Theological Studies Faculty Works Theological Studies 3-27-1982 The Image of Mary: A Catholic Response Thomas P. Rausch Loyola Marymount University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/theo_fac Part of the Catholic Studies Commons Recommended Citation Rausch, Thomas P. “The Image of Mary: A Catholic Response,” America 146 (March 27, 1982): 231-34. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theological Studies at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theological Studies Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THOMAS P. RAUSCH to pro­ •logical The Image of Mary: of the , while .in one A Catholic Response )atical ·arious ecent biblical scholarship has raised scholars involved in the Lutheran-Catholic theological constructions based on Old the question of the gap between the study on Mary offer the following argu­ Testament models and used to illustrate R Jesus of history and the Christ of ments. particular theological points. To support faith. The Jesus of history is a technical ex­ The New Testament does not provide a their view they point out, first, that none of pression for Jesus of Nazareth as He was great deal of information about Mary. The the information peculiar to the infancy nar­ known and experienced by His contempo­ earliest New Testament writings, the letters ratives (such as Luke's report that John the raries; the Christ of faith refers to the Christ of Paul, mention only that God sent his Baptist was of priestly descent and related of the New Testament recognized and pro­ Son, "born of a woman, born under the to Jesus) can be clearly verified elsewhere in claimed in faith by the early Christian com­ law." Many scholars judge the portrayal of the New Testament and, second, that the munities as Lord, Messiah and Son of God. Mary in Mark, the earliest Gospel, as a two infancy narratives show so little agree­ The Gospels themselves were not intended negative one. Mark is ambiguous as to ment with each other. to be historical biographies; they were writ­ whether or not Mary is to be included The Fourth Gospel does not add much. ten to proclaim the faith of the early Chris­ among the members of Jesus' family ("His Brown points out that John never refers to tians in the risen Jesus and represent the end own") who consider him to be "out of His Mary by name (though he some 15 times product of years of preaching, reflection mind." When Jesus is told "your mother refers by name to the other Marys) . In­ and interpretation. Still, in spite of the and your brothers and sisters are outside stead, in the two scenes where Mary ap­ pears, he refers to her by the title "the 1ciifficulties involved, biblical scholars have asking for you," in Mark's Gospel He asks been able to move from the Christ of faith rhetorically, " Who are my mother and my mother of Jesus." Brown suggests that the back through the levels of the Gospel tradi- brothers?" and then makes it clear that the story of the miracle at Cana (like Luke's -1tion to the Jesus of history, using the tools of family of believers takes priority over natu­ story of the 12-year-old Jesus talking with the historical critical method. ral family relationships: "And gazing the teachers in the Temple) may have been In more recent years, similar questions around Him at those seated in the circle He based on a popular story representing first­ have been raised about recovering the continued, 'These are my mother and my century Christian speculation on the "hid­ "Mary of history." Specifically, biblkal brothers_. Whoever does the will of God is den life" of Jesus, reworked by John scholars have asked, how many of the New brother and sister and mother to me.''' Be­ ("Woman, how does this concern of yours Testament stories about Mary are to be cause·of this, and because Jesus in Mark's involve me? My hour has not yet come") to considered as actual, historical accounts? Gospel complains that a prophet is not stress again that doing God's will had pri­ In 1967, the Lutheran theologian Wolfhart "without honor except in his native place, ority over any family relationship, the same Pannenberg published "Mary, Redemp- , among his own kindred (dropped by Mat­ message one finds in the passages in Mark ,tion and Unity," an article in which he con­ thew and Luke) and in his own house" and Luke dealing with Jesus' family. tende_d that the New Testament does not (dropped by Luke), the Protestant and give much historical information about Catholic scholars who collaborated on 1Mary. He argued that in the New Testa­ Mary in the New Testament conclude that ment, Mary appears consistently as a sym- Mark's Gospel contains a "negative por­ In a similar way, Brown interprets the 1bolic character, and that therefore sym­ trait' ' of Mary, while Matthew represents a Johannine picture of "the mother of Jesus" bolism, not history, is the ke3/ to Mariolo­ middle position and Luke a positive one with "the beloved disciple" at the cruci­ gy. The Catholic scholar, Raymond which includes Mary within the eschato­ fixion ( the synoptics do not tell us that ,logy Brown, S.S., has examined Pannenberg's logical family of Jesus' disciples who hear either was among the women there) as a argument and found himself in agreement the Word of God and do it. symbolic reinterpretation of family rela­ with it. And a collaborative assessment by . The virginal conception of Jesus is men­ tionships in terms of discipleship, for both Catholic and Protestant scholars, Mary in tioned only in the infancy narratives of become members of a new family at the the New Testament, sponsored by the Lu­ Matthew and Luke. The majority of sch'bl­ foot of the cross. So again, John's Gospel theran-Catholic Dialogue in the United ars consider that many of the details of the seems to offer theological reflection more States, has resulted in very similar conclu­ infancy narratives represent not so much than historical memory. sions. Briefly Father Brown and the other the reports of eyewitnesses as they do Has . then modern biblical scholarship ; 1982 America/March 27, 1982 231 culated widely in Greek, Latin, Syriac, "are almos· 'The theology of Mary emerges out of the interplay Coptic and Arabic versions. It played a ma­ in polemics of imagination and controversy, faith experience jor role in the development of the feast of tion, perhaJ the Assumption of Mary, already cele­ the hymn and theological reflection. Imagination led brated by some churches in the East by the sidium."' ~ to contemplation, contemplation to·veneration end of the sixth century. to the third The apocryphal writings were not recog·­ nion ascribt and to prayer. And as Christian people turned nized by the church as official, "canonical" fourth. Th to Mary ... they found ... a powerful intercessor' expressions of the tradition. Many of them asks the "n were the products of heretical groups and "to deliver rendered Roman Catholic Mariological The history of the growth of this devotion schismatic movements. Yet there is also the early evide doctrines less tenable by pointing out how is a complex one in which Christian imagi­ chance that they may sometimes exwess Mary as ar little historical knowledge of Mary comes nation and piety, heterodox tendencies. and what was already part of a popular pie~y ,this prayer from the New Testament? By no means. doctrinal developments have ·au played a that would later obtain official recognition. of the medi Most Roman Catholics are quite aware part. As Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., has In contrast to the apocryphal writings, most gracic that the Marian doctrines of their church pointed out, explicit Marian devotion pre­ what the early theologians have to say it known th are not founded simply on Scripture; they supposes some dogmatic development, and about Mary.is much more sober. Much of ·,tection ... have developed out of the church's tradi­ yet that development was itself facilitated their teaching is Christological in focus. At 1 Thus the tion. And thus the theology of Mary plays by "the more confused appreciation of the beginning of the second century lgml­ of the interi a significant ecumenical role in raising the Mary prevalent during the early Christian tius of Antioch (d. 110) emphasized that versy, faith question ofthe role of tradition as a genu­ period." The fact that l\fary appears so fre­ Mary truly carried Jesus in her .womb anti . tflection. Irr ine source of religious knowledge. quently in the apocryphal writings of the truly gave Him birth, to counter the doce­ contemplat second and third century shows that she .tist teaching that Christ only "seemed" to (And as Chi held a fascination for the imagination of have a real human body. Strangely enough, ,prayt!r, the: many early Christians. These writings often though it is not really consistent with his ,tercessor. The meaning of tradition needs to be include examples of pious speculation, at­ antidocetist polemic, he also refers to the rooted in ti explored. Tradition.is not primarily a col­ tempts to fill in, as it were, details about the · virginity of Mary. Justin Martyr (d. 165) piety found lection of propositions, customs and prac­ life of Mary not provided by the Gospels. and especially lrenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) ,tions of ~h tices, an objectified body of "truths" Many elements of the church's Marian tra­ developed the parallelism between the vir­ handed on from generation to generation.