DRAFT
OF A CHAPTER
Charles
P. Poole, Jr.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Maximalist and Minimalist Approaches
3. True Devotion to Mary
4. The Glories of Mary
5. Proposed Dogma of Mary Coredemptrix
6. The Magisterium
Speaks
7.
8. Marian Encyclicals
9. Concluding Comment
Appendix
1. INTRODUCTION
The
veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary has always been one of the favorite
devotions of Catholics. In the third century the Eastern Church began calling
Mary by the title Theotokos, which means “God Bearer“ in
Greek. In the fifth century Nestorius objected to this title for Mary because he
claimed that Jesus was two persons, a human person and a divine person, and
Mary was the mother of the human person, but not of the divine person. The third Ecumenical Council held at
This
veneration is very widespread throughout the Church at the present time, both
in the (Western) Latin and in the (Eastern) Orthodox Churches. It received
strong encouragement from Pope John Paul II, support which continues under our
present Pontiff Benedict XVI.
The main manner in which this devotion manifests itself in the West is
in the widespread and often habitual recitation of the Rosary. In October 2002
Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Letter The Rosary of the Virgin Mary
(Rosarium Virginis Mariae) in which he proposed a fourth set of five mysteries,
called the Luminous Mysteries, to provide us with five additionale events in the life
of Christ on which to meditate while reciting the Rosary. Most of the active Catholics
that I have encountered during my lifetime have been very devoted to Our Lady. This does
not in any manner detract from their adoration of Jesus since many of these
same Catholics are regular attendees at daily Mass, and participants in
Perpetual Adoration ministries.
2. MAXIMALIST
At
the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), during the deliberations involving the
Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (On the Church), there were heated debates by
two opposing viewpoints concerning the "Marian
question," or how to express the role appropriate for Mary in the devotional
life of the Church. Cyril Vollert, in his book A Theology of Mary (Herder & Herder,
1965), tells us that at the Council there was a maximalist
trend seeking “to exalt Mary more and more, to emphasize her privileges and
functions,” a tendency that can lead to the “danger of cultivating an
independent mariology that obscures relations with
the rest of theology.” The minimalist
trend “fears exaggerations and insists on leaving to Mary her place as a
creature, a redeemed daughter of Adam, a member of the Church.” Those who espoused this trend wished to
position mariology within
the context of overall theology “around the central theme Mary and the
Church.”
An
example of a maximalist type prayer is the Memorare, composed by St. Bernard (d. 1153), which was popular in the
pre-Vatican II Church:
Remember
O most gracious Virgin Mary! that never was it known
that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, and sought thy
intercession, was left unaided. Inspired
with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother! To thee I come; before thee I stand, sinful
and sorrowful. Oh Mother of the Word
Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but, in thy mercy, hear and answer us. Amen.
In
technical theological language the worship of God is designated latria, and the
veneration of a saint is called dulia [Ad. Tanquerey,
Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae,
Tomus II, Desclée et Socii, 1922]. In this terminology devotion to Mary is
called hyperdulia, a very high form of veneration. The minimalist adherents worry that the
excesses of the maximalist partisans can lead some of
the faithful to practice a type of devotion to Mary that has the appearance of hypolatria,
or a low form of adoration. In recent
decades the magisterium has often called attention to
the christological aspects of marian devotions, by emphasizing, for example, that
most of the Mysteries of the Rosary are a series of meditations on events in
the life of Christ. Proponents of the
proposed dogma “Mary the Coredemptrix” sometimes give
the impression of leaning too far toward hypolatria. The problems associated with this latter maximalist trend will be clarified in the next few sections
which will examine the eighteenth century books by Louis De Montfort
and Alphonsus Liguori which
are favorites of many devotees of Mary, and a collection of essays advocating a
proposed Coredemptrix dogma.
3.
St.
Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort
(1673-1716), more popularly known as Louis De Montfort, published a 172-page book entitled True Devotion to Mary which
is representative of the maximalist position. Pope
John Paul II took his motto Totus Tuus
(entirely yours) from De Montfort. In the introductory sections of the 1941
edition of this book (Tan Books and Publishers, 1985) it is mentioned that
Louis De Montfort explains thoroughly the path “Ad Iesum per Mariam” (to Jesus
through Mary), and that “this devotion
leads to a permanent disposition of living and acting habitually in dependence
on Mary.” In his preface De Montfort states “De
Maria numquam satis”
(concerning Mary there is never enough). With this work, his other books, the
Little Crown of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and further activities, during his
lifetime De Montfort was very instrumental in
bringing about a widespread promulgation of devotion to the Virgin Mary.
De Montfort begins by putting devotion to Mary in perspective:
“I avow, with all the Church, that Mary, being a mere creature that has come
from the hands of the Most High, is in comparison with his Infinite Majesty,
less than an atom, or rather she is nothing at all, because only He is.” He then makes a number of rather extremist
statements that are listed in the Appendix.
These maximalist sounding statements are put
into perspective at several places in the book where the theme “Ad Jesum per Mariam”
is stressed. Thus Sect. 61 begins with
the sentence “Jesus Christ our Savior, true God and true Man, ought to be the
last end of all devotions, else they are false and delusive,” and Sect. 61
continues “If, then, we establish solid devotion to our Blessed Lady, it is
only to establish more perfectly devotion to Jesus Christ, and to provide an
easy and secure means for finding Jesus Christ.” Section 120 begins “All our
perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus
Christ,” and the next section explains that “A perfect and entire consecration
of oneself to the Blessed Virgin” consists in “giving ourselves to Our Lady, in
order to belong entirely to Jesus through her.” This thought continues in Sect. 211: the
“greatest good which Mary procures for her faithful clients is to intercede for
them with her Son, to appease Him by her prayers, to unite them to Him in a
most intimate union.”
4. THE GLORIES OF
In
the year 1750 St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787) published a 420 page book entitled The Glories of Mary which also
represents the maximalist tradition. He wrote this book “so that devout souls may,
with little trouble and little expense, read of the glories of Mary, and be
inflamed with love for Mary” (xxiii). He is convinced that those who truly love
Mary “never lose an opportunity, in public or in private, of enkindling in the
hearts of others the flame of love towards Our Lady with which they themselves
burn.” His great enthusiasm leads him to
make frequent use of superlatives, overstatements, and hyperboles which can be
easily misinterpreted. The Appendix
contains a number of these overstatements which a minimalist would consider as expressing extremist
opinions.
On
page 79 St. Alphonsus expresses disappointment that:
“The proposition, that all the graces that we receive from the Lord come to us
through Mary, does not please a certain modern author.” This modern author “seems to begrudge her
that glory which was given to Mary by Saint Germanus,
Saint Anselm, Saint John Damscene, Saint Antonius, Saint Bernardine of
Siena, the venerable Abbot Celles, and so many other
learned men who find no difficulty in maintaining, by force of the reasons just
mentioned, that Mary’s intercession is not only useful but necessary.” In actuality almost everyone in the
minimalist camp would object to the proposition in question.
St. Alphonsus also makes several qualifying statements which
mitigate some of his more exaggerated claims.
On page 24 he mentions: “Whoever hopes to be a child of this great
mother must first abandon sin.” On this
same page he reports that “Our Blessed Lady told St. Bridget that she was the mother of
sinners, provided they were willing to repent.”
On page 83 there is the conclusion of the Jesuit theologian Francisco
Suarez “Mary’s intercession is not only useful to us, but necessary. Not absolutely necessary, as we have already
said, because only the mediation of Christ is absolutely necessary. But morally necessary, because the Church
feels, with Saint Bernard, that God has determined that no grace be given
except through Mary’s hands.”
In
this work St. Alphonsus gathered together an
incredible number of quotations from many saints and other sacred writers
extolling the glories of Mary. The
thirty most cited individuals, with the number of pages on which their
citations appear, are as follows:
St. Bernard, 121
St. Bonaventure,
89 Francisco
Suarez, 15
St. Bridget, 66 St.
Ildephonsus, 15
St. Anselm, 44 Archangel
Gabriel, 14
St. Bernardine of
Richard of St.
Lawrence, 43 St. Elizabeth, 20
St. Thomas
Aquinas, 37 Bl. Raymond Jordano, 19
St. Antonius, 30 Adam,
17
St. Germanus, 27 Abbot Rupert, 14
David, 25
St. Ambrose , 20 Denis the Carthusian, 11
Some representative examples of these quotations are
listed in the appendix.
5. PROPOSED DOGMA OF
There
is a movement in the Church which advocates the promulgating of a
dogma proclaiming Mary as the Coredemptrix, based on
her alleged coredemptive collaboration with Jesus Christ the
Redeemer. The case for such a promulgation is presented in the 1996 book Mary Coredemptrix,
Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations II:
Papal, Pneumatological, and Ecumenical (Queenship Publ. Co. 1996) which
contains several essays on the subject.
In
the first essay Mark I. Miravalle
assumes the veracity of the proposed dogma when he asserts: “we are obliged to acknowledge the revealed
relevance of the theme intrinsic to the
theme of the redemptive incarnation: the revelation of Mary Coredemptrix,
the woman with the Redemptive Incarnation, and the subsequent aspects of
her redemptive and maternal mediation, as Mediatrix
and Advocate (italics, bold facing, and capitalization from the
original).” Miravalle
urges the proclamation of the Coredemption as a requirement to bring about ‘full
doctrinal development’ which he claims has not yet been achieved. He says “The whole truth about Mary in her subordinate
Maternal Mediation, far from being an obstacle to ecumenical activity, is an
essential doctrinal revelation that demands theological attention and
dialogue”, and he continues further on “A precise
dogmatic formulation would also distinguish the secondary and subordinate coredemptive role of Mary from the unique redemptive
triumph of the Savior, a distinction sometimes perceived as lacking in our
theology and piety by other Christians.”
On this same page John Cardinal O’Connor is quoted as maintaining that
“a formal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology that
other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately
between Mary’s unique association with the Redemption and the redemptive power
exercised by Christ alone.” These
viewpoints, in my judgment, are unrealistic. The aim of the maximalists
is to obtain a dogma which enhances the role of Mary in Redemption, and a Coredemption dogma would indeed have the effect of
considerably enhancing this role.
Unfortunately any qualifying statements concerning secondary and
subordinate aspects of the role of Mary relative to that of Christ would have
very little effect in alleviating the inevitable intensification of anxiety
among other Christians as they perceive us moving further and further along the
path from hyperdulia toward hypolatria.
In the next chapter Rev. Stefano Maria Manelli, F.F.I. clarifies the significance of the three titles Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate encompassed by the proposed dogma. Coredemptrix refers to what is called objective redemption, or redemptio in acto primo, “the primary act of acquisition of redemptive grace, historically linked to the life, passion and death of Christ and of his mother.” Mediatrix refers to subjective redemption, or redemptio in acto secundo, “the application of the redemptive grace to individual souls, that is the mediation of all graces to be distributed to each man who desires to be saved and to be made holy along the course of centuries and millennia, until the end of time.” The title Advocate is related to Mary’s roles as Mediatrix of Defense, Auxiliatrix, Comforter of the Afflicted, Help of Christians, and Protectress of her Children. Many of the passages that we have quoted from Louis De Montfort and by Alphonsus Liguori can be classified into these three categories, and we will give three examples from the latter. The quotation from page 51 of The Glories of Mary “God has disposed that all who are to be saved must be saved through Mary” fits the category Coredemptrix, the citation on page 90 “All graces should pass through Mary, as through a channel of mercy” corresponds to her role as Mediatrix, and that on page 397 “Feel confident that if you persevere in true devotion to Mary, your salvation will be assured” represents Mary as Advocate.
In
the fifth chapter Josef Seifert discusses ‘five’ Marian Dogmata. He mentions that the first two, the
proclamation at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431 that Mary is truly the
Mother of God, and the declaration of her perpetual virginity, “are quite
centrally connected with the divinity of Jesus and with the truth of his
incarnation.” The next two, the
proclamation of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1584, and of the
Assumption by Pope Pius XII in 1950, are less central to the Catholic Faith. Seifert urges the “completion” of the four
existing marian dogmas by
proclaiming the Coredemption. He claims
that “A dogma on Mary’s coredemptive role would thus
flow necessarily from the preceding dogmas on the need for free cooperation,
and renew the classical Catholic teaching on justification.” This claim, to me, does not seem realistic or
convincing.
In
the final chapter Rev. Peter Damian M. Fehlner,
F.F.I, applies the three step process potuit, decet, ergo fecit (it is possible, it is fitting, hence it
happened) to argue in favor of proclaiming the Coredemptrix
dogma. In past centuries this rationale
had been applied to justify the proclamation of the doctrines of the Immaculate
Conception and the Assumption. From the
viewpoint of logic reasoning of this variety
is not very cogent.
6. THE MAGISTERIUM SPEAKS
During
the past forty years the Church has spoken out clearly and authoritatively on
the marian question, and three key documents in this
regard from the second half of the 20th century are Chapter 8 of the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium,
1964) of the Second Vatican Council, the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Paul VI Marian Devotion (Marialis Cultus, 1974), and the Encyclical Letter
of Pope John Paul II Mother of the
Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater, 1987). These documents are Christ-centered, in
contrast to the maximalist approach which is more
Mary-centered. In the next two sections
we will discuss each magisterial proclamation in turn, and then add some
concluding remarks.
7.
The
original aim of Vatican II was to issue a separate decree de Beata Virgine on
the Virgin Mary, but after some deliberation it was decided to incorporate the marian proclamation as a final Chapter
8 of Lumen Gentium.
The preface to this chapter mentions that Mary “is one with all human
beings in their need for salvation,” but “she is also hailed as a pre-eminent
and altogether singular member of the Church,” so “Taught by the Holy Spirit,
the Catholic Church honors her with filial affection and piety as a most
beloved mother.” The Council also
affirms that “The Virgin Mary is invoked by the Church under the titles of
Advocate, Auxialiatrix, Adjutrix,
and Mediatrix,” with the understanding that these
titles “neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of
Christ, the one Mediator. For no creature could ever be classed with the
Incarnate Word and Redeemer . . . The Church does not hesitate to profess
this subordinate role of Mary . . . . As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God
is a model of the Church in the matter of faith, charity, and perfect union
with Christ.”
In a
later section the Council affirms that the cult of veneration of Mary “differs
essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word,
as well as to the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Yet devotion to Mary is most favorable to this supreme cult. The Church has endorsed many forms of piety
toward the Mother of God, provided that they stay within the limits of
orthodoxy.” This section ends with the
statement “Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists
neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain vain credulity. Rather, it proceeds from true faith, by which
we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and are moved to a
filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.”
8. MARIAN ENCYCLICALS
The
Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Paul VI Marialis Cultus affirms the earlier Council declarations. Pope Paul mentions that “every authentic
development of Christian worship is necessarily followed by a fitting increase
in veneration of the Mother of the Lord . . . in harmonious subordination to
the worship of Christ.” He adds “It is
supremely fitting that exercises of piety directed toward the Virgin Mary
should express the Trinitarian and Christological note that is intrinsic and
essential to them . . . In the Virgin Mary everything is relative to Christ,
and dependent on him.” The Pope is
thinking about an eventual “union of all the baptized within a single People of
God when he says “the ecumenical aspect of Marian devotion is shown in the Catholic
Church’s desire that, without in any way detracting from the unique character
of this devotion, every care should be taken to avoid any exaggeration which
could mislead other Christian brethren about the doctrine of the Catholic
Church . . . we wish to express our confidence that devotion to the humble
handmaid of the Lord, in whom the Almighty has done great things (cf. Lk
The
encyclical Redemptoris Mater of Pope John Paul II begins with:
“The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation,” and
then it reaffirms the endorsements of Lumen
Gentium and Marialis Cultus.
The Pope seeks “to emphasize how profoundly the Catholic Church, the
Orthodox Church, and the ancient Churches of the East feel united by love and
praise of the Theotokos,” the Mother of God. The Pope mentioned that “Mary’s mediation is
intrinsically linked with her motherhood”, which highlights the claim made in
the book by Cyril Vollert, that was mentioned above,
namely that the Divine Maternity is the fundamental principle on which marian theology is based.
Vollert sums up by saying “Mary, considered
physically and physiologically, is the mother of Jesus-man; considered
theologically, she is mother of Jesus-God; considered morally, she is mother of
Jesus-Redeemer.” The Pope ends his
encyclical by asserting that the Church “sees Mary maternally present and
sharing in the many complicated problems which today beset the lives of
individuals, families and nations; she (the Church) sees her (Mary) helping the
Christian people in the constant struggle between good and evil.”
On
9. CONCLUDING COMMENT
For
the past 60 years of my life I found myself unable to develop an interest in
the Rosary or other marian devotions because my main
knowledge of these devotions came from maximalist-oriented
books and pamphlets which seemed to be based on St. Alphonsus’
dictum “Feel confident that if you persevere in true devotion to Mary, your
salvation will be assured.” The main
influence on my life has been what I read in the Bible every day, and I find little
support there for assertions of this type.
Finally, 60 years later, I have studied the maximalist
position and informed myself of the teachings of the Magisterium.
I lack enthusiasm for the former, and I have been deeply moved by, and very
much impressed by, the latter. I am,
however, disappointed by never having come across an official Church statement
pointing out excesses
of the maximalists; apparently the policy has been to
remain mute about much of what they say, and to proclaim what it behooves the
faithful to hear. Louis De Montfort is correct, we need more
emphasis on Ad Jesum
per Mariam.
I encourage all Catholics, and indeed all Christians, to follow the
advice of our recent pontiff John Paul II by developing a true devotion to the
Virgin Mother, and praying the Rosary
regularly. Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis. (Queen of Heaven, pray
for us).
APPENDIX
In
this Appendix we provide quotations from the
books by St. Louis and St. Alphonsus that were discussed earlier in the chapter.
Quotations from True
Devotion to Mary by
“Mary is necessary to God in
the sanctification of souls” #2.
God the Son “has
made Mary the treasurer of all that the Father gave Him for his
inheritance. It is by her that he
applies his merits to His Members, and that he communicates his virtues, and
distributes his graces” #2
“The most
infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic .......
is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and
indifference for Our Lady” #30.
“Devotion
to Our Blessed lady is necessary for salvation” #40.
“It
is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to
her” #40.
“It
was through Mary that the salvation of the world was begun, and it is through
Mary that it must be consummated” #49.
“All things, the
Virgin included, are subject to the empire of God: Behold, all things, and God
included, are subject to the Virgin” #76.
“Our
Lord, who is the best of sons, has divided His entire power with His holy
mother” #76.
“We have need of
a mediator with the Mediator himself (i.e., Jesus),
and it is the divine Mary who is the most capable of fulfilling that charitable
office.” #85
“No faithful
client of Mary will ever fall into heresy or illusions, at least not formal
ones” #167.
“Inasmuch as our
good works pass through the hands of Mary, they receive an augmentation of
purity, and consequently of merit, and of satisfactory and expiatory value” #172.
Quotations from the Glories
of Mary by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“To honor Mary is to gain eternal life” (Richard of
St. Lawrence, page xxiv).
“Those who make
the glories of Mary known to others are certain of salvation” (St.
Bonaventure, xxiv).
“All creatures
who serve God must also serve Mary” (St. Bernardine
of
“Since God’s kingdom consists of two elements,
justice and mercy, God decided to divide his kingdom. Justice is reserved to himself, mercy he
transmitted to Mary, ordaining that all mercies which come to human beings
should come through Mary’s hands” (John Gerson, 3).
“When the
Blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal Word in her womb, she obtained half his
kingdom” (Thomas Angelicus, 4)
“The Eternal
father gave to his Son the office of judging and punishing,
and to his Mother the office of pitying and comforting” (Ernest of Prague, 4).
“Whoever loves Mary will persevere” (St. John Berchmans, 39).
“God has
disposed that all who are to be saved must be saved through Mary” (St.
Bernard, 51)
“Mary is the channel of all our blessings” (St. Germanus, 52).
“Mary, you are
the only advocate of sinners and of the helpless” (St. Ephrem,
57).
“Jesus Christ is
the only mediator of justice ..... Mary is the mediatrix
of Grace,” 77.
“Mary’s intercession is not
only useful to us, but necessary,” 79, 83.
“God wants every
grace destined for redeemed souls to pass through Mary’s hands and be dispensed
by her,” 80
“God has determined that no grace be given except through Mary’s hands.”
“Mary is called the comediatrix
of our justification because God has committed into her hands all the graces
intended for us,” 86.
“God wants all graces to be dispensed by Mary’s
hands,” 89.
“All graces should pass through Mary, as through a
channel of mercy,” 90.
Jesus, who is
omnipotent, has also made Mary omnipotent . . . while Jesus is omnipotent by nature, Mary is omnipotent only by grace” (St. Bridget, 96).
“It is
impossible for a servant of Mary to be lost, if he faithfully honors her and
recommends himself to her,” 123.
“Just as it is
impossible for one to be saved who is not devoted to Mary and is therefore not
protected by her, so it is impossible for one who recommends himself to her and
is consequently loved by her to be lost” (St, Anselm, 124).
“To all those
who wear the Carmelite scapular, on the Saturday after their death Mary will deliver them
from purgatory” (Pope Pius XII, 132).
“Mary is the
beginning of our happiness because she obtains the pardon of our sins, the middle or means
because she obtains our perseverance in divine grace, and the end or goal
because she finally obtains paradise for us” (St. Methodius,
138).
“The great, the
special privilege of Mary is that she is all-powerful with her Son” (St.
Bonaventure, 193)
"To be the
mother of God is the greatest grace that can be conferred on a creature. It is so great, in fact, that God cannot
create a greater” (St. Bonaventure, 229).
“Why did God
deposit all the riches of his mercy into the hands of his mother unless it was
that she could dispense them to all her servants who love and honor her, and
appeal to her with confidence,” 238.
“My dear reader and
friend . . . Feel confident that if you persevere in true devotion to Mary,
your salvation will be assured,” 397.
“Receive,
my son, the scapular of your order . . . Whoever dies while wearing this will
not suffer hell-fire” (Simon Stock, Carmelite, 374).
Regina Caeli, ora pro nobis.