MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS
(This text has been
synthesized
from the Class Text
of late
Fr. Joseph Neuner,
S.J., JVD, Pune)
Dr. D. John Romus
Introduction
1. The Title
2. Problems of Mariology
3. The development of Mariology
4. The Scope of these notes
Chapter One
Mary’s Divine Motherhood
1. Mary’s place in faith and theology
2. Mary’s divine motherhood
3. The implications of divine motherhood
4. The salvific meaning of Mary’s personal
motherhood
5. The motherhood of the Church
6. The Protestant objection
Chapter
Two
Mary’s Virginity
1. Introduction
2.
Virginity in the history of religion
3.
The meaning of Virginity
4.
The meaning of Mary’s virginity
5.
The Virginal Conception
6.
The Church as Virgin Mother
Chapter Three
Mary and Renewed Humanity
A. The Immaculate Conception
1.
Immaculate Conception and Christian Theology
2.
The Scriptural foundations
3.
The development of the Doctrine in tradition
B. Mary’s Assumption into glory
1.
Mary’s Assumption and Christian faith
2.
The Tradition of Mary’s Assumption
3.
The definition and its meaning
4.
Immaculate Conception & Assumption as Mysteries of the Church
Chapter Four
Mary’s Role in the Salvation of Mankind
1. Theological principles
2.
Mary’s role in the work of redemption
3.
The Mediation of grace through Mary
Appendix
Principles of Marian devotion
[Encyclical of Paul VI: “Marialis Cultus” (2nd Feb
1974)].
Selected Bibliography
Introduction
1.
The Title:
We choose this humble title
for these brief notes on Mariology because it seems to contain the most
suitable access to the mystery of Mary’s life and mission for our time. It is also the title given to her in the
Gospels. It leads us into her life
situation on earth. For many the titles
of glory as “Queen of Heaven”, sound distant and unreal, unrelated to our own
world and too far removed from the Gospel scene. But they may feel close to the girl in
Nazareth who is faced with a unique invitation (vocation) and in silent faith,
unknown to the world around, grows into the joys and sorrows of motherhood,
devoted to her child, so that her entire life is absorbed and fulfilled in the
mystery of her Son, in his childhood, in his earthly life, in his glory.
Also Jesus, in his
humanity, is closer to men of our time. He walked on the roads of Galilee , mingled with people of all sorts, lived their
life and shared their joys and sorrows. But he was a man of mission and
destiny, of unique human involvement and unspeakable closeness to his Father,
preaching God’s kingdom, a new world in which man is liberated from all bondage
in God’s love. In spite of the problems
of biblical criticism, people see, shining through the gospel story, the figure
of this unique man of Nazareth
So it is with Mary. We know her under the titles by which the
early Church expressed its faith, the ‘Virgin Mother of God’. We have the later
Mariological dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which
surround her with heavenly splendour.
But we cannot start with her glory, or more correctly, we must first
trace this glory in her earthly life, in Nazareth
This does not mean that we
intend to reconstruct her earthly life, or at least the events referred to, in
the Gospels. This is the task of
historical research, and its possibilities are very limited. Not so much the historical detail is
necessary for the understanding of Mary but what her motherhood, her virginity,
her faith, the close union with her son through the stages of his life in
brief, what the gospels tell us, meant for her.
We try to describe not merely her role in God’s plan - this would be a
merely ‘objective’ Mariology - but her response to this role. This is in fact the particular feature of
Mariology that it retraces the active response of Mary and thus presents the
mystery of the Christian life not only as God’s gift and call, but also in its
human implications, as the fulfilment of man.
2. Problems of Mariology:
On 29th Oct 1963, the
Second Vatican Council voted (though with a margin of only 40 votes) to include
the schema on the Blessed Virgin into the Constitution of the Church as its 8th
Chapter, against keeping it as a separate council text. This vote of the
Council has deep significance: it implies that the mystery of Mary must be seen
not in isolation as a mystery of its own, but in the context of the entire life
of the Church.
This trend of isolation
had in fact been the most disquieting factor in Marian theology and devotion.
Theologically it reveals itself in the extraordinary number of studies and
publications on Mary in the last centuries and especially in the decades before
the Council, far exceeding studies on Christology and in the exaggeration of
her privileges, her knowledge and her sanctity, ever since the Middle
Ages. From the fact that Mary was
conceived without sin some theologians drew the conclusion that she must have
been immortal and free from suffering and that either in the beginning of her
life or at the occasion of the Annunciation she renounced this privilege so as
to be similar to her son (cf. BAC III Mariology n. 54).
Theologians used to
speculate about the greatness of her grace, which, already according to Thomas
Aquinas, was greater than that of any other man (cf. S. Th. III, q 27
a.5). Later they stated that at the time
of annunciation it exceeded the grace of all men and angels together and
finally that this was the case already from the time of her conception (BAC
loc. cit. n. 71). Such ideas entered
also into official documents. Thus the
Bull ‘ineffabilis’ contains the statement that God “filled her
marvellously with an abundance of all heavenly gifts of grace from his divine
treasure far exceeding all angelic spirits and all Saints, so that she excelled
with such a fullness of sanctity which has no equal below God” (Cf. Bac 72).
While we find it difficult to make sense of statements in which grace is
an object of measuring and comparing, we are more puzzled when we encounter
speculations about particular gifts. We
may dismiss the single voice of Christopher Vega who attributed to her beatific
vision throughout her life. But many
thought that she enjoyed this vision at times, e.g. at the Annunciation. Besides, other gifts were granted to her as
that of “prophetic knowledge, of miracles and also of languages in a degree
befitting her special office “
(Scheeben, Mariology II, p.19).
Though the claims of supernatural knowledge
are by far more moderate than those concerning grace, there is still the
widespread ‘probable’ opinion that “from the womb of her mother... Mary was
endowed supernaturally with the use of her intellect so that, as his bride, she
might from the beginning of her life enter into living communion with God”
(Scheeben II. 22). As she is meant to
cooperate in the salvation of men, Scheeben also thinks with other theologians
of his time that “Mary had on earth, as she now has in heaven, an intimate knowledge
of all those to whom that activity is extended”
(ibid. 23). All these
prerogatives are attributed to Mary on the basis of the principle that as
Mother of God she has an exalted position above every creature and therefore
should enjoy privileges higher than any of them. Today we are more inclined to ask in what way
Mary, who in a unique way is chosen to respond to God’s invitation, shares our
life with its darkness and struggle on earth.
The exaggerated way of
presenting Mary’s privileges raises a second misgiving concerning the sources
of our knowledge about Mary. These theological speculations are based on
reasoning and consist in conclusions (legitimate or exaggerated). These
conclusions are copied from author to author, and so lead to a ‘consensus’,
which is not so much a consensus in faith but in a commonly accepted
trend. Also ecclesiastical documents are
written in the trend of the time. We
have to distinguish in them the solid principles and perspectives coming from
the Gospels and ancient tradition and certain one-sidedness in presenting
Marian Theology and devotion. The Mariology of the past century has been based
too much on the Papal encyclicals written in the style and climate of the
Marian enthusiasm which marked the time before Vatican II. Today we feel the
need of returning to the sources, to the Patristic tradition and to Scripture
itself.
We are also puzzled by the
parallelism which developed between Jesus and Mary in theology and liturgy: it
is quite understandable that there is a feast of Mary’s conception parallel to
the Annunciation, of Mary’s Nativity to Christmas and of her Assumption to the
Ascension, but we may feel uneasy when the feast of the Heart of Jesus is
matched with that of Mary’s heart and his kingship with the feast of Mary the
Queen. The uneasiness grows when titles, which in the Bible are explicitly
reserved to Jesus, are extended to Mary, so that the biblical “one mediator
between God man, the man Christ Jesus”
(1 Tim 2.5) seems to be relativised by the title and feast (now
abolished) of Mary the Mediatrix of all graces. It is clear that the
events of Jesus’ life have their analogies in every human life. This is the
meaning of the incarnation. In a particular way it also applies to Mary’s life
and role. Still, the ‘parallel’ should
be avoided. Mary’s place is not at the
side of Jesus her Son, but she is the one who received him and embodied him in
human society and history.
Misgivings also arose from popular
devotions and practices of the Marian cult.
They must be explained partly by the human appeal of the Virgin Mother,
partly by the sterile liturgy in which the faithful were reduced to passivity,
so that the popular and colourful devotions to Mary e.g. in May or her
devotional statues offered a welcome complement. Such devotions could easily turn the faithful
away from the centre of Christian life, Jesus Christ and the Eucharist. Besides
they were at times affected by unhealthy trends, by sentimentality and even
superstitions.
Against this background
modern Mariology must be Christ-Centred.
As the life and vocation of Mary have no meaning apart from Jesus
Christ, so every single element of Mary’s life and mission and every form of
devotion to her, must be oriented towards Jesus Christ. In the presentation of
Mary, we must abstain from the trend of ‘divinising’ her, i.e. from seeing her
too exclusively in the context of her final glory; we must find her on earth in
the world of her faith and service, inserted into the pilgrim Church, as it is
symbolized by the action of the Council.
If this is done, Mary may
find again her place in the middle of the Church, as she holds it in the
Oriental Church and as it was hers in the Middle Ages when the great Cathedrals
were built in her honour: the isolated Marian devotion may look like the side
chapel of a church, grown beyond proportion, exteriorly only related to the
body of the Church; it detracts from the unity of the building and remains
unsatisfactory in itself. The great Cathedrals were centred on Jesus Christ
with the altar and the Eucharist in the middle, yet the entire building (not a
side chapel) was the symbol of the assembly which, in likeness of Mary,
listened to God’s word, committed itself to Him in faith and love and receiving
Jesus Christ, made the mystery of salvation real in this world.
3. The
development of Mariology:
Mariology unfolds in three stages (cf. The
Christian Faith pp. 191f): in connection with the growing understanding of the
mystery of Jesus Christ, Mary is seen as the Mother of God; it is through her
that God’s saving presence becomes incarnate in our world. In a second period the faith of the believers
and the theological reflection dwells on the implications of this mystery for
the person of Mary: in long centuries
the perfect consecration of Mary in her service of God for our salvation was
more fully understood (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and her
inseparable union with Jesus her son in life, passion and resurrection was
celebrated and taught (the feast and dogma of the Assumption). However these developments tended to make
Mary herself the centre of theological reflection. Hence in a third phase, the
modern Mariology places the mystery of Mary again into the wide context of the
mystery of salvation and reflects on Mary’s place in the mission of Jesus Christ
and the Church. Also in this modern
phase exaggerations can be found when Mary’s role is in some way placed side by
side with that of Jesus. It is the merit
of the Council to have given full emphasis to the salvific significance of the
Marian mystery, yet to have kept it strictly centred on Jesus Christ and so, in
an ecumenical spirit, to have presented her as the icon in which divine grace
and man’s salvation are revealed.
4. The
Scope of these notes:
It is impossible to compile
in short notes all the aspects of Mariology so highly developed and
differentiated in the last decades. Nor
is such a study possible within the scope of the general theological
formation. It is vital, however, to see
Mary in the context of the mystery of our salvation and so to understand anew
her place in the life of the Church.
Hence we present the theme under four
headings:
1. Mary’s divine motherhood
2. Mary’s virginity
3. Mary and renewed humanity
4. Mary’s place in our salvation
Chapter One
Mary’s Divine Motherhood
1. Mary’s
place in faith and theology:
The first question to be
asked with regards Mary concerns her place in faith and theology. Has she any place at all? It is obvious that in the life of every
great man the mother plays a role. So it
is understandable that Mary occurs also in the Gospel accounts about Jesus’
earthly life, where she usually is called ‘his mother’ (Mt 1:18; 2:11, 13;
12:26 etc) or also mother of Jesus (Jn 2:1, 3).
However, the mother remains outside the work and mission of her
son. Her person is merely of
biographical interest. (Thus in the description of a pontificate the mother of
the pope has only a marginal place). Jesus has a mission entirely of his own,
given to him by his Father. If then,
faith and theology are concerned with God revealing himself in Jesus Christ,
saving man and leading all creation to its destiny through him, what is Mary’s
place in this work of divine revelation and salvation? In what way is her role more central than
that of many others, who figure in Jesus’ biography and influence his earthly
life, but remain outside his work and mission?
True, our faith is
concerned with God, His word and saving work revealed in Jesus Christ. But it is also concerned with man, who
receives the Word of God and in whom God’s saving action is realized. Man is not merely the object of God’s work,
but in his freedom God’s grace is realized, in his response God’s Word becomes
creative bringing about the new world.
Thus man is included in the world of faith and in the reflection of
theology, not only as a marginal reality indicating exterior circumstances of
God’s saving work (like Herod and Pilate who figure in Jesus’ biography without
becoming contents of our faith), but as the responsible partner in the dialogue
of revelation and salvation, which originates entirely from God and yet could
not exist without man.
Thus man in general has
place in faith and anthropology is a legitimate branch of theology. But we ask further whether in divine
revelation this idea of man in his relation to God is given to us in concrete
figures. It surely is offered to us
primarily in Jesus Christ himself who is at the same time God’s presence to man
and the new man united to God and finding in him his fulfilment. Jesus as the mediator stands on both sides of
God and man and so has his unique place in history and cosmos. But has Scripture also given us the image of
one who stands entirely and exclusively on our side? Of one who is called from our ranks to
receive God’s Word in faith and love, to realize his mystery in an earthly life
and in the darkness of faith, moving towards the dawn of final glory and who
has reached the shores of fulfilment with Jesus, the Risen Lord? This figure is Mary. Her life, as the life of perfect response,
consists “in receiving this gift of the eternal God, God himself, in grace
given freedom, with body and soul and all the powers of the whole being, with
all a man is and has, all he does and suffers, so that this receiving of God
takes up his entire nature and his whole life history into the eternal life of
God” (K. Rahner, Mary, Mother of the Lord, p.36). Thus “all that the faith says
about the realization of redemption, about salvation and grace and the fullness
of grace is realized in Mary” (ibid. p.38).
This then is Mary’s unique
position in God’s plan of salvation: whereas many are called to realize in
their own way the mystery of God’s saving love, it is presented in Mary in its
God-given pattern. Through her unique relation to Jesus her son she reveals in
her person the perfect image of the Christian life. She is more than the
‘model’, which is offered to us for imitation, she is the sacred icon, the
image shaped by God, drawn in the Gospels, meditated upon through the
centuries, in which we recognize our human destiny in God.
2.
Mary’s divine motherhood:
Mary’s divine motherhood
derives its meaning from Jesus Christ.
The Gospel message tells us that he is coming from God, sent by his
Father, revealing him and reconciling man to God. Though he is fully man, he is never described
as man reaching out to God, searching union with him, but Jesus the man is the
one in whom God has spoken to us; and through whom God draws all men to
himself. Even more: he is not first a
human being who then, as a prophet, receives a divine mandate for men, but his
person is identical with his mission:
“God sent his Son” (Gal 4:4). “He
has spoken to us by the Son” (Heb 1:1).
Jesus comes as the one who had been “in the form of God” (Phil
2:6). More explicitly still John speaks
in the Prologue about the eternal Logos who “became flesh” (Jn 1:14). Thus Jesus is not man made God, but God with
man or rather: his returning to God and drawing all men to his Father, is
possible because he comes from his Father and in his person embodies his
Father’s saving love. This message that “the Word became man.... and was called
Son of man” (ND 604) and that, not withstanding the two natures, Jesus Christ
is “one and the same only begotten, God the Word“(ND 615) is the burden of the
councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon
Only in the context of
Christology, Mary’s role can be seen in its full significance. The first biblical reference to Jesus’ mother
(though not mentioning her name) expresses the central mystery that through
her, the Son of God entered into our human world: “God sent forth his son, born of woman, born
under the Law” (Gal 4:4). It is through Mary that the eternal Son is
born (not merely appears) in human weakness Mary does not beget a son, who
subsequently is united to the Logos, but the subject of her conception and
birth is the Son of God. Thus, though
Scriptures does not know the term ‘Mother of God’, it does contain the reality
expressed by it: She is not mother of a child who in a special way is united to
the word of God, but through her the eternal Son of God is born is human
flesh. The child born from her is God’s
own Son.
The title ‘theotokos’
(Mother of God) probably occurs first in Hippolytus (3rd Cent.) and is widely
used among the fathers of the 4th Century e.g. Athanasius, Basilius, Gregory of
Naziane writes: “If one says that Mary
is not the Mother of God, he is outside the divine faith... If he says that a
man was formed, into whom subsequently God entered, he is to be condemned” (cf.
RJ 1017). Hence when Nestorius denied
the title, Cyril of Alexendria could write: “Only in recent time, this
dragon... disregarding the tradition of those who taught the sacred mysteries
to the whole world, introduced a novelty of his own invention and taught that
the holy virgin is not Mother of God but begot Christ or a man”.
Antiochene Christology
denied the title. Theodore of Mopsuestia called Mary ‘anthropotokos’
(mother of man) and ‘theotokos’ only on account of Jesus’ union with the
Logos: “Theotokos, because God dwelled in the man whom she begot”
(Cf. RJ 1113b). The controversy became acute when Nestorius, coming from Antioch
Nestorius’ chief adversary
is Cyril of Alexandria who wrote several letters against him. In the council of Ephesus Chalcedon
One of the reasons why
Nestorius attacked the title ‘theotokos’ was its association with pagan
mythologies. However, in Christian
tradition the title received an entirely new meaning. In Greek theogonies, it stands for the divine
womb from which all life originates, the one ultimate principle of all concrete
and differentiated reality, gods, world, man; in the context of Christian
tradition it expresses the mystery of the Incarnation: that Mary gives birth to
the Son of God and gives him his earthly existence as a member of our human
race. Through her divine motherhood Mary
becomes the instrument of God’s saving design.
We have to reflect more closely on what this instrumentality means for
Mary herself.
3. The implications of divine motherhood:
For an objective
Christology and Mariology this statement of Mary’s divine motherhood, handed
down from Ephesus and Chalcedon
This is not a matter of
merely ‘pious’ thoughts. Rather have we
to reflect on what motherhood means as a basic human reality, how Mary realized
her relationship to her child and her mission as his mother, and how this life
becomes paradigmatic for the Christian life as such.
Motherhood is first a
biological reality, the formation of the body in the mother’s womb and the
birth of the child. Yet this basic
reality affects the entire life of the mother: The mother’s body is equipped
and prepared for the bearing of the child; the birth is followed by the
continued feeding and nursing of the child.
These functions are not merely physiological but largely determine the
psychophysical make up of the mother.
Her emotional life is tuned to the patient care for the child to receive
it into this world not only physically but also as a person, so that it be
accepted and loved and so prepared to become a member of human society.
Thus human motherhood
includes also the personal acceptance of the child. For the entire life of the child it is of
importance that from the beginning it be welcomed with love and joy. Every act of care on the part of the mother
becomes a bond of the personal relationship mother-child. This bond of personal love, however, implies
not only acceptance but also freedom.
The mother knows that the child must live its own life and she must be
ready to allow it to grow towards its own destiny. She must renounce every form of
possessiveness and in selfless love prepare the child for independence and
freedom.
All these features of human
motherhood are found in Mary but they are qualified by the uniqueness of the
child conceived and born from her. We need not examine the question to what
extent Mary was fully aware of the implications of the message she received at
the time of the Annunciation. She may
have become aware of them in stages. Yet
Luke’s narrative brings out the fact that Mary was called upon to give her free
consent to her unique vocation. She has
to accept not only motherhood in general but the motherhood of this child with
its unique destiny, which is beyond her dispositions: “Let it be done to me
according to your Word” (Lk 1:38).
The message of the angel
contains the features of Jesus’ destiny which have a decisive influence on
Mary’s motherhood: there is first the fact that Jesus’ birth is announced by
the angel; his coming is not the natural event of the conception of a child,
but has its origin from God. Other
children’s life is determined to a great extent by the social condition of
their parents; they are taken into the concrete and limited world of their
parents. A mother can to some extent,
foresee how the life of the child is to develop. But Mary conceives a child of divine origin
and destiny. She has to enter into her
mission with absolute faith without being able to foresee the implications of
this call for herself.
There are, however, two
pointers in the message of the angel: she is told to give the child the name
Jesus, which means Saviour. Thus the
child has destiny for others in a universal sense. He will not belong to her but will be
committed to his mission. - And finally: “He will be called the Son of the Most
High”. This title of dignity places him
entirely under God’s sovereignty. His
loyalty will not be to his earthly family and to his mother, but to his Father
in Heaven. Thus from the beginning Mary
is called upon to surrender her child to his own mission and to the inscrutable
disposition of God.
It seems the very meaning
of the account of Luke that Mary has to enter into her role as mother
consciously and in freedom. She
conceives her child as Saviour and thus shares in his saving mission; she
accepts him as ‘Son of the Most High’ and so takes part in his surrender of
obedience. Through the message of the
angel and her free assent she is drawn into the full mystery of her child; she
is not merely giving him the physical body and the earthly existence, but makes his mission her own; she is the first of all those who through
faith and union with Jesus Christ are redeemed and become partakers in his
mission.
The significance of this
personal acceptance of her child and his mission is widely explained in
Patristic thinking: the earliest texts are concerned not only with the bodily
motherhood of Mary but with Mary’s faith in accepting the angelic message. By reverting the disobedience of Eve, which
brought disaster she brings salvation to the world. Irenaeus writes: “The disobedience of Eve the virgin was to be
resolved by the obedience of Mary the virgin “(Adv. Haer. 5.19.1); and
Tertullian: “Eve believed the serpent,
Mary believed Gabriel” (De Carne Christi 17 RJ 358). The most explicit expression of Mary’s entry
into the divine plan of salvation through faith and obedience is found in
Augustine: “It is more important that
Mary was Christ’s disciple than that she was the mother of Christ… Mary is
blessed because she listened to God’s word and kept it: More important is that
she kept his truth in her mind than his flesh in her womb. Christ is Truth, Christ is flesh: Christ the
Truth is in Mary’s mind, Christ the flesh is in Mary’s womb. More important is what is in the mind than
what is in the womb” (sermon, Morin 162f).
He sums up: ”Full of faith, she conceived Christ in her mind before
conceiving him in her womb. Hence she
said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy
word” (Serm. 215, 4).
Vatican II has taken up
this theme and places it into the centre of its Mariology: “By thus consenting to the divine utterance,
Mary, a daughter of Adam, became the mother of Jesus, embracing God’s will with
a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid
of the Lord to the person and work of her Son.
In subordination to him and along with him, by the grace of almighty
God, she served the mystery of redemption.
Rightly, therefore, the holy fathers see her as used by God not merely
in a passive way, but cooperating in the work of human salvation through free
and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus
says, she ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for
the whole human race’ (LG 56. cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. III, 22.4)
The gospels refer tot he
concrete instances in which Mary’s life is woven into that of her Son in a
communion much deeper than the bond of bodily motherhood would imply: She is
praised by Elisabeth for her faith in the fulfilment of God’s promises (Lk 1.
41-45); she presents him in the temple and hears Simeon’s prophetic word that
her son will be a sign of contradiction, and hence also her own heart will be
pierced with a sword” (Lk2.34f). She must realise that Jesus does not belong to
the little world of Nazareth
4. The salvific meaning of
Mary’s
personal motherhood:
Thus Mary’s motherhood is
comprehensive; it includes not only the personal acceptance of the Child (which
should be part of every true human motherhood) but the participation is her
Son’s mission. We come to the basic
question of Mariology: In what way can a
human being have a constituent role in God’s plan. (It is the key question of
every theology in which man is fully accepted in his freedom and
responsibility).
We must start from the
basic biblical message running through the Old Testament and fulfilled in Jesus
Christ, that God alone is the author of all salvation: “I am the Lord and
besides me there is no Saviour” (Is
43:11). Paul sums up the mystery of
salvation: “All this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to himself”
(2 Cor 5:18). When God calls man, it is
his own grace, with no claim at all on the part of the creature. Yet God’s call never overrules man’s freedom;
in God’s presence man is not diminished, reduced to passivity, but on the
contrary, raised to his full dignity.
Never is man more free, more himself, more responsible than in God’s
presence. Hence salvation from the
beginning is presented as ‘covenant’ originating from God’s own initiative, but
necessarily including human partnership.
Hence the annunciation is
an encounter of Mary’s freedom with God’s design. The very fact that this encounter is
expressed in form of a dialogue implies the partnership. A closer analysis shows that the words of the
angel are not a mere announcement of a fact but a mandate. This becomes clearer where Mary is told to
give the name to the child: “You shall call his name Jesus”. It is expressed in Mary’s consent, in which
she accepts her place as ‘handmaid’ and offers her obedience to his word. Hence the salvific meaning attributed to
Mary’s obedience by the Fathers and the Council (s. above) places the dialogue
of the annunciation into the wide context of a theology of the covenant; it
shows the pattern that is found in the saving action of God through the ages.
5. The motherhood of the Church:
It is natural, therefore,
that the same pattern is found in the Church.
From early time the role of the Church is put into parallel with that of
Mary; this is a favoured theme of patristic theology. Hugo Rahner developed the theme (Our Lady and
the Church) with many quotations: Hippolytus writes: “The Church never ceases to give birth to the
Logos. We read, ‘and she brought forth a
man child who was to rule all nations’, the perfect man that is Christ, the
child of God, both God and man. And the
Church brings for this Christ when she teaches all nations” (de Antichristo 61,
H. Rahner 1.c.37). Methodius says: “It would be wrong to proclaim the
incarnation of the Son of God from the Holy Virgin, without admitting also his incarnation
in the Church. Every one of us,
therefore, must recognize his coming in the flesh by the pure virgin, but at
the same time recognize his coming in the spirit of each one of us” (H.Rahner
1. c.38). The Apostolic Constitution of
4th cent.: “The Church is the daughter
of the most high and she lies in travail on your account, for she, through the
word of grace, forms Christ within you.
For by sharing in him you become his holy and chosen members and in
faith, by baptism, you are made perfect to the image of him who created you”
(II 61.5, H. Rahner 1.c.39). The classical witness again is Augustine: “(The Church) gives birth to Christ himself,
for all who receive baptism are his members.
Does not the Apostle say: ‘you
are the body of Christ and each one members of it” (1 Cor 12:27)? If then she gives birth to Christ’s members,
she is in every way like Mary” (Tract. 1.8 Morin 447). More explicitly still” “The Church is Christ’s mother. Mary the virgin, the symbol of her, went
before her; and how, I ask you, is Mary Christ’s mother if not because she gave
birth to his members? And you, to whom I
am speaking now, are Christ’s members: and who gave birth to you? I can already hear the answer that comes from
your hearts: our mother the Church. She
is then the holy and glorious mother, who is like to Mary who is both virgin
and mother, who gives birth to Christ - and you are Christ’s members” (serm.
25.8, Morin 163). The same teaching is
taken up in the Middle ages. Bede
writes: “Every day the Lord in conceived in a virginal womb that is in the
spirit of the faithful, and brought to birth in baptism... (The Church)
conceives us by the Holy Spirit and as a virgin brings us to birth without
travail” (Expos. in Lucam 1, 2 1.c.43).
The theme is known also to
the early reformers. M. Thurian quotes
texts from Luther, e.g.: “According to physical birth we are all different, but
in baptism we are all the first-born of the virgin, that is to say of the
Church, which is the pure virgin in the Spirit.
She possesses the pure word of God, she is pregnant with it; hence we
are truly the first fruits in order to belong to our Lord God” (Sermon on
Febr. 2nd- cit. Max Thurian,
Mary, Mother of the Lord, figure of the Church p.173). Thurian sums up: “The Church, bears, feeds,
consoles and takes care of the children of the Father, the brethren of Christ,
in the power of the Holy Spirit. By the
word of God and baptism she brings into the world the new believers by faith,
hope and charity; by the Eucharist she nourishes them with the life-giving body
and blood of the Lord; by absolution she consoles them with the mercy of the
Father; by unction, with the laying on of hands, she brings them the healing of
body and soul... The whole ministry which she exercises is marked by this
characteristic of spiritual motherhood” (Loc. cit. 174).
The Church’s motherhood in
continuation of Mary’s vocation is taken up in Vatican II: “The Church...
becomes herself a mother by accepting God’s word in faith. For by her preaching and by baptism she
brings forth to a new and immortal life children who are conceived of the Holy
Spirit and born of God. The Church
herself is a virgin who keeps whole and pure the fidelity she has pledged to
her spouse. Imitating the mother of her
Lord and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she preserves with virginal purity an
integral faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity” (LG 64).
The parallelism between
Mary and the Church is more than pious poetry, though the difference must be
kept in mind: Mary gave to the eternal
word his earthly existence in human society and history; this is her unique
privilege, it is the new beginning. The Church does not repeat this beginning,
but continues Mary’s mission by making real in the world at all times the same
mystery of Christ, in individuals by generating them to divine life, in the world by embodying Christ’s saving
grace as ‘sacrament of salvation’ for
all men. She gives the divine Logos
visible reality in human society. She is
doing this in continuation of the same faith by which Mary conceived her child,
as the Lord’s handmaid through the ages.
Thus Mary is called the ‘typus
ecclesiae’ - a term used already by
Ambrose.
Mary must never be seen in
isolation from the life of the Church and the entire history of salvation. She is the archetype of the Church and of all
humanity which is drawn by God’s love into the mystery of his life, receives
him in faith and embodies him in our world.
6. The Protestant objection:
Early Protestantism showed
great reverence to Mary and unhesitatingly acknowledged her unique title
‘Mother of God’. This remained so
through the past centuries though, as a reaction against the Catholic
practices, the Marian devotion was often played down. They do admit also Mary’s faith and humility
in accepting the message of the angel but do not accept the catholic position
that through her obedience Mary was entered into God’s plan of salvation as a
constituent factor. The basic protestant
objection has been formulated most forcefully by K. Barth who sees in catholic
Mariology an expression of human ‘cooperation’ with God and thus an
encroachment on God’s exclusive causality in human salvation. He writes (in Church Dogmatics I/II, p.143f):
“We reject Mariology (1) because it is an arbitrary innovation in the face of
Scripture and the early Church and (2) because this innovation consists
essentially in a falsification of Christian truth. Marian Dogma is neither more nor less
than the critical central dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, the dogma
from the standpoint of which all their important positions are to be regarded
and by which they stand or fall….. The
“Mother of God” of R. Catholic Marian dogma is quite simply the principle, type
and essence of the human creature cooperating servant like
(ministerialiter) in its own redemption on the basis of prevenient grace
and to that extent the principle, type and essence of the Church…. It is
as a creature that her dignity, her privileges, her work of cooperation and
with it the central systematic place and function mentioned above are
attributed to her. The decisive act by
which she acquires her dignity and her privileges and on the basis of which she
is capable of the cooperation, is not merely that physically she is the mother
of God but that there is a bridal relation to God which accompanies the
motherhood, expressed in the words: Ecce ancilla
Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. In this believing acquiescence in the promise
made to her she proves that she is disposed to possess the grace of the
motherhood in question. She desires the
positive receptivity required (Scheeben).
K. Barth sees in this
conception of Mary who, prepared by divine grace becomes ‘worthy’ to be Mother
of God, the general catholic doctrine about man’s capability to cooperate in
his salvation. He sums up: “All this is
what Mariology means. For it is the creatively cooperating in the work of
God... which implies a relative rivalry
with Christ”.
Against this catholic
position K. Barth asserts the ‘Evangelical position’: “The evangelical statement of faith which we
must set against Marian dogma is thus the very same as must be maintained
against the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace and the Church. Jesus Christ, the word of God, exists, reigns
and rules in as sovereign a way within the created world as he does from
eternity with the Father, no doubt over and in man, no doubt in his Church and
by it, but in such a way that at every point he is always himself the Lord, and
man, like the Church, can give honour only to Him, and never, however
indirectly, to himself as well. There
can be no thought of any reciprocity or mutual efficacy even with the most
careful precautions. Faith in
particular is not an act of reciprocity, the act of acknowledging the one
mediator, beside whom there is no other.
Revelation and reconciliation are irreversibly, indivisibly and
exclusively God’s work. Thus the problem
to which the Rom. Cath. doctrine of grace and the Church, to which Mariology in
particular is the so-called answer, i.e. the problem of creaturely cooperation
in God’s revelation and reconciliation,
is at once a spurious problem, the sole answer to which can be false
doctrines”. (e.c.p. 146).
We should listen carefully
to such statements and examine the forms of veneration and the titles of honour
offered to Mary (mediatrix, corredemptrix etc - we shall have to
return to them) as to their ambiguity and possible misinterpretation. We also have to pay attention to subtle
distinctions in traditional doctrine, e.g. of St. Thomas in describing Mary’s
disposition: He interprets the words of the Marian office that Mary “merited to
bear the Lord of all things”: She merited this “not because she merited that
God should become incarnate, but because she merited through the grace given to
her such a degree of purity and sanctity that she could fittingly (congrue) be
the Mother of God” (Sum. Theol. III, 11, ad 3).
So Thomas says simply that God prepared her to be mother of God, and she
responded to His grace.
While being cautious,
therefore, not to restrict God’s all – causality in the work of Salvation, we
must also confidently affirm that God’s grace does transform man, sanctify him,
makes him bear fruit in a renewed life.
This assertion does not emancipate man from his dependence on God;
rather is it the assertion of God’s power which is greater if he enables man,
as a renewed creature, to share in God’s life and work, than if he merely
bestows the blessings on man. Thus the
Church recognizes in Mary the archetypos
of her own vocation and grace.
Chapter Two
Mary’s Virginity
Introduction:
Mary’s motherhood and virginity are inseparably connected in Gospels and
tradition. She is the Virgin Mother of
God. The Church sees in Mary’s virginity
the origin of salvation as exclusively coming from God, beyond human
possibilities and the creature’s single-minded openness to God’s saving
grace. Thus Mary the Virgin becomes the
model of the Church who is mother and gives life to all believers by constantly
receiving God’s creative word from Him alone and clinging to him in
single-minded consecration.
1. Virginity in the history of religion:
In many religions virginity has special significance and
abstention from sex is required for spiritual growth. In ancient India
Important for us is the meaning of virginity in the mediterranean world
in comparison and contrast to the biblical conception of Mary’s virginity. - The
“Virgin” is associated with two apparently contradictory aspects of human life;
She is the symbol of aloofness, inapproachability, self-sufficiency, outside
and above human society, so that she expresses strength, victory, justice,
salvation; she is at the same time the
source of life and fertility, the never exhausted fruitfulness which is
fulfilled in motherhood. Thus, in
astrological language, “the virgin in
heaven is on the one hand the giver of fruitfulness and on the other strict
mistress of law” (Delling, in ThDNT
V.828). On account of the special
‘power’ of virginity the sacrifice of a virgin is occasionally demanded by the
gods (e.g. Iphigenia) and virgins have to minister in the cult of the Roman
Vesta. Still, as symbol of fertility,
the virgin is not essentially different from the mother; Van Leeuw writes: “The
relation of Virgin and mother is, strictly speaking, only a temporal one. The maid becomes a woman. Hera is virgin, spouse, and wife. Artemis is virgin and mother. Often a yearly bath is meant to renew the
‘maidenhood’ of the goddess, as it is narrated of the old germanic Herta. This naturally does not mean that the
virginity is preserved, but that the fertility is miraculously renewed. The cult of the Madonna became a cult of virginity
only in the Roman church. In antiquity,
fertility is by far more important than chastity, though also the latter has its power. Demeter and Isis are mothers, Maria, her
successor, is mother and virgin” (Phanomenologic der Religion, 81). - The other aspect of the ‘virgin’, the
victorious aloofness, is expressed mainly in the Greek Athene: “For the Greek, then, the word (virgin) has
the implication of immutability, self-sufficiency and separation. It comprises something divine and establishes
superiority. Perhaps one might say that
the Parthenos (the goddess Athene) mysticises ‘autarkia’ (self-sufficiency)
which is so important to the Greek. It
is the symbol of the personality which is independent, self - derived and self
contained “(Delling ThDNT V, 829).
Mary’s virginity has a totally different meaning: it is not conceived as
human fertility; on the contrary, Mary refers to her state of not being married
as an obstacle to motherhood and the angel’s answer refers to God’s creative
power as the origin of her child. Nor is
there any trace of self-sufficiency in Mary but the humble openness for God, as
handmaid. If there is any pattern for
this idea of virginity it may be found in the ‘virgin Israel’ which is loved,
called, built up, adorned by God as his bride, who has her beauty and support
only in God (cf. 2 Kgs 19.21; Jer 31.4,
21; Is 49.18; 61.10, etc).
History of religions also knows of many myths
of the ‘virgin-birth’ of extraordinary men. ERE states:
“A wonder birth or a supernatural birth is one of the most commonest
ideas of folk tale and myth” (12, p.623).
It often refers to the origin by divine influence from women already
married or from a virgin. “Sometimes the
pregnancy is caused by mere contact with an object, by bathing or by the sun’s
rays” (ibid 624). We hear of Buddha,
entering his mother’s womb in form of a white elephant, and then being born
after three months without violating the mother’s body. In the Greek world, supernatural birth is
claimed for Pythagoras, Alexander, Plato, and Emperor Augustus etc. Still, Delling notes: “The deity may come in his own form, in a
changed form or in a dream, though in every case antiquity regards the process
as a natural one. There is no question
of parthenogenesis in the strict sense even when no man is present and
conception is simply by a sperm or equivalent” (ThDNT V 830). Thus in the various accounts the child
originates through a natural biological process, only the way of the union of
the sexes is extraordinary. The meaning, therefore, of these accounts is
limited to pointing to the greatness of the men thus conceived by tracing their
origin to a divine influence.
The biblical account of Jesus’ conception is different: the influence of
God on Jesus’ conception is not on the level of a biological function, but
reflects the divine creativity. Delling
describes it: “The reference to the
Spirit is not to be regarded as a mythical statement about a divine
begetting. Nothing is said about a
mechanical operation on the body of Mary.
Rather there is reminiscence of Gen. 1.2: as the Spirit of God hovered
over formless matter when the miracle of creation took place, so there is a new
creative act of God when Jesus is born.
Thus expression is given to the uniqueness of Jesus even from the
physical standpoint” (ThDNT V 835).
Besides, Mary is not described in her role of fertile womanhood, but as
virgin in full receptivity of God’s creative power. K. Barth has brought out Mary’s role
forcefully: “When Mary as a virgin
becomes the mother of the Lord and so, as it were, the entrance gate of
revelation into the world of man, it is declared that in any other way, i.e. by
the natural way in which a human wife becomes a mother, there can be no
motherhood of the Lord... Human nature possesses no capacity of becoming the
human nature of Jesus Christ, the place of divine revelation... The virginity
of Mary is the denial not of man in the presence of God, but of any power,
attribute or capacity in him for God. If
he has this power and Mary clearly has it, it means strictly and exclusively
that he acquires it, that it is laid upon him” (Church Dogmatics 1/2,
188). - Thus both virginity itself and
the virgin birth receive a new meaning in the understanding the Bible and in
the context of Christian revelation.
This new meaning must be further developed.
2. The meaning of Virginity:
The idea of virginity is realized on three distinct yet interrelated
levels: 1. It refers to the physical
sphere: the bodily integrity of a woman who has not had sexual intercourse; 2.
the moral order: the abstention from
sexual gratification; 3. the personal (spiritual) sphere: the totality and integrity of faith and love
with which man adheres to God.
When we speak of Mary’s virginity and in general about the ideal of
Christian virginity, all three spheres are included yet their center is the
personal and spiritual virginity. It
would be wrong and against both scripture and tradition to consider the
personal virginity merely as a metaphorical extension of the physical
virginity. It is the other way round:
where man adheres to God with his whole heart, he will express this spiritual
union also in his moral attitude and the physical integrity is the exterior
sign, the symbol of the integrity of the heart, which has meaning only in so
far as it expresses physically the exclusiveness and totality of the love of
God. Hence a theology of virginity is
concerned with the entire human person who totally adheres to God and expresses
this consecration in all the spheres of his life.
This Christian conception of virginity is prepared in the OT in Yahweh’s
relationship to his people and the claim of exclusive loyalty to him. The theme is unfolded in Hosea: “I will betroth you to me forever.... in
righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy” (Hos 2.19; cf.
Is.53; Jer 2, 2; Ez 16; the Canticle).
The faithlessness of Israel
In the NT virginity is seen in the context of God’s kingdom. Mt 19.12 speaks about eunuchs ‘for the sake
of the kingdom’ i.e. men who are so absorbed by the coming of God’s reign and
so committed to it that they could not do justice to the demands of a family of
their own. This is also Paul’s idea when
he places marriage and an unmarried life into the context of the Christian
commitment and prefers the unmarried state on account of the ‘impending
distress’ and because ‘the appointed time has grown very short’ (1Cor 7.26, 29)
and says about the virgin that “she is anxious about the affairs of the Lord”
(1 Cor 7.34). Here obviously not ‘ascetical’
motives are decisive, but virginity simply means the fuller opportunity for a
life absorbed in the union with God.
The ten virgins in Mt 25.1 are judged by their alertness in awaiting the
Lord, their attitude to the bridegroom; the punishment consists in their
exclusion: “I do not know you” (25.12).
- The Virgins of Rev 14.4 are those who have not defiled themselves with
idolatry and therefore are “redeemed from mankind as first-fruits for God and
the Lamb”.
Most important for the understanding of virginity is 2 Cor 11.2. “I betrothed you to Christ to present you as
a pure virgin (parthenon hagnen) to her one husband”. The theme of the OT covenant is taken up and
applied to Church and Christ: the Church
is virgin by adhering only to Christ.
This single-minded loyalty is threatened by the ‘different gospel’ which
is preached to the Corinthians (v.4), just as Eve had been deceived by the
cunning of the serpent (v.3). Here
virginity does not relate to the body but to the integrity with which the Church
adheres to Jesus Christ alone.
Thus the NT concept of virginity is centered on the personal commitment
to God. Virgin is in the OT Israel in
its covenant to God. This often broken
covenant is renewed in the NT: Virgin is the Church herself if she adheres to
Jesus Christ in unwavering faith; in individuals the meaning of virginity is
seen in their faith and love to Christ. - It is in this context that Mary’s
virginity must be seen.
Patristic theology follows the same line: Virginity
is seen as union with God; ascetical considerations are secondary. Ambrosius compares virgins with angels not
because they live free from bodily desires, but because “they are united to the
Lord of angels” (De Virginibus, ibid. 1. III, 11). He defines:”Virgin is she who is betrothed to
God, a harlot one who makes gods (Virgo est quae Deo nubit, mertrix quae deos
fecit)” (ML 16,204). Virginal integrity
is from God alone: “What is virginal chastity but integrity free from contagion?
Who is its author but the immaculate Son of God whose flesh saw no
corruption? Christ is before the Virgin;
Christ is from the virgin (ibid. 1. V, 21).
That the adherence to God is central becomes clear from his story of an
Antiochene virgin who was condemned to prostitution if she refused to sacrifice
to the Gods: “Today either martyr or
virgin, one of the crowns seems to be denied to us. But also the title virgin escapes us if the
author of virginity is renounced... It is preferable to have a virginal mind
than a virginal body. It would be good to have both if this is possible, if
not, let us be chaste before God, if not before man... Christ’s virgin can be
prostituted; she cannot be made a harlot (prostitui potest, adulterari non
potest). Where there is a virgin of God,
there is God’s temple “(ibid lib. II, IV, 24).
Thus virginity is seen as the total adherence to God, primarily of the
heart, and inclusively also of the body.
The same idea is expressed in the parallel contrast of Mary and Eve;
this theme contains the oldest Mariological reflection. “When Eve was virgin and not corrupted, she
conceived the sermon of the serpent and gave birth and joy, i.e. the news that the spirit of the Lord
would come on her and the power of the most High would overshadow her, and answered the Angel Gabriel: Let it done to me according to your
word” (Justinus, Dial.c. Tryphone 102, RJ 142). Similarly Irenaeus, (cf. RJ 224) and
Tertullian “de Carne Christi” XVII: “The earth was still in a virgin state...
with no seed as yet cast into its furrows... While Eve was yet a virgin, the
ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of
death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like
manner, must be introduced that word of God which was to raise the fabric of
life” (Cf.RJ 358). Thus virginity appears
as the openness to God, which, however, can become also the entrance gate of
evil.
The same idea of virginity is unfolded in the Encyclical “Sacra
Virginitas” (AAS 1954, 161ff). It
describes virginity: “This is the
primary meaning of virginity: to strive only for the divine and to turn mind
and soul to it; to desire to please God
in all things, to be intent on him, to
consecrate to him fully body and soul”
(ibid. 165).
3. The meaning of Mary’s virginity:
Also Mary’s virginity is conceived as the integrity of her adherence to
God. It is to be understood not merely
as a biological fact, but primarily as the expression of her relation to God in
her whole life, and in particular in her role in the incarnation. As virginity comprises the total being of
Mary which can never be lost, she is called from 4th century “Ever Virgin”. This title is then specified under three
aspects: Before, in, and after the birth
(Lateran Synod 649, ND, 703). The
central doctrine, contained explicitly in the Bible is the virginity before the
birth, i.e., Mary’s conception of her child through the Holy Spirit; the
virginity in and after the birth are a later explicitation. Their meaning must be explained.
If Mary is totally virgin, she cannot lose her virginity by giving birth
to her child. This is early patristic
doctrine without, however, claiming a miraculous birth. Iraeneus is emphatic in his assertion of
Mary’s virginity but thinks that in the birth Mary’s womb was opened, “the
Pure, opening the pure womb in a pure manner”
(purus, pure puram aperiens vulvam) ( Ag. Haeresies IV. 33. 11). Also Origin sees the difference of Mary from
other women in the fact that in others the womb is opened at the time of the
conception, in Mary of the birth (cf. RJ.476).
Similarly Epiphanius, Athanasius, Hilarius. Thus in the first four centuries Mary was
considered Virgin also in the birth of the child though they thought that the
child was born in a natural manner.
However, apocryphal writings already from the 1st century narrate a
miraculous birth (Evangelium Jocobi, Odae Salomonis, etc).
In the 5th Century Jovinianus denied Mary’s virginity in and after the
birth and attacked virginity in the Church.
Against him Ambrosius and Augustine defended Mary’s virginity and explained
it in a miraculous manner, i.e. the child was born without hurting the mother’s
body. Scriptural allegory is used: The
door of the sanctuary facing East through which God’s glory had departed when
Israel went into exile and through which it returned (Ez. 43.2) will remain
closed: “This gate will remain shut...
for the Lord, the God of Israel, has
entered by it” (Ez 44.2). This is applied to Mary: “Which is this gate
if not Mary? closed, because virgin.
Thus the gate is Mary through which Christ entered into this world, when
in a virginal birth he was delivered and did not resolve the enclosure of the
virgin’s womb” (cf. RJ 1327). They also
compare the child’s birth with the rising of Christ’s glorified body from the
closed tomb (Augustine, RJ 1430). From the 5th century onwards there is
unanimity among theologians about Jesus’ miraculous birth.
This unanimity has been shaken in recent years. The Lukan narration rather insinuates a
natural birth (Lk 2.6). The scriptural
arguments of the Fathers prove nothing; the consense of theologians is not an
expression of faith but a current interpretation of the ‘semper virgo’ . Positively modern authors (Mitterer)
postulate the full involvement of Mary in the birth so that she be truly
mother. The idea that Mary was spared
the pangs of childbirth because she was free from original sin is no argument
either because she did suffer all other consequences of our sinful
condition. Thus generally modern
theologians no longer speak of a miraculous birth.
There is, however, a meaning in the old idea of the ‘virginity in
birth’. If virginity is not merely a
physical condition but the openness of the entire person to God’s life giving
love, Mary is virgin not only while conceiving the child, but also when giving it to the world: This child is not one of the humans chained
into a world of sin and death in the cycle of birth and decay, but the bringer of eternal life, of hope and love into our world: God’s gift to this world through the virgin
Mary.
Again the question of the ‘virginity after the birth’ is to be
judged on its own merits. There is no
explicit scriptural basis for the solution.
Mary’s answer to the angel that she has no husband (Lk 1.34) refers to
the actual condition, but does not imply a vow.
Such a vow had been postulated by many theologians ever since
Augustine: “She was mindful of her
intention and conscious of her sacred vow (sancti voti conscia)... and asked
about the way of fulfilment, but did not doubt God’s omnipotence” (Serm. 291.5
ML 38, 1318). Such a vow, however, is
hardly possible in a Jewish social setting, where men were obliged to marry and
women also were married by agreement of the parents; such a vow would have had
no meaning except in view of the Annunciation, of which she knew nothing
beforehand. Modern theologians discard
the idea of a formal vow, but do acknowledge a basic commitment to God’s
service which disposes her to the final answer to the Angel as handmaid of the
Lord.
Though Scripture does not give proof for the continued virginity of
Mary, there is also no proof against it.
The expression “he knew her not until she had born a son” (Mt 1.25, cf. 1.18) is a biblical way of emphasizing the fact
that Jesus was conceived virginally, without implying the use of marriage after
Jesus’ birth. As to the ‘brothers of
Jesus’ (Mk 3.31, 6.3 the names are given, Mt 12.46; 13.55; Lk 8.20; Jn 2.12; 7.3, 5.10) the term brother is ambiguous and may mean
broader relationships (cousins) or even sons of Joseph of an earlier marriage
(acc. to an old tradition). Of two of
the ‘brothers of Jesus’ we know the mother,
a Mary who also was under the cross (Mt 27. 56; Jn 19.25), which indicates that the term ‘brothers’ is
used in a wider sense. Besides it is
difficult to see why Jesus on the cross entrusts his mother to John if there
were real younger brothers who would have been obliged to take care of their
mother (cf. Jn 19, 26f).
Tradition is unanimous about the continued virginity of Mary. It is expressed in the ‘Semper virgo’ which since Epiphanius came into
use. It is noteworthy that also the
reformers (Luther, Zwingli and Calvin) firmly defended Mary’s continued
virginity (texts cf. Max Thurian, Mary, p.39f).
It is obvious that no strict argument can be framed for the continued
virginity of Mary. It is, however,
important to reflect on the inner reasons of this ancient tradition. We propose it in words of K. Rahner: “Because her whole existence, all that she
was throughout her life, from her conception to her death, was totally absorbed
into this function of being the mother of God:
because apart from it she is nothing... because in every situation of
her life she was dedicated to this one vocation... she was ever a virgin, ever
and always by reason of her divine motherhood as the obedient acceptance of
grace. And not only before the
conception of her divine Son, but also ever afterwards. For then also she was and remained still the
same, total receptivity of the free gift of grace from on high” (Mary Mother of
the Lord p.69f).
Mary’s virginity should not be considered a silent reproach of marriage,
which is the sacrament of human love and fertility, the basis of the
propagation and culture of the human race Mary’s virginity, and all the Christian Virginity, is based not
on and ascetical denial of love and world,
but on the faith that salvation comes from God’s free initiative which
in no way can be merited or achieved by man.
M.Thurian describes it: “The
virginity of Mary is a triple sign, a sign of consecration as being set aside
for the exclusive service of God; a sign of poverty as one who is called to
accept only God’s fulness; and a sign of the novelty of the kingdom which is
coming to overturn the laws of natural creation”. (Mary, Mother of the Lord, 35).
4. The Virginal Conception:
The central assertion of Mary’s virginity concerns the conception of
Jesus, which is clearly contained both in Scripture and tradition. Both infancy accounts, though widely
different and, acc. to many scholars, irreconcilable in the presentation of
events, agree fully on the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus.
Lk 1.26-38 narrates the annunciation through the angel of the birth of
the Messiah. Mary’s question how this is
possible as she has no husband is answered with the assurance of God’s creative
power. The suggestion (already Harnack)
that these decisive verses 34f are a post-Lukan insertion cannot be maintained
as they have an explicit parallel in the annunciation of the Baptist (Lk 1.18f)
which together with the annunciation of Jesus forms a ‘dyptich’.
Even more explicit is Mathew’s narration in the account of Joseph’s
doubts (1.18-25). His intention in the
Genealogy is to prove that Jesus is Son of David. Thus for him the bodily
descent from Joseph, who belonged to David’s lineage, would have been the
obvious proof. For him the virginal
conception of Jesus by Mary is actually a difficulty, which he answers by the
angelic message to Joseph, that, in spite of his not being the father of the
child, he is meant to take Mary as his wife,
and to be the legal Father of Jesus;
this is expressed by the mandate to give him the name Jesus (Mt
1.21) (whereas according to Luke 1.31 Mary is meant to give the
name). Thus there can be no doubts that
both Lk and Mt intend to speak about the bodily origin of Jesus from Mary
without the intervention of a father.
This intention of the Evangelists is accepted by exegetes: “It seems clear that the two Evangelists...
believed that, in conceiving Jesus, Mary remained bodily a virgin and did not
have intercourse with Joseph - they were not consciously presenting us with a
theologoumenon (theological justification).
Neither Evangelist knew the other’s infancy narrative, and the fact that
a virginal conception through the Holy Spirit is one of the few points on which
they agree means that this tradition antedated both accounts. Indeed it has been in circulation long enough
to have developed into (or to have been employed in ) narratives of a quite
diverse character and to have circulated in different Christian
communities” (R.Brown, The virginal
conception 52f).
The doctrine of the virginal conception of Jesus is equally contained in
the early tradition: From the
Apostolic Symbol onwards the creeds repeat the ‘born of the virgin Mary’. Chalcedon
This unanimity, however, does no longer exist: R. Brown surveys the situation and concludes: “After Vatican II the solid front is cracking
in many places” (1.c.22). The ‘Duch
Catechism leaves the question open. In
catechetical journals the virgin birth is declared an ‘open question’ (examples
R.Brown 1.c.22ff) Here are some of the reason for re-opening the question: 1. The evangelists seem not to have written
on the basis of historical information but in the context of a ‘high’
Christology, i.e. a conception of Christ much advanced; they project his divine
mission into his origin and “historicize” it in the narration of the virgin
birth. 2. The entire infancy story is of very dubious
historical character, interspersed with dreams, angels, birth-stars, which
makes it difficult to accept the virgin birth as historical. 3.
There is a difficulty to reconcile the miraculous origin of Jesus with
the genuine humanity of Jesus and Mary’s attitude towards him. He would always have been the ‘wonder
child’. 4. The silence (or ignorance?) of all other NT authors, of Mark,
John, Paul. 5. There apparently
was a different version from early times as the Ebionites, who accepted Jesus
as Messiah, denied his virginal origin.
6. As to the Church authority; the virgin birth is clearly contained in
the documents, but always taken for granted and supposed. They do not seem to assert more than what is
contained in Mt. and Lk so that the question has to be decided on biblical
grounds.
There are solid reasons on the other side: The Evangelists surely wanted
to convey a historical fact, not a
theological conclusion. The fact that Mt
and Lk independently of each other teach the same doctrine, and no NT source
says anything against their account, is a strong argument for the historicity
of their sources. The silence of other
NT sources remains difficult to explain; still:
It seems strange that Mk calls Jesus only ‘Son of Mary’ never son of
Joseph. The citizens of Nazareth
Further, it seems impossible to point at any concrete source from which
the Evangelists could have taken the idea of the virginal birth of Jesus if
there had not been a historical source.
There are, to be sure innumerable examples of stories of miraculous
births in the mediterranean world, but they all express some sort of a divine
generation (hieros gamos) and remain within the biological causality, whereas the gospel accounts both of Mt and Lk
do not imply a biological influence but refer to God’s creative action (s.
above). Besides it would seem most
unlikely that Jews would interpret the messianity (or divinity) of Jesus by
means of mythological conceptions borrowed from pagans; besides, the character
of the narration is totally Palestinian. - Nor is there any Jewish source which
could have served as model. The famous
text of Is 7.14, “the virgin will conceive” was never interpreted in terms of
virgin birth (Almah means a marriagiable girl).
As to the translation, Brown
says: “We have no evidence that in
Alexandrian Judaism the LXX of Is 7.14 was understood to predict a virginal
conception, since it need mean no more than that the girl who is now a virgin
will ultimately conceive” (1.c.64). Besides Mt. uses Is. 7.14 not as source but
as a fulfilment quotation to confirm his narration. Thus it seems that the Evangelists would not
have come to the idea of the virgin birth had there not been a historical
tradition.
There is another negative indication of the historicity of the
account: the rumour of the illegitimate
origin of Jesus. It is reflected in the
Mt account itself in the doubt of Joseph about Mary’s pregnancy. The idea may be contained in the way the
people of Nazareth
In conclusion one may say with R.Brown “That the totality of the
scientific controllable evidence leaves an unresolved problem” (ibid, 66). In terms of dogmatic theology, however, it
seems difficult to justify the attitude of keeping the question open, as both
scripture and tradition are positive in asserting it.
It may, however, be noted that the dogmatic importance of the question
should not be overstressed. In the past
often the denial of the virginal conception was considered equivalent to the
denial of the divinity of Christ; this can hardly be justified. We have pointed out that with virginity the
consecration of the entire person is meant, of which the bodily integrity is
but the sign. We have also seen that in
the virginal conception the divine initiative is signified, but that this
initiative could also be maintained if Jesus were born as the fruit of human
relations. One should therefore not
think that the substance of the Christian faith is at stake. Still, the question should not be dismissed
as irrelevant. We do believe that
virginity is rooted in the centre of the personality but it must extend to the
whole person, and include the body. We
should recognize again the significance of the human body as the visible
manifestation of the whole person. If
Mary embodies the pattern of virginity, she is virgin in her whole being, soul
and body. The inspiration of this model
should not be lost to our time.
Mary’s virginity is also of singular significance for the dignity of
women. It was the unique significance of
the early virgin - martyrs that they could refuse marriage, live their own life
and consecration, and become the early
shining examples of the Christian dignity of womanhood. R. Brown reflects at the end of his
essay: “The virginal conception also has
given women the central role in Christianity... Can any of us fail to see that,
in all those centuries when no woman could stand publicly in the sanctuary of
churches, it was symbolically significant that a statue of the Virgin stood
there? If by Church law a woman could
not preside at the ceremonies that brought about Jesus’ eucharistic
presence, no one could deny that by
God’s law it was a woman and not a man who brought about Jesus’ historical presence” (1.c.67).
5. The Church as Virgin Mother:
Mary’s virginity is not an individual privilege but has its place in the
centre of the mystery of salvation: it
reveals the exclusive divine initiative in the salvation of humankind; it
expresses the total adherence of Mary to God’s saving word. Hence the mystery
of Mary’s virginity lives on in the mystery of the Church.
We have seen how in OT the relationship of Israel
The theme is taken up by the Fathers: Cyprian interprets the unity of
the Church not as legal bond, but as the common adherence to the word of God:
“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterated; she is without corruption,
chaste... Whoever segregates himself
from the Church and adheres to the harlot is separated from the promises of the
Church...He cannot have God as Father who has not the Church as mother” (De
Unitate Ecclesiae, 6, cf. RJ 557).
Eusebius explains the title of virgin with regards the Church: “They called her virgin because she had not
been corrupted by idle words” (MG 20, 379).
Augustine sees the virginity of the Church rooted in, and originating
from her union with Christ. “(Christ)
redeemed his Church from the fornication of the demons and made her virgin”.
From this virginal church are born the virgins in the Church (Serm.191, ML 38,
1010 f). “The Church is mother and virgin; mother through her heart of love, virgin
through the integrity of her faith and devotion” (Serm 192, 2 ML 38, 1012 f); and once
more: “Thus the Church like Mary enjoys
perpetual integrity and incorrupted fecundity; what the latter realized in the
flesh, the former preserved in her mind, with difference that Mary bore one, the Church gave birth to many, to be brought together into unity by the one” (Serm. 195, 1 ML 38, 1018 f).
Vatican II has made this early tradition its own: Through her virginity
Mary becomes the model of the Church (LG 63).
“The Church herself is virgin, who keeps whole and pure the fidelity she
has pledged to her spouse. Imitating the
Mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she preserves with
virginal purity and integral faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity (LG
64). Thus divine motherhood and
virginity are two ways of looking at the same mystery which is realized first
in Mary, and continued in the Church: God Himself in our world, renewing and
fulfilling, so that the creature itself, united to Him in virginal faith, hope
and love, be filled with His presence and become the channel of his saving
grace.
Chapter
Three
Mary
and Renewed Humanity
A. The Immaculate
Conception
1. Immaculate Conception and Christian:
The reflections on Mary’s virginity lead to the fuller understanding of
Mary’s holiness. It may seem that with
this turn to the person of Mary, Mariology discards its Christocentric
orientation and consequently its theological relevance. However, theology is the reflection on the
entire mystery of salvation which originates from God, but includes man and
therefore comprises the renewed humanity, the new creation of which Christ is
source and centre.
Mary is the ‘typos’ of the new humanity inaugurated by Jesus, the one
who personally was involved in his life and work in a unique manner and in whom
the individual Christian as well as the entire Church sees the pattern of the
Christian call. Hence, turning to Mary’s
personal sanctity does not mean to give up the centre of the Christian faith
but rather to relate it to the human reality, to those who encounter and
receive Jesus Christ.
Still, while asserting the legitimacy of the reflection on the Marian
prerogatives, we may keep in mind the observation of Vatican II that “there
exists an order or hierarchy of truths since they vary in their relationship to
the foundation of the Christian faith” (UR
The two dogmas which refer to Mary’s prerogatives are Mary’s Immaculate
Conception and bodily Assumption. The
first was defined by Pius IX on Dec 8th 1954 in ‘Ineffabilis Deus’: “The doctrine which holds that the most
Blessed Virgin .Mary was, from the first moment of her conception by the
singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of
Christ Jesus the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of
original sin, is revealed by God and, therefore, firmly and constantly to be
believed by all the faithful” (ND 709).
This definition was attacked by most non-Catholic Christians. Protestants rejected it as non-biblical, as
the undue exaltation of a creature at the expense of the unique position of
Jesus Christ who alone is sinless. As to
the origin of the doctrine already Harnack wrote: “The history of the veneration of Mary is
throughout a development in which the superstitious religion of the masses and
of monks from its dark breeding grounds worked upwards and influenced theology
which hesitatingly surrendered” (Dogmengeschichte III, 655). The Oriental
Churches did teach Mary’s Immaculate Conception during the Middle Ages at a
time when in the West it was widely contested, but later, under protestant
influence, and in a growing antagonism against Rome
It is, therefore, important not only to give data from Tradition, but to
point out the inner relationship of the Immaculate Conception with the totality
of God’s saving action. Holiness is not
a prerogative of man but a relationship to God. Mary’s holiness consists in the
uniqueness and totality of her union with God through His call to which she
fully responded. The ‘Immaculate Conception’ expresses this totality of
salvation in her, the ‘wholeness’ of her
being which in her had not to be restored,
as in other people, but is given
to her from the beginning. Thus it is from the depth of her being that she can
speak her assent and follow it up through her life.
It is significant that modern Protestants find new understanding for
Mary’s holiness. M. Thurian unfolds it
under the biblical title ‘full of grace’ (Lk 1.28). This title is given to Mary not in contrast
to Christians, but “united with all Christians who can also find in Christ the
same fulness” (M.Thurian, Mary, the Mother of the Lord, p.21). However, for Mary this is a “title”, that is
to say she becomes as it were a living and sure sign of this fulness of grace
which has its origin only in Christ himself”
(ibid). This holiness is not
Mary’s own achievement; she is not Mother of God on account of her holiness,
“the saintliness of Mary much rather is the result of the peculiar providence
of which she was the object in the thought of God, before even she had seen the first of her
days” (p.22).
How much, then, can we assert about Mary’s holiness? Thurian remains
strictly within the Gospel. While Peter
and others are presented in their ambiguity, falling and returning to Christ,
the Gospel knows nothing of Mary but her holiness: “As far as the Gospel is
concerned, Mary does not exist outside her vocation and function as the Mother
of the Lord. The Gospel is not
interested in Mary as an individual woman but only in so far as she is the
daughter of Zion, ‘full of grace’ and in
the perspective of her messianic motherhood, and thus in so far she is the
symbol of the Church, the Mother of the Faithful” (p.25).
And once more: “As far as (Mary) is concerned, according to the Gospel,
she is the expression of grace in its fulness, and of God’s infallible and
predestined choice which causes his earthly mother to become the symbol of the
Church’s motherhood” (ibid).
Thurian also points out that the early Reformers knew nothing of the
anti-Marian attitude of later times.
While Calvin wanted to safeguard the full humanity of Christ and
therefore thinks that Mary shares in our situation of original sin, Luther and Zwingli think otherwise: “At the
reformation, anything to do with Marian doctrine was considered as being part
of free theological opinion” (p.23).
Hence Thurian’s conclusion:
“Mary, full of grace, Daughter of Zion, the mother of God Incarnate, the
symbol of Mother Church is holy because in her the Gospel sees the living sign
of a unique and predestined choice of the Lord,
the response of faith from a perfectly human creature, but one who was also totally obedient”
(p.25).
2. The Scriptural foundations:
In the discussion of the Immaculate Conception, two texts are prominent,
Gen 3.15 and Lk 1.28. At first let us see Gen 3, 15. After the fall of the
first parents the curse is pronounced on the serpent. While in the paradise the serpent carries its
victory over the woman, the proto evangelium tells us that the fight is not
over, the enmity continues. The text
itself does not express the final victory over the serpent; still it is a text
of hope. There is agreement that the
serpent is the power of evil. As to the
woman, it refers directly to Eve, but the text implies a broader perspective as
the seed of the woman refers not only to Eve’s children, but to the whole of
her posterity.
Catholic interpretation has seen in the ‘woman’ Mary, the mother of the
Saviour who conquers Satan. But, as the
Vulgate translation wrongly says that “She will crush you head”, instead of he,
i.e. her seed, it was considered an indication of Mary’s victory over Satan
through her own sinlessness. This idea
has been popularized in a thousand pictures in which Mary ‘the Immaculate’ is
seen crushing the serpent’s head. Hence,
many thought that there was in Genesis a hidden prophesy of Mary’s Immaculate
Conception, which, however, cannot be maintained.
Still, the text remains significant for the doctrine because in
tradition it has been constantly used to illustrate the total sinlessness of
Mary and her victory over sin so that it became one of the vehicles by which
this tradition was handed on, though it is not a proof of it.
More important is the angelic salutation of Mary: “Hail full of grace” (Chaire kecharitomene)
(Lk 1.28), which has its model in Zeph 3.14.
The ‘Hail ‘is the messianic salutation. ‘Kecharitomene’ means literally
highly favoured by God. The term occurs
only here and in Eph 1.6 where it stands for the sanctifying action of God on
the believers through Jesus Christ. It
therefore refers primarily to God’s action, not to the condition of Mary. Still, God’s love in not idle but creative;
where God loves the creature, is renewed and sanctified. And so both in Lk 1.28 and Eph 1.6 it implies
also the holiness of the creation through God’s action. The text, however, does not say to what
extent Mary was sanctified, it simply and absolutely gives her the title in
connection with the messianic salutation.
It is on this basis that tradition elaborates in concrete the totality of
her sanctification and hence the freedom from original sin.
Also in this text we have to beware of simplifications in the
theological development: the Vulgate translation “ gratia plena” was easily
taken as referring to the objective, created grace that was given to Mary in
fulness, and hence from her conception.
This cannot be maintained as the idea of created grace does not
explicitly occur in Scripture and surely is not expressed in the words of the
angel.
3.
The development of the Doctrine in tradition:
The early tradition is not yet concerned with Mary’s freedom from
original sin, but with her perfect holiness in general. It is first expressed in the opposition of
Mary and Eve. Theodotus of Ancyra
(c.400) writes: “In place of Eve who had
become for us a means of death, God chose, to give life, the Virgin most
pleasing and full of grace who, though a woman, was free from the iniquity of
the woman, the Virgin innocent, immaculate, holy in spirit and body, grown as
a lily among thorns, who did not know the evil of Eve... filled with the
Spirit, clothed with divine grace as
with a mantle, with her mind intent on
divine things, betrothed to God in her heart... Who was Adam’s
daughter yet not similar to him” (PO ,
19,329). In her sanctity she is placed
next to Christ. Ephraem is the main witness: “Truly you (the Lord) and your
mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful, because in you, Lord, there
is no stain, nor is there any blame in your Mother” (Carmen. Nisib. 27 cf. RJ 719; cf. RJ 745.
More texts of Jugie 76).
From the 6th cent, the Oriental
Church Israel
The position of the Oriental
Church
original sin…God’s grace freed her completely as if she had been
conceived in a virginal way so that she should offer a flesh perfectly pure for
the incarnation of the Divine Word... On account of her perfect freedom from
original sin and punishment - a privilege which she alone among all men
received - she is completely inaccessible to the clouds of (sinful) thoughts,
and she became with her soul and body the divine shrine” (C.Jugie 307). Jugie shows that from 11th to 15th century
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was preserved (DThC VII a, 956).
Western Tradition starts on parallel lines, asserting the perfect
sanctity of Mary, but at the time of Augustine gets entangled with the problem
of original sin. Pelagius denies
original sin, and when Augustine teaches the universality of sin in all
descendents of Adam, Pelagius accuses him of putting all Saints, and mostly the
Blessed Virgin, under the law of sin.
Augustine is in a tight corner.
He first boldly answers defending Mary’s sinlessness: “... Therefore
except the holy Virgin Mary, for whom there can be no question of sin on
account of the glory of the Lord – for how could we know what greater measure
of grace was granted to her to conquer sin in its entirety, as she merited to conceive and give birth to
him of whom it is sure that he had no sin - excepting therefore the
Virgin, if we could ask all holy men and
women... whether they are without sin,
they would cry out with one voice:
if we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”
(De nat. et grat. 36, 42, ML 44, 267). Still,
this “conquering” implies that
Mary was originally subject to the law of sin,
and the sharp mind of Julianus makes his point: you are worse than Jovinian, who gave up only
Mary’s virginity to the devil, “you write her off to the devil from the very
condition of her birth”. Augustine is
tortured. He continues to insist that
all men are saved only by grace, hence: “We do not write off Mary to the devil
on account of the condition of her birth because this very condition of her
birth is resolved through the grace of rebirth” (op. imperf. ctr. Jul.IV 122 ML
45, 1418).
However this ‘resolving’ of Augustine is understood, we encounter here
the dilemma which from now on plagues the entire Western tradition of the
Immaculate Conception. If the
universality of sin among all children of Adam is admitted, Mary must be
included, and her sanctification can only be subsequent to her conception. This
is the prevalent, almost universal doctrine of the Middle Ages in the West.
The difficulty of these theologians is connected also with their idea of
the transmission of original sin through the active generation of which the
sperm of man was considered the only efficient cause, so that through the
marriage act sin is transmitted. So you may understand St. Bernard’s protest
against the introduction of the feast of Mary’s conception, which he rejects as
a novelty: “if (Mary) cannot be sanctified before the conception, because she
does not exist nor in the conception itself because of the sin that is in it;
it remains that we believe in her sanctification after the conception when she
already existed in the womb; this made her birth holy, free from sin, but not
her conception” (ML 182, 335). We may
keep in mind that Bernard himself belongs to the most ardent advocates of the
devotion to Mary, and the same can be said about other medieval theologians as
Albert the Great. Bernard was attacked
on account of his stand by Peter Cellensis: “I wished rather that I had no
tongue than that I would say something against our Lady”. He thinks that a General Council should take
up the problem “and weigh and approve the conception of the Virgin so that it
be proclaimed from sea to sea” (ML 202, 616). However such fervour does not
impress the scholars. St. Bonaventure,
who knows the situation at Paris
Thus there are two theological principles at stake: 1. the universality of the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ. Thomas Aquinas
argues: “If this (conception without
sin) is attributed to anyone else except Christ, she would not need Christ’s
redemption. Hence we should not give so much to the mother, that it would
diminish the honour of the Son who is the Saviour of all men” (Summa Theol.
Quodl. VI a.7. cf. S.Th. 3.27.2). 2.
There is the idea that sin is transmitted by the generative act: “The
generative power, by which original sin is transmitted, is infected and
corrupt” (Suppl. 49.1. ad1). Thus only a person who is conceived virginally is
free from original sin. This is the case in Jesus, but not in Mary. As to
Jesus, Thomas Aquinas argues: “It was proper
that Christ should be conceived by a virgin... on account of the dignity of the
humanity of Christ in which sin would have no place, because through him the sin of the world was
taken away... But it was impossible that in a nature which is already corrupt
through cohabitation, a flesh was born free from the infection of original
sin“(S.Th.III.28.1). Thus Christ was not
“in need of healing” because he does not descend from Abraham,” i.e. the
generation through a man, (S.Th.III, 31.8, c) whereas Mary, because she was
conceived in original sin, is “in need of healing” (ibid. ad 2).
The solution of the problem was found in stages: The 2nd difficulty about the transmission of
original sin through active generation was answered already by Abelard (one of
the few defenders of the Immaculate Conception) by distinguishing between
active and passive conception: Man is
under original sin not on account of the generative act of the parents, but by
the fact of being conceived as a member of our sinful race. At a later period John Dons Scotus argues
that sin and grace are in the soul, not in the body, hence just as God can
create grace in any sinner, though his body be infected by sin, “so can God do
it in the first instance when he created grace in the soul of Mary” (cf.DThC
1074).
With regards the universality of Christ’s redemptive work John Dons
Scotus admits that Mary was redeemed, but in a more perfect manner, as she was
not only freed from sin, but preserved from it. “She would have contracted
original sin on account of the common propagation had this not been prevented
by the grace of the Mediator. As others
needed Christ that through his merit,
sin, which was already in
them, should be forgiven, so did she need even more the mediator so
that she should not be affected by sin “(Ordination, III,d.3,q.1).
In fact, this form of redemption is higher: “With regards no one (the
mediator) exercised a higher degree of mediation than with Mary.... This would
not be the case had he not merited to preserve her from original sin”
(ibid). It is obvious that this
argumentation had meaning only for those who were intent on asserting the
highest possible holiness for Mary, which was the case for most theologians in
the Middle Ages.
In brief: whereas in the East the Immaculate Conception of Mary is
generally taught until 15th century, in the west the anti-Pelagian struggle
confused the issue. While theologians,
led by Augustine, wish to attribute to Mary perfect sanctity, they see no
possibility to defend her immaculate conception on account of the universality
of original sin and its transmission through active generation. Hence, as only
Jesus was born of a virgin, where as his mother was born through natural
procreation, Mary seemed to be subject to original sin. John Dons Scotus resolves the speculative
problems. After him the Franciscan school, joined later by the Jesuits,
defended the Immaculate Conception, whereas the Dominicans, following Thomas
Aquinas, remained opposed to the doctrine.
These are the main stages in which the doctrine was approved by the
Church: Sixtus IV approves feast and office (1477 cf.ND.704) and forbids to
censure the doctrine as heretical (1483). - Trent
B. Mary’s Assumption into glory:
1. Mary’s Assumption and Christian faith:
The second Mariological dogma concerns Mary’s fulfilment. In the Marian devotion it holds a central
place. The most favoured picture of Mary
is that of her entry into the glory of her son, received by angels. Her life, vocation, and mission are sealed
with eternity. Often the scenes of her
life (the Annunciation, Nativity, Presentation, Suffering under the cross,
etc) are added to these pictures as
background, so that it should be clear that this final glory reveals the
meaning of her entire life on earth. Thus the Assumption is essentially a
mystery of contemplation, i.e. of the spiritual understanding in faith of
Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation. It
is an ‘eschatological’ mystery. Eschatology is not an addition to human
existence, but the revelation of its ultimate meaning. In the Assumption of Mary Christian faith
sees what God’s love has done for man through Jesus Christ: she is the ‘icon’,
the sacred, God-given image in which we recognize Mary’s fulfilment and our own
destiny. - The dogma of the Assumption is not to be misunderstood as the
canonization of legendary accounts, but vice versa: there is a growing
reflection about the ultimate meaning and fulfilment of Mary’s life, which, on
a popular level, expresses itself in colourful legends. On a theological level,
it gradually leads to the celebration and doctrinal presentation of a mystery
that by the inner logic of faith grows from the fuller understanding of what
revelation tells us about Mary.
It is deplorable that just this
dogma, that is meant to express the common destiny of all believers in Jesus
Christ, should become the object of the hottest controversy with Protestants.
Their objections are summed up in the proclamation of Lutherans in Germany church
of Jesus Christ
1. “The doctrine of Mary’s bodily
Assumption into the heavenly glory... has no foundation in holy writ, and
contradicts its clear testimony of the relation of Christ’s Resurrection to the
resurrection of the Faithful (1 C 15, 23ss)... If Mary through the unbiblical
assertion of her immaculate Conception and of her Assumption is taken from the
coherence with mankind, raised above all the Saints and Angels, and even as
‘Mediatrix and Corredemptrix’, is placed at the side of Jesus Christ, the biblical picture of Jesus’ Mother is
destroyed”.
2. “If today the Pope as Supreme
teacher of the Roman Church, makes an article of faith out of these legends of
Mary’s Assumption, and makes the eternal salvation of all faithful dependent on
it, then even within the Catholic doctrinal tradition a deep change has taken
place. The Pope relinquishes the principle, which was accepted so far, that
only that is truly Catholic which everywhere, and always, and by all has been
believed”.
3. “Christianity is faced, the
first time in its history, with the fact that a Pope, on the basis of the
infallibility, in 1870 accredited to him, defines a dogma of faith. The protest
which at that time was raised by all Christian churches against the dogma of
the infallibility.... receives an overwhelming justification through the
dogmatisition of the bodily Assumption of Mary.
Because this dogma is not only as some older dogmas of the Roman Church,
an erroneous interpretation of the apostolic doctrine, but has no foundations
at all any longer in the message of the Apostles, and, consequently implies the
separation, by principle, of the Roman Pontiff from the obedience towards the
Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. The
cult of Mary obscures the way to God as it is taught in the Gospel”.
4. Cooperation between Catholics
and Protestants must suffer because through this dogma “a common basis has been
relinquished”.
5. The Protestant Church remains faithful to the Scripture: “No one has
ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man” (Jn
3.13).
The answer to these accusations must be given in the following
exposition. One may have different opinions about the benefit of the definition
both for the Catholic Church itself and for the relation to other Christians,
but we shall keep in mind that the Church has done nothing else but put the
seal of finality on what had been the faith of all Christians through centuries
long before the Reformation arose, and what had been celebrated by them as the
feast of Christian hope and fulfilment.
Oriental Churches had hardly an objection against the content of the
dogma, but objected to the fact of the definition.
The greatest difficulty against the dogma seems to arise from the
assertion of the ‘bodily’ assumption. The problem is analogous to that of the
bodily resurrection of Jesus. R.E. Brown
points at two aspects which are to be maintained regarding the risen body: the
continuity of earthly life and fulfilment, which is expressed in the ‘bodily’
resurrection, and the transformation of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15,
42-51. “Christian truth is best served
when equal justice is done to the element of continuity implied in the bodily
resurrection and the element of eschatological transformation “(Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus, p.128). Also in Mary’s assumption both elements seem
essential, but they should not be separated in a static opposition of body and
soul. This separation, which created difficulties throughout the tradition,
lends particular strength to the Protestant rejection. The term ‘body and soul’
in the definition (ND 715) means totality, the fulfilment of Mary’s entire life
and the seal on her union with Jesus Christ which was total, truly body and
soul. In this totality it becomes the symbol of fulfilment for all believers.
2.
The Tradition of Mary’s Assumption:
The first centuries are silent about the death and the assumption of
Mary, which is understandable as they were concerned with the central truths of
revelation. However, after Mary’s divine motherhood had been proclaimed at Ephesus
In the 6th century the feast of the ‘koimesis’ (dormition) is celebrated
in the East, celebrating Mary’s transition from the earthly life into glory. In
the description of the triumph there are texts which clearly speak of the
glorified body, others which stress the beatitude of the soul. According to some texts the soul is raised to
heaven, the body to a terrestrial paradise of incorruption. The ambiguity
clearly comes from the unhappy division of body and soul. Still the texts
exhibit the following elements: (1) the participation of body and soul (Mary’s
whole being) in Christ’s glory, (2) the relation of this glorification to her
virginity and divine motherhood, (3) Her
intercession for us.
In the West the feast is taken over and first celebrated on 18th
January. In the 8th century the title is
changed into “Assumption” and the date is 15th August. The preface
of the feast in the Gothic Missal reads:
“.... It would have been too little if Christ had sanctified her only
through his entrance, had he not also adorned such a mother through the exit.
Rightly and happily you have been received by him in the Assumption whom you
welcomed conceiving him in faith” (ML
72, 245). Still, there always remains an
ambiguity as to the body, which indicates the soberness of people who do not
rely on apocryphs. The Martyrology of Usuardus
(9th century) says: “The dormition of
the holy Mother of God Mary”. Though her
body is not found on earth, the pious mother Church celebrates her venerable
memory in such a festive way that there should be no doubt as to the migration
of her body. But by what design and
divine plan this temple of the Holy Spirit was hidden, the soberness of the
Church prefers not to know rather than to teach anything frivolous or
apocryphal.“ (Cf.Jugie, 208). A major
controversy started around the year 800 where sober theologians warn against
apocryphal writings, “lest you take doubtful things for certain”
(cf.Pseudo-Hieronymus epist. ad Paulam
et Eustochium ML 30, 123f; similar doubts
in Pseudo Iidefonsus ML 96, 239). The
answer to such doubts consisted not in the blind faith in apocryphs, but in the
assertion of the totality of Mary’s glorification.
Thus Pseudo-Augustinus in ‘Liber de Assumptione B.M.V, (ML 40,
1141-48): “What Christ’s power can do is
shown in the vastness of the world; what grace can do is shown in Mary’s
integrity” (ibid 1144). For her death is
not punishment, and thus is there anything improper if we say that she did
undergo the human lot of death but was not kept by its bonds, she, through whom
God wanted to be born and share in the substance of our flesh?” (ibid 1145).
From these traditions, doubts, controversies we may conclude: The faith
in the total fulfilment of Mary in Christ’s glory was universal. Difficulties
arose on account of the crude, material conceptions of the Assumption contained
in the Apocryphs. Thus the Apocryphs were not the basis for the faith, but
rather an obstacle, and sober theological reflection looked for the basis of
the Assumption in the totality and inner coherence of God’s saving plan who
includes Mary into the design of renewing our race, making her share in his
glory. From 14th century onwards the tradition is unanimous.
3.
The definition and its meaning:
On 1st November 1950, Pius XII solemnly pronounced the definition of
Mary’s Assumption in the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus”: “...
We proclaim, declare and define as a dogma revealed by God: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever
Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and
soul into the glory of heaven” (ND 715).
This definition says nothing about the death of Mary not to offend the
few who would deny it. It positively
defines the glorification of Mary as the fulfilment of her earthly life and so
places it into continuity with her earthly existence. The Assumption of body
and soul expresses the totality of the fulfilment; it is clearly distinct from
Christ’s resurrection as the “taken up” expresses the final stage of her life
which was totally response to God’ call, never action on her own right.
The definition had been prepared ever since the definition of the
Immaculate Conception when a petition was made by many bishops. The requests
were strengthened in Vatican
The only effective argument given in the Constitution is the universal
consensus of the Church, expressed through many centuries, both in the
liturgical celebration of the feast and in theological expositions. In this
context the role of ‘dogmatic tradition’ in the development of a doctrine is
concisely described: “The universal Church, in which the spirit of truth
actively dwells, and which is infallibly guided by him to an evermore perfect
knowledge of revealed truths, has down the centuries manifested her belief in
many ways... “(ND 714).
It should be noted that the definition describes Mary’s Assumption not
as a unique privilege, but simply states the fact. Therefore it is not
justified to put it into contrast with the glorification of all other believers
who may expect the bodily resurrection only at the end of time. The question
when the bodies of those, who are called to Christ’s glory, will be raised is
to be studied in the context of general eschatology. Here only a short
reflection is proposed with special reference to Mary’s Assumption.
There is probable evidence that Scripture knows of the bodily
resurrection of some Saints at the occasion of Christ’s resurrection. Mathew
enumerates among the eschatological signs connected with Jesus’ death and
resurrection also the rising of Saints: “The tombs also were opened, and many
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the
tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many”
(Mt 27,52f). (Zeller Corpora Sanctorum, ZKTh 1949, 385-465) proves that this sign
was expected from the Messiah. The early Fathers understood the text as
narrating the real and final resurrection of the dead; and only later Fathers
spoke about a merely temporal resurrection.
The reason for their rising was their closeness to Christ in whose glory
they were meant to take part also with their bodies. This is exactly the same
idea that leads the reflection of the Church to the faith in Mary’s bodily
glorification, as no one was closer to Christ than Mary. So even in scriptural perspective she would
not be a single exception by the glorification immediately after death.
Modern theology has opened even broader vistas. It is in the nature of
eschatological scripture texts that they offer special problems of hermeneutics
so that it is very difficult to make definite pronouncements about time and
nature of the resurrection of the body. Some modern theologians think that
there is no interval between the death and resurrection of all men
(Schoonenberg, I believe in eternal life, Concillium, Jan 1959, 50-57; Benoit,
Concilium, Dec.1970, 103-114; Boros, living in Hope, p.30-36).
We quote here the opinion of P.
Fransen as he relates the recent eschatological view to Mary’s assumption: “No
dogma of the Church prevents us from thinking that there is a kind of
resurrection awaiting us soon after the death of the body. When the Church in 1950, defined as an
article of faith that Mary had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, the
Church did not say that it was Mary’s exclusive privilege. Mary’s privilege
rather consists in this: that because of
her unique personal role in the Redemption both as Mother of God and model of
divinization, her resurrection testifies to the reality of the grace of us all. Whether we know or do not know that Mary has
been taken up with her body into heaven is dogmatically of no great
significance. What is of great
importance to us, dogmatically speaking is that in virtue of her singular
election, she has become the visible and perfect guarantee of our own
resurrection. She has been exalted as a token before all nations; in her we
recognize our own personal grace and divinization”. (P. Fransen, The new Life of Grace (1969)
p.321.
Eschatology has to examine the implications of this view; it surely is
the general necessary trend today to be more cautious in making categorical
statements where no essential doctrine is concerned. The essential doctrines,
however, seem to be preserved in the view of Fransen. His approach helps us to resolve of the
difficult problems connected with the Assumption: (1) The Protestant objection that the
uniqueness of Christ’s Ascension is violated by the dogma of the Assumption is
not valid. We do believe with Jn 3.13
that only Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, because he descended from heaven. But all are invited to share in his glory,
not on their own merits, but through his power. The question of time is
secondary. (2) Mary is not isolated in this mystery, separated from us by a
unique privilege; rather are we allowed to see in her the guarantee that
Christ’s glory is ours; we celebrate the glorious feast of Mary who is the
‘icon’ of the entire Church and the assurance of our glorification. (3) We also may understand more concretely
what resurrection of the body means: it
does not necessarily mean the revival of the dead body, but the fulfilment of
the entire life, body and soul, beyond the limits of this world. It means
continuity in eschatological fulfilment.
This means that the concrete life that we live in this world, with our
body, is fulfilled and sealed with eternity.
4.
Immaculate Conception
& Assumption as Mysteries of the
Church:
The significance of Mary’s prerogatives lies not in her individual
glorification but in their typological (symbolic) meaning for the Church. Mary
is not separated from the faithful in splendid isolation, but the symbol of the
redeemed and renewed humanity and of it’s fulfilment in the glory of Christ.
This is an ancient patristic tradition, taken up again in modern Mariology.
We quote Augustine, who in a Christmas sermon speaks of the renewed
humanity. As Mary, who is espoused to
God, so the entire Church is sanctified through the union with God: “Behold now the one who had been ugly has
become beautiful, who had been captive free.
Let us rejoice brethren in that communion of God and man, bridegroom and
spouse, Christ and Church, Saviour and virgin” (Serm 120 de net. ML 39,
1987). Chrysostom is still more explicit
about the sanctification of humankind through the contact with Christ: “She is
called virgin who before had been a harlot. This is the wonder of the
bridegroom: He found a harlot and made it a virgin. O Wonder! among us marriage
marks the end of virginity, with him it
renews virginity; among us one who had
been virgin is no longer virgin when married,
with Christ, she who had been a harlot becomes virgin” (Mg 52, 403).
Texts can be multiplied which would repeat the theme of Mary being the
type of the Church, revealing in her vocation and in her sanctity the new
existence and mission of all believers, of the Church itself: “So let us see who this virgin is, so holy
that the Holy Spirit deigned to come to her; so beautiful that God chose her as
spouse; so fruitful that the entire world receives her offspring; so chaste
that also after the birth she remains virgin.
Do we not recognize in Mary’s figure the type of the holy church?”
(Augustine, serm. de nat. 121, ML 39, 1989).
However, one could object that the Marian typology is incomplete: Mary
is conceived without sin, i.e. sinless from the beginning, whereas all other
believers are first under the law of sin and then only called to the new
life. Thus it seems that Mary is placed
outside the community of believers. To answer this objection one has to reflect
more deeply: true, Mary, as presented in the Gospel and in tradition, does not
represent the entire humanity comprising sin and grace, or rather: the whole of human existence which comprises
fall and rise is represented by the Eve-Mary contrast, where Eve stands for
mankind listening to the serpent, and Mary responding to God’s message. Mary, then, is the type of redeemed humanity,
just as the church in its essence is not the whole of humanity, but humanity,
which had been lost but renewed and sanctified in Jesus Christ. Church begins
not with birth, by which man becomes member of our sinful race, but with
baptism through which he is reborn. Thus the Church as the communion of all who
are reborn and sanctified in Jesus Christ, which exists only in God’s creative
and faithful grace, has its types in Mary who in the Gospel is presented simply
as the one who is full of grace, and called into union with God in fulfilling
God’s saving plan.
In Mary, then, we are meant to see in what the Christian vocation to
sanctity consists: to be called by God’s
love into the sanctifying communion with him.
K. Rahner says to the question:
“May we not say that God willed this difference (i.e. Mary sanctified
from the beginning, we only in baptism) not because he loved us less, and
therefore did not give us the gift of grace, which is Himself, from the
beginning, but rather so that through this difference the full range of the
significance of grace might find clear expression? In Mary and her Immaculate
conception it is manifest that eternal mercy from the beginning has enveloped
humankind, and therefore us, children of Adam and Eve, sinners,
and so it is clear that God does not leave us unaided” (K. Rahner, 1.c.49f).
It also would be wrong to conceive Mary’s Immaculate Conception as a
shelter against trail and temptation. It is God’s gift that demands her
fidelity throughout her life in fulfilling her mission. It is the initial gift, which is laid into
her hands. It has to be crowned by the
final gift: the Assumption. In this final mystery is contained not only God’s
grace, but also Mary’s faithfulness; and this final mystery of Mary is
fulfilled in the Church.
Already the book of revelation sees the glorified Church under the typos
of the portent of the woman: “A great
portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under
her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12.1-18). The text 1-18
speaks about the Church, God’s people, from whom the Messiah is born,
persecuted, protected, and finally glorified.
Yet the text does evoke the image of Mary. While an exclusive
Mariological interpretation would be unjustified, and occurs only in later
commentaries, the interpretation which sees through the Church its typos Mary,
is widespread among the Fathers (H. Rahner, Our Lady and the Church,
pp.103-128). An example is Alcuin, the
Abbot of Tours (735-804), an important theologian of the Carolingian
Renaissance of the 8th century.
He takes up the ecclesial tradition of earlier times and connects it
with Mary as type of the Church: “The
woman clothed with the sun, is the blessed Virgin Mary, who was overshadowed by
the power of the Most High. But in her
we can also understand the race of men that is the Church who is called ‘woman’
not to suggest weakness but on the contrary because of her strength in daily
bringing to birth new peoples to build up the body of Christ. The church, then, is clothed with the sun
according to the word of Scripture: “As
many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ, for Christ is
the sun of justice and the brightness of eternal light” (Commentary on the
Apocal. V, 12, PL 100, 1152).
Thus in Mary’s Assumption the Church sees her own glorification. One of the favorite Scripture texts which
were used to express Mary’s or the Church’s glorification is Ps 132.8: “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place,
thou and the ark of thy might”. Gregory
the Great comments: “The Lord rose and
entered into his resting place when he awakened his body from the tomb; after
him also the Ark
Chapter
Four
Mary’s Role in the
Salvation of Mankind
1. Theological principles:
Mariology has to reflect on the relation of the life and work of Mary to
the entire mystery of salvation. Mary is
the ‘typos’ of the Church not only in her divine motherhood, virginity, sanctity and final fulfilment but
she also embodies the role of the Church in the mystery of salvation. Therefore Mary’s part in the salvation of
mankind is the most important section of Mariology, it is at the same time the most controversial
section, as it is attacked most radically by Protestant theology (cf. K.
Barth’s objections against Catholic Mariology, p.24f).
To preclude misinterpretations, the Council places an emphatic statement
about Christ the only Mediator at the beginning of the section on Mary’s role
in the Church: “We have but one
Mediator, as we know from the words of the Apostle... (1 Tim 2.5 - 6)” (LG
60). Hence: “The maternal duty of Mary
towards men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ,
but rather shows its power” (ibid). The basic truth of God the only source of
all salvation, and Jesus Christ the one in and through whom God saved mankind,
should in no way be obscured, neither by doctrinal ambiguities nor by misguided
forms of devotion.
However, this basic statement must be complemented by the acknowledgment
of the role God has assigned to man in the fulfilment of his plan: salvation
has to be realized in and through man’s freedom. God’s all-causality does not extinguish or
diminish man’s responsibility. The more intimately man is included in God’s
plan of salvation, the more his freedom come into play. The pattern of
salvation is the ‘covenant’ which originates totally from God, but includes
man’s response. Hence Mary’s freedom is part of God’s plan, not to be sure, “by
an inner necessity, but according to God’s disposition” (LG 60), and entirely
dependent on Christ’s own mediation.
Hence Mary’s role in the work of salvation is at once unique on account
of her exclusive relation to her son and exemplary for all faithful and the
Church as a whole because all believers in Christ are called to the
participation in his mission. Both aspects
have to be explained.
Two distinct, yet interrelated questions have to be considered: What was Mary’s role in the work of objective
redemption as it was carried out by Jesus Christ, and what is her role in the
communication of salvation or in the mediation of grace.
2. Mary’s role in the work of redemption:
The problem is often presented as a controversy between ‘maximalists’
and ‘minimalists’. The former seems to over emphasize Mary’s privileges almost
in parallel terms to the role of Christ in the work of redemption whereas the
later seems to see her position in no way overshadowing Christ’s position.
Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation has a definite technical meaning.
It is important, therefore, to settle on a clear terminology.
There is, first the distinction between objective cooperation which
refers to the work of redemption itself and subjected cooperative which means
the role in applying the fruit of redemption to the Church, through mediation
of imparting grace. The later is generally accepted (though is different forms)
which we shall explain below under “three condition needed for immediate
cooperation”.
As to objective cooperation, it
may be remote or immediate. It is remote, if the cooperation provides a
necessary requirement for the work of redemption. This again is accepted by all, as evidently
the Incarnation (therefore, Mary’s divine motherhood) is a necessary
requirement for Christ’s redemptive work.
Immediate cooperation: The real problem concerns
the immediate cooperation, which means that Mary has a part in the work of
redemption itself. To assert such an immediate cooperation three conditions
must be fulfilled: (1) it must be
‘efficacious’, i.e. really contribute to the effect; (2) it must be ‘formal’ not merely
material, i.e. the act of cooperation must knowingly and with intention be
directed towards the work of salvation; (3) it must be subordinate to the work
of Jesus Christ himself as obviously two independent saving actions would
contradict the biblical doctrine of the ‘One Mediator’.
In this terminology, then, the ‘minimalists’ (Lennerz, Goosens etc)
admit Mary’s subjective cooperation (in the ‘distribution’ of grace) and the
remote objective cooperation, as the conception and birth of Jesus are the
necessary condition for Christ’s work of redemption. However, they deny an immediate objective
cooperation, which would seem to detract of the uniqueness of Christ’s
mediation. Thus Mary, as mother of the Saviour, holds a unique position in
God’s plan of salvation, but in the work of salvation itself she has no place
of her own.
The ‘maximalists’ developed an elaborate system which allows to
attribute to Mary an immediate objective cooperation (Roschini, A. Seiler,
etc). They explain their position in the following manner: the redemptive work is fulfilled on the
cross. Dying on the Cross, Jesus is the
principal cause of our salvation and Mary the secondary cause, because she also
merits. How? They support their opinion with the text of Pius X in ‘Ad Diem
illum’ (1904), which reads: “Since she
stands above all others in sanctity and in union with Christ, and was drawn by
Christ into the work of man’s salvation, she merits for us by equity (De
congruo), as it is said, what Christ merited by right (de condigno), and she is
the primary minister in the distribution of the divine graces” (ND 712). But note!
The entire wider context speaks about the mediation of graces, and the
text itself clearly distinguishes the tenses: Christ ‘merited’ i.e. in the
past, on the Cross, whereas Mary ‘merits’ in the actual present time through
her intercession in heaven. In their
systematic presentation the ‘maximalists’ take pain to distinguish between the
action of Christ and Mary, declaring the latter as accidental, subordinate, dependent, whereas Christ’s action is
absolutely sufficient and independent.
Their main problem, however, arises from the fact that Mary herself is
redeemed. So, how can she cooperate in her own redemption? Their answer is that
Mary is redeemed in a way different from the others. This is Seiler’s answer:
“If Mary has coredeemed mankind objectively, it is necessary to demand for her
another objective redemption… that she was redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ
alone, the rest of mankind by the sacrifice of Christ together with that of his
mother. If therefore the sources of tradition contain the fact of Mary’s
coredemption in the objective order, we are forced to draw the conclusion even
if we cannot find special proofs for the duplicity [ understood here as double
act of redemption, i.e. first Mary and then all others] in the objective
redemption” (Seiler, corredemptrix, p.32).
This position seems unsatisfactory for the following reasons: (1)
because it leads to complicated theological constructions, which seem to have
no basis in Scripture and tradition. (2)
It is too exclusively centred on Christ’s death on the Cross and does not
include the incarnation into his redemptive work. (3) And finally, it is based
on a too juridical conception of redemption.
Thus a new approach is needed which is well grounded in Bible and
tradition, and more expressive of the reality of Christ’s work and his mother’s
role in it. We offer the interpretation
which is held (with varied nuances) by modern authors as K. Rahner, Koester,
Semmelroth, Alfaro.
The basic question must first be asked: In what way can and must man
cooperate in Christ’s work of salvation? Never does the Bible allow of any
co-operation which would be additional or parallel to the saving work of Jesus
Christ. Still, man’s “cooperation’ is
essential: it consists in the acceptance
in faith of Jesus Christ. This acceptance is sealed in baptism of which man
shares in Christ’s obedience unto death and in his resurrection. Thus there is
salvation for man only if in faith and sacramental union we are united with
Jesus Christ. One can say also the other way round that the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ does not become effective unless it is actively and personally
received by man. All causality in the
work of salvation is based on personal relationship. This means that on the one
hand, on God’s self communication to man through Jesus Christ, and on the other
hand, man’s response to God’s revealing and saving word.
Its application to Mary:
This basic principle is true also for Mary in her ‘cooperation’ in the work of
salvation. In no way can Mary’s cooperation be conceived as a work added to
that of her son. It essentially consists
in her acceptance of the message of the angel; this acceptance includes also
the mission of her Son; she has to give him the name Jesus, which means God is
Saviour. Thus in the Annunciation she has actively and freely accepted the
mystery of our salvation. From the
beginning she is not outside the mission of Jesus, not only exteriorly related
to her son’s work (as the mother of an artist is only extrinsically related to
the art of her son) but her entire being
is consecrated to the service of her Son
who is the Saviour. She unfolds this
task in the stages of his life, in his birth, in carrying him to the temple,
finally in joining him again when she stands under the cross. This union with Jesus and his mission is
unique as she alone has received him into this world and so for the whole of
mankind received the gift of God’s salvation.
We have to ask further:
What is Mary’s part in the sacrifice of the Cross in which Christ’s redemptive
work is fulfilled? To answer this question, we have first to call to mind what
place the Cross has in Jesus’ own life.
It is the ultimate acceptance of his solidarity with us sinners,
undergoing the fate of our fallen race in obedience to God, but the Cross must
not be isolated, neither from Jesus’ earthly life, of which it is the
fulfilment, nor from the Resurrection in which its ultimate meaning is revealed.
In the same manner, Mary’s role under the cross must in no way be isolated from
her integral relationship to her Son which begins with the Incarnation,
including his entire life and work and is crowned in the Resurrection. In her fiat she has accepted the total
person and work of her son. Therefore, Cross and Resurrection are the stages in
which this mystery unfolds.
What then is the relation of the ‘fiat’ in Nazareth Nazareth Nazareth
Similarly, we may think of parallels in every human life. For
example, the first consent in a marriage
is final, but blissfully ignorant of the implications which unfold only in the
course of years; the continued
faithfulness and ever renewed consent is not anew marriage, but the progressive
unfolding of what marriage really is.
Only in the end of their life they fully realize to what they have
pledged themselves. The same can be said about a call to priesthood or
religious life, which has to mature through the years, etc.
Thus we can say that Nazareth and Golgotha must not be separated. Mary’s consent to the Angel is the most
intimate and radical act of her life, which reveals its ultimate significance
under the Cross of Christ. Alfaro
writes: “Under the cross Mary completes
the consent to the salvific incarnation, because there is fulfilled the object
of the consent, the human life of her Saviour Son. Mary’s compassion is
fulfilment of the consent of the Annunciation, the implementation of the free
acceptance of the motherhood of the Saviour.
What Mary implicitly had accepted in the Annunciation through her
consent, this now in Christ’s death she accepts explicitly. Christ’s death was
only the fulfilment of salvific incarnation in the flesh subject to
suffering... Mary’s compassion is only the fulfilment of the consent to this
salvific incarnation” (Alfaro, Signification Mariae in mysterio salutis,
Gregorianum 1956, 9-37; p.23).
Tradition in its early stage teaches Mary’s general
role in our salvation: As Eve had been
the cause of destruction, so Mary is the source of salvation (cf. Justinus RJ
141; Irenaeus RJ 242; Tertullian RJ 358).
In the Middle Ages the role of Mary in bringing of salvation is
emphasized and often dramatically expressed.
Peter Damian, for example, describes the divine proclamation before the
Angels regarding the plan of restoring the human race and the whole world in
the following dramatic words: “It is
decided that all this is to take place through her, in her, from her, with her,
so that, as without HIM (the Word) nothing was made, so without her nothing
should be restored. To Gabriel is handed the letter, in which the salutation to
the Virgin, the fulness of grace, the greatness of glory, the vastness of bliss
is contained” (Serm. on Annunc. ML 144, 558).
Thus the idea of Mary’s effective cooperation is powerfully emphasized.
If we ask for the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation as given in the
early Christian tradition invariably points at the incarnation. The theologians know also of Mary’s place
under the Cross, but consider Mary’s role on Golgotha as the continuation of
her consent in Nazareth
This cooperation of Mary is unique and corresponds to her exclusive role
as mother of the Saviour. Yet is also exemplary for all men: as she cooperated
through the consent in Nazareth and its
fulfilment on Golgotha in the origin of our
salvation, so all Christians, and the entire Church, have to continue and apply
the mystery of salvation. Typologically,
Like Mary, they do so in receiving the life-giving word of God in faith and in
their participation in Christ’s passion (cf. Col 1.24).
In explaining the cooperation of Mary the terminology must be carefully
chosen. Though the term “co-redeemer” can be interpreted correctly, it should
be avoided lest the impression of putting Mary side by side with Christ be
created. The term is found in the Middle
Ages but is a very general meaning. In
the technical sense (explained in this chapter) it is used once by Pius X,
several times Pius XI, never by Pius XII.
The council avoids the term.
Protestants had been afraid lest the Council create a new dogma of the
corredemptrix.
3. The Mediation of grace through Mary:
The mediation of grace through Mary is a corollary of her place in Jesus
Christ’s redemptive work. It is
frequently added to the doctrine of the Assumption and has a prominent part in
the Marian devotion. The inherent danger
of the idea of Mary’s mediation consists in placing Mary between Christ and the
faithful, which is entirely wrong as Mary stands totally on our side as the
first redeemed; or also in making Jesus Christ psychologically more distant if
we are told that Mary as Mother has a loving heart which will intercede for us
with the just judge, as if in Mary there could be greater love than in her son
who is the revelation of the eternal and saving love of God. Before discussion Mary’s mediation of grace
we have to clarify what is meant with grace and mediation.
Grace is not a thing that can be administered and distributed. It is
God’s love itself, which becomes creative in man’s heart and evokes his
personal response. It is a creative
invitation, which draws man to an active and free answer. God alone, therefore,
is the author of all grace, and it is bestowed on man according to God’s own
free will (1 Cor 12.11).
If we speak of the mediation of grace, any idea of an influence
exercised on God must be eliminated.
Rather it is God who exercises his saving love through the mediation of
creatures. In the entire work of
salvation God demands the free response of man; man is not isolated, each
individual only for himself, but has to find salvation in solidarity with his
neighbour. Thus the response of one
person affects the salvation of others.
Mediation is a frequent biblical theme:
we see Abraham praying for the city of Sodom
(Gen18. 16-33); Lot ’s prayer of intercession
is heard (Gen 19. 20-22). Moses becomes the great intercessor: When fiery serpents threaten the people, they
ask Moses: “We have sinned... pray to the Lord that he take away the serpents
from us” (Num 21. 7-9). When the people adore the golden calf, Moses is sent
form the mountain: “Go down quickly from here...” He exhorts the people, and then says: “I lay
prostrate before Lord as before, forty day and forty nights; I neither ate
bread nor drank water... but the Lord hearkened to me that time also” (Deut 9
13-29). Samuel prays for the people (Sam
18. 21f; cf. 1 Sam 12. 18-23). Judith
intercedes (Jud 8. 29-31).
In the NT Jesus himself sets the example of intercession in the priestly
prayer Jn 17; In general he exhorts to the prayer of petition Mt.
When speaking about Mary’s intercession for us, we have first to reflect
on the meaning of the eschatological fulfilment of man. It cannot be conceived merely as a reward
bestowed on man for what he had done on earth, but as harvest: “The hour to reap has come, for the harvest
of the earth is fully ripe “(Rev 14.15).
It consists in the fulfilment of the earthly life; what man has lived
within the limited scope of his earthly life is sealed with eternity. What we are in the depth of our being will be
revealed. The heavenly Jerusalem
Thus Mary can be nothing else in heaven by what she has been on earth,
only fulfilled and glorified with her son.
Her entire earthly life was the consent of Nazareth
In Mary’s glorification the entire meaning of her life and mission is
revealed. The ‘fiat’ becomes the prayer
of her eternity that God’s salvation, which came into the world through her, be
actually realized by all men. What in
her earthly life she prayed for and accepted in an implicit manner, the
salvation of the world, becomes explicit now in the vision of God. In God she can see also the actual needs of
men in the many situations in which God’s grace must become effective; they can
become the actual object of her prayer. So she becomes the ‘intercessor’ for
all needs. She is the ’typos’ of the Church who constantly receives God’s
saving grace on earth. Semelroth writes: “in this attitude of the creature receiving,
as type of the Church who received salvation, Mary stands as the perennial
‘Orante’ [prayer] in the ever unchangeable receiving readiness of the Church
before Christ, and receives what the Church needs. We are used to picture this attitude of hers
as interceding mediation, because we cannot but explicitate the lasting oneness
of the otherworldly eternity into a multitude of single acts, though this way
of expressing the reality is analogous and anthropomorphic” (Semmelroth, p.71).
The scriptural basis for the intercession of Mary is taken from her
intercession at Cana (Jn 2.1-11). It is the first of Jesus’ signs, pointing at
the very meaning of his coming: the final nuptial feast of fulfilment, in which
the water from the jars, symbolizing the law, is changed into the festive joy
of the wine. This sign is worked at
Mary’s intercession.
The tradition and theological reflection on Mary’s intercession is
summed up in Vatican II: “Her assumption into heaven does not mean that she has
laid aside her salvific role; she continues to obtain through her constant
intercession the graces we need for eternal salvation...” (LG 62, ND 717. cf. n. 710; 712).
Theologians have debated the question of the universality of Mary’s
mediation. Where also the graces of
people, who lived before Christ, mediated by Mary? What about the graces bestowed in sacraments
which by themselves, and hence apparently without intercession, offer grace to
man. To such questions no detailed answer
can be given here only the basic conception of Mary’s intercession and its
basis can be recalled: Mary’s entire mediation is based on her ‘ fiat ‘ in Nazareth
In the exposition of the doctrine both of Mary’s cooperation in our
salvation and of her intercession we followed the line of the council which had
been prepared by modern theology (Laurentin,
Congar, K.Rahner, Semmelroth, etc).
It is neither ‘maximalistic’ nor ‘ minimalistic’ but interprets Mary’s
role in the wider context of the economy of salvation as expressed in Scripture
and tradition, not in abstract theological assertions. It is in keeping with
this Christ oriented Mariology that terms must be avoided which are open to
misunderstanding. The term corredemptrix
is not used in the Council, which was a relief to Protestants who had been
afraid that Mary’s role might be defined under this term. The term ‘Mediatrix’ was hotly debated
because Scripture explicitly limits mediation to the ONE Mediator Jesus Christ
(1 Tim 2.5). Still, it appeared in n.62
of LG, but along with other terms, and in the context of the exposition of the
doctrine which excludes misunderstandings: “....That is why the Bl.Virgin is
invoked in the Church under the titles: Advocate, Auxialiatrix, Mediatrix. All of which, however, have to be so
understood that they in no way diminish or add to the dignity and efficacy of
Christ the one Mediator” (LG 62 ND 717).
Thus Mary’s ‘mediation’ is also to be seen in the context of the
mediation of the whole church as well as of the single faithful. Mary’s uniqueness will always consist in the
singular task entrusted to her to receive God’s saving grace for all men in the
conception of her child. It is the
Church’s call to continue Mary’s role.
In a real, yet limited way each man who is touched by God’s grace, has
to share in this task as he is related to and responsible for his neighbour and
thus is inserted into the universal solidarity of mutual responsibility and
intercession in the unfolding mystery of the salvation of mankind.
Appendix
Principles
of Marian devotion
[Encyclical
of Paul VI, “Marialis Cultus”, (2nd Feb 1974)].
After stressing the need that the veneration of Mary must be based on
Scripture, liturgy, ecumenical considerations and anthropological principles,
the text continues:
38. “Having offered these directives, which are intended to favour the
harmonious development of devotion to the Mother of the Lord, we consider it
opportune to draw attention to certain attitudes of piety that are incorrect. The second Vatican Council has already
denounced both the exaggeration of content and form which even falsifies
doctrine, and likewise the small mindedness which obscures the figure and
mission of Mary. The Council has also
denounced certain devotional deviations, such as vain credulity, which
substitutes reliance on merely external, practices for serious commitment.
Another deviation is sterile and ephemeral sentimentality, so alien to the
spirit of the Gospel that demands persevering and practical action. We reaffirm the Council’s reprobation of such
attitudes and practices. They are not in
harmony with the Catholic faith and therefore they must have no place in
Catholic worship. Careful defense
against these errors and deviations will render devotion to the Blessed Virgin
more vigorous and authentic. It will
make this devotion solidly based, with the consequence that study of the
sources of revelation and attention to the documents of the Magisterium will prevail
over the exaggerated search for novelties or extraordinary phenomena. It will ensure that this devotion is
objective in its historical setting, and for this reason everything that
obviously legendary or false must be eliminated. It will ensure that this devotion matches its
doctrinal content hence the necessity of avoiding an one-side presentation of
the figure of Mary, which by overstressing one element compromises the overall
picture given by the Gospel. It will
make this devotion clear in its motivation; hence every unworthy self-interest
is to be carefully banned from the area of what is sacred.
39. Finally... we would like to repeat that the ultimate purpose of
devotion to the Blessed Virgin is to glorify God and to lead Christians to
commit themselves to a life that is in absolute conformity with his will.
Selected
Bibliography
Boff, L., The Material Face of God, trans. R.R. Barr
(Collins, London, 1989).
Brown, R.E., et ali
(ed), Mary in the New Testament
(Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1978).
Brown, R.E., The Virginal Conception and Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus (SCM Press, London, 1973).
Carol, J. B., Fundamentals of Mariology (Benziger
Brothers, New York, 1956).
Durrwell, F.X., Mary: Icon of the Spirit and o the Church
(St Paul’s, UK, 1990)
Donnelly, D., (ed), Woman of Nazareth
Graef, H., Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion,
vol. II (Sheed and Ward, New York, 1965).
Healy, K., The Assumption of Mary (Michael Glazier,
Delaware, 1982).
Macquarrie, Mary for all Christians (Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1990).
Miravalle, M., Introduction to the heart of Marian Doctrine
and Devotion (Queenship Publishing Com., Santa Barbara, 1993).
Rahner, K., Mary Mother of the Lord, 4th
edition, (Anthony Clark Books, Herder KG, Glasgow, 1974).
Ratziner, Cardinal
J., Daughter of Zion
Rahner, H., Our Lady and the Church (1961).
Scheeben, M.J.,
trans.T.L.M.J. Geukers, Mariology, vol.1
(Herder Books, London, 1946).
Schillebeeckx, E.,
Mary, Mother of the Redemption, trans. N.D. Smith (Sheed and Ward, New York,
1964).
JR/MSC/BKP/MARCH 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment