When I was a Protestant, one of the most difficult things for me to understand about Catholicism was what Catholics taught about Mary. Mostly, this was because I did not understand the meaning of those teachings. I thought they were odd, if not outright heretical. Moreover, it seemed to me that Catholics focused too much on her. That is, I had a rather typical Protestant response to Catholic teachings about Mary. This changed when I was in college, when I began reading early patristic writers (originally, I was interested in those who wrote up to the time Nicea, and its famous defender, St. Athanasius). Talking with a friend of mine, considering what he said and how it reflected what I was reading, I eventually had an epiphany: all the theological beliefs and practices Catholics had concerning Mary became clear to me. I realized much of what Catholics said about Mary served to highlight and protect the significance of the incarnation. My eureka moment started when I realized why she was called the Mother of God. Then, thinking through other doctrines, I began to find ways to accept them, such as her perpetual virginity: by being Mary’s only son, his unique relationship with Mary served as a parallel to his unique relationship with God the Father.
In this manner, I saw that the main point of every authentic Marian teaching was to point to Jesus. She is special, yes, and it is important to recognize that, but we must not use that to place our focus on her. We must always look to the way she points to Jesus, to the implications behind every Marian teaching and how they highlight something about him. Sadly, this aspect of those teachings have been lost to many Catholics, which is why the note Mater Populi fidelis is important. It reaffirms the point that Mary should not be our focus, that we should not give in to extreme theologizing upon her when such reflection not only is unnecessary, but can subvert our focus, having it be placed upon Mary more than Jesus. I have often seen this happen with those whose spiritual focus is on Marian apparitions, and it is in these kinds of communities, extreme theologizing on Mary happens the most.
The central point of Mater Populi fidelis is to make sure we express our faith, our understanding about Mary, in the most appropriate fashion, recognizing that some of the titles given to Mary throughout history, while orthodox in intention and how they were originally interpreted, are often misunderstood and used in a heterodox fashion today. Thus, we must not read it as if it were that when many of the titles used for her, titles which have become questionable, were questionable and inappropriate at the time they were originally used, but rather, in our present circumstance, when they are often used and misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholic alike, it is appropriate for us not to use them anymore. The note makes this clear concerning the use of the title co-redemptrix: many understand it in a way which undermines the work and accomplishment of Christ, and because of that, we should avoid using it when talking about Mary. The document suggests that it is better to find a different way to express the intention or meaning behind the title than to think we should continue to use it when it now leads to confusion.
The importance of the note, to me, is that it reminds us that we do not have need to be stuck with the conventions of the past when those conventions are no longer understood the same way as they were in the past. It is a point which many, especially many Catholics, have failed to appreciate. They think the convention is the teaching itself, so that if you question a convention, you question the teaching intended by it. But that is not the case. It has never been the case. If it were, we would have problems with the Christological developments of the early church. During the first several centuries, we will find theological conventions were constantly changing and in flux, with some deemed appropriate and used in one century overturned and replaced by new conventions in another. We must not become too attached to the conventions themselves: the spirit of the convention, not the letter, is what is important. This is a point I’ve been writing on for quite some time, often using examples of the use of the word hypostasis at Nicea and Constantinople. The original Nicene Creed said that there was one hypostasis for the Trinity. Such a convention, such a terminology, worked at the time of Nicea, but then the word itself changed meaning; it became seen as the best word to use to represent the persons of the Trinity, so that we now say that there are three hypostases, one for the Father, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Spirit. Behind the changes in terminology, the same intention was meant. Similarly, we find words which were once inappropriate changing meaning so that they were seen as appropriate for theological discussions on the Trinity; a key example of this is the word homoousios, which, in the second century, was condemned because of how it was understood in a modalistic fashion, but by the time of Nicea, its meaning developed, so the earlier condemnation no longer applied and it was used at Nicea to represent the equality of the Father, Son (and Holy Spirit) as well as their unity.
Thus, with my background and interest in the creation, interpretation, and use of conventions, I found Mater Populi fidelis affirming one of the fundamental points of my theological work. The document does not deny the historical meaning of controversial titles for Mary, indeed, it points out the history behind their use can be shown to affirm the meaning intended by them. However, it also points out how those titles have become misunderstood, making some of them inappropriate, at least in the present context. Thus, while I had long accepted the meanings behind various Marian titles, like co-redemptrix, and so interpreted them in the way they were meant to be interpreted, I realized what the document was saying, that misunderstandings have developed, leading people not only to misunderstand their meaning and believe something other than intended, but to have their focus on Mary, and so, diverting them away from Christ. This is not to say there should be no theological reflection concerning Mary, nor that we are to ignore our relationship with her and the theological significance of that relationship, but rather we should always do so within a greater context, one which keeps us focused on Christ (and the Trinity).
* This Is Another Post From My Personal (Informal) Reflections And Speculations Series
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In