The Blessed Virgin Mary: Hail, Full of Grace
Introduction
Karl Adam (1876-1966), the great German Catholic apologist, commented on the proper Catholic understanding of the Virgin Mary:
Mary, . . . like every creature in heaven and on earth, . . . was called into existence out of nothingness. An infinite distance separates her from the Infinite, from Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And she has no grace, no virtue, no privilege, which she does not owe to the divine Mediator. Both in her natural and in her supernatural being, she is wholly the gift of God, "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). There is nothing, therefore, so misguided and so preposterous as to decry the Mother of God as some "mother goddess," and to talk of Catholicism having a polytheistic character. There is but one God, the Triune God, and every created thing lives in awe of His mystery. (1)
Likewise, Nicholas Russo, a Jesuit author, defended the Catholic view in 1886:
In honoring Mary, what else are we doing but imitating the heavenly messenger who saluted her as full of grace, united to God ["the Lord is with thee"], blessed among women? What are all the praises which the Church offers to Mary, . . . but a faint commentary on the words of the archangel? What is the veneration we have for her but the fulfillment of the prophecy made by our heavenly Mother herself when, filled with the Holy Ghost, magnifying the Lord and extolling His mercy, she exclaimed: All generations shall call me blessed? (Luke 1:43). To suppress our feelings, therefore, would not only be inconsistent with the filial love we should have for her, but would also contradict the clear teaching of the Gospel. (2)
Archbishop Fulton Sheen, well-known for his television sermons, eloquently wrote:
There is, actually, only one person in all humanity of whom God has one picture, and in whom there is a perfect conformity between what He wanted her to be and what she is, and that is His Own Mother. Most of us are a minus sign, in the sense that we do not fulfill the high hopes the Heavenly Father has for us. But Mary is the equal sign. The ideal that God had of her, that she is, and in the flesh. The model and the copy are perfect; she is all that was foreseen, planned, and dreamed. The melody of her life is played, just as it was written. Mary was thought, conceived, and planned as the equal sign between ideal and history, thought and reality, hope and realization . . .
As Eden was the Paradise of Creation, Mary is the Paradise of the Incarnation, and in her as a Garden was celebrated the first nuptials of God and man. The closer one gets to fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could have been more pure than she . . .
She is the one whom every man loves when he loves a woman whether he knows it or not. She is what every woman wants to be, when she looks at herself, . . . she is the secret desire every woman has to be honored and fostered; she is the way every woman wants to command respect and love because of the beauty of her goodness of body and soul . . . This Dream Woman . . . is the one of whom every heart can say in its depth of depths: "She is the Woman I love!" . . . (3)
The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the Living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her . . .
No one . . . who thinks logically about Christ can understand such a question as: "Why do you speak so often of His Mother?" . .
It may be objected: "Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her." But He needed her, whether we do or not. And what is more important, Our Blessed Lord gave us His Mother as our Mother . . .
Mary is a window through which our humanity first catches a glimpse of Divinity on earth. Or perhaps she is more like a magnifying glass, that intensifies our love of her Son, and makes our prayers more bright and burning.
God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. The moon would only be a burnt-out cinder floating in the immensity of space, were it not for the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men. (4)
Protestants (and many Catholics as well) are often concerned about abuses in the practice of Marian devotion. Wholly apart from the question of the exact nature of the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary, it must be admitted (and is, by many Catholic writers) that excesses in language and practice have indeed regrettably occurred too often among individual Catholics. Granting this, at the same time, much of the veneration and verbal praises directed towards Mary have to be understood as poetic utterances - not usually to be interpreted literally, just as the love letters of those in the midst of new romance have their own unique language, which everyone understands and accordingly takes into account.
Furthermore, it is also true that insufficient attention is paid to the many instances through the centuries of papal and conciliar censures of such abuses. For example, in our own time, both the Second Vatican Council (5) and Pope Paul VI (6) have addressed this issue frankly and directly, often with Protestant perceptions and objections in mind. In any event, the beginning of an ecumenical and scriptural understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her place within Catholicism and Christianity must take its starting point from the actual dogmas of Catholicism, which are "in the books" to be examined by one and all. These beliefs are often misunderstood, and it is the Catholic apologist's task to painstkingly clarify the Marian doctrines of his Church, and to rectify the common, longstanding misconstructions of them.
Definition: Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos)
The official, dogmatic proclamation of this dogma was made at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431, in response to the heresy of Nestorianism, which expressly denied that Mary was Theotokos (literally, "God-bearer"), and held, rather, that Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus (Christotokos). The term Theotokos had been used at least as early as Origen (d.c.254), and was in common use soon after his lifetime. The Council of Ephesus officially approved the Second Letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius as its definition on this matter. It reads in part as follows:
It was not that an ordinary man was born first of the holy Virgin, on whom afterwards the Word descended; what we say is that, being united with the flesh from the womb, (the Word) has undergone birth in the flesh, making the birth in the flesh His own . . . Thus (the holy Fathers) have unhesitatingly called the holy Virgin "Mother of God" [Theotokos]. This does not mean that the nature of the Word or His divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word united to Himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word was born according to the flesh. (7)
Scriptural Evidence: Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos)
Ludwig Ott, in his systematic summary of Catholic dogma, contends:
Scripture implicitly affirms Mary's Divine motherhood by attesting, on the one hand, the true Divinity of Christ, and on the other hand, Mary's true motherhood. Thus Mary is called: "Mother of Jesus" (John 2:1), . . . "Mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43). Mary's true motherhood is clearly foretold by the Prophet Isaiah: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and his name shall be called Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) . . . The woman who bore the Son of God is the Progenitress of God, or the Mother of God [see also Matthew 1:18, 12:46, 13:55, Luke 1:31,35. Galatians 4:4]. (8)
The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos flows consistently and straightforwardly from the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son Jesus. James Cardinal Gibbons explains:
We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is from all eternity begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fullness of time again begotten, by being born of the Virgin, thus taking to Himself, from her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance with hers.
But it may be said the Blessed Virgin is not the Mother of the Divinity. She had not, and she could not have, any part in the generation of the Word of God, for that generation is eternal; her maternity is temporal. He is her Creator; she is His creature. Style her, if you will, the Mother of the man Jesus or even of the human nature of the Son of God, but not the Mother of God.
I shall answer this objection by putting a question. Did the mother who bore us have any part in the production of our soul? Was not this nobler part of our being the work of God alone? And yet who would for a moment dream of saying "the mother of my body," and not "my mother?" . . .
In like manner, . . . the Blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person of the Adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His Mother.
It is in this sense that the title Mother of God, denied by Nestorius, was vindicated to her by the General Council of Ephesus, in 431; in this sense, and in no other, has the Church called her by that title.
Hence, by immediate and necessary consequence, follow her surpassing dignity and excellence. (9)
John Henry Cardinal Newman elaborates:
There was in the first ages no public and ecclesiastical recognition of the place which St. Mary holds in the Economy of grace; this was reserved for the fifth century, as the definition of our Lord's proper Divinity had been the work of the fourth . . . In order to do honour to Christ, in order to defend the true doctrine of the Incarnation, in order to secure a right faith in the manhood of the Eternal Son, the Council of Ephesus determined the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God . . .
But the spontaneous or traditional feeling of Christians had in great measure anticipated the formal ecclesiastical decision. Thus the title Theotokos, or Mother of God, was familiar to Christians from primitive times, and had been used, among other writers, by Origen, Eusebius, St. Alexander, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssen, and St. Nilus. (10)
Definition: The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Pope Pius IX (in the papal Bull Ineffabilis Deus) infallibly defined this doctrine as binding upon all Catholics on December 8, 1854:
We declare, pronounce and define: the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin, is revealed by God and, therefore, firmly and constantly to be believed by all the faithful. (11)
Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Genesis 3:15 (known as the "Protoevangelion") I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Ludwig Ott expounds this verse:
The literal sense of the passage is possibly the following: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic.
The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, for example, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, . . . St. Cyprian, . . . St. Leo the Great. However, it is not found in the writings of the majority of the Fathers . . . According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following. Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue, in the light of this interpretation . . . that: Mary's victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin. (12)
Luke 1:28 And he [the angel Gabriel - 1:26-27] came to her, and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
Most Protestant Bible translations follow the King James, or Authorized Version's lead in rendering kecharitomene, the Greek word, as "favored," as indeed also some recent Catholic versions (New American, Jerusalem). The favored (no pun intended!) traditional Catholic rendering (actually the more literal rendering) is "Hail, full of grace" (for example, Douay, Confraternity Version, Knox). The word "Mary" (after "Hail") is not in the text but strongly implied, as the angel is addressing her by title; thus we arrive at the phrase "Hail Mary, full of grace," which opens up the Rosary, the quintessential Catholic devotional prayer (another portion of it can be found at Luke 1:42).
In responding to the Protestant charge, often put forth, that "full of grace" is impermissible and indicative of Catholic bias, we cite two reputable Protestant linguistic sources to the contrary:
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, makes a very interesting observation:
Charitoo: akin to charis, to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious, and came to denote, in Hellenistic Greek, to cause to find favour, Luke 1:28, "highly favoured" (margin, "endued with grace") . . . Grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained. (13)
Vine has here given a thoroughly Catholic view on this verse and what it tells us about Mary, in a nutshell. For by saying that "grace is a free gift," he shows that the traditional Catholic rendering clearly makes Mary's Immaculate Conception entirely unmerited on her part - a sheer act of mercy and grace performed solely by God. "Favour," on the other hand, the preferred Protestant translation, may imply something "deserved or gained." Thus, by a great irony, the Protestant Bibles are more likely to be misinterpreted in the sense that Mary has earned this gift, a notion expressly denied by Catholic theology and dogmatic pronouncements.
Whichever translation one prefers (this is not necessarily an either/or proposition), it is certain that kecharitomene is directly concerned with the idea of "grace," since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is "grace." Charis is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as "grace."
Likewise, Word Pictures in the New Testament, by the renowned Protestant Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, expounds Luke 1:28 as follows:
"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer). (14)
The Catholic belief is precisely the former option, which Robertson's approved source has deemed "right."
Another important aspect of Luke 1:28 should be noted. The angel is here, in effect, giving Mary a new name ("full of grace"). As was mentioned earlier, the word "Mary" does not appear in the text. It was as if the angel were addressing Abraham Hail, full of faith, or Solomon Hail, full of wisdom (characteristics for which they were particularly noteworthy). The biblical and Hebraic understanding of one's name was quite profound. God was very particular in naming individuals Himself (for example, see Genesis 17:5,15,19, Isaiah 45:3-4, Matthew 1:21). God renamed persons in order to indicate regeneration (as in Genesis 17:5,15, 32:28) or condemnation (as in Jeremiah 20:3). For the ancient Hebrews, names signified the character, nature, and qualities of a person, and were much more than mere identifying labels. Thus, God chose His Son's name (Matthew 1:21).
As a passing speculation, it is interesting that the meaning of the Hebrew Miriam, (Greek, Mariam, or "Mary") is very uncertain, according to etymologists. It may be that the angel is giving the name its definitive meaning in Luke 1:28 - one who is characterized as being "full of grace."
It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds (15), to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.
It is crucial to understand that Catholics need only demonstrate the harmony of a doctrine with Scripture. It is not our view that every doctrine of the Christian faith must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We have also Sacred Tradition, the authority of the Church, and an acceptance of the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths, as is to be expected with a living organism guided by the Holy Spirit (that is, the Body of Christ). A belief implicitly biblical is not necessarily anti-biblical or un-biblical.
In fact, many Protestant doctrines (most of which are shared by Catholics) are either not found in the Bible at all (for example, sola Scriptura and the Canon of Scripture), are based on only a very few direct passages (for example, the Virgin Birth: Matthew 1:20-23, Luke 1:27-35), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (for example, the Trinity, the two Natures of Jesus, many attributes of God such as His omnipresence and omniscience). The Bible speaks only implicitly of many things which Protestants strongly believe, such as the proper mode of baptism (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?). The Immaculate Conception is entirely possible within scriptural presuppositions.
Luke 1:35 [The Annunciation; Mary as a type of the ark of the covenant] And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
"Overshadow" is derived from the Greek, episkiasei, which denotes a bright cloud or cloud of glory. It is used in reference to the cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:5 = Mark 9:7 = Luke 9:34), and hearkens back to instances of the Shekinah glory of God in the Old Testament (Exodus 24:15-16, 40:34-38, 1 Kings 8:10). The Septuagint, the 3rd century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses episkiasei at Exodus 40:34-35. Mary, as Theotokos, becomes, in effect, the new temple and holy of holies, where God dwelt in a special, spatially-located fashion. In particular, Scripture seems to be making a direct symbolic parallelism between Mary and the ark of the covenant. She is the bearer and ark of the New Covenant, which Jesus brings about (Hebrews 8:6-13, 12:24). The ark of the old covenant was constructed according to meticulous instructions from God ( Exodus 25:9, 39:42-43). How much more perfect must the "God-bearer" be, who would carry in her womb God made flesh, the eternal Logos, or "Word" of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?
Thus, when the ark and its surrounding sacred items were completed, the glory cloud of God descended and "covered" the tabernacle, in which the ark was kept, and Moses could not even enter (Exodus 40:34-35). This a direct parallel to Luke 1:35. A very similar occurrence can be found in 1 Kings 8:4-11 (especially 8:10-11), when the ark is brought to the newly-completed temple.
Another parallel is seen in the comparison of King David's words upon seeing the recently-regained ark (2 Samuel 6:9) and Elizabeth's exclamation upon seeing Mary (Luke 1:43). Also, the people of Jerusalem shouted with joy on the same occasion (2 Samuel 6:15), while Elizabeth also reacted with a "loud cry" to Mary (Luke 1:42), saying, Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
Furthermore, we find that as David leapt for joy when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14-16; cf. 1 Chronicles 15:29), so did John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb when the ark of the New Covenant was near (Luke 1:44). It was what each ark contained (the written and incarnated Word of God) that caused the joy in each case, and that is the whole point of the Catholic veneration of Mary.
Finally, there is another parallel of three-month stays in the hill country of Judea, of the ark of the old covenant (2 Samuel 6:10-12) and Mary, the ark of the New Covenant (Luke 1:39-45,56).
Perhaps a bit more reflection on the nature of the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple is helpful at this point, in order to grasp the profundity of the parallelism between these "holy places," where God is "specially" present (after all, He is omnipresent), and the Blessed Virgin, in whom God in the flesh chose to take up His initial earthly abode. By analyzing the similarities, one can see how Mary's Immaculate Conception is altogether in keeping with the typology of Scripture in this regard, and quite appropriate and fitting for one who was granted the unfathomable honor of being chosen as the Mother of God.
The temple site was very sacred and holy (1 Chronicles 29:3, Isaiah 11:9, 56:7, 64:10) as were its various rooms and areas and all its sacred objects (Ezekiel 42:13, 46:19, Isaiah 62:9), and the city of Jerusalem itself (Nehemiah 11:1,18, Isaiah 48:2). Of course the ground of Mt. Sinai was holy due to God's peculiar presence (Exodus 3:5), and God's presence in the Israelite camp rendered it holy (Deuteronomy 23:14). The presence of God always imparted holiness (Deuteronomy 7:6, 26:19; Jeremiah 2:3). Even God's "holy name" was thought by the Jews to constitute His actual presence with them (Leviticus 20:3, 22:2, 1 Chronicles 16:10) . . .When something was holy, it then partook of God's own holiness. Angels are called holy ones precisely because of their proximity to God (Job 5:1, Psalm 89:6-7).
The furnishings of the tabernacle, a portable sacred tent which prefigured and preceded the temple, were not to be touched by the Levites (or anyone else, save for a select few priests), on pain of death (Numbers 1:51-53, 2:17, 4:15). Likewise, the ark, which was carried on poles inserted through rings on its edges, was so holy it could not be touched. On one occasion, the ark was about to fall over when being transported, and one Uzziah (seemingly with the purest motives) reached out to steady it. He was immediately struck dead (2 Samuel 6:2-7). The men of Beth-shemesh also died when they merely looked inside the ark (1 Samuel 6:19; cf. Exodus 33:20).
The temple in Jerusalem (actually, three in succession) was simply the permanent structure based on the plan of the tabernacle, with outer courts, priest's courts, an altar, and the innermost holy sanctuary, the "holy of holies." The ark of the covenant was placed inside the holy of holies in the first (Solomon's) temple, but was lost after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians, led by Nebuchadnezzar, in 587 B.C.
Israelite priests were subject to very strict demands regarding marriage and ritual purity (Leviticus 21-22), especially the high priest (Leviticus 21:10-15). The holy of holies could only be entered by the high priest, and only on the yearly Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), with appropriate reverential precautions (Leviticus 16, Numbers 29:8). In Leviticus 16:2,13 the high priest is warned to properly observe instructions that he die not. The Jews used to tie a rope to the ankle of the high priest on Yom Kippur, so that they could safely pull him out if he was disobedient in some respect and died in the holy of holies. God dwelt above the mercy seat on top of the ark, between the two cherubim (Exodus 25:22).
Just before the Israelites were to receive the Ten Commandments, God made a spectacular appearance at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19-20), accompanied, as usual in Scripture, by fire and a cloud ("smoke" - 19:18). He warned the people not to even touch the mountain, or its "border," under penalty of death (19:12-13). Even animals were included in the restriction.
The point of all this digression is to illustrate how God regards people and also inanimate objects which are to come in close contact with Him. Cruel as it may seem from our vantage point, the severity of death as the consequence of disrespect or disobedience was necessary to make absolutely clear how awesome and majestic God's holiness is. The strictness of the ceremonial Law was to change, of course, with the arrival of the Messiah and the New Covenant, but the Old Testament principle of "holiness/separate unto the Lord" remained. Mary, because of her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as "spouse," so to speak), and God the Father ("the Daughter of Zion" typology), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as all of us must be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in all His fullness in heaven (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 3:13-17, 1 John 3:3-9, Revelation 21:27). The Immaculate Conception is merely the supreme, glorious realization of the notion which leaps out from practically every page of Scripture from beginning to end - that God is holy, and the closer we get to Him, the more we must be holy.
Lest anyone wrongly think that arguments such as the above, from "types and shadows," are a peculiar form of "Romish excess," the following biblical examples should suffice to show the commonness of such types in the text of Scripture itself:
Type / Shadow / Figure ------------ Fulfillment / Parallel
Many factors can be deduced, when considering all of the above scriptural indications of the Immaculate Conception. The influential American James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921) pointed out many parallels between the sinless Blessed Virgin Mary and other biblical figures:
Whenever God designs any person for some important work, He bestows on that person the graces and dispositions necessary for faithfully discharging it . . .
The Prophet Jeremiah was sanctified from his very birth because he was destined to be the herald of God's law to the children of Israel: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee. (Jeremiah 1:5) . . .
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb. (Luke 1:15). He was a burning and a shining light (John 5:35) because he was chosen to prepare the way of the Lord.
The Apostles received the plenitude of grace; they were endowed with the gift of tongues and other privileges (Acts 2) before they commenced the work of the ministry. Hence St. Paul says: Our sufficiency is from God, who hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament. (2 Corinthians 3:5-6) [other translations have "able," "competent," "qualified,"] . . .
There is none who filled any position so exalted, so sacred, as is the incommunicable office of Mother of Jesus; and there is no one, consequently, that needed so high a degree of holiness as she did.
For, if God thus sanctified His Prophets and Apostles as being destined to be the bearers of the Word of life, how much more sanctified must Mary have been, who was to bear the Lord and "Author of life" (Acts 3:5) . . . If God said to His Priests of old: Be ye clean, you that carry the vessels of the Lord (Isaiah 3:2); nay, if the vessels themselves used in the divine service and churches are set apart by special consecration, we cannot conceive Mary to have been ever profaned by sin, who was the chosen vessel of election, even the Mother of God. (16)
It is clearly untrue to maintain - as many do - that God is the only sinless being. Adam and Eve were created sinless and would and could have remained so - but for their disobedience and the Fall. Likewise, the angels in heaven began their existence without sin and have even remained so. Saints in heaven are made completely sinless (Revelation 14:5, 21:27).
And Mary needed a Savior just as much as the rest of us. She was fully aware of that necessity (Luke 1:47). The difference between Mary and other ultimately saved persons is that they had all fallen into the filthy pit of sin, whereas she had not. But she certainly would have, too, if it were not for God's special act of grace whereby she was conceived immaculate and spared from the inheritance of original sin. God redeemed us from the pit, but prevented her from falling into it. In both cases, it is proper to speak of God as having "saved" his creatures "from the pit." As the proverb goes, "prevention is the best cure."
In fact, Mary was saved more out of absolute grace than anyone ever was, so that it is altogether unfounded to charge the Catholic Church with undermining the doctrine of free grace by virtue of its Marian beliefs. For all the Church is saying with regard to Mary's Immaculate Conception is what Calvinists and many other Protestants claim for all saved individuals grace which is efficacious wholly apart from our cooperation. In Mary's case, the grace began without any possibility whatever of her own merit, since it was from the moment of conception, when she had not as yet a free will to choose one way or the other! Later on, she did indeed truly cooperate with God (Luke 1:38) (17), and was free of actual sin by choice (18), but at first, the grace came with no possibility of her even accepting or rejecting it. Thus, Protestant objections on this score are utterly unfounded, for everything that Mary is, derives entirely from God's free grace and Providential will (19). Far from being idolatry, the veneration accorded Mary by the Catholic is merely an acknowledgement of the glory promised by God (through the work of Jesus Christ) to all his redeemed creatures. (20)
John Henry Cardinal Newman was puzzled by some of the objections to the Immaculate Conception. He wrote, with characteristically brilliant, rhetorical prose, a piece intended as a counter-argument:
Does not the objector consider that Eve was created, or born, without original sin? Why does not this shock him? Would he have been inclined to worship Eve in that first estate of hers? Why, then, Mary?
Does he not believe that St. John the Baptist had the grace of God - i.e., was regenerated, even before his birth? What do we believe of Mary, but that grace was given her at a still earlier period? All we say is, that grace was given her from the first moment of her existence.
We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning.
We do not make her nature different from others . . . certainly she would have been a frail being, like Eve, without the grace of God . . . It was not her nature which secured her perseverance, but the excess of grace which hindered Nature acting as Nature ever will act. There is no difference in kind between her and us, though an inconceivable difference of degree. She and we are both simply saved by the grace of Christ.
Thus, sincerely speaking, I really do not see what the difficulty is . . . The above statement is no private statement of my own. I never heard of any Catholic who ever had any other view . . .
Consider what I have said. Is it, after all, certainly irrational? Is it certainly against Scripture? Is it certainly against the primitive Fathers? Is it certainly idolatrous? I cannot help smiling as I put the questions . . .
Many, many doctrines are far harder than the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of Original Sin is indefinitely harder. Mary just has not this difficulty. It is no difficulty to believe that a soul is united to the flesh without original sin; the great mystery is that any, that millions on millions, are born with it. Our teaching about Mary has just one difficulty less than our teaching about the state of mankind generally. (21)
Finally, the English bishop William Ullathorne (1806-1889), a friend of Newman, wrote eloquently in a book on this subject which was published a year after the dogma was proclaimed:
It is the divine maternity of Mary which explains both her perfect excellence and her perfect holiness. It is the key to all her gifts and privileges. For the excellence of each creature is to be found in the degree in which it resembles its Creator . . .
Mary was made as like to Him [Christ], as being a mere creature, she could be made. For, having no earthly father, Our Lord bore the human likeness of His mother in all His features. Or rather, she bore His likeness. And as, for thirty years of His life, her mind was the law which directed His obedience, and her will the guide, which regulated His actions, her soul was the perfect reflection of His conduct. And as all created holiness is derived from Jesus, and from the degree of our union with Jesus, of which union His sacred and life-giving flesh is the great instrument; we may understand something of the perfect holiness of the Mother of God, from the perfection of her union with her Son. For He was formed by the Holy Ghost of her flesh. And His blood, that saving blood which redeemed the world, was taken from her heart. And whilst the Godhead dwelt bodily in Him, He, for nine months, dwelt bodily in her. And all that time . . . the stream which nourished the growth of life in Jesus flowed from the heart of Mary, and, at each pulsation, flowed back again, and re-entered His Mother's heart, enriching her with His divinest spirit. How pregnant is that blood of His with sanctifying grace, one drop of which might have redeemed the world . . . Next to that union by which Jesus is God and man in one person, there is no union so intimate as that of a mother with her child . . .
Certainly, He who preserved the three children from being touched by the fire in the midst of which they walked uninjured, and who preserved the bush unconsumed in the midst of a burning flame, could preserve Mary untouched from the burning fuel of concupiscence. He who took up Elijah in the fiery chariot, so that he tasted not of death, could, in the chariot of His ardent love, set Mary on high above the law of sin . . . And He who held back the waves of that Jordan, that the ark of the Old Testament might pass untouched and honoured through its bed, could hold back the wave of Adam, lest it overflow the ark of the New Testament beneath its defiling floods. For that we are born in the crime of Adam and with original sin, is not the result of absolute necessity, but of the divine will. And if He who ordained this penalty, had already solved it in part, when ere His birth, He sanctified the holy Precursor of His Coming; much more could he solve it altogether when He sanctified His holy Mother.
For He, who could have limited Adam's sin unto himself, can ward off that sin from Mary. And what He could, that He willed to do. For why should He not have willed it? (22)
Definition: The Assumption of Mary
Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, of November 1, 1950, proclaimed this dogma in the following carefully-selected words:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we proclaim, declare and define as a dogma revealed by God: the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven. (23)
Scriptural Evidence: The Assumption of Mary
Ludwig Ott presents some of the biblical indications of the Assumption:
Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had. The possibility of the bodily assumption before the second coming of Christ is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15:23, as the objective Redemption was completed with the sacrificial death of Christ, and the beginning of the final era foretold by the prophets commenced. Its probability is suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: And the graces were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection came into the holy city and appeared to many. According to the more probable explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the "saints" was a final resurrection and transfiguration. If, however, the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ, then it is possible and probable that the Mother of the Lord was called to it also.
From her fullness of grace spoken of in Luke 1:28, Scholastic theology derives the doctrine of the bodily assumption and glorification of Mary. Since she was full of grace she remained preserved from the three-fold curse of sin (Genesis 3:16-19), as well as from her return to dust . . .
Modern theology usually cites Genesis 3:15 in support of the doctrine. Since by the seed of the woman it understands Christ, and by the woman, Mary, it is argued that as Mary had an intimate share in Christ's battle against Satan and in His victory over Satan and sin, she must also have participated intimately in His victory over death. It is true that the literal reference of the text is to Eve and not Mary, but already since the end of the second century (St. Justin) Tradition has seen in Mary the new Eve. (24)
Lest one think that a bodily ascent to heaven (of a creature, as opposed to Jesus) is impossible and "biblically unthinkable," Holy Scripture contains the examples of Enoch (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11), St. Paul's being caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), possibly bodily, and events during the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), which are believed by many evangelicals to constitute the "Rapture," an additional return of Christ for believers only. All of these occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin flows of necessity from the Immaculate Conception and Mary's actual sinlessness. Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the Fall (Genesis 3:19, Psalm 16:10). Thus, the absence of actual and original sin "breaks the chain" and allows for instant bodily resurrection and also immortality, just as God intended for Adam and Eve and all human beings. Christ achieved a triple victory over the devil (Hebrews 2:14-18). Mary (as foretold in Genesis 3:15) shared in this triumph of her Son Jesus: over sin through her Immaculate Conception, over concupiscence and inordinate sexual desire by her virginal motherhood, and over death by her glorious Assumption.
Jesus' Resurrection brings forth the possibility of universal resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13,16), which is why He is called the "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Mary's Assumption is the "first fruits," sign, and type of the general resurrection of all mankind, so that she represents the age to come, in which death and sin will be conquered once and for all (1 Corinthians 15:26). The Assumption is, therefore, directly the result of Christ's own victory over sin and death. It, too, has a Christocentric meaning, in the same way as the Immaculate Conception and the designation Theotokos.
John Henry Cardinal Newman made several remarkably cogent observations concerning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
Not till the end of the fourth century did the Church declare the divinity of the Holy Ghost . . . Of course it was held by implication, since the Holy Trinity was believed from the first - but I mean the bare absolute proposition "the Holy Ghost is God -" . . . The Assumption of our Lady is more pointedly and in express words held by all Catholics, and has been for a thousand years, than the proposition "The Holy Ghost is God" was held by the Catholic world in St. Basil's time. There has been a gradual evolution of Apostolic doctrine or dogma, as delivered from our Lord to the Church. If the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady were now defined at the Vatican Council [1870], I should say that plainly it, as the Immaculate Conception, is contained in the dogma "Mary the Second Eve" . . . If Mary is like Eve but greater, then, as Eve would not have seen death or corruption, so while Mary underwent death because she was a child of fallen Adam, she did not see corruption because she had more than the prerogatives of Eve. (25)
Who can conceive, my brethren, that God should so repay the debt, which He condescended to owe to His Mother, for the elements of His human body, as to allow the flesh and blood from which it was taken to moulder in the grave? . . . Or who can conceive that that virginal frame, which never sinned, was to undergo the death of a sinner? Why should she share the curse of Adam, who had no share in his fall? . . . She died, then, as we hold, because even our Lord and Saviour died . . . She died . . . not . . . because of sin, but to submit herself to her condition, to glorify God, to do what her Son did . . .
She, the Lily of Eden, who had always dwelt out of the sight of man, fittingly did she die in the garden's shade, and amid the sweet flowers in which she had lived. Her departure made no noise in the world . . . They sought for her relics, but they found them not . . . Her tomb could not be pointed out, or if it was found it was open. (26)
Finally, Archbishop Fulton Sheen movingly sums up the profundity of Mary's glorious Assumption into heaven:
Shall she, as the garden in which grew the lily of divine sinlessness and the red rose of the passion of redemption, be delivered over to the weeds and be forgotten by the Heavenly Gardener? . . .
Neither would Omnipotence, Who tabernacled Himself within Mary, consent to see His fleshly home subjected to the dissolution of the tomb . . .
Eat the food of earth, and one dies; eat the Eucharist, and one lives eternally. She, who is the mother of the Eucharist, escapes the decomposition of death . . .
Mary always seems to be the Advent of what is in store for man. She anticipates Christ for nine months, as she bears Heaven within her; she anticipates His Passion at Cana, and His Church at Pentecost. Now, in the last great Doctrine of the Assumption, she anticipates heavenly glory, and the definition comes at a time when men think of it least. (27)
Definition: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Pope Paul IV, in his Constitution, Cum Quorumdam Hominum of 1555, expressed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church concerning both the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and the perpetual virginity of Mary:
. . . We question and admonish all those who . . . have asserted, taught and believed . . . that our Lord . . . was not conceived from the Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin but, as other men, from the seed of Joseph; . . . or that the same Blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the mother of God and did not retain her virginity intact before the birth, in the birth, and perpetually after the birth. (28)
Scriptural Evidence: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Greek word for "brother" in the New Testament is adelphos. The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, defines it as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of: 1) male children of the same parents . . . ; 2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5; 3) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3 . . . ; 4) any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3; 5) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47; 6) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9; 7) mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17; 8) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17; 9) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word 'sisters' is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2). (29)
It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus' "brothers" need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned, seem to assume uncritically. By examining the use of adelphos and related words in Hebrew, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture ("exegesis"), one can determine the most sensible explanation of all the biblical data taken collectively. Many examples prove that adelphos has a very wide variety of meanings:
1) In the King James Version, Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:15 / 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Genesis 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses "kinsman" at 29:15 and 14:14.
2) Use of "brother" or "brethren" for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7, 2 Samuel 1:26 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32, 2 Kings 10:13-4, Jeremiah 34:9, Amos 1:9.
3) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for "cousin." Although the New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English "brother". But even in English, "brother" has multiple meanings as well.
Moving on to more direct biblical evidences of the perpetual virginity of Mary, we discover the following facts:
1) In Luke 2:41-51 - the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve - it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees He was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the "literal brothers" theory.
2) Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the "crowds" and His "disciples" (23:1) "brethren." In other words, they are each other's "brothers" (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 He calls His disciples and all who do the will of His Father "my brothers."
3) By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brothers" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn't likely that there were two women named "Mary" in one family - thus even this usage apparently means "cousin" or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure at least James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these "brothers" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term "brother" is not determinative in and of itself.
4) "First-born": the utilization of this term in order to assert that Mary had "second-borns" and "third-borns" proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek prototokos is "preeminent". To illustrate: David is described by God as the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth (Psalm 89:27). Likewise, God refers to Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exodus 4:22) as "my first-born". Jesus is called the first-born of all creation in Colossians 1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that He was preeminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "first-born". Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, 48:12; cf. Revelation 1:8, 21:6-7). Christians are called "the first-born" in Hebrews 12:23. Literally speaking, however, among the Jews, the "first-born" was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (Exodus 13:2), whether there were other children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matthew 1:25, in which case hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all, contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.
5) Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely wouldn't have done this if He had brothers (who would all have been younger than He was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary's perpetual virginity.
6) Catholics believe that Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Messiah, at the Annunciation, How can this be, since I have no husband?, indicates a prior vow of perpetual virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4,4), wrote: "Surely, she would not say, 'How shall this be?' unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn't have asked this question!"
These conclusions are not merely the result of "Catholic bias" and special pleading, as many charge. For example, the prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, in its commentary on Matthew 13:55, states:
An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these "brethren" and "sisters" to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. (30)
Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son . . .
This verse has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant source, which is assuredly not notable for its ecumenical spirit, comments:
The word "till" does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word "first-born" decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." (31)
John Calvin used this very argument to establish the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly Protestants (such as John Wesley). No one had ever denied this doctrine until the late 4th century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus' supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which "higher criticism" has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.
Scriptural Evidence: Mary the Intercessor, Mediatrix, and Spiritual Mother
John 19:26-27 . . . he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" . . .
It is quite reasonable to assume that in this utterance of Jesus on the Cross, more is involved than simply asking John to look after His mother. For Jesus addresses Mary first, which is odd if in fact no spiritual meaning is to be found here. John, like Nicodemus (John 3:1-15) is a representative figure in this instance: the disciple of Christ, in relationship to the Mother of the Church. As he would care for her physical needs, so she was to be to him (and all Christians) a Spiritual Mother. (32) Neither Mary nor John are called by their proper names. Rather, they are the archetypes of "Mother Church" (33) and the faithful follower of Christ. The double phraseology recalls the covenantal formula of the Old Testament: I will be his father, and he shall be my son . . . (2 Samuel 7:14; cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16,18, Hebrews 1:5, Revelation 21:7). The motherhood of the Church is seen in passages such as Galatians 4:26: But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Revelation 12:1,5,17 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . .
She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne . . .
Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus . . .
John Henry Cardinal Newman comments:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother? (34)
This passage has traditionally had a double interpretation, which is not unusual in Scripture. The primary application is to the Church, or the people of God. But a secondary reference can legitimately be made to the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the literal meaning of 12:5, in which she bears the Messiah, Jesus (see Psalm 2:9). As such, the passage echoes the Mary/Eve symbolism of John 19:26-27. Furthermore, the war with the dragon (identified as Satan in 12:9) recalls the Protoevangelion of Genesis 3:15 ("her seed" / "her offspring" battle the devil), and supports the notion of the spiritual motherhood of Mary. The symbolism of Mary as the Church and the New Eve was already prevalent in the early centuries of the Church. The "woman" here gives birth "in anguish" (12:2), which hearkens back to Genesis 3:16, and is perhaps an anticipation of Calvary.
Mary as Intercessor
As the preeminent saint and "all-holy one", Mary has a singular role in heaven as an intercessor for us (James 5:16), and, as such, is venerated due to her unique attributes and privileges. This aspect has been dealt with generally with regard to the "communion of saints." Mary is unique in this regard because she is the Mother of God and without sin, and is, therefore, the very highest and exalted of all God's creatures. Cardinal Newman exclaims:
I consider it impossible then, for those who believe the Church to be one vast body in heaven and on earth, in which every holy creature of God has his place, and of which prayer is the life, when once they recognise the sanctity and dignity of the Blessed Virgin, not to perceive immediately, that her office above is one of perpetual intercession for the faithful militant, and that our very relation to her must be that of clients to a patron, and that . . . the weapon of the Second Eve and Mother of God is prayer. (35)
Mary as a Type of the Church
Mary is the first Christian, and is the Mother of believers in the same way that Abraham is known as the Father of believers. Abraham brought about the Old Covenant (humanly speaking) by an act of faith, and Mary, as the New Eve, assents obediently at the Annunciation, thus undoing the disobedience of Eve, the mother of the human race. As the sterile and aged Sarah was to be a mother to Israel, so the Virgin Mary would become the Mother of God and of Christians.
There is also a fascinating type in the Old Testament of which Mary, again, appears to be the fulfillment: the Daughter of Zion (36), who is the personification of Israel (the Church is the "new Israel"). The following verses are a representative sample of this typology:
Lamentations 1:15*, 2:13, Isaiah 62:5*, 62:11, Jeremiah 4:31, Micah 4:10, Zechariah 2:10, 9:9, Zephaniah 3:14, cf. Revelation 21:2-3). {* - described as a "virgin"}
In Zephaniah 3:14 and Zechariah 9:9, the Greek word chaire ("hail") appears in the Septuagint - the same word as that in Luke 1:28 (Hail, full of grace . . .). Chaire is used in prophecies regarding the messianic deliverance of the Jews. The parallelism is seen to be more profound by a verse-by-verse comparison of Zephaniah 3:14-17 with Luke 1:28-31.
Mary as Mediatrix
Ludwig Ott explains this greatly misunderstood doctrine:
Mary is designated mediatrix of all graces in a double sense: 1) Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces; 2) Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation . . .
Mary freely and deliberately co-operated in giving the Redeemer to the world . . . The Incarnation . . . and the Redemption . . . were dependent on her assent. In this significant moment in the history of Salvation Mary represented humanity . . .
The title Co-redemptrix, which has been current since the 15th century, . . . must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Timothy 2:5) . . . Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this, that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him . . .
Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action . . .
Since her assumption into Heaven, Mary co-operates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man. She participates in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession which is far inferior in efficacy to that of the intercessory prayer of Christ, the High Priest, but surpasses far the intercessory prayer of all the other saints.
According to the view of the older, and of many of the modern theologians Mary's intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men, without the intercession of Mary. The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary's intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God's positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary. (37)
Mary's secondary (to Christ) and wholly derivative function as the Mediatrix (38) is no more a violation of His unique mediatorship than any number of functions He sanctions and allows among His Body, the Church. We pray for each other, thus acting as mediators. One could just as easily say, "Why ask your fellow Christians to pray for you when you can ask Jesus?" as "Why do you ask for Mary's prayers when you can go directly to Jesus?" Yet God commands us to pray for one another. God is Creator, but he gives us the privilege of procreation, in childbirth and parenthood. Jesus is the "chief" Shepherd of His flock (John 10:11-16, 1 Peter 5:4), yet He assigns lesser shepherds to watch over His own (John 21:15-17, Ephesians 4:11). And He is the supreme Judge, but He bids us to judge as well (Matthew 19:28, 1 Corinthians 6:2-3, Revelation 20:4). Many other similar examples can be found in the Bible.
FOOTNOTES
Copyright 1996 by Dave Armstrong. All rights reserved. Bible verses: RSV.