Ed Linnecke – Houghton STAR

Approaching a text without some sort of cultural, intellectual, or interested bias is most likely an impossibility. However, I mean for this article’s presuppositions to be, for the most part, minimal. Being a Christian, and writing for a Christian audience, I will be making assumptions about Jesus Christ, namely that he is in fact the son of God, and that he does in fact embody the fullness of divinity. But beyond the hypothesis that the Gospels are true, my hope is to read the stories and make commonsensical determinations based upon what they say. Perhaps another way of putting the point is that I intend for this article to be primarily “Biblical.

Courtesy of www.sacred-destinations.com

Following this simple text-centered methodology, I wish to explore an often overlooked character in the Gospel stories. Or if not overlooked, a character who does not receive the attention that I believe she so rightly deserves. The character I am referring to is Mary, the mother of God herself. When I set aside what I would consider my “philosophical truths,” and read the gospels as a true account of God’s most intimate contact with the creation, I am struck with the feeling that Protestantism’s lack of attentiveness to the importance of Mary is something of a theological tragedy. The remainder of this article will be comprised of a few considerations that I find plausible, followed by what I take to be a couple of the necessitated conclusions of said considerations.

First, a few words about what we as Christians believe about the cosmic importance of Jesus Christ. Christianity’s distinctiveness is built upon the belief that Christ is the son of God. Jesus, though being fully human, is also fully divine. The extent to which God is the eternally transcendent creator, our “ground of being,” is contained with Jesus Christ completely and absolutely. Jesus is God.

But as we also believe, Christ, though fully divine, is inextricably bound to his humanity. And as the Gospels tell us, Jesus, or God, has one biological parent- Mary. Although I am a 22 year old male, about as far from being a mother as one can be, I would like to raise some reflections about what it means to be a mother. First, if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, that means that God Himself (Him insofar as He manifested as a male) grew within the womb of Mary, was fed at the breast of Mary, and was coddled and cared for in all of the ways that a loving mother relates to her child. God was dependent upon Mary. Another fact is that if you ask most any mother, and I am sure some biologists and psychologists, they will tell you that the intimacy found within the relationship of mother and child is most likely the most intense intimacy found in human relations. If Mary is the mother of God, as is claimed in the Gospel narratives, than we are ascribed to the belief that Mary shared an intimate contact with the divine beyond that of any other. She is as spiritually connected to God as a mother is to the child of her womb.

Now let’s move to the Crucifixion, the event in which Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind. Jesus, through suffering on the Cross, carried out the single most historically significant event. Now let’s once again turn our attention to Mary. If you ask any truly loving parent they would tell you that they themselves would rather undergo a crucifixion than see their beloved child be crucified. I am not claiming that Mary suffered more than Jesus, because Jesus is God things are irregular, but one cannot ignore the immense suffering of Mary as Jesus was crucified. And because of her intimacy with the divine, being the divine’s mother, I simply cannot believe that her sufferings find no place within the eternal significance of the event of the crucifixion, as if they were some accidental by product. Mary was bound to Christ through his birth, and remained bound to his sufferings as he hung on the cross.

So taking into consideration what I have stated above, which as I have said, I find to be quite basic truths of the Gospel story, what does this mean about Mary? Well, I believe that first and foremost that we cannot treat Mary as if she relates to God and eternity as just another human being, such as Paul or Peter. Mary is the mother of God; she is intimately connected to Christ in a categorically different way, I mean just go ask a mom about it. After thinking about God having a loving mother, and what that really would mean for Mary, I cannot comprehend why consideration for Mary would rarely arise. I simply cannot believe that Mary is not in some way closer to God than any other human who has existed, she is God’s Mother! The fact that many theologians would deem Mariology as “unbiblical” is, to me, commonsensically wrong. Think about what it means to be a Mother, what it would mean to be God’s mother, and what that would mean for Mary’s place in the big picture.

Future of Catholicism After Benedict XVI and John Paul II

In a country where Protestant Christianity stands as the dominant religion and Roman Catholicism often seems to be at a disjoint with the operations of Rome, it can be easy to underestimate the significance of this past week’s events. On Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI said his last mass as the Church’s leader, and became the first Pope to resign in nearly 600 years, the last being Pope Gregory the XII in 1415. I admit that I myself (even as a Roman Catholic) didn’t fully realize the importance of this event until after thinking about it more closely. However, I believe that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI creates an interesting situation for the future of the Catholic Church, in which the Church will either continue on its liberalizing path, or attempt to recover some of its lost traditionalism.

This is an interesting time in Catholic history. It is not hard to forget that just over 50 years ago the Catholic Church went through radical liturgical and theological changes that defined Roman Catholicism as we so know it today. These changes took place at the Second Vatican Council, the Church’s 21st ecumenical council. Among the most visible changes that the council made was a shift from a universal Latin liturgy to a liturgy that may be spoken in the vernacular of the particular congregation.

The change from a universal Latin Mass seems like a commonsensical move, I mean, doesn’t it make sense to hear a church service in your own language? But to Roman Catholics, this was a huge change, and it is difficult from our present-day perspective to appreciate just how radical it was. The Latin Mass has traditional roots that stretch back as early as the year 250 A.D and since the 16th Century it had been the official language of Catholic services worldwide. For Catholic theologians this was an important aspect of the Church’s practice, as it fostered unity not only with congregations worldwide, but also with the congregations across the historical spectrum. Unity of the believing body of Christ is among the irreducible goods for the Catholic, and the Latin Mass was among the most important tools for transcending cultural boundaries that may inhibit such unity.

However, Vatican II changed the liturgical framework, along with other things, in order to

better accommodate the Catholic Church to the modern world. But many believed that these decisions were compromising the Church’s distinctiveness and encouraging a liberally minded acceptance of wavering ideologies. At what point ought the Church attempt to accommodate for the increasingly pluralistic and scientific age, and when should the Church make the world accommodate to itself? This is a theologically difficult question, and to some, the Second Vatican Council made it loud and clear that the Catholic Church was ready to transgress its traditionally substantiated practices in order to meet the needs of the modern worldview.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent Pope’s resignation? Well, though Pope Benedict XVI has been labeled as a conservative, many forget that he, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, was one of the young theologians pushing for the Vatican II changes. Appearing at each of the Vatican II meetings in a business suit, young Ratzinger, along with Karol Wojtyla, (who would become Pope John Paul II) defended the belief that the Church needed serious changes if it were to remain effective in the changing world. Thus, Benedict XVI stands as one of the last active original members of the Second Vatican Council, and among the last of the original advocates of its general trajectory.

Therefore, the last two popes each had a personal investment in the post-Vatican II Catholic mission: which, generally put, is to seek ways in which the Church can change in order to improve its influence upon the world. Many traditionalists believe that this is almost entirely opposite to the Catholic Church’s mission, which they deem to be maintaining a historical and theological bridge between believers today and the apostle Peter, claimed to be the first pope of the Catholic Church. So, with Benedict XVI leaving his position as the leader of 1.2 billion believers, in what direction will the next pope lead the Church? Traditionalists may claim that now that a main advocate of Vatican II has exited the papacy, it is now time for a pope to attempt to re-emphaisize the Church’s traditional distinctiveness, as opposed to liberalism. Yet, others believe that the next pope may continue Vatican II’s liberalizing trajectory, perhaps enacting changes such as the ordination of women to the priesthood and a progression of LGBT rights. The papacy, leaving behind one of the original advocates of Vatican II, is at a crossroads. The cardinals hope to have elected a pope by Easter, which puts a deadline on the Catholic Church’s decision-making. Regardless of the direction in which this largest body of Christian believers goes, the Catholic Church’s next steps will have immense ramifications for the ongoing dialogue between the secular world and the Christian tradition.