Re: My “Offensive” Post About The Virgin Mary

In this short article, I would like to respond to a criticism I received about a post I made here on Substack: “No Jesus, no Mary; no Mary, no Jesus.”

One response I received is particularly illustrative of how Protestants—especially—tend to react. That said, this person expressed their objection with more charity and patience than I’m usually accustomed to:

“Can we actually breakdown what you are insinuating here? Are you serious? The Triune God (meaning Jesus too…) who existed before time even was a thing is limited all of a sudden? Do you really think that even Mary herself would want to be talked about like this? I want to say a lot, but I’m going to refrain because over text it wouldn’t come across the way it needs to. Please kindly explain how this is biblical in any sense.”

My response—admittedly not as thorough as it could be—but perhaps a starting point for those who took offense at that post.

First, I want to express my appreciation for your intellectual charity—your willingness to first understand my position before critiquing it. That kind of restraint is rare and admirable.

Now, to clarify what I (and the Catholic Church) actually believe: Mary is a mere creature, utterly contingent and, compared to God—who is Being itself (ipsum esse subsistens)—she is as nothing. God, who is self-sufficient and lacks nothing, had no absolute necessity for Mary in bringing about the Incarnation and our redemption. And yet… and yet. It remains the case that He freely chose to bring about salvation through her cooperation. Her fiat—her free consent—was the instrumental means by which the Word became flesh. Without her, we would not have Jesus.

Perhaps this analogy will help. If I were to express gratitude for the cross, saying, “Thank you for the cross, through which salvation was given to us,” you likely wouldn’t object. You wouldn’t assume that I was claiming that a particular piece of wood was, in an absolute sense, necessary for God’s salvific work. Strictly speaking, God, in His omnipotence, could have redeemed us in any number of ways. But the cross was relatively necessary—not because God was bound to use it, but because He sovereignly willed to save us through it.

Now, consider Mary in this light. Unlike an inanimate object, she was not merely a passive instrument. She freely assented to God’s plan, cooperating with divine grace. If we rightly venerate the cross—the means through which Christ offered Himself—how much more should we honor Mary, through whose free consent Christ came into the world at all? If it were not for Mary, we would not have Jesus.

Perhaps you still disagree with me, but I hope that at least sheds more light on things.