Mother of God – Defender of Orthodoxy
This article first appeared in The
Catholic Answer
By Dwight Longenecker
I have long recognised the unique vocation of Our
Lady, called to the highest honour among all created beings. It is
a fact of history that, if true honour is not paid to her as the Mother
of God, people put our Lord in her place as the highest of creation
rather than adoring him as God Incarnate.
--Rt Rev Mgr Graham Leonard from The Path to Rome
The former Anglican Bishop of London—now a Catholic priest-- sums
up the reasoning for the church’s most ancient title for the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Put simply, Mary’s title of Mother of God insures Christ’s
true place as the unique Son of God and Son of Man.
The title theotokos literally means
God-bearer. It is the title used by the Greek fathers from Origen
in the early third century, and
some even think it can be traced to Hippolytus who died in the year
236. This term for the Virgin Mary was used increasingly by the early
Church, but in the early fifth century it was attacked by the heretic
Nestorius, who wanted to replace the term theotokos with Christotokos or ‘Christ-bearer.’ Nestorius,
in a sincere attempt to avoid an earlier heresy called Apollinarianism,
asserted that there were two separate persons conjoined in Jesus Christ.
Thus the Blessed Virgin Mary in giving Jesus human flesh could be the ‘Christ-bearer’ but
not ‘God bearer.’
Nestorius was opposed by St Cyril of Alexandria
and the controversy was referred to a Council of Rome in the year
430. Pope Celestine condemned
Nestorius’ teaching, and in the meantime the emperor arranged a General
Council to meet at Ephesus. It met in the summer of 431 and condemned
Nestorius and therefore re-affirmed the already ancient title theotokos. What
is clear from the controversy surrounding Nestorius is that the title
theotokos is not primarily an exaltation of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
but a defense of orthodox Christology. The Council of Ephesus upheld
a fully orthodox view of Jesus, and to do this they re-affirmed the
devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary which supported the fullest understanding
of Christ’s divinity.
Just twenty years after the Council of
Ephesus another council was held, this time in the city of Chalcedon.
On 8 October 451 the council
opened and dealt with another heresy called Eutychianism. As a result
of the council the Definition of Chalcedon was drawn up. This definition
re-affirmed the basic definition of Christ’s divinity given at the
Council of Nicea in 325. It expressly repudiated those who deny the
title theotokos for the Blessed Virgin Mary and went on to re-assert
the orthodox position that Our Lord was ‘One Person in Two Natures
which are united unconfusedly, unchangeably indivisibly inseparably’.
I have gone into a bit of detail about the events of the fifth century
for a specific reason. One of the things which draws all Christians
together is the fact that all who call themselves orthodox look to
these first councils of the church for their definition of true belief
about the united manhood and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Definition
of Chalcedon, based on the earlier definitions of Ephesus and Nicea,
is looked to as a test of orthodoxy not only amongst the Catholic Church
and most of the Eastern Churches, but also amongst Protestant believers.
However, if Protestants claim that their orthodoxy stems from these
early councils, there is a problem.
The Council of Ephesus specifically upheld the title of theotokos for
the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Council of Chalcedon expressly repudiated
those who would deny Mary that title. Therefore, those modern day Christians
who deny Mary the title of theotokos are actually condemned
by the very councils they look to for support. One might argue that
the title theotokos was affirmed by the councils as a separate
measure, but it wasn’t. It was affirmed as an integral part of their
defense of orthodox Christology. The historical record shows that devotion
to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God developed at the same
time that the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the God-Man. Graham
Leonard’s pithy statement explains why the two beliefs developed together.
As Jesus came to be understood as God incarnate it became clear that
Mary, as his human mother, must have been specially preserved from
sin by God. This special purity made her the highest of created beings.
Devotion to her was therefore totally intertwined with submission and
obedience to her Son, the incarnate God.
This unity of man and woman is hinted
at in the Scriptures’ doctrine
of marriage. From Genesis through to the teachings of Our Lord in the
gospels and the teachings of St Paul, man and woman are said to be ‘one
flesh’. In I Corinthians Paul re-affirms the unity that exists between
man and woman. ‘For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man…Nevertheless,
in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as
woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things
are from God. (I Cor. 11:8-12) In the divine economy man and woman
are interdependent and in the mystery of the redemption God chose for
both Jesus and his mother to play interdependent roles.
There are some non-Catholics who would therefore grant Mary the title
of theotokos for theological reasons, but they still do not
practice any form of Marian devotion. This is illogical and truncated
because in every other aspect of our faith our worship, devotion and
adoration are inspired and united to the doctrines we profess. How
can one grant Mary the title ‘Mother of God’ and yet refrain from using
the ancient prayer in which we say, ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray
for us now and in the hour of our death’?
Worship of Jesus Christ as ‘God from God, Light from Light, True God
from True God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father’ is
therefore a unity with prayerful devotion to his mother. With her and
through her we affirm and bow before the one who is God made man. Those
who deny Marian devotion sometimes sincerely object because they believe
devotion to Mary detracts from proper worship of her Son. But this
is to misunderstand the Church’s teaching and practice. Devotion to
the Blessed Virgin is constantly united with the worship of her Son. ‘Woman
is not independent of man nor man of woman.’ (I Cor. 11:11) This unity
of belief and practice cannot be separated, and just as the early church
taught, those who deny that Mary is theotokos also impugn the
true divinity of her Son—even if they are sincerely unaware that they
are doing so.
The famous convert Kimberly Hahn has said, ‘There are three things
that keep evangelicals away from the Catholic Church—Mary, Mary and
Mary.’ While it is true that evangelicals do have a strong resistance
to Marian devotion, Catholics should not apologise or back away from
the issue. Instead it should be shown that devotion to the Blessed
Virgin Mary has been an integral part of orthodox Christianity from
the very earliest days of the Church. It should be pointed out that
the early Church fathers actually considered a proper view of Christ
to be dependent on the proper understanding of Mary’s identity. Furthermore,
those who object to Catholic practice should be reminded that the vast
majority of Christians down through the ages and around the world today
incorporate the Marian dimension into their Christian lives in a daily
loving devotion. Most importantly, it should be stressed that devotion
to Mary is not something different than their already keen love for
Christ; instead devotion to the Mother of God is a fuller experience
of His everlasting love.
Dwight Longenecker lives in England where he works as a freelance
writer. He is the editor of a collection of British conversion stories
called The Path to Rome. He is also the author of Listen
My Son—St Benedict for Fathers. His new book, St Benedict
and St Thérèse, The Little Rule and the Little Way is published
in Spring 2002 by Our Sunday Visitor.
Return
to Articles main page
