You are on page 1of 13

Mary, the Church, and Vatican II

In any ecumenical dialogue the most reasonable thing to do is to wish to begin the discussion immediately with the great soteriological truths where differences of opinion clearly divide us. However, in the area of Mariology, one is tempted to postpone any discussion of difficulties because it is an area in which, over years of separation, very strong feelings have grown up; an area in which many non-theological factors are at work and consequently an area of extreme sensitiveness. The Second Vatican Council boldly faced this problem when it decided to include Mary within the context of the Constitution on the Church, rather than seeming to encourage Marian theology to continue developing independently from the rest of Catholic thought. The resultant chapter was rewritten precisely with the ecumenical intent of describing Mary as much as possible in Biblical terms, so that an avenue of possible ecumenical discussion would be fostered1. Vatican II, however, is not the final word in this matter for the church must constantly be in the process of purging all theological and devotional dress which disfigures Marys image in any way. At the same time, we are not to compromise all that is good of our authentic Marian heritage merely for the sake of false ecumenism. The Constitution on the Church gives us well balanced advice on this point when it tells us:
But this Synod earnestly exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word that in treating of the unique dignity of the Mother of God, they carefully and equally avoid the falsity of exaggeration on the one hand, and the excess of narrow-mindedness on the other. Pursuing the study of sacred Scripture, the holy Fathers, the doctors, and liturgies of the Church, and under the guidance of the Churchs teaching authority, let them rightly explain the offices and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which are always related to Christ, the Source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them painstakingly guard against any word or deed which could lead separated brethren or anyone else into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain vain credulity. Rather, it proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues2.

As the council tells us, this critical approach does not hinder the development of reasonable Marian devotion or theology. Rather, it places much greater demands upon the theologian who writes about Mary than the mere repetition of formulae and their proving. The duty of the theologian is therefore not to emotionally defend any particular system, formula or school opinion concerning Mary but as honestly as possible to report this understanding of what revelation tells us of her mission and her person. In this day and age it is impossible to remain silent and to avoid the Marian question in any ecumenical discussion.
1

Cf. R. M. BROWN, The Ecumenical Revolution (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. 1967), p. 176. 2 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council II, n. 67. Excerpts from the Constitution on the Church, the Constitution on the Liturgy, and the Degree on Ecumenism are taken from the Documents of Vatican II, published by Guild Press, American Press , and Associated Press, and copyrighted 1966 by the American Press.

Since revelation speaks of Mary not marginally but in a very intimate and unbreakable connection with the work of our salvation, so must the theologian3. Hence silence would be unecumenical because basically it would be dishonest4. The theologian must make it very clear that Mariology does not consist of a quantitative conception in which we have a number of truths and titles about our Lady which grow and multiply, but that the question of Mary must center in the truth of salvation itself. Mary must be presented as she whom God saves and calls to a unique task5. In short, the basic themes of Marian theology must be those of soteriology. Mariology is in its root the recounting of Marys salvation by God and a description of the form in which this salvation was effected. It is not true Mariology when it concerns itself with Mary in isolation, outside of the centrality of salvation history. The recognition of this fact is essential for any ecumenical dialogue. This is the very reason why Marian theology can never be avoided or left out of consideration in any ecumenical discussion for its basic questions are also the very same great questions about the form Gods salvation takes in the world. All which the Church has stated about salvation in Mary she has at other times affirmed of us all in other terms. The difficulty with Mariology is not due to any single Marian truth in itself, but basically the difficulty is the theology of salvation implied in each of all these truths. These fundamental truths, such as God, man, sin, salvation, grace etc., run together and are thrown into the sharpest focus when they are displayed in the theology of Mary. And herein lies the real root of our difficulties. Hence the problem which lies at the heart of mariological differences between churches is not an exclusively mariological one but a theological and anthropological one, a problem in the nature of divine salvation6. Mary and the Church Starting therefore, from this axiom, I shall now attempt to examine one particular truth which I consider not only a vital Marian truth, but also a truth in which the theology of salvation is intimately involved. In fact, it was for this very truth that the council felt inclined to include Mary in a separate chapter in the Constitution on the Church. It is that basic truth of understanding Mary as a type or figure of the Church. Upon this view rests all possibility of any future ecumenical dialogue concerning Mary for to have dealt with her in a separate document would have meant to regard her as in some way, being above the Church, exercising her power as co-redemptrix of mankind and mediatrix of all graces in the strict sense. This view would most certainly, not only have thwarted all ecumenical discussion concerning Mary on any level, but would also be most inclined to lead to the falsity of exaggeration and excess of narrow-mindedness which Pope Pius XII so wisely warned against7. Comparisons between Mary and the Church revert back to the very beginnings of
3 4

Ibid., Chapter II. Cf. DONAL FLANAGAN, Marian Theology in the Ecumenical Discussion, The Irish Theological Quarterly, XXXIII, 4 (October, 1966), P. 352. 5 Cf. Constitution on the Church, n. 53. 6 Cf. FLANAGAN, op., cit., p. 353. 7 Cf. PUIS XII, radio message, October 24, 1954: AAS 46 (1954), p. 679; and the same Pontiffs encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam, October 11, 1954: AAS 46 (1954), p. 637.

Christianity. The theology of recent times has attempted a synthesis of the scriptural, patristic and medieval data on the Mary-Church relationship for the first time. It is at this point that I would like to recall briefly an area of conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants which is vital to this entire question. It concerns the Protestant refusal to accept Tradition which grows from the work of man, their insistence on grace alone, i.e. the refusal to accept merit in man; and faith alone, i.e. their refusal to give any worth to mans work. Basically, it comprises an attitude which centers on a single, identical refusal to give any value as such to a creature8. These problems are outside of the discussions between Orthodox and Catholics, who are, by and large, in accord on Justification and Scripture9. Catholicism certainly admits that God is the end par excellence, indeed that He is the only end in itself to which all others are completely subordinate and relative. The point of difference, however, lies in the Catholic viewpoint that man can only be a relative and subordinate end; while in the Protestant viewpoint, he can be no kind of end at all. The cultus which Catholics accord to the saints, and among them Mary stems from the single fact that we are the object of Gods love and all love in some way considers that which is love as a subject and an end10. I raise this point merely to demonstrate that while we must strive to develop Marian theology primarily along Biblical lines, nevertheless, we must not exclude Tradition, for as the Constitution on the Church itself tells us:
Pursuing the study of sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors, and liturgies of the Church, and under the guidance of the Churchs teaching authority, let them rightly explain the offices and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which are always related to Christ, the Source of all truth, sanctity and piety11.

A return to the sources, therefore, outside of the primary source of the Bible, is certainly essential and more than ever productive. The writings of the Fathers, of Justin and Irenaeus to begin with, and then Augustine, contain treasures of Mariological doctrine that are far from being fully appreciated, and still less from being exhausted. Furthermore, all these sources have the decisive advantage of having existed prior to all debate and division either with the Orthodox churches or with the Reformation communities. They can, therefore, be used by both parties with greater serenity and profit12. Pope John Paul II further develops this point in his Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Mater.
Now, at the first dawn of the Church, at the beginning of the long Journey through faith which began at Pentecost in Jerusalem, Mary was with all those who were the seed of the new
8

Cf. R. LAURENTIN, The question of Mary (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p.

124.
9

Cf. G. TAVARD, The Holy Tradition, Dialogue for reunion, The Catholic Premises, ed. Leonard Swidler (new York: Herder and Herder, 1962), pp. 54-87. 1 10 Cf. LAURENTIN, op. cit., p. 125. 1 11 Constitution on the Church, n. 67.
12

Cardinal AUGUSTINE BEA, Mariology and Ecumenism, Catholic Mind, LXIV, 1203 (May, 1966), p.41 3

Israel. She was present among them as an exceptional witness to the mystery of Christ. And the Church was assiduous in prayer together with her, and at the same time contemplated her in the light of the Word made man. It was always to be so. For when the Church enters more intimately into the supreme mystery of the incarnation, she thinks of the Mother of Christ with profound reverence and devotion. Mary belongs indissolubly to the mystery of Christ, and she belongs also to the mystery of the Church from the beginning, from the day of the Churchs birth13.

The Liturgical Source Before we return once again to our development of Mary as Type of the Church, I wish to elaborate on one source which is extremely vital and indispensable for all Marian theology, namely the sacred Liturgy. In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy we are told that the Blessed Virgin Mary is called the first and most excellent fruit of the redemption. Thus the veneration given to her redounds on her Son. Furthermore, she is the most pure image of the Church, and her different feasts joyfully urge, invite and fortify us to follow her example:
In celebrating this annual cycle of Christs mysteries, Holy Church honors with special love the Blessed Mary. Mother of God, who is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son. In her the Church holds up and admires the most excellent fruit of the redemption, and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless model, that which she herself wholly desires and hopes to be14.

Free of all non-liturgical exercises of exaggerated and excessive public devotion, customs and usages, the liturgy can be a true source of Marian theology. In the liturgy Marys role in the Church is never separated from her union with Christ her Son and flows directly from it15. Between the great icons of the East and the texts of the Roman liturgy there is an affinity, a kinship that will make the Orthodox feel at home, while he may be left cold by the sentimentalities, exaggerations and the bad taste which pervade so much modern popular devotion. The official prayers, the Collects, etc., are never directed to Mary, but to the Father whose favors are asked for by Christ, through Marys intercession. The mysterious identification of Mary with wisdom, Sophia, the mystical antiphons taken from the Canticle of Canticles, the dogmatic simplicity of her orations, all show that Mary is seen in the liturgy according to her greatest title as Theotokos, and thus as a type of the virginal Mother, the Church16. As we examine the revised liturgical books of Vatican II we are inexorably led to the comforting observation that the postconciliar renewal has, as was previously intended by the liturgical movement, appropriately considered Mary within the mystery of Christ. In harmony with tradition, Marys singular place in Christian worship is attributed to her as the holy Mother of God and the worthy Associate of the Redeemer.
It could not have been otherwise. If one studies the history of Christian worship, in fact, one notes that both in the East and in the West the highest and purest expressions of the devotion
13

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Mater- Paragraph 27, March 25, 1987. 14 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 103. 15 Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 251, 1994. 16 Cfr. H. A. REINHOLD, Liturgy and Ecumenism, Dialogue for Reunion, The Catholic Premises, ed. L. Swidler (New York: 1962), p.42. 4

to the Blessed Virgin have sprung from the liturgy or have been incorporated into it17.

The Scriptures But of the greatest positive importance in contemporary Mariology are the studies of the Ladys place in the Scriptures. Both Old and New Testaments speak of the people of God in terms of a woman. All that Christ expects of his new bride, the new people of God, seems to be foreshadowed, symbolized and realized in advance and all perfectly in the daughter of Israel who is the Virgin Mary18. Upon careful analysis of chapters one and two of Lukes Gospel we find conclusive evidence that the Evangelist regarded Mary as the daughter of Sion, the holy representative of Israel, the faithful Virgin Jerusalem, who was visited by the Lord and brought forth the redeemer of the world. Mary appears also as the ark of the new covenant in which God has come to dwell in the midst of His people. Studies of the Johannine Gospel and the Apocalypse illustrate the connection between Mary and the Church even better and more clearly giving us scriptural foundations for regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary as a type of Gods people, the old and new people in continuity, ensuring the continuity between the two covenants19. As we examine the Old Covenant we find that the special role of Mary had been prepared for by the mission of many holy women. In the Book of Genesis there is Eve who despite her disobedience to Gods command, received the promise that she would bring forth descendents who would triumph over Satan. Cf. Gen 3:8-20. From that point on, over the ages God has selected those who were powerless and weak to demonstrate his fidelity to his promises: Sarah; Abrahams wife; Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; as well as many other women20. Among all of these, it is Mary who: stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hopes for and
the receives salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, exalted daughter of Sion and the new plan of salvation is established, when the Son of God has taken human flesh from her, that he might in the mysteries of her flesh free man from sin21.

It is most apparent from the very beginnings of Christianity that in personifying the Church, use has invariably been made of the features of Mary, the mother of the Lord. Likewise, recent Patristic studies have encouraged the understanding of Mary as a type or figure of the Church. The Fathers looked upon the grace received by Mary as a signification of the grace which God bestows upon the Church. Conversely, the Blessed Virgin was conceived by them as in some way reflecting in her life the role of the redemptive work of the entire Church. The medieval authors also developed further the comparison between Mary and the Church22.
1 17 1 18

Pope Paul VI, Apostolilc Exhortation, Marialis Cultus, Paragraph 15, February 2, 1974. Cf. E. R. CARROLL., O. Carm., Our Lady and Vatican II, Cross and Crown, XVII, 3 (September, 1966), pp. 280-281. 1 19 Cf. G. BAUM, The Theology of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council, Ecumenical Theology Today, ed. G. Baum, O.S.A. (New Jersey: 1964), p. 43. 2 20 Catechism of the Catholic Church. #489. p. 123. 2 21 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21 Nov. 1964, para 55. 2 22 Cf. G. BAUM, The Theology of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council, Ecumenical Theology Today, ed. G. BAUM, O.S.A. (New Jersey: 1964), p.43.

Contemporary Theology The Mariological thought of our own day has been profoundly influenced by the whole movement of contemporary theology. Especially since the Second World War, have theologians pursued this theme, particularly in German-language writings. According to Otto Semmelroth, a German Jesuit, mankind must choose Christ, and it does so through Mary, its foremost member and representative. Mary, he tells us, as Archetype is in closest union with the Church, because she is the germ of the Church, since she bears within herself the pleroma of grace that will be poured from her into the Church which unfolds in space and time23. In the early Christian authors, archetype meant a human person whose history and final condition show the saving design of God towards His people. And Father Schillebeeckx tells us that which God intends for His Church He manifests clearly in the perfect image of the Virgin Mother24. As such a type, Mary is not merely a static image for us to model our lives on, for as archetype she is a dynamic force continually fulfilling her maternal co-operation in the building up of the Church of Christ her Son. Vatican II tells us that Mary is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son, and that, in the order of grace, her maternity actually began with her fiat in faith at the Annunciation and by her steadfastness beneath the cross25. This maternity will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. For, taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues (through the Church) to win for us gifts of eternal salvation26. According to Semmelroth, our Ladys share in the redemption, which Christ accomplished in his passion and death, was not an immediate cooperation, because this would take away from the unique mediatorship of Christ. Yet, Mary does not merely share in the applying to us of the graces won by Christ. The ancient Eve-Mary comparison points to an intermediate position. Semmelroths middle position is that Mary is prototype or archetype of the Church; she said yes to universal redemptive grace as the prototype and representative of the Church27. Along the same lines Karl Rahner tells us concerning Mary, She is the person who was redeemed in the most perfect way and so she is the prototype of the redeemed and of the Church in general, comprised in the will of God decreeing the redemptive and therefore triumphant Incarnation of the Word of God28. The contemporary theories on the Mary-Church analogy are carefully developed, blending positive investigations (of ancient Christian writings) with profound speculation, all deeply rooted in the Scriptures. It is extremely difficult to attempt to do them justice in a quick summary such as this, for there has been a large amount of writing done on this particular aspect by many of the worlds outstanding theologians. We have
2 23

SEMMELROTH, S.J., Mary, Archetype of the Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964),

pp.54-55.
2 24

E. SCHILLEBEECKX, O.P., Mary, Mother of the Redemption (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), p.115. 2 25 Cf. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n. 103. 2 26 Constitution on the Church, n. 62. 2 27 Cf. SEMMELROTH, S.J., op. cit., pp.48-55. 2 28 K. RAHNER, Mary, Mother of the Lord (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), p.14.

attempted to present a few of these theologians and their opinions. Ecumenical Significance However, after all has been said and done, what is the validity of this MaryChurch analogy? What promise does it hold for the future life of the Church? Obviously I cannot attempt to answer these questions in full within the limits of this paper. But in the field of ecumenism its significance is obvious. For, in the clarifying and consolidating of Marian theology within the context of the Mary-Church analogy, we are at the same time, helping to clarify and to consolidate many other aspects of differences between the Roman Catholic Church and its separated brethren. These other aspects are theological and anthropological and intimately connected with and inseparable from the Marian question. The more firmly we establish Mariology along sound Biblical, Patristic and Liturgical lines, we are at the same time clarifying many other problems between Christians and showing forth the Church of Christ in an ever more faithful manner so that it may be seen clearly, unconfusedly and at a glance. In this request, it is very encouraging to note that the Protestant Reformers, although separated from the Church in so many ways, nevertheless acknowledged Marys title and prerogative of Mother in the sense that she is our mother and mother of salvation as well. After the second Vatican Council, Protestant theologians began to reexplore their recognition of Mary in a more promising and responsible way. All of this is certainly encouraging toward the fact that Protestants and Catholics will hopefully be united more than divided by the acknowledgement of Mary as the Mother of God, and in another sense, as the Mother of all believers29. Another aspect of the Mary-Church analogy and its significance to ecumenism revolves around the new development in Vatican II concerning exactly what constitutes other churches. While the Orthodox churches of the East have always been regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as local churches, nevertheless, the Christian communities of the West, Anglican and Protestant, have not been so regarded. Since the Catholic Church does not acknowledge the continuity of the episcopally celebrated Eucharist in these Christian bodies, she has never, in any theological sense, referred to them as local churches. However, out of Vatican II has come the view that these Christian bodies must certainly not be equated with profane or secular societies. They are seen as religious bodies and the specific principles that define them are Christian30. Since the Council regards our separated brothers who believe in Christ and are baptized in Him as Christians, as members of the same family of Christ, it could not, therefore, bypass the role and dignity of their own communities before God. What are these communities? The Decree on Ecumenism calls them Churches and Ecclesial Communities31, for in Gods plan of grace on our behalf, divided as we Christians are, the non-Catholic communities as such, have a meaningful Christian role. For each of these communities, the process of sharing in the new life of Christ does not take place outside its own communion or despite it but within its own communion and by means of it. However,
2 29

Cantalamessa, Raniero, Mary, Mirror of the Church, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, pp.130-132, 1992. 3 30 Cf. G. BAUM, What are Other Churches? Ecumenical Theology Today, ed. G. BAUM, O.S.A. (New Jersey: 1964), pp. 52-53. 3 31 Cf. Decree on Ecumenism, Chapter III.

these communities as such are, in varying degrees, deficient, because they lack the fullness of means and are not blessed with the unity which Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one body, but they, nevertheless, do retain significance and importance in the mystery of salvation; for the Spirit of Christ uses them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Thus there must be a real relationship of these dissident communions to the Church. They may be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church but this implies that there still remain degrees of communion, though imperfect. The relationship therefore, seems to be based on the degree to which a dissident communion resembles local or particular churches.32 Each church, therefore, makes present the whole and undivided Church of Christ, which carries on its own life in each. Primarily, however, it is through the Eucharist that the particular church most perfectly makes present the Church in all her fullness and expresses most deeply the unity of the particular community and the unity of the whole Church.33 Hence Vatican II contributes a clear recognition and affirmation of separated Christians not merely as individuals but as corporate bodies, namely churches and ecclesial communities. The degrees of churchliness of all these corporate bodies were not made specific by Vatican II but it did evaluate the churches separated from Rome according to a sliding scale of institutional elements which they share with the Catholic Church (which possesses them subsistently). The closer a church resembles the Catholic Church in these quantitative elements, the closer the Christian community approximates the ideal of the Church of Christ. However, when the Catholic Church regards itself as the measure of ecclesiastical fidelity, this applies only to the institutional level, for it cannot judge the interior fidelity of its members nor that of members of other communities. This is a question which only God can truly answer.34 In summing up this point, we can see that non-Catholic Christians live as members of communities which possess and use, in varying degrees, all those holy means which communicate to their faithful a share in the life of Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They preach the Gospel, they baptize, they celebrate a Christian liturgy and they give apostolic witness toward the extension of Gods kingdom in the world. All these endowments of sanctification and truth come from Christ and lead back to him. They rightfully belong to the one Church of Christ, for all together they help to build up the Church and to give it life; yet, they can and do exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.35 Mary and the Churches If we, therefore, now recognize the communities of our separated brothers as being true churches or ecclesial communities, then, Mary seen as the Archetype of the Church of Christ, takes on added significance in any ecumenical dialogue for whatever is declared of Mary as a type of the Church must logically be affirmed of Mary as related to
3 32

Cf. T.F. STRANSKY, C.C.P., Commentary on the Decree on Ecumenism, Paulist Press, pp. 26Ibid. Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 25.

27.
3 33 3 34 3 35

all Christian communities. Considering Mary within this framework has the unmistakable advantage of showing, without multiplying words, the central role allotted to the Blessed Virgin in the work of the redemption of all men, while at the same time bringing fully to light the unique and exclusive position of Christ and Marys complete subordination to him, the one Mediator. When we consider Mary from this viewpoint, she is very close to all Christians, and yet she is far from being the object of an exalted veneration that would be an end in itself. Like the divine Redeemer, her Son, she appears as one destined to serve and aid all humanity and to this end are ordered all the privileged gifts of grace that she has received. This entire development should forestall, at their very roots, a host of objections that our non-Catholic brothers have against the veneration of Mary in particular, and even more against the very special cult that she deserves in view of her unique function as loving associate of the Redeemer in the work of Redemption. It is significant to note that in the light of modern developments in Marian theology the door has definitely been opened to greater ecumenical accord. Beyond this there is evidence of a definite revival of Mariology within Protestant circles today. Many Protestant scholars, particularly exegetes such as Jaroslav Pelican, would readily acknowledge the fact that Protestant criticism of Roman Catholic Mariology is no longer valid until it is accompanied by a positive discussion of the mother of our Lord as viewed from a Biblical and evangelical perspective.36 In all Protestant treatment of Mariology two particular insights must never be overlooked and they are Marys significance for Christ and Marys significance for the Church.37 In view of these encouraging developments, while there is no justification for identifying them with a large scale Protestant conviction, or to see them at present as anything more than exceptional, it nevertheless remains true that the serious theological consideration of Mary in her relationship to Christ and the Church is no longer as exclusively Roman as in former times.38 One of the most convincing proofs of this fact is seen in Brother Max Thurians study on Mary, Mary, Mother of the Lord, Type of the Church, published by his reformed (Calvinist) community of Taize.39 In this remarkable book Thurian states that to speak of Mary is to speak of the Church. He goes on to explain:

Thus Mary and the Church are united in this vocation of maternity; the one enables us to understand the other, for the one is the type of the other. Mary, the Mother of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is a type of the Church, the mother of the faithful. Everything that Mary was and experienced, the Church is and should experience, except for what is bound up with Marys unique vocation in the incarnation of the Son of God.40
3 36

Cf. J. PELICAN, Introduction to O. Semmelroth, S.J., Mary, Archetype of the Church (New York, 1963), VII-XIV. 3 37 R.E. HUNT, Coredemption as an Ecumenical Problem, Marian Studies, 15 (1964), p. 36. 3 38 Ibid. 3 39 M. THURIAN, Marie, Mre du Seigneur, Figure de lEglise (Taize, 1962), p. 286. 4 40 M. THURIAN, Mary, Mother of all Christians (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), p. 10.

Throughout his book Brother Thurian gives us a marvelous development of Mary as a type of the Church. In the conclusion to his chapter on Mary and the Church, Thurian tells us:
Mary therefore appears clearly as the type of the Church, our Mother. She helps us to think of this Motherhood of the Church in her ministry. When we think of the ministry of the Church, we must think of Mary as the type if we would understand her spiritual motherhoodIf, for St. Paul, the conjugal union of the Christian and his wife is a symbolic sign, a mystery, which directs our attention toward the reality of the love of Christ for the Church, his Bride, then, for St. John, the motherhood of Mary in regard to Jesus and to the Beloved Disciple, a brother of Jesus, is a symbolic sign, a mystery, which directs our minds to the reality of the love for us of the Church our Mother. The mystery of Mary is also of great import; it is applied to the Church, the mother of the faithful who are the brethren of Christ.41

I have included excerpts from this book of Max Thurian as one, concrete, significant example of the new attitude developing toward Mary in reliable Protestant circles. In this entire study I have not dealt in any detailed manner with the separated Eastern churches because for them, the principle difficulty concerning Mary is not the devotion itself nor the doctrine, but the fact that definitions concerning Mary have been decreed by the Pope, and the separated Eastern churches accept neither the primacy of the Pope nor his infallibility. In other words, for them the difficulty is ecclesiological rather than Mariological.42 Ultimately this entire study should have helped to raise the question of how, in our lives as Catholics, are we to bring true Marian devotion and authentic Marian theology into harmony with efficacious love for our separated brethren and with activity for promoting unity? I hope that in the course of this paper I have not only succeeded in raising such questions but that I have also succeeded in some small measure to provide some of the answers. In this entire question let us always keep in mind the words of the Second Vatican Council which tell us:
True devotion consists neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain vain credulity. Rather, it proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, are moved to a filial love toward our Mother and to the imitation of her virtues.43

After Christ, the unity of Christians is prized by no one as highly as by Mary herself and to obtain it no one collaborates with Christ more energetically and tirelessly than she. That is why Pope Leo XIII, in speaking of Mary, was prompted to say: The greatest safeguard to Christian unity granted to us by God is the Virgin Mary44. In view of the recent developments and trends in Mariology within Protestant and Catholic circles, these words seem to bear added significance for us today. However, in order that ecumenism be authentic, it must never be the result of our own human energies or compromise on either side. Pope John Paul II emphasized this point when he stated:
Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular ageThe unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of

4 41 4 42 4 43 4 44

Ibid., p. 174 BEA, op. cit., p. 39. Constitution on the Church, n. 67. BEA, op. cit., p. 37.

10

revealed faith in its entirety.45

I would now like to conclude this all too brief exposition with these very appropriate words from the Constitution on the Church:
Let the entire body of the faithful pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men. Let them implore that she who aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers may now, exalted as she is in heaven above all the saints and angels, intercede with her Son in the fellowship of all the saints. May she do so until all the peoples of the human family, whether they are honored with the name of Christian or whether they still do not know their Savior, are happily gathered together in peace and harmony into the one People of God, for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.46

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS


4 45 4 46

Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint, Para. 18, May 25, 1995. Constitution on the Church, n. 69.

11

Baum, Gregory, Ecumenical Theology Today, ed. G. Baum, Glen Rock: Paulist Press, 1964, 2 vols. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, No. 964, pg. 241, 1994. Cantalamessa, Raniero, Mary, Mirror Of The Church, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, pgs. 130-132, 1992. Commentary and Instruction on the Sacred Liturgy, ed. A. Bugnini and C. Braga, New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1965. Dialogue for Reunion, the Catholic Premises, ed. L. Swidler, New York: Herder and Herder, 1962. Documents of Vatican II, ed. W.M. Abbott and J. Callagher, New York: Guild Press, American Press, Association Press, 1966. Graef, Hilda, Mary, A History of Doctrine and Devotion, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963, 2 vols. Guiton, Jean, The Virgin Mary, New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1952. Laurentin, Rene, The Question of Mary, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Laurentin, Rene, Queen of Heaven, London: Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1956. Laurentin, Rene, Our Lady and the Mass, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959. Rahner, Karl, Mary, Mother of the Redemption, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964. Schillebeeckx, E., Mary, Mother of Redemption, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964. Semmelroth, Otto, Mary, Archetype of the Church, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963. Thurian, Max, Mary, Mother of All Christians, New York: Herder and Herder, 1963.

ARTICLES Bea, Augustine, Cardinal, Mariology and Ecumenism, Catholic Mind, LXIV (May, 1966), 36-44. 12

Capelle, B., Marian Typology in the Fathers and in the Liturgy. Marian Studies, LXIV (May, 1966), 1-13. Carroll, Eamon R., Our Lady and Vatican II, Cross and Crown, XVIII (September, 1966), 277-288. Flanagan, Donal, Marian Theology in the Ecumenical Discussion, The Irish Theological Quarterly, XXXIII (October, 1966), 352-257. Hunt, Robert E., Coredemption as an Ecumenical Problem, Marian Studies, XV (1964), 48-86. Leeming, Bernard, Protestants and Our Lady, Marian Studies, LXXIIIV (January, 1967), 1-19. Levi, Anthony, Mariology Today, Catholic Mind, LXIII (September, 1965), 35-44. Stransky, Thomas F., Commentary, The Decree on Ecumenism, Paulist Press, 165, 743. Paul John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Mater, Paragraph 27, March 25, 1987. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint, Paragraph 18, May 25, 1995. Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation, Marialis Cultus, Paragraph 15, February 2, 1974. Pope Paul XII, Encyclical Letter, Ad Caeli Reginam, October 11, 1954 AAS 46 (1954). p 637.

DOMINIC F. SCOTTO, T.O.R.

13

You might also like