The vast majority of Protestants would certainly raise objections to viewing Mary as one who intercedes for us either now or at our death, and appealing to Mary because in this sense this makes Mary a kind of mediator of our redemption. And Protestantism insists, generally speaking, on the sole unique mediatorial function of Jesus Christ. But do Roman Catholics actually worship Mary? They certainly seem to revere her, but how far does that reverence go?
You're listening to the Wednesday edition of Renewing Your Mind, and today R.C. Sproul will help us sort through what Roman Catholics actually believe about the mother of Jesus, and help us come to a biblical view of her role in redemption. There are many areas where Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree, not to mention our understanding of the Gospel and justification. So if you haven't responded yet, today is the final day to request lifetime digital access to this important series, and to get a copy of Dr. Sproul's book, Are We Together?
You can request both when you give a year-end donation of any amount at renewingyourmind.org. Use these resources to better understand what Roman Catholics believe, and to aid you in conversations with Roman Catholic friends or family. Well, here's Dr. Sproul on the Virgin Mary. In this session, we'll be dealing with the Roman Catholic view of Mary, which of course has been the subject of much controversy and debate, not only between Protestants and Roman Catholics, but also there is an ongoing debate which we shall see shortly within the Roman Catholic Church concerning the role and the nature of Mary. So many of the issues that are of debate and those issues that serve to divide Protestant communities from the Roman Catholic Church in this day and age are issues that did not receive the formal sanction and formal expressed definition by the church until after the Reformation. We've seen that as the case in the Roman Catholics' declaration of their canons on justification that took place as part of the Counter-Reformation, the notion of papal infallibility, which took place only in the latter part of the 19th century. And now we come to that area of controversy that deals with Maryology, that is the dimension of theology of Mary, which articles have not been defined except since also the 19th century, the most important definitions coming in 1854 and then most recently in 1950.
And we will consider some of those encyclicals in a few moments. Even though the formal definition of the role of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is of relatively recent origin, concern and indeed preoccupation with the person and work of Mary is something that is of great age and lengthy tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. Just to get a flavor of this, let's look for a few moments at the popular manifestations of this Mary cultus within the Roman Catholic Church. The first and most obvious manifestation of the church's veneration of Mary can be seen in art history, in the central domination of the figure of Mary, particularly in medieval art and even later in some degree in Renaissance art, but most especially in the medieval church, Church of the Middle Ages. We see the portrayal of the Madonna, and quite often the Madonna with child or the Madonna assisting in the descent of Christ from the cross, et cetera.
We would go to the Vatican and we would see a very outstanding fresco there that features the Madonna high and exalted on the wall with Christ and the Father seated on either side of the Madonna. All right, in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, at the heart of the liturgy is the Ave Maria or the so-called Hail Mary. And in the celebration of the joyful mysteries and the prayers of the people of God in the Roman Catholic Church, the Hail Mary is a very important part of the liturgy of the church. You're familiar with the Hail Mary, aren't you?
It has two dimensions. Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women, blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. And then what follows is Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now in the hour of our death.
Amen. Now, let's look at those two statements which have become prayers in the Roman Catholic liturgy and see which dimensions of those are part of the controversy between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. Where does Rome get the statement, Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus? Yes, well, it comes from the Scriptures themselves.
This is simply a quotation from the New Testament so that the words themselves could never be seen as being repugnant to a Protestant who held to the authority of Scripture. The use of the words, however, transforming this greeting, Hail Mary, which is simply a greeting given to Mary, full of grace, which we acknowledge that Mary was indeed filled with grace, blessed art thou among women. And the Bible says that all future generations will indeed call her blessed. There's no dispute there. And certainly, blessed is the fruit of her womb, Jesus. We have no dispute about that. But that it should be used as a form of a prayer does raise questions for us. But the content of the statement in and of itself, there is no point of controversy. How about the second part, Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death.
Amen. Do we have any objections to saying of Mary that she is holy? We don't use that kind of language commonly in the Protestant church, but to call her holy does not necessarily indicate that you are worshiping somebody. Mary was holy. If she was a Christian, she was holy. If I'm a Christian, I'm holy in the restricted sense in which the New Testament uses it. How about the phrase Mother of God?
Where does that come from? It comes from the Council of Ephesus, the fifth century, which is ratified at the Council of Chalcedon, the one ecumenical council that's totally endorsed by virtually every church in the World Council of Churches, including the phrase Theotokos. But of course, that was understood at that time to mean, Theotokos, that Mary was the Mother of God, not in the sense that Jesus Christ received in any way His divine nature from Mary. There's no sense in this phrase historically that would indicate that Mary generates the divine nature of Christ. All of that statement means historically at the Council of Chalcedon over against the heretics who were denying the deity of Christ is that Mary, being the Mother of Jesus, is in that sense the Mother of God since Jesus is God and Mary is His mother touching His human nature. There's no confusion there at Chalcedon that would indicate that this title being ascribed to Mary would describe any vague notion of deity to her. But it simply articulates the fact that she was the earthly mother of the one who was God incarnate.
It's as simple as that. So I have to say that again, historically, there has been no Protestant objection officially to the title Mother of God. Holy Mary, Mother of God, those terms could be used obviously to mean a lot more than what they were used at Ephesus and at Chalcedon, but the words in and of themselves, properly qualified, properly defined, are not an occasion of controversy.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, and how about this, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. The intercessory work of Mary, now that is an objection to the vast majority of Protestants, not to every Protestant community, but the vast majority of Protestants would certainly raise objections to viewing Mary as one who intercedes for us either now or at our death and appealing to Mary because in this sense, this makes Mary a kind of mediator of our redemption. And Protestantism insists, generally speaking, on the sole, unique, mediatorial function of Jesus Christ.
We also have the mediatorial function of God the Holy Spirit, but outside of the Trinity, we are reluctant to use such terms as mediator of redemption. Now, one of the other notions is the significance of Mary's fiat. What is Mary's fiat? In the first chapter of the gospel according to Luke, we have the record of the enunciation of the angel Gabriel to Mary about the events that are about to transpire. We read, and the angel said, do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God, and behold, you will conceive in your womb.
I'm reading Luke chapter 1, verse 30. You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end. And Mary said to the angel, how can this be, since I am a virgin? And the angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived the Son in her old age, and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month, for nothing will be impossible with God. And Mary said, behold, the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word, and the angel departed from her. Now this is the passage that records what Rome calls Mary's fiat, which at least in some quarters of the Roman Catholic Church is the most important biblical verse for the forces that favor a notion of co-redentrics in Rome. Where is it?
What is it? What's going on here? What's the significance of this statement? She's giving consent for the conception. All right, the angel announces all of these things that are about to take place. She expresses bewilderment. Well, how is this going to be? I'm a virgin. Don't worry about it. The Holy Spirit will overshadow you.
It's not impossible with God, et cetera. And then she says what? Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to your word. Now historically Protestants have interpreted that verse to indicate Mary's willing submission to the announcement of God.
This was an act of supreme humility. He said, all right, I'm the handmaid of the Lord. If that's what the Lord wants, I'm perfectly willing to do it.
You know, go ahead. But Mary is in some sense giving her permission. But it's more than permission. It's more than consent according to Rome. It's a command. Because this term is in the imperative sense, fiat is simply the imperative form of the verb to be in Latin. You know, let it be according to thy word.
So be it. This is Mary's decision. Mary makes the command.
Has she not made the command? Then according to at least the so-called maximalist position of Mary within the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no redemption. Because the whole act of redemption in Jesus Christ, the very incarnation itself, hangs on Mary's response. But the tone of it from the Protestant perspective is the angel is not coming and asking Mary if it's okay if she has his baby.
He's announcing it. This is what God is pleased to do. And she of course acquiesces into it humbly and obediently. But there's no hint in the announcement that the angel is asking her for her permission. But according to Rome, and here their whole notion of how redemption takes place according to the freedom of decision of the person, that this could not have taken place unless Mary gave the word. And the implicit suggestion is that if Mary would have said no, there was nowhere else to go to bring it off. Protestantism might even, if it stretches on the rack, might be willing to say, okay, God's not going to violate Mary.
Mary does have some rights here and she could have declined and all of that. But that wouldn't have been the end of redemption, for crying out loud. Although it would raise all kinds of questions about God's sovereign foreknowledge, if nothing else. I mean, God running down saying, will you do it?
How about you? As if God didn't know from all eternity how he was going to bring about the redemption of the world and through whom he was going to do it. But let's assume for a minute, forget our predilections to sovereignty and just assume that from a Protestant perspective, even if we look at this from, again, a non-sovereignty perspective, the other option is if Mary says no, he goes to the next village and finds another virgin and accomplishes it through that.
But why couldn't they do that from a Roman Catholic church? Why did I have to be Mary? She's the only one that's sinless. You see how that's tied together?
The angel couldn't find another sinless person. It's a very problematic position. And as I say, there's a debate here, the debate over this interpretation, you hardly ever hear Protestants arguing about it, but you'll find Catholics arguing about this. The degree in which the church is to understand this notion of Mary's fiat.
Now, let's look at what the contemporary issue is all about. The issue in the Roman Catholic Church today is between two Mariological parties, which are defined quite simply as the maximalists and the minimalists. Maximalism or minimalism. And that quite simply means that there's that party within the Roman Catholic Church that wants to give maximum significance to Mary, and there's that wing of theologians that want to minimize the importance of Mary in the whole framework of redemption.
That's hence the terms maximalist, minimalist. The issue between these groups and the division of lines came to bear most clearly at Vatican Council II. And it had to do with the adopting of the docket. The pope had already said, John XXIII said that the purpose of Vatican II was not to define doctrine, and he tried to cool things with respect to definitions of doctrine. But still there were those who wanted some word from the church on where we go now with Mary in light of all these encyclicals that had come out of the 19th and 20th century. Santos, theologian from Manila, called on the council to treat questions of Mary under a separate category of doctrine that is under the part of the agenda that dealt with theology. And what he wanted was for Mary to be discussed under theology.
You see? And of course, coming from Manila, he represents that Latin wing of the church that I described the other day, the conservative wing of the church, where of course the Spanish people would get behind it, half of France, Latin American countries, Italy. That's what we mean by the Latin wing of the church that tends to be very conservative. The western wing incorporating the United States, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, that that group would be on the more progressive, more liberal side as far as national delineations are concerned. I don't mean to suggest that every American priest is in the progressive wing and every Latin priest is a conservative, but I'm saying that the strength of conservatism is found in the Latin countries. The strength of the progressive element of the Roman Catholic Church is found in the western countries. And you saw it again here at the council where Santos is the one who gives the proposal that it be treated under theology, Koenig, we've talked about him already, representing the western side, gave a speech to the community and a resolution that Mary should be dealt with under ecclesiology rather than theology. And there's a big significance there, that there she just becomes part of the notion of the church and not has a separate niche in the subdivision of our understanding of the things of God of theology.
Do you see the significance of that? All right, Koenig's proposal won. Koenig represented the minimalist position, and his position, at least on this vote, won at Vatican II. Now, the vote was 1114 to 1074.
I'll show you the division. The vote's a little bit misleading. It shows a victory, a very narrow victory for the minimalists at the council. But there's one factor that's significant here, and that is that the pope had already declared that he didn't want to deal with these theological matters. And it's very possible that a lot of maximalists voted with the minimalists on this out of deference to the pope's request. But at the very least, we see almost half of the representation of the Vatican council wanting to deal with Mary as a theological matter rather than as an ecclesiastical matter. The basic difference between the maximalists and the minimalists, there are many differences, but the basic difference is this, that the maximalists want to emphasize Mary's cooperation in our redemption by means of her fiat and of her offering of the sun as being utterly necessary to redemption and to incarnation. That is, they take the approach of Mary's fiat that without it, no redemption. So in the sense that our redemption is dependent upon Mary's fiat, completely and absolutely dependent upon it, she could be called the co-redemptrix. And we would define further what the earlier papal statement meant that Mary with her son has redeemed us. The minimalists want to view Mary not as co-redemptrix, but as the supreme ecclesiastical type or exemplar of belief, that she is the supreme model of Christian faith.
Now, there's no objection to Protestants that Mary be seen as one of the most or if not the extreme model of belief. I remember a couple of years ago, I was invited to preach in a church on Mother's Day. And I preached a whole sermon on Mary, the mother of God. And the people had never heard a sermon on Mary as the mother of God in the church.
I can't believe it. We go Sunday every year, Mother's Day, and I go in and I hear about Augustine's mother and Calvin's mother and Luther's mother and everybody's mother, but the mother of Christ. See, we're so much caught up in the polemic with the Roman Catholic Church about Mary that we have missed a magnificent example of godliness. No better example of godliness can be found in all of Scripture than this woman, Mary. And I don't want her to be robbed from the heritage of Protestantism.
She's as much ours as she is anybody else's. She's a magnificent example of what faith is. However, don't confuse our zeal to use Mary as a model of faithfulness with a minimalist position. This is a minimalist position of those who have already affirmed the Immaculate Conception, the bodily assumption, and the coronation. So, even the minimalist position is miles apart from the Reformed view that would even give great credence to using Mary as an example.
Let me summarize the issues. Number one between Protestantism as Mary is, is this preoccupation with Mary, service of Mary, veneration of Mary, praise of Mary, devotion to Mary, pilgrimages to Mary, does all this add up not to Maryology but Maryolatry, that is, an exercise in idolatry. To worship a human being no matter how exemplary they are in faithfulness, no matter how righteous they may be, to worship a human being is to be involved in idolatry. So, the issue is, does the Roman Catholic Church sanction the worship of Mary? The answer to that question, I have to say, is officially, technically, legally, no. They do not. They have brinkmanship here.
They come very, very close. But the church has defined the difference between what they call idolatria and idoldulia, latria being the word for worship, dulia being the Greek word for service. Idolatria would be to give worship to idols. Idoldulia is to give service, obeisance, veneration. And they've said this with all of their statues back in the old iconoclastic controversies, that when people bow down, light candles, and pray before these images, they are not worshipping them.
They're only doing service, using them as means to stimulate their own worship. They also distinguish between worship and invocation. Mary is invoked, there is devotion to Mary, there is veneration of Mary, but not worship of Mary.
They make that fine distinction. I think, however, for all practical purposes, that I can say without fear of ever being proven wrong, that millions of Roman Catholic people in this world today worship Mary. And in doing so, believes that they are doing what the church is calling them to do. That distinction, I grant, technically and legitimately, there's there between idolodulia and idolatria and between worship and veneration. But in practical purposes, you know, where is that line of veneration to worship? When you see people bowing down before statues, that is of the essence of worship.
The very act of obeisance itself is an act of worship. And the biggest issue is the sufficiency of Christ. And that is the issue with Roman Catholic theology from beginning to end. It's the issue in terms of justification, it's the issue now in terms of Mary. Is it Christ who is alone our perfect sacrifice?
Does he offer himself or is he offered by his mother? Does he achieve our redemption or does he have to depend upon the cooperation of his mother, who is said, incidentally, to participate both in his glory and in his passion in a unique way? We see that Christ alone is our justification. The Bible knows nothing of a parallel between Eve and Mary. The emphasis there is on the parallel between Adam and Christ, see, who alone brings our salvation for us as he offers himself in perfect sacrifice once and for all. And lastly, there's the eschatological issue. In defining the bodily assumption of Mary, the church has said this is a charismatic dogma that is here to assure us of our participation in the resurrection of Christ.
The significance of the bodily assumption of Mary is that here God in his grace after the resurrection of Christ raises one who is human rather than human and divine and takes her up into heaven so that she's now participating in all of the future benefits that Christ promises his people. And this is done by God to assure us that we will in fact participate in the resurrection of Christ. But the New Testament roots and grounds our assurance in what? In his resurrection and his promise that we will assure.
We don't need another example. You know, how many do we have to proliferate before we're going to believe the promises of Christ? But here the church is adding to the New Testament witness that is the basis of our assurance of salvation and final redemption in Christ. A second example of bodily assumption, a second example of resurrection for our sex. We would call this the invention of tradition and not a result of the exegesis of the Word of God.
Well, I think we can definitely see that there is a wide gap between Roman Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Mary. This is the Wednesday edition of Renewing Your Mind. I'm your host, Nathan W. Bingham.
Because of these differences, R.C. Sproul dedicated an entire teaching series and book to the subject. If you'd like to continue your study, for the final time you can request lifetime digital access to the messages plus a copy of his book, Are We Together? when you give a donation of any amount at renewingyourmind.org or when you use the link in the podcast show notes.
This offer does end at midnight, so be quick. And don't forget that you can also find each episode of Renewing Your Mind on our new YouTube channel. Simply search for Renewing Your Mind on YouTube, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications.
It's easy to listen and even easier to share episodes. For those living in the U.S., tomorrow is Thanksgiving. And as Christians, wherever we live, we have so much to be thankful for. So join us tomorrow for a special sermon from R.C. Sproul here on Renewing Your Mind. .
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-11-27 02:47:15 / 2024-11-27 02:56:57 / 10