|
Mary Coredemptrix In the Light of Patristics
Part 2
by Rev. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J.
Translated by Salwa Hamati, Ph.D.Fr.
C Liturgical testimonies of the Churches during the first millennium
Numerous liturgical prayers going back to the first millennium, both in the East and the West,
reveal the privileged association of the Virgin Mary with Christ the Redeemer. This is a normal fact, that is,
a fact conforming to the doctrinal norm: if, as early as the second century, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Melito
of Sardis recognize and acknowledge Mary as the New Eve, the Advocate of the human race, the Associate of the Redeemer
in His work of salvation, should not this doctrinal conviction be bound to express itself, during the eucharistic
celebration, in recognizing her privileged role? Should not the rule of faith influence the rule of prayer? [33]
The coming of the Word into humanity and His victory of the Cross are perpetuated at Mass: how
could the Church not associate, during the celebration of the Central Act of its life, the mention, memory and
veneration of the name of Mary, associate with Jesus at the manger in Bethlehem, and at the altar of the Cross?
Indeed, ever since the third century, the liturgical texts, presently known, commemorate Mary. A primitive stage
of commemoration without invocation was followed in the fifth century, in the Roman Canon, by the recourse to her
intercession. We can say that beginning in the fifth century, Mass has never been celebrated, neither by the Catholic
Church, nor during periods of schisms by the separated Churches, without invoking or mentioning the name of the
Mother of God.
The Church on earth knows that it owes Jesus' sacrifice, which it perpetuates, to Mary's free and obedient consent.
Since the third century, the Roman Church, in the canon (then still optional) of Hippolytus, mentions the Mother
of Jesus ("Your inseparable Word...whom you have sent from heaven
to the womb of the Virgin...born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin"). The total
context (Cf. Martimort, L'Eglise en prière, Tournai,
1965, p.276) constitutes an affirmation of the soteriological character of this maternity of the Virgin; we can
therefore recognize in this persistent reference to the name of the Virgin (name repeated) a proclamation, though
still hidden, but already real, of her privileged role in the Mystery of Redemption.
Then, as soon as the Church has determined its anaphoras, it proceeds to a more explicit commemoration of its Advocate,
Mother of its Supreme Priest. The Church knows more clearly the close and indissoluble link that unites Mary to
the Savior and which will be later evoked by Vatican Council II (LG 53); this link is the very link that unites the Church to the Virgin; it is the link of divine motherhood.
Therefore, all indications are that for the Church, henceforth, it would be inconceivable to celebrate the Eucharist
of the Son without desiring, loving, recognizing, verbalizing and invoking the presence of the Mother. It would
be impossible to celebrate the memorial of the Son without exalting the memory of the Mother. By having His Mother
be invited to the wedding at Cana, the Word signified that we could not exclude Her from His nuptials with the
Church consummated in the Eucharist.
Let us examine now in a detailed but brief manner some testimonies of the Roman, Mozarabic, Byzantine and Ethiopian
liturgies, with the help of the divine-apostolic tradition in regard to Mary's privileged participation in the
redemptive mission of her only Son.
We owe it to Dom Botte and to M. Chavasse, [34]
to know of the existence, in Rome in the sixth century, of the very texts of a Marian Mass celebrated on January
1st. The prayer super sindonem proclaims that the merits
of Mary "tore up the writ where our sins were recorded": "ex cujus meritis deleantur nostra chyrographa
peccatorum." Daring words, says Dom G. Frénaud: By means of a Pauline
expression (cf. Eph 2,14), Marian coredemption
in terms of merit is affirmed -- as early as the sixth century. We can understand the meaning of this prayer in
this way: by consenting to the Incarnation, Mary, in the eyes of the Father, has merited, in dependence upon the
coming Christ and by Him, the fruits of His sacrifice, the purpose and the very reason for His Incarnation which
began with her. We can further understand: deserving by a condign merit, the Incarnation itself, Mary has, at the
same time, earned its salvific fruits for the whole human race (cf. St. Pius X, Ad
Diem Illum, DS 3370).
The Preface of this Mass sings the astonishment of Mary: "The grace
she enjoys is twofold: she is overwhelmed for having conceived while a virgin, she rejoices for having brought
forth a Redeemer ('laetatur quod dedit Redemptorem')".
Frénaud observes that Mary, by her very maternity, considers herself intimately united in the work of salvation
accomplished by her Son. The Preface proclaims Mary coredemptrix by her virginal conception and because she gave
birth to the Redeemer. The Benedictine monk adds: "Divine and virginal
Motherhood, intercession, mediation and coredemptive merit constitute the fundamental themes of this early Marian
liturgy" of the Roman Church, of this very first Roman Mass for January 1st.
In other words, the divine Motherhood exalted since the beginnings of the Roman Church is clearly a salvific motherhood.
The Roman Mass of January 1st seems to confirm what we had already seen with Irenaeus, Ambrose and Augustine: Tradition
and liturgies (the plural here anticipates our remarks regarding the Byzantine and Ethiopian liturgies) saw in
the consent to the Incarnation and divine Motherhood an implicit and coredemptive acceptance of the Sacrifice of
the Cross and of the compassion at the foot of the cross.
At the same period or slightly thereafter the Mozarabic liturgy [35] of Spain used to celebrate a feast of the "glorious and
holy Virgin Mary." This feast established in 656 to be observed on December 18th,
aimed at exalting the Incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world. This
feast celebrated, at least as much as the Roman liturgy, the spiritual, mediative, coredemptive Motherhood of the
Virgin. With a particular difference: the Mozarabic prayers address the Virgin directly. Here is the first prayer
of this feast: "Virgo genetrix et humani generis reparatrix; implorantium
preces auribus offer divinis" ("Virgin,
who generated Christ, reparatrix for the human race, present to the Divine attention (ears) our prayers of supplication").
Dom Frénaud, precisely, notes in connection with this text: "The
expression humani generis reparatrix is evocative: we should, however, guard against lending the Christians of
the seventh century all the ideas that we are able, today, to discover, hidden in these words."
Undoubtedly. And yet, by calling to mind Irenaeus, this expression seems to claim as real the belief in a privileged
participation in the Reparation of Christ.
This interpretation is confirmed in another Mozarabic prayer stressing the role of the merits of Mary regarding
our salvation: "May her merits lead us to salvation" (nos ejus merita provehant ad salutem). A third prayer insists: "May your Son deliver us from
our sins by your merit." A deeper examination would no doubt show that the Mozarabic
liturgy, when mentioning the merits of all the other saints, emphasizes, however, the unique character of Mary's
merits, and their unique efficacy. For they alone are the merits of the Mother of God.
We must here underline the fact that these prayers are still in use today. The Latin liturgy of Spain expressed
already in the seventh century and continues to express the mediating intercession and the coredemptive merits
of the Virgin Mother with such an emphasis that it encouraged the perfect filial love of Christians towards Mary:
that of Marian slavery, clearly indicated in a prayer of the feast of December 18: "O most holy Servant and Mother of the Word...honor (us) by the homage to be your slaves...we are
glad to enjoy the sweet burden of being your slaves...May we all live as your slaves always."
Incidentally, this prayer, according to Dom L. Brou, OSB, is the personal composition of Saint Idelphonsus of Toledo
(d. 669).
Let us now proceed to examine two very ancient liturgies, the Coptic and the Ethiopian liturgies, still in use
in the Monophysitic churches of Egypt and Ethiopia just as in the corresponding rites of the Catholic Church.
The Coptic liturgy [36] comprises thirty-two
feasts in honor of Mary, still invoked at each ceremony, each office and each canonical hour.
At the hour of nones, the office shares in the grief and suffering of the Virgin standing at the foot of the Cross:
When the Mother of the Lamb and the Good Shepherd saw the Redeemer of the world hanging on the cross, amid her
tears she said: the world is rejoicing because it has been saved, but my heart is broken as I consider the crucifixion
you suffered for all the human race, o my Son and my God.
A moving text but less assertive, however, than this other one: Mary is "the
cause of our salvation." Both these texts should be interpreted in the light of
our preceding conclusions: Mary is the cause of our salvation because she was the human origin of our Savior whose
Incarnation, from the very beginning, was redemptive, since it was oriented towards the Cross.
The Coptic liturgy in the Preface still implores: "By the intercession
of the Virgin Mary, who for us bore the Savior of the world, grant us, o Lord, the forgiveness of our sins."
The testimonies of the Alexandrine liturgy, in regard to the mediating and coredemptive intercession of Mary, are
quite eloquent while at the same time very similar to those we already saw and will later see in other liturgies.
The separated Churches of Ethiopia [37] -- born
of the Coptic Church -- have added to the thirty-two Marian feasts in the Coptic liturgy an original one, glorifying
the merciful mediation of Mary: the feast of the Merciful Pact concluded between Mary and the Savior. The Ethiopian
liturgy manifests, more magnificently than any other liturgy, Mary's presence during Mass and her motherly association
to the sacrifice of her Son. Two anaphoras have a more accentuated Marian character. In one of them, the Mass of
Our Lady called "the pleasant scent of holiness,"
which was composed in the fifteenth century by an Ethiopian, Giyorgis, Mary is called "foundation of the world, salvation of Adam, redemptrix of the whole world."
In this Marian canon, the celebrant addresses Mary, before and after the consecration: "You have given birth to the victim of our religion." This canon was
to celebrate the sacrifice of the New Covenant, with Mary, in Mary.
These developments, obviously, happened much later than the first millennium which is the range of our consideration
of the patristic and liturgical testimonies regarding Mary coredemptrix and mediatrix. Nevertheless, they show
us great convergence between the separated Churches of the East and the Roman Church with respect to the mystery
of Mary within the economy of salvation. Certain statements of doctrine seem even excessive: Mary is not redemptrix,
but coredemptrix -- a point which will be stated more precisely in the conclusion and which seems to sum up favorably
the patristic tradition.
Let us complete our liturgical course by examining the testimony of Byzantium. We are almost submerged by the wealth
of texts in favor of the maternal mediation of Mary, based on her divine motherhood.
J. Ledit, in his book Marie dans la Liturgie de Byzance,
[38] offers us an inventory. The community says
to the Virgin, "the only mediatrix of eternal riches": "You are the salvation of all men." Numerous texts affirm that Mary "divinizes men."
The Byzantine liturgy possesses a rich vocabulary of Marian mediation. This word often seems to signify: prayer
(of intercession). Does this liturgy set off prominently enough the Mediation of Christ, the Priesthood of Christ
the Man? In any case, Mary's association in the passion of Jesus is magnificently emphasized. Let us quote:
Standing at the foot of the cross, knowing that you are God and that you willingly
endured death in the flesh for the human race, your mother's heart was pierced by the sword and was crucified as
much by the torment and sufferings, but desiring the salvation of the human race and the redemption of the world,
she sings to you, praying and saying amid her tears: Rise up and save those who, in faith, glorify your sufferings,
O Son who have shed for all, your Precious Blood.
We see here how nature and human suffering are clearly emphasized.
Let us also note, with Father C. Dumont, O.P., [39]
a characteristic trait of the Byzantine liturgy: it does not hesitate to implore the Virgin herself for salvation.
The following expression is often repeated in the liturgy: "Most Holy
Mother of God, save us," Surely; -- numerous texts express it -- if Mary can save
us, it is because of her intervention with her Son, the only Savior. But, precisely, unlike the intercession of
other saints, the foundation of Mary's efficient intervention is the privilege of her Divine Motherhood, truth
underscored numerous times in the Byzantine liturgy. Even if this liturgy entreats other saints to save us too,
it would obviously not ask them to do it by invoking the same reasons. This is sufficient to give us the right
to affirm the unique character of this petition, when addressed to Mary, and to see in that prayer a glorification
of her unique role in the economy of salvation, as well as her privileged mediation with Christ and the Father.
In fact, notes Father Dumont, no mention of salvation in the liturgical prayers is ever made without invoking the
intercession of the Virgin. Such frequency and insistence are not found to the same degree in the course of the
Mass in Western liturgies. Hence, there is a spiritual and doctrinal atmosphere marking the Byzantine faithful
with a deep impression.
Serge Boulgakov [40] has
summed up perfectly the Byzantine theology of the intercession of Mary:
"Though she is in heaven, in her glorified state,
the Virgin still remains the mother of the human race for whom she prays and intercedes. That is why the Church
presents to her its supplications beseeching her help. She enfolds the world within her veil, praying and weeping
over the sins of the world."
In the Byzantine liturgy, the recourse to the mediating intercession of Mary reveals the faith
of the Church in her unique participation, through divine Motherhood, in the mystery of Redemption.
While exalting the powerful intercession of the Mother of Christ, the Byzantine liturgy does
not ignore the created finitude of the Virgin. As proof, the astonishing prayer of the Byzantine Church for Mary;
[41] linked, besides, to the recourse to her
intercession:
We offer to You this reasonable sacrifice for those who are asleep in faith...in
particular for the most holy, immaculate, blessed above all others and our glorious Queen, Mary, Mother of God,
ever virgin, and for all the saints: by their prayers, O God, protect us.
An impressive text, recited by the priest immediately after the consecration, uniting harmoniously
the prayer for Mary and the saints in recourse to their intercession.
Saint Epiphanius, in the fourth century, explains in this way the purpose of this prayer: "It is to set apart the Lord Jesus Christ from the rest of mankind: the Lord cannot be compared
to any man: Christ God is in heaven, but man is on earth by what he has left behind."
[42]
By praying for the saints, the Church not only prays for them, in relation to them (as Jungmann used to think);
but rather, as some Armenian theologians of the fourteenth century saw it [43], since Angels and Saints (cf. Lk 15,7.10)
rejoice in the conversion of sinners, by praying for the saints we ask for the grace to contribute to their accidental
beatitude by obtaining our own salvation and by being placed with them in heaven. The prayer of the terrestrial
Church for Mary and for the saints rejoins their prayer as we read it in the Book of Revelation (8:3-4; 6:9-11).
The Byzantine liturgy, by praying for Mary and for the saints, makes us participants in their prayer for our salvation
and that of the world, in order to bring their joy to its fullness. That is to say: their joy, not the essential
joy (the one that comes from the possession of the Creator), but the accidental, resulting from other creatures.
In the context of our present study, the interest of this prayer for Mary consists in stressing that the Virgin
-- exalted to such an extent by the Byzantine liturgy -- remains in its view purely a creature, a human being who
needs to be fulfilled, in some way, by the universal Church of which she never ceased to be mysteriously the daughter
as well as the mother.
To say it more precisely, since the Church prays for Mary, it is obvious that she is not adored. Mary is not a
goddess, but a pure creature. In justifying this prayer, Epiphanius of Salamine was therefore right to reject any
idea of a sacrifice offered to Mary. Mass is not a sacrifice offered to the Virgin, but to God alone, in honor
of Mary.
Moreover, the prayer for Mary demonstrates that the Byzantine liturgy did not fall into the Monophysitic temptation,
nor has it dehumanized the Blessed Virgin. It has even favored compassion towards the Virgin and still more exalted
her compassion towards her Son, at the foot of the Cross, as we already stated. By praying for the Virgin, no matter
how glorified she may be, the Church affirms that Mary remains so human that she always needs our happiness so
that hers may be complete.
Mary, the most glorious member of the body of Christ, continues to need the other members. Augustine said it precisely:
Mary is an excellent and super-eminent member of the Church; she, however, is one member of the whole body (Sermo 25,7-8; ML 46,937; LG 53). If Augustine had thought
about the implication of this point, he might have avoided considering the prayers for the martyrs as an insult
to them (Sermo 159,1).
Far from being the "height of absurdity",
-- as Renaudot the eighteenth century liturgist thought -- the prayer for Mary does not mean, in the least, that
the universal Church has ever considered that the Mother of the Lord had not yet entered the plenitude of its essential
and final beatitude; what is meant, rather, is that the Church is conscious of being able to contribute, until
the end of time, until the Parousia of Mary and of her Son in her, to the perfection of her accidental beatitude.
[44] The Virgin's mediation in favor of the
Church does not exclude a certain mediation -- much more inferior in value -- of the Church in favor of Mary. We
say inferior, because if the Virgin gives to the Church, by her mediation, its unique and perfect Mediator, the
Church is not giving Him to the Virgin, but is helping Mary to glorify Him.
From this very incomplete study of the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, we can draw some conclusions.
The Church has always understood that it is impossible to celebrate the Last Supper of its sacrificial nuptials
with the Lamb without inviting His Handmaid and Mother there, without honoring her name, her presence and her action,
without offering her veneration above all other creatures. The dogmatic decree of the second ecumenical council
of Nicaea, in 787, would only state more precisely and proclaim what the Church for centuries had lived and believed
in all its Eucharistic celebrations:
"The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught
us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers."
An anathema ended this declaration:
"If any one does not confess that the holy, ever
virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not
implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access (parrhésia) to our God born of her, let him be anathema" (Session IV; Mansi XIII, 346; J. E. Bifet, De primordiis cultus mariani, Roma, 1970, t.II, pp. 360-361).
This important, and no doubt little known, declaration of an ecumenical council presupposes,
implicitly but surely, the acknowledgment of a privileged participation of Mary, as Mother of God incarnate, in
the work of our salvation: if Mary was not, pre-eminently, His collaborator by her obedient consent to God's design
of the redemptive and sacrificial Incarnation, ever since she accepted it at the Annunciation, the affirmations
of the Council could not be justified.
This reference of Nicaea II to the Apostles and the Prophets send us back most probably both to Paul (Gal. 4,4), whose disciple is Luke, and to Is. 7 and the Protoevangelium, as well to Revelation (ch. 12). The
liturgy carries out this teaching of the Lord and the Apostles according to three distinct types or models: Roman,
Byzantine and Ethiopian.
The Roman type (rather than Latin) exalts the Mother
of God in the Canon or Eucharistic prayer, invoking her intercession without praying in her name. It does not invoke
her directly during Mass (with exception) and never during the Canon, and it never offers incense to her image.
The Byzantine type joins harmoniously, during the anaphora,
the praise of the Mother of God, the prayer for her and the invocation for her intercession; it addresses her directly
(just as the Latin mozarabic rite does, perhaps influenced by the Byzantine rite) even during the anaphora; it
beseeches her to save us and it offers incense to her icons.
The Ethiopian type accentuates even more the Byzantine
type by multiplying the prayers and praises addressed to Mary, Mother of God, during the anaphora, without prejudice
however to the fact that the anaphora is always addressed to the Father or (more seldom) to Christ.
In each of these three types the prayers of the Church signify that it believes and knows the commemoration of
the Virgin, Mother of God incarnate, to be inseparable from the anamnesis of her Son, and of His Paschal mystery.
The practice of such prayers of the Church indicates that it believes it to be impossible to obey the commandments
of Jesus: "Do this in memory of Me,"
celebrate my own commemoration rite (Lk 22:19)
without exalting the memory of His Mother and Associate, the incomparable Virgin.
These three types or models, different as they may be, manifest, however, an impressive doctrinal convergence.
For all the rites emphasize both the divine motherhood and the holy virginity of Mary. Louis Bouyer has offered
a beautiful and profound explanation concerning these two unified truths:
"Mary was venerated both for her divine motherhood,
the supreme objective gift that God had granted her in Christ, and for her Christian and contemplative virginity,
so totally dedicated to the understanding of the mystery by such a loving faith that all her life was a perfect
non-bloody martyrdom." [45]
In other words, the Churches of the first Christian millennium saw Mary's virginity not only
as a preliminary and concomitant disposition to divine Motherhood, but also as the perfect human answer (influenced
by grace) subsequent to this gift. The liturgies of the period of the Fathers understood the Virginity of Mary
in the context of their general outlook: the consecrated celibacy appeared to them as a non-bloody symbol of the
bloody martyrdom, as a testimony of faith, hope and love, regarding Christ the Redeemer. We find again here, with
a new approach, what we have already said: to proclaim Mary's Virginity before, during and after the conception
and birth of the Redeemer, was to confess her privileged association and her indissoluble union with Christ the
Savior of the human race. Such is one of the meanings -- and not the least profound -- of the perpetual virginity
of the Mother of God.
From this point of view, incidentally, the possible doctrinal deepening, by the living Magisterium, of the Marian
virginal coredemption would be a good opportunity to bring out, face to an increasingly sensual world, the universal
coredemptive reach of Christian virginity lived in union with the Virgin of Virgins. It would also have other consequences
in terms of liturgical and ecumenical pastorship.
On one hand -- to the extent where the law of faith directs the rule of prayer -- this deepening of doctrinal knowledge
would facilitate an evolution of the Latin liturgy towards a more ritually adequate answer to the coredemptive
Mediation of the Virgin, by means of a more frequent, direct and immediate invocation of the Mother of the only
Mediator (are we accustomed to address His Mother only in an indirect way?), during the celebration of the Lord's
Last Supper. There would be no need to modify the present texts: it would suffice, as it is often done nowadays
during the Sanctus, to insert among them invocations to the Blessed Virgin. Incense would be presented to her images.
To the extent where it is true that the present Marian feasts, in the Latin rite, when they fall on week days,
have no profound influence on Catholic crowds, the suggested adaptations (under the influence of the Eastern rites)
would allow the masses of the People of God to become more deeply penetrated by the cult of Mary, in the same way
this is accomplished in the Eastern rites. The Holy See has recently granted about fifty votive Masses -- with
beautiful doctrinal prefaces -- in honor of Mary. Such adaptations are already a step in the right direction, without,
however, bringing any change to the present situation regarding Sunday celebrations.
On the other hand, similar means could help the Eastern Churches to better express, in their liturgical prayer,
the conviction that Mary's Mediation is totally dependent on the Mediation of Jesus Christ, her Creator, Savior
and Redeemer.
If one prefers, we could say that the sure testimony given by the Eastern and Western liturgies to the truth of
the praying Motherhood of the Virgin Mary is, in both cases, open to improvement and progress in view of attaining
a higher degree of exactitude, of depth, and of balance. But, if we are willing to consider especially their doctrinal
foundation, these liturgies, together, offer a testimony to this fundamental truth: Mary is the privileged collaborator
of Christ in the work of salvation of the world. She is His collaborator, inseparably, both as His Mother and His
creature whom He redeemed for this purpose.
After giving this limited inventory of these patristic liturgies during the first millennium, in regards to Mary
Coredemptrix and Mediatrix, it is proper, at this point, to ask oneself about the doctrinal value these liturgies
offer.
Let us first recall the famous words of Pius XI [46]
: "The liturgy is the most important instrument of the ordinary magisterium
of the Church." Reflecting the "sensus
fidelium" of all the people of God, the liturgy, at the same time, is an eminent
hierarchical work, by means of which the teaching Church, successors of the Twelve Apostles under Peter's guidance,
in a permanent catechesis raise their indefectible voice. It is especially through the Liturgy that the divine-apostolic
Tradition is present and active in the Church.
Because it is a profession of Catholic faith, the liturgy is a theological source. It has no other authority than
the episcopal or pontifical magisterium that approved it. This is quite normal: the prayer of the Church expresses
its faith and the authentic interpretation of the sacred deposit of Revelation that has been entrusted exclusively
to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who are in full communion with him: to the successors of the Twelve Apostles
(Dei Verbum, 9-10).
From these principles, it follows that the weakest theological value is that of the monastic liturgies and liturgies
of particular dioceses. Liturgies formed with the participation of several dioceses or those of Eastern patriarchates
are, if approved by the Holy See, of greater doctrinal value. The Roman liturgy offers a special guarantee, not
as a result of being Latin, but by the fact that it expresses the belief of the Mother and Authority of all Churches,
and that it is organized within the immediate responsibility of the sovereign Pontiffs, even if it does not always
involve the Pope as the supreme and infallible head of the Universal Church.
Liturgical prayers are, rightfully so, accomplished in the name of the whole Church. Moreover, if this profession
of faith is, by tradition, repeated to the degree of becoming permanent, it offers, then, all the characteristics
which ensure to the ordinary Magisterium that controls them, a total infallibility. Such a guarantee belongs, not
only to the symbols of faith recited during Mass, even if they have never been officially promulgated, but also
to the doctrinal contents common to all Eucharistic anaphoras. The very infallibility of the Church is thus committed.
Most of the liturgies in certain localities do not engage this infallibility. For too long they have been developing
without being effectively controlled, in all their details, by the supreme Magisterium. Even when this control
is, today, as an after effect of the Council of Trent, carried out by the Roman instruments of the ordinary Magisterium,
it only constitutes an action in relation to a specific Church. Consequently, it does not possess in itself this
universality of character that could entail infallibility.
The Church of Rome, whose Roman liturgy contains the profession of faith, is thus considered to be preserved, by
special right, from any doctrinal deviation by reason of the prerogatives of its Bishop. Moreover, the Roman liturgy
possesses in fact, in the Church, a morally universal extension. These conditions exclude, at least morally, all
possibilities of error in faith.
The doctrinal testimony of liturgies is then not that of individual theologians, even if they were great doctors
of the Church, but the testimony of the Churches, or of the universal Church. If all the liturgies, whether Eastern
or Western, Orthodox or hetorodox, give unanimous testimony regarding a doctrine, it has been proven that such
a doctrine is of apostolic origin. Thus unanimity -- according to Dom Cabrol's observation-- has the same value
as the unanimity of the Fathers teaching the same doctrine. For, in case of error, the whole Church would be wrong,
and that is impossible: the powers of hell will not prevail against her. Universality is one of three criteria
(with antiquity and uniformity), that, as far back as the fifth century, Prosper of Aquitaine set forth about the
law of valid prayer as law of faith. (De Vocatione Gentium,
I, 12; ML 51, 664).
From these principles ensue the following corollaries.
The unceasing and privileged intercession of the Mother of God, at least implicitly (for the eternal salvation
of all the "journeying" humanity),
is affirmed with accord by the anaphoras and the Churches still partly separated from the first See, and the Churches
of all the Eastern and Western rites of the universal Church. [47]The infallibility of the Church is therefore bound in this affirmation. The affirmation of this intercession,
uniquely privileged, corresponds in substance and in fact to that of the privileged mediation of the praying Virgin,
in the distribution of graces. The praying Mother and Virgin is the Advocate, not only of Eve and Adam, "the restoration of the fallen Adam, the drying up of Eve's tears"
(Acathist hymn), but also of all men and all women of all times, in the splendor of her Assumption, and in the
course of all the liturgies of all times until the return of Christ and her own maternal Parousia.
We are here concerned with a dogma that is not as yet defined, but that could possibly be; this intercession could
not be affirmed as it has been if it were not divinely revealed and contained, at least implicitly, [48] either in the Scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition,
or in both; a non-defined dogma, nevertheless, since its affirmation does not go beyond the level of the ordinary
and universal magisterium to reach that of the extraordinary magisterium. Indeed, by affirming the necessity of
having recourse to Mary's intercession, Nicaea II did not proclaim the invariability and universality of this perpetual
intercession for all men of all times.
In fact, this intercession of universal scope is a mission intimately linked to that of a praying and salvific
divine motherhood. It is because Mary received the mission of engendering, according to the flesh, the Son of God
for the salvation of the whole world and gave her prayerful consent (we already mentioned that), that she also
received the mission of praying with Him so that His Salvation may be accepted by each of the redeemed and thus
that each one may be effectively saved. Being herself saved by her motherhood with respect to the Savior, she saves
all those who have recourse to her intercession, much more than Timothy could have saved those who through him
heard the word of Christ (cf. 1 Tim 2,15 and
4,16); for, well before the Incarnation and
since her Immaculate entry into a sinful world, Mary, more than Paul, intercedes unceasingly so that all men may
be saved and may come to the knowledge of the truth, the Word (cf. 1 Tim
2,1-4).
By their emphasis on the constant and universal intercession of Mary, the liturgies send us back to their other
affirmations, clearer and stronger still, regarding the salvific character of the Motherhood of the Virgin Mary.
A comparative study of the various liturgies of the Annunciation, from the texts, would be indispensable at this
time. However, before we even engage in this study, and based on the points we have evoked here, we can so far
say this: the liturgical doctrine, according to which Mary cooperated in a unique and privileged manner, as the
new Eve, with the new Adam, in the spiritual regeneration of the whole human race, is of an apostolic origin (cf.
Gal 4:4). All these thoughts are summed up in
this expression of the Armenian liturgy: "Mother of the Salvation
of the human race," exalting the "Advocate
of the world." [49]
D The Relation between the Testimonies and the Divine-Apostolic
Tradition
The great interest in the recourse to liturgies and their affirmation of Mary's divine Motherhood,
Virginity and Universal Mediation, consists in facilitating the perception of the divine-apostolic origin of the
truths in question. Indeed, as Cardinal Newman keenly observed, "in
a question of doctrine, we must have recourse to the great doctrinal source, the Apostolic Tradition...an uninterrupted
Tradition since the Apostles." Precisely, the liturgical tradition has been uninterrupted,
it takes us back to the first centuries and all along them to the testimony of the Fathers who were the immediate
successors of the Apostles: Irenaeus and Polycarp.
Newman adds that there are explicit and there are implicit traditions. "An
explicit tradition in doctrinal matters lies in the letter of a transmitted proposition."
[50] For example: the apostolic-divine Tradition
reveals explicitly that Mary is the Virgin Mother of Jesus virginally brought forth, the Savior of the world. "An implicit tradition lies in the force and virtue, not in the letter of the proposition." For example: Mary is the ever Virgin Mother of God the Savior and she intercedes for the salvation
of the world. This proposition is implicitly contained in the preceding explicit proposition.
We could probe more deeply the reasoning of the British Cardinal by observing that the implicit presence of the
privileged cooperation of Mary, Virgin and Mother, in the work of salvation, in the apostolic Tradition should
all the more be acknowledged as this same Tradition asserts human freedom: she, whom Luke, Paul's disciple, declares:
"full of grace" was totally free in
regard to sin, and was therefore able to accept with unequaled plenitude the divine Covenant on behalf of the human
race. In order to grasp fully the Apostolic Tradition regarding Mary, we should not separate Gal 4:4 from Lk 1-2: She to whom the Savior was born is precisely that only person whom Scripture acknowledges as the one
uniquely favored of God (kekaritôménè).
In order to understand properly the apostolic origin of the affirmation of Mary's privileged association with the
work of our salvation, we should also recall the importance, for Paul and for the first generation of Christians,
of Tradition, the Paradosis (I Cor 15,3-8; 11,2): the
proclamation, by the Apostles, of the Mystery of Christ and of His present action; this founding and fundamental
Tradition concerns only what the Church has always believed and practiced, without excluding a development, a passage
from the implicit to the explicit; [51] it is
perfectly obvious that from the apostolic times, the Christian community has always proclaimed Mary's unique and
unparalleled role in the coming of Christ in this world; it has always recognized, consequently, that it is impossible
to separate the salvific work of Christ and the exercise of our freedoms, and most of all that of the Virgin, and
that the salvific exercise by Mary of her freedom deserves our unique gratitude. Such acknowledgment and gratitude
were expressed not only in the words of the successors of the Twelve Apostles, but also by means of a constant,
public and official prayer of all the communities they have founded.
The explicit mention of Mary in the Eucharistic prayer of all the Masses of all the rites of the universal Church
is a doctrinal fact of the highest importance. The Church assures us that the Most Holy Associate of the Son of
God during His earthly life is also His privileged Associate in His ecclesial life, in His Eucharistic and sacrificial
act. The miracle of the Transubstantiation, renewed daily, intimated at Cana, clearly appears as the reason and
the deployment in space and time of the unique miracle of Mary's fecund virginity. Through the liturgies, many
of which date back to the patristic period, the Fathers continue to give witness to this fundamental truth: Mary
did participate and continues to do so, in a unique and privileged manner, in the Sacrifice of Redemption. It is
now fitting to ask ourselves how they can help us, today, to project and develop more precisely this same truth.
E How to present to our age the Mystery of Marian Coredemption
in harmony with the Fathers of the Church
We would like to conclude our study by stating more precisely, by means of a series of synthetical notations, the
direction that an eventual dogmatic definition of Mary's privileged mission at the service of the Redemption would
take, if we were to be guided by the broad lines of force of Patristic thought.
Even though this expression has sometimes been used during the patristic period, we would carefully avoid saying
that Mary is redemptrix or redemption. Why? Cardinal Journet in 1950 said it so well:
"The Mediation of Christ alone is redemptive. Alone
it is theandric, alone infinite strictly speaking, alone deserving in justice de
condigno the salvation of all the human race. The mediation of the Christians
and of the Church can only be coredemptive."
The same holds true, but to a higher degree, of the Virgin's mediation: she obtains for all men
the graces derived from the unique Redeemer and Mediator, Christ. "The
Virgin is Coredemptrix for the founding of the Church."[52]
Many contemporary theologians appropriately say: "We
do not have a Coredeemer and a Coredemptrix, but a Redeemer and a Coredemptrix."
[53] This coredemptrix has herself been redeemed
and saved by her Son: "Through the one person Jesus-Christ the abundance
of grace and the gift of justification caused everyone" -- but first of all Mary
-- "to be made righteous"; "by one man's obedience many (and above all Mary) will be made righteous" (Rom 5:18-19).
It would then be fitting to say that Mary is coredemptrix in so far as she is pre-redeemed, of a more sublime redemption;
she was coredeemed to become coredemptrix, in a privileged way in the two cases.
It is by her whole meritorious life, from her first to her last free act of her earthly life, that Mary, always
acting with the grace of the Holy Spirit, participates in the Sacrifice of Redemption, specially by her virginal
marriage and her perpetual virginity. Always and everywhere she is the Virgin associated with the mission of the
unique Redeemer, in a unique way.
This association cannot and should not be expressed only by means of the term coredemptrix, but also by a series
of other words: for example, by taking and updating a Pauline expression, we can say that Mary is collaborator
with God, cooperator with the Word incarnate, the Associate and (in a very real sense) the Spouse of the Redeemer
(language already used by the Fathers). By her unique mission, Mary transcends all other coredeemers, just as she
is transcended by her only Redeemer and ours, and in dependence upon Him in her very activity as coredemptrix.
Mary is coredemptrix, not only of each of the other coredeemers, but also of the Church who is coredeemer also.
By her ascending coredemption, Mary makes her own the sacrifice of her Son on our behalf; by her descending coredemption
she intercedes for us so that the fruits of the Redemption reach us. She has co-merited them for us, as it is emphasized
in the liturgy of the patristic period, and she joins in the satisfaction of her Son who expiates our sins; thus
she has become the Reparatrix of the human race.
Her constant participation in the unique mission of the unique Redeemer is totally directed towards the full achievement
of her coredemptive mission of the unique and universal Church and of each of its members. Mary is coredemptrix
so that each one of us, because of her merits and intercession, transforms his life in an offering of his state
of life (whether celibate or married) and all his activities to the glory of the only Redeemer. It is for this
purpose that the eternal Word communicates to Mary a perpetual participation in His mission: in all the stages
of her conscious and voluntary life Mary has been, is, remains and will be till the very last day of history the
pre-eminent Associate of the Savior.
Psychologically speaking, the term Coredemptrix evokes mainly, for the imagination and the sensitivity of the Christian
masses, the sorrowful Mary standing at the foot of the Cross, her tears of compassion, rather than the consent
she has already given at the Annunciation to the Paschal Incarnation of the Only Son. Similarly, the term Redeemer
sends us back mostly to the Cross of Jesus. We have also seen that the presence of Mary at the foot of the Cross
is also the object of a number of liturgical and patristics references during the first millennium. Nothing would
prevent the Church, in an eventual definition, from asserting that the doctrinal wealth of the first millennium,
in its contemplation of the Annunciation, is no less present in the pierced Heart of Mary at the foot of the Cross.
The Augustinian contemplation of the mystery of Mary's mortality [54] would facilitate a deeper vision of the coredemptive aspect of Mary's presence at the foot of the Cross.
Augustine presents us the Virgin mortalis, moritura, moriens [55] : mortal, destined to die, dying. Because Mary is mortal she can
give Christ a nature capable of dying. Mediatrix of Christ's mortality, Mary, according to Augustine's reasoning,
died because of Adam's sin; her death is a middle term between the death of the sinner Adam and the redeeming death
of Christ. The holy and sanctifying mortality of Mary constitutes the range of perception in which is inscribed
the redeeming death of her Son, pulling away the sinful creation from the power of the one Augustine calls the
mediator of death, Satan. [56] A mortal mother,
Mary transmits to Christ her mortality so that he might expiate Adam's sin; Mary is mortal so that the Son of God
might die for all men and especially for her in view of abolishing death. The reality of Jesus' death is linked
to His generation through Mary. Augustine in similar terms says: "vera
mater vere mortua, vera caro et vera mors Filii, vera vulnera verae liberationis nostrae".
Because of his polemic against the Manicheans Augustine shows us better than anyone else to what degree the redemptive
death of the Son is already inscribed in the flesh of his conception and of his birth ex
Maria: "mother of his humanity, she
is the mother of the infirmity he assumed for us" (mater
humanitatis, mater infirmitatis). [57] Thus he grasps what Ephesus will later express: divine maternity is maternity according to the flesh,
it links humanity to God by linking God to the weakness assumed voluntarily by the Almighty. A brilliant word sums
up the thought of the Bishop of Hippo: God clothed himself in death in Mary's virginity ("se induit morte in virginitate matrix"). [58]
In Augustinian terms (rooted in the thought of the Apostle: Rom 8:29), Mary's predestined death is associated to the death of her Predestinator and Savior, her Son. The Virgin
Mary, preparing herself, particularly at the foot of the Cross, to die, believed that her Son saved her by his
own death.
Mary's whole life is a sacrifice offered in Christ for all humanity. At the foot of the
Cross, in union with the loving death of her only Son, Mary offers, in advance, her future death which will result
from her permanent contemplation of the death of Jesus on the Cross. [59]
This offering of her future death, in dependence upon the sacrifice of her Son, in an
increasingly loving offering, is the supreme point of the active and coredemptive compassion of the Virgin Mother
and of her participation in the objective Redemption of the human race. Mors Mariae,
in Christo et cum Christo, vita mundi.
We could synthesize a fully elaborated Augustinian theology of Mary's sacrificial and coredemptive death in these
terms: Virgo mortalis, mortua ex Adam (propter peccatum Adae) et moriens ex caritate
propter delenda peccata aliorum, ut nasceretur Ecclesia, [60] sic fit mater unitatis. [61]
In other words, we must distinguish, but cannot separate, the historical fact and the revealed mystery of Mary's
death, the physical fact and the moral offering. It is freely that Christ willed to associate His Mother to the
offering of His own death: just as the Lord freely willed to have need of Mary to be born, He no less freely willed
to receive her consent to die, and He wanted that Mary's consent to His death as unique Redeemer be inseparable
from the inclusion, in Him, of an acceptance of her death as Mother. How could she have accepted and offered her
own Son's death without wanting to die with Him, like Him, for Him, and to complete in her own death [62] what was "lacking
in the death of her Son" (Col 1:23)? And how could not this acceptance
and this offering be first of all gifts of the Son?
All indications are thus far, that an eventual definition of Marian coredemption will unavoidably restart in the
church the consideration of Mary's morally anticipated death at the Cross and the role of that mission of dying
a death of love in and for the salvation of the world.
But indications are also that this same eventuality, by inviting the Church to establish the principle of moral
and free association (on both sides) of the Mother of Jesus with her Son in the work of universal salvation, would
be regarded -- here too with the Fathers of the Church -- within the fundamental principle of the total dependence
of Mary the creature on her Son the Creator (DS 536).
In this regard, all coredemptions will only be "subredemptions," including the case of Mary. Mother and Associate of the Redeemer, Mary does not cease to be His
Handmaid, His Adoratrix who joins Her Son to adore, in Spirit and in Truth, the Father's design: to redeem the
human race to the point of linking each human being to the redemption of the others.
Nevertheless, the analogy between the coredemptive missions of each human being, of the Church and of the Virgin
Mother of God, is not the only one. By contemplating the mystery of the Holy Trinity we are forced to recognize
the supreme and quite different coredemptive activity of each of the three divine Persons.
The tradition of the Fathers did not ignore it. It recognized that the activity of the Three Divine Persons in
the world is a unique and common activity brought about by their unique nature. Each of the Three is Creator, the
Three are Cocreators, and yet are together but one Creator. Similarly the Three Divine Coredeemers are but one
God Redeemer: The Father is the unengendered Redeemer, the Son is the engendered Redeemer, the Spirit the spired
Redeemer. Such formulae [63] are rooted in the
profound analyses of Saint Augustine (cf. De Trinitate,
V.10.11). The Athanasian symbol (in reality Western) tells of three coeternal and coequal persons: the author of
the text would not have seen any reason to recoil from the expression of Three uncreated Coredeemers, one Creator
only (cf. DS 21).
It is important to emphasize the fact that Mary is a created coredemptrix, finite, dependent, whose activity is
a participation in the Trinitarian coredemption, which means that she is profoundly distinct from it. The whole
Trinity inspires Mary her tears for the sin of the world and her consent [64] created by the transcendent redemptive initiative that is the Trinity itself. Mary is unceasingly created
in view of the universal Redemption, by the Father Redeemer unengendered, by the Word Redeemer engendered to whom
the Father communicates constantly the will to save the world, and by the Spirit Redeemer proceeding. The Trinity
makes of Mary a participant in its salvific and redemptive will. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three infinite
Coredeemers who make of Mary a created and finite coredemptrix. The Spirit Redeemer, eternal link between the unengendered
Redeemer and the engendered Redeemer, joins together all the coredemptive activities of the Christians, of the
Church and of the Mother of the only Son for the glory of the only Father. Totalizing and unifying all these activities,
He makes of them, in a sense, an only total Redemption, identical to the total Christ, Head and members, that Augustine
celebrates.
The initiative of the reconciliatory Redemption comes from the Father (2
Cor 5:18); the common and unique will of the Father and the Son is the cause of Mary's
reconciliatory role; Jesus and Mary by the will of the Father and the gifts they received from Him, obtain for
us the gift of the reconciliatory Spirit; according to the words of Odo of Morimon, Cistercian (1116-1161), "the Spirit, who at Nazareth allows Mary to conceive the Son, fills her with strength on
Calvary, and in heaven forms the link that unites her to her Son," so that the Spirit
inspires her the prayers she addresses to her Son (and by Him to the Father). The devotion to Mary reconciliatrix
and coredemptrix leads us by the Spirit to the Son and the Father.[65]
Let us be more precise still. Mary Coredemptrix leads us to Christ, Redeemer and at the same time Coredeemer: Redeemer
in so far as He is the Word Incarnate, offering to the Father his blood as price for our redemption (Mk 10:45); Coredeemer in so far as He is the Word, with the
Father and the Spirit equal Coredeemers, since all three together inspire the Heart of the Lamb this offering.
But Mary receives from the Three Divine Coredeemers, through the mediation of Jesus the Man, the ransom for all
(1 Tim 2:2-4), the possibility itself and the
will to be associated to the redeeming sacrifice.
At every Mass, Mary renews the offering of her coredemptive compassion, her merits and satisfactions as Mother
of God, first associate in the mystery of Redemption. Thus she perpetuates her offering and her standing at the
foot of the Cross, for our total liberation.
Her merits and satisfactions, her sacrifice as coredemptrix, are ours and indeed belong to us. Much more still
than these Christians of the Roman Empire during the centuries of persecution, who approached the confessors and
martyrs to take as their own their merits so as to be reconciled with the Divine Mercy, it behooves us to approach
the Mother of Sorrows and accept with gratitude the gifts she unceasingly offers us from her own merits and satisfactions
as Coredemptrix, created, unique and privileged, so that we may be able to exercise fully our mission and vocation
of coredeemers at the service of the only Redeemer and the Redeeming Trinity. The merits of Mary are, in fact,
after the merits of Christ and in dependence upon them, the principal part of the Church's treasure.
Because of the Virgin, Mediatrix of our vocation as coredeemers, we are able to fully do justice and a loving justice
to God the Savior, in favor of the souls in Purgatory and the conversion of a secularized world.
Extending the Patristic thought, with the same care in the contemplation of the Creator's justice and mercy, Saint
Bonaventure seems to be the Doctor who, in the past, has best presented the mystery of Marian Coredemption, in
a way most adapted to a balanced vision of the whole Revelation and to the known needs of our time and the foreseen
needs of the future Church. In conclusion we will quote him at length: It will also be a way to synthesize numerous
elements evoked so far.
From this Blessed Virgin, says the seraphic Doctor, is the price that allows
us to obtain the Kingdom of heaven. He is from her, that is drawn from her, paid and possessed by her. Drawn from
her at the Incarnation, paid by her in the Redemption of the human race, and possessed by her in the glory of heaven.
This price, she paid for it as the strong and devoted woman when Christ suffered on the Cross... It was pleasing
to the Virgin that the price drawn from her womb be offered on the Cross for us.
No one, except Christ, could render to God the honor that was taken away from
Him. But the Virgin participated in this act of reparation, consenting as mother that Christ be offered in ransom.
[66]
Mary's sacrifice has value only in passing through the hands of Christ. She cannot merit in justice, on her own,
the salvation of humanity. But it would be too little to say that she merits their salvation by congruous merit,
she merits it as her dignity (of Mother of God) demands, by a title of excellence: meritum
digni. [67]
As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary is the Coredemptrix, privileged among all the coredeemers, for the glory of the
only Redeemer and, in Him, of the Coredeemers, the Father and the Spirit.
FOOTNOTES
32. Notice that Andrew of Crete used a substantive (anaklèsis)
from the same family
of words as the verb used by Basil (anaklinein): cf. text mentioned in note 28.
33. My work in EM
is here reutilized in a different order: see pp.222 ss. (see note 2).
34. Ibid,
p.84, § 46. Cf. H. du Manoir, Maria, t. VII Paris, 1961, 159-162.
35. EM, pp.86
ss, § 49; Ildefonse, under the name of Daqseyos, is well honored in Ethiopia (EM, n.128, cf. Maria,
t.I,p.385).
36. EM pp.78 ss, § 40. The present Archbishop of Addis Ababa, Cardinal P.Tzadua, published in italian an
ethiopian marian Mass: Marianum 1954,
367-373.
37. Ibid.,
pp. 80-84, § 43; cf. Nollet, Maria, t.I pp.371 ss.
38. J. Ledit, Marie dans la Liturgie Byzantine, Paris, 1976, 363
pp. see particularly pp. 274 and 285.
39. C. Dumont, OP., Supplement de la
Vie Spirituelle, 1939; EM, § 35, pp.74 ss.
40. S. Boulgakov, Orthodoxie, Paris, 1932, p.67; EM,
39 p.78.
41. EM,
pp.208 ss. § 78 ss.
42 J. Jungmann, The place of Christian
Liturgical Prayers, NY, 1965, p. 265.
43. Cf. M. Jugie, Purgatoire chez les Nestoriens et les Monophysites, DTC XIII -1(1936) 1355; the author quotes Mansi 35, 1004;
besides, we can acknowledge that this prayer for the saints originated in the prayer of local Churches for the
deceased during a period when certain Churches still prayed for all the deceased souls without distinction, without
setting apart those who had already attained the vision of God and without commending themselves to their intercession;
father Séjourné noted (DTC XIV. 1, 1939, col.) that the book Apostolic
Constitutions prays for the martyrs and for the just without
invoking the saints themselves. The prayer for the saints could be a trace left permanently in the liturgy by a
still wavering state of things regarding the intermediate eschatology in the third and fourth centuries. But the
subsistence and endurance of this prayer presents a profound significance, which we have attempted to analyze,
and that endures still. For more on this subject, see the study of the Orthodox Bishop, Monsignor George Wagner,
“La commémoraison des saints dans la prière eucharistique”, Irenikon 45 (1972) including a bibliography.
44. On the subject of prayer for Mary, see EM § 88, p. 215, extending the text indicated above (in note 9).
45. L. Bouyer, Liturgical Piety, Notre Dame Press, USA, 1955, p.225.
46. Testimony related to Dom Capelle, in “Le Saint-Siège et le mouvement liturgique”,
Louvain, 1936, p.22; see also Dom Frénaud, Portée doctrinale de la Liturgie mariale, Cahiers Marials, 2, 1958, pp.306-307; and H. I. Dalmais, La Liturgie et le depôt de la foi, in L’Eglise en prière, Paris,
19653; pp.228-231, includes a bibliography.
47. Cf. J. Galot, Maria,
t.VI, p.256.
48. Cf. Luke 1-2, Rv 12; Galot, Maria, t.VI, pp.531 ss.
49. See Vartan
Tekeyan, Maria, t.I, Paris, 1949, p.359.
50. Newman, Letter
to Pusey, in 1864, Difficulties of Anglicans, vol.11, London, 1900, pp. 137-139.
51. John-Paul II, Letter Duodecimum Saeculum of December 4, 1987, for the l200th anniversary of the second council of Nicaea.
52 Cardinal C.Journet, Nova et vetera,
25 (1950) 19-96 particularly 53-59; from the same author, L’Eglise du Verbe incarné, Bruges, 1951, t.1I1, pp.323-329 especially p. 411; we could however show that
the words “the only one meriting in justice de condigno the salvation of all men” does not
exclude , if we understand by merit a radical merit source of an analogous merit in
Mary, the participation of the
Virgin to this meritorious activity of Christ regarding the objective Redemption, in so far as she is the Mother
of God the Savior. It seems to me that this is what results from the teaching of Pope Paul VI in Signum Magnum in 1967 see my article on the dogmatic
definability of Spiritual Motherhood (Marianum 1981, pp. 399-402). More than any other creature, Mary, by offering the death
of her Son, appropriated for herself the merit de condigno
of the redemptive activity and thus participated in it, without adding any thing to it.
53. Cf. C. Dillenschneider,
Marie au service de notre Rédemption, Haguenau, 1947, pp. 365-368.
54. MLS,
208-227.
55. Augustine,
Contra Julianum 15,54 (Mortalis);
in Jo Ev., tr. 8,9 (Moritura);
De catechizandis rudibus, 22,40
(Moriens).
56. Augustine, Enarr.
in Ps 34, 13; MLS 209-210.
57. MLS 217; cf. Augustine,
in Jo Ev. tr. 8,10; and 8,9.
58. Augustine,
Enarr. in Ps. 148,8.
59. Cf. Saint Francis de Sales, Sermon in 1602 for the Assumption,
Oeuvres, t.VII, 443-451; and E. Sauras, O.P., Estudios Marianos IX,1950, 109-212; from the
same author, La Asuncion, Valencia,
1950, pp. 262-264.
60. Augustine, De Sancta
Virginitate, 6; see
the in depth commentary on this passage in I.M.Dietz, Maria et Ecclesia, t.III, 201-239, Romae, 1959.
61. Augustine,
Sermo 192,2,2.
62. Cf. Ambrose,
De institutione Virginis VII, 49; MLS, 190 ss.
63. See their sources in St.Thomas Aquinas in B. de Margerie, La
Trinité Chrétienne dans l’histoire, Paris, 1975, p. 256 (Summ. Theo., I.34.3; 45.6.2).
64. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theo., III. 30.1.
65. Cf. J. Stern,
Marie dans le mystère de notre reconciliation, Nouvelle Revue Theologique 97, 1975, pp.3-23 and
especially pp. 22-23.
66. Saint Bonaventure, De septem donis
Spiritu Sancti, VI, 5 and 15-17; Opera omnia, Quaracci, t.V,pp.
484 ss; Transl. by E.Druwé, Maria, t.I, pp. 514-515.
67. Saint Bonaventure, Sent.III, d.4, a.2, q.2; 3,107; cf. John of
God, O.F.M. Cap, Maria, t.II,
Paris, 1952, p.790.
The above paper first appeared in Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., (ed.), Mary
Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations: Towards a Papal Definition? (Goleta,
CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1995)
Queenship Publishing Company
P.O. Box 220,
Goleta, California, 93116
http://www.queenship.org
1 800 647-9882
(805) 967-5843 fax
Copyright ©; 1995 Mark I Miravalle, S.T.D. All rights reserved
Version: 5th January 2003
|