This dissertation was approved by the Reverend Emman­
uel Doronzo, 0. Μ. I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, as
Director and by Reverend Pascal P. Parente and Rt. Rev.
Mons ignor Joseph C. Fenton as readers.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

STUDIES IN SACRED THEOLOGY
Second Series

No. 93

Mary’s Spiritual Maternity
According to Modern Writers
A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of
The Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Sacred Theology

BY

REVEREND FRANK J. KENNEY, S.M., S.T.L.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
WASHINGTON, D. C.

1957

Nihil Obstat: Joseph S. Bruder, S.M., S.T.D.
Censor Deputatus
Imprimi Potest: John A. Elbert, S.M., Ph.D.
Provincialis
December 20, 1956

Nihil Obstat:

Robert Amann, S.T.L., J.C.D.

Censor Librorum

Imprimatur:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I

Preface.............................................................................................. ix

g»

Summary of

h

Chapter II - Proofs for the Fact of the

Chapter I - Status Quaestionis.......................... 1

Spiritual Maternity.............................................. 9

f Clarence G. Issenmann, V.G.

Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati
Feast of the Annunciation
March 25, 1957

Summary of Chapter III - Foundations for Mary’s
Spiritual Maternity............................................59
Summary of Chapter IV - Consequences of Jury’s

Spiritual Maternity........................................ 66
Copyright, 1957
The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.

i

Conclusion......................................................................................... 71

Footnotes......................................................................................... 73

I
J.

Bibliography..................................................................................... 91

Marianist Publications

4370 Patterson Rd.

Dayton 10, Ohio

Table of Contents of the Complete Dissertation. ... 96

5
ï
1
5
z

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express sincere thanks to all
those who helped in some way with the completion of this
work and the studies preceding it. Particular thanks to
the Very Reverend John A. Elbert, S.M., present Provin­
cial, the Very Reverend Walter C. Tredtin, S.M. , former
Provincial, the Director and two Readers of this thesis,
and Brother Stanley Mathews, S.M. , Librarian of the
Marian Library at the University of Dayton.

This dissertation was approved by The Reverend Bnmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I. , Professor of Dogmatic Theology, as
Director, and by Reverend Pascal P. Parente and Rt. Rev.
Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton as readers.

vii

PREFACE

The past half century in the history of the Church
has been marked by an ever increased attention to the
role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the devotion as well
as the doctrine of the Church. This period has been call­
ed, and it seems rightly so, the Age of Mary. Along with
this Marian trend, in recent years have appeared more
and more Mariological texts, studies and doctrinal dis­
sertations. To the writer’s best knowledge, this is the
first dissertation in Mariology at the Theological
school of the Catholic University of America.
The writer hopes that, whatever be the limitations of
this work, it may be some positive contribution to the
understanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
God’s Mother and ours.
The following pages are an abstract of the complete
dissertation. Chapters 1, 3, and 4 are summarized while
Chapter 2 is presented in full.

.
|
t
S

|
3
4
»

i
i
!
>
z

ix

CHAPTER I

Status Quaestionis
Introduction
The object of this thesis is to present the teaching
of Catholic theologians and spiritual writers of approx­
imately the past fifty years with regard to Mary’s Spir­
itual Motherhood of men. The amount of literature on this
subject, especially in recent years, in books, periodi­
cals, and reports of Marian Congresses, provides a large
background for such a study. Since it would be neither
possible nor practical to include all this literature in
this study, a group of principal writers has been selected
to be considered more in detail while other writers have
been introduced here and there by way of comparison or
contrast.
The principal writers were selected as such for this
study because they have contributed important, significant, or influential works dealing with the Spiritual
Maternity. The majority are authors of general works on
Mariology (Roschini, Garcés, Alastruey, Campana, Neubert,
Keuppens, Lezpicier, Scheeben, Vassall-Phill ips, Merkelbach, Plessis, Pohle-Pruess, Garrigou-Lagrange, and
Schaefer); some have written ex professo works dealing
principally with the Spiritual Maternity (Terrien, Bernard, Mayer, Plus, Schrijvers); and others have similar
treatises on closely related topics, -- Mary’s Mediation
(Bover, Bainvel, Bittremieux), the Co-Redemption (Carol,
Smith, Dillenschneider, Most). All these views when com­
pared and contrasted would seem to provide a well-bal­
anced approach to the Spiritual Maternity as seen by
modern theologians and spiritual writers.
Throughout this thesis, quotations from the encycli­
cals and other pronouncements of the Popes will be in­
troduced as directives and as providing emphasis and
authority to arguments presented. This is in accord with
the teachings of the recent principles outlined by Pius
1

t
§
I
*
|
g
«
£
j
.
δ
?
®
J
-

,

XII in Humani generis regarding the significance of Pa^al
documents and the fact that the Magisterium of the Church
is the “immediate and universal norm of truth.’’1 This
teaching was applied to doctrines concerning the Ble^eh
Virgin by the same Pontiff in the encyclical on the
Queenship, Ad caeli Reginam. Even though we have no ex
cathedra decision of a pope nor a solemn pronouncement
of an ecumenical council regarding the Spiritual Mater­
nity, it must be remembered that, according to tire Vati­
can Council, even in non-solemn pronouncements for the
universal Church, the popes set forth things to be be­
lieved with divine and Catholic faith.^ Fortunately we
have an abundance of papal texts on the Spiritual Mater­
nity. Alois Baumann^ gathers 228 such texts from the
Council of Trent -- the first text is dated 1569 -- to
1947. Since 1947 Pius XII has added in the neighborhood
of fifty more written or oral testimonies. Ihe authority
of all these texts is considered of extreme importance
in this study. They are not taken lightly nor rational­
ized away, but accepted literally.

Article 1. Importance of the Spiritual Maternity

There was never a time when both popular devotion and
theology, each in its own way, have been so occupied with
Mary. Of all Mary’s privileges and functions, the Spir­
itual Maternity has a singular importance, both on theo­
logical and devotional grounds. It is, perhaps, at the
same time, the prerogative of Mary most taken for granted
by all Catholics and yet least clearly understood. That
it needs to be theologically explained is the contention
of the French bishops in a collective statement announc­
ing the year 1949 as a Marian year for France:

Too many Christians still do not know, at least with
an enlightened and practical faith, in what a profound­
ly true sense the Virgin Mary is their Mother.... We
ask theologians to render luminous this fundamental
theme of the spiritual life, to the end that the souls
of the faithful throw themselves open to the grace
which the Virgin Mary will obtain for them, so as to
2

Article 2. The Meaning of the Spiritual Maternity
What exactly is meant by the Spiritual Maternity?
Some writers seem to have wrong or incomplete ideas
about this doctrine. Included in this group would be
those who refer to Mary’s Motherhood of men in the meta­
phorical sense only. A number of our principal writers9
refer to such writers without giving specific references,
and the author of this thesis has found none. Neverthe­
less, presuming this error is actually held, it consists
in considering Mary to be not our real spiritual mother,
but only like a mother towards us, since she prays for
us, does favors for us, loves us like a mother would.
Others, including one of our principal writers, A.
Mayer, 40 seem to base Mary’s Motherhood in our regard
solely on the words of Jesus on Calvary, by which words
He gave her to us in the person of St. John. It is true,
as will be shown later, that our Lord’s words did refer

3

O AM t
λτο ζλζ

'π ,χ ,,,π ,,Γ Υ o r

This doctrine is important furthermore, because it is
one of the key doctrines of Mariology. Gabriel Roschini
summarized in eight headings the opinions of modern
theologians on the question of the fundamental principle
in Mariology. All but two of these eight contain the two
notions of the Divine Maternity and the Spiritual Mater­
nity. Of course all authors agree that the fundamental
privilege and the one from which all the others proceed
is the Divine Maternity. But many writers point out that,
in a sense, the Divine Maternity exists for the Spiritual
Maternity, since Mary became Mother of the Redeemer to
be Mother of the redeemed.® J. Bainvel' says the two
maternities are inseparable. Throughout a long article
on the papal testimonies to the Spiritual Maternity,
George Shea8 notes frequently the juxtaposition by the
popes of the Divine and Spiritual Maternities by such
phrases as “Mother of God and men,” “God’s Mother and
ours,” etc. The relation of these two maternities will
be explained in further detail in chapter three.

i rH R A N T

form in them her son, Jesus, and to make them live
with the life of Christ. 4

to the Spiritual Maternity. But if these words were the
only basis for the doctrine, then the Spiritual Maternity
would be merely an adoptive maternity in the sense o; a
human adoption, that is, a mere legal fiction, depending
only on the word of the Saviour “Behold your Mother.”
John Kane11 and Franz Wiliam12 speak of Mary’s Spir­
itual Maternity as being her spi ritual relation to Christ,
based on her great sanctity, her union with Christ, her
doing God’s will. They refer to a Spiritual Maternity of
Christ not of men. They deviate from the proper object
by shifting from men to Christ.
Another error would be to identify too closely Mary’s
motherhood with that of the Church, to the extent of la­
beling the Church’s motherhood real and Mary’s only ideal,
as L. Nau13 seems to do. It is true that the Church has
always been regarded as a mother, already by the Fathers.
St. Cyprian coined the phrase: “One cannot have God as
father who has not the Church as his mother.”14 The com­
parison of Mary with the Church, a virgin and mother
also, was largely developed by the fathers likewise.
E. Druwe1® explains that Mary’ is the type or figure of
the Church precisely because she is the mother of the
mystical Christ, of the Head and of the members. Like
Mary, the Church also engenders Christ spiritually in men
in making them members of His Body, His mystic prolonga­
tion. Druwez finds in the twelfth chapter of the Apoca­
lypse the basis for this personification of the Church
in Mary. But the point to be made here is that Mary’s
maternity of men is real because it is based on her caus­
ality, a secondary one under Christ, in both meriting
grace for us and distributing it to us. The Church is
not a mother in this total sense, and consequently the
maternity of the Church is not the real one, as Nau
claims. Terrien-1 compares these two maternities and re­
marks that the Church, which is nothing else than the
society of children of God, itself needs a mother. Granted
that the Church is a mother in some sense, still it can­
not satisfy by itself all one’s aspirations for a mother,
for it is not an individual woman, a physical person
having the heart of a mother which nature prepares for
every child who comes into the world.
4

These three inadequate ideas expressed above, are
contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of writers,
including all our principal writers with the exception
of Mayer as indicated. The common opinion is that this
maternity is a real maternity but in the supernatural
order, and it is compared by analogy of proper propor­
tionality with the role of a mother in the natural order.
This comparison is made by practically all our principal
writers, e.g., Plessis, Neubert, Keuppens, GarrigouLagrange, Terrien, Campana and Merkelbach. They point
out that a mother is one who gives life. The essence of
maternity consists in conceiving and giving birth. For
Maryr to be our real mother in the supernatural order,
that is, in the order of grace, she must really have had
a share, though a subordinate one to Christ, in the pro­
duction of our supernatural life. It was the Redemption
that brought us spiritual life. Mary is our Spiritual
Mother because she co-operated in our Redemption, begin­
ning with her role in the Incarnation and culminating on
Calvary where the Redemption was actually accomplished.
Briefly, this is the basic thesis of the Spiritual Mater­
nity according to our principal writers and the most
common opinion.
Terminology may differ among writers while they are
speaking of the same reality, the core of the Spiritual
Maternity. Some may and frequently do speak of the Spir­
itual Maternity in terms of Mary’s role in obtaining and
distributing grace, which is the principle, the life­
blood of the supernatural life. Whatever involves Mary’s
causality of grace, pertains essentially to the Spiritual
Motherhood. Such, for example, are the following which
are all fundamental aspects of this doctrine: Mary’s
Mediation; Maternity of Grace; Mediatrix of All Graces;
Universal Intercession; Co-Redemptrix; Dispensatrix of
All Graces; Mary’s Merit; her relation to the Mystical
Body; and her Fiat at the Annunciation. Needless to say,
there is not unanimity as to the views on all these
questions. But in this study it is taken for granted
that whether or not authors use the term Spiritual Mater­
nity, if they treat such questions as the above, they are
writing on this doctrine.

5

All the above material on the meaning of the Spiritual
Maternity is by way of giving some important preliminary
notions concerning the doctrine in question. Many de­
tails will be added on these points in following chapters.
In connection with the meaning of the Spiri tual Maternity,
it would seem well to present here the views on three
specific questions, namely, the excellence, the extent
and the adoptive nature of the Spiritual Maternity.

Excellence
Many writers18 argue that the Spiritual Maternity is
more noble, more excellent, and vastly superior to the
maternity in the natural order, for the reason that the
supernatural life is far superior to the natural life.
The relationships of the flesh are only figures and pre­
ludes to the spiritual bonds which are everlasting. They
show how Mary possesses motherly virtues to a most ex­
cellent degree. Moreover, she not only gives us life
once, as do our earthly mothers, but she can help us get
back the life of grace frequently in life if necessary.

Extent
At first appearance it would seem that there is a
sharp divergence of opinion regarding this question,
whether one compares papal texts, textsof writers through
the centuries, or statements of the modern writers. Some
of our principal writers, e. g. , Alastruey, Smith, Terrien,
and Neubert19 state simply that Mary is the mother of
all men and let it go at that. Others seem to restrict
her maternity to the faithful, to Christians, or, as they
say. to the Mystical Body, as for exanple, Bernard, Plus,
and others. 20 Some use phrases that seem even more re­
strictive: “all who live supernaturally”21 and “those
who have the state of grace.” 22
G. Roschini23 contends there is here only an apparent
difference. He attempts to harmonize all views on this
question by saying Mary is mother of all men similar to
the way in which Christ is their Head. Christ is Head of
some men, and Mary is their mother, in actw, of others

6

The Adoptive Spiritual Maternity
The point was made above that Mary’s Spiritual Mater­
nity is considered to be a real one as opposed to a mere­
ly adoptive one. Yet, one may object, the last six popes
and many writers, past and present, refer to the Spiritual
Maternity as an adoptive one and they call us adoptive
sons of Mary. This is another apparent contradiction
only, and it dissolves when one understands the difference
between human and divine adoption. A good number of
writers
make clear this distinction. Their teaching
can be summed up in this way: a human adoption is a mere
juridical act, a legal fiction, giving the adopted one
the rights of a child but it does not make him a true
child; it does not enable him to receive his very nature
from the father or mother who adopts him. On the other
hand, by divine adoption (God sent His Son. . . that we
might receive the adoption of sons .^ ) we become real
sons of God in that we partake in a created manner of
God’s nature by means of grace. God has only one Son by
nature -- Christ; we are His sons by divine adoption.
Mary’s maternity is adoptive as is God’s fatherhood of
the just. Her maternal function consists in contributing
to our being adopted as children of God and heirs of His
kingdom.
This concludes the remarks for this first and intro­

7

zzurrs-zsAT»-

He is Head in potentia. In actu sinners are united to
Christ only by faith (secundum quid), while the just are
united by charity (simpliciter), and the blessed in heav­
en are united to Christ in an eminent degree (per frui­
tionem patriae). Christ is only potentially Head of non­
believers, and Mary is their mother only in potentia.
Mary cannot be mother of the damned in their present
state since they do not in any way pertain to the body
of Christ (Mystical Body).24
By this explanation of the extent of Mary’s Spiritual
Maternity, Roschini seems to reconcile and harmonize all
views on this question. Garrigou-Lagrange, Garces, Lepicier and Campana^0 all treat the question in practi­
cally the same way.

ductory chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to ex­
plain the broad outlines as well as a few specific ques­
tions of the Spiritual Maternity, in order to prepare
the way for the more important chapters that follow.

CHAPTER II
Proofs for the Fact of the Spiritual Maternity

To prove the fact of the Spiritual Maternity, theo­
logians draw arguments first and above all from the gen­
uine sources of revelation, Scripture, and Tradition.
Before considering these arguments, a few principles
must be stated regarding the use and interpretation of
Scripture and Tradition. Dominic Unger provides us with
all these principles in an article1 from which the following points have been summarized:
1. God’s word (Holy Scripture) is the primary constitutive source of all Mariology, justas for all theology. (Father Unger quotes Pope Leo XIII in Providentiss imus Deus),
2. The Scriptural senses are divided into two main
classes: the direct or literal sense, and the indirect
sense known also as the typical and as the spiritual
sense. Ihe literal sense is also further subdivided into
the literal exclusive (refers to only one object) and
the literal inclusive (refers to the basic object as
well as to a second object similar and related to it).
3. One Scriptural passage may be used to interpret
another or throw light on it.
4. Every Scriptural interpretation must agree with
the authentic teaching of the Church. By authentic teaching is meant, not only the infallible teaching but any
declaration of the authentic magisterial office of the
Church. It is false to assume, therefore, that because a
pope’s interpretation of a text or doctrine is not an
infallible pronouncement, it can be rejected without
further ado, and an opposite view can be held.
5. Tradition, besides being a source in its own right,
for doctrines of faith or morals, is a criterion of in­
terpretation of Scripture.
6. The Tradition of the ancient Christian writers is
of the highest authority when it is at least morally un­
animous on a matter of faith or morals. An interpretation

9

k
*
|
4
4
5
3
£
*
ζ
>
*
ζ
J
j
£
3

of such a Tradition no Catholic may contradict.
7. Arguments from Tradition can be validly formed
even when the moral unanimity spoken of above is lacking.
It is not necessary, furthermore, to be able to trace by
written documents back to the first centuries, in order
to have a valid argument from Tradition.
These seven principles must be kept in mind to under­
stand the treatment of this entire chapter.

Article 1.

The Scriptural Proofs

Fbur major texts have been linked commonly with the
Spiritual Maternity of Mary. These are: the Protogospel,
Genesis, 3:15; the Annunciation, Luke, 1:26-28; Christ's
third word on the Cross, John 19:25-27; and the twelfth
chapter of the Apocalypse. There are also lesser texts;
those that refer to certain events in Mary’s life; the
sonship texts of St. John; the Mystical Body texts of
St. Paul and other incidental texts applied to the Spir­
itual Maternity only by accommodation. We shall consider
each text and the various interpretations given them.

I.

The Four Major Texts

Gen. 3:15: I will put enmity between you and the wo­
man, between your seed and her seed; she (the Hebrew or­
iginal has the word it referring to the seed) shall crush
your head and you shall he in wait for (its)heel.2
Scripture scholars and theologians have written a
great deal about this text in Genesis, connonly referred
to as the Protogospel. T. Gallus,in his classic work
on the subject, provides us with many bibliographical
references. In so far as his book covers the period pre­
vious to the Council of Trent, the material is more per­
tinent for the proofs for the Spiritual Maternity from
Tradition. However, in one chapter4 he shows how the
Eve-Mary antithesis, the most significant argument from
Tradition for the Spiritual Maternity, was used by many
Fathers both from the East and West, in connection with
Genesis 3: 15. Furthermore, the mariological interpreta­
tion of this text, he says, gained from the time of the
10

,1

/<

f
r
f
i3

f
4'

■

,'W ’W

,f

Fathers down through the ages, so that by the time of
the Middle Ages it was already the "sententia com/nunis
omnium. Doctorum.”5 The entire force of the argument from
Tradition will be left to a later part of this chapter,
but it must not be lost sight of if one is to see the
importance of the Protogospel for the Spiritual Mater­
nity, based on arguments from both Scripture and Tradition. While many writers0 either give no exegesis of the
text at all, or give none as proof of the Spiritual Ma­
ternity, they do argue from it on the basis of the anti­
thesis of Eve and Mary in Tradition.
Not only must Scripture be interpreted in the light
of Tradition but, also, as mentioned in the foreword to
this present chapter, every interpretation of Scripture
must conform to the authentic teaching of the Church.
Fortunately we have some very important pontifical de­
clarations regarding the text of Genesis. Pope Pius IX,
in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, which proclaimed the dogma
of the Immaculate Conception, uses the argument from the
"consensus Patrum Ecclesiaeque scr iptorum” to show that
Mary is referred to in this text. 7 Here are the wordscf
the Holy Father:

The Fathers and Writers of the Church, thoroughly
schooled in the writings from heaven, had most at
heart to vie with one another in preaching and teach­
ing in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s sublime holi­
ness, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin and
her splendid victory over the most hateful foe of man­
kind. They did this in their books which explain the
Scriptures, vindicate the dogmas, and instruct the
faithful.
They quote the words by which the Almighty, in the
beginning of the world, announced His merciful reme­
dies prepared for the renewal of men, and by which He
crushed the brazen, deceitful Serpent and wonderfully
lifted up the hopes of our race, saying, "I will put
enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed
and her seed. ” When citing this text they taught that
by this divine oracle, the merciful Redeemer of the
human race, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ,
was very clearly pointed out beforehand and that His

11

Most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was designated
and that at the same time the enmity of both against
the devil was emphatically stated.
Hence, justas Christ, the Mediator between God and
man, took on human nature, wiped out the handwriting
of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it
triumphantly to the Cross, so the Most Holy Virgin,
linked with Him by a most intimate and unbreakable
bond, was with Him and through Him, eternally hostile
to that poisonous serpent, and she most decisively
triumphed over him by crushing his head with her im­
maculate heel. 8

Another similar text is the Apostolic Constitution
Munificentissimus Deus of Pius XII, proclaiming thedogma
of the Assumption. It must be noted that there are some
writers who do not accept the statement that the popes
are defining the Marian sense of Genesis 3:15, and there­
fore do not accept it as such. J. Carol® treats the pro
and con of this argument, whether or not Pius XI invokes
the consensum Patrum for the mariological interpretation
of the Protogospel. He himself is strongly in favor of
it as is Roschini.46 The principal writers who are op­
posed are Lennerz, 44 Ceuppens,
Goossens, 48 and Drewniak.14 The latter base their argument principally and
fundamentally on the denial of any Eve-Mary tradition in
the Fathers -- a position very difficult to hold in the
face of almost unanimous opinion to the contrary. The
same group of authors (Goossens and Lennerz especially)
oppose Mary’s direct intervention in the objective Re­
demption.
In view of the argument from Tradition, al ready point­
ed out to some extent, together with the papal texts
given above — and there are many others48 --it is not
surprising to find that by far the majority of modern
writers see in the text some kind of scriptural refer­
ence to Mary, other than one by mere accommodation.
Carol46 gives an exhaustive list of those who hold the
various views of the Mariological sense of the verse in
question.
Many writers do not specify exactly in what sense

12

they see Mary as the woman in Genesis. J. Coppens4? gives
an excellent summary of the principal interpretations of
the “Woman,” and at least one outstanding writer linked
with each view. The “Woman” he says is taken to be;
1. Eve and Mary, both in the littéral sense (J. Bonnefoy).
2. Eve only in the literal sense without any connota­
tion of Mary (F. Ceuppens, w. Goossens, P. Heinisch).
3. Both at once but in different ways: a)Eve only, in
literal sense -- Mary in allegorical sense (T. Gallus);
b)Eve only, in literal sense -- Mary in typical sense
(J. Corlay); c)Eve only in the immediate-1 itérai sense
--Mary in the fuller-literal sense (C. Hauret).
4. Mary only in the literal sense48 (C. Van Crombrugghe). Mary only in some sense or other (J. Filograssi).
5. The feminine sex in general in the immediate lit­
eral sense. Eve and Mary in the literal sense, but es­
pecially in the fuller-literal sense (J. Coppens).
After giving the various interpretations of this
text, C. Dillenschneider4® says that whatever may be the
modalities of interpretation adopted uy exegetes and
theologians, there is certainly a quasi-unanimous opin­
ion that the Virgin is there either in the literal or
the typical (sometimes also called spiritual) sense.
Carol20 says no one contests the fact that the typical
sense when solidly proved has the same probative value
as the literal sense for establishing a doctrine.
Once admitted that Mary is referred to in the Proto gospel in one of these two ways, theologians argue for
the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the Co-Redemption, Mary’s Mediation, and of course the Spiritual Mater­
nity. The immediate object of this study is to give the
teaching of theologians, especially the ones listed as
principal ones, regarding the Spiritual Maternity and
questions essentially related as Mary’s Mediation and
her Co-Redemption.
Among those who definitely consider this text a scrip­
tural proof of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity are G. Roschini, 4 G. Smith,
and J. Bover.28 They include the
Mystical Body in the seed of the woman, claiming that
13

the seed refers primarily to Christ but secondarily to
all the faithful. Roschini and Bover argue along these
lines: In God’s economy of salvation, it is difficult to
separate personal Christ and Mystical Christ. Head and
body go together. It is true that Christ alone decisively
crushed Satan's head, and from this individual triumph
the objective redemption was accomplished. However, ti.e
members of the Mystical Body do co-operate in the sub­
jective Redemption, i.e., the application of Calvary’s
fruits to souls.
On the other hand, N. Garcia Garces,
and F. Mueller,
reject the inclusion of the Mystical Body in the seed of
the Woman. Forthem the seed of the Woman is Christ only.
Garces holds that the semen serpentis can be an individ­
ual thing -- sin and damnation -- spawned figuratively
by the devil. Mueller says there is no need for parallel­
ism between Satan’s seed and the Woman’s, because gener­
ation is only improperly so-called for Satan, whereas in
the Woman’s case there is strict generation. He also
states that the faithful are the fruits of victory and
do not help win the victory.
Even if the Mystical Body is not included in the seed
of the Woman, Eric May believes that the text still pro­
vides a firm foundation for the doctrine in question.
If the interpretation be true that Mary alone is the
woman and Christ her seed, then surely Mary is prophesied as sharing most intimately with her Divine
Son in the work of the objective Redemption, the
crushing of Satan’s head. The enmity of sinlessness
versus evil culminates according to the Protogospel
in total victory over Satan and his seed. Mary’s claim
to spiritual motherhood of men, therefore, would lie
in her co-redemptive role on Calvary in which she had
a real but secondary share in the bringing forth of
mankind to a new supernatural life. This argument is
basedonthe text taken in itself, and remains a valid
argument quite independently of the following remarks
(regarding the Mystical Body being part of the semen
mulieris).

14

<

·'
!

j
j

;
■
/
]
i
i

;

J
i
i

Whereas the argument of Roschini and Bover centered
around the Mystical Body, May’s argument is based on the
Co-Redemption. Eugene Gallagher also sees Mary’s Co­
Redemption emerge from the text.
As for the argument from Genesis 3:15, it seems to me
that Mary’s immediate Co-Redemption emerges even more
clearly from that text than even the doctrines of the
Immaculate Conception and the Assumption; Mary immedi­
ately co-operated with Christ because she exercised
the same enmities against Satan, and thus, together
with Him, crushed the serpent's head. 27

Carol28 agrees with Gallagher on this point and adds
that other Marian prerogatives are also contained in ra­
dice in the Protogospel. Included in these is the Spirit­
ual Maternity which he considers a consequence or an as­
pect of the Co-Redemption. Carol29 develops a lengthy
argument for the Co-Redemption, his principal theme,
from the Protogospel, citing as his principal authority,
the part of the Bull Ineffabilis Deus quoted at the be­
ginning of this section. Indirectly from the doctrine of
St. Paul about Christ, the new Adam, and directly from the
text and context of Genesis
3:15, qCarol
sees the double
qn
i
principle re troverslo^ -consortiiun
in the Protogospel.
He holds that Mary alone is the woman in the literal
sense, and the seed is Christ only. Granted that she has
a subordinate role in the principal causality of the Re­
deemer, Mary is thus shown to be associated with Christ’s
entire work of crushing the head of Satan. Because Christ’s
enmity is Mary’s enmity in its total extent, the Proto­
gospel not only shows Mary's remote co-operation, in so
far as she gave birth to the Redeemer, but also her im­
mediate co-operation in the objective Redemption. Except
that he considers the Co-Redemption a consequence of the
Spiritual Maternity, Roschini32 agrees with the above
views of Carol. Carol concludes his considerations by
the statement that he sees in the Protogospel an implicit
formal revelation
of the objective Redemption.33
qx
Keuppensa* treats in order: Mary’sMediation, Co-Re­
demption, Dispensation of Graces, and finally Spiritual
15

’
’
•
.J

. ;

I
;
■’

*

:
:i
i

!
i- :
ü

I

j
j

Maternity. He repeats as scriptural proof for each of
these first three the Protogospel and the Bull Inejfabilis Deus. When he gets to the Spiritual Maternity he
merely says whatever proofs were cited for Mary’s Media­
tion count for the Spiritual Maternity, and then he names
some other particular texts. It is interesting to note
that, like Carol and Roschini, he sees in the Protogospel and the Bull, Maiy’s role in the subjective and ob­
jective Redemption. His exegesis of the text in connec­
tion with the Co-Redemption is similar to Carol’s.
C. Dillenschneider35 holds that Carol and Roschini go
too far in seeing the objective Redemption in this oracle.
He accuses Carol of presupposing that the Virgin is Mary
exclusively and the seed is the future Redeemer alone..
presuppositions which Dillenschneider says all exegesists
do not admit. Furthermore, he says the immediate co-operation of Mary does not follow from the text by comparison
with Eve, who has only an indirect participation in the
sin of Adam. In addition, Dillenschneider notes that in
the Bull Ineffabil is Deus from the association of Christ and
Mary in enmity with Satan, the pope infers immediately the
privilege of the Immaculate Conception and not the concurrence of Mary in the objective Redemption. Dillenschneider does admit that Mary’s collaboration with
Christ against Satan is evident both in the Protogospel
and in the papal Bull but not to the full extent noted
by Roschini and Carol.
Dillenschneider does not say exactly how much he him­
self sees in the Protogospel, but it seems he would admit
Maiy’s co-operation in the Incarnation. This is apparent
from Carol’s citation of Dillenschneider to that effect,
and the latter’s citation of L. Billot who reduces the
community of action of Christ and Mary as seen in the
Protogospel to the mystery of the Incarnation. By giving
birth to the Redeemer she brought the decisive blow to
the power of the devil, writes Billot. Dillenschneider
cites this without expressing any disapproval as he does
at great length when treating the opinion of Carol.
A. Schaeffer seems to combine somewhat the above two
arguments from the Mystical Body and the Go-Redemption.
He argues for the Spiritual Maternity from the Protogos-

16

ί
ί

1

pel "because the Mother of the Head is also the Mother
of the members, or because the Mother of the Redeemer is
also through Him the Mother of the Redeemed.”36 Mary is
the woman; her seed is Christ, as the unit person who
crushes the head of Satan; her seed is also her spiritual
children who are at enmity with Satan through the ages.
He regards the words of St. Paul as a justified allusion
to the Protogospel: may the God of peace crush Satan
speedily under your feet (Rom. 16:20).3^
A. Mayer argues for the Spiritual Maternity in con­
nection with other scriptural texts. Speaking of the
prophecy of the Protogospel he writes:
...this prophecy not only refers to Mary as our Sav­
iour’s Mother, but it likewise refers to her as our
Mother, the Mother of the redeemed. Granting that, in
a primary sense, the prophecy refers to the Saviour
of the world, it nevertheless, implies more than that;
and, in the second sense, which is inclusive and so
intended by God, even as in the first and principal
sense, it refers to the “Seed” of the "Woman” taken
collectively, and includes those who were to be the
redeemed.33

He goes on in the same context pointing out that the
dual motherhood of Mary is contained in the prophecy of
Genesis and is proved first of all by a double confirma­
tion, that of the angel of Nazareth and by Jesus Christ
Himself fay His third word from the cross. Furthermore,
this meaning of the prophecy is further elucidated by
the words of the Apocalypse, written by St. John himself
who stood with Mary beneath the cross, The Woman and the
rest of her seed, who keep the commandments oj God and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ.^
J. Terrier^0 also claims that the Protogospel confirms
the double Maternity of Mary. His argument is more or
less the same as Roschini’s and Bover’s, but he develops
it in a little more detail. He begins by stating precisely
just who are the individuals referred to in the text -on the one hand, the serpent and his race, on the other
hand, the Woman and the seed of the Woman. The serpent

17

is the devil he tells us, and proves this by numerous
passages from Holy Scripture, from the New and Old Test­
ament. Then he shows, also by texts from Holy Scripture,
that the seed of the serpent signified by the sentence
of God, are those whom, by his perfidious suggestions
and evil influence, the devil has made to his image and
has rendered accomplices in his revolt. His own words
are very expressive. 41
As regards the second group, Terrien states that theiO
is no doubt whatever that, at least in its first and
principal signification, the seed of the Woman is the
Saviour and Redeemer of the world. This the text indi­
cates, independently of all the testimonies down through
the ages. Furthermore, he points out, after the Hebrew
text and the great number of oriental versions, it is
not directly the promised woman, but her seed, her son,
who should crush the head of the serpent. If therefore
Christ is the seed of the Woman, he asks, who else can
be the Woman, except the Mother of Christ, the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Then he goes a step farther in saying that,
since the seed of the serpent is necessarily a collective
noun, it seems necessary also that the seed of the Woman
does not only signify a particular person who will be
the Christ and the Messias. Because of the parrallelism
of the words, he concludes that, while the seed of the
Woman is first and principally Christ, secondarily it
includes the whole multitude of men who, in the course
of the ages, should group themselves around God’s banner
to fight the eternal enemy of God. These men belong to
Christ as the members to their head; they make up part
of His plenitude; they belong to His Mystical Body; in
the measure of their sanctity, they are also the Christ,
victorious adversary of the serpent. This interpretation
is in accord with the words of the Apocalypse which show
us in act what Genesis foretold: Apoc. 12:17:
And the devil was angry against the woman, and he went
out to fight against the others of her seed, that is,
against those who keep the commandments of God and
who have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

r
Other texts which he says are also in accord with the
above interpretation are:

Be sober and watch, for your adversary, the devil, as
a roaring lion goes about seeking whom to devour.4%
But the God of peace will speedily crush Satan under
your feet.
Terrien concludes by saying that the Divine Maternity
needs no further proof, once one recognized Mary as the
Woman and Jesus as her seed. And, since one should under­
stand also that according to Genesis the seed means along
with Jesus Christ, all just men, then the text, in the
immediate and literal sense affirms the double maternity
of the Blessed Virgin -- her maternity according to na­
ture and her maternity according to grace.
Raphael V. O’Connell, who claims Terrien as one of
his sources gives practically the same argument of Ter­
rien, and he is quoted here as a sort of summary of Ter­
rien in English.

I

*
?
f

And her spiritual motherhood is also clearly apparent
from this same passage of Holy Writ. For as the seed
of the serpent is a collective term, including all
those descendants of the first man and woman, who by
their sinful lives bear within them the traits of the
Evil One, so too the seed of the Woman, although it
primarily refers to the Redeemer of mankind, to whom
elsewhere in Holy Scripture the destruction of the
empire of the demon is attributed, nevertheless, as a
collective term, and contrasted with the seed of the
serpent, seems necessarily to be understood, in a
secondary sense, of all who in the course of ages will
take their stand with Christ in His ceaseless conflict
with the enemy of God.
They too, are the spiritual offspring of the Wom­
an, as forming with her Divine Son one mystical body,
of which He is the Head. They too will experience the
rage of Satan until the end of time, but they too by
their supernatural union with Christ, and by the efficacy of His grace communicated to them, will be for­

19

ever associated with Him in His victory over the demon
and all the assaults of hell. They are one with Him
as the objects of the same relentless hatred on the
part of the serpent, and they are one with Him in in­
flicting upon the latter an overwhelming defeat. It
follows then, that the Woman who is the Mother of the
Saviour in the physical order, is also their Mother
in the supernatural and spiritual order, in which
they are identified with Him.44
Tibertius Gallus,46 in his study on the interpretations
of the Protogospel, lists a similar interpretation of
this passage as the one given by Terrien, O'Connell and
others.
Armand Plessis46 gives an exegesis of the text but
not exactly for or against the Spiritual Maternity. Con­
trary to Terrien, he holds that the seed of the woman
can only be Christ, the Messias. For his proof, in
the same manner as Terrien, he cites several texts
of Holy Scripture:

He who commits sin is of the devil because the
devil sins from the beginning. To this end the
Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works
of the devil.^i
Another text: . . . that through death He might de­
stroy him who had the empire of death, that is the
dev il.
He also quotes the Apocalypse, which he says is
more clear and is a reference to Genesis:

...and that great dragon, was cast down, the ancient
serpent, he who is called the devil.... And I heard
a loud voice in heaven saying: "Now has come the
salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our
God, and the authority of Jesus Christ.“ 49

These three texts all refer to the opposition be­
tween the devil and Christ, and to the fact that
20

Christ overcame the devil. It is interesting to note
that if one carefully reads the context from which
these quotations are taken, it seems that they lend
great weight to the Mystical Body interpretation of
the seed of the Woman, which is the point at issue.
Taking the first quotation, we find that, in St.
John’s first letter, besides the contrast of Christ
with the devil, there is also the contrast of the
children of God and the children of the devil, and
mention is made also of the victory of the children;
You are of God, dear children., and have overcome
him (the antichrist, i. e. , Satan) because greater
is He who is in you than he who is in the world.^

*
k
?

And again:

All that is born of God overcomes the world. .
The whole world is in the power of the evil one
(Satan).

t
I

Regarding the second reference to St. Paul, it must
be remembered that the Mystical Body was a principal
theme of St. Paul. What he says here must be taken in
the light of what is said in his other epistles as well.
He does not expressly mention our oneness in Christ so
much in the letter to the Hebrews, although he does make
several references to it. For example:
For both he who sane ti fies and they who are sanctified
are all from one.^ He (Christ) is succoring the off­
spring of Abraham. Wherefore it was right that he
should in all things be made like unto His brethren.
For we have been made partakers of Christ.
St. Paul preached the doctrine of the Mystical Body re­
vealed to him in Christ’s words: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?”^^ To him, to live was Christ. After
the example of the Master, he often referred to the
Church as Christ. Christ is the Head, the Saviour of His
Body’, the Church. We live by and in Christ. St. Paul ever

21

I

«
V

3>

J

taught and preached our oneness in Christ.
Regarding the third text advanced by Plessis, one has
to read only a little farther in the Apocalypse to find
a direct reference to the seed of the Woman referring
directly and unmistakably to others besides Christ, and
these others are in conflict with Satan.
And the dragon was angered at the woman, and went away
to wage war with the rest of her offspring (seed),
who keep the commandments of God and hold fast the
testimony of Jesus.

After citing the above three scriptural texts, Ples­
sis considers the possibility of a collective interpre­
tation of the seed of the Woman. And then he writes: that
Christ is uniquely or at least principally the seed of
the Woman is proved: a. By Gal, , 3: 16 The promises were
made to Abraham and to his seed (Gen. 22:18). He does
not refer to his seed as of many, but as of one, and to
thy seed, who is Christ, b. The whole Tradition of the
Church is in favor of such an interpretation. He quotes
several Fathers. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus mentions that
the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers understand the
seed of the Woman to be Christ.
The writer of this thesis would also like to comment
on these two additional arguments because of the light
it throws on the Spiritual Maternity. In the first place,
to cite the text from the epistle to the Galatians as a
text proving his point is another example of taking a
text out of context and misusing it. For in a few verses
immediately following, continuing the same theme, St.
Paul writes:
For all you, who have been baptized into Christ, have
put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there
is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male
nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And
if you are Christ 's, then you are the (seed) offspring
of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

It would seem that actually the text confirms the Mysti­
22

cal Body interpretation of the seed of the Woman and
consequently argues in favor of a reference to the Spir­
itual Maternity.
As far as the second argument is concerned, from Tra­
dition and the statement of the pope, it must be said
that while it is clear from these references that Christ
is the seed of the Woman, they do not exclude the possi­
bility of also seeing here the “Mystical Christ”, that
is, Christ as Head and Christ in His members. Pius X in
Ad Diem Ilium bears witness to the fact, an all-important
one that many overlook, that Mary conceived both the ma­
terial and spiritual body of Christ, the whole Christ,
at one and the same time. His words are:

Thus in one and the same bosom of the most chaste
Mother, Christ took to Himself flesh, and joined to
Himself the spiritual body formed by those who were
to believe in Him. ”58

Pius XII in Mystici Corporis teaches that the doctrine
of the whole Christ is an unbroken tradition from St.
Augustine:
He (Christ) is Head of the Body of the Church, and
the unbroken tradition of the Fathers from the earli­
est times teaches that the divine Redeemer and the
society which is His Body form but one mystical person,
that is to say, to quote St. Augustine, 'the whole
Christ' ”59

The doctrine of the Mystical Body is so intimately connected
with those great mysteries of our faith that bring man
into a supernatural relationship with God, namely, espec­
ially the Incarnation and the Redemption, that it would
[seem wrong to ignore the implications of this doctrine
when speaking of the Saviour, the God-made-Man, He who
was to redeem mankind. In the text of Genesis being disi
cussed, there is certainly question of a prophecy dealing
I
with the Redeemer of mankind, as all admit.
I
All the above discussion may be summed up in this
r
manner: Whether the text of Genesis is a foundation for

23

Mary’s Spiritaul Maternity depends on three main argu­
ments: 1. That Mary is the Woman in either the literal
or typical sense, and that the "seed” includes Christ
and His Mystical Body as well; 2. That the text indicates
Mary’s co-operation with Christ in the Redemption -- in­
directly (as some say) by her role in the Incarnation
and directly (as some insist) by her Co-Redemption, that
is, her immediate co-operation in the objective Redemp­
tion on Calvary, and consequently, also in the subjective
Redemption, that is, the application of Calvary's fruits
to souls; and 3. That other scriptural texts -- in par­
ticular Christ’s third word on the cross and the twelfth
chapter of the Apocalypse -- elucidate and confirm the
fact of the Spiritual Maternity and these texts validly
interpret Genesis. There is another argument mentioned
at the very beginning that could be introduced here, and
that is the early Tradition in the Church, and even more
so, the living and constant Tradition in the Church re­
garding the parallel between Eve and Mary. This argument
will be taken up in the section on Tradition where it
fits better, but it adds considerable weight to the pres­
ent discussion.
The writer finds all the above arguments very convinc­
ing ones for the Spiritual Maternity. As a scriptural
proof, in the light of all the above reasons, it would
seem to be the most important of all scriptural proofs.
No wonder writershave said that the Protogospel "contains
all Mariology in a nut-shell.»60
Luke 1:26:38: And when the angel had cone to her he
said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou among women1 " When she had seen him
she was troubled at his words, and kept pondering what
manner of greeting this night be.
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary,
for thou hast found grace with God. And behold, thou
shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a
son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 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

24

forever; and of his kingdom, there shall be no end. ”
But Mary said to the angel, “How shall this happen,
since I do not know man?”
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy
Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Most
High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One
to be born shall be called the Son of God. And behold,
Elizabeth thy kinswoman also has conceived a son in
her old age, and she who was called barren is now in
her sixth month; for nothing shall be impossible with
God. ”
But Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be
it done to me according to thy word. ” And the angel
departed from her.

I
i
f
j

This is the second text that modern writers present
in proof of the Spiritual Maternity. The scriptural ar­
gument from this text centers around Mary’s Fiat and the
relation between the Divine Maternity and the Spiritual
Maternity. Whereas other texts refer directly, many
writers tell us, to the Spiritual Maternity -- the Pro­
togospel foretells the Spiritual Maternity, the third
word of Our Lord on the Cross proclaimed the fact of the
Spiritual Maternity, and the Apocalypse confirms and fur­
ther elucidates the Spiritual Maternity -- this Annunci­
ation text, on the basis of a purely scriptural exegesis,
in itself, has no direct reference to the Spiritual Ma­
ternity. Nevertheless the text is very important for the
Spiritual Maternity because it establishes the fact of
the Incarnation and the Divine Maternity upon which the
doctrine rests, and in the context writers universally
see Mary’s free and conscious intervention (Fiat) in the
Incarnation, and consequently in the Redemption (Redemp­
tive-Incarnation), at least to some extent. In a later
chapter dealing with the bases of the Spiritual Maternity,
these questions which are more theological than strictly
scriptural, will be explained. To avoid needless repeti­
tion, all that material will not be given here, but it
should be considered as having full application here as
well as there.
One point of supreme importance to note here is that

25

!
2»
w
5
M
w
t

ί

J

I

the Fathers based the antithesis of Eve and Mary on the
comparison of Genesis -- more explicitly on Eve’s part
in the first fall rather than on the prophecy in Genesis
-- and the Annunciation scene. They contrast Mary’s obe­
dience, faith, purity, etc. with the opposites in Eve.62
It is evident from their writings on the Fiat of the
Annunciation that they did not see in Mary’s Fiat her
participation in the Redemptive-Incarnation. Ibis is seen
only later, beginning with St. Albert the Great, and is
in accord with what theologians, following Cardinal New­
man, call the ever broader and more profound understanding
of Revelation down through the ages. The antithesis be­
tween Eve and Mary is thus completed by later writers
who also represent Tradition in the Church, that is, its
living Tradition through the ages, when they make allu­
sion to the Protogospel where they see Mary prefigured
as adjutorium simile sibi of the New Adam.62 The fact
that some writers limit their argument from Tradition to
what they find in the early writings of the Fathers and
other ecclesiastical writers explains a good deal about
their negative views regarding the Co-Redemption62 and
by implication the Spiritual Maternity.

John 19:26, 27: Jesus therefore, seeing His Mother
and the disciple whom. He loved standing by, said to
His Mother, "Homan, behold thy son!" Then He said to
the disciple, “Behold thy Mother !" And from that hour
the disciple took her to his own.
Of all scriptural texts offered to prove the Spiritual
Maternity, this one is the most CERTAIN if we judge by
the declarations of the popes as well as the arguments
from tradition. All writers who defend the Spiritual Ma­
ternity use this text as a scriptural proof, and they
usually invoke the statements of the popes and the tra­
ditional interpretation as the principal reasons for
their interpretation of these two verses. Practically all
the principal writers64 considered in this study follow
this procedure and many of them cite texts from the popes
as well as from saints and theologians through the cen26

turies.
To present the case both from the authority of the
Magisterium and Tradition, a classic papal text is quoted
by many writers to establish the scriptural argument from
John 19:26, 27 for the Spiritual Maternity. This text is
from LeoΧΙΙΓ s Encyclical Adjutricem, populi, September 5,
1895: “In the person of John, as the Church has always
believed, Christ designated the whole human race....”65
Therefore, even though scholars can find a clear writ­
ten record of this tradition only from Rupert of Deutz
(twelfth century), we must accept this interpretation
as a doctrine of the Church, based on ancient and constant
tradition. Thus falls the only opposition to the text as
a basis for the Spiritual Maternity, raised from the fact
that early tradition does not clearly support that inter­
pretation. 66 Many other papal texts68 are given to sup­
port the "spiritual” interpretation of the two verses
being considered. In view of the number and clarity of
these authoritative statements, D. Unger says:

î

i
ί
I
i
f
!
I

It seems unjustifiable for a Catholic scholar to re­
ject the spiritual interpretation of John 19:26, 27,
after the popes have on numerous occasions and in
documents meant for the whole world, said that the
spiritual is the genuine interpretation
βΰ and has been
the constant teaching of the Church.”0

if

4*

ί
I

i
j
,
I
Î
I

Despite the papal declarations, there are some exegetes who deny that the text is a scriptural proof for
the doctrine. They link Mary’s Motherhood of man to this
text only by accommodation. 7Ω But for the vast majority
of Mariologists and exegetes this text provides a valid
biblical proof of the Spiritual Maternity.
These latter see in the words of Christ a literal
reference to John and Mary and some kind of a typical or
spiritual reference to the Spiritual Maternity. This
group would include: Alastruey, Keuppens, Garces, Bover,
Lepicier, Campana, Merkelbach, Garrigou-Lagrange, Neubert,
Plessis, Snith, Bittremieux, Plus, Schaeffer, Schrijvers,
Vassall-Phillips.71

I
I
t
k
i
fc

I

27

i

-■
,

j
i

I

J

'

I

,|

'

i

79

7

Roschini
and Mayer
hold there is a direct literal
reference to the Spiritual Maternity in the words of Our
Lord. Bernard7^ seems to hold the same, but Terrien 0
hesitates between the typical and literal sense. Bainv?li6
does not give a personal opinion but he quotes Terrien.
Scheeben77 is a bit cautious in dealing with the text.
He concludes that we may see the Spiritual Maternity in
these words in their “aesthetical” meaning.
It is very interesting to note that the three remaining
principal writers not mentioned in any of the groups above, that is, Carol, Di 11 en schneider, and Most, do not
offer this text of St. John as a scriptural proof in any
way in their ex professo treatises, all on the Co-Redemption. Some authors of general works on Mariology omit
this text in connection with the Co-Redemption but they
do use it as a scriptural proof for the Spiritual Mater­
nity.78 In his use of the text to prove the Co-Redempt ion,
Roschini makes an important observation that may throw
light on a question still to be treated in this study —
the relation between the Go-Redemption and the Spiritual
Maternity. This writer tells us that Our Lord’s words,
which, according to the Magisterium Ecclesiae, are the
solemn promulgation of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity are,
consequently, also the solemn promulgation of Mary’s immediate co-operation in the objective Redemption. This
co-operation, quoad naturam, is identified with the Spiritual Maternity, in so far as they both meet (conveniunt)
in the first acquisition of grace. In that same moment
in which man’s Redemption by Christ and Mary is accom­
plished, man’s regeneration to the supernatural life of
grace is brought about. Roschini goes on to say that Leo
XIII in his encyclical, Jucunda semper, clearly explains
the int imate and necessary connection between the Spiritual Maternity and Mary’s immediate co-operation in the
objective Redemption by these words:
Standing by the cross of Christ and filled with an
immense love for us, in order that she might receive
us as her sons, Mary offered her Son to the Divine
Justice dving with Him in her heart, pierced by the
sword of sorrow. ■
28

e

This question about the relation between the Spiritual
Maternity, with the Co-Redempt ion and other prerogatives
of Mary will be taken up in a later chapter.
Returning to the scriptural text being considered,
the modem writers give many reasons why they see in it
the Spiritual Maternity. Here is a summary of these
reasons:

On the Part of Christ. -- This is a solemn moment in
the life of Christ, the climax of His life below. His
last words on the Cross are all very important and full
of meaning. He thinks of all men. He makes public and
solemnly proclaims Mary Mother of men. He does not estab­
lish a new relationship by His words but declares pubon
licly this relationship.
This public proclamation pertains to Mary’s co-operation in the acquisition of grace, and also refers to her
maternal role in the future, that is, the distribution
Q1
of all graces which are the fruits of the Redemption.
Christ fulfills in a way His prophecy: I will not
leave you orphans
On the Part of Mary. -- The use of the term
“Woman”
to address Mary, is very significant. The text has reference to other texts, especially Gen. 3: 15 and the
twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, and thereby confirms
Mary as the Woman who, by her seed, crushes Satan. Taken
together the three texts are a solid scriptural proof of
the Spiritual Maternity.83
While Mary did not suffer in giving birth to Christ,
she suffered the pangs of spiritual childbirth on Calvary,
thus fulfilling the prophecy: ’You will give birth to
your sons in sorrow. ” She gave us birth therefore in
sorrow.84
Mary’s presence on Calvary and her intimate union with
Christ in His Sacrifice argue for the Spiritual Maternity.
By consenting to be the Mother of the Saviour, she be­
came our Mother already, at least to a certain extent.
Even if she had died before Calvary, she would be our
mother. But, by being there, she was able to unite her­
self to Jesus in the sacrifice of the cross and by that
29

‘
t
?
$
<
:*
{
‘
;
I'

ï
|
j
:

!

great act of faith, hope, and love of God and souls, she
became our Mother in a still more perfect way and con­
tributed more directly, more intimately, and more pro­
foundly to our salvation.88 On Calvary Mary became more
fully and more perfectly our Mother, than she was before. 88

By the words of Christ, Mary is given a new awareness
of her maternity of men. The words of Christ are like
sacramental words which accomplish what they signify,
that is, they produce a great increase of charity and of
the maternal instinct in Mary for us. The words of Christ
consecrate Mary absolutely to her maternity of grace.87
One writer makes a reference to the Spiritual Mater­
nity from the point of view of art. In pictures of the
crucifixion Mary does not seem to be absorbed in Her
Child but seems to be looking beyond to those other
children.88 Too much insistence should not be placed on
this argument.
On the Part of John. -- The popes and Tradition, as
mentioned above, bear weighty testimony that Christ, in
addressing St. John on Mount Calvary, spoke to us in the
person of St. John. This is stated by all our principal
writers.
John already had a natural mother, Salome, who also
is at the foot of the Cross. Obviously, Mary’s motherhood
with respect to John (and us) was meant to indicate a
spiritual motherhood. The double recommendation of Our
Lord indicates this also. 89
According to the doctrine of the Mystical Body, John
is not only John, but each of us, since according to
the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, we must see
in anyone in the state of grace not merely a simple hu­
man creature but Christ. Origen says in accordance with
Saint Paul, “The Christian is not simply a man, but he
is another Christ.” Jesus, John, we all constitute but
one, only one Jesus and consequently for Mary, only one
Son. 90
St. John is the author of this scene as well as other
scenes in the Gospel -- Cana and in the Apocalypse, where
Mary is called "Woman”. This would identify her with the
Woman of Genesis. Ihe scenes all taken together point to

I

i
j
J
1

‘
?
1
i,
fe
Ÿ

•

*
i

the Spiritual Maternity. Besides, John is accustomed to
recording episodes because of their symbolic meaning. If
he repeats anything that is already in the other three
Gospels, it must be for a very special reason. He very
seldom speaks of himself, and if so, does not mention
his name. He records this whole incident because it is
very important. Christ is proclaiming, for the world to
QI
know, the Spiritual Maternity of Mary.
A Singular Interpretation
One author, A. Mayer, in his book entitled The CrossAnnunciation, has a rather singular and unique interpre­
tation of the words of Our Lord on Calvary. He himself
writes that he has presented a “newer and more compre­
hensive understanding of this important matter,
Be­
cause of the singularity of his views and the lengthy
development of his general thesis here is a summary of
the main ideas of his book:

i

f
Î
t;
I

The Title. -- The title is the key to the theme of
the book. The author considers the words of Christ on
Calvary, the Annunciation as it were of Mary’s Spiritual
Maternity. Here are some of his words:

ji
t
S
-

Through the Angelic Annunciation, Mary formally becomes the Mother of Jesus. Through the Cross Annunciation, Mary formally becomes the Mother of mankind.
It is one thing to be the Mother of Jesus. It is
another thing to be the Mother of mankind.
In the first, the relationship established is be­
tween God and Mary. In the second, it is between Mary
and mankind.
In the first, the angel makes the proposition and
is the delegatory witness. In the second, Jesus makes
the proposition and is Himself the Witness.
In the first annunciation, her Divine Maternity is
explicit and her maternity of us implicit. In the
second annunciation, her maternity of us is explicit
and her Divine Maternity implicit. 93

31

In the first, she acquired eligibility (for the
Spiritual Maternity). In the second, she acquired
function....
In the first annunciation, the angel spoke only of
the Divine Maternity. In the second, Jesus spoke only
of the Spiritual Maternity of us.
The first had Mary ’s consent, and the second had
both the consent of Mary; and, by proxy, our own con­
sent.
The first announced Mary primarily and solely the
Mother of Jesus. The second announced Mary primarily
and solely the Mother of us....
In the first annunciation, there was one relation­
ship announced; Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus
the Son of Mary, In the second annunciation, there
was one relationship announced between Mary and us,
and between us and her. 04

Main Idea. -- The main line of his argument is as
follows:
Scriptural argument. In The Cross-Annunciation is
expressed under the literal sense, that Mary is indeed
our Mother. His reason -- as St. Thomas states “nothing
necessary to faith is contained under the figurative sense
which the Holy Scriptures have not elsewhere expressed
under the literal." He says Holy Church has always taught
Mary is our Mother. Therefore it must be in Holy Scrip­
ture. Therefore it is in the Cross-Annunciation. 95
Christ establishes a new filiation on Calvary between
us and Mary. He both declared Mary our Mother and con­
stituted her as such on Calvary. ® As proof he quotes
the popes and Fathers. 9?
Mary "by free will and contractual relationship be­
came the Mother of Mankind” on Calvary.98 To establish
the Spiritual Maternity the Saviour procured and enlisted
the consent of the Woman, and likewise also, the consent
of the disciple. In the order of grace, the freedom of
the will is never impaired.99 Christ’s words postulated
the consent of Mary and John.100 Hie only reason for the
bilateral appeal is to get their consent, upon which a
contract is based. 101 Christ instituted the filiation by
32

1 Ω9
this contractual union.
The Divine Maternity made Mary eligible for her Spir­
itual Maternity. 103
Criticism of Mayer’s Thesis

‘

i
I

s
I
{
I

!
'
'
!
■
i
:
I

!

The big difference between Mayer’s thesis and the opinion of the vast majority of theologians boils down to
the difference between “constituted” and “declared.”
Mayer quotes selected texts of the popes to show that
the Spiritual Maternity had its origin on Mount Calvary
in virtue of our Lord’s words. Most writers insist that
Our Lord’s words do not create, nor constitute Mary’s
Motherhood of nen, but are a solemn proclamation of the
fact already existent. They hold almost unanimously that
Mary conceived us with Christ at the Annunciation and
gave us birth on Calvary when the Redemption in actu
prino was completed. She contributed to our spiritual
birth by giving birth to the Redeemer and by co-operating
in the entire work of the Redemption. She is our real
Spiritual Mother and would be so even if Christ had not
spoken those words which were spoken to solemnly announce,
proclaim, and confirm the fact of the Spiritual Maternity,
and not to initiate it.
As regards his selection and interpretation of papal
statements, two comments should suffice:
He seems to be unaware of the many papal texts that
teach the Spiritual Maternity has as a basis our incor­
poration in Christ and Mary’s role in the Redemptive-In­
carnation.
As George Shea remarks again and again throughout a
long article dealing with the testimonies of the popes
to the Spiritual Maternity, the mind of the popes must
be taken into account to interpret their statements. While
in many instances they draw attention principally to Calvary, other texts may be found which show the Spiritual
Maternity had its beginnings at the Annunciation and is
founded on the Divine Maternity, the Incarnation, the
Mystical Body,
all of which Mayer seems to overlook.
Other de tai Is of Mayer’s thesis may be criticized, but
the main point at variance with the general teaching of
theologians has been covered.

33

We conclude that theologians are practically unanimous
in accepting John 19:26, 27 as a valid scriptural proof
for the Spiritual Maternity and they do so principally
for two reasons: the testimonies of the popes; it is 'ac­
cording to Tradition, especially the living Tradition of
the Church.
Furthermore, by these words of Our Lord, Mary was not
constituted but rather solemnly proclaimed our Spiritual
Mother.
Apocalypse, 12:1-18, especially verse 18:

v

And the dragon was angered at the woman, and went away
to wage war with the rest of her offspring (seed) who
keep the commandments of God, and hold fast the testi­
mony of Jesus.

r
%
'

This text has singular importance, if for no other
reason than because of the authoritative statement of
Pius X in his encyclical Ad diem ilium.108 He removes any
shadow of a doubt that this passage refers to Mary, and,
in particular, to her Spiritual Maternity.
Hie Apostle St. John describes the vision with which
he was divinely favored: A great sign appeared in
heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and under her
feet was the moon, and upon her head a crown of twelve
stars (Apoc. 12: 1). Everyone realizes that this woman
signified the inviolate Virgin Mary who brought forth
our Head. The Apostle continues, And being with child,
she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish
of delivery (Apoc. 12:2). Thus John saw the most holy
Mother of God already enjoying eternal happiness and
still laboring in a kind of mysterious childbirth.
What birth was it? Surely it was our birth. As long
as we are still detained in exile we must still be
brought forth into the perfect love of God and into
eternal happiness. The laboring in childbirth shows
the yearning and longing with which the Virgin from
heaven above keeps watch over us and strives with un­
ceasing prayer to complete the number of the elect.107

J
i
i

!

f
!

'
i
t

•

i
’

•
j
i

This is the only known instance of a papal employment
of Apocalypse 12 in the matter of Mary's Spiritual Mater­
nity. 108 But this is sufficient, for, in virtue of this
statement, the text refers to Mary’s Spiritual Maternity.
Exegetes do not agree as to who the Woman is, wheth­
er Mary or the Church. E. Allo109 gives a bibliography
of the opinions of this text. G. Roschin!110 draws these
conclusions as regards the question of the various inter­
pretations: a. Today, the interpretation of the Woman to
be Mary by mere accommodation is usually excluded, b. Be­
cause of certain difficulties whether Mary is a type or
antitype of the Church or vice versa -- the typical sense
is commonly excluded, c. Modern interpreters usually see
Mary in the Apocalypse in some kind of literal sense,
understood to be a real scriptural sense.
Once it is established or accepted that Mary is the
Woman, how do the modern writers apply this text as a
valid basis for the Spiritual Maternity? This is the
question at issue here. In view of the papal encyclical
of 1904 quoted above, it would seem probable that most
writers would use the papal statement or the Apocalypse,
or both among their spiritual proofs for the Spiritual
Maternity. However, the majority of our principal writers are significant by their omission of these referen­
ces. The only ones to use one or both of these references
are: Scheeben, Roschini, Schaeffer, Meet, Mayer, Terrien,
Vassa 11-Phi 11 ips, and Keuppens.111 Their reasons given
for the application of this text to the Spiritual Maternity are the following:
The authority of Pius X in the encyclical quoted above.
Mary is the Woman, according to the traditional interpretations, and the Son she brings forth is Christ. Some
argue that since the Son brought forth is none other than
Christ, the Woman who gives Him birth is none other than
Mary, His Mother.
The text is a scriptural interpretation of Genesis,
e. , the foretold victory of the Woman and her seed in
i.
battle against Satan.
All the details of the chapter apply to Mary: the
“great sign” as prophesied in Isaias 7: 14; the woman
clothed with the sun (full of grace and mother of the

34
35

Sun of Justice); the woman wearing a crown of twelve
stars (the twelve tribes, or twelve Apostles and in them
the entire Church).
That the Woman is in pain is a probable reference to
her Spiritual Maternity. Mary had no pain in giving
112
birth to Christ. Scheeben
notes the special connection
between Christ’s birth and the painful childbirth, an ob­
vious allusion to the Mystical Body and the connection
between the Divine and Spiritual Maternities.
John is the author of the Apocalypse. Again, as in the
Gospel (Cana, Calvary), he uses the term “Woman,” once
again to draw attention to the Protogospel where Mary is
referred to as the Woman. Altogether these texts of St,
John and Genesis are solid scriptural arguments for the
Spiritual Maternity.
The Apocalypse is a formal scriptural argument for
the Spiritual Maternity, based on Mary’s production of
Christ and “the rest of her seed.”

II. The Minor Texts

1. Events of Mary’s Life. — Visitation and Magnificat:
Lk. 1:39-80; Nativity: Lk. 2:1-21; Presentation, Purifi­
cation, Prophecy of Simeon: Lk. 2:22-38; Adoration of
Magi: Matt. 2:51-2; Flight into Egypt: Matt. 2:13-23;
Loss in Temple: Lk. 2:41-52; Subjection of Christ to
Mary: Lk. 2:51; Cana: John 2:1-11; In Public Life: Matt.
12:46-60; Mary praised: Lk. 2:27-28; On Calvary: John
10:25-27; Pentecost: Acts 1:14.
While all these texts are Marian in the literal sense,
their application to the Spiritual Maternity in general
is of illustrative value only. 113 According to our mod­
ern writers, only one text stands out among these as a
scriptural basis for the Spiritual Maternity, and that
is the seene of the Presentation of Our Lord in the tem­
ple and the prophecy of Simeon.
According to this prophecy Mary’s role on Calvary is
foretold. This mystery connects Mary with both the An­
nunciation and Calvary and reveals her role already as
spiritual Mother of men.
She not only takes part in the Incarnation, the begin-

36

'
<
*

=

Î
J
1

ningof the Redemption, but also in the last and principal
act of the Redemption on Calvary. In joy she gave birth
to Christ; in sorrow she gives birth to men on Calvary.
The prophecy of Simeon makes Mary more conscious of her
role as spiritual Mother, a role that enlists her side
by side with the Messias in His tragic destiny. Mary ’s
suffering is revealed here as much as in the Passion. At
both times Mary is shown suffering for us and giving
birth to us by her sufferings. Especially Bernard, but
also Terrien, Schrjvers, Lepicier, Merkelbach, VassallPhillips, Neubert, Di 1lenschneider, and Druwe7 develop
the above considerations.114·
All through his ex professo work on the Spiritual Ma­
ternity, Bernard, and similarly Vassall-Phillips,115 con­
nects all the events of Mary’s life with the Spiritual
Maternity. He holds they all are a continual revelation
of her maternal function towards mankind, that the mater­
nity of grace is affirmed and enlarged in every way. He
does not like the idea, very often expressed, that Jesus
gave Himself to Mary and Joseph alone for thirty years
and this was the sweetest part of His work. Rather all
Mary’s life and all Christ’s life were given to exercising
in different stages their universal patronage over all
men.116
Bainvel^* also insists all Mary’s work was maternal
in character, whether she is at Bethlehem, Cana, or Cal­
vary. This should be the over-all viewofher life -- her
maternity towards us. Other writers hint at the same
idea in so far as they see the unity in the whole plan
of Redemption, a point to be discussed later.
The power of Mary’s intercession, related to her title
as Dispensatrix1 1of
grace, is seen ina special way by some
Q
of our authors
in connection with the sanctification
of John the Baptist, the first public miracle of Our Lord
at Cana, and Mary’s presence among the Apostles on Pente­
cost. Theologians hold that the Visitation (Lk. 1:44)
marks the sanctification of John the Baptist in his mother’s womb. Mary is the instrument of that sanctification.
This is one of several texts that confirm her role in the
sanctification of souls as Spiritual Mother of men.
One of the other texts that refers also to the power

37

of Mary’s intercession, and consequently to her Spiritual
Maternity is the miracle of Cana. Here is the argument
for the Spiritual Maternity from this text:

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Gali
lee, and manifested His glory, and His discip les be­
lieved in Him. So, then, the disciples owed their be­
lief -- that faith without which they could not have
been saved, without which it is imposs ib le to please
God; they owed it, under God, to Mary. God gave it to
them...through Mary’s intervention. It was the immedi­
ate fruit of a certain miracle wrought in their pres­
ence, which miracle was directly caused by the thought­
ful, amiable, charity of Mary. Thus are we again re­
minded of the saying of St. Augustine, that .Mary
brought forth Jesus our Head in the flesh, but that
she also co-operates by her charity to the bringing
forth of His members in the Spirit. 19
The third text concerns Mary’s presence in the Upper
Room. Some authors^0 consider the Church bom on Pente­
cost instead of Calvary. This is definitely a minority
opinion but it does allow for a beautiful comparison of
the part played by the Holy Spirit with that of the Bless­
ed Mother in the birth of the physical Christ as well as
the birth of the Stystical Christ. As Father Mersch puts
it, “As the Head was born physically de Spiritu Sancto
ex Maria Virgine, so the ‘Body’ is born mystically by the
191
operation of the Spirit and by the mediation of Mary;’’2
*
2. Mystical Body Texts. -- Practically all our princi­
pal authors mention the connection between the Spiritual
Maternity and the Mystical Body, but only about half of
them actually use and cite Mystical Body texts among
other scriptural proofs offered. These latter writers
are the only ones we are concerned with here. There will
be further treatment of the Mystical Body in a later
chapter and then all writers will be concerned.
The argument for the Spiritual Maternity from the
doctrine of the Mystical Body depends a great deal on

38

:
;

*f

*

!

,

j

j

'

‘

the pontifical statements of Pius X in Ad diem ilium and
of Pius XII in Corporis Mystici, already referred to
above. According to the two popes, Mary not only gave
birth to the Head of the Mystical Body and Author of the
supernatural life, but in a spiritual and mystical way
gave birth also to the members inseparably united to that
Head. She can be said to have carried us with Christ in
her womb but she actually became the Spiritual Mother of
the members of the Mystical Body on Mount Calvary. Not
one Catholic author would or should contest this doctrine.
Various scriptural texts are cited to develop this
thesis along slightly different lines. Ihe principal line
of argument is based on our sonship of God, which in­
volves our brotherhood with Christ, and consequently the
spiritual motherhood of Mary. The so-called “Sonship
texts” of St. John, e. g. , John 1: 12 sons of God; 1: 13
born of God (one writer calls this “John’s monument to
the Spiritual Maternity”122’ 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1, 18;
etc., are cited as well as the texts of St. Paul (e. g. ,
Rom. 8:29, Heb. 2:11, 17) which teach that we become
spiritual brethren of Christ by Baptism. Other similar
texts: Matt. 28:10 and John 20:17. the text most fre­
quently quoted in this regard is Gal. 4:4, 5 where St.
Paul writes: fthen the fullness of time came, God sent
His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, that He
might redeem those who were under the Law, that we
might receive the adoption of Sons. By being born of
Mary, it is argued, Christ made us adoptive children
of God. Being Brothers of Christ by divine adoption,
we are also spiritually adopted by Mary. Christ shares
all with us -- His name (Apoc. 14:1; 22:4); all His
goods as stated in John 17:10: All that is Mine is yours
and all yours is Mine; and in Rom. 8:17: haeredes
quidem Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. There is a certain
parallelism between Christ and us, according to Terrien,
or as Roschini puts it, “ineffabilis hominum imminentια
in Christo Jesu.
Quite a few writers124 also see in the reference to
Christ as Mary’s “first-born” an implication or a suggestion at least that Mary was to have other children,

39

fl
not physically, but spiritually. Christ is her First­
born and we are her second-born, as it were. He was her
son by nature and according to the flesh; we are her sons
by adoption according to the spirit. Here is the way F.
Sheen words it:
The statement “first-born” may indeed mean that Marx
was to have other children, not by the flesh but bj
the Spirit. It suggests that she was to have a spir­
itual progeny which would make up the Mystical Body
of her Divine Son, just as Eve is called the “mother
of the living” or the mother of men in the natural
order. Sara gave only one son to the father of believ­
ers, Abraham, and yet she is called the mother of all
Israel (Is.51:21). There is a clear suggestion in the
words “first-born” that she who begot corporally the
Head of the Church, was also to beget spiritually the
members of the Church. Since the Head and the Body
are inseparable, it is therefore true to say that as
Mary bore Christ in her womb she was virtually car­
rying the whole Mystical Body. The mother earth that
bears the vine also bears the branches.

Usually exegetes, in order to defend Mary’s perpetual
virginity, explain how the text does not imply that she
had other children, physically. It might be a bit exag­
gerated to say the spiritual children are implied here.
Terrien1^ uses one of the Mystical Body references
of St. Paul to bring out another important aspect of the
doctrine of the Spiritual Maternity, that is, the connec­
tion between it and the Divine Maternity. Since the Mys­
tical Body of Christ is the prolongation and the comple­
ment of His natural body (Eph. 1:23... and Him He gave as
Head over all the Church, which indeed is His body, the
fullness of Him Mho is wholly fulfilled in all), the ma­
ternity of Mary toward members would be the prolongation
and the consummation of her Divine Maternity. (This point
would seem to be extremely important and wil1 be referred
to again later).
One final argument based on the Pauline texts is stat­
ed as follows:
40

i

*

ξ

7
;
*

y
I
I
1

If St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15),
could justly claim the title of a parent in their re­
gard, because he had preached the Gospel to them and
converted them from Heathenism, saying, In Christ
Jesus by the Gospel I have begotten you; how much more
justly may not she claim to be our Mother, from whom
we have received not the mere oral preaching of the
Gospel, but the Author of the Gospel Himself. If the
manifold labors of the Apostolate give a right to the
name and authority of a Father, and may even be justly
compared to the pains of maternity: My little children,
of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed
in you (Gal. 4: 19) -- certainly the Dolors of Compas­
sion (as it is sometimes called) of Our Lady on Mount
Calvary, give more than a sufficient right to the name
and affections of a Mother. She has borne us, as it
were, in the womb of her affections from the moment
of the Annunciation, when she knew that the Holy which
should be born of her was to save His people from
their sins, and knew also the cost at which He must
do it.127

3. Bible Figures Applied to Mary.-- By accommodation
many persons and things spoken of in the Bible are applied
to Mary in some way or other. Roschini128 gives practically a complete list of such persons and things and
points out also that, when these accommodations are used
by the Fathers or in the liturgy if the Church they are
more significant, but even then, they can be used only
to illustrate, not prove, a doctrine. Therefore, these
accommodations add very little to the scriptural argument
for the Spiritual Maternity. Nevertheless, such texts
are cited in theological contexts, and so they are out­
lined here.
While there are many figures applied to Mary in a
general way few of these are directly connected with
Mary’s Spiritual Maternity. For example, Pius IX in his
encyclical Ineffabilis Deus^S recalls how the Fathers
made use of many figures to illustrate Mary’s holiness.
He mentions: Noah’s ark, ladder of Jacob, burning bush,
David’s tower, the enclosed garden, temple of God, un­
41

spotted dove, holy Jerusalem, exalted throne of God,
Queen,and finally, Eve by contrast with Mary. Plessis^3®
explains how all these and other things and persons are
figures of Mary in a general way, without emphasizing
any particular function or role of the Blessed Mother.
It does not take much of an imagination, however, to see
how the Spiritual Maternity is beautifully illustrated
by many figures, especially by certain women of the Old
Testament. Vassall-Phillips131 drawsoutsuch comparisons
in great detail.
Of course all the principal authors compare and con­
trast Eve and Mary. Only a few make actual references to
Old Testament figures with regard to the Spiritual Ma­
ternity. Besides those mentioned above, Terrien132 cites
two figures, Sara and Agar and also puts the words of
Jeremias on the sorrowful Mother’s lips: Jerem. 2:13:
All you who pass by the way, look and see if there is
any sorrow like unto my sorrow.
Whatever be the importance of any or all Bible fig­
ures applied to Mary, and in particular, to her Spiritual
Maternity, the remarks of D. Unger133 are significant, to
the effect that: a. the interpretations given according
to Tradition should be our criterion here; b. we should
not exaggerate the number of Marian types as the Middle
Ages did; and, finally, c. the advice of Pius XII in Divi­
no afflante Spiritu^^ should be sacred here: only where
it can be proved that God intended the typical sense
should we accept it. With this, we conclude the scrip­
tural argument for the Spiritual Maternity according to
our modern principal authors.

CONCLUSION

After considering all the above scriptural arguments,
and in particular, the authoritative declarations (not
de fide) of the popes cited in the various instances, we
conclude that the number, variety, and interrelation of
scriptural texts present a solid probative argunent for
the doctrine of Mary's Spiritual Maternity. Prom the num­
ber of texts cited and the importance given them by the
modern writers, it would seem there is no other Marian
42

*
*

doctrine, de fide or not, with the possible exception
of the Divine Maternity, that is so well scripturally
documented.
Of all the texts presented for the Spiritual .Maternity,
the most certain one would seem to be the words of Our
Lord on Calvary, and the one that is potentially the most
fruitful is the Protogospel, especially as it is seen
related to the scene on Calvary and the events related
in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse.

Article 2.

Y
i
4

,

Tradition

At the beginning of the presentation of scriptural
proofs a few principles for the use of Scripture were
listed. In the same manner are listed here the principles
involved in the use of Tradition. These principles are
also taken from the same article previously cited:135
1. The Christian Revelation is contained not only in
Scriptures but also in Tradition.
2. By Tradition, we understand the teachings of the
Apostles that were not written. 2 Thess. 2:14, 15: So
then, brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings you
have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours,
3. As the Council of Trent defined:

Revelation is contained in written books and in tra­
ditions without writings -- traditions which were
received from the mouth of Christ Himself and from
the Apostles under the dictation of the Holy Spirit
and have come down to us delivered, as it were, from
hand to hand.135

4. Tradition, then, is not only a criterion for Scrip­
ture interpretation, as mentioned in the Introduction to
the Scriptural proofs, but it is an authority in its own
right in the matter of faith or morals.
5. Arguments of varying degrees of importance can be
drawn from Tradition: a. In the first place, no Catholic
may contradict an interpretation in Tradition when it is
at least morally unanimous among ancient Christian writ43

ers. b. When such moral unanimity is lacking, it is false
to think that no argument at all can be formed from Tra­
dition. c. Furthermore, a majority, though short of moral
unanimity can beget a certain argument. A few dissenters
do not invalidate an argument from Tradition.
6. It is evident that, so far, we are speaking of Tra­
dition as it pertains to the writings of the Fathers and
early ecclesiastical writers. In other words, some of
the early beliefs of Christians as handed down from the
Apostles were put into writing by these writers of the
early Church. In this sense, often Tradition is referred
to as “early Tradition.” But Tradition can be understood
in another sense, that is, as something living, as the
doctrine, teaching, and practice of the Catholic Church
handed down from the Apostles through the ages. In this
sense it is not necessary to be able to trace Tradition
by written documents back to the first centuries, to have
an argument from Tradition. An illustration of this would
be the example given already that Leo XIII said the spir­
itual interpretation of John 19:26, 27 is the constant
Tradition of the Church, despite the fact that scholars
can find a clear written record of this only from Rupert
of Deutz on (twelfth century).
The modern writers’ arguments from Tradition for the
Spiritual Maternity will be presented under these two
aspects of Tradition: first, the early ecclesiastical
writers; and second, the Church's living Tradition through
the centuries.

1. The Early Ecclesiastical Writers
Before considering what the modern writers say about
the early ecclesiastical writers, here are two papal
texts that may serve as guides for this present matter:
a. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus:

The Fathers and Writers of the Church, thoroughly
schooled in the writings from heaven, had most at
heart to vie with one another in preaching and teach­
ing in many' wonderful ways the Virgin’s sublime holi­
ness, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin and

44

her splendid victory over the most hateful foe of man­
kind. They did this in their books which explain the
Scriptures, vindicate the dogmas, and instruct the
faithful.
They quote the words by which the Almighty, in the
beginning of the world, announced His merciful remedies
prepared for the renewal of men, and by which He crushed
the brazen, deceitful Serpent and wonderfully lifted
up the hopes of our race, saying, “I will put enmities
between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her
seed. " When citing this text they taught that by this
divine oracle, the merciful Redeemer of the human race,
the Only-Begotten son of God, Jesus Christ, was very
clearly pointed out beforehand and that His Most Bless­
ed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was designated and that
at the same time the enmity of both against the devil
was emphatically stated.

b. Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi: "In the person of
John, as the Church has always believed, Christ designat­
ed the whole human race, and first and above all, those
who have the faith. ”139
These two popes both use the argument from Tradition
to indicate, on the one hand that Mary is the Woman in
Genesis, and on the other, that the Spiritual Maternity
is referred to on Mount Calvary by Our Lord’s words to
Mary. At least this is what all our principal authors
accept. As already indicated in the discussion on the
Protogospel, W. Goossens, L. Drewniak, H. Lennerz and C.
Ceuppens are the principal writers to oppose the Mariological interpretation of Genesis. They neither admit
this interpretation, nor the claim that Pius IX includes
in his definition of the Immaculate Conception an author­
itative exegesis of the text of Genesis.
Of our prin­
cipal authors, J. CaroP4^ and G. RoschinP43 have dis­
cussed and answered the arguments of the above group.
The defenders of the Mariological interpretation use the
argument from Tradition, both ancient and living, while
the opponents deny any significant argument from Tradi­
tion, which they usually limit to mean what they find in
45

il

early writings of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical
writers.
While none of our principal writers claim that from
the beginning Mary was explicitly called the Spiritual
Mother of men, a number of authors note that in the early
Church the doctrine was known and believed.143 All of
our principal writers144 claim that the doctrine is im­
plicitly contained, first and above all, in the tradi­
tional antithesis of Mary and Eve. This contrast and
comparison of Mary with Eve runs all through the early
writings in the Church, and is most commonly traced to
St. Justin. 14$ Numerous references from early writings
are cited by many modern writers to show that Mary is
declared the New Eve, the Second Eve, or the Mother of
the living in a truer sense than was Eve. Terrien states
that universally the Latin Fathers base this contrast of
Mary and Eve on the fact that Mary is the principle of
the supernatural life, that in some way she gave us su­
pernatural life.
But some of our authors -- Carol, Most, Mayer, and to
some extent Garrigou-Lagrange -- see a little more than
others do in the Eve-Mary contrast in early Tradition.
These writers and other modern writers14® hold the Fathers
and other early ecclesiastical writers already saw Mary's
Co-Redemptive work implied in the Eve-Mary antithesis.
By Co-Redemptive work they mean particularly and princi­
pally Mary’s immediate co-operation in the objective Re­
demption on Calvary. Other writers14maintain the Fathers
and early writers attached the comparison to the scene
of the Annunciation and Mary’s co-operation in the In­
carnation exclusively, and did not see, as later writers
did, beginning with St. Albert the Great,148 how Mary
is the Second Eve also by her participation in the Re­
demption on Calvary. This difference of opinion is not
as important as it might seem for two reasons: the first
is the fact that all our modern writers explicitly or
implicitly admit that carrying out the Eve-Mary antithesis
to include Mary’s role on Calvary is legitimate in view
of later Tradition, that is, the living Tradition in the
Church. This argument can be backed up with papal state­
ments which picture Mary as the Second Eve on Calvary.149

46

The second fact admitted on both sides is the doctrine
of the Redemptive-Incarnat ion. According to this teaching,
in brief, already at the Annunciation, by her Fiat Mary
co-operates in our Redemption, since that is the first
step in God’s plan to redeem us. The Redemption is a unit.
Christ’s life must not be divided into a series of separ­
ate acts. His Incarnation marks the beginning of one
long act of redemption, culminating on Calvary. This is
the teaching of our principal modern authors,
and is
a fundamental principle for the doctrine of Mary’s Co­
Redemption.
Let it be said here, once and for all, that this
study has as its proper object the Spiritual Maternity
in all its aspects, but that does not include a special­
ized treatment of each aspect. The Co-Redemption, with
all its ramifications--Mary’s merit of the Incarnation,
of her Divine Maternity, of her fullness of grace, of
her Redemption, of our Redemption; the mode of causal­
ity of various aspects of her Co-Redemptive work; her
mediate and immediate co-operation in the objective and
subjective Redemption; the scriptural proofs and proofs
from Tradition; papal sources, etc. — is a specialized
aspect of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity. This is proved
sufficiently by the fact that the authors of Mariology
texts consider it as such and treat it separately, some
giving it a sort of precedence over the Spiritual Mater­
nity, others treating it as an aspect of the Spiritual
Maternity. Just how our authors stand on this problem
will be pointed out later.
Getting back to the Redemptive-Incarnation, the prin­
cipal difference between the Co-Redemptive specialists
among our principal authors and the other writers of the
group is that the former seem to emphasize Mary’s role
on Calvary, calling that her immediate co-operation, and
relegating her co-operation in the Incarnation, to a
remote (William Most moderates thisa trifle by prefacing
'at least’
co-operation in the Redemption. The others
-- especially Bainvel152 and Bover153 emphasize Mary’s
role in the Incarnation. Some say Mary would be our Moth­
er and Co-Redemptrix, to a certain extent, even if she
47

had died before the sacrifice of Calvary, by the simple
fact of her co-operation not merely physical, in the In­
carnation. 154 As a further consequence of this difference
of view, the one group seems to center the Spiritual Ma­
ternity on the Divine Maternity and the Mystical Body in
so far as Mary conceived us at the same time that she
conceived Christ, whereas the other group, the Co-Redemptionists, if such they may be called, either pass over
the significance of these views together with the papal
texts allied with them, or they speak of the Mystical
Body and its relation to Calvary strictly.155
With respect to the Eve-Mary antithesis in the works
of our principal authors, other aspects of the Spiritual
Maternity are also demonstrated in the light of this
teaching in the early writings. Bainvel deals especially
with Mary as Distributrix of Grace, while Bover’s prin­
cipal theme is Mary’s consent, her Fiat to the Incarna­
tion. Each of these shows how his thesis is demonstrated
by the Eve-Mary Tradition. 156
So much, then, for the Eve-Mary antithesis. Among the
arguments from early Tradition for the Spiritual Mater­
nity it is the one most frequently cited and the one con­
sidered the most important by the modern writers.
The text most frequently used as an argument is the Au­
gustinian Tradition that Mary is the mother of the Mysti­
cal Body.
Here is the often quoted text of St. Augustine:

Mary alone among all women is mother and virgin, not
only according to the spirit but also according to
the flesh. According to the spirit she is not mother
of our Head, the Saviour Jesus, of whom rather she
was born spiritually...but she is mother of His mem­
bers, which we are. For she co-operated by her char­
ity in the birth into the Church of the faithful —
the members of the Head. According to the flesh, she
is Mother of the Head Himself. 158
This particular quotation seems
icoto be clear and con­
vincing. Yet, two of our writers
point out that the
context gives the text a slightly different meaning than
so many have taken for granted. Here is what Neubert

48

writes:

The context reveals that St. Augustine admitted the
same spiritual motherhood for al 1 those Christian vir­
gins, who, “by their fruitful charity, engender other
members of Christ.” Thus he answers the objection
that mothers were superior to consecrated virgins be­
cause of their fruitfulness, and shows that to these
virgins, too, belongs a real fruitfulness, a spiritu­
al fruitfulness. Hence he is not speaking here of that
special maternity that we attribute to Mary as a re­
sult of her co-operation in the mysteries of the In­
carnation and of the Redemption. On the other hand,
he does not exclude that co-operation and, no doubt,
had the situation called for it, he would have ex­
plained her charity through her unique role in the
work of her Son. Yet, even if Mary’s special spiritu­
al maternity can be interpreted as forming part of
Augustine’s system of thought, he does not state it
explicitly here.160
Another argument from Tradition frequently given is
that Origen was the first to see in the words of the
dying Christ to His Mother and to His beloved disciple
an affirmation of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity. 161 A clos­
er examination of this text leaves some serious doubt
whether Origen was actual ly thinking of Mary’s Motherhood
in our regard. Here is the thought of Origen:
We dare say that the first fruits of the Scriptures
are the Gospels, and of the Gospels, the one written
by John. No one understands this Gospel unless he has
reposed on the bosom of Christ or has received from
Jesus, Mary, who also becomes his Mother. He who is
to become another John must be so great that Jesus
can also say of him that he, like John, is Jesus. For
there is no other Son of Mary. .. but Jesus, and Jesus
says to His Mother: “Behold thy Son, "and not: "Behold,
he is also thy son.” In reality every perfect Chris­
tian no longer lives himself; it is Christ who lives
in him. And since Christ lives in him, Mary hears the
49

fl

words, “Behold thy Son, Christ."162
This text of Origen is not accepted by all without
criticism. For example:

The argument used by Origen is based upon the identi­
fication of a true and perfect Christian with Christ.
It is true that Mary has but one Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ. St. John, however, is identified with Christ,
as is also every perfect Christian. In Origen’s thought
it is not exactly that John represents every Chris­
tian but that John and every perfect Christian are
one with Christ, that lies at the basis of his teach1 63
ing on the spiritual motherhood of Mary.
A few authors164 claim the early Fathers as well as
the later Fathers used the title “Mother” for Mary. Such
uses, they admit, are rare. But they see in these some
allusion to the Spiritual Maternity. The title “Mother”
certainly cannot be more than a witness in a general way,
for it does not give any definite reasons upon which the
Spiritual Maternity is based.
2. The Living Tradition of the Church
Reference has been made already several times in the
above pages to the importance of the living Tradition in
the Church, as distinct from ancient Tradition. It was
mentioned that the teachings of Christ were not all
written down, that the early writings of the Fathers and
ecclesiastical writers are not the only sources of Tra­
dition in the Church and that as a consequence of these
two considerations we must consult the teachings of the
popes, saints, theologians and spiritual writers through
the ages to have a complete picture of the Tradition in
the Church. As one writer says:
Anxiously and nervously to search in every case for
categorical affirmation of Catholic Doctrine, or of
practices based upon that Doctrine, in the pages of

50

K.

Scripture or in the scanty writings of the early Fath­
ers, would be to betray a want of confidence in the
authority of the living Tradition of the Church.

One of the most conclusive arguments for the Spirit­
ual Maternity is the fact that modern Catholic writers
are unanimous in agreeing either implicitly or explicitly
that this doctrine is in accord with the Divine and liv­
ing Tradition in the Church.
Innumerable texts from
the popescould be cited showing that they affirm or
take for granted the Spiritual Maternity. Many writers,
bj few or many texts, show that the belief in the Spir­
itual Maternity is unanimous and constant in Catholic
Tradition. These writers cite popes, saints,and scholars
down through the centuries to the present day to prove
their point. Liturgical references, especially from the
Mass and offices of recent Marian feasts are also added.
It would go beyond the scope and purpose of this paper
to list all these names and quotations, which exist al­
most without end. It is the purpose and object of this
paper to note the significance given to such quotations
by the modern writers. A few such comments, typical of
others are: “The harmony of the divine plan demands that
spiritual maternity, and tradition has not only proposed
it as fitting, but more than that, has expressly affirmed
it as a fact.” 169
In another place Terrien says it is not an argument
against the spiritual maternity, because the title “Moth­
er of men" is not explicitly found in the early Church,
either in the liturgical texts or in the monuments of
the universal Church. And here is his argument for Tra­
dition, though he does not use the word:

The Church would not tolerate so frequent a use of the
name if it was not in accord with her belief. And how
would she be able to disapprove it, when thousands of
times she attests expressly to the truths of which it
is the simple and manifest expression? One could not
any longer argue from the silence of the Church. . .
the faithful have so clearly called Mary by this name,
51

Lepicier sets the pace for this type of testimony -which others cite with approval:
That Mary is the Mother of men in the way explained
can be called a Catholic truth, almost a doctrine of
the faith so that to deny it would not only be rash
but even heresy; granted that this truth has never
been expressly defined, yet it remains so universally
fixed in the heart and on the lips of the Christian
people, that, according to what St. Augustine wrote:
“a truth not established by a Council but always be­
lieved by the universal church is most certainly be­
lieved on nothing less than the authority of the apostolic tradition.” 171

Garrigou-Lagrange writes:
Tradition has always understood Our Lord’s words on
Calvary in the spiritual sense. It has been regarded
in different papal documents as the common belief of
the Church.

At the end of a survey article on the teaching of
Tradition, William O’Connor draws up a common doctrine
from the testimonies that he cites. His summary may well
serve as a conclusion for the entire argument from Tra­
dition.
In the first place, tradition teaches that Mary be­
came our spiritual mother at Nazareth at the moment
of the Incarnation. At that moment she regenerated us
by the fact that she engendered our Regenerator. Mary
is our spiritual mother because she is the new Eve,
the mother of Him Who came to give us spiritual life.
This basic truth is clearly taught in the earliest
testimonies of tradit ion. At the same time it was rec­
ognized, especially by St. Augustine, that the Incar­
nate Word is indissolubly united with His members. In
forming within her Christ, the head of the body which
is the Church, .Mary in a spiritual or mystical way
52

has engendered also the members of this body. The
mother of the head is the mother of all those who are
identified with the head in the Unity of a common body.
In the second place, tradition attaches the spir­
itual motherhood of Alary to Calvary, where by her com­
passion she underwent pains that many have likened to
the pains of childbirth which Mary bore within her
soulasshe agonized with her Son. Bythese parturition
pains at the foot of the cross Mary was in labor with
us all. As Gerhoh of Reichersberg sums up the Tradi­
tion on this point: “That blessed mother standing by
the cross bore them all when, knowing that her only
son was suffering to liberate and save them, she was
in torture, with the sword of compassion piercing her
soul, in order to bring them forth.” Tradition has
seen in the words of Christ to John, “Behold thy
mother,” an acknowledgment of Mary’s spiritual mother­
hood over men by the part she played in their redemp­
tion on the hill of Calvary.
In the third place, tradition recognizes that
Mary’s spiritual motherhood is still functioning in
our regard in heaven. A mother has the care of her
children closest to her heart. If Mary was our spir­
itual mother at Nazareth and on Calvary, she cannot
lose interest in her children now that she is in heav­
en. Tradition begs of her to show herself a mother to
us now, by her intercessory prayer, and by distribut­
ing the fruitsof the Redemption so bitterly won for
us by her divine Son. As Christ is constantly being
formed in the souls of her children, she may be said
to be still in labor until the new birth is brought
to completion. This is why tradition hails her as the
mother of mercy, the mother of grace and of all vir­
tues. As a mother has the care of her children always
in her mind aixi constantly dispenses to them what they
need for life, so Mary, our spiritual mother, exer-'
cises a maternal care over all her children and dis­
penses to them through her all-powerful intercession
the graces and aids they need for salvation. 173

53

ARTICLE 3.

FITTINGNESS OF THE SPIRITUAL .MATERNITY

Arguments for the fittingness of the Spiritual .Mater­
nity (argumenta convenientiae) are not of the same im­
portance and do not carry the same weight as those from
Scripture and Tradition. These arguments even suppose
the fact of the doctrine proved by Scriptire and Tradi­
tion. Because of the psychological make-up of human
beings these arguments are perhaps more appealing to the
devotional mind, that is, tothe ordinary faithful unaware
of theological procedures. These arguments are important
from that point of view, but also in so far as they add
weight to the overall reasons for the Spiritual Maternity.
Among the group of writers considered in this paper
only f ive writers: Roschini, Terrien, Merkelbach, Le'picier,
and Neubert174 devote a section of their books to the
“fittingness” argument, all the others make only allu­
sions to such arguments. The authors who mix a good bit
of the devotional with the theological -- Bernard, Plus,
Schrijvers,Campana, Scheeben -- have a good bit of this
atmosphere running through their entire books.
Neubert and Le'picier give short arguments on the part
of God, Christ and men; Roschini adds to these the role
of the Holy Spirit; Merkelbach has all these arguments
plus one ex parte operis redemptionis; while Terrien, in
a long chapter, includes all these arguments in great
detail plus others. Below is a summary of all the argu­
menta convenientiae given by the above authors:

1. On the part of God the Father. -- God the Father
had only one Son by nature but other children by grace.
Since He gave Mary a share in His natural fecundity, in
giving her His only Son to be her Son in the flesh, He
should also share with her those children whom He adopted
by His charity. If Mary', associated in the natural fecun­
dity, should be excluded from the fecundity of grace,
there would be an anomaly in the family of God -- for
the sons would have one and the same Father, but only
one of them, the First Born, would repose on the heart
of a Mother.

54

2. On the part of God the Son. -- The Word was made
flesh to bring forth our love. He became a little child
like us, one of us, Our Brother. This design of mercy
and love demanded, that after having given us His Father,
He should also give us His Mother. Thus He would appear
to us as really our Brother. He became like us in all
things, except sin. Not only did He share His Father with
us, but all His belongings: His Name (Apoc. 14:1; 22:4),
He makes us His co-heirs for eternity (Rom. 8: 17). Con­
sequently, He should also share His Mother with us. This
is the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. Since
His Mystical Body is the plenitude and the complement of
His natural body, so the Maternity of Mary towards the
members would be the prolongation and the consummation
of her Divine Maternity. If Mary were not our .mother
also, Jesus would not be her Son entirely. She would be
Mother only of His physical, and not His Mystical Person.
This would be a new anomaly which would, as it were, break
the divine proportions of the mystery.
3. On the part of the Holy Spirit. -- The role of the
Holy Spirit was to descend on Mary and produce with her
the God-made-Man. The same Spirit gives other children
to God, those born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
The generation of adopted sons of the Father is the image
of the temporal generation of the Son by nature. The
generation of adopted sons is the prolongation and the
complement of the Word made Man, since the new children
pertain to the plenitude of Christ. It is of supreme
fittingness that Mary concur with the Holy Spirit in the
mystery of our rebirth and that she be Mother of those
of whom the Holy Spirit is the author. The gifts of God
are without repentance, provided we do not do anything
which would cause Himtotake them from us. Mary certainly
did nothing to cause the Holy Spirit to withdraw from
her to the point that He would not associate her in the
production of the members, after she was made so divinely
fruitful in the production of the Head.
4.

On the part of Men. -- When God established the
55

supernatural economy of salvation He did not forget our
human nature. Both nature and grace come from God. There­
fore, grace does not destroy nature, but builds on it,
ennobles it and perfects it. Since by nature man is made
to live in society, God establishes a Church, a perfect
society with its hierarchy. Because man is a composite
of body and soul, matter and spirit, God made use of
sensible things to raise him to invisible realities.
This is the reason for the sacraments, for the use of
devotional objects, for the devotion of the Sacred Heart,
for the Liturgy. God made use of the affections of human
nature to win us over by them and to supernaturalize
them. He wants us to speak of Him by the dear name of
“Father", and we are to consider ourselves as His child­
ren. In an order, therefore, where God so manifestly
proposes to repair nature, by the means drawn from nature
or calculated on nature, how could He neglect to bring
in the relation which is the most intimate and dearest
to the heart of man, that of maternity?
For those who would say the Church supplies our need
for a spiritual Mother, this explanation is given: It is
true that the Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Christ is
my Mother in the supernatural order. But the Church her­
self, which is nothing else than the society of the
children of God, needs a Mother. The Church is not the
mother who can satisfy by herself alone all my aspira­
tions. The Church is not an individual woman, a physical
person, having the heart of a woman. We need a Mother
who is a Woman and a Mother in the full sense of the
word to complement the fatherhood of God. If God gave us
His Mother (according to nature) to be ours (according
to grace), there is perfect harmony between the order of
nature and the order of grace. If Mary is my Mother, I
will love her, and this will draw me to love Her First
Born and by a prolongation of the same movement I will
be carried to the love of God Himself. Mary is moreover,
a powerful intermediary between us and Christ because
she is our common Mother.

56

5. Other Reasons. -- a. The influence of a woman
(mother) on man. -- In the order of providence and ac­
cording to God’s knowledge of the heart of man, God wish­
ed that man have a companion, and from the two should be
born the human family. (It is not good for man to be
alone, , . .) A mother has or should have a salutary and
profound influence. Her name is a symbol of tenderness,
sweetness, lovableness, and devotedness. To develop nor­
mally a child needs a mother. If a man has so great a
need for a mother in the order of nature, by analogy it
must be the same in the order of grace. To be born again
to the supernatural order, men need a new Mother. The
new-born children of God become brothers of the God-Man,
and need for Mother the very same Mother of that God-Man.
b. The principle reason why Protestantism lacks the
childlike joy, abandon, and lightness of heart which is
characteristic of true Catholics, is that they have
driven out the cult to the Mother of Christ and our
Mother. Where the Mother is neglected, despised, or ban­
ished, there is much less a family. Where there is no
woman, the poor suffers (Eccl. 36:27). A rigid, strained,
and sombre piety has no place among Catholics, for whom
the Virgin Mother is not only a glory, but the purest of
joys. — You are the joy of Israel, you are the honor of
your people (Judith, 15:10).
CONCLUSION
This chapter dealing with the proofs for the Spiritual
Maternity is the most important one in this study. To be
theologically sound a doctrine must be solidly based on
Scripture and Tradition, and also be in accord with the
authentic teaching of the Magisterium. That the modern
writers hold such in the case for the doctrine of the
Spiritual Maternity would be the over-all conclusion of
this chapter.
For any further detailed conclusions, the reader is
referred to the several, separate conlusions added when
it was considered necessary to the end of certain subdi­
visions of this chapter.

57

The following chapters are by way of further explana­
tion and clarification of the doctrine of the Spiritual
Maternity as explained in this present chapter.

58

CHAPTER III
FOUNDATIONS OF MARY’ S SPIRITUAL MATERNITY

In a general way all our principal writers ease the
Spiritual Maternity on two fundamental principles, the
Divine Maternity, and Mary’s role in the Redemption,
sometimes called her Co-Redemption. Her part in each of
these is considered to be the maternal and spiritual ac­
tivity by which she contributed to our supernatural life.
A mother is one who gives life and the essence of mater­
nity is conceiving and giving Dirth, as stated in chap­
ter one. Mary can only be our Spiritual Mother if she
really and truly performed these functions of a mother
in a spiritual way. These maternal functions, then, are
the bases for her Spiritual Maternity, and it is practi­
cally the unanimous opinion of modern theologians and
spiritual writers who have expressed themselves on this
point in writing, that Mary conceived us spiritually at
the same time she conceived Christ, the Head of the Mys­
tical Body, and she gave us birth spiritually on Calvary.
This is the teaching of Pius X in Ad diem ilium and of
Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, as mentioned previously.
These two fundamental principles will be examined now
more in detail according to the teachings of the princi­
pal writers considered in this thesis.
ARTICLE 1.

THE DIVINE MATERNITY

Papal texts aoound for the Divine Maternity as a basis
for the Spiritual Maternity. They have been indicated
sufficiently in the preceding chapter, but there are sev­
eral which once again should be brought to attention.
The most frequently quoted text referred to is the Ency­
clical of Pius X and the word: “Is not Mary the Mother of
Christ? Therefore she isour Mother also.” Here, our auth­
ors hold, the pope teaches that there is an intrinsic con­
nection between the Divine and Spiritual Maternities, and

59

they are inaugurated together, each in a different way.
All authors, including the ones studied here in par­
ticular, agree that, in itself, the Divine Maternity is
the fundamental principle of all Mary’s privileges and
prerogatives. In this sense it may be considered THE;
fundamental principle because the second principle, the
Co-Redempt ion, is also based upon the Divine Maternity.
Because of God’s plan to redeem men by becoming Incarnate,
the Divine Maternity has an immediate goal, the Redemp­
tion of mankind. Mary conceived and gave birth not only
to God, out to the Redeemer, as foretold in the prophe­
cies. This is the teaching of the Redemptive-Incarnation.1
Besides pointing out the fact that Mary’s Spiritual
Maternity is based on the Divine Maternity in the way
explained above, our principal writers further show the
relationship between the two maternities by focusing
attention on the hiat, the free consent of Mary to the
Incarnation.2 She is seen there as having a free and de­
liberate choice as co-operatrix in God’s plan to redeem
mankind. She freely and therefore meritorious ly( de con­
gruo as all our authors hold, and this is the common
opinion today ) co-operated then already in the objective
Redemption and consequently earns her title thenof Spir­
itual Mother and Co-Redemptrix. She then consented to
become, not only the natural Mother of Christ, but the
spiritual Mother of men. This consent, this Fiat was to
endure until Calvary when the Redemption would be accom­
plished. J. Bover’s entire book develops this theme. On
one page he graphically contrasts the words put on Christ’s
lips by St. Paul·* with the words of Mary in response to
the angel:
CHRIST
Behold 1 come
0 God, to do
thy ui11

MARY
Behold the servant of the Lord,
May it be done to me
according to thy will.^

The further conclusion is drawn from this comparison
that Christ and Mary are united, side by side6, the Re­
deemer and the Co-Redemptrix, the Creator and the crea-

60

ture, the New Adam and the New Eve, the Principal Agent
and the secondary agent, the Mediator and the Mediatrix.
This is God’s plan already pointed out clearly in the
scene of the Annunciation in Holy Scripture. Tradition,
as has been shewn, gives solid support to these views.
Mary’s role, then in the Incarnation, specifically her
consent to God’s plan of regenerating the human race,
marks the beginning of her activity as Spiritual Mother
of men. The Spiritual Maternity, consequently, is first
of all related to the Divine Maternity because the latter
is the principle of all Mary’s privileges, and further­
more, because of the connection of the Divine Maternity
with the plan of Redemption.
ARTICLE 2.

MARY’S CO-OPERATION IN THE WORK CF REDEMPTION

Mary’s Spiritual Maternity, according to our principal
modern writers, is also founded on a second basic princi­
ple intimately connected with the first principle. In ex­
plaining the first principle, the Divine Maternity, the
second principle was necessarily referred to, that is,
Mary’s part in the Redemption. That the two principles
may be considered separately is evident from the fact
that Pius XII bases the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin
on these same two principles in his Encyclical, Ad caeli
Keginam. This last document is an excellent one for
showing the teaching of the Magisterium in regard to
Mary’s part in our Redemption, as in the radio message
of Pius XII to Fatima, May 13, 1946, to which reference
is made in the encyclical. W. Most7 gives a detailed
analysis of this radio message as an important papal
statement for Mary’s immediate and direct co-operation
in the objective Redemption. Most of the other princi­
pal writers’ works antedate 1946 so that their most fre­
quently quoted text in this regard is the words of Pius X
in Ad diem ilium: “be congruo, as they say, Mary merited
for us, what Christ merited de condigno.”8
Another significant text is one from Pius XII’s Ency­
clical, Mystici Corporis, in which the pope wrote:
...always most intimately united with her Son, as an­

61

other Eve she offered Him on Golgatha to the Eternal
Father for all the chiIdren of Adam...and her mother’s
rights and mother’s love were included in the holo­
caust. Thus she who corporally was mother of the Head,
through the added title of pain and glory became
spiritually the mother of all His members.^
In presenting the teaching of our principal writers
regarding Mary’s role in the Redemption as a basis tor
her Spiritual Maternity, it would be well first of all
to point out that they give similar arguments from
Scripture and Tradition for the Spiritual Maternity, Co­
Redemption, and Mediation of Mary. In many contexts of
our principal writers the terms could be interchanged
without any change in meaning whatever. .Mary’s right to
those titles are all based on her role in the Redemption.
The exact relationship between these titles, as seen by
the principal writers, is not always made clear oy a
statement. In most cases the arrangement of material,
especially' in the general Mariological works, would seem
to be the key to the author’s ideas on this subject. For
example, Roschini, Alastruey, Gance's, Neubert, Merkelbach,
Lepicier, Vassal1-Phi11 ips, and Garrigou-Lagrange treat
the Spiritual Maternity as a major division in their
texts, with the Mediation and Co-Redempt ion considered
as consequences or corollaries. . Pohle-Preuss uses as his
title for the chapter which deals with the Spiritual
Maternity, “Mary’s Secondary Mediatorship”; but he men­
tions within the chapter that, because Mary was destined
by God to be Spiritual Mother of men, consequent ly she
was also to be Mediatrix of all Christians. 10 Scheeben
and Campana first explain Mary’s role in the Redemption
and then explain her maternity of men. Campana*1 says
the Spiritual Maternity is a "necessary consequence or a
logical corollary” of the article which he treated im­
mediately before, dealing with Mary’s role as Distributrix
of all graces. Keuppens1,1 has a similar sequence of
articles, except that he uses the title Mediation as
the generic term, under which fit: Co-Redempt ion, Dis­
tribution of all Graces, and as part of this last sub­
division, the Spiritual Maternity. Mediation, he says,

62

includes the relation of two parts to a connecting part,
whereas the notion of maternity towards men includes
only the relation towards men.
As regards the writers on the Mediation of Mary,
Bover13 connects the Spiritual Maternity and the Co­
Redemption together as two aspects of the same reality.
Plessis treats the Spiritual Maternity under title of
“The Divine Maternity in its Spiritual Entity,” and
therefore as part of the major division, Divine Maternity.
Immediately at the end and as part of the section on the
Spiritual Maternity he adds a discussion entitled, “Is
the Spiritual Maternity Cause of Consequence of the
Universal Mediation of Mary?” He presents both sides of
the problem but takes no decisive side himself, unless
one judges oy the arrangement of his material. Immedi­
ately following this last discussion, he starts a new
major division entitled “Consequences of the Divine
Maternity,’ and the first chapter is entitled “Conse­
quences of the Divine Maternity in Mary with respect to
Men, or Universal Mediation of Mary.”
Bainvel,1^ who discusses principally Mary’s title as
Dispensatrix of grace, calls this a function of her
Spiritual Maternity. Bittremie ux15 quotes approvingly
this very text in the preface of his book, and later
says that he is arguing for the Mediation, not because
of Mary’s function of distributing grace, "but from her
pos it ion as Mother of men and associate of the Redeemer.’
In another place, he says he does not consider the
Mediation as distinct from, or as a complement of, or as
derived from the Co-Redemptive role. 16
Carol 17 says the Spiritual Maternity is a sequel or an
aspect of the Co-Redempt ion. Smith, who admits a lesser
Co-Redemptive function to Mary, writes: “Mary is our
spiritual Mother inasmuch as she is our Co-Redemptrix.’ 18
He also states: "Because she is our Co-Redemptrix, she
to
is the second Eve, and the spiritual Mother of mankind.”
Dillenschneider"^ oases the Spiritual Maternity on Mary’s
Co-Redemptive merit. But he argues for the Co-Redemption
from the fact that the Church teaches that Mary is the
Mother of men. To be our Mother in the real sense, he
63

argues, she must have co-operated in our Redemption oy
Co-Redemptive merit.
Whatever may be the differences regarding the Spiritual
Maternity, Co-Redempt ion, and Mary’s Mediation, they
seem to coincide insofar as they are based on Mary’s
role in the Redemption. All Catholic theologians admit
for Mary a real participat ion in the objective Redemption.
The controversy is over the immediate and direct char­
acter of this participation. The full Co-Redempt ion
thesis, that Mary participated immediately and directly
in the objective Redemption, is the common teaching among
modern writers.·'1 G. Smith22 is the only one of our
principal writers not to hold it in the strict sense.
Some others admit the teaching but prefer a different
term.23
Among the principal writers there seems to be three
general lines of opinion regarding Mary’s part in our
Redemption and the application of that teaching to the
Spiritual Maternity. One group (Carol, Mayer, Most) put
the emphasis on Mary’s role in the Redemption on Calvary.
Carol24 holds that Mary would not be our Spiritual Mother
in the strict sense had she not participated as she did
in the Redemption on Calvary. As mentioned above, he
sees the Spiritual Maternity a consequence of the Co­
Redemption. A second group of writers (Bainvel, Bover,
Dillenschneider ), in various degrees, put primary emphasis
on Mary’s consent to the Incarnation. This teaching about
the Fiat has been outlined already when the first prinple of the Spiritual Maternity was explained, that is,
the Divine Maternity. Once again let us see this teaching
from the point of view_ of Mary’s overall role in the
Redemption. J. Bainvel25 sees all of Mary’s role in her
Fiat, so that it alone would oe enough to call her, in
strict justice, the co-operatrix of our salvation and
our Mother in the supernatural order. C. Dillenschneider2^
97
9Q
and J. Bover,
as do some others,
call Mary’s consent
formal and immediate co-operation in the oojective
Redemption. Both Dillenschneider and Bover specialize in
developing the significance of the Fiat in relation to
Mary’s part in the Redemption. The former points out

61

that all theologians, even the most “rigides", as he
says, admit a certain moral co-operation for Mary in the
work of the Redemption, the fact of her original consent.
He says that especially since the time of St. Bernard
the Fiat has been regarded as a sine qua non of our
objective Redempt ion. 2 J J. Bover2^ teaches that Mary’s
association (consoc tat io) with God and with Christ, the
God-Man, begins by her iat and enrolls her, by this
free consent, in God’s plan to redeem mankind. She is
Mother and Co-Redemptrix at the same time and fulfills
both functions at once. He says the Spiritual Maternity
"either includes or rather presupposes” her consociat io.
The third opinion is that of the majority
according
to which Mary’s interventions in the Redemption at the
Annunciation andon Calvary are about equally emphasized,
each in its own way. According to them, she conceived
us spiritually at the Annunciation and gave us spiritual
birth on Calvary. Calvary is more important inasmuch as
there she became our Mother more completely, more perfectly, although, as some “ point out, she already was our
Mother really but not completely by her intervention
in the Incarnation. This third opinion seems to be the
one more commonly accepted.
To sum up and conclude this chapter, from the above
it is clear that our principal writers admit two funda­
mental principles upon which are based the Spiritual
Maternity, namely, the Divine Maternity and Mary’s co­
operation in the Redemption, both in the Incarnation and
on Calvary.
Some writers (Carol, Mayer, Most) emphasize Mary’s
role on Calvary, while others (Bainvel, Bover, Dillen­
schneider) seem to point especially to her consent to
the Incarnation as the principal intervention of Mary in
giving us supernatura1 life. The other writers considered
in particular in this study insist about equally on the
two principles, in so far as they are both essential,
each in its own way. At the Annunciation Mary was
enrolled in the work of the Redemption; on Calvary, the
Redemption (and Co-Redempt ion) were actually accomplished.

65

CHAPTER IV

CONSEQUENCES OF MARY’S SPIRITUAL .MATERNITY

The last chapter explained the relationship of the
Spiritual .Maternity to the two basic principles, the
Divine Maternity and the Co-Redempt ion. This was a
relationship of origin. In this chapter will be presented
the teaching of our modern principal writers regarding
the relationship of connection between the doctrine in
question and Mary’s other prerogatives. Of these pre­
rogatives, one deserves separate treatment in this con­
nection -- Mary, Dispensatrix of all Graces -- while
the others will be considered together.
ARTICLE 1. RELATION OF THE SPIRITUAL MATERNITY TO THE
DISPENSATION OF GRACE
Without exception all our modern principal writers
teach that since Mary cooperated in our Redemption in
actu primo (objective Redemption), that is, in the
acquisition of grace, as an immediate consequence it
follows that she co-operated in the Redemption in actu
secundo (subjective Redemption), that is, in the appli­
cation of its fruits. In other words, Mary not only con­
ceived us spiritually at the Annunciation and gave us
birth to the supernatural life on Calvary, out she also
continues her role as our Spiritual Mother as Dispensatrix
of grace in heaven.
Like the Co-Redempt ion, the Dispensation of graces is
a special study in Mariology with its own particular
proofs from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
It is not the purpose of this study to investigate all
these, but only to point out certain details of special
reference to the Spiritual Maternity.
The oelief in Mary’s Universal Mediation, another
term for Dispensatrix, is a common one among theologians
today and has no objectors within the Church. The Church
even honors Mary with a feast called "Mediatrix of All

66

Graces”. The only opposition to this teaching comes from
Protestants.1
Of our principal writers, Bittremieux and Bainvel are
the specialists on this subject of Mary’s role of dis­
pensing grace. Bainvel is more conscious of the Spiritual
Maternity as a fundamental basis, than of the Co-Redemp9
tion, whereas Bittremieux considers the two as a sort
of double principle. Among the other writers, Terrien,
Bernard, Plus, and Schrijvers give consider able at­
tention to the importance of Mary as Dispensatrix of
grace, as our all-powerful intercessor in heaven, and as
one who deserves our confidence and filial devotion.
Most of our writers distinguish, in some way or other,
two stages of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity. Some say one
stage was on the earth in the acquisition of grace, and
the other is in heaven in the dispensation of grace.
A few call the Annunciation the first step, and include
both the acquisition and dispensation of graces in the
second stage.4 Some distinguish three stages: her consent
by which we were conceived, her co-operation on Calvary
in the Redemption by which she gave us birth, and from
heaven her intercession and her application of the
graces of salvation.0
Many writers draw attention to the moment of our
Baptism and to the Holy Spirit, both in relation to our
Spiritual Mother.® At Baptism we are subjectively and
actually given grace for the first time, and therefore
born to the supernatural life. Just as Christ was “con­
ceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary” so
we too are given supernatural life through Mary, by the
waters of Baptism and the power of the Holy Spirit. In
this connection, Scheeben, speaking of Mary in the
Apocalypse, alludes to Christ’s triple birth and Mary’s
part in each one:

The pains of childbirth, ascribed to the woman,'find
their application in .Mary, only so far as she has
co-operated in the second birth of Christ, through
His death and Resurrection, and at the same time in
His birth in the faithful.7
67

Along the same lines of these mystic reference^ io
Mary’s Spiritual Maternity in heaven, many of our prin­
cipal writers also say that her maternal role in heaven
is a continuation of her function on earth of gi\ ;,·η
Christ to the world, of making men live the lite .;i
Christ through grace. In heaven she continues to pive
us Christ and all the graces from the Redemption.0
Because Mary’s intercession from heaven is maternai
in nature, certain aspects of her role are especially
singled out, particularly by Terrien, Plus, Bernard, and
Schrijvers. She is the Consoler of the afflicted; she
is powerful for the conversion of sinners; and she is
influential in shortening purgatory for her children.
Such are the principal elements of connection between
the Spiritual Maternity and the function of Dispensatrix
of grace. The latter is a natural sequel to the former,
j ust as mother! v care and attentions are nature’s demands
of the mother in the natural order. In the dispensation
of graces, Mary continues in heaven the role assigned to
her by God, that of spiritual Mother of all men. This
brings us to a further consideration, the question ot
the relation of the Spiritual Maternity to other pre­
rogatives or functions of Mary.

ARTICLE 2. RELATION OF THE SPIRITUAL .MATERNITY TO OTHER
PREROGATIVES
Bernard and Neubert are the only writers of our prin­
cipal ones who give any formal treatment to the question
of the relation of the Spiritual Motherhood to other
prerogatives. Most of these arguments are for the fit­
tingness of certain privileges in view of the Maternity
of grace. Many of these arguments can be seen in other
writers by implication. They usually use such arguments
in connection with the Divine Maternity. For example,
it is universally accepted today that .Mary’s Immaculate
Conception, ter sinlessness, her fullness of grace and
her Virginity all prepared her in the most fitting way
tobethe Mother of God. The implication for the Spiritual
Maternity is self-evident. She was to be both Mother of

68

God and .Mother of men. As such, she was also to receive
as crowning glories the privilege of the Assumption and
the coronation as Queen of Heaven.
Bernard and Neubert add a few interesting details to
q
their explanations. Bernard says that in virtue of
Mary’s Virginity, inso faras she gave up the possibility
of conceiving Christ corporally, she could better conceive
Him in her heart. In this way she was better adapted to
become not only His Mother but our Mother also. Her full­
ness of grace made her worthy to be the Mother of all
Christians because she is the first and most perfect of
Christians.10Bernard11 sees both the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption related to the Spiritual Maternity,
one an active grace that prepared her for it, the other,
an attractive influence that he'lped to adapt her to her
role accomplished on Calvary in a more complete sense.
Neubert^ develops the thought of the importance of the
Assumption to Mary's children. It was necessary for her
to go to the Father to intercede for us beside her Son.
As Queen she is given the privilege of intervening and
pleading in the judgments of her children. 1
By theological arguments more important than those of
fittingness only, many writers associate the Immaculate
Conception, the Assumpt ion and the Queenship directly with
the Co-Redempt ion. Following what they claim is the lead
of the popes -- Pius IX and Pius XII in encyclicals
dealing with the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and
Queenship -- many theologians use the Protogospel as a
Scriptural argument for those prerogatives. They argue,
as has been pointed out in chapter two, that the prophecy
of the Woman’s full triumph over Satan implies those
three prerogatives as well as the Co-Redemption. The
argument for the Spiritual Maternity from the Protogospel
depends, as we have seen, largely on the Mystical Body
implications of the text in relation to other texts of
the New Testament, especially the Apocalypse. Neverthe­
less, to the extent that the Spiritual Maternity and the
Co-Redemption are in reality just different aspects of
the same thing, the prerogatives connected with the Co­
Redemption are also connected with the Spiritual Mater­

69

nity, with the proper adaptation of mind understood.
A number of writers14 show the connections between
the Spiritual Maternity and the Queenship in a more
direct and obvious way. Mary is Queen in a motherly way.
Hers is not the rule of justice but of mercy. She is not
only our Sovereign Queen but our Mother. She nourishes,
educates, directs, protects, and governs her subjects as
her children. She is Queen because she is Mother. Her
power of domination is a motherly power.
One final note to point out here is that Neubert15
marks a signal importance for the connection between
Mary as Spiritual Mother and what he calls her Apostolic
Mission. Her motherhood is an apostolate, since it con­
sists of making souls live the life of Christ, he argues.
To call her Mother of men is to say she has a universal
apostolic mission. Her Apostolic Mission is her Spiritual
Maternity under another name. Neubert mentions that
ordinarily works on Mariology do not referto an apostolic
mission of the Blessed Virgin; yet the knowledge of this
social mission of Mary is of great practical importance,
especially at the present time.

70

CONCLUSION

It has been the aim of this study to present the
teaching of the modern writers regarding the Spiritual
Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The principal
writers considered are listed in the Introduction, and
there are also given reasons for the choice of writers.
Mary is called the Spiritual Mother of men by mod­
ern writers because of her role in obtaining and dis­
tributing grace, which is the life of the soul. Even
though she had asecondary and subordinate role to that
of Christ, tier's wasareal causality in obtaining grace
for men, and therefore she is a real spiritual mother.
In the natural order, a mother is one who gives life.
In the supernatural order, God conferred on Mary a role
analogous to that of a mother when He associated her
in the work of Redemption, by which men were given re­
birth to the supernatural life. According to God’s
plan of salvation, Mary is the new Eve, the associate
of Christ who is the New Adam. By her consent freely
giventothe Incarnation, Mary became at once the Mother
of God and the mother of men. She not only’ conceived
Christ physically, but spiritually and mystically, as
Pius X stated, she conceived Christ’s mystical body as
well, for the Incarnation was the beginning, and, as
it were, the seed of the Redemption. It must be re­
membered that Christ came as Redeemer, and consequently,
the Divine Maternity, the Incarnation had as purpose
the Redemption of mankind. Mary’s P'iat to the Redemp­
tive-Incarnation continues throughout her life and cul­
minates on Calvary where the Redempt ion was accomplished
and where the Mystical Body, as Pius XII states, was
brought forth. Since Mary had such an important part
in meriting and bringing about the Redemption, as a
consequence, she should also, according to God’s plan,
dispense the fruits of Redemption. Her spiritual Ma­
ternity, therefore, began on the earth but continues
in heaven inasmuch as Mary is the dispensatrix of all
71

grace.
The above is the teaching of the modern writers con­
sidered in this study. That teaching is supported by
arguments from Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium,
and from theological argumentation. From Scripture,
they argue especially from the Protogospel, the words
of Our Lord on Calvary, Mary’s Fiat, the twelfth chap­
ter of the Apocalypse and from the Mystical Body texts.
The arguments from Tradition center especially on the
ancient Eve-Mary antithesis, texts from St. Augustine
and Origen, as well as the universal and constant be­
lief of the Church in the Spiritual Maternity. Many
texts of the popes, especially from those of the past
one hundred years, are cited to confirm interpretations
of Scriptures Tradition, and theological conclusions.
The fittingness arguments, including those for the
analogy of faith, are numerous and fruitful, both for
theology and devotion.
There are differences of opinion among the modern
writers, but a good deal of these differences can be
traced to the relative importance given to one act of
Mary’s intervention in the Redemption with respect to
another act. Moreover, the lack of uniformity in the
use of terms and expressions may explain away a certain
amount of dissension, real or only apparent.
All in all, the conclusion may be drawn that the
principle modern writers considered in this study are
unanimous in holding there is an abundance of proof for
the Spiritual Maternity in the sources of revelation,
in the declarations of the magisterium, and according
to theological argumentation.

72

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER I

1 AAS 42 (1950) 569.
o
Q Vatican Council, sess. 3, cap. 3 ES 1792.
A. Baumann, Maria Mater nostra spiritualis. Eine theologische Untersuchung ueber die geistige Mutterschaft Mariens in
den Aeusserungen der Paepste vox Tridentinun bis heute (Brixen;
Weber, 1948).
4 Text quoted in Marianun 2 (1949) 85.
5 Mar iologia (2. ed., Rome: Tipographia poliglotta Vaticana
1947) 2.2. 324-37.
8 R. Plus, Marie dans notre histoire divine (Toulouse:
Apostolat de la Priere, 1932 ) 46; J. Terrien, La Mere de Dieu et
la Mere des hommes (2nd part, La Mere des homes) (2.ed., Paris;
Lethielleux 1903) 82.
*7
>
Marie Mere de grâce (paris: Beauchesne 1921) 49.
8 “The Teaching of the Magisterium on Mary’s Spiritual
Maternity,” MS 3 (1952) 35-110.
Q
e.g. Roschini, Keuppens, Neubert, Campana, GarrigouLagrange, and Terrien.
10 The Cross-Annunc iat ion (Portland: Sanctuary of Our Sor­
rowful Mother 1931) 217.
11 The School of Mary (Paterson: St. Anthony Guild 1942) 198
12 Mary the Mother of Jesus (trans. F. Eckhoff, St. Louis:
Herder 1939) 64.
I8 Mary Mediatrix of All Graces for All Men (New York:
Pustet 1928) 57-8.

De Catholicae Ecclesiae unitate, 6 ML 4, 502. "Habere
non potest Deu» patre» qui ecclesia» non habet notre». **
15 See S. Tromp, Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia (Rome:
Gregorianum 1937) 40.
16 “La Mediation Universelle de Marie,” Maria: Études sur la
Sainte Vierge (ed. H. Du Manior 1 Paris; Beauchesne 1949) 472.
17 op. cit., 58-60.
18 J. Keuppens, Mariologiae Compendia» (2. ed., Meenen:

73

Drukkerij 1947) 141; E. Neubert, Mary in Doctrine (transi, from
French 3 ed., Milwaukee: Bruce 1954) 52-5; E. Campana, Maria ne I
Dogma Cattolico (Turin-Rome: Marietti 1928) 273.
G. Alastruey, Tratado de la Virgen Santisima (2. ed. ,
Madrid: Editorial Catolica 1947) 765-8; G. Smith, Mary's Part in
Our Redempt ion (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne 1938) 119; J.
Terrien, °P· cti·, 171; E. Neubert, op. cit., 45-7.
J. Bernard, La mystere de Marie (Paris: Desclee 1933)
137; R. Plus, op. cit., 57-8; R. Wiliam, op. cit.,296-7; C.
Vollert, "The Place of Our Lady in the Mystical Body,” MS 3
(1952)
n J 176.
C. Martindale, Sermon Notes (New York: Longmans, Green
1917) 17.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 191.

23 Compendium Mariologiae (Rome: Sansaini 1946) 288-90.
24 Others who agree with Roschini on this point are: R.
Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 192, and E. Compana, op. cit., 276.
5 R. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 191-2; A. Le'picier,
Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria Mater Dei (3. ed., Paris:
Lethielleux 1904) 375-6; E. Campana, op. cit., 275-6; G. Garces,
Titulos y Grandeias de Maria (2. ed., Madrid: Editorial Coculsa
1952) 162-6.
2θ E. Neubert, op. cit., 47-9; R. Garrigou-Lagrange, op.
cit., 187-9; G. Roschini, Compendium, 274; J. Terrien, op. cit.,
80-1; A. Mayer, op. cit., 99-102; J. Keuppens, op. cit., 141; G.
Alastruey, op. cit., 747-9; E. Campana, op. cit., 275-6; G.
Smith, op. cit., 118; R. Plus, op. cit., 125-6.
27 Gal. 4:4-6.

74

CHAPTER II
1 D. Unger, "The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology,” MS
1 (1950) 67-118.
2
Whether the word “she” or “it” is used in the verse, the
sense is the same. History shows that even those who accepted
the latter version (ipsum not ipsa) applied the passage to Mary.
It is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the Woman crushes the ser­
pent’s head, see T. Gallus, Interpretatio Mar iologica Protoevangelli (Rome: Orbis Catholicus 1949) 197-8.
3 Ibid., 207-10.
4 Ibid., 170-6.
5 Ibid., 199. J. Carol agrees with Gallus, De Corr edempt tone
Beatae Virginis (Vatican: Typis Vaticanis 1950) 104.
6 R. Bernard, Le mystère de Marie (paris: Desclée 1933) 97;
337; J. Bainvel, Marie Mère de grâce (Paris: Beauchesne 1921)
68-9; G. Alastruey, Tratado de la Virgen Santisima (2. ed.,
Madrid: Editorial Catolica 1947) 754-7; R. Plus, Marie dans notre
histoire divine (Toulouse: Apostolat de la Prière 1932) 129; E.
Campana, Maria ne I Dogma Cattolico (6. ed., Torino-Rome: Marietti
1928) 262; A. Lepicier, Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria
Mater Dei (3. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1904) 367; M. Scheeben,
Mariology (tr. by T. Geukers, St. Louis: Herder 1946) 2.248-9;
E. Neubert, Mary in Doctrine (tr. from French 3. ed., Milwaukee;
Bruce 1954) 60; A. Plessis, Manue l de Mariologie Dogmatique
(Montfort-sur-Meu: Séminaire des Missions 1947) 252; W. Most,
Mary in Our Life (New York: Kenedy 1954) 1-7; R. Garrigou-La­
grange, La Mère du Sauveur et notre vie inter ieure (Montreal:
Levrier 1948) 183-4; 0. Vassall-Phillips, The Mother of Christ
(London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne 1920) 432-3; J. Pohle, Mari­
ology (tr. & ed. by A. Preuss, St. Louis: Herder 1948) 127-8.
7 D. Unger, art. cit., 109-10.
8 Transi, by P. Hoelle in The Promised Woman (ed. S. Mathews,
St. Meinrad, Indiana; Grail 1954) 274.
9 Op. cit., 100-121.
10 G. Roschini, “Sull’ interpretazione patristica del Protovangelo,” Mar 6 (1944) 76-96; “Ancora sull’ interpretazione

75

patristica del Proto-yangelo,” Mar 8 (1946) 377-81.
11 H. Lennerz, “Duae quaestiones de Bulla ‘Ineffabilis
Deus,’” Gr 24 (1943) 347-56; “Consensus Patrum in interpretatione
mariologica Gen. 3:15,” Gr 27 (1946) 300-18.
F. Ceuppens, De Mar io logica Biblica (Turin-Rome: Marietti
(1948) 14-23.
13 w. Goossens, De coopérât tone immediata Matris Redemptor is
ad Redempt ionem obiect ivam (Paris; Beauchesne 193 9 ) 95.
L. Drewniak, Die Mar iologische Deutung von Gen. 3.15 in
der Vaterseit (Breslau Nischkowsky 1934) 87.
15 See the citation of J. Carol, op. cit., 52.
16 Ibid., 85-91.
17
J. Coppens, “Le Protévangile, un nouvel essai d’exégèse,”
ETL 26 (1950) 32.
18
Holding this opinion also are: J. Carol, op. cit., 119;
A. Lepicier, op. cit., 138; G. Roschini, Mariologia (2 ed.,
Rome: Tipographia Poliglotta Vaticana 1947) 2,8-90.
Marie au service de notre Redemption (Bar-le-Duc, Meuse:
Imprimerie St. Paul 1947) 307.
20 Op. cit., 120.
21
G* Roschini» op. cit., 201: ‘Semen serpentis sumitur
collective; ergo etiam semen mulieris, ut perfecta sit oppositio,
collective sumi debet.”
22 G. Smith, Mary’s Part in Our Redemption (London: Burns,
Oates & Washbourne 1938) 114.
33 J. Bover, Deiparae Virginis Consensus Corr edempt ionis ac
Mediationis Fundamentum (Madrid: Tipograffa Commercial 1942)
321-2.
24 Mater Corredemptrix (Rome: Marietti 1940) 32-3.
3^ F. Mueller, Origo divino-apostolica doctr inae evectionis
Beatae Virginis ad gloriam coelestem quoad corpus (Innsbruck:
pustet 1930) 62-3.
27

E. Gallagher, "Evaluation of the Arguments in Favor of
Mary’s Co-Redemption," MS 2 (1951) 126.
28 Op. cit., 118.
29 8bid., 91-121.
2θ "'Re trover s io*'-- also called rec irculat io, recapitulatio,
inversio, reversio is a common doctrine admitted and explained
by many of our authors including: G. Dillenschneider, op. cit.,
76

307; J. Bover, op. cit., 307; J. Bittremieux, De Mediatione
universali B. M. Virginis quoad gratias (Brugis: Beyaert 1926)
94-5; A. Plessis, op. cit., 274; and J. Terrien, La Mère de Dieu
et la Mère des honnes (2nd part, La Mere des bonne s) (2. ed. ,
Paris: Lethielleux 1903) 181. By this principle is understood
the parallel between Adam and Eve in the Fall, and Christ and Mary
in our Redemption. As Bover says: 'Ordo reparationis hunanae
ordini ruinae ex adverso respondet. °
^"Consortiun" -- also called consociatio and in general any
term indicating Mary’s association with Christ in the work of
the Redemption. Both these principles are vital issues for the
Co-Redempt ion thesis and are found in such contexts in nearly all
our principal authors. J. Carol explains what he means by the
double principle, as he calls it: op. cit., 59-62.
32 G. Roschini, Sunnula Mariologiae (Rome: Società Grafica
Romana 1952) 98.
33 Op. cit., 120: "Salvo neliori judicio. Beatae Virginis
c orredenpt io, eo sensu quo sub initio exposita exstat, ian in
prino vaticinio nessianico (Gen. 3; 15) fornaliter inplicite re­
velata nobis ostenditur."
34 Mariologiae Conpendiun (2. ed. , Meenen: Drukkerij 1947)
2.94; 110; 130; 138.
35 Op. cit., 307-10.
3® The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture (tr. F. Brossart,
New York: Pustet 1913) 222.
37 Ibid., 110-112.
On
A. Mayer, The Cross -Annunciation (Portland: Sanctuary of
Our Sorrowful Mother 1931).
39 Apoc. 12:17.
40 Op. cit., 26-49.
41 Ibid., 30: "Hace du serpent, ceux qui connettent le pèche
par leurs actes personne I Is ; race du serpent, ceux qui, conne tout
enfant des honnes, naissent souilles du pèche; race du serpent
surtout, ceux qui continuent sur la terre l*oeuvre du dènon, se
perdant eux-nènes et traivaillant à perdre les autres."
42 1 Peter, 5:8.
43 Rom. 16:20.
44 Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces (Baltimore: John Murphy
Company 1926) 21-22.
45 Op. cit., 197.

77

46 Op. cit., 68-74.
47
1 John, 3:8.
48 Heb. 2:14.
49 Apoc. 12; 9, 10.
1 John, 4:4.
51 Ibid.,5:4.
52 Ibid., 5:19.
53 Heb. 2:11.
54 Ibid., 2:17.
55 Ibid., 3:14.
56 Apoc. 12:17.
57 Gal. 3:27.

58 St. Pius X, Ad diem ilium ASS 36 (1903-1904) 453-4.
^9 Pius XII, Mystici Corporis ASS 35 (1943) 247.
D. Unger, art. cit., 106. J. Coppens is one who disapproves
of this: "Le Protovangile, un nouvel essai d’exegèse,” ETL 26
(1950) 5-36.
61
*
See E. Neubert, Marie dans L’Eglise anténiceenne (Paris:
Gabalda 1908) 238-54.
62
Here again is the principle of the “consortium.’’ See C.
Dillenschneider, op. cit., 310.
63
Those who make this point are: J. Carol, op. cit., 104-5;
J. Bainvel, "L’histoire d’un dogme,” Etudes 101 (1904) 627, 631;
E. Druwe, “La Mediation universelle de Marie” Maria, Etudes sur
la Sainte Vierge (ed, H, du Manoir, 1 Paris: Beauchesne 1949)
447-8.
64
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 190-1; G. Alastruey, op.
cit., 750-4; E. Campana, op. cit., 266-7; J. Keuppens, op. cit.,
139; M. Scheeben, op. cit., 246-9; A. Plessis, op. cit., 250-4;
A. lepicier, op. cit., 370-2; J. Terrien, op. cit., 171 ff. ; A.
Mayer, op. cit., passim; j. Schrijvers, Ma Mère (Essechen: Im­
primerie-Librairie Saint Alphonse 1924) 35-7; E. Neubert, op.
cit., 57-68; A. Schaeffer, op. cit., 249-53; G. Roschini, Mariologia, 2.203-215; J. Bainvel, Marie Mère de Grace, 88-9; Garces,
op. cit., 40-45; Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., 126-7; J. Bittremieux,
op. cit., 188-93; R. Plus, op. cit., 63-4; R. Bernard, op. cit.,
19-21; O. Vassall-Phillips, op. cit., 80-86; G. Smith, op. cit.,
122-3; B. Merkelbach, Mariologia (Paris; Desclee 1939) 2.303-304;
J. Bover, “Mulier ecce filius tuus,” VD 4 (1924) 230.
83 Leo XIII, Adjutricem populi A.S.S' 28 (1895) 130: In Joanne

73

autem, quod perpetuo sensit Ecclesia, designavit Christus personam
humani generis, eorum imprimis, qui sibi fide adhaeseruntSee
also the decree approved by Leo XIII, Ex quo beatissima, April
22, 1903, citing St. John 19:26, and stating: "Joannem autem omnes
Christ if ide les tunc repraesentasse ab Ecc lesiae Patribus traditum
est." ASS 35 (1902-1903) 627.
88 J. Leal, "Beata Virgo omnium spiritualis Mater ex Joanne
19:26, 27, VO 27 (1949) 65-73.
88 G. Roschini, op. cit., 2.204-206; G. Shea, "The Teaching
of the Magisterium on Mary’s Spiritual Maternity,” MS 3 (1953)
passim.
69 Art. cit., 106.
78 W. Newton, A Commentary on the New Testament (Washington:
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1942) 357; A. Maas,
The Life of, Jesus Christ (5. ed., St. Louis: Herder 1909) 541;
A. Durand, Evangi le se Ion Saint Jean (Paris; Beauchesne 1938) 493;
A. Breen, A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels (3. ed.,
Milwaukee: Bruce 1930 ) 4.130; J. Knabenbauer, Evangelium secundum
Joannem (Paris: Lethielleux 1898) 546-7.
71 Alastruey, loc. cit.·, Keuppens, loc. cit.; Garces, loc.
cit,; Bover, loc. cit; Lepicier, loc. cit.; Campana, loc. cit.;
Merkelbach, loc. cit.; Garrigou-Lagrange, loc. cit.; Neubert,
loc. cit.; Plessis, loc. cit.; Smith, loc. cit.; Bittremieux,
loc. cit.; plus, loc cit.; Schaeffer, loc. cit.; Schrijvers,
loc. cit.; Vassall-Phillips, loc. cit.
72 Roschini, loc. cit.
73
Mayer, loc. cit.
74 Bernard, loc. cit.
Ί5 Terrien, loc. cit.
76 Bainvel, loc. cit.
77 Scheeben, loc. cit.
Those who omit the text for the Co-Redemption: Keuppens,
Alastruey, Plessis, Lepicier, Merkelbach. Those who do use the
text for the Co-Redemption are: Roschini, Neubert, GarrigouLagrange, Campana.
79 G. Roschini, Compendium Mariologiae (Rome; Sansaini 1946)
253; "Stabat juxta crucem Jesu Mater e ius, quae tacta in nos
caritate immensa, ut susc iperet filios, Filium suum ultro obtulit
Justitiae Divinae cum eo commor iens corde doloris gladio trans79

flxa' The quote is in the footnote but in the text Roschini
alsohas these significant words: "Hisce enim verbis, juxta interpretationem magisterii ecclesiastici -- prout infra plene vide­
bimus - solemnis promulgatio maternitatis spiritualis B. Virginis
continetur, et consequenter solemnis promulgatio cooperationis
immediate B. Virgini redemptioni obiectivae, quae cooperatio,
quoad naturam, cum spirituali maternitate identif icatur, eo quod
utraque in prima collatione vitae supernatura lis, seu in prima
aequis itione gratiae conveniunt. In illo igitur eodem instanti
in quo hominum redemptio a Christo et Maria operabatur, eorum
etiam regeneratio vitae supernaturali gratiae, per Adae et Evae
peccatum amissae, operabatur. ”
ΟΛ
H. Merkelbach, op. cit., 304; E. Campana, op. cit,, 273;
J. Keuppens, op. cit., 140; G. Alastruey, op. cit., 765; J. Ter­
rien, op. cit., 171.
S* J. Bittremieux, op. cit., 189-93. This is his special
thesis.
82 M. Russell, Behold Your Mother (Dublin: Benziger 1909)
18-19.
88 a. Mayer, op. cit., 73; Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., 126-7;
A. Schaeffer, op. cit., 251-2.
84 j. Terrien, op. cit., 233; R. Bernard, op. cit., 260.
85 J. Schrijvers, op. cit., 36-7; R. Garrigou-Lagrange, op.
cit., 190.
88 p. Canice, Mary, A Study of the Mother of God (Dublin:
Gill and Son 1937) 202, 203.
87
R. Bernard, op. cit., 229; On this point Neubert points
out that some miss the point by explaining the Spiritual Maternity
by the testimony of Christ rather than by demonstrating by what
activity she brought us forth to the supernatural life. Op. cit.,
66.
88 μ. Ryan, The Mother of God (New York: Spiritual Book
Association 1939) 98-9. Bainvel has a similar note. He refers to
the “Pieta” in art and says that besides the maternal sorrow one
should see the symbol of something else, that is, the Victim of
Calvary being offered in Mary’s arms for our Redemption. See j.
Bainvel, Marie, Mère de grSce, 79.
89 E. Neubert, op. cit., 58-9; R. Bernard, op. cit., 19-20.
90 R. Plus, op. cit., 63-4; Canice, op. cit., 204.
91 E. Neubert. op. cit., 57.

80

.fa.

92 A. Mayer, op. cit., 224.
93 16 id., 158-60.
94 16 id., 159.
95 Ibid., 132.
96 Ibid., 217.
97 Ibid., 214.
98 lb id., 223.
99 Ibid., 95.
100 Ibid., 101.
101 Ibid., 127.
102 Ibid., 132.
103 Ibid., 204.
Especially Pius X, Ad die» ilia* and Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis,
105 G. Shea, art. cit., 35-110.
106 4.SS 36 (1903-1904 ) 458-9.
1θ7 Transi. P. Hoelle, Ad dieu illun. Marian Reprint 9.
108 G. Shea, art. cit., 78.
10Ô E. Allo, Saint Jean: L Apocalypse (3, ed, , Paris: Beauchesne 1933) CCXXXIX-CCLXXII.
ϋθ G. Roschini, Mariologia, 2.220.
111 M. Scheeben, op. cit., 1.15; 2.245-8; G. Roschini, op.
cit., 2.216-221; A. Schaeffer, op. cit., 258-66; W. Most, op.
cit., 57, 274-7; A. Mayer, op. cit., 71-2; 132-3; 226-7; J.
Terrien, op. cit., 171 ff.; j. Keuppens, op. cit., 139; 0. Vas­
sall-Phillips, op. cit., 387-8; E. Druwe also cites this text:
art. cit., 470-77.
112 M. Scheeben, op. cit., 245.
1 Ή
G, Roschini, op. cit., 1.60-2.
114 See R. Bernard, op. cit., 181-2; 192; J. Terrien, op.
cit., 178-9; J. Schrijvers, op. cit., 23; 66; A. Lepicier, op,
cit., 378; H. Merkelbach, op. cit., 304; 0. Vassall-Phillips,
op. cit., 109-110; 122; E. Neubert, op. cit., 60; C. Dillenschneider, op. cit., 295; E. Druwe', art. cit., 471.
115 0. Vassall-Phillips, op. cit., 109-110; 116; 122; 222-6;
298.
116 R. Bernard, op. cit., 176-77; 185; 193; 303.
117 J. Bainvel, op. cit., 78.
118 R. Bernard, op. cit., 178; 277; A. Plessis, op. cit.,
304; J. Bainvel, op. cit., 78; 0. Vassall-Phillips, op. cit.,
222-6; E. Druwe', art. cit., 471.

81

119 J. Northcote, Mary in the Gospels (London: Burns, Oates
& Washbourne 1906) 221-2.
120 E. Mersch, The Whole Christ (transi. Kelly, Milwaukee:
Bruce 1938) 78; T. Finan, "Reflections on Mary’s Spiritual Mother­
hood," OR 25 (1945) 197; F. Sheen, A. Schaeffer, H. Leset.ro and
J. Cleary share the same view.
121 E. Mersch, op. cit., 78.
122 B. Le Frois, "The Spiritual Motherhood of Mary in John
1:13,” CBQ 13 (1951) 422-31.
^23 SeeG. Roschini, °P· cit., 2.201-2; J. Terrien, op. cit.,
53-7; See also: E. Neubert, op. cit., 59; A. Plessis, op. cit.,
252; G. Garces, op, cit., 151-3; Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., 128;
E. Campana, op. cit., 266-7.
124 See: E. Neubert, op. cit., 48-9; A. Plessis, op. cit.,
252; g. Mersch, The Theology of the Mystical Body (tr. C. Vollert,
St. Louis; Herder 1952) 188; F. Sheen, The Mystical Body cf
Christ (New York: Sheed and Ward 1935) 318; E. Campana, op. cit.,
266-7; G. Roschini, op. cit., 2.201; G. Garces, op. cit., 14850.
125 Op. cit., 318.
126 J. Terrien, op. cit., 55.
1 27
J. Northcote, op. cit., 221-2.
G. Roschini, op. cit., 1.59-60.
129 J. Carol alludes to this; op. cit., 106.
130 Op. cit., 34-8.
131 Op. cit., 336-60.
132 Op. cit., 103; 198; 220.
133 Art. cit., 95-6.
134 ASS 35 (1943) 311.
135 D. Unger, art. cit., 67-118.
136 Council of Trent, sess. 4 ES 783.
137 J. Leal, art. cit., 65-73.
138 Quoted from The Promised Woman, op. cit,, 274.
139 ASS 28 (1895) 130.
I49 W. Goossens, De coopérât ione immed iata Matris Redemptoris
ad Redemptionem objectivam (Paris: Beauchesne 1939); C. Ceuppens,
De Mar iologia biblia (Turin-Rome: Marietta 1948); L. Drewniak,
Die Maciologische Deutung von Gen. 3:15 in der Vaterzeit (Breslau:
Nischkowsky 1934); H. Lennerz, “Duae quaestiones de bulla Inef­
fabilis Deus,” GR 24 (1943) 347-66; “Consensus Patrum in inter­
pretatione mariologica Gen. 3;15,” GR 27 (1946) 300-318.

82

141 For discussion and general bibliography on the question,
see J, Carol, op. cit., 100-21.
142G. Roschini, “Sull’ interpretazione patristica del Protovangelo,’’ Mar 6 (1944) 76-96; “Ancora sull’ interpretazione
patristica del Proto-vangelo,” Mar 8 (1946) 377-81.
142 W. O’Connor, ’’The Spiritual Maternity of Our Lady in
Tradition,’’ MS 3 (1952) 142-3; E. Neubert, op. cit., 85-6; J.
Terrien, op. cit., 75; t. Koehler, “Maternité spirituelle de
Marie,” Maria, Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir,
Paris: Beauchesne 1949) 575.
144 Terrien, op. cit., 96 ff.; Smith, op. cit., 114-5; Bit­
tremieux, op. cit., 94-107; Most, op. cit., 1-8; Bainvel, op,
cit., 68-9; Plessis, op. cit., 252; 283-6; Bover, op. cit., 2769; 294; Garces, op. cit., 138-9; 157; Campana, op. cit., 261-6;
Kerçppens, op. cit., 139; Garrigou- Lagrange, op. cit., 183-5; 189;
Bernard, op. cit., 139,-337-8; Alastruey, op. cit., 754-6; Roschini,
op. cit., 2.221-2; Mayer, op. cit., 170-5; Vassall-Phillips, op.
cit., 424; 432-3; Schaefer, op. cit., 113; Carol, op. cit., 12850; Neubert, op. cit., 60-2.
145 J. Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht, Brussels: Spectrum 1950)
297.
1.
44® E. Druwe rites Lebon’s article and seems to approve it.
Art. cit., 497; J. Lebon, “Comment je conçois, j’établis et je
defends la doctrine de la Mediation Nfariale," ETL 16 (1939 ) 665744; E. Gallagher, “Evaluation of the Arguments in Favor of Mary’s
Co-Redempt ion,” MS 2 (1951) 111-13.
147 C. Dillenschneider discusses this point and gives extended
bibliographical references: op. cit., 311-30; see alsoE. Neubert,
op. cit., 64.
14θ Bittremieux, op. cit., in; Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., 126;
Druwez, art. cit., 503; Garces, op. cit., 160; Garrigou-Lagrange,
op. cit., 165; Vassall-Phillips, op. cit., 86; T. Gallus, op.
cit., 195-203.
149 G. Shea, art. cit., 85; 90; 104-5; 125.
150 See Campana, op. cit., 285-6; Smith, op. cit., 119-22;
Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 156-7; 160-2; Most, op. cit., Ί;
Bainvel, op. cit,, 67; Bover, op. cit., 283; 288; Alastruey, op.
cit., 757; Garces, op. cit., 158-9; 267; Roschini, op. cit., 224;
Keuppens, op. cit., 139; Neubert, op. cit., 82-3; Merkelbach, op.
cit., 303; Schrijvers, op. cit., 33.

83

101 Most, op. cit., 3.
152 Op. cit., 77.
153 Bover, op. cit., passim. His entire book is based on the
significance of Mary’s consent to the Redemption.
154 See Garrigou-Lagrange, °P· cit,, 190; Bainvel, op. cit.,
ΊΊ; Neubert, op. cit., 83.
155 Carol does not mention the Mystical Body in citing the
testimony of Pius X; in discussing the Encyclical of PiusXHon
the Mystical Body he sees all from the singular viewpoint of
Calvary: op. cit., 517-24; 533; Dillenschneider puts singular
emphasis on Calvary from Leo XIII, Pius X and Pius χπ; op. cit.,
66-8; Most also emphasises Calvary: op. cit., 20-2.
156 J. Bainvel. op. cit., 68-9; J. Bover, op. cit., 276-9; 284.
157 E.g., Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., 22; Smith, op. cit., 115-7;
Gareevs, op. cit., 145; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 174; Plessis,
op. cit., 253; Roschini, op. cit., 2.222; Alastruey, op. cit.,
759; Merkelbach, op. cit., 301.
De Sancta Virginitate 5,6 ML 40, 398. "Sola Maria corpore
ac spiritu simul virgo et mater. Ac per hoc illa una femina, non
solum spiritu, verum etiam corpore, et mater est et virgo. Et
mater quidem spiritu, non capit is nostri, quod est ipse Salvator,
ex quo magis illa spir it ua liter nata est; illa sed plane mater
membrorum ejus, quod nos sumus; quia cooperata est char itate, ut
fideles in Ecclesia nascerentur, quae illius capitis membra sunt:
corpore vero ipsius capitis mater.a
139 C. Dillenschneider, op. cit., 102; E. Neubert, op. cit.,
62-3.
130 Neubert, loc. cit.
161 Roschini, op. cit., 2.208; Plessis, op. cit., 253; Garrigou-

Lagrange, op. cit., 190; Mayer, op. cit., 148; Merkelbach, op.
cit., 304.
162 ML 14, 31 AB. "Audeamus igitur dicere primitias Scriptura­
rum omnium Evangelium esse ; Evangelium vero primitias, Evangelium
a Joanne trad itum; cujus sensum percipere nemo potest, nisi qui
supra pectus Jesu recubuerit, vel acceperit a Jesu Mariam, quae
etiam ipsius mater fiat: adeo talem tantumque esse necesse est,
qui Joannes alius sit fut urus, ut quemadmodum Joannes, iidemetiam
et isteaJesu Jesus exsistere os te ndatur. Nam s i nullus es t Mar iae
filius, . . . praeterquam Jesus : dicitque Jesus matr i: Ecce fi lius
tuus, et non, ecce etiam hic est filius tuus: perinde est, ac si
dixisset: Ecce hic est Jesus Quem genuisti. Etenim quisquis per-

84

fectus est, non amplius vivit ipse, sed in ipso vivit Christus,
Cunque in ipso vivit Christus, dicitur de eo Mariae: Ecce filius
tuus Chris tus. "
163 O’Connor, art. cit., 146; see also T. Koehler, art.
cit., 583.
164 Terrien, op. cit., 70 ff; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit.,
189; Neubert, op. cit., 63; Bainvel, op. cit., 84.
165 0. Vassall-Phillips, op. cit., 248.
166 E.g., Campana, op. cit., 286-8; Schrijvers, op. cit.,
94; Terrien, op. cit., 80-1; Vassall-Phillips, op. cit., 248;
Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 165; Bernard, op. cit., 337; Roschini,
op. cit., 2.201; Smith, op. cit., 114; Bittremieux, op. cit.,
Ill; Bainvel, op. cit., 56-62; One of the best historical resumes
of the belief in the Spiritual Maternity through the years: G.
Geenen, “Les Antecedents doctrineaux et historiques de la con­
secration du monde au coeur Immaculé de Marie,” Maria: Etudes
sur la sainte Vierge (ed. H. du Manoir, Paris; Beauchesne 1949)
I. 837-49.
167 See G. Shea, art. cit., 35-110.
Roschini, op. cit., 2.206-7; 223-4; Garces, op. cit.,
135-6; 138; 140; Druwe, art. cit., 443; Merkelbach, op. cit.,
302; Plessis, op.cit., 299-300; Bover, op. cit., 141-79, passim;
Campana, op. cit., 260; 264; Bainvel, op. cit., 128; Most, op.
cit., 255-6; Terrien, op.cit., Tl; C. Dillenschneider, op. cit.,
259-67; An article including all these liturgical references:
J. Parent, “La Maternite Spirituelle de Marie dans la Liturgie
Romaine,” Alma Soda Christi 2 (Rome: Academia Mariana 1952)
234-48.
169 J. Terrien, op. cit., 25.
170 Ibid. , 75.
A. Lepicier, op. cit., 376: Quod Maria sit hominum Mater
sensu exposito, potest dici veritas Catholica, ad fidem proxime
pertinens, ita quod illud negare nedum temperar ium sit, sed
etiam haeres im sapiat; haec veritas, licet nunquam expresse
fuerit definita, tamen fixa manet universaliter in corde at ore
populi christiani: aliunde, ut ait St. Augustinus, "'quod univers a
tenet Ecclesia, nec concilias institutum, sed semper retentum
est, nonnis i auctor itate apostolica traditum rect issime creditur;"
quoted by Roschini with approval, op. cit., 2.258.
172 Garrigou-Lagrange. op. cit., 190.
173 W. O’Connor, art. cit., 172-3.

85

G. Roschini, op. cit., 2.225; J. Terrien, oP. Clt., 5068; H. Merkelbach, op. cit., 299-300; A. Le'picier, oP. cit.,
373-4; E. Neubert, op. cit., 45-6.

CHAPTER III
1 See: C. Dillenschneider, pour une Cor édempt ion mariale
bien comprise (Rome: Marianum 1949) 9-17 passim; R. GarrigouLagrange, La Mere du Sauveur et notre vie intérieure (Montreal:
Levrier 1948) 156; 160-2; G. Smith, Mary's Part in Our Redemption
(London: Bums Oates & Washbourne 1938) 119-21; J. Bover, Deiparae
Virginis Consensus Corredemptionis ac Mediationis Fundamentum
(Madrid: Tipografia Commercial 1942) 8-11; G. Alastruey, Tratado
de la Virgen Santîsima (e. ed., Madrid: Editorial Catolica 1947)
757; J. Bainvel, Marie Mere de grace (Paris: Beauchesne 1921)
67; 71; E. Neubert, Mary in Doctrine (transi, from 3. ed., Mil­
waukee: Bruce 1954) 82-3; G. Garces, Titulos y Grande zas de
Maria (2. ed., Madrid: Editorial Coculsa 1952) 267.
2
See: A. Plessis, Manuel de Mariologia Dogmatique (Montfortsur-Meu: Se'minaire des Missions 1947) 255; E. Campana, Maria nel
Dogma Cattolico (Turin-Rome: Marietti 1928) 285; G. Roschini,
Mariologia (2. ed., Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana 1947)
2.224; J. Bittremieux, De Mediatione univers ale B.M. Virginis
quoad gratias (Brugis: Beyaert 1926) 90; 188; G. Garces, op. cit.,
158; J. Terrien, La Mere de Dieu et la Mere des hommes (2nd part,
La Mere des hommes) (2. ed. , Paris: Lethielleux 1903) 110-11;
137; J. Schrijvers, Ma Mère (Esschen: Imprimerie-Libraririe
Saint Alphonse 1924) 18; 34; 57.
3 See J. Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae
Disquisitio Pos it iva (Vatican City: Typograpia Poliglotta Vaticana
1950) 553-72.
\ Heb. 10: 5-10.
5 J. Bover, op. cit., 289.
6 This is the principle that regards Mary as the Associate,
consort, helpmeet, etc., of Christ. See: M. Scheeben, Mariology
(transi, by T. Geukers, St. Louis: Herder 1946) 2.193-9; C.
Dillenschneider, op. cit., 147; J. Bover, op. cit., 354; J. Carol,
op. cit., 62-70; A. Mayer, The Cross -Annunciation (Portland:
Sanctuary of Our Sorrowful Mother 1931) 206; H. Merkelbach,
Mariologia (Paris: Desclee 1939) 322.
? Mary in Our Life (New York: Kenedy 1954) 51-4.
8 ASS 36 (1903-04) 453-4; ‘'De congruo, uti aiunt, promeret

86

87

nobis Maria quae Christus de condigno promeruit,"
9 ASS 35 (1943) 247-9.
10 J. Pohle, Mariology (transi.&ed. by A. Preuss, st. Louis:
Herder 1948) 127.
11 Op. cit., 256.
12 Mar iologiae Compendium (2. ed. , Meenen: Drukkerij 1947)
2.138.
13 Op. cit., 258-61.
14 Op. cit., 48-9.
15 Op. cit., ITl; "sed ex statu suo Matris hominum atque con­
sortis Redemptoris."
16 Ibid., 15.
17 Op. cit., 118.
18 Op. cit., 120.
19 Ibid., 124.
29 Marie au service de notre Redemption (Bar-le-Duc, Meuse;
Imprimerie St. Paul 1947) 30.
O1
See: Carol ("common teaching”), op. cit., 105; Dillen­
schneider ("most common”), op. cit., 97; Alastruey ("quasi unan­
imous”), op. cit., 742.
22 Op. cit., 89-96.
23
Scheeben, Merkelbach and Pohle-Preuss object to the term
"Co-Redemptrix” but admit the reality. Scheeben frequently uses
the term "Socia-Redemptoris"; Merkelbach prefers “Mediadrix”;
Pohle-Preuss allows any one of a number of titles: liberate ix,
salvatrix, reparatrix, restauratrix, reconciliatrix, co-operatrix
or Socia Redemptor is.
24 Op. cit., 118; 533.
25 Op. cit., 77-9.
28 Pour une Cor edempt ion mariale 16.
27 Op. cit., 353.
9Q
See: H. Merkelbach, op. cit., 341; G. Roschini, op. cit.,
2.252-4.
2Q
Dillenschneider, op. cit., 15.
30 Op. cit., 352; 340-5.
31
See: Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 165; Alastruey, op.
cit., 763; Neubert, op. cit., 49-50; Merkelbach, op. cit., 303;
Terrien, op. cit,, 171-2; Roschini, op. cit., 2.201-24.
32 Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 190; Bainvel, op. cit., ΊΊ;
Neubert, op. cit., 83.

88

CHAPTER IV
1 See: Roschini, Mariologia (2. ed., Rome; Tipographia
Poliglotta Vaticana 1947) 2.397; E. Neubert, Mary in Doctrine
(transi, from 3. ed., Milwaukee: Bruce 1954) 106; W. Most, Mary
in (hr Life (New York: Kenedy 1954) 36.
2
J. Bittremieux, De Mediatione univer sale B. M. Virginis
quoad gratias (Brugis: Bayaert 1926) 177.
3 See; J. Bainvel, Marie Mere de gr&ce (Paris: Beauchesne
1921) 93-4; G. Smith, Mary's Part in Our Bedempt ion (London:
Bums Oates & Washbourne 1938) 135-6; M. Scheeben, Mariology
(transi, by T. Geukers, St. Louis: Herder 1946) 2.239; R. Plus,
Marie dans notre histoire divine (Toulouse: Apostolat de la
Prière 1932) 129; J. Keuppens, Mariologiae Compendium (2. ed. ,
Meenen: Drukkerij 1947) 126; J. Schrijvers, Ma Mere (Esschen:
Imprimerie-Librairie Saint Alphonse 1924) 61-2; J. Terrien, La
Mere de Dieu et la Mere des hommes (2nd part, La Mere des hommes)
(2. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1903) 347; R. Bernard, Le Mystère de
Marie (paris: Desclèe 1933) 345; J. Pohle, Mariology (transi.
& ed. by A. Preuss, St. Louis: Herder 1948) 123-7.
See: G. Garces, Titulos y Grandezas de Maria (2. ed.,
Madrid: Editorial Coculsa 1952) 168; A. Plessis, Manuel de
Mar io logie Dogmatique (Montfort-sur-Meu: Séminaire des Missions
5 See: H. Merkelbach, Mariologia (paris: Desclee 1939) 301-2;
E. Neubert, op. cit., 49-52,
6 See: Roschini, op. cit., 2.395-6; 255; R. Garrigou-Lagrange,
La Mere du Sauveur et notre vie inter ieure (Montreal: Lévrier
1948) 165-6; G. Smith, op. cit., 118; Bainvel, op. cit., 64; 75;
Terrien, op. cit., 54-8; Schrijvers, op. cit., 18; 61; Neubert,
op. cit., 49-52; 0. Vassal1-Phil1 ips, The Mother of Christ
London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne 1920)76; Plessis, op.cit.,
256; A. Mayer, The Cross-Annunciation (Portland: Sanctuary of
Our Sorrowful Mother 1931) 151-2.
7 Op. cit., 1.16.
3 See: J. Bainvel, °P· cit., 83-90; Bernard, op. cit., 31011; 371; Terrien, op. cit., 345-6; Neubert, op. cit., 51-2.
9 Op. cit., 151-2; see also Neubert, op. cit., 171.
Bernard, op. cit., 31; Neubert, op. cit., 299-30.

89

11 Op. Cit., 272-3.
12
13
244-5; see also Bernard, op. cit., 275-7.
3 Bernard, op. cit., 305; Neubert, op. cit., 143-4
14
See: Plessis, op. cit., 314; Most, op. cit., 22-3; 51-5;
Roschini, op. cit., 2.424-6; Smith, op. cit., 148-9; Plus, op.
cit., 162; Neubert, op. cit., 143-4; Merkelbach, op. cit., 388-9;
Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., 284.
15 Op. cit., 125-7.

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Principal Works

Alastruey, Gregory, Tratado de la Virgen Santisima, 2. ed.,
Madrid: Editorial Catolica 1947.
Bainvel, J. V. “L’histoire d’un dogme," Etudes 101 (1904 ) 627-31.
, Harie Mere de grace, Paris: Beauchesne 1921.
Bernard, R., Le mystère de Marie, paris: Desclêe 1933.
Bittremieux, J., De Mediatione universali B. M, Virginis quoad
gratias, Brugis: Beyaert 1926.
Bover, Joseph, Deiparae Virginis Consensus Cor redemptionis ac
Mediationis Fundamentum, Madrid: Tipografia Comercial
1942.
, "Mulier, ecce filius tuus,” Verbum Domini 4 (1924)
226-38.
Campana, Emile, Maria dei Dogma Cattolico, 6. ed., Turin-Rome;
Marietti 1928.
Carol, Juniper, De Corredemptione Beatae Virginis Mariae, Vatican
City: Typografia poliglotta Vaticana 1950.
, "The Problem of Our Lady’s Redemption,” American
Ecclesiastical Review 123 (1950) 32-51.
Dillenschneider, Clement, Marie au service de notre Redemption,
Bar-le-Due, Meuse: Imprimerie St. Paul 1947.
, Pour une Coredemption mariale bien comprise, Rome:
Marianum 1949.
Garcia Garces, N., Mater Corredemptrix, Rome: Marietti 1940.
, Titulos y Grandezas de Maria, 2, ed ., Madrid: Editorial
Coculsa 1952.
Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald, La Mere du Sauveur et notre vie
inter ieure, Montreal: Levrier 1948.
Keuppens, J., Mariologiae Compendium, 2. ed., Meenen: Drukkerij
1947.
Lepicier, Alexio, Tractatus de Beatissima Virgine Maria Matre
Dei, 3. ed., paris: Lethielleux 1904.
Mayer, A. M., The Gross-Annunciation, Portland: Sanctuary of Our
Sorrowful Mother 1931.
Merkelbach, Benedict Henry, Mariologia, paris: Desclee 1939.

91

Most, William, Mary in Our Life, New York: Kenedy 1954.
Neubert, Emile, Mary in Doctrine, tr. from French 3. ed., Mil­
waukee: Bruce 1954.
, Marie dans l’Eglise anténiceene, Paris: Gabalda 1908,
Plessis, Armand, Manuel de Mariologie Dogmatique, Montfortsur-Meu: séminaire des Missions 1947.
Plus, Raoul, Marie dans notre histoire d iv ine, Toulouse ; Apostolat
de la Prière 1932.
Pohle, Joseph, -Preuss, Arthur, Mariology, st. Louis: Herder
1948.
Roschini, Gabriel, “Ancora sull’ interpretazione patristica del
Proto-vangelo,” Marianum 8 (1946) 377-81.
, Compendium Mariologiae, Rome: Sansaini 1946.
, Mar io logia, 2. ed. , 2 vols., Rome; Tipografia Poliglotta
Vaticana 1947.
, “Sull’ interpretazione patristica del Proto-vangelo,”
Marianum 6 (1944) 76-96.
, Summula Mariologiae, Rome: Società Graf ica Romana 1952.
Schaefer, Aloys, -Brossart, F., The Mother of Jesus in Holy
Scripture, New York: Pustet 1913.
Scheeben, Mathias, -Geukers, T. L., Mariology, st. Louis: Herder
1946.
Schrijvers, Joseph, Ma Mere, Esschen: Imprimerie-Librairie Saint
Alphonse 1924.
Smith, George, Alary’s Part in Our Redemption, London: Burns,
Oates & Washbourne 1938.
Terrien, J. B. , La Mere de Dieu et la Mere des hommes (2nd part,
La Mère des hommes), 2. ed., Paris; Lethielleux 1903.
Vassall-Phillipss, Oliver, The Mother of Christ, London: Burns,
Oates & Washbourne 1920.

92

Other Works

Allo, Ernest, Saint Jean: L'Apocalypse, 3. ed., Paris; Lecoffre
1933.
Baumann, A., Maria Mater nostra spiritualis, Eine theologische
Untersuchung ueber die geistige Mutterschaft Martens in
den Aeusserungen der paepste von Tridentinun bis heute,
Brixen: Weber 1948.
Breen, A., A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, 3. ed.,
Milwaukee: Bruce 1930.
Canice, F. , Mary, a Study of the Mother of God, Dublin: Gill and
Son 1937.
Ceuppens, F., De Mariologia Biblica, Turin-Rome: Marietti 1938.
Coppens, J., “Le protévangile, un nouvel essai d’exégèse,”
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovante ns es 26 (1950) 5-36.
Denziger-Bannwart-Umberg-Rahner, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionun, et dec larationun de rebus fidei et norun, 29,
ed., Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1953.
Drewniak, L. , Die Mariologische Deutung von Gen, 3:15 in der
Vaterzeit, Breslau Nishkowsky 1934.
Druwe*, E., “La Mediation universelle de Marie,” Mar ia: Etudes sur
la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, 1 Paris: Beauchesne
1949, 417-572.
Durand, A., Evangile selon Saint Jean, paris; Beauchesne 1938.
Finan, T., "Reflections on Mary's Spiritual Motherhood, " Clergy
Review 25 (1945) 192-203.
Gallagher, "Evaluation of the Argument in Favor of Mary’s Co­
Redemption,” Marian Studies 2 (1951) 107-28.
Gallus, Tibertius, Inter pre tat io Mariologica Protoevange lit,
Rome; Orbis Catholicus 1949.
Geenen, G. , “Les antecedents doctrinaux et historiques de la
consecration du monde au coeur immaculé de Marie,” Marie
Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, 1 Paris;
Beauchesne 1949, 825-74.
Goosens, Werner, De cooperatione inmediata Matris Redemptor is ad
Redemptionem obiectivan, Paris; Desclee 1939.
Moelle, Philip, "Ad diem ilium," Marian Reprint, 9.
Kane, John, The School of Mary, Paterson: St. Anthony Guild Press

93

1942.
Knabenbauer, J., Evangelium secundam Joanne», paris: Lethielleux
1898.
Koehler,^Theodore, “Maternite spirituelle de Marie,” Maria:
Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, 1 Paris;
Beauchesne 1949, 573-600.
Leal, J., “Beata Virgo omnium spiritualis Mater ex Joanne 19:2627," Verbum Domini 27 (1949) 65-73.
Lebon, J., “Comment je conçois, j’établis et je défends la
doctrine de la Mediation Mariale,” Ephemer ides The o logicae
Lovanienses 16 (1939) 655-744.
Le Frois, B., “The Spiritual Motherhood of Mary in John 1:13,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951) 422-31.
Lennerz, H., “Consensus Patrum in interpretatione mariologica
Gen. 3:15,” Gregorianum 27 (1946) 300-318.
, "De Redemptione et cooperatione in opere Redemptionis,"

Gregorianum 22 (1941) 302-315.
_, "Duae quaestiones de Bulla ‘Ineffabilis Deus,'"
Gregor ianum 24 (1943) 347-56.
Leo XIII, Pope, Adjutricem populi, ASS 28 (1895) 129-56.
, Ex quo beatissima, ASS 35 (1902-1903) 627-8.
Maas, A., The Life of Jesus Christ, 5. ed., St. Louis: Herder
1909.
Martindale, C., 5er«on Notes, New York: Longmans, Green 1917.
Mathews, Stanley, The Promised Woman, st. Meinrad; Indiana: Grail
1954.
May, Eric, “The Scriptural Basis for Mary’sSpiritual Maternity, ”
Marian Studies 3 (1952) 111-41.
Mersch, E. -Vollert, C., The Theology of the Mystical Body, St.
Louis: Herder 1952.
. -Kelly, The Whole Christ, Milwaukee: Bruce 1938.
Migne, J. P., Patrologia latina, 221 vols., Paris; Migne 1844-55.
Mueller, F., Origo divino-apostolica doctrinae evectionis Beatae
Virginis ad gloriam coe lestem quoad corpus, Innsbruck:
Rauch 1930.
Nau, Louis, Mary Mediatrix of All Graces for All Men, New York:
Pustet 1928.
Newton william, a Commentary on the New Testament, Washington:
Catholic Biblical Association of America 1942.

94

Northcote, John, Mary in the Gospels, London: Burns, Oates &
Washbourne 1906.
(/Connell, Raphael, Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces, Baltimore:
John Murphy Company 1926.
O’Connor, William, "The Spiritual Maternity of Our Lady in
Tradition," Marian Studies 3 (1952) 142-73.
Parent, J., “La Maternite Spirituelle de Marie dans la Liturgie
Romaine," A Ina Soda Christi 2 (1952 ) 234-48.
Pius X, Pope Saint, Ad diem ilium ASS 36 (1903-1904) 449-62.
Pius XI, Pope, Quas primas, ASS 17 (1925) 593-610.
Pius XII, Pope, Divino afflante Spiritu, ASS 45 (1943) 297-325.
, Mystici corporis, ASS 35 (1943) 193-248.
Quasten, John, Patrology, Utrecht, Antwerp: Spectrum 1950.
Rivière, J.. "La notion de Marie Médiatrice,” Ephemerides Theo­
logicae Lovanienses 2 (1925) 223-9.
Russell, M.. Behold Your Mother, Dublin: Benziger 1909.
Ryan, Mary I., The Mother of God, New York: Spiritual Book
Associates 1939.
Sheen, Fulton, The Mystical Body of Christ, New York: Sheed and
Ward 1935.
Shea, George, "The Teaching of the Magisterium on Mary’s Spiritual
Maternity," Marian Studies 3 (1952) 35-110.
Sebastian, Wenceslaus, "The Nature of Mary’s Spiritual Mater­
nity,” Marian Studies 3 (1952) 14-34.
Tromp, Sebastian, Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia, Rome: Gregorianum 1937.
Unger, Dominic, "The Use of Sacred Scriptures in Mariology,”
Marian Studies 1 (1950) 67-118.
Vollert, Cyril, "The Place of Our Lady in the Mystical Body, ‘
Marian Studies 3 (1952) 174-98.
Wiliam, Franz, -Eckhoff.F., Mary the Mother of Jesus, St. Louis:
Herder 1939.

95

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE COMPLETE DISSERTATION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I - STATUS QUAESTIONIS
Article 1. Importance of the Spiritual Maternity
Article 2. Meaning of the Spiritual Maternity

CHAPTER II - PROOFS FOR THE FACT OF THE SPIRITUAL
MATERNITY
Article 1. Scriptural Proofs:
The Four Major Texts
The Minor Texts
Article 2. Tradition
Article 3. Fittingness of the Spiritual Maternity
CHAPTER III - FOUNDATIONS FOR MARY’S SPIRITUAL MATERNITY
Part 1. General Doctrine
Article 1. The Divine Maternity
Article 2. Mary’s Co-operation in the Redemption
Part 2. Individual Differences in Teaching
Article 1. The Divine Maternity
Article 2. Mary’s Co-operation in the Redemption
CHAPTER IV - CONSEQUENCES OF MARY’ S SPIRITUAL MATERNITY
Article 1. Relation of the Spiritual Maternityto the
Dispensation of Graces
Article 2. Relation of the Spiritual Maternity to
Other Prerogatives

CONCLUSION

96