What is the difference between Mariology and Mariolatry?
 |
| The Immaculate Conception of the Venerable Ones, or of Soult (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The intent of this formulation was not so much designed to tell us something about Mary, but to make a bold affirmation concerning the child that she bore. Mary is the mother of God not in the sense that Jesus derived His divine nature from her but in the sense that Mary was the mother of a child who indeed is God incarnate. Given the church’s full confession of the deity of Christ it is a perfectly appropriate title for the woman who was His earthly mother.
To esteem Mary as the mother of God is the common heritage of all Christendom and should not be a point of dispute among us. That Mary performs a role of intercessor is a point of dispute between Roman Catholicism and historic Protestantism.
The issue of the veneration of Mary has engendered a doctrinal conflict of long standing. It reached severe proportions during the 16th-century Reformation. However, the dispute was not limited to or contained within that era. Many events have transpired since that period to aggravate the problem. Most of the Mariological decrees that separate Protestants and Catholics have been issued in the past 200 years, long after the Reformation.
To esteem Mary as the mother of God is the common heritage of all Christendom and should not be a point of dispute among us. That Mary performs a role of intercessor is a point of dispute between Roman Catholicism and historic Protestantism.
The issue of the veneration of Mary has engendered a doctrinal conflict of long standing. It reached severe proportions during the 16th-century Reformation. However, the dispute was not limited to or contained within that era. Many events have transpired since that period to aggravate the problem. Most of the Mariological decrees that separate Protestants and Catholics have been issued in the past 200 years, long after the Reformation.
De fide declarations and Papal Encyclicals regarding Mary have decreed such doctrines as
- (1) The Immaculate Conception of Mary,
- (2) The Sinlessness of Mary,
- (3) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary,
- (4) The Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven, and
- (5) The Coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven.
It should be noted that when Rome officially decrees a particular doctrine they do not intend to declare something to be presently true that was not always the truth. That is, though the Encyclicals that define these doctrines are of recent origin, they are considered to make clear what has always been the faith and teaching of the church.
In the 16th century Calvin and the magisterial Reformers objected to the veneration of Mary by Rome. The Reformers accused Rome of promoting an idolatrous veneration of Mary. Rome defended the veneration of Mary against the charge of Mariolatry by distinguishing between Mariology and Mariolatry. The suffix ology refers to a word or teaching about Mary whereas the suffix olatry indicates a worship of Mary. Rome denied the practice of the worship of Mary. Rome distinguishes between the Greek words latria and dulia. Latria refers to worship while dulia refers to service. Latria (or worship) is not to be given to the saints, to Mary, or to idols. The word idolatry comes from idol-latria or the worship of idols.
Rome insists that latria (or worship) is not to be given to saints or to Mary. Dulia (or service) is offered to the saints in their veneration. What is to be accorded Mary is hyper-dulia or “hyper-service.” She is to receive supreme veneration, higher than that accorded to the saints, but lower than the worship given to God.
Calvin objected to this calling it a distinction without a difference. The shrines that appear throughout the world to Mary, the private backyard grottoes of the people, and the customary devotion to Mary that is central to Roman Catholic worship obscures the distinction between hyper-dulia and latria. To be sure Mary is worthy of honor in the church, but the line between honor and worship must be kept so clean and clear that we cannot miss it.
This subject was a major concern at the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II saw a sharp debate between two wings of the Roman Catholic Church. The two parties were distinguished as the Maximalists and the Minimalists and tended to follow the lines of struggle in the church between the Western wing and the Latin wing. The Western wing, being influenced by the so-called theologie nouvelle (the new or progressive theology), was more inclined to the minimalist view, while the Latin wing (Italy, part of France, Portugal, Spain, Latin America, etc.) was more conservative and favored the maximalist view.
One issue that divided the camps focused on the question of Mary’s role as co-redemptrix. Does Mary occupy a place beside her Son in the work of redeeming fallen sinners? Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus of the church, had centuries before answered in the negative calling attention to Mary’s words in the Magnificat, “My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit doth rejoice in God my Savior.”
Thomas saw that Mary’s Son was also Mary’s Savior because Mary, like other human beings, was a sinner. This view was given, however, before the Roman Church declared the sinlessness of Mary. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus or His conception in the womb of Mary. Rather, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception in the womb of her mother, St. Anne, in order to insure Mary’s freedom from original sin.
The issue of the so-called Eve-Mary Parallel was also discussed. John XXIII insisted that Mariological matters be treated under the heading of Ecclesiology rather than theology, a subtle but important distinction. The Eve-Mary Parallel stands in analogy to the Adam-Christ parallel. As in Adam ruination came into the world and in Christ came redemption, so as in Eve destruction came into the world so in Mary salvation came into the world.
Crucial to the Eve-Mary Parallel is the Roman Catholic concept of “Mary’s Fiat.” This refers to Mary’s response to Gabriel’s annunciation to her of the impending Virgin Birth of Jesus.
The issue of the so-called Eve-Mary Parallel was also discussed. John XXIII insisted that Mariological matters be treated under the heading of Ecclesiology rather than theology, a subtle but important distinction. The Eve-Mary Parallel stands in analogy to the Adam-Christ parallel. As in Adam ruination came into the world and in Christ came redemption, so as in Eve destruction came into the world so in Mary salvation came into the world.
Crucial to the Eve-Mary Parallel is the Roman Catholic concept of “Mary’s Fiat.” This refers to Mary’s response to Gabriel’s annunciation to her of the impending Virgin Birth of Jesus.
When Gabriel made his announcement Mary responded with the words, “Let it be to me according to your word.” In the Latin Vulgate the “Let it be” is rendered as fiat, the imperative form of the verb “to be.” An imperative indicates a command. Rome historically interprets this to mean that Gabriel was subject to the authoritative command of Mary. The whole plan of redemption rested upon Mary’s agreement to the announcement. By her command the plan was set in motion.
Protestant interpretation is radically different. The Greek text (which preceded and was the basis for the Latin) contains not an imperative verb but an optative which expresses a desire rather than a command. It indicates Mary’s humble submission to the will of God. The whole demeanor of Mary in the narrative is one of acquiescence to the will of her God.
Mary, as the mother of God, the bearer and nurturer of our Lord, serves as a marvelous model of godliness. She is to be emulated but not venerated, honored but not worshiped. She bore for us our Redeemer, and her life points us to Him as our one and only redeemer and intercessor. ▲
Author: Sproul, R. C.
Protestant interpretation is radically different. The Greek text (which preceded and was the basis for the Latin) contains not an imperative verb but an optative which expresses a desire rather than a command. It indicates Mary’s humble submission to the will of God. The whole demeanor of Mary in the narrative is one of acquiescence to the will of her God.
Mary, as the mother of God, the bearer and nurturer of our Lord, serves as a marvelous model of godliness. She is to be emulated but not venerated, honored but not worshiped. She bore for us our Redeemer, and her life points us to Him as our one and only redeemer and intercessor. ▲
Author: Sproul, R. C.
