikipediaNot only did Martin Luther believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but so did most of the early Protestant leaders. Here’s a quote from Max Thurian, who was Protestant, from his book, Mary, Mother of all Christians, that was published in 1963:

"In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity..."

Below are a number of quotes from the original Protestant leaders regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. First up, Martin Luther:

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him...I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ..."

In addition to Martin Luther, the other major figure of Protestantism in the 16th century was John Calvin. Here are a few quotes from him on Mary’s perpetual virginity:

[On Matt 1:25:] "The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband...No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words...as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin...What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us...No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel says nothing...certainly it is a matter about which no one will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a pig headed and fatuous person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25.)

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards...And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second."

And these words from Ulrich Zwingli, another important 16th century Protestant leader:

"Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."

"I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary..."