THE
BLESSED
VIRGIN
MARY
BY GREGORY ALASTRUEY
TRANSLATED BY

Sister

5W.

Janet La Çfylia, Ο. P.

VOLUME TWO

B. HERDER BOOK CO.

y

Madrid, 3rd edition, 1952·

^TOMATTO-HoscphCordinol Ritter
Archbishop of St. Louis. FebTOrp 4. 1964

Copyright © 1964 by B. Herder Book Co.
15 & 17 South Broadway, St. Louis 2, Mo.
London: 2/3 Doughty Mews, W.C. 1
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 63-13532
Manufactured in the United States of America
Designed by Klaus Gemming

CONTENTS
Chapter One : Mary’s Cooperation in General
Chapter Two : Mary’s Cooperation in Objective Redemption

Cooperation in Redemption in General, 8
Cooperation in Redemption in Particular, 24

Chapter Three : Mary’s Cooperation in Subjective Redemption
Mary’s Cooperation in the Distribution of Graces, -β
Mary's Causality in the Distribution of Graces, 87
Special Graces Distributed Through Mary’s Intervention, 96
Chapter Four : Titles Derived from Mary’s Cooperation
Mediatrix, 130
Co-Redemptrix, 138
Mother of Men, 146
Advocate and Patroness of the Human Race, 158
Queen and Lady, 184

Chapter Five : Veneration of Mary

Lawfulness of Veneration of Mary, 204
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart, 211
Veneration of Relics and Images of Mary, 215
Chapter Six : Elements of the Cult of Mary

Cult of Honor, 229
Cult of Invocation, 232
Cult of Imitation, 236

Chapter Seven : Necessity of Devotion to Mary
Marian Devotion and Salvation, 240
Benefits of Devotion to Mary, 248
Chapter Eight : Origin and Antiquity of Marian Devotion

v

CONTENTS

Chapter Nine : Practices of Marian Devotion

The Marian Scapular,
The Rosary, ζηη

272

translator's bibliography, 286
NOTES, 287

INDEX, 309

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

CHAPTER ONE

TAary s Cooperation in Qeneral
*
have studied Mary’s divine maternity and all the gifts and
privileges that flow from it. We now proceed to examine her admirable
and mysterious cooperation in the work of human redemption.
Cooperation here signifies Mary's union or association with Christ,
but always dependent upon Him, in the work of redemption or
the restoration of the human race to the supernatural order. Mary's
association with Christ is not necessarily restricted to one single
mode of cooperation in that work, but it admits of various modes.
We shall consider Mary’s cooperation under four aspects: her co­
operation with Christ in the work of redemption in general, her
cooperation in objective redemption, her cooperation in subjective
redemption, and the titles and offices derived from her association
with Christ.

Mary was Christ’s consort in the work of redemption.
Although some theologians have denied Mary’s cooperation under
certain particular aspects, there is no controversy whatever concern­
ing her cooperation in general. After the divine maternity, it is so
fundamental and certain that it pertains to the deposit of revelation.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII said: “And truly, the
Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby
associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favor and
power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has
ever obtained or ever can gain.”1
In another place he states: “Mary, with the ever merciful affection
so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her effica­
cious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and
grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties,
and the punishments of God’s anger.” * This affirmation he repeats
in another document: "For no single individual can even be imagined
thesis:

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

who lias ever contributed or ever will contribute so much toward

reconciling man with God.” 8
St. Pius X stated that she surpassed all in holiness and union with
Christ and was associated with Christ in the work of redemption.4
Pope Pius XI tells us that the Virgin, conceived without sin, was
chosen as the Mother of God precisely as His associate in the work
of human redemption. Many other pontifical documents, which we
will quote frequently, may be added to these.
Sacred Scripture. “I will put enmities between thee and the
woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head, and
thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen. 3:15). Here Mary is as­
sociated with Christ in the enmities and combats against the devil
and in the complete victory over him. Now victory’ over Satan, in the
present order of providence, is none other than the fulfillment of
human redemption, or the liberation of man from sin, by which he
had become a slave to Satan, and the restoration to his primitive
state of friendship with God.
Pope Pius IX explains this association of Mary with Christ in
redemption, as stated in the verse from Genesis: “Bound to Him
by the closest and most indissoluble bond, the most holy Virgin
carries into effect, together with Him and by Him, the perpetual
enmities against the poisonous serpent, is completely victorious over
it, and crushes it by her immaculate foot.” 6
However, Father Marlaskaj, O.F.M., seems to infer that Mary’s
only triumph was her immunity from original sin. He distinguishes
a double triumph in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus: the one, proper to
Christ, by which Christ, in blotting out the deed of the decree
against us, nailed it triumphantly on the Cross; the other, common
to Christ and Mary, in which the Blessed Virgin, united to Christ
by an indissoluble bond, crushed the head of the serpent with her
immaculate foot.
It is certain that the immaculate conception of Mary contains a
great victory over the devil, but her immaculate conception is only
the first victory, necessary for those which were to follow. The Bull
Ineffabilis declares that Genesis clearly and distinctly refers to the
merciful Redeemer of the human race in the person of the onlybegotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, and designates the most blessed

maby's cooperation in general

Virgin Mary as His Mother. It also refers to the enmities of both
against the devil.
But if the enmities of Christ and Mary with Satan are the same,
and therefore one and the same battle was to produce the same
victory, it is clear that Mary is there represented as a consort of
Christ, singularly united to Him both in combat and in victory over
the enemy. Therefore, if Christ’s victory consisted in the redemption
of men and in the restoration of the work of God destroyed through
sin, Mary must have cooperated with her Son in the accomplishment
of the work of redemption.
Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The comparison of Mary
with Eve is generally accepted by the Fathers, so that the part Eve
played with Adam in the fall of the human race is assigned to Mary,
together with Christ, in the work of redemption. Thus, as Eve was
Adam’s consort in our fall, so Mary was Christ’s in the work of our
redemption.
The Fathers and Doctors frequently call Christ the Bridegroom
of Mary and unite her to Him as spouse and cooperator in the work
of salvation. Thus, St. Ephrem makes Mary speak to her newly bom
Son, in this way: “I am your sister, since David is father of us both;
I am your mother because I conceived you in my womb; I am
your spouse through the sanctity I received from you.” · St. Peter
Chrysologus says: “A speedy messenger (Gabriel) flies to the bride
to take from the bride of God the inclination to human marriage,
not to take the Virgin away from Joseph, but to give her to Christ
to whom she was pledged when He became incarnate in her womb."T
Basil of Seleucia (Or. 3), St. Albert the Great (Mariale, q. 29)
and St. Bonaventure (Serm. 1 and 6, In Assumpt.) use similar ex­
pressions. Fulbert of Chartres says that she alone merited to be
called mother and spouse, who repaired the injury of the first mother
and brought redemption to fallen man.8
The Liturgy. The liturgy also gives Mary a place in the work of
redemption. Thus, in the Greek calendars we read: ‘‘Through you
we have been redeemed from the malediction which fell upon our
first parents.” The Ambrosian Missal states: “What Eve destroyed
by her sin, Mary restored in redemption. There is a great distance
between the work of the serpent and the work of Man·.” The Missal

3

1

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

of Westminster declares: “She repaired the injury of our first mother;
she brought redemption to fallen mankind.” 0
Theological Argument. Although the reason for Mary’s association
with Christ in the work of human redemption can be none other
than God’s will, who thus disposed it, we may nevertheless infer this
argument of convenience: Both sexes had to concur in the salvation
of mankind, since both had been the cause of its fall. So St. Bernard
says: "It was more fitting that both sexes should cooperate in our
reparation since neither one was free of corruption.” 10
The relationship between Mary’s maternity, the work of
redemption and her association in the work of redemption.
It is certain that the divine maternity and her association in the
work of redemption are not two concepts which naturally and mu­
tually include each other. According to the present order of provi­
dence, in which the Incarnation was decreed and destined for the
work of human redemption as its principal end (uniquely or not,
according to the twofold opinion of theologians on this subject),
we may affirm the following:
i ) If the association in redemption is understood in a broad sense,
as a remote cooperation in the work of redemption through the
merely physical maternity of Mary, then the divine maternity and
association in the redemption are two concepts which cannot be
separated from each other.
2) If the association is understood as a remote or proximate co­
operation, by means of moral acts previous or subsequent to the
Incarnation, then the divine maternity and association in the redemp­
tion are distinguished formally.
The Incarnation, though destined for the redemption of the hu­
man race, could have been accomplished in Mary’s womb without
her consent; indeed, it could have happened without her knowing
it and even against her will. Therefore, if Mary’s free consent to the
Incarnation was sought and obtained, so that she thus concurred in
the redemption of man, it was due only to the will of God. In re­
vealing this great mystery to her through the angel, He willed that
she be not only the mother but also the companion and partner of
her Son as Redeemer of the human race.
Moreover, the divine maternity is formally distinguished from
thesis:

4

mary’s cooperation in general

association in the redemption by acts which followed the Incarna­
tion, since those acts were in no way a necessary consequence of the
Incarnation nor of the divine maternity. The Mother, by the sole
fact of having freely conceived the Son, did not necessarily partici­
pate proximately in the work which was to be performed by her Son.
As Mary’s cooperation in the redemption presupposes a Redeemer
possessing a human nature, by the same consent with which she
freely concurred in the Incarnation, she was constituted a consort
of His. Therefore, strictly speaking, her cooperation began from the
very moment of the Incarnation, for just as the Redeemer ordained
all His intentions to the redemption from the very beginning, so the
Blessed Virgin, from the moment that she pronounced her fiat,
directed all her intentions to the purpose of the redemption, in full
submission to the will of the Father who gave His Son and to the
will of the Son who offered Himself for the salvation of men. She
exercised it from the beginning and she still exercises it. The words
of Pope Leo XIII are very fitting: “When she professed herself the
handmaid of the Lord for the mother’s office, and when, in the
Temple, she offered her whole self with her Child Jesus, she was
established as His consort in the painful expiation offered by her
Son for the sins of the world. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that
in the very depths of her soul she shared the most bitter sufferings
of her divine Son.” 11
Although the divine maternity and cooperation in redemption are
formally distinct, there is such a close and even necessary relation­
ship between them that her cooperation presupposes and is based
upon her maternity, and her maternity is ordered to her cooperation.
Thus, Pope Pius XI states that she was chosen to be the Mother of
God precisely that she might be His consort.
No other creature could be chosen as more apt for this redemptive
association than the Mother of the Redeemer. No one else could
possess such intimacy with the Redeemer nor be so closely united
to Him in His persecutions, labors, anxieties and above all in His
passion and death. As Friethoff explains: “Only the mother of one
suffering can suffer with him; other women can only be moved to
pity." »
To this we may add that it is natural for a mother not to be ig­
norant of the affairs of her Son, but to intervene in order to promote
5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

them as much as she is able. Hence, this would be true of Mary,
in whose virginal womb her Son became incarnate in order to free
the human race by the merit of His death and by the price of His
blood. Tin’s she ardently desired, desiring also that the passion of
her Son should bear fruit in all souls and thereby effect the salvation
of men.

6

CHAPTER TWO

Marys Cooperation in Objective

Redemption

*
Redemption can be divided into objective and subjective. The
first is the entire redemptive work of Christ on earth, by which He
willed to restore and elevate the human race, fallen through the sin
of our first parents. Subjective redemption is the application of
Christ’s objective redemption to each man.
Objective redemption is the universal cause of human salvation.
But every universal cause must be applied in particular to each one
that is to share in the effect of the universal cause. For that reason
objective redemption is called the work of salvation, and subjective
redemption is called saving action. The first is like a fountain from
which flow forth the goods of redemption, the treasures of grace; the
second is like the stream from which those goods are dispensed to
each and every one of the redeemed.
Objective redemption can be considered in two senses, one more
general and the other more specific. In the first instance, redemption
comprises all that Christ accomplished on earth in order to transfer
the human race from the state of injustice to the state of justice and
holiness as sons of God. As stated by St. Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians (1:13), “He has rescued us from the power of darkness
and transferred us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.’’ St. John
says in his first Epistle (3:14) : “We know that we have passed from
death to life.” In the second case, redemption concerns special marks
or aspects which are found in the redemptive work, such as satisfac­
tion, merit, sacrifice or redemption strictly speaking.
The whole question, therefore, can be easily divided into five
sections. The first considers Mary’s cooperation in objective redemp­
tion, taken in its most general sense; the other four consider her

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

cooperation with regard to each one of the special aspects of the
redemption of the human race.

Cooperation in Redemption in General

The truth of redemption by Christ is a dogma of Catholic faith,
the basis of the Christian religion and the foundation of the entire
divine economy in the salvation of the world, as is evident in the
Nicene Creed: "Who for us men and for our salvation, came down
from heaven"; in the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople: "He was
crucified also for us”; and in the Athanasian Creed: "Suffered for
our salvation.” For this reason, Pope Paul IV condemned the
Socinians as heretics because they held the doctrine of a merely
moral redemption and denied that Christ died to free us from sin
and death and to reconcile us with the Father for eternal life.1
This truth is clear in the Gospels. St. John (1:29) points to Christ
as the Lamb of God "who takes away the sins of the world”; St. Luke
(19:10) says that the “Son of Man came to seek and to save what
was lost.” St. John (3:17) states that "God did not send His Son
into the world in order to judge the world, but that the world might
be saved through Him”; and in his first Epistle he says of Christ,
that He is “a propitiation for our sins.” St. Paul repeats this doctrine
in his first Epistle to Timothy (1:15) with these words: "Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners." To this we may add the tradi­
tion and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and St. Augustine’s
testimony is sufficient to demonstrate this fact: “For no other reason
did the Lord come into the world but to save sinners.” 2 Finally, the
liturgy of the Church chants joyfully on Holy Saturday: “O happy
fault, that merited so great a Redeemer!”
Although all of Christ’s works and sufferings contributed to our
redemption and salvation, so that any act of His would have been
sufficient to accomplish it by reason of His infinite dignity, neverthe­
less, the redemption of the human race is attributed especially to His
death on the Cross. Thus, the Council of Trent explicitly declares:
“If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam ... is taken away ... by
any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus
8

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto
us justice, sanctification and redemption, ... let him be anath­
ema." 8
Sacred Scripture abounds in eloquent expressions in which redemp­
tion is attributed to Christ’s death. St. Matthew (20:28) says: "The
Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give His
life as a ransom for many.” The same is stated in St. Mark (10:4;)
and St. John, who says (3:14-15): "As Moses lifted up the serpent
in the desert, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that those
who believe in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
And the Apocalypse (1:5) declares: “And from Jesus Christ . . . ,
who has loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.”
St. Paul frequently affirms that Christ’s death on the Cross worked
our salvation: “When we were enemies we were reconciled to God
by the death of His Son” (Rom. 5:10); “You, who were once afar
off, have been brought near through the blood of Christ” (Eph.
2:13); “In whom we have our redemption, the remission of our sins"
(Col. 1:14). And St. Peter writes: “You know that you were re­
deemed from the vain manner of life handed down from your
fathers, not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without
spot” (1:18-19).
All of the Fathers affirm this same truth. St. Clement of Rome
says that Christ shed His blood for us; St. Ignatius states that Christ
suffered all those things to save us. The same doctrine is taught by
St. Polycarp, St. Hippolytus, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
St. Epiphanius and others.
However, although the passion and death of Christ was not ab­
solutely necessary for the redemption of mankind (for Christ could
have saved man in any other way), nevertheless, God, in His eternal
designs, had disposed that Christ’s works and sufferings would figure
in the redemption of the human race, crowned by His passion and
death as a supreme consummation of all His previous actions and of
the merits already obtained. Hence St. Thomas says: “Speaking
simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind
otherwise than by the passion of Christ, because ‘no word shall be
impossible with God’ (Luke 1:37). Yct
was impossible if some
supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God’s foreknowl­

9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

edge to be deceived and His will or ordinance to be frustrated, then,
supposing God’s foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ’s
passion, it was not possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer
and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ’s pas­
sion." 4
St. Bonaventure explains that this manner of redemption was
chosen from among all others as being the most noble imaginable,
the most acceptable and pleasing to God, the most fitting in order
to remedy the evil done, the most efficacious in attracting the human
race, and the most prudent for defeating the enemy.5
Having reviewed this doctrine, we now pass on to the considera­
tion of Mary’s cooperation in the work of objective redemption. It
is not necessary to remark that the absolute necessity of Mary’s co­
operation in redemption must be excluded from the beginning,
since our Lord could have restored mankind to His friendship with­
out the Virgin’s intervention. Hence St. Pius X stated: “Could not
God have given us the Redeemer of the human race and the Author
of the faith in another way than through the Virgin?” 0 Therefore
the question of Mary’s cooperation always has to be established on
God’s free ordinance, by which He willed that the Virgin should
concur and cooperate in redemption. This cooperation is twofold:
one remote, by which Mary gave Christ His flesh, not through any
physical act alone but by an entirely voluntary act, so that He could
thereby pay the price of our redemption; the other proximate, that
is to say, by cooperating immediately, by her personal action, in the
redemption which was effected by the passion and death of Christ.

Mary cooperated in the work of redemption remotely
and physically. (This doctrine is de fide.)
Errors. Mary’s remote and fundamental cooperation in redemption
was necessarily denied by the Docetists, who affirmed that Christ
assumed an imaginary body or a vaporous body by which He passed
through Mary but received absolutely nothing from her; by the
Modernists, who denied the truth of redemption by Christ; and by
the Socinians and Liberal Protestants, who destroyed the genuine
meaning of the term.
Sacred Scripture. Although there is no express mention of Mary’s
remote cooperation in the redemption, it is stated clearly and ex-

thesis:

10

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

plicitly in Scripture that Mary is the Mother of Christ (Matt. 1:18),
the Mother of the Lord (Luke 1:43), the Mother of Jesus (John
2:11), and the word ‘‘mother” is taken in the proper sense, as when
the angel Gabriel announced to Mary: “Behold, thou shalt conceive
in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His
name Jesus” (Luke 1:31). Now, according to the teaching of Scrip­
ture, Christ is the Redeemer of the world. Therefore, as His Mother,
Mary cooperated remotely in the redemption, since she was the one
who gave the Redeemer to the world.
Fathers and Theologians. St. Epiphanius says that Eve is the
origin and beginning of the entire human race but it was Mary who
introduced life to the world, because in giving birth to Him who is
life itself, she is the Mother of those who live.7 St. Augustine says:
“By a woman came death, by a woman life. From Eve came de­
struction, but from Mary came salvation.”8 Again, he states that
although she was only the handmaid, she gave birth to her Lord so
God could redeem the world through her.® St. Fulgence says that
Mary is the window of heaven through which God allowed the true
light to pass into the world; she is the celestial ladder by which God
Himself descended to earth; she is the restoration and glory of
woman, since by her they have been withdrawn from the first curse.10
St. Ildephonse writes in these beautiful words: "Grant me to know
how to unite myself to God and to thee ... : to Him as God and
to thee as the Mother of God; to Him as my Redeemer, to thee as
the work of my redemption. For what He became for my redemp­
tion, He truly formed from thy person. That which He did for me
as my Redeemer, He did for thee as thy Son. What He offered as
the price of my ransom was His incarnation in thy womb.” 11 Rich­
ard of St. Lawrence and Denis the Carthusian speak in a similar
way.13
Theological Argument. That which is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the effect produced by the cause. Therefore, if Mary is
the Mother of the Redeemer, she was necessarily the cause of our
life and restoration in her own Son, Jesus Christ. Hence, the Church
praises her as the one through whom life was restored to the re­
deemed.18
And truly Mary, conceiving Christ for us, supplied the material
from which the price of our redemption was to be paid, that is, the

I

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

flesh or human nature in which Christ could suffer and die. For this
reason, St. Thomas of Villanova stated that Christ paid the price
of our ransom, but Mary gave Him the means of paying it.14
Mary cooperated explicitly and formally in the work of
redemption, not only physically, but also by moral actions, that is,
by freely consenting to the Incarnation.
Previous Observations. It is not necessary to prove that Mary’s
free consent was sought for the work of the Incarnation and that she
gave it readily. Therefore, all that we shall do in the present thesis
is prove that her consent influenced the redemption of mankind and
that she cooperated in our redemption explicitly and formally. It is
de fide or proxima fidei that by her free consent to the Incarnation,
Mary also freely cooperated in the redemption. It is the certain and
common teaching of theologians that her cooperation was explicit
and formal.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII: “Tire eternal Son of
God, about to take upon Himself our nature for the saving and
ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union
between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design
without obtaining the free consent of her who was to become His
Mother. She was the representative of all mankind.” 16
And in another place he says: “For no single individual can even
be imagined who has ever contributed or ever will contribute so
much toward reconciling man with God. To mankind, heading for
eternal ruin, she offered a Savior when she received the announce­
ment of the mystery of peace brought to this earth by the angel; and
giving her consent, she gave it in the name of the whole human
race." 10
Fathers and Theologians. Tire Fathers of the early centuries, such
as Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and several others, originated and
frequently repeated the comparison of Mary with Eve. They also
made explicit their teaching on Mary’s moral cooperation in the work
of redemption precisely through her free consent given to the angel
at the announcement of the great mystery of the Incarnation.
The Fathers frequently demonstrate that God worked out man’s
redemption in such a way that whatever the devil invented for man’s
ruination was turned back upon himself. Thus, as in the fall of man,
thesis:

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Adam and Eve and the devil intervened, so man’s restoration in­
volved Christ and Mary and the archangel Gabriel. Adam was the
author of man’s fall, but Christ is the cause of man’s salvation. The
evil spirit suggested sin, but Gabriel was the messenger of man’s
reparation. Eve, the first woman, believed the devil, followed his
suggestions, disobeyed God, and thus cooperated in the ruin of all
men; the second woman, Mary, obeyed God, gave her consent to
the Incarnation with a living faith and complete liberty, and thus
cooperated in the restoration and salvation of the entire human race.
St. Justin says: "Eve . . . conceived the word of the devil and
brought forth death and disobedience; the Virgin Mary, filled with
faith and joy, answered the archangel Gabriel’s glad tidings: Be it
done unto me according to thy word.”17
St. Irenaeus: “As Eve was through her disobedience the cause of
death to herself and the entire human race, so Mary, through her
obedience, was the source of salvation to herself and the whole hu­
man race.” 18
/V. Qh · ζ Μμί
Tertullian: “The wrong done by the credulity of the former was
obliterated by the faith of the latter.”19
Added to these are many other Fathers who in their works em­
phasize the antithesis between Mary and Eve. Thus, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem says: “Through the virgin Eve came death; therefore it
was fitting that through, or rather from, another virgin should come
life. The serpent deceived the first, but the angel Gabriel brought
a new message to the second. . . . The devil used the flesh against
us ... , hence we have been saved by the selfsame weapons which
the devil previously used against us.” 20 St. Augustine and St. Peter
Chrysologus write in like manner.21
Likewise, we find among the Fathers a clear affirmation of Mary’s
consent in the work of redemption. This is clearly set forth by St.
Ambrose and St. Bernard. Says St. Bernard: “Thou hast heard, O
Mary, that thou wouldst conceive and bear a son. Thou hast heard
that this would not be done by the work of man but by the Holy
Ghost. . . . The angel awaits thy answer. We also, O Lady, on
whom weighs the sentence of condemnation, await thy word of
mercy. We shall immediately be free if you consent.”23
Theological Argument. Mary cooperated actively in the work of
the Incarnation, whose realization depended on her free consent,

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

according to the decree and eternal providence of God. But the
Incarnation is completely ordained to the redemption of mankind.
Thus, as St. Albert the Great explains (In Luc., 10:38), she re­
ceived the author of salvation who, in His mother’s womb, began
the work of our salvation.
By freely consenting to the Incarnation, Mary directed her consent
to the Redemption, not only implicitly, but also explicitly and
formally, since she viewed the Incarnation with regard to the re­
demption of mankind. Tin’s affirmation is clearly contained in the
words of the angel: “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt
bring forth a son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus.” Now in
Hebrew, the name Jesus is the same as salvation or savior. Hence,
St. Albert the Great says that Mary was instructed by the angel con­
cerning the conception and the kingdom begun in her and perfected
in her Son (In Luc. 10:39).
Moreover, the angel, in his conversation with the Virgin, adds
immediately: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of David
His father, and He shall be king over the house of Jacob forever.”
These words describe the Son to be bom of a Virgin as the one who,
according to prophetic visions, is to be the Messias-King, with His
messianic kingdom, which is not a material or political one, but
essentially spiritual and religious, full of goods surpassing all earthly
goods, among which shines that of human redemption.
It is not just to deny to Mary the knowledge of the prophetic
predictions concerning the future Messias and the characteristics of
His kingdom, since the aged Anna and Simeon had known them
and were waiting for the redemption of Israel. Nor can it be asserted
that Mary believed the false opinions of the general public concern­
ing the future Messias or accepted the false messianic ideas of the
Pharisees, who deserved that He should call them “blind guides of
blind men” (Matt. 15:14).
In her conversation with the angel, Mary seems to doubt the
manner of the accomplishment of the Incarnation: “How shall this
happen, since I do not know man?”
St. Ambrose explains these words by saying that Mary surely knew
the prophecy which stated that a virgin would conceive and bring
forth a son, but she did not know how the prophecy would be fulW

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

filled. Therefore, when Mary asked the question, she did not doubt
the fact that a virgin would conceive, but she merely asked how the
fact was to be accomplished.23
Bainvcl states that at the annunciation Mary was asked not only
to be the mother of the Redeemer, King and Messias, but also to
cooperate in the salvation of the human race, the messianic work
and the establishment of the kingdom.24

Mary cooperated proximately and immediately in human
redemption by her maternal compassion.
Previous Observations. Let us recall first of all that Mary suffered
innumerable sorrows during her lifetime. "It is not difficult,” says
St. Peter Canisius, “for pious souls accustomed to meditation to find
in the study of the Gospel many serious motives for the profound
suffering and continual agony which must have tormented the soul
and the most sweet heart of Mary, to the point of drawing copious
tears from her virginal eyes. What Christ said of all the elect—‘you
will suffer tribulations in the world’—must have reached its apex in
Mary." »
Mary must have perceived many things as causes of sensible pain
and spiritual suffering: in herself, such as afflictions of her body and
soul, in others, on seeing the great sins of mankind, especially the
incredulity of the Jews, and finally in Christ, such as His poverty,
the contempt, insults and persecutions He suffered, and chiefly His
passion. All of these things must have tormented the soul of Mary.
Pope Benedict XIV confirms this when he says that the Blessed
Virgin knew in advance, not only her Son’s passion, but all of the
circumstances involved, and more clearly than did David, Isaias or
any other prophet.2®
Certainly, such great afflictions reached their apex in Christ’s
cruel passion, and Mary accompanied Him in His sufferings when,
at the foot of the Cross, her heart was pierced with the sword of
sorrow. Her maternal sorrow did to her what the nails and spear did
to the flesh of Jesus. The nails and spear caused the Passion; her
maternal love caused the Compassion.
Although everything done and suffered by Christ contributed to
human redemption in such a way that even the slightest suffering
would have sufficed to complete it, nevertheless, it is especially atthesis:

*5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

tributed to His passion and death as the principal work and the
ultimate complement or crown of the rest. Therefore, we must con­
sider Mary’s compassion in the same way, and therefore wc state that
Marj', by her compassion, the crown and apex of all her sufferings,
cooperated in a proximate manner in the redemption of the world.
Opinions. Mary’s proximate cooperation in redemption was denied,
for various reasons, by Billot, De la Taille, Ude, Rivière, Smith,
Lennerz, Goossens, Philips and others.27
According to Alameda, Mary’s great triumph begins with her con­
sent to the Incarnation and ends on her giving birth to the Savior.28
Bartmann, cited among the objectors of Mary’s proximate coopera­
tion in the work of redemption, abandoned his opinion and joined
those who defended it.29 But the greater majority of theologians
admit and defend Mary’s immediate cooperation in objective re­
demption.
Magisterium of the Popes. The ordinary magisterium of the Ro­
man Pontiffs is openly in favor of this cooperation of Mary in
Christ’s redemptive work. Pope Pius VII stated that all the Christian
faithful are obliged to venerate the memory of the bitter sufferings
which Mary endured, especially at the foot of the Cross, for their
salvation, and they should heed the precept which Tobias gave to
his son: “For thou must be mindful what and how great perils [thy
mother] suffered for thee” (Tob. 4:4).30
Pope Leo XIII stated that God initiated the redemption of the
human race through Mary and that she thereby assumed a divine
and perpetual obligation by which, in union with the joys and sor­
rows, opprobriums and triumphs of Christ, she felt constrained to
direct and aid men in the attainment of eternal life.31
And in another place he says that when she presented herself to
God as a handmaid for the mother’s office, and when she offered up
her whole self with her Child Jesus in the Temple, she was consti­
tuted His companion in the painful expiation offered by her Son
for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in
the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with
His torments. On the other hand, the Pope continues, Mary stood
close to His cross, and so great was her love for us, whom she was
to receive as her children, that she generously offered her own Son
16

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

to the justice of God and spiritually died with Him, pierced by the
sword of sorrow.82
St. Pius X writes: "By this communion of sufferings and wills
between Christ and Mary, she merited to become the most worthy
reparatrix of the entire world.” 83 Pope Benedict XV says that Mary
suffered so intensely together with Jesus that she almost died, and
that it may therefore be said that she redeemed the human race with
Him.84 Pope Pius XI stated that it was the common teaching of the
Doctors of the Church and the universal sentiment of the faithful
that by her sufferings the Virgin cooperated with Christ in the re­
demption of the world.85 The same Pope is the author of the fervent
supplication: "O Mother of piety and of mercy, who assisted thy
most sweet Son as co-sufferer and co-redemptrix when, on the altar
of the Cross, He effected the redemption of the world, ... we beg
thee to conserve in us and to increase daily in us the precious fruits
of the redemption and thy compassion.”38
Sacred Scripture. "I will put enmities between thee and the
woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head and
thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Gen. 3:15). The crushing of the
serpent’s head presupposes Mary’s association with Christ in the work
of redemption, by which a complete victory was won over the devil
and sin was destroyed.
Tin's triumph was achieved through Christ’s passion and death, as
St. Peter says in his first Epistle (3:18): "Christ also died once for
sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.” And
St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Hebrews (2:14-15): “That
through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death,
that is, the devil; and might deliver them who throughout their life
were kept in servitude by the fear of death.” To the Colossians
(2:14-15), he says: “Cancelling the decree against us, which was
hostile to us. Indeed, He has taken it completely away, nailing it to
the cross. Disarming the principalities and powers, He displayed them
openly, leading them away in triumph by force of it.” Therefore,
we must say that Mary also, the associate of Christ in the redemp­
tion, shared in the redemptive passion and death of her Son, since
with Him she suffered and almost died.
The Fathers and Theologians. The Fathers of the early centuries,

*7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

such as Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, although they do not ex­
pressly teach the doctrine of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s passion
and death, nevertheless sowed the seed in the parallelism they estab­
lished between Mary and Eve, which can reasonably be extended
to Mary’s cooperation at the Cross.87 The parallelism refers espe­
cially to the obedience of Mary regarding the Incarnation, as opposed
to the disobedience of Eve, but the general idea proposed by the
Fathers is that the work of redemption was effected in a manner
similar to that in the fall of the human race. This demands Mary's
cooperation at the Cross, on which Christ conquered Satan and
completed the work of human redemption, as affirmed by St. Am­
brose and St. John Chrysostom.88 They clearly teach that Mary, by
the sufferings and wounds of her motherly heart, added something to
the general and external passion of her Son, and that in union with
her suffering and dying Son, she cooperated in some way in the re­
demption of mankind. Nor are St. Ambrose’s words opposed to this
when he says: "But Jesus did not need a helper to redeem all,” for
although He alone redeemed man, by divine decree Mary was given
Him as a fitting helper, although she was not absolutely necessary.
St. Augustine, or whoever was the author of the words we are
about to quote (they go back at least to the fifth century), after
describing how the Blessed Virgin yearned for the salutary wine
to come to the world and actually produced the fruit from which
the wine would be pressed, says: “O Virgin, the day will come
when thy fruit will be pressed and a sword will pierce thy heart so
that you will suffer with the hanging cluster (Jesus) which you
produced from the root.”80
Since the twelfth century, theological writers present Mary ex­
plicitly as Christ’s partner in redemption, suffering with Him for
the salvation of mankind. It is expressly stated by Arnold of
Chartres, Abbot of Bonneval: "You see in that temple two altars,
one in the breast of Mary, the other in the body of Christ; Christ
sacrificed His flesh, Mary her soul. She wished to add her blood to
the blood of His soul and body, to celebrate with her Son, with
hands up raised on the Cross, His evening sacrifice, and to consum­
mate with our Lord Jesus the mystery of our redemption by the
death of her body. But it was the sole privilege of the high priest
to bring the tribute of blood into the holies, and this distinction
18

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

could be shared with no one else. In the reparation of mankind
no angel or man could have this authority in common with Him.
Nevertheless, this disposition of the Mother cooperated much, in
its own way, to propitiate God, since the charity of Christ presented
to the Father His own as well as His Mother’s prayers and desires;
for what the Mother asked, the Son approved and the Father
granted." 10
“Doubtless," says Arnold, "there was one will between Christ
and Mary, and both at the same time offered to God one sacrifice,
the one in the blood of her heart, the other in the blood of His
body.” 41
Rupert Deutz pictures Mary’s compassion as similar to the pains
of childbirth in which Mary, with Christ, gave birth to the children
of grace.42
Denis the Carthusian inquires why Jesus did not excuse His most
loving Mother from being present at the Cross. He answers by say­
ing that since divine providence governs all and everything happens
with good reason, God wanted her to be the cooperator in the
universal salvation and the protectress of the Church. He decreed
that many souls would be saved through her.43
Richard of St. Lawrence states that the Lord was with her and
she was with the Lord in the work of human redemption. The
Mother of mercy aided the Father of mercies in the work of our
salvation.44
John Gerson says that Mary participated in redemption to such
an extent that she would have been disposed to pay the price of
our ransom if her Son’s efforts had not been sufficient, though ac­
tually Christ’s redemptive work was sufficient to redeem thousands
of worlds.48
St. Bonaventure states that Mary should be praised and loved in
an extraordinary manner because she suffered with Christ to such
an extent that she would gladly have suffered all the torments that
He suffered and she was grateful that her Son offered Himself for
the sins of the world.4®
St. Albert the Great states that Mary suffered in her soul what
Christ suffered in His body and to her alone was given the privilege
of participating in His passion. As a reward, her Son deigned to
communicate to her the merits of His passion. As the whole world
»9

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

is indebted to Christ for His passion, it is indebted to Mary for

her compassion.47
Ludolph of Saxony, or whoever wrote the book Speculum hu­
manae salvationis (1324), says that Christ conquered the devil by
His passion and Mary conquered him by her compassion as

Mother.*·
Theological Argument. Mary, the companion of Christ, partici­
pated from the first moment in the redemption of the human race.
But since the redemption had to reach its coronation in the passion
and death of the Lord, it was most fitting that Mary, associated
inseparably with Christ, should participate in the redemption, both
at its beginning and in its consummation. Hence St. Pius X said:
“There was never any separation in the lives and works of the
Son and the Mother, so that the words of the Psalm (30:11) could
be applied equally to both: ‘My life is wasted with grief and my
years in sighs.’ ” *®
Mary fulfilled some office by standing beneath the Cross, which
was not without divine purpose, as the Doctors of the Church
teach. The mere passive assistance of Mary at the cruel spectacle
of the Cross, on which her Son suffered an ignominious and most
cruel death, does not explain her presence there, even considering
her heroic charity, sublime fortitude, the power of her example
and other mystical reasons which result from her act. Her active
cooperation in the work of redemption must be admitted. Thus,
Simon of Cassia says that it was never the custom for women to
assist at the death of their sons who are condemned to death,
although they would assist at their death if it occurred at home.
Earthly mothers always avoid the contemplation of their sons’
torments, and even more so, if their deaths be caused by inhuman
assassins, to the point of not being able to bear up without dying
themselves.60
It cannot be said that Mary’s cooperation in objective redemption
in any way detracts from the perfection, efficacy and universality
of redemption as proper to Christ alone. Mary’s cooperation is not
parallel but essentially subordinated to Christ’s redemptive work,
upon which her cooperation depends and from which it derives all
its value. We know from revelation that Christ is the sole Redeemer
of mankind, according to the words of the Apostle in his first Epistle

20

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

to Timothy (2:5-6): "For there is one God, and one Mediator
between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave Him­
self a ransom for all.” In the Acts of the Apostles (4:12) we read:
“For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which
we must be saved.” But although Christ alone is entirely and per­
fectly our Redeemer, it is not at all unfitting to affirm that Mary
cooperated in the redemption of man in an inferior degree, sub­
ordinate to Christ and dependent on His merits. Thus we read in
St. Matthew (23:10): “For one only is your Master, the Christ."
If anyone proposes an objection to this doctrine by citing the
words of Isaias (63:3): “I have trodden the winepress alone, and
of the Gentiles there is not a man with Me”—words which seem
to pertain exclusively to Christ—we answer that Isaias applied the
word "man” to all except the Blessed Virgin, who actually did tread
the winepress with Him and cooperated with Him and our redemp­
tion.61
Finally, the universality of redemption by Christ is not restricted
by this doctrine, in the sense that Mary herself would not have
been redeemed, because although she is co-redemptrix, she was not
only redeemed but was the first among the redeemed. St. Ambrose
states that Christ began His redemptive work by redeeming Mary
so that she would be the first to receive salvation from her Son
and that through her would be prepared the redemption of all.62
On the other hand, Mary’s cooperation was not futile or ineffi­
cacious. It is certain that Christ realized the work of redemption
fully, without any defect whatever, and that Mary s cooperation
could not add anything to the intrinsic perfection of the work nor
could she have completed it if Christ had left anything undone.
Nevertheless, there are many who assert that Mary s cooperation
was useful so far as she adds an accidental perfection to the work
of Christ, giving it a certain harmony and beauty, though they

do not say exactly what it is.
This must be explained in such a way that the beauty and har­
mony which the cooperation of the Virgin adds to redemption
would not be something merely static, in which Mary contributed
nothing, but dynamic, that is, some influence of hers in the re­
demption of mankind. For it is proper to man that, in conformity
with his rational and free nature, nothing can happen in the moral

21

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

order without his consent and willing cooperation. Just as this occurs
with respect to the grace of justification, which is given to a particu­
lar man, and thus produces a "formal” justification, so the same
effect must be produced, as far as possible, when we treat of the
immense benefit of redemption, which is given to all men in general
and is know as "virtual" justification.53
Absolutely speaking, a man can be justified without the consent
of his will, but ordinarily and according to God’s most gentle ordi­
nance, he will never be justified without the action of his free will,
by which he prepares, cooperates with and accepts the divine gift
of grace. In like manner, although Christ did not need any coopera­
tion whatever in order to redeem mankind, it was fitting, neverthe­
less, that men, through God’s gentle providence, should not be
redeemed without their own cooperation in this work of reconcilia­
tion, without the mutual ratification of so sublime an alliance and
without the acceptance of such a lofty benefit.
Hence, God willed to unite to Christ, the Redeemer of men,
Mary, as His companion and the representative of the entire human
race, in whose name she gave her consent to the incarnation of
the Redeemer, and, taking their place as the representative of the
human race, she united herself to the Lord’s passion and death on
the Cross. She did not assist in a passive manner, but cooperated
actively by her maternal compassion arid ineffable sharing in the
sufferings of her Son.5< Father Bernard states that in Mary “the
humanity that saves was united in an eminent degree to the human­
ity that is saved. Mary received everything that comes to us from
the Cross, without losing any particle of it, and she brought to the
Crucified all the support He could expect from us.” 55
But an objection is raised in opposition to Mary’s cooperation
in the work of redemption. Mary had need of redemption and was
truly redeemed by Christ. But if she cooperated in objective re­
demption, she cooperated in her own redemption and actually
redeemed herself. But to redeem herself, she needed the grace
of Christ, which issued as the fruit of objective redemption, which
was consummated on the Cross.
To this we answer that it is certain that Mary needed redemption
and was truly redeemed by her Son; indeed, she was the first to be
redeemed, as declared by St. Ambrose: "The Lord, having to redeem
22

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the world, began His work through Mary, so that she would be the
first to benefit from the fruits of redemption; for it was through her
that the salvation of all would be prepared.” ’·
Bearing this in mind, can it be asserted that by cooperating in
the redemption of man, Mary cooperated in her own and redeemed
herself? F. X. Godts maintains this opinion without any hesitation
whatsoever. He goes on to explain that it was effected sublimiori
modo, in the words of Pope Pius XI, in view of the future merits
of Christ. Further, the incarnation of the Word depended on Mary’s
consent to the angel, and therefore, in giving her consent, it is evi­
dent that she concurred in her own redemption.57 Schiith and
Campana arc also of the opinion that Mary redeemed henelf, not
by physical causality, but by a subordinate moral causality.5’
Other theologians explicitly deny that Mary redeemed henelf.
Among these are Pesch and Bittrcmieux, who argue that Mary could
not merit her own redemption, because Christ the Redeemer was
the only one who could merit it, in accordance with the axiom that
the beginning of merit cannot be merited.5’
For the explanation of this difficulty we must remember the fol­
lowing:
i ) The divine maternity was not bestowed on Mary through the
foreknown and future merits of Jesus, but gratuitously and solely
through the beneficent will of God.
2) All of her gifts and prerogatives, the purity and outstanding
holiness with which she was adorned that she might be a most
worthy dwelling for the Son of God, including her immaculate con­
ception, were given to her in view of the merits of Christ.
3) The grace with which Mary was provided so that she might
give her free consent to the angel in the annunciation of the divine
Incarnation was also the fruit of those merits.
4) Lastly, the divine maternity is anterior to the sanctity and
graces bestowed upon Mary. Nevertheless, this priority is not to be
found in ria executions, that is, in the exercise of that maternity,
since the graces received were dispositions for the divine maternity
and therefore had to precede it. Moreover, Mary began the exercise
of her divine maternity with dependence on the consent given to
the angel, for which she was also prepared in order to be worthy
of the conception of the Son of God. Therefore the priority of

23

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

which we speak must be understood in ordine intentionis, that is,
by a priority of intention.60
Taking into consideration what has been said, it seems that we
must hold the following:
i ) As regards Mary’s proximate cooperation in objective redemp
tion, in no way can it be admitted that the Virgin could redeem
herself, because in order to cooperate in this way, she needed the
graces which proceed from redemption itself and presuppose that
Mar}' is already redeemed.
2) Considering the remote cooperation by her free consent to
the Incarnation as redemptive, neither could Mary redeem herself,
because to give this consent she was prepared by the grace of Christ
and therefore she already participated in the fruit of redemption.
3) Lastly, if we consider only Mary’s remote cooperation in
objective redemption through her purely physical maternity, ab­
stracting from every other grace, such as appears in the first decree
of the divine will which chose her for that office, then it may well
be said that Mary redeemed herself, because she gave Christ the
means of redemption in favor of herself and the whole human
race, and in this sense the following words of St. Irenaeus apply:
"Mary . . . was the cause of salvation for herself and the whole
human race.” 61

Cooperation in Redemption in Particular

To study Mary’s cooperation in the work of redemption in par­
ticular is to study Marian intervention in each of the aspects of
Christ’s Redemption, that is, so far as it was satisfactory, meritorious,
sacrificial and strictly redemptive. One may deny or doubt Mary's
cooperation in one or another of these aspects but her cooperation
in objective redemption is certain because of her maternal com­
passion.

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

SATISFACTORY ASPECT OF MARY'S COOPERATION

Previous Remarks. Satisfaction, in general, is equivalent to the
payment or compensation of some debt. In this wide sense it can
be applied to any kind of debt, whether of gratitude, fidelity or
justice. Satisfaction through justice, which is what we are treating
here, may be real or personal, depending on the kind of debt to be
paid. Personal debt arises from injury done to another; real debt
arises from anything which we owe in justice to any person. The
satisfaction corresponding to a real debt is restitution rather than
satisfaction, since it consists in the restoration of another person's
goods or the reparation for damage done. Personal satisfaction is
compensation for injury unjustly inflicted on the honor due to
another person.
There are three types of satisfaction: strict, condign and con­
gruous. Strict satisfaction is that which, in order to pay the debt,
observes all the conditions of perfect justice: a) it must be directed
to another, a condition common to satisfaction in general and to
strict justice, since no one can make satisfaction to himself, as he
cannot do injury to himself; b) it must be equal to the debt, since
otherwise there would be only a partial and not a complete satis­
faction; c) it may not depend on any grace or liberality on the part
of the creditor, since grace is opposed to strict justice and payment
cannot be considered as strict and complete if it is accepted by the
favor or benevolent indulgence of the creditor; d) it must be made
out of the goods of the debtor and not from anyone else’s, because
no one can pay his own debts with another’s money; e) what is
offered in compensation must not be owed by any other title of
justice, even though it could be owed out of gratitude, friendship
or any other; f) the satisfaction must be such that it obliges the
person injured to accept it in justice and to erase the debt, even
if he does not wish to do so; g) it must be offered by the offender
in person, or, if someone else takes his place, this substitution must
be accepted by the person offended.
Condign satisfaction is that which is in proportion to the debt,
25

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

even though al] the conditions demanded by perfect justice arc not
present.
Congruous satisfaction is that in which not only the conditions
of perfect and strict justice arc lacking, but also the equality and
proportion to the debt, yet the creditor condescends to accept it out
of his own goodness and benevolence.
The satisfaction we are treating here is that offered to God for
the injurj' or offense He has received through sin. By supreme
right, God necessarily demands of the rational creature the recogni­
tion of His infinite excellence, through the orientation of his whole
being to God as his final end and the observance of His law, wherein
consists the honor which the creature owes to God. But the honor
due to God is injured through sin, because the sinner voluntarily
separates himself from God, his final end, by placing his end in
some creature when he adheres to it inordinately, thus breaking
God’s law and disturbing the order established by God. The sinner
thus incurs a double debt: that of the fault and that of punishment,
because without the punishment, law would lack sufficient sanction.
From this it follows that the essential element of satisfaction in­
volves two aspects: voluntariness and punishment. The one who
suffered the injury or offense by the voluntary negation of the honor
to which he has a right can be compensated only by the restoration
of that honor of which he was in some way deprived. But com­
pensation cannot be made for honor as in material injury, through
the giving of something equivalent, but by the voluntary bestowal of
some truly honorable gift.
Satisfaction compensates the injured person for the honor of
which he is deprived. By sin, esteem is taken away from God, who
should be preferred to all created things, since the sinner, by fol­
lowing his own will inordinately, loves and desires some good ex­
cessively and pursues it in preference to God. Therefore, to make
compensation it is necessary that the sinner accept and suffer the
corresponding punishment.
Of the two elements of satisfaction, voluntariness is the formal
element and punishment is the material element, because it is only
through the voluntary acceptance of punishment that penal satis­
faction for sin has moral value and is acceptable to God. As St.
26

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Thomas says: "In satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is of
greater value than the quantity of the offering.’’62
Satisfaction may be made by the offender himself or by another.
If it is made by another, taking the place of the offender, it is called
vicarious atonement. This satisfaction of one for another supposes
two things: 1) a solidarity, either natural or moral, must exist be­
tween the offender and his proxy so that the one suffers for the
other as if they were one and the same person; 2) that the person
offended accept the substitution.
Since it is impossible that one take upon himself formally the guilt
of the sin of another, so that he would himself become the sinner
for the other, and since it is repugnant that one person be punished
for the sin of another if it is a question of punishment strictly
speaking, it follows that vicarious atonement can consist only in the
voluntary assumption of the obligation to atone for the sin of an­
other by one’s own sufferings.
That our Lord satisfied for us by a real and true satisfaction is
testified by the Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII, and it was pro­
posed as a truth to be defined by the Vatican Council.*3 This satis­
faction which Christ made for us to the Father by reason of His
solidarity with the human race also resulted in the fact that all men
are considered as redeemed in Him. By reason of the Incarnation,
Christ, true God and true man, was constituted juridical Head of
the human race, a second Adam who represented the entire human
race in relation to justification by grace (Rom. 5:18). This office
of satisfying for man was freely taken on by Christ in conformity
with the words of Isaias (53:7): “He was offered because it was
His own will,” and the Father not only approved of this substitu­
tion, but offered it generously, delivering His Son for us (Rom. 8:32).
It is not necessary to demonstrate that the vicarious satisfaction
of Christ is infinite, because His human actions were endowed with
an infinite value, since they were proper to an infinite person. The
value of satisfactory action is not measured by the nature of the
agent nor the excellence of natural or supernatural powers, but by
the dignity of the person who performs the action.®1 Hence it follows
that Christ’s satisfaction was not only condign, but complete and
superabundant; even more, presupposing the gratuitousness of the

27

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

present economy in human reparation, it was completely rigorous,
in conformity with the demands of strict justice.
In summary: Christ's satisfaction not only equalled but far sur­
passed the injury which He had to repair, as the Apostle stated:
"Where the offense has abounded, grace has abounded yet more"
(Rom. 5:20). St. John Chrysostom says: “For Christ paid far more
than we owed, and in a larger measure, as the infinite ocean exceeds
in magnitude a tiny drop of water.” 65
The theological argument maintains that Christ’s satisfaction is
infinite generically, while sin is infinite only under some aspect. It is
true that while Christ’s action is, on the one hand, entitatively finite
as a human act, considered as the principium quo of all His opera­
tions, it pertains, nevertheless, to the Person of the Word as the
principium quod and thus is proper to the Word of God. Now, the
value of satisfaction is not measured by the physical action which
produces it, but by the dignity of the person to whom it pertains,
a dignity which, in this case, is infinite, so that the human opera­
tions of Christ, not considered entitatively but morally, and with
respect to their satisfactory value, are simply infinite.
On the other hand, the offense should always be measured in
relation to the dignity of the person offended and not in relation
to the person offending. For this reason, sin is in a certain way in­
finite, since it is an offense against an infinitely worthy Person.
Nevertheless, it is not simply infinite, since its infinity is taken from
the object to which it is directed. But the object never affects the
action intrinsically, but extrinsically and according to the manner
in which the action is directed to it. Since the mode is finite, the
action must be of the same nature, although the object which re­
ceives it may be simply infinite. Therefore, every sinful act, taking
into account the finite manner in which it tends towards its object,
is improperly infinite. However, if it is considered as injurious and
offensive to God, it surpasses any injury inflicted on a pure creature.
All that we have said concerning vicarious satisfaction by Christ
prepares the path we must follow in studying Mary’s compassion in
relation to her co-satisfaction. Four questions can be presented in
this matter: 1) concerning the fact of Marian co-satisfaction; 2)
concerning its quality; 3) concerning its extension; and 4) concerning
its absolute and comparative excellence.

28

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Mary’s compassion was true satisfaction or cosatisfaction.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII says: "On presenting
herself to God as the handmaid for the office of His Mother and
on consecrating herself entirely to God, in the Temple, together
with her Son, she was constituted as His associate in the painful
expiation offered by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain,
therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His
most bitter sufferings and with His torments.
“There stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and so great was
the charity of her heart in receiving us as her children, she gener­
ously gave her own Son to the justice of God, dying spiritually with
Him, pierced by the sword of sorrow."60
St. Pius X states that by reason of the union of sufferings between
Christ and Mary, she merited to be the most worthy reparatrix of
the whole world.07 Pope Benedict XIV says that Mary suffered to
such an extent in union with her Son that we must confess that
together with Him she redeemed the human race.08 And Pope Pius
XI states that by her sufferings, Mary participated with her Son
in the work of redemption.09
Doctors of the Church. St. Bernard says that as man fell by
reason of the woman, he has also been raised up by a woman.70 St.
Albert the Great explicitly affirms that Mary made satisfaction for

thesis:

original sin.71
Theological Arguments, a) Mary suffered with Christ for the same
purpose for which Christ suffered and died, namely, to make repara­
tion for the sins of men and to give God the satisfaction due Him.
Therefore, Mary, although dependent on Christ and in her own
way, cooperated by her compassion in obtaining this end of ap­
peasing God’s justice, offended by mankind.
b) There is nothing lacking in Mary’s cooperation to prevent it
from being truly satisfactory. First, Mary’s many sufferings and
sorrows, crowned by her maternal cooperation, possessed both apti­
tude and satisfactory value. Secondly, Mary was a person pleasing
and acceptable to God, as Mother of God, consort of the Redeemer
and surpassing every other creature in sanctity. Thirdly, Mary’s satis­
faction possessed the required solidarity, for although she is not
head of the human race as Christ is, she is the first and pnncipal
member of the mystical body and is therefore particularly suited to

29

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

represent the human race and make cosatisfaction, just as she was
most suited to represent the human race in giving her consent to the
Incarnation. Fourthly, all of her works were directed to the salvation
of mankind, for which she ardently longed. Lastly, Mary's sufferings
were accepted by God because in decreeing that Mary should be the
consort of the Redeemer, He had to accept—at least out of benevo­
lence—her co satisfaction.
c) Mary’s satisfaction neither lessens nor is it opposed to that of
Christ, but neither did it increase its value, for it is already infinite.
Neither did Mary offer perfect compensation for sin, as Christ did.
Rather, she expiated for sin so far as a human person could, in order
to comply with the divine economy by which God willed that Mary
should unite her satisfaction with the condign satisfaction of Christ.
Whether Mary’s satisfaction was condign or congruous.
It is already established that Mary could not offer strict satis­
faction to God because hers was a satisfaction which came from
God and was owed to Him under many titles. It is therefore a matter
of deciding whether the satisfaction was condign or congruous.
However, we shall not speak of the possibility of Mary's offering
condign satisfaction for the sins of men under God’s absolute power,
as is defended by some theologians. Rather, we are dealing with the
kind of satisfaction which Mary actually offered according to the
ordinary law under the present divine economy.
Opinions, i ) The general opinion of theologians up to the present
time has been that Mary’s satisfaction was not condign but con­
gruous, although in an eminent degree.
The Fathers. Tire Fathers assert that condign satisfaction for sin
is the work of the God-Man. This is evidenced by the testimony of
St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Fulgence.72 Pope Pius
XI repeats this in his encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor, where
he says that no created power could have expiated the sins of man­
kind had not the Son of God assumed human nature in order to
redeem it.
Theological Arguments, a) Condign satisfaction is impossible if
the dignity of the person offering it is not equal to the dignity of
the one offended. The gravity of the injury is always measured by the
excellence of the one offended, while reparation is weighed by

thesis:

3°

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the honor and dignity of the one who makes satisfaction, according
to a well-known axiom: “Honor is in the one honoring; injury is
in the one injured." Now Mary, although surpassing all creatures
in dignity, touching the limits of the divine and pertaining to the
hypostatic order, is nevertheless a creature and therefore incapable
of equating by her works the gravity of the offense against God.
b) The seriousness of the offense against God, according to the
opinion of theologians, is either simply infinite or infinite in an
improper sense. If it is the first, it is clear that Mary cannot com­
pensate condignly by her work as a pure creature; if it is the second
(which is much more probable than the first) neither can any crea­
ture offer condign satisfaction, for the dignity of a creature, even
adorned with all possible or imaginable graces, could never be equal
to the dignity of God, offended by sin.
c) If Mary's compassion was satisfactory but not condign, it
follows logically that it was congruous, deficient in itself but be­
nignly accepted by God together with Christ’s satisfaction and or­
dained to the redemption of mankind. St. Thomas teaches that
satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways: first, perfectly,
inasmuch as it is condign and is therefore adequate to make good
the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man
cannot be sufficient for sin; secondly, satisfaction may be sufficient
imperfectly, that is, by the acceptance of the satisfaction even though
it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man is
sufficient. And since everything imperfect presupposes something
perfect, by which it is sustained, the satisfaction of a mere man has
its efficacy from the satisfaction of Christ.73
Salazar teaches that the statement of St. Bernard to the effect that
Mary made satisfaction to the Father for the mother (Eve), signifies
that by her merits Mary offered congruous satisfaction.74 Guevara
states that whereas no angel or human being could offer satisfaction
condignly, as Christ did, Mary offered to God the Father a congru­
ous price by shedding her blood spiritually for the salvation of all
men. Hence, as divine wisdom decreed to accept the death of the
Son as condign payment of human redemption, so the passion of
Mary in offering her Son was accepted as congruous payment.75
2) Other theologians, whose number has been increasing in recent
years, maintain that Mary was able to make satisfaction and actually

3*

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

did make satisfaction condignly, although not a perfect and rigorously condign satisfaction. Among the theologians supporting this
opinion are Vega, del Moral, Cuervo, Llamcra and Aldama. The
principal foundations for their opinion are the following:
a) The teaching of the Fathers and Doctors is not opposed to
Mary’s condign satisfaction, because in stating that only Christ can
offer condign satisfaction, they are referring to perfect and rigorously
condign satisfaction.
b) There is a twofold relationship in satisfaction: that of the satisfier to the one offended and that of the satisfactory work to the
offense. In perfect and rigorously condign satisfaction there is an
equation in both of the relationships, but in relatively condign satis­
faction there is an equation only between the reparatory work and
the offense. But it is certain that this latter equation exists between
Mary’s satisfaction and the offense, because the offense against God
is not infinite simpliciter but only secundum quid, and Mary’s satis­
faction, because of her divine maternity by which she pertains to
the hypostatic order, is likewise infinite secundum quid.
c) Mary’s condign satisfaction is made possible and is even de­
manded by her lofty dignity as Mother of God and of men and by
her association with her Son in the redemption of the human race.
The extent of Mary’s co-satisfaction.
Mary’s co-satisfaction was as universal as was Christ’s, since Mary
suffered with Christ for the redemption of mankind with the same
love and will with which He willed the salvation of all, paying the
price of our ransom by His death. Nevertheless, the teaching of the
Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. 3) must be kept in mind: "But,
though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death,
but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communi­
cated.” 76
Christ died for all men, and His death had the sufficiency to save
all, but in reality it is efficaciously profitable only for those to whom
it is applied. This is what St. Thomas teaches: "Christ’s death is the
universal cause of salvation, just as the sin of the first man was the
universal cause of damnation. Now a universal cause needs to be
applied to each individual, so that he may share in the effect of the
universal cause. Accordingly, as the effect of the first sin reaches each

thesis:

P

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

man through carnal generation, the effect of Christ's passion reaches
each individual through spiritual generation, whereby man is united
to and incorporated with Christ. Therefore, each one must seek to
be regenerated by Christ and to receive all those things in which
the power of Christ’s death lives and works effectively."77
Hence it follows that Christ’s death should be considered under
two aspects: considering its intrinsic force or power, including the
antecedent will of Christ, disposed to die, and of His Father, send­
ing Him into the world for this purpose, or considering the fruit
and effects of His death and the will which is called consequent. In
conformity with the first, Christ certainly died for all men, since
His death was of itself sufficiently meritorious to free all, but if
one considers the effect actually produced, not all are saved, but
only those who voluntarily use and avail themselves of the means of
salvation, merited by Christ for all. And the reason is that the
practical effect of redemption is not only dependent on Christ’s
will, but also on the will of those who are to be saved, accepting
the benefits of redemption offered by Him to all. Therefore, those
who voluntarily reject this benefit cannot be saved.78
It was in this same manner that Mary cooperated in the redemp­
tion of all men, offering her satisfaction in union with the satis­
faction of her Son. However, Mary did not satisfy equally for all,
as regards the effect of her satisfaction, but only for those who,
accepting the benefits of the redemption, are united with Christ
and thus become her spiritual children.
thesis: The excellence of Mary’s satisfaction considered ab­
solutely.
In considering the immensity of Christ’s satisfaction, St. Thomas
states three reasons for its excellence: the immense charity which
led Him to His death, the dignity of His life, the life of a God-Man,
given in satisfaction, and the universality of the Passion and the
magnitude of His sufferings.70 Observing the proper proportion,
these same reasons may be applied to the satisfaction made by Mary,
the Mother of God.
i) Because of her dignity. Mary is the Mother of God, and for
that reason her dignity is in proportion to one who touches upon
the divine and enters into the hypostatic order. She is also most

33

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

holy, absolutely free of all sin and filled beyond compare with all
possible graces. Since she had no need to make any satisfaction for
herself, she was always in the best possible situation to offer satis­
faction for others.
2) Because of the magnitude of her charity. Her most pure love
was directed to God, to Jesus Christ her Son, and to the entire
human race. St. Robert Bellarminc states that if the greatest love
is to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, how great was Mary’s
love when she gave the life of her Son for her friends, a Son whom
she loved more than her own life.80 Richard of St. Victor remarks
that Mary’s love was so great that it extended not only to her own
race but to all the persons in the world, both known and unknown.81
3) Because of the magnitude of her suffering. Mary was truly
Queen of martyrs and co-martyr with Christ. St. Amadeus states that
there are two kinds of martyrdom: one visible and the other invis­
ible, one external and the other internal, one of the body and the
other of the soul. The Blessed Virgin excelled in the second kind
of martyrdom, which is even more intense because it is more in­
timate to one’s very being. She was united with Christ’s suffering to
such an extent that there has never been any suffering like hers.82

Mary’s satisfaction in comparison with that of Christ
and the saints.
1 ) Christ’s satisfaction is absolutely first, that is, it is anterior to
any other satisfaction made by any other person and to such an
extent that without tire satisfaction by Christ, there could be no
other satisfaction whatever. Mary’s satisfaction, being second and
posterior to that of Christ, is nevertheless the first in relation to the
satisfaction made by any other creature. Her satisfaction rests on
that of Christ, from which it receives its intrinsic value; that of
others received its value both from the satisfaction of Christ and
that of Mary. Therefore, all other satisfaction other than that of
Christ and Mary' is second and posterior to that of Christ and Mary.
2) With regard to its object, Christ’s satisfaction is simply uni­
versal, so that it extends to all men, to all sins and even to their
punishments, with the sole exception of Mary, for whom He could
not satisfy' so far as any sin was concerned, for she was completely
free from original and actual sin. Moreover, it was not even necessary

thesis:

34

COOPERATION in

objective redemption

for any satisfaction with regard to the proximate debt of original sin,
but only as regards the remote debt of this sin, which could or would
have been contracted.83 That satisfaction enabled Mary to be en­
tirely free from sin and from the proximate debt of sin.
But this universal satisfaction of Christ’s must be understood, as
we said before, with regard to its sufficiency and not its efficacy, since
each and every man was not reconciled to God because of Christ’s
satisfaction, but only those to whom it was applied through the
means of salvation instituted by Christ. Exception is made of those
who have not yet reached the use of reason, for they are not capable
of personal cooperation.
Similarly, it is universal by its influence on the satisfaction of
others, so that all other satisfactions are adorned by the efficacy and
dignity possessed by the satisfaction of Christ.
Mary's satisfaction was also universal in a certain way, as regards
the object, since, united to that of Christ, it was the universal re­
pairer of all the sins of men and of the punishment due to them.
It likewise influenced the satisfaction of individuals, whose value
derives from the satisfaction of Mary, united to that of Christ.
3) The satisfaction of other men is limited and particular. In
regard to satisfaction for sin and the eternal punishment due, no
one can offer a compensation by his own actions that would effect
a total extinction of the debt, although by the grace which Christ
gained by His merits and satisfactions, one’s imperfect compensation
can dispose one to merit de congruo reconciliation with God and
a pardon of eternal punishment.
We prescind from satisfaction for venial sin, on which theologians
do not agree, although the greater number maintain that the just
man can satisfy condignly for venial sin. Nevertheless, these sins,
as Lugo says,81 are rarely or never repaired by a condign satisfaction,
because they are very frequent and none of the just, even those
constituted in heroic sanctity, can offer satisfaction to such a degree
that he does not at every moment need divine remission nor to re­
peat daily the words of the Lord’s prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses.”
As regards the temporal punishment which remains after sin is
forgiven, the just man can satisfy condignly to divine justice, not
only for himself but for others, as is stated in the Roman Catechism.w
35

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Finally, all satisfactions of the just arc such through Jesus Christ
from whose satisfaction they receive their efficacy; that is, not only
are the satisfactions proper to Christ applied to temporal punish­
ment, but the personal actions of the just possess satisfactory merit
and actually satisfy, but always in Christ and through Christ. But it
cannot be said that our satisfaction is added to that of Christ’s, as
though His divine blood had not of itself been sufficient to appease
the justice of God for all of our debt. It is simply that Christ, in
order to apply the price of redemption, willed to communicate to
His members the power of satisfying for themselves in the manner
shown. In this way the glory of the Redeemer shines forth more
brilliantly and His divine satisfaction is more resplendent, for it is
shown to be the more abundant and efficacious when His power of
satisfaction reaches us and makes us collaborators with Him. Thus,
the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 9) explains that we can glory in
nothing of ourselves, but all our glory is in Christ, in whom we live,
merit and repair, reaping worthy fruits of penance which receive their
power from Him, are offered to the Father and are accepted by the

Father through Him.
4) All that we say concerning the condign satisfaction of Christ—
that it, as the fountain of salvation, lends dignity and greatness to
that of man—can also be said of Mary’s satisfaction, united to that
of Christ, from which, as from another fountain with a distinct
value and by a different title, our satisfactions also receive their
dignity and power.

MERITORIOUS ASPECT OF MARY’S COOPERATION
Merit is any good work worthy of a reward. Merit is distinct from
satisfaction. Merit tends to the attainment of the reward from him
in whose favor the work is done. Satisfaction intends the reparation
of another’s right by paying what is due. Satisfaction and merit are
not necessarily numerically distinct acts, but one and the same act
can be both satisfactory' and meritorious.
Merit is of two kinds: condign and congruous. Condign merit sup­
poses and requires equality between the meritorious work and the
reward expected from it. Condign merit must possess a special per36

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

fection if a reward is to be exacted in strict justice; it must not only
equal the reward, but it must conform to the conditions of strict
justice.
Congruous merit is that which is not equal to the reward, but
possesses a certain proportion to it, so that the one who is to reward
is obligated by fittingness and convenience. Condign merit is based
on justice and the reward is owed in justice, but congruous merit is
based solely on the goodness of the one bestowing the reward, out
of liberality or friendship with the one meriting, but not to the
point that all proportion to a reward is lacking.
Hence it is that since congruous merit is not based on equality but
on the friendship of the one bestowing the reward with the one
meriting it, it admits of many degrees and can vary to the point of
being congruous merit improperly speaking, since the friendship
on which it is based is sometimes only improper. Thus, objectively
good works performed in the state of mortal sin are called congruous
merit in the improper sense, for they are founded on a certain anal­
ogy of friendship and therefore possess a certain congruous merit.80
St. Bonaventure made a threefold classification of merit: de con­
digno, de digno and de congruo. He would call merit de digno
that work which is neither equal to nor possesses of itself the dignity
corresponding to the reward, but it obtains that dignity through the
goodness of God, who accepts a certain work for a certain deter­
mined reward. However, this third classification is rejected almost
unanimously by theologians and the common teaching is that merit
is either equal to the reward, and then it is merit de condigno, or it
is not equal to the reward, and then it is merit de congruo.91
Still another type of merit which has been proposed by theologians
is imperative merit, which refers to a work which possesses the
power to incline the superior or authority to give a fitting reward.
In impétration materially considered, in addition to the merit proper
to the supplication, there can be merit de condigno, or merit de
congruo, but taken in its proper formality, the distinction is com­
plete because impétration is related to mercy, merit de condigno
is related to justice, and mprit de congruo is related to friendship
or benevolent equity-.
..
·
According to many theologians, Christ merited de condigno, and
even in strict justice, by each and every act He performed during

37

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the whole of His mortal life. Nevertheless, these works were neither
offered by Christ nor accepted by the Father as meritorious except
as having to be completed by His death. Because of the infinite dig
nit}' of His person, each and every act of Christ was complete and
perfect merit de condigno, but as related to the fruit of redemption,
His acts had to be crowned by death as the termination and consum­
mation of those acts, not as a series, but in the formal aspect of
merit.
And thus St. Thomas says that any suffering undergone by Christ,
even without death, would have sufficed for the redemption of the
human race, if it had been ordained to that end, on account of the
dignity of His person, but no other suffering less than Christ's
death was deemed sufficient by God the Father and by Christ Him­
self to redeem the human race.88
Christ could merit for Himself none of those things by which
He was constituted in His own being or which served as the principle
or source of all His merits, such as His incarnation, the grace of
union, created grace with its supernatural habits and the beatific
vision. But He could merit whatever was not due Him through the
Incarnation, such as the glorification of His body, the impassibility
of His soul, the exaltation of His name and so on. For that reason
the Apostle said: “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to
death, even to death on a cross. Therefore God also has exalted Him
and has bestowed upon Him the name that is above every name, so
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven,
on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that
the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." 88
Christ merited de condigno for men all the graces and super­
natural means necessary in order to gain salvation and, therefore,
the pardon of sins, the state of grace and of glory, all the gifts which
precede and dispose for justification, all those which are bestowed
afterwards, all the effects of predestination and even predestination
itself. Hence the Apostle states: “And when perfected, He became
to all who obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." 80 And in the
Acts of the Apostles: “For there is no other name under heaven
given to men by which we must be saved.” 81 Hence it follows that
no one obtained the remission of sins, no one received grace or was
crowned with glory, except through the merits of Christ. Even those

»R

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

who lived before the coming of Christ were given the means neces­
sary for salvation in view of the merits of the Redeemer who was to
come.
Taking into consideration what has been said, we pass on to a
study of the cooperation of Mary in redemption under its meritori­
ous aspect. The whole doctrine can be reduced to these four ques­
tions: first, the existence of merit in Mary; second, its quality; third,
its extent; and fourth, its excellence.

Mary cooperated in the redemption of the human race
meritoriously.
We have already demonstrated that Mary merited throughout
her entire life, beginning at the first moment of her immaculate
conception. Hence, we arc not concerned here with recognizing her
merits previous to the Incarnation, which were preparatory to her
divine maternity and to her cooperation in human redemption, but
rather with studying those which she obtained since the incarnation
of the Word, and especially in her maternal compassion, near the
cross of her dying Son. We shall leave aside the statements of those
theologians who maintain that Mary suffered her compassion all
during her life, since she knew from the moment of the Incarnation
that her Son would die on the cross.82
Opinions. Snme modem theologians deny that Mary cooperated
proximately by her merits in objective redemption.
M. De la Taille says that Mary did not merit her own redemption
either de condigno or de congruo. Hence, neither did she merit ours,
for there was one redemption only for the whole human race.83
G. D. Smith considers Mary’s immediate cooperation in objective
redemption impossible, limiting her to the dispensation of its fruits
and thus meriting to apply them to herself and to the rest of men.
Therefore, he believes that Mary’s co-redemptive activity is of the
same order as ours.8,1
G. Philips, having denied Mary’s immediate cooperation in ob­
jective redemption, says that she cooperated in subjective redemp­
tion in two ways: in suffering at the foot of the Cross, where she
obtained the merits of universal distribution through the efficacy
of the Passion and, in consequence thereof, in assisting by her inter­
cession in the actual distribution of the treasury of graces.83

thesis:

39

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

The following theologians are also of this opinion: Billot, Ude,
Rivière, Lennerz and Goossens. However, the majority of theologians
maintain that Mary cooperated immediately in objective redemption
by the merit of her compassion.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Sixtus V proclaimed the out­
standing merits of the Blessed Virgin in behalf of the human raceM
and Pope Leo XIII recalls "the singular merits by which Mary
shared with her Son in human redemption. ... At which mysteries
she was not only present, but she intervened in them." 97
St. Pius X stated: "Since Mary surpassed all in holiness and union
with Christ and was associated with Him in the work of human
salvation, she merits for us de congruo, as they say, all that Christ

merits de condigno." 88
Now, these words of the Pontiff must be understood in regard
to objective redemption, since Mary, united to Christ and under His
dependency as the one who merited all graces, also merited them,
and not only as regards subjective redemption or the application of
graces. St. Pius X expressly says that Mary merited de congruo what
Christ merited de condigno. Since Christ merited for us all the graces
necessary for salvation, it follows that Mary’s merits had to extend
to all and not merely to their application. Also, the Pontiff speaks,
undoubtedly, of Mary’s merit while on earth, although he uses the
verb to merit in the present tense (as is done frequently to designate
a past action) since in heaven one cannot merit, but can only inter­
cede, and in its formal concept this does not admit of de congruo
and de condigno.
It is clear from the context that the Pope is referring to Mary's
compassion at the foot of the Cross: “From this communion of suf­
ferings and wills between Christ and Mary' she merited to become
the most worthy reparatrix of the fallen world and therefore the
dispensatrix of all the gifts that Jesus acquired by His death and His
blood.” This refers to Mary’s merit de congruo by her compassion
on earth, where she merited two things: to be reparatrix of the
human race and dispensatrix of the graces merited by Christ.
Finally, the Pontiff seems to confirm the almost common opinion
of theologians who since the sixteenth century have been speaking
of Mary's cooperation in redemption by her merits, thus giving us
40

an axiom commonly admitted by all: Mary merited for us de congruo
all that Christ merited de condigno."
Among theologians, it is a general doctrine that Mary’s merits
refer not only to subjective redemption but also to objective redemp­
tion, as can be seen in the works of Novatus, Vega, Guevara, Salazar.
Garâu, Rhodes and almost all the modems. It was also affirmed by
the Franciscan School in the words of Father Leonard Mary Bello,
General of the Order: "All the gifts that Christ merited de condigno
were merited at least de congruo by the Virgin Queen. This is the
thought of the Marian doctors of our School since the beginning
of the sixteenth century.” 100 Therefore it is unlikely that St. Pius X
intended to give a different interpretation from that commonly given
in Scholastic theology.
Fathers and Doctors of the Church. St. Augustine refers to Mary
as "author of merit”;101 Eadmer states that Mary "restored all things
by her merits”;102 St. Albert the Great says that Mary’s Son re­
warded her by communicating to her the merits of His passion;108
St. Bonaventure declares that Mary merited principally in the pas­
sion of her Son by suffering with Him as much as her strength would
permit.’04
Theological Argument. Mary was united to Christ in the work of
Redemption, as we have said many times. This union presupposes
in her a cooperation consisting in the exercise of free actions, in
which, particularly from the time of her consent to the Incarnation
to her compassion near the Cross, we observe the characteristic
marks of merit in relation to human salvation. Those free actions
were not only good, but perfect, directed to God under the influence
of the most ardent charity and inflamed with a desire for human
redemption, for which reason she was given to Christ as companion.
Therefore, Mary’s cooperation was truly meritorious.
This merit on Mary’s part is not opposed nor derogatory to Christ’s
redemptive merit, because it is absolutely subordinate to His and
receives its efficacy from His. Herein is realized what St. Thomas
says: "Everything imperfect presupposes something perfect by which
it is sustained."10B
Neither is it maintained that Mary’s merits were necessary to com­
plete those of Christ. His were not only sufficient, but superabundant

4’

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and infinite, and nothing can be added to what is infinite. We say,
therefore, that Mary’s merits concur in redemption congruously and
dispositively, thus completing the economy of redemption, which
was to be effected by the merits of Christ, to which were united
the merits of Mary.
But here a difficulty arises in opposition to the merit of the Virgin.
According to the well-known axiom, the beginning of merit cannot
be merited. If the beginning of Mary’s merit was objective redemp­
tion itself, or Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross, by which all
grace was merited for Mary and for the rest of mankind, it cannot
be understood how Mary could cooperate meritoriously in this re­
demption which is necessary for all grace and also for any coopera­
tion in redemption.
The following must be taken into consideration for the solution

of this difficulty:
a) Redemption is the principle of Mary’s merit, and, therefore,
Christ’s merit is anterior to that of His Mother by a priority of nature
and causality, even if they existed simultaneously and even if Mary’s
merit were prior in time to objective redemption.
b) This priority of merit with respect to the reward is not a
priority in the order of execution since, absolutely speaking, it is not
required that merit actually exist before the reward; a priority in
intention suffices, that is, that it pre-exist in the mind of the one who
is to give the reward.
c) Therefore, Christ’s merit did not actually and effectively exist
before that of Mary, with a priority of nature, because in reality even
before objective redemption existed in act, Mary merited by her
consent to the Incarnation, which is the beginning of hpman re­
demption; but it did exist in intention, since Christ’s merits were
anterior in the divine foreknowledge, in view of which God bestowed
grace upon Mary' in advance for her complete sanctity, thus redeem­
ing her in a most sublime way and giving her the fittingness neces­
sary for participating in the redemption of the rest of men.
d) There is, then, no inconvenience whatever in distinguishing
two instances in divine foreknowledge and in the predestination of
the incarnation of tire Word: one, by which God willed Christ as
the Redeemer bom of the Blessed Virgin and willed that she be re­
deemed by His merits; the other, by which He decreed that Mary, as
42

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the new Eve, should be associated with Christ, the new Adam, in the
work of redemption. It is not absurd to designate in the simplest act
of divine foreknowledge and will, various instants which connote
various objects, because this is equivalent to designating those ob­
jects as distinct so far as they are willed by God.1"8 And certainly,
Mary’s divine maternity and association in redemption are two
formally distinct objects, on which the distinction of those two in­
stances in the divine decrees may be based.
Hence, we conclude that, prescinding from the actual unity of
the redemption, we may distinguish a redemption by which Christ
redeemed His Mother and the other by which He redeemed the rest
of men, with Mary cooperating in this latter by her satisfaction and
merit. Let us recall the explanation of Ambrose Catharinus on this
subject. Pursuing the resemblance existing between Adam and
Christ, and Eve and Mary, he distinguishes three modes of corporal
generation, to which correspond three modes of spiritual generation.
Adam was produced by God alone, having the earth as his mother;
Eve proceeds from Adam alone, without any mother; and the rest of
men are produced by a father and a mother. In the same manner,
Christ was bom of Mary by the operation of God; Mary was bom
spiritually of the rib of Christ, while He slept on the Cross, and
the rest of men are regenerated spiritually by Christ and Mary.107

Mary cooperated meritoriously in our salvation, meriting
graces for us, not de condigno but de congruo.
This question is proposed in conformity with the present economy
of redemption or the ordinary law, without taking into account the
absolute power of God or what He could do in another order of
providence distinct from the present one.
Opinions. There are two theological opinions on this question.
Until recent times it was the common teaching that Mary did not
merit the graces of redemption de condigno, but only de congruo,
although in an eminent degree. Now, however, no few theologians
defend the teaching that Mary merited by some type of merit de
condigno.
Among the theologians who defend Mary’s co-redemptive condign
merit are Charles del Moral, A. Fernandez, Ripalda, Vega, Lebon,
Leloir, Bittremieux, Cuervo, Balic, Garcia Garces, Llamera, Bover
thesis:

43

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and Aldama. The principal arguments on which they base their
teaching are the following:
a) The statement of St. Pius X, which attributes merit de con­
digno to Christ and only merit de congruo to Mary, is not an argu­
ment against the opinion which holds for Mary's merit de condigno,
because the Pope’s intention was simply to stress Mary’s universal
merit and place it on a level inferior to that of Christ. He merely
used the terminology which was commonly in use.
b) Christ is the God-Man, and as such He is Head of all men;
and Mary, since she is the Mother of the Head of all men, is the
spiritual Mother of men. But the spiritual maternity or maternal
grace is to the co-redemptive merit what the headship or capital
grace is to the redemptive merit of Christ. Now, in virtue of His
headship, Christ merited grace for the human race by an absolutely
de condigno merit. Therefore, Mary, in virtue of her spiritual mater­
nity, co-merited grace for the human race de condigno ex condignitate.
c) The maternal merit of Mary contains all the conditions re­
quired for merit de condigno: the plenitude of grace, the moral repre­
sentative of the entire human race as the new Eve and mediatrix
whose grace virtually contains the grace of all men, intrinsic ordi­
nation of her maternal grace to the acquisition of grace for all her
children, extrinsic ordination by God’s will which predestined her
to the redemption and regeneration of men in union with Christ and
dependent upon Him. Therefore, the merit of Mary is rightly called
maternal condign merit, the merit of Christ is capital and absolute
condign merit and the merit of Christians in general is merely con­
gruous merit.
The greater majority of theologians, however, maintain that Mary
merited for us the graces of redemption by her merits, not de con­
digno, but de congruo.
First Part, a) It was proper and exclusive of Christ, as Head and
Author of our salvation, to merit grace and eternal life de condigno
for all men. Thus, St. Thomas says that God moves us by His grace
so that each one can attain eternal life, and therefore merit de
condigno cannot be extended beyond this divine movement. But
Christ's soul was moved by that grace, not only that He would reach
the glory of life everlasting, but that He could lead others to the

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

same glory, as Head of the Church and Author of human salva­
tion.108
Certainly God also moved Mary with His grace so that she might
attain glory and could lead others to glory, not as the influencing
Head, but like a communicating neck; not as the Author of salvation,
but as an assistant of Christ. As the Angelic Doctor says, the Blessed
Virgin, though being in no way the author of grace, caused hers to
redound to us (In Joan., I, lect. 2).
b) In order that one in the state of grace be able to merit for
others de condigno, it is necessary that he be united to God, the first
and only Cause of all grace, in a singular and most exalted manner.
We already know that all men, with the exception of Christ, are
united to God in specifically the same way through adoptive filia­
tion. Merit de condigno is therefore impossible in anyone else.10®
In this respect St. Augustine says that a great difference exists
between the Head and the other members, for the divinity dwells
in the members but not as it dwells in Christ, the Head, where the
divinity is present in all its fullness.110
Hence, all theologians, with few exceptions, affirm that the grace
of union, together with habitual grace, are necessary that Christ
might be constituted Head of men. Even more, some maintain that
the grace of union alone is what formally constitutes this dignity.
Thus, Vazquez says that Christ’s capital grace is the grace of union.
Suarez, Lugo, Lorca and, among the modems, Stentrup, maintain
that Christ’s capital grace is primarily that of the hypostatic union
and, secondarily, habitual grace.
The Thomists generally, such as John of St. Thomas, Medina,
Araujo, Gonet, the Salmanticenses and others, teach that habitual
grace is the formal and proximate constitutive of Christ as Head
and that the grace of union is the prerequisite and root of that
dignity.
Philip of the Most Holy Trinity, whom Bartmann follows, affirms
that capital grace, taken formally, is none other than the power
given to Christ by God in order to influence the spiritual life and
actions of the members of the Church; but for Christ to use that
power and exercise those acts, He needed the grace of union together
with habitual or sanctifying grace.111
For that reason all theologians say that if the grace of union did

45

THE BLESSED

VIRGIN

MARY

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

not enter as a constituent element of capital grace, a pure creature
could be, absolutely speaking, Head of the Church as is Christ, i
thing which is impossible under the present divine economy. Ai
Scotus says, divine wisdom established certain laws, according to
which, one alone will always be the Head of the Church to whom
all His members owe their graces.”2
Father Gregory Martinez summarizes this doctrine by saying that
to merit the first grace for another belongs to a capital and infinite
grace. No man as such could possess this grace, and therefore it is
impossible for any man to merit the first grace de condigno for an
other.113 This same line of reasoning likewise proves the impossibility
of a pure creature meriting the second grace de condigno for others,

as we shall see.
c) In order to be able to assert that Mary's merit in the work of
our redemption is really condign, it is necessary first to prove its
possibility and then the fact of the divine preordination by which
God destined Mary’s works to merit de condigno the graces of re­

demption for others.
In neither of these two cases are theologians agreed. As to the
first, the possibility of Mary’s merit de condigno with respect to
others seems to be founded on this: that within the absolute power
of God, any man in the state of sanctifying grace can merit de
condigno the first grace for another and, moreover, since the power
of excellence proper to Christ is communicable, he could be con­
stituted by God as head of others, though secondarily, and thus
could be conferred on him the most excellent grace of meriting for
all the others. But this possibility of meriting de condigno for others
on the part of any man whatever, is completely doubtful. While
some assert it explicitly, like Soto and Gonet, and others see no
absolute contradiction, like John of St. Thomas, some expressly deny
it, among whom is Valencia, who explains that neither Scripture nor
the Church declares it.11* Cardinal Gotti and Araujo maintain that
only Christ can be the Head of the Church, because no pure creature
can merit de condigno the grace of forgiveness of sins, since condign
merit for another requires an infinite efficacy, and this is proper to
the merit which proceeds from a divine person.
Secondly, the divine ordination to merit de condigno is twofold:
the intrinsic ordination which is included as a principle of merit in

46

the conferring grace (in this case God, who by the very fact of con­
ferring grace obliges Himself to reward the merits attained through
grace) and the extrinsic ordination which proceeds from a positive
law or promise of God, by which He expressly decrees to confer grace
as a principle of merit and obliges Himself to reward the works
executed under the influence of that grace.
Theologians commonly require, besides the intrinsic ordination of
God, the extrinsic ordination of God, since the just man does not
merit any reward unless God promises one. The reason is that every
merit includes a right; but man has no right unless God obliges Him­
self to grant a reward, and apart from His promise, God is never
obliged to reward what is already due by an infinity of titles. Hence
the Council of Sens asserted that the justice of our merits is not
based on absolute condignity but on the gratuitous and liberal
promise of God.113
Now, the intrinsic ordination of the grace of the Blessed Virgin,
as with the rest of creatures, docs not suffice to merit de condigno
for others, but only for herself. Condign merit proceeds from the
intrinsic ordination of grace to the reward, but a finite grace, which
is that found in a creature, does not in itself possess that ordination
to merit the reward of grace for others, because the grace of a crea­
ture, however lofty, is always perfected in relation to the subject of
grace and not to another, nor does its intrinsic ordination look to
the good of another.
Moreover, there is no particular and explicit ordination of God
whereby Mary can merit condignly for others, as is proved by the
absolute silence on the subject in Scripture and Tradition. And it
may not be said that this special ordination of God is contained
implicitly in the decree which constituted Mary as co-redemptrix and
mediatrix, because there is no solid argument to prove it and such
offices of the Mother of God are perfectly defended by the eminence
of her merit de congruo.
Second Part. St. Pius X says that since Mary surpassed all in
holiness and union with Christ and was associated with Christ in
the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo what Christ
merits de condigno.119
Merit de congruo is based on the proportion of friendship and
love. According to St. Thomas, if a man in the state of grace fulfills
47

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the will of God, it is fitting that in accordance with that friendship
that God should fulfill the will of that man in regard to the salvation
of another person, though it can happen that at times there will be
an obstacle on the part of the person whose salvation is desired. And
that proportion of friendship and charity was surely given in a most
excellent manner when Mary, at the foot of the Cross, suffered and
almost died with her Son. The reason is that at that time, as St.
Albert the Great says (Mariale, q. 149), her charity was greatest.
Moreover, she fulfilled the will of God most perfectly by sub­
mitting to the decree and will of the Father, who gave His Son for
the redemption of the world, and she was perfectly united to the will
of her Son when she shared His sufferings and His desire for the
salvation of the human race.
Nor does meriting grace de congruo for men imply any incon­
venience in Mary’s office in the work of human redemption. In
objective redemption Mary is not redemptrix, but an associate or
assistant of the Redeemer, and therefore their merits differ infinitely.
In subjective redemption Mary is not the Head, as is Christ, but the
neck or channel through which the graces flow from the Head, and
although she intervenes in the distribution of grace, she does so in
a different manner.
The principle of all merit is grace, but to merit for others and to
bestow heavenly gifts that have been merited belongs to capital grace,
which presupposes in the one meriting a superiority and eminence of
grace, because the agent is superior to the patient.117 Christ and
Mary possessed a grace superior to that in the rest of men, but
Christ’s is capital grace, while Mary’s is not, although hers may be
called universal or social, because it was given to her as a universal
principle of sanctification, whose office is to work with Christ the
Head, and subordinate to Him, in the distribution of grace in all
men.
But the eminence of grace is twofold. One is intensive, from which
it does not follow that it can cause grace, except by a certain con­
gruence and free divine acceptation, and in this way any just man
can merit grace for others. The other eminence is infinite in moral
perfection, derived from union with the Word, and this is the
excellence of the grace of Christ to merit condignly and to cause

48

grace and glory in others according to His will. God the Father
infallibly accepts such merit, causality or influence.
From this one can see clearly by what kind of eminence Mary is
the universal principle of sanctification for men. It is not that which
results from the hypostatic union, which is proper only to Christ, but
is the eminence of intensity, wherein she incomparably surpasses all
the saints and through which she merits de congruo, presupposing
the free divine acceptance, all graces and their distribution to all
men. Therefore, although Mary surpasses all in sanctity, is most loved
by God and in some way enters into the order of the hypostatic
union, it is proper to Christ alone to merit condignly all graces for
all men.

The extent of Mary’s merit.
Previous Observations. It is hardly necessary to mention that the
following graces do not pertain to the object of Marian merit:
whatever Christ merited for Himself alone, such as His glorification,
the exaltation of His name, etc.; the first grace given to Mary, by
which she received the power of meriting with Christ (since the
principle of merit cannot be merited) and the other prerogatives
that Christ merited for her alone.
In this question we are treating of Mary’s merit for others, and
not for herself, since she merited for herself condignly whatever any
other creature can merit for himself. But Mary’s merit may be
considered in general and in particular. If it is considered in general,
we can say, with respect to its extent, that Mary merited for us
de congruo whatever Christ merited for us de condigno. The words
of St. Pius X, namely, that Mary merited for us de congruo whatever
Christ merited de condigno, must be understood as referring to the
meriting of graces, and not to their mere application.
Moreover, the whole economy of redemption rests on Christ s
merits as Redeemer, and to that economy are related all the benefits
which in any way are connected with human salvation. Now Mary
was given the office of cooperating universally in the work of re­
demption, in union with the Redeemer, by her merits. Therefore,
she merited for us in her way whatever Christ merited for us con­
dignly.

thesis:

49

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Lastly, Mary desired the salvation of men with the same love
with which Christ offered His death for their salvation, thus meriting
for everyone the graces necessary- in order to attain salvation. And
if Christ merited them condignly, then Mary also had to merit
them in some way.118 But it is fitting to study the object of Marian
merit in particular in order to see which supernatural gifts it com­
prises.
The gifts of grace conferred on men through Christ’s merits may
be reduced to four kinds: i) the remission of sins, sanctifying grace
and glory'; 2) the assistance of grace by which man disposes himself
for justification; 3) all graces conferred on man after justification;
4) predestination. Therefore, the object of Marian merit can be
summarized in the following statements:
1) The Blessed Virgin merited for us de congruo the remission
of original and personal sins, sanctifying grace and glory.
St. Cyril of Alexandria addresses Mary as the Virgin through
whom baptism was given to the faithful.118 St. John Damascene
hails the Blessed Virgin as the one who erased the punishment of
our transgression.120 It should be noted that Mary’s merit extends
also to the remission of venial sins, because if they can be forgiven
only through the grace of Christ, there can be no doubt that Mary
also obtained their remission through her merit.
As she merited for us sanctifying grace, without which the for­
giveness of original and personal mortal sin is impossible, Mary also
merited for us the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost,
which necessarily accompany sanctifying grace.
Since Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world and thereby
closed the gates of heaven to all their descendants, it was fitting that
Mary, by uniting her merits with those of Christ, should open the
gates to all men and thus merit glory for them.
2) The Blessed Virgin merited for us all the helps of grace neces­
sary to dispose us for justification.
St. Cyril of Alexandria says that those who were in the shadow’s
of error have been brought to the light of truth and the grace of
baptism through Mary.121 Nevertheless it should be noted that Mary
did not merit these preparatory helps for all souls equally. She
merited sufficient helps for all, but efficacious helps only for some.
5°

Moreover, for some she merited ordinary helps and for others she
merited extraordinary helps.
3) The Blessed Virgin merited for us all the supernatural gifts
which follow justification.
The principal supernatural gifts which follow justification are:
a) final perseverance, b) the increase of grace and glory, c) the re­
mission of temporal punishment due to sin.
There is no difficulty in asserting that Mary merited for us the
increase of grace and glory, together with the acts which lead to this
increase, since Christ as Head has merited all this for us. The Coun­
cil of Trent teaches that Christ infuses the power which precedes,
accompanies and follows the good works of men and without this
power from Christ, none of these works could be meritorious or
pleasing to God.122 Therefore it follows that the Blessed Virgin also
merited these things for us.
The same principle applies to the remission or lessening of the
temporal punishment due to sin, which is granted through our works
of satisfaction, the gaining of indulgences or the other good works
which the living apply to the dead. However, the penalty which is
paid by the condign satisfaction of the souls in purgatory is not an
effect of the merit of Mary, nor even of the merit of Christ, because
the souls in purgatory pay all that they owe, even if they suffer less
than they deserve.123
As regards Mary’s merit in relation to the final perseverance of the
just, it is necessary to distinguish between potential and actual per­
severance. Potential perseverance or the power to persevere is ob­
tained with sanctifying grace and the helps which follow; actual
perseverance requires a special gift of God which the Council of
Trent calls “the great gift of perseverance to the end.”124
All the just, fortified as they are with the special helps of grace,
have the potency or power to persevere, that is, they can persevere
to the end if they cooperate faithfully with the graces given; but the
act of final perseverance is granted only to those who die in the state
of grace and thus attain eternal life. But the truth of the matter is
that the Blessed Virgin merited for us the helps of grace so that we
would be able to persevere and she has also merited for us final
perseverance itself.
51

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

It is evident that the Blessed Virgin merited for us the helps of
grace necessary to be able to persevere because: a) The helps of
grace to be able to persevere in the grace of justification and to attain
eternal life are demanded by sanctifying grace because sanctifying
grace gives the right to eternal life and by that very fact the right
to all the graces necessary to reach it. Consequently, Mary must have
merited those auxiliary graces for us in the same manner that she
merited sanctifying grace for us.
b) In meriting sanctifying grace for us together with Christ, Mary
merited it for us with the intention that it be preserved in us per­
petually, because Christ and Mary are always in accord with the will
of God, who justifies man with the desire that he persevere always
in holiness. But if Mary merited justification for men with that in­
tention, she must have merited for men the possibility of persever­
ance, which requires the auxiliary graces.
The Blessed Virgin also merited actual perseverance, a) Pope
Benedict XV declared that we should hope in Mary for the grace
of a holy death.1"5 But a holy death is death in the state of grace,
which is actual final perseverance, b) Moreover, Mary merited for
us eternal happiness, and therefore she must have merited for the
elect the actual perseverance which is necessary to attain it. c) Lastly,
actual perseverance is inseparably united with divine predestination,
and without it, its effect would not be produced in the elect. But
predestination is contained in the object of Mary’s merit, and there­
fore actual perseverance is also merited by the Blessed Virgin.
4) As regards Mary's merit in relation to the predestination of the
elect, we must admit that the question is a very complicated one. It
is one thing to consider Mary’s merit in relation to the effects of
predestination, and it is quite another to consider it so far as it per­
tains to tire very act of predestination. All theologians agree that
Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of predestination
because He merited de condigno for all men from the first grace to
glory. The same extent must be granted to the merit of the Blessed
Virgin.
The present question, however, pertains to the divine decree by
which God predestined only certain souls to eternal life. It is not
necessary to remark that we are not treating of the act of predesti-

52

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

nation entitatively (for that is the divine essence itself, which has
no cause of any kind), but we are discussing predestination in its
terminative signification, that is, in its tendency to the external ob­
ject. In this sense we arc asking whether the foreseen merits of Christ
and His Mother could have moved God to the predestination of the
elect.
The prevision of original sin must be presupposed in this question
because, as Hericc says: "If predestination was inchoate in Adam
before sin, that order had to be broken to such an extent that all
efficaciously supernatural providence after the sin had to proceed
from the predestination of Christ as from the primary meritorious
principle of all grace.” 129
Lastly, this question prescinds from the theological controversy as
to whether predestination is effected before or after the foreseen
merits of man, for it is not repugnant that it should be effected
before the foreseen merits of man and after the foreseen merits of
Christ and Mary.127
Opinions. All theologians who deny that the merits of Christ
exerted any causality on predestination must necessarily deny it of
Mary’s merits. Thus, although Scotus affirms that Christ was the
first of the predestined before any prevision of original sin, he main­
tains that Christ’s merits were directed to man after that sin and
that they were therefore the cause of the effects of predestination
but not of predestination itself.128
Sudrez distinguishes between election and predestination and
teaches that the merits of Christ are the cause of the latter but not
of the former. According to Suarez, predestination implies an effi­
cacious and absolute love of God, whereas election implies an effica­
cious but relative love, which allows for that consideration by which
some men are elected and others are not.12® Therefore, God could
have made the election in Christ but He could not elect some and
not others on the basis of the merits of Christ.
Lorca vigorously opposes the opinion of Suârez. According to him,
neither the election nor the love of the predestined can be attributed
to Christ’s merits, since both are prior to the executive decree of His
coming and, by the same token, are anterior to the prevision of His
merits, since God, because He willed to save us, willed Christ to be
53

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the Redeemer of the world. Hence, according to Lorca, the merits
of Christ were the cause of our predestination in the order of execu­
tion but not in the order of intention.180
The more probable opinion seems to be that the predestination
of the saints is due to the merits of Christ and the Blessed Virgin.
The entire economy of redemption in the present providence rests
on the merits of Christ and Mary, because God decreed to save the
world through them. If, then, the predestination of the saints belongs
to the economy of redemption, in the present order of providence
it seems logical to attribute it to those merits.
Moreover, predestination is none other than an act of the salvific
will of God. But this will cannot be conceived independently of the
merits of Christ and Mary, because God did not wish to restore the
fallen human race in any other way than by the satisfaction and
merits of Christ and by the co-satisfaction and merits of Mary, asso­
ciated as His consort in the work of human redemption.’81
5) In addition to the internal grace by which man is justified and
saved, Mary merited external graces for us, which are the causes,
instruments or dispositions for justification and salvation. To these
exterior graces pertain the law of God, revelation, the preaching of
the faith, the institution and magisterium of the Church, the sacra­
ments and the rest, in all of which Mary concurred, not only meri­
toriously, but also in other ways, as we shall explain in the proper
place.’32

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

The excellence of Mary’s merits considered absolutely.
Although the Virgin Mother of God merited by all the actions of
her life, so that, as Garau says,133 life did not precede merit in her,
nevertheless her meritorious works must be considered principally
from the moment of the Incarnation. United to the redemptive in­
tention of Christ, they had to be crowned by her maternal compas­
sion at the Cross, in the same way that Christ’s works had to be
completed by His passion and death.
St. Bernard thus praises the excellence of Mary’s merit in giving
her consent to the Incarnation: "Behold, the price of salvation is
offered you; we shall be instantly delivered if you consent. . . . We
were all created by the power of the eternal word of God, and yet
we are dead. In your brief reply we shall be newly created and re-

turned to life.’’184 And such was the excellence of this merit that
St. Bernardine of Siena does not hesitate to say that by her consent
to the Incarnation, Mary merited more than all other creatures by
all their acts and thoughts.’38
Here we shall consider especially the merit of Mary's compassion
at the cross of her Son.
The grandeur and quantity of merit flow from three main sources:
the magnitude of charity, promptness of will and the difficulty of
the work. Since the weight of charity always gives the value to meri­
torious works, there is no doubt that the magnitude of charity in­
creases merit to an extraordinary degree. For that reason, St. Albert
the Great says that the root of merit is in charity, not because it
alone is meritorious, but because it is more so than any other, since
merit must be measured by the quantity of love.’38
Now the magnitude of Mary’s charity in her maternal compassion
is immeasurable, if one considers her love for God, Christ and the
whole human race, because from the moment that she conceived her
Son she was inflamed with vehement zeal for the salvation of men.
This charity reached its peak in her compassion, as St. Albert infers
when he states that every suffering of Mary was meritorious and she
brought her charity to its highest point during the passion of her
Son.’3’
As regards Mary’s promptness of will, it can be summarized by
saying that she offered her Son for us spontaneously and joyfully.138
Although the passion and death of her Son were contrary to her
maternal inclination and were the cause of most bitter grief, she
realized at the same time that Christ's passion and death were the
only means of redemption for man, and for that reason she desired
them most ardently.
In regard to the difficulty of the work, which increases merit, to
present her only Son at the altar of sacrifice and to witness His
terrible death was a task of immense difficulty and was humanly im­
possible. As Salazar says, a greater hardship cannot be imagined.13·
Theologians dispute whether merit is the more excellent as sanc­
tifying grace is greater or the dignity of the person who merits. In
regard to condign merit, there are strong arguments for both sides,
although it seems more probable that the quantitative difference of
grace does not increase or diminish merit. John of St. Thomas states

54

55

thesis:

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

that grace performs two functions: it gives dignity to the person (and
consequently to his acts) and it influences the acts as principium
quo. Now if the greater grace exerts a greater influence on acts, the
merit of those acts must be diverse. But if the influence of grace is
equal in various acts, the greater dignity of the person does not make
the act more meritorious, for although more intense grace makes a
person more pleasing to God, as regards merit, grace is always the
same and varies only accidentally so far as the grace is greater, since
the dignity of the one who merits consists in the fact that the indi­
vidual participates in the nature of God and is adopted as His son.
Personally considered, this dignity always has the same moral value,
even if grace continues to increase accidentally and physically, be­
cause the same adoption as sons and the same basic participation in
the nature of God are given to all. Therefore, if the acts arc equal
in their specific perfection, they will not have greater value in the
moral order because of the dignity of the person, as they would if
they proceeded from a divine Person, which does not admit of any
adoptive filiation but is natural to the divine Person.140
The same may be said concerning the accidental dignities which
adorn the created person, and which, in reality, never increase the
merit of an act on the part of the one who performs it. But Christ's
condition is unique in this respect, by reason of the substantial dig
nity of tire divine Person, which gives an infinite value to His human
acts.
Actually, there is a great difference between the dignity of a person
through grace and the dignity of the divine Person. By the former
a man is made a partaker of God’s nature and an adoptive son of
God; his acts are supernatural in themselves, as the Angelic Doctor
says: “The worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace,
whereby a man, being made a partaker of the divine nature, is
adopted as a son of God.” 141 Hence it is that, although grace in­
creases, dignity as regards merit is the same in all, because the dig­
nity of the one meriting consists in the fact that he has been made
a partaker in the divine nature and an adopted son of God, an adop
tion which is the same in all the just by reason of their participation
in the divine nature.
On the other hand, the dignity of the divine Person is the dignity
of the natural Son of God which gives Christ’s human actions.
56

COOPERATION

IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

though finite in their entity and intrinsic morality, an infinite value,
derived from the infinite dignity of the Person performing them.
But if it is a matter of congruous merit, it is clear that one must
consider the greater holiness and dignity of the person, because
greater holiness makes the meritorious work more praiseworthy and
greater friendship more readily obtains what is sought. On the other
hand, the more worthy the person making the offering, the more
highly esteemed arc his gifts and presents.
It follows from this that the merits of Mary were of the greatest
value, not only because of the plenitude of graces which adorn her,
elevating her above all the saints, but also because of her dignity as
the Mother of God and associate of Christ in human redemption,
which makes her greatly superior to all creatures. It cannot be denied
that the dignity of the Mother of God, the loftiest outside the hypo­
static union, carrying with it the most intimate and excellent union
with God, necessarily increased the value of her merit to an extraor­
dinary degree. And this dignity affects Mary’s merits from the first
moment of her immaculate conception, since the value of her works
was not completely restricted to the office of her maternity. The
divine choice of the Virgin for this office was sufficient, because, by
the simple fact of her being chosen as the Mother of God, she sur­
passes almost infinitely in dignity the highest and most excellent of
creatures.

The excellence of Mary's merit in comparison to the
merits of Christ and the saints.
Christ’s merit as Redeemer surpasses infinitely that of the Blessed
Virgin in perfection, universality and efficacy.
a) In perfection, because by the sole fact of proceeding from a
divine Person, it is morally infinite, condign with that condignity
which attains to the strictest justice and is absolutely independent
of any other previous merit. On the other hand, Mary’s merits, al­
though dignified by her divine maternity, by her association in re­
demption and by her fullness of grace, proceed from a pure creature
and are therefore finite, congruous and subordinate to Christ’s merit.
b) In universality, because Christ’s merits extend to all the graces
and charisms which were to be conferred upon all men of all times,
not excluding His own Mother; but her merits do not enjoy this uni­

thesis:

57

THE

BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

venality, because Christ merited for Himself and for Mary some of
the things that Mary' could not merit.
c) In efficacy, because Christ's merit is the primary principle and
Mary’s merits receive their force and efficacy from His.
However, the merits of the Blessed Virgin greatly surpass those of
all the saints in perfection, universality and efficacy.
a) In perfection, because Marian merit reaches a more excellent
degree than could be imagined in any creature, by reason of her
dignity as the Mother of God, her association with the Redeemer,
her immense charity, and the ardent zeal by which she procured the
salvation of mankind.
b) In universality, for while the rest of the just can merit only
certain graces and for certain men, Mary’s merit extends to all graces
and to all men, as is demanded by her office as co-redcmptrix.
c) In efficacy, because the merits of the just for others pertain
only to subjective redemption, where the graces merited by Christ
and by Mary arc applied to each soul, but Mary’s merits not only
pertain to subjective redemption, but also to objective redemption,
insofar as she suffered and “died” with Christ and thereby merited

with Him for all men.

SACRIFICIAL ASPECT OF MARY’S COOPERATION
Previous Observation. Sacrifice, which etymologically means some­
thing made sacred (sacrum factum), can be taken in a strict and
proper sense or in a broad and improper sense. In the first sense it
is a special act of the virtue of religion, which deserves special praise
because it is performed exclusively out of the reverence which is due
to God alone. It is usually defined as the oblation of a sensible thing,
with some change in that thing, made to God in a lawful manner in
recognition of His supreme majesty and our subjection to Him. In
the second sense it may consist in the elicited acts of some other
virtues which bear some resemblance to the notion of true sacrifice,
such as the acts of humility, patience, temperance, self-abnegation.
Thus, we read in Ps. 50:19: “My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit";
and in St. Augustine: "A true sacrifice is every good work which is
performed in order to unite us to God in that holy society, referring

58

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

it to the end of that good by which wc can become blessed." ,4*
Sacrifice in the strict sense may be considered metaphysically and
physically. Considered metaphysically, it pertains to the genus of a
sacred sign, because the sacrificial act, taken materially as the im­
molation of animals, the pouring of wine or oil, the burning of
incense, etc., possesses nothing in itself which pertains to the honor
of God. Λ special relation to divine worship is necessary, a relation
which can be acquired only by the meaning which is given to the
sacrificial act. For that reason St. Augustine says that a visible sacri­
fice is a sacrament—that is, a sacred sign—of an invisible sacrifice.14*
But the meaning attached to a sacrifice is twofold: theological and
moral. The first consists in the objective expression of the infinite
excellence of God as the first cause of all things, absolute Lord,
supreme good, and last end, to whom we must refer all things. The
second, naturally united to the first, consists in the objective testi­
mony of the interior affections of soul by which man, in his submis­
sion as a servant, consecrates himself entirely to God. Thus, St.
Thomas says that the external sacrifice represents the interior and
true sacrifice so far as the human mind offers itself to God as the
principle of its existence, the author of its operation and the end
wherein lies its happiness.144 This meaning is essential to sacrifice
considered in itself and in any condition of human nature, but in
the state of fallen nature the practical recognition of the divine
excellence, together with our obligatory submission, must always be
made by means of penance, reparation and satisfaction, in order to
appease God offended by men. Hence, the primary motive of sacri­
fice is latreutic, because sacrifice is primarily an explicit profession of
the infinite majesty of God and of our total submission to Him. To
that primary motive are intimately united the eucharistie and impetratory aspects, for it is impossible to praise the excellence and
goodness of God without at the same time thinking of that goodness
in reference to ourselves and considering the benefits we have re­
ceived or hope to receive. Thus, we show our gratitude for benefits
we have received and wc ask for those we shall need in the future
in the various circumstances of life. But because of the fact of sin,
we cannot omit the propitiatory aspect, which consists in the peni­
tential and satisfactory acts we offer an offended God.
Considered physically, sacrifice is the subject of the meaning which
59

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

is proper to it, and two dements constitute the physical sacrifice: the
thing sacrificed and the action by which it is sacrificed. The thing
sacrificed must be something sensible and substantial, because sacri­
fice pertains to external worship, for which mere human acts, such
as singing the psalms, kneeling down, prostrating and similar actions,
do not suffice, but other things are necessary which, by virtue of
man’s actions, give praise to the divine majesty. Generally speaking,
all those things are suitable over which man has dominion and by
whose oblation he can manifest his complete submission to the abso­
lute sovereignty of God. However, in the sacrifices which were insti­
tuted by God, nothing was ever offered but those things necessary for
the sustenance of human life, such as animals, bread, wine, or things
which represented them symbolically, such as incense.
The act by which the sacrifice is effected is twofold: oblation and
immolation or a change in the thing offered. Oblation is the act by
which the sensible thing is offered to God as a gift, a tribute or a
debt to be paid. This oblation must be voluntary, otherwise it would
not be an offering, and it must be external and sensible because the
purpose of sacrifice is to give God external and public honor. Immo­
lation is the act by which a visible gift is changed, destroyed or killed.
For the Gentiles, immolation was a rite prior to the death of the
victim. According to general acceptation, immolation is the destruc­
tion or death of the victim, but it does not have the same meaning
in all authors, since sometimes they use this word to signify the
entire sacrifice; at other times they apply it to the priestly oblation;
and yet again they speak of oblation and immolation as two distinct
acts which are mutually related.
That oblation pertains to the essence of sacrifice is shown in
Sacred Scripture, where it is frequently mentioned that sacrifices
were offered to God. In Genesis, for example, we read that Abel
offered the firstborn of his flock (4:4), and that Noe, leaving the
ark, offered holocausts upon the altar (8:2). In the Epistle to the
Hebrews (5:1), the Apostle says, speaking in general: “For every
highpriest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things
pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”
Likewise the immolation, destruction or change of a sensible thing
is common to all sacrifice, as is stated in many places in Sacred
Scripture. Thus, the destruction of Christ’s corporal life took place
60

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

in the sacrifice of the Cross. In the bloody sacrifices of the Old Law,
animals were killed either in expiation, of which St. Paul speaks:
"And with blood almost everything is cleansed according to the Law,
and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb.
9:22), or they were burned as holocausts as “the sweet odor of God"
(Lev. 9:1), and even in the peace offerings the blood of the victims
was poured around the altar. It was quite different in the unbloody
sacrifices, in which part of the animal was burned at the altar (Lev.
2:2) and the rest was saved for consumption. But in the sacrifice of
liquids, the blood, wine or oil were poured around the altar (Lev. 1,
2; Exod. 29:40). The destruction of the victim offered in honor of
God was of itself an acknowledgement of man's subjection and sur­
render to his Creator.
Whether these two actions, oblation and immolation, are essential
and constitutive parts of sacrifice or one constitutive and the other
merely a necessary condition, is disputed among theologians. And
even among those who hold that the two acts pertain to the essence
of sacrifice as proximate matter and physical form, it is debated
which of them constitutes the physical form of the sacrifice. There
is also a dispute regarding the order to be observed in regard to the
two actions, that is, whether immolation should precede, follow or
accompany the oblation. We shall discuss these controversies in their
proper place.
It should also be noted that sacrifice cannot be offered indiscrimi­
nately by anyone, but only by a lawfully deputed priest. In both the
Mosaic law and the law of grace, only priests are permitted to offer
sacrifice, as was taught by St. Paul in Hebrews J:1-4 an^ was
firmed by the Council of Trent.*4®
It is necessary to maintain here that Christ is a priest, and in such
an eminent way that not only is He the Highpriest, but He is the
source of all the priesthood in the New Law. Thus is He called “a
highpriest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21); "a priest forever”
(Heb. 5:6); “a great highpriest who has passed into the heavens”
(Heb. 4:14); “highpriest of the good things to come” (Heb. 9:11).
Christ is a priest with regard to His human nature, which subsists
in the Person of the Word, and therefore Christ, as the Word, is the
principium quod, and His human nature is the principium quo of
His priestly actions.140 This is reasonable, because it is proper to a

61

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

priest, as such, to be inferior to God, because he is the intermediary
between God and men. Therefore, if we would say that Christ is a
priest by reason of His divine nature, we would have to make Him
inferior to the Father in His divine nature, an affirmation which
would be completely Arian; or we would have to hold for the com­
plete absorption of His divine nature in His human nature, which
would be pure Monophysite doctrine.
It must be assumed that Christ was constituted a priest in the
Incarnation and by it, and not by any choice or visible and external
consecration. The Apostle presents Him as willing, from the begin­
ning of the Incarnation, to offer the sacrifice required and desired by
God: “Therefore, in coming into the world, he says, sacrifice and
oblation Thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted to Me: in
holocausts and sin-offerings Thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I,
Behold, I come (in the head of the book it is written of Me) to do
Thy will, O God” (Hcb. 10:5-7).
Truly, Christ could not have been a priest before the Incarnation
because His human nature did not yet exist. He was a priest from the
time of the Incarnation, since on receiving human nature, He also
received the obligation of offering Himself as a victim for the rec­
onciliation of the human race, for which He was destined by God.
Now, whoever is destined by God to the oblation of a victim is by
that very fact constituted a priest. For that reason, St. Athanasius
says that the Word became a priest by assuming human nature.
We must also suppose that in exercising His office as priest, Christ
offered a true sacrifice on the Cross, offering Himself voluntarily to
God as a victim for the redemption of the world. Therefore, Christ
as man is both the priest who offers and the victim offered. St. Paul
says: “Walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself
up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God to ascend in fragrant
odor” (Eph. 5:2). Undoubtedly, then, in the death which Christ
suffered on the Cross are found the elements of a true sacrifice: the
sacrificing priest (Christ, the God-Man, constituted a priest at the
Incarnation, according to His human nature), the victim sacrificed
(the Person of Christ, formally as Man), and the sacrificial act (the
destruction of the human life of Christ, externally manifested and
offered to God with a sacrificial intention). Keeping in mind the

62

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

foregoing doctrine, we now come to the study of Mary’s cooperation
in the work of redemption with regard to its sacrificial aspect.

Mary’s oblation of Christ in the sacrifice of the Cross did
not constitute a sacrifice in the strict and proper sense, but only in
a broad sense.
It is certain that Mary offered to God a sacrifice in the broad
sense. From the first instant of her immaculate conception she
offered her entire being and all her most perfect acts of virtue to
God.,1T Also, in offering herself together with Christ, she suffered the
maternal compassion, which was also a true sacrifice, but in a wide
sense. We shall now investigate the part which Mary played in the
sacrifice of Christ.
It is clear that Mary cooperated in a remote manner in Christ's
sacrifice because in all sacrifice properly speaking there must be a
priest and a victim, and in the sacrifice on the Cross, Christ was
both, with regard to His human nature.
By her free consent, Mary cooperated in the priestly consecration
of Christ, because this priestly consecration of Christ was not made
without her giving her consent, as is seen in the words of St. Luke
(1:38) : “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me accord­
ing to thy word.” She, therefore, gave the subject of consecration
conceived by herself and she provided her virginal womb as the sanc­
tuary, consecrated especially for this purpose.118
It is also certain that the Blessed Virgin participated actively in
the sacrifice of redemption, since she prepared the victim. Thus,
St. Pius X stated that we praise the Blessed Virgin not only because
she provided from her own flesh the matter from which the Onlybegotten of God would become man, but also because she protected
and nourished Him and thus led the victim to the altar at the proper
time.110
But now we ask whether Mary, as the companion of Christ the
Redeemer, participated in any way in the sacrifice of the Cross which
accomplished the redemption of the human race. There are two
principal actions in a sacrifice: immolation of the victim and obla­
tion. In no way did Mary cooperate effectively in the immolation,
considering this immolation materially or formally.

thesis:

63

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The material death of the victim is not a sacrificial action; it need
not be executed by the priest, and in the Mosaic ritual it was often
performed by a layman. In the sacrifice of the Cross it was executed
by the Jews and they did not effect a sacrifice but were instruments
in a malicious act, the greatest of sacrilcgcs.18n Formal immolation
is the ordination of the victim to sacrificial death, and when this
death is identified with the oblation, as occurs in some sacrifices, the
immolation coincides with the oblation. Therefore, the question is
reduced ultimately to the act of oblation, and thus it may be asked
again whether Man', by her oblation, cooperated in the sacrifice of
the Cross in a proximate and active manner.
Opinions. Besides the theologians who were opposed to the doc­
trine of Mary’s immediate cooperation in objective redemption in
general, we mention F. Tummers, who admits Mary's proximate
cooperation by way of satisfaction and merit, but maintains that her
cooperation by way of sacrifice was merely remote and was cooper­
ation in an improper sense.181 This opinion differs little from the one

we are defending.
On the other hand, Borzi182 greatly exaggerates Mary’s participa­
tion in the priesthood of the Cross. According to him, Mary, to­
gether with Christ, offered the Father a sacrifice, strictly as such, for
the salvation of mankind. Fricthoff affirms that the action of Mary
in the sacrifice is certainly different from that nf Christ, but main­
tains that the oblation of the victim need not be pluralized, because
although they are different actions, there is only one action which
proceeds from a primary cause and passes to a secondary cause.183
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII says that Mary stood by
the cross of Jesus out of her immense love for us and she voluntarily
offered her Son to the justice of God in order to receive us as her
children.18*
St. Pius X says: "When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside
the cross of Jesus there stood Mary, His Mother, not merely occupied
in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her only Son
was offered for the salvation of mankind.” 18s
Pope Benedict XV explains that by uniting herself to her Son’s
passion and death, and surrendering her maternal rights for the sal­
vation of the world, and, as far as it depended on her, immolating

64

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

her Son to appease divine justice, it can be said that she redeemed
the human race with Christ.18·
Theologians and Doctors of the Church. Arnold of Chartres
writes: "Doubtless there was one will between Christ and Mary, and
both at the same time offered to God one sacrifice, the one in the
blood of her heart, the other in the blood of His body." ,8T St. Bona­
venture exclaims: "She has given her only Son, whom she loved more
than herself, for us.” 188 St. Albert the Great says that by her spon­
taneous consent to the Passion she offered her Son for all of us.18·
Theological Argument. Mary is Christ's consort in the work of
redemption; therefore, she participates in redemption by way of sac­
rifice. Now, Mary’s participation in the sacrifice of Calvary was at
least proximate, and it seems to consist in an act of oblation by
which she offered Christ when He offered Himself on the altar of the
Cross.
Nevertheless, Mary’s oblation was not sacrificial in the strict and
proper sense. Arnold of Chartres says that there were two altars of
sacrifice; one, the soul of Mary, the other, the body of Christ. Christ
sacrificed his flesh, Mary, her soul, though she wished to add her
blood to His and to consummate with her Son the sacrifice of our
redemption by the death of her body. But it was the exclusive privi­
lege of the Highpricst to offer His blood and this could be shared
with no one else. Therefore, in the reparation of mankind no angel
or human being could share this power with Him.180
Sacrificial oblation is strictly a priestly act, and therefore Mary
could not perform it, because she was neither called to nor invested
with the priestly character. Moreover, oblation is the act by which
a victim is offered or consecrated to God, and Christ alone could give
Himself to God in sacrifice, because He alone had dominion over
His own life. Other men have no power over their own lives nor the
lives of others, and therefore they cannot offer them in sacrifice un­
less God gives them a special command to do so, as He did to
Abraham (Gen. 22:12). For that reason, the passion and death of
the martyrs cannot be called a sacrifice except in an improper sense,
because they could not die when they wished nor could they prevent
their death at will.1’1 It follows that Mary had no dominion over the
life of Christ. She certainly had maternal rights, rights which she

65

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

surrendered. He was truly her Son, but she had no right to sacrifice
her Son's body and life.
Nevertheless, Mary consented generously to her Son’s immolation
for the salvation of the world, and she had already consented when
she freely accepted her maternity, knowing that lie was to be a Man
of sorrows. The consent which she expressed to the angel was ratified
at the foot of the Cross.
Of this will of Mary, united perfectly to that of the Father, who
sent His Son to die, and to that of the Savior, who was immolated
for the salvation of mankind, St. Antoninus dares to say that if nec­
essary, Mary herself would have placed her Son on the Cross for the
salvation of the world.102 Gerson says the same.1"3 However, it is a
pious exaggeration to say, as Godts does, that Mary at Calvary of­
fered an identical sacrifice with her Son as the newly-ordained priest
offers the same sacrifice with the bishop in the Mass of ordination.104
Mary does not participate in the priesthood.
Nevertheless, as Mother and consort of the Highpriest, though not
as priest, Mary was intimately associated with the sacrifice of the
Cross, and she cooperated in it by an affective oblation 105 of the
objective sacrifice of Christ, from which results her subjective co­
sacrifice.100
The victim offered to God by the Son and the Mother was the
same; Mary alone, among all creatures, could offer to the Father, as
hers, that immaculate Victim. The will of the Son and the Mother
was one; the spirit of adoring God and being a propitiation for man­
kind was one. In a word, the flame of love was the same in both.
And so, Mary was united to Christ in the sacrifice of the Cross, not
by an identity of the act of oblation, but by an intimate union of
love.

Whether Mary can be called a priest.
By reason of her cooperation in the consecration of the Highpriest
of the New Law and the preparation of the Victim of the Cross, and
by reason of her union with Christ in the bloody sacrifice and her
part in the Sacrifice of the Mass (which we shall treat later), Mary
has received many titles related to the priesthood and sacrifice. She
has been called Mother of the divine priesthood, minister of the
divine priesthood, companion of the divine sacrifice, sacerdotal Vir­

thesis:

66

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

gin, priestess and priest. St. Epiphanius calls her priest and altar at
the same time, who gave us Christ, the bread of heaven, for the
remission of sin."” St. John Damascene calls her Virgin-priest;108
St. Antoninus, following St. Albert the Great, calls her the priestess
of justice.’08 The title is also used by Lepicier, Grimai, Hugon, Godts
and especially by De la Taille, who calls Mary a priestess since she
participates in the oblation of the Eucharist which the Church cele­
brates in accordance with the command of our Lord: “Do this in
commemoration of Me.”
In order to avoid all confusion in attributing this title to Mary, it
is necessary to distinguish a triple priesthood: substantial, sacra­
mental (juridical) and spiritual (mystical). The first two are strictly
sacerdotal; the third is improper and analogical.
In no way can we attribute to Mary the substantial priesthood.
This is the priesthood of Christ exclusively, who by the singular elec­
tion of God was deputed as a priest in the hypostatic union. Nor
does the sacramental and juridical priesthood pertain to Mary, be­
cause she was not chosen by the Lord as a minister, but as a consort
and helper.170 Neither did she receive the sacrament of holy orders
nor the priestly character.171
Rather, the spiritual and mystical priesthood fully becomes her, as
it does the rest of the faithful, whom St. John calls "priests to God
His Father” (Apoc. i:6) and St. Peter calls “a holy priesthood” (I
Pet. 2:5-9), to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ. In this sense, Mary, chosen as the helper of Christ, the
supreme Highpriest, participated in the spiritual and mystical priest­
hood in a more eminent way than did the rest of men.172 Therefore,
Mary is the companion and cooperator of Christ in the work of re­
demption but she is not His representative, and therefore she cannot
be called a priest in the strict or proper sense, any more than the
rest of the faithful who have not received the sacrament of holy
orders. The title is applied to Mary, as to the rest of the faithful,
only in an analogical and improper sense. Here we must apply the
rule of St. Thomas, who states that such expressions should not be
extended nor used in a proper sense, but should be explained in
accordance with piety wherever they appear in the writings of the

Fathers.178
On January 13, 1875, the Holy Office admonished theologians
67

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

who, under the name of piety, introduce names or titles that smack
of novelty or arc not sanctioned by custom. On January 15, 1913, the
Holy Office forbade the use of statues in which the Blessed Virgin
is dressed in priestly vestments. On April 8, 1916, the same Holy
Office forbade the propagation of the devotion to Mary under the
title of priest or as sacerdotal Virgin.
Actually, the title Virgin-priest is a novelty and is not substanti­
ated by custom. In Christian tradition it is found only twice: in the
fifth homily, De laudibus B.M. Virginis, preserved among the apoc­
ryphal writings of St. Epiphanius, and in the writings of St. John
Damascene. But the words of this holy Doctor do not seem to refer
to the priesthood as such, for he praises Mary’s purity in relation to
the purity proper to the priesthood. In modem times there are very
few who give Mary that title, and these arc usually writers in the
latter part of the nineteenth century. Grimai states that the expres­
sion Virgin-priest cannot be found in the Fathers or ancient theo­
logians.174

REDEMPTIVE ASPECT OF MARY’S COOPERATION
T h e s i s : By her compassion Mary cooperated formally and strictly

in human redemption.
Previous Observations. Redemption means to buy back. According
to the original meaning, the purchase referred only to things, and
was merely the exchange of a price for an object belonging to an­
other. But the purchase is called redemption strictly if the payment
of the price returns the object to the person who had previously
possessed it. In a similar manner, it is called redemption when it
concerns persons, such as slaves or captives, when the payment of
a price restores them to freedom or to their former master. In this
question we treat of the redemption of persons in the supernatural
order, or the liberation of men from their condition as slaves and
their restoration to the state of freedom as sons of God, thus restor­
ing them to the dominion of the Master to whom they belong, not
only by right of creation, but by right of grace.
In order that there be true redemption, there must be a captive
and a detainer of the captive, a redeemer and a price of redemption.
68

Now, the captive or slave is the entire human race, fallen into the
miserable slavery of sin and destined as a result to death and eternal
punishment. God and the devil are, as it were, two contenders for
the possession of mankind.
Tire Redeemer is Christ, "who gave Himself for us that He might
redeem ns from all iniquity" (I Tit. 2:14). "He has rescued us from
the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of His
beloved Son” (Col. 1:13-14).
The price of redemption is not a perishable thing, such as silver
or gold, but "the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot" (I Pet. 1:19). This price was not to be
paid to the devil, as was taught by Origen, St. Basil and St. Gregory
of Nyssa. The price had to be paid to the one who held the captive
by right of dominion, to the creditor, to the person offended, to the
supreme judge, who is God alone, because to Him alone belongs the
power of condemning to hell (Luke 12:5). It was not to be paid to
the devil, who held the captive as does the guard of the prison, the
minister and executor of the orders of the judge.17’
We shall now consider the manner in which Mary cooperated in
redemption by her maternal compassion.
Fathers and Doctors of the Church. St. Ephrem calls Mary our
liberation from captivity, the help of sinners and the price of our
redemption.176 Chrysippus speaks of the devil's victory over the first
woman and his definitive defeat by the second woman, Mary.177
George of Nicomedia states that through Mary the human race
returns to its fatherland. 178 In another place he speaks of Mary as
a beautiful oblation, the price of our redemption.17’ St. John Dama­
scene and St. Bonaventure refer to Mary as having purchased our
freedom.180
Theological Argument. Mary's compassion certainly cooperated in
our salvation by way of satisfaction or co-satisfaction. This satisfac­
tion always has the aspect of a redemptive price, for St. Thomas says
that the satisfaction by which one satisfies for oneself or another is
called the price which redeems from sin and its penalty, according
to Dan. 4:24: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.”181 Therefore
Mary’s compassion did have the aspect of a redemptive price.
To redeem the human race is to free it from the bondage of sin
and its corresponding penalties by paying the price due. Mary coop-

69

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

eratcd in this in two ways: by offering her own suffering, which was,
in a certain way, a price paid for our redemption, and, together with
Christ but in her own manner, by paying the same price that He

paid.
Pope Pius VII stated that the Christian faithful arc certainly
obliged to venerate the memory of the most bitter pains which Mary
suffered at the foot of the Cross with singular fortitude and un­
flinching constancy for the salvation of mankind.182
St. Albert the Great praises the charity of the Blessed Virgin by
stating that although she did not give her life for her neighbor, she
gave the life of her Son and her Son Himself, whom she loved much
more than her own life, and if it had been necessary she would have
offered her own life and would have been crucified with her Son.1"
Gerson invites the Christian faithful to meditate how the Mother
participated in the death of her Son for the redemption of the
human race. As a good mother, she would have been willing to pay
the price of redemption for her children if the offering of her Son
had not been sufficient, though His death was sufficient to redeem
a thousand worlds.184
Tire passion and death of Christ, offered for human salvation, is
a condign and adequate price for our redemption. Tire Blessed Vir­
gin, at the foot of the Cross, offered Christ for the salvation of the
world, thus uniting her will to that of her Son and to that of the
Father who sent the Son for the salvation of men. St. Bonaventure
says that she desired to offer her Son for the world’s salvation so
that as Mother she could be in perfect conformity with the will of
the Father.185 Arnold of Chartres states that there was but one will
between Christ and Mary' and that the two offered one and the same
holocaust—Mary, the blood of the spirit, and Christ, the blood of

His body.186
St. Albert the Great speaks in a similar manner when he says that
Mary considered the death of her Son as the price of our redemption
and she willingly offered the life of Christ as the price of redemp­
tion.187 Accordingly, Pope Leo XIII says that Mary' was permeated
with such an immense charity that she joyfully offered her Son to
divine justice, dying with Him as her heart was pierced with the
sword of sorrow.188
Nor is it a valid objection to say that the redemptive price should
7°

COOPERATION IN OBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

be proper to the one redeeming and not to any other, and that the
blood of Christ, the real price of human redemption, was not Mary’s
but Christ’s. In the first place, Christ's blood, the price of redemp­
tion, was in a certain way Mary’s also, because, according to Pope
Benedict XV, she had maternal rights over her Son, but surrendered
them for the salvation of mankind. In the second place, since the
blood was more properly Christ's than Mary’s, it is evident that
Christ is Redeemer primarily and perfectly, and Mary is co-redemptrix in a secondary manner, with Christ and dependent upon Him.

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

CHAPTER THREE
Mary’s Cooperation in the Distribution of Graces

Gary's Cooperation in Subjective
Redemption
*

Having

studied

Mary’s cooperation in objective redemption,

by which the fruits of redemption were acquired and accumulated,
thus constituting the infinite treasury of graces, we pass on to an
investigation of her cooperation in subjective redemption, which has
as its object the distribution and application of the fruits of objective
redemption to all men. Objective redemption is like a prepared medi­
cine. It has the power to cure, but it will not do so unless it is given
to the sick. St. Prosperus, referring to the Incarnation, says that “this
potion is profitable for all, but if one does not drink it, it does not
benefit one."1
Mary’s cooperation in subjective redemption signifies her personal
intervention in the application of the fruits and the distribution of
the graces of redemption. This cooperation may be mediate and radi­
cal or immediate and formal. We are not discussing the first type,
because it is evident that all the graces of redemption come to us
through Mary mediately and radically because she gave us the Savior,
who is the fountain and source of all good. St. Albert the Great says
that she gave us her Son, and with Him all things.2 The reason is
obvious: whatever is the cause and origin of the cause is likewise the
cause of the effect. Therefore Pctau concludes that just as Christ is
for us the source of all good, so His Mother can be considered in
a certain way and rightly the root and principle of all good."
We treat, therefore, of the formal, immediate and actual cooper­
ation of Mary in the distribution of redemptive graces. We shall
investigate the fact or truth of that cooperation, the manner of its
execution and the type of causality involved, and Mary’s intervention
in the concession of certain special graces of singular importance.

7»

Jesus Christ is our only Mediator, as proved by the words of
St. Pius X: “It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensing of
these treasures is the particular and supreme right of Jesus Christ,
for they are the exclusive fmit of His death, who by His nature is
the Mediator between God and man.”4 He is the Head of the
mystical body, from which life flows to all the members. He alone,
by the power of excellence, distributes graces to all mankind, as
St. John says: “I am the vine, you are the branches” (15:5); and
“Of His fullness we have all received, grace for grace" (1:16). Christ
exercises this office constantly, interceding for us and distributing all
the graces of redemption. "He lives always to make intercession for
them” (Hcb. 8:25).
Mary cooperates proximately and actually in the distri­
bution of all graces.
Previous Observations. It is hardly necessary to remark that it is
not a matter of Mary’s cooperation in the distribution of graces in
the sense that such a prerogative belongs to her ex ipsa natura rei,
in such a way that God, absolutely speaking, could not bestow any
grace without Mary’s mediation, but insofar as it pertains to her
ex positivo et libero Dei decreto (by a positive and free decree of
God), who in the present economy has determined and willed not
to bestow any redemptive grace without the mediation of the Blessed
Virgin. Once this disposition of the divine will is admitted, Mary’s
cooperation in the distribution of graces is hypothetically necessary.
Therefore, by reason of a “consequent impotence,” God could not
bestow any grace without Mary’s intervention because He cannot
contradict His own decree.® Merkelbach states that although he
would not dare to affirm that grace cannot be bestowed in any other
way, there is no indication of this.® This cooperation of Mary in the
distribution of graces must be understood as applying numerically to
all the redemptive graces bestowed on mankind since original sin.
although her intervention in graces granted under the Old Law must
be understood in a different manner. The universality of her medi­
ation extends to all graces, internal and external, habitual and actual,

thesis:

73

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

gratum facientes and gratis datae, sacramental and extra sacramental,
ordinal}' and extraordinary, petitioned and non-pctitioncd, those impetrated by the Virgin Mary and those impetrated by Christ or the
saints. In a word, all graces bestowed in the present economy. Ex­
cluded from this mediation are the gifts of grace bestowed on Christ
and Mar)'. As to the graces bestowed on the angels and our first
parents before original sin, we shall speak later. Finally, in this ques­
tion we are not studying the power given Mary, by which she can,
through her most powerful intercession, obtain everything relative
to salvation, but her actual cooperation or her particular intervention
since her assumption into heaven, to obtain grace for individuals.
We are not speaking here of her life on earth.
Errors. Mary’s intervention in the dispensing of graces is denied by
Luther, Calvin, Brcncius, Bullinger and all their followers, who con­
sider excessive any praise in relation to this prerogative of Mary, as
if Christ's glory as Mediator would thereby be diminished.7 The
Jansenists also oppose this distribution of graces, although not
openly, but surreptitiously, under the pretext of defending traditional
Mariological doctrine. The errors of all were gathered into a booklet
edited in 1675 by Adam Widenfeldt under the title: Monita salu­
taria Beatae Mariae Virginis ad cultores suos indiscretos. Using am­
biguous and calumnious words, the author speaks cunningly and
craftily against the cult, devotion and glorious titles of Mary which
pertain to her office as dispenser of graces.
Among the Catholic theologians opposed to the doctrine of Mary’s
universal distribution of graces was Theophilus Raynaud, an other­
wise great panegyrist of Marian privileges. He considered it an excess
of piety and explained any such statements of the Fathers as apply­
ing to mediate causality, that is, by reason of Christ, to whom she

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

gave existence.8
Muratori, a pious man devoted to the Blessed Virgin, also opposed
this doctrine in his book, Della regolata divozione dei Christiani,
written under the pseudonym of Lamindo Pritanio. He remarked
that to pretend that all the graces we receive from God come to us
through Mary, would be a devout exaggeration. Muratori was refuted
by Father Benedict Piazza, S.J., who examined and analyzed every
one of his affirmations and pointed out their ambiguities.® Also in-

volved in this controversy was Trombclli, who inclined toward Muratori’s opinion.10
In our days, the affirmative opinion of the distribution of all graces
by Mary does not please some writers, among whom are Fischer and
Ude, who believe that the adduced arguments are weak and insuffi­
cient in proving Mary’s actual mediation.11
On the other hand, most Catholic theologians, particulary since
the nineteenth century, defend Mary's actual and universal medi­
ation in the dispensation of all graces. This doctrine is not a dogma
of faith nor is it uniformly classified by theologians. However, taking
into account the ordinary magisterium of the Church, Catholic tra­
dition (less clear in antiquity and more express in later times), the
consensus of modern theologians, and the feeling and common piety
of the Christian people, we may affirm that Mary’s universal medi­
ation in the distribution of graces is at least proxima fidei.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Benedict XIV refers to Mary as
the celestial river by which all gifts and graces reach men.’2 Pope
Pius VII calls her the dispenser of all graces.” Pope Pius IX states
that ‘‘God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things,
in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every
hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we
obtain everything through Mary.” 14
Pope Leo XIII calls Mary the "guardian of our peace and the
minister to us of heavenly grace” 15 and in speaking specifically about
Mary’s mediation, he says: “With equal truth may it be also affirmed
that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom
is distributed unto us this immense treasure of God’s mercies; 'for
grace and truth come by Jesus Christ.’ Thus, as no man goes to the
Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through His
Mother.” 18
The Pope teaches this doctrine again in speaking of the efficacy
of the Rosary: "First, as is fitting and right, comes the Lord’s
Prayer, addressed to our Father in heaven. Having, with the petitions
dictated by our divine Master, called upon the Father, from the
throne of His majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mar)'. Thus is
confirmed that law of merciful mediation of which we have spoken,
and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: ‘Every grace

74

75

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

granted to man has three successive steps: by God it is communi­
cated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the

Virgin it descends to us.' " 17
The following year he repeated the same doctrine: “From her
heavenly abode she began, by God’s decree, to watch over the
Church, to assist and befriend us as our Mother; so that she who was
so intimately associated with the mystery of human salvation is just
as closely associated with the distribution of the graces which for all
time will flow from the Redemption.” 18
“From her, as from an abundant spring, arc derived the streams
of heavenly graces. ‘In her hand arc the treasures of the mercies of
the Lord.’ God wills that she be the beginning of all good things."19
St. Pius X writes: “From this community of will and suffering
between Christ and Mary, ‘she merited to become most worthily the
reparatrix of the lost world’ and dispenser of all the gifts that our
Savior purchased for us by His death and by His blood.
“It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensing of these treas­
ures is the particular and supreme right of Jesus Christ, for they are
the exclusive fruit of His death, who by His nature is the Mediator
between God and man. Nevertheless, by this union in sorrow and
suffering, as we have said existed between the Mother and the Son,
it has been allowed to the august Virgin ‘to be the most powerful
mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son.'
The source, then, is Jesus Christ, ‘of whose fullness we have all
received.’ . . . But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the
‘channel’ or, if you will, that connecting portion by which the body
is joined to the head and by which the head exerts its power and its
virtue: ‘For she is the neck of our Head by which He communicates
to His mystical body all spiritual gifts.’ ” 20
Pope Benedict XV teaches the same doctrine when he says that
if all the graces of redemption are distributed by the Blessed Virgin
by reason of her compassion, surely the grace of a holy death also
comes from her hands.21 Pope Pius XI refers to her as the "deposi­
tary of all graces” 22 and he exhorted the faithful to pray to the
Sacred Heart through the mediation of Mary, who is the mediatrix
of all graces.23 In another place he refers to Mary as the administra­
tor of heavenly graces.21
Sacred Scripture. “I will put enmities between thee and the
16

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head, and
thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" (Gen. 3:15). In these words
Mary is united with Christ in her fight against Satan and ultimately
wins a complete victory over him. Now, Mary’s participation with
Christ in this combat is not completed simply by her basic cooper­
ation through her physical maternity nor by her proximate cooper­
ation in the work of redemption, but it requires her intervention in
the distribution of graces. The reason is that although objective re­
demption was consummated on the Cross and the price of our re­
demption was fully paid there, subjective redemption, by which His
graces are applied to mankind, is still necessary. Both objective and
subjective redemption constitute a complete whole, the total work of
redemption, with the result that no one would have been restored
to the supernatural order by objective redemption alone,23 for re­
demption tends directly to re-establish all things in Christ, both
those in heaven and those on earth (Eph. 1:9-10; Col. 1:13-20).
And actually, any grace that is the beginning of this restoration of
Christ’s reign and the constant and perpetual victory over Satan,
requires Mary’s mediation in the distribution of graces.
In the Gospel we meet a kind of prelude to the office and privilege
of Mary in the distribution of Christ’s graces. The first recorded
grace that issued from Christ was the sanctification of John the
Baptist, who leaped in his mother’s womb when the Blessed Virgin,
still carrying Christ in her womb, greeted Elizabeth. This privilege
was bestowed upon John through Mary’s mediation, as Elizabeth
indicated when, filled with the Holy Spirit, she said: “For behold,
the moment that the sound of thy greeting came to my ears, the
babe in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44).
The same is true of the first miracle of Christ’s public life, that
of the conversion of water into wine in Cana of Galilee. As St. John
says: "This first of His signs Jesus worked at Cana of Galilee; and
He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in him" (2:11).
It was through Mary’s mediation that Christ worked this miracle, as
St. John attests, repeating the Virgin’s words: "They have no wine.
... Do whatever He tells you” (2:3-5).28
Pope Leo XIII says of these two graces: "During His private life
on earth, He associated her with Himself in each of His first two
miracles—the miracle of grace, when at the salutation of Mary the
77

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

infant leaped in the womb of Elizabeth; the miracle of nature, when
He turned water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana."27
The Fathers and Theologians. This testimony can be divided into
four epochs. The first extends from apostolic times to the eighth
century; the second extends to the fifteenth century; the third, to
the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in the nine­
teenth century; and the fourth reaches to the present time.
First Epoch. The patristic doctrine of the first centuries concern­
ing Mary’s distribution of all graces is found implicitly in the title
hailing Mary as the new Eve, which can be understood as an affir­
mation of her universal mediation and her spiritual maternity. In
naming Mary the new Eve, the early Fathers present her as opposed
in every way to the first Eve and associated with Christ to bring
salvation to the world. The comparison can be found in the writings
of St. Irenaeus, Tcrtullian, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, St. John
Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and others.28 And this com­
parison in which Eve is portrayed as the cause of death and Mary
is designated as the cause of life is not restricted to the fact that
Mary gave us Christ, who is the source of all graces, but that she
was, in addition to Mother, the consort and spouse of Christ in the
work of the restoration of the human race (as Eve was in its fall),
and that she cooperated with Christ in the work of redemption in
the two aspects of the acquisition and the distribution of graces.
As regards Mary’s mediation, we have the testimony of St. Ephrem,
St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Andrew of
Cretona.20
Testimony to Mary’s spiritual motherhood of all the faithful can
be found in St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine and St. Peter Chrysologus,
who show that Mary’s spiritual maternity is either identified with
her role as dispenser of graces or it follows by logical necessity from
her role as dispenser of graces.80
Finally, some of the Fathers enumerate many of the graces which
have come to us through Mary, and seem to defend her immediate
cooperation in the distribution of all graces. Thus, St. Cyril of Alex­
andria, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Andrew of Cretona attrib­
ute to Mary’s mediation the veneration of the Cross, the victory over
Satan, the conversion of unbelievers, the return of nations to God,
78

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the remission of sins and rebirth in grace and, indeed, man's entire
participation in grace and glory.81
Second Epoch. From the eighth century onwards, we find not only
the doctrine of Mary’s universal mediation, but also that all heavenly
benefits reach us through her, a doctrine which would be clearly
stated and defended in the twelfth century. St. Germanus of Con­
stantinople says that no one can attain salvation without Mary’s
aid;82 St. Anselm begs Mary to bestow grace on him because with­
out her help he can achieve nothing;8:1 St. Bernard teaches that God
does not grant any grace which does not pass through Mary's
hands;84 St. Albert the Great says that Mary is the universal dis­
penser of all giaces.88 Similar teachings can be found in the writings
of St. John Damascene, St. Theodorus, Eadmer, Hugh of St. Victor,
St. Amadeus, Cardinal Hugo, Richard of St. Lawrence, St. Bona­
venture, Conrad of Saxony, Raymond Jourdain, Gerson, St. Bernar­
dine of Siena and Denis the Carthusian.80
Third Epoch. The doctrine of Mary’s cooperation in the distribu­
tion of graces was attacked in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen­
turies by Protestants and Jansenists. But God gave the Church
numerous zealous teachers, writers and preachers who defended
Mary against her enemies, promoted her devotion intensively, and
strengthened the doctrine of her cooperation in the distribution of
graces. St. Peter Canisius, valiant defender of Marian prerogatives,
explains the constant influence of Mary in the work of our salvation
by citing the Scriptural phrase, ‘‘I will put enmities between thee and
the woman,” and applying the words to Mary, who was chosen by
God to crush the head of the serpent.87 The holy Doctor then de­
fends the truth of Mary’s universal mediation in the distribution of
graces.88
St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Lawrence Brindisi refer to Christ
as the Head of the mystical body and Mary as the neck, through
whom all graces flow from Christ to mankind.80 St. John Eudes
states that Mary, as the second cause and dependent upon her Son,
distributes all graces and all the fruits of the Passion.40
St. Alphonsus Liguori affirms that it is impious to assert that God
is not pleased to grant graces at the intercession of His saints, and
more especially of His Mother, whom Jesus desires so much to see
79

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
COOPERATION

loved and honored by all. The honor bestowed on a mother redounds
to the honor of the son. There can be no doubt that by the merits
of Jesus, Mary was made the mediatrix of our salvation, not indeed
a mediatrix of justice, but of grace and intercession. The intercession
of Mary is even necessary for salvation, not absolutely, but morally.
Tliis necessity proceeds from the will itself of God, that all graces
He dispenses should pass through the hands of Mary.41
St. Louis Grignon de Montfort states that Christ communicated
to His Mother all that He had acquired by His life and death, His
infinite merits and admirable virtues, and He made her the treasurer
of all that the Father had given Him. It is through her that Christ
dispenses all His merits and graces. It is God’s will that we have
everything in Mary.42
Similar statements can be found in the writings of Bossuet, St.
Francis de Sales, Leonard of Port Maurice, Salmerôn, Suarez, Sala­
zar, Vega, Blessed John of Avila, Blessed Alphonsus of Orozco, Ven­
erable John Palaphox, Nieremberg and many other authors.43
Fourth Epoch. Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the Immaculate
Conception on December 8, 1854. It is truly a transcendental defi­
nition, not only because of the dogmatic affirmation of so excellent
a Marian prerogative, but because it authentically declares that
Mary's cooperation with Christ in the work of redemption is a tra­
ditional doctrine of the Church. Tliis document, together with the
Marian encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and his successors, stimulated
theologians to study and explain the privileges of Mary, and above
all, her prerogative as dispenser of graces. With rare exceptions, most
doctors, writers and preachers of the Church defended this doctrine
of Mary’s dispensation of each and every grace granted to men. It
would be an interminable task to cite all the writers here. Moreover,
students interested in such a bibliography will normally have easy
access to it in recent books on the subject.
The piety of the faithful. By common instinct and devotion, all
the faithful at all times and places have had confident recourse to
Mary' for all their spiritual and corporal goods. Hence, the frequent
and even daily invocation of Mary, both privately and publicly; the
devotion of tire faithful to her; the many monuments, chapels, paint­
ings and statues, which are an authentic expression of Marian piety
and confidence in her protection; the many writings, books, prayer80

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

books, hymns and popular songs, which acclaim her the refuge of
sinners and help of Christians.
Theological Arguments. Theologians usually offer a fourfold theo­
logical reason, based on the Virgin’s divine maternity, her cooper­
ation in redemption, her spiritual motherhood and her dignity as
Queen.
By reason of her maternity. As the Mother of God, Mary touches
the borders of the divinity, enters in a certain way into the hypostatic
order, is closely united to Christ, is placed over all creatures, and
attains the plenitude of all types of graces. Although the dispensation
of graces is not a property of the divine maternity, but is rather an
office which can be separated from it, it is most fitting that the
Mother of God be adorned with such a prerogative. The reason for
this is that operation follows being, and the more perfect the agent,
the closer it is to God and the greater must be the influence of its
causality.44 Since Mary by her divine maternity is united to the
Word by a most intimate union, she belongs, in a certain way, to
the order of the hypostatic union and is superior in grace to all
creatures. Therefore, she has the maximum capability of receiving
the causality of dispensing graces to the rest of men. As Kerkhofs
says concerning this proposition: “The order of creatures is not only
a static order, but is primarily dynamic, based on the graded activity
of beings. Grace, like life itself, tends to radiate and, in particular
under the title of divine friendship, in the proportion that it grows,
it increases the merit or impetrative power of the one possessing
it and places at his disposal the riches of the divine Friend.45
By reason of her cooperation in redemption. Mary is the new Eve,
Christ’s partner in the work of redemption. Christ the Redeemer
merited for us de condigno all the graces and helps necessary for
salvation; and Mary, associated with the Redeemer, obtained them
for us by her particular merits. St. Thomas says that it is logical that
the one who acquired goods for others should dispense them.45
Moreover, total redemption has two aspects: objective and sub­
jective. By the first, graces are acquired and accumulated; by the
second, they are distributed to each of the redeemed. If in the first
aspect the Virgin is intimately united to the Redeemer, why must
we separate her from the second?
By reason of her spiritual motherhood. Mary is the spiritual
81

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY
COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

mother of men. Tin's maternity demands, in some way, the office
of preparing and giving the grace by which all arc born to the new
life and brought to their full development and perfection by its in­
crease, because the perfection of the being belongs to the one who

gave it existence.
By reason of her dignity as Queen. Mary is Queen in the kingdom
of Christ in the formal and proper sense, inasmuch as she directs
men to their eternal salvation. But Mary could not exercise this
regal office if she did not intervene in the dispensation of grace to
all men.
thesis:

When Mary began to exercise the office of dispenser of

graces.
We must distinguish two economies: that of the Old Law and
that of the New Law. With respect to the dispensation and distri­
bution of graces, there exists a great difference between the two; not
that grace was not conferred in the Old Law, but because, as St. Leo
says, in the New Law it was bestowed more abundantly. 47 St.
Thomas says: “The New Law . . . consists chiefly in the grace of
the Holy Ghost: which it behooved not to be given abundantly
until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been cast out of man
through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ.”48
Tliis more abundant effusion of graces, proper to the New Law,
had its beginning after our Lord’s resurrection and not before, as
Toledo attests in his commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ro­
mans (c. 4). Although all of the Savior’s merit arises from His
passion and death, by which He merited for us the pardon of our
sins and our justification, and not from His resurrection, by which
He passed from the state in via, which is necessary for merit, never­
theless His resurrection is the terminus and complement of the
passion and death of Christ. Through it He became the Redeemer
in a complete sense, the victor over death and sin.4®
God wished to sanctify us through the humanity of Christ, but
absolutely speaking, He could have done it in another way. More­
over, He could have sanctified us through Christ’s humanity with­
out glorifying it. However, it was divinely decreed that the power
of infusing grace, which was proper to Christ by reason of His in­

Sa

carnation, should be exercised through the passion and resurrection

conjointly.

It is certain, as we shall prove in the following question, that all
the graces received by men at any time were dispensed by Christ
through Mary', although the graces granted to those who existed be­
fore Christ and Mary were bestowed through their intercession and
merits as foreseen by God from all eternity and applied prior to any
actual intervention by Christ or Mary. In the present question we
treat principally of Mary’s actual intervention in the distribution of
graces, that is, the time at which she began to intervene in the dis­
tribution of graces.
Three stages can be distinguished in the life of the Blessed Virgin.
The first extends from her immaculate conception to the incarnation
of the Word; the second, from the Incarnation to Christ's death and
resurrection; the third, from Christ’s resurrection to Mary’s assump­
tion into heaven. Likewise, two kinds of Marian intervention may
be distinguished: one common or general, which refers collectively
to all graces and those to whom these graces arc given, by means of
a universal mediation; the other particular, by which each distinct
grace reaches each individual person. There are those who assert that
Mary’s general or universal mediation began at the very moment of
her immaculate conception.50 Mary’s particular mediation in the dis­
tribution of graces can be exercised in two ways: by an explicit and
distinct knowledge of graces and of persons, or by an implicit knowl­
edge which is contained in Christ’s explicit and distinct knowledge.
Endowed as He was from the very instant of His incarnation with
beatific knowledge, He knew all men, their thoughts, actions, needs
and the helps which could save them. That Mary could intervene
in the distribution of graces in particular by an implicit knowledge,
or through the medium of Christ’s knowledge, can hardly be
doubted, since she could unite her prayer to that of Christ and will
the graces that Christ would will in particular for each man.51 As
regards Mary’s particular intervention by an explicit and distinct
knowledge of grace and of persons, it cannot be denied that Mary
concurred in this way with the distribution of grace during her life­
time, as in the cases of John the Baptist and in the conversion of the
good thief. The latter was converted, says St. Peter Damian, because

83

THE B I. ESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the Blessed Virgin prayed for Him at the foot of the Cross.” This
particular intervention can be extended to those moments of her
mortal life in which, enlightened by divine revelation, she under­
stood distinctly the needs of men and obtained for each of them the
necessary graces. This seems especially applicable to the time which
elapsed between Christ’s ascension and Mary’s assumption, because,
according to St. Peter Canisius, it was most fitting and because the
growing Church had need of Mary’s help for some years after her
Son’s ascension.68
But actually, Mary’s full exercise of the office of dispenser of graces
began on the day of her glorious assumption into heaven. Since that
time she intervenes in the distribution of every grace to each soul
because, illumined by the light of glory, she knows the spiritual needs
of men, intercedes for them and distributes the graces they need.
Hence Pope Leo XIII says: “Nobody knows and comprehends so
well as she everything that concerns us: what helps we need in life;
what dangers, public or private, threaten our welfare; what difficul­
ties and evils surround us; above all, how fierce is the fight we wage
with the ruthless enemies of our salvation. In these and in all other
troubles of life her power is most far-reaching. Her desire to use it
is most ardent to bring consolation, strength, and help of every kind
to children who are dear to her.” 64
St. Andrew of Crete says that the whole world has Mary as a
common mediatrix.66 St. Amadeus of Lausanne says that our Queen
is constantly before the divine Majesty, interceding for us with her
most powerful prayers, because she knows all our needs as a mother
who has compassion on us.60
Truly, once in heaven, Mary contemplates the essence of God
more clearly and perfectly than any other creature. But all the
blessed see in God whatever pertains to them. Therefore, it is certain
that the Blessed Virgin must know everything that pertains to the
salvation of men, both in general and in particular. To this unique
knowledge which Mary receives from the vision of God is joined
an extraordinary power, and to that power, an ineffable love.67
thesis: The extension of Mary's prerogative as dispenser of
graces; that is, whether it extends to all men of all times and even
to the angels.

84

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

From what has been said it is evident that under the New Law
all graces are given to men through Mary. The present question
treats, in a special way, of those who lived prior to the institution
of the Christian law, including the angels.
Mankind may be considered either in the state of innocence, as
was the condition of our first parents before the fall, or under the
natural law and the written law, after the sin of our first parents.
After original sin, men received all the graces and helps necessary
for salvation through the merits of Christ, to which were united
the merits of Mary, as they existed in the foreknowledge of God.
With regard to the merits of Christ, Scripture states clearly: "God,
who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (I Tim. 4:10);
"He is a propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but also for those
of the whole world” (I John 2:2); and "Neither is there salvation
in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men
by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
To save men and to be a propitiation for their sins is proper to
Christ as Head, according to St. Paul: “He is the Head of His body,
the Church” (Col. 1:18). This is to be understood in its most
universal sense, as the source from which every soul receives the
influx of grace, as expressed by St. John: "And of His fullness we
have all received, grace for grace” (1:16). Therefore, every grace, no
matter how little, is given by Christ to all men who existed in any
age of the world after the sin of Adam. St. Augustine explicitly says
that all the just who have ever lived since the beginning of the
world have received their grace through Christ.68 St. Thomas says:
“This is the difference between the natural body of man and the
Church’s mystical body, that the members of the natural body are
all together, and the members of the mystical body are not all to­
gether; neither as regards their natural being, since tire body of the
Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning
of the world until its end.”69
There is no inconsistency in stating that Christ, before becoming
man, was the Head of those who preceded Him in existence, because
all received faith, grace and the rest of the supernatural gifts by­
reason of the divine foreknowledge of the merits of Christ. And
although Christ was not their Head in the same measure that He
is ours,80 nevertheless the influx of grace that came to them through

85

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the merits foreknown by God and as an antecedent effect of Christ’s
passion, was sufficient to make Him Head of all.
The same must be affirmed of the Virgin, Mother of God, with
respect to those who preceded her on earth, since Mary is the
spiritual mother of all of those of whom Christ is the Head, and
Christ is the Head of all men, of every age of the world. St. Ber­
nardine of Siena says that he has no doubt but that all the mercies
granted by God under the Old Law were granted only in consider­
ation of this most Blessed Lady.®1
Because of the various opinions on the final cause of the Incarna­
tion, theologians are not in agreement concerning the dependence
of the grace of Adam and Eve in the state of innocence on the
merits of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin. Those who believe, with
the Scotists, that the Incarnation was decreed by God for the glorifi­
cation of Christ and the beauty of the universe, antecedent to the
divine foreknowledge of sin, logically conclude that Mary would
have been chosen as the Mother of God even if Adam had not
sinned and that grace, even in the present order, would have come
to our first parents in the state of innocence through the influence
of Christ and the cooperation of Mary with Christ, but subordinate
to Him. For the Scotists Christ appears in the actual decree and the
historical order of the Incarnation first as Head and end of the entire
universe and Firstborn among creatures and only after the fore­
knowledge of sin as Redeemer of the human race.
But we favor the opinion of the Thomists, who maintain that
the Incarnation was ordained simply as a remedy for sin and decreed
by God after the foreknowledge of sin. And since in that decree
of the Incarnation Christ appears primarily as Redeemer of the
human race and Mary as His Mother, it follows that the grace of
our first parents in the state of innocence does not proceed from the
influence of Christ and Mary’s cooperation.
Actually, the sanctification of our first parents in the state of
innocence was foreknown and willed before the prevision and elec­
tion of Christ and His Mother. Therefore, it is not possible that
grace could have been given through them. The reason is that Christ
and His Mother were foreknown and chosen after the prevision of
Adam's sin, so that if Adam had not sinned, neither Christ nor His

The doctrine of Mary’s intervention in the distribution of all
graces would not be fully explained if the statement of so remark­
able a prerogative were not followed by a discussion of the manner
and type of causality by which Mary exercises her influence over
the graces bestowed on men.

86

87

Mother would have come into the world. St. Andrew of Crete refers
to this when he says that had there been no Cross, neither Christ
nor Mary would have come to the earth.®’
With regard to the angels, it is necessary to distinguish between
essential and accidental grace and glory. The influence of Christ
and His Mother on the essential grace and glory of the angels falls
under the same controversy concerning the final cause of the In­
carnation. According to St. Thomas, Christ, and consequently. His
Mother, exercised no influence over the essential grace and glory
of the angels, since the justification and glorification of the angels is
prior to the prevision of Christ, for He and His Mother were fore­
known and willed after the prevision of the sin of Adam. This sin
presupposes the existence and suggestion of the devil, his fall, and
the loss of grace in which he had been created, as it also presupposes
the existence of the good angels who persevered in grace and were
glorified. St. Bernard says that the angels did not need the passion
of Christ and the devils could not profit from it.·* The angels,
therefore, did not receive essential grace and glory through the in­
fluence of the God-Man and His Mother. St. Thomas says that
"this was done by Christ inasmuch as He is the Word of God." **
Nevertheless, through the merits of Christ and His Virgin Mother,
the angels received certain graces of ministry and accidental joys
in the salvation of men. St. Thomas says the angels are not way­
farers, and hence Christ did not merit for them as regards essential
reward. But since they serve us, they are in some sense connected
with wayfarers, and since Christ merits for them in this regard,
He does somehow merit accidental reward for them.®5

Mary’s Causality in the Distribution of Graces

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

COOPERATION

IN

SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Mary cooperates in the distribution of grace by way of

moves it and elevates it to the production of an effect superior to

intercession.
Since we shall ticat later of Mary's intercession, it is sufficient
to indicate here that Mary cooperates in the dispensation of graces
by her merits and by her intercession, which is explicit and formal,
interpretative and objective. This manner of cooperation by inter­
cession admits of no doubt whatever, as it follows from the teaching
of the Roman Pontiffs, the teachings of the Fathers and theologians,
the liturgy of the Church, the common sentiment of the faithful,
and the arguments of theological reasoning, so that no Catholic has
dared to doubt it. This said, we pass on to the study of the kind of
causality by which Mary intervenes in the distribution of graces.

itself.
The moral efficient cause is also divided into principal cause,
co-agent and instrumental cause. The principal moral cause, by its
very nature and permanent form, moves intentionally, that is, by its
dignity, value, example, petition, etc. The co-agent or less principal
moral cause has, through its dignity and excellence, the power of
moving intentionally, but originating from and dependent on the
principal moral cause with which and under which it works. The
instrumental moral cause moves intentionally, not through its own
dignity and excellence, but by that which is communicated to it by
the principal cause, to which it is subordinate and through which it
works.
It is clear that we are not treating here of Mary’s influence in the
distribution of graces as a material or formal cause. Grace has no
formal cause, because it is itself a kind of form, whether as a quality
because formally it causes justification in man, or as second act
because it prepares man for justification or, after being justified, it
enables him to produce supernatural acts.
Moreover, grace has no material cause ex qua which forms part
of grace, though it does have a material cause in qua, that is, a
subject (the essence of the soul) from whose obediential potency
it is produced and on which it relies for its existence.*7
It is certain that Mary does not exercise an influence as final cause
in the distribution of grace because the proximate final cause of grace
is the eternal salvation of the just, the mediate final cause is Christ,
and the ultimate end is God, since all the works produced by God,
of which grace is the principal one, arc ordained to His glory. Thus,
we read in Proverbs: “The Lord hath made all things for Himself’
(16:4), and St. Paul says: “For all things are yours, and you are
Christ’s and Christ is God’s” (I Cor. 3:22-23). The Council of
Trent explains the final cause of grace by stating that the causes of
justification are the glory of God and Christ and also eternal life
(Sess. VI, c. 7).««
With regard to the efficient cause, we say that God alone is the
principal physical cause of grace because He alone can produce, by
llis own power, all supernatural gifts. It is proper to the principal
cause to work in virtue of its own form, to which the effect must be

thesis:

Mary is not a moral instrumental cause in the distribu­
tion of graces, but a co-agent or less principal moral cause.
Previous observations. It was common for the ancient theologians
to divide the causes into the material, formal, efficient and final
cause. The material cause is that from which something is made,
that is, the subject from which the effect is produced, lire formal
cause is that which determines the material in order to produce a
distinct and determined effect. The efficient cause is that which
produces something by its own action. The final cause is that which
induces the efficient cause to work.
Philosophy is wont to distinguish the efficient cause in various
ways. With regard to ourselves, we divide it into physical and moral.
The physical cause is that which produces the effect with physical
efficiency; the moral cause is that which produces the effect, not
physically but in intention, that is, by its dignity, merit, value, ex­
ample, petition, etc., it moves another cause to produce the effect
physically.®*
Both physical and moral efficient causes are divided into principal
cause, co-agent and instrumental cause. Tire principal physical cause,
by virtue of its very nature, produces an effect proportionate and
similar to itself. The co-agent or lesser principal cause influences the
effect efficiently but with dependence on the principal cause, in such
a manner that without its concursus the former has no influence on
the effect. The physical instrumental cause produces the effect not
so much by its own power as by that of the principal agent which

thesis:

88

89

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

similar, and since grace is a participation in the divine nature, it 0
identified wth God as principal cause. So St. Paul says: "There u
but one God who will justify” (Rom. 3:30).
The principal moral cause is Jesus Christ, who by His passion and
death merited for us de condigno all graces and supernatural gifts,
because the meritorious cause of the gift or reward is its moral cause,
and there can be no cause superior to Christ from whom merit could
proceed as from a principal cause, since God, who is superior to
Christ as man, cannot merit. The one who merits is inferior to the
one who rewards, and God is not inferior to anyone and cannot
hope for or receive any reward from anyone.®8 For that reason, the
Council of Trent says: "The efficient cause is a merciful God;
... but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten

Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”70
From all this it is easy for us to conclude that Mary does not
exercise any principal causality whatever with respect to the produc­
tion of grace, neither physical, as is evident from the words of St,
Pius X: “We are thus, it will be seen, very far from declaring the
Mother of God to be the author of supernatural grace,” nor moral,
because Christ is superior to her, and her intercession and merit
depend on Him. It remains, therefore, to determine whether, in
the distribution of graces, Mary is a moral co-agcnt and less prin­
cipal cause or merely an instrumental cause.
Testimony of Theologians. St. Albert the Great: “Mary was not
chosen by God to be a minister, but a consort and helper.” 71
Denis the Carthusian says: "Just as man did not lose paradise
without the cooperation of the woman, so God did not wish to re­
deem him without a woman as co-cause in this work. Nevertheless,
Mary did not cooperate with Christ as if He alone would not have
sufficed. Of Himself, He was more than sufficient. Yet she cooper
ated with Christ in many ways and was in her own way a savior of
the world.”72
George of Rhodes: "In a true and proper sense Mary, the Mother
of God, can be called redeemer of the world, but in a less principal
sense and in a much less proper sense than Christ.’’78
Suârez: “The first dignity of the Virgin is that she is the Mother
of God, and to that is united her most singular manner of cooper­
ating in redemption.” 74
90

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Theological Argument. Mary’s causality in the distribution of all
supernatural gifts, although inferior to the power of Christ, the
principal cause, is higher than that of the ministers and sacraments
of the New Law. The ministers and sacraments of the New Law are
instrumental causes (at least in the moral order) with respect to the
graces conferred upon men. Therefore, Mary’s causality cannot be
simply instrumental, but must be of a higher type.
As consort of Christ in redemption, Mary is the universal cause
of our salvation and, therefore, of all the graces which concur in its
attainment. We have already said that she is the helper and co­
operator with Christ, not on the same level but subordinate to Him
and completely dependent on Him. This is the unique position of
Mary, according to St. Albert the Great's statement that Mary was
chosen by God not to be His minister but to be His consort and
helper.76 It follows from this that Mary’s causality surpasses greatly
the causality of ministers and the sacraments, since she has a power
as extensive and free as that of Christ, though she exercises it in
subordination to Him. Now Christ, as Soto says, is independent of
the sacraments, because He can confer grace without them on
whomever He wishes.70 Preserving the proper subordination to
Christ, the same can be said of His Blessed Mother. The ministers
of the sacraments, however, cannot bestow justification except
through the sacraments, and the sacraments themselves are also
instruments of grace, but inanimate ones, through which the condign
merits of Christ and the congruous merits of Mary are applied to
us. But only with dependence on Christ could Mary merit for us.
Moreover, Mary’s cooperation in the distribution of grace, as a
moral co-agent by way of intercession, is assured by the fact that
Mary, constituted by God as treasurer and administrator of all graces,
can, with dependence on Christ, dispose at will of all heavenly
goods and treasures. Intercession is the expression of the will directed
to God so that God will fulfill it, and therefore Mary’s intercession
in this matter is the expression of her desire that God should bestow
grace. But the intercession of the Mother of God is unique not only
by reason of her power of petitioning for graces, but also by reason
of her power of distributing graces. Again, preserving proper sub­
ordination to Christ, Mary’s intercession is comparable to the inter­
pellation of Christ, which consists in His desire or the manifestation
91

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

of His redemptive will to which belongs the right of distributing
the fruits of redemption. Simply by an act of His will, Christ disposes of those graces, distributes them and makes them reach us.
In a similar way, Mary, associated with Christ in redemption, co­
operates in the dispensation of graces by interceding or manifesting
to Christ, and with Christ to God, her will to bestow this or that
grace. This expression of the will is, by divine disposition, sufficient
so that Mary may dispose of the graces and be the efficacious cause
by which the}· are bestowed on mankind.
Mary is never refused her intercession or the expression of her
desire, but is always granted what she asks, for two main reasons:
i) by reason of her divine maternity, from which arise ineffable
relations between her and the Father, with whom she has the Son
in common; between her and the Holy Spirit, by whose divine power
she conceived Christ the Savior; between her and the Son, with
whom, in interceding for us, she makes use of her maternal right,
to which Christ responds by a certain obligation of always granting
what she asks; 2) by reason of her cooperation with Christ in the
work of redemption, since by her intimate union with Him, she
merited de congruo all the redemptive graces which Christ merited
de condigno, being of one will with Him in the redemption of the
world.’7
Mary does not exercise a physical instrumental causality
in the conferring of graces.
Previous Observations. Perhaps some would criticize the thesis as
stated because it seems logical to deny to Mary a physical instru­
mental causality, for the simple reason that we have already ad­
mitted a moral causality of a co-agcnt or less principal cause. But in
the opinion of many noted theologians, these two kinds of causality
can co-exist in the same subject and in relation to the same effect,
as is verified in Christ and in the sacraments of the New Law.”
The opinion of the Thomists is that the humanity of Christ, as
an instrument united to the Word, concurs with a physical causality
in the production of graces and other supernatural effects. This is
denied by the Scotists and many others. It is also the teaching of
the Thomists that the sacraments of the New Law are not merely
moral instruments, but physical instruments in the production of
thesis:

9»

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

grace. As regards Mary’s physical influence in the distribution of
graces as an instrumental cause, it is necessary to distinguish between
the question of possibility and the question of fact.
That Mary could concur and work in the distribution of graces
as an instrument of divine power is evident, for the same reasons
of non-repugnance which prove this possibility in the sacred human­
ity of Christ as a conjoined instrument and in the sacraments as
separated instruments. 'Iberefore, whoever admits this causality
in the humanity of Christ and in the sacraments will not deny it in
Mary, although it is not logically deduced from that.” The question
principally, is one of fact—whether Mary exercises a physical in­
strumental causality in the distribution of graces.
Opinions. Few theologians defend the physical instrumental caus­
ality of Mary in the distribution of graces. Cardinal Lepicier main­
tains that Mary, while on earth, was the physical instrument of the
graces conferred by God, for example, in the sanctification of John
the Baptist, in the illumination and sanctification of the shepherds,
of the Magi, and so forth. This causality may also be attributed to
Mary after her assumption into heaven, although not with such
clarity and certainty.80
Anthony Fernandez, O.P., maintains that the Blessed Virgin
produces grace in the soul, not only morally, but also physically, as
a separated instrument, much better than the ministers and sacra­
ments of the New Law.81 Hugon defends this same type of causality,
as do Lavaud and Bernard, who taught this causality openly at the
Marian Congress of Chartres, later doubted it, and ended by stating
that the question must be studied and thought out more pro­
foundly.82 Two other modem theologians who defend this opinion
arc Mura and Jacono.83
However, the majority of theologians deny that Mary exercises
a physical instrumental causality with respect to grace. Suarez, who
is very likely the only Scholastic theologian to treat this question,
says that it is necessary to conclude that the Blessed Virgin is not
a proper efficient or principal cause of our salvation. “This con­
clusion," says Suarez, "is most certain and even de fide, if it is under­
stood of the first cause or even of the principal cause per se of our
salvation. The Blessed Virgin is not God, which she would have to
be in order to be the first cause of any effect, nor did she have the

93

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

power of justifying or of giving grace and glory. ... If the con­
clusion is understood of any kind of efficient cause, whether principal
or instrumental, it is not explicitly de fide. It is not found expressly
in Scripture nor in tradition nor in the definitions of the Church.
Neither can it be deduced from the principles of faith, but it is so
certain that one could not say the contrary without temerity. It is
completely without foundation and is alien to the teaching of all
theologians, because the Blessed Virgin docs not of herself have this
instrumental efficiency nor is there any reason or probable authority
for stating that God would grant her any such causality. Rather,
the Church teaches us that only the humanity of Christ is an instru­
ment united to God in order to produce grace, and the sacraments
are instruments of His humanity." 81
De la Taille energetically rejects the opinion in favor of instru­
mental physical causality and goes so far as to call it a myth.·*
Dickamp and Cuervo likewise reject the opinion.8®
In supernatural matters which depend solely on the will of God,
nothing can be affirmed arbitrarily or without positive foundation.
But as regards Mary’s cooperation in the distribution of supernatural
gifts as a physical instrumental cause, Scripture and tradition are
silent and it is impossible to support it with any theological argu­
ment of solidity.
Sacred Scripture mentions only the sanctification of John the
Baptist in his mother's womb when Elizabeth was greeted by Mary.
"And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary,
that the babe in her womb leapt. . . . For behold, the moment that
the sound of thy greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb
leapt for joy” (Luke 1:41—44). And Pope Leo XIII says of this: "St.
John the Baptist, by a singular privilege, is sanctified in his mother’s
womb and favored with special graces, that he may prepare the way
of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary, who
had been inspired to visit her cousin." 87
At Mary’s salutation, John was sanctified and Elizabeth was filled
with the Holy Spirit, but it is not evident that its efficacy was physi­
cal. And even if physical instrumental causality were granted to
Mary’s salutation, the fact docs not transcend the limits of a particu­
lar and miraculous case, which in no way could be established as a
universal law with regard to the distribution of graces. Therefore,

94

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Sudrez states that if anyone were to maintain that on a particular
occasion or by way of a miracle the Blessed Virgin was selected as
an instrument for the sanctification of anyone, it would have to be
denied, although it would not deserve a censure.88
In order to explain Mary’s cooperation in the distribution of
graces, some Fathers and theologians use terms which seem to signify
a physical influence. St. Albert the Great says that all graces pass
through Mary’s hands numerically; St. Bernard calls her an aqueduct;
St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Bernardine of Siena refer to her as the
neck of the Church. Πιε metaphorical sense is readily seen under
the sensible figure. The liturgy likewise uses such metaphorical
expressions.
No solid theological argument can be found to attribute to Mary
a physical causality in the distribution of graces. At most, some
congniencics can be presented, taken from Mary’s relations with the
works of God. If God, for example, bestowed physical efficacy to
the humanity of Christ and to the sacraments of the New Law, it
seems fitting that the same causality would also be conceded to the
Blessed Virgin. But the basis of this reasoning is entirely too weak.
Contcnson states that when theologians search for congruencies
in the works of God, they must take them, not as conveniences of
the work which must be realized, but of the work already realized,
for if the effect had not been produced, adequate reasons could also
be found to justify the non-existence of the effect. Therefore, the
first fittingness of any work is the execution of the divine will, whose
fulfillment is most fitting, but at the same time, reasons will not be
lacking if the contrary had been decreed.8· Actually, reasons of con­
venience are not lacking to affirm the instrumental physical causal­
ity in Christ and the sacraments of the New Law but to deny it of
Mary.
Theologians commonly call the humanity of Christ an instrument
joined to the divinity. And since the divinity does not work by a
moral causality, by petitions or merits, but by a physical causality
in the production of supernatural effects, it is fitting that its instru­
ment should conform to it and likewise exert a physical causality.
On the other hand, this enhances the dignity of the humanity of
Christ, united to the Word hypostatically. Just as through this in­
effable union, humanity is elevated to cooperation with the divine

95

Τ Π E BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Being, so it is also fitting that it be taken by the Person of the Word
as an instrument united to it most intimately in the production
of supernatural effects.
On the other hand, although the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of
God touches the limits of divinity, pertains in some way to the
hvpostatic order and is Christ’s consort in the work of redemption,
she was not elevated to the status of a divine being nor united to
God as a physical instrument to produce supernatural effects.
Whatever serves to manifest the divine perfection is most fitting,
according to the Apostle: "His invisible attributes are clearly seen”
(Rom. 1:20). The physical causality of the sacraments manifests
God's sovereign power and dominion more clearly than through a
moral influence, because lowly elements and simple actions are
thereby elevated by divine power to sanctify men.
But physical causality bestowed on the Virgin in order to confer
graces is not enumerated among the visible effects, and therefore
would lack a proper end; that is to say, the divine perfection could
not manifest itself through it in the effects produced. St. Thomas
says: “There is no incongruity if sometimes anything is done outside
the order of the inferior cause, to be ordered to the superior cause,
as in human affairs the command of the president is passed over
from obedience to the prince. So it happens that God works miracu­
lously outside the order of corporeal nature, that men may be
ordered to the knowledge of Him. But the passing over of the order
that belongs to spiritual substances in no way belongs to the order­
ing of men to God, since the angelic operations are not made known
to us, as are the operations of sensible bodies. Thus, the order which
belongs to spiritual substances is never passed over by God; so that
inferiors are always moved by the superior, and not conversely.””

Special Graces Distributed Through
Mary’s Intervention
Up to this point we have studied Mary’s cooperation in the dis­
pensation of graces in a general way. We shall now study it with
respect to graces in particular.

96

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Supernatural grace is multiform and is divided in many ways. In
what concerns us, we shall divide it into internal and external. All
divine gifts which are in us as in a subject are internal; all those gifts
outside of us, which affect and lead us to salvation, are external.
Internal grace is either gratum faciens or gratis data, insofar as it is
conferred for the good of the one receiving it or is ordained to the
benefit of others. Grace gratum faciens is further divided into
habitual or sanctifying grace and actual grace, depending on whether
it comes to us in a permanent way or as a gratuitous movement and
transitory help. Thus, all the graces which justify us or dispose us
for justification are internal; for example: sanctifying grace, the in­
fused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the illuminations of
the mind and the inspirations of the will; gifts by which we are
made the adopted sons of God, live the divine life and work supernaturally.
To external grace belong many gifts or external benefits which
lead us to salvation, such as the divine-positive law, revelation, the
institution of the Church, the preaching of the faith, Sacred Scrip­
ture, the sacraments, good example, opportunities for good, and
many others.
We do not intend to study the entire series of graces, but only
those which present special difficulty or have special significance.
We shall divide this material into three distinct parts: Mary’s in­
fluence in the distribution of the graces conferred by the sacraments,
Mary's cooperation with regard to the Most Holy Eucharist, and
Mary’s intervention with regard to the Church.

THE GRACES OF THE SACRAMENTS

The sacraments of the New Law confer grace ex opere operato on
those who do not voluntarily impede it, and they do so by the power
intrinsic to the sacraments themselves. Therefore, the sacraments can
be compared to natural causes which infallibly produce their effects
if the passive subject has the proper disposition. But the grace con­
ferred by the sacraments is twofold: sanctifying grace and sacra­
mental grace. The first is common to all the sacraments; the second
is proper and different in each sacrament. The former is regained or
97

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY
COOPERATION

increased; the latter is not produced without the first.81 Hence, the
production of sacramental grace in the one receiving the sacrament
is totally impossible without the reception of sanctifying grace.
If it be asked what sacramental grace adds to ordinary grace, it
may be stated that it is not a new habit distinct from sanctifying
grace, nor a new mode of intrinsic perfection, nor a special intrinsic
vigor or power, but a right, annexed to sanctifying grace, of obtaining
the actual graces necessary for the attainment of the end proper
to each of the sacraments when needed.82
Thus, sacramental grace, inasmuch as it is an actual help ordained
to the end of the sacraments, can be obtained, absolutely speaking,
without the sacrament, for St. Thomas says that God did not bind
His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacra­
mental effect without conferring the sacrament.83 This is manifest
in those who, not having received confirmation, profess their faith
in a heroic way, and in those who, without the Eucharist, were
raised to the highest sanctity, as was St. Paul the Hermit.
It is certain that the graces which are ordained to the ends of the
sacraments and are conferred by God outside the sacraments in an
extraordinary way in special necessities of the Christian life, depend
upon Mary’s intercession, as do all actual graces which in the present
providence are bestowed on mankind. Nevertheless, it would be
false to affirm that the graces produced ex opere operato by the
sacraments are bestowed on men through the intervention of Mary
without the sacraments, or at least without any ordination to the
sacraments, since Mary conforms herself to the order established
by God, according to which the sacraments are the ordinary means
by which sanctifying grace is bestowed. So also with the increase
of habitual grace, insofar as we must merit it, according to divine
disposition, ex opere operantis, that is, by means of our good works,
since Mary neither can nor wishes to obtain it for us by her inter­
cession, without our performing meritorious works. Nevertheless,
she obtains for us the actual graces required to perform those works.
This question treats principally of grace insofar as it is an effect
of the sacraments of the New Law. Mary’s indirect influence in this
grace cannot be denied, whether it be a question of grace regained
or an increase of grace. The Blessed Virgin obtains that the sacra­
ments be imparted and received, since she cooperated remotely in

98

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

the existence of the priests of the Church, by whom the sacraments
were to be administered. This she accomplished by giving her free
consent in conceiving Christ, the Highpriest, whose priesthood, not
derived from any other superior to His, is the fountain of all priestly
power in the Church. Moreover, Mary’s virginal womb was the
temple where Christ received the anointing which constituted Him
Highpriest. Hence, St. Denis of Alexandria states that our High­
priest was not consecrated by man nor was His tabernacle con­
structed by man, but by the Blessed Virgin Mary through the Holy
Spirit and protected by the power of the Most High.84
Again, the Blessed Virgin Mary contributes in a more proximate
manner to the priesthood of the Church, since she assists as a loving
and willing mother in the election and spiritual formation of priests.
Priests are the administrators of redemption, as Pope Pius XI points
out in his encyclical on the priesthood, appointed to offer the im­
maculate Host and to dispense the other sacraments, which are, in a
certain way, the rivulets through which the graces of salvation flow
and pass on to men. Mary, who is the mother of the Eucharistic
sacrifice, the most diligent custodian of the salvation of all, and the
universal dispenser of the graces of redemption, procures, with
maternal care, the election and spiritual formation of priests.85
The Blessed Virgin not only withdraws the obstacles which sepa­
rate men from the sacraments, but she provides them opportunities
for receiving them, moving them and drawing them to the sacra­
ments. By her intercession she also obtains from God actual graces
by which men prepare fittingly to receive the sacraments. It is well
known that in the sacraments of the Church everyone receives grace
according to the measure of his individual disposition and coopera­
tion. Thus Mary, through her intercession, obtains this grace by
which men are properly disposed to their reception.
We must omit the case in which the fruit of the sacrament is
obtained without any disposition whatever, as occurs in little chil­
dren, who receive the sacramental grace but perhaps in a minimum
degree. The same can be said for anyone who receives the sacra­
ment with only a habitual disposition and does not cooperate with
it formally or virtually. Only a minimum amount of grace is then
given, since the habitual disposition is only removens prohibens and
in no way a disposition of cooperation.··

99

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

But as regards the direct influence on the graces which the sacra
ments produce ex opere operato, there is no difficulty whatever in
attributing it to the Blessed Virgin, in conformity with the prin­
ciples already established, though this influence is mediate. Mary
merited with Christ, and subordinate to Him, the graces which the
sacraments confer instrumentally, as she likewise merited that in
the Church should be instituted the instrumental causes of salvation
and channels of grace.’7
Finally, the direct and immediate influence over grace produced
by the sacraments cannot be attributed to Mary, because when
applied, they infallibly produce their effects as long as there is no
obstacle. Through the institution and promise of Christ, the sacra­
ments of the New Law arc infallible signs and causes of grace.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST

From what has been said, we gather that Mary, the Mother of
God, made no small contribution to the institution of the Most
Holy Eucharist, which has been called by St. Gregory of Nyssa the
mystery of the Virgin. But it is fitting to determine, as far as possible,
Mary’s intervention in this mystery, studying at the same time, the
admirable relations between the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Eucha­
rist. This was the desire of Pope Pius XI, who, on the occasion of
the Eucharistic Congress in Sydney, Australia, in 1928, urged the
clarification, by means of diligent work and study, of the relation
between the Virgin Mary' and the Holy Eucharist, which we en­
counter so frequently in the liturgy of the Church and in the writings
of the Fathers and other saints.” Since the Eucharist is at once a
sacrifice and a sacrament, it is fitting to study Mary’s intervention
under both aspects.
Mary cooperated remotely in the institution of the Holy
Eucharist, inasmuch as the body of Christ was formed in her by
the power of the Holy Ghost, but not so far as Christ’s flesh is the
same flesh of the Mother of God.
Errors. Some theologians in the Middle Ages, such as Ratramnus
and Rabanus Maurus, denied that the body of Christ in the Eucha-

thesis:

100

COOPERATION IN S U B J P, C T I V E REDEMPTION

rist was the same as that bom of the Blessed Virgin. Paschasius
Radbcrtus refuted them, proving invincibly the identity of the
Eucharistic body of Christ and of His natural and historic body.00
Some French Catholics in the eighteenth century arbitrarily postu­
lated a sacramental body of Christ distinct from the historic and
heavenly one formed in the womb of Mary. They further held for a
multiplication of bodies in relation to the numerical multiplication
of the sacrament. They were opposed by Duguet in his dogmatic
treatise on the Eucharist. Rosmini committed the same error when
he said that Christ's natural body came from the earth and because
it was composed of the blood of the Virgin, it could die; but His
Eucharistic body is of a supernatural existence, comes from heaven,
is living and vivifying, and therefore cannot be destroyed.100
There are others, like Suarez who maintain that Christ’s flesh was
not only taken from Mary's, which is true, but that Christ's flesh
is the same as His Mother’s and that the part taken from her always
remained entirely the same and united to the Word of God.101 It
could logically be deduced from this that not only the flesh of Christ
is present in the Eucharist, but the flesh of Mary also. This was
actually taught by Ceferino de Someire, Vega and Basabe.102
First Part. The profession of faith, imposed on Berengarius by
Pope Gregory VII, affirms, as a truth of faith, that the body of
Christ in the Eucharist is the true flesh of Christ who was bom of
the Virgin.103 The same is set forth in the Apostolic Letter of Pope
Pius XI to the Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, on the occasion of the
National Eucharistic Congress celebrated in that city in 1926.
Fathers of the Church. St. Ignatius Martyr writes: "I desire the
bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was made
from the lineage of David.”101
St. Ambrose states that the Eucharist proceeds from the Blessed
Virgin because it is “the true flesh of Christ, who was crucified and
buried; therefore it is truly the Sacrament of His flesh. The Lord
Jesus Himself exclaims: ‘This is My body.’ ” 103
St. Augustine says that “Jesus received His flesh from the flesh
of Mary and He gave us His flesh to eat for our salvation." 10β St.
Martin and St. John Damascene speak in similar fashion.107
“And now, beloved brethren,” says St. Peter Damian, “I beg you
to consider how much we owe to this most blessed Mother of God
101

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

and the immense gratitude which we owe to her, after God. For that
blessed body which the Virgin engendered, ... we now receive at
the altar and we drink His blood in the mystery of our redemp­
tion.” 108
The Liturgy. We need but refer to the Mass and Office for the
Feast of Corpus Christi in order to find a proof of our thesis.
Theological Argument. We shall pass over the question of
whether, absolutely speaking, the body of Christ could be present
in the Eucharist before He had become incarnate in the womb of
the Blessed Virgin.108 Presupposing the institution of this sacrament
as it exists today, the sacramental presence of Christ depends on His
natural presence in heaven according to its own species, for the
cause of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is the transubstantiation
whereby the conversion is made into a pre-existing being which
is in no way changed or modified. Consequently, the direct terminus
of transubstantiation is the very body of Christ, bom of the Blessed
Virgin, immolated on the Cross for us, and now risen and glorified

in heaven.
Second Part. Although the Blessed Virgin gave of the substance
of her flesh so that the Holy Spirit could form the body of Christ
in her womb, it cannot be said that the flesh of Christ in the
Eucharist or in heaven is the very flesh of Mary. These are the
reasons:
j) The doctrine of Zepherinus de Someyre was condemned by
the Sacred Congregation as erroneous, dangerous, and scandalous,
and the cult to Mary in the Blessed Sacrament was condemned.
2) The authors of this opinion tried to defend themselves by
using the authority of St. Augustine, quoting from his sermon on
the Assumption, inserted in the appendix of his works: “The flesh
of Jesus is the flesh of Mary.” But these are not the words of St.
Augustine, but of Fulbert of Chartres. Moreover, those words taken
out of context do not represent the teaching of Fulbert, who said
that "the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary much more than it is the
flesh of Judas or the other brethren.”
3) It is certain that the flesh of Christ was taken from the most
pure substance of His Mother; but once it had received its own
substantial form, which is the soul, and was united to the Word of
God, it ceased being formally the flesh of Mary, since it was changed
102

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

substantially into a new form and it then belonged to the Divine
Person of Christ.
4) For that reason it must not be said that in Christ there is any­
thing of Mary, but that Christ was conceived of her; and therefore
the flesh of Mary is not in the Eucharist, but the flesh of Christ,
taken from the Blessed Virgin.110

By her free consent to the I ncarnation, Mary also co­
operated in the institution of the Eucharist.
In his commentary on the parable of the woman who put three
measures of leaven in flour, St. Bernard makes an application to the
bread of angels which nourishes and strengthens man. He then exalts
Mary, in whom this Bread was prepared, and states that her faith
was the leaven infused into the Bread which is Christ.111
Rupert of Deutz states that at the Annunciation the heavens were
opened and the Bread of heaven, the Bread of angels, which we
would eat, came down.112 Richard of St. Lawrence says that Christ
is the living Bread which came down from heaven. The Blessed
Trinity mixed the water of humanity with the wine of divinity and
the Blessed Virgin did the same when she believed and gave her
consent to that hypostatic union.113
The Eucharist is in a certain way an extension and complement of
the Incarnation, not only because Christ continues to be present on
earth, in all places and at all times, until the consummation of the
world, but because the immense benefits of the Incarnation and
Redemption are gathered wonderfully in this mystery and are
lavished upon men. Now Mary, consenting to the Incarnation,
consented, at least implicitly, to all the consequences of the same,
among which is the grandeur of the Holy Eucharist.114
thesis:

Mary cooperated proximately, as a moral cause, in the
institution of the Eucharist.
Previous Observation. Mary knew of Christ’s intention concerning
the Eucharist long before it was instituted. She had a profound
knowledge of Scripture and therefore she could not have been igno­
rant of the Old Testament symbols which prefigured the Eucharist,
for example, the manna from heaven, the sacrifice of Melchisedech,
the paschal lamb, and the prophecies, chiefly that of Malachias
thesis:

1O3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

(1:10-11), in which the Eucharist is described as a clean oblation
which was to replace the levitical sacrifices with which God was not
pleased. Moreover, Mary understood perfectly the promise made
publicly by her Son, that soon He would give the faithful His own
body under the appearance of bread and wine. In addition, because
of her intimate and familiar conversations with Him, she must have
been very well instructed, as His associate in the mysteries, secrets
and plans of redemption.
Taking all of this into consideration, it is a question of examining
and understanding the manner in which Mary cooperated immedi­
ately in the institution of the Eucharist. Wc frequently find in
authors the assertion that Mary cooperated in the institution of the
Eucharist in the manner of a final cause, since she herself is the
principal end cui proximo, in such wise that the Eucharist was
instituted through her and for her, more than for the rest of the
faithful. The reason given is that Christ instituted this admirable
sacrament out of love for mankind, and it is certain that He must
have loved the Blessed Virgin incomparably more than all men taken
together. Lepicier adds that Christ instituted the Eucharist as a gift
to Mary, thus returning to her the body she had given Him and also
in order that by her fervent Communions she could atone for the

coldness and ingratitude of men.116
But the question is whether Mary cooperated actively as a moral
cause in the institution of the Eucharist. Moral causality can be
exercised in many ways; for example, by desire, by supplication, by
consent, and so forth. Mary actually cooperated in the institution of
tire Eucharist in those three ways:
1) By desire. Words cannot describe how much Mary desired
this Sacrament for herself, because nothing would be more delightful
for her than to receive again into her purest breast that divine Word
which she received into her virginal womb at the Incarnation. She
also desired it for others, because she foresaw the glory which
would come to Christ from so great a sacrament which would pro­
duce such abundant fruits of sanctity and engender such a multitude
of just souls. Christ was perfectly aware of those desires of His
Mother, and He could not let them go unfulfilled.
2) By supplication. Some theologians affirm that Mary’s interces­
sion in the institution of the Eucharist began at the marriage of
104

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Cana. Wc must first observe that the conversion of water into wine
at the marriage feast is an outstanding symbol of the Eucharist. St.
Cyril of Jerusalem uses it as an argument for the Eucharistic conversion.,ie This miracle was performed through Mary’s intervention
by these words: "They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her: “What
wouldst thou have Me do, woman? My hour has not yet come.”
His Mother said to the attendants: “Do whatever He tells you" (John
That it was at this time that Christ thought of instituting the
Eucharist, is insinuated by St. Augustine, when he says that the best
wine which was saved till last was the wine of His blood.117 St.
Maximus of Turin states that when Jesus said that His hour had not
yet come, He was promising the hour of His passion and the wine
of redemption.118 Yet St. Maximus denies that in asking for the
miracle of the wine, Mary was likewise asking for the institution
of the Eucharist.11®
Notwithstanding, it is the opinion of some writers, like Silveira and
Velâzquez, that at the marriage of Cana Mary petitioned Christ for
the Eucharist. They base their opinion on the words of St. Irenaeus,
describing Mary’s eagerness to taste the miraculous wine, which they
interpret to refer to the Eucharist.120
Be that as it may, Lepicier’s argument is that just as the water was
turned to wine at Mary’s request, so also we owe the institution of
the Eucharist to her intercession.121 Truly, every supernatural good
comes to us through the intercession of Mary, and of all gifts and
benefits, the greatest is the Eucharist, because it contains the very
substance of God incarnate, the author and fountain of all graces,
who sanctifies us, unites us to Himself and makes us partakers of
His divine life.
3) By consent. The Eucharist is like a continuation of the Incar­
nation.122 Moreover, it is like a complement of the divine gift made
to us at the Incarnation, since the Father deigned to give us the
Son, according to St. John (3:16) : “For God so loved the world
that He gave His only-begotten Son,” and the Son also deigned to
give Himself to men. He instituted this Sacrament in which He gives
Himself to men in a most perfect manner, thereby completing the
gift of the Father and His own total surrender. But the giving of
the Son proceeded not only from the Father, but also from the
105

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mother, since in conformity with the divine will, Mary gave us the
Son who was truly hers. Even more, consenting to the will of her
Son, who offered Himself as a Victim for all, she herself offered Him
to mankind. It was therefore fitting that Mary, since she intervened
in the first giving, together with the Father and the Son, should also
intervene in its consummation and complement by uniting her will
to that of her Son in the institution of the Eucharist and sharing in
His desire to give Himself as food and drink for men.123

Mary’s influence on the reception of the Eucharist by
the faithful.
Observations. At the Last Supper, Christ not only gave His body
and blood as food to His disciples, as faith teaches us, but in the
opinion of many, He Himself partook of the Eucharist which He
had just instituted, both to complete the sacrifice and to give His
apostles an example. Thus, the Fathers of the Twelfth Council of
Toledo asked: “What kind of a sacrifice would that be if we did not
acknowledge the Sacrificer as a participant in it?” 124
St. Thomas says: “But although grace was not increased in Christ
through His receiving this Sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual
delectation from the new institution of this Sacrament. Hence He
Himself said (Luke 22:15): ‘With desire I have desired to eat this
Pasch with you.’ "123
It is probable, as pious and reputable authors commonly teach,
that after having given the Eucharist to His apostles, Jesus also gave
it to His Mother. And it was fitting that He should do so, since He
had taken His flesh and blood from her and since she had cooperated
in the institution of this Sacrament in so many ways.
If it is alleged that the Evangelists were silent concerning Mary’s
presence at the Last Supper, mentioning only the apostles, we answer
that they alone are mentioned in the Gospel in order to show us
that they were all ordained priests at this feast when Jesus said:
"Do this in commemoration of Me.” Mary was not ordained a priest,
and therefore the Lord willed that she be absent from the Last
Supper. Nevertheless, since Mary constantly accompanied Christ,
it may be maintained that on that night, with the Passion so immi­
nent, she was probably in the same house but in another room,
thesis:

106

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

where, with the rest of the women, she received the Holy Eucha­

rist.123
That Mary received Communion daily, from the day of Pentecost,
is stated by St. Peter Canisius, who says that Mary received new
graces and charisms and a higher degree of sanctity at the reception
of Communion, which was received daily in the primitive Church.’22
In his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, he says that Mary
was outstanding in the practices of piety so that the Mother of Christ
would also be an example of virtue and holiness to all the faithful.123
Actually, Mary not only serves as an example to the faithful of all
times with regard to frequent and even daily reception of the Eucha­
rist, but she constantly influences the dispositions for proper recep­
tion of the Eucharist and the fruits which proceed from it. Although
the Eucharist of itself produces spiritual delights in those who receive
it, this must be understood not so much in the sense of spiritual
consolation as in the sense of the strength it affords in suffering on
the road to God. Thus, not only did the Virgin receive from the Holy
Eucharist an extraordinary fortitude to be able to endure her Son's
passion, but also the strength to overcome the difficulties and tribu­
lations of the infant Church and to comfort the little flock of the
faithful at that time.129 This should serve as a stimulus to us to
approach the Eucharist more fervently, and, fed by the Bread of
fortitude, to bear the labors, tribulations and miseries of this life in
patience, in imitation of Mary.
Moreover, since in receiving the Eucharist we must prepare a
dwelling, not for a man, but for God, it is absolutely necessary to be
adorned with special dispositions. Mary presents herself as a perfect
model of the desire, purity and the rest of the virtues which should
adorn the soul that is about to receive the Eucharist. She naturally
had an ardent longing to receive her Son in Communion. So we
should also receive Communion with great longing. St. Gaudentius
says that God does not wish us to receive His body and blood with
cold lips and lukewarm heart, but with the greatest possible fervor,
hungering and thirsting for true holiness.130 St. Thomas says that
desire makes the one who desires apt and disposed to receive that
which is desired.181
On the other hand, the Eucharist is the food of virgins; it is not
107

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

only the wine which engenders virgins, but it sustains and nourishes
them, for between virginity and divinity there seem to exist certain
bonds of secret affinity and intimate sympathy. For that reason
Christ, a Virgin, wished to be born of a Virgin Mother and so He
takes great delight in giving Himself as food to virgin hearts.1”
If divinity and virginity are so closely allied, we may consider how
ineffably worthy must have been the dwelling which Mary prepared
for Christ, she who by her virginity merited to become the ciborium
of the divine Incarnation. Hence, how fitting that we, in receiving
the Eucharist, be transformed in some way in Mary and live as if

imbued with the example of her virginal virtues.
Further, Christ instituted tin's sacred banquet for the faithful for
the purpose of infusing in them both life and death, so that living
they might not live for themselves, but for Him who died for them.
St. Gregory the Great insists that in applying these mysteries it is
necessary that we sacrifice ourselves to God by a contrite heart, be­
cause those who celebrate the mystery of the passion of our Lord
should imitate that which they handle with their hands. We shall

offer to God a true victim for ourselves when we ourselves become
victims.”3 In this also Mary is an excellent example, for while living
on earth she became a holy victim through her perfect and total
self-abnegation, not for herself, but for Christ.
Yet Mary not only offers herself as a model of the dispositions
with which we should receive the Eucharist, but she also assists us
constantly in the reception of its fruits. St. Bernard says: "We
have heard thy voice in the Gospel, O Lady: ‘They have no wine.'
This voice is necessary to us. We are lacking the wine which glad­
dens the heart of man; we seek the wine which engenders virgins.
. . . The chalice is in thy hands and in thy power. Give it to thy
Son, O Lady, and tell Him: ‘They have no wine.’ ”184
And surely all those who approach this Sacrament properly dis­
posed are moved by the grace which is granted to them through the
intervention of Mary. And this is fitting, because as the first Eve
prevailed on the man to eat of the deathly forbidden fruit so the
second Eve prompts man to eat of the Bread of life.
Moreover, all those whom Mary leads to the reception of the
Eucharist, she prepares and disposes to receive greater fruit. The
better disposed one is at the reception of this Sacrament, the more

108

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

copious is the grace he will receive. The Eucharist is the most fruitful
of all the sacraments because it contains Christ Himself, who is the
source of all graces, and it produces its effects according to the
capacity of the one who receives it, just as the sun produces greater
light and heat as the receptivity of the object exposed to its rays is
greater. Therefore, he receives more graces from the Eucharist who
is more pure of sin, has a more ardent love and is higher in sanctity.
But all of these dispositions are fomented by the Blessed Virgin, to
whom nothing is more pleasing than that those who approach the
Blessed Sacrament should bum with the chaste desire to receive the
Eucharist and should do so with intense love. For that reason, in
the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the intercession of Mary is peti­
tioned for a more worthy reception of Communion: "Grant, O Lord,
through the intercession of the immaculate and ever virgin Mary,
that I may worthily receive Thy gifts.”
Nor should it be forgotten that the Eucharist produces its proper
effect by giving to the faithful the true body of Jesus Christ after
the manner of a food which nourishes them spiritually, so that they
may be more closely united with Christ and transformed in Him,
and, as a consequence, that they may be more intimately united with
one another as members of His mystical body. This is also something
especially proper to the Blessed Virgin, because as the spiritual
Mother of all the faithful it belongs to her to achieve this transforma­
tion in Christ for all her adopted children and to foment among
them, as living members of the mystical body, that unity and charity
which the Savior desired should prevail among all Christians.
Corollary. The duration of the Sacred Species in Mary after
Communion.
The Sacred Species is usually destroyed shortly after its reception,
ending the presence of Christ in the communicant. But it could
happen that the Species would miraculously continue to be present
in the communicant. The Venerable Mary of Agreda states in The
Mystical City of God that this happened in the Blessed Virgin, in
order that she might continually possess her Son sacramentally from
the day of the institution of the Eucharist until her assumption.
Father Faber138 maintains that the Sacred Species remained in
Mary during the Passion, beginning on the night of the Last Supper.
Benedict de Alatri defends this permanency, commenting on the
»09

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

revelation of Magdalen of Martinengo on the subject.1·· Father
Basabe also advocates the perpetual sacramental dwelling of Christ
in the heart of Mary, both for Christ’s delight and that Mary would
constantly receive new graces through the Eucharist.1” Julius Are·
mendia also defends this marvelous conservation of the sacramental
species in Mary, calling her the living ciborium of the Holy Eucha­
rist.188
We shall state our opinion on this matter as briefly as possible.
In the first place, we cannot deny the possibility that the sacramental
species could remain incorrupt in the Blessed Virgin, whether living
on earth or even now in heaven. If God has the power to prevent the
various natural powers from causing the corruption of the accidents
of bread and wine, as seems to have happened sometimes in the
history of the Church, then He could also prevent the Species from
being corrupted after having been received into the human body.
This would be especially true of a glorified body, which no longer
has any need of the activity of the digestive organs.130
Secondly, as regards the fact of the conservation of the sacra­
mental species in Mary, there are very few theologians and writers
who defend this teaching. Tirus, Godinez states that it never even
entered the minds of most theologians to raise the question of
whether the Eucharist remained incorrupt in Mary and remains in
her even in glory. Some authors, such as Nierembcrg, Recupito, and
Engelgrave, mention the point but do not dare to express an opinion,
nor is it, in the mind of Godinez, even thinkable.140
As regards the conservation of the Blessed Sacrament in Mary
during her life on earth and after the institution of the Eucharist, we
must follow a middle course between absolute negation and excessive
credulity. The recorded visions and revelations of Mary of Agreda,
Magdalen of Martinengo and Catherine Emmerich are definitely in
favor of the affirmative. However, private revelations should not be
given any greater theological importance than that signified by
Cardinal Lepicier in the following statement: “What is related to
us in these writings can be read with profit in order to foment piety
and faith if the material is in conformity with sound theology and
the documents of the Fathers. Whatever is contrary to revealed
doctrine must be totally rejected. Whatever is related in these writ­
ings concerning Christ and the Blessed Virgin, prescinding from the
no

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

testimony of Sacred Scripture, should be accepted with great reserve,
especially if the matter concerns curiosities rather than serious and
safe matters.”141 Father de Guibert mentions the generally un­
favorable reaction to private revelations which attempt to supple­
ment public revelation concerning the events in the life of Christ
or concerning certain theological questions, such as the revelations
of Mary of Agreda and Catherine Emmerich, regardless of the per
sonal holiness of these women.142
Mary’s intervention in the Eucharistic sacrifice during
her life on earth.
In the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by priests as ministers of Christ,
Christ is the principal priest. This was taught by the Fourth Lateran
Council and also by the Council of Trent: “For the victim is one
and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who
then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering
being different.” 143
It is also certain that the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, as
was taught by the Council of Trent: “In order to leave to His beloved
spouse a visible sacrifice as human nature requires, (Christ) instituted
a new Pasch: He Himself, through the mediation of His priests,
would be immolated under visible signs by the Church.” 144 And
so it is that the Church offers the sacrifice through the priest because
he was constituted the minister with the power of offering the sacri­
fice in Christ’s name. But the priest is a member of the body of the
Church. Therefore, his action, as the action of a member, is at­
tributed to the whole body.148
Tire faithful offer the Eucharistic sacrifice in a general way by
being members of the Church militant, in whose name the priest
offers it, and essentially by assisting at the sacrifice and uniting their
intentions to that of the celebrant.14"
Taking into consideration all that has been said, it must be asserted
that while Mary was on the earth, she was intimately associated with
the oblation of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Although she did not enjoy
the prerogative of the principal priest, which belongs exclusively to
Christ and she did not possess the sacramental priesthood, since she
did not receive ministerial power, nevertheless it can be said that she
offered the Victim of the altar in a singular manner, as she had
thesis:

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

previously offered Him on the Cross. 'Hie reason for this is twofold.
First, Mary is the consort of Christ in the work of redemption.
But the work of redemption is realized each time that Christ is
immolated on the altar, as is stated in the liturgy.1” Therefore,
Mary could not be less intimately associated in the Eucharistic sacri­
fices celebrated while she lived on earth.
Secondly, Mary is the principal and noblest member of the
Church; even more, she is the Mother of the Church. Hence she
would participate in the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ
which the Church offers, and would do so in a way most befitting
its noblest member, who is also the Church’s Mother, that is, by
being united to the sacrifice with a fervent will and with the greatest
devotion, as befits her spiritual maternity, fullness of grace, singular
union with Christ and her ineffable cooperation in the sacred Passion,
of which the Eucharist is the perpetual memorial.
thesis:

Mary's influence on the Masses offered during her life­

time.
It is certain that, on the part of Christ, the principal Priest, the
value of the Mass never changes, since it will always be the clean
oblation which cannot be stained by the indignity or malice of
those who offer it. It is also certain that the value of the sacrifice
can vary greatly, according to the merit, disposition and devotion of
the priest offering it and of the faithful; but never does the sacrifice
cease to be acceptable to God because of the wickedness of the priest,
for even if he be lacking in devotion, the holiness and common
devotion of the Church, which always recommends the sacrificial
oblation and assures the acceptability of the same, remains intact.
Neither can it be doubted that the holiness and devotion of the
Church increases or diminishes according to the times. The necessary
holiness will never be wanting in the Church, as has been seen in
the course of the centuries, nor is it possible that it be lacking, since
God generously lavishes His graces and charisms on the Church and
on her children. But the holiness of the Church may be greater at
some times than at others, and the greater the holiness of the Church,
the more acceptable is the sacrifice and the more copious its fruits.
Therefore, it must be said that the Eucharistic sacrifices celebrated
while Mary lived on earth possessed an extraordinary value because
112

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

of the remarkable holiness of the Mother of God. The reason for this
is that the fruits of the Mass which pertain to the whole Church as
the offerer, are more or less according to the greater or lesser number
of the just who offer it in the Church Militant and according to a
greater or lesser holiness in its members. As Biel says, the merit of
the Church is not an abstract merit which exists of itself as something
separated from individual men, but it is the merit of the persons and
members who constitute the Church.148 Therefore, the fruits of the
Eucharistic sacrifice in the time of Mary must have been tremen­
dous because of her singular holiness, which surpasses that of the
Church through all the ages.
De la Taille writes as follows concerning this question: “It is of
the greatest importance that there be in the Church many saints,
and even very great saints, and it is necessary to encourage and
stimulate spiritual souls so that they will strive to increase daily the
value of the Masses that are celebrated. ... Do you want to know
why, for long years after the day of Pentecost, the Gospel was so
widely diffused in the world and the holiness increased in the faithful
of the Church, until all were one heart and one soul in the ultimate
perfection of charity, which is the summit of Christian perfection?
Consider the Blessed Virgin Mary favoring all the sacrifices of the
Church which were then celebrated in the world, and we cannot be
astonished that since that time there has never been so miraculous
an expansion of Christianity nor so great a progress in the spiritual
life.” 149
thesis : Mary's intervention in the Masses celebrated after her
glorious assumption.
We may consider the Blessed Virgin as she is in the state of glory
or so far as she is the consort of Christ the Redeemer, Mother of the
Church Militant and universal dispenser of graces. In the first case,
that is, so far as Mary is among the blessed in the state of glory, she
must be judged in the same way as are the saints who now reside in
heaven. These are united to us in charity, but they cannot offer with
us the Eucharistic sacrifice in a common oblation. They are outside
the visible Church, and it pertains only to the visible Church to use
sensible signs of spiritual matters; and sacrifice is a sensible sign.
In the second instance, that is, so far as Mary is consort of Christ

“3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the Redeemer, Mother of the Church Militant and dispenser of
graces, she now possesses in glory no new type of intervention in the
Eucharistic sacrifice, but neither is the celebration of the Mass in
any part of the world alien to her. Mary in glory has no new interven­
tion in the Eucharistic sacrifice because neither does Christ, the prin­
cipal Priest (at least in the opinion of many theologians), place any
new, formally oblative act in the sacrifice of the Mass. Moreover, al­
though Christ actually intervenes in each and every Mass celebrated,
uniting to the oblation of the priest some internal act by which He
Himself is offered to the Father as dead on the Cross (a concept which
is pleasing to many theologians), it should be said that this is proper
to Christ alone, as the chief Priest in the Mass, in whose name and
by whose power the human priest operates. This cannot be main­

tained of the Blessed Virgin.
Nevertheless, Mary is not alien to the celebration of the Mass. As
the consort of Christ the Redeemer, she must for this very reason
look down from heaven and assist at the sacrifice in a special manner
and delight in its celebration in an extraordinary' way, for on the
altar is renewed the immolation of that Victim of the sacred Passion,
who is her own Son and from whom are obtained for men the im­

mense and salutary fruits of redemption.
Moreover, Mary is the Mother of the Church and, therefore, she
loves the Eucharistic sacrifice with a maternal love, because it nour­
ishes and sustains the Church.150 St. Bonaventure says: “Fake this
Sacrament from the Church, and you will have in the world nothing
but error and infidelity, and the Christian people will be no better
than a herd of unclean animals, separated and given to idolatry, as
can be seen among the infidels. But through this Sacrament the
Church lives, faith is strengthened, Christian religion and divine
worship are preserved.” 151
Finally, as universal dispenser of graces, the Blessed Virgin actually
intervenes in the diffusion of the fruits of the Mass. The fruits of
the Mass are the effects it produces and they are applied to men.
These effects are of two kinds: those for the glory of God and those
for the benefit and utility of men, as is stated in the Ordinary of the
Mass.
The primary effect of sacrifice is the glory of God, and it is at­
tained by adoration or the cult of latria, by thanksgiving and the

COOPERATION IN

SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

reparation of the divine honor wounded by sin. Our utility is a
secondary effect, dependent on the primary, since God, honored
and appeased by the sacrifice, is moved to pardon us graciously and
to dispense to us His divine favors. Our utility comprises the remis­
sion of sins and the punishment they deserve, as well as supernatural
and even natural goods which help us to obtain eternal salvation.
Those arc the effects which, in the proper sense, can be called fruits
of the Mass.
Hence, the Sacrifice of the Mass is latrcutic, eucharistie, propitia­
tory and impetratory', and it produces its effects ex opere operato,
that is, of itself, by the intrinsic power of the very action by which
the sacrifice is effected. And this is independent of the unworthiness
or malice of the one who offers it, as the Council of Trent teaches.
If it depended upon the actions of the visible offerers, then it could
be stained by their sin. This is most certain as regards the latreutic
and eucharistie effect, because the Sacrifice of the Mass, considered
objectively, as it proceeds from Christ, both principal Priest and
Victim, is infinite adoration and infinite thanksgiving which must
be infallibly and infinitely pleasing to God. But the adoration and
thanksgiving also proceed from the Church and are also pleasing to
God, but always in the measure of the Church’s holiness. In like
manner, so far as it proceeds from the priest and the faithful, it will
please God or not in the measure of their dispositions.
As regards the effect of propitiation and impétration, we must take
into consideration that the opus operatum cannot be understood of
sacrifice in the same way as in the sacraments. The fruit produced
ex opere operato in the sacraments consists in the infusion of sanctify­
ing grace, conferred immediately on men, with the sacraments acting
as instruments; but this sanctifying grace, produced in an immediate
manner, is not the fruit of sacrifice, which, by way of supplication,
does no more than move God to confer His graces on men.152
With all this in mind, we can determine the influence which the
Blessed Virgin exercises over the salutary effects of the Eucharistic
sacrifice. With regard to the latreutic and eucharistie effects proceed­
ing from Christ, the Victim and principal Priest of the sacrifice, it is
certain that Mary does not intervene in them in any way, since they
flow infallibly and spontaneously from the very nature of the action.
But in those same latreutic and eucharistie effects, as they proceed
“5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

from the Church, from the priest and from the rest of the faithful
with whom he offers the sacrifice, and in which God can be more or
less pleased, according to the holiness of the Church and the dis­
position of the offerers, the Blessed Virgin influences them as the
"neck” of the Church which offers the sacrifice and as the advocate
for the helps necessary so that the priests and the faithful may pre­
pare themselves worthily and thus, more and more united to Christ,
may be conformed to Him in offering to God the Host of eternal

salvation.
With respect to the fruits of propitiation and of impétration in
this sacrifice, the Blessed Virgin mediates indirectly and directly in
their application to mankind. Indirectly, she draws them to this
salutary fountain and obtains for them suitable graces to enjoy its
fruits. St. Thomas says: “As Christ's passion benefits all, for the
forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it
produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ s
passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is
the memorial of our Lord’s passion, has no effect except in those who
are united with this Sacrament through faith and charity. 1113
Cardinal Franzelin remarks that Mary also has a direct influence
on these fruits. Since the Sacrifice of the Mass is an application of
the redemptive sacrifice, it can be called a new impétration of Christ
to the Father, insofar as it presents to Him, by this renewed oblation,
the merit obtained and consummated on the Cross.184 Actually,
Mary’s intercession must not be separated from this objective im­
pétration of Christ, by which He presents to the Father the merit
consummated on the Cross, for what Christ merited de condigno on
the Cross, she likewise merited beneath the Cross and with depend­
ence on Him. Tire Church makes use of this intercession in the
liturgy: “Hallow, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our oblations offered to
Thee, and by the most salutary intercession of blessed Mary, Mother
of God, grant that they may profit us unto salvation." 188

THE CHURCH
Christ, our Lord, wished to establish the Church in order to per­
petuate on earth the work of redemption and to make men share in
116

COOPERATION

IN

SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

its benefits.,8fl Therefore, after having instituted all the means of
salvation, such as revelation, the sacraments, etc., He commanded
and charged His Church to apply them to men. In this way the
sublime office of our Redeemer, who came into the world so that men
might have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10), would
be continued to the end of time. Pope Leo XIII states that Christ
made His Church the vicar of His mission.”1 Christ’s redemptive
mission is perpetuated in the Church He founded, so that in it and
through it all men may, through the grace of Christ, attain their
eternal salvation.
But Christ instituted the Church as a visible hierarchical society,
possessing a twofold life: one exterior and social; the other, super­
natural and interior. The Church, like any other society, can be
said to be living when it works for the attainment of its end, through
the rule and direction of authority and the obedience of its subjects.
This is the external, social, visible life, by reason of which it can be
said, although less properly, that its authority is, as it were, the soul
which informs and directs the society.
But this exterior life is ordained to an interior life which immedi­
ately affects each of the members who live this life or can and should
live it, that is, the supernatural life, whose principle or soul is sancti­
fying grace or the vivifying gifts of grace gratum faciens, by which
the members live supernaturally in a proper and perfect manner
when in the state of grace, or imperfectly and improperly if they
possess only faith and hope or, perhaps, only share in actual graces.188
Since the work of sanctification and, therefore, the effusion of the
supernatural gifts which vivify the soul are attributed by appropria­
tion to the Holy Spirit, He is called the soul (or heart) of the Church.
Thus, St. Augustine says: "What the soul is to the human body, the
Holy Spirit is to the body of Christ; the Holy Spirit works in the
Church what the soul works in all the members of the body.” 188
By reason of this double life, the Church is not only a moral body,
as is any other society, but also a mystical body, through its mystical
communication of the divine life of Christ, the Head, to all its
members.
The present question concerns Mary’s part in the constitution of
the Church and the development of its life, whether exterior and
social or interior and mystical.
>7

ΤΠΕ BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

In the Church we can distinguish a threefold state: a) an inchoate
or initial state, corresponding to the time in which Christ announced
and prepared for the Church; b) a state of fundamental existence,
when by the death of Christ, the covenant of the Old Law was
broken, the New Law between God and men was established, and
the Church was bom; c) a state of formal existence corresponding
to the moment in which the Church was formally constituted on
Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit animated the organs by giving each
its proper function and by imparting life, strength and continual
growth to the whole body.”0
Mary's cooperation in the preparation of the Church.
The Church is a consequence of redemption because it was estab­
lished in order to perpetuate the work of redemption. Therefore, it
was fitting that Mary, consort and helper of Christ in redemption,
should also cooperate in the preparation of the Church. Christ pre­
pared the foundation of His Church by preaching the kingdom of
God and choosing followers, apostles and disciples. Although she did
not preach the New Law nor choose apostles, Mary helped Christ in
this mission by fulfilling her duties as Mother, sharing His pains and
tribulations, praying to the Father for the success of that preaching
and meriting the vocation of the apostles. For that reason, Denis the
Carthusian says that to Mary is attributed the crown of the apostles,
because they were called through her merits.101
Saintrain, speaking of the suffering Mar}· endured during our Lord s
public life, says: "Let us not forget that she was given as a companion
to the Redeemer, as a helper in the great work He came to accom­
plish on earth. It was necessary that she suffer, at least in her soul and
by her compassion, all that He suffered in fact.” 102

thesis:

Mary’s cooperation in the beginning of the Church, with
regard to its fundamental existence, at the death of Christ.
It is certain that the Church, in its fundamental existence, was
bom at the death of Christ. Thus, it is affirmed in the Acts of the
Apostles (20:28): “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock
in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the
Church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood.” The

thesis:

118

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

same doctrine is taught by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church,
as can be seen from the following testimony:
St. Clement of Alexandria: "Christ gave birth to the Church in
the agony of His flesh and He wrapped it in the swaddling clothes of
His precious blood.” in8
St. John Chrysostom: "And there gushed forth blood and water.
And not without reason did these two fountains spring forth, because
out of them the Church was constituted.”184
St. Augustine: "The second Adam, inclining His head, slept on the
Cross in order that His spouse would be fashioned there, springing
forth from the side of Him who slept.” 188
St. Leo the Great: “So clearly was the transition then made from
the synagogue to the Church that when the Lord gave up His soul,
the veil of the Temple was rent.” 166
St. Bonaventure: "In order that the Church might be fashioned
from the rib of Christ as He slept on the Cross ... it was permitted
by the divine disposition that one of the soldiers should pierce that
sacred side with a lance.”187
In the hymn for First Vespers of the feast of the Sacred Heart, the
Church sings in the liturgy:
"From opened Heart is bom the Church,
Tire bride of Christ, and in His side
Is placed the entrance to the Ark
To save the world from sin.”

Truly, the Church is the mystical body of Christ, that is, the visible
organism, vivified interiorly by the effusion of graces, gifts and charisms. By the redemption effected on the Cross, Christ established this
mystical body, uniting men to Himself and forming a new mystical
person, for through His condign satisfaction He reconciled them to
the Father, He freed them from Satan’s power and He won for Him­
self a chosen people. He had likewise gained for Himself an infinite
treasury of graces, through which He was able to shower on men the
fullness of the Holy Spirit. Thus, He was constituted Head of the
mystical body, and the Church is "the mystical body of that divine
Head.”108
It follows from the foregoing doctrine that the Blessed Virgin,
associated with her Son, the Redeemer, also intervened in her own

119

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

way in the birth of the Church. St. Albert the Great states that
during the Passion, when the Mother of mercy was united to the
Father of mercies and bore the suffering of the Passion as the sword
of sorrow pierced her heart, thus becoming a consort of Christ in the
Passion and a cooperator in redemption and the Mother of the entire
human race, she engendered us, not without pain, to eternal life in
and through her Son.100
St. Antoninus says that just as Christ engendered us to the spiritual
life of grace, which is much more perfect than natural life, by suffer­
ing on the Cross, so also Mary, by enduring tremendous sufferings
for us in union with her Son, engendered us and gave birth to us
amid great suffering.170
Pope Leo XIII affirms that as the Mother of Jesus Christ, the
Blessed Virgin is also the Mother of all Christians, because she gave
birth to them on Calvary during the supreme torments of the Re­
deemer.171
Tims, Christ and Mary achieved the same effect of redemption, but
each in a different way, as we have already stated. Therefore, all that
Christ did by satisfying and meriting condignly on the Cross to estab­
lish His mystical body, the Church, was also done in her way by Man·
at the foot of the Cross. By suffering with Christ, she also made satis­
faction and merited all the graces which would be poured forth on
the Church. Thus, she is Mother of the Church and principal mem­
ber of the mystical body of Christ.

Between Pentecost and her assumption, Mary assisted
the Church by her teaching, counsel, prayers, example, protection
and the tender consolation of her presence.
After He arose glorious from the dead, Jesus lived on earth for
forty days, appearing often to His apostles and speaking to them of
the kingdom of God. According to a pious and probable opinion,
recorded by Suârez, He appeared first to His Mother, and several
times He gladdened her with His presence.172
After these days, Christ ascended into heaven from Mount Olivet,
where His disciples and apostles had assembled (Acts 1:12), con­
templating Him, and not they alone, but also the pious women, and
especially Mary.173
Consoled by Christ’s admirable ascension into heaven, Mary and

thesis:

120

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

hcr companions, the apostles and the rest of the disciples, returned to
Jerusalem, where they remained in the Cenacle, persevering in prayer
(Acts 1:14) in order to prepare themselves to receive the Holy Spirit,
whom Christ had promised. Pope Leo XIII says: “Nevertheless, for
the fulfillment of the task of human redemption there remains still
the coming of the Holy Ghost, as promised by Christ. And behold,
Mary is in the room; there, praying with the apostles and entreating
for them with sighs and tears, she hastens for the Church the coming
of the Spirit, the Comforter, the supreme Gift of Christ, the Treasure
that will never fail.” 174
When the day of Pentecost finally arrived, they were all together
in the Cenacle, and suddenly a sound came from heaven. It was as
of a violent wind blowing, and it filled the whole house (Acts 2:1-2).
And the Holy Spirit came upon them and filled each with a pleni­
tude, depending on the capacity, dignity and devotion with which
each was prepared. And since Mary was superior to all and the best
disposed, she received the most abundant supernatural favors.
With this coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, Christ’s Church,
or the Kingdom of God on earth, of which Christ had so often spoken
to His apostles during His forty days on earth, remained fully con­
stituted in its formal existence: the mystical body of Christ. It is now
that the Old Testament is abolished and the New inaugurated, as
St. Cyril of Jerusalem teaches.170
Observing all that has been said, we shall now try to determine the
help which Mary gave the infant Church from the day of Pentecost
until the day of her glorious assumption into heaven. We find noth­
ing in Sacred Scripture nor in the books of the early Fathers that
would enable us to know what Mary did during this time. But in
spite of this silence, we can and must believe that she used that time
to perform her unique duties as Mother of the new-born Church.
Pope Leo XIII describes Mary’s influence in the primitive Church
as follows: “Though worthy of heaven, she abides a while on earth,
so that the infant Church may be directed and comforted by her ‘who
penetrated, beyond all belief, into the deep secrets of divine wis­
dom.’ ”170
"With wonderful care she nurtured the first Christians by her holy
example, her authoritative counsel, her sweet consolation, her fruitful
prayers. She was, in very truth, the Mother of the Church, the
121

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Teacher and Queen of the apostles, to whom, besides, she confided
no small part of the divine mysteries which she kept in her heart." 177
St. George of Nicomedia exclaims: ‘‘Therefore 1 now proclaim her,
not only your Mother, but the guide of the rest of the apostles, and
I wish to honor her with the prerogative of Mother.” 178
St. Amadeus of Lausanne states that Mary’s stay in the world was
no small consolation to the disciples of Christ. The Lord desired that
after His return to the Father the apostles should enjoy her consola­
tion and teaching, for although they were instructed by the Holy
Ghost, they could still learn from her who had brought the Sun of

justice into the world.17’
Using John, the Beloved Disciple, as a symbol of the Church,
St. Lawrence Justinian describes the Church which was commended
to the care of the Mother of Christ: ‘‘I leave her (the Church) to
you (His Mother) in the person of this disciple. Love her as you love
Me; encourage her with exhortations; strengthen her with counsel;
teach her by example. . . . There must necessarily rise up against her
(the Church) violent tempests, bitter persecutions and all kinds of
heresy. Still weak in the faith, even less established in virtues and not
accustomed to struggles, she will readily succumb or will not take up
the sword against the enemy if she sees herself deprived of her Cap­
tain and Leader. I know that she must be disturbed because of My
early and ignominious death. But with your teachings, she will rise,
with your protection she will be fortified; and by your presence she
will recover, if need be, her lost strength.” 180
St. Peter Canisius says that Christ left Mary to the disciples as
mother and teacher. Her sweet presence is a consolation in sadness,
a light in teaching, strength in battle and a singular help in their first
steps.181
Theological reasoning confirms this very point, since Mary is the
Mother of the whole, the total Christ; not only of His physical body,
but also of His mystical body, which is the Church. Therefore, if she
nurtured and cared for Christ with regard to His physical body, omit­
ting nothing whatever, she must also have done the same in regard
to His mystical body, the Church, protecting and nurturing its newly
bom members.182
We shall now consider the manner in which the Blessed Virgin
assisted the Church in particular, that is, by her teaching, counsel,

122

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

example and the consolation of her sweet presence. As regards her
teaching, it will suffice to select a few testimonies from the Fathers
and theologians. St. Ambrose implies with sufficient clarity that St.
John received much of his doctrine from the Blessed Virgin: “She
was commended to St. John the Evangelist, who was a virgin. There­
fore, it does not surprise me that she would speak of the divine
mysteries to him more than to the others.” 188
St. Bernard says: “The conception effected in Elizabeth is an­
nounced to Mary because it was fitting that, since it would soon be
known, she should learn this news from an angel rather than from
a human being, so that the Mother of God would not appear to be
ignorant of the plans of her Son. Moreover, it was fitting that she
should be instructed concerning the coming of the Savior and the
Precursor and should know the time and order of things so that she
could better reveal the truth to the preachers and writers of the
Gospel, having herself been fully instructed from the beginning con­
cerning all the mysteries.” 184
Eadmer states that in his opinion it was useful and necessary that
the Blessed Virgin converse with the apostles after the Ascension, for
although the revelation made by the Holy Spirit would teach them
all things, Mary, through the operation of the same Holy Spirit, pene­
trated the truths more deeply and she also revealed to the apostles
many things which she had learned by herself through her association
with Christ.188
St. Luke narrates many facts about the events of Christ’s life, such
as the annunciation, the birth of Christ, the flight into Egypt, the
presentation in the Temple, etc. But he was not present at any of
these events and therefore he must have learned of them from others,
as he testifies in the beginning of his Gospel: “Even as they who from
the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have
handed them down to us.” It follows that St. Luke must have re­
ceived his information from the Blessed Virgin, since she was present
at all of these events and in some instances she was the only one who
could have known about them. As Knabenbauer points out, St. Luke
twice mentions the fact that Mary preserved all these things in her
heart (2:19-51), and since he states that he had received his infor­
mation of these early events from those who were present to them, it
must logically follow that Mary herself recounted the facts.18·
«3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Nor should it be said that Mary's intervention was unnecessary in
the teaching of the apostles because inspiration suffices and because
the apostles, filled as they were with the Holy Spirit, would know
whatever was necessary for preaching and teaching. It is true that
inspiration suffices in those matters which God reveals directly, but
it is in accordance with the divine plan that some of the material
written under inspiration would concern natural facts and events
which the apostles had learned from their own experience or had
received from the testimony of others, and sometimes these others
had themselves received the knowledge through revelation.187 More­
over, although the apostles had been instructed by the Holy Spirit
and were personally infallible,188 it was not on this account unneces­
sary that they should approach the Blessed Virgin, who was much
better instructed than they were in the divine mysteries. As Sinibaldi
observes, in the Holy Spirit the apostles had an infallible teacher, but
this magisterium did not dispense them from having recourse to other
sources, the clearest and richest of which was the Blessed Virgin,
especially in those matters touching the infancy and childhood of
Jesus.18*
As regards Mary’s assistance to the Church through counseling, it
is proper to counsel to resolve factual questions and to resolve what
is to be done in difficult matters.190 It is evident from many passages
in the Acts of the Apostles that the apostles and the early Christians
were beset with many grave problems. It is therefore logical to sup
pose that they would have had recourse to Mary, the Mother of God,
because she would know what should be done in accordance with
circumstances. Thus, the Congregation of Rites has declared: "In­
structed by divine wisdom, she generously imparted to her neighbors
the words of life which she had received from her Son and had
preserved in her heart. Not only at the wedding of Cana in Galilee
did the ministers approach this new Rebecca, but it can also be be­
lieved that the pious women and the other disciples of the Lord,
including the apostles themselves, had her for their counselor.”191
It is easy to understand how Mary would be an example and model
to the newborn Church, for Christ left her as such so that the apos­
tles and the other Christians could contemplate her life and holy
manners and imitate her. As St. Ambrose says: "Her whole life was

124

COOPERATION IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

a rule of discipline, a norm of virtues and a formula of utter prob­
ity."1M
Christ likewise willed to leave His Mother on earth after His ascen­
sion so that in His absence she would be a source of consolation for
the faithful. The reason for doing this is beautifully expressed by
Guevara: "Since Christ had lived for some time on earth and had
attracted the hearts of the faithful to Himself, thus winning their
love, He did not wish to absent Himself from them suddenly and
completely, lest, deprived totally of the presence of their Beloved,
their wounded hearts would yield to despair. Therefore, He resolved
to leave them for their consolation amidst sorrow the most perfect
example of Himself and the image which represented Him most com­
pletely. And what creature could be most faithfully assimilated to
His immense goodness than she who had lived with Him in the
closest intimacy and had ardently tasted of the torrents of His gifts?
Who could better substitute for His bodily presence than she whose
likeness offered to the faithful the beauty of her Son? For Christ,
as St. Ambrose says, resembled His Mother, and just as in Him shone
forth the likeness of the paternal divinity, since He was the splendor
of the Father (Heb. 1:3), so also there was manifest in His face the
lines of the beauty of His Mother. Consequently, anyone who gazed
upon His Mother would likewise see immediately the likeness of the
Son.” 198
: Mary's cooperation throughout the course of the centuries
since her glorious assumption into heaven.
The Church may be considered as an existing reality or as a power­
ful force. In the first sense it is a historical fact, remarkable for its
admirable propagation, its internal unity and strength, though at­
tacked by dissensions, schisms and heresies, and its external stability,
by which it resists efficaciously and victoriously the attacks of its
external enemies.
As a powerful force, the Church is manifested in the fruits which
enable us to recognize its fecundity and life. The inexhaustible fruit­
fulness of the Church is revealed qualitatively, insofar as it produces
fruits of every kind, and principally of eminent sanctity, and quan­
titatively, insofar as, through the almost infinite abundance of those
thesis

125

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

fruits, the Church never fades or grows old, but always flourishes and
renews all who receive of its fruit of eternal salvation.
However, this division of the Church must not be understood in
too absolute a sense, as if the two aspects were mutually exclusive.
Rather, it must be understood in a broader sense, since the propaga­
tion, unity and stability of the Church must be counted among the
more eminent fruits by those who recognize its true unfading life.”4
Under all of those aspects, Mary has helped, encouraged and wondrously defended the Church in the course of the centuries. With
regard to her assistance in the spread of the Church, we quote the
words of Pope Leo XIII: "It is no exaggeration to say that it is due
chiefly to her leadership and help that the wisdom and teachings of
the Gospel spread so rapidly to all nations of the world, in spite
of the most obstinate difficulties and most cruel persecutions, and
brought everywhere in their train a new reign of justice and peace. ”5
No less significant are the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“Through you the apostles have preached salvation to the nations
... ; through you the priceless Cross is everywhere honored and
venerated; through you the demons have been put to rout and man­
kind has been summoned back to heaven; through you every mis­
guided creature held in the thrall of idols is led to recognize the
truth; through you have the faithful been brought to the laver of holy
baptism and churches have been founded among every people. ”
Alcazar states that from the beginning of the Church, Mary was
a refuge and most secure help and that this assistance did not cease
at her assumption, but still continues from heaven. Indeed, the vari­
ous successes of the Church in conversions of nations are due in no
small measure to Mary’s help.107 Hence, the Pius Union of tire
Clergy for the Missions venerates Mary as its patroness and places
under her special patronage the goal that is sought.108 And so it is
that the Blessed Virgin bums with the most fervent zeal for the
spread of the Church. As consort of Christ the Redeemer, she cannot
but desire anxiously that the fruit of the passion and blood of her
Son and of her own maternal compassion be extended more and more
among pagan people, thus attaining the desired end of the conversion
and salvation of tire infidels.
As regards the defense of orthodoxy and the extirpation of heresy,
Pope Leo XIII speaks of Mary's help in giving strength to the faith:
126

COOPERATION

IN SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

“It has been her unremitting concern to see to it that the Catholic
faith stands firmly lodged in the midst of the people, there to thrive
in its fertile and undivided unity.” ,B®
Likewise, the Fathers celebrate and praise Mary as custodian of the
Catholic faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria calls her "sceptre of the or­
thodox faith";200 St. Germanus of Constantinople greets her, saying:
"Hail, thou fountain which gushes forth by God's design, whose
rivers overflow in pure and unsullied waves of orthodoxy and put to
flight the hosts of error."201 The sacred liturgy also chants: “Hail,
voice of the apostles forever eloquent, solid foundation of the faith,
unshakable support of the Church.” 202 "Rejoice, because thou alone
hast destroyed all the heresies in the world.”203
Truly, Mary has always been a shield and defense of the Catholic
faith, not only by reason of her divine maternity and the wonderful
prerogatives with which she was adorned, especially her immaculate
conception, which is a kind of summary of Christian revelation, but
because she desires and obtains that the faithful persevere in the
unity of the faith of Christ.204
The Church is the mystical body of Christ, not separated, dis­
ordered and confused, but harmonious, united and well organized.
The organization and order consist not only in constantly preserving
the same doctrine of faith, but in holding and respecting a rule and
principle of unity which insures common agreement in the doctrine
of faith, namely, the authority of the Roman Pontiff, visible Vicar of
Christ and successor of St. Peter, Prince of the apostles, to whom
God entrusted the care of His sheep. But it is proper to Mary, as
Mother of the Church, to see that the body of the Church lives
rightly ordered and that the entire Christian family senses that it is
totally united in the unity of the Catholic faith.
Regarding Mary's assistance in fomenting the unity of the Church
and the return of the dissident brethren to the bosom of Holy Mother
the Church, Pope Leo XIII exhorts all Catholics to direct their
petitions to Mary.
As the nascent Church rightly joined itself in prayer with her as
the patroness and most excellent custodian of unity, so in these times
it is most opportune to do the same all over the Catholic world.203
Trust Mary, implore her aid. That the one selfsame profession of
faith may unite the minds of Christian nations in peace and harmony.

127

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

that the one and only bond of perfect charity may gather their hearts
within its embrace—such is our prayerful hope! And may Mary, by
her powerful help, bring this ardently desired gift into our possession!
And remembering that her only-begotten Son prayed so earnestly to
His heavenly Father for the closest union among the nations whom
He has called by the one baptism to the one inheritance of salvation,
bought for an infinite price, will she not, for that reason, see to it that
all in His marvelous light will strive as with one mind for unity?
And will it not be her wish to employ her goodness and providence
to console the spouse of Christ, the Church, through her longsustained efforts in this enterprise, as well as to bring to full per­
fection the boon of unity among the members of the Christian
family, which is the illustrious fruit of her motherhood?204

Pope Pius XI teaches the same doctrine.
Therefore, let us invoke this most benign Mother, principally under
this title (Regina pascuorum), so that the dissident brethren will
return to the salutary pasture where Peter, living always in his suc­
cessors, and Vicar of the eternal Shepherd, feeds and guides all the
sheep and lambs in the Christian fold.202
May God our Savior, who desires to save all the men and lead
them to the knowledge of the truth, heed our fervent supplications
and deign to call to the unity of the Church all who have strayed.
In which grave matter We wish to use and We desire that there
be used the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of divine
grace, Conqueror of all heresies and Help of Christians, so that she
will obtain for us as soon as possible the advent of that desired day
in which all men will hear the voice of her divine Son, striving for
and preserving the unity of the Spirit in the embrace of peace.20*
But We desire especially, under the auspices of the heavenly
Queen, that all should beg for a very special favor of the greatest
consequence, namely, that she who is so ardently loved and venerated
by the dissident churches of the East, may not permit that they should
be unhappily living as separated brethren nor that they should still
remain apart from the unity of the Church, and thus from her Son,
whose Vicar on earth We are.209

COOPERATION

IN

SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION

Truly, Mary is Mother of the Church, that is, of the human family
gathered together in one body, the body of Christ which is the
Church, of which St. Cyprian says: "He who abandons it, has neither
salvation nor life." 2,1 It is proper to the Mother to see to it that all
those who erroneously depart from this unity and abandon the sanc­
tuary of the family should return to share once more in the goods and
life of the paternal home.
In regard to the inexhaustible fecundity of the Church, in which
spiritual fruits of all kinds abound and especially that of sanctity,
Mary gives a noteworthy assistance in every age. The Church is the
mother of sanctity, whose abundance is shown in the fruits of sancti­
fication it produces and in the children it has led to sanctity. The
Church was established by Christ under holy laws and given the
means for fostering virtue, but it has produced and still produces
saints. It pertains to Mary, as Mother of the Church, to nurture these
children so that they will reach the measure of the fullness of Christ
and bear fruit in all holiness. With good reason is the Church pre­
sented as the garden of Mary, which she herself irrigates and makes
fertile by abundant showers of heavenly graces, in order to produce
fruits of eminent sanctity.212
Corollary. Since Mary’s help and protection in behalf of the
Church has been so excellent through all the ages, it is clear that she
should be invoked with unlimited confidence in difficult moments,
anxieties, necessities and in time of persecution. Therefore, Pope
Pius XI exhorts: "If the Church falls on difficult times; if faith wanes
and charity grows cold; if morals, private and public, deteriorate; if
any danger threatens the Catholic cause or civil society, let us have
recourse to her, begging help from heaven.
“With more ardent effort, therefore, in the present needs under
which we labor, let all go to her, and with supplication beg earnestly
that, by interceding with her Son, the erring nations may return to
Christian principles and precepts, on which the foundation of public
welfare rests, and through which desirable peace and true happiness
flourish in abundance." 218

St. Cermanus of Constantinople directs this supplication to Mary:
"Be mindful of the Christians, who are thy servants; second their
prayers, nourish their hope, strengthen their faith and gather them
together in one Church.” 210
128

■

2 29

CHAPTER FOUR

Titles Derived from JWary’s
Cooperation
*

There are five principle titles and offices due Mary, the Mother

of God, by reason of her cooperation in redemption : Mediatrix, Co·
redemptrix, Mother of Christians, Patroness or Advocate, and Queen
and Mistress of the universe.

Mediatrix
The word mediator signifies a person who intervenes between two
other persons in order to unite and reconcile them in some way.
There are two elements to consider in the notion of a mediator: the
notion of the mean or medium between two extremes, and the office
or act by which the mean or medium is established between the two
extremes.’ Hence, he is called a mediator who performs this function
of bringing together what has been separated. St. Thomas says: “We
may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he is a mean; sec­
ondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature of a mean to
be distant from each extreme, while it unites by communicating to
one that which belongs to the other.” 2
Following this doctrine, theologians usually distinguish a twofold
mediation: ontological and moral. In the first, the mediator must
have something in common with those for whom he mediates. He
must be united to them and at the same time be separate from them
in some way. This separation is to be understood not only in a physi­
cal sense, but also with regard to the dispute existing between them.
A man can be a true mediator between contenders as long as he does
not enter the dispute or disagreement.8
130

■

TITLES FROM MART’S COOPERATION

The second mediation, moral mediation, refers to the act of rec­
onciling the two dissident parties. In order to effect the reconciliation,
two methods may be used: i ) when the mediator unites the litigants
by meriting for them and helping them by his own works; 2) when
he unites them by interceding or supplicating to one for the other.
That Christ our Lord is the Mediator, is clearly attested by the
Apostle (I Tim. 2:5) saying: "For there is one God, and one Medi­
ator between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus." Christ is
Mediator in the ontological order, because He has something in com­
mon with those between whom He mediates, God and men, for He
has both a divine and a human nature. "He is the Mediator between
God and man,” says St. Augustine, "because He is God with the
Father, and a man with men. A mere man could not be a mediator
between God and man; nor could a mere God. Behold the Medi­
ator.” 4 St. Irenaeus states that it was fitting that the mediator be­
tween God and man should bring the two parties to concord through
His identification with each party.8
That Christ is Mediator in the moral order is stated by St. Paul
(II Cor. 5:18-19) : "But all things are from God, who has reconciled
us to Himself through Christ and has given to us the ministry of
reconciliation. For God was truly in Christ, reconciling the world to
Himself by not reckoning against men their sins and by entrusting
to us the message of reconciliation.” And in his Epistle to the Ephe­
sians (2:14-16) he states: "For He Himself is our peace, He it is who
has made both one, and has broken down the intervening wall of the
enclosure, the enmity', in His flesh . . . , and reconciled both in one
body to God by the Cross, having slain the enmity in Himself."
There arc two heretical opinions concerning the nature of Christ
in relation to His role as Mediator. Francis Stancarus maintained that
Christ was our Mediator only by reason of His human nature, for if
He is considered as God, He is one with the Father and cannot suffer
nor die nor discharge any office as a mediator. In opposition to this
error, many Protestants, such as Melanchthon, Wigand and Calvin,
went to the opposite extreme and taught that Christ in His divine
nature alone, is and always was, even before the Incarnation, our sole
Mediator.
Catholic doctrine, condemning both heretical opinions, maintains
that Christ is our Mediator as man, not precisely in His human na-

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

hire, but so far as this human nature is united hypostatically to the
divine Person, His human nature is the principium quo of medi­
atorial operations; the divine Person is the principium quod of those
operations, and gives them an infinite value.
According to Satolli, Catholic doctrine distinguishes between the
substance of the mediator and the exercise of the office of mediator.
In the true Mediator, Christ, we find two natures; in the exercise of
the work of mediator, we again distinguish between the external work
and the efficacy or dignity from which value and merit flow. The
external work of mediation pertains to the nature of man in Christ
or to His person so far as He is human (e.g., to suffer and to make
satisfaction ), but the efficacy proceeds from the divine Person sub­
sistent in the human nature.®
This principal office of mediator, which consists in the reconcili­
ation of the dissidents, was fulfilled by Christ by means of His satis­
factions and merits and consummated by His death on the altar of
the Cross. Hence, St. Paul (Col. 1:19-20) says: “For it has pleased
God the Father that in Him all His fullness should dwell, and that
through Him He should reconcile to Himself all things, whether on
the earth or in the heavens, making peace through the blood of His
cross.”
The fruits of this mediatorial function have been most remarkable.
By satisfying and meriting for us to the shedding of His blood on the
cross, Christ made God propitious to us and gained for us an infinite
treasure of graces. At the same time. He restored the bond of friend­
ship between God and men, and obtained for us remission of our
sins and of eternal punishment, although He did not will to free
us of the penalties we are to suffer in this vale of tears, but left them
for us as a test and a crown. He anointed them with His blood, which
tempers all bitterness.
Christ’s mediation did not end at His death or His glorious resur­
rection, but it continues in heaven, communicating to us the sanctify­
ing fruits of His passion. St. Paul says: “He lives always to make
intercession for us" (Heb. 7:25).
Because of this unceasing prayer to the Father on our behalf,
Christ, as man, is the principal moral cause of our sanctification and
salvation; to which should be added, in the opinion of many theo>3>

TIT I. ES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

logians, the physical instrumental concursus of His sacred humanity
with respect to all the effects of grace.
Presupposing this doctrine of Christ as Mediator, we can easily
pass on to the study of Mary’s mediation, whose archetype and model
is the mediation of Christ.
Mary is truly mediatrix of the human race and this doc­
trine pertains to the deposit of faith.
Previous Observations. We have shown that there is a twofold
mediation in Christ: ontological and moral. It is certain that an
ontological mediation befits Mary, since she is united to men and
belongs by her very nature to the human family. Moreover, she
touches the confines of the Divinity by reason of her divine mater­
nity, by which relationship with God she possesses eminent gifts that
elevate her above all creatures and separate her entirely from sinners.
The human race had incurred the guilt of sin and needed reconcili­
ation, but Mary, preserved from original sin from the first moment
of her immaculate conception by the future merits of Christ, and
thus redeemed in a most sublime way, was not drawn from the “mass
of sin" but was preserved from incurring sin and was thus separated
from the rest of men who at birth are “children of wrath” (Eph.

thesis:

The question is principally one of moral mediation; that is, the
office of uniting and reconciling God with men. It should be noted
that it is not only a question of Mary’s remote mediation in the
reconciliation of men with God through her divine motherhood, by
which she produced the universal Mediator of men, but also of her
immediate and personal intervention by reason of her intimate asso­
ciation with Christ the Mediator.
Errors. The Protestants generally attack and reject the title of
mediatrix by which the Church honors Mary, as if this were an
offense to Christ, the only Mediator between God and men. The
Anglican Congress of 1897 warned its members against exalting the
Virgin Mary to the point of making her a mediatrix in place of
Christ.8 The title of mediatrix has also been rejected by the Jansen­
ists, Muratori and Fischer.®
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius IX says: “With her only>33

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

begotten Son, Mat}' is the most powerful mediatrix and conciliatrix
in the whole world.” 10
Pope Leo XIII: "How rightly, too, has every nation and every
liturgy' without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has
grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her
many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our mediatrix.’ ’’ ”
Pope Pius XI: “Being the unique Mediator between God and men,
Christ desired that His Mother be united to Him as advocate of
sinners and mediatrix and dispenser of grace.” 12
The same Pontiff exhorts the faithful that on the day dedicated to
the Sacred Heart, they should raise their petitions to the Sacred Heart
and at the same time call upon the all-powerful intercession of the
Virgin Mother of God, mediatrix of all graces.13
Fathers and Theologians. The writings of the Fathers and Theo­
logians touching on this matter are of two types: in some of them
there is explicit reference to Mary as mediatrix, and in others there
are equivalent expressions referring to her mediation. Of those who
use the word "mediatrix” explicitly, we may mention St. Ephrcm,
St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, Basil of Selcucia, St. Andrew
of Crete, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St.
Theodore, St. Antoninus and Denis the Carthusian.14
Many of the Fathers and writers do not expressly give Mary the
title of mediatrix, but profess and praise her mediation by words
which signify this title. The notion of mediation is easily found in
the comparison between Eve and Mary, the new Eve, who was the
consort in redemption as the former was a partner in the fall. It
can likewise be seen in references to Mary's spiritual motherhood of
men and her role as advocate of sinners. Not only is Mary’s remote
and physical mediation referred to, so far as she engendered Christ,
our Mediator, but also her immediate and personal intervention in
obtaining man’s reconciliation with God. The very name mediatrix
presupposes a moral and direct action, and the expressions used in
these documents leave no doubt that the writers are referring to a
moral mediation. This is even more evident in the references to
Mary’s intervention in heaven.15
The Liturgy. Tire Eastern liturgy salutes Mary as "heavenly ladder,”
“mediatrix who is not confounded,” "our only help.” 10
The Roman liturgy celebrates the feast of Mary, Mediatrix of all

»34

TITLES FROM

MARY'S COOPERATION

graces, with the following prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, our Mediator
with the Father, who didst deign to make Thy Blessed Virgin Mother
our own Mother also, and mediatrix between Thyself and us.”
Theological Argument. The mediator, in conformity with what the
word signifies, i.e., to be the mean and to exercise the office of uniting
the extremes, requires two conditions, of which the first is to be re­
moved from both extremes, and the second is to bring to each of
them something of the other. Now, Mary is separate from God by
her nature and condition as a creature, and from men by her dignity
as the Mother of God, the fullness of grace with which she is en­
riched, and the singular gift of her immaculate conception. At the
same time, she brings to men the gifts of God and to God the satis­
faction, merit, supplication and glorification of men, not as received
from men, but because she herself offers them to God in their name.
She is, therefore, a true mediatrix between God and men.
On the other hand, this title of mediatrix does not lessen Christ’s
mediation nor obscure it in any way, since Mary is not the mediatrix
in the same sense as Christ is Mediator between God and men.
Mary’s mediation is not of the same order as is that of Christ, but
of another kind, and always dependent on His, from which hen
receives all its efficacy.
Moreover, this ministry of Mary, the Mother, redounds to the
honor of her Son, for it manifests the opulence of Christ the Medi­
ator who, without any detraction from His own mediation, enriched
His Mother with so exalted a ministry. In like manner, God's crea­
tures manifest, not the indigence, but the abundance of divine power
by exercising the activity they have from God and subjecting them­
selves to Him in their operations.

By what actions Mary exercised and now exercises her
office of mediatrix.
Since Mary is the consort of Christ the Mediator, we must not
judge her activity as mediatrix in a manner different from that of
Christ. And since Christ effects His mediation by the same operations
with which He effected redemption, it is evident that the former
resolves itself into objective mediation, by which Christ satisfied to
God condignly by shedding His blood on the Cross, reconciling us
to God, making Himself a propitiation for us and meriting for us an
thesis:

>35

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

infinite treasure of graces, and subjective mediation, by which the
fruits of redemption are distributed and applied to men, with Christ
Himself interceding in our behalf through the physical concursus of
His sacred humanity. Objective mediation was consummated on the
altar of the Cross when Christ said: “It is consummated" (John
19:30); subjective mediation is continued in heaven, where Christ
lives always to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25).
In like manner, Mary, associated with the Redeemer, discharges
her office of mediatrix by cooperating with Him both in the work of
objective mediation and in the application of its fruits, which is sub­
jective mediation. Hence Marian mediation comprises two functions:
remote cooperation, by giving Christ a body so that He could pay the
price of human redemption, and proximate cooperation by her per­
sonal actions, principally by her motherly compassion, by which,
united to Christ and subordinate to Him, she satisfied with Him to
God and merited all the graces of salvation. The second concerns the
application of the fruits of redemption or the distribution of graces,
obtaining them from God by her most powerful intercession and dis­
pensing them to men.
Of these two mediatorial functions of the Blessed Virgin, she ac­
complished the first while on earth, for that was the only state in
which she could co-satisfy and co-merit. The second, she exercises
principally in heaven, where she unceasingly performs the office of
advocate in the work of our salvation. By this double title Mary fully
deserves the name of mediatrix, although ordinarily, by reason of her
mediatorial function in the distribution of graces which she continu­
ously exercises in heaven, she is called mediatrix of all graces, under
which title she is honored by the feast which is celebrated on May 31.
Corollary. From tire foregoing it is evident that Mary should be
given the title of mediatrix. However, three different formulas may
be used to express it. She may be called simply mediatrix, without any
other addition, mediatrix between God and men, or mediatrix be­
tween Christ and men. We shall explain the sense of the last two
formulas.
Both formulas mean the same in an identical or material sense
for Christ is God, and to say that Mary is the mediatrix between
Christ and men is to say that she is mediatrix between God and men.
But considered formally, they possess a different sense. In one the

136

TITLES FROM

MARY'S COOPERATION

position and office of the Blessed Virgin is established between Cod
the Father and us, while in the other, she is placed between Christ,
her Son, and men. Therefore, in her title as mediatrix between God
and men, Mary is considered as mediatrix with Christ (but subordi­
nate to Him), and in this is included her quality as consort of the
Redeemer. In her title as mediatrix between Christ and men, she is
considered, not as mediating with Christ, but rather near Christ, as
Mother of the Redeemer and of the redeemed, whom she considers
lovingly as brothers of her Firstborn (Rom. 8:29).
The first of those two titles must be preferred to the second in
objective mediation, in which Christ, subsistent in His human nature
by actions proper to it, and with Mary cooperating in her manner,
made satisfaction to Himself as God no less than to the Father and
the Holy Spirit, who are one and the same God (although accepting
satisfaction is attributed by appropriation to the Father). The other
title should be preferred in subjective mediation, by which, through
the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, Christ, sacrificed on the Cross,
"became to all who obey Him the cause of eternal salvation” (Heb.
5:9), distributing the riches of redemption among men.
: Whether, besides Christ and Mary, others can be called
mediators.
It is certain that, outside of Christ and Mary, no one can be a
mediator in the task of reconciling God and men by cooperating in
objective redemption, by which an offended God is appeased and
graces are merited for man’s return to God’s friendship. But besides
Christ, the perfect Mediator, and Mary, others can be called medi­
ators insofar as they concur in the distribution of redemptive graces
to men through their merits, prayers, ministerial power or any other
way. Thus, the blessed in heaven, the just on earth, and priests gen­
erally, cooperate in this way in the reconciliation of men with God,
since they are truly capable of mediating. They are united to God,
cither through the beatific vision, sanctifying grace, or the gift of a
supernatural power, and they are united to men through benevolence,
mercy or ministerial duties.
Nevertheless, this mediation presupposes that of Christ and of
Mary, from whose power theirs is derived and without which theirs
could not exist. Thus, St. Thomas says: "Christ alone is the perfect
thesis

*37

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mediator of God and men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled
the human race to God. Hence the Apostle, after saying, ‘Mediator
of God and man, the man Christ Jesus,’ added: ‘who gave Himself
a redemption for all.’ However, nothing prevents certain others from
being called mediators, in some respect, between God and man, in­
asmuch as they cooperate in uniting men to God, dispositively or
ministerially.”1T
The excellence of Marian mediation in relation to that
of Christ and the rest of the saints.
Christ alone is the primary, principal and supreme Mediator; Mary
is a subordinate and secondary mediator. Christ is a Mediator suffi­
cient of Himself, who needs help from no one, and is absolutely
necessary for redeeming men by condign satisfaction. Mary is a medi­
ator hypothetically, inasmuch as God, by the decree of His most free
will, deigned to associate her with Christ in the work of redemption.
Christ is the universal Mediator, even of Mary, who needed re­
demption, and was actually redeemed in a more sublime manner than
were the rest of men. She cannot be mediatrix for herself; she is so
only in regard to others. But, Mary’s mediation exceeds and surpasses
that of the other saints to an extraordinary degree because she exer­
cised her mediation in objective redemption from beginning to end
on Calvary, something no other saint could do. Moreover, Mary inter­
venes in subjective redemption much more efficaciously and univer­
sally than do all the other servants of God. We shall speak later of
Mary's pre-eminent position over the saints.

thesis:

Co-Redcmptrix
The title of co-redemptrix is closely united to that of mediatrix and
is actually included in it as a part in the whole. Christ is the Re­
deemer of the human race, as the Apostle says: “Who gave Himself
a ransom for all” (I Tim. 2:6); and in Galatians: “Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us” (3:13). On
which St. Augustine comments by saying that the Redeemer came
and payed the price; He shed His blood and purchased the whole

.38

TITLES FROM MART’S COOPERATION

world.” And the sacred liturgy sings: "O happy fault, which deserved
to have so great and glorious a Redcemerl” With this in view, we
shall discuss whether the title of co-redemptrix belongs to the Virgin
Mother of God, Christ’s consort in the work of redemption, and by
what kind of acts.

Mary is rightly called co-redemptrix of the human race.
Opinions, lire Protestants and Jansenists reject the title of coredemptrix, as does Muratori, who maintains that Mary had no part
in the work of redemption.1®
Some theologians, such as Pohle, Billot and Rivière, do not use this
title, because, they say, redemption was effected by Christ alone.20
Others, like Scheeben 21 and Schütz, recommended that for reasons
of prudence, this title ought not be used. Bartmann does not differ
much from this opinion, for he judges that it should not be used
without some clarification.22
The Roman Pontiffs and Sacred Congregations. Pope Leo XIII
summed up this doctrine by stating that Mary was associated with
Jesus in the work of human redemption. Pope Benedict XV said that
she suffered almost to death in union with her Son’s passion and
death, so that it can be said that with Christ, she redeemed the world.
Pope Pius XI not only states that she suffered with Christ, but that
by her compassion and co-redemption she assisted her Son when He
effected man’s redemption on the altar of the Cross.23
The Sacred Congregation of Rites used this title explicitly, calling
Mary the most merciful co-redemptrix of the human race.21 On
June 26, 1913, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office com­
mended as praiseworthy the custom of adding to the name of Jesus
that of Mary, our co-redemptrix. In January of 1914, the same Holy
Office attached an indulgence to a prayer in which Mary is specifi­
cally praised as co-redemptrix of the human race.
Fathers and Theologians. The Fathers of the Church and theo­
logians usually salute Mary by the title of co-redemptrix in equiva­
lent terms. Thus, St. Ephrem speaks of her as “the redemption of
my sins," and John Geometer refers to her as “redemption from
slavery."ss St. Germanus of Constantinople exclaims: “No one is
saved except through thee; no one is redeemed except through thee,
O Mother of Godl” 20 St. John Damascene states that through Mary
thesis:

*39

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

wc have all been redeemed from damnation, and Alenin says that all
the world rejoices because it was redeemed through Mary.27 And
George of Rhodes states that Mary can be called redemptrix of men
in a true and proper sense, although in a less principal and less proper
sense than the term Redeemer is applied to Christ.28
Mary is also referred to as helper or cooperator in the work of sal­
vation and redemption. Thus, George of Nicomedia refers to her as
the cooperator in our salvation; St. Albert the Great says that since
she was a consort in the Passion, she is also a helper in redemption;
and St. Peter Damian states that we arc debtors of the Blessed Virgin
and are indebted to her, after Christ, for the redemption of the
human race.29
Lastly, Mary is hailed as restorer and reparatrix of the world and
as savior of the world. St. Bernard refers to her as mediatrix of sal­
vation and restorer of the world; Peter Blcscnse says that she has been
constituted Lady of the universe and restorer of the world and the
destroyer of hell; Denis the Carthusian states that he does not think
that Mary cooperated with Christ the Savior as if He alone were not
sufficient, but for many reasons Mary can be called cooperator of
Christ and savior of the world.30
“Tire foregoing testimonies, and many others which could be of­
fered,” says Bovcr, “are sufficient indication of the great part which
Mary had in human redemption and for this reason she can truly be
called co-redemptrix.” 81
As regards the word “co-redemptrix," it has been opposed by some
because of its novelty, as if that were sufficient reason to deny it to
Mary. It seems that Vega was the first to use the word in Spain in
the thirteenth century,32 but it does not seem that he was the first
ever to use the title, for it was used previously by Salmcrôn, when he
stated that Mary received from Christ, although He did not need her
works, the role of co-redemptrix, and this was to the greater glory of
Christ.88 Πιο expression was also used by Van Ketwigh, who says
that Mary can be called cooperator or co-redemptrix in human re­
demption in an orthodox sense.8·
However, in the Eastern Church Mary was praised much earlier
with the title of co-redemptrix, as can be seen in tire collection of
Armenian hymns called the Sharakan.™ On the other hand, those
who reject the word “co-redemptrix” because it seems too novel,
140

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

should bear in mind the answer given by St. Athanasius to Arius
concerning the use of the term "consubstantial”: "Does the novelty
of the word offend you or is it that you likewise reject the truth of
the matter which is given this name? It is, indeed, an ancient truth
which has received a new name, and not something which we accept
as true because of the name.” 88
Testimony of Catholic Bishops. In his exhortation to the priests
assembled at the Basilica at Lourdes on April 26, 1935, Cardinal
Pacclli (Pope Pius XII) referred to the Christian faithful from all
over the world, raising their hands in supplication to the Redeemer
and to His most holy Mother and co-redemptrix. Cardinal Gasquet,
at the inaugural session of the Marian Congress celebrated in Rome
in 1924, also referred to Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix. Cardi­
nal Lepicier stated that the title of mediatrix contains all the gran­
deur of our heavenly Mother and is the most honorable title that
could be given to her. He further states that the title has the sanction
of so many centuries, without any opposition from the Church, that
it could reasonably be said to be temerarious for anyone to doubt its
lawful use.37
Similar testimony can be found in the sermon preached by Cardi­
nal Lega at Frascati on February 8, 1931, the allocution of Cardinal
Pignatelli before the Holy Father and the College of Cardinals on
December 24, 1934, tbe sermon of Cardinal Minoretti on Septem­
ber 20, 1937, antl ^e sermon by Cardinal Schuster of Milan on the
feast of the Seven Dolors.
His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster de­
clared: “In carrying out the great work of Redemption, the chief
solace and companion of Jesus was to be Mary. . . . From the first
moment she had been in closer sympathy with Him than all the
angels and saints put together . . . She was nearer Him during His
passion and in her proper place by the side of the Divine Priest as
He offered the Divine Victim upon the altar of the Cross. Through
her knowledge of the Priest and His intentions, through her love and
sympathy—the greatest possible—for Her divine Son, through the
close association and conjunction of her soul with His in the work
of redemption, she has obtained the singular and unique title of
co-redemptrix.”88
Cardinal Mercier: "At the hour that her Son expires, she is there.
141

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

at the foot of the gibbet on which her Son is crucified; she is bent
down, like the priest at the altar. Iler Son offers Himself to the God
of justice and mercy for the salvation of the world; Mary offers Him
to God in the same spirit. ... He is their Redeemer; she is their
co-redemptrix.”39
Cardinal Van Roey: “At the instant that Mary pronounces her fiat
and gives her consent to the incarnation, the divine mercy, at the
same time that it infinitely abases the Son of God in making Him
assume human nature, exalts human nature, in the person of Mary,
to the confines of divinity, for Mary gives human nature to the Word.
From that moment until Calvary, where she bends down under the
Cross, she is intimately associated with every work of the Savior; she
shares with Him the atrocious agonies of her Son and, with Him, she
offers those sufferings to the Father for the salvation of the human
race. By reason of her role as Mother of God and by her effective
participation in the work of redemption, she has acquired full right
to the title of co-redemptrix and spiritual Mother of all men."40
It would be impossible to cite all the passages in sermons and
writings in which the Catholic hierarchy has proclaimed Mary as
co-redemptrix. Those that we have mentioned should suffice, how­
ever, to give evidence of the sentiments of the Catholic prelates
throughout tire world.
Teaching of Theologians. It is safe to say that theologians through­
out the world now unanimously accept the title of co-redemptrix as
properly belonging to Mary'. Here again, the list of theologians is far
too extensive to mention. Those who are interested in the names or
the works of such theologians may find them in the article by Bover,
published in Gregorianum, or in any complete bibliography of Marian
literature.41
Theological Argument. Co-redemptrix signifies cooperation, asso­
ciation or partnership with Christ the Redeemer in the work of
human redemption. That is the precise meaning of the words having
the prefix co and applied to Mary; for example, compati Christo, to
suffer with Christ; commori cum Christo, to die with Christ, and so
forth. These words signify a participation or a partnership on the part
of Mary in tire actions and sufferings of Christ. Therefore, Mary- is
truly a co-redemptrix because she cooperated with Christ in’the work
of human redemption.
142

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

Nor docs the title of co-redemptrix lessen the dignity of Christ the
Redeemer, since it does not necessarily mean that the Blessed Virgin
had to take an active part in redemption in the same way and to the
same degree as Christ did, but it signifies a cooperation which is in­
ferior, subordinate and less principal. In this sense the title can be
used and applied to Mary in an orthodox sense.
The acts by which Mary performed her office of coredemptrix.
Redemption, as has already been said, can be taken in two senses.
In a wide sense, redemption comprises all that Christ accomplished
in His mortal life in order to free us from sin and, once reconciled
to God, to restore us to the supernatural life. In a strict sense, it can
be considered under certain special or distinct aspects which are
found in the redemptive work, and thus it possesses the character­
istics of satisfaction, of merit, of sacrifice and of redemption strictly
speaking.
Moreover, redemption is divided into objective and subjective. Ob­
jective redemption consists in the works of Christ, consummated in
His passion and death, by which He made satisfaction for us, rec­
onciled us to God and merited graces for us. Subjective redemption
consists in distributing and applying to each man the fruits of divine
redemption.
Christ is Redeemer, strictly speaking, through objective redemp­
tion, in conformity with what St. Peter says: "You know that you
were redeemed from the vain manner of life handed down from your
fathers, not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with the
precious blood of Christ, as a Iamb without blemish and without
spot" (I Pct. 1:18-19). St. Paul says: “For by one offering He has
perfected forever those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). St. John
says: "Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for
Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us for God with Thy blood”
(Apoc. 5:9-10), for after the redemption consummated on the Cross
by Christ’s death, there remains only the application of its fruits.
By subjective redemption, Christ is our Advocate, as stated in the
first Epistle of St. John (2:1-2): "We have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is a propitiation for our sins, not
for ours only but also for those of the whole world”; and in St. Paul
thesis:

*43

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

(Hcb. 7:25): “Therefore He is able at all times to save those who
come to God through Him, since He lives always to make interces­
sion for them.”
Both offices of Redeemer and Advocate constitute Christ as Medi­
ator, and thus St. Paul says: "For there is one God, and one Medi­
ator between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave
Himself a ransom for all” (I Tim. 2:5-6), and in Hebrews (7:25),
as quoted above, of which St. Augustine says: “Why does He make
intercession for us? Because He deigned to be Mediator.”42
Valencia distinguishes a twofold degree of reconciliation and
teaches that Christ obtained it for us completely, although each
degree in a distinct way: the first, in such a way that all men attain
it without any mediation whatever, by the very fact that Christ suf­
fered once for all; and the second (that is, the application of the
power of the passion of Christ), in such a way that men could not
attain it except under certain conditions which arc necessary in addi­
tion to the Passion. He then states that Christ is not a mediator in
the same way now as He was in His passion and death and before
His ascension. Then He fulfilled the office of mediator most perfectly
and secured reconciliation for us. This He did only once by one single
oblation. Nevertheless, Christ continues to perform the work of a
mediator even now, because by interceding for us in heaven, He
obtains for us the second degree of reconciliation.43
Now, in conformity to the concept of the Redeemer, wc must
determine the concept of the co-redemptrix. Just as Christ is Re­
deemer by objective redemption, and Advocate by subjective redemp­
tion, and by both offices is constituted Mediator, so likewise the
Blessed Virgin is co-redemptrix in virtue of her cooperation in objec­
tive redemption, she is advocate and dispenser of all graces through
her cooperation in subjective redemption, and from this twofold
cooperation results the office of mediatrix in its two stages, namely,
co-redemption on earth and intercession now in heaven. Therefore,
the reality demonstrated by the title of co-redemptrix is that of her
cooperation with Christ the Redeemer in objective redemption, or in
the work of human redemption—remotely, by giving Christ the body
with which He might pay the price of our ransom, and proximately
by suffering with her beloved Son as He died on the Cross. Hence
St. Albert the Great could say: “As we are all under great obligation
I'M

TITLES FROM MARï’s COOPERATION

to Jesus for His passion endured for love of us, so also are we under
great obligation to Mary for the martyrdom which she voluntarily
suffered for our salvation in the death of her Son.”44 And this is
sufficient reason for calling Mary co-redemptrix.4s
Mary’s cooperation in the work of redemption, as we have demon­
strated previously, bore all the particular aspects or marks of Christ’s
redemption, that is, of satisfaction, merit, sacrifice and redemption
strictly speaking. And so it is that Mary, subordinate to Christ
and united to Him who satisfied to God condignly, meriting all
graces, offering Himself as a victim on the altar of the Cross and
paying the price of human redemption, co-satisfied, co-merited and
co-offered in her own way the sacrifice of the Cross. And thus she
co-redeemed mankind by offering to God her beloved Son and her
own sorrows as the price for our salvation.46

Whether others besides Mary can be called co-redeemers.
Cardinal Lepicier does not hesitate to affirm that in addition to the
Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix, there are other co-redeemers, inas­
much as the abundant sufferings of the saints are also, in a certain
way, redemptions, and when applied to us, they help us to pay the
debt of atonement.47 De la Taille also admits that others are coredeemers when he says that Mary "is co-redemptrix through the
sacrifice of the Redeemer, to which oblation she, like ourselves, but
to a much more excellent degree, is united and associated through
the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ which the Church
offers.”48
Smith follows the same opinion, but he attributes to Mary as corcdemptrix a co-rcdemptive activity of the same order as ours but of
a much higher degree than that which pertains to the other members
of the mystical body.49
But the negative answer is to be preferred, because the title of
co-redemptrix or co-redeemer indicates an active cooperation in objec­
tive redemption. But no creature except the Blessed Virgin can pos­
sess this title because no one else participated in this way in the
redemption of the human race.
Moreover, the principal effect of objective redemption consists in
the abolition of the decree of condemnation and man’s reconciliation
with God and his restoration to divine friendship. But no one, howthesis:

>45

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

ever holy, can contribute to this effect. As St. Augustine says, "Any­
one can imitate Christ by dying, but no one can imitate Him by
redeeming.” 110 St. Leo the Great says that although the death of the
saints is precious in the sight of the Lord, the death of the innocent
has never been a propitiation for the world.51
Nevertheless, nothing prevents the saints from being called medi­
ators secundum quid, so far as they intercede for us and obtain graces
for us, or so far as they can mitigate the temporal punishment due
to our sins by applying their sufferings to us. But this always pre­
supposes the redemption effected by Christ, with the cooperation of
His Mother. Even more, what the saints can do for us in this respect
is as nothing when compared to that which was done for us at the

price of the Precious Blood.52

Mother of Men
The spiritual motherhood of Mary is situated between her office
as co-redemptrix and that of advocate, which she discharges in the
distribution of graces. Maternity, like paternity, bespeaks a relation
to filiation. But filiation is of two kinds: natural and adoptive. Nat­
ural filiation proceeds from generation, by which one living being
proceeds from another with an identity of nature. Adoptive filiation
proceeds from adoption, by which a person who is a stranger to the
adopting parent is accepted as a son or daughter and enjoys all the
rights as such, especially that of inheritance. Men may also become
adopted sons of God because man is a stranger to the blessings of
grace and glory, but through the divine liberality, he is constituted
a son through grace and an heir of the heavenly inheritance. And
thus the Apostle says: “He predestined us to be adopted through
Jesus Christ as His sons” (Eph. 1:5); “but if we arc sons, we arc
heirs also' (Rom. 8:17); "so that he is no longer a slave, but a son;
and if a son, an heir also through God” (Gal. 4:7). But there is a
great difference between human and divine adoption. Human adop­
tion is concerned only with moral and extrinsic elements, that is,
certain rights and obligations, such as the right of inheritance thé
obligation of submission and respect, and so forth. Divine adoption,
146

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

on the other hand, places in the soul something physical and internal,
that is, sanctifying grace, which makes the adopted person a partici­
pant in the divine nature. Therefore, divine adoption is similar to
a spiritual generation, since grace confers upon man a new being,
a new supernatural nature, thus making him a new creature and
transforming him into the image of God, according to the words of
the Apostle: "If then any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the
former things have passed away; behold, they are made new” (II Cor.
5:17); “but we all, with faces unveiled, reflecting as in a minor the
glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His very image from
glory to glory, as through the Spirit of the Lord” (II Cor. 3:18).
This divine adoption of men, being an extrinsic operation of God,
is attributed to the entire Trinity, although it is appropriated to God
the Father. However, the adoption is not completed without the in­
fluence of Christ the Man, since He is the principle and cause of our
regeneration and vivification, in such a way that from Him as Head,
we receive all there is of grace in us. For He satisfies to God for all;
by His merit He acquired graces for us and He impetrated them from
God so that, conformed to His image, we might live the same super­
natural life that He lived in His humanity and continues to five
through the ages. Hence, Christ is not only our Brother and even the
Firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29), but He is also our
Father, as prophesied by Isaias (9:6) and taught by St. Anselm of
Canterbury: “What dignity, O Virgin, could be more highly prized
than to be the Mother of those to whom Christ deigned to be Father
and Brother!” 83
Nevertheless, the name of Father, even with regard to divine adop­
tion, is reserved to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity. As Philips
points out, if the name of Father were given to Christ or the Holy
Spirit, God the Father would be left without a proper name. More­
over, Jesus never spoke in this way, but always referred to His Father
as our Father also.84
Taking into account the preceding observations, we pass on to the
study of Mary’s influence in our adoption as children of God through
Jesus Christ, which is the same as studying her adoptive maternity
with respect to mankind. In order to avoid all types of equivocation
in this matter, let us remark that this motherhood of Mary's can
truly be called adoptive, because it concerns the assistance she gave

»47

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

in order to constitute us as adoptive children of God and to bestow
upon men the grace of adoption, which certainly depends on the
divine will. Therefore, this maternity is rightly attributed to Mary,
presupposing the consent of the heavenly Father, and since Mary’s
maternal cooperation belongs entirely to the order of grace, her ma­
ternity as regards us is entirely spiritual and supernatural.

Mary is the spiritual mother of men.
As in the natural order a woman is called and truly is a mother who
gives temporal life to her offspring, so Mary is truly our Mother in
tire supernatural order, remotely and radically, by giving birth to
Christ, who is the life of our souls, as He testified of Himself: "I
came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly” (John
10:10). But we treat here of a proximate and formal spiritual mother­
hood of the Blessed Virgin Mary', which refers directly, not to Christ,
the Author of life, but to men, who are to be vivified in and through
Christ.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius VII declared that what the
Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, foretold of herself under the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, namely, that all generations would call
her blessed, was verified not only in the early centuries of the Church,
when churches and altars were dedicated to her, but even in our own
days, when we see a constant increase in the piety of the faithful
toward “our most loving Mother and dispenser of all graces.”68
Pope Pius VIII calls Mary "our Mother, Mother of piety and
mercy, Mother of grace, to whom Christ, dying on the Cross, com­
mitted us so that as He pleaded to the Father for us, she would
plead to the Son.”5β Pope Gregory XVI repeats the same teaching
and uses the same expressions.67 Pope Leo XIII states: “O Virgin
most holy, as you are the Mother of Christ, so also are you the
Mother of all Christians”;68 and St. Pius X asks: "Is not Mary the
Mother of Christ? Then she is our Mother also.” 60
Pope Pius XI writes: "Since she brought forth the Redeemer of
the human race and of all of us, whom the Lord Christ has willed to
regard as brothers, she is our most beloved Mother.” 00 Tire same
Pontiff has previously declared that the sorrowful Virgin shared with
Christ in the work of human redemption and was constituted Mother
of men.01

thesis:

148

TITLES FROM MARY

S COOPERATION

Sacred Scripture. St. John says: "Now there were standing by the
Cross of Jesus His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas,
and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus, therefore, saw His Mother and the
disciple standing by, whom He loved, He said to His Mother,
‘Woman, behold thy son.’ Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold thy
Mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home"
(19:25-27).
There are usually four senses distinguished in the words of Scrip­
ture: literal, typical, consequent and accommodated. The literal or
historical sense of Scripture is that which is directly signified by the
words, according to the intention of the Holy Ghost. The typical or
spiritual sense is not signified immediately by the words, but by
means of persons or things, disposed by God in such wise that they
signify other persons or things. The person or thing taken as a sign
of the other is called the type or figure; the person or thing signified
is called the prototype or figured. Thus, St. Thomas says: “The
author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His mean­
ing, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things
themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by
words, this science has the property that the things signified by the
words have themselves also a signification. Therefore, that first sig­
nification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the
historical or literal. That significaton whereby things signified by
words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense,
which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.” 62
The consequent sense is that which is deduced from the words of
the Sacred Books. According to Cellini, what is deduced from the
words of Scripture will either go beyond the exact meaning of the
words themselves or it will not. If it goes beyond the exact meaning
(and this will be determined by philology, context and other circum­
stances), the sense is called a consequent sense but it is also an "im­
proper” sense of Scripture. If, on the other hand, the sense deduced
docs not go beyond the meaning of the words of Scripture, it is truly
a proper sense of Scripture and only improperly a consequent sense
because it is not a sense deduced from the words, since the words
themselves give that signification.03
The accommodated sense is that which is attributed to Sacred
Scripture by a certain analogy beyond the intention of the author.
149

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Some analogy or resemblance is necessary, for otherwise there would
1
be no accommodation or adaptation, but rather a corruption or dis­
tortion of the sense.
All exegetes and theologians agree in affirming that the words of
John 29:25-27, taken in their historical and literal sense, refer to
Mary and to St. John as private persons, inasmuch as Christ wished
by those words to provide for His Mother by commending her to the
care of St. John. However, the interpreters of Scripture do not agree
on the manner in which those words were directed to Mary and St.
John as public persons, in such wise that John, representing the
Church, would take the place of all Christians, who were commended
to Mary as her children.01 Sudrez, Murillo, Knabenbauer, Corluy,
Lagrange and Fillion maintain that those words can only be applied
in an accommodated sense to Mary’s maternity of all the faithful as
represented in St. John.05 Van Stenkiste affirms that the words refer
to Mary’s maternity with respect to all the faithful, but the words
are to be interpreted in a consequent sense, by a comparison with
St. John. Just as John, by having been Christ’s most faithful friend
and disciple, merited to receive Mary as his Mother, so also those
who are united to Christ participate in the same benefit.
The most common opinion among theologians is that the words
are to be understood in a spiritual or typical sense as applying to
Mary’s motherhood of all of the faithful. Tims, Mary was given to
all as their spiritual Mother, and St. John represented the whole
Church at that moment. Pope Leo XIII gives this interpretation and
appeals to the common mind of the Church: "The mystery of
Christ’s immense love for us is revealed with dazzling brilliance in
the fact that the dying Savior bequeathed His Mother to His disciple
John in the memorable testament: ‘Behold thy son.’ Now in John,
as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole
human race, and in the first rank are they who arc joined with Him
by faith.” 08
Christ’s own words seem to demonstrate it, because in speaking to
Mary from the Cross, He does not use the word Mother, but Woman,
as if to infer that Mary is that woman announced in Genesis, the
second Eve, who was to regenerate her children to the supernatural
life, as opposed to the first Eve, who was the cause of the death of
her children. Moreover, since Christ's words were addressed to His

150

TITLES FROM MARY'S COOPERATION

Mother and to St. John in the very act of consummating His sacrifice
in the public place of Calvary and before so many and varied wit­
nesses, it was not a matter of a private and particular commendation
of Mary to John, but a universal one, to all the faithful, in the person
of John.
Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. Fathers of the first three cen­
turies, such as St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, teach implicitly
and equivalently the spiritual maternity of the Virgin, calling Mary
the new Eve and stating that as the first Eve, by her disobedience,
was the cause of death, Mary, by her obedience, was the cause of life
for all those who live in grace. St. Irenaeus speaks most clearly when
he calls Christ "the Firstborn of the Virgin." That is, the first in
the new spiritual family engendered by Mary.*7
From the fourth century to our own day, the Fathers and theo­
logians expressly proclaim the spiritual motherhood of Mary, calling
her "Mother of the living,” “Mother of the members” (whose Head
is Christ), "Mother of grace,” “Mother of mercy,” “Mother of Chris­
tians," "spiritual Mother,” “our Mother.” 08
St. Bernard, although a most devoted son of Mary, never called
her the Mother of men, perhaps because he never found this title
mentioned in St. Ambrose or St. Augustine, whom he always followed
most closely. Nevertheless, he speaks of Mary as the Mother of mercy
and the Mother of charity and uses other titles which not only pre­
suppose the Virgin’s spiritual maternity, but present her as exercising
maternal offices for men.®“
The Mind of the Faithful. Pope Leo XIII states in Adjutricem
populi tirât the faithful have had recourse to Mary as if by instinct,
placing in her hands all their joys and sorrows and commending
themselves to her in all things like true children. Both publicly and
privately they have gone to her as their Mother, asking her for
spiritual and temporal goods.
Theological Argument. Like natural motherhood, spiritual mother­
hood is also the result of generation—the generation of children to
a supernatural life. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is truly the spiritual
Mother of Men, since she efficaciously cooperated in regenerating
them to a supernatural life by her initial assistance in the redemptive
Incarnation and by her continued cooperation in Redemption, whose
purpose was to regenerate mankind in the supernatural life.
>5»

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Moreover, the office of mother docs not end with the conception
and birth of children, but extends to the nourishing and help of the
same until their full development and maturity has been reached
So far as she can, the mother protects, preserves and defends her
children from the dangers which could harm them from without.
Hence, it is proper for Mary as Mother to feed, preserve and defend
her adopted children, that they may grow until Christ is formed in
them, attaining perfect manhood in Christ, for it is proper that the
one who gives existence to a thing should also give it the perfection
due to it.
Mary was constituted the spiritual Mother of men in·
choatively at the Annunciation and her maternity was consummated
by her compassion at the Cross.
Theologians speak differently on this question. Bainvel, deducing
Mary’s spiritual maternity from her consent to the Incarnation,
asserts that she became our Mother at the Annunciation and would
have been our Mother even if she had died before Jesus suffered on
Calvary.70 Sinibaldi distinguishes two moments, that of the con­
ception and that of childbirth, and maintains that Mary, conceiving
Christ at the Annunciation, jointly conceived His mystical body,
which would be bom on Calvary amid great suffering.71 Bittremicux
speaks of the double title by which Mary became our Mother: by
her compassion on Calvary and by Christ’s words on the Cross ad­
dressed to His Mother and to St. John.72
It would seem more proper to distinguish two periods in Mary’s
spiritual maternity. In the first, she became our Mother inchoatively;
in the second, by the sole title of her association with Christ in the
work of redemption, which took its origin in the Incarnation and
was completed on the Cross, she became our Mother perfectly.”
First Part. Magisterium of the Popes. St. Pius X writes: "For is
not Mary the Mother of Christ? Then she is our Mother also.
. . . Wherefore, in the same holy bosom of His most chaste Mother,
Christ took to Himself flesh, and united to Himself the spiritual
body formed by those who were to believe in Him. Hence Mary,
carrying the Savior within her, may be said to have carried also all
those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore,
all we who are united to Christ and, as the Apostle says, are ‘mem·

thesis:

‘5*

TITLES FROM M A R Y ’ S COOPERATION

hereof His body, of His flesh, and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30), have
issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head. Hence,
in a spiritual and mystical fashion, we arc ail children of Mary, and
she is Mother of us all.” 74
Pope Pius XI says: ‘‘We should mention another role of the
motherhood of Mary, which is still more pleasant and delightful.
Since she brought forth the Redeemer of the human race and of all
of us, whom the Lord Christ has willed to regard as brothers, she
is our most beloved Mother” (Rom. 8:29).78
The Fathers and Doctors. St. Ambrose, Salmerôn and Orosius
deduce Mary’s spiritual motherhood at the Annunciation from the
words of the Canticle of Canticles: ‘‘Thy belly is like a heap of
wheat, set about with lilies."78 Christ is the grain of wheat which
virtually contains many grains (the elect).77
St. Augustine: ‘‘[She is] spiritually the Mother, not indeed of our
Head, i.e, the Savior Himself, from whom rather she is spiritually
bom, but [the spiritual Mother] of His members, i.e., ourselves, be­
cause she cooperated in love toward the birth of faithful [Christians]
in the Church, who are members of that Head; bodily she is truly
the Mother of that Head."78
St. Albert the Great states that when the Holy Spirit overshadowed
the Blessed Virgin at the Annunciation, He produced the life and
vivification of all Christians. He likewise states that the Church was
constructed in the womb of the Virgin so that its members might be
united with her Son, the Head of the mystical body.70
St. Bernardine of Siena says that by her consent to the incarnation
of her Son, the Blessed Virgin sought and obtained the salvation of
the faithful, whom she then carried in her womb.80
Theological Argument. The Mother of Christ, the Head, is by
that very fact the Mother of the mystical body, which is composed of
the faithful. The reason is that the whole Christ is Christ as Head,
together with His members, according to the famous axiom of St.
Augustine: “The whole Christ, He and ourselves.” Yet, Mary is not
the Mother of Christ and of us in the same way, since she is the
natural Mother of God and our spiritual Mother. But Christ be­
came Head of the mystical body at His conception and for that
reason Mary became our spiritual Mother at the same instant.
Second Part. Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII stated that
53

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

as she is the Mother of Christ, the Blessed Virgin is likewise Mother
of all Christians, having engendered them on Calvary amid the
supreme suffering of the Redeemer."1
Pope Pius XI affirms: "The Virgin Mary was constituted Mother
of all men at the Cross of her Son." 82
Doctors and Theologians. St. Albert the Great states that when the
Mother of mercy offered herself to the Father in her greatest act of
mercy on Calvary and suffered the agony of having a sword of sorrow
pierce her heart, she became Christ’s consort in redemption and the |
Mother of regeneration. Through her spiritual fecundity she re­
generated all of us to eternal life in her Son.83
St. Antoninus says that as Christ engendered us in our spiritual
being by suffering on the Cross, so Mary, by her compassion with I
her suffering Son, gave birth to us spiritually amid great suffering.*1 I
St. Alphonsus Liguori writes: "The second occasion on which I
Mary became our spiritual Mother and brought us forth to the life
of grace was when she offered to the Eternal Father the life of her
beloved Son on Calvary.” 86
Theological Argument. Although Christ’s passion and death were
not absolutely necessary for the redemption of mankind, because
Christ, as a Person of infinite dignity, could have merited salvation
for all men in any way He wished, nevertheless, God decreed that
redemption and, consequently, the adoption of men as His sons,
would not be consummated except by Christ’s most cruel passion
and death on the Cross. Now, presupposing Mary’s association with
Christ the Redeemer, it was also decreed that Mary’s spiritual
motherhood and our adoptive filiation with respect to her would be
consummated at the Cross of our Lord, where Mary, standing near
her dying Son, engendered all Christians to supernatural life.
Moreover, Mary became the Mother of the members of Christ's
mystical body in a complete and perfect manner when Christ was
formally constituted as its Head. This was accomplished on the
Cross, where the redemption of all was completed, as the Apostle
says: “It is in this ‘will’ that we have been sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all'’ (Hcb. 10:10). Mary,
therefore, was totally constituted Mother of mankind on Calvary'.
That Christ became Head of the human race on the Cross is
manifest, because in tire mystical head, just as in a natural one,
*54

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

four things must be considered: i) the identity of nature with its
members; 2) the pre-eminence of the head over the members; 3)
the intimate union of head and members so as to form a whole
organism; 4) the vivifying influx which gives movement and life
to the members. The last-mentioned is the principal element, for
if it be halted, the members will necessarily die and will cease being
members of the mystical body. Now, it is certain that from the
beginning of the Incarnation Christ had a conformity of nature with
His members, principality and pre-eminence over them and a close
bond with them, because by sharing our human nature He became
most apt as Mediator and Head of the human race. Moreover, being
hypostatically united to God, Christ enjoyed principality among
all other men. But the vivifying influence over the members and the
intimate union that results from it through the communication of
supernatural life depended on the passion and death of Christ, since
the grace of headship became active through His merit and satis­
faction on the Cross. Actually, since no grace comes to us from
Christ the Head which does not also come to us from Christ the
Redeemer, the Apostle could say: “For by one offering He has per­
fected forever those who arc sanctified” (Heb. 10:14); and St. Jerome
could say: "He died that we might live.”
For that reason, Nicholas Cabasilas remarks that we were not
members of Christ until after Christ died and paid tlie price of our
ransom, thereby breaking the bonds of our servitude with the devil,
making us adopted sons and members of that blessed Head.·· And
Janssens says that Christ may be considered under three aspects:
God, the God-Man, and the God-Man the Redeemer. Under any
of these aspects God is the Head, but most formally He is our Head
under the third aspect.87
Thus are reconciled those opinions of the Fathers which at first
glance appear contrary. It is the common teaching of the Fathers
that the mystical body of Christ was constituted by the death of
the Redeemer on the Cross. Notwithstanding, they also maintain that
this mystical body took its origin in tlie Incarnation.88
Corollaries. From what has been said, it is concluded that Mary,
through her initial consent to the redemptive Incarnation, and
through her compassion at the foot of the Cross, is the spiritual
Mother of all, not only of the whole human race, but of each in*55

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

dividual man, of whom she is actually and simply Mother, inasmuch
as she obtains for them the grace by which they arc bom to the
supernatural life.
It also follows that it was most fitting that Christ, hanging on the
Cross, should proclaim Mary the Mother of men. In the act of
consummating the redemption, from which, with Mary's coopera­
tion, was bom the multitude of believers, or better still, the mystical
body of Christ, the Redeemer sanctioned and solemnly proclaimed
the spiritual motherhood of Mary.
All men, represented in John, are assigned to Mary as children
and are placed under the protection of her love and solicitude as
Mother. And thus Pope Leo XIII says: "She is gentle, exquisite in
tenderness, and of a limitless love and kindness. As such God gave
her to us. Having chosen her for the Mother of His only-begotten
Son, He taught her all a mother’s feeling that breathes nothing but

pardon and love.” 80
“No tongue is eloquent enough to put in words what every devout
soul feels, namely, how intense is the flame of affectionate and
active charity which glows in Mary’, in her who is truly our Mother,
not in a human way but through Christ.” 00
The extension of Mary’s spiritual motherhood.
Mary’s motherhood extends in some way to all men, as Pope Leo
XIII declares: “As such He proclaimed her from the Cross when He
entrusted to her care and love the whole of the race of man in the
person of His disciple John." 01 And truly, such is the connection
between Mary’s spiritual maternity and Christ as Head of the mysti­
cal body that Mary is the spiritual Mother of all who in any way
have Christ as their Head. But as Christ is not the Head of all men
in the same degree, neither does Mary's spiritual maternity extend
to all in the same way.
Man's natural body and Christ’s mystical body differ in this that
the members of the natural body are all actual members, while those
of the mystical body may be members either actually or potentially.
Thus, the members of the mystical body may be divided into five
categories: i ) primarily and principally Christ is Head of those who
are united to Him by glory; 2) He is Head of those who are united
to Him through actual charity, as are the souls in purgatory and the

thesis:

156

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

just souls on earth; 3) He is Head of those who are united to Him
by faith, that is to say, the sinners among the faithful who, although
separated from God by sin, are nevertheless united to Him through
the bond of faith; 4) He is Head of those who are united to Him
only in potency, which will eventually be reduced to act according
to divine predestination; 5) He is Head of those who are in potency
to be united with Him but de facto they will never be actual mem­
bers through faith and charity.
Besides these members, there is a sixth category of men and it
comprises those who are in the condition of eternal damnation to
the suffering of pain and loss or those who are in the condition of
loss only but without the pain.
Tire distinctions just given in regard to Christ's mystical body may
be applied to Mary also. Primarily and principally she is the actual
Mother of all the blessed in heaven, where the adoption as sons is
perfect. Thus, the Apostle says: ‘‘We ourselves groan within our­
selves, waiting for the adoption as sons, the redemption of our bod/’
(Rom. 8:24). Less perfectly, but still in a most excellent manner, the
Blessed Virgin is actually the Mother of all the just, for whom she
is constantly obtaining sanctity and justice. St. Albert the Great says
in this respect that the Blessed Virgin still nourishes Christ, formed
in the souls of many, and if the newly formed Christ is not nourished,
He will perish.02 To a much more imperfect degree Mary is also
actually the Mother of the faithful who are in sin, for although they
are dried branches, they are nevertheless united to Christ by the
bond of faith, which is the beginning of the spiritual life. Potentially,
Mary is the Mother of all those non-believers who, according to
divine predestination, will one day be converted to faith in Christ
and she is likewise the potential Mother of all non-believers who
will never be converted. But Mary is in no sense the Mother of the
condemned, for they can never share in the supernatural life of the
Head of the mystical body. Consequently, Mary is in some way
the Mother of all men, except the damned.03

»57

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Advocate and Patroness of the Human Race
The other element which is included in Mary’s title of mcdiatrii
is the office of advocate and patroness of the human race, close to
God in the dispensation of graces, an office she exercises in heaven
by her most powerful intercession. The Greek word for advocate
means one who is presented or called upon to give assistance and to
be prompt to help one in need or danger by means of counsel or
in any other way whatever. The word has been preserved in legal
terminology to signify one who comes to the aid of the defenders
of a case to give advice and counsel and to appeal to the judges. In
ancient times the advocate was distinguished from the patron in that
the latter was the speaker in the trial and the former assisted the
patron and instructed him in the law. Both offices are now performed
by the advocate alone. Therefore, the advocate is not only the speaker
or defender of the case, and the patron of the client, but he instructs
his client so that he may know how to plead his case and be success­
ful in it.
Mary, the Mother of God, is the advocate and patroness
of the human race.
Errors. Some Protestants raise severe objections to the titles of
advocate and patroness and similar titles applied to Mary. They say
that in attributing these offices to her, we make her equal to Christ
and, with obvious injustice, we lessen His titles and offices by dividing
them with the Virgin.
The Jansenists rule out the titles of advocate and patroness, as
can be seen in Admonitions IX and X of Widenfeldt. In these
Admonitions the author denies that those titles belong to Mary in
a proper manner, and at the same time he warns against titles that
are hyperbolic and improper.®*
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Boniface IX, Pope Pius VII and
Pope Pius XI all proclaim Mary as advocate.05
Sacred Scripture. In John 19:26, it is related that Christ, as He
was dying, said to His Mother in respect to John: “Woman, behold
thy son.” On this, Toledo comments: “Tire Lord entrusted all of
us to the care, protection and intercession of the Blessed Virgin,

thesis:

158

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

giving us confidence in having recourse to her in all things as our
Mother and dearest Lady.” 88
Fathers and Theologians. St. Irenaeus calls Mary the "advocate of
Eve,” and St. Ephrem calls her "the friendly advocate of sinners. ” M
"And who,” exclaims St. Germanus, "after thy Jesus, is as tenderly
solicitous for our welfare as thou art? Who defends us in the tempta­
tions with which we are afflicted as thou defendest us? Who, like
thee, undertakes to protect sinners, fighting, as it were, in their
behalf?" ·'
St. Bernard says that the Mother of the Judge and the Mother of
mercy has preceded us in order to take as her own the matter of
our salvation.08
“Honor as much as you can,” says St. Bonaventure, "that glorious
Queen, the Blessed Mother of the Lord, and have recourse to her
in all your needs as to a most secure refuge; take her as your advo­
cate; commend all things to her devoutly and confidently, because
she is the Mother of mercy; strive to pay her special reverence each
day.”100
Raymond Jourdain says: “Tire divine Mother, as Queen of all, is
the advocate of all. Mary, as our most loving advocate, herself offers
the prayers of her servants to God, ... for as the Son intercedes for
us with the Father, so does she intercede with the Son, and does not
cease to make interest with both for the great affair of our salvation,
and to obtain for us the graces we ask.”101
The Liturgy invokes Mary thus: "Turn then, most gracious advo­
cate, thine eyes of mercy toward us."102
Theological Argument. Mary is the most fitting person to be the
advocate and patroness of the human race in the matter of eternal
salvation. On the one hand, she enjoys ineffable power close to God,
from whom all good proceeds, and on the other, she has a great
anxiety for our salvation; she is always solicitous in obtaining the
necessary graces for those who work to obtain it; she distributes
those graces unceasingly; and she gives her assistance to anyone who
is in danger.
thesis: Mary exercises the office of advocate in heaven, inter­
ceding for men and obtaining for them the graces of salvation.
Errors. The Lutherans and Calvinists deny that the saints, includ-

>59

■

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

ing the Blessed Virgin, pray for us, although some have abandoned
their ancient prejudices on this question. They deny any such inter­
cession because they maintain that there is only one Mediator, Jesus
Christ, whose intercession and merit arc not only sufficient but super­
abundant.
Councils and Magisterium of the Popes. The Roman Council of
983 explicitly affirmed that we are assisted by the prayers and merits
of the saints.108 The Council of Trent declared: “The saints, who
are reigning with Christ, offer their prayers to God for mcn.”1M
This would apply likewise to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is Mother
of us all and Queen of all saints.
The Roman Catechism states that wc should constantly invoke
the Mother of mercy and advocate of the Christian people so that
she will pray for us sinners, and in our petitions we should ask her
assistance, since no one can deny, without the basest impiety, that
her merits before God are most eminent and she has a great desire
to help mankind.105
Pope Sixtus IV stated that it was fitting and obligatory for all the
faithful to thank Almighty God for the conception of the immacu­
late Virgin and to assist at the liturgy in her honor so that through
her intercession they might be better prepared to receive divine
grace.10®
Pope Pius VII says that Mary strives so earnestly to obtain divine
aid for us that just as God came to earth through her, so men rise
to heaven through her.107
Pope Leo XIII affirms that by reason of her lofty and perpetual
ministry, Mary must defend our cause.108
Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem speaks most clearly about
Mary’s intercession on our behalf when he addresses her in the follow­
ing words: "Never cease to intercede for us, thy unworthy servants,
but preserve us from condemnation by thy supplications until the end
of our life." loe
St. Germanus of Constantinople asks the Blessed Virgin: “Who
cares for the human race as you do, in the likeness of your onlybegotten Son? Who defends us in our miseries? Who exerts such
eSort in interceding for sinners as you do? You who enjoy the con­
fidence and power of Mother in regard to your Son, guard and defend
160

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

by youi intercession and petitions those who are condemned by
reason of their faults, who would not even dare to look up to heaven,
and free them from everlasting yearning."1,0
St. Bernard says: "Let us seek grace and let us seek it through
Marj', for she finds what she seeks and is never frustrated; the Son
will listen to His Mother and she will be heard out of His reverence
for her."111
The Liturgy. To all that has been said, we may add the testimony
of all ancient liturgies, Eastern and Western, in which the Church
asks for the forgiveness of sinners and for other favors through the
merits and intercession of the Blessed Virgin.
Theological Argument. Mary is the dispensatrix of all graces, graces
which she cannot confer except by interceding and expressing her
desire to Christ and, with Christ, to the Father. This intercession
of Mary’s is not opposed nor prejudicial to that of Christ, for Christ
is the principal intercessor, and Mary intercedes for us by a secondary
intercession.
thesis: Mary prays for us in heaven with explicit and formal
prayer.
Previous Observations. Prayer of petition or intercession may be
formal and explicit or interpretative. Formal and explicit prayer of
petition is the act by which the suppliant asks some favor of God.
Interpretative prayer is the subjective merit already existing in the
presence of God, or the manifestation or presentation of other merits
which pertain to the petitioner, by which God is moved to confer
gifts, without any actual petition.
It is well known that while He lived on earth, Christ prayed for
men, as is related in St. Luke: "Father, forgive them, for they do not
know what they are doing" (23:34), and in St. John: "I pray for
them; not for the world do I pray, but for those whom Thou hast
given Me" (17:9)· It is also certain that Christ, now glorious in
heaven, prays for us, as is stated in the first Epistle of St. John (“But
if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
just” [2:1]), the Epistle to the Hebrews ("But He, because He con­
tinues forever, has an everlasting priesthood. Therefore He is able
at all times to save those who come to God through Him, since He

161

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

lives always to make intercession for them" [7:24-25]) and in the
Epistle to the Romans ("Who shall make accusation against the
elect of God? It is God who justifies! Who shall condemn? It is
Jesus Christ who died; yes, and rose again, He who is at the right
hand of God, who also intercedes for us" [8:33-34]).
With regard to the manner of Christ's intercession for us in
heaven near the Father, it is the common teaching that He does
so interpretatively, displaying His most sacred humanity with His
wounds, merits and satisfactions, by which God is moved to bestow
His gifts to men. St. Gregory says: "For the only-begotten Son to
pray for men, it suffices for Him to show Himself as Man to the
Eternal Father.” 1,2
Theologians arc not agreed whether the glorified Christ intercedes
for us in a formal and explicit manner. Nevertheless, all agree on
the following: Christ, in order to pray for us in heaven, cannot make
use of external signs of humiliation.’18 The explicit prayer of Christ
in heaven, if it exists, cannot be a supplication as from an inferior
person imploring mercy, but would be an expression of the desire of
His holy soul for human salvation, so that God will fulfill it,
preserving always the all-powerful force of His divine will and the
equality of the divine Persons. If the foregoing imperfections are
removed, Suârez, Petau, Franzelin, Stentrup, Müller, Lercher, Paquet
and several other theologians admit the existence of formal and
explicit prayer in the glorified Christ. On the other hand, Somnio,
Medina, Vâzquez, Thomassin and De la Taille defend interpretative
prayer exclusively.
It is certain that Mary intercedes for us in heaven with interpreta­
tive prayer or intercession. In support of this, we have the statements
of St. Ephrem, Arnold of Chartres and others.114 But we are here
treating principally of the explicit and formal prayer with which
Mary intercedes to God for us.
The Fathers. Theophilus Alexandrinus states that the prayers of
His Mother are a pleasure to the Son, because He desires to grant all
that is granted on her account, as a recompense for the favor she did
to Him in giving Him His body.116
St. Bernard: “Speak, O Lady, for thy Son hcareth thee, and what­
ever thou askest thou wilt obtain." 110
162

TITLES FROM

MARY S COOPERATION

The Liturgy. In the Collect of the Mass of the Blessed Virgin for
Saturdays we pray: "Grant us, Thy servants, . . . and by the glorious
intercession of the blessed Mary ever Virgin. . .
We also have a
practice in the Church of answering in the litanies: Pray for us,
asking Mary to present our needs and to pray and intercede continu­
ally to God for us.
Theological Argument. Mary is our advocate, and it is proper to
the office of an advocate to intercede for clients. This the Blessed
Virgin accomplishes with prayer that is not only interpretative, but
also actual and explicit. First, there is no reason whatever why ex­
plicit prayer should be improper to Mary, since it neither presupposes
nor requires new merits, which she cannot acquire in the state of
glory. Secondly, there is no detriment to the power she has in heaven,
because it would not require omnipotence simpliciter but only a
suppliant omnipotence for the fulfillment of her petition by God.
Thirdly, Mary’s prayer is not futile because she knows in advance
whether a thing asked for in prayer has already been denied or
granted in the divine decree, since the providence of God pre-ordains
things in such a manner that some will succeed independent of our
prayers while others will happen with dependence on prayer. Thus,
Mary’s explicit petitions on our behalf do produce the effects which
are sought.’17
thesis: The prayer of the Mother of God is more efficacious and
powerful than the prayers of all the saints together.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius VII says that the prayers
of the blessed depend solely on the divine benignity, but the prayers
of Mary rest on her maternal rights.118
Pope Leo XIII also taught that the intercession of our blessed
Lady is of a much higher order than is that of all the other saints.
These are his words: "Now, of all the blessed in heaven, who can
compare with the august Mother of God in obtaining grace? Who
sees more clearly in the Eternal Word what troubles oppress us, what
arc our needs? Who is allowed more power in moving God? Who
can compare with her in maternal affection? We do not pray to the
blessed in the same way as to God, for we ask the Holy Trinity to
have mercy on us. but we ask the saints to pray for us. Yet our
i63

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common
with our worship of God, so that the Church even addresses to her
the words with which we pray to God: 'Have mercy on sinners."’’>·
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem praises Mary’s inter­
cession as surpassing that of all the saints by saying that she has the
greatest access to Him who was born of her.120
St. Peter Damian: "To have recourse to her is the greatest hope,
since among all the senators in the heavenly curia, she has the first
place next to God." 121
St. Anselm says that the world has good and even excellent helpers,
apostles, patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, confessors and virgins to
whom one can address his prayer, but Mary is the best and most
excellent of all.122
Richard of St. Victor: "If the angels and holy souls have a care
for sinners and help them by their merits and prayers, we must be­
lieve that the Blessed Virgin can do as much in this regard as those
creatures and much more than they.” 123
Richard of St. Lawrence says that whereas the angels and saints
can petition God and be heard by Him, Mary can, as His Mother,
command her Son.124
St. Antoninus explains that the petitions of the saints rely on the
mercy of God, but those of Mary arc based on divine grace, natural
law and the justice of the Gospel. The reason is that a son is not only
bound to listen to his parents, but to obey them. Therefore, Mary's
intercession is the most exalted, as was prefigured in the words of
Solomon to Bcthsabee: “My mother, ask; for I must not turn away
thy face” (III Kings 2:20).128
Theological Argument. St. Thomas explains that the greater and
more perfect the charity of the saints in heaven, the more they pray
for wayfarers on earth, since the latter can be helped by their prayers;
and the more closely they are united to God, the more efficacious are
their prayers.’28 Now, Mary surpasses all the saints in charity and is
more closely united to God than they, for they are only servants
and adopted children of God, while she is the Mother of God, and
so very close to God, that she is, as it were, inscribed in the divine
family. That being the case, Sudrez reasonably concludes that the
Blessed Virgin surpasses in power and efficacy of intercession not
only each of the saints individually, but the whole heavenly court
164

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

: So great is Mary's power of intercession that it is rigjitly
called an omnipotent supplication.
Previous Observations. From the wording of the thesis it is evident
that we are not speaking of omnipotence simpliciter, for that is
proper to God alone. Therefore, Mary’s power is only morally omnip­
otent, that is, omnipotent by way of impétration, for she obtains
for us the graces and other favors which she begs for us. Keeping
this in mind, it is easy to interpret correctly the meaning of the
formulas frequently used in order to extol Mary’s power of inter­
cession, in which she is represented as praying in such a way that, as
she approaches her Son, she seems not to beg, but to command.
These expressions cannot be taken too rigorously, however, for they
are used in a metaphorical and not in a strict sense.128 Hence, it
cannot be said that Mary commands God, but that by a singular
privilege, her prayers and desires possess an efficacy similar to that
of a command.
This powerful impétration of Mary must be placed within the
limits of her exalted mediation, since it cannot surpass the power of
the humanity of Christ, whose consort she is in the work of redemp­
tion. And the power of Christ, which accomplished so many mar­
velous supernatural and preternatural works, was directed to the
purpose of the Incarnation, which is to reestablish all things that
are in heaven and on earth.120
Lastly, it is well to consider that Mary’s power of intercession,
which cannot be frustrated, refers to those things which Mary asks
in an absolute way, in conformity with her rational will, of which
we shall speak later.
Errors, lire Jansenists, as usual, oppose the eulogies with which
the Fathers and theologians enthusiastically praise the power and
efficacy of Mary’s intercession, and they reject that beautiful formula
in which Mary is acclaimed as omnipotent suppliant, as seen in
VVidcnfeldt’s X Admonition.130
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Pius IX favors this doctrine when
he says that Mary, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful
mediatrix and conciliatrix in the whole world. He adds: “Under her
guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection,
nothing is to be feared, nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing
toward us a truly motherly affection and taking care of the work of
thesis

165

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And,
since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and
earth, and is exalted above all the other choirs of angels and saints,
and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus
Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious man­
ner. What she petitions, she obtains. Her pleas can never be un­
heard.” 181
Pope Leo XIII says: “Mary is this glorious intermediary. She is
the might}' Mother of God." 182 “And truly the immaculate Virgin,
chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him
in the work of man’s salvation, has a favor and power with her Son
greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained or

ever can obtain." 188
St. Pius X writes: “We know, indeed, from experience that such
prayer, bom of charity and trust in the Virgin, has never been
vain."184
In a letter addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Maglionc (April
15, 1940), Pope Pius XII, so greatly grieved over the innumerable
and grave evils of the war in which all of Europe was involved, ex­
horted all the faithful, particularly the children and youth, to direct
their prayers to Mary’s intercession in obtaining, as soon as possible,
the end of so horrible a war, and a return of peace.
The Fathers and Theologians. It will suffice to quote two of the
many Fathers and theologians, among whom are St. Ephrem, St.
Germanus of Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Euthymius,
St. Peter Damian, St. Anselm, Eadmcr, Raymond Jourdain, George
of Nicomedia, Adam of Persenia, and Abbot Godfrey.130
Germanus of Constantinople: “For thou, who by thy maternal
authority hast great power with God, dost obtain the very great
grace of reconciliation even for those who have been guilty of grievous
crimes. It is impossible that thou shouldst not be graciously heard;
for God in all things complies with thy wishes as being those of his
true and spotless Mother.” 188
Abbot Godfrey: “The other saints pray to God and, by praying,
obtain what they ask, but the glorious Virgin Mary, though she surely
prays to Him as God and Lord, nevertheless, since as man He was
bom of her, we piously believe that she approaches Him with a
certain command as His Mother and obtains what she seeks.” 181
166

■

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

The Common Belief of the Faithful. In every necessity the Chris­
tian people have most confidently had recourse to Mary’s protection,
for they believed that she was most powerful in obtaining what they
desired from God. This is evident, for example, in the widespread
recitation of the Memorare: “Remember, O most glorious Virgin
Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protec­
tion, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession, was left unaided.”
Further evidence is found in the universal devotion to Our Lady of
Perpetual Help.
Theological Argument. It is most fitting that the Blessed Virgin
should possess such great power of intercession, and that by a double
title: by reason of her divine maternity and by reason of her associa­
tion in the work of redemption.
1) By reason of her divine maternity. Mary, by reason of her divine
maternity, acquired new and marvelous relations with God the
Father. She can claim one and the same Son with the Father, though
she does not bear the same relation to her divine Son as does God
the Father. He is bom of the Father from all eternity; He was bom
of Mary in time. The Father generated His Son according to His
divine nature; Mary gave birth to Him according to His human
nature. Hence, between Mary and God the Father there exists a
certain parental unity and juridical partnership. Similarly, she has
a special relationship with the Holy Spirit, hy whose operation she
conceived Christ the Savior, God and man. Therefore, she is rightly
called the consort of the Father in the generation of the Son and
the spouse of the Holy Spirit as well as His sanctuary and temple.
It is evident from these titles that Mary’s prayers must be most
powerful and efficacious.
Moreover, as the true Mother of Christ, Mary works with her
Son, interceding for us by maternal right. And this right calls forth
an obligation in Christ to grant what she asks. By the very fact that
she gave Christ the flesh with which He was invested, Mary became
the creditor of her Son and her Son became debtor of His Mother.
It is therefore her unique privilege that God is obligated to her in
this respect, but is obliged to the rest of the saints at most by virtue
of some promise.188 We say that Christ is obligated to His Mother
antecedent to any promise because she gave Him His existence as
man, and while the fullness of grace she received was through the
167

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

merits of Christ (and under this aspect the Mother is indebted to
the Son), He nevertheless delights in answering her prayers because
in that way He repays her for the favor she did Him in giving Him
His body.”·
Again, Mary', the Mother of Christ, has a right to Ilis love, since
children owe their parents love as well as honor and respect. Now,
this right of Mary’s to the love of her Son is also, in a certain way,
a right to having her prayers heard and her desires fulfilled, as Bossuet
points out when he says that Christ’s love for Mary prompts Him
to grant her requests for others.”0
The divine maternity is the root of all of Mary’s prerogatives and,
in the first place, of her grace and ardent charity, with the result
that, after Christ, she is the standard-bearer in divine love, loving
God much more than all the saints together. Therefore, as her love
is the most intense, so also is her power of impétration.141
2) By reason of her association in the work of redemption. As
Christ’s partner in the work of human redemption, the Blessed
Virgin merited for us in her way all that Christ merited for us in
His way. Now, if Christ’s intercession, which is founded on His
condign merits of redemption, requires by right that He obtain
what He asks, so Mary’s intercession, based on her merits, has a right
to be granted, and her clients should receive what she asks for them.

Whether Mary’s prayer was and is always heard.
At first glance it would seem that Mary's prayer is always heard,
for her omnipotent supplication should always obtain what it asks.
But we have already implied that Mary’s intercession, which cannot
be frustrated, must be restricted to those things she petitions in an
absolute manner, in conformity with the rational will.
In the Blessed Virgin we must distinguish a twofold will: the
essential will and the will by participation. The first is the inclination
to the good as apprehended by reason or the intellect; the second,
which is also called the will of sensuality, is the sensitive appetite,
as subject to reason.142 The essential or rational will is a single
potency, but in relation to its acts it is divided into the will of nature
(per modum naturae) and the will of reason (per modum rationis).
The will of nature is the principle of the movements which are con­
cerned with the body needs or instincts or with objects considered

thesis:

168

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

as harmful or beneficial. The will of reason is the principle of deliber­
ate movements and inclinations or those which follow the consider­
ation of all the circumstances and relations of an object with respect
to the good of the end.143 The will of nature should be called
velleity or will secundum quid; the will of reason is the will simpliciter
or absolutely.
It is not unbecoming to say that the prayer of the Blessed Virgin
according to the will of nature or sensitive appetite could go un­
answered. For it is evident that she could pray in this manner, pre­
senting to God what was in conformity with her sensitive appetite,
for example, asking, as did Christ, that if it were possible, the chalice
of her maternal compassion might pass, for it is proper to her as
Mother that her sensitive appetite should feel aversion for the pas­
sion of her Son. By natural instinct we are inclined to that which
is good and pleasing, but repelled by that which is evil or harmful.
There is nothing unworthy of Mary in this, but it is in complete
harmony with Christ, for in his prayer in Gethsemane Christ gave
expression to the sensitive will and thereby demonstrated that He
had a true human nature. But He subjected His lower appetite to
His rational will and that, in turn, to the will of His Father. So also,
the Blessed Virgin, truly possessing human nature with its natural
instincts, could will, according to the sensitive appetite, something
not willed by God, but she submitted to the divine will, as Christ
did when He said: “Yet not My will but Thine be done” (Luke
22:42).
The prayer of Mary according to her rational will is always heard.
A prayer is said to be heard when the rational will of the one praying
is fulfilled. Therefore, Mary’s prayer is always heard, because her
rational will always obtains complete results. The reason is that Mary
never wills anything by her rational will unless it is in accord with
the divine will.144
thesis: Whether Mary intercedes for the saints in heaven.
It is certain that the souls of all the blessed in heaven have at­
tained salvation through the intercession and with the help of the
Blessed Virgin. This we have on the testimony of St. Ephrem, St.
Germanus of Constantinople and Denis the Carthusian, who says:
"Who is there that is saved? Who is there that reigns in heaven?”

169

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

And he answers, "They are certainly saved and reign in heaven for
whom this Queen of mercy intercedes.” 145
Truly, every grace that is bestowed on man is granted through the
intercession of Mary', and since eternal life is grace, and indeed the
coronation of grace, or the ultimate flowering of which grace is
the seed (I John 3:9), it follows that salvation is due to her prayers.
For that reason, the Church exclaims at Lauds on the feast of the
Seven Dolors: "And when I must leave this world, grant me, 0
Christ, the palm of victory through the prayers of Thy Mother."
But once the saints and blessed enjoy the eternal happiness of
heaven, Mary does not ask any graces for them whatever. In the first
place, they are not in need of anything, for they are filled with the
delights of the house of God (Ps. 35:9). So St. Augustine says:
"In heaven there is no reason to pray but only to praise. And why
no reason to pray? Because nothing is lacking. What we believe
here, we see there; what we hope for here, we possess there; and
what we ask for here, we receive there." 148 Secondly, the essential
glory and degree of grace of the saints in heaven cannot be increased
by anyone’s prayers, for death has ended the time of meriting, and
God has ordained that each will attain a definite degree of glory
according to his merits. Thus the Apostle says: “Each will receive his
own reward according to his labor” (I Cor. 3:8).
However, Mary can contribute in some way by her prayers to the
accidental glory of the blessed by granting them greater honor,
reverence and confidence on the part of the faithful who have re­
course to them. Thus, the angels and saints, desirous as they are for
the salvation of men, will ask Mary to have pity on us or they will
bring the petitions of their clients to her and ask her to intervene.
In this way the efficacious intercession of Mary adds greater efficacy
to the prayers of the saints and brings greater glory to them from the
faithful.147

Whether Mary prays for the souls in purgatory.
It is certain that the blessed in heaven pray for the souls in purga­
tory. St. Augustine attests to this fact when he says that it is bene­
ficial to the dead to be buried in the basilicas of the martyrs, so that
when anyone remembers the dead person, he will also remember the
martyr and will recommend the departed to the prayers and protec-

thesis:

170

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

tion of the martyr.148 Moreover, the Church asks the assistance of
the blessed in public prayers for the departed: "Come to her (or his)
assistance, all ye saints of God; meet her (or him), all ye angels of
God";149 "Almighty and everlasting God, who hast dominion over
the living and the dead, and art merciful to all who Thou foreknowest shall be Thine by faith and good works, we humbly beseech
Tliec, that they for whom we intend to pour forth our prayers,
whether this present world still detain them in the flesh, or the world
to come hath already received them out of their bodies, may through
the intercession of all Thy saints, by the clemency of Thy goodness,
obtain the remission of all their sins.” 100 Lastly, we can refer to
the dogma of the communion of saints or the union which exists
between the members of the universal Church of Christ, militant,
suffering and triumphant, to form one mystical body whose Head
is Christ.1®1
It is easy to deduce from all this that Mary prays for the souls in
purgatory. The Church confirms it in the following prayer in the
Mass for the dead: "O God, who dost grant forgiveness and desire
the salvation of mankind; we beseech Thee in Thy mercy to grant
that the brethren of our congregation, their relatives and benefactors
who have passed out of this life, may partake of everlasting bliss
by the intercession of blessed Mary ever Virgin and of all Thy
saints." 1,2 Moreover, the argument based on the communion of
saints has special application to the Blessed Virgin. She is not only
the principal member of the mystical body of Christ, but also the
Mother of the Head and members, and the illustrious consort of
Christ in the redemption of the members of that body, whose in­
corporation will ultimately be completed and consummated in
heaven. Hence, Mary is always solicitous to gather together in
heaven all the souls in purgatoiy.
thesis: In what ways Mary exercises her intercession for the
souls in purgatory.
It is a common opinion among theologians that Mary’s intercession
for the souls in purgatory can be exercised in these four ways: i)
by asking Christ to apply to those souls from His infinite satisfaction
whatever is necessary to free them from their sufferings; a) by apply­
ing or presenting to God out of the merits and satisfactions of her

*7>

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

mortal life what is needed to free the souls from purgatory; 3) by
asking Christ, as His Mother, to give grace and assistance to those
who are still living, so that they may be moved frequently to offer
suffrages and satisfactions for the souls in purgatory; 4) by using het
powerful intercession so that God will apply to these souls the
suffrages intended by the faithful for souls who do not need them
because they are already in heaven, or who cannot benefit by them,
because they have been condemned for all eternity.
But theologians are not agreed in affirming whether the prayer
or intercession of Mary is sufficient of itself to assist and to free the
souls in purgatory. In the first place, it must be presupposed that
prayers which arc at once impctratory and satisfactory, as arc those
of wayfarers, can benefit the souls in purgatory in the remission of
their punishment. Secondly, prayers that arc simply impctratory, as
are those of the blessed, are also useful for those souls. Although they
have no satisfactory value, they can at least ask that the passion of
Christ and the sufferings of His saints be applied to the souls in
purgatory' to that end. Hence, the controversy revolves around the
following question: Whether God, by the impctratory power of
prayer, freely and out of pure mercy, without any intervention of
the satisfaction of Christ, remits the debt of the souls in purgatory
in view of those prayers of impétration applied to the souls in purga­
tory to satisfy divine justice.
Opinions. Theophilus Raynaud denies that solely the prayers of
the Blessed Virgin, or those of the rest of the blessed, could be
sufficient to obtain the effect indicated. He goes on to say that
Mary can obtain that the faithful on earth will be moved to pray
for the souls in purgatory or that they be alleviated from the common
treasury of the Church.153
Although Suarez says that the opinion which favors the sufficiency
of the merely impctratory prayer of Mary, and even of wayfarers,
in helping the souls in purgatory, is a pious, probable, and perhaps
true opinion, he is inclined to the opposite view. His reason is that
according to the ordinary law of God, no one can obtain the remis­
sion of punishment for himself, since it is the law of God that the
sinner must pay his own debt. Much less, then, can he impetrate it
for others.104
On the other hand, Peter of Palude affirms that the intercession of
172

TITLES FROM MARY'S COOPERATION

the saints is always profitable to us, for while it is true that they are
no longer in the condition of meriting and of satisfying, they are in
the state of impctrating and of obtaining favors for us through the
liberality of God, to whom they pray and to whom they are most
acceptable.155 Durandus also says that the love of charity among the
faithful is of such value in the sight of God that one can free others
of all or part of their punishment, by praying or making satisfaction.
The first method obtains the remission of punishment through the
liberality of God, to whom he prays.15®
Although Mary’s power of intercession seems to demand the gra­
tuitous remission of the sufferings of purgatory, we find in opposition
to it the general law whereby after this life it is not grace that oper­
ates, but justice. Thus, Suarez says that it is the law of justice and
divine providence that the sinner be justly punished, and the same
law establishes the ordinary manner of punishment which a man
is to receive.157 Actually, this question is of little practical importance,
since Mary always has at her disposal the inexhaustible treasury of
satisfactions, to which she unites her prayers, and thus she can satisfy
the justice of God and alleviate the souls in purgatory. She can always
offer, together with her prayers, her own satisfactions, those of Christ,
and those of the saints.158
Corollary. Since Mary’s love for the souls in purgatory is so great,
it must be most pleasing to her when her clients place in her hands,
and especially if they do so under a vow in favor of the souls in
purgatory, all their works of satisfaction (except sacramental satis­
faction), all the indulgences they can gain, and all the suffrages which
will come to them after their death, that she may apply them to the
souls in purgatory according to her own good pleasure. In this way
they are sure of securing the greater glory of God, since Mary’s will
is never separated from this greater divine glory. Moreover, those
gifts become more pleasing in the hands of the Blessed Virgin, so
that what we cannot obtain alone by our own efforts, can be obtained
through her intercession. And wc need not fear that anything will
be lacking to us in purgatory because of what we have offered to Mary
for those souls, for that act of charity (which is called heroic) is most
meritorious. Further, there is no reason to think that so pious and
loving a Mother would then neglect us or that she would not free
us from our sufferings when we had previously given away our own

*73

■

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

satisfactory merits out of love for her.,B® Therefore, the faithful who
have made such an excellent gift should reasonably trust that Mary
will shorten their stay in purgatory and increase their eternal reward
in heaven.
: Whether Mary's intercession extends to hell.
It is evident that Mary, by her prayers, is able to save men from
hell by impetrating for them, before their death, the help of grace
so that they may pass from the state of sin to that of sanctifying
grace. In this sense St. Germanus of Constantinople states that Mary
frees men from eternal punishment, and St. Bernard says: "By thee
was hell emptied, and heaven was filled; through thee eternal life
is given to many miserable creatures who deserved eternal death."1M
But in this question we are asking about the liberation of men
from the punishment of hell after death; that is, of those who leave
this world in mortal sin and thus deserve eternal punishment. We
must remember that according to Catholic doctrine, those adults
who die in mortal sin are deserving of eternal damnation.1·1 Accord­
ing to God’s ordinary law, this condemnation is imposed at the par­
ticular judgment, and is eternally immutable. The words "according
to God’s ordinary law,” some theologians maintain, do not totally
preclude extraordinary miraculous exceptions outside the common
rule of divine justice.
Hie proposed question can have a double meaning. It may refer
to those who have died in mortal sin but have not yet been consigned
to hell because the divine sentence has been held in abeyance for
some reason or other; or it may refer to those who have died and are
already suffering the pains of hell. In the first instance, the possibility
of which cannot be denied, the Blessed Virgin could intercede in
behalf of those who are deserving of eternal punishment, asking God
not to impose on them the definitive sentence of damnation.
Van Ketwigh maintains that it may piously be held that Mary's
unlimited power of intercession may prevail on God to make a special
act of His will regarding some who died in mortal sin and were
deserving of hell.102 Bartmann, on the other hand, explicitly denies
that this has ever happened, and brands all such stories as purely
legendary. However, Bartmann states that St. Thomas (and after
him all later theology), in referring to the testimony by St. Gregory

thesis

*74

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

the Great to the effect that Trajan was delivered from hell, admitted
that it is possible that God, after a certain time, could put a deceased
person in a new situation of testing in which he could merit. In such
cases, says St. Thomas, the soul had not been condemned to hell
definitively.103 That is why, according to Bartmann at least, Pope
Benedict XII was careful to use the expression "secundum Dei
ordinationem communem' (according to God’s ordinary law) when
referring to those who are deserving of hell because they died in
mortal sin.’®4
Other theologians, although they judge as false or doubtful numer­
ous accounts by medieval authors on the liberation of souls from the
punishments of hell,105 nevertheless are willing to accept as authentic
certain ancient testimonies from the lives of St. Gregory the Great,
St. Silvenus, Sulpicius Severus, St. Martin of Tours, St. Maximin
and St. Agnes, as well as more recent testimonies from the lives of
the saints, such as St. Francis Xavier. To justify their position, they
maintain that certain condemned souls have been preserved from
hell through the prayers of the saints and they were therefore
exempted from the ordinary law.100 And having admitted that some
departed souls worthy of eternal damnation were snatched from hell
by the prayers of the saints, these theologians conclude that the same
effect can be attained through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin.
As St. Anselm says to Mary: “No one will petition if you are silent;
all will petition if you intercede.” 107
On a question so serious and so beset with difficulties, both theo­
logical and historical, it seems better to say that perhaps in some cases
there was only apparent death and not true death (Trombelli and
Terrien),108 and in other cases there was a temporary and extra­
ordinary separation of soul and body, by an extraordinary act of
providence, and that since the souls were to return to this life, they
were not the object of God’s judicial sentence.10’
As regards the souls of those who have been condemned to hell
by God’s judgment, some few theologians, after due precaution, have
maintained that some of these souls have been taken from hell,
where they suffered for a long time, and returned to life to do
penance. This was effected, they say, by a conditioned decree by
God; namely, that they were to remain in hell unless Mary interceded
for them, or they were consigned to hell for a definite period until

*75

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mary obtained their release.110 But this opinion is not based on
any historical fact whatever and it also is contrary to sound theology.
There is no historical or authentic fact to prove that any souls
actually condemned to hell have ever left it through the prayers of
the saints or of the Blessed Virgin. Neither is it possible that those
confined to hell could ever leave it, nor is there any reason whatever
to break the bonds which the immutable sentence of the most just
Judge have established as indissoluble and eternal, lire punishments
of hell are eternal, and the person sentenced there is there forever.
For this we have the testimony of St. Gregory the Great, St. Hilary
of Poitiers and St. Bernard.’” Further, at Matins, in the Office of
the Dead, the Church in her sacred liturgy chants: “Because in hell
there is no redemption, have mercy on me, O God, and save me."
: It cannot be admitted that the essential punishment of
the damned can be alleviated at any time through Mary’s interces­
sion.
Previous Observations. The pains of hell could be alleviated im­
properly and properly. St. Thomas, and with him many theologians,
admits alleviation of the pains of hell in an improper sense, so far as
God, on establishing the due punishment for the sin, may punish
a soul less than it deserves. “Even in the damnation of the reprobate,
mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat
alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved.” 112 St. Francis de
Sales, in his Treatise on the Love of God (IV, c. i), says that even
eternal punishment is less than one’s sins deserve. This improper
alleviation or mitigation must be attributed in the first place to
divine mercy, and secondly to the intercession and patronage of
Mary.1”
But we are treating of the alleviation of the punishments of hell in
the proper sense, so far as it denotes a mitigation or reduction of the
punishment which God, as a just Judge and avenger of sin, has de­
creed for a soul for all eternity. Alleviation can refer to the punish­
ment due to unforgiven venial sins, to venial and mortal sins which
have been forgiven in regard to the guilt but not expiated with regard
to the punishment, or to mortal sins which were not forgiven before
death. Tlie punishment due to venial and mortal sins already forgiven

thesis

176

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

is in a certain way, accidental; the punishment due to unforgiven
mortal sin is essential. It is possible that venial or mortal sin already
forgiven in life with regard to the sin, could be punished in hell by
a temporal and not an eternal punishment. If this were so, when
the punishment for those sins is completed, the suffering of the
damned would be lessened. However, St. Thomas is opposed to this
opinion, for he says that the punishments due to unforgiven venial
sin and to mortal and venial sins which are forgiven only in regard
to the guilt, must last forever, not by reason of the sins themselves,
but by reason of the condition of the subject. The soul in hell lacks
grace and charity, and is therefore an enemy of God. As such, it
cannot obtain that the offering of its suffering be acceptable to God
either by way of satisfaction or compensation. Hence, the punish­
ment, though of itself temporal, becomes eternal by reason of the
state of the reprobate as "a wound on the arm of a corpse will never
heal, not because the wound is mortal, but because it is inflicted
on a dead body.” 174 Therefore, the question concerns essential pun­
ishment, or that which is due to unforgiven mortal sin.
Errors. In ancient times an opinion was held on this question and
it has always had defenders throughout the centuries. In the time
of St. Augustine, as he himself states, some maintained that the
eternal fire would bum only those who by their sins had not per­
formed the required acts of chant}', in conformity with what St.
James says in his Epistle (2:13): "For judgment is without mercy
to him who has not shown mercy.” Therefore, he who had mercy,
although he did not correct his evil ways, but lived perversely in the
midst of his acts of charity, will be judged with mercy, so that he
will not be completely damned or, after some time, he will be freed
from ultimate condemnation. 175
Some Scholastics, like Gilbert de la Porrée, whom St. Thomas
cites,178 maintain that a successive alleviation of the pains of hell is
possible through the suffrages of the faithful. Petau also inclines to
this opinion, at least to the extent that he says that one cannot,
without rashness, condemn this opinion, upon which nothing certain
has been decreed by the Church, although it is far from the common
belief of the faithful.177 Emery and Ventura do not differ much from
this opinion.178 Finally, in our days, Getino defended alleviation of
»77

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

the pain of sense so strongly that in some of the condemned he re­
duced it to a minimum, and in others he extinguished it almost
entirely.1’·
This opinion on the alleviation of the pain of hell, if it defends
a progressive diminution of punishment in such a way that at some
time the punishment will be extinguished or something similar, is
heretical. If it defends the successive diminution through a certain
fixed and universal law, so that the punishment is always reduced
without end, it is false, rash, and scandalous. Finally, if it be said that
through the divine mercy the lot of the damned is made more
bearable, either at fixed times, as in the commemoration of the Resur­
rection of our Lord (as was held by Prudentius 180), or through the
suffrages offered in the Church, or successively through the divine
goodness, then this teaching cannot be tolerated.181
Sacred Scripture. We read in the Apocalypse (14:11): "And the
smoke of their torments goes up forever and ever; and they rest
neither day nor night, they who have worshipped the beast and its
image, and anyone who receives the mark of its name." When the
rich man was condemned to hell, he prayed: "Father Abraham, have
pity on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and
cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame,” and Abraham
replied: "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime hast received good
things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now here he is
comforted whereas thou art tormented” (Luke 16:24-25). Thus, the
rich man, buried in hell, was denied a drop of water to alleviate his
torment, and St. John Chrysostom concludes: "Not even with the
tip of a finger does anyone give them (the reprobate) relief.” 182
The Fathers. St. Cyprian says of the torments of the condemned
that there is no possible source from which relief can come for their
sufferings and that those sufferings will never end.183 St. Augustine
asks: “Who would dare to say that the suffering to which one is
condemned must be mitigated or must have certain intervals, when
that rich man could not obtain even a drop of water?” 184 St. Bernard
maintains that the condemned will never know any relief but will
be tormented forever in hell, nor will they ever be freed from that
place where the tormentor never wearies and the tormented never
dies.185
The Practice of the Church. Tire Church has never been accus-

178

TITLES

FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

tomed to pray for the damned nor to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass
for them. As St. Augustine points out, Mass is offered for the mem­
bers of the mystical body.'8"
The Theologians. It should be sufficient to cite the following
words of St. Thomas: "Wherefore their punishment cannot be
diminished as neither can the glory of the saints be increased as to
the essential reward.” 187
Theological Argument. Any assistance from Mary which would
alleviate the torments of the damned would be in opposition to their
impenitence and to the ordination of the divine will, which is all­
merciful but also infinitely just.
Secondly, none of the punishment for sin can be remitted as long
as the guilt remains. So, St. Thomas states: “Whereas the just, while
in the flesh, look to God as the end of all their deeds and desires, the
wicked look to an unlawful end which turns them away from God.
Now the separated souls of the just will adhere unchangeably to
God as the end to which they looked in this life. Therefore the souls
of the wicked will adhere unchangeably to the end which they have
chosen for themselves. Hence, as the will of the just will be un­
changeable to evil, so the will of the wicked will be unchangeable
to the good." 188
Lastly, the works of God are ordained and accommodated to the
condition of things and of men. There is a time of mercy and a time
of justice. The former ends with earthly life, together with the graces
with which God calls sinners to repentance; the latter follows im­
mediately. Thus, St. John Chrysostom says that God is gracious, but
He is also a most just Judge. He pardons sinners, but He also rewards
each one according to his works. He overlooks iniquity and erases
sins, but He also examines them. How can these two contrary things
be reconciled? They are not contraries if we separate them by time.
Here, He pardons sin through baptism and penance; there, He
punishes them by torments and flames.18B
thesis: Whether Mary intercedes for all wayfarers.
While men live on earth, they may find themselves in different
states: in grace, in sin, in heresy, in schism and in infidelity. It is
certain that Mary intercedes for all men in general, because all men
who have the use of reason are given the grace, either proximately

»79

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

or remotely, which is sufficient for salvation. Thus, it is evident
that Marj’ cooperates by interceding in the granting of all graces,
But it is fitting to study this question in a more special way, treating
each of those states separately.
That Mary intercedes for the just and helps them as their Mother
is taught by St. Bernard, Conrad of Saxony, Cardinal Hugo and
others. ‘‘She knows with certitude,” says St. Bernard, ‘‘and she
loves those who love her, and she is very close to those who invoke
her, especially if she sees that they resemble her in chastity and
humility, to which they unite charity.” 100
As regards Mary’s merciful intercession for sinners, St. Ephrem
addresses her as “patroness of sinners,” and St. Germanus of Con­
stantinople declares: "Your patronage is greater than the human
mind can comprehend. Daily you extend your helping hand to those
who are tossed on the deluge of their sins." 101 St. Peter Damian says
to Mary: "You make the rebel yield; you attract the obstinate; your
tenderness does not reject the delinquent; because your most pure
virginity gave birth to the Author of merciful life.” 192
Theophilus Raynaud: “The Blessed Virgin has as her enemies all
who are enemies of her Son. . . . Therefore, all those are enemies
of the Mother of God who rebel against Christ, who violate His law,
all sinners. All, nevertheless, experience the immense goodness and
charity of the Mother of Cod when, through her intercession, she asks
pardon for them and they are delivered from the eternal ruin which
would have befallen them in the world to come. And she does not
wait to give her aid only to those who call upon her, but on occasions
she anticipates the cries of the wretched because of the impulse of the
love with which she is inflamed on our behalf.” 103
Cardinal Sfrondato: “Therefore with good reason have I said: The
sinner is the very center of Mary, because God created Mary for
sinners. She would not even exist if sinners did not exist. Angels, just
souls, innocent souls, pardon me if I say that Mary has been given,
not to you, but to sinners. Take away sin, and redemption is un­
necessary; take away redemption, and the Redeemer departs; take
away the Redeemer, and the Mother of the Redeemer would not
exist.”1M
With regard to sinners, some are ordinary sinners and others are
180

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

obstinate sinners. Ordinary sinners arc those who, though deprived
of sanctifying grace, have not completely lost the fear of God;
obstinate sinners are those who, over and above the privation of
grace, have the will to continue sinning, though there still remains
in them some possibility of repentance. Obstinacy includes blindness
and hardness of heart. Blindness, so far as it is opposed to the illumi­
nation of the mind in matters pertaining to salvation, consists not
only in the lack of sensibility for perceiving what refers to salvation,
but also in the perversion or complete reversal of judgment, of which
Isaias speaks: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil; that
put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for
sweet, and sweet for bitter” (5:20). Hardness of heart proceeds from
stubbornness of the will which obstinately adheres to sin.
It is a doctrine at least proximate to faith (proxima fidei) that
ordinary sinners are given, either proximately or remotely, the grace
which is sufficient to repent of their sins and return to the way of
salvation. With regard to obstinate sinners, it is debated among
theologians whether, in punishment for their sin, they are denied all
sufficient help for overcoming their hardness of heart, or whether,
at least, they are sometimes given some supernatural grace, however
weak and light. The most severe opinion, defended by Bânez, Gonet
and others, denies all help of conversion to obstinate sinners; but
the common teaching of theologians is that all sinners are given
sufficient help so that they can be converted.
Therefore, we can say that Mary’s intercession extends to both
ordinary and obstinate sinners, but in different ways. For Mary was
constituted by Christ crucified as the Mother of all the faithful. As
such, she embraces all in her maternal affection, and so great is her
kindness that she denies her patronage to no one, not even the most
desperate.1®8 For that reason, St. Ephrem salutes her as "hope of the
despairing” and St. Bernard says that with good reason is she called
Queen of mercy, because she opens the abyss of divine mercy for
whom she wishes, when she wishes and as she wishes, so that not
even the greatest of all sinners will perish if he enjoys Mary’s
patronage.1®8
Theophilus Raynaud remarks that just as the drops of water can
eventually wear away a rock, so the heart of stone which has been
181

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

hardened by earthly things is gradually broken by the constant and
assiduous but gentle promptings with which Mary influences sinners,
until in the end they yield.187
That Mary gives her assistance to infidels so that they may arrive
at an understanding of the truth and the light of the Gospel is evident
from the frequent testimonies of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his homily
Contra Nestorium.
That Mary likewise intercedes for heretics and schismatics, so that
they might return to the unity of the Catholic Church, is taught by
St. Germanus of Constantinople.198 Pope Leo XIII, moved by his
love for the dissident brethren, fervently exhorts all to pray with all
their strength to Mary for the return of the separated churches to the
Roman See: “Wherefore, as the nascent Church rightly joined itself
in prayer with her as the patroness and most excellent custodian of
unity, so in these times is it most opportune to do the same all over
the Catholic world." 190 "Every one of the multitudes, therefore,
whom the mischief of calamitous events has stolen away from that
unity, must be bom again to Christ of that same Mother whom God
has endowed with a never failing fertility to bring forth a holy people.

And this Mary, for her part, longs to do.” 200
Pope Pius XI recommended the same thing when he wrote: “May
the Savior, our God, who desires that all men should be saved and
arrive at a knowledge of the truth, hear our fervent prayers, that He
will deign to call to the unity of the Church all those who have
strayed. And in this matter, surely most grave, We have recourse to
the Blessed Virgin, Mother of divine grace, conqueror of all heresies
and help of Christians, and We desire that recourse be had to her
so that soon will come that day, so desired by Us, in which all men
will heed the voice of her Divine Son, preserving the unity of spirit
under the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).” 201
Mary does not intercede equally for all men.
The model of prayer for Mary is the prayer of Christ. Since Christ
did not pray equally for all men, the same must be said for Mary.
To pray is nothing other than to express to God one’s desire or will
so that He will fulfill it, and since Mary’s absolute will is always in
agreement with that of Christ, the prayers of both must always be
in conformity in all things.

thesis:

182

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

Now, Jesus, on the very night of His passion, expressed clearly the
entire object of His intercession, speaking thus to the Father: "I
have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou hast given Me
out of the world. They were Thine, and Thou hast given them to
Me, and they have kept Thy word. ... I pray for them; not for the
world do I pray, but for those whom Thou hast given Me, because
they are Thine” (John 17:6-9). ‘‘The world” says St. Augustine,
"signifies those who live according to the concupiscence of the
world.”202
Why did Christ not pray for the world or why, rather, did He
pray in a different way for the world and for the faithful? He had
called Himself the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the
world (John 1:29); He was a propitiation for the sins of all (I John
2:2); He desired that all be saved and come to an understanding of
the truth (I Tim. 4:6); and yet He said: "Not for the world do I
pray.” Maldonatus explains it as follows:

One could ask why Christ says He does not pray for the world,
when a short time afterward He prayed for those who crucified Him,
and they certainly were of the world (Luke 23:24). To die requires
more intense charity than to pray. It is clear that Christ died and
prayed for all, but as the theologians teach that Christ’s death may
be considered under two aspects, namely, as regards its virtue and
power and the antecedent will of Christ and the will of the Father,
who sent Him to die, or as regards the fruits and effects which would
follow from His death and His efficacious and consequent will, so
also it is necessary to distinguish two types of prayer in Christ: that
which is sufficient, but not efficacious, and that which is both suffi­
cient and efficacious.
If we consider the death and prayer of Christ in the first sense, it
is certain that Christ died and prayed for all, because His death pos­
sessed sufficient merit to save all men and His antecedent will was
that all should be saved. Therefore, St. Luke says that Christ prayed
for all. But if we consider the effect, which does not depend on the
will of Christ alone but also on the will of men who must be saved—
and not all men desire to receive the benefit of the redemption
offered by Christ—not all are saved and neither did Christ pray for
all, but for those who would believe.2"
So too, Mary, like Christ, though co-redemptrix of all men, does
not pray equally for all, but she prays in a manner that is sufficient
183

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

for some and is efficacious for others, according as they reject or
accept the blessing of redemption, adhere to Christ and have recourse
to her as their Mother. So St. Bonaventure says that grace comes to
all through Mary in the sense that she intercedes for all, but grace is
infused only in those who are disposed to receive it.204

Queen and Lady
In addition to the titles and offices of the Blessed Virgin which
have been studied in the course of the chapter and which shine forth
as so many jewels, no less glorious are the titles of Queen and Lady,
the latter signifying that she is Mistress of the whole world. We shall
consider the two titles separately.

MARY AS QUEEN
The word king is applied to one who rules, meaning one who
leads or ordains something to its proper end. Although this can
be understood in different ways, only he is a king, properly and for­
mally, who holds the office of ruling a perfect society or of directing
the members of a perfect society to the common end of that society.
Thus, it follows that the office of king demands an excellence and
priority of virtue or a certain primacy over all the members of society.
Tire reason for this is that if it is proper to virtue that man’s actions
be made good by it, then a greater virtue is needed for the perform­
ance of a greater good. "The good of the multitude is greater and
more divine than the good of one.” 205
Moreover, to rule is to order and to move others toward their end.
And if every mover has priority or primacy over that which it moves,
then the office of king must possess it over all the members of a
society, whom he moves to their end.
By reason of these two qualities proper to the office of ruling, men
are accustomed to apply the name of king to those in whom is recog­
nized a greater primacy over others in some respect, such as in art,
science, beauty, strength, and so forth. Tirus, the rose is called the
184

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

queen of flowers, Virgil is called the king of poets, the lion is called
the king of beasts. So the name of king, taken improperly and
analogically, is given to anyone who surpasses the rest in virtue or
excellence of some kind.
Tire name of lord is similar to that of king, although, like the word
master, it has two distinct meanings. The first signifies the opposite
of slavery, so that he is called lord to whom anyone is subject as a
slave; the second meaning applies to any relationship of subjection,
so that one is called a lord who holds the office of ruling and govern­
ing free men. For this reason, St. Thomas says that one man rules
another as a slave when he directs or employs that individual for his
own personal benefit, but one man rules another as a free man when
he directs him to the good proper to the individual or the common
good of society.200 In the latter case, the word lord is similar to that
of king.
The power of governing, proper to the office of king, is a power of
jurisdiction, or a power of ruling others as subjects, and it includes
legislative, judiciary, and executive power. For the attainment of the
social end it is necessary to impose upon a community an obligatory
norm so that the associates may obtain that social end through their
works, and this pertains to the legislative power. It is necessary to
adjust controversies over rights or to declare authoritatively whether
or not injury was inflicted, and this is done through the judicial
power. Finally, it is necessary to execute all that the laws or sentences
of judges command and, if necessary, to use coercion when private
individuals do not wish or cannot carry out a command spontane­
ously and properly, and this is effected by the executive power. The
greatest of all these powers is the legislative power, which dominates
the other two, and on which the other two depend.
Royal power is of two distinct orders, inasmuch as it tends to secure
temporal public prosperity or spiritual and eternal salvation, as the
proper end to which men should be directed. The first is temporal
or secular power, which is exercised in every kingdom or civil society;
the second is spiritual power, which pertains entirely to the spiritual
kingdom.
It is evident that Christ, as God, is the universal King, to whom is
power and empire forever and ever. As man also He is King, as is
testified in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, in Psalm 2:6
185

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

we read: "But I have appointed My king upon Sion, My holy moun­
tain”; and in Daniel (7:13-14): “I beheld therefore in the vision of
the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of
heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and they presented
him before Him. And He gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom,
and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall sene him. His power is an
everlasting power that shall not be destroyed.”
In the Gospel of St. Matthew (28:18) Jesus says: “All power in
heaven and earth has been given to Me.” In the Apocalypse (1:5)
Christ is called "faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the
ruler of the kings of the earth,” and (19:16): "King of kings and

Lord of lords.”
Christ is King both by natural and by acquired right. His natural
right is based on the hypostatic union. The universal power and
dominion which is proper to the nature of the Son of God was con­
ferred on the human nature which was joined to the divine at the
moment of the Incarnation. He is also King by acquired right through
redemption, since by His blood He freed us from the power of dark­
ness and transferred us into His kingdom (Col. 1:13). However, as
Guevara points out, although Christ could have claimed the title of
King by natural right, He did not do so until He had shed His blood
and thereby gained most perfect merit.207
The kingdom of Christ is universal, that is, it is offered to all men
of all times. It is a universality which must be understood in its full
sense, and not limited by national or social boundaries, nor restricted
to any epoch. Not only do all men have a right to enter this kingdom,
but they are under obligation to do so. “And this gospel of the king­
dom shall be preached in the whole world, for a witness to all nations;
and then will come the end” (Matt. 24:14).
For this reason, too, Christ sent His apostles to preach the gospel
to the whole world, as is attested by Matthew (28:18-19); “All power
in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and
make disciples of all nations” and St. Mark (16:15): “Go into the
whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.” From this
command of Christ proceeded the supreme and truly divine right
of the apostles, and, therefore, of the Church, freely to preach the
gospel to all men. From this same will of Christ arises in all men the
obligation, not only of giving His ambassadors the necessary free
186

TITLES FROM MARY'S COOPERATION
dom, but also of accepting the apostolic teaching, under sanction of
eternal life and salvation.208
The kingdom of Christ is, in the first place, spiritual and super­
natural, and His regal power is exercised primarily by means which
are spiritual and supernatural toward goods that are spiritual and
supernatural. Christ declared this when He said: “My kingdom is not
of this world. . . . This is why I was bom, and why I have come
into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:36-37). In­
deed, all the offices of Christ are referred to the purpose of the Incar­
nation, which is the redemption of the human race. And since this
end is spiritual, the kingdom of Christ, in conformity to those offices,
necessarily has to be spiritual.
Granted this character of the kingdom of Christ, the government
of its citizens and their direction to the supernatural end must be
both exterior and interior. The interior direction is effected through
grace, a gift infused intrinsically in man, by which he is directed to
his supernatural end. The exterior direction is given through the ob­
jective revelation of supernatural laws by which man is externally
directed to his end.
St. Thomas shows clearly that both types of direction are necessary
in exercising the office of king in the supernatural order. He states
that the end of human law is different from the end of divine law.
The end of human law is the temporal tranquillity of the citizens,
which the law obtains by directing external actions to prevent those
evils which might disturb the peaceful condition of the state. On the
other hand, the end of the divine law is to lead man to eternal happi­
ness, which end is prevented by sin, not only external, but also in­
ternal. Consequently, that which suffices for the perfection of human
law, for example, the prohibition and punishment of sin, does not
suffice for the perfection of the divine law; but it must make man
altogether fit to share in eternal happiness. But this cannot be done
except by the grace of the Holy Ghost, by which charity is diffused
in our hearts (Rom. J:;).208
At first glance it would seem that government or internal direction
does not pertain to Christ's kingship, but to His priesthood, because
it is through His sacerdotal action that all graces have been acquired.
But this does not place the internal direction outside Christ’s regal
power. Rather, the sacerdotal function serves the royal function, tum-

187

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

ing over its fruits to be distributed and sustaining the royal power by
the exercise of its power.210
Christ’s royal power over things spiritual necessarily includes the
indirect power over temporal things when they arc related to the
spiritual end and may promote or impede it. St. Thomas says that
from the expression of Malachias 1:2 it is clear that Christ’s domin­
ion is ordained to the salvation of souls and to spiritual goods, but
temporal goods are not excluded.211
It is the common opinion that Christ did not have direct power
over the temporal in actu secundo, that is, that He did not exercise
it. So St. Thomas says that although He was constituted King by
God, Christ did not wish while on earth to govern any earthly king­
dom temporally.212 Whether Christ had direct power over temporal
tilings in actu primo has been debated among theologians. St. Robert
Bellarmine and Gregory of Valencia deny this power of Christ and
quote the authority of Francis de Vitoria, Bartholomew de Medina
and others. Molina, Suarez and Lugo hold the affirmative opinion.
Actually, the disagreement is for the most part a disagreement of
words only.2111
Pope Pius XI, without any distinctions, affirms temporal power in
Christ in actu primo and denies it in actu secundo. He states that it
is a mischievous error to refuse to acknowledge that Christ holds an
imperium in civil affairs, since the absolute authority over creatures,
which He received from the Father, placed all things under His con­
trol. He goes on to say that nevertheless, during His earthly existence,
Christ wholly abstained from the exercise of this kind of power, and
that just as He then disdained the ownership and administration of
human things, so he left them and still leaves them in the hands of
their possessors.214
That legislative power is particularly becoming to Christ was
proved by the Council of Trent when it anathematized those who
taught that Christ was not given to men as a legislator who must be
obeyed.218 And that, in reality, Christ made laws, is attested in the
Gospel: “Keep My commandments’’ (John 14:15); “teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Christ
made laws in order to establish His kingdom, to endow it with an
adequate organism, to determine the conditions for entering it, and
188

TIT T. ES FROM MARYS COOPERATION

to prescribe all the things by which its citizens are to be led to their
supernatural end.
In like manner, judiciary power belongs to Christ, as we see in the
work of St. John: "For neither does the Father judge any man, but
all judgment He has given to the Son.” He first exercises this power
at each man's death, and later at the general judgment.
Following this judicial power is His executive power, by which the
just are rewarded and the condemned are obliged to suffer their just
punishments, according to St. Matthew (25:34-41): "Come, blessed
of My Father, take possession of the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world. . . . Depart from Me, accursed ones,
into everlasting fire” (25:34, 41); and according to the Apocalypse
(1:17): "I am the first and the last ... ; and I have the keys of
death and of hell” (1:17).
Taking into account all that has been said, we pass now to study
the royal dignity in Mary, in a manner similar to the way we have
studied that dignity in Christ. The title of queen signifies in a woman
the same thing that the title of king docs in a man. She is properly
and formally called queen who is enchargcd with governing a perfect
society or of directing the members of a perfect society to a common
goal. Improperly and analogically she is called a queen who, under
some aspect, is of greater virtue and has primacy over others. But
there is a third meaning, according to which the title of queen is
given to the wife or to the mother of the king. Although she does not
possess the power of governing as does the king, she nevertheless ex­
ercises no small influence in the government of society.
There are three aspects of the present question: in the first place
wc must study the royal dignity of Mary; in the second, the quality
or mode of her royal function; and in the third, the titles or reasons
of her royal dignity.
thesis: Mary should truly be called Queen of all created thing?.
Errors. Erasmus maintained that certain praises attributed to Mary
were excessive and should not be tolerated; for example, “Hail,
Queen, Mother of Mercy.” 2|β Luther and his followers also rejected
the title of Queen, as well as others given to Mary, for they said that
in saluting her by this title, we diminish the glory of Christ, since we

189

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

attribute to a creature what belongs to God alone. Calvin follows the
same opinion, stating that they are guilty of grave sin who attribute
to her those magnificent titles of “Queen of heaven," “Star of salva­
tion,” and others. The Virgin herself, says Calvin, rejects them, refer­
ring all her glory' to God.2’7 Lastly, the Jansenists denied the name of
Queen to Mary, as can be seen in Widenfeldt’s virulent writings.21’
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Sixtus IV and Pope Pius IX stated
that Mary is Queen of heaven and earth and is exalted above all the
angels and saints.210
Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Therefore we behold her taken up from
this valley of tears into the heavenly Jerusalem, amid the choirs of
angels. And we honor her, glorified above all the saints, crowned with
stars by her divine Son, and seated at His side, the sovereign Queen
of the universe.” 220
St. Pius X said that Christ sits at the right hand of the Majesty on
high (Heb. 1:3), and Mary sits at His right hand as Queen.221
Addressing a group of pilgrims from Genoa on April 22,1940, Pope
Pius XII declared: “This is the hour of the power, the mercy and the
grace of Mary. In her is our hope; in her is our peace. Over the earth
passes the cloud tinted with the color of death, but the protection
and intercession of the Queen of peace and mercy is able to have such
influence on the decision of God as to dissipate the clouds and move
the hearts of men.”
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem calls her “the inviolate
Mother of God, Queen of all things, more honorable than the cheru­
bim." 222
St. Germanus of Constantinople addresses Mary upon her entrance
into the Temple in the following words: “Be seated, Lady. Since you
are Queen, and more glorious than all the kings of earth, it is an
honor due you to occupy such a lofty place. . . . Therefore, because
of your merits 1 offer you, as Queen of all, the first scat.” 223
To celebrate Mary’s dormition, St. Andrew of Crete says that God
transferred from earth to heaven His ever-virgin Mother, in whose
womb He assumed human nature, and made her the Queen of the
entire human race.22*
St. John Damascene addresses Mary as follows: “Your soul did not
descend into the infernal regions nor did your body undergo corrup­
tion. Your immaculate body, free of all stain, was not left on earth,

190

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

but was taken to the heavenly mansions, where you rule as Queen,
Sovereign, Lady and true Mother of God.228
St. Tarasius, St. Theodorus, St. Peter Damian and Rupert of Deutz
also specifically refer to Mary as Queen.22’
St. Bernard writes: "See the Queen, with the crown with which
her Son has encircled her brow .... a crown of twelve stars, that
is, of those prerogatives by which our Queen shines resplendent above
all others.”227
According to St. Albert the Great, there is a kind of equality of
power between Christ and Mary, because she is Queen over the same
kingdom of which He is King.228
St. Thomas Aquinas states that Mary is Queen and Mother of the
King and is clothed in gold, that is, she is gilded with divinity. Not
because she is God, but because she is the Mother of God.222
St. Robert Bellarmine says that since Mary is Queen, she can peti­
tion whatever she pleases from her Son the King.2·10 St. Peter Canisius
hails her as Queen of angels and men, and more sublime than anyone
could imagine.231
The Liturgy. We need only refer to the frequent expressions to
be found in liturgical prayer, in which Mary is saluted by the title of
Queen: "Queen of heaven rejoice, Alleluia”; "Hail, holy Queen”;
“Queen of angels”; "Queen of patriarchs, ... of prophets, ... of
all saints.”
Theological Argument. Christ’s royal dignity is in no way obscured
because Mary bears the name of Queen. Jesus Christ is the universal
King but Mary is universal Queen in subordination to Him, from
whom she possesses her participated royal power. As the Mother of
the God-Man, Mary belongs to the hypostatic order and thus shares
the dignity of her Son’s kingship. Mary is therefore truly a Queen,
saving always the eminence proper to Christ the King and the incom­
parable honor due Him as Redeemer and Lord of all.
thesis : Mary is also Queen in an improper and analogical sense.
The name of queen is sometimes taken to signify excellence over
others in some quality. Now, Mary surpasses all angelic and human
creatures, by being superior to them in her excellence of ministry,
degree, sanctity and merit, and for that reason she is called Queen of
angels, of patriarchs, of prophets, of apostles, of martyrs, of confes-

191

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

sors, of virgins and of all saints. Thus, Conrad of Saxony describes
her as superior to the blessed in grace.282
It seems that St. Bernard and St. Ildephonse must be understood
in this sense when they applied the title of Queen of humility to the
Blessed Virgin Mary. Their words present Mary as preferred and
exalted above all creatures because of her humility, which means that
she is Queen by reason of excellency rather than power.2”
thesis: Mary is Queen because she is the Mother of the King.
The Fathers and Doctors. St. Ildephonse says: "I am thy servant
because your Son is the Lord; you are my Lady because you are the
handmaid of my Lord; I am the servant of the slave of my Ixrd
because you, O my Lady, are Mother of your Lord.” 284
St. John Damascene states that Mary was constituted Queen of all
creation when she became Mother of the Creator; 235 Arnold of
Chartres teaches that the Mother cannot be separated from the
power and dominion of the Son.238 “She is in heaven the Queen of
the kingdoms of earth and the Queen of saints,” says Rupert of

Deutz, “because she is the Mother of the King.” 237
According to St. Bernardine of Siena, by reason of her consent to
the divine maternity, Mary obtained the right to be called Queen,
and this because of her Son, the King of kings.238
St. Alphonsus Liguori says: "As the glorious Virgin Mary has been
raised to the dignity of Mother of the King of kings, it is not without
reason that the Church honors her, and wishes her to be honored by
all, with the glorious title of Queen.”230
Theological Argument. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God. As God and man, Jesus is King. Therefore, Mary is
Queen or Mother of the King.
That Mary is Queen so far as she is the Mother of Jesus Christ,
who is King according to His divine nature, must be understood pre­
cisely in relation to the suppositum or person, because Mary’s mater­
nity terminates in the person of the Son, who subsists in the divine
nature. Therefore, Mary is called Mother of the Creator. That she is
Queen as Mother of Jesus Christ, who is also King so far as He is
man, must be understood not only by reason of the suppositum, but
likewise by reason of His human nature, which subsists in the person
192

TITLES FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

of the Word and which she conceived in a physical and formal
manner.240
Hence, Mary is Queen more fully and perfectly by being the
Mother of Christ the King so far as He is man rather than as God,
since by consenting to the Incarnation, she also consented to her
Son’s being King as man, and the most pure flesh that Mary gave
was the royal purple of Christ the King, according to St. Epiphanius,
St. Andrew of Crete and Hugh of St. Victor.241
: Mary is Queen in the proper and formal sense.
One is called queen properly and formally when, like the king, she
has the power of governing or of directing the people of a perfect
society to its end, a society which, in this case is none other than
the kingdom of Christ. As St. Albert the Great says: "From the same
reign and kingdom from which the Son took the name of King, she
took the name of Queen.” 242 Now, Mary was commissioned to
govern the kingdom of Christ or direct its members to their super­
natural end. Therefore, she is properly and formally Queen.
The government of the kingdom of Christ, as has been stated, is
twofold: exterior and interior. Mary governs the kingdom in both
ways.
i ) Exteriorly. External government consists in the exterior proposi­
tion or objective revelation of supernatural laws by which the citizens
of Christ’s kingdom are directed to the attainment of eternal salva­
tion. Although it is not proper to the Blessed Virgin to propose laws
by which men tend to the common goal of eternal life, she neverthe­
less participates in a certain way in this external rule, either by in­
structing the apostles concerning the revealed mysteries or, by the
example of her virtue, showing all the way to perfection and salva­
tion, as expressed by St. Ambrose: "Such was Mary, that her life is
an example for all." 248
2) Interiorly. Internal government, which in the kingdom of
Christ is the principal government, consists in the influx of super­
natural grace. St. Thomas says that the New Law is chiefly the grace
itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in
Christ.244 By means of grace they fulfill the law and work in such
a way and with such efficacy that they attain their goal of eternal life.
thesis

>93

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mar}’, united to Christ and subordinate to Him, is charged with
dispensing to men all graces, and in this way to lead them to eternal
life. Therefore, she directs the kingdom of Christ interiorly.21’
Although it is proper to Mary to distribute graces to mankind, inas­
much as she is mediatrix of graces, or patroness and advocate of the
human race, nevertheless, this distribution actually constitutes a regal
function and an act of governing. Mary obtains these graces through
her intercession, but in so singular a way that her intercession is in
perfect accord with her regal power and right. By reason of her divine
maternity and her association in redemption, she enjoys such power
of intercession that, with dependence on Christ, she truly dispenses
the graces of redemption. Thus, St. Pius X stated that Mary is the
principal dispenser of graces and she is so by maternal right.24·
Mary’s power in the kingdom of Christ.
The power of governing which pertains to the office of king is a
power of jurisdiction, which includes legislative, judicial and execu­
tive power. The first of the three is essential to the royal office; the
other two do not pertain to its essence, but they complete and perfect

thesis:

it.
Moreover, the royal power pertains to two different orders: public
temporal prosperity or eternal salvation. The first is exercised in
earthly kingdoms or civil society; the second has the kingdom of
souls as its sphere of action.
Mary participates in the legislative power of the kingdom of Christ,
according to the explanation previously given. But neither the judicial
nor the executive powers of Christ’s kingdom belong to Mar)'. Apart
from the common power which St. Thomas attributes to some saints
or more perfect souls at the general judgment, Mary has no other
special judicial power.247 The Fathers and theologians expressly deny
such power of Mary.
In tire opinion of all, Mary is not the Queen of justice, but the
Queen of mercy. As St. Ephrem and St. Bernard say, she is the hope
of those who despair and even tire worst sinner need not give up
hope.248
Authors frequently represent Mary as having obtained half the
kingdom of God, or the kingdom of mercy, in which she has her
principality; her Son retains tire other half, that is, the kingdom of
194

TITLES FROM

MARY'S COOPERATION

justice, in which He exercises His power as judge.14’ The Jansenists
censure this representation as immoderate, as can be seen in Widenfeldt’s statement in his Monita.280
The Fathers and theologians do not, however, establish such a
division between justice and mercy that Christ would be no more
than a severe judge and avenger, while Mary is the Mother of mercy.
For Christ is our Mediator (John 2:1), and as such He has mercy
on sinners. He is the source and origin of all pity and mercy, from
whom is derived, in its entirety, all of Mary’s mercy. It was Christ’s
mercy that gave us a Mother whose proper function was to exercise
mercy towards all.
Christ is infinitely merciful, but according to the Acts of the Apos­
tles: "He it is who has been appointed by God to be judge of the
living and of the dead” (10:42). St. John says: "For neither does the
Father judge any man, but all judgment He has given to the Son’’
(5:22); “and He has granted Him power to render judgment, be­
cause He is Son of Man” (v. 27).
Hence the difference between Christ and Mary; Christ is infinitely
merciful and clement, but as Judge of the living and the dead, it
belongs to Him to know and discern the merits of each and, accord­
ing to the diversity of those merits, to punish or reward. To Mary, on
the other hand, it is not given to judge, nor to discern, nor to weigh
merits, nor to punish anyone, but rather to protect them and to
obtain mercy for them. This is the basis of the famous words of
Eadmer, a disciple of St. Anselm of Canterbury: "Sometimes salva­
tion is obtained more readily by invoking the name of Mary than by
invoking that of her Son. . . . Her Son is Lord and Judge of all, and
knows the merits of each one; and therefore if he does not immedi­
ately grant the prayers of those who invoke Him, He acts out of
justice. When, however, the Mother’s name is invoked, though the
merits of the suppliant are not such as to deserve that his prayer
should be granted, the merits of the Mother intervene that he may
be heard." 281
Mary’s royal dignity, being spiritual and exercised in the kingdom
of Christ, directly touches grace and spiritual goods which pertain
to salvation. Indirectly it touches temporal favors, inasmuch as they
refer in some way to the spiritual end. However, direct power over
temporal favors, although attributed to her by right and in actu

»95

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

primo, are not exercised in actu secundo, as is true of Christ, of whom
we read: "My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
: The titles on which Marys royal dignity and power are
based.
Theologians propose many titles on which to base Mary's royal
dignity, though all arc not equally solid and firm. Thus, St. Anselm,
or rather Eadmer, bases Mary’s right on her dignity as bride of the
Holy Spirit. He asserts that the Holy Spirit chose her as His spouse
and reposed in her through a grace of singular predilection which
surpassed all creation in heaven or on earth, thereby constituting her
the Queen of heaven and earth and all things contained therein.353
Theologians who follow this opinion argue as follows: All the codes
of law prescribe that goods be common to both spouses and that both
enjoy the same privileges. From this common possession and use of
goods and honors it follows that Mary, as bride of the Holy Spirit,
thesis

has power and dominion over all things.
But this argument is insufficient for proving Mary’s royal dignity
and supreme power over all. The Blessed Virgin cannot be called the
bride of the Holy Spirit in a proper sense, but only by reason of a
certain likeness. Therefore, neither can she be called Queen in a
proper sense, but only improperly and by analogy.
To be Queen in a true and proper sense, Mary’s royal power and
rights must be based on her dignity as Mother. Thus, Lcpicier argues
that what is attributed to Christ as the natural Son of God must be
attributed to Mary as the natural Mother of Christ and the firstborn
daughter of God by adoption. By right of inheritance Christ is su­
preme King of angels and men, and therefore Mary also is by right
the Queen of angels and men.283
According to Hugon, as the Mother of God, Mary enjoys the same
rights and inheritance as her Son, and since the Son is King of angels
and the entire universe, Mary is Queen of angels and Lady of the
whole world.284
SAlazar admits a difficulty in this type of argumentation because
normally honor and dignity descend from the parents to the children
and not from children to parents. Nevertheless, he says that he is
convinced that by natural right the honor and dignity of children
sometimes are transmitted to the parents.288 Gruyter, however, strives

196

TITLES

FROM MARY’S COOPERATION

to weaken the entire argument by maintaining that under no circum­
stances is the mother the recipient of the patrimony and inheritance
of the child.26"
On the other hand, Carau wisely remarks that it is not necessary
to judge this question by the dictates of civil laws, but it must be
settled by natural and even by divine right. The Son of Mary cannot
be obligated by human laws in regard to the favors He bestows on
His Mother. He was able to constitute her as Queen, He desired to
do so, and therefore there is no reason for saying that He did not do
so.267
With good reason docs St. John Damascene say: "It was fitting
that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that
she be honored by every creature as the Mother and as Handmaid of
God, for although the inheritance always passes from parents to chil­
dren, nevertheless, to use the words of a wise man, ‘The fountains of
sacred rivers direct their cunent upward.' ”288
Another title of Mary’s royal dignity is that of acquisition through
her association with Christ in the work of human redemption. Just
as Christ, by the title of redemption, made His own the kingdom won
by His blood, so also Mary, spouse and consort of her Redeemer-Son
in the work of redemption, presides over the same kingdom, and
while she did not win it by her blood, as did her Son, she did so by
her soul, which was transpierced by the sword of sorrow. St. Albert
the Great and Sudrcz used this title as a basis for Mary’s queenship.28·
Two titles, therefore—that of Mary’s divine maternity and that of
her association in redemption—are the foundation of her royal dig­
nity. Her divine maternity is the radical and remote foundation; her
association with Christ in redemption is the proximate foundation.
Merkelbach says that Mary has a radical right to the kingdom by
the fact of her divine motherhood, but the divine plan was such that
she should merit it also by her union and compassion with her suffer­
ing Son, and that she should not exercise it fully until she was united
with her Son in heaven and constituted Queen of the entire world.280

*97

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

MARY AS OUR LADY AND MISTRESS
OF THE UNIVERSE
The name of lord or master can be taken in three senses. Properly
and strictly, it is the opposite of slavery', and thus one is called lord
or master to whom someone is subject as a slave. Less strictly, or in
a general sense, lord or master may be used in contradistinction to
a subject whom the lord or master directs to the particular good of
the individual and also to the common good. So St. Thomas says that
one man directs another as his slave when he uses him for his own
utility as master, but one man directs another as a free man by direct­
ing him either toward his individual good as a free man or to the
common good.201 Therefore, if dominion is taken in a less strict sense,
as referring to the direction of others to the common good, it is
equivalent to royal power or kingly right, and the lord or master is
the same as king.
But if dominion is taken in the strict sense, it differs greatly from
kingly power. Kingly right is nothing other than the jurisdiction or
power of ruling subjects in relation to the common good, which does
not carry with it dominion over objects and persons subject to said
power. The king is not lord and master of the house or of the prop­
erty possessed by the subject, nor are the subjects slaves of the king,
but vassals.
Finally, the third meaning of lord or master is an improper sense
and it signifies majesty and excellency over others.
It is de fide that Christ, as God, is supreme and absolute Lord and
Master of all things. The Vatican Council calls Him Lord of heaven
and earth.202 Sacred Scripture speaks frequently of God’s supreme
dominion: "The heavens are Thine, the earth is Thine; the world and
everything in it, Thou hast founded” (Ps. 88:12); “O Lord, I am Thy
servant, I am Thy servant, the son of Thy handmaid” (Ps. 115:7);
"King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Tim. 6:15). As Creator of die
universe, God has complete dominion over all things, including men
and their property.
Sacred Scripture likewise affirms that Christ as Man is Lord and
Master of all things: In St. Matthew (10:24-25) we read: “No dis­
ciple is above his teacher, nor is the servant above his master. It is

198

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and for the servant to
be like his master” (Matt. 10:24-25); "You call Me Master and
Lord, and you say well, for so I am” (John 13:13); "All things are
subject to Him” (Cor. 15:27); "He sent His word to the children of
Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (who is Lord of all)”
(Acts 10:36). And certainly the Son of Cod, even as man, shares the
sovereign power of the Father: “All things that the Father has are
Mine” (John 16:15). Tlie right and power which the Son of God has
from the Father for all eternity, Christ received in time through the
hypostatic union, for if He is rightly called God, He is also rightly
called Lord and Master.2®3 Reasonably, then, did Pope Pius XI say
that it is a mischievous error to refuse to acknowledge that Christ
holds an imperium in civil affairs, because He has received from the
Father an absolute authority over all created things and all are sub­
ject to His judgment and power.204
This doctrine established, we pass on to a study of the dominion
which pertains to Mary, in which question two things have to be
established: the title of Lady or Mistress as applied to Mary, and the
type of dominion she enjoys.
: Mary is rightly called Lady or Mistress of the entire uni­
verse.
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrem frequently addresses
Mary as Lady of all and universal salvation of Christians.200 St. Ger­
manus of Constantinople calls her Lady of all men,200 and St. John
Damascene states that she is rightly called Mother of God and Lady
and that she who is at once handmaid and mother has dominion over
all creation.207
St. Ildephonsc exclaims: “I am your slave because your Son is my
Lord. You are my Lady because you are the handmaid of my
Lord.” 208 Similar statements can be found in the writings of St.
Anselm, St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure.208
Theological Argument. Tlie title of Mistress or Lady as applied to
Mary is by no means opposed to the supreme dominion over all
things which belongs to God alone, since we do not attribute to Mary
a dominion of absolute and supreme excellence, but only a secondary
and subordinate one, always dependent upon the dominion of
Christ.270
199
thesis

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

: In what way Mary can be called Lady and Mistress of
all creatures.
Undoubtedly, Mary is Lady and Mistress in an improper sense,
because of her great dignity, which is in a certain sense infinite;
because she is superior to all creatures and inferior only to God; and
because of her power before God, which theologians call omnipotent.
She is also Lady and Mistress in a less strict sense, because in this
sense lord is the same as king, and lady or mistress is equivalent to
queen. But we have already seen that Mary is Queen.
In this question, then, we are considering dominion in a proper and
strict sense, and distinct from kingly right; that is, we are considering
the dominion of ownership. In the first place, it is necessary to dis­
tinguish between persons and things. We are not concerned here
with persons, since the right of ownership over them is reserved to
the Creator, the sole author of life and death. But even in regard
to the right of ownership over things it is necessary to distinguish,
because it is not the same to be lord and master of things as regards
their use and nature and to be so only as regards their use. 'Ibe fact
is that God alone is Lord and Master of the use and nature of things,
since not only can He use them as He wishes, but He can change
them and even annihilate them. This dominion is so exclusive of God
that it was not had by the humanity of Christ, nor could it be attrib­
uted to His humanity .271
Some theologians attribute dominion of ownership over all created
things to Mary. Among those who defend this opinion arc Vega,
Garau, Sedlmayr and, principally, Bartholomew de los Rios, who goes
to the excess of saying that the Virgin Mary has a double dominion
over us, spiritual and corporal, and consequently she has both a
benign dominion, in the sense that she can dispose of each one for
the common good and of all regarding the good of each one, and she
also has a despotic dominion, so that she can make use of us for her
own convenience, since the dominion which resides in the Son passes
from Him to the Mother. This type of dominion, defended by the
theologians mentioned, belongs to Mary for four reasons: her divine
maternity, her office as co-rcdemptrix, her title of spouse of the Holy
Spirit and her gift of original justice.2’2
On the basis of her divine maternity, they argue in this way:
Christ, our Lord, has the right of ownership over all created things.

thesis

200

TITLES FROM

MARY’S COOPERATION

Therefore, so does Mary, since any honor and dignity the Son enjoys
by nature, redounds to His Mother.2”
On the basis of her office as co-redemptrix they argue that just as
Christ, by shedding His blood for men, freed them from the slavery
of sin, and is therefore by right their King and Lord, so should Mary,
as the Mother of God and consort of Christ in human redemption,
possess rights as Mistress and Queen over all men, taking them under
her dominion.
Since Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit, they argue that all the
goods of one spouse are common to the other, and both enjoy the
same privileges. From this community of goods, Mary acquired domin­
ion over all things.
By reason of her gift of original justice, the theologians state that
just as Adam, through original justice, acquired dominion of all crea­
tures, and having lost original justice, lost this dominion, so Mary,
conceived in original justice, recovered the lost power and acquired
dominion over creatures.
It can readily be admitted that all these titles offer some basis for
Mary’s dominion and power in the improper and less strict sense, but
they do not seem sufficient to establish firmly a dominion in the strict
and proper sense. Mary’s title as Mother of God is not sufficient as
a basis for the strict sense of dominion because, whereas Christ has
strict dominion over all creation so far as divinity is subsistent in His
human nature, Mary, although the Mother of God, nevertheless re­
mains completely human and a creature. However, we may say that
Christ has subjected all things to Mary’s dominion so that she is
Lady and Mistress of all, but subordinate to His own.
The title of co-redemptrix gives to Mary a royal power and it places
all the members of the kingdom of Christ under her benign domin­
ion, but it does not give Mary dominion in the strict sense of owner­
ship.
As regards the title of bride of the Holy Spirit, Mary is such only
by a certain likeness and therefore it is only by a certain likeness that
she is Lady and Mistress of the universe.
Lastly, Mary’s original justice is not a sufficient basis for strict do­
minion, for being innocent and all-holy, she enjoyed the same kind
of dominion over animals and plants and inanimate objects as did
our first parents in the state of original innocence, namely, she ruled
201

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

animals by command and had dominion over plants and inanimate
objects by using them.274
Taking the previous points into account, we may conclude as fol­
lows concerning Mary’s dominion:
1) The strict right of dominion over all created things does not
belong to Mary. However, subordinate to the right of Christ, to whom
all is subject, she is and can be called Lady and Mistress of all created
things, in and through Him.
2) Moreover, as Mother of God and consort of the Redeemer, she
obtained such power through her omnipotent Son, the Redeemer of
the human race, that no creature nor any natural power can compare
with hers.
3) This admirable power of Mary’s reached its maximum excel­
lence when she was crowned in heaven, being manifested especially
in her power of working miracles, of overcoming the power of the
devil, of defending and governing the whole Church, of reigning over
all rational creatures, among whom there is no one, after God, who
can compare with her in sublimity and excellence.275

202

CHAPTER FIVE

Veneration of JAary
*

Cult or veneration is the honor given to a person, in a
spirit of submission, by reason of his excellence. It differs from honor
as a species from a genus, since honor is the testimony by which we
acknowledge another’s excellence, while cult adds to honor the sub­
mission we render to the excellence of another, considering him su­
perior in some way. Hence, honor can be paid, not only to superiors,
but also to equals and inferiors, in whom is found some excellence
worthy of being esteemed as such. Cult, on the other hand, is honor
paid to a superiority of excellence.
Cult comprises three acts: an act of the intellect, which esteems
the excellence of another and judges that person worthy of the sub­
mission and veneration given him; an act of the will, which chooses
to submit and to manifest this submission and reverence; and the act
of submission, which is either internal, such as prayer or faith, or
external, such as a genuflection or an inclination of the head. It is
clear that an external act is not truly cult unless it proceeds from an
interior affection and is informed by it.
Cult may be religious or civil and political. Civil cult, or respect
and consideration, is the honor paid to someone for his dignity and
excellence in the purely natural order, by reason of authority, knowl­
edge, social merits, etc., of which we are not treating here. Religious
cult is the honor paid to someone for his excellence in the super­
natural order. For that reason there are as many kinds of cult as there
are species or degrees of excellence. Excellence, in turn, is divided
principally into uncreated and created excellence, and this latter, into
common and eminent excellence.
Hence, cult is divided into latria, which is the worship due to the
uncreated excellence of God; dulia, which is given to the saints for
their created excellence and is common to all in the order of grace;
and hyperdulia, which is reserved to a creature superior to all, because
203

VENERATION OF MARY

THE MESSED VIRGIN MARY

of a most eminent supernatural excellence. Theologians distinguish
a twofold hyperdulia: one differs from common dulia only in kind;
the other differs in species.’
Although the Greek words latria and dulia do not differ much in
their signification of servitude, the Fathers and theologians always
reserved the term of latria for the supreme worship given to God
alone, and that of dulia for the cult of the saints.
The object of cult is twofold: material and formal. The material
object is that which is honored or venerated; the formal object is the
reason or motive for which honor is given. Tire principal material
object is always a person, because man can submit only to persons.
Moreover, it is evident that the material object must be joined in
some way with the formal object, for if it did not possess some excel­
lence which would move to veneration, it could not be an object of
veneration.
By reason of the various aspects of the bond existing between the
material and formal object, cult is further divided into absolute and
relative. Absolute cult is paid to the person and to everything proper
to the person by reason of identity with the person, by reason of some
inherent form or by reason of a substantial union. Relative cult ex­
tends to something connected with the person to whom reverence is
paid, such as images which represent the saints, sacred vessels which
have contact with holy things, or relics which are either physical parts
of saintly persons or objects which have come in contact with saints
during their lifetime.
We shall study first the lawfulness and species of veneration due
to the person of the Blessed Virgin, then the species of veneration
with respect to some of her more noble parts, such as her immaculate
heart, and lastly, the veneration of her images and relics.

Lawfulness of Veneration of Mary
: Mary should be honored with a sacred cult.
Errors. Erasmus writes with reverence of the Blessed Virgin, and
yet he censures veneration of Mary, attributing it to superstition that
so many honor her, and maintaining that this cult is injurious to
204

thesis

Christ. He thus prepared the way for Protestants such as Luther,
Calvin and their followers. These speak in various ways of the most
Blessed Virgin, sometimes exalting her and at other times lessening
her dignity. Thus, as Canisius shows, they acknowledge Mary's divine
maternity and her perpetual virginity and they praise her as adorned
by God with the greatest charisms and as the most excellent of
women, blessed by the very angels and by all generations. Neverthe­
less, they oppose as immoderate and superstitious the cult given her
by the Church.2
The neo-Protestants are even more opposed to the veneration given
Mary, since in denying the divinity of Christ and His miraculous
conception, they logically deny her divine maternity and her virgin­
ity and reject her cult completely.3 Nevertheless, not all modem Prot­
estants show themselves such enemies of the Blessed Virgin, for, as
Pope Pius XI notes: "At the present time some of the innovators
know better the dignity of the Virgin as Deipara and are drawn and
disposed to reverence and honor her diligently.”4 Lastly, the Jansen­
ists are also enemies of the veneration given to Mary, as is evident
from the writings of Widenfeldt.
Church Councils. The Council of Nicaea, the Fourth Council of
Constantinople and the Council of Trent teach that Mary should be
honored by a sacred cult. This can be seen in the Tridentine profes­
sion of faith and in Pope Alexander VIII’s condemnation of the
twenty-sixth proposition of the Jansenists, which states that the praise
given Mary is vain.8
Sacred Scripture. The angel Gabriel saluted Mary: "Hail, full of
grace” (Luke 1:28). Elizabeth greeted her with the words: "Blessed
art thou among women. . . . And how have I deserved that the
Mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42)· And Mary
said of herself: “For, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me
blessed” (Luke 1:48).·
The Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. It is common doctrine that
Mary is entitled to a special veneration. This doctrine is found explic­
itly in the writings of St. Epiphanius, St. John Damascene, St. Ber­
nard St. Peter Damian, Fulbert of Chartres, Raymond Jourdain and
St. Bernardine of Siena.’
The Liturgy. Both the Eastern and Western liturgies testify to the
legitimacy of the Marian cult. We find explicit veneration of Mary
205

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

in the liturgy of St. James, that of St. Cyril of Alexandria and that
of St. John Chrysostom. As regards the liturgies of the west, we find
veneration of Mary in the Ambrosian, Mozarabic and Gallic liturgies,
and above all, in the Roman liturgy, which, in the opinion of St.
Thomas and others, is due to St. Peter.
The numerous altars and the churches and chapels erected to
Mary, honor her under various titles and arc a testimony to the Chris­
tian cult in her honor, as arc the countless works of art which have
Mary as their theme.
Theological Argument. Religious cult is paid a person for his
supernatural excellence. Therefore, it should be given to Mary, be­
cause of her surpassing supernatural excellence as the Mother of God
and full of grace, and as the consort of Christ the Redeemer in pro­
curing salvation for mankind and promoting the glory of God.
The honor given to Mary neither harms nor diminishes in the least
the glory due to God; rather, it augments it, for the honor paid to
the Mother redounds to the glory of the Son.8
Thus, devotion to the Mother is never separated from that of her
Son, and hence the cult of the two cannot be separated. Therefore,
if anyone separates Mary from the cult of Christ, he would destroy
the order established by God. For that reason, says Diekamp, Marian
cult should be enumerated as one of the works of the true Church.®
Mary should not be honored by latria but hyperdulia.
Tire first part is de fide; the second part is certain doctrine.
Errors. According to the testimony of St. Epiphanius, the Collyridians in Arabia venerated Mary as a goddess, and in her honor they
used to offer little rolls or cakes, using an idolatrous rite. This sect
was composed almost exclusively of women, and the sacerdotal offices
were reserved to them.
Among the Oriental Montanists, those called Marianites and Filomarianites adored Mary as a goddess, according to the opinion of
Bishop Maruta and others.
Many Protestants accuse the Catholics of giving Mary a latreutic
cult and practicing a kind of "Mariolatry" which is injurious to God
and to Christ. Thus, Luther and Melanchthon accused Catholics of
their day of supplanting Christ by their excessive devotion to Mary.

thesis:

206

VENERATION OF MARY

Calvin accused Catholics of doing grave injury to Mary by giving to
her the honor which belongs to Christ.
These attacks of the Protestants on the cult and veneration of the
Blessed Virgin were renewed by the Jansenists, who, under the pretext
of defending God’s honor, objected to the cult of hyperdulia which
the Catholics pay her. They admitted Mary’s principal prerogatives,
but they accused theologians of exaggerating them. The Jansenists
were more interested in avoiding excess than in giving Mary the
unique veneration which she deserves.
The first part, with regard to the cult of latria, is de fide; with
regard to relative latria, it is an opinion. The second part, concerning
the cult of hyperdulia, is positive doctrine.
First Part. The Fathers. St. Epiphanius, censuring the abuse of the
Collyridians, says that Mary should be venerated; but the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit should be adored. Although Mary is most holy and
most worthy of being honored, she is not entitled to adoration, and
no one wishes to adore her.10
St. Ambrose teaches that the adoration proper to Christ is not
communicable to His Mother. "Mary,” he says, "was the temple of
God, not the God of the temple; therefore she is deserving only of
the veneration due her as the temple."11
Theological Argument. Neither absolute nor relative latria are due
the Blessed Virgin, lire adoration of absolute latria belongs to God
alone. Mary, however excellent her gifts of nature and of grace, is a
pure creature. Moreover, she adores God by the worship of latria, and
it is not proper to the same subject to give and receive this worship,
just as it is impossible for the same person to create and to be created.
Hence, St. Thomas says that although the Blessed Virgin is exalted
above the angels, she is not equal to God or united to Him in person.
And thus we do not say that she is seated at His right hand, but that
she assists at His right hand, inasmuch as the honor of her Son
redounds to her, not fully, but by participation, since she is the
Mother of God but not God.12
Nor does relative latria belong to Mary, as it is due to the Cross
and to other instruments of our Lord’s passion. Although Mary, by
reason of her physical contact with Christ, could theoretically be
honored with this cult, as are the Cross and other instruments of the
207

VENERATION OF MARY

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Passion, it must not be given practically, because of the danger of
idolatry. Those who do not have sufficient religious education arc not
able to distinguish between relative and absolute latria and would
easily attribute to Mary a divine excellence. Moreover, the cult of
relative latria is given to inanimate and insensible things, which, not
having a proper intrinsic excellence, arc venerated by reason of an
extrinsic and remote excellence: that of the person they represent or
to whom they refer in some way. But Mary should be venerated for
herself, because of her intrinsic excellence. She would not be rightly
venerated if the veneration were based solely on her extrinsic relation
to Christ.
Second Part. The Fathers and Doctors. Comparing the Blessed
Virgin to numerous other saints, St. Epiphanius says that she is more
worthy of praise.13 St. Augustine speaks of her surpassing dignity14
and St. Germanus of Constantinople states that we honor Mary as
the Mother of God and we judge her to be superior to all other
creatures, visible and invisible.16
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that as a purely rational creature,
Mary should not receive the worship of latria, but since she is the
Mother of God, she should receive the worship of dulia, but of a
degree far superior to that given to any other creature; therefore, she
is not said to receive the worship of dulia, but hyperdulia.1® St. Bona­
venture teaches the same doctrine and makes the same distinctions
between the worship of dulia and the worship of hyperdulia.17
Denis the Carthusian states: "In the first place we must honor
Mary by reason of her dignity of maternity, whereby she is united to
the Eternal Father, since she is Mother of the selfsame Son of whom
He is Father. By reason of this admirable dignity she is more excellent
than any pure creature and she is superior to all as Lady of the angels,
Queen of heaven, Mother and Advocate of all men.” 18
Theological Argument. Tire more excellent the person, the more
excellent the cult that is given to that person. But Mary surpasses all
the saints by a threefold excellence, and therefore must be honored
with the cult of the most eminent dulia, namely, hyperdulia. The
reasons are: Mary incomparably surpasses all creatures in holiness and
fullness of grace; Mary is truly and formally the Mother of God,
through which dignity she is intimately united to the Eternal Father,
possessing with Him, one and the same Son; Mary is Christ’s consort
208

in the work of human redemption, both objective and subjective,
which cannot be said of any other saint. From these three excellencies
is derived the other title which also demands for her a more excellent
cult: Queen of the universe, to whom all creatures owe love, rever­
ence and subjection.
: The principal motive for giving Mary the cult of hyperdulia.
Some theologians ascribe as the principal motive of the cult of
hyperdulia given to the Virgin, the most excellent holiness which
adorns her. Such is the opinion of Vazquez, who states that this is
due to Mary more by reason of her sanctity than by reason of her
divine maternity.10
Nevertheless, the common teaching of theologians is that the prin­
cipal title of the cult of hyperdulia given to Mary is her divine mater­
nity. Certainly, the divine maternity is a unique dignity, much higher
than all created dignity, whether human or angelic, by which Mary
touches on the confines of the divinity, is related by blood with Christ
and by affinity to the divine Persons. Moreover, this maternity is in
Mary the root of her eminent holiness, of all the graces and privileges
bestowed upon her as dispositions and ornaments of this divine
maternity.
On the other hand, although Mary’s association in redemption is
not a necessary consequence of her maternity, Mary was, by the will
of God, Christ’s consort in that work because she was His Mother,
since no one could be more apt for this work than the Mother of the
Redeemer.
Finally, the dignity of Queen and Mistress of all creatures, which
shines forth in Mary, proceeds from her divine maternity as does the
branch from the root. For this reason the Church sings: “Happy art
thou, O sacred Virgin Mary, and most worthy of all praise, for out
of thee arose the sun of justice, Christ our God";20 and the Sacred
Congregation of Rites declared that her cult of hyperdulia is based
on her divine maternity.21

thesis

Whether the cult of hyperdulia differs specifically or only
quantitatively from the cult of dulia.
Theologians express themselves in different ways on this question.
thesis:

209

VENERATION OF MARY

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The Wirceburgcnscs maintain that the cult of hyperdulia given to
Man' is not a distinct species, but merely a different degree than is
that of dulia.22 Letcher defends the specific difference between the
two kinds of cult.28
It seems better to distinguish between the various titles by which
the cult of hyperdulia befits Mary. If Mary is venerated for her holi­
ness of grace and glory, it must be said that this cult is essentially
of the same species as that given the other saints, because the excel­
lence on which it is based is also of the same species and perfects the
Blessed Virgin in the same essential manner as it does the other
saints. Nevertheless, since Mary’s holiness is greater than that in the
rest of the saints, the cult that is due to her is superior in degree
within the same species.
However, the cult of hyperdulia given Mary by reason of her singu­
lar dignity as Mother of God is of a different nature and species than
that of dulia or than that of the hyperdulia which is based on the
excellence of grace, because the dignity of the divine maternity is
specifically distinct from the dignity of sanctifying grace, and refers
to a higher order, namely, that of the hypostatic union. For this
reason, the cult based on it is different in its species from that which
rests on the excellence of the graces and gifts bestowed on Mary in
greater abundance than on the other saints.
Lastly, Mary’s dignity as consort of the Redeemer and as Queen
of the world seems also to demand a cult of hyperdulia which is dif­
ferent not only in degree but also in kind from the dulia common to
the saints, because in addition to the close connection of these titles
with the divine maternity, Mary’s role as consort in Redemption is
so singular that it constitutes her the unique co-redemptrix and medi­
atrix of all graces, and her dignity as Queen is so eminent that she
rules with a dominion of eminence, conferred on her by Christ.24
Nevertheless, in practice there is no need for this distinction and
separation of titles, for by the selfsame cult that the Mother of God
is honored, her holiness and perfection are also honored. The various
titles mentioned are so many special reasons which impel us to ven­
erate the eminence of the Mother of God. This, according to Sudrez,
is the most perfect way of honoring the Blessed Virgin.25

210

Devotion to the Immaculate Heart
Having studied the legitimacy and species of Mary*s cult, we next
consider the veneration paid to her noblest members, among which
her most pure heart is preeminent.
Properly, says St. Thomas, reverence is given to the totality of a
subsistent thing,28 and in honoring the person, we honor at the same
time his parts. It is licit to give particularly to some parts the honor
due to the person, if there is sufficient reason. For example, the
Precious Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is adored, as is His most
Sacred Heart, which surpasses in excellence all of the other members
of His sacred humanity.

: The Immaculate Heart of Mary should be honored with
a special cult.
Observations. The heart can be understood in three senses: prop­
erly and physically, metaphorically, and symbolically. In the physical
sense, the heart refers to the organ of the body; in the metaphorical
sense, it is the love signified by the metaphor; in the symbolical sense,
the physical heart is used as a symbol of love.
Therefore, in the heart taken symbolically, the thing signified is
love in general or the whole affective, intimate and moral life; the
sign used is the physical or fleshly heart; the basis of the signification
is the connection between the physical heart and all the movements
of the affective life. It is hardly necessary to note that this connection
between the physical heart and the acts of psychological life do not in
any way require that the heart be considered the organ proper to the
passions.
All those who assert that the seat of the passions is the brain, must
admit that the heart is the first to receive the impressions of the
affective life, so that there is no movement of passion or of appetitive
potency in the brain which is not acknowledged in the heart by a
physiological influence of proportionate intensity.27
Cult or veneration can be given to an object in two ways: explicitly
and immediately or implicitly and less directly. There is no doubt
that the veneration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary implicitly
reaches her entire person because we do not venerate her heart as
thesis

VENERATION OF MARY

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

distinct from the person of Mary. It is not difficult to determine in
what way the veneration touches the heart of Mary explicitly and
directly.
In the first place, the heart of flesh and the metaphorical heart may
be venerated per se in private cult, as is that of the Sacred Heart of
Jesus, according as the faithful wish to hold one or the other in mind
and affection, because both the physical and metaphorical heart per­
tain to the person of the Virgin, Mother of God, and both share in
her exalted dignity.
According to Lebrun, devotion to the heart of Mary cannot have
as its object only the physical heart to the exclusion of Mary’s love,
nor her love to the exclusion of her physical heart. A devotion of this
type would not be in conformity with the spirit of the Church nor
in accordance with the needs of human nature.28 For that reason
St. John Eudes wanted to unite both hearts and present them to the
faithful.2®
Thus, the total material object, remote and primary, of the cult of
the Immaculate Heart is the person of the Mother of God, because,
as St. Thomas says, cult is given to the entire subsistent being. There­
fore, although veneration is given to the Immaculate Heart explicitly
and directly, implicitly it reaches the person of Mary as its ultimate
terminus.
The partial material object, proximate and secondary, is the sym­
bolic heart of Mary, that is, the heart of flesh as symbolic of her love
for God and men. It should be noted that Mary’s heart does not have
as exalted a position as the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
The general formal object of this cult is the singular supernatural
excellence of the person of Mary. The special formal object is the
excellence proper to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, or the perfection
of her interior life, and principally of her most fervent charity toward
God, Christ and men, including all that she did and suffered for us
by reason of this love, and all that she still does for us.
Magisterium of the Popes. In 1805 Pope Pius VII gave permission
to many cardinals, archbishops, bishops and religious institutes to
celebrate a particular day in honor of the Heart of Mary, using the
Mass and Office of Our Lady of the Snows, mutatis mutandis. Pope
Pius IX approved a proper Office and Mass of the Immaculate Heart
of Mary in 1855.
212

St. Pius X, in the brief for the beatification of John Eudes (April
n> 1909), Praiscs his role in spreading the cult of the Sacred Hearts
of Jesus and Mary, and Pope Pius XI placed this servant of God, the
first to propagate the liturgical cult of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and
Mary, among the number of the saints.30
Provincial Councils and Bishops. The Provincial Council of Rheims
in 1853 quoted St. Bernard to the effect that we need a second medi­
ator with our Mediator and then remarked that in the history of
Christian devotion any cult given to Christ was always followed by
a similar cult to Mary. Hence, the Council praised those of the clergy
who have promoted devotion to the Immaculate Heart, following
upon the cult to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.31
From the middle of the seventeenth century, many French bishops
approved and recommended the books written to explain and defend
the cult of the Most Pure Heart of Mary. They also erected confrater­
nities in her honor, which confraternities were approved by the Ro­
man Pontiffs. 32
Doctors and Theologians. Before the Church had made any defin­
itive proclamations concerning this cult, many theologians advocated
the veneration of the Immaculate Heart. Thus, Eadmer states that
Mary’s pure holiness and the most holy purity of her heart merited
for her that she should most worthily be constituted the reparatrix
of all the world.83
St. Bernard petitions Mary to open the door of her heart to the
supplications of the sons of Adam and states that it is not surprising
that consolation and mercy have poured forth from her heart, since
the great work of mercy predestined by God from all eternity for the
redemption of the human race was first realized in her by the
Creator.34
Richard of St. Lawrence writes as follows of the services performed
for us by the heart of Mary: "From the heart of the Blessed Virgin
Mary proceeded the faith and consent through which the salvation
of the world was inaugurated, and her heart was found worthy, in
preference to all other creatures, to receive the only-begotten Son of
God when the heart of the Father manifested the Word which came
forth from the Father and was received into the womb of the Virgin
Mother. So also in her heart and womb were found mercy and truth,
when the divine justice gave the kiss of peace of salvation. Moreover,
«3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

her heart, always sweet and loving, was filled with suffering beyond
compare when she gazed upon her crucified Son, and her soul was
filled with compassion by the torment of His passion. Then she was
also wounded by our iniquities and shattered by our crimes. In the
bowels of her mercy she bore our sufferings and those of hcr Son, our
infirmities and those of her Only-begotten, because then every misery
was a sorrow for her sweetest heart (Ecclus. 25).’’88
Raymond Jourdain extols the heart of Mary by stating that it was
inclined to no other love than love of God and that she fulfilled per­
fectly the divine precept of love of neighbor in God.3® Similar testi­
mony can be found in the writings of St. Bernardine of Siena, who
say's that words of ardent charity issued from Mary’s heart as from
a fiery furnace of love.87
St. Peter Canisius states: “Speaking of the heart of Mary, it should
be said that it was so pure that she, before anyone else, pronounced
her vow of virginity; and it was humble to the point that although
there were other reasons also, it was principally by reason of her
humility that she merited to conceive the divine Emmanuel through
the Holy Ghost; and it was so fervent that it was inflamed with an
incredible love for God and neighbor; and it was, lastly, most faithful
in preserving all that Jesus did in His infancy, youth and maturity. 31
Religious congregations were founded in the time of St. John Eudes
and principally at the end of the nineteenth century, bearing the
name of the Immaculate Heart or the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and
Mary'. They had as one of their purposes the establishment and
promulgation of devotion to the Immaculate Heart, together with
other apostolic works.3® Among these Congregations of men and
women, consecrated particularly to the Heart of Mary, the Mission­
ary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded by St. Anthony
Claret in the city of Vich (Spain) in 1848, deserve special mention.
Theological Argument. The adequate object of the cult attributed
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is, as we have already said, the
symbolic heart, that is, the physical heart of Mary as the symbol of
her love, her interior life, and all her purest affections. This heart of
Mary is worthy of honor and of special veneration under both aspects,
considered physically and symbolically.
The physical heart is intimately united, as has been said, to human
214

VENERATION OF

MARY

affections and passions, both of the sensitive appetite and the will.
Granted this union, although the heart is not the proper organ of
the passions, it is, nevertheless, the instrument of love and of the
other affections of the psychological life. Therefore, the heart of Mary
was also the instrument of love, of sorrow, of compassion and of the
other affections with which she cooperated in the work of human
redemption. Therefore, those salutary sentiments and affections of
the Blessed Virgin deserve special honor and gratitude from men.
Considered symbolically, the heart is the symbol of love and of
the whole affective life. As the symbol of her affective life, it em­
braces all of her interior life, her moral perfection, the treasure of her
merits and incomparable virtues, the anguish and affliction she suf­
fered in life, the sorrows, more cruel than death, that she suffered
near the Cross of Christ, her temporal and eternal joys and, prin­
cipally, her intense love of God, of her Son, and of men. Hence, the
Immaculate Heart of Mary is the abbreviated expression of all of her
most holy affections, especially of her ardent charity toward God and
toward her Son and toward men, and of all that she experienced, did
and suffered under the impulse of this charity, and still does. There­
fore, it must be affirmed that the cult by which we venerate and
honor all of those most holy affections of Mary as symbolized and
expressed by her most pure Heart, is most becoming to her.

Veneration of Relics of Mary
Relics in general comprise all that remains of the bodies of the
saints on earth after they have departed from this life. Some are relics
in the strict sense and others in the broad sense.
In the strict sense, the bodies of the saints and any parts of their
bodies are relics; for example, the head, the bones, the arms, or those
parts that are considered supplements or complements of the human
body such as the hair, nails, and so on, and even the humors of the
body such as milk, blood, and such.
Relics in the broad sense are all those things which the saints made
holy by their contact and use, such as their clothing and other articles
«5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

of which they made use, or objects which they touched in life ot
which touched their dead bodies. We also include here the instmments by which these saints met a martyr's death.
: Whether there remain on earth relics of the Virgin Mary.
It is certain that neither Mary’s body nor any part of it remain
on earth, because shortly after her death, she was raised from the dead
and taken gloriously into heaven.
With regard to other relics of Mary, such as supplements or com­
plements of her human body, some churches claim to possess some
of these things. Thus, John Ferrandus enumerates all the places
where, in his time, any portion of Mary’s hair existed. In Rome, for
example, the Church of the Holy Cross, St. John Lateran and St.
Mary Major claim such relics. Cardinal Baronius relates that Pope
Callixtus enclosed some of the Blessed Virgin’s hair in the altar con­
secrated by him in the Church of St. Agnes. Other places mentioned
as possessing relics of Mary’s hair are Oviedo, Spain, and Annecy,
Paris, Triers, Aix, Besançon and St. Omers in France.40
The Protestants deny the authenticity of these relics of Mary’s hair
and especially deny that such an abundance of her hair could still be
in existence. Nevertheless, the primitive Christians carefully collected
and preserved the hair and relics of other saints, and doubtless they
would have been anxious to gather relics of Mary.
Moreover, as to the amount of Mary’s hair, it is not as abundant
as has been claimed, because the hair is divided into very small
portions.
Concerning relics of Mary’s milk, Campana states that many Cath­
olics would prefer to pass over it in silence; yet there is nothing in­
decorous about it, but it bears the stamp of the miraculous.41
Some churches boast of preserving a portion of the milk of the
Virgin; for example, St. Chrysologus and SS. Cosmos and Damian in
Rome, Assisi in Italy, Paris, Annecy, Chartres, in France; Toledo, St.
Alban's College at Valladolid in Spain, and other places. Concerning
these relics, Trombelli says that it is not to be supposed that this milk
is in any great quantity, since altogether, it would probably hardly
fill a small phial.43
With regard to the nature of this milk, said to be that of Mary,
all theologians maintain that it is not truly that of Mary’s virginal

thesis

216

VENERATION OF

MARY

breasts, but rather a liquor which issued from some of her miraculous
statues’ Campana refers to two of these events. One is taken from the

Chronicle of Tritcmius and occurred at Bingen, near Mente. The
statue of the Blessed Virgin had a circle of five precious stones sur­
rounding her bust. Λ certain thief had robbed the four smallest
stones, and on attempting to take the fifth, which covered the very
breast of the statue, an abundance of milk and blood flowed forth.
The other event is taken from the Annals of Baronius and took
place near Damascus. There, from a wooden statue of Mary gushed
forth a wondrously powerful oil which could cure bodily infirmities.
This liquor, named the oil or milk of the Virgin, was taken to differ­
ent places of the East and West.
Frequently, what is called the milk of the Virgin is none other
than a certain material similar to plaster of Paris, or lime, or white
marble scraped from the walls of the Grotto of the Virgin in Bethle­
hem. The tradition or legend of that place relates that the Blessed
Virgin, having left Bethlehem to go to Egypt to escape the cruelty of
Herod, hid herself in that grotto and, while she was nursing her
divine Son, some drops of her milk fell on the large rock of the crypt.
Later, small loaves or cakes were made from the fine, white powder
of the crypt and given to the sick, particularly to lactating women
deficient in milk.43
With regard to relics of her blood, there is no church whatever that
claims to have any, since Mary, while on earth, did not shed even
the smallest amount of her blood, since she never suffered any illness
whatever, nor did she die a violent death as a martyr. Her death was
a natural one, though she died of divine love: a death sweet and
ecstatic. Therefore, if the Virgin’s blood should be mentioned as
existing in some place, it would be miraculous blood from statues,
among which is the one called Our Lady of the Blood (La Madonna
del Sangue), in the diocese of Novarino, in Italy. It was crowned with
a diadem of gold by Cardinal Joseph Gamba, Archbishop of Turin,
on August 5, 1928.
Among the relics of the most Blessed Virgin taken in the broad
sense, we must mention chiefly her cincture or belt, her veil, and
other articles of clothing. The Orientals held Mary’s cincture in great
veneration. St. Germanus of Constantinople lavished on it most emi­
nent praises, and its feast, which at first was celebrated on a ferial day,
ai7

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

became one of the chief solemnities. The Greek calendar of the
Emperor Basil (Urbino edition of 1727, under August 31) states that
Arcadius, son of Theodosius the Great, brought the cincture of the
Blessed Virgin to Constantinople from Jerusalem, where it had been
preserved by a certain virgin, and deposited it for public veneration in
an elegant shrine. Four hundred years later, under the Emperor Leo,
the patriarch delivered the Empress Zoe from an impure spirit by
applying this relic. Eventually it was transferred to the Basilica of
Chalcopratum, constructed by Empress Pulcheria.
In the West, the Virgin’s cincture was preserved in the Church of
St. Mary Major in Rome, where it was supposedly taken from Con­
stantinople when that city was under attack by the Turks. Many
other places claim to have a cincture of Mary, or a part of it.
The city of Prato in Tuscany glories in possessing a cincture of the
Virgin which is distinct from the one preserved in Constantinople
and in any other city, for, according to the tradition of the people of
Prato, Mary gave it to St. Thomas the Apostle when she was taken
to heaven.
The people of Chartres claim to possess the Blessed Virgin’s veil.
Oviedo in Spain, and other places claim portions of that veil and
other articles of clothing.44
Finally, on this subject of relics it is important to keep in mind
that there is much doubt concerning the authenticity of many of the
relics of the Blessed Virgin. Canon Law states that bishops are not
to permit, especially in preaching, books or periodicals destined to
arouse piety, that any questions be treated concerning the authen­
ticity of relics, based on merely probable opinions, prejudice and
especially in words that savor of ridicule or disrespect (can. 1286).
: Mary’s relics are honored by the cult of hyperdulia, not
absolute but relative.
This is a question of the public cult that the faithful are to give
to those relics of the most Blessed Virgin whose authenticity is
proved by official documents (can. 1283) or to those which, because
they have been venerated since ancient times, should continue to be
venerated at the present time, unless they are proved false by con­
clusive arguments (can. 1285).
Errors. An early opponent of this doctrine of the veneration of
218

thesis

VENERATION

OF

MARY

relics was Vigilantius, who was refuted by St. Jerome. Protestants
revived this error and strongly opposed the veneration of Mary’s relics.
They deny the authenticity of such relics and ridicule the piety of the
believers, which they qualify as an exaggerated and reprehensible
credulity.
First Part. The Council of Trent declared that bishops and all who
have the office of teaching should instruct the faithful concerning the
lawful use of relics and should affirm that those who maintain that
the relics of saints should not be honored or are uselessly honored by
the faithful, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already
condemned them and now also condemns them.49
Canon Law declares that the invocation of the saints is a good and
useful practice, as also the veneration of their relics and images (can.
1176).
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Germanus of Constantinople
preached an eloquent sermon in which he praised the cincture of the
Blessed Virgin and encouraged its veneration.4” In the same manner,
St. Euthymius of Constantinople likewise paid public tribute to the
relic.47
Theological Argument. Anyone who professes love for another,
usually venerates whatever remains after the death of the loved one.48
Therefore, any relics of the Blessed Virgin should be fittingly vener­
ated, because she is more worthy of honor than all other saints.
Second Part. Canon Law states that veneration is due to holy
images and relics, and relative cult is due the person they represent
(can. 1255).
Theological Argument. Relative cult is paid to things not having
a proper intrinsic excellence, but rather an extrinsic one, or an excel­
lence existing in the person to whom those things refer. Now, Mary’s
relics, like all others, possess no intrinsic excellence for being vener­
ated in themselves, but they are venerated by reason of the excellence
of the Blessed Virgin. For that reason, St. Thomas, speaking of relics
in general, says that we worship the lifeless body, not for its own sake,
but for the sake of the soul which was once united to it, and now
enjoys God; and for God’s sake, whose ministers the saints were.48

219

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Veneration of Images of Mary
linages of Mary should be venerated.
An image is a true likeness of that which it represents. It differs
from an idol in that the latter is a false likeness of a thing; it repre­
sents something which in reality docs not exist. Equivalent to the
word idol is the word simulacrum, which does not imply a resem­
blance, but a simulation, which always connotes some falsity.
The image can be considered either as an object or as something
representative of its exemplar. Under the first aspect, or insofar as it
is an object, such as a statue displayed in a museum, it is clear that
neither because of the material of which it is composed (gold, wood,
marble, and the like) nor by reason of its artistic form, is it worthy of
veneration, even though it may be admirable in itself. Therefore, this
question concerns the images of Mary under the second aspect, that
is, insofar as they arc formally representative of their prototype.
Errors. The iconoclasts were opposed to the veneration of the
images of Mary, of Christ and of the saints; others allowed their use
as an adornment for their churches or for the study of history, as is
the case of some modern Protestants, although some are even in­
clined to give a certain reverence to the images of Christ and of the
Virgin.
The Councils. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea,
defined that just as crucifixes should be venerated in the churches of
God, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls, in homes and on
the streets, so also images of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and
of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and those of the
saints should be venerated.60
The Council of Trent decreed that the images of Christ, of His
Virgin Mother, and of other saints arc to be used and retained, in
churches especially, and that due honor and veneration be given
them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, or
that anything is to be asked of them, or that any confidence is to be
placed in images, but because the honor which is shown them is
refened to the persons they represent; so that in venerating images
we adore Christ and venerate His saints, whose likeness they repre­
sent.61

thesis:

220

VENERATION OF

MARY

Similarly, the Tridentine profession of faith states that the images
of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the other saints are to be retained
and to be given due honor.52
The Codex Juris Canonici states that it is good and useful to in­
voke the servants of God and to honor their relics and images, but
above all, those of the Blessed Virgin.53
The Fathers. St. Basil says that images are not only not forbidden,
but we find them in all our churches.54
St. Gregory the Great commanded the Bishop of Cagliari to re­
move a crucifix and a statue of the Blessed Virgin from the syna­
gogue, where they had been placed by a converted Jew, so that they
could be given the veneration they deserve.55
Writing to Sereno, Bishop of Marseilles, who had removed certain
images from the church and had them destroyed, the same St.
Gregory stated that while he praised the zeal of Bishop Sereno in
preventing possible idolatry, he should not have destroyed the
images because those who are uneducated could read in the images
what they are unable to read in books.5·
Archeological Investigations. From the earliest days of the Church,
images of the saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin and of
the Apostles Peter and Paul, were painted or carved in the under­
ground oratories of the catacombs. This indeed is a sign that religious
veneration was given to them. Moreover, many prodigies and favors
have occurred throughout the centuries, as if God wished to attest
how pleasing was the honor paid to the images of Mary.
Theological Argument. It is just and proper that all honorable
persons be venerated, not only in themselves, but also in their images.
Therefore, Mary’s images should be venerated, since her person
is most worthy of all honor and veneration.
Moreover, in conformity with the inclination we feel toward any
person, whether of love or of hate, of esteem or of contempt, we
always react in some way to the images representing that person. But
no one could feel so opposed to the Blessed Virgin Mary that he
would not give her sacred images some mark of love and religious
veneration.
Finally, man is so constituted of body and soul that in the exercise
of his intellectual and moral life he needs the assistance of sensible
things. Hence, images of Mary, like those of Christ and of the saints,
221

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

are most suitable, not only for teaching illiterate people, but also
for arousing love and other pious sentiments in all the faithful. For
that reason, St. Gregory the Great asked Secundinus to send him an
image of the Savior in order to renew his fervor (Ep. 54), and in her
Life (c. 9), St. Teresa of Avila testifies that because of a statue of
the wounded and scourged Christ which she gazed upon, she was
moved to strive for a holier life and to overcome certain habits of
imperfection.
Tlie Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) advised bishops to make use
of sacred images for instructing the ignorant and inspiring the faith­
ful to the exercise of Christian virtue, in imitation of Christ and the
saints (Denz. 987).

The kind of cult with which Mary’s images are to be
venerated.
It is certain that to Mary’s images, as to those of the other saints,
we cannot pay absolute cult, or a cult based on the excellence of
images themselves, but on that of the prototype, since cult given
solely to an image would not extend directly to the person but to the
inanimate thing, which of itself is inferior to a rational creature and,
therefore, by that very fact, incapable of claiming veneration.
It therefore follows that the veneration due to images must be
merely a relative cult, since they are honored only because of the
saints they represent, as was decreed by the Second Council of
Nicaea: “The honor given to an image passes to that which is repre­
sented by it, and he who venerates an image, venerates tlie person
represented by the image.” 07 The same basic principle was repeated
by the Council of Trent (Denz. 986).
The question, therefore, is limited to the following: with what
kind of relative cult images of the most Blessed Virgin should be
venerated. Or, to put the question another way: whether the same
kind of veneration is given to Mary as to the image.
Opinions. Durandus says that holy images are not in themselves
worthy of veneration, but merely furnish an occasion to honor the
prototype. This opinion is commonly rejected by modem theologians,
since die official teaching of the Church is perfectly plain on this
thesis:

222

VENERATION OF MARY

point. According to the teaching of the Councils of Nicaea and
Trent, the images of the saints are worthy of lawful veneration.
St. Robert Bellarminc, Catharinus and others held that sacred
images were to be venerated for their own sake, but with a lesser or
inferior cult than the prototypes, and that the veneration given to
the image would pertain to the veneration of the prototype only
analogically and reductively. But in reality this inferior cult, as de­
scribed by the foregoing opinion, would be inexplicable. It could not
be absolute, since inanimate beings are incapable of receiving the
cult of latria, hyperdulia, or dulia or any other kind. And if it is said
to be relative, then the same cult is given to the images as to the
prototype, the only difference being that the first is relative and the
second is absolute.
Tlie most common opinion holds, with St. Thomas, that the cult
given the prototype and the image is of the same species; to the
former is given absolute veneration; to the latter, relative. Both taken
together comprise the total object of the cult. St. Thomas explains
this by saying that the veneration paid to the image as such is one
and the same as that which is given to that which is represented by
the image.08 In other words, the veneration does not stop at the image
but passes to the prototype, so that the image cannot exist or be
imagined without the prototype it represents. For that reason the
cult we give to an image of the Blessed Virgin and to the Blessed
Virgin herself is, specifically and numerically, one and the same
cult.0»

Veneration of the Name of Mary
Tlie veneration of the name of Mary is comparable to the venera­
tion of images of Mary because, like an image, her name is also one
with the person signified.
thesis: The name of Mary should be honored with a religious
cult.
Magisterium of the Popes. According to Pope Benedict XIV, the
feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary was established with the

223

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

approval of Rome in the diocese of Cuenca in Spain. It was sup
pressed by St. Pius V and restored by Pope Sixtus V, at the request
of Cardinal Dcza.®°
Pope Gregory XV extended the feast to the diocese of Toledo in
1662, consenting to the request of King Philip IV.0* In 1671, Pope
Clement X extended the Office of the Most Holy Name of Mary,
which was already recited in Toledo, to all the Spanish dominions,
and granted a plenary indulgence to all the faithful who assisted at
the solemn Mass on this feast, which was celebrated in all of Spain
on September 17.®2
By his decree of 1683, Pope Innocent XI ordered that the feast
of the Most Holy Name of Mary be celebrated yearly in the uni­
versal Church, in thanksgiving and in memory of the remarkable
victory which, under the protection of the Blessed Virgin, John
Sobieski, King of Poland, had obtained against the Turks who be­
sieged Vienna.®3
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Peter Chrysologus says: "This
name is salvation for those who are reborn, the emblem of virginity,
the splendor of purity, the indication of chastity.” ®‘
St. Peter Damian says that it was from the treasury of the divinity
that Mary’s admirable name came forth and that through it the
redemption was effected.®3
St. Bonaventure states that it is fitting to honor Mary’s name with
the cult of hyperdulia because even the blessed and the angels vener­
ate it.®®
Raymond Jourdain says: “The whole Trinity gave thee a name,
which, after that of thy most holy Son, is above every name, so that
at thy name every knee should bend in heaven, on earth, and under
the earth, and every tongue should confess the grace, the glory and
the power of thy most holy name.” ®T
Theological Argument. The images of the Blessed Virgin are
worthy of veneration because they represent the Blessed Virgin.
Therefore, the name of Mary also deserves veneration because it
represents the person designated by it. St. Thomas argues that since
words are signs of ideas, and ideas are the likeness of things, it is
evident that words refer to the things signified through intellectual
conception.·8 Hence, names are identical with the things or persons
signified.
224

VENERATION OF MARY

τ II e s i s : The name of Mary is entitled the cult of hyperdulia, not

absolute, but relative.
What pertains to the veneration of images of Mary is applied
likewise to her name: it is venerated by reason of its relation to Mary.
Therefore, the name of Mary should certainly be honored, not for
itself, but for the Virgin Mother of God, which means to venerate
it by a relative cult.

The power and efficacy of the name of Mary.
In genera] it must be asserted that the name of Mary is of great
value in obtaining innumerable benefits.
St. Germanus of Constantinople says: “As breathing is not only a
sign but even a cause of life, so the name of Mary, which is con­
stantly found on the lips of God’s servants, both proves that they
arc truly alive, and at the same time causes and preserves their life,
and gives them every succor.”69
Conrad of Saxony asks why Mary’s name would not be illustrious
when her name cannot be devoutly invoked without utility to the
one who invokes it.70
St. Peter Canisius says that when the name of Mary is referred to
her honor and sanctity and is pronounced devoutly, it is profitable
to many and has a singular divine power.71
In particular, the following effects are usually produced by the
name of Mary:
thesis:

r) It causes the demons to flee.
St. Germanus of Constantinople: "By repulsing and putting to
flight the perverse enemy when he attacks thy servants, and this
simply through the invocation of thy name, thou dost preserve them
intact and secure.”72
Conrad of Saxony: "Visible enemies do not fear the greatest
armies as much as the invisible powers fear the name of Mary, her
protection and her example." 79

a) It arouses a love of purity.
St. Albert the Great says that if the flesh is attracted to unlawful
pleasures, one can obtain relief through invoking the name of Mary.”
3)

It gives a certain spiritual sweetness.

«5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

St. Anthony of Padua: "The name of Mary is joy to the heart
honej’ to the lips, music to the ears.” 75
St. Bernardine of Siena: "By this name the heart is purified, the
mind is illumined, the soul is inflamed, the breast is soothed, the
taste is sweetened and affection is beautified." 70

4) It expels fear and comforts the sorrowful.
St. Germanus of Constantinople: “We receive greater protection
from thy name than delight from the gentle breezes.”77
Alcuin: “It is impossible, O Mary, to name thee or think of thee
without thy vivifying the affection of those who love thee.”78
5) It drives away temptations.
St. Bernard: “O you, whoever you are, who are tossed on this
stormy ocean, raise your eyes to this star if you would escape ship­
wreck. When the adverse winds of temptation blow, amid shoals,
tribulations, pride, ambition, slander, raise your eyes to Mary. If the
remembrance of your sins afflicts you, if remorse besets you, if the
rigors of the judgment terrify you, despair not; go to Mary. Have
her name ever on your lips and in your heart; to obtain her protection,
imitate the example of her virtues. Walking in her steps you cannot
en; praying to her you arc sure to obtain your petition; thinking of
her you will not fail. If Mary' supports you, you shall not fall; if she
guides you, you shall reach your heavenly country.” 70
Richard of St. Lawrence advises sinners to call upon the name of
Mary, and they will be cured of their evil. He advises the just, who
fear the snares of the devil, the more if they were once conquered
by him, to do the same. “Do not forget that our Lady is a tower of
strength; in her the sinner will find refuge in time of temptation, and
also he who had formerly sinned.”80
How the name of Mary produces its effects.
Some theologians, such as Raymond Jourdain, Novato, Vega, Sedl­
mayr and Lepicier, state that the name of Mary, when pronounced
devoutly, has such efficacy that it produces marvelous effects, not
only ex opere operantis (through the devotion of the one who pro­
nounces it), but also ex opere operato (of itself).81
It is clear that the name of Mary does not have the power to confer
grace ex opere operato, as do the sacraments. This is admitted by

thesis:

226

VENERATION OF MARY

the aforementioned theologians. Thus, Sedlmayr states that there is
a great difference between the efficacy of the names of Jesus and
Mary and the efficacy of the sacraments. The sacraments produce
sanctifying grace as an immediate effect, but the names of Jesus and
Mary produce other effects immediately, but not sanctifying grace,
at least not immediately. On the other hand, the sacraments produce
their effects infallibly, if there are no obstacles; the names of Jesus
and Mary produce their effects fallibly and contingently, on condi­
tion that it be pleasing to God and conducive to the salvation of
those who invoke them.82
Hence, they conclude that the name of Mary has the power of
producing the above-mentioned effects ex opere operato in the same
way that other sacramentals arc able to do so.83 For example, Ray­
mond Jourdain says that the name of Mary is a sacramental of divine
institution, and whether pronounced or written, it produces amazing
effects quasi ex opere operato.9* But although the opinion concerning
the ex opere operato efficacy of the sacramentals has remarkable
defenders, it was not supported by the most ancient theologians.*8
Today theologians commonly teach that the sacramentals consist­
ing in blessings by which the things on which they are bestowed are
made objectively holy, produce their effect quasi ex opere operato;
but all the sacramentals which tend to obtain spiritual or temporal
benefits for us, produce their effects ex opere operantis or by way
of impétration, which receives a special power from the prayers of
the Church. For a similar reason, it seems that the same should be
said of the efficacy of the name of Mary. Therefore, the name of
Mary does not have of itself, intrinsically, the necessary force to
confer its salutary effects ex opere operato.
It is, therefore, sufficient to obtain these effects solely through the
invocation of that name, ex opere operantis, or by way of impétra­
tion, since Mary', on being invoked in this way, is moved to give us
her assistance. Merely to pronounce her name devoutly is equal to
invoking her, asking her protection and favorably disposing her inter­
cessory power, as if to oblige her to help us.88
Surely, after the name of Jesus, the invocation of the name of
Mary is more efficacious than that of the other saints, since it sur­
passes all the others in excellence, as Richard of St. Lawrence ex­
presses it.87 Consequently, the faithful should be exhorted to invoke

2=7

Τ Π E BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

this holy name of Mary so devoutly and unceasingly that in life
and in death, as was the pious desire of St. Germanus of Constantinople, the name of Mary, Mother of God, may be the last word on
their lips.88

228

CHAPTER SIX

Elements oj the Cult of EMary
*

The

cult

of Mary consists of these three characteristics: cult of

honor, cult of invocation, and cult of imitation. By the cult of honor
we recognize and praise Mary’s singular excellence; by that of in­
vocation, proclaiming her superiority and showing her our reverence,
we entreat her as universal mediatrix of graces and our most powerful
advocate near the Lord; and we give her the cult of imitation because
St. Ildephonse of Toledo says that true praise of the heart consists in
imitating her virtues.

Cult of Honor
Together with the honor due Mary is included in this article the
love which should be professed for her, since love follows goodness
and beauty, to which honor always refers.
thesis: The cult of honor is to be given to Mary.
We hardly need pause to study the cult of honor due to the
Blessed Virgin, because from what has already been said, the honor
and veneration she deserves arc more than evident. It should suffice
to add that to the cult of Mary belongs all thought, word or work
that in some way celebrates her excellence, goodness, beauty and
power. Therefore, the cult to be given her includes both internal
and external acts. The internal acts include arousing in the soul
the highest esteem for Mary; praising in our hearts her lofty dignity
as Mother of God, her offices as mediatrix, co-redemptrix. Queen of
heaven and earth, and our sweet and most benign Mother, rejoicing
in her numberless natural and supernatural gifts; meditating at­
tentively on her privileges; and having an insatiable zeal for spread­

229

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

ing her honor everywhere. External acts consist in singing her praises,
praying to her, pronouncing her sweetest name, visiting her images
and the churches dedicated to her, joining confraternities bearing
her name, living under her patronage and paying her other honors.
By these and similar pious acts we must unceasingly practice Mary's
cult of honor. It should be constant and daily, so that not a day
passes without our honoring her by some special praise. St. Albert
the Great says that we should honor our Lady and Mother every day
of our life.
: The cult of love is to be given Mary.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII speaks in this manner:
"As often as the occasion arises to stimulate and intensify the love
and veneration of the Christian people for Mary, the great Mother
of God, We are filled with wondrous satisfaction and joy. ... For
the holy reverence for Mary which we experienced from Our tender·
est years, has grown greater and has taken firmer hold of Our ad­
vancing age. As time went on, it became more and more evident how
deserving of love and honor was she whom God Himself was the
first to love, and loved so much more than any other that, after
elevating her high above all the rest of His creation and adorning
her with His richest gifts, He made her His Mother.” 1
Pope Pins XI writes: “Do they not know or consider attentively
that nothing can be more pleasing to Christ Jesus, who certainly
loves His Mother with a boundless love, than that we should venerate
her, love her ardently, and, by imitating her most holy example,
endeavor to obtain her powerful patronage?” 2
The Fathers and Theologians. St. Ephrcm: "O Virgin and Lady,
Mother of God! You, surely, do not cease to look on us as Mother,
but as a lover of your children, always inclined to love, you bestow
on us your gifts, saving us and ever defending us. . . . We give you
thanks for all these things; we praise your mercies; we do not keep
your benefits hidden; we sing aloud your marvels; we praise your
solicitude; we eulogize your providence; we celebrate your assistance
by hymns; we recommend your mercy; and as regards the past, re­
calling your numerous benefits and the many dangers from which
you have delivered us, we offer you, as is fitting, this canticle of

thesis

230

ELEMENTS OF THE CULT OF MARY

thanksgiving which can never equal the benefits you have bestowed
on us." 8
St. Anselm of Canterbury: "You above all others, after your Son,
my Lord and God, ... my heart acknowledges and venerates, loves
and implores, not with the degree of love which I, so imperfect,
desire, but to the degree that I am able." 4
“0 Jesus, I beg Thee, by the love with which Thou dost love Thy
Mother and dost desire that she should be loved, grant that I also
may truly love her. O good Mother, I beg thee, by the love with
which thou dost love thy Son, . . . grant that I may truly love Him
also. . . . May my mind venerate both of you as you deserve; may
my heart love both of you as is fitting; . . . may I spend my life
in your love and service so that my entire being may glorify Jesus
and Mary for all eternity.” 5
St. Bernard says: “Let us venerate Mary with all the affection of
our hearts, for such is the will of God, who is pleased that we should
receive every good thing from her hand.” 8
We also have proof of this most devoted love of Mary in the
example of the saint. St. Dominic, St. Bernard, St. Philip Neri,
St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Aloysius Gonzaga, St. Stanislaus Kostka,
St. Alphonsus Rodriguez and many others mentioned by St. Alphonsus Liguori in his Glories of Mary (P. I, c. I) were outstanding in their
love of Mary and their zeal for promoting her cult.
Theological Argument. There are three incentives for love: good­
ness, benefits and love. Goodness, because the object of the will is
the good, just as that of sight is color; benefits, because even the
animals feel thus bound; and love, because one would be hard of
heart who would not give love for love, as St. Augustine states in
his Confessions (Book VIII).
These three things are found abundantly in Mary. Incomparable
goodness, through her being the most noble and excellent of crea­
tures, participating in the goodness of God to a degree surpassing
every other creature, for, as the Mother of God, she touches the
confines of divinity, is full of grace and is adorned in soul and body
with the most eminent beauty. As to benefits, Mary dispenses and
lavishes the treasures of mercy even on the most ungrateful and
most unworthy. As to love, in her zeal for their eternal salvation, she

ELEMENTS OF THE CULT OF MARY

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

is most diligent in obtaining that, after the miseries of this life, souls
may be taken to their heavenly home.
Corollary. To the love professed for Mary, above all, if it is not
an inconstant and weak love, but rather a fervent love, there is added
felicitation, by which we rejoice intimately with Mary in her glory,
her holiness, her benefits, and all the ineffable prerogatives bestowed
by divine liberality to be the Mother of God and our Mother, coredemptrix and advocate of the human race and mistress of all
creatures; confidence, by which we place our strongest hope in Mary,
after God, since she not only can, but does wish to help us, being
our Mother, co-redemptrix and most benign advocate; service or
subjection, by which we offer ourselves to Mary, our Queen, Mistress
and Mother, as servants and dutiful children, serving at the same
time, her Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, thus consecrated to the service
of Jesus and Mary.
St. Ildephonse of Toledo expresses this manner of servitude or
holy service beautifully by saying: "I shall serve Thy Mother in such
a way that Thou shalt believe that thereby I am serving Thee; may
she dominate me to such an extent that I shall know I am pleasing
to Thee; may her dominion over me be such in this life that I shall
have Thee for my Lord in eternity.” T

Cult of Invocation
Mary should be honored by the cult of invocation.
There are two kinds of invocation: one is proper to the divinity,
by which we acknowledge God as the source of all good; the other
is intercession, by which we seek aid and assistance in order to obtain
more easily what we ask and hope for from God.
It is evident that we are not treating here of invoking the Blessed
Virgin in the first sense, because the mind and practice of the Church
has always been to direct her prayers to God, the Giver of all good,
and has never recognized the Blessed Virgin or any of the other saints
as masters and authors of grace. Therefore, invocation of Mary is
taken in the second sense, namely, that when moved by our prayers.
thesis:

232

she intercedes to God so that He will deign to bestow upon us the

favors which we seek.
Errors. Copronimus and Vigilantius rejected the invocation of the
Virgin and of the saints as impious, opposed to salvation, and in­
sulting to the divine honor. Protestants generally maintain that the
invocation of Mary is injurious to Christ. The Jansenists reject in­
vocation of Mary and reduce her cult to mere imitation.
The Council of Trent. After affirming that the saints in heaven
offer their prayers to God for men, the Council states that it is good
and profitable to invoke the saints in order to obtain blessings from
God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Redeemer and that they
are guilty of impiety who deny that the saints are to be invoked, or
assert either that they do not pray for men or that to invoke them
is idolatry, or that it is against the Word of God and contrary to
the honor of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and
men, or that it is foolish to pray by word of mouth or mentally to
those who reign in heaven.8
All of the above has special application to Mary, whom Pope Sixtus
V praises as the Mother of mercy, Mother of grace, friend and con­
soler of the human race, and diligent petitioner of the salvation of
the faithful, who are crushed under the weight of their faults.’
The Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. St. Ephrem addresses Mary
as follows: "Do not cease to intercede for us, thy unworthy servants;
rather, save us from condemnation by thy prayers, which are faithful
until the end.” 10
St. Ambrose: "And in order that this prayer of mine may be effi­
cacious, I ask the suffrages of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom Thou
didst make so rich in merits.”11
St. Bernard: “If the winds of temptations arise, if you are cast
on the shoals of tribulations, look at the star, call upon Mary. If you
are buffeted by the waves of pride, ambition, detraction, envy, look
at the star, call upon Mary." 13
St. Amadeus: "Let us ask the Mother of pity, by the secret joy’s
and ineffable loves which she merited through a singular privilege,
to bestow on us her affection of maternal piety and to intercede
with her Son for pardon of our sins.” 18
The Liturgy. By her authority and example the Church approves
233

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the invocation of the Blessed Virgin and presents countless forms
of invocation, noteworthy for their dignity, antiquity and universal­
ity·, such as the Hail Mary, the Hail, Holy Queen, the litany of the
Blessed Virgin, the Rosary', the Memorare.
The Custom of the Faithful. Since the earliest times the Christian
people have had the custom of invoking Mary. ΊΈϊδ custom was so
universal in the Church, that the faithful in all their necessities,
dangers and afflictions always turned to Mary, asking her protection
and assistance, as is proved in history by innumerable deeds and ex­

amples.
Theological Argument. Intercession and invocation are two cor­
relative concepts. The second follows logically from the first, since
it would be inaccurate to think that Mary intercedes for us and
obtains for us all kinds of favors, if we could not implore her inter­
cession and ask her assistance. But from all that has been said before,
it is evident that the Blessed Virgin is continuously interceding at
the throne of God for all men. Therefore, there is nothing more
reasonable than the cult of invocation on our part.
Nor docs the invocation of Mary obscure the dignity of Christ in
any way, but rather enhances it, because the power of Mary thus
invoked is like a radiation of the power of Christ. Mary is not in­
voked as if she were independent of Christ, but as one who is sub­
ordinate in all things to Christ, the principal Mediator. Therefore,
we implore Mary’s help to obtain for us from God, through the
merits of Christ, what we ask. Thus, St. Augustine says that the only
proper prayer is prayer through Christ (In Ps. 108).
: Whether an explicit invocation of Mary is necessary for
her to intercede for us.
The answer is negative. Mary can intercede for us, and she actually
intercedes frequently, without our invoking her explicitly. The reason
is that no grace is bestowed except through her intercession, but we
actually receive many graces which were not preceded by any invo­
cation on our part. Indeed, even to invoke the Blessed Virgin, we
must have the grace of prayer, and this grace itself comes to us
through her even before we invoke her.
Therefore, Mary, even without having been invoked, comes to our
assistance, in imitation of Christ, who not only bestows the graces

thesis

234

ELEMENTS OF THE CULT OF MARY

we ask, but also many others not asked for; for example, those that
move us to pray or those that move sinners to repentance.14
For that reason Pope Leo XIII writes: “When we have recourse
to Mar/ in prayer, we are having recourse to the Mother of mercy,
who is so well disposed toward us that, whatever the necessity that
presses upon us, especially in attaining eternal life, she is instantly
at our side of her own accord, even though she has not been invoked.
She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with
which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in fullest
abundance.” 15
St. Germanus of Constantinople exclaims: "O Mary, who, after thy
Son, is as solicitous for the whole human race as thou art? Who
protects us in our trials as thou dost?” 18
Commenting on the miracle at the wedding at Cana, St. Ber­
nardine of Siena writes: "By her intercession the Virgin Mother
spoke as if she were responsible for the care of all . . . and seeing
our need, she turns her glance of pity towards us as if there were no
need to move her by our petitions. . . . Realizing that she is the
pious Mother of all men, she pleads for her children and, even with­
out being asked, she approaches her Son, saying, ‘They have no wine.'
If she performed that work without being asked, what will she do
if she is asked? If she did that while living on earth, what will she do
now that she reigns in heaven?”17
Miguel Ghislcri states: “Long before she is invoked, her pity comes
to our aid and she anticipates the petitions of the wretched.”,a
“Usually she does not wait until she is approached,” says The­
ophilus Raynaud, "as if she grants her favors only when requested,
but she anticipates the petitions of the needy by the charity with
which she is inflamed on our behalf."10
Although it may not be necessary in each instance to invoke Mary
explicitly to come to our assistance, nevertheless, it is necessary to
go to her sometimes, because the frequency and fervor with which
we pray to her will influence her pious intercession in obtaining
heavenly graces for us.
However, it can be said that Mary is invoked implicitly every time
the faithful pray for salvation in conformity with the order estab­
lished by divine providence, according to which order, no grace is
bestowed upon us except through Mar}'. Thus, Pope Leo XIII, in his
235

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

encyclical Jucunda semper, quotes St. Bernardine of Siena: "Every
grace granted to man in this life has three successive steps: from God
it comes to Christ, from Christ, to the Virgin, and from the Virgin
it descends to us.”20
It does not follow from this that the invocation of the saints is
useless and that only the Blessed Virgin should be invoked. Mary's
most powerful intercession with God docs not exclude the invocation
of the saints, whom God also wishes us to honor and to that end He
made them dispensers of particular favors. Nevertheless, divine
providence has determined that the saints do not obtain the graces
wc ask except through Christ and dependent on the intercession of
Mary’. For that reason, St. Anselm of Canterbury says: “If thou art
silent, no one will pray for us, no one will help us. But if thou dost
pray for us, then will all the saints do the same and succor us.’’21
Van Ketwigh expresses the same thought by saying that the prayers
of the saints obtain nothing for us unless Mary’s impétration is added
to theirs.22

Cult of Imitation
Among the acts which pertain to Mary’s cult, the third is the
imitation of her most excellent virtues, because we should imitate
those we venerate. As St. Gregory the Great expresses it: “True
veneration of the saints consists in imitation of the saints.” 23
Mary, the Mother of God, should be imitated by those
who wish to honor her.
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII says: “In Mary we see
how a truly good and provident God has established for us a most
suitable example of every virtue. As wc look upon her and think
about her, we are not cast down as though stricken by the over­
powering splendor of God’s power; but, on the contrary, attracted by
the closeness of the common nature we share with her, wc strive
with greater confidence to imitate her.” 24
Pope Pius X: “Whoever, then, wishes—and no one ought not so
to wish—that his devotion should be perfect and worthy of her,

thesis:

236

ELEMENTS OF THE CULT OF MAIT

should go further and strive to his utmost to imitate her example.”*
The Fathers and Doctors. St. Jerome says: "We follow the example
of the best; take as your model the Blessed Virgin, whose purity was
such that she merited to be the Mother of God.” *
St. Ambrose states that Mary’s life serves as a model in which
we can find lessons in rectitude, teaching us what we should correct,
what we should avoid, and what we should retain. Mary was such
that her life alone serves as a discipline and norm for all.2T
St. Bernard says that the Blessed Virgin knows and loves those
who love her and she is close to those who invoke her, especially
those who imitate her chastity and humility.28
After recommending devotion to the Blessed Virgin, St. Bona­
venture says that if such devotion is to be acceptable, one should
imitate Mary’s purity, humility and meekness.28
St. Peter Damian states that Mary was given us as an example so
that we would follow in her footsteps.30
Theological Argument. Tire first and principal model we must
imitate is Christ, who said: “And he who does not take up his cross
and follow Me, is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:38); and: “For I
have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also
should do” (John 15:15). The Apostle says: "For those whom He
has foreknown He has also predestined to become conformed to the
image of His Son, that He should be the firstborn among many
brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Now, to follow Christ and to conform
oneself to His image is none other than to imitate Him in all that is
possible.
But, as St. Pius X says: “So deplorable is our weakness that we
are sometimes discouraged by the greatness of such an example. By
the providence of God, however, another example is proposed to us,
which is both as near to Christ as human nature allows, and more
nearly accords with the weakness of our nature. And this is no other
than that of the Mother of Cod.” 31
And it may well be said that to imitate Mary is to imitate Christ,
since she, better than any other creature, manifests the image of
Christ and also manifests lier holiness to us most fully. The likeness
between Christ and Mary is described by St. Robert Bcllarmine when
he compares the perfections of each and concludes by saying that he
who sees Jesus, also secs the Mother of Jesus.”
>37

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Although the cult of Mary cannot exist without some
intention of imitating her, the imitation does not pertain to the
essence of the cult.
Errors. Erasmus maintains that the only cult pleasing to the
Blessed Virgin is the imitation of her virtues. The more Luther and
his followers reject the cult of Mary’s intercession, the more they
exalt the cult of her imitation. The Jansenists maintain that they
uselessly honor Mary who do not imitate her.
First Part. All cult paid to Mary should lead to imitation of her
virtues because Mary is presented as a model to all men of every
age and condition. But reverence to the Blessed Virgin would be
false if there were no intention or desire of imitating her. Hence,
Campana says that if we wish to be true clients of Mary we must
imitate her in her virtues.88
Second Part. The Fathers and Theologians. The fact that Mary
is called refuge of sinners is sufficient proof that actual imitation of
Mary is not required for the essence of the Marian cult. St. Ephrem,
St. Germanus of Constantinople and Raymond Jourdain explicitly
comment on Mary as refuge of sinners.84 But Mary' could not rightly
be called refuge of sinners if sinners could not approach her with
their pleas.
Theological Argument. If Mary’s cult consisted essentially in actual
imitation of her, abandoning as useless and even injurious all invo­
cation and reverence, it would be necessary that all her clients be
in the state of grace; therefore, this cult could be given only by the
just and pious and would have to be prohibited to sinners. But it is
not right to say such a thing, because all sinners, even those who
persist in sin and are unrepentant, should invoke Mary and have
recourse to her assistance, for she welcomes all sinners and is ever
ready to come to their aid, that they might be converted. Indeed,
sinners should always be exhorted to remain faithful to their devotion
to Mary.
Boudon, who courageously fought the Jansenists in France, says
that under the pretext of imitating her virtues, we should not neglect
the interior and exterior cult of Mary. Tliis is a means of obtaining
from her the most powerful help and loving intercession, in order
to work effectively towards self-renunciation, to carry our cross in a
Christian manner, and to follow her beloved Son, Jesus Christ.35
thesis:

238

ELEMENTS OF THE CULT OF MARY

Pope Benedict XIV is of the same mind when he says that the
sinner should not abandon devotion to Mary, because the prayer of
the sinner has the power of impétration if he prays for himself, with
piety and perseverance, for those things necessary for salvation, as
St. Thomas teaches (Ila Ilae, q. 83, a. 6). And it is very possible that,
by the divine mercy, the prayer of the sinner will be answered if he
is not so obstinate that he refuses repentance, but perseveres in his
prayer.3®

CHAPTER SEVEN

Necessity of Devotion to Nary
*
Marian Devotion and Salvation
The

marian cult

discussed here is that of invocation, which

carries with it honor and praise, since the cult of honor and praise is
implicitly or explicitly that of invocation.
Mary’s cult is morally necessary for salvation.
Previous Observations. A thing may be necessary in two ways: it
is either absolutely necessary or hypothetically necessary, that is, in
view of some end or goal. What is hypothetically necessary is either
such that without it the end could not be obtained, and is therefore
simply necessary, or such that the end cannot be obtained so easily
and conveniently, and then the necessity is relative. This relative
hypothetical necessity admits of many degrees, depending on the
types of difficulties opposed to the attainment of the end or goal,
and it constitutes true moral necessity.
It is certain that the cult of the Blessed Virgin is not absolutely
necessary, as neither is that of the incarnation of the divine Word,
nor, therefore, the very existence of the Mother of God.
Similarly, neither is the cult of the Blessed Virgin simply necessary
for the purpose of human salvation, as is sanctifying grace, for al­
though Mary is mediatrix of all graces, so that no one obtains grace
from God except through the most generous dispensation of His
Mother, nevertheless, she sometimes obtains grace for us even with­
out our having asked for it.
Undoubtedly, devotion to Mary is a most fitting means of obtain­
ing salvation, since frequently her clients obtain innumerable favors
because of their devotion to her. As St. Bonaventure says, she is the
helper and lover of those who praise her, as they know by experience.1
The question, therefore, must be reduced to this: whether, as regards

thesis:

240

NECESSITY OF DEVOTION TO MARY

our salvation, the cult of the Blessed Virgin transcends the limits of
fittingness and constitutes a certain moral necessity, so that without
it it would be very difficult or almost morally impossible to obtain
and preserve the graces necessary for salvation. Lastly, this necessity
must not be understood with regard to those who are invincibly
ignorant of Mary, but with regard to those who, acknowledging her
as the Mother of God, either disdain her or neglect to invoke her
and to give her due honor.
Errors. The Jansenists present Mary in their Admonitions (VIIVIII) as saying: “Do not think of honoring me, as if Cod were not
sufficient. If you love God, you have no need of anyone else.”
Magisterium of the Popes. Pope Leo XIII says: "So great is her
dignit}’, so great her favor before God, that whosoever in his need
will not have recourse to her is trying to fly without wings." 2
St. Pius X writes: "For can anyone fail to see that there is no surer
or more direct road than by Mary, for uniting all mankind in
Christ? . . . Hence too since, according to Christ Himself, ‘now
this is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent,’ and since it is through Mary
that we attain to the knowledge of Christ, through Mary also we
most easily obtain that life of which Christ is the source and origin.” 9
The Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. St. Germanus of Constanti­
nople, "O Mary, thou art all-powerful to save sinners, nor needest
thou any other recommendation, for thou art the Mother of true
life."4 "No one is saved except through thee.”8
St. Bernard: "This divine Mother, O my children, is the ladder
of sinners, by which they ascend to the height of divine grace: she is
my greatest confidence, she is the whole basis of my hope.” 8
Theological Argument. Prayer is necessary for salvation, and there­
fore St. Thomas says that every man is obliged to pray. The reason
is that he is obliged to procure spiritual goods which God alone
can bestow, and these spiritual goods can only be obtained by asking
them of God.T
And this necessity of prayer is, according to general law, not only
by necessity of precept, but also by necessity of means.9 Our prayer
is directed primarily to God, from whom we must hope for all good;
secondarily, to the saints, as our patrons and intercessors before the
divine majesty. But although there is no prohibition whatever of in­
241

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

yoking God in an immediate manner, nevertheless, according to the
order He established, when we wish to pray to God, we should turn
to the saints, so that they may make intercession and pray to God
for us.
But Mary holds first place among all the saints, as Pope Leo XIII
says in these words: "Now, of all the blessed in heaven, who can
compare with the august Mother of God in obtaining grace? Who
sees more clearly in the Eternal Word what troubles oppress us, what
are our needs? Who is allowed more power in moving God? Who can
compare with her in maternal affection?” 0
For that reason Sudrez states that it is the sentiment of the uni­
versal Church, "that the intercession and prayers of Mary arc, above
those of all others, not only useful, but necessary.” 10 And certainly,
we should pray to Mary’, not just sometimes, but always, begging
her patronage and asking her help on the road to salvation.”
In conformity with the moral necessity of devotion to the Blessed
Virgin is the fact that there is no positive precept of the Church
■which obliges us to invoke or honor the Blessed Virgin in any special
way. The Church requires that we do not reject devotion to Mary,
a thing which could scarcely be done without erring against faith. It
also requires that we observe Mary’s feasts and it asserts in many
ways the utility and necessity of recourse to her, through whose hands
so many and so great helps to salvation come to us.
Neither is there a divine positive precept concerning the cult of
the Blessed Virgin, although in Sacred Scripture and in Christian
tradition there are many statements which promote and advise it.
For that reason, the necessity of devotion to Mary is based simply
on natural law, not direct and explicit, but indirect and implicit,
because natural law requires us to seek the means proportionate to
the attainment of the end.12
Now, by the will of God, devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a moral
necessity, and neglect of it is no small obstacle. For, although Mary,
the consort in human redemption, our most benign Mother, dis­
pensatrix of all graces and universal advocate of the human race,
sometimes assists men even without their praying to her, she gives
the most efficacious help to her clients when they piously invoke
her.»

242

NECESSITY of

devotion to mart

Singular devotion to Mary is a sign of predestination.
There is no doubt that the predestination of the elect is in itself
so certain that none of the predestined can be lost, as is evident from
the words of Christ : “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and
they follow Me. And I give them everlasting life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand” (John
10:27-28), and from the teaching of St. Paul: "And those whom He
has predestined, them He has also called; and those whom He has
called, them He has also justified, and those whom He has justified,
them He has also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). Hence, St. Augustine says:
"If any of the elect were to perish, God would be deceived; but none
of them perish, for God does not deceive Himself.”14
It is de fide that man is not and can never be certain of his pre­
destination, except by a particular revelation, for those things which
depend on the will of God cannot be known except through divine
revelation. But since this is not ordinarily given, none of the pre­
destined can know their future for certain.15
From Christ’s own lips we know that the good thief had this
divine revelation. It also seems to have been given to the apostles
after the coming of the Holy Ghost, so that they could more con­
fidently and diligently preach the Gospel to all nations. Moreover,
as Satolli says,10 it is pleasant to think that to many of the elect God
bestows this ineffable consolation of certitude shortly before their
death. And although no one can be certain of being included in
the number of the predestined, apart from a special revelation, St.
Bernard says that there are signs of predestination which give a
conjectural certitude.17
The Fathers, Doctors and Theologians. St. Ephrem salutes Mary:
"Hail, Mary, certain salvation of Christians who sincerely and truly
have recourse to thee.”18
St. John Damascene addresses the Blessed Virgin as follows: “Re­
ceive the prayer of thy sinful servant who nevertheless loves thee
ardently and honors thee and considers thee his only hope of joy
... and certain pledge of salvation."ie
Eadnier: “Let us strive as much as possible to recognize as much
as possible the love of such a good Mother. . . . Therefore, to him
who is accustomed to think frequently and with great sweetness
he sis:

*43

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

about her, I predict that this will be for him no small indication of
eternal salvation." 20
St. Bernard: "It is certain that we shall be saved only through
grace. Why, brethren, do we seek other things? Let us seek grace and
let us seek it through Mary, because she always finds what she

seeks." 21
St. Thomas Aquinas says that Mary has been given the great privi­
lege of saving all the guilty and the evil doers who approach her.22
Richard of St. Lawrence: “In the future life Mary will glorify
those who serve and honor her in the present life.” 23
Raymond Jourdain: "She loves those who love her. Even more, she
serves those who serve her . . . and she will glorify them in the
future if they honor her in the present.” 24
St. Lawrence Justinian puts the following words in the mouth of
Christ, speaking from the Cross to His Mother: "No one who invokes
thee will be ignored, and no client of thine will be alien to Me."25
St. Alphonsus Liguori: "It is impossible that any client of Mary be
condemned if he faithfully honors her and commends himself to
her." 26
Theologians of all schools consider devotion to Mary as a sign of
predestination. Thus, Gonet says that special devotion to Mary is
like a mystical ladder by which God descends to men and men ascend
to heaven,27 and Hurter affirms that devotion to Mary is no less a
sign of predestination than devotion to Christ.28
Theological Argument. All theologians agree in maintaining that
eternal life is given as a reward for good works, that is, for the merits,
virtues and good works executed in the state of grace during life.
All of this ordinarily depends on the devotion men have for the
Blessed Virgin, since it is evident that when devotion to Mary grows
cold, the spiritual life is weakened, and when devotion to Mary is
more fervent, the spiritual life becomes stronger.
Corollary. Just as sincere devotion to Mary is a sign of predestina­
tion, so disdain of her is interpreted as a sign of reprobation. Thus,
St. Germanus of Constantinople states that when the Son of God
shall come in justice, many will weep when they realize that because
they were not willing to recognize tlic Mother of God, they will be
deprived of a great treasure.28 And even the heretic Ecolampadius

*44

necessity

or devotion to

maey

stated: "Never let it be heard that I am hostile to Mary, of whom
to think evil, I judge a sure sign of reprobation."*»
thesis:

Which type of devotion to Mary is a sign of eternal

predestination.
Three kinds of devotion to Mary can be distinguished: perfect,
imperfect, and false. Perfect devotion is that which honors and praises
Mary by imitating her through avoidance of sin, observance of the
divine law and the perfect love of God.
Imperfect devotion has two different aspects. The less imperfect
devotion consists in honoring and praising Mary, but the individual
is still under the yoke of sin, although there is a resolute will to be
converted, and the individual prays for her assistance. The more im­
perfect devotion is found in him who honors Mary but is still in the
state of sin, and although he does not have the actual intention to
repent, he does not reject all thought of conversion, but hopes that
with Mary’s help he will eventually give up sin and be reconciled
to God, at least at the end of his life.
False devotion is that which consists entirely in external practices,
while the individual not only continues in sin but presumes that,
with the help of the Virgin, he will obtain forgiveness of his sins and
thus be saved.81
It is true that perfect devotion to Mary, practiced continually, is
a true sign of predestination, as is demonstrated most clearly by the
testimonies we have given from the Fathers and Doctors of the
Church. It is also certain that false devotion in no way is a sign of
predestination; rather, those who practice it, says St. Alphonsus
Liguori, deserve chastisement, and not mercy.·18 Therefore, it is a ques­
tion of imperfect devotion; that is, whether this devotion is also a
sign of eternal predestination. The Jansenists, in order to under­
mine devotion to the Blessed Virgin, put the following words in her
mouth: "Do not think that because you practice devotion to me that
you are predestined, if you have not charity. Only charity distin­
guishes between the children of God and the children of the devil”
(Adv. III). But this is most absurd, for it would mean that no one
in mortal sin is predestined. Then it would be logical to conclude
that Peter and Paul and other great saints such as Mary Magdalen

M5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

and St. Augustine were not predestined. Others who hold this
opinion arc Choiseul, Baillct, Muratori, and others.38
Therefore, it must be affirmed that even imperfect devotion to
Mary is a sign of predestination, although imperfectly and remotely.
Thus, St. Ephrcm and many other Fathers and ecclesiastical writers
refer to her as tlie refuge of sinners. She is invoked as such so that
sinners will cease their evil ways and be saved.
St. Ildephonse of Toledo states that without the Blessed Virgin,
one travels on the road to damnation. Therefore, we should place
ourselves under her mantle and confess our sins.84
Fulbert of Chartres: "Let sinners come to Mary, striking their
breasts and weeping tears, and if they are truly repentant they will
receive mercy.” 85
St. Peter Damian addresses Mary: “Do not let your hand tire in
seeking occasions to save the wretched and of bestowing mercy, for
thy glory is not diminished but increased when penitent sinners re­
ceive pardon and the justified reach glory.” 80
Pope Innocent III says that he who is lost in the darkness of sin
should call upon Mary and she, through her Son, will illumine his
heart with the light of penance.37
St. Thomas Aquinas states that Mary has been privileged with so
great a dignity so that all the guilty and evil-doers that have recourse
to her may be saved.88
St. Bernardine of Busti declares that just as Mary is more powerful
with God than all the saints, so she intercedes for us more fervently
and more diligently. Therefore, a sinner need not yield to despair,
but should have recourse to such a powerful and benign advocate.”
As we have already stated, imperfect devotion to the Blessed
Virgin may be less imperfect or more imperfect. The basic difference
between the two is that in the former there is the actual will to give
up sin; in the latter, the desire for repentance is not completely re­
jected. In either type, however, if sinners practice devotion to Mary
and persevere in it, they can have the hope of being received kindly
by the Mother of mercy, and through her patronage obtain the grace
of true repentance and ultimate salvation.
Sinners who practice devotion to Mary and have the actual in­
tention of abandoning sin, may prudently expect her efficacious as­
sistance for salvation. Although the devotion of the just or that of
246

NECESSITY

OF DEVOTION TO MART

the sincerely repentant sinners is more acceptable to Mary, that of
the sinner who has not yet done penance is also pleasing to her,
because his acts of faith, hope and fear of hell arc formally good
before his justification; so also is his devotion to Mary. As Richard
of St. Lawrence asks: "Can the Mother of mercy, full of grace, dis­
dain one who invokes her holy name with all his heart?"
Sinners who do not yet have the actual intention of abandoning
sin but do not completely exclude the resolve to do penance, may
still hope for salvation through Mary's patronage. Thus, Pope Bene­
dict XIV states that lest anyone misinterpret his words and think
that sinners should abandon devotion to Mary because their prayers
and good works are of no avail, they should realize that the prayer
of a sinner has impetratory value through the divine mercy if he prays
for himself perseveringly and asks something necessary for salvation.40
Petitalot states that there always remains to the sinner as a hope
of salvation his devotion to Mary, however imperfect it may be.
Whatever anyone does for her will not go without its reward. The
actions of sinners cannot merit very much, but Mary is so good that
she takes account of the smallest intention.41 There are numerous
examples of those who had no intention of changing their lives but
have been converted to true repentance by their devotion to Mary.42
However, there is always the possibility and the fear that habitual
sinners will become obdurate in their sins and abandon their devo­
tion to Mary, to perish wretchedly at the end of their life. It is there­
fore necessary to warn such persons against the rejection of this last
help and to encourage them not to cease calling upon Mary.42
Corollary. Since devotion to the Blessed Virgin is a sign of pre­
destination, it follows that the hope of salvation by this means is in
proportion to one’s devotion. Therefore, while perfect devotion is
the claim of a firm hope of salvation for the clients of Mary, im­
perfect devotion does not give them a right, but only a weak hope.
Nevertheless, even with this sign of the devotion to Mary, whatever
its perfection, we should never cease to fear for our eternal salvation,
for, as St. Augustine says, “even those who travel well, experience
fear, since it is not known who will arrive.”44

*47

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Benefits of Devotion to Mary
Having studied the necessity of devotion to Mary, we shall now
consider the many benefits which can be derived therefrom.
St. Paul tell us (I Tim. 4:8) that “godliness is profitable in all
respects, since it has the promise of the present life as well as of that
which is to come.’’ We can apply this especially to devotion to
Mar}', in conformity with the prayer of the Church in the Mass for
the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin: “Grant, we beseech Thee, 0
Lord, that Thy holy sacraments, which we have received in celebration
of this annual feast, may be for us both a healing remedy against
all the ills of this life, and an assurance of happiness in that which
is to come.”45

BENEFITS TO THE INDIVIDUAL

The utility of the Marian cult in relation to the individual persons
who honor Mary can be considered with regard to the present life
and the future life.
: The benefits or advantages Mary’s clients obtain in the
present life.
As exemplary cause and as impetratory cause Mary bestows spiritual
benefits on her clients.
As exemplary cause. It is impossible that anyone giving devotion
to Mar}’ would not feel himself little by little imbued by her spirit
and sentiments and not imitate her virtues. St. Bonaventure says that
he has never read of even one saint who did not have a special de­
votion to the glorious Virgin.40 For that reason both those who
follow the common way of perfection by the observance of the
commandments, and those who live the life of the evangelical
counsels, always look upon devotion to Mary as a perpetual model
of holiness and virtue. And so it is that Mary is not only presented,
after Christ, as an absolute model of perfection in the fulfillment
of the divine precepts, but also in that of prompt obedience, volun­
tary poverty, and especially the purest virginity.

thesis

248

NECESSITY OF

DEVOTION TO MARY

As impetratory cause. Although Mary, through her offices as our
most pious Mother, as advocate and universal patroness of men,
distributes to all the helps sufficient for salvation, nevertheless, effi­
cacious assistance is not ordinarily given to adults without true de­
rotion to the most Blessed Virgin. St. Bonaventure says: "Although
the grace of the Virgin redounds to all . . . as regards sufficiency,
it is not so as regards efficacy, except only in those who render
themselves worthy of receiving it.” *T This capacity or preparation
for receiving more helps of grace or for experiencing more of Mary's
beneficence will be in proportion to the greater devotion of men
toward her.48
Truly, those most devoted to Mary are her best children, not only
by the general law of Christ (John 19:26), but by a special title, for
by a personal free choice, they accept her as Mother and respect and
love her, placing themselves under her protection. Moreover, it is
well known that a mother tends to give more protection and maternal
love to those of her children who manifest the greatest love for her.
Thus, while those who have no devotion to Mary lack many aids to
salvation, the Blessed Virgin herself obtains greater or less means
of salvation for men according to the degree of their devotion to
her, and she will obtain abundant graces and even the grace of final
perseverance for those who faithfully and fervently honor her.
Maiy’s clients usually obtain from her not only spiritual goods,
but also temporal and external goods, such as success in under­
takings, help in tribulation, safety in dangers on land and sea, and
bodily strength and health. Accordingly, when Asiatic cholera ravaged
Italy in 1884, Pope Leo XIII exhorted the faithful to implore the
intercession of Mary.48 St. Germanus of Constantinople speaks of
Mary as “medicine of my wounds, consolation in my laments and
comfort in my sufferings." 50 St. John Damascene refers to Mary as
"inexhaustible fountain of health,” ·* and St. Amadeus of Lausanne
states that she is not only the health of souls, but of bodies as well,
and she provides for our bodily needs.02
In litanies she is called "Health of the sick." God is certainly the
one who heals (Mich. 6:9), but Mary moves Him to bestow health.
And although she does not always obtain bodily health for the sick
immediately, since she does not always attend to our desire, but
rather to our utility, she does not for that reason cease to be the
249

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

health of the sick. She always grants greater favors than the ones
we pray for, soothing us with sweet consolations and inspiring us
with Christian fortitude, which arc much more salutary than health
of body. Therefore, in praying to Mary for bodily recovery, we should
subject ourselves completely to her will, praying as did the leper to
Jesus: "Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean” (Matt. 8:2).

The benefits which Mary’s clients will receive in the
future life.
In this question we study two things: the passing of men from this
life to the next and the condition of man in the future life. In man’s
passing from this life to the next, we must consider in the first place,
the separation of the soul from the body by death, and in the second,
the particular judgment of each soul after death.
The condition of each man in the next life at any given moment
is that of beatitude, of damnation or of purification. Since we have
previously discussed the help of Mary with respect to these condi­
tions, we limit the present question to the study of Mary’s assistance
to her clients at the hour of death and at the particular judgment.
Mary’s assistance of her clients at the hour of death. Pope Benedict
XV teaches that one can hope for the grace of a happy death from
the Blessed Virgin because through her hands we receive all graces.’3
The same doctrine is taught by the Fathers of the Church. Thus,
St. Ephrem addresses the Blessed Virgin: "Assist me now and always,
O Virgin Mother of God, benign and clement Mother of mercy,
my protector during the present life . . . and preserver of my soul
at tlie last moment." M
St. Bernard states that Mary’s mercy extends even to the assistance
she gives to her clients in their last moment.”
St. Bonaventure says: “I ask thee, O Mary, for the glory of thy
name, to come and meet my soul when it is departing from this
world, and to take it in thy arms. Disdain not, O Mary, to come then
and comfort me with thy presence. Be thyself my soul's ladder and
way to heaven. Do thou thyself obtain for it the grace of forgiveness
and eternal repose. O Mary, our advocate, it is for thee to defend
thy clients and to undertake their cause before the tribunal of Jesus
Christ.” ”
thesis:

250

NECESSITY

of

DEVOTION TO MARY

Alphonsus Salmerôn : "By the fact of having attended Christ at
His birth and His death, Mary was made worthy to assist as a loving
Mother at the birth of the children of God and to help them espe­
cially at the hour of their death.” 57
The Church prays to Mary as follows:

"O Mary, Mother of all grace,
Mother of mercy to our race.
Protect us now from Satan’s power
And receive us at life’s closing hour.”88
Mary's assistance at the particular judgment. The Jansenists do
not admit that the Blessed Virgin gives any assistance at the divine
judgment of those who were her clients. However, the Fathers and
theologians generally teach that Mary does come to the aid of those
who were devoted to her.
St. Ephrcm: "Assist me now and always, O Virgin Mother of God,
benign and clement Mother of mercy. . . . Free me from eternal
condemnation on the terrible day of judgment and unite me at last
with the number of the just.”89
St. Bonaventure: "I shall rejoice and be filled with joy because
whatever my judgment will be is dependent on the sentence of my
Mother and my Brother.” 80
Richard of St. Lawrence: "If you are a sinner and fear the Judge,
she will restrain Him." 81
St. Antoninus: "The wisdom and eloquence of the advocate is
manifested in three things, namely, that he wins before a just and
wise judge, over a craft}' and astute enemy, in a hopeless case. This
is verified in the Blessed Virgin, with respect to God, a most wise
and just Judge, against the devil, a more crafty enemy, and in the
hopeless case between God and man, in which no man dares to
speak.” 82
Sedlmayr states that Mary is our advocate principally in the divine
judgment.88
Let us now consider briefly the way in which Mary gives assistance
at the judgment. In human causes there is first required a dis­
cussion of the case, but in the divine judgment this is not necessary,

25>

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

because by a single act of His intellect God knows perfectly, and
from all eternity, all the merits and demerits of men.
When the sentence is passed by God, it is addressed to souls that
are separated from the body and is not therefore expressed in words,
but in a purely intellectual manner. Once the sentence is declared,
it is effective immediately and the soul enters heaven, purgatory or
hell.
Although some have maintained that the guardian angels and other
patrons, as well as devils, intervene as witnesses at the particular
judgment, theologians generally deny the presence of such. However,
it may be admitted that certain angels, such as St. Michael, do inter­
vene in the execution of the sentence, since the Latin liturgy states
that he has been constituted prince of the souls that are to be
received.01
It is evident that God alone has the right to judge, and, therefore,
it is common to the Trinity, although it is appropriated to the Word
of God, as St. Thomas says: “The standard of judgment is the law
of wisdom or truth, according to which the judgment is passed. Now
because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from
the Father, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary power is
properly attributed to the Son of God." 08
But this judiciary power not only becomes Christ inasmuch as He
is Cod and the Son of God, but also inasmuch as He is man, as
St. John says: “For neither does the Father judge any man, but all
judgment He has given to the Son" (5:22) "and He has granted Him
power to render judgment, because He is Son of Man” (v. 27). St.
Thomas comments by saying that all judgment is vested in Jesus
Christ according to His human nature (In Joan. 5, lect. 5).
Therefore, Christ, as God, is the judge both in the particular judg­
ment, which takes place immediately after death, and in the general
judgment. Christ as man is the judge in the general judgment, as is
evident in many passages of Holy Scripture. Thus, we read in St.
Matthew: “For the Son of Man is to come with His angels in the
glory of His Father, and then He will render to everyone according
to his conduct" (16:27). St. Mark says: "And then they will see the
Son of Man coming upon clouds with great power and majesty'”
(13:26). And in St. Paul we read: "For all of us must be made mani­
fest before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what

252

necessity of devotion to mamy

he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good
or evil" (II Cor. 5:10).
Whether Christ as man is the judge of souls in the particular judg­
ment is disputed among theologians. Gotti maintains that the most
probable opinion is that which maintains that Christ is the judge
in the particular judgment inasmuch as He is the Word of God, since
by reason of His divinity He is ever present to all and all are present
to Him.
Stentrup, Paquet and others maintain that Christ is the judge in
the particular judgment, not only as the Son of God, but also as man,
because this judgment enters into the exercise of the power of Christ,
whom God has constituted judge of both the living and the dead
(Acts 10:42). To Jesus Christ, therefore, belongs all judgment over
them.011
Nevertheless, in order for the particular judgment to take place, the
soul docs not have to ascend to the throne of Christ, nor does Christ
descend bodily from heaven. Rather, the divine Judge is present to
them by purely intellectual communication.®7
That being the case, it seems that, as for Mary’s assisting her clients
in the divine judgment, the following must be admitted:
1) Mary does not mediate personally in the divine judgment in
order to defend the cause of her clients, since Christ does not appear
bodily, seated on any throne, the guardian angel is not present to
assist, nor does the devil appear there to defend or accuse. St. Cyril
of Alexandria says that the Judge has need of none of them, for He
alone places before the eyes of the sinners all they have done, said
and intended.88
Therefore, the description of the particular judgment, in which the
soul is taken to the tribunal of Christ, before whom the Blessed
Virgin intercedes for him, his guardian angel acts as his advocate,
and the devil is his cruel accuser; or that description in which the
particular judgment is compared to a scale in which the devils place
the accumulation of sins on one side and the angels place all the good
works on the right, are used figuratively or metaphorically. Thus,
Gotti 07 believes that the particular judgment is so described so that
the faithful will be better able to understand tins judgment, will fear
it, and live saintly lives.
2) Nor should Mary’s assistance be understood as intervening in

a53

ΤΠ E BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

divine judgment in order to change the decree of God's justice
through her prayers, or to free those already condemned to eternal
fire.
3) The assistance of the Blessed Virgin before the divine Judge
must be understood as given to her clients in what we could call the
door of the judgment, that is, at the moment of death; or during
their life, by recalling to them the rigor of the judgment so that they
will not sin; and finally, by her powerful intercession, she obtains for
them the helps to live a holy life, or at least to die in the state of
grace and thus avoid the chastisement of God’s justice on that dread­
ful day.

SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MARIAN DEVOTION

There are three societies to be considered as beneficiaries of Marian
devotion: the Church, the family or domestic society, and the nation
or political society.
The Church of Christ receives countless benefits, both doctrinal
and moral, from devotion to Mary. The doctrinal influence is de­
scribed as follows by Pope Leo XIII:
She has even, as this same Doctor claims (St. Cyril), upheld and
given strength to the sceptre of the orthodox faith. It has been her
unremitting concern to see to it that the Catholic faith stands firmly
lodged in the midst of the people, there to thrive in its fertile and
undivided unity. Many and well known are the proofs of her solici­
tude, manifested from time to time even in a miraculous manner.
In the times and places in which, to the Church’s grief, faith lan­
guished in lethargic indifference or was tormented by the baneful
scourge of heresy, our great and gracious Lady in her kindness was
ever ready with her aid and comfort.
Under her inspiration, strong with her might, great men were raised
up—illustrious for their sanctity no less than for their apostolic spirit
—to beat off the attacks of wicked adversaries and to lead souls back
into the virtuous ways of Christian life, firing them with a consuming
love of the things of God. One such man, an army in himself, was
Dominic Guzman. Putting all his trust in our Lady’s Rosary, he
set himself fearlessly to the accomplishment of both these tasks with
happy results.

254

NECESSITY OF

DEVOTION TO MARY

No one will fail to remark how much the merits of the venerable
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who spent their lives in the
defense and explanation of the Catholic faith, redound to the Virgin
Mother of Cod. For from her, the Scat of Divine Wisdom, as they
themselves gratefully tell us, a strong current of the most sublime
wisdom has coursed through their writings. And they were quick to
acknowledge that not by themselves but by her have iniquitous errors
been overcome.70

As regards the moral benefits, just as the Doctors received their
doctrine from Mary, so also the saintly guides of the Church, bishops
and pastors, confess having obtained strength of soul, fortitude and
counsel from her, as Pope Leo XIII says: "It is as if the voice of the
heavenly Queen made itself heard to Us; at one moment graciously
consoling Us in the midst of trials; at another, guiding Us by her
counsel in directing the great work of the salvation of souls; at an­
other, urging Us to admonish the Christian people to advance in piety
and in the practice of every virtue.”71 In like manner, all the faithful
who practice devotion to Mary are aided by her and impelled to good
in many different ways. Gerson goes so far as to proclaim that "just
as the body cannot live without breathing, so the mystical body of
the faithful cannot preserve its spiritual life without the assistance
of the Blessed Virgin.”72
Croat blessings are also bestowed on the family or domestic society
through devotion to Mary. The family is the very basis of all social
life. Destroy family life, and all society necessarily falls. But the sound
and good structure of family life depends to a great extent on the
social status of women. In pre-Christian times, and even today in
some areas, the social condition of a wife was that of a slave and
servant. Aristotle stated that not only among ancient barbarians, but
even among the Greeks and the Romans, woman was held in low
esteem. 'Die Christian religion became the patron and defender of
woman, raising her from her degraded condition and giving her a
position of honor. Tliis was due in no small measure to the honor and
reverence paid to Mary, who was hailed as the exemplar and model
of all women.
'Die Holy Family is proposed as a model to be imitated, as Pope
Leo XIII states: “In Joseph, fathers of families have the most beauti­
ful model of fatherly attention and providence; in the most holy
’55

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Virgin Mother of God, the most extraordinary pattern of love, mod­
esty, perfect submission, and fidelity; in Jesus, who as Son of the
household was subject to them, a divine exemplar of obedience to
admire, worship, and imitate.””
Finally, there are also remarkable benefits which redound to the
Christian people from Marian piety. Mary not only defends the Chris­
tian people from evils threatening them, but also obtains social good
for them to a remarkable degree. Pope Leo XIII writes; "Ancient and
modem history and the more sacred annals of the Church bear wit­
ness to public and private supplications addressed to the Mother of
God, to the help she has granted in return, and to the peace and
tranquillity which she has obtained from God. Hence her illustrious
titles of ‘Help of Christians,’ ‘Consolation of the afflicted/ ‘Our power
in war,’ ‘Queen of Victors',’ ‘Queen of peace.’ . . . And do you,
Venerable Brethren, the more you have at heart the honor of Mary
and the welfare of human society, the more diligently apply your­
selves to nourish the piety of the people toward the great Virgin and
to increase their confidence in her.” 74
And in truth, many times the Christian people have experienced
Mary’s powerful help in combats against the infidels and against
other enemies. So many victories were won by the Christians with
Mary’s help that they fill the annals of history and we cannot list all
of them here. Nevertheless, we shall mention two of the most illus­
trious victories. The first is the victory of 1212, won by King Al­
fonso VIII of Castile over a great army of Moors. 'Hie Christian
soldiers marched behind the Cross of Christ and the banner of the
King, on which was painted the image of Mary.
Tire second great victory was won by Don Juan of Austria, brother
of Philip II and general of the Christian army, in a battle against the
Turks in 1571. Pope Leo XIII refers to it by saying: "Tire efficacy
and power of this devotion (the Rosary) was also wondrously ex­
hibited in the sixteenth century, when the vast forces of the Turks
threatened to impose on nearly the whole of Europe the yoke of
superstition and barbarism. At that time the Supreme Pontiff, St.
Pius V, after arousing the determination of a common defense among
all the Christian princes, strove, above all, with the greatest zeal to
obtain for Christendom the favor of the most powerful Mother of
God. So noble an example offered to heaven and earth in those times
256

NECESSITY of

devotion to mart

rallied around him all the minds and hearts of the age. And thus
Christ’s faithful warriors, prepared to sacrifice their life and blood for
the salvation of their faith and their country, proceeded undauntedly
to meet their foe near the Gulf of Corinth; while those who were
unable to take part formed a pious band of suppliants, who called on
Mary and unitedly saluted her again and again in the words of the
Rosary, imploring her to grant the victory to their companions en­
gaged in battle. Our sovereign Lady did grant her aid; for in the naval
battle near the Echinades Islands the Christian fleet gained, with no
great loss to itself, a magnificent victory in which the enemy was
completely routed. And it was to preserve the memory of the great
favor thus granted, that the same holy Pontiff desired that a feast in
honor of Our Lady of Victories should celebrate the anniversary of
so memorable a struggle, the feast which Gregory XIII dedicated
under the title of the Holy Rosary."78
The cult of Mary contributes admirably to the good of society. The
good of society extends not only to things of the body, such as wealth
and material goods, but also, saving the direct power of the Church
in spiritual matters, to those of the soul, such as religion, modesty,
the cultivation of arts and letters, and so on. Thus, De Munnyck,
speaking at the First International Catholic Week of Geneva in 1929,
stated that both the personal and the collective evolution to greater
perfection could be inferred from the command of Christ: "You
therefore are to be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect"
(Matt. 5:48).
And in truth, devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary benefits human
society because it promotes religion, encourages modesty, and influ­
ences the arts and letters.
Since the Christian religion is based entirely on the mystery of the
Incarnation, which was effected through the Blessed Virgin, by the
fact that she is honored as the Mother of God by a special cult, faith
in Christ is also increased and strengthened. Christ is thereby glori
lied because Mary is inseparable from Him in the devotion and love
of the faithful.
As regards modesty', it goes without saying that wherever there is
true devotion and faithful imitation of the immaculate Virgin and
most pure Mother, there will likewise be found a high level of purity
in all walks of life.
»57

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

It is not at all necessary to verify the claim that devotion to Mary
has had a tremendous influence in the arts. One may visit any church
or museum or study the literature of any Christian nation and he will
find copious evidence of the fact that artists and writers throughout
the centuries have shown a special predilection for Mary.78

CHAPTER EIGHT

Origin and Jntic/uity of
Parian Devotion
*

Although from what we have said there is no lack of data con­
cerning the true origin of devotion to Mary, as well as its antiquity,
it is fitting to study these subjects as separate questions.

Origin of Marian Devotion
Errors. Some Protestants, cited by Canisius, imagined that many
elements from paganism were introduced into devotion to Mary, and
as a result they have compared Catholics to idolaters who publicly
venerated goddesses and even dedicated temples to them.1
Many Rationalists asserted that the cult of the Virgin Mother of
God was introduced by newly converted pagans, who entered the
Church in the fourth century. Thus, Noyon maintained that when
the pagans entered the Church en masse, they brought with them
their pagan mentality. They were still attached to the notion of
feminine deities and were thoroughly imbued with a confused cult
charged with mysticism. Because of the austere monotheism of the
official Church, their aspirations were satisfied by constantly exag­
gerating honor, cult and prayer to the Mother of Jesus. Mary thus
became the substitute for their goddesses, and without daring to
acknowledge it, they actually made her a goddess?
But the cult of the mother-goddess in paganism existed under two
forms: in a naturalistic form as the universal mother, representing the
life and fertility of the earth, and in an anthropomorphic form, pre­
senting the mother-goddess under various names, eg·. Isis in Egypt,
Ihstar in Babylonia, Artemis in Ephesus, Aphrodite and Cybele in

’59

258

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Greece, Astarté in France, and so forth. The cult of the mother­
goddess eventually degenerated into obscene ceremonies and practices
and all kinds of immorality.

Mary's cult differs absolutely from any pagan cult, and
it is neither essentially nor accidentally derived from it.
First Part. That Mary’s cult differs greatly from pagan cult is
proved by the fact that the mother-goddess of the pagans was ven­
erated by an idolatrous cult. But Mary could never be considered a
goddess nor was she ever venerated as such. Mary is not a mother­
goddess, but the Mother of God, that is, the Mother of the Word
Incarnate, whom she truly conceived according to human nature. Nor
does she merit the cult of latria, which is proper to God alone, but
thesis:

hyperdulia.
Therefore, when certain Christian women, known in Africa as
Collyridians, honored Mary as a goddess, and offered in her honor
a kind of bread made in small loaves, a custom which had prevailed
in the pagan cult of Ceres, St. Epiphanius reprimanded them for
their excesses. "Mary should truly be venerated,” said the Saint, "but
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit should be adored.” No one should
adore Mary. Though she is most excellent, holy and worthy of honor,
yet she is not on this account to be adored.
Moreover, the mysteries of the mother-goddess is paganism were
full of immorality, and the pagan priests gave themselves to all kinds
of obscenity. All of this is an absolute antithesis to the cult of the
Blessed Virgin, who, through her most singular dignity and excel­
lency, is presented to her clients as an example of all purity, holiness
and moral sublimity. We therefore find frequent condemnations by
the Fathers of the Church, who reprobated the abominable pagan
practices.8
Second Part. Having stated this radical difference between the cult
of Mary and that of the pagans, it is impossible that any influence
from the latter could ever have affected Marian devotion in its essen­
tial elements. Indeed, the vigilance of the Church in regard to faith
and morals has always been so alert that any errors or false practices
would have been condemned immediately.
Neither can we admit any pagan influence even in the accidental
elements of devotion to Mary. It frequently happens that in this
260

ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MARIAN DEVOTION

matter the distinction between analogy or resemblance and derivation
or dependence, between mere succession and causal connection, is
not taken into account.
In some sanctuaries the cult of Mary followed or replaced that of
some pagan deity, as in Soissons, where a church was built in honor
of the Blessed Virgin upon the foundations of a temple of Isis. Or
sometimes a pagan festival was replaced by one in honor of Mary.
Nevertheless, it can in no way be concluded that there was a causal
connection between the two. Similarly, there may be some external
similarity in pagan ceremonies and certain aspects of devotion to
Mary, or even a resemblance between a pagan image and a statue
or painting of the Blessed Virgin, but it would be unfounded and
illogical to conclude that therefore the cult of Mary was an outgrowth
of a pagan practice.
Thus, to those who maintain that the cult of the Virgin issued
from paganism because in it are found some things that pagans em­
ployed in former times, St. Peter Canisius answers: "We certainly
confess that there are in sacred cult some things common to us and
to the pagans, but only by reason of some resemblance, as in temples,
altars, sacrifices, images, prelates, ministers or priests. Similarly, if it
is a question of domestic matters, Christians have much in common
with pagans in food and drink, cleanliness and clothing, songs and
learning, labor and commerce. But how could anyone say that all
these things, both sacred and civil, passed from pagans to Chris­
tians?” *
Finally, whatever the analogy or resemblance between Marian and
pagan cult, whether by reason of art or expressions, the essential dif­
ference of the theological principles that rule Christian cult, together
with the diversity of the purpose proper to it, will always make a
bridgeless gap between the two.® And if we are mindful of the end,
the difference between Christians and pagans is immense, as St.
Augustine says: “Although the use of some things seems similar
between us and the pagans, nevertheless he who uses those things
for a distinct purpose and to give thanks to God, thereby uses them
in a completely different manner.” ’
: Devotion to Mary traces its origin from the mysteries of
the Incarnation and Redemption, to which are intimately united
thesis

161

I

THF. BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

the divine maternity of Mary and her role as consort in redemption.
Tin’s thesis scarcely needs demonstration, since it is evident that
the two most excellent motives of Marian cult, that is, her maternity,
accompanied by her virginity, her holiness, and her other prerogatives,
and her association with her Son in the work of the salvation of man­
kind, are deeply rooted in the mysteries of the Incarnation and Re­
demption. These two principles of Marian cult were established at
the very moment of the Incarnation, although Mary was not given
public and liturgical cult immediately, but it developed gradually,
according to the circumstances and opportunities of the times, as we
shall see in the following pages.7

Antiquity of Marian Devotion
Errors. Protestants say that Marian cult was introduced late into
the Church and that it took on an idolatrous form, injurious to
Christ. Some (like Melanchthon) say that the cult and invocation of
Mary and the other saints originated with St. Gregory the Great, and
that it was unknown in the early Church.
The Marian cult existed from the very beginning of the
Church; it was universally affirmed throughout the centuries and con­
stantly increased.
It is certain that the Blessed Virgin was given veneration as early
as the apostolic times. When the apostles, after receiving the Holy
Spirit, were dispersed to all parts of the world to preach Christ, they
likewise preached the cult and praises of Mary. St. Cyril of Alex­
andria, speaking against the Nestorians, says: “The prophets an­
nounced thee and the apostles venerated thee with the highest
praises.” And this was reasonable, because the apostles understood
profoundly the sublime dignity of the Mother of God, her excellence,
holiness, purity and all the virtues which shone in her, and they
professed a singular affection of piety and reverence for her. There­
fore, it was logical that they should teach the early Christians to
praise and glorify so excellent a Mother together with the Son.
Moreover, during the entire ante-Nicene period, the veneration in

thesis:

262

O»1GIN

AND ANTIQUITY OF MARIAN DEVOTION

which Mary was held was demonstrated by archaeological monu
ments, apocryphal books and the testimony of the holy Fathen. The
archaeological monuments are painted or sculptured images of Man­
in the Roman catacombs. Some represent Mery seated on a high
throne and crowned with a halo—a sign which the first Christians
used as proof of their veneration; others show Mary in the midst of
the Apostles Peter and Paul, praying for the faithful with her arms
extended, a proof that the first Christians venerated her as mediatrix.·
Although the apocryphal books are filled with fables and legends,
they nevertheless reflect the religion and piety of the people of the
time. As knowledge of the Virgin Mother of God and of her eminent
excellence was gradually promulgated among the faithful, it was nat­
ural that they would desire to know much about her life which was
lacking in the Gospel account. For that reason the apocryphal books
are evidence of the ecclesiastical tradition, and it should be noted that
the tradition did not spring from the apocryphal books, but they are
the reflection of tradition, although some of them distorted or exag­
gerated the facts.® If, on the other hand, the apocryphal books have
sometimes influenced the opinion of the people, the Church is not
responsible. Also, nothing shows better the praise, respect, veneration
and love which have ever surrounded Mary's memory than the great
number of legends which circulated from earliest days concerning the
most obscure phases of her life.’0
In the second century many apocryphal books were written which
immoderately exalted the Blessed Virgin, inventing and publishing
wondrous things in which the faithful of that time delighted. Out­
standing among these books were the Proto-evangelium Jacobi and
the Ascensio Isaiae. Not everything contained therein is necessarily
false, since in many matters they express the belief of the Church or
they specify certain truths of doctrine, but often the doctrine is fur­
ther embellished with fables or unverified opinions.
Two types of testimony concerning Marian doctrine are found in
the Fathers of the Church in the early period. Some refer to Mary
only indirectly, as in the case of those who were defending the true
human nature of Christ against the teachings of the Docetists. Thus,
they expressly referred to the motherhood of Mary to show that Jesus
was bom of woman and was therefore true man and possessed a
physical body.
263

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

Other early Fathers spoke of Mary explicitly, either praising her
virginity (St. Ignatius Martyr, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, St. Gregory Thaumaturge),11 her remarkable ho­
liness (St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus),12 her cooperation in
the work of redemption (St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tcrtullian),18 or her
power of intercession (St. Irenaeus, St. Gregory Thaumaturge).14
As a result of such universal teaching in the early Church, the
faithful not only learned to love Mary more and more, but they
commended themselves to her most powerful intercession. Nor is this
surprising, since the Christian faithful had long since acquired the
custom of invoking the saints, and especially the martyrs. Should
they not likewise invoke Mary, the Queen of all saints? 18
Moreover, it is not strange that the cult of Mary did not reach its
fullest development in the early Church, since the times did not
permit a more extensive development. Tire solicitude of the Church
at the time was concentrated on the teaching of the Incarnation and
on its defense against the attacks of heretics, who opposed it in differ­
ent ways. Also, although the principles and foundations of Marian
devotion were already firmly established in the Church, they had not
been studied and expounded in such a manner that the faithful could
understand them sufficiently and would be moved to give Mary a
special cult. This would require tranquil times, a prolonged study and
profound consideration, which were not possible in the times of perse­
cution. St. Andrew of Crete gave this as a reason for the scarcity of
early writings on the death of the Virgin.1®
From the year 325, the knowledge of the sublime dignity of Mary
and of her cult progressed extraordinarily. The Council of Nicaea
solemnly defined the divinity of the Son and His consubstantiality
with the Father, which the Arians fiercely opposed. The Arians di­
rectly attacked the dogma of the Blessed Trinity; indirectly they
denied the divinity of the person of Christ and, therefore, the divine
maternity of Mary. Hence, as a consequence of the Nicene definition,
faith in the divine maternity of Mary was affirmed and strengthened,
and was proposed with all clarity and firmness, although the term
Theotokos had not yet been introduced.
It is not surprising, therefore, that so many orators and writers in
the East and the West clarified Marian doctrine more and more and
promulgated her cult. In the East, St. Ephrem addressed the Blessed

264

ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MARIAN DEVOTION

Virgin by pions and tender invocations.17 St. Epiphanius, who re­
proved the excesses of the Collyridians, attested to and praised the
cult which was already being given Mary.1· St. Gregory of Nyssa, in
his life of St. Gregory Thaumaturge, presents the Blessed Virgin as
assisting the faithful and sending the apostle St. John to teach St.
Gregory a creed of the true faith.1’ St. Gregory Nazianzen relates the
miraculous liberation of St. Justina through the prayers of the Blessed
Virgin.20
In the West, St. Ambrose recommended the cult of the imitation
of Mary, presenting her as an example and model of all virgins.11
Following the peace of Constantine the Great, devotion to Mary
grew constantly. Churches were built in her honor and special liturgi­
cal feasts were introduced. Bishop Theonas built a church in Alex­
andria and it was later enlarged and consecrated to the Mother of
God by his successor, Alexander (373-380). Eutychius, the patriarch
of Alexandria, attests that in the same city a church was dedicated
to the Mother of God by Theophilus (385-412). In Palestine, the
Church of the Nativity, called by St. Jerome the Church of the Cave
of the Savior, which goes back to Constantine’s time, was distin­
guished not only as a shrine of the Lord, but also as a sanctuary
erected in honor of the miraculous conception of Christ by Mary, His
Mother.
With reference to the Western Church, Pope St. Sylvester ( 314335) had a church constructed on the very site of the temple of the
goddess Vesta near the Roman Forum. It is called the ancient church
of St. Mary. Similarly, the principal church of Ephesus, in which was
later celebrated the Ecumenical Council, was dedicated to Mary.
Although cult was given to Mary in the feasts of the Nativity,
Epiphany, Resurrection and so on, which are primarily feasts of the
Lord, particular feasts were gradually instituted in honor of the
Blessed Virgin. The first feast proper to Mary was instituted around
the year 380. It was known as the memory of the Mother of God,
and in the most ancient documents was called the Feast of the Holy
Virgin or Feast of the Glorious Mother. The monks of Palestine used
to celebrate it as a commemoration of Mary’s divine maternity, and
especially her virginal conception. Jugie, contrary to others, maintains
that this feast was dedicated to the Annunciation, because of a ser­
mon preached in the year 429 by Proclus in Constantinople. in which
265

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

he lavished great praise on the Virgin Mother and on Christ who was
bom of her.22
From the time of the Council of Ephesus, in which the dogma of
the divine maternity of Mary was solemnly proclaimed against Nestorius, her incomparable dignity, together with her other remarkable
prerogatives, were widely celebrated and taught to the faithful. As
a result, the devotion and the cult to her likewise increased. Accord­
ing to Tixerant,28 the splendid eulogies addressed to the Mother of
God by St. Cyril after the decision of the Council of Ephesus were
repeated by many preachers and writers in succeeding centuries. The
absolute virginity of Mary had been accepted as an indisputable
dogma. Although there was no precise formula regarding Mary's
exemption from original sin, the notion is already present in the
Greek theology of that epoch, although the Greeks would never be
so preoccupied with the question of original sin as were the Latins.
Mary is elevated above the angels and the apostles; she is also recog­
nized as the mediatrix through whom all graces come to us from God.
In addition to St. Cyril, the indefatigable defender of Mary’s divine
maternity’, many noteworthy Fathers and theologians arose in the
Eastern and Western Church to expound and defend Mary’s preroga­
tives and to promulgate devotion to her. Thus, in the East we find
St. Modestus of Jerusalem, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Germanus of
Constantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Joseph the Hymnographer
and many others. In the West we find St. Gregory the Great, St.
Gregory of Tours, St. Ildephonse of Toledo, St. Martin, St. Ambrose
of Milan, St. Peter Damian, Fulbert of Chartres and others.
With so many noteworthy defenders of the most singular dignity
of Mary and of her eminent prerogatives, it is not surprising that her
cult was greatly developed, as is evident not only from the artists,
painters and sculptors who dedicated their artistry to the service of
the Virgin, but from the feasts instituted in her honor and the many
churches dedicated to her, especially during the time of Justinian. In
the sixth and seventh centuries there were four feasts of Mary: the
Purification, the Annunciation, the Dormition or Assumption and her
Nativity.
The Purification of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Greeks Hypapante Domini, was celebrated in the East long before this time, as is
evident in the narration of the Spanish monk Silvia, who in the year
266

ORIGIN AND

ANTIQUITY OF MARIAN DEVOTION

traveled as a pilgrim to the holy places. This feast was celebrated
in the Eastern Church and the Ambrosian Church as a feast of the
Lord, but in the Roman Church it was a feast of the Blessed Virgin.
According to Silvia, it was celebrated in Jerusalem at the end of the
fourth century, from which it spread to Antioch and to Constanti­
nople, and in the latter city it took on the character of a Marian feast.
Finally, in the middle of the seventh century, it was extended
throughout the East. It is not known for certain when this feast
originated in the Roman Church. John of Carthagena believes that
it probably goes back to apostolic times, or very soon after. Neverthe­
less, the first mention of it is made in the Pontifical, where it is
stated that Pope Sergius I decreed that on the feasts of the Annunci­
ation of the Lord, of the death and nativity of the Holy Mother of
God, and of holy Simeon (which the Greeks called Hypapante) the
people should go in procession from St. Adrian to St. Mary’s, singing
the litany. But actually, Pope Sergius was not the first to prescribe
the procession. He was merely commanding that the procession be
held in the manner prescribed by the Roman Ordo.2* Finally, that
this feast in the Roman Church was primarily a Marian feast is
demonstrated by the Gregorian Antiphonary, which still preserves
the antiphon which was formerly sung in procession, and also by the
Office for that feast and the Offertory and Postcommunion of the
Mass of the Purification.
In the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, two
mysteries, intimately related, were commemorated: the Incarnation
of the Word of God and the divine maternity of Mar)'. This is the
reason for the variety of names by which this feast was designated,
for example, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the An­
nunciation of Holy Mar}', the Good Annunciation of the Most
Blessed Mother of God, Annunciation of the Lord Jesus, etc. In the
Ambrosian liturgy the Annunciation was considered a feast of our
Lord. Tin’s is also the opinion of Beleth.-’5 But the faithful in general
intended by this feast to honor the most Blessed Virgin Mary, raised
to the dignity of the Mother of God.
Writers are not agreed on the exact date that this feast began to
be celebrated. According to Bollandus, it is of apostolic institution,
but there is no trace of it whatsoever in the primitive Church.3* The
first mention of this day is found in the Tenth Council of Toledo

267

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

(665), but in reality' the Council presupposes that the feast was al­
ready instituted, since it merely decreed that the feast should be cele­
brated in Spain and be considered one of the most solemn Marian
feasts. It is believed that even if Spain did celebrate this feast some
time before the Council, that it was not much before the beginning
of the seventh century.27
The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was already celebrated in the
Eastern Church in the middle of the fifth century', because the Monophysites and the Ncstorians, who separated from the Church at that
time, celebrated this feast, and it is not likely that they would have
adopted it after their separation from the Church. Toward the middle
of the sixth century the Orientals fixed this feast for January 18, and
Emperor Mauritius later transferred it to August 15. But it is very
probable that in the West, and particularly in Rome, the Feast of
the Assumption of the Virgin was celebrated in the fifth century. It
was certainly celebrated at Rome by the year 650, in Rome on
August 15, and from then on it was always celebrated on that day.28
St. Gregory of Tours asserts that it was solemnly celebrated in Gaul
in the sixth century’. That it was celebrated in Spain in the seventh
century is proved by the Antiphonary of the Cathedral of Leôn and
the Liber Comitis, of the Convent of St. Millan. The solemnity with
which this feast was celebrated in Spain is evident from the Codex
Missarum S. lldephonsi, which contains the Mass of the Assumption;
the Vita S. lldephonsi, written by Bishop Cixila in the years 774-785;
the Mozaabic Liturgy; the Sermo S. Martini Legionensis.
As regards the Feast of Mary’s Nativity, writers disagree on its date
of origin. Some assert that it began in the days of St. Augustine, but
unreasonably so, since St. Augustine himself stated that the Church
does not celebrate the birth of any of the prophets or apostles, but
celebrates only two births: that of St. John the Baptist and that of
Christ.2®
Thomassin believes that the Nativity of Mary was not yet cele­
brated by the ninth century, but he was mistaken, because many
ecclesiastical writers, such as Venerable Bede, St. Ildephonse of To­
ledo, Pope Sergius 1, and others, mention the feast before that time.30
Still other writers affirm that the feast was instituted around the time
of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
It is more probable that this feast began in the East in the sixth

268

ORIGIN

AND

ANTIQUITY OF MARIAN DBVOTION

century; it was certainly celebrated in the seventh century, since in
the following century there are many homilies on the feast by St.
Andrew of Crete, John of Euboea, St. John Damascene and others.*’
In the West, as we have seen, it was celebrated in the time of Pope
Sergius I, and then passed on to other countries such as England,
France and Spain.32 By the ninth century Pachasius Radbertus could
write: "The glorious nativity of Mary is also preached in the entire
Catholic Church.” 33
By the twelfth century Mariological doctrine had been expounded
in all its basic elements. The theologians of this period were not
occupied so much in developing it as in explaining it scientifically.
Outstanding among these theologians is St. Anselm, who gathered
the evidence from antiquity for belief in Mary’s divine maternity and
her cooperation in the work of redemption and then expressed it in
new formulas. Likewise distinguished in this regard were Anselm’s
disciple and friend, Eadmer; St. Bernard, whose Mariological doc­
trine was on the lips of most of the medieval theologians; St. Albert
the Great, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Conrad of Saxony, the
Abbot Gucrricus, Amadeus of Lausanne, Arnold of Chartres, St.
Antoninus of Florence and many others already quoted in the pages
of this book.
At the same time that Mariological doctrine unfolded and was
scientifically explained by the theologians, the cult of the Most
Blessed Virgin increased, with more feasts and practices of devotion.
Thus, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which had begun to
be celebrated in some churches of the East in the seventh century
and in the West in the ninth century, having passed through various
vicissitudes, was greatly diffused during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries in other regions of the East; the Feast of the Visitation of
the Virgin, celebrated throughout Gaul in the thirteenth century, was
extended to the whole Church in the fourteenth century; the Feast
of the Presentation, celebrated in the Oriental Church in the seventh
century, passed to the West in the fourteenth century; the Feast of
the Betrothal, for whose institution Gerson, an ardent client of St.
Joseph, worked with great enthusiasm in the fourteenth century; and
the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary, instituted
primarily by the Provincial Synod of Cologne in the year 1423, to
oppose the Hussites, who burned every representation of the Cruci269

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

fied Redeemer and of the Virgin of Sorrows, soon spread through
Germany. Scotland and other countries, and especially throughout
Spain, where the Dolors of the Most Blessed Virgin at the foot of
the Cross were venerated with tender compassion.84
Moreover, at this time were introduced many pious formulas of
devotion to the Blessed Virgin, such as the Litany of Loreto and the
Rosary in the twelfth century; the Marian Scapular in the thirteenth
century'; the Angelus in the fourteenth century. Tlie origin of the
Angelus is not certain. It is mentioned for the first time at the Gen­
eral Chapter of the Friars Minor in the year 1263, and the devotion
was recommended and enriched with indulgences by Pope John XXII
in 1318. By the middle of the fifteenth century, it was a universal
practice in the Church, as is recorded by St. Antoninus.85
At this time also many Confraternities were established under the
title and protection of the most Blessed Virgin, and the faithful made
so many pilgrimages to Marian shrines that in the thirteenth century
there were approximately ten thousand churches dedicated to Mary
in the Catholic world.38
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, devotion to Mary was
violently attacked by the Protestants and Jansenists. Erasmus was
their forerunner, condemning immoderately the abuses which the
piety' of the people, in his opinion, had introduced into Marian cult.
He ridiculed many Marian titles which had contributed to filial love
and confidence in Mary, but on the other hand, he sometimes praised
Mary in such a way that he seemed most zealous for her honor and
cult.87
The Protestants, while they acknowledged the dignity and prin­
cipal privileges of the Blessed Virgin, attacked the cult tendered her,
considering it to be injurious to Christ. The Jansenists too, under the
specious pretext of defending the cult due God, greatly lessened
Mary’s cult. Even Muratori spoke indiscreetly about the devotion of
the faithful to Mary. These attacks of the Protestants and Jansenists
were often effective, with the result that the piety of the faithful
became cool in some regions.88 But God saw to it that at this time
there would arise most eminent defenders who would confront the
enemies of Mary and vindicate her cult. Tlie following deserve special
mention: St. Peter Canisius, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de
Sales, St. Lawrence Brindisi, St. John Eudes, St. Louis Mary Grignion
270

ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF

MARIAN DEVOTION

de Montfort, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Salmcrôn, Suârez, Novatus, Van
Ketwigh, George of Rhodes, Benedict Piazza, D'Argentân, Bossuet,
Bourdalouc, Crasset, Segneri, Boudon, Poire, Arias, Fonseca, Murillo,
Ribadencyra and many others.
Happily, and by the disposition of divine providence, the attacks
of Mary’s enemies were overpowered. Cult and devotion to Mary
grew and blossomed extraordinarily; her most singular dignity and
remarkable privileges were made clearer and were better understood
daily in the light of Marian encyclicals and addresses by the Sovereign
Pontiffs, especially by those written from the time of Pope Pius IX
up to the present Sovereign Pontiff. Not only have these modem
popes promulgated the true Mariological doctrine, but they have
aroused theologians to study it more profoundly and have exhorted
the faithful to unite themselves more and more to the divine Mother,
to honor her, to love her and to imitate her virtues more faithfully.

CHAPTER NINE

Practices of ^Marian Devotion

*
Thk«e are various forms of devotion by which the faithful honor
Mary; too many, in fact, for us to discuss here. We shall therefore
treat briefly of the most excellent and most universal Marian devo­
tions, namely, the Scapular and the Rosary.

The Marian Scapular
The word scapular comes from the Latin word scapulae, meaning
shoulders, and in its widest sense it signifies the back, or the part of
the human body opposite the chest. In a stricter sense it means the
monastic apparel worn by the primitive Benedictines in manual labor
to prevent the religious habit from becoming soiled. That is also a
possible reason why the scapulars of the Trappists and the Domini­
can laybrothers are black. Later, the scapular became part of a knight’s
apparel, worn over his suit of armor and bearing the colors of his
liege.
However, this word has a more special meaning in another sense,
referring to the Carmelite Scapular, which was given by the Blessed
Virgin to St. Simon Stock, the Prior General of the Carmelites.
History of the Marian Scapular. It is said that in the middle of the
thirteenth century, St. Simon Stock received the Marian Scapular
from the Blessed Virgin herself. Towards the year 1245 he was elected
Prior General of the Carmelite Order, and he asked the Virgin, of
whom he was a most fervent client, to give him a proof of her love
and protection of the Carmelite Order. Mary kindly consented to
such humble supplications. While he was in London, in the year 1261
(according to some writers, in 1251), St. Simon was favored by a
vision of the Blessed Virgin, who, surrounded by numerous angels

PRACTICES

OF MARIAN DEVOTION

and shining with the splendors of heaven, promised him and his
religious institute a unique benevolence and protection. Then, as a
pledge, she gave him the Scapular of the Order, saying: "Receive, my
beloved son, this Scapular of thy Order, the badge of my confrater­
nity, a privilege granted to thee and to all Carmelites. Whoever dies
clothed with it will not suffer eternal flames.”
There has been much discussion concerning the authenticity of the
Marian Scapular. Its principal objector was John Launoy, who as­
serted that no contemporary writer of St. Simon's time mentions the
vision. He therefore concludes that the event was something invented
ata later period. In our times Thurston, Boudinhon, Saltet and others
have denied the authenticity of the vision.1
Nevertheless, the heavenly origin of the Scapular and of the vision
of St. Simon Stock is attested by Peter Swingthons (or Swanington),
his companion and secretary, who affirms that he himself heard the
story of the heavenly vision from the lips of Simon himself and that
he wrote what the man of God had dictated. It was likewise defended
by the General of the Carmelite Order, John Grossi, in the year 1389;
by Paleonidorus, in the year 1475; by John Cheron and Papebroech,
S.J., who, in his answer to Sebastian of St. Paul, declares that he
found nothing in that vision which would have to be rejected, after
having read what Swingthons and Pope Benedict XIV had written.2
Lastly, the liturgy proclaims the authenticity of the Scapular vision
by including the account in lesson V at Matins for the Feast of Our
Lady of Mount Carmel.
Privileges of the Marian Scapular. The outstanding privilege of the
Scapular is contained in the promise that anyone who dies wearing
the Scapular will not suffer eternal fire. How is this promise to be
understood? In the first place, it would be erroneous to maintain that
the mere fact of wearing the Scapular at the moment of death will
automatically preserve one from eternal damnation. It is de fide that
no one can know for certain whether he will be saved and, moreover,
final perseverance is a special gift.3
Lezama and Sylveira maintain that the words, “will not suffer
eternal fire," refer to the flames of purgatory, and signify that those
who wear the Scapular will not be in purgatory for a long time.
"Eternal" is thus interpreted in a wide sense? However, it seems more
accurate to say that the exemption from eternal fire, promised to

273

1

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

those who wear the Scapular, is to be understood literally as referring
to the fires of hell, and that those who wear the Scapular will avoid
eternal damnation, but on the condition that they fulfill the other
conditions which are normally required for salvation.
St. Robert Bellarmine states that Sacred Scripture frequently attrib­
utes the power of justification and even of salvation to some object,
not because the article alone can justify or save, but because it pos­
sesses the power of so doing as long as the necessary conditions are
present.®
Pope Benedict XIV declared that the promise must not be under­
stood as meaning that anyone who wears the Scapular will by that
fact alone be preserved from the sufferings of hell, for other good
works are also commanded, and among them is that one should al­
ways persevere. Bearing in mind the words of the promise, the faith­
ful should make certain their election by good works and by never
despairing. They should always give thanks and pray without ceasing
so that the promise may be fulfilled to the glory of the Most Holy
Trinity and the ever blessed Virgin Mary.0
However, one should not conclude that the Carmelite Scapular
confers no real privilege on those who wear it, because a Christian
who fulfills the necessary conditions can be saved even if he never
wears the Scapular. The Carmelite Scapular bestows great privileges
on those who wear it, since it is a sign of the singular protection of
Mary and a pledge of the abundant grace which she will obtain for
her clients if they observe the commandments and live piously. If
they arc in sin, they will do penance; if they arc in the state of grace,
they will persevere in it and thus obtain eternal beatitude. But this
should be understood in the sense that the Blessed Virgin will do her
part and will intercede for those who wear her Scapular, as long as
they do not place any obstacle to her help. For even those who wear
the Scapular are still free and can therefore frustrate the Scapular
promise.7
The other privilege attached to the Marian Scapular is the Sabbatine indulgence, or the liberation of the wearers of the Scapular
from the pains of purgatory on the first Saturday after their death.
This privilege is contained in the Bull of Pope John XXII and it
reads: “I, the Mother of grace, will descend to purgatory on the
Saturday after their death and I will liberate all those whom I find

274

PRACTICES OF MARIAN DBVOTION

there and lead them to the holy mount of eternal life." It is said that
on May J of the first year of his pontificate (according to others, it
was the sixth year), as a result of a vision of the Blessed Virgin, Pope
John XXII confirmed with his authority the Marian Scapular, in the
pontifical document Sacratissimo uti culmine.9
There arc two points to be studied in this privilege: the authen­
ticity of the Bull and the promise of saving souls from the fire of
purgaton' on the first Saturday after their death. As regards the au­
thenticity of the Bull, a great controversy arose and it has not yet
been settled. The document was defended as genuine by Theophilus
Raynaud, and in our days by Besalduch.®
Bitterly opposed to the authenticity of the Bull was Launoy, fol­
lowed by Papebroech. Zimmerman and Hilgers also reject it as spu­
rious.10 But regardless of the authenticity of the Bull of Pope
John XXII, it is not licit to doubt the Sabbatine privilege, since it
has been recognized and approved by so many of the Sovereign
Pontiffs.11
Moreover, when at the end of the sixteenth century, disputes arose
over this privilege, in Spain and in Portugal, the inquisitor general,
Peter Castillo, forbade the Carmelites to preach that privilege. Then,
in 1613, Pope Paul V, by a decree of the Holy Inquisition, permitted
tiie Cannelite Fathers to preach that Christian people may piously
believe that the Blessed Virgin will help the wearers of the Scapular
by her continual intercession, her merits, and her special protection
after their death, especially on Saturdays, the day consecrated to her
by the Church.12
Pope St. Pius X mentions the Sabbatine privilege,13 and in a letter
to the Most Reverend Father Elias, Prior General of the Cannelites,
on March 18, 1922, Pope Pius XI spoke favorably of the Sabbatine
privilege. Another letter afErming the Sabbatine privilege was sent by
Pope Pius XI to the same Prior General on December 4, 1922.1*
Lastly, the conditions for gaining this privilege are also enumerated
in the Roman Breviary, in Matins for the Feast of Our Lady of Mt.
Carmel. For that reason, Papebroech asserted that it would be foolish
to deny that devotion to the Scapular has been highly indulgenced
and approved by the Roman Pontiffs and verified by countless divine
benefits.10
With regard to Mary’s promise, as contained in the Bull, three
a75

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

things were promised by her: i) her descent to purgatory ("I, the
Mother of grace, will descend on the Saturday after their death”);
2) pardon from punishment and guilt at the moment of death
("Therefore, the professed brethren of said Order will be absolved
from punishment and guilt, and this on the day that they leave this
world”); 3) liberation from purgatory on the first Saturday after their
death (“I, the Mother of grace, will descend on the Saturday after
their death and I will liberate all those whom I find there and lead
them to the holy mount of eternal life”).
The descent of the Blessed Virgin to purgatory must not be under­
stood to mean that she leaves her glorious throne in heaven on each
Saturday and descends to purgatory personally, but that she is there
by a virtual presence, that is, by her intercession or help, by which
she assists these souls in purgatory. Although Mary does not go per­
sonally into purgatory, nevertheless, she must be there by the pres­
ence of her power, by her most efficacious intercession for the souls
in purgatory. Pope Paul V therefore prohibited all paintings or pic­
tures which represented Mary as descending bodily to purgatory to
lead forth the souls of her clients. And truly, it would not be very
much in harmony with the state of beatitude for the Blessed Virgin
to be obliged to descend from heaven so frequently to enter the pris­
ons of purgatory.
As regards the pardon of punishment and guilt at the moment of
death, it is not to be understood as the pardon of a mortal or venial
sin. There can be no pardon of mortal or venial sin unless the neces­
sary dispositions are present in the sinner who seeks forgiveness. More­
over, the usual requisites for the pardon of mortal sin arc contrition,
confession and purpose of amendment.
Therefore, it must be affirmed that this indulgence, like any other,
is granted for the remission of punishment due to sin and not for the
sin itself.18 As a promise for the forgiveness of sin, it could only mean
that the Blessed Virgin would impetrate the grace needed to arouse
tire sinner to repentance.
Regarding the promise that the soul would be liberated from pur­
gatory on the Saturday after death, if the soul is granted a plenary
indulgence at tire moment of death, it will not be detained in pur­
gatory even for a moment, but it will go straight to heaven. It is de
fide that the soul of any person in whom nothing remains to be paid,

276

PRACTICES OF MARIAN DEVOTION

as happens in the case of one who gains the plenary indulgence, goes
immediately to heaven.” Nevertheless, neither of the two promises
nullifies the other, but they complement each other, since to the
benefit of this indulgence the Blessed Virgin adds a new favor, in
case the indulgence is frustrated because of some imperfection or
defect.
Not all those who believe they have obtained the plenary indul­
gence really gain it, for frequently there may be defects which invali­
date it; otherwise, there would be no reason for celebrating Masses
or giving alms as suffrages for the dead who seemed to have left this
world fortified by a plenary indulgence. Hence, the Blessed Virgin
promises to free, on the first Saturday after his or her death, the
member of the Confraternity who is not freed from purgatory because
the plenary indulgence was not obtained. However "the first Saturday
after death” is not to be taken in a strict sense, but in a wide sense,
although Saturday is the day dedicated to the most Blessed Virgin
from earliest times.
For that reason Pope Paul V states that the Blessed Virgin, by her
intercession, merits and special protection, will help the members of
the Confraternity who die in charity, and that on Saturdays, the day
consecrated by the Church to her, she will help them in a particular
manner.18 The Roman Breviary states that the Blessed Virgin will
console the members of the Confraternity while they are being puri­
fied in purgatory and she will speedily conduct them to heaven.”
Pope Benedict XIV commented on that statement by saying that this
is a pious belief.20
Understood in this sense, the Sabbatine privilege is admitted by
all, even by Launoy, who criticized certain aspects of the Scapular
devotion, but affirmed that he considered that this privilege may be
piously believed.21

The Rosary
Another kind of devotion most acceptable to the most Blessed
Virgin, and which the faithful hold in high regard and practice
everywhere, is that of the most holy Rosary'.

»77

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Nature of the Rosary. The Rosary is a form of prayer composed of
fifteen decades of Hail Mary’s, each decade introduced by an Our
Father, with a particular mystery of the lives of Christ and Mary
proposed for meditation during the recitation of each of the fifteen
decades. Therefore, there arc three essential parts of the Rosary: the
mysteries, the Our Father and the Hail Mary.
Although many Our Fathers and Hail Marys are recited, there is
no Rosary without meditation on the mysteries; nor can meditation
on the mysteries without the Our Fathers and Hail Marys be called
the Rosary.22
As to other prayers added to the Rosary before or after the an­
nouncing of the mysteries, these do not pertain to the essence of the
Rosary’. They are free and variable parts which follow the particular
custom of a region or nation.
The mysteries are certain passages of the Gospel which refer to the
principal facts in the lives of Jesus and Mary. They are historical facts
which happened in Palestine, where the work of human redemption
took place, but they are called mysteries because, under the veil of
history, they contain truths incomprehensible to our reason, such as
the incarnation of the Word, the divine maternity, and so on, which
surpass human understanding and can be known only by revelation.
The fifteen mysteries recall to us the joyful, sorrowful and glorious
events in the lives of Jesus and Mary. Although not all of the mys­
teries are immediate and formal acts of the Blessed Virgin, they con­
cern her own Son, and thus they intimately affect the Mother also.23
The Lord’s Prayer is the prayer that Christ our Redeemer taught
His disciples when they asked Him: “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke
11 : i ). Durandus states that it surpasses all other prayers by reason of
Him who taught it, by reason of its succinctness, by reason of its
petitions and by reason of the great mysteries it contains.24
For that reason, from the early centuries of the Church, the Lord’s
Prayer was the principal part of public cult and it flows through all
of the liturgies. The custom of joining this prayer to the Hail Mary
existed at the close of the tenth century, and when placed at the
beginning of each decade, it becomes a powerful petition which we
direct to the heavenly Father through the hands of the Blessed
Virgin, so that through such an excellent mediatrix we may obtain
what we could not attain through our own merits.

278

PRACTICES OF MARIAN DEVOTION

The Hail Mary is so called because of the two words with which
it begins. It is called the angelic salutation because it comprises the
greeting of the Archangel Gabriel, announcing to Mary the mystery
of the Incarnation which was to be fulfilled in her. To the angelic
salutation to Mary, full of grace and blessed among all women,
through the blessed fruit of her womb, is added a prayer which asks
her to help us now and at the hour of our death.
The prayer consists of two parts. The first contains the salutation
of the Angel Gabriel, sent by God to announce to Mary the mystery
of the Incarnation: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed
art thou among women’’ (Luke 1:28), and the testimony of St.
Elizabeth, who, when visited by Mary, was inspired by the Holy
Spirit to exclaim: “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb” (Luke 1:42).
The second part of the prayer is directed to the Blessed Virgin her­
self, asking her to guide us both in life and in death: "Holy Mary,
Mother of God, pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our
death. Amen.”
The prayer was not composed all at once, but it evolved gradually.
In the first part we find two additions: the name of Mary, which is
inserted between “Hail” and "full of grace”; and the name of Jesus,
placed after the words “fruit of thy womb.”
Concerning the addition of the name of Mary, St. Thomas says
that the first part (Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed
art thou among women) is attributed to the angel. The second part
(Blessed is the fruit of thy womb) traces its origin to Elizabeth, the
mother of the Baptist. The third part is that of the Church, that is,
the word Mary.2S
That this addition is most ancient in the Church is proved by the
Gregorian Antiphonary, because for the Fourth Sunday of Advent it
directs that the words, "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee. Blessed art thou among women, Alleluia," be said. These words
are likewise read in other old antiphonaries, as also in the Offertory
of the Votive Mass of the Virgin, and are attributed to Alcuin.2®
On the addition of the name of Jesus, the following is to be noted.
This name was introduced into the angelic salutation very much later,
because it does not figure in the Expositio salutationis angelicae of
St. Thomas nor in the Speculum B. Virginis, lec. 1. Nevertheless, it

279

THE

BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

was already used by Amadeus of Lausanne, who concluded his third
homily on the praises of the Blessed Virgin in this way: "Hail, full
of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ, who is, above all things,
God, blessed for ever and ever. Amen.” However, these words seem
to have been said more as the conclusion of a sermon than as a for­
mula of prayer.
The addition of the name of Jesus was probably ordered by Pope
Urban IV around the year 1262, when he enriched the prayer with
an indulgence of thirty days. This is attested, among the ancients,
by Henry of Langenstein, Michael of Insulis and Thomas à Kempis,
and among the modems, by Mabillon, Esser, Beisel and others.27
The second part of the prayer (Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray
for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.) is of
ancient usage. It is believed that the faithful, from the time of the
Council of Ephesus, were accustomed to add it to the first part of the
Hail Mary. Such is the opinion of Cardinal Baronius, Cardinal Bona,
and many others, who also assert that the Hail Mary was already
established in ancient times in its present form.28
But today most writers are opposed to this opinion, and rightly so,
because only after many centuries was this second part added to the
prayer. Although there are traces in St. John Damascene and in St.
Andrew of Crete of certain beginnings of the custom of uniting to
the Hail Mary a more or less explicit petition for the help of Mary,2*
nevertheless, it is certain that only after some centuries was the in­
vocation of the second part introduced expressly, and none of them
existed before the 12th century.
Thus, the words "Holy Mary, pray for us” are read for the first
time in the Carthusian breviary of the thirteenth century. Tire words
“pray for us, sinners. Amen” arc found in another breviary of the
fourteenth century, in St. Bernardine of Siena and in certain hymns
of the fifteenth century.80
Tire words “now and at the hour of our death. Amen,” were not
used in Spain, according to Martin of Azpilcueta (Navarra);81 and
in the year 1460, the form used was: "Hail, Mary, full of grace. The
Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is thy
mother and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, pray for us sinners. Amen.” 82

280

PRACTICES

OF

MARIAN DEVOTION

However, the words were used in Rome and in other places. Thus,
Berthold, the Archbishop of Mcntz, decreed in 1493 that the angelic
salutation should end in this way in parochial ceremonies on Sun­
days.8’ The same words are found in a Codex edited by St. Antoninus,
Archbishop of Florence, and in the Collection of Christian Praises,
in Venice, in the year 1477. Trombclli then adds that in the Roman
Breviary of the fourteenth century, or perhaps in the beginning of
the fifteenth, the angelic salutation appears almost the same as that
in use today.34
For this reason Navarrus writes that the custom of Rome, approved
by the Roman Breviary of Pope Pius V, made the words "now and
at the hour of our death” part of the Hail Mary when said in the
canonical hours by those obliged to recite them.” By the eighteenth
century, every other formula was abolished, and henceforth the an­
gelic salutation underwent no change or addition whatever.
Origin of the Rosary. Many controversies have arisen, principally in
our times, about the origin and institution of the Rosary, but it is not
our intention to discuss them here. It is certain that contemporary
documents are wanting which attest to the origin of the Rosary, but
in conformity with an ancient and venerable tradition, it was insti­
tuted, under the inspiration of the Blessed Virgin, by St. Dominic
Guzman, although perhaps not entirely in the same form which it
has today.30
The Albigensian heresy, bitterly opposed to the Mother of God,
had taken strong hold in the area of Toulouse, in France. St. Dominic,
who had recently founded the Order of Preachers, dedicated himself
completely to combat and destroy it. In order to succeed more effica­
ciously, he implored the help of Mary with the most fervent prayers.
Advised by her, as tradition states, to preach the Rosary to the people
as a most unique defense against the heretics, the fervor and success
of the mission entrusted to him were truly astonishing.
This venerable tradition has been confirmed by many Roman Pon­
tiffs, who attributed to St. Dominic the institution of the Rosary, as
is evident from the testimony of Pope Benedict XIV. He, in turn,
referred to the testimony of Pope Leo X, Pope Pius VII, Pope
Gregory XIII, Pope Sixtus V, Pope Clement VIII, Pope Alex­
ander VI, Pope Innocent XIII, and others who unanimously attrib­
ute the institution of the Rosary to St. Dominic.”

281

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

The same teaching was promulgated by Pope Pius IX and espe­
cially by Pope Leo XIII, who speaks thus:
There is none among you, Venerable Brethren, who will not
remember how great trouble and grief God’s holy Church suffered
from the Albigensian heretics, who evolved from the sect of the later
Manichacans, and who filled the south of France and other portions
of the Latin world with their pernicious errors, and carrying every­
where the terror of their arms, strove far and wide to rule by massacre
and ruin. Our merciful God, as you know, raised up against these
most direful enemies a most holy man, the illustrious parent and
founder of the Dominican Order. Great in the integrity of his doc­
trine, in his example of virtue, and by his apostolic labors, he dauntlessly proceeded to attack the enemies of the Catholic Church, not
by force of arms, but by complete trust to that devotion which he
was the first to institute under the name of the Holy Rosary, which
was disseminated through the length and breadth of the earth by him
and his followers.
Guided, in fact, by divine inspiration and grace, he foresaw that
this devotion, like a most powerful warlike weapon, would be the
means of putting the enemy to flight, and of confounding their
audacity and mad impiety. Such was indeed its result.38
Several years after the death of St. Dominic, the recitation of the
Rosary, although fervently received in the beginning, gradually fell
away because of the horrible pestilences which destroyed most of
Europe, because of the deplorable Western Schism which had so
long divided the Church, and for other reasons. Then, through the
labors of Blessed Alan of Rupe, with the determined help of his
brothers of the Order of Preachers, its use blossomed anew and
spread with rapidity throughout the world.
Our Blessed Mother favored these labors greatly when, according
to tradition, in 1470 she appeared to Father Jacob Springer, Prior of
the Convent of St. Dominic in Cologne. She commanded him to
teach the people in his sermons, how pleasing to God and how salu­
tary to all is this devotion to the Rosary. From that time on, this
devotion has never faltered; rather, it has become almost liturgical
and was recommended by many Sovereign Pontiffs. It has always
enjoyed the first place among the forms of honoring Mary. The
Dominicans were given the special mission of propagating the Rosary

282

PRACTICES OF MARIAN DEVOTION

as a precious inheritance, and it is in large part due to their ardent
zeal that even in our days this Christian devotion continues to be
universally practiced by the faithful.
Excellence of the Rosary, lire dignity and excellence of the Rosary
and its acceptance by the Blessed Virgin are clearly shown by Pope
Leo ΧΙΠ when he says: "Now, among the various practices and
forms of paying honor to the Blessed Virgin, some are to be prefened,
inasmuch as we know them to be most powerful and most pleasing
to our Mother; and for this reason We specially mention by name and
recommend the Rosary.” 39
Pope Pius XI writes: "Among the various supplications with which
we successfully appeal to the Virgin Mother of God, the holy Rosary
without doubt occupies a special and distinct place.” *°
The Virgin Mary herself recommended this formula of prayer
when, in the year 1855, sbe appeared at Lourdes and taught a mere
child, by her own example, to recite it. At the vision at Fatima, she
explicitly asked for the recitation of the Rosary.
Finally, what delightful fruit, what consolation and comfort the
Christians obtained in their anxieties by their frequent and devout
recitation of the Rosary, as is also the case in the present; how many
dangers have been overcome and favors obtained, are evident both
from ancient and modem history. Thus, Pope Leo XIII reminds us
that by the power of the most holy Rosary, the evils of the Albigenses,
which had filled the south of France and other regions of the Latin
world with pernicious errors, were destroyed. He also recalls the naval
victory obtained through the efficacy of this same prayer in the battle
against the Turks, who in the sixteenth century were intent on impos­
ing on all of Europe the yoke of superstition and barbarism. He
mentions another victory in the previous century, once at Temesvar
in Hungary, and the other on the island of Corfu, "and in both cases
these engagements coincided with feasts of the Blessed Virgin and
with the conclusion of public devotions of the Rosary.” 41
Pope Pius XI says: "The holy Virgin who once victoriously drove
the terrible sect of the Albigenses from Christian countries, now
suppliantly invoked by us, will tum aside the new errors, especially
those of Communism, which reminds us in many ways, in its motives
and misdeeds, of the ancient ones.
"And as in the times of the crusades in all Europe there was raised
283

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

one voice of the people, one supplication, so it is today. Throughout
the world, in the cities and smallest villages, people who arc one in
courage and resoluteness eagerly implore the great Mother of God
that the enemies of Christian and human civilization be overthrown
and that true peace may shine on the tired and anxious hearts of
men." 48
Moreover, how much the Marian Rosary has contributed in pro­
moting piety among the faithful, in exciting virtue and in strengthen­
ing them, appears from the very interior disposition of the Rosary;
that is, from the very celestial flowers with which this mystical crown
is interwoven: the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary and meditation on
the mysteries, by which the joys, the sorrows and the triumphs of
Jesus and of His Mother arc placed before our eyes.
The principal mysteries of our religion which nourish and sustain
our faith are recalled to mind; at the same time our minds are ele­
vated to the divinely revealed truths which strengthen our hope, since
the triumph of Jesus Christ and His Mother on which we meditate
in the last part, present heaven opened to us, and invite us to the
conquest of heaven. Charity is inflamed by the consideration of the
great and intense sufferings endured by the dying Christ and by
Mary’s compassion with Him, for the redemption and salvation of
mankind.
In the Rosary, the Lord’s Prayer, the most excellent of all prayers,
composed and taught personally by the Redeemer, is said. In it is
contained all that is holy and beneficial, all that we could possibly
ask for or desire, both for soul and body.
Lastly, the angelic salutation is said, which, beginning with the
praise of St. Gabriel the Archangel and St. Elizabeth, ends in that
most pious supplication in which we ask the Blessed Virgin to help
us, now and at the hour of our death.
This is the prayer of the Most Holy Rosary, so profound in mys­
teries, so eminent in dignity, so efficacious in value, so rich in esteem,
so sweet in love, so gentle in consolations, so fertile in merit, so won­
drous in prodigies, so easy to the simple, so delightful to the learned,
and so sweet to the perfect. It is a special prayer which we address
to the most Holy Virgin, so that she will intercede for us before the
throne of God and obtain for us the grace of pleasing her in this life
and of enjoying her eternally in heaven.

284

PRACTICES OF MARIAN DEVOTION

We terminate this treatise on the Blessed Virgin by quoting the
tender entreaty with which we terminate the Rosary:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy; hail, our life, our sweetness,
and our hope. To Thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To
Thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of
tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards
us; and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!

Translators Bibliography

Ancient Christian Writers: Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St.
Ignatius of Antioch (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1946).
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Authorized Edition (New York: Charles Scrib­
ner's and Sons, 1899)
Bible, New Catholic Edition (New York: Catholic Book Publishing
Co., 1949).
de Sales, St. Francis, Treatise on the Love of God, 3rd cd. (London:
Burns and Oates, 1884).
Doheny, Wm. J., Papal Documents on Mary (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954).
Dominican Missal, English Dominican Fathers.
Dominican Sisters’ Office Book (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1942).
Gardeil, A., The Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Dominican Saints
(Milwaukee: Bruce, 1937).
Kelly, T., Life of the Blessed Virgin, translated from the Italian of
Romuald Gentilucci (New York: 17 Barclay St., 1878).
Liguori, St. Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary (St. Louis: Redemptorist
Fathers, 1931).
Newman, J. H., The New Eve (Great Britain: Samuel Walker, 1952).
Palmer, Paul, S.J., Mary in the Documents of the Church (West­
minster, Md.: Newman Press, 1952).
Philipon, Μ., O.P., The Mother of God (Westminster; Md.: Newman
Press, 1953).
Pohle-Preuss, Christology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1916).
Pohle-Preuss, Mariology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1948).
Pohle-Preuss, Soteriology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1914).
Scheeben, M. J., Mariology (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1946).
Schroeder, H. J., O.P., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
(St. Louis: B. Herder, 1941).
Shecd, F. J., The Mary Book (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1950).
St. Andrew Missal (St. Paul: E. M. Lohman).
St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, trans. English Dominicans (New
York: Benziger Bros., 1928).
St. Thomas, Summa theologica, trans. English Dominicans (New York:
Benziger Bros., 1948).
286

Notes

CHAPTER ONE

'Suprem.

apostol.,

September

i,

1883.
'Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.
'Fidentem piumque, September 20,
1896.
'Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
‘Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.
*Serm. In Nativitate Domini.
’Serm. 140.

’ Or. in Deiparae Assumpt.
*Cf. Hover, "Maria hominum Cor·
redemptrix," Cregorianum, December,
1925.
“Sermo 8 in Signum Magnum.
11 Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
u De Alma Soda Christi Mediatoris,
sect. I, cap. 4.

CHAPTER TWO

1 Cf. Denz. 993.
"Catech. 12 de Christo Inc.
‘Serm. 176.
” Cf. St. Augustine, De agone
‘Denz. ygo.
Christi, c. 22; St. Peter Chrysologus.
‘Summa theol., Illa, q.46, a. 2.
Serm. 142, In Annunt. BM.V.
‘Cf. In III Sent., dist. 20, a. 1, q. 5.
“Hom. 4, Super Missus est; cf. St.
’ Ad diem ilium, February a, 1904. Ambrose, Epist., Lib. IV, who says
'Haer., 68.
that Mary effected the salvation of
‘ De Symb. ad catechum., c. 4.
the world by conceiving the Redeemer
‘Cf. Serm. de Nativitate B.M.V.
of all.
“Serm. de Natali Domini.
"In Luc., c. 1; cf. also Denis the
“De virg. perpetua Deip. Mariae,
Carthusian, Da laud. glor. Virg.
c. 12.
Mariae, II, a. ay.
“ Cf. Richard of St. Lawrence, De
“Bainvel, Maria Mira de grâce.
laud. E. Virg., VI; Denis the Carthu­
“St. Peter Canisius, De Maria
Virgine, IV, c. ay.
sian, De praeconio BM.V., Il, 9.
“De festis B.M. Virginis, c. 4.
“Cf. Hymn at Lauds, Common of
the Blessed Virgin.
“Cf. De la Broisse and Bainvel,
"Serm. 1, De Assumpt. Virg. Cf. Marie Mère da grâce, Inhod.; De
also Gariu, Deipara Elucidate, 11, 3. la Taille, "La médiatrice de toutes les
“Octobri mense, September 22, grâces," Gregorianum. VU, fisc. 3,
September, 1926; Ude, 1st Maria die
1892.
“Fidentem, September 20, 1896.
Mittlerin aller Cnadcnl; Rivière, “Sur
la notion do Mario médiatrice,"
11 Dial. cum Thryphone.
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensas,
“Adv. Haer., Ill, 22.
II, fasc. a, April, 1923; Smith, Mary's
“De cam. Christi, c. 17.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Part in our Redemption, chap. 9;
Lcnnerz, "De doctrina B.V. Mediatricis," Gregorianum, XIX, fasc. 3.
1938; Goossens, De cooperatione immediata Matris Redemptoris ad re­
demptionem objectivant; Philips, "De
modo cooperationis Mariae ad Re­
demptionem,” Revue Ecclésiastique de
Liège, March, 1939.
“ Cf. Maria mediadora, c. 4.
®Cf. Précis de Thiol. Dogmatique,
I, lib. Ill, sect. 2, append.
” Cf. Ep. ad Episc. Calaritanum,
January 9, 1801.
“Cf. Magnae Dei Matris, Septem­
ber 8, 1802.
“ Cf. Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
“ Ad diem illum.
“Cf. Inter sodalitia, March 22,
1918.
“ Cf. Explorata res est, February 2,
1923.
“ Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, April
29, 1935.
"Cf. Merkelbach, Mariologia, III,
a. 2.
“ Cf. St. Ambrose, Ep. ad Eccles.
Vercellensem; St. John Chrysostom,
De coemeterio et cruce Domini.
"Serm. 118.
"De verbis Domini, Serm. 3.
*’ Arnold of Chartres, De laud.
sanctae ac perpetuae Virginis Matris
Christi Mariae.
“Cf. Comm. in Joan., III.
“ Cf. De praeconio et dignitate
Deiparae, III, a. 25.
“Cf. De laud. B. Mariae, I, c. 15.
“Cf. Expos, in Passionem Domini.
“Cf. In I Sent., dist. 48, q. 2.
*’ Cf. St. Albert, De natura boni;
Mariale, q. 29; qq. 148-50.
“ See Dillenschneider, La Mariologie de S. Alphonse de Liguori, Sources
et Synthèse doctrinale, II, c. 10.
“Ad diem illum, February 2, 1904.
“De gestis Domini Salvatoris, II,

” Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
q. 148.
" Cf. In Luc., c. 1.
“ Cf. Bover, "El pensamiento generador de la teologia de San Pablo,"
Gregorianium, XIX, fasc. 2, 1938.
“ Cf. Sinibaldi, II Cuore della Madré
di Amore, c. 2.
“Bernard, O.P., The Mystery of
Mary, chap. 27, p. 149.
“In Luc., c. 1.
"La Corrédemptrice, III, Réponses
aux objections.
“Cf. Schiith, Mediatrix. Eine Mariologische Frage; Campana, Maria nel
Dogma Cattolico, I, q. 1. c. 2, a. 1.
"Cf. Die selige Jungfrau Maria, die
Vermittlerin aller Gnadcn; Bittremieux, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, an. II, fasc. 3, July, 1925.
“ Cf. Peter de Lorca, In III S.
Thomae, d. 22.
” Haeres., 3.
“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 79, a. 5;
cf. Galtier, De Incarn. et Redemp., th.

“Cf. Denz. 799; Pope Leo XIII,
Tametsi futura, November 1, 1900;
Cone. coll. Lacensis, t. VII.
“ Cf. Cajetan, In III, q. 1, a. 2.
“In Rom., horn. 10.
“ Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
"Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
“Inter sodalitia, March 22, 1918.
" Explorata res est, February 2,
1923.
"Hom. 2 super Missus est.
n Cf. Mariale, q. 42.
"Cf. St. Basil, In Ps. 48; St. Am­
brose, In Luc., 6; St. Augustine,
Enchir., c. 108; St. Fulgcnce, Ep. 17,

3"Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q- 1, a.
2, ad 2iim.
’* Cf. Pro. immac. Deip. Virg. Con­
cept. defensio, c. 21.
"Cf. In cap. 1. Matth., observ. 15
’· Denz. 795.

288

NOTES
n Contra Gentes, IV, 55.
"Cf. Maldonado, Comm. in Joann.,

"Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 48, a.
“Cf. Cone. 40, De Assumpt. B.M.

Virginis.
“Cf. In Cant., II, c. 26.
“ Cf. De mentis robore seu martyrio
Beatiss. Virginis, hom. 5.
"Cf. Bittremicux, De mediat, uni­
vers. B. Mariae Virg. quoad gratias,

""Cf. Mariait, qq. 148-50.
*“ Cf. In 1 Sent., dist. 48, a. 2, q. 1.
"“Summa theol., Illa, q. 1, a. 2,
ad 2tim.
1MCf. John of St. Thomas, De In­
carnat., q. 1, disp. 3, a. 1.
Disp.
pro Immaculata Dei
Genitr. Conceptione.
Cf. Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 114,
а. 6.
'"Cf. Satolli, De gratia Christi, q.
б. a. 6.
"’Cf. Ep. 37, Ad Dardanium.
1,1
Cf. De Incarn., d. 5, dub. 7; cf.
Bartmann, Précis de Thêol. Dogm.,
Ill, c. 5.
“In III Sent., d. 13. q. 4.
“In lam Ilae S. Thom., q. 114, a.
7,
dub. 1.
"‘Cf. Comm. Theol., II, d. 8, q.
6, punct. 5.
“* Cf. S. Bini, Concilia generalia et
particularia.
"· Ad diem dium, February 2,
1904.
“’Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 8, a.

uDe Incarn., dist. 5, sect. 7.
“Cf. Roman Catechism, Π, De
Poenit., η. III.
"St. Thomas, In III Sent., dist. 18.
"In Illam dist. 14, a. 2; see also,
Lorca, In Illam, dist. 22, a. 4.
"Quodl., II, in resp. ad 211m and
ad 311m.
"Phil. 2:8 ff.
"Heb. 5:9.
"Acts 4:12.
"Cf. Rupert of Deutz, Cant., I;
Ghisleri, Comm, in Cant., c. 2, v. 5.
“ "La Médiatrice de toutes les
’ “* Cf. Arnold of Chartres, De laud,
grâces," Gregorianum, Vol. VIII, fasc.
sanctae ac perpetuae Virginis Matris
3, 1936.
" Mary's Part in our Redemption,
Christi Mariae.
e. 9.
•"Cf. Hom. adv. Nestarium.
“Cf. Horn, in Assumpt. B. Vir­
" "Cooperatio Mariae ad Redemp­
tionem," Revue Ecclésiastique de ginis.
Liège, an. XXX, n. 5, Mar., 1939.
“•Loc. cit.
“> Cf. Session VI. c. 16; Denz. 810.
" Cf. Litt, apost. erect, capellae ad
“· Cf. Vega, op. cit., pal. 29, cert. 2.
praesepe Jesu Christi in basilica S.
“Cf. Denz. 826.
Mariae Majoris de Urbe, 1587.
“Cf. Inter sodalitia, March 22,
"Parta humano generi, September
8, 1901.
1918.
““Cf. Quatuor tractatus in lam S.
“Ad diem illum, February 2, 1904.
Thomae, tr. 3, d. 29, c. 1.
"See Hugon, Marie pleine de grâce,
“Cf. Stentrup, Soteriologia, I, c.
II, c. 2; Card. Gomd, Marta Santisima,
Reina del Universo, p. 19.
9, sect. 4.
‘“De Mediatione BM.V,, Acta
“Scotiis lists five “instants" in
Ord. Fr. Minorum, May, 1938.
God’s foreknowledge and providence:
'“Cf. Serm. 17, a Lovaniensibus first, Cod knows Himself; second. Cod
inter Augustini germanos receptus; knows all creatures; third. He pre­
Petau, De Incarn., XIV, c. 9.
destines some to glory and to grace
■“Cf. De excell. Virginis, c. 9.
(and in the first place Christ); fourth.

289

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
He foresees the niin of all in Adam;
fifth, in His divine providence God
decrees a remedy in the passion of
Christ. Cf. Scotus, In III Sent., d. 19.
'"Cf. Suérez, In I, d. 41, sect. 4.
*“Cf. Lorca, In III S. Thomae, d.
76. n· »3.
’"Cf. Pcsch, De Verbo Inc., II,
sect. 3, a. 3.
■"Cf. Palmieri, De gratia divina
actuali, th. 4-13.
'“Cf. Deipara elucidata.
’■‘Horn. 4, Super Missus est.
'“Serm. 51.
‘“Cf. In III Sent., d. 18, a. 4.
“’Cf. Mariale, qq. 149, 169.
Cf. Gerson, Canticord., tit. 2, p.

3“· Cf. In Prov., c. 8.
’“Cf. Cursus theol., d. 2, q. 1, a. 1.
‘"Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 114, a.

3’·’ Cf. De Civ. Dei, X, c. 6.
De Civ. Dei., X, c. 3.
Contra Gentes, III, c. »20.
Cf. Denz. 957.
‘“Cf. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Con­
tra Nestorium, III.
**’ Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
q. 51.
’“Cf. Grimai, Le Sacerdoce et le
Sacrifice de N.S. Jésus-Christ, c. 3.
“’Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
““Cf. Summa theol., Ilia, q. 48, a.
3, ad 3um.
Tummers, "Het mede-verdienen
van de h. Maagd in het verlossingswerk," Cregorianum, XIX, fasc. 3,
1938.
“* Maria hominum Corredemptrix,
IL c. 4.
“* De alma Socia Christi Mediatoris,
sect. I, c. 5.
“ Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
’“Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
■“ Apostolic Letter, March 22, 1918.
De laudibus S Matris Christi
Mariae.

'“Serm. 1, De B. Virgine.
'“Cf. Mariale, q. 51.
‘“De sept, verbis Domini, tr. 3.
1,1
Cf. Bcllarmine, De controv.
Christ, fidei, V, c. 3.
’“Summ., IV, 15, c. 41.
'“Super Magnificat, tr. 2.
“* Cf. Godts, La Corrédemptrice,
Π, c. 5.
Cf. Schccbcn, Handbuch der
Kath. Dogmatik, n. 1793.
’“Cf. Bartmann, Précis de Théol.
Dogm., Ill, sect. 2, c. 3. app.
‘"In laud. Deip., horn. 5.
Cf. In Nativit., horn. 2.
’· Cf. Summ., IV, 5, c. 2.
’” Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
d. 42.
’” Cf. St. Antoninus, Summ., IV,
15, c. 10; Gerson, op. cit., tr. II.
‘“Cf. Gerson, loc. cit.
’“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 4, a. 3, ad
rum.
’“Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de
N.S. Jésus-Christ.
’“Cf. Perrone, De Incarnatione, II,
c. 6, p. 627.
Cf. Bover, Ephemerides Theo­
logicae Lovanienses, an. IV, fasc. Il;
Cregorianum, VI, fasc. I.
’” Cf. Or. in S. Mariam Deiparam,
Hom. Mariales Byzantines.
’“ Or. 6 in Deip. Virginis ingressum.
‘“ Or. 7 in eamdem solemnitatem.
‘“Cf. St. John Damascene, Or. 1
de Assumptione; St. Bonaventure, De
donis Sp. Sancti, coll. 5, 14.
m Summa theol., Illa, q. 48, a. 4.
‘“Ep. ad Episc. Calaritanum, Jan­
uary 9, 1801.
'“Mariale, XXX, q. 51.
“* Cf. Expos, in Pass. Domini.
'“Cf. In 111am, d. 28, a. 2, q. 2,
ad ult.
■“ Cf. loc. cit.
Cf. Mariale, q. 78; qq. 148-50.
■“Cf. Jucunda semper, September
8, 1894.

290

NOTES

CHAPTER THREE

"Cf. Dillenschneider: La Mariologie de S. Alphonse de Liguori.
rtas S. Augustino.
Sources et synthèse doctrinale, c. n.
•Cf. Mariale, q. 90.
•Cf. Theol. Dogm . XIV, c. 9.
" Augustissimae V. Mariae. Septem­
‘Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
ber 12, 1897.
•Cf. Piazza,
Christianorum
in
"Cf. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haereres,
sanctos sanctorumque Reginam . . .
III, 22; Tertullian, De came Christi;
devotio vindicata.
St. Ephrem, Serm. exeg. ad Gen., c.
'Cf. op. cit., III, q. 2, a. 5, n. 198.
3; St. Epiphanius, Adv. haereses, III,
’Cf. St. Petet Canisius, De Maria
78; St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in S.
Virg. incomp., V, cc. 8-9.
Pascha; St. Ambrose, De Instit. Vir­
'Cf. Diptycha Mariana, II, punct.
gin., c. 14; St. Augustine, Serm. 13,
10.
De Natali Domini; De symbol, ad
'Cf. op. cit.
catech., c. 4.
"Cf. De culto publico ab Ecclesia
"Cf. Bover, "St. Ephraem Svri
B. Mariae exhibito, d. 2, sect. 1, c. 1.
testimonia de BM.V. mediatione,"
“Cf. 1st Maria die Mittlerin aller Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses.
Gnaden: cf. Clement, "S. Alphonse de
IV, fasc. 2; St. Epiphanius. Or. de
Liguori," Ephemerides Theologicae Lo­ laud. S. Mariae Diparae; St. John
vanienses, January, 1931.
Chrysostom, Or. in Nat. BM.V.; St.
" Gloriosae Dominae. September Basil, Or. in Annuntiationem; St. An­
27, 1748.
drew, Or. j de Virg. M. Nativit.
“ Ampliatio privilegiorum Ecclesiae
"Cf. St. Epiphanius. Advers. haer.
BAf.V., 1806.
78; St. Augustine, De Sancta Virginii..
“Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.
c. 6; St. Peter Chrysologus, Senn. 140,
" Supremi apostolatus, September De. Annunt., Serm. 64.
i, 1883.
"Cf. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Hom.
"Octobri mense, September 22,
4, Contra Nestorium; St. Modestus.
1897.
Encom. in B. Virginem; St. Andrew,
Or.
in Sanctiss. Dorn, nostrae Deiparae
” Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
dormitionem.
■ Cone, in S. Mariae Zonam.
"Adjutricem populi, September 5,
1895.
■ Oratio ad B. Virginem.
“Serm. 3, In Virg. Nativ. Domini;
“ Diuturni temporis, September 5.
cf. also Senn. 1 and 3, In Assumpt.
1898.
"Ad diem illum. February 2, 1904. B. Mariae; Serm. in Nativ. Mariae.
■Cf. Mariale, q. 29; ibid., q. 147,
“ Inter sodalitia, March 22, 1918.
■ Galliam Ecclesiae filiam primo­ 148; In Postillis super Luc, c. 1, 10;
genitam, March 2, 1922; Cognitum cf. also Desmarais. S. Albert le Grand.
Docteur de la Médiation Mariale.
sane, May 14. 1926.
"Cf. St. John Damascene, Encom.
’’Caritate Christi compulsi, May 3,
in dormit. B. Mariae Virg.; St. Theo­
1932.
“Solemne semper, August 15, 1932.
dorus, Laudatio in dormitionem Dei­
■Cf Toledo, Comm, et Annot. in parae; Eadmer, De excel!. Virg., e. 12;
Hugh of St. Victor. Miscellan., HI.
Epist. ad Romanos, c. 4.
'Lib. contra articulos falso impo­

291

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
tit. 4; St. Amadeus, De laud. B. Virg.,
horn. 2; Cardinal Hugo, Postilla super
Evang. sec. Luc., c. 1; Richard of St.
Lawrence, De laudib. B. Mariae, II;
St. Bonaventure, Scrm. 2, In Nativ.
Domini; Conrad of Saxony, Speculum
B.M. Virg., lect. 3; Raymond Jourdain,
Contempt, de B.M. Virgine, V, con.
4; IX, con. 14; Bovcr, "Univ. B.
Mariae mediatio in scriptis Joannis
Gerson," Gregorianum, IX, fasc. 2,
1928; St. Bernardine of Siena, Scrm.
6, In Annunt. B.M. Virg.; Scrm. 52,
De salut, angelica; Denis the Car­
thusian, De vita et fine solitarii, II, a.

7·

"De Maria Virgine incomparabili
et Dei Genitrice, I, c. 2.
" Cf. ibid., I, c. 8.
“Cf. St. Robert, Cone. 42, De
Nativ. B.M.V.; St. Lawrence, Mariale.
*°St. John Eudes, Cœur admirable,
II, c. 4, sect. 2.
“ Cf. Glories of Mary, I, c. 5.
“Cf. True Devotion, II, c. 4, sect.

“ Cf. Bossuet, Oeuvres, VII, p. 778;
St. Francis de Sales, Scrm. pour la
Visitation; Leonard of Port Maurice,
Acta O. Fr. Min., May 1, 1938;
Salmerôn, Comm, in Evang. Hist., II,
lib. Ill, tr. 5; Suércz, In Illam, d. 18,
sect. 3, a. 4; Salazar, In Prov., c. 8;
Vega, op. cit., pol. 29, cert. 4; Blessed
John of Avila, Obras espirituales;
Blessed Alphonsus of Orozco, Trat. de
las doce est relias; Venerable John
Palaphox, Pastor, y abeced. espiritual;
Nieremberg, Tratado de la aficibn y
amor a Maria. Cf. also the writings of
Scgneri, Novato, D’Argentan, Reichenbergcr, Crossct, Bona, De Cerf,
Boudon, Ketwigh, Arias, José de Jesus
Maria and José Valdivielso.
“ Cf. Summa theol., la, q. 22, a. 3;
Ila Ilae, q. 83, a. 11.
“Cf. Marie, Médiatrice de toutes
les grâces.
“Cf. Comp, theol., c. 241.

" Cf. Scrm. 2, De Pentecost.
“Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 106, a.
3. Cf. also Lagrange, L'Evangile selon
Saint Jean.
“Cf. Cornelius a Lapide, Comm.
in Epist. ad Romanos, c. 4.
“Cf. Guevara, In cap. 1 Matth.,
obs. 15.
“ Cf. Broise, Marie, Mère de grâce.
“Cf. Lepicicr, op. cit., Ill, c. 1, a.

4·
“ Cf. op. cit., V, c. 1.
“ Magnae Dei Matris, September 8,
.892.
“ Cf. Encom. 2, Dormit. Deiparae,
c. 8.
“Hom. 8, De Mariae Virg. plen.
sive perfect, gloria et erga suos clientes
patrocinio.
"Cf. Contenson, Theol. mentis et
cordis, I, lib. I, d. 5, c. 2.
“Cf. In Ps. 36, expos. 3.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 8, a. 3.
" Cf. Gotti, Theol. Schol. Dogm.,
De Deo Incarnato, tr. III, q. 3, dub. 3.
“Senn. 61, Super admir. gratia et
gloria B.M. Virginis; cf. similar state­
ments in St. Ephrem (quoted by
Bovcr, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, IV, April, 1927) and St.
Antoninus, Summ., tit. 13, c. 14.
“Or. de Cruce; cf. II, c. 1, q. 2.
" Cf. Serm. in fer. IV Uebd.
Sanctae.
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 59, a. 6.
“Cf. De Veritate, q. 29, a. 7, ad
5. Cf. also Pctau, De Incam., XII, c.

“The moral cause is distinguished
from the final cause, although there
is a certain similarity between the two.
The final cause attracts the efficient
cause by its goodness, while the moral
cause docs not act in this way, because
the petitions, the mandate, the merits,
the example, are not the end which
is sought by the operation, though the
good of the end can also be mixed
with the motives or moral reasons

292

NOTES
which arc suggested by him who gives
"Jucunda semper. September 8,
counsel or petitions in order to move I 1894.
”Cf. SuArez, In III, disp. 23, sect.
the agent.
"Cf. Valencia. Comm. Theol., II.
* Cf. De Myst. Incarnat., d. 2, c. 2,
d, 7, q· 4> punCt. 2.
spec. 2.
"Cf. Denz. 799.
•Gonet, De Sacramentis in genere,
" Summa theol., la, q. 106, a. 3; cf.
also Satolli, De operat, div., d. 8, lect.
d. 3. a. 4.
i 6.
"Cf. Denz., loc. cit.
”Cf. Mariale, q. 42; cf. also ibid.,
q. 29.
”Cf. De praecon. et dign. Mariae,
II, a. 9.
"Cf. Theol. Schol., tr. 8, d. unie.,
q. 5, sect. 3.
"Cf. In III, d. 3, sect. 5.
"Cf. Mariale, q. 42.
"Cf. De natura et gratia, II, c. 9.
” Cf. Bittrcmieux, De mediatione
universali B.M. Virginis quoad gratias,
II, c. 7, a. 3; Merkelbach, Mariologia,
III, q. 2, a. 4.
"Cf. Gonet, Clypeus Theol. Thomist., V, d. 3, a. 4.
"Cf. Héris, Revue de Sciences Phil,
et Théol., an. VI, n. 4, October, 1927;
Friethoff, De alma Soda Christi Medi­
atoris, sect. 2, c. 7.
"Cf. Tr. de Beatiss. Virg., HI, c. 1,
“ Cf. Cienda Tomista, XX, n. 102,
Sept.-Oct., 1928.
“ Cf. Hugon, La causalité instru­
mentale en théologie; Lavaud, “De la
causalité instrumentale de Marie," Rev.
Thorn., X, 1927; Bernard, La maternité
de grâce; The Mystery of Mary, chap.
Ρ·
“Cf. Mura, Le Corps mystique du
Christ, II, c. 9; Jacono, Maria Sentis­
sima mediatrice di tutte la grazie, p.
202.
“Cf. Suârez, In III, d. 23, sect. 1.
“ Cf. Gregorianum, Vol. VIII, fasc.
1, March, 1927.
« Cf. Diekamp, Theol. Dogm. Man­
uale, II, sect. 4; Mariol., c. 2; Cuervo,
La Cienda Tomista, LVI, fascs. i-a,

" Cf. St. Thomas, De verit., q. 27,
a. 5.
" Cf. John of St. Thomas, De sacra­
mentis in genere, d. 22, q. 62, a. 2.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 64, a. 7.
“ Epist. contra Paulum Samosatenum.
“Cf. Lepicier, Tr. de Beat. Virgine,
III.c. 1, a. 2.
"Cf. John of St. Thomas, Curs.
theol., De Sacram., q. 62, d. 25, a. 1.
"Cf. Rohellec, Marie, dispensatrice
des grâces divines, II, 2.
" Cf. Epist. ad Emmum. Card. Carretti, July 14, 1928.
" Cf. De corpora et sanguine Dom­
ini.
'"Cf. M. de la Taille, Mysterium
fidei, elticid. 50, app. 1.
Cf. Suarez, In III, d. 1. sect. 1.
“Cf. Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei
beatif. et beat, canoni., IV, p. 2, c.
31; Vega, op. cit., pa). 21, cert. 2;
Basabe, Maria y la Eucaristia, I, c. 2.
“ Cf. Denz. 355.
,M Ep. ad Rom.
Lib. de mysteriis, c. 9.
■" Cf. Comm, in Ps. 98.
Cf. St. Martin, Scrm. 2, In Nativ.
S. Mariae; St. John Damascene, De
Fide orth., IV, c. 13.
Scrm. 3, De Nativ. Virg.
‘"Cf. Aratijo, In Illam D. Thom.,
q. 76, a. ;, dub. unie.
“*Cf. Guevara, In cap. 1 Matt.,
observ. 15, sect. 3.
“* Cf. Senn. 2, De Natali Domini.
■“Cf. De gloria et hon. Filii horni-

Cf. De laud. B. Mariae, I.

«937·

«93

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Cf. De Christi Ecclesia, II, sect 2,
η. 218.
Cf. Dcnz. 430; 940.
“Cf. Denz. 938.
Cf. William of Paris, De Sacr.
Euch., c. 2; St. Peter Damian, Liber qui
appellatur Dominus vobiscum, c. 8.
“ Cf. Remigius of Auxerre, De div.
ofpe.
Secret of the Mass, Ninth Sunday
after Pentecost.
“Cf. Biel, Can. Missae Exposit.,
lect. 26.
“ Cf. Myster. Fidei, elucid. 26.
“Cf. Secret of the Mass, Feria IV
post Pascha.
151 Cf. Tract, de praepar. ad Missam,
c. 1; Cf. also Gihr, The Sacrifice of the
Mass, I, c. 3, a. 3.
“ Cf. Billuart, De almo Euchr. Sac­
rament., d. 8, a. 3.
Summa theol., Ill a, q. 79, a. 7, ad
aum.
“Cf. De Ss. Euch. Sacram, et
Sacrif., II, th. 13.
“ Secret of the Mass of Our Lady of
Mount Carmel. Cf. also Garénaux,
“Cf. De Paschae observatione, tr.
Marie, Reine du Clergé, Congrès
2.
1,1
Cf. Summo theol., Ia, q. ia, a. 6. Mariale de Boulougne-sur-Mer, 1938.
“Cf. St. Peter Chrysologus, Serm.
“Cf. Denz. 1281.
“Cf. Arcanum, February 10, 1890.
148, De Incarn. sacrament; Thomassin,
“ Cf. De Guibert, De Christi Ec­
De Incarn. Verbi Dei, II, c. 3.
“Cf. Dial., IV, c. 55.
clesia, the. 18, η. 164.
“ Serm. 267; Hurter, De Eccl.
“ Serm. 4, In Salve Regina.
Christi, tr. 3, a. 2. Tromp, Corpus
“Cf. The Blessed Sacrament, sec. 6.
“Cf. L'Eucaristia e la Vergine,
Christi quod est Ecclesia, sect. 1, c. 2.
“Cf. Dieckmann, De Ecclesia, t. 1,
studio e commento sulla rivelazione
della B. Martinengo, II, a. 3.
tr. 2, c. 1.
“Cf. De laud. glor. Virg. Mariae,
“ Cf. Maria y la Eucaristia, II, c. 3.
“ Ilustraciôn del Clero: "La Santis- IV, a. 16.
“Vie de la Bienhereuse Vierge
ima Virgen, Sagrario viviente, 193536.
Marie, III, c. 2.
“Cf. Paquet, De Novissimis, d.9,
“Cf. Paedag., 1.
q. 2, a. 3; Barbéns, La vida en el cielo,
“Hom. 85, alias 84, In Joannem.
I, c. 22.
“In /oannem, tr. 120.
“Cf. Godinez, Praxis Theol. Mys­
“ Serm. 68.
ticae, II, q. 3, s. 7, n. 399.
“ Lib. de ligno vitae.
“ Cf. Lcpicier, De stabilitate et pro­
“ Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Moral.,
gressu dogmatis, II, a. 9, η. z6.
28.

“· Cf. Terrien, La Mire des hommes,
VIII, c. 2.
“Cf. Lcpicier, op. cit., Ill, c. i, a. 2.
“Cf. Catech., XXII.
“Cf. St. Augustine, Senn. 41, De
Tempore.
“Cf. Hom. in Epiph. Domini.
“•Cf. ibid.
’"Cf. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres., Ill,
c. >8.
“ Cf. Lcpicier, De Ss. Euchar. sacr.,
1, q. 1, a. 6.
“Cf. Novato, De Emin. Deiparae, I,
c. 8, q.40.
“ Cf. Salazar, In Prov., c. 9.
“*Cf. Bini, Cone. generalia et pro­
vincialia, III. St. Jerome says that Jesus
eats and is eaten (Ep. 150, Ad Hevidiam).
“Summa theol., Illa, q. 81, a. 1.
“This is the teaching of George of
Nicomedia.
m Cf. op. cit., I, c. 9.
“Cf. op. cit., V, c. 1.
“ Cf. St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., IV,

294

NOTES
'•Cf. Mariale. q. 29.
1» Cf. Sumrn., IV, tit. 15, c. 2.
m Cf. Quamquam pluries, August 15,
1889.
>”Cf. Suârez, In III. <1. 49. sect. 1.
“Cf. Vcn. Bcdc, Carmen de Ascen­
sione Domini; St. John Damascene,
In Analepsim D.N.J. Christi; Ogara,
"De Ascensionis Christi spectatoribus,"
Gregorianum, Vol. XIV, fasc. 1, 1933.
”· Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
"“Cf. Catech., 17
”· Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
"Adjutricem populi, September 5,
1895.
”* Or. 8, Stabant juxta crucem.
Horn. 7, De laud, B. Virg.
De triumphali Christi agone, c. 18.
““ Cf. St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., V,

“* Cf. Broisse, La Sainte Vierge,

"° De Instit. Virg., c. 7.
““Horn 4 super "Missus est."
““ Cf. Eadmer, De excell. Virg., c. 7.
1MCf. Knabenbauer, Comm, in
Evang. see. Lucam, prolegom.; cf. also
Petitalot, La Vierge, Mère d'après la
Théologie, c. 22; Christiani, Marie et
les Evangiles, c. 4.
Cf. Telch, Introd. generalis in
Scrip, sacram, q. 3, a. 3.
'"Cf. Franzclin, De Ecclesiae Tra­
ditione, th. 5.
'"Cf. Il Cuore della Madré di
Amore, c. 4.

"Cf. Summe theol., Ia Hae, q. 14,

Decree of April 22,1903.
'"Cf. De Instit. Virg., II.
'"Cf. Guevara, In cap. 1 Matth.,
observ. 10.
'" Cf. Dieckman, De Ecclesia, tr. 2,

c.4.q·»·
Adjutricem populi, September 5,
.«95'"Hom. contra Nestorium.
’"Cf.In Apoc., c. 12.
’"Cf. A.A.S., XXIX, n. 13.
'"Cf. ibid.
m Cf. Contra Nestorium.
” Or. in Deip. Pressent.
“Ex hymn. Graecorum, Akathistos.
“Common of the Blessed Virgin;
Office of the Blessed Virgin.
“ Cf. Mersch, "Sainte Marie, Mère
de Dieu," Nouvelle Revue Théologique,
February, 1940; Hurter, tr. 7, Mariologia, sch. practicum.
“ Fidentem piumque, September 20,
1896.
“ Adjutricem populi, September 5,
1895.
“ Ecclesiam Dei, November 12,
1923.
Mortalium animos. January 6,
1928.
“Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.
“ Or. in dorm. B.M. Virg.
"De cath. Eccl. unitate.
"See St. Antoninus, Summa, p. Ill,
tit. 15, c. 15; Richard of St. Lawrence,
De laud. BM. Virginis, IX.
“Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.

CHAPTER FOUR
1 Cf. St. Thomas, In III Sent., 19,
‘Senn, q-j, c. 12, n. 21.
‘Cf. Adv. haer., HI, c. 18.
q. i,a. 5.
‘Summa theol., Illa, q. 20, a. 2; cf.
* Cf. Satolli, De Incarn., II, q, 26; see
also St. Bonaventure, In III Sent., d. 19,
also Petavius, De Incarn., ΧΠ, c. 3;
Cajctan, In Hlam. q. j6, a. a.
a. 2, q. 2.
‘Cf. Wirceburgenses, De Incarn.,
' Cf. Friethoff, De alma soda Christi
Mediatoris. sect. 1. c. i; Merkelbach.
diss. V, sec. 1, a. 2.
295

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Mariologia, III, a. 2. n. 179, nota.
■Cf. Jcanjacquot, Simples explica­
tions sur la coopération de la très Sainte
Vierge a l'oeuvre de la rédemption, c. 1.
•Cf. Clement, "S. Alphonse de
Liguori et la médiation de Marie,"
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,
January, 1931.
Ineffabilis, December 8, 1854.
"Adjutricem populi, September 5,
«895.
" Miserentissimus Redemptor, May
8, 1928.
” Cf. Caritate Christi compulsi, May

3. ’9Î2·
“Cf. St. Ephrcm, Or. ad Dei
Genitr., III, 575, 576; St. Epiphanius
(or whoever is the author) Or. de laud.
S. Mariae Deiparae; St. John Chryso­
stom, Or. in Nativ. B. Virg.; Basil de
Selcucia, Or. in Annunt.; St. Andrew
of Crete, Or. 4, In Nativ. Dei Geni­
tricis; St. Germanus of Constantinople,
Laud, in Dormit., Or. 3; St. John
Damascene, Or. 1, In Dormit.; St.
Theodore, Laud, in Dormit. Deiparae;
St. Antoninus, Summ., Ill, tit. 31, c. 2;
Denis the Carthusian, De vita et fine
solitarii, II, a. 7. Cf. also Bovcr, Ephe­
merides Theologicae Lovanienses, an.
VI, fasc. 3, July, 1929.
’* Cf. Bovcr, loc. cit.
" Cf. In Menaeis.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 26, a. 1; cf.
Estius, In Hl Sent., d. >9, n. 6.
“Cf. Enarrat. in Ps., 95.
“ Cf. Muratori, Della regol. divo-

“See Pohle-Prcuss, Mariology, p.
122: “Even the title co-redemptrix
had better be avoided as misleading.
The titles redemptrix and co-redemptrix
were never applied to the Blessed
Virgin before the sixteenth century;
they are the invention of comparatively
recent writers (Castclplanio, Faber,
Minges and others).” Cf. also La
Broisse-Bainwel, Marie, Mère de grâce
(Introd.); Rivière, "Sur la notion de

Maria Mediatrice," Ephemerides Theo­
logicae Lovanienses, an. II, fasc. 2,
April, 1925.
" Cf. Schcebcn, Mariology, Vol. II,
p. 199, note: “Numerous theological
expressions become refined by contro­
versy and their soundness or unsound­
ness eventually becomes established and
accepted. Development of doctrine did
not come to an end with the Church
Fathers. The same may be said with
regard to the exact meaning of certain
titles applied to the Blessed Virgin."
Schceben questioned the fitness of the
title co-redemptrix. But since his day,
the title has been sanctioned by the
highest ecclesiastical authorities, and
its orthodoxy is therefore beyond doubt.
(Translator’s note.)
“Cf. Bartmann, Précis de Thiol.
Dogmatique, I, III, app.; Schütz,
Mediatrix.
“Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, n. 101,
April 29, 1935.
“ Decree of May 18, 1908.
“Cf. St. Ephrem, cited by Bover,
op. cit.; Ballcrini, Sylloge., II.
“ Cf. Or. 2, In Dormit. B.V. Mariae.
"Cf. St. John Damascene, Serm. in
Annunt. B.V. Mariae; Alenin, Hom. 3.
“ Cf. Theol. Schol., tr. 8, d. un., q. 5,
sect. 3.
” Cf. George of Nicomedia, Or. in
Ss. Deip. ingressum; St. Albert the
Great, Mariale, q. 29; St. Peter Da­
mian, Hom. 45, Opera omnia.
“ Cf. St. Bernard, Epist. 174, Ad
Can. Lugdun.; Peter Blesense, Serm.
in Nativ. B. Mariae; Denis the Car­
thusian, De prec. et dign. Mariae, II,
a. 9.
“ Cf. Bover, “B.V. Maria, hominum
Corredemptrix," Gregorianum, Vol. VI,
fasc. 4, December, 1925.
" Cf. Theol. Mariana, pal. 30, cert.
4-

“ Cf. Salmerôn, Comm, in Evang.
Historiam, X, tr. 41.
“ Cf. Panoplia Mariana.

296

NOTES

■Cf. Schütz, Summ. Mtfriena, I, p.

siae B.M. Virginis ab angelo salutatae
in coenobio FF. Ord. Serv. B M. Vir­
5’4
"Cf. De decretis Syn. Nicaenae.
ginis Florentinae, an. 1806.
"Cf. Carol, "Episcopatus catholicus
" Cf. Proesentissimum, March 30,
et B. Virginis Corredemptio," Ephe­
1830.
merides Theologicae Lovanienses, an.
"Cf. Praesentissimum, May 18,
XVI, fasc. 4, 1939; L'Osservatore Ro­
1832.
mano, May 19-20, 1924; Card. Le"Quamquam pluries, August 15,
picicr, L'imrnaculata Madré di Dio,
1889.
Corredentrice dei genere umano; Tr.
■ Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
de B.V. Maria, Matre Dei, III, c. 1.
"Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.
a. 3.
“ Cf. Explorata res est, February 2,
"Cf. The Young Priest, p. 47.
1923.
“ Cf. Card. Mercier, Lettre pastorale,
“ Summa theol., la, q. 1, a. 10.
November 1, 1924.
■ Cellini, Propaedeutica Biblica, III.
“Cf. Dieu Père des miséricordes,
Lettre pastorale, February 11, 1938.
·* See Scheeben, op. cit.. Vol. II, pp
“Cf. Bover, "Maria, hominum cor246-47: 'This idea relative to Mary's
redemptrix," Gregorianum, Vol. IV,
motherhood certainly appears in tradi­
fasc. 4, December, 1925.
tion of fairly recent date. As to the
“ Enarr. in Ps. 29, 2.
traditional character of this idea in
“Cf. Comm. Theol., IV, d. 1, q. 22, general, ... it finds its Scriptural mo­
punct. 3.
tivation in all that is advanced for
“ Mariale, q. 148.
Mary's cooperation in the redemption.
“ Cf. Dublanchy, "Marie Média­ . . . The vision of the beloved dis­
trice," Dictionnaire de Théologie Cath­ ciple of our Lord provides a positive
olique, IX.
and exegetical reason for applying to
"Cf. Bittremicux, De Mediatione Mary's spiritual motherhood over all
the redeemed, in a more sublime yet
universali B.M. Virg. quoad gratias, I,
c. 4, a. 3; Merkelbach, Mariologia, III, general sense, the words of the Savior:
a. 2; Keuppens, Mariologiae Compen­ ‘Woman, behold thy son. Son, behold
thy Mother.’ Literally, they do not
dium, II, sect. 1, c. 1-2; Zubizarreta,
exclusively contain a recommendation
Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae.
"Cf. Tr. de Beatissima Virgine, III, of the Mother to the loving care of
the son, or an admonition to that son
a. 1,8.3.
to honor the Mother; but they do un­
“ Cf. Mysterium Fidei, elucid. 50,
doubtedly hold a recommendation of
epilogue.
" See Mary’s Part in our Redemp­ the son to the loving care of the
Mother, which in a higher, more uni­
tion, chap. 9.
versal sense refers to Mary's spiritual
" Cf. In Joann., tr. 84.
motherhood of the redeemed." (Trans­
“ Cf. Serm. 12, De Pass. Domini.
lator's note.)
*· Cf. Estius, In III Sent., d. 19, s. 6.
"Cf. Suàrez, In III, d. 37; Knaben“ Or. 47, quoted by Pope Leo XIII,
bauer. Comm, in Joann.; Murillo, San
Adjutricem populi, September 5, 1895.
“ Cf. “Les mystères de la Ste. Trinité Juan, estudio critico y exegitico; Corluy, Comm, in Evang. Joannis; Fillion,
et de la grâce." Revue Ecclésiastique
de Liège, an. XXVII, n. 3, November,
La Sainte Bible, Evang, selon S. Jean;
Lagrange, Evang, selon S. Jean.
1935.
“ Cf. Ampliatio privilegionim Eccle"Adjutricem populi. September 5,

»97

Τ Π E BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

1895. Cf. also Toledo, In sacros Joan.
Evang., c. 19; Contenson, De Mysterio
Incarnationis. X, d. 6, c. 2.
"Cf. Przybylski, De Marialogia S.
Irenaei Lugdunensis.
“Cf. St. Epiphanius, Haer. 78; St.
Ambrose, De Instit. Virg., c. 14 and 15;
St. Augustine, De Virginit., c. 6; St.
Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 40; St. An­
selm. Or. 7, Ad Sand. Virg. Mariam;
St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 29; St.
Bonaventure, In Soliloquiis; Conrad of
Saxony, Speculum B.V.M., lect. 10.
"Cf. Aubron, "La Mariologie de
Saint Bernard,” Recherche de Science
Religieuse, XXIV, n. 5, 1934; Nogués,
Mariologie de Saint Bernard, c. 4.
"Bainvel, Marie, Mère de Crdcc,
IV.
"Sinibaldi, Il cuore della Madrc di
Amore, c. 1.
” "Doctrina Mariana Leonis XIII,"
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,
IV, fasc. 31,1927.
"Cf. Novatus, De Eminentia Dei­
parae Virginis, I, c. 8, q. 25.
'‘Ad diem ilium, February 2, 1904.
"Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.
’•Cant. 7:2.
" Cf. St. Ambrose, De Instil. Virg.,
cc. 14-15; Salmcrôn, Comm, in Evang.
Historiam, IV, p. 7; II, tr. 9; Orosius,
Cone, de Virg. Rosario.
” De Virginitate, c. 6.
’’’De natura boni.
"Trad, de B.V.M., serm. 6.
“Quamquam pluries. August 15,
1889.
"Quod nupcr, January 6, 1933.
“St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q.
29; cf. also Rupert of Deutz, In Joann.,

61 St. Antoninus, Summa, P. IV, tit.
15, C.2.
“St. Alphonsus, Glories of Mary,
Salve Regina, c. 1.
“Cf. De Vita in Christo, I.
" Cf. Tr. de Incam., I, sect. 2, m. 3,
c. 2, q. 8.

“Cf. Tromp, Corpus Christi quod
est Ecclesia, c. 4.
"Octobri mense, September 22,
1891.
"Magnae Dei Matris, September 8,
1892.
" Octobri mense, September 22,
.891.
"Cf. In Luc. 9:27.
“ Cf. John of St. Thomas, De In­
eam., d. 10, q. 8, a. 2; Debout, La
femme aux douze étoiles, p. 132.
•‘Cf. Bona, Defensio B.V. Mariae
. . . contra libellum intitulatum Mon­
ita salutaria . . . , c. 9.
"Cf. Pope Boniface IX, Instit. Pestivit. Visitationis B.M. Virginis, 1390;
Pope Pius VII, Indultum recolendae in
protedricem principalem B.M. Virginis
sub titulo de Gratia in oppido Car­
monensi, dioec. Hispal., 1805; Pope
Pius XI, Miserentissirnus Redemptor,
May 8, 1928.
" Comm, in Joan.
"Cf. St. Irenaeus, Haer., V, c. 49;
Bover, "S. Ephraem Syri testim. de
B.M.V.
mediatione,"
Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses, IV, fasc. 2,
1927.
“ Hom., In Zonam.
"Cf. St. Bernard, Serm. 1, De Assumpt. B. Virginis.
Cf. St. Bonaventure, Memorial­
ium, epist. 25.
““De contemplatione B.V., prol.
,ra Salve Regina.
Cf. Denz. 342.
lw Cf. Denz. 984.
'“Cf. Roman Catechism, VI, c. 5.
Cf. Cum praeexcelsa, February
28, 1476; Denz. 734.
Cf. loc. cit.
Cf. Jucunda semper, September 8,
1894.
,M Cf. Bover, op. cit.
"‘Cf. Laudatio in Dormit. B.V.

*“ Cf. Serm. de Nativit. Virginis; cf.
also St. Anselm, Or. ad. 3, Virg.

298

NOTES
Mariam in Assumpt. ejus; Godofrcdus,

In omni festivit. B. Mariae.
“* Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Moral,
XXII, c. 17. St. Thomas says the same
thing when he remarks that Jesus
presents Himself to the Father in His
human nature and thus intercedes for
us (in III Sent., d. 57, 6).
Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzcn, Or. 36.
Cf. Bover, op. cit.; Arnold of
Chartres, De laud. Mariae; Berlcndo,
Elogia glorioriss. Virg. Deip. Mariae ad
Lit. Lauretanas.
"* Cf. De Incarnat. Verbi.
"‘Deprec. ad glorioss. Virginem; cf.
also St. Ephrem, Ag., Ill, 515; St.
Anselm, Or. 7, Ad S. Virg. Mariam.
Cf. St. Thomas, Contra Gentes,
III, c. 96; cf. also Vega, op. cit., pal.
30, cert. 1.
"•Op. cit.
"'Augustissimae Virginis, September
12, 1897.
"Cf. Bover, op. cit.
“ Cf. Ep. 29, Ad Stephanum mon­
achum.
“Cf. Or. 1, Ad S. Virg. Mariam.
“Cf. In Cant., II, c. 23.
“Cf. De Laud. B. Mariae, III.
“ Cf. St. Antoninus, Summ., IV, tit.

Annae, George of Nicomedia, Or. 6,
In Ss. Dei Gent, ingressum; St. Peter
Damian, Serm. 1, De Nativ. Mariae;
St. Anselm, Or. 4. Ad B.V. Mariam;
Eadmer, De excell. Virginis, c, ta;
Adam of Persenia, Mariale seu laudes
Ss. Deip. Virg., serm. 1 in Annunt ;
Raymond Jourdain, Contempt, de B.M.
Virgine, cont. 12.
'" Semi. 2, In Dormit. Virg. Mariae.
"Serm. in omni fatnit. BJVf.
Matris Domini.
“Cf. St. Augustine, In Ps. 83, ad
“Cf. Theophilus of Alexandria, De
Incarnat. Verbi.
'“Cf. Bossuet, Senn. 3. Sur la Nativ.
'“ Cf. Carau, Deip. elucid., triumph.,
1U Summa theol., Illa, q. 18, a. 2.
'“Cf. St. Thomas, op. cit., q. 18,

a· ’·
'“Cf. Eadmer, Tract, de Concept.
BM. Virginis.
*“ Paciucch, Super Salve Reg., exc. 1;
cf. also Denis the Carthusian, De praec.
et dign. Mariae, III, a. 9; St. Ephrem,
Ag., HI, 526-27, 532; St. Gennanus,
Hom. in Zonam.
'“Serm. 17, De Verbo Apost. c. 1.
'"Cf. TrombeUi, De cultu publico
5> c. 17.
ab Ecclesiae B. Mariae exhibito, d. 2,
“* Summa Theol., Ila llae, q. 83,
C. 7, sect. 2, q. 2; Neubert, Marie dans
" Cf. Sudrez, In III, disp. 23, sect. 2. le Dogme, c. 2, 6.
Cf. De cura pro mortuis gerenda,
*” Cf. Sudrez, In III, d. 22, sect. 2.
“ Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 13, a. 2. c.4.
Rituale Romanum, tit. 5, c. 3.
Cf. Widcnfeldt, op. cit.
“* Ineffabilis Deus, December 8,
“° Last prayer after the litany of the
saints.
>854.
,aCf. Denis the Carthusian, In IV
“· Octobri mense, September 22,
Sent., d. 45, q. 4.
.891.
“ Roman Missal.
“· Supremi apostolatus, September 1,
1883. Pope Pius XI wrote in a similar
"Cf. Scapulare Marianum illustra­
way; cf. Auspicatus ad Emmurn. Card. tum et defensum, II, q. 4.
04 Cf. De Poenitentia, d. 48, sect. 5.
Binet, January 28, 2933.
*** Ad dicm ilium, February 2, 1904.
Cf. In III Sent., dist. 45, q. j.
“ Cf. St. Ephrem, Ag., Ill, 536-39;
'“Cf. In III Sent., d. 45, q. >; $ee
St. John Damascene, Serm. in Annunt.;
also Diego Nufio, In Addit., ad 3 part,
St. Euthymius, Laud in concept. S. q. 25, diff. 2.

299

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Loc. cit.
’" Cf. Terrien, La Mère des homines,
X, c. 2; Chrysostomc, "Les trois grandes
privilèges de Marie"; Muscat, "De
virtute satisfactoria operum bonorum
in ordine ad alios," D. Th. Plac., XL,

*937“*Cf. Eliam a S. Tcrcsia, Legatio
Ecclesiae triumphantis ad militantem
pro liberandis animabus purgatorii;
Arriaga, Disput. theologicae, V, De
caritate.
’“Serai. 4, De Assumpt. Virginis;
cf. also St. Germanus, Hom. in Zonam;
St. Amadeus, Hom. 8, De laud.
Cf. Benedictus Deus, January 29,
1336; Dcnz. 530.
’” Cf. Panoplia Mariana.
'“Cf. Summa theol., Suppi., q. 71,
a. 5, ad ;um.
’“Cf. Bartmann, Précis de Théol.
Dogm., II, Lib. VI; L'Eschatologie,
c. 1, n. 213.
’· Cf. Budge, One Hundred and Ten
Miracles of Our Lady Mary, p. 172;
John de Scalis, De recreatione hominis;
Wilmart, "Une méditation théologique
sur les bienfaits de l'ordre surnaturel."
Revue de Sciences Phil, et Théol., XV,
n. 3, 1926.
’“ Cf. Richard, "Enfer," Dictionnaire
de Théologie Catholique; Pope Urban
VIII, Magnum Bullarium Romanum,
XIII, August 6, 1623; Terrien, La Mère
des hommes, X, c. 4.
'"Cf. Or. 1, Ad Sanctam Virg. M.
‘“Cf. Trombclli, op. cit., d. 1, q. 4,
c. 6; Terrien, loc. cit.
’“ Cf. Estius, In IV Sent., d. 46, n. 2.
’” Cf. Mendoza, Viridarium sacrae et
profanae eruditionis, II, prob. 5; Garau,
Deipara elucidato, II, 4; Crasset, La
véritable dévotion envers la S. Vierge,
I, tr. 1, q. 12.
Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Moral.,
IX, c. 38; St. Hilary, Comm, in Ps., 51;
St. Bernard, Senn. 75, resp. ad lect. 7.
m Summa theol., la, q. 21, a. 4, ad
rum.

’"Cf. Velâzquez, Maria, advocata
nostra, I, adn. 16.
”‘Cf. Lumbrcras, Ciencia Tomista,
XXVI, nn. 151-52.
’“ Cf. St. Augustine, De Civitate
Dei, XXI, c. 2.
”’Cf. In IV Sent., d. 45, q. 2, a. 2.
Cf. De Theol. Dogmatibus: De
Angelis, III, c. 8.
Cf. Emery, Diss, sur la mitigation
des peines des damnés.; Ventura, La
raison catholique et la raison philo­
sophique, III, conf. 21.
™Del gran numero de los que se
salvan y de la mitigaciôn de las penas
eternas, pp. 104, 131, 132, 133. This
book was condemned by the Holy
Office on February 19, 1936, and the
author humbly submitted.
’•Cf. Cathem. hymn., v. 125.
m Cf. Hugon, Tr. de Novissimis,
q. 8, a. 2.
’“Cf. Paraen 1, Ad Heliod. lapsum.
Cf. Lib. ad Demetr.
Cf. Enarr. in Ps., 105.
163 De Anima, c. 3.
“"Cf. De anima et ejus origine, I,
c. 9.
‘“Summa theol., Suppl., q. 71, a. 5.
“* Contra Gentiles, IV, c. 93.
Cf. Horn. 4, In Ep. ad Ephes.
”°Cf. St. Bernard, Serm. 1, Super
Salve Regina; Conrad of Saxony, In
Speculo, c. 7; Cardinal Hugo, Ad verba
Eccli., 24:16.
m Cf. Or. in Zonam.
Cf. Opusc., 33, 4.
’" Cf. Nomencl. Marianus.
”‘Cf. Or. 4, Pro festo Visit. B.
Virginis.
Cf. Pope Leo XIII, Octobri
mense, September 22, 1891.
““Cf. St. Ephrem, Serm. de Ss. Dei
Genitr. Virg. Mariae laudibus; St.
Bernard, Serm. 1 super Salve Regina,
"" Cf. Nomencl. Marianus.
““Or., In Dormit. B.M. Virg.
“· Fidentem piumque, September 20,
1896.

300

NOTES
*“ Ad/ut-icem populi, September 5,
1895.
Cf. Mortalium animos, January 6,
1928.
m Cf. In Joann., tr. 107.
“Cf. Maldonatus, Comm. in Joann.,
c. «7; sec also Simon, Praei. Bibl. I,
Lib. II. P. III, a. 9.
501 Serm. 1, De Annunt. B. Virg.
Mariae.
” St. Thomas, De regim. princip.,
“ Cf. Summa theol., Ia, q. 96, a.

4·
OTCf. St. Ambrose, Expos, in Luc.
10; Guevara, In cap. I Matt., observ.
>5· v- 5” Cf. Dieckmann, De Ecclesia, I,
c. 2, q. 5.
M“Cf. Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 98,

™Cf. Horn. 1, In dormit. B.M.
Virginis.
“Cf. St. Tarasius, Or. in Deip.
Praesentationem; St. Theodorus, Horn,
in dormit. Deiparae; St. Peter Damian,
Serm. 40, In Assumpt. B.M. Virginis;
Rupert of Deutz, In Cant.
"Cf. Serm. in dom. infra octav.
Assumpt.
“Cf. Mariale, q. 165.
“ Cf. Comm, in Ps. 44.
“ Cf. Cone, x. Super Missus est.
"De Maria Virgine incomparabili,
V,C. 13.
“Cf. Specui., VI, in the works of
St. Bonaventure.
“Cf. St. Bernard, Serm. in Signum
magnum; St. Ildephonse, Serm. 1, De
Assumptione.
“De Virginitate S. Mariae, c. 12
“ Cf. De Fide Orth., c. 15.
“ Cf. De laud. Virginis.
In Cant., c. 4.
“Serm. 5, De BJVf. Virgine.
“ Glories of Mary, P. I. c. 1.
•"Cf. Peronne, De Incarnat., P. II,

*" Cf. Heris, "La royauté du Christ,"
Revue de Sciences Philosophiques et
Théologiques, July, 1926.
“Cf. De regim. prine., II, 13.
“ Summa theol., Illa, q. 59, a. 4, ad
1 urn.
c. 3, n. 378.
*”Cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, De
“‘Cf. St. Epiphanius, De laudibus
Rom. Pontif., V, c. 4; Gregory of Virginis; St. Andrew of Crete, Or. in
Valencia, Comm. Theol., I, d. 1, q. 22, Dormit. Deiparae; Hugh of St. Victor,
punct. 6; Molina, De Just., tr. 2, d. 28; Serm. 46.
Suârez, De Incarnat., d. 48, sect. 2;
“Cf. Mariale, q. x68.
Lugo, Dis/». 30, sect. 1.
“De Virgin.. II, c. 2.
’“Summa theol., la Ilae, q. 106, a. 1.
“Cf. Quas primas, December 11,
“Cf. Dillenschneider, Souverainite
1925.
de
Marie. Doctrinal report of the
“Cf. Dcnz. 831.
Marian Congress of Boulogne sur-Mer,
"· Cf. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria
Virgine incomparabili, V, c. 10.
July, 1938.
“Cf. Ad diem ilium, February 2.
“ Cf. ibid., IV, c. 6; V, c. 3.
1904; cf. also Pope Leo XIII, Ad­
”* Monita salutaria adversus cultores
jutricem populi, September 5, 1895.
indiscretos, mon. 10, xi.
“Cf. Summa theol., Suppl., q. 89,
“ Cf. Dcnz. 784; Ineffabilis Deus,
December 8, 1854.
sa° Jucunda semper, September 7,
“Cf. St. Ephrcm, Ag., III. 575-77;
St.
Bernard, In Cant. Salve Regina.
1894.
«n Ad diem illum, Febmary 2, 1904.
“Cf. St. Thomas. Exposit. in Epist.
“ Cf. De laud. Deiparae.
Canonicas, praef.; Gerson, Super Mag­
“Cf. Horn. 1, In Praesent.
nificat. P. HI, tr. 4; Gabriel Biel, In
m Cf- Horn. 2, In Dormit. Deiparae.
Can. Missae, lect. 80.
JOX

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

“ Op. cit.
" Cf. De excell. Virg. Mariae, c. 6.
"* Ibid., c. 4.
""Cf. Tract, de Beat. Virgine, P. Ill,

■* Cf. Tract. Dogm. de B.V. Deipara,
q. 1,8.4.
” Cf. In Prov., c. 8.
”Cf. De Maria Regina, sect. 2, c. 2,
“Cf. Deipara clucidata, prin. 11,
sect. 6.
“Senn. 2, In dormit. B.V. Mariae.
m Cf. St. Albert the Great, Mariale,
rcsp. ad qq. 26—43; Suirez, In III, disp.
22, sect. 2.
“Cf. Mariologia, III, q. 3, n. 207.
"" Summa theol., la, q. 96, a. 4.
“Cf. Denz. 1782.
“ Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 13, a. 1.
“Quas primas, December 11, 1925.
“Cf. Ag., Ill, 528-43; Bover, loc.
cit.
“Cf. Serm. in Zonam.

“ Cf. De Fide Orth., IV, c. 14.
“ Cf. De Virginitate Sanctae Mariae,
“Sec St. Anselm, Or. ad S. Virg.
Mariam; St. Bernard, Hom. 4 super
Missus est; St. Bonaventure, In III
Sent., d. 2, a. 3, q. 3.
“Cf. Conrad of Saxony, Specul.
B.M. Virg., VIII.
*"Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 13, a.

m Cf. Bartholomew de los Rios,
I lierarchia Mariana, V, c. 16; Gutiérrez
Alonso, La csclavitud Mariana, P. I,
c. 2, a. 7; Vega, op. cit., pal. 27, cert.
1; Garau, op. cit., prin. 11, no. 5;
Sedlmayr, Theol. Mariana, 11, q. 11,
a. 3.
“Cf. Vega, op. cd., pal. 27, cert. 1.
“Cf. St. Thomas, De regim. prin­
cipe III, c. 9; Summa theol., la, q. 96,
a. 2; Lepicier, op. cit., P. Ill, c. 2, a. 1.
“Denis the Carth., De laud. glor.
Virg. Mariae, I, a. 21.

CHAPTER FIVE
' Cf. Suarez, In III, d. 22, sect. 2.
’ Canisius, De Maria Virgine incom­
parabili, I, c. 2; V, c. 11.
’ Cf. Auth., “Mariology and Luther­
anism," Eccles. Rev., Vol. LXXX,
1929.
‘Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.
“Cf. Denz. 1316.
• On this last passage see Knabcnbauer. Comm, in Luc., c. 1.
’ Cf. St. Epiphanius, Haer., 79; St.
John Damascene, Serm. de Nativ. Virg.;
St. Bernard, Hom. 2, Super Missus est;
St. Peter Damian, Epist. ad Stephanum;
Fulbert of Chartres, Serm. 1, De Nativ.
B. Virginis; Raymond Jourdain, Contempi. de B..M. Virg., cont. 4; St. Ber­
nardine of Siena, Serm. 2, De Ss.
Nomine Mariae.
* Cf. Cardinal Hosio, Expos, salut,
angelicae.

• Cf. Diekamp, Theol. Dogm. Man­
uale, I, sect. 4, c. 2; Thomas Bocio,
De signis Eccl. Dei, X, c. 6.
« Cf. Haer., -j3.
“ Cf. De Spiritu Santo, III, c. 12.
“In III Sent., dist. 22, q. 3, a. 3, ad

’“Cf. Haer., 79.
“De Genesi contra Manichaeos, XI.
“ Cf. Ep. Dogm., 2.
'•Summa theol., Illa, q. 25, a. 5.
” In III Sent., d. 9, a. 1, q. 3.
“Cf. Serm. 2, De Visit. B. Virg.
Mariae.
“Cf. In Illam, d. 100, c. 2.
“ Feast of the Blessed Virgin, resp. 7,
at Matins.
"Decree of June 1, 1884.
" De Incam., d. 5, sect. 3, a. 1.
"De Verb. Incarn., I, c. 3, a. 4,
cscol.

302

NOTE
"Cf. St. Bonaventure, Γη III Sent.,

“ Denz. 302.
" Summo theol., Illa, q. 15, a. 3.
d. 9, a. 1. q. 3, ad atim.
”Cf. Contenson, De Inarm., X,
“In Illam, d. 22, sect. 3.
d. 1, c. 2.
"Summo theol., Illa, q. 25, a. 3.
“Cf. Bernard, Fisiologie del cuorc;
"Cf. De Festis B.M. Virg., II, c.
Sinibaldi, Il cuore della Madre di I 10.
“ Cf. Gutiérrez, El culto litûrgjco de
amorc. c. 3.
“Cf. Lebrun, Ld devotion au Cœur
la Sant'uima Virgen, c. 12.
• Bourasse, Bullarium Marwnum,
de Marie.
" Cf. St. John Eudes, Cœur admira­ VII.
“Cf. Roman Breviary, Feast of the
ble, I, c. 5.
Most Holy Name of Mary, lect. 6.
"Litterae decretales, May 31, 1925.
"Cf. Bourasse, Summa Aurea, Bui“Serm. 146.
“Serm. de Annunt. B. Virg. Mariae.
larium Marianum, VII.
® Cf. Nix, Cultus Ss. Cordis Jesu et
"In III Sent., d. 19, q. 3.
Purissimi Cordis B.V. Mariae, c. 6, a. 1.
“ Contempl. BM. Virg., c. 5; cf. also
St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virg.
" Cf. De excel/. Virg., c. 9.
" Cf. Deprecat. ad glor. Virg. Mar- incomp., I, c. 1.
“ Cf. Summa theol., la, q. 13, a. 1.
“Cf. De Laud. B. Mariae, XI.
" Serm. in Zonam.
“Cf. Speculum BM. Virg., lect. 9.
"Cf. Contemplationes de B. Virg.,
IV, contempl. 1-3.
n Cf. op. cit., I, c. 1.
“ Cf. Serm. 9, De Visit. B. Virg.
” Loc. cit.
” De Maria Virg. incomp., I, c. 13.
"Speculum BM. Virg., lect. 3.
” Cf. Campana, Maria nel culto cat"Cf. In cap. 2 Luc.
tolico, sec. 4, c. 3, a. 1.
"Serm. in dom. 3 Quadrag.
"Serm. 1, De Nomine Mariae.
“ Cf. John Ferrandus, Disquis. reliq.,
"Serm. 2, In Dormit. Deip. Virg.
I, c. 2, a. 3; Baronius, Annal., XII, a.
1123; Gentilucci, Life of the Blessed Mariae.
Virgin, trans, by Thomas Kelly (New
” Hom. da Vigil. Nativitatis.
" Hom. 2, Super Missus est.
York: 1856).
" De laud. B. Mariae, I.
“ Cf. Maria nel culto cattolico, II,
" Cf. Jourdain, loc. cit.; Novato, De
sec. 4, c. 5, a. 2.
eminent. Deip. Virg., I, c. 1, q. 12;
“De reliquiis B. Virg. Mariae, II.
Vega, Theol. Mariana, P. XVIII, cert.
“ Cf. Llor, La Tierra Santa, cc. 2, 3.
“ Cf. Delaporte, La Voile de Notre 4; Sedlmayr, Theol. Mariana, P. I,
q. 10, a. 5; Lepicier, op. cit., P. I, c. 1.
Dame; Camara Santa.
“ Cf. Denz. 984-85.
" Cf. Theol. Mariana, P. I, c. 1, a. 2.
" Cf. Serm. in Zonam.
“ Cf. Pcsch, De Sacr. in genere, app.
" Cf. Jugic, Patrol. Orient., XVI.
De Sacramentalibus.
“ Cf. Summa theol., Illa, q. 25, a. 6.
“ Cf. loc. cit.
“Cf. loc. cit., ad zum.
" Cf. Lahousse, De Sacram, in
" Cf. Denz. 302.
genere, app. De Sacram.
“ Cf. ibid., 986.
“
Cf. Campana, Maria nel Dogma
“ Cf. ibid., 994.
cattolico, P. Ill, c. 1; Theophilus Ray­
“Cf. can. 1276.
naud, Diptycha Mariana. P. Il, no. 21.
“ Cf. Epist. 500.
” De laud. B. Mariae, I. c. a.
“Epist. VII, 5.
“ Or. 6, In Annunt.
“Epist. VII. 111.

J°3

THE BLESSED VIRGIN

MARY

CHAPTER SIX
'· Cf. Nomencl. Marianus.
“Serin, in Nativ. B.M. Virginis.
" Or. 2, Ad S. Virg. Mariam; cf.
Bittremieux, op. cit., II, c. 6.
” Cf. op. cit.
°* In Joan. 8:46.
“Magnae Dei Matris, September 8,
1892.
“Ad diem illum, February 2, 1904.
” Ep. 22, Ad Eustochium.
"Cf. De Virg., II, c. 2.
" Cf. Serm. super Salve Regina.
”Cf. Memor., 13, cp. 25; cf. St.
Ildcphonse, Serm. 1, De Assumpt.
Deiparae.
“ Cf. Serm. 1, In Epiph. Domini; see
also Adam, Abbot of Persenia, Serm. 5,
De Assumpt. S. Mariae.
“Ad diem illum, February 2, 1904.
”Cf. Expositio cap. 1 Ep. ad He­
braeos.
“Cf. op. cit., sect. 1, c. 2; Dechamps, Nouvelle Eve, p. 293.
“Cf. St. Ephrem, Ag., III, 543; St.
Germanus, Serm. in Zonam; Raymond
Jourdain, Contempl. de B. Virgine,
P. IX, cont. 14; Abbot Godfried, Serm.
in omni festo B. Mariae.
“ Avis sur la dévotion a Marie.
" Cf. De festis B.M. Virginis, II, c. 6.

'Magnae Dei Matris, September 8,
1892.
‘Lux veritatis, December 25, 1931.
* Cf. Rover, Zoe. cit.
‘Oral, ad Ss. Virg. Mariam, η.
‘Cf. loc. cit., 8.
•Senn, de Aquaeductu.
‘De Virginit. S. Mariae, c. 12.
’ Cf. Denz. 984.
•Cf. Confirm, et ampliatio indulto­
rum ac indulgentiarum Rosarii B.M.
Virg., 1583; Bourosse, Summa aurea,
VII.
“Cf. Ag„ III, 526-27; 532-33.
u Cf. Prec. 2, Praepar. ad Missam.
“Cf. Horn. 2, Super Missus est.
“Cf. Horn. 4, De laud. B. Virginis;
St. Basil of Selcucia, Or. 1, De Verbi
Ineam.; St. Germanus of Constanti­
nople, Serm. in Zonam; St. Anselm,
Or. 3-4, Ad. S. Virg. Mariam; Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours, Serm. 1,
In festo Assumpt. B. Mariae.
“ Cf. Lepicier, op. cit., P. III, c. 1,
a. 4.
“ Magnae Dei Matris, September 8,
1892.
“ Serm. in Zonam.
17 Serm. 9, De Visitat. B. Virginis.
“ Cf. In Cant.

CHAPTER SEVEN
1 Cf. In III Sent., d. 3.
’ Augustissimae Virginis Mariae, Sep­
tember 23, 1897.
‘See Ad diem illum, February 2,
1904.
‘Or. 2, In Dormit. B. Virginis; cf.
also St. Ephrem, Ag., Ill, 526-27;

53ϊ-33·
• Serm. in Zonam.
‘Serm. de Aquaeductu; cf. also Rich­

ard of St. Lawrence, De laudib. B.
Mariae, II.
’ Cf. In IV Sent., d. 15, q. 4, a. 1, ad
311m.
’ Cf. Vermcersch, Q. de virt. relig. et
pietatis; Leroux, "Necessitas orationis
ad salutem," Revue Eccl. de Liège, an.
XXII, n. 4, 1931.
’ Augustissimae Virginis, September
12, 1897.

304

NOTES

“Cf. VelAzquez, op. cit., III, adn.
20.
“ De corrept. et grat., c. 13.
“ Postcommunion.
“Serm. 2, In Purifie. B Virg.
Mariae.
"Cf. Serm. 1, De Annunt. B.
Virg. Mariae.
“Cf. Sedlmayr, Theol. Mariana, P.
11 De corrept. et gratia, c. 7.
“Cf. Council of Trent, session VI,
Ill, q. 12, a, 5.
"Superiore anno. August 30, 1884.
c. 12; Denz. 805.
“De operantibus divinis, d. 6, lect.
“ Serm. 2, In Praesentat. Deiparae.
" Serm. 2, In Dormit.
" Horn. 8, De laudib. B. Virginis.
"Cf. Serm. 1, In Septuag.
“Cf. Infer sodalitia, March 22,
“ Cf. Serm. de laud. Ss. Virg. Mariae.
1918.
“Serm. 1, De Nativit. B. Virg.
“Ag.,III.
“ De excell. Virginis, c. 4.
■ Serm. 1, De Assumptione.
“ Serm. de Aquaeductu.
"InPs.113.
“Serm. 1, In Purifie. B. Mariae.
"Comm. in Evang. historiam, III,
“De laud. B. Mariae, II.
“ Contempl. de B. Virg., proem.
tr. 5.
" Little Office of B.V.M., Compline
“De triumphali Christi agone, c.
18.
hymn.
“ Glories of Mary, c. 8.
“ Cf. loc. cit.
" Soliloquum, c. 1; cf. also Expos,
" Cf. Clypeus Theol. Thomist., II,
tr. 5, d. 6
super Salve Regina.
" De laud. B. Mariae, X.
“ Cf. De Verbo Incam., c. 6, schol.
"Summa, IV, tit. 15,c. 19.
“Serm, 2, In Dormit.
“ Cf. op. cit., P. III, q. 12, a. 3.
"Serm. de laud. Virginis.
“ Cf. Jugie, Theol. Dogm. Christian.
"Cf. d’Argentân, Defensio B.V.
Orientalium, De Novissimis, a. 3.
Mariae et piorum cultorum illius.
"Summa theol., Illa, q. 59, a. 1.
“ Cf. Glories of Mary, c. 8.
" Cf. Stentrup, Soteriologia, II, c. 11;
“ Cf. Dublanchy, Dictionnaire de
Paquet, De Novissimis, d. 8, a. 2.
Théol. Cath., IX, coi. 2457.
" Cf. Suarez, In Illam, d. 52, sect. 2.
“Lib. de Virginitate B. Virginis,
“ Cf. Homiliae diversae, 14.
c. 4.
"Theol. Schol. Dogm.. tr. 15, q. 4.
“ Serm. 1, De Nativit. B. Virginis.
"Adjutricem populi, September 5,
"Marial., serm. 2, De Coronat. B.
Virg.
1895.
n Laetitiae sanctae. September 8.
” Cf. Serm. 1, De Nativit. B. Vir­
ginis, by St. Peter Damian.
1893.
" Cf. Super Magnificat, tr. 9.
"Serm. 5, De Assumpt. Mariae.
" Cf. Serm. in Purificat. S. Mariae;
"Neminem fugit, June 14, 1892.
see also Adam, Abbot of Persenia,
'‘Supremi apostolatus, September 1,
Serm. 2, In Assumpt. Mariae.
1883.
“De festis B.M. Virginis, II, c. 6.
"Supremi apostolatus. September 1,
“ Cf. La Vierge Mère d'après la
1883.
Théologie, c. 25.
" Cf. Edmund Joly, La Mère de Dieu
“ Cf. Terrien, op. cit., X, c. 1.
dans la pensée, l'art et la vie, c. 4.
••Cf. In III, d. 23, sect. 3.
“Cf. Novato, De eminentia Dei­
parae Virg· Mariae. II. c. 12, q. 2.
”Cf. Fcrrctti, Institutiones Philoso­
phiae Moralis, II, c. 2, sect. 2, a. 1.
“Cf. Carriguet, La Vierge Marie,
III, c. 3; Ramôn, Teologia Mariana,
III’ q. 15.

3°5

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

CHAPTER EIGHT

1 Cf. St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., V,
c. 15.
’ Cf. Noyon, "Mariolatrie," in D.A.,
fasc. 14.
* Cf. St. Theophilus, Ad Autol., Ill;
Tertullian, Apol., c. 9.
‘Cf. St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., V,
c. 15.
* Cf. L’Etude comparée des reli­
gions, c. 10, sect. 2.
'Contra Faustum, c. 23.
’Cf. Ncubcrt, Marie dans 1'Eglisc
Antenicéene, conci.
'Cf. S. Alameda, La Virgen en la
Biblia y en la primitiva Iglcsia, III,
sect. 2.
* Cf. Rcnaudin, Assumptio B. Mariae
Virginis, C. 13.
“Cf. Le Hir, Etudes bibliques, II,
sect. 3, a. 4.
u Cf. St. Ignatius, Ad Ephes., c. 19;
St. Justin, Dial, contra Tryph.; St.
Irenaeus, Haer., 50; St. Clement,
Strom., 7; Origen, Hom. 14, In Luc.;
St. Gregory, Semi, in Nativit. Christi.
" Cf. St. Justin, loc. cit.; St. Irenaeus,
Haer., 3-4; St. Hippolytus, Contra
Noeturn.
“Cf. St. Justin, loc. cit.; St. Irenaeus,
Haer., 3-5; Tertullian, De Cam.
Christi.
” Cf. St. Irenaeus, Haer., 5; St. Greg­
ory, loc. cit.
“Cf. Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique, IX, col. 2440.
“Cf. Hom. in Dormit. B.M. Vir­
ginis.
” Cf. St. Ephrem, loc. cit.
“ Cf. St. Epiphanius, Haer., 79.
“Cf. Froidevaux, "Le symbole de
Saint Gregoire le Thaumaturge," Re­

cherches de Science Religieuse, XIX,
N. 3-4, 1929.
" Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzcn, Or. 17,
n. 19.
" Cf. St. Ambrose, De Virgin., II,
c. 2.
” Cf. Campana, op. cit., sect. 2, c. 1,
a. 7.
“ Cf. Tixcrant, Histoire des Dogmes,
III, pp. 265-66.
" Cf. Pope Benedict XIV, De festis
B.M. Virg., II, c. 3, n. 15.
“Cf. Migne, Vol. CII, col. 88-140.
“Cf. Campana, op. cit., sect. 2, c. 1.
"Cf. Migne, Vol. LXXXV, col.
171.
“ Cf. Vol. I, pp. 30&-10.
“Cf. Serm. 287.
“Cf. Comm, de dierum festorum
celebratione, II, c. 20.
" Cf. Campana, Maria nel culto cattolico, sect. 2, c. 1, a. 3.
“ Cf. Schuster, Liber Sacramento­
rum, Vol. VIII.
“ Cf. De perpetua virginit. S. Mariae
et de ejus parturitione.
“ Cf. Gutiirrcz, EI culto liturgico de
la Santisima Virgen, p. 186. The
Spaniards still preserve the custom of
a sermon on Good Friday night in
remembrance of our Lady in her soli­
tude after the death of Christ.
“Cf. Summa, IV, t. 15, c. 23; Ana­
lecta O.F.M., Ill, 329.
"Cf. de Fleury, La Sainte Vierge,
Vol. I, p. 324; Gumperberg, Atlas
Marianus.
" Cf. St. Peter Canisius, op. cit., V,
c. 10.
“Cf. Dillenschncidcr, op. cit., P. I,

J06

NOTE

CHAPTER NINE
I Cf. Campana, op. cit., sect. 4, c. 5,

jure adseribe S. Thomae, ostendit Rori
apud. Divus Thomas Placentinus,
XXXIV, n. 5 (1931).
“ Cf. Trombelli, De cultu publico ab
n. 8.
•Cf. Denz. 802-06; Lepicier, De Eccles. B. Mariae exhibendo, d. 4, c. 2,
stabilitate et progressu dogmatis, P. II,
q. 2.
” Cf. Campana, op. cit., sect. 3, c. 1,
a. 9.
‘Cf. Lczama, De Maria Patrona, a. 2; Lehemayr, Rosetum Marianum,
c. 5; Sylveira, Apologia Carmelitana, c. 1.
■ Cf. Baronins, Annal., an. 431.
q. 27· ”· 33°·
•Cf. Controv., IV, II, De Poenit.,
“Cf. Trombelli, loc. cit.
” Cf. Bcrliere, "Angelique saluta­
c.7.
• Cf. De festis B.M. Virg., II, c. 6.
tion," Dictionnaire de Théologie Catho­
’ Cf. Terrien, op. cit., X, c. 1, p. 306.
lique, I, col. 1276.
• Cf. Campana, op. cit., sect. 4, c. 5,
“ Cf. De oratione et horis canonicis,
I, c. 19, π. 130.
*Cf. Raynaud, Scapulare marianum
” Cf. Breve doctrina y ensenanza que
illustratum et defensum; Besalduch, ha de saber y de paner par obra todo
Enciclopedia del Escapulario del Car- xpiano y cristiana. En la cual deben
ser enseüados los moçuelos primera que
en otra cosa. Ordenôla Fray Hernando
‘° Cf. Papebroech, Respons., I, sect.
15; Zimmerman, Monum. Histor. Car- de Tolavcra, primera z\rzobispo de la
inelit.; Hilgers, Catholic Encyclopedia,
Santa Yglesia de Granada.
" Cf. Monfang, Katholische KatechisXIII, "Sabbatine Privilege."
men, p. 16.
II Cf. Besalduch, op. cit.
“Cf. Trombelli, loc. cit.
“ Cf. Bullar. Carmelit., I.
“ Cf. Navanus, loc. dt.
“Cf. At. Ap. Sedis, III, 1911.
"Cf. Cetino, "jFundô Santo Do­
“ Cf. Act. Ap. Sedes, XIV, 1922.
mingo el Rosario?" in Ciencia Tomista,
“ Cf. Respons., P. II, a. 20.
“Cf. St. Robert Bcllannine, De nn. 50, 72, 75, 78 (1921-22); Mortier,
Histoire des Maîtres Généraux des
Indulg., I, c. 17; Pope Benedict XIV,
Frères Prêcheurs, Vol. 1, col. 1; Cam­
De Synod., dioec., XIII, c. 18.
” Cf. Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus pana, op. cit.; Fanfani, De Rosario
BM. Virg.; Pira. Historia Mariana de
Deus; Denz. 530; see also Denz. 693.
Espana, III, c. 25.
“ Cf. loc. cit.
“Cf. Analecta Juris Pontifiai, II,
”Cf. loc. cit.
" Cf. Pope Benedict XIV, De festis col. 1379 ss.; Fanfani, op. cit.
"Supremi apostolatus, September 1,
B.M. Virg., c. 6.
n Cf. Launay, De Carmelitani Scapu­ 1883.
"Octobri mense, September 22,
laris sodalitio dissertatio, c. 2.
“ Cf. Fanfani, De Rosario B.M. Vir­ 189·.
■° Ingravescentibus malis, September
ginis, c. 1.
29,
1937.
° Cf. Rouet de Journal, Eph. Theol.
"Supremi apostolatus, September 1,
Lovan., 182, n. 2.
“ Cf. Rational, divin, offic., IV.
1883.
■ Cf. Exposit. salut, angelicae, quam
"Loc. cit.
8 'Cf. De festis B.M. Virg., II, c. 6,

3°7

Index

Adoption, divine, 146-47
Advocate, 158-84
Angels, and Mary’s distribution of
grace, 87
Angelus, 270
Annunciation, and spiritual mother­
hood, 152-53
Apocryphal books and Marian cult,
262-63

Compassion (continued)
consummation of spiritual mother
hood, 152-56
merit of, 55
redemptive value of, 68-71
satisfactory aspect of, 29-30
Consort, and Marian cult, 261-62; in
redemption, 1-4
Cooperation, Mary's
in distribution of graces, 73-82
in foundation of Church, 118-20
in objective redemption, 7-71
in redemption, 1-4
in subjective redemption, 72-129
meritorious aspect of, 36-58
redemptive aspect of, 68-71
sacrificial aspect of, 58-68
satisfactory aspect of, 25-36
with the Church, 125-29
Co-rcdeemers, 145-46
Co redemptrix, 138-45; 210
Cult, 203-4; see also Devotion; Vener
ation
Marian, and pagan cult, 260-61
of honor, 229-30
of imitation, 236-39
of invocation, 232-36
of love, 230-32

Blessed Virgin; see Mary

Causality
exemplary, of Mary, 248
impetratory, of Mary, 249-50
of Mary in distribution of graces,
87-96
types of, 88-89
Christ
and particular judgment, 252-53
and the Church, 118-20
as cause of all graces, 90
as King, 185-89
as Lord, 198-99
as Mediator, 73; 131-33
as Priest, 61-63; **i
as Redeemer, 143-44
kingdom of, 187-88; 193
merit of, 37-38; 57-58
prayer of, 162
redemption by, 8-io
satisfaction by, 27-28; 34-36
Christian people and Marian cult, 256·

Church, 116-18; 125-26
as mystical body, 127
foundation of, 118-20
Mary's assistance to, 122-23
Mary's benefits to, 254-55
Mary's role in, 118-29
Communion; see Eucharist
Compassion
and Mary's queenship, 197
and power of prayer, 168
and redemption, 15-24

Devotion
antiquity of Marian, 262-71
benefits of Marian, 248-58
necessity of Marian, for salvation,
240-42
origin of Marian, 259-62
practices of Marian, 272-85
to Immaculate Heart. 211-15
to Marian Scapular, 271-77
to Mary, and predestination, 343to itosary, 277-85
to Sacred Heart, 211
Dispenser of all graces, 73-129; Men's
causality as, 87-96; see Church; Eu­
charist; Mary; Mass; Sacraments
Dominic, St., and Rosary, 281-83

309

INDEX
Dominion. Mary's, aoo-aoa
Dolia, 103-4; 109-10

Eucharist, roo
duration of. in Mary, 109-11
Mary's influence on reception of,
106-9
Mary's intervention in institution
of, 100-106
Mary's reception of, 10611
Eve and Mary, 3
Family, Holy, 255-56; Mary's influence
on, 255-56
Fathers, Church, and Marian cult, 263·
66
Feast
of Mary's Nativity, 268-69
of the Annunciation, 267-68
of the Assumption, 268
of the Betrothal, 269
of the Dormition, 268
of the Glorious Mother, 265-66
of the Holy Virgin, 265-66
of the Immaculate Conception, 269
of the Purification, 266-67
of the Seven Dolors, 269-70
of the Visitation, 269

Intercession (continued)
Mary’s, for souls in purgatory, 170·
Maq?s, for souls on earth, 161-63;

168 69; »79 84
of Mary and the saints. 169-70
Intervention, Mary’s, in distribution of
graces, 83-96
Justification, and Mary's merit, 50-51

King, 184-85; Christ as, 185-89
Kingdom, Christ's, 186-88; Mary’s
power in, 193-96
Lady, our, 198-202
Latria, 203-4; 2°6'9
Lord, 198

Mary
and Christian people, 256-57
and consent to Incarnation, 1215
and cooperation in redemption, 1129
and distribution of graces, 72-129
and Eve, 3
and explicit cooperation in redemp­
tion, 12-15
and formal cooperation in redemp­
tion, 12-15
and merit, 36-58
and objective redemption, 7-71
and particular judgment, 251-54
and perseverance, 52
and physical cooperation in redemp­
tion, 10-12
and predestination, 52-54; 2^3-47
and proximate cooperation in re­
demption, 15-24
and remote cooperation in redemp­
tion, 10-12
and sacrifice, 56-58
and satisfaction, 25-36
and society, 257-58
and subjective redemption, 72-129
and the Church, 116-29; 254-55
and the Eucharist, 100-11
and the family, 255-56
and the Mass, 111-16
and the sacraments, 07· 100
and unity of the Cnurch, 116-29;
*54'55
as advocate, 158-84
as co-rcdcmptrix, 138-45

Grace, 97; sacramental, 98100
Graces. Mary’s distribution of, 72-129;
of the Eucharist. 100-116; of the
sacraments, 97-100

Heart, devotion to Immaculate, 21115; devotion to Sacred, 211
Hell, souls in, and Mary's prayer, 17479
Heretics, Marys intercession for, 182
Heroic act of charity, 172-74
Hyperdulia, 203-4; 20°»o; 218-19;
222-23; «5
Images of Mary, veneration of, 220-23
Immolation, 60-61
Incarnation, and Marian cult, 262-63;
Mary’s consent to, 12-15
Indulgences, and souls in purgatory,
»73’74
Intercession
Mary’s, and souls in hell, 174-79
Mary's, as advocate, 159-84
Mary's, as dispenser of graces, 88;
91-92

310

INDEX
Mary (continued)
Motherhood, spiritual, 81 82; 146-57:
as exemplary cause, 248
extension of, 156-57
as impetratory cause, 249-50
Mystical body; tee Christ
as mediatrix, 135-57
as mistress of universe, 198-202
Name of Mary, 223-28
as Mother of men, 146-57
as our Lady, 198-202
Oblation, 60 61; of Christ by Mary, 63as patroness, 158-84
as priest, 66-68
Old Law, and distribution of graces.
as queen, 184-97
84-87
cooperation of, in redemption, i-6
intercession of, 161-84
Particular judgment, Mary’s interven­
maternity of, and redemption, 4-6
tion in, 251-54; role of Christ in,
prayer of, 161-84
redemption of, 25-24
a5’’53
..
Patroness, 158-84
spiritual motherhood of, 146-57
Perseverance,
and Mary's merit, 52
veneration of, 205-71
Power
Mass, 111; distribution of fruits of,
Christ’s judiciary, 189
114-16; Mary’s intervention in,
Christ’s legislative, 188-89
111-16
Christ's royal, 185 88
Maternity, divine,
Christ’s temporal, 188
and distribution of graces, 81
Mary’s regal, 193-96
and Marian cult, 210; 261-62
titles of Mary’s regal, 196-97
and Mary’s dominion, 200-202
Prayer
and Maiy’s intercession, 92
Mary’s, and saints, 169-70
and Mary's queenship, 196-97
Mary's, and souls in hell, 174-79
and power of prayer, 167-68
Mary’s, for souls in purgatory, 170and sanctity of Mary, 25
of Mary and redemption, 4-6
Mar/s, for us, 161-63; '68-69; 179·
Maternit), spiritual; see Motherhood,
84
spiritual
of Christ for us, 162
Mediation, 130 22; 137.38; Christ’s,
power of Mary’s, 163-68
μ VV”’ MakT’. *?J37: ,j8
Predestination,
and devotion to Mary,
Mediator; see Mediation
243-47; and Mary’s merit, 52-54
Mediatrix; see Mary; Mediation
Priest, and sacrifice, 61; Christ as, 61Merit
63; 67; Mary as, 66-68
Christ’s, 37-38
Priesthood
de condigno, yj
of Christ. 61-63; 67
de congruo, 37; Mary's, 43-49
of Mary. 61-63; 67
excellence of Mary’s, 54-57
sacramental, 67
extent of Mary’s, 49-54
spiritual. 67
imperative, 37
substantial, 67
in general, 36
Mary's, and graces for men, 50-52
Queen. 82; 184-97; 210
Mary’s, and justification, 50-51
Mary’s, and merit of the saints, 57Redemption
58
Mary's, and remission of sin, 50
and Marian cult. 261-62
Mary's, compared to Christ’s, 57-58
Christ’s role in, 8-10
Mary’s, in redemption, 36-58
in general, 1-6
Mary's consent to, 12-15
of Christ, and Mary's gifts, 23-24
Mary's cooperation in subjective,
of Mary's compassion, 55
Mistress of the universe, 198-202
72-129
Mary’s explicit cooperation in, isMother of men; see Motherhood, spir­
itual
3“

INDEX

Redemption (continued)
Mary's formal cooperation in, 1215; 68-71
Mary's merit in, 36-58
Mary's physical cooperation in, 10·

Mary's proximate cooperation in,
15-24
Mary's remote cooperation in, ioobjective, 7
of Map1, 23-24
sacrificial aspect of Mary's coopera­
tion in, 58-68
satisfactory aspect of Mary’s coop­
eration in, 25-36
subjective, 7
Relics of Mary, 215-19
Rosary, excellence of, 283-85; nature
of, 278-81; origin of, 281-83
Sacramentels, 227
Sacraments, 97-98; 226-27; Mary’s
intervention in, 98-100
Sacrifice, 58-61; Mary’s role in, 63-66;
of Christ, 61
Salvation, necessity of Marian devo­
tion for, 240-42
Satisfaction
by the just, 35-36
by Christ, 27-28
de condigno, 25-26
de congruo, 26
excellence of Mary's, 33-34
extent of Mary’s, 32-33
for venial sin, 35
in general, 25-26
Mary's, in redemption, 25-36
Mary's, through her compassion,
29-30

Satisfaction (continued)
of Mary and of Christ, 34-36
strict, 25
type of Mary’s, 30-32
Scapular, origin of, 272-73; privileges
of, 273-77
Schismatics, Marys intercession for,
182
Senses of Scripture, 149-50
Sin, remission of, through Mary, 50
Sinners, Mary's intercession for, 180·
82
Society, and benefits of Marian devo­
tion, 257-58
Souls in purgatory, and Mary's prayer,
170-74
Suffering, eternal, alleviation of, 176Suppîication, Mary’s omnipotent, 165

Unity of the Church, Mary's role in,
127-28
Veneration, 203-4
antiquity of Marian, 262-71
benefits of Marian, 248-58
characteristics of Marian, 229-39
lawfulness of Marian, 204-6
motive of Marian, 209-10
necessity of Marian, 241-47
of images of Mary, 220-23
of Immaculate Heart, 211-15
of name of Mary, 223-28
of relics of Mary, 215-19
origin of Marian, 259-62
type of Marian, 209-10
Vow to Mary, 173-74

Wayfarers, Mary's prayers for, 179-82

312