I.
Introduction
In the
course of
the longest
pontificate
of the
twentieth
century
which has
now extended
into the
twenty-first,
Pope John
Paul II has
enriched the
Church with
extraordinarily
solid
teaching on
faith and
morals, but
perhaps in
no area has
he been more
illuminating
than in his
Marian
magisterium.
As one who
has been
chronicling
it from
early in the
pontificate,
I continue
to be amazed
at his
prodigious
output --
and even
more at the
quality of
its content.
This is to
take nothing
away from
the
significance
of the
Marian
magisterium
of all his
predecessors,
especially
since the
pontificate
of Blessed
Pope Pius IX
(1846-1878).
Each of the
modern popes
has passed
on to the
Church a
precious
patrimony of
Marian
doctrine
(including
the dogmatic
definitions
of the
Immaculate
Conception
in 1854 and
the
Assumption
in 1950) and
devotion
(including
the
consecration
of the world
to the
Immaculate
Heart of
Mary in 1942
and the
establishment
of the Feast
of the
Immaculate
Heart of
Mary in 1944
and of Our
Lady's
Queenship in
1954) while
making his
own unique
contribution
to the
Church's
millennial
Marian
tradition.
The study of
this body of
teaching on
the person
of the
Mother of
God and of
her intimate
relationship
with Christ
and the
Church
provides a
magnificent
illustration
of the
teaching of
the Fathers
of the
Second
Vatican
Council on
the organic
development
of the
Church's
doctrine:
The
Tradition
that comes
from the
apostles
makes
progress in
the Church,
with the
help of the
Holy Spirit.
There is a
growth in
insight into
the
realities
and words
that are
being passed
on. This
comes about
in various
ways. It
comes
through the
contemplation
and study of
believers
who ponder
these things
in their
hearts (cf.
Lk. 2:19 and
51). It
comes from
the intimate
sense of
spiritual
realities
which they
experience.
And it comes
from the
preaching of
those who
have
received,
along with
their right
of
succession
in the
episcopate,
the sure
charism of
truth. Thus,
as the
centuries go
by, the
Church is
always
advancing
towards the
plenitude of
divine
truth, until
eventually
the words of
God are
fulfilled in
her. [1]
The Council
Fathers
further
clarify that
"the task of
giving an
authentic
interpretation
of the Word
of God,
whether in
its written
form or in
the form of
Tradition,
has been
entrusted to
the living
teaching
office of
the Church
alone.[2]
This
teaching
office, as
we know, is
exercised in
a most
authoritative
way by the
Pope, the
Vicar of
Christ and
Head of the
Apostolic
College. [3]
A. Previous
Studies of
the
Magisterium
on Marian
Coredemption
The teaching
of the papal
magisterium
on Mary's
collaboration
in the work
of our
redemption
has been the
object of my
particular
study in the
course of
the past
several
years. I was
pleased to
have been
able to
present a
detailed
study on
"The Mystery
of Mary
Coredemptrix
in the Papal
Magisterium"
at the
theological
symposium on
Marian
Coredemption
held in
Castelpetroso,
Italy in
September of
1996 and
subsequently
published by
the
Franciscan
Friars of
the
Immaculate
in their
first volume
of studies
entitled
Maria
Corredentrice:
Storia e
Teologia.[4]
In that work
I analyzed
many texts
of Pope John
Paul II in
terms of
their strict
continuity
with the
teaching of
his
predecessors,
especially
since the
pontificate
of Blessed
Pius IX.
I had
earlier done
a brief
study on
"The Heart
of Mary as
Coredemptrix
in the
Magisterium
of Pope John
Paul II" [5]
and then a
more
extended
study on
"Pope John
Paul II's
Teaching on
Marian
Coredemption"
which was
published in
Miles
Immaculatae
[6] as well
as in Dr.
Mark
Miravalle's
second
anthology of
theological
studies
devoted to
the theme of
Mary
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix
and Advocate
[7] . In
1998 I
published an
article in
Marianum [8]
as a
response to
an earlier
article in
that same
learned
journal [9]
in which I
dealt at
some length
with the
magisterial
teaching on
the topic of
Marian
Coredemption.
During that
same year I
authored
three
articles for
the popular
Marian
magazine,
Soul, in
which I also
discussed
the the same
topic. [10]
These
articles
were later
published in
Dr.
Miravalle's
third
anthology on
Mary
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix
and
Advocate.
[11] In 1999
I also
offered a
brief resumé
on Pope John
Paul II's
teaching on
this matter
for the
popular
Italian
monthly
Madre di Dio.[12]
B. The
Marian
Catecheses
What I
propose to
do here is
to continue
to build on
and develop
what I have
already
published on
this matter
by taking
into
consideration
the Holy
Father's
more recent
teaching on
Marian
Coredemption,
especially
that
contained in
the 70
Marian
catecheses
which he has
given us in
the course
of his
Wednesday
general
audience
addresses
from 6
September
1995 to 19
November
1997. These
provide a
remarkable
summary of
his own
teaching and
a further
consolidation
of that of
his
predecessors
and that of
the Second
Vatican
Council,
which
constitutes
a privileged
point of
reference
for him. It
must be
readily
admitted
that these
addresses
are not
infallible
declarations,
every word
of which
must be
considered
as revealed
doctrine and
thus
settling
every
conceivable
issue which
theologians
discuss. But
on the other
hand, these
discourses
may be
justly
regarded as
an important
exercise of
the ordinary
magisterium
of the Roman
Pontiff and
thus should
be received
by the
faithful
"with
religious
submission
of mind and
will". [13]
These Marian
catecheses
emerge from
among
thousands of
the Pope's
homilies,
prayers,
addresses
preceding
the
recitation
of the
Angelus or
the Regina
Cćli, acts
of
consecration
or
entrustment
to Our Lady,
references
in
pontifical
documents
and
encyclicals
which he has
pronounced
and
published
before,
during and
after these
reflections.
Many of the
points in
these
catechetical
presentations
can be
further
illustrated
and
amplified
from this
greater body
of the
Pope's
teaching and
as well as
from that of
his
predecessors
and of the
Church's
whole
millennial
Marian
tradition.
What is
particularly
noteworthy
about this
series of
Marian
teachings,
however, is
that it is
unparalleled
in the
history of
the papacy.
Never before
has any pope
ever
undertaken
such a
systematic
exposition
on the
Mother of
God. This
alone would
be enough to
claim the
serious
attention of
Mary's
devoted
children.
But there is
more. From
the first
days of his
pontificate
he has
striven to
be a
faithful
interpreter
of the
Council.
While in his
Marian
encyclical
Redemptoris
Mater and in
these
catecheses
he rightly
professes to
elucidate
the Marian
teaching of
the Council
(the bulk of
which is
contained in
the eighth
chapter of
the Dogmatic
Constitution
on the
Church Lumen
Gentium), he
also does
more. In
effect, in
many ways he
further
refines and
clarifies
the
teachings of
the Council,
complementing
and
completing
them. This
was also the
judgment of
the late
Cardinal
Vincenzo
Fagiolo:
John Paul II
has advanced
the
conciliar
mariology;
and while
the Council
deliberately
did not
"wish to
decide those
questions
which the
work of
theologians
has not yet
fully
clarified"
[14], the
Pope has
further
explained
and
clarified
their
content,
value and
perspectives.
With respect
to the text
of Lumen
Gentium the
papal
catecheses
make more
extensive
biblical
references
and are thus
richer from
the use of
Old and New
Testament
sources.
[15]
Perhaps the
Pope's
contribution
to the
development
of Marian
doctrine is
nowhere
clearer in
these
catecheses
than in his
treatment of
Our Lady's
collaboration
in the work
of our
salvation.
[16] It is
well known
that on the
eve of the
Council a
good number
of bishops
desired a
comprehensive
treatment of
this matter.
Father
Michael
O'Carroll,
C.S.Sp.
informs us
that of the
54 bishops
at the
Council who
wanted a
conciliar
pronouncement
on Mary as
Coredemptrix,
36 sought a
definition
and 11 a
dogma of
faith on
this matter.
[17] On the
related
question of
Mary's
mediation,
he tells us
that 362
bishops
desired a
conciliar
statement on
Mary's
mediation
while 266 of
them asked
for a
dogmatic
definition.[18]
Obviously
such
definitions
did not
issue from
the Council
and many
contemporary
Mariologists
would have
us believe
that the
Council
definitively
closed the
door on such
a project.
The Pope's
handling of
the
question,
however, is
much more
even-handed.
As we will
see in the
ninth of his
catecheses,
that of 13
December
1995, he
states that
During the
Council
sessions,
many Fathers
wished
further to
enrich
Marian
doctrine
with other
statements
on Mary's
role in the
work of
salvation.
The
particular
context in
which
Vatican II's
Mariological
debate took
place did
not allow
these
wishes,
although
substantial
and
widespread,
to be
accepted,
but the
Council's
entire
discussion
of Mary
remains
vigorous and
balanced,
and the
topics
themselves,
though not
fully
defined,
received
significant
attention in
the overall
treatment.
Thus, the
hesitation
of some
Fathers
regarding
the title of
Mediatrix
did not
prevent the
Council from
using this
title once,
and from
stating in
other terms
Mary's
mediating
role from
her consent
to the
Angel's
message to
her
motherhood
in the order
of grace
(cf. Lumen
gentium, n.
62).
Furthermore,
the Council
asserts her
cooperation
"in a wholly
singular
way" in the
work of
restoring
supernatural
life to
souls
(ibid., n.
61). [19]
This is an
astute
observation
made by one
who has
continued to
meditate on
and develop
these very
themes. To
my
knowledge,
it is the
first
explicit
public
acknowledgement
on the part
of a pope of
the currents
at the
Council
which shaped
the writing
of chapter 8
of Lumen
Gentium. It
also makes
graceful
reference to
the Fathers
who "wished
further to
enrich
Marian
doctrine
with other
statements
on Mary's
role in the
work of
salvation"
without
labelling
them as
promoters of
"pre-conciliar
ideas whose
time has
passed", as
any number
of modern
Mariologists
are only too
anxious to
do.
These
general
audience
addresses
were
originally
given in
Italian and
appeared in
the daily
edition of
L'Osservatore
Romano. They
were later
published by
the Vatican
publishing
house as the
fifth volume
of Pope John
Paul II's
catecheses
on the Creed
[20] and
eventually
in the
apposite
volumes of
the
Insegnamenti
di Giovanni
Paolo II to
which I will
refer in the
notes.
Ordinarily I
will use the
translations
that
originally
appeared in
the English
edition of
L'Osservatore
Romano and
will also
provide
references
to them in
the
convenient
volume of
these
catecheses
published by
the
Daughters of
St. Paul
where the
word order
and
paragraph
divisions
sometimes
diverge
slightly
from the
earlier
translations.
II. The
Development
of Doctrine
on Marian
Coredemption
Just what
does the
Church teach
on Mary's
role in our
redemption?
Let us
listen to
the Holy
Father as he
traces the
history of
doctrinal
development
on this
issue for us
in broad
strokes:
After
becoming
aware of the
maternal
role of
Mary, who
was
venerated in
the teaching
and worship
of the first
centuries as
the virginal
Mother of
Jesus Christ
and
therefore as
the Mother
of God, in
the Middle
Ages the
Church's
piety and
theological
reflection
brought to
light her
cooperation
in the
Saviour's
work.
This delay
is explained
by the fact
that the
efforts of
the Church
Fathers and
of the early
Ecumenical
Councils,
focused as
they were on
Christ's
identity,
necessarily
left other
aspects of
dogma aside.
Only
gradually
could the
revealed
truth be
unfolded in
all its
richness.
Down the
centuries,
Mariology
would always
take its
direction
from
Christology.
The divine
motherhood
of Mary was
itself
proclaimed
at the
Council
Ephesus
primarily to
affirm the
oneness of
Christ's
person.
Similarly,
there was a
deeper
understanding
of Mary's
presence in
salvation
history.
At the end
of the
second
century, St.
Irenaeus, a
disciple of
Polycarp,
already
pointed out
Mary's
contribution
to the work
of
salvation.
He
understood
the value of
Mary's
consent at
the time of
the
Annunciation,
recognizing
in the
Virgin of
Nazareth's
obedience to
and faith in
the angel's
message the
perfect
antithesis
of Eve's
disobedience
and
disbelief,
with a
beneficial
effect on
humanity's
destiny. In
fact, just
as Eve
caused
death, so
Mary, with
her "yes",
became "a
cause of
salvation"
for herself
and for all
mankind (cf.
Adv. Haer.,
III, 22, 4;
SC 211,
441). But
this
affirmation
was not
developed in
a consistent
and
systematic
way by the
other
Fathers of
the Church.
Instead,
this
doctrine was
systematically
worked out
for the
first time
at the end
of the 10th
century in
the Life of
Mary by a
Byzantine
monk, John
the
Geometer.
Here Mary is
united to
Christ in
the whole
work of
Redemption,
sharing,
according to
God's plan,
in the Cross
and
suffering
for our
salvation.
She remained
united to
the Son "in
every deed,
attitude and
wish" (cf.
Life of
Mary, Bol.
196, f. 123
v.). ...
A disciple
and friend
of St.
Bernard,
Arnold of
Chartres,
shed light
particularly
on Mary's
offering in
the
sacrifice of
Calvary. He
distinguished
in the Cross
"two altars:
one in
Mary's
heart, the
other in
Christ's
body. Christ
sacrificed
his flesh,
Mary her
soul". Mary
sacrificed
herself
spiritually
in deep
communion
with Christ,
and implored
the world's
salvation:
"What the
mother asks,
the Son
approves and
the Father
grants" (cf.
De septem
verbis
Domini in
cruce, 3: PL
189, 1694).
From this
age on other
authors
explain the
doctrine of
Mary's
special
cooperation
in the
redemptive
sacrifice.
[21]
From its
earliest
days, then,
the Church
has had an
intuitive
grasp of the
importance
of Mary's
consent and
obedience in
the work of
our
salvation.
And for well
over a
millennium
it has been
slowly
coming to a
deeper grasp
of her
cooperation
in the
redemptive
sacrifice.
Indeed this
process of
doctrinal
development
under the
guidance of
the Holy
Spirit came
about not
only through
the work of
theologians
and
spiritual
writers, but
also, as the
Pope points
out:
Painters,
sculptors,
musicians
and poets
have left us
masterpieces
which, in
shedding
light on the
various
aspects of
the Blessed
Virgin's
greatness,
help to give
us a better
understanding
of the
meaning and
value of her
lofty
contribution
to the work
of
Redemption.
[22]
Obviously,
when one
thinks of
Mary's
collaboration
in our
redemption,
one thinks
first of the
event of the
Annunciation
as, no
doubt, St.
Irenaeus did
and as the
Pope
underscores:
Mary's role
in the work
of salvation
is totally
dependent on
Christ's. It
is a unique
function,
required by
the
fulfilment
of the
mystery of
the
Incarnation:
Mary's
motherhood
was
necessary to
give the
world its
Saviour, the
true Son of
God, but
also
perfectly
man.
The
importance
of woman's
cooperation
in the
coming of
Christ is
emphasized
by the
initiative
of God, who,
through the
angel,
communicates
his plan of
salvation to
the Virgin
of Nazareth
so that she
can
consciously
and freely
cooperate by
giving her
own generous
consent.
[23]
We should
also note
here a
consistent
insistence
on the part
of the
magisterium:
Mary's
cooperation
in the work
of our
redemption
is always
secondary,
subordinate
and
dependent on
that of
Christ; she
is not his
equal. But
at the same
time God
willed that
her consent
be a
necessary
condition
for the
coming of
the Saviour
into the
world.
As the Holy
Father had
already
pointed out
in his
catechesis
of 25
October
1995, "Only
gradually
could the
revealed
truth [about
Mary's
collaboration
in the work
of our
redemption]
be unfolded
in all its
richness".
He
illustrates
this
magnificently
in his
catechesis
of 9 April
1997:
Down the
centuries
the Church
has
reflected on
Mary's
cooperation
in the work
of
salvation,
deepening
the analysis
of her
association
with
Christ's
redemptive
sacrifice.
St.
Augustine
already gave
the Blessed
Virgin the
title
"cooperator"
in the
Redemption
(cf. De
Sancta
Virginitate,
6; PL 40,
399), a
title which
emphasizes
Mary's joint
but
subordinate
action with
Christ the
Redeemer.
Reflection
has
developed
along these
lines,
particularly
since the
15th
century.
Some feared
there might
be a desire
to put Mary
on the same
level as
Christ.
Actually the
Church's
teaching
makes a
clear
distinction
between the
Mother and
the Son in
the work of
salvation,
explaining
the Blessed
Virgin's
subordination,
as
cooperator,
to the one
Redeemer.
Moreover,
when the
Apostle Paul
says: "For
we are God's
fellow
workers" (1
Cor. 3:9),
he maintains
the real
possibility
for man to
cooperate
with God.
The
collaboration
of
believers,
which
obviously
excludes any
equality
with him, is
expressed in
the
proclamation
of the
Gospel and
in their
personal
contribution
to its
taking root
in human
hearts.
However,
applied to
Mary, the
term
"cooperator"
acquires a
specific
meaning. The
collaboration
of
Christians
in salvation
takes place
after the
Calvary
event, whose
fruits they
endeavour to
spread by
prayer and
sacrifice.
Mary,
instead,
cooperated
during the
event itself
and in the
role of
mother; thus
her
cooperation
embraces the
whole of
Christ's
saving work.
She alone
was
associated
in this way
with the
redemptive
sacrifice
that merited
the
salvation of
all mankind.
In union
with Christ
and in
submission
to him, she
collaborated
in obtaining
the grace of
salvation
for all
humanity.
The Blessed
Virgin's
role as
cooperator
has its
source in
her divine
motherhood.
By giving
birth to the
One who was
destined to
achieve
man's
redemption,
by
nourishing
him,
presenting
him in the
temple and
suffering
with him as
he died on
the Cross,
"in a wholly
singular way
she
cooperated
... in the
work of the
Saviour"
(Lumen
gentium, n.
61).
Although
God's call
to cooperate
in the work
of salvation
concerns
every human
being, the
participation
of the
Saviour's
Mother in
humanity's
Redemption
is a unique
and
unrepeatable
fact. [24]
The above
citation is
a lengthy
one, but it
is
particularly
rich in
doctrine and
in its
precision.
It
accentuates
the
historical
development
of the
Church's
insight into
Mary's
cooperation
in the work
of our
redemption.
It
highlights
the
subordinate
nature of
Mary's
cooperation
while at the
same time
recognizing
that her
cooperation
is
altogether
singular
because she
"cooperated
during the
event itself
and in the
role of
mother" and
thus "the
participation
of the
Saviour's
Mother in
humanity's
Redemption
is a unique
and
unrepeatable
fact".
Contrary to
some
appearances,
there can be
no doubt
that the
teaching of
the Second
Vatican
Council,
most notably
Lumen
Gentium #56
to 62,
marked a
further
development
in the
Church's
understanding
of Mary's
role in our
redemption
as the Pope
clearly
indicates:
The new
schema on
the Blessed
Virgin,
drafted so
as to be
included in
the Dogmatic
Constitution
on the
Church,
shows real
doctrinal
progress.
The stress
placed on
Mary's faith
and a more
systematic
concern to
base Marian
doctrine on
Scripture
are
significant
and useful
elements for
enriching
the piety
and esteem
of the
Christian
people for
the Blessed
Mother of
God.
Moreover,
with the
passing of
time the
danger of
reductionism,
feared by
some
Fathers,
proved to be
unfounded:
Mary's
mission and
privileges
were amply
reaffirmed;
her
cooperation
in the
divine plan
of salvation
was
highlighted;
the harmony
of this
cooperation
with
Christ's
unique
mediation
appeared
more
evident.
For the
first time,
the
conciliar
Magisterium
offered the
Church a
doctrinal
exposition
of Mary's
role in
Christ's
redemptive
work and in
the life of
the Church.
Thus, we
must
consider the
Council
Fathers'
choice,
which proved
very
fruitful for
later
doctrinal
work, to
have been a
truly
providential
decision.
[25]
Before
moving on to
the next
point, I
would like
to present
two
precisions
offered by
our Holy
Father with
regard to
the role of
the Holy
Spirit in
this process
of the
development
of Marian
doctrine.
Just as we
have seen
that the
conciliar
Constitution
on Divine
Revelation
underscores
the role of
the Holy
Spirit in
all
legitimate
doctrinal
development,
so Pope John
Paul II
indicates
his
all-important
function in
the
transmission
as well as
in the
reception of
the
doctrine.
First, the
Pope points
out the
action of
the Holy
Spirit
already at
work through
the human
authors or
transmitters
of the Old
Testament:
As can be
easily
noted, the
Old
Testament
tradition
frequently
emphasizes
the decisive
action of
women in the
salvation of
Israel,
especially
in the
writings
closest to
the coming
of Christ.
In this way
the Holy
Spirit,
through the
events
connected
with Old
Testament
women,
sketches
with ever
greater
precision
the
characteristics
of Mary's
mission in
the work of
salvation
for the
entire human
race. [26]
Secondly,
and perhaps
even more
importantly,
he points to
the
necessity of
the docile
acceptance
of the
Spirit's
guidance as
we strive to
penetrate
the doctrine
which has
been
received:
It is
necessary to
emphasize
that Marian
teaching and
devotion are
not the
fruit of
sentimentality.
... Not only
affection
but
particularly
the light of
the Spirit
must guide
us in
understanding
the Mother
of Jesus and
her
contribution
to the work
of
salvation.
[27]
III. Mary as
the "New
Eve"
We have
already
noted above
the Holy
Father's
reference to
St.
Irenaeus's
teaching
about Mary
as the "New
Eve" in his
catechesis
of 25
October
1995.
Indeed, St.
Justin
Martyr (+
165), St.
Irenaeus (+
after 193)
and
Tertullian
(+ after
220), all of
whom belong
to the
sub-Apostolic
period,
signalled
the
parallelism
and contrast
between Mary
and Eve.
This
fascinating
parallelism,
never absent
from the
Church's
liturgy [28]
and
magisterium
[29], was
highlighted
in Lumen
Gentium #56
and in the
Catechism of
the Catholic
Church #411.
This theme
sheds
notable
light on
Mary's role
in our
redemption
and Pope
John Paul II
has often
enlarged
upon it.[30]
Here is a
basic
exposition
from his
catechesis
of 15
October
1997:
St. Justin
and St.
Irenaeus
speak of
Mary as the
new Eve who
by her faith
and
obedience
makes amends
for the
disbelief
and
disobedience
of the first
woman.
According to
the Bishop
of Lyons, it
was not
enough for
Adam to be
redeemed in
Christ, but
"it was
right and
necessary
that Eve be
restored in
Mary"
(Demonstratio
apostolica,
33). In this
way he
stresses the
importance
of woman in
the work of
salvation
and lays the
foundation
for the
inseparability
of Marian
devotion
from that
shown to
Jesus, which
will endure
down the
Christian
centuries.
[31]
He further
speaks of
Mary as the
"new woman
desired by
God to atone
for Eve's
fall"[32].
He says that
The
parallel,
established
by Paul
between Adam
and Christ,
is completed
by that
between Eve
and Mary:
the role of
woman,
important in
the drama of
sin, is
equally so
in the
Redemption
of mankind.
St. Irenaeus
presents
Mary as the
new Eve, who
by her faith
and
obedience
compensated
for the
disbelief
and
disobedience
of Eve. Such
a role in
the economy
of salvation
requires the
absence of
sin. [33]
Again he
tells us
that "the
universal
motherhood
of Mary, the
"Woman" of
the wedding
at Cana and
of Calvary,
recalls Eve,
"mother of
all living"
(Gen. 3:20).
However,
while the
latter
helped to
bring sin
into the
world, the
new Eve,
Mary,
cooperates
in the
saving event
of
Redemption.
Thus in the
Blessed
Virgin the
figure of
"woman" is
rehabilitated
and her
motherhood
takes up the
task of
spreading
the new life
in Christ
among men."
[34]
As Eve was
given to
Adam as his
helpmate
(cf. Gen.
2:18-20), so
the Pope
tells us: "Having
created man
"male and
female" (cf.
Gen. 1:27),
the Lord
also wants
to place the
New Eve
beside the
New Adam in
the
Redemption.
Our first
parents had
chosen the
way of sin
as a couple;
a new pair,
the Son of
God with his
Mother's
cooperation,
would
re-establish
the human
race in its
original
dignity."[35]
In teaching
about Mary's
glorious
Assumption
into heaven,
the Pope
further
specifies
that, while
we may speak
of Jesus and
Mary as "a
couple, a
new pair",
we must also
recognize
that there
is an
important
difference
as well.
In a way
analogous to
what
happened at
the
beginning of
the human
race and of
salvation
history, in
God's plan
the
eschatological
ideal was
not to be
revealed in
an
individual,
but in a
couple. Thus
in heavenly
glory,
beside the
risen Christ
there is a
woman who
has been
raised up,
Mary; the
new Adam and
the new Eve,
the
first-fruits
of the
general
resurrection
of the
bodies of
all
humanity.
The
eschatological
conditions
of Christ
and Mary
should not,
of course,
be put on
the same
level. Mary,
the new Eve,
received
from Christ,
the new
Adam, the
fullness of
grace and
heavenly
glory,
having been
raised
through the
Holy Spirit
by the
sovereign
power of the
Son.[36]
Classical
mariology
has long
known and
taught that
there is an
analogy, a
certain
"likeness in
difference"
between
Christ and
Mary, a
certain
symmetry and
complementarity,
though not
identity,
between
them.[37]
This
principle of
analogy is
very germane
to the topic
under
discussion
and, indeed,
the entire
discourse on
Mary's role
in the work
of our
redemption
cannot be
understood
without it.
Thus in the
above
catechesis
the Holy
Father is
careful to
underscore
and
illustrate
this
principle.
He does so
as well as
in the
following
catechesis
in which he
treats of
the Kingship
of Christ
and the
Queenship of
Mary:
My venerable
Predecessor
Pius XII, in
his
Encyclical
Ad coeli
Reginam to
which the
text of the
Constitution
Lumen
gentium
refers,
indicates as
the basis
for Mary's
queenship in
addition to
her
motherhood,
her
cooperation
in the work
of the
Redemption.
The
Encyclical
recalls the
liturgical
text: "There
was St.
Mary, Queen
of heaven
and
Sovereign of
the world,
sorrowing
near the
Cross of our
Lord Jesus
Christ" (AAS
46 [1954]
634). It
then
establishes
an analogy
between Mary
and Christ,
which helps
us
understand
the
significance
of the
Blessed
Virgin's
royal
status.
Christ is
King not
only because
he is Son of
God, but
also because
he is the
Redeemer;
Mary is
Queen not
only because
she is
Mother of
God, but
also
because,
associated
as the new
Eve with the
new Adam,
she
cooperated
in the work
of the
redemption
of the human
race (AAS 46
[1954]
635).[38]
Let us note
well the
"likeness in
difference":
Christ is
King because
(1) he is
Son of God
and (2)
because he
is Redeemer;
Mary is
Queen
because (1)
she is
Mother of
God and (2)
because she
cooperated
in the work
of the
redemption.[39]
IV. From the
Fiat of the
Annunciation
to the Fiat
of Calvary
The Dogmatic
Constitution
on the
Church Lumen
Gentium #58
makes a
brief but
profound
statement
about Mary's
cooperation
in the work
of the
redemption:
"This union
of the
mother with
the Son in
the work of
salvation is
made
manifest
from the
time of
Christ's
virginal
conception
up to his
death."[40]
We find this
emphasis
consistently
repeated in
the teaching
of Pope John
Paul II as
in the
statement in
his
Encyclical
Letter
Evangelium
Vitć that
"The 'yes'
spoken on
the day of
the
Annunciation
reaches full
maturity on
the day of
the
Cross"[41]and
in his
comment in a
general
audience
address that
Mary's
cooperation
in the work
of our
salvation
"having
begun with
the
Incarnation,
is destined
to be
expressed in
the whole
work of
divine
salvation."[42]
I wish to
highlight
just two
further
instances in
which the
Pope
underscores
the
significance
of Mary's
fiat at the
Annunciation
as being the
operative
principle in
her entire
life. The
first is
from a
notable
general
audience
address of 4
May 1983:
The "Yes" of
the
Annunciation
constituted
not only the
acceptance
of the
offered
motherhood,
but
signified
above all
Mary's
commitment
to service
of the
mystery of
the
Redemption.
Redemption
was the work
of her Son;
Mary was
associated
with it on a
subordinate
level.
Nevertheless,
her
participation
was real and
demanding.
Giving her
consent to
the angel's
message,
Mary agreed
to
collaborate
in the whole
work of
mankind's
reconciliation
with God,
just as her
Son would
accomplish
it.[43]
The second
comes from
his Message
of 15 August
1996 to the
12th
International
Mariological
Congress and
emphasizes
that the
fiat at the
Annunciation
is continued
at the foot
of the
cross:
God, by
sending the
Archangel
Gabriel,
revealed his
intention to
the Virgin
Mary,
entrusting
the
realization
of his
eternal plan
[of
salvation]
to her free
will. In the
obedience of
faith and
love she
pronounced
her "yes",
expressing
"loco totius
humanć
naturć" --
as St.
Thomas
Aquinas says
(Sum.
Theol., III,
30, 1) --
her desire
to
co-operate
and share in
the mystery
of
salvation.
... Her
whole life,
given
totally to
God, to
Christ and
to mankind,
to whom
Jesus
brought the
good news of
the coming
of God's
kingdom, was
a constant
offering of
love, which
was fully
realized as
Mary, at the
foot of the
cross,
suffered
together
with her Son
who was
accomplishing
our
salvation.[44]
V. The
Presentation
in the
Temple:
Prelude to
Offering on
Calvary
Of all of
the events
in the life
of Jesus
which
anticipate
his offering
on Calvary
and Mary's
active
participation
in it, none
is more
charged with
meaning than
his
presentation
in the
temple of
Jerusalem
when he was
forty days'
old (cf. Lk.
2:22-40).
Father
Stefano
Manelli,
F.I.
provides a
masterful
overview of
recent
exegesis on
this
pericope in
his
perceptive
study of
biblical
mariology[45]while
Father
Ignazio M.
Calabuig,
O.S.M.
offers us
some
valuable
reflections
on this
theme from
the
perspective
of Mary as
"offerer" of
Jesus in a
recently
published
volume on
Mary and the
Eucharist.[46]
In his
sketch of
doctrinal
development
on Mary's
collaboration
in the work
of
redemption
in his
catechesis
of 25
October 1995
the Holy
Father
points to
the figure
of St.
Bernard of
Clairvaux as
underscoring
Mary's
offering of
Jesus in the
temple as an
anticipation
of his
offering on
the cross:
In the West
St. Bernard,
who died in
1153, turns
to Mary and
comments on
the
presentation
of Jesus in
the temple:
"Offer your
Son,
sacrosanct
Virgin, and
present the
fruit of
your womb to
the Lord.
For our
reconciliation
with all,
offer the
heavenly
victim
pleasing to
God" (Serm.
3 in Purif.,
2: PL 183,
370).[47]
Indeed, Pope
John Paul II
shows
himself to
be in the
great
tradition of
interpretation
of this
Gospel
pericope
pioneered in
the Latin
West by
Ambrose
Autpert (+
784), Peter
Abelard (+
1142) and
St.
Bernard[48]in
his numerous
commentaries
on this
scene. In
his general
audience
address of 4
May 1983 he
links
Simeon's
prophecy
(Lk. 2:35)
with Mary's
offering of
Jesus in the
temple and
her fiat at
the
Annunciation:
During the
Presentation
in the
Temple, Mary
had a first
clear
reference to
what would
be the kind
of life
chosen by
Jesus. After
telling of
the
oppositions
the Child
would
encounter in
his mission,
Simeon
turned to
her and told
her "And you
yourself
shall be
pierced with
a sword"
(Lk. 2:35).
The Holy
Spirit had
moved Simeon
to come to
the Temple
at the very
moment when
Mary and
Joseph
arrived
there to
present the
Child. Under
the
inspiration
of the Holy
Spirit,
Simeon
uttered the
prophetic
words that
enlightened
Mary on the
sorrowful
destiny of
the Messiah
and on the
great drama
in which her
motherly
heart would
be involved.
Mary then
understood
more clearly
the
significance
of the
Presentation.
To offer her
Son was to
expose
herself
willingly to
the sword.
Committed by
the "Yes" of
the
Annunciation
and prepared
to reach to
the very
depths in
the giving
of herself
to the work
of
salvation,
Mary did not
retreat from
the prospect
of the great
suffering
that was
foretold for
her.[49]
He also
developed
this theme
of Mary's
offering of
Jesus in the
temple in
his Message
of 6 January
1997 for the
first World
Day for
Consecrated
Life:
The Virgin
Mother who
carries
Jesus to the
temple so
that he can
be offered
to the
Father
expresses
very well
the figure
of the
Church who
continues to
offer her
sons and
daughters to
the heavenly
Father,
associating
them with
the one
oblation of
Christ,
cause and
model of all
consecration
in the
Church. ...
May the
Virgin Mary,
who had the
sublime
privilege of
presenting
to the
Father his
only-begotten
Son, Jesus
Christ, as a
pure and
holy
oblation,
obtain for
us that we
may
constantly
be open and
welcoming in
the face of
the great
works which
he does not
cease to
accomplish
for the good
of the
Church and
of all
humanity.[50]
In his
catechesis
on this same
Gospel scene
two days
later he
develops the
notion of
Mary's
offering of
herself in
union with
the offering
of her Son
-- a concept
that has
been
consistently
advanced by
the
magisterium
with regard
to Mary's
presence on
Calvary[51]:
Giving back
her Son,
whom she had
just
received
from God, to
consecrate
him for his
saving
mission,
Mary also
gives
herself to
this
mission. It
is an act of
interior
sharing that
is not only
the fruit of
natural
maternal
affection,
but above
all
expresses
the consent
of the new
woman to
Christ's
redemptive
work. ...
The
chronological
priority of
Mary's
action does
not obscure
Jesus'
primacy. In
describing
Mary's role
in the
economy of
salvation,
the Second
Vatican
Council
recalled
that she
"devoted
herself
totally ...
to the
person and
work of her
Son, under
and with
him, serving
the mystery
of
Redemption"
(Lumen
gentium, n.
56).
At the
presentation
of Jesus in
the temple,
Mary serves
the mystery
of
Redemption
under Christ
and with
Christ:
indeed he
has the
principal
role in
salvation
and must be
ransomed by
a ritual
offering.
Mary is
joined to
the
sacrifice of
her Son by
the sword
that will
pierce her
soul.
The primacy
of Christ
does not
rule out but
supports and
demands the
proper,
irreplaceable
role of
woman. By
involving
his mother
in his own
sacrifice,
Christ wants
to reveal
its deep
human roots
and to show
us an
anticipation
of the
priestly
offering of
the
cross.[52]
Let us also
note the
precise
accent here
on Jesus as
having the
principal
role and the
primacy in
salvation
while Mary's
role is
described as
"serving the
mystery of
Redemption
under and
with him".
The
mysteries,
the events,
of the lives
of Jesus and
Mary are
like
magnificent
gems. Each
time we
return to
them under a
wise guide
we can see
new facets,
brilliance
that we did
not detect
before. The
Holy Father
is such a
guide for
us. Let us
listen to
how he
presents the
presentation
in the
temple on
yet another
occasion:
Alongside
Christ's
suffering
Simeon sets
the vision
of Mary's
heart
pierced by
the sword,
thus uniting
the Mother
with the
sorrowful
destiny of
her Son.
In this way,
while the
venerable
old man
foresees the
growing
hostility
the Messiah
will face,
he stresses
its
repercussion
on the
Mother's
heart. This
maternal
suffering
will
culminate in
the Passion,
when she
will unite
with her Son
in his
redemptive
sacrifice.
...
Beginning
with
Simeon's
prophecy,
Mary
intensely
and
mysteriously
unites her
life with
Christ's
sorrowful
mission: she
was to
become her
Son's
faithful
co-worker
for the
salvation of
the human
race. [53]
The Catholic
tradition
sees the
Presentation
in the
temple as
the first of
Mary's
principal
sorrows with
good reason:
from that
moment she
is
definitively
united "with
the
sorrowful
destiny of
her Son".
She will be
united on
Calvary
"with her
Son in his
redemptive
sacrifice"
because she
became "her
Son's
faithful
co-worker
for the
salvation of
the human
race."
Finally,
notice how
all of this
in
communicated
under the
symbolism of
Mary's
Heart.
VI. The
Joint
Sacrifice of
Calvary
The Fathers
of the
Second
Vatican
Council
highlighted
Mary's
collaboration
in the work
of the
redemption
with this
strikingly
clear
statement in
Lumen
Gentium #58:
The Blessed
Virgin
advanced in
her
pilgrimage
of faith,
and
faithfully
persevered
in her union
with her Son
unto the
cross, where
she stood,
in keeping
with the
divine plan,
enduring
with her
only
begotten Son
the
intensity of
his
suffering,
associating
herself with
his
sacrifice in
her mother's
heart, and
lovingly
consenting
to the
immolation
of this
victim which
was born of
her.[54]
It should be
noted that
the high
point of
Mary's
collaboration
is described
as (1)
enduring
suffering
with her
Son, (2)
associating
herself with
his
sacrifice
and (3)
consenting
to the
immolation
of the
victim. It
might be
argued that
the first
two verbs
put the
emphasis on
Mary's
offering of
herself or
uniting
herself to
the offering
of Jesus
while the
third verb
speaks more
precisely of
her
consenting
to the
offering of
her Son to
the Father
"insofar as
it depended
on her",
according to
the
expression
of Pope
Benedict
XV.[55]
In other
studies I
have
distinguished
between
these two
different
offerings on
Mary's part
which took
place on
Calvary: (1)
her offering
of or
consenting
to the
sacrifice of
Jesus and
(2) her
offering of
herself.
Indeed, it
is possible
to cite
texts of the
Holy Father
which
illustrate
both of
these points
quite
clearly.[56]
Here,
however, I
will
indicate
these two
logically
distinct
dimensions
of the
sacrifice,
but, I have
chosen to
comment on
texts of the
Holy Father
which place
the emphasis
on how
Mary's
sacrifice is
inseparable
from that of
Jesus, how,
in the words
of the Holy
Father, it
is a "joint
but
subordinate
action with
Christ the
Redeemer".[57]
Let us
listen to
the
beautiful
commentary
the Pope
made on
Lumen
Gentium #58
in his
catechesis
of 2 April
1997:
With our
gaze
illumined by
the radiance
of the
resurrection,
we pause to
reflect on
the Mother's
involvement
in her Son's
redeeming
passion,
which was
completed by
her sharing
in his
suffering.
Let us
return
again, but
now in the
perspective
of the
Resurrection,
to the foot
of the Cross
where the
Mother
endured
"with her
only-begotten
Son the
intensity of
his
suffering,
associated
herself with
his
sacrifice in
her mother's
heart, and
lovingly
consented to
the
immolation
of this
victim which
was born of
her" (ibid.,
n. 58).
With these
words, the
Council
reminds us
of "Mary's
compassion";
in her heart
reverberates
all that
Jesus
suffers in
body and
soul,
emphasizing
her
willingness
to share in
her Son's
redeeming
sacrifice
and to join
her own
maternal
suffering to
his priestly
offering.
The Council
text also
stresses
that her
consent to
Jesus'
immolation
is not
passive
acceptance
but a
genuine act
of love, by
which she
offers her
Son as a
"victim" of
expiation
for the sins
of all
humanity.
Lastly,
Lumen
gentium
relates the
Blessed
Virgin to
Christ, who
has the lead
role in
Redemption,
making it
clear that
in
associating
herself
"with his
sacrifice"
she remains
subordinate
to her
divine
Son.[58]
Let us note
briefly how
the Holy
Father
brings both
of these
dimensions
of Mary's
offering
together by
referring to
her
"compassion"
or
"suffering
with" Jesus
as well as
insisting
that her
"consent to
Jesus'
immolation"
was "a
genuine act
of love, by
which she
offers her
Son as a
'victim' of
expiation
for the sins
of all
humanity."
Another
point to be
noted is how
beautifully
and
carefully
the Pope
puts "the
Mother's
involvement
in her Son's
redeeming
passion"
into the
proper
theological
perspective:
it is always
to be
understood
as
"subordinate",
but at the
same time
"her sharing
in his
suffering"
completes
"her Son's
redeeming
passion".
These two
dimensions
of Mary's
offering are
gracefully
intermingled
by the Holy
Father in
his
catechesis
of 10
September
1997 in
which he
presents
Mary as "the
Church's
model for
generously
participating
in
sacrifice":
In
presenting
Jesus in the
temple and,
especially,
at the foot
of the
Cross, Mary
completes
the gift of
herself
which
associates
her as
Mother with
the
suffering
and trials
of her
Son.[59]
The gift of
herself is
seen as
completed in
her
association
with the
suffering of
her Son whom
she offered
in the
temple as an
infant and
now offers
again on
Calvary.
This
intermingling
of Mary's
offering of
Jesus and of
herself was
magnificently
expressed in
the Pope's
homily at
the
Commemoration
of Abraham
"Our Father
in Faith"
during the
Great
Jubilee of
the Year
2000:
Daughter of
Abraham in
faith as
well as in
the flesh,
Mary
personally
shared in
this
experience.
Like
Abraham, she
too accepted
the
sacrifice of
her Son, but
while the
actual
sacrifice of
Isaac was
not demanded
of Abraham,
Christ drank
the cup of
suffering to
the last
drop. Mary
personally
took part in
her Son's
trial,
believing
and hoping
at the foot
of the Cross
(cf. Jn.
19:25).
This was the
epilogue of
a long wait.
Having been
taught to
meditate on
the
prophetic
texts, Mary
foresaw what
awaited her
and in
praising the
mercy of
God,
faithful to
his people
from
generation
to
generation,
she gave her
own consent
to his plan
of
salvation;
in
particular,
she said her
"yes" to the
central
event of
this plan,
the
sacrifice of
that Child
whom she
bore in her
womb. Like
Abraham, she
accepted the
sacrifice of
her Son.[60]
Here the
reference to
the
amalgamating
of the two
sacrifices
on the part
of Mary is
subtle but
real. Mary
is compared
to Abraham
in that both
of them gave
their
consent to
the
sacrifice of
their only
son, but in
the case of
Abraham, the
consent was
all that was
required. In
the case of
Mary,
however, the
sacrifice
was carried
out,
effectively
requiring of
her the
sacrifice of
her maternal
heart[61],
indeed of
her very
life.
The "joint
but
subordinate"
sacrifice on
the part of
Mary has
profound
ecclesial
reverberations.
In treating
of the
"woman
clothed with
the sun",
who appears
in the
twelfth
chapter of
the Book of
Revelation,
as being an
image of the
Church and
of Mary, the
Pope makes
this comment
in his
catechesis
of 29 May
1996:
Identified
by her
motherhood,
the woman
"was with
child and
she cried
out in her
pangs of
birth, in
anguish for
her
delivery"
(12:2). This
note refers
to the
Mother of
Jesus at the
Cross (cf.
Jn. 19:25),
where she
shares in
anguish for
the delivery
of the
community of
disciples
with a soul
pierced by
the sword
(cf. Lk.
2:35).
Despite her
sufferings,
she is
"clothed
with the
sun" -- that
is, she
reflects the
divine
splendour --
and appears
as a "great
sign" of
God's
spousal
relationship
with his
people.[62]
Here the
Pope, in
effect,
proposes a
datum of the
tradition
i.e., that
while Mary
gave birth
to Jesus in
a painless
way, her
intense
sufferings
in union
with Jesus
on Calvary
were the
birth pangs
by which she
"begets as
her children
all those
who become
[his]
disciples".
This truth
is
magnificently
synthesized
in the
preface of
the second
Mass of
"Mary at the
Foot of the
Cross"
published in
the
Collection
of Masses of
the Blessed
Virgin Mary:
In your
divine
wisdom you
planned the
redemption
of the human
race and
decreed that
the new Eve
should stand
by the cross
of the new
Adam: as she
became his
mother by
the power of
the Holy
Spirit, so,
by a new
gift of your
love, she
was to be a
partner in
his passion,
and she who
had given
him birth
without the
pains of
childbirth
was to
endure the
greatest of
pains in
bringing
forth to new
life the
family of
your Church.
[63]
At the foot
of the
cross, then,
Mary is not
only a
partner in
the passion
(socia
passionis)[64],
but is
instrumental
in giving
birth to the
Church. Note
well that
there are
two striking
symbols for
the
generation
of the
Church on
Calvary: the
pierced
Heart of
Jesus from
which flows
blood and
water, "the
fountain of
sacramental
life in the
Church" [65]
and the
Heart of
Mary to
which the
Holy Father
makes an
allusion in
the above
text by
referring to
Lk. 2:35.
Quite
clearly,
there is a
partnership
for the sake
of our
salvation,
but it is
not a
partnership
of strict
equality, as
the Holy
Father tells
us in the
same
catechesis
of 29 May
1996:
It was
fitting that
like Christ,
the new
Adam, Mary
too, the new
Eve, did not
know sin and
was thus
capable of
co-operating
in the
Redemption.
Sin, which
washes over
humanity
like a
torrent,
halts before
the Redeemer
and his
faithful
Collaborator.
With a
substantial
difference:
Christ is
all holy by
virtue of
the grace
that in his
humanity
derives from
the divine
person: Mary
is all holy
by virtue of
the grace
received by
the merits
of the
Saviour.
[66]
Developing
the notion
of Mary's
labor pains
on Calvary
for the
birth of the
Church (cf.
Rev. 12:2),
the Pope
stated in
his
catechesis
of 17
September
1997:
On Calvary,
Mary united
herself to
the
sacrifice of
her Son and
made her own
maternal
contribution
to the work
of
salvation,
which took
the form of
labour
pains, the
birth of the
new
humanity.
In
addressing
the words
"Woman,
behold your
son" to
Mary, the
Crucified
One
proclaims
her
motherhood
not only in
relation to
the Apostle
John but
also to
every
disciple.
The
Evangelist
himself, by
saying that
Jesus had to
die "to
gather into
one the
children of
God who are
scattered
abroad" (Jn.
11:52),
indicates
the Church's
birth as the
fruit of the
redemptive
sacrifice
with which
Mary is
maternally
associated.
[67]
Always
subordinate
and
secondary,
nonetheless
Mary's
"maternal
contribution
to the work
of
salvation"
is unique
and the
sacrifice by
which the
Church was
born cannot
be separated
by her
maternal
collaboration.
VII. Titles
for Mary's
Role in Our
Redemption
There are
many other
facets of
Pope John
Paul II's
teaching on
Mary's
collaboration
in the work
of our
redemption
which the
constraints
of space and
time will
not allow me
to develop
here, such
as her being
a model for
all of the
faithful in
our
participation
in the
sacrifice of
Calvary [68]
and more
generally in
our work for
the growth
of the
Church in
holiness and
numbers.
The final
topic that I
would like
to deal with
is this:
"How do we
best
describe
this
secondary
and
subordinate,
but
nonetheless
active and
unique role
willed by
God for Mary
in the work
of our
redemption?"
Our Holy
Father has
used a good
number of
descriptive
titles such
as
collaborator
and
cooperator,
associate
and ally. He
has called
her "the
perfect
co-worker in
Christ's
sacrifice"
(perfetta
cooperatrice
del
sacrificio
di
Cristo)[69]and
"the perfect
model for
those who
seek to be
united with
her Son in
his saving
work for all
humanity".[70]
This is a
matter on
which
neither our
present Holy
Father nor
any of his
predecessors
have
pronounced
and we are
quite free
to debate
it. My
argument
would simply
be that none
of the
one-word
titles such
as
collaborator,
cooperator,
co-worker,
associate,
partner and
ally
sufficiently
accentuates
the
uniqueness
of Mary's
role whereas
others seem
to me to be
either
lengthy
phrases or
cumbersome
circumlocutions.[71]
The fact is
that there
is a word
which was
coined and
has become
hallowed by
usage to
describe
Mary's
unique role:
Coredemptrix.
Once it has
been made
clear that
the "co" in
Coredemptrix
does not
mean equal
to the
Redeemer,
but
subordinate
to him[72],
it is
arguable
that it
expresses
the reality
of Mary's
position
better than
any other.
This term
has been in
theological
circulation
since at
least the
fifteenth
century[73]and
passed into
usage by the
magisterium
at the
beginning of
the
twentieth
century.[74]
The word was
used three
times by
Pope Pius XI
(1922-1939),
[75]was not
used by Pius
XII
(1939-1958)
because of
controversies
about the
doctrine
which were
only
clarified at
the end of
his
pontificate[76],
and was
described in
the
Prćnotanda
of the first
draft of the
schema which
would
eventually
become
chapter 8 of
Lumen
Gentium as
among those
words which
are
"absolutely
true in
themselves"
[in se
verissima],
but were
being
avoided out
of
ecumenical
sensitivity.[77]
We are also
free to
debate about
the wisdom
and
effectiveness
of such a
strategy.[78]
What is very
interesting,
however, is
that Pope
John Paul II
has used the
word or a
cognate form
thereof to
describe Our
Lady's role
in the work
of our
redemption
six
times[79],
three times
more than
the only
other pope
to use this
term. He has
also used
the word
"coredeemer"
or
"coredemption"
at least
three times
in speaking
of the
on-going
collaboration
of
Christians
in the work
of
Redemption.[80]
Despite
these facts,
there has
been what
seems a
carefully
orchestrated
chorus
stating that
none of
these
instances
are of any
theological
value.
First of all
there was
the
"Declaration
of the
Theological
Commission
of the
Pontifical
International
Marian
Academy"
made in
Czestochowa,
Poland in
August of
1996 made by
an "ad hoc"
commission
composed of
18
Catholics, 3
Orthodox, an
Anglican and
a Lutheran
and released
by
L'Osservatore
Romano on 4
June 1997.
Dealing with
the titles
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix
and
Advocate, it
states:
The titles,
as proposed,
are
ambiguous,
as they can
be
understood
in very
different
ways.
Furthermore,
the
theological
direction
taken by the
Second
Vatican
Council,
which did
not wish to
define any
of these
titles,
should not
be
abandoned.
The Second
Vatican
Council did
not use the
title
"Coredemptrix",
and uses
"Mediatrix"
and
"Advocate"
in a very
moderate way
(cf. Lumen
gentium, n.
62). In
fact, from
the time of
Pope Pius
XII, the
term
"Coredemptrix"
has not been
used by the
papal
Magisterium
in its
significant
documents.
There is
evidence
that Pope
Pius XII
himself
intentionally
avoided
using
it.[81]
From what I
have already
stated and
documented,
it is
apparent
that this
declaration
is not above
criticism
for the way
it attempts
to deal with
facts and
that it has
no
magisterial
value. It
dismisses
the use of
the term by
Pope John
Paul II as
not
occurring in
significant
magisterial
documents.
Together
with the
declaration
in
L'Osservatore
Romano
appeared two
commentaries:
one unsigned
with the
title "A new
Marian
dogma?"[82]and
the other
under the
signature of
Salvatore M.
Perrella,
O.S.M.
entitled
"Mary's
co-operation
in the work
of
Redemption:
Present
state of the
question".[83]
The unsigned
commentary
offers a
further
specification
with regard
to the usage
of this term
by the
present
Pontiff:
With respect
to the title
of
Coredemptrix,
the
Declaration
of
Czestochowa
notes that
"from the
time of Pope
Pius XII,
the term
Coredemptrix
has not been
used by the
papal
Magisterium
in its
significant
documents"
and there is
evidence
that he
himself
intentionally
avoided
using it. An
important
qualification,
because here
and there,
in papal
writings
which are
marginal
therefore
devoid of
doctrinal
weight, one
can find
such a
title, be it
very rarely.
In
substantial
documents,
however, and
in those of
some
doctrinal
importance,
this term is
absolutely
avoided.
[84]
At this
point I deem
it
indispensable
to introduce
into this
discussion
#25 of the
Second
Vatican
Council's
Dogmatic
Constitution
on the
Church Lumen
Gentium, a
text of
capital
importance
on the
Pope's
magisterium
or teaching
office:
This loyal
submission
of the will
and
intellect
must be
given, in a
special way,
to the
authentic
teaching
authority
[magisterium]
of the Roman
Pontiff,
even when he
does not
speak ex
cathedra in
such wise,
indeed, that
his supreme
teaching
authority be
acknowledged
with
respect, and
that one
sincerely
adhere to
decisions
made by him,
conformably
with his
manifest
mind and
intention,
which is
made known
principally
either (1)
by the
character of
the
documents in
question, or
(2) by the
frequency
with which a
certain
doctrine is
proposed, or
(3) by the
manner in
which the
doctrine is
formulated.[85]
On the basis
of a careful
analysis of
this passage
I have
argued in my
book Totus
Tuus that
the Pope's
teaching on
consecration
or
entrustment
to Mary
forms an
important
component of
his
"ordinary
magisterium"[86]and
that he has
brought this
doctrine to
a new level
of
importance.
I believe
that a
similar case
may be made
for his
teaching on
Mary's
altogether
unique role
in the work
of our
redemption
and even for
his use of
the term
Coredemptrix.
I would
certainly
not argue
that his use
of the word
Coredemptrix
occurs in
papal
documents of
the highest
teaching
authority or
that he has
proclaimed
the doctrine
or used the
word in the
most solemn
manner. I do
believe,
however,
that my
presentation
here and in
the other
essays that
I have
written on
this topic
demonstrates
beyond the
shadow of a
doubt that
the Holy
Father's
teaching on
Mary's
unique
collaboration
in and
contribution
to the work
of our
redemption
has brought
the teaching
to a new
clarity and
is an
unmistakable
component of
his ordinary
magisterium
-- precisely
on the basis
of the
second
criterion
indicated in
Lumen
Gentium #25,
the
frequency
with which
he has
proposed
this
doctrine. I
will go
further and
argue that
six
instances of
his use of
the term
Coredemptrix
to
characterize
Our Lady's
collaboration
in the work
of our
redemption
--
especially
in the light
of previous
magisterial
usage -- do
not deserve
to be
cavalierly
dismissed as
"marginal
[and]
therefore
devoid of
doctrinal
weight".[87]
I am
grateful to
Father
Ignazio
Calabuig,
O.S.M., one
of the
signers of
the
Czestochowa
Declaration
and
President of
the
Pontifical
Faculty
Marianum,
and his
colleagues
who have
recently
acknowledged
that my
study of the
use of the
term
Coredemptrix
published in
Maria
Corredentrice:
Storia e
Teologia I
was done
with
praiseworthy
precision
and clearly
indicates
that the
title is not
proscribed
and is
susceptible
of a correct
reading. I
still
respectfully
disagree
with them,
however,
when they
state that
the word
occurs only
in documents
of a
non-magisterial
character.[88]
While
granting
that five of
Pope John
Paul II's
usages of
the term
were passing
references,
I do not
believe that
these should
be
undervalued
any more
than the
three usages
by Roman
Congregations
at the
beginning of
the last
century or
the three
usages by
Pope Pius
XI. These
are a
testimony to
the Church's
living
tradition
and to the
legitimate
employment
of the term.
What I wish
to present
here as a
conclusion
and
recapitulation
of this
study,
however, is
a very
deliberate
use of the
terminology
of
Coredemption
by Pope John
Paul II in
which he
teaches the
doctrine
with clarity
and
summarizes
his teaching
by speaking
of "Mary's
role as
Coredemptrix".
On 31
January
1985, in an
address at
the Marian
shrine in
Guayaquil,
Ecuador, he
spoke thus:
Mary goes
before us
and
accompanies
us. The
silent
journey that
begins with
her
Immaculate
Conception
and passes
through the
"yes" of
Nazareth,
which makes
her the
Mother of
God, finds
on Calvary a
particularly
important
moment.
There also,
accepting
and
assisting at
the
sacrifice of
her son,
Mary is the
dawn of
Redemption;
...
Crucified
spiritually
with her
crucified
son (cf.
Gal. 2:20),
she
contemplated
with heroic
love the
death of her
God, she
"lovingly
consented to
the
immolation
of this
Victim which
she herself
had brought
forth"
(Lumen
Gentium,
58). ...
In fact, at
Calvary she
united
herself with
the
sacrifice of
her Son that
led to the
foundation
of the
Church; her
maternal
heart shared
to the very
depths the
will of
Christ "to
gather into
one all the
dispersed
children of
God" (Jn.
11:52).
Having
suffered for
the Church,
Mary
deserved to
become the
Mother of
all the
disciples of
her Son, the
Mother of
their unity.
...
The Gospels
do not tell
us of an
appearance
of the risen
Christ to
Mary.
Nevertheless,
as she was
in a special
way close to
the Cross of
her Son, she
also had to
have a
privileged
experience
of his
Resurrection.
In fact,
Mary's role
as
Coredemptrix
did not
cease with
the
glorification
of her
Son.[89]
This excerpt
from the
Holy
Father's
homily
constitutes
in itself a
magnificent
catechesis
on the
various ways
in which
Mary
collaborated
in the work
of our
redemption.
Let us note
how
carefully
the Pope
develops
this theme.
1. First he
underscores
that Mary's
cooperation
with God's
plan for our
salvation
actually
began with
Mary's
Immaculate
Conception.
He created
her full of
grace
precisely in
view of the
role which
he had
predestined
for her.
This gift of
being
totally
transformed
by grace
from the
first moment
of her
existence in
her mother's
womb was so
that her
cooperation
with God's
designs
would be
unimpeded by
the pull of
the flesh.
As he said
so
beautifully
on 29 May
1996,
"Christ is
all holy by
virtue of
the grace
that in his
humanity
derives from
the divine
person: Mary
is all holy
by virtue of
the grace
received by
the merits
of the
Saviour."[90]
2. Next he
points out
that her
collaboration
becomes
deliberate
and explicit
in her
response to
the angel:
"Let it be
done to me
according to
your word"
(Lk. 1:38).
As he was
later to
declare in
his
Encyclical
Letter
Evangelium
Vitć, "The
'yes' spoken
on the day
of the
Annunciation
reaches full
maturity on
the day of
the
Cross"[91]
3. Then the
Pope
delineates
Mary's
interior
dispositions
on Calvary.
He describes
her as
"accepting
and
assisting at
the
sacrifice of
her son" and
cites here
the classic
text of the
Second
Vatican
Council
about how
Mary
"lovingly
consented to
the
immolation
of this
Victim which
she herself
had brought
forth"
(Lumen
Gentium,
58). He
would
present this
reality in
his
catechesis
of 2 April
1997 by
stating that
The Council
text also
stresses
that her
consent to
Jesus'
immolation
is not
passive
acceptance
but a
genuine act
of love, by
which she
offers her
Son as a
"victim" of
expiation
for the sins
of all
humanity.[92]
4. Integral
to her
offering of
Jesus as
victim to
the Father
is her
offering of
herself in
union with
him. The
Holy Father
stresses
that Mary
"united
herself with
the
sacrifice of
her Son that
led to the
foundation
of the
Church".
Thus he
underscores
the fact
that, though
secondary
and
subordinate
to Jesus'
all-sufficient
sacrifice,
Mary's
sacrifice
cannot be
separated
from that of
her son. We
have seen
how
beautifully
he
recapitulated
this idea in
his
catechesis
of 17
September
1997
utilizing
the same
scripture
text which
he used in
his homily
in
Guayaquil:
The
Evangelist
himself, by
saying that
Jesus had to
die "to
gather into
one the
children of
God who are
scattered
abroad" (Jn.
11:52),
indicates
the Church's
birth as the
fruit of the
redemptive
sacrifice
with which
Mary is
maternally
associated.[93]
5. Precisely
because Mary
is a
co-offerer
of the
sacrifice of
Calvary,
John Paul II
describes
her as
"crucified
spiritually
with her
crucified
son". This
may at first
seem to be a
shocking
assertion,
even an
exaggeration,
until the
Pope
provides us
with his
point of
reference,
Saint Paul's
bold
declaration
to the
Galatians:
"I have been
crucified
with Christ"
(2:20). If
the Apostle
of the
Gentiles can
say this of
himself and
invite us to
be imitators
of him (cf.
I Cor. 4:16;
Phil. 3:17),
how much
more can
this be
attributed
to Mary, the
"New Eve,"
she who
collaborates
with Jesus
in bringing
forth the
Church? The
Pope
presented
the reality
of Mary's
co-suffering
with Christ
in order to
bring forth
the Church
in terms of
Revelation
12:2 on 17
September
1997 when he
stated that
On Calvary,
Mary united
herself to
the
sacrifice of
her Son and
made her own
maternal
contribution
to the work
of
salvation,
which took
the form of
labour
pains, the
birth of the
new
humanity.[94]
I submit
that all of
the
doctrinal
richness of
the numerous
texts we
have
explored
above is
neatly
synthesized
by the Pope
in his
reference to
Mary's "role
as
Coredemptrix"
and that the
homily at
Guayaquil,
far from
being
"marginal
[and]
therefore
devoid of
doctrinal
weight" is a
magisterial
text of
notable
value.
Laus
Cordibus
Jesu
Virginisque
Matris Eius
KEY TO
ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Acta
Apostolicć
Sedis (1909
-- ).
Flannery
Austin
Flannery,
O.P., ed.,
Vatican
Council II:
The
Conciliar
and Post
Conciliar
Documents
(Collegeville,
MN:
Liturgical
Press,
1975).
Foundations
I Mark I.
Miravalle,
S.T.D.,
(ed.), Mary
--
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix,
Advocate --
Theological
Foundations
-- Towards a
Papal
Definition?
(Santa
Barbara, CA:
Queenship
Publishing,
1995).
Foundations
II Mark I.
Miravalle,
S.T.D.,
(ed.), Mary
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix,
Advocate,
Theological
Foundations
II: Papal,
Pneumatological,
Ecumenical
(Santa
Barbara, CA:
Queenship
Publishing
Company,
1997).
Inseg
Insegnamenti
di Giovanni
Paolo II, I
(1978 )
(Cittŕ del
Vaticano:
Libreria
Editrice
Vaticana,
1979 ).
MCat Pope
John Paul
II,
Theotókos -
Woman,
Mother,
Disciple: A
Catechesis
on Mary,
Mother of
God with a
Foreword by
Eamon R.
Carroll,
O.Carm,
S.T.D.
(Boston:
Pauline
Books and
Media,
2000).
MMC Arthur
Burton
Calkins, "Il
Mistero di
Maria
Corredentrice
nel
Magistero
Pontificio"
in Autori
Vari, Maria
Corredentrice:
Storia e
Teologia I
(Frigento
[AV]: Casa
Mariana
Editrice
«Bibliotheca
Corredemptionis
B. V. Marić»
Studi e
Ricerche 1,
1998)
141-220
Messages
Messages of
John Paul
II: Servant
of Truth
(Boston: St.
Paul
Editions,
1979).
OR
L'Osservatore
Romano,
daily
Italian
edition.
ORE
L'Osservatore
Romano,
weekly
edition in
English.
First number
= cumulative
edition
number;
second
number =
page.
Totus Tuus
Arthur
Burton
Calkins,
Totus Tuus:
John Paul
II's Program
of Marian
Consecration
and
Entrustment
(New
Bedford, MA:
Academy of
the
Immaculate
"Studies and
Texts," No.
1, 1992).
FOOTNOTES
[1] The
Second
Vatican
Council's
Dogmatic
Constitution
on Divine
Revelation
Dei Verbum
(henceforth
referred to
as DV) #8
(Flannery
754).
[2] DV #10
(Flannery
755).
[3] Cf. The
Second
Vatican
Council's
Dogmatic
Constitution
on the
Church Lumen
Gentium
(henceforth
referred to
as LG)
#18-25.
[4] "Il
Mistero di
Maria
Corredentrice
nel
Magistero
Pontificio"
in Autori
Vari, Maria
Corredentrice:
Storia e
Teologia I
(Frigento
[AV]: Casa
Mariana
Editrice
«Bibliotheca
Corredemptionis
B. V.
Mariae»
Studi e
Ricerche 1,
1998)
141-220.
Henceforth
referred to
as MMC. Cf.
Key to
Abbreviations
on the last
page.
[5] S.
Tommaso
Teologo:
Ricerche in
occasione
dei due
centenari
accademici
(Cittŕ del
Vaticano:
Libreria
Editrice
Vaticana
"Studi
Tomistici
#59," 1995)
320-335. An
Italian
translation
entitled "Il
Cuore di
Maria
Corredentrice
nel
Magistero di
papa
Giovanni
Paolo II"
was
published in
Corredemptrix:
Annali
Mariani 1996
del
Santuario
dell'Addolorata
(Castelpetroso,
Isernia,
1997)
97-114.
[6] "Pope
John Paul
II's
Teaching on
Marian
Coredemption,"
Miles
Immaculatć
XXXII
(Luglio/Dicembre
1996)
474-508.
[7]
Foundations
II 113-147.
[8]
"'Towards
Another
Marian
Dogma?' A
Response to
Father
Angelo
Amato,"
Marianum LIX
(1997)
159-167. An
Italian
translation
under the
title of
"Verso
un'altro
Dogma
Mariano?"
was
published in
Eco del
Santuario
dell'Addolorata
(N. 3,
Maggio-Giugno
1998) 6-12.
[9] Angelo
Amato,
S.D.B.,
"Verso Un
Altro Dogma
Mariano?",
Marianum
LVIII (1996)
229-232.
[10] "The
Case for New
Marian
Titles,"
Soul 49, No.
1
(January-February
1998) 20-21,
27;
"Correcting
Misleading
Impressions,"
Soul 49, No.
2
(March-April
1998) 22-23,
27; "Zeroing
in on the
Term
Coredemptrix,"
Soul 49, No.
3 (May-June
1998) 26-27.
[11] "A
Response to
the
Declaration
of the
Commission
of the
Pontifical
International
Marian
Academy" in
Mark I.
Miravalle,
S.T.D.,
(ed.),
Contemporary
Insights on
a Fifth
Marian
Dogma; Mary
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix,
Advocate:
Theological
Foundations
III (Santa
Barbara, CA:
Queenship
Publishing
Company,
2000)
125-134.
Unfortunately
the last
paragraph on
p. 134 was
changed
without my
permission.
The first of
these
articles was
also
translated
into German
and the
others were
summarized
in Paul
Maria Sigl,
Die Frau
Aller
Völker:
Miterlöserin,
Mittlerin,
Fürsprecherin
(Goldach,
Schweiz:
Schmid-Fehr,
1998)
95-101.
[12]
"Amorosamente
consenziente
al
sacrificio
del Figlio:
Maria
Corredentrice
nei discorsi
di Giovanni
Paolo II,"
Madre di Dio
67, N° 11
(Novembre
1999) 28-29.
[13] LG #25.
For a
further
discussion
on how the
ordinary
magisterium
of the
Supreme
Pontiff may
be
recognized,
cf. Arthur
Burton
Calkins,
Totus Tuus:
John Paul
II's Program
of Marian
Consecration
and
Entrustment
(New
Bedford, MA:
Academy of
the
Immaculate,
third
printing
1997)
266-269.
[14] LG #54.
[15]
Giovanni
Paolo II,
Maria Madre
di Cristo e
della
Chiesa:
Catechesi
mariane a
cura e
commento del
Cardinale
Vincenzo
Fagiolo
(Casale
Monferrato
[AL];
Edizioni
Piemme,
1998) 5 (my
trans.).
[16] By his
treatment of
"maternal
mediation"
in his
Encyclical
Letter
Redemptoris
Mater
(#38-50) he
had already
put the
spotlight on
a theme that
many
post-conciliar
Mariologists
had
consigned to
past
history. Cf.
Totus Tuus
180-188.
[17] Cf.
Michael
O'Carroll,
C.S.Sp.,
Theotokos: A
Theological
Encyclopedia
of the
Blessed
Virgin Mary
(Wilmington,
DE: Michael
Glazier,
Inc.;
Dublin:
Dominican
Publications,
1982) 308.
[18] Cf.
Michael
O'Carroll,
C.S.Sp.,
"Mary's
Mediation:
Vatican II
and John
Paul II" in
Virgo Liber
Verbi:
Miscellanea
di studi in
onore di P.
Giuseppe M.
Besutti,
O.S.M.
(Rome:
Edizioni
«Marianum»,
1991) 543;
Theotokos
352. In the
latter
article
Father
O'Carroll
gives the
number of
Father
asking for a
statement on
Mary's
mediation as
382.
[19] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995)
1369-1370
[ORE
1421:13;
MCat 51-52].
Italics my
own.
[20]
Giovanni
Paolo II,
Maria nel
Mistero di
Cristo e
della Chiesa
(Vatican
City:
Libreria
Editrice
Vaticana,
1998). The
Italian
texts are
also
reproduced
in Cardinal
Fagiolo's
volume cited
above with
his
commentary.
The first
four volumes
in the
series on
the Creed
are devoted
respectively
to the
Father,
Jesus
Christ, the
Holy Spirit
and the
Church.
[21] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995)
934-935 [ORE
1414:11;
MCat 25-27].
[22] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995) 1123
[ORE
1417:11;
MCat 34].
[23] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995)
1318-1319
[ORE
1420:11;
MCat 45-46].
[24] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
621-622 [ORE
1487:7; MCat
185-186].
[25] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995) 1369;
ORE 1421:13;
MCat 51.
[26] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
853-854 [ORE
1435:3; MCat
75].
[27] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
10 [ORE
1423:11;
MCat 54].
[28] Cf. my
treatment of
this theme
in "Mary as
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix
and Advocate
in the
Contemporary
Roman
Liturgy,"
Foundations
I 55-57.
[29] Cf. my
treatment of
this theme
in MMC
179-18.
[30] Cf. my
treatment in
"Pope John
Paul II's
Teaching on
Marian
Coredemption,"
Foundations
II 128-132.
[31] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
565 [ORE
1513:11;
MCat 246].
[32] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
116 [ORE
1426:11;
MCat 62].
[33] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
1392 [ORE
1444:11;
MCat 96].
[34] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
750-751 [ORE
1489:11,
MCat
189-190].
[35] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
622 [ORE
1487:7; MCat
186].
[36] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
35 [ORE
1500:7; MCat
208].
Italics my
own.
[37] Cf. my
treatment of
this matter
in Totus
Tuus
162-168.
[38] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
56 [ORE
1502:7; MCat
210].
Italics my
own.
[39] For the
magisterial
background
and
foundation
for this
analogy, cf.
Totus Tuus
85-86,
102-105.
[40]
Flannery
416.
[41] Inseg
XVIII/1
(1995) 731;
AAS LXXXVII
(1995) 520
[ORE
1385:XIX].
[42] Inseg
XIX/2 (1996)
491-492 [ORE
1461:11;
MCat 141].
[43] Inseg
VI/1 (1983)
1136 [ORE
783:1].
[44] OR 6
settembre
1996, p. 4
[ORE
1461:8].
[45] Stefano
M. Manelli,
All
Generations
Shall Call
Me Blessed:
Biblical
Mariology
trans. Peter
Damian
Fehlner,
F.I. (New
Bedford, MA:
Academy of
the
Immaculate,
1995)
235-250.
[46] Ignazio
M. Calabuig,
O.S.M., "La
Vergine
offerente,
modello
della Chiesa
che offre e
si offre:
Spunti dalla
liturgia
romana," in
Ermanno M.
Toniolo,
O.S.M.
(ed.), Maria
e
L'Eucaristia:
"Fine d'Anno
con Maria"
20 (Rome:
Centro di
Cultura
Mariana
«Madre della
Chiesa»,
2000)
259-296.
[47] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995) 935
[ORE
1414:11;
MCat 26]. On
St.
Bernard's
interpretation
of the
presentation,
cf. Calabuig
272-281.
[48] Cf.
Calabuig
265-281.
[49] Inseg
VI/1 (1983)
1136-1137
[ORE 783:1].
Italics my
own.
[50] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
25, 26 [ORE
1476:3].
Italics my
own.
[51] Cf. my
treatment of
this theme
in MMC
189-212.
[52] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
29, 30 [ORE
1474:11;
MCat 161,
162].
Italics my
own except
for under
and with
him.
[53] Inseg
XIX/2 (1996)
1046-1047,
1048; [ORE
1472:11;
MCat
158-159,
160].
Italics my
own.
[54]
Flannery
417. Italics
my own. I
have changed
the word
"associated"
to
"associating".
[55] The
expression
quantum ad
se
pertinebat
occurs in
his Letter
Inter
Sodalicia of
22 May 1918
[AAS 10
(1918)
181-182].
Some of the
language of
the former
document
[non sine
divino
consilio,
Filium
immolavit]
is
incorporated
into the
text of
Lumen
Gentium #58,
but without
being cited
in the
footnote.
Cf. my
commentary
on this text
in MMC
191-193.
[56] I have
treated
these two
dimensions
separately
in MMC
188-212 and
in my study
in
Foundations
II 132-140.
[57] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
621 [ORE
1487:7; MCat
185].
[58] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
572 [ORE
1486:11;
MCat 183].
Italics my
own.
[59] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
297 [ORE
1508:7; MCat
232].
[60] OR 24
febbraio
2000, p. 7
[ORE
1632:11].
Italics my
own.
[61] Cf. my
treatment of
the
sacrifice of
Mary's
maternal
Heart in MMC
213-218;
Foundations
II 140-144.
For a more
detailed
study of the
Heart of
Mary as a
symbol of
her
collaboration
in the work
of our
salvation,
cf. my
article,
"The Heart
of Mary as
Coredemptrix
in the
Magisterium
of Pope John
Paul II" in
S. Tommaso
Teologo:
Ricerche in
occasione
dei due
centenari
accademici
(Cittŕ del
Vaticano:
Libreria
Editrice
Vaticana
«Studi
Tomistici
#59», 1995)
320-335; An
Italian
trans. "Il
Cuore di
Maria
Corredentrice
nel
Magistero di
papa
Giovanni
Paolo II"
was
published in
Corredemptrix:
Annali
Mariani 1996
del
Santuario
dell'Addolorata
(Castelpetroso,
Isernia,
1997)
97-114.
[62] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
1391 [ORE
1444:11;
MCat 95].
[63]
Collection
of Masses of
the Blessed
Virgin Mary,
Vol. I:
Sacramentary
(New York:
Catholic
Book
Publishing
Co., 1992)
117;
original
Latin text
in Collectio
Missarum de
Beata Maria
Virgine I
(Cittŕ del
Vaticano:
Libreria
Editrice
Vaticana,
1987) 49.
Italics my
own.
[64] On the
concept of
Mary as
associate or
partner in
the work of
salvation
according to
the liturgy,
cf. my study
in
Foundations
I 52-54. On
this same
concept
according to
the
magisterium,
cf. my
studies in
MMC 167-179
and in
Foundations
II 1126-127.
[65] Roman
Missal,
Preface of
the Sacred
Heart of
Jesus.
[66] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
1392 [ORE
1444:11;
MCat 96].
Italics my
own.
[67] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
331 [ORE
1509:11;
MCat 234].
Italics my
own.
[68] Cf. my
article on
"Mary's
Presence in
the Mass,"
Homiletic &
Pastoral
Review
XCVII, No.
10 (July
1997) 8-15.
[69] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
1344 [ORE
1446:6].
[70] Inseg
XVIII/2
(1995) 54
[ORE
1399:3].
[71] With
apologies to
Father Aidan
Nichols,
O.P. I would
put his
proposal of
"The
Redemptive
Collaboratrix"
among these.
Cf. his
article "Von
Balthasar
and the
Coredemption"
in Mary at
the Foot of
the Cross:
Acts of the
International
Symposium on
Marian
Coredemption
(New
Bedford, MA:
Academy of
the
Immaculate,
2001) 314.
[72] Cf.
Mark I.
Miravalle,
S.T.D.,
Mary:
Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix,
Advocate
(Santa
Barbara, CA:
Queenship
Publishing,
1993) xv;
MMC 147-148;
Foundations
II 117-118.
[73] Cf.
Juniper B.
Carol,
O.F.M., "Our
Lady's
Coredemption,"
Mariology 2
(Milwaukee:
Bruce
Publishing
Company,
1957)
398-400;
René
Laurentin,
Le titre de
Corédemptrice:
Étude
historique
(Rome:
Éditions
«Marianum»,
1951) 15-16;
Gabriele
Roschini,
O.S.M.,
Problematica
sulla
Corredenzione
(Rome:
Edizioni
«Marianum»,
1969) 15-17.
[74] Cf. MMC
149-151.
[75] Cf. MMC
151-153.
[76] Cf.
Alessandro
M.
Apollonio,
F.I., Il
"calvario
teologico"
della
Corredenzione
mariana
(Castelpetroso:
Casa Mariana
Editrice,
1999) 7-8.
[77] Cf. my
treatment in
Foundations
II 119 and
MMC 155-156.
[78] Cf. my
article
"'Towards
Another
Marian
Dogma?' A
Response to
Father
Angelo
Amato,"
Marianum LIX
(1997)
163-165.
[79] I have
enumerated
five of
these
instances in
Foundations
II 121-124
and in MMC
161-166.
Since then I
have found a
sixth
instance in
an address
to the sick
and those
who serve
them on 24
March 1990
in which the
Pope
describes
Mary as the
"Coredemptrix
of the human
race next to
her Son"
[Corredentrice
del genere
umano
accanto al
suo Figlio]
in Inseg
XIII/1
(1990) 743.
[80] Inseg
IV/1 (1981)
896; V/1
(1982) 91;
XI/2 (1988)
1216.
[81] OR 4
Giugno 1997,
p. 10 [ORE
1494:12].
[82] OR 4
Giugno 1997,
p. 10 [ORE
1497:10].
[83] OR 4
Giugno 1997,
p. 10-11
[ORE
1498:9-10].
[84] OR 4
Giugno 1997,
p. 10 [ORE
1497:10].
[85]
Flannery
379. I have
added the
numbers.
[86] Cf.
Totus Tuus
266-269.
[87] The
Italian
speaks of
documenti
pontifici
secondari, e
quindi senza
peso
dottrinale.
[88] Ignazio
M. Calabuig,
O.S.M. e il
Comitato di
redazione
della
rivista
Marianum,
"Riflessione
sulla
richiesta
della
definizione
dogmatica di
«Maria
corredentrice,
mediatrice,
avvocata»,"
Marianum LXI
(1999) 157
n. 50.
[89] Inseg
VIII/1
(1985)
318-319 [ORE
876:7];
Italics my
own.
[90] Inseg
XIX/1 (1996)
1392 [ORE
1444:11;
MCat 96].
Italics my
own.
[91] Inseg
XVIII/1
(1995) 731;
AAS LXXXVII
(1995) 520
[ORE
1385:XIX].
[92] Inseg
XX/1 (1997)
572 [ORE
1486:11;
MCat 183].
[93] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
331 [ORE
1509:11;
MCat 234].
[94] Inseg
XX/2 (1997)
331 [ORE
1509:11;
MCat 234].
The above
paper first
appeared in
Mary at the
Foot of the
Cross - II
(New
Bedford, MA:
Academy of
the
Immaculate,
2002 and is
reproduced
with
permission.
|
Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins