A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Glorious Assumption

As we saw in the previous post, Macquarrie argues that the Immaculate Conception is both a preparation for and an implication of Christ’s redeeming work. This can be the case because the redemption wrought by Jesus isn’t confined to time and space and his “saving work reaches backward in time as well as forward.”

In a comment on the last post, Brandon summarized the dogma this way:

(1) Whatever our account of original sin, it must require the conclusion that Mary must be redeemed from original sin.

(2) God can redeem someone through Christ as soon as they exist.

And the doctrine of immaculate conception is just that (2) actually occurs in the case of Mary. The precise account of how (2) actually occurs will vary, and isn’t part of the dogma.

Mary, then, is the prototype, so to speak, of humanity redeemed by Christ. This is “fitting” because of her status as the God-bearer. And this provides a good segue into talking about the dogma of the Assumption.

The Assumption, Macquarrie says, is a corollary of Christ’s ascension “because of the glorification of human nature in him” (p. 82). He points out the precedents for speaking of the assumption of a revered figure in the stories of Enoch and Elijah, as well as the apocryphal “Assumption of Moses.” Particularly in the latter case, the assumption of an important figure is seen as implying the ultimate taking up of all God’s people into the divine presence.

The Assumption is a transformation of the human condition from its familiar earthly state to a new mode of being in which it enjoys an immediate relation to God. … Would not the consummation of God’s purpose for his creatures be to take them up into his presence, to grant the vision of himself and communion with himself? (pp. 85-6)

Thus the Assumption of Mary points to the future for all those who God will redeem in Christ. The Feast of the Assumption is “a celebration of redeemed humanity” in addition to being a celebration of Mary as an individual. Since, as we have seen, Mary is the paradigmatic member of the Church, her Assumption is a fitting consummation of this role.

I think this idea of Mary as the prototype of redeemed humanity gives the dogmas of Immaculate Conception and Assumption their proper Christological focus. And I also think Macquarrie does a good job rebutting some of the more common objections. Certainly his arguments won’t convince everyone, especially not those with a strong opposition to Mariology and Marian devotion. And as he freely admits, he doesn’t want to impose new dogmas (for non-Catholics) that might cause further division in the church. But I’m convinced that a high Mariology, far from being idolatrous or obscuring the place of Jesus, can be a rich and edifying elaboration of the central truths of the Gospel.

5 responses to “Glorious Assumption”

  1. Joshie

    I have to admit I’m still not fully convinced (with regard to Macquarrie’s defenses of Mariology).

    I am still not convinced about a couple of points. I really don’t see how an account of original sin _requires_ that Mary be redeemed from it at her birth. It’s not good enough to say God could have done it that way. You have to show that God did do it this way or that it is essential that God did it that way.

    I am also troubled by the fact that there is not even a hint of the dogmas of the assumption and IC in the New Testament. Many foundational ideas like the ones in the creeds are not fully worked out in the scriptures, but the basis for the concepts are there. Other than a mistreading of the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28, there is not a hint of these two doctrines in the NT. Luke loved talking about the women around Jesus and if he had known of the IC or assumption he surely would have mentioned it. Even if one were to place the writing of Luke before Mary’s death, her assumption is not mentioned in any of the later writings of the NT like 2 Peter or the Pastorals or in any of the Apolostolic Fathers, even by Ignatios who mentions her several times. If this had happened, or if (to put it in a more scholarly way) the tradition dated to the primeval church, surely the NT or the Apostolic Fathers would have mentioned it.

    Finally, it seems that the higher one pushes Mary, the higher Christ goes as well. Why is this a bad thing? Well instead of Christ being our mediator, Mary becomes our mediator with Christ. Christ becomes unapproachable and Christology gets pushed so high it begins to take on a quasi-Apollonarian quality with his human nature getting swept aside.

    I don’t think the Marian dogmas are incompatible with the scriptures or the creeds or that they are dangerous or anything like that. I just don’t see how they are compelling or worthy of the status of dogma.

    Reply
  2. Brandon

    Hi, Joshie,

    The claim is not that an account of original sin requires that Mary be redeemed from it at conception, but just that it requires that Mary be redeemed. I think that’s unexceptionable. But you are right that the key issue at stake is whether God actually did redeem Mary from conception (I don’t think anyone claims that it was essential for God to do it that way, although perhaps some do).

    Catholics, of course, would deny that their reading of Luke 1:28 is a misreading, and would point to how it has usually been read in the history of the Church (even by many of the Reformers, like Martin Luther). But it does indeed appear that most of the basis of the doctrine consists in analogies and liturgical reasons. (E.g., we know from Lk 1:15 that John received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and the feast of his conception was celebrated liturgically; so God did something very like it in the case of the Baptist, and, given the importance of Mary, it makes sense to have a feast celebrating her conception, as well; another major factor is Genesis 3:15 and the argument that Mary is a New Eve).

    I also think you’re right that the real difference between those who accept the Marian dogmas and those who don’t is that for the former view the liturgy of the Church is the authoritative way of reading Scripture, while for the latter, it isn’t.

    Reply
  3. Lee

    I think those are good points – Maquarrie doesn’t deal adequately with the NT issues, IMO. Though, to his credit, he’s not proposing that Protestant churches make the IC or Assumption dogmas.

    I think he’s more likely to say that they are implied in some way by the central Christological dogmas rather than being founded on the NT per se. But I think his argument needs to be more precise and rigorous to be compelling. I’ve been led to believe that Duns Scotus is the theologian to consult here, but I haven’t read any of his work.

    Your point about Apollonarianism is something that had occurred to me too and I think is worth thinking more about.

    Reply
  4. Joshie

    Actually, the RCC has ceased using Lk. 1:28 as a support for the IC. Even the New American Bible NT of 1986 translated kecharitomene as “favored one” instead of following the vulgate and rendering it as “full of grace” (gratia plena). But as you rightly point out, the arguement is mostly based on analogy.

    I would say, though, that the role of the magisterium is is the deciding factor. There is a dynamic relationship between liturgy and the teaching ministry of the church, of course, but the fact that the IC of Mary and the Assumption have been declared dogma shuts down any further discussion on the appropriateness of those two doctrines for catholics.

    Reply
  5. Bad Protestant « A Thinking Reed

    […] late posting on this obviously but last night I went to a Mass in honor of Our Lady’s Glorious Assumption. It was heart-breakingly beautiful in parts, set as it was to music from Mozart’s […]

    Reply

Leave a reply to Bad Protestant « A Thinking Reed Cancel reply