Aspects of Mary and the Church
through the Centuries
It is in history XE "History" ,[1]
where the actualisation of the Church becomes apparent in a twofold way: the respective
visible manifestation of her inner portrait as perceived by her own
representatives in the different epochs of time and her actual concrete
configuration in her members. The history of the Church shows the different
shifts in emphasis and the close correlation between both
aspects, idea and reality.[2]
Early
Patristic Period
The first centuries
are characterized by the image of the Church as mystery. [3]
The strong symbolical representation of this mystery is shown by the writers in images deriving from Sacred scripture, mythology, typology, and allegory.[4]
Augustine’s notion of the body of the Church as the Eucharistic Body of Christ
is particularly influential for the whole of this ecclesiology.[5]
The
Marian dimension of the patristic
ecclesiology must be seen in particular against the New Testament background
with the implications of the Pauline and Johannine
typology: Adam-Eve-Church-Mary.[6]
From this typological basis developed the Church-Mary parallel, with Mary as
the typos of the Church: “symbol,
central idea, and as it were, the summary of all that
is meant by the Church in her nature and vocation.”[7]
Augustine develops this further in that he places Mary before the Church as her
ideal image[8]
and as member of the body of Christ as part of the Church.[9]
From
the time of Constantine until the Reformation the notion of the Christian realm or imperium was in the foreground;
the populus Dei became the populus Christianus, which became a
sociological, political and cultural term.[10] The corpus
Christi mysticum, so far reserved for the
Eucharist XE "Eucharist"
, became the corpus ecclesiae mysticum[11] ; similar changes occurred in the
application of the term laoV,
now known as laity the term for those who are not part of the
clergy and the hierarchy. Although the Church was in the fore as imperatrix et domina,
her mystery character was present in the renewal movements and in the great
theological treatises of
that time.[12]
While the Church-Mary parallel continued into the
medieval period, the Marian reflection of the earlier part of this epoch,
strongly influenced by the Carolingian era, was characterized by the change
from the patristic’s predominantly
salvation-historical perspective of Mary to a more individualized,
privilege-oriented understanding of her.[13]
It was no longer the knowledge about Mary’s importance in the history XE
"History" of
salvation that stood in the foreground, but Mary’s effectiveness in the here
and now. Here we have a development from the truth of Mary’s position in the
objective work XE "Work" of salvation to her influence on the
subjective course of salvation: the Mother
of God became the Mother of the
faithful, the ancilla domini, the domina and regina nostra who in the present time fulfills
an essential task in distributing the fruits of salvation. The typology
Mary-Church is no longer seen as purely metaphorical, but, rather, Mary is the
model for the virginal-fruitful Church and the reason for the Church’s salvific efficacy
toward its members. [14]
This development remained prevalent throughout the medieval period.[15]
The
Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation
The
image of the Church as it became prevalent after the Reformation[16]
was counter reformation apologetic-oriented.[17]
Influential here in particular was Robert Bellarmine
with an ecclesiological concept, which emphasized the visible, institutional structure of the Church.[18]
Thus, in the foreground stood the Church, united in the papacy, with a strong
apologetic impetus.[19]
The division of
Christendom brought about through the Reformation in the sixteenth century
caused a setback to Marian devotion.
Against Luther’s and the other reformers’ increased distance from Catholic
Marian doctrine, the Catholic representatives pointed out the significance of
Mary in the work XE "Work" of
redemption XE "Redemption" .[20]
The Council of Trent and the post-Tridentine period,
marked by the mentioned apologetic impetus, gave rise to a new Catholic
self-confidence and a marked Marian piety; the latter was central to the
Counter-Reformation and particularly influential in strengthening the faith.
This new springtime of Mariology was vitally carried by the Marian
Congregations [established in 1563].[21]
In the ecclesiological perspective, Mary’s position remained that of being the
Mother of God and the most excellent member of Christ’s body. All gifts, graces
and divine influence proceed from Christ, the head of the Church, through Mary,
the neck, into the body of the Church.[22]
The
Age of the Enlightenment
In
the following epoch the image of the Church was affected by the impact of Deism
and Enlightenment with Rationalism, which brought about a new interpretation of
Christian teaching aimed at effacing all creedal differences.[23] The Church was to be reduced to a moral
institution through demythologising and desecrating efforts. On the one hand,
this resulted in the endeavours of a more people-oriented liturgical XE
"Liturgical"
emphasis and on the other hand a stronger clericalism emerged.
The strong apologetic orientation XE
"Orientation"
remained and was to be seen against the background of the
above-mentioned influences and political changes. [24]
The effects of the
Enlightenment on the Church were particularly felt in the area of Marian
devotion and teaching. In contrast to the more demonstrative and effusive
Catholic representation of Marian truth and devotion of the Baroque,[25] the time of Enlightenment presented a
reduction of Marian doctrine to a purely moral level of values and virtues
associated with a milieu of bourgeoisie. There is a marked descent from the
praise of Mary’s glories as Queen of
Heaven to her being a model character of a mother’s love and concern for
home duties. This Marian content, rationalized and reduced to mere morality and
ethics by many Church authorities, was kept alive to a significant degree in
popular piety.[26]
From
the Period of Romanticism to the Nineteenth Century
The
influence of the Romantic affected the concept of the Church in a way which
brought again to the fore the inner reality of the Church and its organic XE
"Organic" unity XE "Unity" .[27]
Through the impact of “modernism XE "Modernism" ” and the counter
orientation XE "Orientation" on neo-scholasticism, the Church
increasingly closed itself off to the spirit of the time and became defensive.[28]
Within this atmosphere of
Catholicism the ninetieth century inaugurated again a re-awakening of Marian
piety marked by Marian pilgrimages and apparitions,[29]
and inspired by the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which
commenced the so-called Marian century.[30] In spite of this renewal of Marian devotion,
essentially influenced through the dogmatic definition in 1854, there was considerably
less development in Marian theology[31];
however, two eminent theologians and contemporaries need to be mentioned: John
Henry Newman, who brought again to the fore the Eve-Mary parallel in support of
Mary’s original state of grace [Immaculate Conception], her part in redemption
XE "Redemption" , her eschatological XE
"Eschatological" fulfilment
and her intercession,[32]
and J. M. Scheeben.
The latter gives a fairly detailed Mariological-ecclesiological exposition. Mary, as the
grace-filled person [per se] in her relationship with the Trinity and in her
divine motherhood, is typologically significant for the Church.[33] From this perspective, Scheeben
speaks of a fundamental principle which is constitutive and serves as vantage
point for all mariological statements and the
understanding of Mary’s person and task in the order of salvation and the
history XE "History" of salvation:
Mary’s divine-spousal motherhood [Gottesbräutliche Mutterschaft ]
as her personal character–a term
unique to Scheeben’s Mariology.[34] He speaks of the fundamental principle
within the framework of the supernatural personal character of Mary.[35] This character distinguishes Mary from all
other people: “At the same time, of its very nature and according to the idea
of the Church, it is used also in the sense that, compared with all other
qualities of Mary, the distinguishing mark of ‘mother of Jesus’ forms the
capital, fundamental, and central quality to which, as subordinate attributes,
all others are joined.”[36] Further, Scheeben
underlines:
All the privileges belonging to the
Mother of God are of a super-natural character and thus find their principle in
a supernatural gift of grace, so this applies particularly to the motherhood
itself. This motherhood must therefore be defined as a supernatural
distinguishing mark of Mary’s person, to which, in addition to her nature, she
is raised through divine grace and which thus has its root in a divine gift of
grace through which it is constituted.[37]
The formative element of Mary’s
personal character is the “supernatural, spiritual union XE "Union" of the
person of Mary
with that of her Son”; it is the highest, most intimate and perfect union
between God and a human creature.[38]
“Mary, as united with the Logos, is
taken into complete possession by him; the Logos,
as infused and implanted in her, gives himself to her and takes her to himself
as partner and helper, in the closest, strictest, and most lasting community XE
"Community" of life.”[39] Scheeben considers Mary in the role of her divine-bridal
motherhood as the mother and heart XE "Heart" of the Mystical Body of Christ. Within the inner organic XE "Organic" unity XE
"Unity" of the Church he
highlights this heart function:
Mary is . . . the prototype XE
"Prototype"
of the Church, as the idea of the Church is originally realized
in her person and in the most perfect manner. Since she herself belongs to the
Church and at the same time forms the head-member as root and heart, the idea
of the Church as a supernatural principle assisting Christ also obtains its
full, concrete and living figure.[40]
Scheeben’s perception of a fundamental principle, and the
uniqueness of his concept of Mary’s personal character has found a resonance in
the years preceding Vatican II [from ca. 1940 on], for example in the works of
H. M. Köster, Kurl Rahner and Semmelroth.[41] The aspects and the orientations that Scheeben gives in this concept have generated negative and
positive critiques.[42] According to G. Philips, it is not possible
to combine the two terms “mother” and “bride” in the concept of “bridal
motherhood” without creating a misconception in the understanding of the
concept.[43] C. Feckes takes
the divine-bridal motherhood as the fundamental principal of Mariology: Mary is
mother, because she is bride and
co-worker of the Redeemer. Her first service as co-worker in the redemptive
work XE
"Work" of her Son is her maternal action. She is bride, because she
is mother, since her motherly action
includes in her Fiat a bridal dimension.[44] A pertinent modification and
application of Scheeben’s idea of the mariological fundamental principle is given by Fr. Kentenich[45] in his Marian paradigm. XE
"Paradigma"
XE "Paradigm" XE "Paradigma" XE
"Paradigm" [46]
In
accordance with a long tradition XE
"Tradition" acknowledging the essential unity
XE
"Unity" between Christ and Mary,[47] and in affiliation with Scheeben’s
concept, he defines, as a fundamental Marian principle, the personal character of Mary:[48] as “the unique bridal, permanent helpmate
and associate of Christ, who is the Head of the whole Church and world XE
"World", in the entire work XE
"Work" of redemption XE
"Redemption" ,”[49] or expressed in the shorter version from
1950: Mary is “the official companion and helpmate of Christ in the entire work
of redemption.”[50] Although all of Mary’s unique gifts–like her
immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, the intemerata and her divine motherhood–are included and
are to be interpreted from the above paradigm, yet Kentenich’s
choice of this definition as he stated in 1941 points beyond traditional Mariological interpretations toward Mary’s active involvement in salvation history XE "History" . She is, through her educative task
toward humanity, the free cooperative permanent
helpmate and associate of Christ in
the entire work of redemption.[51] The Christologically
founded and oriented unity between Christ and Mary is constitutive for Mary’s place in God’s divine plan, in the order of salvation and at the center of salvation history, and gives her an official
character.[52] For Kentenich,
Mary’s position in God’s plan of
salvation is the starting point for everything that can be said about her
person and her mission.
From Vatican I to Vatican
II
The First Vatican Council,
compelled through exterior circumstances, could deal only with the position and
task of the pope and could not go into the question of the Church’s
self-concept, a concept which should have found expression as the corpus Christi mysticum
and as the true, perfect, spiritual and supernatural community XE
"Community".[53]
At the beginning of
the present century a new understanding of the Church was emerging: a move from
a scholastic, institutional concept to a biblical and patristic image. “The
Church is awakening in souls,” wrote Romano Guardini
in 1922.[54]
His writing and those of Henri De Lubac and Yoes Congar address this new
awakening.[55]
It is well presented in De Lubac’s work:
The only
real Church, the Church which is the Body of Christ, is not merely that
strongly hierarchical and disciplined society whose divine origin has to be
maintained, whose organization has to be upheld against all denial and revolt.
That is an incomplete notion and but a partial cure for the separatist,
individualist tendency of the notion to which it is opposed; a partial cure
because it works only from without by way of authority, instead of effective
union XE "Union" . If Christ is the sacrament XE
"Sacrament" of God, the Church is for us the sacrament of Christ; she
represents him, in the full and ancient meaning of the term; she really makes
him present.[56]
This notion of the
inner reality of the Church was given a strong impetus by Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi,[57]
in which he brought together the Body of Christ and the People of God XE
"People of God" united to Christ, and Mediator Dei.[58]
The different streams of this newly-inspired reflection upon the Church’s inner
reality, its mystery, flowed into the discussions of Vatican II, and placed the
Church at the center of attention.[59]
The awareness of returning the image
of the Church to patristic notions also brought into the ecclesiological
foreground the patristic image of Mary
and the Church intertwined. The task of Mary is also the task of the Church:
“As it is the mother role of Mary to give to the world XE "World" the
God-man, so it is the mother role of the Church, culminating in the celebration
of the Eucharist XE "Eucharist" , to give us
also Christ as the head, sacrifice and nourishment for the members of his
mystical body.”[60]
Finally, the eschatological XE "Eschatological" significance of the
close association of Mary and the Church finds expression in the dogmatic
definition of Mary’s Assumption.[61]
During
the decades just prior to Vatican II, a particular representative of Scheeben’s mariological thinking
was C. Feckes. Known as the interpreter of Scheeben’ Mariology, he follows him in his understanding of
the basic Marian principle: the divine-bridal motherhood; Mary is mother
because she is bride and helpmate of Christ.[62]
In his ecclesiology Feckes attempts to present the
Church as the Christ-founded institution of salvation and places a strong
emphasis on the ministerial priesthood, the mystical body of Christ.[63]
Analogous to Augustine,[64] Feckes speaks of the Holy Spirit as the soul of the Church, as its animating and unifying power.[65]
In unison with Scheeben he refers to the relatedness
between Mary’s motherhood and that of the Church as a perichorese.[66]
Above all, Mary’s place in the Church is characterized as that of the heart XE "Heart" .[67]
Mary is typos of the Church. Under
the Cross she “becomes the mother of all the redeemed” and the mediatrix of graces. [68]
The most perfect and original way in which the idea of the Church is realized
is in Mary.[69]
She is “the first of the redeemed, she is the ideal image of all the redeemed,”[70]
and as the pre-redeemed she is Model
and Archetype of the Church as the sum of all
the after-redeemed.[71]
The latter statement closely resembles the Marian teaching of Vatican II:
Mary’s model character for all people
of God.
O. Cohausz is also
strongly influenced by Scheeben,[72]
and his argumentation is highly inspired by the Mary-Eve parallel XE
"Mary-Eve parallel" with the primacy of the masculine gender. Mary is
the model of creation XE "Creation" and the representative of creation in
the salvific event of Christ’s Incarnation XE "Incarnatio" .[73]
She is mother and bride of Christ. She is also our mother because she gave birth
to us when she gave birth to Christ. Her motherhood toward us continues in her
task as mediatrix of graces.[74]
K. Adam and E. Przywara speak of Mary as “the inner form of
the Church,”[75]
and A. Müller comes to the conclusion, after
investigating the patristic sources, that “Mary is the perfect realization of
the Church–the essential mystery of the Church is the mystery of Mary.”[76]
de Lubac also
refers to the patristic tradition XE "Tradition" in which “the same biblical symbols are
applied, either in turn or simultaneously, with one and the same
ever-increasing profusion, to the Church and Our Lady.”[77]
All the sources of the Church’s tradition point to the fact that everywhere the
Church finds in Mary “its type and model, its point of origin and perfection:
‘The form of our mother the Church is
according to the form of his
[Christ’s] mother.’”[78]
H. Rahner, too, speaks of the unity XE
"Unity"
between Mary and the Church in his studies of the Church Fathers:
“The early Church saw Mary and the Church as a single figure: type and antitype
form one print as seal and wax.”[79]
C. Dillenschneider depicts
Mary in her role as the mother of the Messiah; he shows her place next to
Christ and within the Church as the archetype
XE "Archetype" [Urbild ] and inner portrait [Inbild XE "Inbild" ] of the Church.[80]
Mary stands with Christ at the center of salvation
history XE "History" ,[81]
and as his helpmate she also cooperates as the representative of humanity and
the Church in the Incarnation XE "Incarnatio"
, as well as on Golgotha in the Redemption.[82] Dillenschneider perceives Mary’s mediating role to be a
consequence of her “yes” at the Incarnation as well as her “yes” under the
Cross. Her “yes” has an ecclesiological perspective since “her general
intercession in heaven is nothing else but the highest form of the
‘interceding’ community XE "Community" of saints.”[83]
Prior to Vatican II, the French Mariological Society made its particular contribution to
the Mary-Church theme through its three-year series of Marian studies,[84] whereby special mention needs to be made of
Canon Philips, one of its members, who repeatedly wrote on this theme and who
later became one of the main draftsmen of Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium XE
"Lumen
gentium" .[85] In 1958, the International Mariological Congress in Lourdes too had Maria et Ecclesia
as its theme.[86]
Among the German-speaking
theologians it was in particular Semmelroth who discussed Mariology in its relatedness to ecclesiology under the
aspect of archetype XE "Archetype" [Urbild ]. He sees in Ambrose’s expression, Mary as the type of the
Church, the sum of the Church’s tradition, XE "Tradition" “concerning the Church’s knowledge of its own
nature.”[87] It is within ecclesiology, where Mary’s
place in God’s plan of salvation should be viewed.[88] Semmelroth sees an
essential element in the relationship of Mary to the Church in the primitive
etymological meaning of type, which
in the fullest sense is threefold. It can signify [1] a personification or
representation of a spiritual entity through some sort of image; [2] “the
similarity between Mary and the Church is the consequence of a very real, inner
connection. The features that make the archetype similar to the image have
somehow grown from the archetype into the image”[89] ; [3] it can be a moral example as a result
of this relationship.[90] “When it has been established that Mary’s
relation to the Church and her members is factual and ontological XE
"Ontological" ,” then there will be moral
consequences, resulting in “a new relationship in the moral and exemplary
order.” Our lives will have to be ordered “according to the life led by the Archetype before us.”[91] Subsequently, in search of a basic mariological principle, he claims:
Because Mary was to be the type of the
Church, she was given existence as the virginal Mother of God. There is no
other Marian mystery which, as the intentional principle, could precede and
give root to the position that Mary holds as type of the Church . . . all other
Marian mysteries draw their inner meaning and connection from this basic
mystery.[92]
At
the center of the economy of salvation and its very
essence is the total Christ, that is,
Christ with the members of his mystical body. The Church is so intimately bound
to Christ that she becomes his mystical body, united to him as to her head
without any lessening of her bridal attitude toward him.[93]
It follows that
the basic
mystery of Mariology will be that which brings Mary closer to the center of the economy of salvation, which is the Church. This
coming-together takes place through the bridal aspect of the divine motherhood,
because here Mary shows herself as the completed bridal fiat for the advent and
work XE "Work"
of the Saviour.[94]
In this context Semmelroth
addresses also the question of co-redemption and speaks of Mary as “the type of
the truly co redeeming Church which gives salvation.”[95] The task of the Church as the community XE
"Community" of the redeemed in Christ[96] in God’s salvific
plan casts light on Mary’s role within the history XE
"History" of salvation. “Mary cooperated with her own redemptio objectiva,
which redemption, however, simultaneously
signifies the reception of the fruits of salvation for the entire Church
and which is therefore objective with regard to the individual.”[97]
Thus, Semmelroth
concludes that Mary, like the Church whose archetype XE
"Archetype" she is, also mediates all graces[98] and affirms as type and pinnacle of the
Church “Christ’s work and thereby disposed both herself and the Church within
her for the pleroma of salvation.”[99] “In the divine motherhood, Mary was given
the most perfect opportunity to prefigure the Church in a co-redemptive way,”[100] and in her Immaculate Conception “the Church
emerges as the one essentially redeemed, the one that could never exist tainted
with original sin and therefore, in the womb of humanity.”[101] Mary “personifies the Church as a symbol . . . personifies the Church as
the primordial cell from which the
Church extends in time and space . . . and is gathered into a juridically representative oneness.” However, writes Semmelroth, “There is no question of a Marian-Mystical
Body. Rather, it is a Marian-bridal element within the Mystical Body of
Christ.”[102] The redeemed state of the physical cosmos at
the end of time shines forth in her body in which she partook in Christ’s
death. As archetype, Mary’s body shows [in her Assumption] the Church’s fully
redeemed body; and it lights the way for the body of the Church and shows that the
transfiguration dwells like a seed within her corporeality.[103] Mary, the archetype, represents also the
ideal type, the model and moral example “against whom the Church as a whole and
all her members can examine their own attitude toward their redemption and
fullness of grace as they work out their own lives. . . The Church living in
her individual members needs Mary for her growth toward what she is and toward
her hidden potential. Mary causes the essence of the Church to shine before
individual human beings to appeal to their own moral efforts.”[104]
Although Semmelroth
emphasizes Mary's archetypal function in “the Church insofar as she is the
bride of Christ and mother of the individual faithful,”[105]
in actual terms it refers to the
community of the lay faithful. Christ as the bridegroom is, so to speak,
the archetype of the ministerial priesthood, while Mary is archetype of the
Church in so far as she is laoV, as the community
of the lay faithful, receiving and co-sacrificing, encounters Christ, who
through the office of the ministerial priesthood stands before the lay
faithful.[106]
In his early work XE "Work" , Schillebeeckx presents
a more integral thinking when referring to Mary’s position in the Church: Mary
lives in communion
with her
Son’s redemptive activity, joined to him in motherly love. Even though she is
certainly outside the hierarchical Church and is fully a member of the
community XE "Community" of the Church, she is nonetheless in
the Church, the mother both of the ordinary believer and of the hierarchy. She
is the mother in the Church both in the Church’s teaching authority and in her
governing authority and pastoral office, because she occupies an eminent
position in the work of redemption XE "Redemption" which the hierarchical Church must draw on.[107]
It was the task of Vatican II [Lumen gentium XE
"Lumen gentium" as well as the proclamation Mary, Mother of the Church XE "Mother
of the Church" ] to balance the
somewhat prevailing perspective of contemplating Mary’s relationship with the
Church and her place in the Church in vertical/horizontal categories [in terms
of being placed “against”]. Mary, in her uniqueness as mother, helpmate, and
associate of Christ in the entire work XE "Work" of redemption XE
"Redemption" ,[108]
transcends such categories: as the pre-redeemed
person, the immaculate original personification of the Church, she is the most
excellent member and model of the Church, and at the same time the Mother of
the Church, who is active as the educator XE "Educator" of all the members.[109]
Chapter Eight of
Lumen gentium
XE "Lumen
gentium"
It is significant that at the Council the Marian chapter became the final chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.[110] The first chapter of the Constitution gives an exposition of the mystery of the Church, how this mystery is then unfolded in the People of God XE "People of God" , in the hierarchical framework, and in the laity. The pondering of the mystery of the Church in the first chapter is presented in the final chapter in a personalized manner in the figure of Mary and her place in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. The developmental stages of the Marian schema during the Council from an independent schema until its insertion into the Constitution on the Church, reflects the Council's emphasis on integration, unity XE "Unity” and on a reorientation of the sources of Christianity. The Council integrated the mysteries of our Faith into the one unifying mystery of salvation, Jesus Christ XE "Jesus Christ" , who extends the saving efficacy of his resurrection to all people through the Church, his sacrament XE "Sacrament" on earth.[111] By integrating Mariology into ecclesiology, Mary as an icon represents, in her person and the pertinent teaching about her, the mystery of Christ in the Church and its immeasurable effect on humankind in salvation history XE "History”. Thus, Mariology has been approached not deductively,[112] but from the center of the mystery of salvation[113] and in this approach the traditional mariological statements have been christologically and ecclesiologically integrated and rearranged.[114] This salvation-historical perspective is seen as a truly new theological perspective.[115] “The person, the mission, the privileges of Mary, and also the devotion offered to her, are not considered in themselves or in relation to her dignity as Mother of God. Rather, the whole treatment is developed and expanded in the broader framework of the history of salvation.”[116] This new perspective, presenting the Mother of God at her rightful place in salvation history, shows her as the example of the human person cooperating with grace in the work XE "Work” of salvation and also as the example of the Church, the sign and effective instrument of salvation.[117] She portrays the acting person and the acting ecclesial XE "Ecclesial” community XE "Community” and hence, evidences dimensions of anthropological and ecclesiological dynamics, which are important elements in the ecumenical dialogue XE "Dialogue".
The
Council did not intend to present a complete doctrine on Mary but to give a
carefully compiled treatise on the role of Mary in the mystery of the Incarnate
Word and the Mystical Body.[118]
As such, there is in this chapter the first unified and
most extensive presentation of a Mariology given by a Council. The text shows a
powerful coherence of the mystery of Christ with the mystery of the Church;
Mary is drawn into this mystery through the grace of Christ,[119]
because an authentic theology of Mary must lead to a
deeper understanding of the essence of the Church.[120]
The Marian teaching of Vatican II is well summarized in
the magisterial document The Virgin Mary
in intellectual and spiritual formation XE "Formation":
“The importance of Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium XE "Lumen gentium” lies in the
value of its doctrinal synthesis and in its formulation of doctrine about the
Blessed Virgin in the context of the mystery of Christ and of the Church. In
this way the Council allied itself to the patristic tradition XE "Tradition" which
gives a privileged place to the history XE "History" of
salvation in every theological tract; stressed that the Mother of the Lord is
not a peripheral figure in our faith and in the panorama of theology; rather,
she, through her intimate participation XE "Participation" in the
history of salvation, “in a certain way unites and mirrors within herself the
central truths of the faith”[121];
[and] formulated a common vision for the different positions about the way in
which Marian matters are to be treated.”[122]
Pope Paul VI not only confirmed Mary's
place as type and model[123]
of the Church, as expressed in Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium XE "Lumen gentium", but also promulgated her place as “our
mother in the order of grace”[124]
through the solemn proclamation of Mary as Mother of the Church
XE "Mother of the Church" at the closing of the Third Session of the Council.[125]
From the post-conciliar documents the following shall be considered here: Marialis Cultus, Signum Magnum, and Redemptoris Mater XE
"Redemptoris Mater" .[126]
The dimensions of Mary's relatedness to the Church, flowing from her union XE "Union" with Christ, as presented in Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium XE "Lumen gentium" , and Pope Paul VI's proclamation of Mary's title Mother of the Church XE "Mother of the Church" , are reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[127] In the Catechism the mystery of Mary is related primarily to the Trinitarian mystery.[128] Her relationship with the Church is within the section devoted to the Holy Spirit, which immediately links the establishment of the Church at Pentecost with the Incarnation XE "Incarnatio" of the Word through Mary's cooperation.[129] As the spotless Bride, Mary is the example of the Church's holiness XE "Holiness" , and in this the Marian dimension of the Church precedes the petrine.[130]
The Catechism further presents Mary as
the exemplary realization of the
Church, and her eschatological XE
"Eschatological"
icon and preeminent sign of hope.[131] Mary's undivided unity XE
"Unity" with
Christ marks her pilgrimage of faith and perseverance in faith[132] and her motherhood of the Church.[133]
Pope
Paul VI re-emphasises Mary's role as model and mother of the Church in Signum Magnum and in Marialis Cultus. [134]
In Signum Magnum the Pope writes:
Mary is the Mother of the Church XE
"Mother of the Church" –not only because she is the mother of Jesus
Christ XE "Jesus Christ" and
his closest associate in ‘the new economy . . .’ but also because she ‘shines
as the model of virtues for the whole community XE "Community" of the elect’. . . . She participated in the
Son's sacrifice for our redemption XE "Redemption" in such intimate fashion that he
designated her the mother not only of John the Apostle but also–it seems
legitimate to say this–of the human race, which he somehow represented.[135]
Now in heaven she carries on her motherly role, helping to nourish and foster the
divine life in the souls of redeemed men. This truth is a most consoling one,
and God in his wisdom has made it an integral part of the mystery of human
salvation.[136]
Again, in Marialis Cultus, which places emphasis on the integration of Marian
devotion into Christian worship XE "Worship" ,
the central understanding of Mary is given in her being the pre-eminent member
of the Church, a shining example and the loving mother. The introduction points
already to the centrality of Mary in the mystery of the Church:
The Church's reflection today on the
mystery of Christ and on her own nature has led her to find at the root of the
former and as a culmination of the latter the same figure of a woman: the
Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ and the Mother of the Church XE "Mother
of the Church" . And the increased knowledge of Mary's mission has become
joyful veneration of her and adoring respect for the wise plan of God, who has
placed within his family [the Church], as in every home, the figure of a woman,
who in a hidden manner and in a spirit of service watches over that family.[137]
The
interrelatedness between the Church and Mary is expressed in the following
text:
The faithful will be able to appreciate
more easily Mary's mission in the mystery of the Church and her preeminent
place in the communion of saints if attention is drawn to the Second Vatican
Council's reference to the fundamental concepts of the nature of the Church as
the Family of God XE "Family of God" , the People of God XE
"People of God" , the Kingdom of God and the Mystical Body of Christ.
This will also bring the faithful to a deeper realization of the brotherhood
which unites all of them as sons and daughters of the Virgin Mary, ‘who with a
mother's love has cooperated in their rebirth and spiritual formation XE
"Formation" ,’ and as sons and daughters of the Church. . . . They
will also realize that both the Church and Mary collaborate to give birth to
the Mystical Body of Christ since ‘both of them are the Mother of Christ, but
neither brings forth the whole [body] independently of the other.’[138]
Similarly the faithful will appreciate more clearly that the action of the
Church in the world XE "World" can be likened to an extension of Mary's
concern.[139]
In Redemptoris Mater XE “Redemptoris Mater”, Pope John Paul II gives an original
synthesis of essential elements of chapter VIII of Lumen gentium XE
"Lumen
gentium”, Marialis Cultus, Signum Magnum, Christi Matri[140] and his personal reflections regarding Mary
and the Church. Primarily the consideration is Mary's exceptional pilgrimage of faith in which she
“advanced, faithfully preserving her union XE
"Union” with Christ."[141] In this way the 'twofold bond' which unites the Mother of God with Christ and with the Church takes on historical significance.”[142] Ecclesiologically
the Pope speaks within “the redemptive economy of grace” of
a unique
correspondence between the moment of the Incarnation XE "Incarnatio" of
the Word and the moment of the birth of the Church. The person who links these
two moments is Mary: Mary at Nazareth and Mary in the Upper Room at Jerusalem.
In both cases her discreet yet essential presence indicates the path of ‘birth
from the Holy Spirit.’ Thus she who is present in the mystery of Christ as
Mother becomes–by the will of the Son and the power of the Holy Spirit–present
in the mystery of the Church. In the Church too she continues to be a maternal
presence.…[143]
Mary as the believer par excellence is
present in the “ecclesial XE "Ecclesial" journey or pilgrimage through space and time,
and even more through the history XE "History" of souls”[144];
she is present when that journey–”the Church's pilgrimage through the history
of individuals and peoples”–begins at Pentecost, yet Mary's journey of faith
began already at the Annunciation.[145]
The triad of Annunciation-Golgotha-Pentecost comes into perspective, as Mary,
who is united in prayer with the disciples in the Upper Room “'goes before
them,' 'leads the way' for them. The moment
of Pentecost in Jerusalem had been prepared for by the moment of the Annunciation in Nazareth, as well as by the Cross. In
the Upper Room, Mary's journey meets the Church's journey of faith.”[146]
The indissoluble unity XE "Unity"
of Mary with the mystery of Christ is constitutive of her indissoluble
unity with the Church, therefore at “the basis of what the Church has been from
the beginning, and of what she must continually become from generation to
generation, in the midst of all the nations on earth” is Mary, the believer [Lk 1:45].[147]
It is precisely her “faith which marks the beginning of the new and eternal
Covenant of God with man in Jesus Christ XE "Jesus Christ" ”[148];
and
this heroic faith of hers ‘precedes’
the apostolic witness of the Church, and ever remains in the Church's heart XE
"Heart" , hidden like a special heritage of God's revelation. All
those who from generation to generation accept the apostolic witness of the
Church share in that mysterious inheritance and in a sense share in Mary's
faith.[149]
Thus “she offers hope to those . . .
who are still on the journey.” She is at the same time “an icon of fidelity for
the Church as a whole, a concrete symbol of hope that the Church as a whole may
not stray from the path of truth and faithful action in response to the
Gospel.”[150]
Mary's presence in the mystery of the Church is more than that of a model and figure, because “the Church's mystery also consists in generating
people to a new and immortal life: this is her motherhood in the Holy Spirit.
And here Mary is … much more. For, “with
maternal love she cooperates in the birth and development” of the sons and
daughters of Mother Church.”[151]
Christ's word from the cross [Jn 19:
26-27], which determines Mary's place in the life of the faithful, expresses
the new
motherhood of Mother of the Redeemer: a spiritual motherhood, born from the
heart of the Paschal Mystery of the Redeemer of the world XE "World"
. It is a motherhood in the order of grace, for it implores the gift of the
Spirit who raises up the new children of God, redeemed through the sacrifice of
Christ: that Spirit who together with the Church Mary too received on the day
of Pentecost. . . . Her motherhood is particularly noted and experienced by the
Christian people . . . at the liturgical XE "Liturgical" celebration of the mystery of the
redemption XE "Redemption" . . . . Mary guides the faithful to the
Eucharist XE "Eucharist".[152]
In this context the Pope speaks of a “Marian
dimension of the life of Christ's disciple,” that is, Mary's motherhood is “a gift which Christ himself makes
personally to every individual. . . . At the foot of the Cross there begins
that special entrusting of humanity to
the Mother of Christ. . . .”[153]
Like the apostle John, the Christian who responds to this gift “’welcomes’ the Mother of Christ ‘into his own home’ and
brings her into everything that makes up his inner life, that is to say into
his human and Christian ‘I’. . . . This filial relationship, this
self-entrusting of a child to its mother, not only has its beginning in Christ but can also be said to be definitively directed toward him.”[154]
The Church always maintains a close link with Mary “which embraces, in the
saving mystery, the past, the present and the future, and venerates her as the
spiritual mother of humanity and the advocate of grace.”[155]
In
conclusion it can be said: just as in pre-conciliar writings the relationship between Mary and the
Church seems to have been restricted to Mary’s model character and this
pre-dominantly for the lay faithful, e.g., Semmelroth,
so in post-conciliar
Mariological-ecclesiological writings there seems to
be a danger of limiting Mary's relationship with the Church in metaphorical,
symbolical terms.[156] Here, the writings of Pope Paul VI and Pope
John Paul II propose significant perspectives for a more balanced view. What
emerged from the conciliar discussion and from post-conciliar magisterial documents regarding Mary and the
Church suggests a balanced approach to this complex issue. The Council indeed
marked a turning point in the Church's approach to her own identity and mission
which consequently affected Marian theology and spirituality.
This page, maintained by The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio 45469-1390, and created by Matt Stephey was last modified Friday, 04/04/2008 12:52:51 EDT by Matt Stephey. Please send any comments to Johann.Roten@udayton.edu.
URL for this page is http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/maryandchurch.htm
[1]
History in this context is not taken etymologically as knowledge of events (istoria),
but as the concrete place of the human person in time and space, comprising the
human experience in the Augustinian modes of time: memoria, contuitus and expectatio. Augustine, Confessions, XI, in particular 20, 26. Theologically,
history is the place of God's salvific
action and interaction with humanity in time.
[2]
Regarding the following, I am indebted to the work of: H. Fries, “Wandel
des Kirchenbildes und dogmengeschichtliche
Entfaltung,” in
Mysterium Salutis IV/1,
Grundriß heilsgeschichtlicher
Dogmatik, eds. J. Feiner,
M. Löhrer, 5 Vols. & suppl. Vol. (Einsiedeln-Zürich- Köln: Benziger
Verlag, 1965-1976), 223-279. See further W. Scott,
“The Phenomenon of Change in the Church,” in
The Role of Theology in the University (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing
Company, 1967); A. Mayer-Pfannholz, “Der Wandel des Kirchenbildes in der Geschichte,”
ThG 33
(1941): 22-34.
[3]
For the Church in the NT see J. Roloff, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament, Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, Das Neue
Testament Deutsch-Ergänzungsreihe, ed. J. Roloff, Vol. 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993); G. Delling, “Merkmale
der Kirche im Neuen Testament,” NTS 13 (1966/67): 297-316; E. Jüngel, “Die Kirche als Sakrament?” ZThK 80
(1983): 432-457.
[4]
G. L. Müller, Katholische Dogmatik: Für Studium
und Praxis der Theologie (Freiburg:
Herder2, 1995/1996), 598-602.
[5]
Augustine, Epis. 187, 20, PL 33, 839. See also G. L. Müller, Katholische Dogmatik: Für Studium
und Praxis der Theologie,
603. See further: H. De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, trans. by M. Mason (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956); J. A. Möhler,
Die Einheit in der Kirche oder
das Prinzip des Katholizismus:
Dargestellt im Geist der Kirchenväter
der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, ed. J.
R. Geiselmann (Köln: Jakob Hegner, 1956); H. Rahner, Symbole der Kirche: Die Ekklesiologie der Väter (Salzburg: Otto Müller Verlag, 1964); E. Mersch, The Theology
of the Mystical Body (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1963); F. Hofmann, Der Kirchenbegriff
des heiligen Augustinus in seinen Grundlagen und in seiner Entwicklung (München: Kösel, 1933).
[6]
B. Buby, Mary
of Galilee, 3 Vols. (New York: Alba House, 1994), Vol. I; J. Zmijewski, Die Mutter
des Messias, Maria in der
Chris-tusverkündigung: Eine
exegetische Studie (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Becker, 1989).
[7]
H. Rahner, Our
Lady and the Church, trans. by S. Bullough
(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), 5. This
reflects Ambrose's classical formula: Maria
est typos ecclesiae in Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam II, 7, CSEL XXXII, 4, 45. See also Segundo Folgado, “María y la Iglesia en San Ambrosio,” Est Mar XXXIX (1974): 59-77. For patristic
references to the Mary-Eve-parallel, see for example Justin Martyr, PG 6: 709-712; Irenaeus,
PG 7: 1175-1176; Cyril of Alexandria, PG 77: 996.
[9] Augustine, Sermo XXV, 7, PL 46, 938 (G.
Morin 162, 19-163,8); CPL 368. For the patristic understanding of the Mary-Church
parallel, see L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in
Patristic Thought, trans. by T.
Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999); H. Rahner,
Our Lady and the Church; A. Müller, Ecclesia–Maria:
Die Einheit
Marias und der Kirche, Paradosis: Beiträge zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur und Theologie, ed. O. Perler,
(Freiburg/Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 19532);
J. C. Plumpe, Mater
Ecclesia: An inquiry into the concept
of the Church as Mother in early Christianity (Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1943).
[11]
Y. Congar, “Le Corps mystique du Christ,” in Esquisses du Mystère de L'Église. Unam Sanctam 8 (Paris: Cerf,
1953), 93-115.
[12]
H. Fries, “Wandel des Kirchenbildes
und dogmengeschichtliche Entfaltung,”
235-249; Y. Congar, Etudes d'ecclésiologie médiévale
(London: Variorum Reprints, 1983); D. J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission
(Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1991/19937),
214-238. See for the early period of the Middle Ages:
F. Gavin, Seven Centuries of the Problem
of Church and State (New York: Princeton University Press, 1938/Howard Fertig, 1971), 31-67.
[13]
L. Scheffczyk, Das
Mariengeheimnis in Frömmigkeit
und Lehre der Karolingerzeit. Erfurter Theologische Studien im Auftrag des Philosophisch-Theologischen Studiums
Erfurt, eds. E. Kleineidam und H. Schürmann,
Vol. 5 (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1959): 10-11.
[14]
L. Scheffczyk, Das
Mariengeheimnis in Frömmigkeit
und Lehre der Karolingerzeit, 390-511. Scheffczyk
provides in this study an understanding of the Franco–Germanic religiosity
which denoted a favourable disposition for the development of the Marian
teaching.
[15]
E. g.: Rupert of Deutz, In Isaiam 11, 31, PL 167, 1361; In Evangelium Joannis Commentariorum 19, 26, PL 169, 789-790.
[16]
For the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, see in particular E. J. Gratsch, Where Peter
Is: A Survey of Ecclesiology (New York: Alba
House, 1975), 109-139.
[17]
DS 1500; H. Jedin,
Geschichte des Konzils
von Trient, 4 Vols.,
(Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1975), Vol. 4.
[18]
R. Bellarmine: “The one true Church is the community of the faithful who profess the same Christian
faith and participate in the same sacraments under the government of legitimate
pastors above all, the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the bishop of Rome.” R. Bellarmine, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus nostri temporis haereticos, II, lib.
3, cap. 2 (Neapoli:
Josephum Giuliano, 1858).
[19]
E. J. Gratsch, Where
Peter Is: A Survey of Ecclesiology, 126-137; P. McPartlan,
Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology
(Edinburgh:T&T Clark,
1995), 38-40; D. Bosch, Transforming
Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, 239-61.
[22]
E. g.: R. Bellarmine, Contio 42, De Nativitate B. Mariae
Virginis. Opera
omnia, 7 (Neapoli: Josephum Giuliano, 1872), 298; F.
Suarez, De verbo
Incarnato, Q. 38, 4, disp. I-XXIII, Opera Omnia,
ed. Vivès (Paris: Cerf, 1860), 1-337; and P. Canisius in O. Braunsberger, “Der selige Petrus
Canisius, seine Arbeiten für die Verbreitung des Cultus der seligen Jungfrau im 16. Jahrhundert,” Internationaler Marianischer Kongreß zu Freiburg/Schweiz 1902 (Fribourg 1903), 355-383.
[27]
E. J. Gratsch, Where
Peter Is: A Survey of Ecclesiology, 157-171; J. A. Möhler,
Die Einheit in der Kirche oder
das Prinzip des Katholizismus:
Dargestellt im Geist der Kirchenväter
der drei ersten Jahrhunderte; J. R. Geiselmann,” J. A. Möhler und die
Entwicklung seines Kirchenbegriffs,”
1-91.
[28]
For a study of the ecclesiological and theological panorama of that time, see
G. Daly, Transcendence and Immanence: A
Study in Catholic Modernism and Integralism
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 7-25, 165-231; T. F. O'Meara, Romantic Idealism and Roman Catholicism:
Schelling and the Theologians (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1982), 58-160. See also E. J. Gratsch, Where Peter Is: A
Survey of Ecclesiology, 157-190.
[29]
1830–Apparition to Catherine Labouré
(Miraculous Medal); 1846–Apparition at La Salette;
1858–Apparition at Lourdes; 1871–Apparition at Pont Main; 1879–Apparition at
Knock.
[30]
1854–Definition of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX, Litterae Apostolicae “De
dog-matica definitione immacolatae conceptionis virginis Deiparae,” December
8, 1854, Acta
1/I, 597-619.
[31]
In the 19th century particularly German theologians were considering the
relationship between Mary and the Church, as for example J. Th. Laurent, the first German theologian, who discussed
more comprehensively the Mary–Church relationship and saw in Mary the model of the Church. H. J. Brosch, “Maria als Bild und Glied der Kirche nach
der Lehre der deutschen Theologen
des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Academia Mariana Internationalis, Maria
et Ecclesia, Acta Congressus
Mariologici-Mariani in Civitate
Lourdes anno 1958 Celebrati (Romae:
Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis,
1959), Vol. VIII, 493-494; and “Deutsche Theologen
des 19. Jahrhunderts in der
Frage der heilsgeschichtlichen Stellvertretung
der Menscheit durch Maria,” in ed. C. Feckes, Die Heilsgeschichtliche
Stellvertretung der Menschheit durch Maria, Ehrengabe an die Unbefleckt Empfangene von der Mariologischen Arbeitsgemein-schaft
deutscher Theologen
(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1954), 281-307.
[32]
J. H. Newman, The Letters and Diaries of
John Henry Newman, ed. C. S. Dessain, Birmingham
Oratory, 31 vols. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1972), Vol. XII: “Letter to
Lady Chatterton, October 2, 1865,” 65-66; “Letter to J. Keble, October 8,
1865,” 67-69; “To E. B. Pusey, October 31, 1865,” 89-91.
[33]
The organic view of God's revelation and
of the divine order of salvation are foundational to Scheeben's
theological and mariological thinking. See in this
regard the studies of: L. Scheffczyk, “Die 'organische' und die 'transzendentale'
Verbindung zwischen Natur und Gnade,” Forum Katholische Theologie 4, 3 (1988): 161-179, here 162-169; H.
Gasper, “Die Vermählung von Natur
und Gnade als Modell für die Theologie Scheebens,” in Geist und Kirche: Studien zur Theologie im
Umfeld der beiden Vatikanischen Konzilien. Gedenkschrift für Heribert Schauf,
eds. H. Hammans et al. (Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh: 1990): 213-246.
[34]
See I. Muser, Das mariologische
Prinzip “gottesbräutliche Mutterschaft” und das Verständnis
der Kirche bei M. J. Scheeben. Analecta Gregoriana (Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1995), 79;
H. Mühlen, “Der 'Personal-charakter'
Mariens nach M. J. Scheeben: Zur Frage
nach dem Grundprinzip der Mariologie,” Wissenschaft und Weisheit 17 (1954): 191-214.
[38]
Scheeben, Mariology,
Vol. I., 219-220 [Scheeben, Handbuch, VI/2, 1614]. See in this context also the reference in Lumen gentium 54.
[39]
Scheeben, Mariology,
Vol. I, 189. Mühlen,
discussing Scheeben's “distingishing
mark of Mary,” comes to the following conclusion: “The person of Mary is
characterized by a substantial relation with the person of the Logos, which is inseparably united with
her concrete existence. Through this she becomes a person of a supernatural
manner.” (German text: “Die Person Mariens ist durch
eine substantielle [=transzendale] Relation zur Person
des Logos charakterisiert, die mit
ihrem konkreten Dasein unab-trennbar verbunden ist. Dadurch wird sie zu
einer Person übernatürlicher
Art.”). H. Mühlen, “Der
'Personalcharakter'
Mariens nach M. J. Scheeben: Zur Frage
nach dem Grundprinzip der Mariologie”, 197. N. Hoffmann: “Dieser
sponsale Logosbezug Mariens ist von solch ontologischem Durchgriff auf ihre eigene Person, daß sie von ihm zwar
nicht den Subsistenz-Kern ihres Person-Selbst, wohl aber dessen
relational-personale Geprägtheit,
ihren 'Personalcharakter,' empfängt,” N. Hoffmann, “Zur 'Perichorese' von Maria und Kirche
in der Sicht M. J. Scheebens,” in Geist und Kirche: Studien zur Theologie im
Umfeld der beiden Vatikanischen Konzilien. Gedenkschrift für Heribert Schauf,
eds. H. Hammans et al. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1990): 247-275, here 265. See also Ziegenhaus: “Beim Personalcharakter der Gottesmutter handelt es sich um eine
Relation, die in dem Maß zu ihrem Dasein
gehört, daß es zusammenbrechen müßte, würde die Relation aufgelöst. Da Maria in ihrer personalen Prägung durch die Gottesmutterschaft konstituiert ist, kann sie
nicht irgendwann in ihrem Leben, etwa
bei der Empfängnis
Jesu, zur Gottesmutter bestimmt worden sein,” in A. Ziegenhaus, “Charakter Marias,” MLexikon, Vol.
II, 19-24, here 22.
[40]
M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, trans. by T. L. M. J. Geukers, 2 Vols. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947),
216-217.
[41]
H. M. Köster, Die
Magd des Herrn. Theologische Versuche und Überlegungen; K. Rahner, “Die
Unbefleckte Empfängnis” and
“Zum Sinn des Assumpta-Dogma,”
Schriften zur Theologie I (Einsiedeln:
Johannes Verlag, 1967): 223-237, 239-252; O. Semmelroth, Mary, Archetype of the Church, trans. by
Maria v. Eroes and J. Devlin (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963) [Engl. trans. of Maria, Urbild der Kirche: Organischer Aufbau des Mariengeheimnisses (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1950]
[hereafter: Semmelroth, Archetype ].
[42]
Nicolas emphasizes the uniqueness of Mary's divine motherhood and her predestination
in view of her calling. The initiative is with the Son, who chose Mary as his
mother and with whom he unites himself in a spiritual, mystical union.
If the incarnation is a matrimonium between the Logos
and humankind, then it is Mary who represents humankind in her yes to God's
plan of salvation. It is in her that humankind is the bride. M. J. Nicolas, “La
nouvelle Éve dans la synthèse mariale” Bulletin de la Société
Française d‘ Études
Mariales (1957):11-120, here 115-116; and Théotokos: Le Mystère de
Marie (Tournai/Belgium: Desclée,
1965), 81-101. See also the positive response to Scheeben's
concept and its ecclesiological implications from a Protestant theologian. U. Wickert, “Freiheit von Sünde–Erhöhung zu Gott. Die Koinzidenz
von Schöpfung und Erlösung
in Mariens Erwählung und ihre heilsgeschichtliche Wirkung,” in Maria im Glauben der
Kirche, ed. M. Seybold, Vol. 3 (Eichstätt-Wien: Franz-Sales-Verlag,
1985), 59-85, here esp. 77-78. Muser gives a detailed account of these reactions.
See I. Muser, Das mariologische
Prinzip “gottesbräutliche Mutterschaft” und das Verständnis
der Kirche bei M. J. Scheeben, 187-194.
[44]
C. Feckes, “Das Fundamentalprinzip
der Mariologie: Ein Beitrag zu
ihrem Aufbau,” in Scientia Sacra: Theologische
Festgabe an Kardinal Schulte, Erzbischof v.
Köln zum 25. Jahrestag der Bischofweihe, 19. März 1935 (Köln-Düsseldorf: J. P. Bachem/L.
Schwann, 1935): 252-276, here 269
[47]
See here in particular the study of K. Schwerdt, “Die
heilsgeschichtliche Stellvertretung
der Menschheit durch Maria nach der päpstlichen Lehrverkündigung in den letzten hundert Jahren,” in ed. C. Feckes, Die Heilsgeschichtliche Stellvertretung
der Menschheit durch Maria, Ehrengabe an die
Unbefleckt Empfangene von der Mariologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Theologen, 1-25.
[48]
In 1954 Fr. Kentenich explains: “In the course of the
years our religious experiences and observations were enhanced through deeper
and more comprehensive insights into Mary’s position in the plan of salvation.
It may be compared to tree rings which almost effortlessly formed around the
original core–the idea of the official Christ bearer. Thus it was not difficult
for us–long before the public did–to emphasize Mary’s personal character, that
is, to formulate the fundamental core or central thought that determines Mary’s
person and role in the plan of God–to which her endowment, her characteristics
and tasks can be traced back like a stream to its source. We only needed to
think through to its conclusion the idea of the official Christ bearer. So it
was that from that time on we spoke of Mary as the official companion and
helpmate of the Lord in the entire work of redemption,
or–in short form–as the sponsa et consors
Christi or–which means the same
as–by office, the co-protagonist with Christ and the official antagonist
against Lucifer. This in turn shed bright light on Mary’s cooperative activity
at the hour of the Annunciation … on Golgotha … and from heaven.” J. Kentenich, “Die heilsgeschichtliche
Stellung Mariens und die Früh-zeit Schönstatts [St (1954)],” Regnum 6, 4 (1971): 147-154, here 152. Vautier
gives a detailed account of the development of the term and content of the personal character of Mary as perceived
by Fr. Kentenich, Vautier,
P., Maria, die Erzieherin.
Darstellung und Untersuchung
der marianischen Lehre P. Joseph Kentenichs
(1885-1968), Schönstatt-Studien 3 (Vallendar-Schönstatt: Patris Verlag, 1981), 67-68, 242-269.
[50]
J. Kentenich, Octoberwoche (1950), 249. Scheeben
too speaks of “Genossin und Gehilfin.”
Scheeben, Handbuch V/2, 1588.
[52]
Fr. Kentenich emphasizes with the word official the fact that Mary has a task
in the ongoing work of redemptionSee J. Kentenich, “Die heilsgeschichtliche
Stellung Mariens und die Frühzeit Schönstatts [St (1954)],” 151.
[53]
E. g., K. Schatz, Vaticanum I, 1869-1870, 3 Vols. (Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schöningh, 1994), Vol. 3; H. Fries, “Wandel des Kirchenbildes und dogmengeschichtliche Entfaltung,”
269-272; F. Malmberg, Ein Leib-Ein Geist: Vom Mysterium der
Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1960), 16-54.
[55]
E.g., H. De Lubac, Corpus Mysticum (Paris: Aubier, 1949) and The Splendor of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
1986); Y. Congar, Divided
Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion (London: G. Bles/The Centenary Press, 1939).
[56]
H. De Lubac, Catholicism:
Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988),
76. De Lubac cites here J. A. Möhler,
Lettre à la Comtesse Stohlberg (1834).
[57]
Pope Pius XII, Litterae encyclicae Mystici corporis: De mustico Iesu Christi Corpore deque nostra in eo cum Christo
coniunctione, June 29, 1943, AAS 35 (1943), 193-248.
[58]
Pope Pius XII, Litterae encyclicae de sacra liturgia “Mediator Dei,” November 20, 1947, AAS 39 (1947), 521-595.
[59]
P. McPartlan, Sacrament
of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology, 41-42; M. D. Koster, Ekklesiologie im Werden (Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schöningh, 1941); E. Klinger, Ekklesiologie der Neuzeit (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1978); Y. Congar, Die Lehre von der Kirche:
Vom Abendländischen Schisma bis zur
Gegenwart, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte III/3c
(Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder, 1971).
[61]
Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constituion Munificentissimus Deus, Fidei
Dogma Definitur Deiparam Virginem Mariam corpore et anima fuisse ad coelestem gloriam Assumptam, November 4, 1950, AAS 42 (1950), 753-773.
[62]
Feckes, C., “Das Fundamentalprinzip
der Mariologie: Ein Beitrag zu
ihrem Aufbau,” in Scientia Sacra, Theologische
Festgabe an Kardinal Schulte, Erzbischof von
Köln zum 25. Jahrestag der Bischofweihe, 19. März 1935 (Köln-Düsseldorf: J. P. Bachem/L.
Schwann, 1935): 252-276. For this and the following see also J. Radkiewicz, Auf der Suche nach
einem Mariologischen Grundprinzip: Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung
über die letzten hundert Jahre (Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre Verlag, 1989).
[63]
C. Feckes, Das Mysterium der heiligen
Kirche: Dogmatische Untersuchungen zum Wesen der Kirche
(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1934), 121-91
[hereafter: Feckes, Das Mysterium der heiligen Kirche].
[66]
Scheeben, Die Bräutliche Gottesmutter, 189;
F. Holböck, “Der Heilige Geist als Seele des Mystischen Leibes Christi bei Matthias Joseph Scheeben,” Div 32 (1988): 297-311.
[67]
See M. J. Scheeben, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, 6 Vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1948-61), Vol.
III, 87, n. 765 [hereafter: Scheeben, Handbuch],
referred to in Feckes, Das Mysterium der heiligen Kirche, 190-201.
[72]
O. Cohausz, Maria
in ihrer Uridee und Wirklichkeit (Limburg: Verlag
Gebr. Steffen, 1938), 102-113.
[75]
K. Adam, Das Wesen
des Katholizismus (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1924), 32, 153; E. Przywara,
“Mutter aller Lebenden,” in
Religionsphilosophische Schriften,
Vol. II (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag,
1962), 112-120.
[78]
Ps.-Ildephonsus, PL
96, 269d, cited in H. De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 242, also 257.
[80]
C. Dillenschneider, Maria im Heilsplan der Neuschöpfung, trans. by
E. Kretz (Colmar-Freiburg: Alsatia-Verlag,
1960),191-203. See also C. Dillenschneider, Le principe
premier d'une théologie mariale organique (Paris: Alsatis, 1955), 135-144.
[84]
See “Marie et l’Eglise,” ÉtMar 9-11 (1951-53), 3 Vols. See
further the studies of the following years: “La Nouvelle Eve,” ÉtMar 12-15
(1954-57), “La maternié spirituelle de Marie,” Ét Mar 15-17 (1959-61) and “Mariologie et Oecuménisme,” ÉtMar 18-20
(1962-64). Indeed, the work of the French Mariological
Society is a good example of how Vatican II was prepared by various
theologians.
[85]
G. Philips, “L’orientation de la mariologie contemporaine: Essai bibliographique 1955-1959,” Mm 23 (1960): 209-253 and “Marie et l’Eglise: Un thème théologique renouvelé,” in Maria, ed. H. du Manoir,
8 Vols. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1949-71), Vol. 7 (1964),
363-419. Philips acknowledged that many years of research prepared chapter VIII
of Lumen gentium.
Particular influential was for Philips the article by Henri Barré,
“Du vénérable Bède à saint
Albert le Grand,” ÉtMar
9 (1951): 56-143. See also C. W. Neumann, “Mary and the Church: Lumen gentium,
Arts. 60 to 65,” MSt 37 (1986): 96-142.
[86]
Academia Mariana Internationalis, Maria et Ecclesia,
Acta Congressus Mariologici-Mariani in Civitate
Lourdes anno MCMLVIII Celebrati, 16 Vols. (Romea: Academia Mariana Internationalis,
1959).
[88]
Semmelroth,
Archetype, 26-27 and “Die Stellvertretungsrolle Mariens im Lichte der
Ekklesiologie,” in ed. C. Feckes,
Die Heilsgeschichtliche
Stellvertretung der Menschheit durch Maria,
360-367.
[93]
Semmelroth,
Archetype, 54. In reference to the encyclical Mystici Corporis [No 12], he sees the Church as
the community of men united in a mystical-realistic and
supernatural way, joined to the Mystical Christ for and through the reception
of the fruits of salvation. . . . Semmelroth, Archetype, 81-82.
[97]
Semmelroth, Archetype,
89. See also Semmelroth' references to: Th. Aquinas, ST
III, 30, a.I; Leo XIII, Litterae
encyclicae Supremi apostolatus officio, September 1, 1883, AAS 16 (1883), 113-118; Pius X, Litterae encyclicae Ad diem illum laetissimum, February 2, 1904, ASS 36 (1903-04), 449-462. Semmelroth, Archetype, 85, 89.
[98]
Mary does so [1] as co-redeemer, she received the fruits of Christ's salvation
and assumed them for herself and the Church; [2] through her “intercession” she
permits these fruits to flow into the Church; [3] and mediates by exemplifying
that man must cooperate with his own redemption the way Mary cooperated with the redemption of
the entire Church. Semmelroth, Archetype, 102-103.
[105]
O. Semmelroth, Maria
oder Christus?
Christus als
Ziel der Marienverehrung, Meditationen
(Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag J. Knecht,
1954), 129.
[106]
O. Semmelroth, Maria
oder Christus?
131; O. Semmelroth, “Die Stellvertretungsrolle Mariens im Lichte der
Ekklesiologie”, in ed. C. Feckes,
Die Heilsgeschichtliche
Stellvertretung der Menschheit durch Maria,
360-367. A similar perspective is expressed by Köster
in Die Frau, die Christi Mutter war,
2 Vols. (Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattloch Verlag, 1961), Vol. 2, 68.
[107]
E. Schillebeeckx, Mary,
Mother of the Redemption, trans. by N. D. Smith (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), 164.
[109]
See in this context Beinert, “Maria im Geheimnis Christi und der Kirche,” in Communio Sanctorum. Einheit
der Christen–Einheit der Kirche. Festschrift für Bischof
Paul-Werner Scheele, eds. J. Schreiner, K. Wittstadt
(Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988), 284-309.
[110]
Concerning LG chapter eight see in particular F. M. Jelly et al., “The
Theological Context of and Introduction to Chapter 8 of Lumen gentium,”
MSt,
XXXVII, 1986, 43-265.
[112]
S. De Fiores, “Mary in Postconciliar
Theology,” 471; S. Napiorkowski, “The Present
Position in Mariology,” Con
9, 3 (1967): 52-62, 59. See
also F. Courth, “Maria–heute
neu gefragt?,” TThZ
96 (1984): 40-50; H. Muehlen, “Neuorientiering
und Krise der Mariologie in den Ausssagen des Vaticanums II,” Cathol 20 (1966): 19-53.
[113]
S. Meo, “Councilio Vaticano II,” in Nuovo Dizionario di Mariologia,
eds. S. De Fiores, S. Meo (Cimicello Balsamo: 1985), 387. See also F. Courth,
“Maria–heute neu gefragt?” and “Marienglaube–Marienverehrung: Dogmatische Überlegungen zu aktuellen Fragen,” MThZ 31, 2
(1980): 137-147.
[114]
S. Napiorkowski, “The Present Position in Mariology,”
52-62; E. del SDO Corazón, “Los Principíos
Mariologicos en el Capitulo
Mariano del Concilio Vaticano II,” EstMar 27, I
(1966): 279-333, here 291-308.
[115]
S. Meo, “Councilio Vaticano II,” 387. Compariing the
first with the last text of the schema, the “main draftsmen” G. Philips and C. Balîc acknowledged that the first was more orientated on
the magisterial teaching while the last one [actual Chapter VIII of Lumen gentium]
was placed in the framework of salvation history.
G. Philips: “Pourtant, nous pouvons
affirmer avec le Père Balic,
que la différence entre la
première redaction et le texte final revient au fait que ce dernier situé
la mariologie dans l'histoire du salut, tandis que IIe
premier project partait du Magistère
de l'Église,” G. Philips, L'Eglise et son Mystere au le Concile
du Vatican: Histoire texte et commontaire
de la constitution “Lumen gentium,” 2
Vols. (Paris: Cerf, 1967/68), Vol.
II, 210.
[122]
Letter from the Congregation for Catholic Education, The Virgin Mary in intellectual and spiritual formation (Rome, March 25, 1988), 5. Also De Fiores, “Mary in Postconciliar
Theology,” 471; S. Napiorkowski, “The present
position in Mariology,” Concilium
9, 3 (1967): 52-62.
[126]
For the purpose of this overview it shall suffice to consider these major
magisterial Marian documents. From the wealth of other studies concerning the
Mary-Church relationship, see for example, G. F. Kirwin, “Mary's salvific
role compared with that of the Church,” MSt XXV (1974): 29-43; H. de Lubac,
The Church: Paradox and Mystery,
trans. by J. R. Dunne (New York: Alba House, 1969), 54-67; J. Thornhill, Sign and
Promise: A Theology of the Church for a Changing World (London: Collins
Liturgical Publications, 1988), 220-234; A. Carr, “Mary in the Mystery of the
Church: Vatican Council II,” in Mary
According to Women, ed. C. F. Jegen (Kansas City,
MO: Leaven Press, 1985), 5-32; B. Forte, Maria,
Mutter und Schwester des Glaubens,
trans. from the Italian by M. Huber (Zürich: Benziger
Verlag, 1990), 201-209; A. L. Strada,
María y nosotros,
Manual de teólogia y espiritualidad
Marianas (Buenos Aires: Editorial Claretiana, 19895),
125-172; J. Esquerda Bifet,
P., “María, Tipo de la Iglesia,” EstMar XXXI (1968): 187-239 and “Sentido
escatologico de la Tipologia
Mariana,” EstMar
XXXIX (1974): 103-115; F. Courth, “Marienglaube-Marienverehrung: Dogmatische
Überlegungen zu aktuellen Entwürfen,” 136-147; J.
Neuner, “Maria, Urbild der Kirche,” Geist und Leben 69, 6 (1996): 442-450, also in
The Month, November (1995): 434-438.
See also Th. A. Koehler, “Mary's spiritual Maternity after the Second Vatican
Council,” MSt (1972): 39-68.
[127]
Catechism of the
Catholic Church (Homebush, NSW/Australia: St. Pauls, 1994), ns. 963-975; also B. Buby, Mary of Galilee, Vol. II, 216-222.
[128]
See the following references of Mary's relationship with the Father 144, 273
and 411; with the Son 484-507 and 618; with the Holy Spirit 721-728, 733, 829,
963-975.
[129]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, “I
believe in the Holy Spirit,” 683-1065.
[130]
Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 773.
[131]
Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 967 [tupoV],
972. The Catechism brings out the unity between the Immaculate Conception and the
Assumption of Mary, 965 and 966.
[132]
Catechism of the
Catholic Church, 964.
[133]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 963
and 967-969.
[134]
Pope Paul VI, Adhortatio apostolica
Signum Magnum, May 13, 1967, AAS 59 (1967), 465-475 [hereafter: Signum Magnum], and Adhortatio
apostolica Marialis Cultus.
For the right ordering and development of Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary,”
February 2, 1974 (Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1974) [hereafter: Marialis Cultus].
[138]
Isaac of Stella, Sermo
LI, “In Assumptione B. Mariae,”
PL 194, 1863, cited in Marialis Cultus, 28.
[141]
Lumen gentium 58.
See in this context also Petri's comments to aspects of Redemptoris Mater.
H. Petri, “Die Stellung Marias in der
Kirche,” in ed. A. Ziegenaus,
Maria und der Heilige Geist: Beiträge zur pneumatologischen
Prägung der Mariologie (Regensburg: Verlag
Friedrich Pustet, 1991): 39-49.
[142]
Redemptoris Mater 5. The frequency of the phrase “pilgrimage of
faith” provides a certain dynamic dimension to the encyclical letter, e.g., ns:
2, 6, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 49.
[149]
Redemptoris Mater 27. It is perhaps in this perspective where Mary's
significance is shown in ecumenical-ecclesiological dialogue;
but here too holds true what Jelly writes: “Not only do we Catholics have to
present our Madonna in the clearest light possible, reflecting the best in our
Tradition, but we too must learn from our fellow Christians not only their
problems with our Marian doctrines and devotions, but also their own traditions
about her place in the Church.” F. M. Jelly, Madonna: Mary in the Catholic Tradition (Huntington, Indiana: Our
Sunday Visitor, 1986), I14.
[150]
M. E. Hines, “Mary and the prophetic mission of the Church,” JES 28, 2 (1991): 281-299, here 287-88.
[155]
Redemptoris Mater 47. See also J. Roten,
“Memory and Mission: A theological reflection on Mary in the paschal
mysteries,” 126.
[156]
For a different “perspective” see K. Coyle, “Marian Theology Today:
Reinterpreting the Symbols,” East Asian
Pastoral Review 26, 2 (1989): 134-149; M. Hauke,
“Freiheit und Gehorsam im Marienbild feministischer
Theologien,” in Maria:
Gehorsam und Freiheit im Urbild der
Kirche, ed. G. Rovira, Eine Veröffentlichung des Internationlen Mariologischen Arbeitskreises Kevelaer
(Aschaffenburg: Verlag Ursula Zöller,
1994), 85-104. Although “the language about Mary is always immediately
transferable to language about the Church within that threefold dialectic of
archaeology, teleology, and eschatology” so Chapman, “the person of Mary is
never lost; the two are simply transcended by the power of a uniting metaphor
that discovers that the two are in fact one in Being.” M. E. Chapman, “Mary as
metaphor: A linguistic proposal for the recovery of ecclesiology,” Currents in Theology and Mission 20,
February (1993): 29-39, here 39.
Written By: Sr. Isabell Naumann