Bro. Marwil N. Llasos is the country's foremost Marian apologist. He is the author of bestselling book DEFENDING MARY OUR MOTHER and the host of KNOW THE TRUTH program on TV Maria. He is an associate member of Defensores Fidei Foundation where he serves as Resource Person on Mariology.
Bro. Marwil is the Head Servant of the Franciscans of the Holy Spirit Lay Association.
Theotokos, Helper in Childbirth (Ancient Faith Store)
The Council of Ephesus on the Theotokos
The early Church was confronted with the heresy of Nestorianism, named after Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorius attempted to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature. The heresiarch preached that Jesus Christ was two separate and distinct persons – one divine and one human. He claimed that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ who was at once both God and man.
To address this Christological crisis, the bishops of the early Church convened in the Greek City of Ephesus in 431 AD.[1] The council excommunicated Nestorius and formulated the orthodox position regarding the true identity of Christ. Nestorianism attacked the correct teaching of Christ through Mary by forbidding veneration of her as the God-bearer (Theotokos), the Church responded by making Theotokos a dogma to protect the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is not two persons but one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union.[2]
Blessed Virgin Theotokos (Blessedmart.Com)
The Council of Ephesus pronounced –
“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh as it is written, “The Word was made flesh,” let him be anathema.”[3]
“Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence, the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).”[4]
Very clearly, the Council acclaimed the Virgin Mary as Theotokos which literally means “God-bearer” because she conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ who was truly God and truly man. The Latin equivalent is Deipara which is translated as “the one who gives birth to God.” Other terms used are the popular title Mater Dei (Mother of God) and Dei Genetrix (literally, “the one who brings forth God”). Although Mary is acknowledged as the Mother of God, it is not taken to mean that she is older than God or the source or origin of her Son’s divinity. Rather, the title is understood to mean that she carried in her womb a Divine Person – Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Defender of the Theotokos
In 451 AD, the Council of Chalcedon[5] confirmed Mary’s title as the Mother of God and decreed that such title is the “touchstone of orthodoxy” because it safeguards the true and correct identity of Jesus Christ. Mary is called “Mother of God,” therefore, her son is God. Since Christ is born of a woman, hence, he is human. But there exists only one person, a divine person, Jesus Christ:
“Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.”[6]
“We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.”[7]
Other titles such as “Mother of the Lord,”“Mother of Jesus” and “Mother of Christ” were available and could be correctly and devoutly used. However, each of these titles could be misunderstood to suggest that Our Lord is in some way less than God. Father Mateo asserts that “[o]nly ‘Mother of God’ leaves the hearer in no doubt about Christian belief in his full divinity.”[8]Theotokos emphasizes that Mary had God – a divine being and not a human being – in her womb.[9]
[1] Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870 (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1964) 51-74.
[2] Mark P. Shea, “The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion,” Crisis Vol. 22, No. 11, December 2004, 18.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a sign of the new creation in Christ. Since God himself would irrupt in sinful humanity as Jesus Christ, he would have to start in a clean slate. Mary is the type – an eminent example – of the creation that Jesus makes new (cf. Rev. 21:5; 2 Cor. 5:17). Mary is the epitome of the Church, “not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing … holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27).
As type and foremost member of the Church, Mary stands as the pledge of what Christians shall become in the next life. What Mary is, so we shall be. We will share in Mary’s lot as being immaculate and sinless as willed by God in the beginning: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4). This is the clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council:
“But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men.”[1]
As the “Church militant” in our earthly pilgrimage progressing towards our final destination, the heavenly Jerusalem, let us heed the call of St. Paul: “keep your being – spirit, soul and body – free from every fault” (1 Thes. 5:23). This is so “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15, NKJV).
Blessed John Duns Scotus: Defender of the Immaculate Conception (Vitae Sanctorum)
In defending Mary’s preservation from Original Sin, we will let the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception, Bl. John Duns Scotus, to speak for himself:
“Mary did not contract original sin because of the excellence of her Son. Inasmuch as he is Redeemer, Reconciler and Mediator. For the most perfect mediator would perform the most perfect act of mediation on behalf of any person for whom he mediated. But Christ is the most perfect Mediator. Therefore, Christ showed the most perfect possible degree of mediation to any creature or person whose Mediator he was. But for no other person did he exhibit a more excellent degree of mediation than he did for Mary. . . But this would not have happened if he had not merited that she would be preserved from original sin.
I prove this with three arguments. First, in reference to God, to whom Christ reconciles others; second, in reference to evil, from which he liberates others; third, in reference to the debt of the person whom he reconciles too God.
First. No one placates another in the highest or most perfect way for an offense that someone might commit except by preventing him from being offended. For, if he placates someone who has already been offended, so that the offended party remits [punishment], he does not placate perfectly. . . Therefore, Christ does not perfectly placate the Trinity for the guilt to be contracted by the sons of Adam if he does not prevent the Trinity from being offended by at least someone, so that consequently the soul of some one descendant of Adam would not have this guilt.
Second. The most perfect Mediator merits the removal of all punishment from the one whom he reconciles. But the original fault is a grater punishment than even loss of the vision of God. . . because, of all punishments that might befall the intellectual nature, sin is the greatest. Therefore, if Christ reconciled in the most perfect way possible, he merited to remove that most heavy punishment form [at least] someone – and this could only be his Mother.
Blessed John Duns Scotus: Doctor of the Immaculate Conception (Franciscans of the Immaculate)
Further, it seems that Christ restored and reconciled us from original sin more directly than from actual sin, because the necessity of the Incarnation, Passion, and so forth, is commonly attributed to the original sin, but it is commonly supposed that he was a perfect Mediator with respect [at least] one person; for example, Mary, given that he preserved her from all actual sin. Therefore, he acted similarly on her behalf and preserved her fro original sin…
Third. A person who has been reconciled is not indebted in the greatest possible way to his mediator unless he has received the greatest possible good from him. But that innocence, which is the preservation from contracting or needing to contract guilt, can be had by means of a mediator. Therefore, no person would be indebted in the highest possible way to Christ as his Mediator if Christ had not been preserved someone from original sin.
The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood to have happened before ensoulment, for two reasons. In the first place, because the sanctification of which we speak consists in purification from original sin, for sanctity is “total purity,” as Dionysius says. But guilt can be purified only by grace, and only a rational creature can be the subject of grace. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before the infusion of a rational soul.”[1]
The Franciscan School (Albert Kuchler)
[1] Bl. John Duns Scotus, In 3 Sententiarum, id. 3, q. I; Mariani, ed., 181-184; quoted in Luigi C. Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000) 251-252.
To our Venerable Brethren
Cardinal John Carmel Heenan
Archbishop of Westminster
and
Gordon Joseph Gray
Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh
and
To the other Archbishops and Bishops of England, Wales and Scotland
On the occasion of the Second Scholastic Congress
Held at Oxford and Edinburgh
on the Seventh Century of the Birth of John Duns Scotus
Venerable Brethren
Greetings and Apostolic Blessing
A devoted Mother of valiant men, Great Britain is distinguished by a quality no less estimable than the honour and the feats of her glorious children. For she knows how to cherish fondly the memory of her glorious sons and, when tradition demands that anniversaries be celebrated solemnly, she knows how to sing their praises as though striving to repay them a debt of honour.
These were the thoughts that sprang to our mind, and gave no slight satisfaction as we dwelt upon them, when we first learned the details of the Second International Scholastic Congress which is being prepared in your countries in memory of the Venerable John Duns Scotus on the seven-hundredth anniversary of his birth.
This Congress, Venerable Brethren, carefully organized and to be held at Oxford and Edinburgh under your patronage, will be accompanied by lively interest. One can already foresee the excellent fruits it will produce. It will be of considerable importance as well, in view of both of the themes to be treated and of the distinguished persons who will take part in the sessions. Universities of England and Scotland, from abroad the universities of Paris and Cologne where Scotus lectured, and many others will send official representatives. Apart from Catholics, there will be distinguished members of the Anglican Communion of the Church of Scotland, of other Christian Communities of Great Britain, and well known exponents of sacred learning from every part of the world.
As we voice our wishes for a successful Congress and abundant fruits to follow from it, we strongly express our satisfaction at the particular character of this Congress a certain features which are intended to distinguish it. Its principal aim is to shed a brilliant light on the person of John Duns Scotus, on his philosophical and theological doctrine, and on his moral and ascetic principles, and set him and his work in its medieval historical context. To this end the critical-historical method, without the pitfalls of polemical discussion and controversy so often in the past a block to its fruitful use, has already been used by learned men to discover which are the genuine works of the Subtle Doctor and what are really and truly his teachings, and will continue to produce excellent results in their interpretation.
Blessed John Duns Scotus: Defender of the Immaculate Conception
For this reason combined efforts are being made to produce in broad outline a panorama or unified vision of the entire family of Scholastic doctors, in the context of which it will be possible to measure and understand the variety, the richness, and the fecundity of the philosophical and theological doctrine flourishing during the Middle Ages.
In this panorama Saint Thomas Aquinas with his Summa Theologica rises without doubt like a lofty peak dominating the surrounding mountains, i.e. the whole world pf sacred learning developed during his times. The synthesis constructed by the Angelic Doctor in describing the relationship between Faith and Reason, between Faith seeking understanding (as your own Saint Anselm of Canterbury had already expressed it[1]) and understanding seeking Faith, achieved such universal acceptance that he is recognized as leader in the ranks of the Scholastics and is rightly celebrated under the name of Doctor Communis. Side by side with him, however, other prominent Scholastic teachers and doctors stand out like stars illuminating the Catholic learning of the period.
In the encyclical letter Aeterni Patris, Our Predecessor of happy memory, Pope Leo XIII, pleads for the revival of Scholasticism under the leadership of Saint Thomas Aquinas in opposition to modern errors. After stating that “Saint Thomas towers above all others,”[2] this Pontiff enumerates other Scholastic doctors among whom a prominent place is reserved for Saint Bonaventure. Saint Pius X afterwards called the Seraphic Doctor “the second leader of Scholasticism.”[3] It is universally recognized that John Duns Scotus surpassed the Seraphic Doctor.
It is also noted that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in its decree on the training of priests, prescribed: “Philosophical subjects are to be taught in such a way that the students are led to acquire a solid and coherent knowledge of man, the world and God, based upon the patrimony of perennially valid philosophy.”[4] This perennially valid philosophy certainly includes the Franciscan School.
Blessed John Duns Scotus: The Subtle Doctor
Besides the principal, magnificent temple, that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, there are others among which, although differing from it in style and size, is that splendid temple constructed by John Duns Scotus, fruit of his ardent and contemplative genius, based on solid foundations and built up with daring pinnacles pointing towards heaven. In the field of speculation his inspiration very often is linked to Platonic and Augustinian tendencies and method. Sometimes he agrees with the Stagirite, sometimes disagrees. Following in the wake of more than fifty Franciscan Scholastics, among whom where Saint Anthony of Padua, Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure, Matthew of Aquasparta, Richard of Middleton, Adam Marsh, Roger Bacon and William of Ware, he assimilated and perfected their teachings and excelled them all, becoming the principal standard-bearer of the Franciscan School.
Saint Francis of Assisi’s most beautiful ideal of perfection and the ardour of the Seraphic Spirit are embedded in the work of Scotus and inflame it, for he ever holds virtue of greater value than learning. Teaching as he does the pre-eminence of love over knowledge, the universal primacy of Christ, who was the greatest of God’s works, the magnifier of the Holy Trinity and Redeemer of the human race, King in both the natural and supernatural orders, with the Queen of the world, Mary Immaculate, standing beside him, resplendent in her untarnished beauty, Scotus develops to its full height each point of revealed Gospel truth: those Saint John the Evangelist and Saint Paul understood to be pre-eminent in the divine plan of salvation.
It is widely expected that this Congress to be held in Great Britain to honour the memory of the Subtle and Marian Doctor, will yield a ripe and abundant harvest, both in the fields of speculative thought and prayer and in the fields of morality and activity. We look forward primarily, then, to a revival of interest in the history of theology and especially the history of Scholastic theology, one to make its presence felt in eagerness for honest research and systematic study.
We are deeply convinced that the precious theological treasure of John Duns Scotus can provide formidable weapons in the struggle to disperse the black cloud of atheism which hangs darkly over our age. More often than not those who deny the existence of God, either in theory or in practice, are merely adoring idols or phantasms of their own creation, becoming consequently vain in their own thoughts.[5]
The Franciscan School: Champion of the Immaculate Conception (Absolute Primacy of Christ)
The Subtle Doctor, who developed his theodicy drawing on two key Scriptural principles regarding God, namely: “I am who am,”[6] and “God is love,”[7] goes on to teach with admirable precision about Him who is “infinite truth and infinite good,”[8] “first effecter,” “first perfecter,” “simply first according to his eminence,” “a sea of perfection,”[9] and “essentially love.”[10]
We cherish however yet another hope. In the declaration which we made, together with our venerable brother, Michael Ramsey, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, on March 24 this year in the Basilica of the Apostle Saint Paul Without-the-Walls, we included an intention of arranging “a serious dialogue, founded on the Gospels and on the ancient traditions, which may lead to that unity in truth for which Christ prayed.”[11]
The teachings of Scotus could perhaps provide the golden framework for this serious dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communions as well as the other Christian Communities of Great Britain. During the three centuries before the breach with the Apostolic See, his doctrine was commonly taught in the schools of Britain, not a foreign imposition but brought to flower on the fertile soil of the fatherland by one who was born and bred in Great Britain and who now brings glory to her by his ready and universal genius as well as by his practical wisdom. He was a constructive theologian, and he loves with that real and definite love: called praxis in his own formulation. “It has been shown that true love is a practical thing.”[12]
The theoretical elements in pursuing this dialogue can well be provided by one who assigns the noblest and principal role to Seraphic love. He warns us that progress be gradual: “in matters of belief, nothing must be asserted unless it can be proved by what is already known to be true,”[13] “Nothing is to be held as of the substance of the faith unless it can be learned expressly from the Sacred Scripture, or has been expressly declared by the Church, or unless it follows evidently from something contained plainly in Scripture or plainly decided by the Church.”[14]
Blessed John Duns Scotus: The Marian Doctor (The Amish Catholic)
It was further furthermore the Subtle Doctor’s constant care that the teaching authority of the Church should be dutifully respected and obeyed with unfailing reverence, for it has the divine guarantee of the truth. “If any doctor asserts something new, nobody is bound to agree…but he is bound to consult the Church first and thus avoid falling into error.”[15] “The Church, our guide and teacher:” under that standard he marched. That was the banner he unfurled.
Scotus examined and pursued the development of knowledge with careful critical acumen, his eyes always fixed on fundamental principles. He enunciated his conclusions with calm judgment, his purpose being, as Jean Gerson said; “not to assert himself with quarrelsome singularity, but with humility to establish concord.”[16]
Against Rationalism he observes that reason and thought are limited in acquiring knowledge of divinely revealed truths, and emphasizes that the latter are quite necessary if man is to attain the last end for which he was created. But in the noble attempt to find harmony between natural and supernatural truths, to marry faith with philosophy, he points out the danger there may be of falling into errors of paganism or – he quotes with approval the words of Saint Bonaventure – mixing so much water of “philosophical knowledge with the wine of Holy Scripture, that the wine is turned into water.”[17]
The above considerations indicate the bases for realization of our wishes: that a golden harvest may ripen in naturally fertile soil and that from these learned and broad discussions and agreed conclusions the truth will flourish with renewed vigour, “the truth that doth lift us so high.”[18]
Blessed John Duns Scotus: Marian Doctor by Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, F.I. (Amazon.Com)
In confirmation of Our paternal wishes for the Second International Scholastic Congress to be held in Oxford and Edinburgh to honour the name of John Duns Scotus, We invoke the protection of God, source of truth and love, who wishes us to be “united in love” in his one act of love,[19] and with these greetings We bestow the Apostolic Blessing on you, Venerable Brethren on those who are engaged in preparing the Congress, and on all who will take part in it.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the fourteenth day of July in the year MCMLXVI, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.
POPE PAUL VI
Pope St. Paul VI (Salt and Light TV)
[Source: Stefano M. Manelli, FI, Blessed John Duns Scotus: Marian Doctor (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate) 103-110.]
[1] St. Anselm, Proslogion, premium (P.L. 158, 225; ed. F.S. Schmitt, O.S.B., I, (Sekkkau Austria 1938) pp. 94.
[2] Leo XIII, Encyclical letter Aeterni Patris (Acta Leonis XIII, I, Rome 1881) p. 272.
[3] Pius X, Letter Doctoris Seraphici (Acta pii X, I, Rome 1905) p. 235.
[4] Decree De Institutione Sacredotali, n. 15 (Vatican Press, 1965).
THE MOTHER OF THE LORD AS DATUM OF DIVINE REVELATION
Russian Icon of Our Lady (Pinterest)
On March 25, 1988, the Congregation for Catholic Education released the Circular Letter The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation addressed to theological faculties, seminaries and other centers of ecclesiastical studies. The Letter emphasized the permanence of the promotion of knowledge, research and piety with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to the Congregation, “the exemplary value and mission of the Virgin are permanent.” Thus, the Mother of the Lord is a “datum of divine Revelation” and a “maternal presence” always operative in the life of the Church.
The Letter from the Congregation for Catholic Education stresses the importance of Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium which situates the Blessed Virgin in the context of the mystery of Christ and of the Church.
Icon of Mary and the Trinity (Pintrest)
Theology
As a “datum of divine Revelation,” the study of the Blessed Virgin Mary is part and parcel of Theology as “the science that deals with God and creatures in so far as they relate to God in the light of Divine Revelation.”[1] As defined, Theology investigates not only God in Himself, but also the works of God in relation to Him. The Blessed Virgin Mary is included in the study of Theology because she is a creature most intimately related to God as the beloved daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the study of the person and role of Mary, the masterpiece of God’s creation, as she relates to God is known as Mariology.
Mariology
Fr. Roland Dacanay Mactal, O.P., Professor of Mariology at the pontifical and royal University of Santo Tomas, defines Mariology as “a part of the science of systematic theology, which deals with the mother of God.”[2] He explains that Mariology “is scientific because of its capacity to be formed into an organic system of truths logically articulated in the light and principles received from God. It is part of the science of theology because like all theology, it is originally taught by God through revelation. The strength of her position in the divine plan of salvation will deepen our appreciation of the other phases of Catholic Theology.”[3]
Virgin Hodigitria (Flickr)
Christology
In the dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council treats of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the mystery of Christ (LG Chapter VIII). This treatment of Mary in the mystery of her Son shows that Marian doctrines are actually Christological ones. Hence, the deeper we
delve on Mary, the more we learn about Christ.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “[w]hat the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faiths in Christ (CCC No. 487). Similarly, Blessed William Joseph Chaminade, founder of the Society of Mary (Marianists), noted: “As it is through our knowledge of Our Savior Jesus Christ that we have come to know the most Blessed Virgin, so also may we say that it is our knowledge of Mary that leads us to know our Lord Jesus Christ?”[4]
Church history attests that Marian doctrines resulted from Christological controversies. For example, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD affirmed Mary’s title as Theotokos or Mother of God in view of the revealed truth that her Son, Jesus Christ was true God and true man: two natures (human and divine) in one person (hypostasis) – the Second Person of the Trinity. In the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, the title of Theotokos was decreed as the “touchstone of orthodoxy” because it safeguards the full truth about Jesus Christ. “The revelation that Mary is the God-bearer is essential to affirming the truth about Jesus in his Incarnation. Every Christian who believes that Jesus is fully God and fully man should affirm that Mary is Theotokos.”[5]
The Descent of the Holy Spirit upon Mary and the Apostles (Pinterest)
Pneumatology
In The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education points out that the “relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit is also to be seen in the light of Christ.”[6]
Marian doctrines highlight Mary’s intimate relationship with the Holy
Spirit, her Spouse. As the mystical Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mary was most
faithful and responsive to the Holy Spirit. As being “full of grace,” Mary is the
greatest and most perfect handiwork of the Holy Spirit from her holy and immaculate conception to her glorious assumption. Mary is the masterpiece of the Holy Spirit.
The action of the Holy Spirit is clearly seen in Mary (Lk. 1:35). Sacred Scripture clearly shows that the presence of Mary is an occasion for the outpouring out of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:41-42). Mary, as part of the early Christian community, was with the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 2:1-4). The Second Vatican Council points out that “Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Holy Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation” was the mediator for the first Christian community to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost.”[7]
The Ascension icon (OrthodoxChurchRugby.Com)
Ecclesiology
In Lumen Gentium, the Blessed Virgin Mary is likewise presented in the mystery of the Church. In its 1988 Letter, the Congregation for Catholic Education comments that “[f]or Christ, and therefore also for the Church, God willed and predestined the Virgin from all eternity.”[8]
Thus, Mary cannot be isolated or separated from the Church because she is the “pre-eminent and a wholly unique member of the Church” as well as the Church’s “type and outstanding model in faith and charity” (LG No. 53). Indeed, Mary cannot be divorced from the Church. She is the outstanding member of the Church of her Son. She is our model disciple and sister in faith.
According to Lumen Gentium (No. 53), we see Mary as the “type” or figure of the Church as well as its “model.” By saying that Mary is the “type of the Church,” what we are saying is that what Mary already is, we shall all become. She is an outstanding model because her perfection surpasses that of all the other members of the Church. She is the first and foremost disciple of her Son. However, the Virgin Mary is also sign for all the faithful because her life was a perfect witness which points the way for all believers by living in dynamic obedience to the will of God.[9]35 Mary’s “entire life is an image of the life that all Christians are called to – a life of surrender, brave faith, and obedience to the will of God.”[10]
[1] Mariano Artigas, Introduction to Philosophy (Manila: Sinag-Tala, 1984) 96.
[2] Fr. Ronald Dacanay Mactal, O.P., Mary: Seat of Wisdom – A Contemporary Marian Reflection (Manila: UST Publishing House, 2001) 132.
[9] Jenny Schroedel and Rev. John Schroedel, The Everything Mary Book: The Life
and Legacy of the Blessed Mother (Massachusetts: Adams Media, 2006) 96.
Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant (Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Mill Valley)
A type is defined as “a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament.”[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about typology in this wise:
“The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.”[2]
There are various types of Mary in the Old Testament. We shall touch only the three (3) major ones: Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Virgin Daughter of Zion.
Mary, the New Eve (Icon of the Annunciation, Amazon.Com)
(1) Eve
Taking its cue from Christ as the New Adam (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22), the early Church fathers identified Mary as the New Eve. Among them were St. Justin Martyr (d. 165 AD),[3] St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 193 AD);[4] Tertullian (d. 220 AD);[5] St. Ambrose of Milan (d. 397 AD);[6] St. Jerome (d. 419 AD)[7] and St. Peter Chrysologus (d. 450 AD).[8]
Eve was virgin before the Fall while Mary is virgin after the Fall. Virginity implies much more that physical virginity. It means total receptiveness to the will of God. Eve lost her virginity by sinning against God. On the other hand, Mary was always a virgin because of her total receptiveness to the will of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts –
“The Virgin Mary “cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation” (LG 56). She uttered her yes “in the name of all human nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.”[9]
(2) Ark of the Covenant
Of all the Marian types, the Ark of the Covenant is the most attested in Sacred Scripture.[10] St. Luke shows by allusion rather than direct assertion of prophetic fulfillment that the Ark of the Covenant prefigures, typifies or foreshadows in a most profound way the Mother of Jesus.
Old Testament
New Testament
2 Samuel 6:2 – “Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of the God, which bears the name of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.”
Luke 1:39-40 – “During those days Mary set out and travelled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.”
2 Samuels 6:9 – “David feared the Lord that day and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”
Luke 1:43 – “And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
2 Samuels 6:16 – “As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Saul’s daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord…”
Luke 1:44 – “For at that moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”
2 Samuel 6:18 – “When he finished making these offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.”
Luke 1:45 – “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
2 Samuel 6:11 – “The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed Obededom and his whole house.”
Luke 1:56 – “Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.”
Luke 1:35 says that Mary is “overshadowed” (episkiasei) by the power of the Most High. In the Old Testament, the “Shekinah” or the glory of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (Exo. 40:34-38). The cloud which overshadowed the Ark symbolized the abiding presence of God in his people. Overshadowed by the power of the Most High, the abiding presence of God has always been with Mary.
The Ark of the Covenant was holy and pure. It was set aside for God’s purpose alone. The Ark was so holy that no one could touch it. It was so holy that anyone who would dare touch it was killed (Num. 4:15; 2 Sam. 6:6-7). St. Joseph, a devout Jew and “a just man” (Mt. 1:19) would not dare touch the living Ark of the Covenant who was “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High God (Lk. 1:35). If those who touched the Ark in the Old Testament perished, Joseph’s fate could not be far behind if he too dared to touch the Ark in the New.
Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant and Daughter of Zion (Pinterest)
(3) Virgin Daughter of Zion
The Catholic Church sees in the Blessed Virgin Mary the personification of the Daughter of Zion:
“Mary, the Daughter of Zion and ideal personification of Israel, is the last and most worthy representative of the People of the Old Covenant but at the same time she is “the hope and the dawn of the whole world.” With her, the elevated Daughter of Zion, after a long expectation of the promises, the times are fulfilled and a new economy is established.”[11]
The “Daughter of Zion” (“Bat Zion”) was originally the name of a section of Jerusalem which soon became the hypostatized “spirit” of the city and the nation. Unlike Jerusalem the adulteress, Zion was the idealized wife of the Lord. The Daughter of Zion’s response to God’s love was absolute. It was virginal in purity; hence, the name “virgin Daughter of Zion” (2 Kings 19:21; Isa. 37:22).
The greeting “Rejoice!” (Gk. “Chaire”) to which the Virgin Daughter of Zion was addressed in the Old Testament (Zeph. 3:14-20; Zech. 9:9) was applied by the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Annunciation (Lk. 1:28).
Psalm 132: 13-14 declares: “For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here I will dwell, for I have desired it.” Like the Virgin Zion, the Lord has chosen and desired the Virgin Mary for his “habitation” for nine months.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the embodiment of the Virgin Daughter of Zion. She is the last and most worthy representative of the People of the Old Covenant but at the same time she is the “hope and the dawn of the whole world.”[12] As Lumen Gentium teaches: “With her, the elevated Daughter of Zion, after long expectation of the promises, the times are fulfilled and a new economy is established.”[13]
Mary is the true virgin daughter of Zion because of her virginal “Fiat” to God. It was through Mary, Zion’s daughter, that the King came to us and dwelt among us as the one who is truly Emmanuel – God with us (cf. Zech. 9:9; Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23; Lk. 1:38; Jn. 1:14).
[1] Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 92.
[3] St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100; PG 6, 709-712; see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 47.
[4] St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. Haer., 3, 22; PG 7, 959-960; 5, 19; PG 7, 1175-1176; Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33, SC 62, pp. 83-86; see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 53-58.
[5] Tertullian, De carne Christi 17, 5; PL 2, 828; see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 66.
[6] St. Ambrose of Milan, De institutione virginis 33; PL 16, 328, see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 192.
[7] St. Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 96, I; CCL 78, 444-445, see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 212.
[8] St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 99, 5; PL 52, 458-459; Sermo 74, 3; PL 52, 409; Sermo 75, 3; PL 52, 413; see: Luigi Gambero, SM, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1999) 298-299.
Except for Pope Benedict XVI who wrote in his personal capacity as a private theologian (and as Pope in a homily) and Pope Francis in a homily, the following modern Popes treat of Mary as the “woman clothed with the sun” in their magisterial writings:
Pope St. Pius XII (Wikipedia)
(1)Pope Pius X
Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary, the stainless one who brought fourth the Saviour” (Ad diem illum).[1]
Venerable Pope Pius XII (Wikipedia)
(2)Pope Pius XII
Scholastic Doctors recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in the various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom St. John the Apostle contemplated in the island of Patmos” (Munificentissimus Deus).[2]
Pope St. Paul VI
(3)Pope Paul VI
The Great Sign which the Apostle John saw in heaven, “a woman clothed with the sun,” is interpreted by the sacred Liturgy, not without foundation, as referring to the most blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer (Signum Magnum).[3]
Pope St. John Paul II the Great
(4)Pope John Paul II
The words uttered by Jesus from the Cross signify that the motherhood of her who bore Christ finds a “new” continuation in the Church and through the Church, symbolized and represented by John. In this way, she who as the one “full of grace” was brought into the mystery of Christ in order to be his Mother and thus the Holy Mother of God, through the Church remains in the mystery as the “woman” spoken of by the Book of genesis (3:15) at the beginning and by the Apocalypse (12:1) at the end of the history of salvation (Redemptoris Mater, 1, 24).[4]
A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun” (Ap 12.1): the motherhood of Mary and of the Church: The mutual relationship between the mystery of the Church and Mary appears clearly in the “great portent” described in the Book of Revelation: “A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (12.1). In this sign the Church recognizes an image of her own mystery: present in history, she knows that she transcends history, inasmuch as she constitutes on earth the “seed and beginning” of the Kingdom of God. The Church sees this mystery fulfilled in complete and exemplary fashion in Mary. She is the woman in whom God’s plan could be carried out with supreme perfection. “The “woman clothed with the sun” – the Book of Revelation tells us- “was with child” (12.2). The Church is fully aware that she bears within herself the Savior of the world, Christ the Lord. She is aware that she is called to offer Christ to the world, giving men and women new birth into God’s own life. But the Church cannot forget that her mission was made possible by the motherhood of Mary, who conceived and bore the One who is “God from God,” “true God from true God.” Mary is truly the Mother of God, the Theotokos, in whose motherhood the vocation to the motherhood bestowed by God on every woman is raised to its highest level. Thus Mary becomes the model of the Church, called to be the “new Eve,” the mother of believers, the mother of the “living” (cf. Gn 3.20). The angel’s Annunciation to Mary is framed by these reassuring words: “Do not be afraid, Mary” and “with God nothing will be impossible” (Lk. 1.30, 37). The whole of the Virgin Mother’s life is in fact pervaded by the certainty that God is near to her and that he accompanies her with providential care. The same is true of the Church, which finds “a place prepared by God” (Ap 12.6) in the desert, the place of trial but also of the manifestation of God’s love for his people (cf. Hs 2.16). Mary is a living word of comfort for the Church in her struggle against death. Showing us the Son, the Church assures us that in him the forces of death have already been defeated: “Death with life contended: combat strangely ended! Life’s own Champion, slain, yet lives to reign.” “And the dragon stood before the woman…that he might devour her child when she brought it fort” (Ap 12.4): life menace by the forces of evil: In the book of Revelation, the “great portent” of the “woman” (12.1) is accompanied by “another portent which appeared in heaven”: “a great red Dragon” (Ap 12.3) which represents Satan, the personal power of evil, as well as all the powers of evil at work in history and opposing the Church’s mission. Here too Mary sheds light on the community of believers. The hostility of the powers of evil is, in fact, an insidious opposition which, before affecting the disciples of Christ, is directed against his mother. To save the life of her Son from those who fear him as a dangerous threat, Mary has to flee with Joseph and the Child into Egypt (cf. Mt 2.13-15). Mary thus helps the Church to realize that life is always at the center of a great struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. The Dragon wishes to devour “the child brought forth” (cf. Ap 12.4), a figure of Christ, whim Mary brought forth “in fullness of time” (Gl 4.4) and whom the Church must unceasingly offer to people in every age. But in a way that child is also a figure of every person, every child, especially every helpless baby whose life is threatened, because as the Council reminds us —“by his Incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every person.” It is precisely in the “flesh” of every person that Christ continues to reveal himself and to enter into fellowship with us, so that the rejection of human life, in whatever form that rejection takes, is really a rejection of Christ. This is the fascinating but also demanding truth which Christ reveals to us and which his Church continues to proclaim untiringly to proclaim: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me” (Mt 18.5); “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my children, you did it to me” (Mt. 25.40) (Evangelium Vitae, 103, 105, 104).[5]
Pope Benedict XVI (Wikipedia)
(5)Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. The Church must continually give birth to Christ in pain (cf. Rev 12:1-6). Another stage in the evolution of this idea is found in the Letter to the Ephesians, where the saying about man who leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with his wife is applied to Christ and the Church (cf. Eph. 5:31-32). On the basis of the “corporate personality” model – in keeping with biblical thought – the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history.
Just like Mary, the Woman, so too the beloved disciple is both a historical figure and a type of discipleship as it will always exist and must always exist. It is to the disciple, a true disciple in loving communion with the Lord, that the Woman is entrusted: Mary – the Church.[6]
“[There] appeared in heaven a woman clothed with the sun”. So the seer of Patmos tells us in the Book of Revelation (12:1), adding that she was about to give birth to a son. Then, in the Gospel, we hear Jesus say to his disciple, “Here is your mother” (Jn 19:27). We have a Mother! “So beautiful a Lady”, as the seers of Fatima said to one another as they returned home on that blessed day of 13 May a hundred years ago. That evening, Jacinta could not restrain herself and told the secret to her mother: “Today I saw Our Lady”. They had seen the Mother of Heaven. Many others sought to share that vision, but… they did not see her. The Virgin Mother did not come here so that we could see her. We will have all eternity for that, provided, of course, that we go to heaven.[7]
[1] Pope Pius X, quoted in in Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982) 375).
[2] Pope Pius XII, quoted in John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1975) p. 404. AAS (1950) 763.
[3] Pope Paul VI, quoted in Robert A. Sungenis, The Apocalypse of St. John (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 2007) 241.
MARIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN ACCORDING TO THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH
Our Lady the Woman Clothed with the Sun icon (All-Photo.Ru)
The identification of Mary as the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12 finds support in the Fathers of the Church. The first extant patristic source on the Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12 is St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403). He wrote:
“But elsewhere, in the Apocalypse of John, we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she flew into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her” (Rev. 12:13-14). This could have happened in Mary’s case.”[1]
Steve Puluka, a liturgy, church history and patristics teacher at Manor College[2] comments that –
“This passage merely mentions the association exists without really endorsing the view wholeheartedly himself. He qualifies the identification with [Mary] dare not affirm this with absolute certainty. But this silence of the early evidence is as much a reflection of the dearth of material interpreting Revelation at all from the time period. The references to any aspect of the book are few and far between in the extant literature. But the tepid mention by Epiphanius demonstrates that the existence of a Marian identification of the woman in the same time period was widespread enough that he could not pass the text without comment on it.” (underscoring supplied)
Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Luigi Gambero (BookDepository.Com)
Mariologist Michael O’Carroll notes that “[t]here is in the same age a vague reference in Andrew of Caesarea to people who identified the woman with Mary.”[3] Both Epiphanius of Salamis and Andrew of Caesaria[4] both record that some ‘some people’ identified the woman clothed with the sun as Mary the mother of Jesus; but they do not say who those people were.[5] Hence, it can be said that the opinion was known in the fourth century.[6]
In 430 A.D., Quodvultdeus,[7]a disciple and friend of St. Augustine of Hippo, made the first overtly Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12: “None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary.”[8]
According to Quodvultdeus, fifth century Father of the Church and Bishop of Carthage:
“The Woman signifies Mary, who, being spotless, brought forth our spotless Head. Who herself also showed forth in herself a figure of holy Church, so that as she in bringing forth a Son remained a Virgin, so the Church also should during the whole time be bringing forth His members, and yet not lose her virgin state.”[9]
Since Quodvultdeus was a disciple and close friend of St. Augustine of Hippo, Le Frois argues that “Augustine also must have had Mary in mind in his sermon on Ps. 142,[10] especially as his disciple and close friend, Quodvultdeus, expressly makes the identification: ‘mulierem illam virginem Mariam significasse, quae caput nostrum integra integrum peperit, quae etiam ipsa figuram in se sanctae Ecclesiae demonstravit’ (De Symbolo 3: ML 40.661).”[11]
St. Quodvultdeus (Catholic.Net)
In the first half of the sixth century, Oecumeniusopenly made a Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12. Mariologist Michael O’Carroll states that –
“In the sixth century the philosopher Oecumenius, Greek author of the extant commentary on the whole book of the Apocalypse, interprets the passage in a Marian sense without mentioning the Church. He thinks that the vision rightly shows Mary as heavenly, pure in soul and body, sublime, though she shares our human nature and being. The sun which clothes her is Christ, the twelve stars are the Apostles; her travail he explains not as of childbirth, but as due to Joseph’s suspicion: the vision he repeats, is “about our Lady, the holy, ever-virgin and Theotokos Mary.”[12]
Oecumenius clearly takes the woman as Mary.[13] Bible scholar Hilda Graef avers that Oecumenius read the woman exclusively as Mary.[14] In his Commentary on the Apocalypse, the earliest extant commentary on the whole Book of Revelation, Oecumenius wrote:
“The incarnation of the Lord, by which the world was subjected and made his own, became the occasion for the raising [of the Antichrist] and the endeavors of Satan. For this is why the Antichrist will be raised up: so that he may again cause the world to revolt against Christ, and persuade it to turn around and desert to Satan. Since again the Lord’s physical conception and birth marked the beginning of his incarnation, the vision has brought into some order and sequence the events which it is going to explain, by starting its explanation from the physical conception of Christ, and by depicting for us the Mother of God. For why does he say, And a portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet? He is speaking of the mother of our Savior, as I have said. Naturally the vision describes her as being in heaven and not on earth, as pure in soul and body, as equal to an angel, as a citizen of heaven, as one who came to effect the incarnation of God who dwells in heaven (“for,” he says, “heaven is my throne” [Isa 66:1]), and as one who has nothing in common with the world and the evils in it, but wholly sublime, wholly worthy of heaven, even through she sprang from our mortal nature and being. For the Virgin is of the same substance as we are. The unholy doctrine of Eutyches, that the Virgin is of a miraculously different substance from us, together with his other docetic doctrines, must be banished from the divine courts.
Ancient Christian Texts: Greek Commentaries on Revelation (BookDepository.Com)
What is the meaning of the saying that she is clothed with the sun, and has the moon under her feet? … [I]n order to show in the vision that even when the Lord was conceived, he was the protector of his own mother and of all creation, the vision said that he clothed the woman. In the same way the divine angel said to the holy Virgin, “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). Overshadowing, protecting, and clothing all have the same meaning.
He says, And on her head, a crown of twelve stars. For the Virgin is crowned with the twelve apostles who proclaim the Christ while she is proclaimed together with him. He says, She was with child, and she cried out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery. Yet Isaiah says about her, “before the woman in labor gives birth, and before the toil of labor begins, she fled and brought forth a male child” (Isa 66:7). Gregory [of Nyssa], also, in the thirteenth chapter of his Interpretation of the Song of Songs talks of the Lord “whose conception is without intercourse, and whose birth is undefiled.” So the birth was free from pain. Therefore, if, according to such a great prophet and the teacher of the church, the Virgin has escaped the pain of childbirth, how does she here cry out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery? Does this not contradict what was said? Certainly not. For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit, who spoke through both. But in the present passage you should understand the crying out and being in anguish in this way: until the divine angel told Joseph about her, that the conception was from the Holy Spirit, the Virgin was naturally despondent, blushing before her betrothed, and thinking that he might somehow suspect that she was in labor from a furtive marriage. Her despondency and grief he called, according to the principles of metaphor, crying and anguish; and this is not surprising. For even when blessed Moses spiritually met God and was losing heart–for he saw Israel in the desert being encircled by the sea and by enemies–God said to him, “Why do you cry to me?” (Ex 14:15) So also now the vision calls the sorrowful disposition of the Virgin’s mind and heart “crying out.” But you, who took away the despondency of the undefiled handmaid and your human mother, my lady mistress, the holy Mother of God, by your ineffable birth, do away with my sins, too, for to you is due glory for ever. Amen.”[15]
In the seventh century, the Pseudo-Epiphanius likewise openly made the identification of the woman clothed with the sun as Mary.[16] Other Church Fathers who had the double reference (of both Mary and the Church) in mind were Cassiodorus;[17]Ambrosius Autpertus[18] (d. 784); and Alcuin[19] (735-804).
For Orthodox interpretation of the Woman Clothed with the Sun, see:
[7] The Wikipedia yields the following information about Quodvultdeus:
“Saint Quodvultdeus (died c. 450) was a fifth century church father and bishop of Carthage who was exiled to Naples. He was known to have been living in Carthage around 407 and became a deacon in 421 AD. He corresponded with Saint Augustine of Hippo, who served as Quodvultdeus’ spiritual teacher. Augustine also dedicated some of his writings to Quodvultdeus.
Quodvultdeus was exiled when Carthage was captured by the Genseric, who followed Arianism. Tradition states that he, along with other Catholic churchmen (such as Gaudiosus of Naples) were loaded onto leaky ships. The ships landed at Naples around 439 AD and Quodvultdeus established himself in Italy.
His name means ‘What God wants.’
One of the mosaic burial portraits in the Galleria dei Vescovi in the Catacombs of San Gennaro depicts Quodvultus.”
[8] Quodvultdeus, De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661 (430 AD). Quoted in Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982), p.375.
[9] Quodvultdeus, De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661 (430 AD). Quoted in Mark P. Shea, Mary Mother of the Son (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2009) p. 112.
[12] Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982,), p.375. Citing The Complete Commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse, ed. H. C. Hoskier (Ann Arbor, 1928), p. 135-137.
[14] Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963), pp. 131-132; see also: footnote 61, Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006), p. 113.
[15] Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. John H. Suggit (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006), pp. 107-109.)
[16]Hom. 5 in Laudes B.V.M.: MG 43.493 CD, mentioned in John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (New York: Doubleday Company, Inc, 1975) p. 471.
[17]Complexiones in Apocalypsim 7: ML 70.1411. See: John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (New York: Doubleday Company, Inc, 1975) p. 471. A
[18]In Apocalypsim, Lib. 5 (Maxima Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, Lyons, 1577, pp. 530-2). See: John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (New York: Doubleday Company, Inc, 1975) p. 471. A
[19]Commentarius in Apocalypsim 5 (ML 100.1152-3). See: John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (New York: Doubleday Company, Inc, 1975) p. 471.
Icon of the Theotokos Enthroned and Christ Entroned (Skete.Com)
In the Davidic dynasty, the Mother of the King is known as the “Gevirah” or the “Queen Mother.”
In Hebrew, terms for women are defined vis-à-vis the man because according to Genesis 2:21-25, woman was made for man. Hence, gevirah (a noble woman or queen mother), a term which connotes power, is the feminine equivalent of gibor or a powerful man. Gever (man, male) has several related words –
geveret ad l’olahm (lady forever)
geveret mamlachot (the lady of kingdoms)
gevir (master)
gevirah habechirah (the chosen lady)
gevirah (lady, mistress, royal lady, queen, queen mother)
Gevirah (Queen Mother)
(See: Orthodox Jewish Bible)
King Solomon and his mother Bathsheba (ArchaeologyIllustrated.Com)
Another Hebrew word for “queen” is malkah, which properly refers to a queen in her own right (i.e., the Queen of Sheba), or to the wife of a (foreign or pagan) king. The Gevirah is queen only because she is the mother of the king; hence, not a queen in her own right. The Queen of Sheba was already a queen in her native land before she became the “wife” of King Solomon. Queen Esther, on the other hand, became queen when she married the pagan (Persian and Median) king Ahasuerus (Esther 2:17), taking the place of the deposed queen Vashti (Esther 1:9-22).
The Queen Mother is an official position in the Davidic Kingdom. Next to the throne of the King is a second throne for the Queen Mother (1 Kings 2:19-20). The Queen Mother institution started with King David’s immediate heir, King Solomon who made his mother Bathsheba as the first Queen Mother.
The Queen in the Davidic Kingdom was always the Mother of the King, never the wife. King Solomon, the one who started this institution had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Thus, it was impossible for all his wives to be the queens of the Kingdom. Since Solomon only had one mother, Bathsheba, he made his mother the Gevirah or the Queen Mother of his Kingdom.
When Bathsheba became the Queen Mother, her status in the Kingdom dramatically and significantly changed. As wife of King David, she was the one who bowed down to the King (1 Kings 1:16). However, when her son Solomon became King, the protocol was reversed. It was the King himself who bowed to her! (1 Kings 2:19).
Christ the King and his Queen Mother (CatholicConvert.Com)
The Old Testament underscores the Queen Mother’s importance in the Kingdom of her son. 2 Kings 24:15 narrates: “Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king’s mother, his wives, his officials and the leading men of the land” (NIV). In this passage, the king’s mother is listed next to the king, ahead of the king’s wives and officials. Why is this so? Because she is the Queen Mother; hence, a very important personage in the Kingdom.
The Queen Mother is again listed in Jeremiah 29:2 as next to the king and followed by the other court officials and leaders: “This was after King Jeconiah, and the queen mother, the court officials, the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the artisans, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem” (NRSV).
The Queen Mother is indeed an official position in the kingdom. One proof of which was the deposition of Maacah from that position by her grandson Asa: “He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley” (1 Kings 15:13, NIV).
If the Queen Mother was not an official position in the kingdom, there would have been no need to depose her. Only those who are in power or position are deposed. One interesting fact about Maacah was that she maintained her position as Queen Mother during the reign of her grandson Asa until he deposed her.
Proof that the Queen Mother was an official in the Kingdom was the fact that, like the King, she occupied a royal throne and had a glorious crown on her head:
“Say to the king and to the queen mother,
“come down from your thrones,
for your glorious crowns
will fall from your heads” (Jer. 13:18, NIV).
Icon of Mary, Seat of Wisdom (Pinterest)
The Queen Mother is likewise mentioned in 2 Kings 10:13: “he met some relatives of Ahaziah king of Judah and asked, “Who are you?” They said, “We are relatives of Ahaziah, and we have come down to greet the families of the king and the queen mother” (NIV). Here, the King is mentioned together with the Queen Mother. The two highest officials in the Kingdom seem to be inseparable.
In one instance, the Queen Mother actually ruled in the King’s place after he died until the succession to the royal throne was established (2 Kings 11:1-3). Thus, in certain cases, the Queen Mothers ruled as regents in the name of their minor sons.
The Old Testament shows some of the features (or functions) of the Queen Mother institution:
(1). The Queen Mother inaugurates the King’s reign. Bathsheba, the first Queen Mother, secured the throne of David for Solomon her son (1 Kings 1:11-53). She prepared and inaugurated the Kings career.
(2) The Queen Mother occupies an official position in the Kingdom. As an official in the Kingdom, the Queen Mother was next only to the King (2 Kings 24:15; Jer. 29:2). Both the King and the Queen Mother sat on their respective thrones (1 Kings 2:19; Jer. 13:18) and wore crowns (Jer. 13:18).
(3) The Queen Mother intercedes before the King. The people in the Kingdom knew that the Queen Mother had the King’s ear and she could be expected to relay to the King any petition coursed through her (1 Kings 2:12-20).
(4) The Queen Mother is adviser to the King. Since the Queen Mother always had the ear of the King, she served as the King’s most influential adviser. 1 2 Chronicles 22:3, the Queen Mother gave a bad advice to the King – but it was an advice nonetheless. On the other hand, Proverbs 31 records a good advice of the Queen Mother to her Son.
(5). The Queen Mother is lawgiver to her son. This is underscored by Proverbs 1:8 which says, “My son, hear the instruction of your father, and forsake not the law of thy mother” (KJV).
(6). The Queen Mother crowns the King on his wedding. We catch as glimpse of this in the Song of Songs 3:11: “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him on the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart” (KJV).
(7). The Queen Mother is mentioned in the annals of the King. The Queen Mother’s position was very important because she guaranteed the continuity of dynastic succession in the Davidic Kingdom. She was the wife of the former King and the mother of the reigning King.
Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico (Pinterest)
In Isaiah 7:13-14, Ahaz was given a warning hat he would be replaced as King because he did not trust in God but in foreign alliances. Significantly, the prediction was made through the Queen Mother, Abi (2Kings 18:2). Abi’s son, Hezekiah, would be a sign that God was with Judah. Isaiah promised that the House of David would be continued through as woman, Hezekiah’s Queen Mother. Here lies the importance of the Queen Mother in the dynastic succession in the House of David. The ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is the virgin Mary and her son Jesus, the Emmanuel – God with us (Mt. 1:23).
Because of the importance of the Queen Mother institution in the Kingdom of David, she is mentioned in the annals of the King, especially in Judah: Rehoboam – Naamah (1 Kings 14:21; 2 Chron. 12:12); Abijam – Maachah (1 Kings 15:1-2); Joash – Zibiah (2 Kings 14:1-3; 2 Chron. 24:1-2); Amaziah – Jehoaddan (2 Kings 14:1-3; 2 Chron. 25:1-2); Azariah – Jecoliah (2 Kings 15:1-3); Jotham – Jerusha (2 Kings 15:32-34; 2 Chron. 27:1-2); Abijah – Michaiah (2 Chron. 13:1-2); Ahaziah – Athaliah (2 Chron. 22:1-2); Hezekiah – Abi or Abijah (2 Kings 18:1-3; 2 Chron. 29:1-2); Manasseh – Hepzibah (2 Kings 21:1); Josiah – Jebidah (2 Kings 22:1-2); Jehoahaz – Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31); Jehoiakim – Zebidah (2 Kings 23:36); Jehoiachin – Nehushta (2 Kings 24:18); Zedekiah – Hamutal (2 Kings 24:18); Uzziah – Jecoliah (2 Chron. 26:1-4); and Jehoshaphat – Azubah (2 Chron. 20:31).
In keeping with the royal custom of mentioning the name of the Queen Mother in relation to the King, the New Testament refers to Mary as “the mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1, 3; Acts 1:14). Jesus Christ is also known as the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3). Since Jesus is the ultimate King in the Davidic dynasty (Lk. 1:32), his mother Mary is therefore the Queen Mother in his Kingdom in which “there will be no end” (Lk. 1:33).
Hail, Holy Queen enthroned above! (Pinterest)
[For further reading: Edward Sri, Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship, Scott Hahn, gen. ed. (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2005); and Edward Sri, “Treat Her Like a Queen. The Biblical Call to Honor Mary as Royal Mother, Scripture and the Mystery of God (Catholic for a Reason II), Scott Hahn and Leon J. Suprenant, Jr., eds. (Quezon City: Jesuit Communication, 2004) 67. Note: This article was written by The Marian Blogger way before he obtained a copy of the books mentioned].
Newly canonized Pope St. John XXIII praised the system of the Legion of Mary by stating that: “The system of the Legion of Mary is a most excellent one.”[3]
What made the good Pope John say that the Legion system is excellent?
The Legion system is unique because it is invariable. It means that the Legion system does not, cannot and should not vary. It is the same system wherever we go. No individual legionary, officer, praesidium or curia can change it at will. The system must remain the same.
Although the Legion of Mary Handbook has been updated time and again, its main outline, content and essence substantially remain the same. It has withstood the test of time. For the Legion of Mary to remain successful, it must remain that way. This is the secret of the Legion’s resiliency and staying power – that the Legion system is invariable.[4]
The Servant of God Frank Duff: Founder of the Legion of Mary (Legion of Mary Dallas)
To better understand this concept of invariability of the Legion system, we must remember that the Legion of Mary is patterned after the Roman Legion – the most powerful army the world has ever known. The Roman legionaries had been known for loyalty, courage, discipline, endurance and success.[5]
Pope St. Clement I, third successor to the Apostle Peter as Bishop of Rome, describes in his Epistle to the Corinthians in 96 AD the Roman Legion: “Let us scrutinize those who serve in the Roman Legion under the military authorities, and note their discipline, their readiness, their obedience in executing orders.”[6]
Given the military model of the Legion of Mary which is the Roman Legion, the Legion insists on order – “order in the system and order in the membership of the individual legionary. In fact, in comparison with other organizations, the Legion is notorious for its insistence on order.”[7]
The Legion demands strict adherence to the Legion of Mary Handbook which on page 7 highlights the “system invariable.”[8] Thus, the Preliminary Note on page 7 of the Handbook states:
“The Legion is a system which can be thrown out of balance by suppressing or altering any of its parts …
So, if unprepared to work the system as exactly as described in these pages, please do not start the Legion at all …
If past experience is an indication, no branch of the Legion which is worked faithfully according to rule will fail.”[9]
legion of Mary Tessera
So, each and every legionary must religiously, jealously and zealously guard the strict adherence to the Handbook:
As a praesidium or curia – the agenda of the praesidium and council meeting, the manner of saying the prayers, the methods of work and the Acies ceremony – all contribute to the tranquil, orderly environment encompassing the Legion system.[10]
As an individual member – keeping of the notebook and the custom of order at the praesidium meeting by refraining from private conversations and by the non-interruption of members giving their reports; by the humble acceptance and performing of the work assignment, etc. All these contribute to the ideal of the peaceful “Mystical Home of Nazareth” which the Legion intends itself to be for its faithful members.[11]
Another distinguishing mark of the Legion’s invariability is that of the invariability of its prayers. The Handbook states:
“The prayers of the Legion are to be regarded as invariable. Even in the invocations, no alteration or addition is to be made, either in respect of national, local, or particular saints, or where alteration or addition would be a debatable matter.”[12]
What is the rationale for this rule?
“Again, the soul of the Legion is shown forth in its prayers, and it is fitting that the latter, by a uniformity most exact, shall typify in whatever language they may in time be said – the complete unity of mind, heart, rule and practice, to which the Legion exhorts all who may anywhere serve beneath its standard.”[13]
Legion of Mary Handbook (Amazon.Com)
Rev. Francis J. Peffley further explains –
“Every organization has its rules and requirements, and members are expected to know and abide by them. The Legion of Mary has its own regulations and expectations for its members which the Legion exhorts them to follow. The Rules form the members, and, just like in Religious Orders, give them an identity. In the case of the Legion, that identity is the Blessed Mother, so that the more legionaries know and respect these rules, the more Our Lady is seen through them in the world.”[14]
Thus, as soldiers of Mary, we must learn to sacrifice our own will to that of the organization we belong. As good soldiers, we must be known for “self-sacrifice and dedication, strength, and courage in the face of trial.”[15]
Going back to the Handbook, let us now reflect on Chapter 20 on The Legion System Invariable.[16] I wish to offer brief reflections on the five points stated therein:
Members are not at liberty to vary rules and practices as they choose. The system described is the Legion system. Each variation, however slight, makes others inevitable. A small crack in the dam can lead to bigger cracks which could inundate the whole city. It also reminds me of the “falling domino effect.” It is important to always remember that he who is faithful in small things can be faithful in great things. If we allow an alteration of the system, it will lead to more alterations which in the end, what remains in the Legion of Mary is its name but no longer its essence.
The name of the organization will have little definite meaning if we alter everything but retaining the name. The Legion of Mary is not ours. It will not end with us. We inherited the Legion, pure and intact, in all its entirety and integrity, from Legionaries who were ahead of us. Hence, we shall bequeath the Legion to those who will follow us also in its integrity and totality, without alteration or change.
Modification to meet alleged special circumstances will lead to still more modifications. This is due to a spirit of false independence the result of which is falling away of a praesidium as its will wither away and die.
The modified, altered or watered-down “Legion” never succeeds in capturing the quality of sweetness and inspiration of the original. It is fake, a counterfeit, a cheap imitation – “nothing but a second-rate, trying hard, copycat.”
The various councils of the Legion exist chiefly for the purpose of preserving intact the Legion system. At all costs they must be true to the trusteeship committed to them.
The Servant of God Edel Quinn
Some would be tempted to ask: “Why should I preserve the system of the Legion? What’s in it for me?”
Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us the answer: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Mt. 16:7, 20).
The Legion system is embodied in the Handbook. The Handbook is a “wonderful book of spirituality.”[17] In less than a hundred years from its foundation on September 7, 1921, the Legion of Mary has mass-produced saints. Our holy founder, Frank Duff once said that “The Legion makes saints and makes them by the bushel!”[18]
This statement of Frank Duff proved prophetic, both for himself and the members of the Legion. The Legion of Mary now has three candidates for sainthood: (1) the founder himself, Servant of God Frank Duff; (2) Servant of God Edel Quinn; and (3) Servant of God Alphonsus Lamb – as well as the thousands of legionary martyrs in China between 1949-1953. We would never know all their names but we would surely meet all of them in heaven.
It is thus clear that the “Legion is not just an organization but a way of life, a vocation of the lay apostolate, and a school for sanctity.”[19] This realization is timely especially in this Year of the Laity. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines gave us the theme for this year: “Sent forth as heroes, called to be saints.” The Legion of Mary fulfills this mission very well. As legionaries, we are soldiers of Christ under our Commander-in-Chief, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Armed with courage, we are sent forth as heroes. Since the Legion is our way to become holy, in it and through it, we are called to be saints.
So, let’s persevere in our service under the standard of Mary. Let’s maintain, keep and faithfully follow the Legion system. As Rev. Francis J. Peffley puts its:
“If we live as a legionary, and die as a legionary we will be a legionary for all eternity. We will have a special degree of glory in heaven, a special radiance, a special happiness. So let’s pray that all legionaries will continue to live the Legion life and die in the Legion, to be known forever as Our Blessed Mother’s special legionary children and soldiers.”[20]
My dear sisters and brothers and fellow legionaries: It is my fondest hope and fervent prayer, that, in the words of the Catena Legionis – “that the battle of life over – our Legion may reassemble, without the loss of any one, in the Kingdom of your love and glory. Amen.”
[1] Based on Chapter 20 of the Legion of Mary Handbook, pp. 126-127.
[2] Formerly Spiritual Director of Refugium Peccatorum (Senior) Praesidium and Consolatrix Afflictorum (Junior) Praesidium and Society of the Patricians of the Legion of Mary, Sto. Domingo Parish, Quezon City.
The Marian Blogger 