What Debates about Mary Miss

[00:00:00]Protestants and Catholics have disagreed about a number of things over the years, but few subjects create quite as much passion as debates about Mary. Now, this actually hasn't always been the case.

[00:00:10]Many Protestants are surprised to learn how highly some of the reformers spoke of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But as the years have gone on, questions about Mary's place in doctrine and devotion have become major flash points in Protestant-Catholic relations.

[00:00:24]And I actually think this is for a good reason. I mean, not so much in the sense that it's good that we're fighting about these things, but I think that it makes sense. Right now, I'm at the beginning of a fairly major research project on Mary for this channel, which will cover the history and development of Marian doctrine and devotion. I'm really looking forward to it. But as I've been wading through this, it's become clear, at least to me, that debates about Mary are so seemingly intractable because they reveal a host of other disagreements lurking under the surface that Protestants and Catholics have that are even more fundamental. That's what I want to look at today. Specifically, I want to see what debates about Mary can show us about how we read the Bible, what we believe about metaphysics, how we study theology, and importantly, how we view authority in the church. Now, I should clarify that, at least in the first few sections of this video, when I say Protestant, I have in mind primarily modern evangelicals. As an Anglican myself, on a lot of these issues, I actually fall closer to the Catholic side. Also, this video isn't about determining who's right and who's wrong.

[00:01:26]If that's what you're looking for, frankly, there's just plenty of that on YouTube that you can find elsewhere.

[00:01:31]Instead, I want to try to understand the inner logic of each position so that the next time you're in one of these debates, you can diagnose where the real disagreement is. Look, as someone committed to ecumenical theology, one of my guiding principles is that I want to understand other positions on their own terms. Anytime I find myself saying, "I don't understand how anyone could believe X," I try to pause and say, "Wait, that's that's a deficiency in me, not them. After all, I'm quite literally saying I don't understand, which means I have something to learn. That's an opportunity and a good thing." Most people believe things because they make sense to them. That doesn't mean that they're right, but it does mean that if we want to have productive dialogue, we should try to understand why these things make sense to others. So, that's the goal here, to give you the tools to make better sense of these disagreements that you can have more productive engagement with those with whom you disagree. That's what this channel is really all about, doing historical and ecumenical theology in a non-polemical way that introduces people to beauty, truth, and goodness in the Christian tradition. So, if that interests you, well, consider hitting subscribe or supporting this mission financially at patreon.com/gospelsimplicity.

[00:02:45]Okay, let's dive in. When most Protestants reject various Marian doctrines, the reason is usually something like this. They're just not biblical. Flip through the pages of the Bible and you won't find Paul parsing the sinlessness of Mary in the same way that you'll find him discussing, say, justification, for example. And it's not just Paul. You won't find the Marian dogmas jumping off the page in just about any portion of scripture. Not at least if you're reading the text in a fairly straightforward way, at least in our modern conception of what that means. But you see, that's actually part of the debate. Like, how should we read scripture? While a Catholic might concede that the literal surface level meaning of the biblical text doesn't directly establish ideas like Mary's bodily assumption or Immaculate Conception, they will most likely disagree with the notion that Marian doctrines and devotions aren't biblical.

[00:03:36]Let's take the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception as an example.

[00:03:40]Protestants will often say, "Where does the Bible say that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and continued through life without sinning?"

[00:03:48]And again, if you're looking for a straightforward proof text, you're not going to find one. Furthermore, Protestants will point to verses like all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God as counter evidence. The Catholic, on the other hand, isn't just like out of moves here. It's not QED, argument over. If you've read a book like Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary, which is a really good book, I'd recommend it, I'll link it below, you'll find that arguments for Mary's Immaculate Conception can in fact be made from scripture. They just require you to read scripture in a certain way. In this case, Pitre argues from the typological connection between Eve and Mary to establish that if Mary is the new Eve, then she too must have been born with an original righteousness. Then there are arguments from what it means for the angel Gabriel to call Mary full of grace and have found favor with God and other things like that. Pretty soon, you realize that it's not simply a debate between what the Bible says and doesn't say, but rather it becomes a debate about how we should read the Bible in the first place.

[00:04:49]For instance, do we believe that texts can have multiple meanings? Is the meaning of a text restricted to the author's intent and how the original audience would have understood it? Or can the meaning of the text be much broader, having literal, spiritual, moral, and allegorical senses? Often the question becomes how much weight do we give to typological reading specifically? For instance, in Dr. Matthew Levering's book Mary's Bodily Assumption, another one that I'd recommend and I'll link in the description, and by the way, he's like one of the most prodigious Catholic scholars alive today, he argues that whether one finds Catholic arguments for the Bodily Assumption of Mary compelling will largely rise and fall on two things. First, and relevant to this point, how you think about typology. The second is what you think about the church's authority, which we'll cover at the end and we'll return to Levering.

[00:05:36]All this to say though, debates about Mary aren't just about doctrines, they're about many things including, really importantly, how we read scripture and what constitutes a good reading of scripture. So, if you want to debate Mary, you're actually going to have to think about her hermeneutics, as well. Now, while our reading of scripture is central to the task of theology, it's not the only element of theology. Whether we realize it or not, theology requires us to do philosophy, as well. And as you wade into debates about Mary, you'll often find that these debates reveal philosophical disagreements, as well. Now, there are plenty of these disagreements that I could touch on, but for the purposes of this video, I just want to look at one, as it's the easiest to see. It has to do with this idea of participation. Now, broadly speaking, one of the things that makes Protestants uneasy about Marian doctrines and devotions is the idea that the honor and attention and praise given to Mary takes away from the honor, devotion, praise, et cetera, due to Christ. Under this view, honor, attention, et cetera, are doled out in a zero-sum game. This, of course, is not without biblical precedent. A favorite verse from Protestants here is, "I will not share my glory with another." From Isaiah chapter 42. Furthermore, the Old Testament is replete with descriptions of God as a jealous God, who is firmly against the idea of his people serving any other gods. Naturally, this makes Christians quite uneasy about the idea of not giving God his due. So, how do Catholics respond? Well, this is where it comes back to philosophy, or to be more specific, metaphysics. The Christian tradition, broadly speaking, inherited the metaphysics of ancient Greece, wherein Plato had a rich conception of participation in his thought. To keep things really simple for today's purpose, we can just note that Plato, and those following in his footsteps, would be less inclined to say that we're operating in a zero-sum game.

[00:07:25]It is absolutely foundational to Catholic Mariology that the honor, attention, praise, et cetera, that is given to Mary do not detract from Christ. But, how is that possible? Well, it's this idea of participation. On this view, Mary is in Christ in such a way that to praise Mary is really to praise Christ. Now, hear me out. This is not because they're identical. That's not what Catholics are saying. Instead, it's because the Christian life generally is about being incorporated into Christ, entering into union with Christ, or in the language of 2 Peter, becoming partakers of the divine nature. Again, this is true of all Christians, not just Mary. However, traditionally speaking, Mary is viewed as the greatest Christian, the one most closely united to Christ, the one who not only shares in his spiritual life, but quite literally shares his DNA. Within this framework, to praise Mary is not to praise Mary as one separate from Christ, but to praise Christ in and through her.

[00:08:22]Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the foremost theologians of the 20th century, and a personal favorite of mine, puts it this way. Marian piety, if it means to be Catholic, must not isolate itself. It must always be embedded in and ordered to Christ. In other words, Marian devotion can't end with Mary. It must always lead through Mary to Christ. Same with Marian doctrine. Generally speaking, Marian doctrine ought to be embedded within the greater contexts of Christology and ecclesiology, rather than viewing Mary in isolation. And the same goes for prayer. Asking Mary's intercession, ideally, is not about seeing Mary as a powerful figure on her own, but rather as one whose heart is aligned with Christ's and makes intercession for us, as do all the saints, among whom she has a privileged place. This is not to say there have been no abuses. This isn't to say that the Catholics are therefore right. Again, we're just trying to get the inner logic. I've talked about abuses and my own concerns at other points. However, today, I'm just trying to sketch the basic reasoning in its best form. This will help us get thinking in more clear ways and understand one another better.

[00:09:29]This talk of Mary, though, as the foremost Christian in that last part, might sound a bit jarring to some people. So, So turn to that now.

[00:09:36]You might ask, "Where does it say that in scripture?" And the short answer is, it doesn't. At least, to repeat the first point, not in a straightforward way. But this brings us to a third, more fundamental disagreement that debates about Mary reveal. That is, they reveal disagreements about theological method broadly, and the role of tradition specifically. Sola scriptura is a hallmark of Protestantism, this idea of by scripture alone. However, different Protestants apply it in different ways.

[00:10:05]When it comes to Marian doctrine and devotion, some apply it in such a way that it resembles what people commonly call sola scriptura. Basically, that would mean that unless I find it directly in scripture, I won't believe it. Whatever tradition says is irrelevant. If that's the approach taken, it can be hard, though not impossible, to find common ground between Protestants and Catholics.

[00:10:25]However, more historically informed Protestants will be inclined to say that sola scriptura doesn't mean tradition doesn't matter. Rather, it just means that it's subservient to scripture. This can range from seeing tradition as simply like another data point to saying the default is to trust tradition except where it directly contradicts scripture.

[00:10:43]Again, there's a spectrum of ways of applying sola scriptura here.

[00:10:47]The reason this matters for today is that certain Marian doctrines are very easy to find in tradition, but not so easy to find in scripture. For instance, the notion that Mary is the new Eve is something found as early as St. Justin Martyr at the beginning of the 2nd century. St. John Henry Newman considers this the rudimentary teaching of antiquity regarding Mary, and I've done a whole video on that if you're interested. A Protestant that is more open to the value of tradition is more likely to accept ideas like these, that Mary is the new Eve, considering how early and ubiquitous it is. However, as we move into other Marian doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception, things become a bit more complicated. It's not simply, do you value tradition or not, but rather, what counts as tradition?

[00:11:30]For some, tradition is simply the historical record. For others, tradition is the teaching of the church in official capacities or the teaching of those revered as saints. Now, if tradition is just bare history, Mariology is really complicated. You might have heard of the Jesus of faith versus Jesus of history debates. These are even more difficult with Mary as we have frankly just very little to go off to build a Mary of history in a way that non-Christian historians would accept.

[00:11:57]However, most Protestants aren't trying to do historical critical research on Mary. They're willing to look at this with eyes of faith. Still though, things are complicated. To make things more concrete, let's take the sinlessness of Mary. Important figures like Tertullian and Origen affirmed that Mary sinned.

[00:12:13]However, those two are not remembered as church fathers because of other positions they held in their lifetime that were deemed unorthodox. Do that mean they don't count toward tradition?

[00:12:24]Do their views not matter? Well, it depends on what you think tradition is.

[00:12:28]Then you have questions of what counts as early. Generally speaking, Protestants who value tradition place a premium on early traditions. This goes back to the reformers who wanted to get rid of the medieval accretions and restore the faith of the first few centuries. But does that mean that medieval figures don't count toward tradition or do they count? They just count less? I could go on, but hopefully you're beginning to see that debates about Mary bring up interesting questions about how we think about tradition, which frankly is a concept I found we often are quite bad at defining and we would do well to think about seriously to determine what do we mean when we say tradition?

[00:13:05]Okay, finally and perhaps most importantly, debates about Mary reveal disagreements about authority. I mentioned at the beginning of this video that as an Anglican, I'd fall on the Catholic side for a lot of these things.

[00:13:16]And that's not just an Anglican thing.

[00:13:18]Many historical Protestants would affirm the value of typology, the importance of a participatory metaphysics, and the critical role of tradition in doing theology. So again, it's not so much all Protestants versus all Catholics, not by any means, but more so a certain brand of evangelical Protestantism that is popular today.

[00:13:35]However, on this last point, the point of authority, we begin to see a more general rift between Protestants and Catholics. You see, for many Catholics, the arguments from scripture and tradition are illustrative of why one might believe certain things about Mary or act in a certain way toward her, but they're not the only or even necessarily the most foundational reason. For that, we come to the authority of the church.

[00:13:57]For instance, when it comes to the bodily assumption of Mary, Levering writes, "By themselves, the typological connections in scripture could not have sufficed for the dogma of Mary's assumption. The reality of her assumption had to be confirmed by the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit." Now, he's not advocating a blind faith. He puts forward reasons. He is, however, saying that the dogma is not simply the inevitable conclusion to the available biblical and historical evidence. It's more complicated than that, and the role of the church is an important part of that equation. And this brings us to an interesting subplot in the conversation. Many Protestants, myself included, have said that the issue with the Marian dogma specifically, is not so much that they're like conclusively false. It's that the evidence doesn't seem to warrant them being dogmas. Pious beliefs, sure, but dogmas? Is that not a step too far?

[00:14:48]To answer that question, we have to ask what dogma is for and what authority the church has to declare it. For instance, should the only dogmas be those with incontrovertible proof? I think Protestants should be able to say that's not the case. I mean, do we have incontrovertible proof for the Trinity?

[00:15:05]I don't even know what that would look like. It's certainly not something you can dig up archaeologically or prove historically. Even then, prove historically is a contested notion in itself, depending on what we mean by proof. For many Protestants, I think the issue is really more that when you compare the biblical and historical attestation for something like the Trinity versus Mary's bodily assumption, you find the evidence is much stronger for the former than the latter. And I think many Catholics might actually grant that. The question though becomes what's the cutoff line? How much evidence is enough? Furthermore, there's this debate about whether the church has the authority to declare things that seem non-obvious to the average person.

[00:15:44]Or for that matter, whether the church has authority to dogmatize anything.

[00:15:48]Again, many Protestants might say they don't object in principle to dogma, but why make these things specifically points of division? Isn't something like the bodily assumption of Mary which seems to have later attestation in a little bit more complicated historical and biblical record like a really high intellectual barrier for people to overcome before becoming Catholic if they must believe that in order to be a good Catholic?

[00:16:10]Well, maybe, but this again reveals a difference in how we think about dogma.

[00:16:14]As someone on the outside, every dogma that the Catholic Church establishes feels like a barrier to entry. However, for those on the inside of the Catholic Church, these are not so much barriers as walls placed to keep people safe from going off in bad theological directions.

[00:16:28]If you're already on the inside in this metaphor, new dogmas aren't fresh barriers since you've already ascended to the general authority of the church and you trust that where they put walls, they put them for a good reason.

[00:16:39]But again, if you don't agree with that, well then those walls are going to maybe seem unnecessary as you're staring them in the face.

[00:16:45]So, in conclusion, debates about Mary are rarely just debates about Mary.

[00:16:49]They're debates about hermeneutics, philosophy, tradition, and authority, and frankly, more.

[00:16:54]On the one hand, that can be kind of daunting. How can we ever solve these debates if they cover so many categories? On the other hand, I think it should actually encourage us that dialoguing about Mary can be incredibly fruitful if we're willing to do so in ways that are marked by curiosity and a willingness to try to understand where the other side is coming from. I genuinely think in these dialogues, Protestants have a lot to learn from Catholics and Catholics have a lot to learn from Protestants, and that engaging in it can help both of us do theology better, and frankly get along better.

[00:17:24]By the way, if you want to see what this kind of dialogue looks like at the highest levels, you can check out the documents produced by official Catholic-Protestant dialogues, such as Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ, which was part of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and the One Mediator, the Saints and Mary, a book which came out of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues. I'll link those, as well as the books referenced in today's video, in the description down below.

[00:17:48]Finally, if ecumenical dialogue is your thing, I've gotten an exciting opportunity for you. Next summer, I'll be leading an ecumenical pilgrimage on the Camino de Santiago from July 8th to [music] the 18th, 2027. This will be an opportunity for Christians of all backgrounds, or even non-Christians, to quite literally walk side by side, getting to know one another, and engaging in a shared experience that hopefully will help everyone deepen their faith. If that interests you, you can learn more by going to gospelsimplicity.com/ecumenical.