sign in sign up
<<
Home , Angelus, Annunciation, Catholic (term), Catholic Mariology, Charismatic movement, Divino afflante Spiritu

FACULTAS THEOLOGICA ""

MARIAN LffiRARY INSTITUTE ()

TITLE:

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

OF BIBLICAL

PRE- AND POST-VATICAN II

(1943-1986 AMERICAN MARIOLOGY)

A thesis submitted to

The Theological Faculty

"Marianwn"

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Licentiate of

By: James J. Tibbetts, SFO

Director: Reverend Bertrand A. Buby, SM

Thesis at: Marian Library Institute Dayton, Ohio, USA

1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 The Question of Development

I. Introduction - Status Questionis 1 II. The Question of Historical Development 2 III. The Question of Biblical Theological Development 7 Footnotes 12

Chapter 2 Historical Development of Mariology I. Historical Perspective Pre- to Post Vatican Emphasis A. Mariological Movement - Vatican I to Vatican II 14 B. Pre-Vatican Emphasis on Scripture Scholarship 16 II. Development and Decline in Mariology 19 III. Development and Controversy: Mary as vs. A. The Mary-Church Relationship at Vatican II 31 B. Mary as Mediatrix at Vatican II 37 c. Interpretations of an Undeveloped 41 Footnotes 44

Chapter 3 Development of a Biblical Mariology I. Biblical Mariology A. Development towards a of Mary 57 B. Developmental Shift in Mariology 63 c. Problems of a Biblical Mariology 67 D. The Place of Mariology in the 75 II. Symbolism, Scripture and Marian Theology A. The Meaning of Symbol 82 B. Marian Symbolism 86 c. Structuralism and Semeiotics 94 D. The Development of Two Schools of Thought 109 Footnotes 113 Chapter 4 Comparative Development in Mariology I. Comparative Studies - Scriptural Theology 127 A. Richard Kugelman's Commentary on the 133 B. Raymond Brown's Commentary on the Annunciation 137 C. Conclusions and Comparisons 141 II. Comparative Studies - 146 A. Juniper Carol's Book 150 B. Frederick Jelly Book 155 c. Conclusions and Comparisons 166 Footnotes 171

Chapter 5 A Future Direction and Development 1) From the Abstract to the Concrete 185 2) Mary as Avocate, Mediatrix and Coredemptrix 187 3) The Way of Truth and the Way of Beauty 190 4) Marian and Charismatic Groups 195 5) The Spirit of Gratitude 197 Footnotes 199

BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 1

CHAPTER I

THE QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT

POST VATICAN II CHANGES

I. Introduction and Status Questionis

The current research is situated within a broad context of development in American Mariology from 1943 to 1986. The specific focus of this paper will be to discuss and analyze the development and major influences of scripture scholarship in Mariology in light of some of the publications, especially the American Mariological

Society.

One observation made of Vatican II is the increase in a ecclesiotypical and a decrease in the christotypical point of view.

Another change is the development from a privileged-centered

Mariology to a sharing-oriented Mariology. Several scholars such as Fr. Frederick Jelly and Fr. Eamon Carroll have noted these changes. But another scholar, Fr. Dominic Unger, disagrees that this has occured, as is shown later in the paper. The historical critical method has increased in usage after the council, but this biblical method tends to be more controversial immediately after the council. Thus, conflicting opinions and facts seem to exist throughout the literature.

Has there really been a change from a christotypical to an ecclesiotypical point of view? Has one view built on the other jor are the two mutually exclusive?

Before Vatican II a very traditional approach to scriptural 2 scholarship was utilized. After Vatican II the historical critical method took predominance. Within the American

Mariological Society (M.S.A.), Richard Kugelman, a scripture scholar before and after Vatican II, and Raymond Brown, a scholar whose major works were after Vatican II, exemplify that development. The work of these two scholars will be compared in regards to the topic of the annunciation. Juniper carol's (a pre-conciliar systematic Mariologist) 1956 work Fundamentals in

Mariology will similarly be compared with that of the 1986 work

Madonna, by Frederick Jelly (post-conciliar systematic

Mariologist). Is there a development in the writings of these scripture scholars and systematic mariologists?

There have been differences of opinion on the nature and conclusions of scriptural study in Mariology. Raymond Brown and

Rene Laurentin have had a long standing disagreement in this area. Both scholars have other scholars who agree with their respective viewpoints. Does this mean that there is more then one in scripture scholarship on Mariology?

Following is an overview of the question and topics which well be helpful before beginning the main sections of the paper.

II. The Question of Historical Development

In the early 1900's there was limited activity within the field of Mariology. But in the 30's and 40's there was considerable development in Mariological research which culminated in the of the Assumption in 1950. This 3 development can be witnessed (or evidenced) in the increase in number of Mariological Societies, Marian Centers, Marian

Libraries, Marian Magazine Publications, Mariological Academies and Marian Congresses. Much of this growth took place in the

1940's and the 1950's. The dogma of the Assumption caused a spur of activity in the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's. 1

The biblical mariological focus was not the major trend in the 1940's and 50's. Rather, the major trend was the pre-Vatican in principles of Mariology. Many theologians have written [on their view] about the primary principle of Mariology.

Juniper Carol summarizes these views in his work. He groups the theologians' opinions into four categories: 1) The divine

Maternity as the fundamental principle, which a large number accept; 2) Coredemptrix as the first principle (out of which comes the divine Maternity) which a small group accepts; 3) A combination of the two (divine Maternity and Coredemptrix) as the primary principle; and 4) The fundamental principle as formally one, but virtually complex and as having several aspects (such as, those above, along with, the Bridal Maternity of Mary, the

Universal Motherhood of Mary, etc.). 2 This 'primary principle' concept and concern seems to have disappeared after Vatican II.

Rev. Charles Neumann indicates that there has been a decline in Mariology. 3 The status of Marian literature has declined, the studies on mediation, coredemption and queenship have declined dramatically and Marian societies are also diminishing.

But the quality of scientific works on Mary is on the rise and 4 ecumenical studies on Mary are increasing. Some of the for this decline in Mariology are 1) a rationalizing tendency in theology; 2) a change in the focus of the theological interest (from theology to the of ethics); 3) an anti-doctrinal bias; 4) a climax in the Marian movement of the 1950's; 5) a difference or split in method following the Council (those scholars who build on church documents and speculative analysis - Mary's privileges - and those scholars who build on scripture and ); and 6) a demythologization regarding the Christian kerygma, i.e., the historicity of the infancy narratives and the abstraction of Mary into a myth or symbol. Rev. Theodore Koehler, in a paper on Mary's spiritual maternity after the council, indicated that an evolution had indeed taken place. "To understand this double approach to the Marian (christotypical and ecclesiotypical], let us keep in mind that Vatican II took place during a time of well-known evolution in Marian theology. 114 Koehler went on to write: "That answer indicates a present danger: to transform into a pure idea and abstraction; and, consequently, the mother of Christ, as a pure idea, ..• That points out the actual importance of the doctrine of Mary's spiritual Maternity after Vatican II."5 The theological theme of both the Mary-Church relationship and Mary as Mediatrix has been used by many authors throughout history. Before Vatican II both these themes were being promoted 5 by various scholars. The development of these two themes becomes a major influence in the development of at

Vatican II.

A mariological congress was organized by Cardinal Mercier in

1921 to promote the universal mediation of Mary (as Mediatrix).

Later, he also launched a campaign to elicit petitions to the

Vatican in favor of a definition of the dogma of Mary's mediation. In 1950, a resolution was sent to Pius XII by a group of theologians, but the felt that doctrine was not theologically mature enough for such a definition. Before

Vatican II, 382 wanted the council to develop a definition of Mary's mediation and, concurrently, the Preparatory

Commission was petitioned by the Mariological Society of America to include on the agenda of the Council the development of a definition of Mary's co-. 6

Both and Rene' Laurentin, who were present as periti during the Council, analyzed the clash over this issue.

Part was due to temperament, part to methodological approach and part to differences on the meaning of the , Mediatrix. The document on Mary went through major changes and relativized the theme of Mary's mediation by the successive reductions. Some participants in the Council felt they had suffered a setback. On the post-Vatican emphasis Eamon Carroll points out, "As a Marian title it [Mediatrix] has virtually disappeared from the vocabulary of preaching and , at least in the United

States."' 6

Hugo Rahner in his study of the Mary-Church relationship and its beginnings, offers a brief history of this subject. In the introduction Rahner speaks about the purpose of his book by stating: "We must learn to see the Church in our Lady, and in our

Lady the Church. The two mysteries are most intimately connected .•. The early ' devotion to Mother Church always went hand-in-hand with their devotion to the Mother of

God, and this was because they still realized that the whole mystery as presented in the scriptures shows Mary, the mother, to be essentially the symbol of the Church, our mother."8

Eamon Carroll notes that the Mary-Church theory is found throughout history starting with Augustine's famous quote that Mary is the "mother of the members of Christ," the body of which is the head. 9 Just after War II many

Catholics were writing about Mary as mediatrix. At the same time the Mary-Church relationship gained ground steadily. And in 1958 the international Mariological and Marian Congresses held at

Lourdes utilized the overall theme of Mary and the Church.

Carroll concludes that "[l]ittle has been done on the Mary-Church theme in post conciliar ecclesiological studies. One would have hoped that since the Council has placed Mary within the Church constitution it would have stimulated more studies. 1110 7

III. The Question of Biblical Theological Development

Some of the problems affecting a biblical Mariology have

likely been the catalyst for the current development in

Mariology. Fr. R.A.F. MacKenzie cites two reasons why these

problems exist within Mariology. 11 First is Mariolatry-

sensitivity, where the heart runs away with the head. Second is

the advance in modern biblical scientific research. A whole new

vocabulary has developed, such as: Form-criticism, Kerygma and

Myth, and De-mythologizing. Two additional questions creating

problems are 1) whether it is necessary to have to do

biblical scholarship and 2) which attitude of divine revelation

to accept, the attitude that revelation is contained partly in

Scripture and partly in , the attitude that revelation

is found partly in Scripture and entirely in Tradition, or both

of these together that revelation is contained entirely in

Scripture and entirely in Tradition.

Biblical theology has manifested a gradual development of

various biblical themes, e.g., Daughter Zion. Fr. Brennan in The

Sacred Memory of Mary quotes Vatican II: "[T]he faithful must in

the first place reverence the memory of the glorious ever Virgin

Mary. n12 But most important is the Council's use of Mary as

its type and outstanding in faith and .

The literature indicates that before Vatican II there was

interest among theologians in a biblical theology of Mary, but

defining the basic Mariological principle took precedence.

Another major focus of research was the dogma of the Assumption. 8

The Pope's 1946 letter to the bishops, asked if the Assumption should be defined. There were numerous congresses and much literary material on the issue over the next four years. In the

1950's there was additional dialogue via literature and congresses concerning the Assumption. The historical critical method within the biblical movement commenced to Vatican

II, but the place of Mary in scripture was overshadowed by other concerns, namely the Assumption, the primary principle in

Mariology and mediation. In addition Structuralism and Semiotics were literary movements of the 1960's (structuralism started in the early 1900's and semiotics started in the 50's) that attempted to interpret biblical texts and other literary works.

Eamon Carroll writes in a supplementary volume to the New

Catholic Encyclopedia: "A shift has taken place from a privilege­ centered to a sharing-oriented consideration of Mary .•. In contrast to pre-Council decades, there have been few recent studies on such themes as principles of Mariology or Marian mediation, but many positive investigations, especially into biblical sources. 1113 This view is widespread and is quoted by many in the field of Mariology.

Development towards a biblical theology of Mary is a major focus of post-Vatican scholarship. Eric May in "The Problems of a Biblical Mariology, 1114 (1960) gave an overview of the subject before the Mariological Society of America. In contrast Thomas

Collins' 1974 paper "Towards a Biblical Theology of Mary, 1115 summarizes some well-known scholars' view, concerning the 9 and development of biblical theology (Oswald Loretz;

Alonso-Schokel; Norbert Lohfink; Roland de Vaux; Pierre Benoit and others).

Discussing the concept of biblical theology before the

Catholic Theological Society of America, Fr. MacKenzie said:

" •.. Let me suggest that nowadays a dogmatic theologian has an obligation to re-examine the 'traditional' Scripture proofs."16

As to the question of scriptural texts supporting Marian doctrine: "The question is integrated with still further questions: which are the genuinely Marian texts? In what scriptural sense are they Marian? To what degree do they tend to support the tenets of Mariology? ... [t]here still exists a surprisingly wide divergence of opinion among biblicists on individual texts.n17

A controversy that has been going on since Vatican II concerns the value of the historical critical method and its treatment of scripture. Raymond Brown published a booklet (1973) on the problem of the virginal conception of Jesus which sparked a controversy that continued into the 1980's. In it he starts

"while Matthew and Luke apparently accepted the virginal conception as historical, we cannot be certain where they got their on this point .... consequently, we must face that possibility that in good faith the evangelists have taken over an earlier in virginal conception that does not have

L an authentic historical basis. 1118 Dominic Unger, among others, objected to this statement by Brown: "in the case at point, to 10

change from a historical fact of a virginal conception (the

present dogma) to a mere is not a mere

modification or change of formulary. It would be a denial pure

and simple of a historical fact, a total reversal. 1119 Brown

also criticized some of Rene' Laurentin's conclusions in Marian

symbolism and semiotics, while Laurentin has criticized Brown and

his historical critical . This disagreement among

scholars started after Vatican II and continued to be a post-

·conciliar discussion.

The changes in Mariology after Vatican II are summarized by

Eamon Carroll in a review of "Current Theology on the Virgin

Mary: 1966-1975. 11 Carroll stated: "Since the Council, no works

of synthesis have appeared; 'tracts' of Mariology, like other

systematic tracts and texts, have virtually disappeared. Growth

areas have been the 'sources' (Scripture, Fathers, and later

historical studies) and . The , conciliar,

papal and episcopal, receives a certain measure of attention.

Liturgical and are beginning to show promise, ... the fal~-off

of interest in certain areas, particularly Mary's role as

mediatrix and such cognates as coredemptrix, dispensatrix,

etc. 1120 Vatican II was clearly a pivotal point in

Mariology.

The question of a scriptural development, and of a

christotypical to ecclesiotypical change or continuum, before and

after Vatican II, still exists. Various authors have concluded

that a change has occurred and different problems have arisen 11 from Vatican II. Has there been a scriptural development and a development in orientation (christotypical to ecclesiotypical)? Is there more then one school of thought in biblical research on Mariology and do they agree? These questions and others need to be researched and answered. 12

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER 1

FOOTNOTES

1. Juniper B. Carol O.F.M., Fundamentals of Mariology, (New

York: Benziger Brothers Inc., 1956). p. 13.

2. Ibid., Juniper Carol, p. 7. 3. Rev. Charles w. Neumann, S.M., "The Decline of Interest in Mariology as a Theological Problem," Marian Studies 23 (1972).

4. Rev. Theodore A. Koehler, S.M., "Mary's Spiritual Maternity

After the ," Marian Studies, 23 (1972):43.

5. Ibid. Koehler, p. 39.

6. Marian Studies 12 (1961) 16-18. Cited by E. A. Johnson in The

One Mediator, the and Mary, 1992, p. 318.

7. Eamon Carroll, Understanding the Mother of Jesus (Wilmington,

DE: Glazier, 1979) 92-96.

8. , S.J., Our Lady and the Church , trans. Sebastian

Bullough, O.P., (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965), p. viii.

9. Eamon R. Carroll, O.Carm., "Revolution in Mariology 1949- 198911 p. 456: Paul Chandler, o.carm., Keith J. Egan ed., The Land of Carmel (: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991).

10. Ibid., p. 458.

11. R.A.F. MacKenzie, S.J., "The Concept of Biblical Theology,"

PCTSA (1955). 13

12. Brennan, Walter O.S.M., The Sacred Memory of Mary. (Mahwah,

N.J.: Paulist Press, 1988)

13. New Supplement, Eamon R. Carroll,

O.Carm., "Mary and the Church: Trends in Marian Theology Since

Vatican II," p. 252.

14. Rev. Eric E. May, OFM.Cap. "The Problems of a Biblical

Mariology," Marian Studies XI ( 1960): 21-59.

15. Rev. Collins, O.P., "Towards a Biblical

Theology of Mary," Marian Studies XXV (January 1974): 82-103.

16. Ibid. Eric May, p. 41. Citing R.A.F. MacKenzie, The Concept of Biblical Theology, in PCTSA (1955) 61-62.

17. Ibid., p. 42. 18. Raymond E. Brown, s.s., The Virginal Conception and Bodily

Resurrection of Jesus, (Paramus, N.J., Paulist-Newman Press,

1973) •

19. Dominic J. Unger, O.F.M., "Does the give much historical information about the Blessed Virgin or mostly symbolical meanings?" Marianum XXXIX (April 1977): 323.

20. Eamon R. Carroll, 0. Carro., "Current Theology- Theology on : 1966-1975," Theological Studies 37.2 (June

1976): 253. 14

CHAPTER II HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MARIOLOGY

I. Historical Perspective - Pre-Vatican to Post-Vatican Emphasis

A. Mariological Development from Vatican I to Vatican II The Mariological movement has a long history of development. Writings on the Blessed Virgin have been around since the apostolic times. More recently, there was developmental activity in Mariology in the thirties and forties, preceding the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Juniper Carol states that the origin and inspiration for these developments culminated in the dogmatic definition of the in 1854. "It is now generally conceded that the scientific treatment of Mariology, as we know it today, is the logical outgrowth of that epoch-making papal pronouncement."1 In an article on the beginnings of scientific Mariology, Fr. Eugene Burke stated: "For it must be remembered that in the period of transition from the fall of the until the development of an organized Western society, it is the that is the pivot of the and is an essential factor in the intellectual and spiritual life of the times."2 Mariological Societies, Marian Centers, Marian Libraries, Marian Magazine Publications, Mariological Academies and Marian Congresses were all part of the development in this period: 15

Mariological Societies were established out of the "national Mariological Societies in Belgium (1931), in (1934), in Spain (1940), in (1948), in the of America (1950), in Belgium for the French­ speaking public (1951), and finally in (1952)."3

Marian Centers were established: in Rome the International Marian Center of the Servite Fathers (1938) and the Marian Franciscan Commission (1946); in Canada the Canadian Marian Center in Nicolet (1948). 4

Marian Libraries to facilitate and stimulate research: The International College of the Servites in Rome (1943); a Marian library in Banneux, Belgium (1942); the University of Dayton, Ohio (1943); National of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and the Scholasticate, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 5

Marian Magazine Publications devoted to Mariology: Marianum in Rome (1939); Ephemerides Mariologicae in Madrid (1951); and the proceedings of various Mariological Societies: "Mariale Dagen, of the Flemish Mariological Society, since 1933: Bulletin de la Sociere Francaise d'Etudes Mariales, of the French Mariology Society, since 1935 (except 1939-1947); Estudios Marianos, of the Spanish Mariological Society, since 1942; Marian studies, of the Mariological Society of America, since 1950; and the Journees sacerdotales mariales, of the French-speaking Mariological Society of Belgium, since 1952. 6

Mariological Academies: the Pontifical Roman Academy of the Immaculate Conception in 1835; and the International Marian Academy in Rome (1946); and the establishment of chairs for special courses in Mariology in Washington, D.C. (1918). 7

Marian Congresses: both on the national and international level and began in 1895, , . Many occurred with ever increasing frequency. The most important ones were organized by the International Marian Academy mostly related to the Assumption (the question was presented to the Bishops in 1946 and declared a dogma in 1950). Rome (1947), Lisbon (1947), Madrid (1947), Montreal (1948), Buenos Aires (1948), Le Puy (1949), Washington, D.C. (1950) and Rome (1950). 8 (Post-Vatican congresses will be noted later.)

The dogma of the Assumption was the climax in a movement of piety and theology that had been going on for decades. In May of

1946 Pope Pius XII sent the Deiparae Virginis (qv) to 16 all the bishops of the world, putting this question to them:

"'More especially we wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily

Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your and people. ' When the replies were collated, it was found that twenty-two residential bishops out of 1181 dissented, but only six doubted that the

Assumption was revealed truth - the others questioned the opportuneness. 119 This question had been raised many times before, "[b]etween 1849 and 1950, numerous petitions for the dogma arrived in Rome. They came from 113 Cardinals, eighteen

Patriarchs, 2,505 and bishops, 32,000 and men religious, 50,000 religious women, 8,000,000 lay people. 1110

Most of these petitions came after the Pope asked the question in

1946. There was "immense scholarly research which preceded the promulgation of the dogma. " 11

B. Pre-Vatican Emphasis on Scripture Scholarship

Promotion of scriptural scholarship has been a constant theme from 1900 to the present. Perhaps the start of modern began with the Encyclical Letter

Providentissimus in 1893 by Pope _Leo XIII. Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of this Encyclical,

Pope Pius XII delivered the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, in September 1943. 17 Leo XIII's encyclical was partly a reaction, "to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred , speaking of things of the physical order 'sense by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says,n.12 With this orientation Leo XIII defended the Sacred Scriptures and encouraged others, "to see an increase in the number of the approved and persevering laborers in the cause of Holy Scripture;"13 In 1902 Leo XIII founded a Biblical Commission, to oversee the safety and proper promotion of the sacred texts. wanted to insure that there would be adequate teachers for Sacred Scripture and in his Apostolic Letter

Scripturae Sanctae, Feb. 1904, he instituted the academic degrees of licentiate and doctorate in Sacred Scripture which were to be conferred by the Biblical Commission. He enacted a law for Seminaries "that students of the sacred sciences 'not only should themselves fully understand the power, purpose and teaching of , but should also be equipped to engage in the ministry of the Divine Word with elegance ... '"14 He also founded the Pontifical Biblical Institute shortly afterwards. In the Biblical Commentary we find the comment in the editors' : "It is no secret that the last fifteen or twenty years have seen almost a revolution in Catholic biblical studies - a revolution encouraged by authority, for its Magna

Carta was the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, (1943) of Pope Pius XII. The principles of literary and historical criticism, ------

18 so long regarded with suspicion, are now, at last, accepted and applied by Catholic exegetes.n15 Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, quoted Pope Pius X and other Pontiffs in his first section "Biblical Studies and the ." In part II. "Contemporary Biblical Studies," he discussed the following topics: 1. Recourse to Original Texts (Ancient languages) and Importance of , [that they] "be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists ... glosses and omissions ... n16 2. For the Interpretation of Sacred Books, "let the Catholic exegete undertake the task ... of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books."17 And the, Right Use of Spiritual Sense, "Wherefore the exegete, just as he must search out and expound the literal meaning of the words, intended and expressed by the sacred writer, so also must he do likewise for the spiritual sense, provided it is clearly intended by . For could have known this spiritual meaning and have revealed it to us •.• and finally the most ancient usage of the liturgy proclaims it, wherever may be rightly applied the well-known principle: 'The rule of prayer is the .' nlS · 3. Special Tasks of Interpreters, is the " that our time also can contribute something towards the deerer and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture." 9 Other topics are the Character of Sacred Writer; Importance of Mode of Writing; and studies of Biblical Antiquities. 4. Way of Treating Difficult Questions and Difficulties Not Yet Solved; the "Fathers, and especially Augustine, 20 observer in their time viz; God wished difficulties to be scattered through the Sacred Books inspired by Him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intently, and, experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised in due submission of mind." 5. Use of Scripture in Instruction of Faithful speaks of the faithful lay, the priests and the Value of the Divine Word; "For the Sacred Books were not given by God to men to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research, but, as the Apostle observes, in order 19 that these Divine might "instruct us to , by the faith which is in Christ Jesus" and "that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (Cf. 2 Tim 3:15,17.) 21

II. Development and Decline in Mariology Rev. Charles Neumann, S.M., in "The Decline of Interest in Mariology as a Theological Problem," gives three explanations to this problem. First, the status of Marian literature has declined. From 1958-1966 more than 7,000 Marian are listed in Besutti. Since 1966, however the number has dwindled. 22 But in the opinion of Gerard Philips, "the quality of the scientific works is meanwhile on the rise."23 Second, this diminution of works on Mary has been somewhat compensated for by the treatment in works outside the field of Mariology. For example, Fr. Carroll notes that some of the most important considerations "occur within books and essays dealing with other theological topics.n24 Fr. Laurentin summarizes the situation in the following way: "The diminution in Marian writing is less than at first sight appears. Certainly they are more reserved and have smaller press runs. Studies on mediation, coredemption, and queenship, so numerous from 1926 to 1960, have fallen to almost nothing, but othe.r sectors are expanding - patristic theology, the theology of the , , and ecumenism. Studies on Mary's are multiplying because of the questions raised by currents of thought on demythologization and sexuality .... Sobriety and a critical sense may have replaced generosity of expression, but 20

standards and quality have gone up. 1125

Third, ecumenical studies on Mary are increasing as well as books by Protestant authors. "An evolution as a whole, however,

is taking place in the direction indicated by Vatican II and comprising the investigation of biblical and patristic sources, a return to essentials in the portrait of Mary, a shedding of artifice, and so on. 1126

Fourth, Mariological Congresses are continuing, but the societies are diminishing. Neumann, in his presidential address

"After Twenty-Five Years," sums up the decline: "the Society counted 131 members at its foundation and 138 in its second year.

For the next six years, until 1957, its active members were in the 200's; from 1958 to 1967 in the over 300's; since 1967 in the lower 200's .... What emerges from this analysis is that the

Society is fortunate in retaining a core of loyal and dedicated active members. 1127 But membership is again high in the

Mariological Society of America in the 1990's. Mariology is not the only movement in decline at this time. According to one source there is also "a collapse of the [biblical] movement as a dominant and cohesive force in American theology. 1128

Neumann lists seven reasons for the decline of interest in

Mariology: 1) A rationalizing tendency in theology which, according to Philips, attempts to "flatten" all mystery to the human level of understanding: "For a long time ahead there will probably arise no new , either in Mariology or elsewhere, but a progressive abandonment of every attitude of faith. Much 21 more is at stake in the religious events of today than is generally thought."29 An Anglican Allchin states that the whole need of salvation is in doubt and thus Mary's role in it: "It may be that the why for many, Catholic as well as Protestant, the question of Mary seems remote and unimportant, is because the particular things for which Mary stands are neither seen nor understood."30 2) The focus of theological interest has shifted from revelation theology to questions of war, violence, ecology, race, women, abortion, drugs, etc. "Most would agree with Karl Rahner in thinking that where theology remains alive, it will hardly have 'the time, the fancy, or even the right to compose works on the as thick, for example, as that of Ruiz de Montoya.'"31

3) There is an anti-doctrina~ bias in theology today which handicaps Mariologists who have been most accustomed to discourse on the doctrinal level. "The shift of interest in our day has moved from doctrine to ethics, from to orthopraxies .... One cause of the relative disinterest in Mariology today remains the deafness with which any doctrinal presentation is greeted. " 32 4) The Marian movement reached "a climax in the Marian festivities of the last years of Pius XII's pontificate - and no climax is intended to be sustained - the movement found several of its goals for the moment successfully reached, and it yielded to other preoccupations within the , movements 22 known generally as biblical, liturgical, ecclesiological, , catechetical, and ecumenical. At the Council these, in turn, came more into their own. 1133 5) The attitudes of some Mariologists are " ... clannishness, defensiveness, an aloofness from the rest of theology, a partisan spirit of claiming for their subject a domain apart from the theological methods and sources. 1134 6) Neumann notes the following change in Mariological method from the Council: "I refer to the two conceptions of method in Marian theology that met each other at the opening of Vatican II. Philips repeatedly cites Father Carlo Balic''s opinion that the difference between the first and final draft of Chapter Eight of Lumen Gentium is summed up in this difference of method. 1135 "Proponents of the earlier draft followed a method with its point of departure in the papal magisterium, where Mary had figured with increasing frequency; they proceeded by way of exact speculative analysis of the concepts and principles involved, sought probative texts in Scripture and tradition, were preoccupied with constructing a solid doctrinal system, and expressed warm concern throughout for Mary's 'privileges,' building on previous positions endorsed by the magisterium. "Advocates of the other method began with the earliest scriptural and patristic sources of Marian doctrine, proceeded more by way of positive study, traced the evolution of the history of salvation and Mary's role in it, followed the subsequent development of Marian doctrine and devotion, and 23 generally avoided polemic encounters, though not espousing any false irenicism ..•. [T]he shift towards the second method has been for the whole of Mariology the occasion more of a silent growth so far, rather than of any strides of renewal that catch public attention. 1136

7) More serious than any of the above is the trend of demythologization regarding the Christian kerygma. This contemporary trend in theology is defensible, according to Rahner, as an "effort to see that the statements of the faith proclaimed of old might be heard in a credible way acceptable to the men of today."37 But in the hands of the amateur demythologization has gone to an excess in which "Christians indulge without any preparation. 1138 The "historicity of Mary's role especially the infancy narratives has been questioned .... Many have been prematurely led to view Mary only in terms of symbol or myth. 1139 After describing theater, science, and theology as undergoing demythologizing, Heinz Zahrnt comments, "In all these almost contemporary phenomena we can detect a great 'undertow of abstraction' .... This abstraction has produced a loss of by depriving us of corporeal figures, concrete history, and vivid reality; indeed the very meaning of 'abstract' is 'that which has been taken away.' 1140 In his third section Fr. Neumann discusses possible solutions to the above-stated problem: of diminished interest in Mariology. 1) Demythologization; 2) Theology of the Holy Spirit; 3) Christian Anthropology; 4) of Truths and Ecumenism; 24 5) Mariology within Theology; and 6) Mariology and the Sense of the Faithful. In each of the six Neumann offers positive statements to how these will help the problem of the decline in interest. He concludes, quoting Canon Gerard Philips, "Mariology stands before a future profoundly different from its past, perhaps less brilliant on the surface, but more productive within. Its rejuvenation is a fact; it has been purified and deepened, not impoverished. Similarly, though so much more demanding, the intensification of our devotion is more precious than the extension and multiplication of pious practices. 1141 Another paper delivered at the 1972 Mariological Society of America conference was Rev. Theodore Koehler's "Mary's Spiritual Maternity After the Second Vatican Council." He did not indicate any specific decline in interest in Mary's spiritual maternity but did indicate that there was an evolution. "To understand this double approach to the Marian doctrine [christotypical and ecclesiotypical], let us keep in mind that Vatican II took place during a time of well-known evolution in Marian theology. 1142 He opens his paper citing Cardinal Suenens who had asked Karl Rahner how he would explain the evident decline in Marian devotion. The German theologian responded: "Today too many Christians, no matter what religious affiliation they may have, try to make their Christian faith into an and abstraction and abstracts certainly do not need a mother. 1143 Koehler went on to write: "That answer indicates a present danger: to transform Christ into a pure idea and abstraction; 25 and, consequently, the mother of Christ, as a pure idea, doesn't interest us anymore. On the other hand, with Karl Rahner, we also have to say that the Marian piety must rediscover in Mary, a mother. That points out the actual importance of the doctrine of

Mary's spiritual Maternity after Vatican II."44

Koehler points out that there are two conciliar indications in the doctrine of Lumen Gentium: First, in the doctrine in which our relation to Mary is designated by the title,

Mother. 45

Second, for our devotion, the Church's piety towards Mary is indicated by the use of "filial,"46 as is summarized in various texts.n47

There is also an explanation of the fundamentals of Mary's in Lumen Gentium. But, as in n. 54, the Council did not intend to propose a complete Marian doctrine. These two approaches can be defined as christotypical and ecclesotypical.

"Mary is Mother of Christ and mystically the mother of Jesus' brothers. These are two aspects of one sole maternity which retains more and more the attention of the present theology."48

Upon citing some exegtical studies, Koehler comments: "From all these exegtical works we conclude that the role of Mary in our salvation has to be studied today according to the following strictly biblical principles: 1) The biblical authors write with a synthetic insight in the events of salvation; the unite the present and the future. Therefore, the Messianic maternity of Mary has to be studied in the whole biblical context 26

of the texts which are analyzed.

2) "These biblical texts have, as another context, all that

God did for His people to save it: both and the Apostolic

church. These graces are connected with the life of God's people. Therefore, we see Mary's Messianic maternity revealed in the development of the biblical themes, during the life of

Israel, and during the formation of the apostolic writings.

These themes are connected with the history of salvation; and as

Fr. Le Deaut~ says, 'a healthy Marian theology can be developed when we start with the study of the historical mystery of

Redemption.'"49

3) "These biblical principles are to be understood in the frame of analogia fidei (analogy of faith). That reflects the

Bible's unity: only God reveals Himself and guarantees the unity of our salvation's mystery; all this analogy of faith is based on the redemptive , and more precisely, on Christ Himself who became our and our head because He was born of the

Virgin Mary to save us. Therefore, in Mariology we must no

longer study some abstractions but the person of Mary. It is good to study the privileges and functions of Mary, but it is better to see first the person and life of Mary, and consequently her relations with God, Christ, the Church, and in general with all mankind under the salvific work of the Holy Spirit. 1150

In a concluding comment Koehler notes the ongoing of evolution in Marian theology. "The traditional titles, 'Mary ever-Virgin,' 'all holy,' ',' 'Mother of Life,' 'Mother 27 of the Living,' 'Mediatrix,' 'Mother of ,' 'Our Mother,' and ',' all of these manifest an evolution: all say that Mary is Mother of Christ and therefore related to us; and the Church sought out these expressions, the titles, and the biblical references, which could express our relations with Mary. The terminology of Mary's messianic maternity developed into doctrine. Today we will know the meaning of our filial relations to Mary by taking into account what the natural sciences concerning man know about matern~ty. The Marian theology must face the complexity of the analogy between God, Mary and human motherhood. 1151 Fr. Roten in the collected Essays to Honor Theodore Koehler comments, "Since 1970 the Mariological Society of America (MSA) covered a variety of topics, giving special emphasis in the seventies and early eighties to dogmatic aspects examined in the light of contemporary theological reflection. 1152 Fr. Roten gives a summary of Marian studies: the 70's were pastoral and ecumenical, the SO's were directed primarily toward marian devotion and liturgy.S3 "The focus of the International Mariological Congresses' studies and research between 1967 and 1992 was (and remains) primarily historical and thus successively examined the different periods of marian devotion from the first documents to the present-day situation. Conversely, the national gatherings in the United States and in France, by choosing a more thematic approach, sought to keep abreast with new developments in marian 28 studies and to entertain an ongoing dialogue with the different theological and other disciplines of human . 1154 In his article on the Virgin Mary in the Liturgy: 1963-

1988,55 Fr. Thompson indicates that " ... the Council provided the elements, later developed in and the Collection of Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary, leading to a synthesis concerning the Virgin Mary's role in the liturgy. This synthesis enables us to speak of the Marian dimension of liturgy and the liturgical dimension of Marian devotion."56 Besides the Council, the major influence to the revised liturgy is Marialis cultus. "The theocentric and orientations for the role of the Virgin Mary are found in the Council; they are present in Paul VI's Marian , and they are the starting point for Marialis Cultus (MC) .... Every authentic development in Christian is necessarily followed by a fitting increase of for the Mother of the (MC Intro.;.n57 "While some thought that the Virgin Mary had been slighted in the liturgical reforms, others had difficulties relating the traditional Marian devotion to the post-conciliar church. The period, from about 1965 to 1974, has been described as the time of 'the Marian crisis.' 1158 Marian devotion is part of , which is centered in Christ. Fr. Thompson gives a quick overview of the liturgy in his article. "Viewing Marian devotion within liturgy is not an innovation. In the first millennium of in 29 the West, and until the present in , liturgy and Marian devotion were eminently compatible and mutually enriching. 59 Only in the West, since the , did Marian devotion develop apart from the liturgy. In the preconciliar period, some in the 'Marian movement' perceived the liturgical movement, with its Christocentric and biblical emphasis, as not favorable to Marian devotion.[Laurentin] 60 The postconciliar task is to reunite liturgy and Marian devotion. " 61 In a review of "Current Theology on the Virgin Mary: 1966- 1975" Eamon Carroll stated: "Since the Council, no works of synthesis have appeared; 'tracts' of Mariology, like other systematic tracts and texts, have virtually disappeared. Growth areas have been the 'sources' (Scripture, Fathers, and later historical studies) and ecumenism. The magisterium, conciliar, papal and episcopal, receives a certain measure of attention. Liturgical [] and cult [popular piety] are beginning to show promise, and this will be more evident as Pope Paul's Marialis Cultus of Feb. 2, 1974, affects catechetics and public prayer life in the Church .... The lacunae are perhaps even more eloquent than the publications, as they illustrate the fall-off of interest in certain areas, particularly Mary's role as mediatrix and such cognates as coredemptrix, dispensatrix, etc. n62

"By 1965 the understanding of Mary as model of the Church was no longer a novelty. The Council had come out clearly for 30 this approach, from the brief statement in the Constitution on the Liturgy (no. 103, "most excellent fruit of the redemption .•. spotless model to the Church"), through chap. 8 of Lumen Gentium, into still other documents. The careful studies that had been done on the Mary-Church analogy in the years after II were influential, and Mariology had taken a new direction, what Laurentin has called a shift from "privilege" to "sharing," rediscovering what the Fathers had expressed and what belongs to the Marian symbolism of the Scriptures."63 Fr. Eamon Carroll and Fr. Jelly both utilize this new orientation (privilege to sharing relationship) that Fr. Laurentin observed. Fr. Jelly comments: "This new emphasis has proved salutary spiritually because it clearly shows that authentic devotion to Mary must always lead Christians closer to Christ. The very title of the chapter on Our Lady - "The Blessed Virgin Mary, God-Bearer in the Mystery of Christ and the Church" - clearly indicates that she is ever to be contemplated in two ways: 1. Christocentrically - Christ-centered and 2. Ecclesiotypically - as the pre-eminent example or archetype of faithful discipleship and vibrant membership in her Son's Church. " 64 From this historical overview of the postconciliar period, the decline in interest is evident but scholarship in Marian studies has been strengthened.

III. Development and Controversy: Mary as Church vs. Mediatrix 31

The theological theme of both the Mary-Church relationship

and Mary as Mediatrix has been used by many authors throughout

history. Before Vatican II both these themes were promoted by

various scholars. The development of these themes becomes a

major influence in the later development of Lumen Gentium at

Vatican II. In the following next few sections both themes will

be considered.

A. The Mary-Church Relationship at Vatican II

Hugo Rahner's addresses the subject of the Mary-Church

relationship and its beginnings in his work, Our Lady and the

Church, a small but profound work with a brief history of the

subject. In the introduction Rahner speaks about the purpose of

his book by stating: "We must learn to see the Church in our

Lady, and in our Lady the Church. The two mysteries are most

intimately connected ... The early Christians' devotion to Mother

Church always went hand-in-hand with their devotion to the Mother

of God, and this was because they still realized that the whole mystery as presented in the scriptures shows Mary, the virgin mother, to be essentially the symbol of the Church, our mother." 65

In discussing the "remarkable development of the Church's teaching about our Lady" in the last half-century, Rahner speaks

of two main trends, "Mater Ecclesia and Mater Christi,

Ecclesiology and Mariology: these are the two ways in which so many are today drawing closer to Christ. 1166 He goes on to

comment that in the early church with ", and 32

Hippolytus, onwards through Augustine to the Summa of Aquinas, is the idea of the Church as the 'Mother of the Living' .... In patristic thought Mary is the 'typos' of the Church: symbol, central idea, and as it were summary of all that is meant by the

Church in her nature and vocation. 1167

At the Council of in 431, Cyril of concluded his on the Virgin Mary with enthusiasm: "And so brethren, may it be granted to us to adore with deep the indivisible Trinity. And then let us praise with songs of joy Mary ever virgin, who herself is clearly the holy Church, together with her Son and most chaste spouse. To God be praise forever. 1168

One of the symbols of the early church which the "early fathers saw in Mary Immaculate" was the "Ecclesia

Immaculata, 1169 the glorious concl':lsion of the work of redemption. The scripture verses that Rahner quotes are from

Jude 24: "present you spotless (immaculatos) before the presence of his glory ... "; from Augustine, Gen. 3.15: "These words (of

Genesis) are a great mystery: here is the symbol pointing forward to the Church that is to come: she is fashioned out of the side of her spouse, out of the side of her spouse in the sleep of death. Did not the Apostle say of that he is 'a figure of him who was to come' (Rom 5.14)?1170 Then in another quote the fathers saw a reference to 5.2, "Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one." "The text, as used by the Latin fathers, for the Hebrew 'my perfect one', has 33

'immaculata mea', a title given in the earliest times to our

Lady. n71

"It was Mary's privilege to receive this gift ... in order to prepare a place for him. 1172 Thus st. Paul often uses the term:

"reconciled (you) in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unspotted (sanctos et immaculatos) and blameless before him" Col 1.22; that God "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted (sancti et immaculati) in his sight" Eph 1.4; " ... who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted (immaculatum) unto

God" Heb 9.14.

The use of this term "immaculata" can be found in the Acts of and Ps-Ambrose73 ; Rupert of Deutz, "She is immaculate, because she is in every way spiritually and corporally untainted. 1174 ; " speaks of the Church as the immaculata."15 ; and numerous others, including: Justus of

Urgel, , Haymo, of Asti, Honorius and . 76

In the next chapter on Mary the Ever Virgin, Rahner quotes several ancient authors--St. Ambrose, St. Irenaeus, Hippolytus

(mostly on the New ), St. , Bede, and Hegesippus, one of the early Palestinian witnesses (about the year 180)--when he says of the Church of that: "Until now she remained a virgin pure and unspotted, because those who attempted to undermine the sound teaching of the were kept in obscurity and out of sight. 1177 Rahner concludes with st. Augustine:

"'Beautiful above the sons of men' (Ps 44.3), Mary's Son, spouse 34 of the Church! He has made his Church like to his mother, he has given her to us as a mother, he has kept her for himself as a virgin. The Church, like Mary, is a virgin ever spotless and a mother ever fruitful. What he bestowed on Mary in the flesh, he has bestowed on the Church in the spirit: Mary gave birth to the

One, and the Church gives birth to the many, who through the One became one. 1178

It is interesting to note that as far back as the third century this idea is found. Origen had a somewhat mystical interpretation of the Nativity. "'All through time the comes down and announces to you that today and every day the

Redeemer is born, that is Christ .' This mystery, he says, is realized in the 'innermost heart' of the 'Ecclesia

Immaculata'. 1179 saw the figure of the

Church as the figure of the Virgin Mary: "There is one who is called both a mother and virgin, and my joy is to call her by her name of the Church. 1180 Another author of the early church

Ildephonsus of Toledo gave a sermon on the Virgin Mary with this mystical insight: "There is the Virgin Mary, in whose womb is signified as by a pledge or earnest the whole Church: and we believe most firmly that thus the Church remains securely and forever united to God. 1181

Eamon R. Carroll takes up this theme of the Mary-Church relationship in his article, "Revolution in Mariology, 1949-

1989.11 Carroll states that one of the earliest and most quoted accounts of the Mary-church relationship is from Saint Augustine 35 in which the Mother of Jesus is "mother of the members of

Christ," the body of which Jesus her Son is the head. 82 But a developed theology of Mary as spiritual mother did not arise until the time of Saint Bernard: "For him she is Notre Dame."83

Just after the second World War, was a time when the Mary-

Church relationship came to the forefront. During this period many Catholics were writing about Mary as mediatrix. 84 The

Mary-Church bond appeared in Germany by Otto Semmelroth and H.M.

V , I/ , , Koster and by Alo1s Muller 1n Sw1tzerland, these authors blended both ways into a new sense of mediation. "Their approach was that Mary had a receptive mediatrix role rather than a productive one vis-~-vis her Son's unique saving work. 1185 There was an adverse initial reaction by the members of the Mariological

Society of America (as with Cyril Vollert) who took issue with the Mary-Church theories. 86

"Through the fifties, however, the Mary-Church approach gained ground steadily. This was dramatically illustrated at the international Mariological and Marian Congresses held at in 1958. The overall theme was Mary and the Church. Although there was not a great number of papers on that subject, a major ,, address was given by Alois Muller setting forth the position that

Mary as receiver of the redemption is model to the Church.

Equally significant was the fact that a move by the governing body of the congress, the International Pontifical Marian

Academy, then under the presidency of its founder, Fr. Charles

Balic' OFM, to request a definition of Mary's mediation by 36 acclamation, failed to carry. The position of those opposed to the proposal -among them the group from the United States - was that the matter was not yet mature, and the resolution too important to be passed simply on a wave of popular enthusiasm. 1187 The differences between those for Mary's mediation and those for the Mary-Church relationship formed the background for the conciliar consideration of Our Lady. "In his commentary on chapter eight of Lumen gentium in the Vorgrimler-edited commentaries on the council documents, O.Semmelroth held that the Council had made its own the Mary-Church approach .... its chapter on Our Lady is in fact a complicated compromise that sought to keep a balance between Mary's association with her Son's mediation and the obedient faithful Virgin as ideal of the Church's own response to the Lord. The title of the Marian chapter is indicative of the double intent, christological and ecclesiological: 'The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.' 1188 Carroll concludes that "[l]ittle has been done on the Mary­ Church theme in post conciliar ecclesiological studies. One would have hoped that since the Council has placed Mary within the Church constitution it would have stimulated more studies. S. DeFiores notes with dismay the lack of theological interest in the Mary-Church analogy in spite of its biblical and patristic foundations, and in spite of the Council's favor." 89 Carroll also states that "[i]n Catholic thought two areas have shown 37 development of the Mary-Church analogy since the Council: the

Assumption and . 1190

B. Mary as Mediatrix at Vatican II

In 1921 under the patronage of Cardinal Mercier a marian congress was organized in Brussels91 to promote the doctrine of the universal mediation of Mary, not only in the distribution of graces, but in their acquisition, i.e., the doctrine of the co­ redemption.92 "It was at this time that the great controversy of contemporary mariology began to take shape, the controversy over the mediation of Mary, centering on her part or less in the redemptive work of her Son, in relation to which maximalist, and minimalist, christotypologist and ecclesiotypologist would be defined on the eve of Vatican II. 1193 The title Mediatrix for

Mary is first thought to have been used by one or more of the following candidates: Ephraem the Syrian, Romanos the Singer,

Basil of Seleucia, , or Germanus of

Constantinople. 94 The popes of the nineteenth- and twentieth­ centuries contributed significantly through their writings on

Mary's mediation. "By all accounts the "Marian Era" opened with

Pius IX (1846-78) . 1195 throughout history have touched upon this topic and according to the count of Juniper Carol,

"over three thousand theological works were produced on these subjects before 1950. 1196

By the urging of Cardinal Mercier of Belgium, a worldwide campaign was launched to elicit petitions to the Vatican in favor of a definition of the dogma of Mary's mediation. In 1950 the 38

following resolution was sent to Pius XII by a group of Catholic theologians: "Since the principal, personal attributes of the

Blessed Virgin Mary have already been defined, it is the wish of the faithful that it should also be dogmatically defined that the

Blessed Virgin Mary ... [is the] dispenser of graces, in a word, universal Mediatress of God and men. 1197 The Pope felt that the doctrine was not theologically mature enough for such a definition, and that the time was not yet "opportune. 1198 A preconciliar consultation of the world's Catholic episcopate showed that 382 bishops wanted the Council to make a strong affirmation, even a definition, of Mary's mediation. 99 At the same time, the Preparatory Commission was petitioned by the

Mariological Society of America to "put on the agenda of the

Council a definition of Mary's co-redemption.nlOO

There was no division, in terms of basic doctrine.

"Disagreement came over the matter of the appropriate language, thought patterns, formulas, and titles with which to express the insights agreed upon. Both Karl Rahner and Rene' Laurentin, who were present as 'periti', have analyzed the clash as due to differences in national cultural characteristics, with the

Mediterranean temperament stressing Mary's prerogatives in exuberant and affective terms, while the Northern temperament took a more critical and rational approach. 11101 "In addition,

Rahner noted a differing methodological approach, as those more enthusiastic for Marian privileges drew heavily on papal teaching as a source, while those who wished a more tempered approach 39 engaged in the return to scriptural and patristic sources."102 The original text prepared prior to the meeting of the Council called for a formal proclamation of Mary as Mediatrix of graces. " •.. [Mary] is formally named Mediatrix of all grace, because she was associated with Christ in acquiring them; and when too, remaining an associate with Christ now glorious in , she is invoked by the Church as our Mediatrix and our Advocate, because she intercedes for all through Christ in such a way that the maternal charity of the Blessed Virgin is present in the conferring of all graces to human beings; ... " 103 After the debate and decision to incorporate Lumen Gentium into the church document, this draft was revised. During the third session in 1964, speeches both pro and con were given for the draft and specifically for Mary as "Mediatrix," with ninety-eight in favor of the term and 129 insisting the title be suppressed. After the speeches, several hundred bishops submitted written observations and amendments: "191 to keep the title Mediatrix, 196 to delete it, and 34 to keep it within the relativizing context of other titles."104 After this draft was further revised, and 1,559 voted yes; 10 voted no; and 521 indicated a desire for further particular revisions. The text was again revised and a month later voted on again: yes, 2,096 and no, 23. After affirming the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2.5), the text continues: "By her maternal charity Mary cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, 40 until they are led to their happy fatherland. Therefore the

Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of

Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one

Mediator. " 105

The document on Mary had endured major revisions with the importance of the theme of Mary's mediation relativized by the successive reductions. "It is no secret that while they voted for the document, many of those who had borne into the Council the preconciliar mariological current felt that they had suffered a setback."106 "The Council did not define Mary's mediation as a dogma. Neither did it unequivocally endorse the preconciliar understanding of this theme. It refused to use the title

Mediatrix of grace or of all graces and relativized the term

Mediatrix by setting it with others .... Likewise omitted are the traditional images of the aqueduct, neck, , treasurer, or dispensatrix of grace, as well as the title of Co­ redemptrix.11107 As Eamon Carroll pointed out, "As a Marian title it has virtually disappeared from the vocabulary of preaching and popular piety, at least in the United States. 11108

And the optional feast of Mary as Mediatrix was dropped in the revised Roman liturgy, although the term reappears as one of the forty-six votive masses approved in 1987. In John Paul's encyclical (1987) the idea of Mary's mediation is present. 109 41

C. Interpretations of an Undeveloped Christology

Yves Congar critically analyzed before the Council the theme of Mary's Mediation with particular reference to the preaching of

Bernard and later devotional writers. "In his (Congars'] judgement its growth stemmed in some measure from a deficient

Christology. " 110 Partly because of the monophysite problem the of Jesus was overly stressed and the more human Mary seemed more approachable.

"A more recent line of interpretation has attributed the post- growth of the theme of Mary's mediation to a deficient . Theologians such as Rene' Laurentin, , Heribert M~hlen, 111 and Leon Joseph suenens112

(and also Elizabeth Johnson113 ] have found substantially correct the observation of Protestant student Elsie Gibson, who wrote of her studies in : 'every place I expected to find an exposition of the Holy Spirit, I found Mary.

What Protestants universally attribute to the action of the Holy

Spirit was attributed to Mary."114

"Rene' Laurentin, for example, has noted how Catholics have said of Mary that she forms Christ in them; that she is spiritually present to guide and inspire; that one goes to Jesus through her. But are not these precisely the roles of the Spirit of Christ? Biblically it is the Spirit who makes Christ present, forms Christ in believers, guides, and inspires. Such Marian phrases are an indication of an underdeveloped understanding of the third person of the Trinity. 115 In his trilogy on the Holy 42

Spirit Yves Congar develops the intriguing point that "the

substitution of Mary for the Spirit is more understandable if one

sees the Spirit as the "feminine" person in God, who in fact was called "Mother" in the early syriac church. Mary's maternal characteristics have an affinity with the character of the

Spirit. 11116

Preconciliar theologian Garrigou-Lagrange notes: "When

Tradition tells us that Mary's position in the Mystical Body is comparable to that of the neck which unites the Head to the members and transmits the vital impulse to them, at the very least the metaphor it uses is an expressive one, but we cannot affirm with certainty that it is more than a metaphor. 117

Laurentin has observed that much difficulty has resulted from the precise mentality of recent centuries which took symbolic images of the Greek Fathers and medieval and interpreted them literally. 11118

"Michael Schmaus has argued that enthusiastic Marian expressions are not meant to be theological assertions. They are pieces of poetry and should be interpreted by a hermeneutic suitable to the literary genre of poetry, not a hermeneutic of dogmatic statements. 119 Karl Rahner has written in a similar vein: 'Vatican II by no means ascribes to Mary the title and function of a Mediatrix in the strict theological sense, but rather takes the freer language of pious affection under its protection when the latter has recourse to the title

"Mediatrix. 11 ' 120 In any event, there is unanimity today among 43 those relatively few theologians who address the topic that Mary's mediation is to be interpreted as a participation in the saving work of Christ, the sole Mediator. In the Catholic perspective, Christ alone is not simply alone, but his saving power shows its efficacy by giving rise to manifold participation by others. 11121 In conclusion, Elizabeth Johnson states: "The general silence of the post-conciliar church about Mary as Mediatrix does not mean that her reality or that of other saints has been disavowed. Rather, language and conceptualities of the past are being adapted to express the importance of Mary and the saints in a more christocentric and pneumatologically oriented . " 122 44

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER 2

1. Juniper B. Carol O.F.M., Fundamentals of Mariology, (New

York: Benziger Brothers Inc., 1956), 10.

2. Eugene M. Burke, C.S.P., "The Beginnings of a Scientific

Mariology," Marian Studies, 1950. p. 118.

3. Ibid., J. Carol, p. 13.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 13-14.

6. Ibid. , p. 14.

7. Ibid. , p. 12. 8. Ibid.

9. Michael O'Carroll, C.S.Sp., Theotokos- A Theological

Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (Wilmington, Delaware:

Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982), 56.

10. Ibid., p. 56.

11. Ibid., p. 60. 12. Ibid., p. 66. (footnote: Cf. Ia, q. 70, art. I ad 3.)

13. Ibid. (footnote; Leonis XIII Acta XIII, p. 328; Ench. Bibl. n. 67 sq.)

14. Ibid., p. 67. (footnote; Cf. Apostolic Letter Quoniam in re biblica, March 27, 1906; Pii X Acta III, p. 72-76; Ench. Bibl. nn. 155-173; v. n. 155; supra. pp. 36.39.) 15. Raymond E. Brown, S.S.; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E.

Murphy, O.Carm., The Jerome Biblical Commentary, (Englewood 45

Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968), xvii.

16. Ibid., p. 69-70.

17. Ibid., p. 71.

18. Ibid. 19. Ibid., p. 72.

20. Ibid., p. 75. (footnote; st. Augustine, Epist. 149 and

Paulinum, n. 34 (PL 33, col. 644); De diversis quaestionibus, q.

53 n. 2 (ib. XL, col. 36); Enarr. in Ps. 146, n. 12 (ib. 37, col.

1907).)

21. Ibid.

22. Rev. Charles W. Neumann, S.M., "The Decline of Interest in

Mariology as a Theological Problem," Marian Studies 23 (1972).

23. Ibid. Citing Gerard Philips, au II Councile du

Vatican et l'avenir de la Mariologie, in Maria, 8 (, 1971)

41-88 at 80.

24. Ibid., p. 14. Citing Eamon R. Carroll, survey of Recent Mariology, in MS 20 (1969) 137-167 at 137. 25. Ibid., p. 14-15. Citing Laurentin, Bulletin sur la Vierge

Marie, in RSPT 54 (1970) 269-328 at 269.

26. Ibid. Neumann 27. Rev. Charles w. Neumann, S.M., "After Twenty-Five Years, Presidential Address," Marian Studies 25 (1974): 15-28 at 25,26. 28. Ibid. "The Decline of Interest in Mariology ... ," p. 17. Citing Bernard c. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970) 255 pages at 61. 46

29. Ibid., p. 18. Citing Philips, Mariologie et theologie postconciliares, in EphM 20 (1970) 23-29 at 24.

30. Ibid. Citing A.M. Allchin, Mary, Virgin and Mother: An

Anglican Approach, in MLS 1 (1969) 96-112 at 112.

31. Ibid. p. 19. Citing Karl Rahner, L'avenir de la theologie, in NRT 103 (1971) 3-29 at 11.

32. Ibid., p. 20.

33. Ibid., p. 20-21.

34. Ibid., p. 21. I' 35. Ibid., p. 21-22. Citing Cf. Philips, L'Eglise et son mystere au deuxi~me Concile du Vatican, 2 (Paris, 1968) 210; La Vierge •.. 75.

3 6. Ibid. , p. 2 2 .

37. Ibid. Citing Rahner, op. cit. 12: cf. also his Theological

Dictionary (New York, 1965) 121-123.

38. Ibid., p. 23. Citing Laurentin, Supplement to the 1968

Dayton Course (Dayton, 1970) 43 pp at 20.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid. Citing Heinz Zahrnt, The (New York,

1963) 91.

41. Ibid., p. 38. Citing Philips, La Vierge .... 84.

42. Rev. Theodore A. Koehler, S.M., "Mary's Spiritual Maternity

After the Second Vatican Council," Marian Studies, 23 (1972): 43.

43. Ibid., p. 39. Citing Card. L. Suenens, Marie et le monde d'aujourd'hui, in DC (Oct., 1971) 878-879.

44. Ibid. Koehler. 47

45. n. 53: Mary is the Mother of the member of Christ

(St. Augustine)

n. 54: The Mother of men, most of all, of the faithful.

n. 56: The Mother of the living (St. Epiphanius)

n. 61: Our Mother in the order of grace.

n. 62: The Maternity of Mary in the of grace remains

without ceasing .•• ;

n. 63: Mary, Mother and Virgin, is the type (figure) of the

Church, Mother and Virgin;

n. 65: She is an example of the maternal affection ...

n. 67: We moved by a filial love toward our Mother.

n. 69: We invoke the Mother of God and the Mother of men.

46. as is summarized in No. 67, "the true devotion proceeds •.. from true faith, by which we are led to acknowledge by excellence of Mary as the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our Mother and to the imitation of her ." Also, in the decree on the Ministry and Life of

Priests, "Let priests love and venerate with filial devotion and veneration this Mother ... " (n. 18), and for seminarians, "They should love and venerate with a filial trust the most Blessed

Virgin Mary," (n. 18). Finally, the decree for the

"explains how Mary is the perfect example for their life, and invites them to commend their life and to her maternal care (n. 4) •

47. Ibid., p. 40-41. Citing Texts analyzed by G. Shea, Mary in the Documents of Vatican II, in MS 17 (1966) 20-26. 48

48. Ibid., p. 43. Citing g. Philips, Les problemes actuels de la th~ologie mariale, in Mm 11 (1949) 31ff. A Mexican Committee prepared a doctrinal study to promote the dogmatic definition of Mary's Spiritual Maternity: Commision Nacional Mejicana pro Definicion dogmatica de la Maternidad Espiritual de Maria.

Conferencias ... (1957 y 1960) (, 1961).

49. Ibid., p. 56. Citing R. Le Deaut, Marie et l'Ecriture dans le Chapitre VIII, in BSFEM 22 (1965) 60.

50. Ibid. I p. 56.

51. Ibid., p. 65.

52. Johann G. Roten, "Affetto Al Suo Piacer Quel Contemplante",

"Mater Fidei Et Fidelium, Collected Essays to Honor Theodore

Koehler on His 80th ," Marian Library Studies, 17-23:

32-33.

53. 1970,73,75 -Mary's virginity and the virgin birth,

1969,71,76 -Mary's role in contemporary society,

1974 - Her role in salvation - to her Son and the Church,

1975,78 -Mary in ecumenical dialogue,

1977 - Mary in ,

1977,78 -Mary in the renewal of catechetics,

1978,82 - Aspects of her divine maternity,

1976-77 - Establishing Mary's hierarchy of truths,

1979 - Mary's 'preservative redemption' problems,

1979,82 - Immaculate Conception problems,

1980 - Mariological questions - Hans von Balthasar,

1981 - Mary's place in Christology, 49

1981 - Mary's ,

1982 - Marian and infallibility,

1982,84 - Mary's place in ,

1982 - The Assumption and eschatology,

1983 - Mary and the and ,

1984 - Marian prayer, devotion, ,

1985 - Marian questions - Berulle and ,

1986 - Lumen Gentium,

1987 - Mary and the and liberation theology,

1988 - ,

1989 - Marialis Cultus,

1989,90,91 - Mary in the liturgy.

54. Ibid., p. 32.

55. Thomas A. Thompson, S.M., "The Virgin Mary In The Liturgy:

1963-1988," Marian studies 40 (1989): 77-104. 56. Ibid., p. 79.

57. Ibid., p. 82.

58. Ibid., p. 81.

59. Ibid., p. 92. n. L'Enciclica 'Redemptoris Mater' e le Chiese

Orientali, 12-17. Excerpts from this letter can be found in The

Marian Library Newsletter 17 (Summer, 1988). 60. Ibid., p. 93. n. Cf. R. Laurentin, La question mariale

(Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963). chap. 1, pp. 15-37.

61. Ibid., p. 93. 50 62. Eamon R. carroll, o. Carm., "Current Theology- Theology on the Virgin Mary: 1966-1975," Theological Studies 37.2 (June

1976): 253.

63. Ibid., p. 286.

64. Frederick M. Jelly, O.P., "Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII The

Blessed Virgin Mary, God-Bearer, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church," The Catholic Home study Institute (Leesburg,

Virginia): 2.

65. Hugo Rahner, S.J., Our Lady and the Church , trans.

Sebastian Bullough, O.P., (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965), p. viii. Note: An earlier major work was the book The Splendour of the Church by , S.J. (1956) who has a chapter on

"The Church and Our Lady." In this work De Lubac covers in great detail what has been stated with Hugo Rahner's work (1965).

66. Ibid., p. 1.

67. Ibid., p. 5.

68. Ibid., p. 10. ( 4: Migne Patrologia Graeca 77, 996) .

69. Ibid., p. 13. 70. Ibid., p. 15 (Enarr. in Psalmos 103.6 (Patrologia Latina in

Migne 37, 1381).

71. Ibid., p. 16.

72. Ibid., p. 18.

73. Ibid., p. 16. (Passio Andreae 5 : Lipsius-Bonnet, II, I.

p. 11). (Sermo 6,7 (PL 17, 616); Adamantius Dialogue V, 8; GCS, p. 191) . 51

74. Ibid., (Rupert of Deutz, Commentary on the Canticle 5 PL

168' 912) • 75. Ibid., p. 17. (Commentary on the Canticle I GCS VIII, p. 99) .

76. Ibid., (Justus of Urgel (PL 67, 980); Bede (PL 91, 1155);

Haymo (PL 117, 327); Bruno of Asti (PL 164, 1263); Honorius, commentary on the Canticle 5 (PL 172, 435); Ambrose, Commentary on Luke II, 7 (CSEL 32, 4, p. 45).).

77. Ibid., p. 26. (, Church History IV, 22, 4

( PG 2 0 , 3 8 0 ) .

78. Ibid., p. 32. (Sermo 195, 2: PL 38, 1013).

79. Ibid., p. 38. (Homily on : GCS Origen IX, p. 84.;

Commentary on the Canticle, Prologue: GCS origen VIII, p. 74).

80. Ibid., p. 44. (Paidagogos I 6, 42: GCS Clement, I, p. 115.)

81. Ibid., p. 49. (Sermo 2: PL 96, 252).

82. Eamon R. Carroll, o.carm., "Revolution in Mariology 1949-

198911 p. 456: Paul Chandler, o.carm., Keith J. Egan ed., The Land of Carmel (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991).

83. Ibid. 84. Ibid., p. 456.

85. Ibid., p. 457.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid., p. 457-458.

89. Ibid., p. 458. Citing Stefano Defiores, Mary in

Postconciliar Theology, in R. Latourelle, ed., Vatican II - 52

Assessment and Perspectives, New York 1988, I 469-539.

90. Ibid., p. 460.

91. Fr. Peter D. Fehlner, OFMConv., "Fr. Juniper Carol, OFM: His

Mariology and Scholarly Achievement," Marian Studies XLIII,

(1922), p. 9.

92. Ibid., Citing Card. Mercier cf. M. O'Carroll, CSSP, "Still

Mediatress of all Graces?", in Miles Immaculatae 24 (1988) 114-

115; B. Gherardini, La Madre (Frigento 1989) pp. 297-298.

93. Ibid., Citing G. Barauna, OFM, De natura corredemptionis marianae in theologia hodierna (1921-1958) (Romae 1960) (=

Bibliotheca Mediationis B.V. Mariae, 2].

94. Armand Robichaud, "Mary, Dispensatrix of All Graces," in:

Mariology (ed. Juniper B. Carol: Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957) 2:444;

Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the

Blessed Virgin Mary (Wilmington DE: Glazier, 1982) 240.

95. Anderson H. George; Stafford J. Francis; Burgess, Joseph

A., ed., The One Mediator, The Saints and Mary Lutherans and

Catholics in dialogue VIII, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress,

1992); Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., "Mary as Mediatrix", p. 315.

96. Ibid., p. 317. Citing Juniper B. Carol, De corredemptione

B.V.M.; Disquisitio positiva (: Typis Polyglottis

Vaticanis, 1950) 9.

97. Ibid., p. 318. Citing Alma Socia Christi (Proceedings of the

International Mariological Congress; Rome: Academia Mariana,

1950) 1:234. 53

98. Ibid. Citing Rene Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile (Paris:

Lethielleux, 1956) 186, n. 26.

99. Ibid. 100. Ibid., p. 319. Citing Marian Studies 12 (1961) 16-18.

101. Ibid. Citing Karl Rahner, "Zur konziliaren Mariologie,"

Stimmen der Zeit 174 (1964) 87-101; and Rene Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile, 20-21.

102. Ibid.

103. Ibid., p. 321. Citing contitutionis de beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum (1962), Acta et Documenta Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II Apparando, Series 2

Praeparatoria III:1 (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969)

206-207.

104. Ibid., p. 321. Citing Animadversiones scripta exhibitae quoad cap. VIII Schematis de Ecclesia, A.V.S., III:2 (1974) 99-188.

105. Ibid., p. 322. Citing LG 62.

106. Ibid., p. 322.

107. Ibid., p. 323.

108. Ibid. Citing Eamon Carroll, Understanding the Mother of

Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1979) 92-96. 109. Ibid. Redemptoris Mater, Origins 16:43 (April 9, 1987)

745-66.

110. Ibid., p. 324. Citing Yves Congar, Christ, Our Lady and the

Church (trans. H. St. John; London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1956)

68-77. 54

111. Ibid. Citing H. Muhlen, L'Esprit dans L'Eglise (Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1969) 123-37.

112. Ibid. Citing L.J. Suenens, "The Relation That Exists between the Holy Spirit and Mary," Mary's Place in Christian

Dialogue (ed. Alberic Stacpoole; Wilton CN: Morehouse-Barlow Co.,

1982) 69-78.

113. Ibid. Citing Elizabeth Johnson, "Mary and the Female Face of God," Theological Studies 50 (1988) 500-526.

114. Ibid. Citing Elsie Gibson, "Mary and the Protestant Mind,"

Review for Religious 24 (1965) 397.

115. Ibid., p. 325. Citing Rene Laurentin, "Esprit Saint et theologie mariale," Nouvelle Revue Theologique 89(1967) 26-42.

See also his "Bulletin sur Marie," Revue des sciences philosophique et thdologique 60 (1967) 452-56; and 70 (1968) 119 n. 122, with bibliography.

116. Ibid. Citing Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (trans.

D. Smith; New York: Seabury, 1983) 1:159-66 and 3:155-64.

117. Ibid. Citing Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of the

Savior and Our Interior Life (trans. B.J. Kelly; St. Louis: B.

Herder, 1959) 206.

118. Ibid. Citing Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile, 122.

119. Ibid. Citing Michael Schmaus, Der Glaube der Kirche:

Handbuch katholischer Dogmatik II (: Max Hueber Verlag,

1970) 693.

120. Ibid. Citing K. Rahner, "One Mediator and Many Mediations,"

Theological Investigations (trans. G. Harrison; New York: 55

Seabury Press, 1972) 9:172-73 and "Zur konziliaren Mariologie," Stimmen der Zeit.

121. Ibid. Citing Elizabeth Johnson, "May We Invoke the Saints?"

Theology Today 44 (1987) 32-52.

122. Ibid., p. 326. 56

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENT OF A BIBLICAL MARIOLOGY

I. Biblical Mariology

While there existed a movement to create a biblical theology of Mary before Vatican II, the struggle of trying to define the basic Mariological Principle was the main concern among theologians. Another major focus of research was the dogma of the Assumption. From the time the Pope asked if it should be defined in his 1946 letter to the bishops, onward into the

1950's, much dialogue was generated. The Biblical movement adhering to the historical critical method did start before

Vatican II, but the place of Mary in scripture was overshadowed by these two concerns of the Assumption and the primary mariological principle.

A first step towards developing (or creating) a biblical theology of Mary would be some kind of understanding and agreement about the elements and goals of such a theology. Even though the question has been around for centuries within the last two decades, (1974) scholars have looked more deeply into the question: "'What do we mean when we say the Bible is true'? ... In the course of the Bible debate, other problems have been laid bare, especially those concerned with the hermeneutical procedures to be followed in arriving at the Bible's final meaning." 1 The debate concerning the limits and nature of 57 biblical theology has continued for nearly 2 centuries. In

1787, Johann Gable attempted "to define the limits of biblical theology and to distinguish it from dogmatic theology."2

A. Development towards a Biblical Theology of Mary

It would be best to first summarize what some scholars stated in the article by Rev. Thomas Aquinas Collins, O.P., on

"Towards a Biblical Theology of Mary." This overview will be helpful in discussing the paradigms and development of biblical theology, and will give an overview of preconciliar approaches and exegetical methods in Mariology.

Oswald Loretz states that the concept of truth in the Bible must come from the Bible itself. Loretz investigates the 1) biblical modes of understanding truth, 2) the biblical terms used to express truth, especially the term 'emet' 3) compares the

Ancient Near East and Semitic concept of truth. "The term 'emet' means primarily not 'truth' but 'firmness, stability, reliability, certainty, sureness, integrity, faithfulness.' ... for the the 'truth' of God is primarily bound up with his faithfulness.'" 3 "Since the truth of God is manifested in his faithfulness to his covenant people, Scripture could only be charged with error if God broke his faith with Israel. 114

Criticism came from others in the field including; James

Barr, 5 Louis Alonso-Schokel, 6 P. Benoit, 7 B. Brinkmann, 8 and

E. Gutwenger. 9 James Barr insists that "'emet' should be translated as 'truth' rather than 'firmness,' 'steadfastness,' or

'reliability'. 1110 "B. Brinkmann11 and L. Alonso-Schokel12 58 agree that 'emet' signifies not only God's faithfulness and fidelity, but also objective truth. Alonso-Schokel argues that there are clear examples in the Bible (e.g., Dt 13:15) where

'emet' can only mean objective truth. 1113

Alonso-Schokel is also critical of Loretz's position that in the Bible all truth must fall under the concept of 'fidelity'.

"Alonso-Schokel asks about those truths which do not pertain directly to the fidelity of God. He cites the preachings in

Deuteronomy, or the texts which proclaim the oneness of God, His primordial cosmic action, His universal knowledge. 1114 Another writer, J. Jensen asks: "Granted that Scripture does not normally formulate doctrine as we do, does it not teach truths - truths not immediately identifiable with God's fidelity nor immediately derivable from it- that we must formulate (e.g., the personal nature of the Holy Spirit) and hold as taught inerrantly (even in the Western sense) in Scripture? In fact, the Church does so formulate her and proclaims them to have been revealed."15 B. Brinkmann rejects Loretz's thesis saying

"before we can speak of biblical truth as being God's faithfulness to His promises, we must first establish that the

Bible, which is claimed to have represented this testimony of

God's faithfulness, is itself without error when it presents it.nl6

Thomas Collins acknowledges the importance of Loretz's contribution in calling attention to the primary sense of 'emet' in scripture as 'faithfulness', despite the criticisms against 59 some of his linguistic, theological, and hermeneutical positions. Collins also states that the primary weakness of Loretz is his "failure to convince his critics that all truths in the Bible must be seen in the light of the one great truth, the faithfulness of God to His promises. 1117 His second weakness is "his seemingly over-preoccupation with the difference between the biblical and Greek term for truth. 1118 E. Gutwenger comments, "There is no point here in making much of the difference between the biblical and Greek term truth, for the person, be he Semite or Greek, would like to know whether a report telling of facts corresponds to actuality or not. This is a prevalent human response. To make an exception for Semites sounds as if they have been excluded from the species 'homo sapiens. 11119 Norbert Lohfink "insists that the truth of the Bible must be derived from the study of the Bible as a whole. 1120 Lohfink21 recalls that "in the standard treatises on inspiration, inerrancy was predicated of (1) the Bible as a whole, (2) the individual books of the Bible, (3) the inspired writers of the sacred books."22 Lohfink claims this goes back to the encyclical

Providentissimus Deus (1893) but later documents modified this view, emphasizing "'the inerrancy of the sacred writers,' an expression that won out over the first two. 1123 Because of the archaeologists and philologists working in the field of Biblical writings it is now clear that the books were "a long, complicated process of composition, alterations, and editorial comments, in most cases by persons unknown. 1124 As Lohfink states, "It was 60 accepted that God might have inspired several human collaborators, working either in parallel or succeeding each other. No single person was responsible for the whole book, and perhaps in carrying out their task, most of them had not even any idea of what would emerge centuries later as the final product of the process of composition. 1125 This of course creates a problem to which Lohfink offers a solution. "The inspiration of the many individuals whose work formed a book could then be regarded as a unity, which manifested its effect of inerrancy only once, in the final result of the collaboration. 1126 In all of this God guided "the process of composition as a whole, and above all its main phases. 1127

And how did all the individual books of scripture come together? Lohfink writes "[t]he growth of the Canon seems to be no more than a further stage, som~what different in form, of the process which brought the individual books into being. 1128 The books added changed and enhanced the meaning of the earlier books. The Old Testament canon produced no single book which attained its ultimate meaning. But coupled with the New

Testament, "[l]ike every previous addition, this once again changed the pattern of meaning in the Old Testament as a whole. 1129 Lohfink admits that currently there is no adequate work on the theology of the Bible as a whole, and suggests that perhaps "we should look towards the construction of a more biblically oriented dogmatic theology. 1130

Roland de Vaux31 criticized Gerhard Von Rad's Old 61

Testament Theology, saying Von Rad has not written an Old

Testament Theology but rather an excellent history of the faith and of Israel in the Old Testament. De Vaux insists that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament there is a unity of the : "both were written under the inspiration of God, both contain his Word, and this word can only be understood when it is grasped in its entirety. 1132 He further states; "It is the task of the theologian to discover this unity. Biblical theology and dogmatic theology must not be up against each other because the distinction between two must be done away with. 1133

Pierre Benoit has been writing on the subject of for a quarter of a century. Following is a summary from the address he gave to the International Congress of

Theology of Vatican II in September 1966. 34 In this address

"Benoit commented on four major points of the De Divina Revelatione, the Constitution bearing on the truth of the Bible:

(1) The truth of the Bible is not purely speculative but

addressed to the whole man, not to his intellect only.

(2) Biblical truth is communicated to men for the sake of

salvation (salutis causa). It does not teach the truth of

all sciences.

(3) Biblical truth is communicated to men by men. It is

necessary to appreciate fully all that this implies.

(4) Biblical truth in its fullness is to be found in the

whole Bible, not in any particular passage or book. 1135 ------· ·------

62

Collins does an admirable of reviewing the various

authors' views on the subject of the 'Theology of the Biblical

Truth' but says little on a Biblical Theology of Mary. He makes

one notable quote on discussing how, "De Vaux maintains that Von

Rad has not written an Old Testament Theology book but rather an

excellent history of the faith of Israel or of the religion of

the Old Testament. In our quest for the biblical truth

concerning Mary we must beware of falling into the same error:

that of collecting, examining minutely, and then presenting the

commonly accepted sense of a number of given passages. This

would surely indicate what different books or different authors

said about marian texts but it could not be considered a biblical theology of Mary.n36

In an article detailing the use of sacred scripture in

Mariology, Dominic Unger discusses the various Marian senses of

scripture. 37 "Today practically every scientific book or

article that proves some Marian doctrine from Scripture becomes

involved in a discussion of the senses in which the passage has

been, or is to be, taken .... A 'sense' is a mental concept that an

author expresses in a given phrase or sentence. All scholars

are agreed that concepts can be expressed either directly by the

words or indirectly by the object that the words express. So

they divide the Scriptural senses into two main classes: the

direct and the indirect. The direct sense is more commonly known

as the literal sense, because it is expressed by the letter of

the words. The indirect sense is also known as the typical 63 sense, and as the spiritual sense, because it is a more profound an hidden sense."38 Unger describes the general and specific divisions of these senses including: the literal proper and figurative senses; literal exclusive and inclusive; the explicit and the implicit senses; virtually implicit and the accommodated sense; and the rational criteria which is two-fold: literary (language- both vocabulary and syntax; context - logical and psychological; rhetorical tropes; and literary styles) and circumstantial (author, occasion, purpose, plan, the historic, archaeologic, and geographic settings). "Pius XII, in his recent encyclical on Scripture, insisted on the necessity of using these rational criteria."39 B. A Developmental Shift in Mariology

Dominic Unger40 considers t~e significant shift in both doctrine and devotion to the Virgin Mary since Vatican II. He quotes Eamon Carroll in a supplementary volume to the New Catholic Encyclopedia in an article on Mariology: "A shift has taken place from a privilege-centered to a sharing-oriented consideration of Mary, in association to Christ (Christocentric) and in relation to the Church (ecclesiotypical). In contrast to pre-Council decades, there have been few recent studies on such themes as principles of Mariology or Marian mediation, but many positive investigations, especially into biblical sources. The Mary-Church analogy has attracted serious notice."41 Unger then proceeds to critique Fr. Carroll's position and states: "Any 64 authentic view of Mary, in doctrine or in devotion, must be privilege-centered. Any view of Mary in doctrine or devotion that would not be privilege-centered would not, and could not, be authentic. 1142

Unger continues with a lengthy explanation of Mary's many privileges and why Eamon Carroll's view is not accurate. He concludes, "[r]eally, then, there is nothing about Mary that is not privileged. There is no prerogative, there is no role, there is no condition, there is no of hers, that is not privileged. Though basically she may have in common with us some of the conditions and virtues, the manner in which she possessed them is privileged. Hence, in our doctrine about Mary and our devotion to her we must be privilege-centered. If we are not, we cannot be authentic. There can be no such thing, therefore, as a legitimate shift from the privilege-centered Marian doctrine and devotion of the past to one that is not such. Scholars could, of course, erroneously disregard Mary's privileges, and talk only about her being our model, especially in faith and love; but such doctrine and devotion would be incomplete, not balanced, as God has willed it. 1143 Unger explains Mary's privileges and sharing with us, then highlights Mary's privileges in the church's teaching. He states this new approach of Fr. Carroll does exist and that it has no basis in Vatican II. Speaking of Lumen Gentium chapter a, he states; "and the whole chapter distinctly emphasizes all of

Mary's great privileges, as well as the social implications. 65 Even Mary's being our model and the type of the Church is viewed as a privilege, which no one else possesses. 1144 Fr. Unger also emphasizes that Pope Paul VI was "definitely interested in setting the authentic tone for Mariology and Marian devotion in the whole Church. 1145 Pope Paul VI did not "hesitate to call Mary's prerogatives privileges. By the angel's message Mary's 'exalted privileges were revealed'. 46 She is 'the privileged one' whom we cannot extol too much, 47 and her privileges come from Jesus. 48 Especially, because of her divine motherhood is she privileged: she is 'the most elect Mother' and simply 'the incomparable one'. 49 Because of her Immaculate Conception she is 'the unique woman, in whom human nature appears in its original beauty'. 50 She is privileged also because of her virginity. 51 With the intention of interpreting the Vatican Council, the Pope said, "The Council multiplies its teaching precisely in regard to Mary's privileged position and unique function relative to the mystery of Christ. 1152 After finishing his thoughts on Mary's privileges he appropriately closes, "Mary herself, I believe, indicated that her privileges must always be kept in focus in our cult to her when she chanted, ' ... all generations will call me blessed: for he who is mighty has done great things for me ... ' {.48-

49). n53

The idea of a major shift in Mariology evolving from Vatican II is becoming a popular public opinion. The 1991 issue of Time magazine featured an article on "The Search for 66

Mary, Handmaid or Feminist?". The article was well done, giving

an accurate historical perspective of Our Lady. It concluded on

the changes occurring: "The shift in the debate over Mary

represents a delayed backlash against the influence of the Second

Vatican Council, which made Mary emphatically subordinate to her

son in church teachings. Prior to Vatican II, Popes had

proclaimed Mary the co- with Jesus. During the council,

bishops were under pressure from the faithful to ratify the Co­

Redeemer doctrine: instead they issued no decree on Mary at all.

Rather she was incorporated into the Constitution on the Church,

a move that placed the Virgin among the community of believers in Christ rather than in anything resembling a co-equal position. 1154

With Vatican II there is a development in how to deal with

Marian Dogmas. Trying to find an adequate theory of doctrinal development is difficult. "Indeed, since Vatican II the problem has taken an unexpected turn. Prior to the Council, the problem was to construct a theory broad and supple enough to account for all the things which the Church had, in fact, dogmatized. Today the problem is to find a theory stringent enough to provide a rational basis for evaluating the tendencies being proclaimed as developments. 1155 The shift here is from content (taking into account the dogmas) to process (a rational basis for evaluating) . This also appears to be what is occurring in the transition from

Marian principles to Marian scriptural theology. The Marian principles are content and in some ways dogmatic, while the 67 Marian scriptural theology emphasizes process and a rational basis for understanding and acceptance. c. Problems of a Biblical Mariology Vatican II may not have been the only reason for this shift in emphasis. A 1960 paper to the Mariological Society of America provides a summary of, "The Problems of a Biblical Mariology. 1156 Some of these problems affecting biblical Mariology may also have been a catalyst for the shift in Mariology. While biblical theology is distinct from other forms of theology such as dogmatic theology, it overlaps in many places. A basic definition of biblical Mariology could be "[t]he scientific and systematic treatment of divine revelation concerning Mary, as known from Sacred Scripture, the primary source of Mariology. 1157 This specialized science is concerned with theology in general and with Mariology in particular. Fr. R. MacKenzie describes two stages whereby biblical theology can be adapted to biblical Mariology in particular. "There are two stages in the work: first, there must be an exact determination of the data, namely the theological truths expressed in each particular inspired book; secondly, the testimonies thus determined and collected must be arranged in their right doctrinal relationships, and co-ordinated into a complete system according to the patterns that are implicit in them .... The main one is the question of arrangement: what order to follow, and what central theme to make the backbone of the synthesis?"58 68 Two reasons are cited as to why problems exist in Mariology. First, 'Mariolatry-sensitivity' is a phenomena where the heart runs away with the head. This fear is often seen in the area of ecumenism where there is a sincere desire to avoid offending non­ Catholic sensibilities. A second and more far reaching reason is the advancement in modern biblical scientific research. The famous encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu gave the green light for more advanced biblical studies and a whole new vocabulary developed, such as; "Sitz im Leben," "Form-Criticism," "Kerygma and Myth," and "De-mythologizing," etc. Sciences like archeology and philology advanced and enlarged our knowledge of ancient and cultures. A third reason for problems is the lack of universally-accepted terminology in a growing discipline. 1. Relationship among Scripture, Tradition, and Mariology A commonly accepted notion of as the second source of divine revelation is "that body of revealed truths not contained in the Bible, but transmitted from generation to generation under the guidance of the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church. 59 Historically, there are three different attitudes of the Church toward Scripture and Tradition: 1) that revelation is contained partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition, 2) revelation is found partly in Scripture, and entirely in Tradition and 3) revelation is contained entirely in Scripture and entirely in Tradition. 60 Geiselmann maintains that the most 'traditional' understandings of Scripture and Tradition are that the " ... word of God may be found in its 69

totality in Sacred Scripture. All of the revealed word of God is

to be found in Sacred Scripture as interpreted by living

Tradition. 1161 Another supporter of this view, Burghardt comments, "An argument from Scripture is theologically an

argument from the Church's understanding of her own book; and

that is an argument from tradition."62 The Church is often

said to be the custodian of the faith which was given to the

Apostles.

Another question that has been raised is that of faith. Is

it necessary to have faith to do scriptural work? Some say that

faith and biblical scholarship are not scientific. MacKenzie

offers this comment: "The chief gain among the Christian exegetes

has been the general acknowledgment not merely of the legitimacy

but of the necessity of faith, in anyone who approaches the Bible

with the hope of receiving what it has to offer. They recognize

now that coldly scientific - in the sense of rationalistic -

objectivity is quite incapable of even perceiving, let alone

exploiting , the of Scripture. 1163

How does ScripturejTraditionjMagisterium relate to Biblical

Mariology? First and foremost is the adherence to the Church's

guidance and interpretation in this science. Pope Pius XII at an International Mariological Congress pointed out that growth in

the understanding of Mary, must always agree with Scripture and

Tradition. "And adhering to these norms, will aid in a deepening

penetration into Mary's dignity and functions." 64 Secondly, a

Marian indication in a scriptural text can be found through 70 dogmatic definition, as in the use of Gen. 3.15. 65 Thirdly, a doctrine in Marian , "even if not defined, nevertheless demands obedience."66 Fourthly, liturgy is another possible source of scriptural interpretation. "Since it is not incumbent upon the liturgy to ferret out the Scriptural meaning, the liturgy accepts a text as it is, clear or obscure ... Now when the liturgy uses a text, it ipso facto places this text in a liturgical context and thereby extends the meaning of this text. (Even if this involves 'rereading' or 'reinterpretations' especially in the Old Testament.)"67 2. Use of Scripture as (Marian} Dogmatic Proof Close to the first problem in biblical Mariology of the relationship of scripture, tradition and magisterium is the second problem of the use of scriptures in Marian doctrines and dogmas. Fr. Siegman suggests the present method of quoting Scripture in textbooks of dogmatic theology "is unsatisfactory because outmoded in its controversial approach, unpedagogical in presentation, ambiguous in that Scripture texts are taken out of their peculiar setting. The author agrees that by far the majority of proof-texts are used incorrectly."68 Discussing the concept of biblical theology before the Catholic Theological Society of America, Fr. MacKenzie stated: " ... Let me suggest that nowadays a dogmatic theologian has an obligation to re-examine the 'traditional' Scripture proofs, checking them by some up-to­ date translation and commentary (such as the Bible de Jerusalem} and seeing whether in their original context the words can 71 support the interpretation which his dogmatic thesis requires ...• Above all one must deplore the technique which seeks in Scripture for brief isolated phrases, suitable to serve as major or minor of a scholastic syllogism. 1169

And what of the scripture texts that support Marian doctrine? "The question is integrated with still further questions: which are the genuinely Marian texts? In what scriptural sense are they Marian? To what degree do they tend to support the tenets of Mariology? Though there still exists a surprisingly wide divergence of opinion among biblicists on individual texts the following general norms have been proposed for the biblical Mariologist:

(1) A scriptural argument should be drawn only from the

literal sense (including the sensus plenior), or from the

typical sense if it is well established.

(2) This sense ought to be explained by rational and

theological criteria, particularly by exegetical tradition

and the analogy of faith.

(3) If at times the progressive method will be found

useful, the regressive method should nonetheless be used

more often, keeping before one's eyes the integral doctrine

now proposed to us by the Church.

(4) Through this method, which we believe to have been

used in both Bulls and Munificentissimus

Deus, one gets the full meaning of texts. 72

(5) The Mariological sense of Old Testament texts is to

be subordinated to their messianic and soteriological

character. Marian typology must be well-weighed, balanced.

(6) New Testament texts should be handled with consideration

for Mary's dignity and privileges.

(7) Neither the relative silence of Sacred Scripture

nor that of ancient Tradition (the causes of which should be

zealously investigated), can be invoked as a valid argument

concerning the sense and doctrine of texts.

(8) A solid and fervent devotion to the Blessed Mother,

instead of vitiating mariological , rather can and

should help it.n70

These general norms made in 1955 are just as valid in 1990,

35 years later. In 1955, as cited above, "there still exists a surprisingly wide divergence of opinion among biblicists on individual texts"; this is also true today. Evidently the problems of a biblical Mariology in the 1950's still hold true for the scholars in the 1990's.

3. The Senses of Scripture, and Mariology

Fr. Raymond Brown has authored one of the most authoritative works on this subject. He states: "The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation."71 Examples 73 of the evidence he offers as proof include: "(a) the exegesis practiced by the N.T. writers and the Fathers posits the sensus plenior; (b) the problem of liturgical interpretation of

Scripture seems to demand this sense; (c) so does the exegesis of certain Marian texts by theologians; (d) the fuller sense aids in harmonizing the two Testaments." "The sensus plenior is a distinct sense from either the literal or the typical, holding a position between the two, but closer to the literal. 1172

By citing some of the Marian texts that have this fuller sense (Gen. 3.15; Is. 7.14; Lk. 1.42; Jn 19.27 and Rev. 12), he concludes "in the employment of Marian texts by theologians

(or perhaps by the Magisterium) and in the case of some Messianic , objectively there seems to be an exegesis which is neither strictly literal nor typical. 1173 Brown also comments that the "sensus plenior does not come from within the text but is added in by new revelation. 1174

4. Inspiration and Inerrancy, and Mariology

Biblical inspiration and inerrancy is a further problem for biblical Mariology. Dom Charlier provides a commonly accepted idea of biblical inspiration:

"The infallible magisterium of the Church gives no technical definition. The Church's thought is nevertheless quite clearly enshrined in her ancient documents, and more especially in the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Benedict XV and Pius XII, all of which teach the following as certain: both the divine and human character of the Bible is to be preserved intact; God is its 74 principal author; by determining its content through the positive action of His Spirit, He has made Himself responsible for it; the sacred writer is equally author in the true sense of the word; he has contributed to its production through the normal human activity which God has employed as an instrument. 1175

The inspiration of the author has to be accepted on faith; only then can the subject of biblical Mariology and other questions be discussed.

5. The Literary Genres and Mariology

Literary genres were considered in the encyclical Divino

Afflante Spiritu in which the Pope encouraged work in the field of biblical interpretation. Taking one example and relating it to Mariology, what is "Semitic totality-thinking," in its possible bearing on exegesis? Fr. Bernard LeFrois states: "One of the characteristics of the Semitic mind is that it thinks in totalities and expresses itself accordingly. Much light is thrown on several parts of Holy Writ if this fact is properly understood .•.. It is because the Semite thinks in totalities that he sees in the individual the whole species manifesting itself; with him a typical, concrete individual stands for the group; the first one of the dynasty or line of rulers can embody in himself the entire dynasty or line. 1176 The author suggests that certain texts exhibit this philosophy as with Apoc. 12, which refers to both Mary and the Church. Another is the

Daughter Zion, where Mary is identified with the people Israel.

"Turning to the New Testament, there is for instance the current 75 discussion of the possible midrashic character of the infancy sections in Luke and Matthew, as developed so thoroughly by Prof. Rene' Laurentin's classic work, and recent articles in Estudios Bibl i cos, among others . " 77 In conclusion, the Le Freis article emphasizes three impressions: (1) Encouragement given in Divino afflante Spiritu is excellent to follow as a guide for biblical research. (2) Prudence concerning the scientific approach. "The of over-scientific exegesis at times appears a valid one to us. That it is a wrong approach seems evident from Divino afflante Spiritu itself, which devoted a good deal of text to the idea that an exegete cannot stop at the so-called scientific level, but realizing that he is working with a divinely inspired text, must set forth in particular the theological doctrine in faith and morals of the individual books or texts."78 (3) Prudence with regard to the Faithful. The approach utilized by scholarly journals helps keep things in line. "What is today put forward rather covertly by some, not without precautions and distinctions, will tomorrow be proclaimed from the housetops and without moderation by more venturesome spirits. This is a scandal to many, especially among the young clergy, and could be detrimental to ecclesiastical authority."79 D. The Place of Mariology in the Bible Eamon Carroll makes an appeal to the exegete on the following three points. (a) For a sympathetic understanding of 76 the exegete of the task of the dogmatic theologian. Some truths, like the dogmatic teaching of 'theotokos' proclaimed at Ephesus­

Chalcedon, are widely accepted, even ecumenically. "But our task as dogmatic theologians becomes both more difficult and vexing when our exegete brother carries his biblical investigation, say of the Assumption, only to a certain point - with inconclusive or nearly negative results, and then says to us, blandly: 'I accept the Assumption as revealed truth, because of the Church's definition, but how it's revealed is the concern of the dogmatic theologian'. 1180

(b) "Since we share this problem of dogmatic development, we must collaborate. This is not to ask the exegete to engage in

'', rather than exegesis, but this is to ask him to be alert to 'leads', 'possibilities' within the Scriptures that may be the setting-out points, or points of departure, for the subsequently defined dogma. 1181 Carroll gives as an example

Cardinal Newman's comparison of an underground river that eventually comes to the surface. "All along, the river supplies moisture to the plant life above it, so it is ever a vivifying force, but it becomes visible only when it reaches the surface.

Similarly, in the course of time the implicit tributaries of the river of revealed truth eventually, in God's good time, become explicit and receive names. 1182 There are still problems and questions that concern both the exegete and the theologian, and

Carroll gives three examples:

(1) "The Second Vatican Council has left for further 77

investigation the question: is all revealed truth in the

Scriptures? Many experts answer affirmatively. If the

correct answer is affirmative, then the task of showing the

bond between Scripture and such dogmas as the Immaculate

Conception is all the more pressing."83

(2) A second area of investigation is the ecumenical

one, with the relationship between Scripture, 'traditio',

and the magisterium. Scripture has a two fold setting;

"(a) its own immediate setting which the exegete studies as

a biblical theology: (b) the context in the history of the

Church, even to the present day, which the dogmatic theologian studies,n.84

(3) There are many studies on the 'sensus plenior' of

Scripture. "The concept of 'sensus plenior ' takes into

account the living tradition in the 'faith' of

the Church. It is through living tradition that the sensus

plenior of the Scripture appears.n85

(c) In recent times great has been made in dogmatic theology making some of the earlier works outdated. For example

in the area of ecumenism earlier documents were much harsher on non-Catholics then the documents of Vatican II and later ones.

In looking at the views of a dogmatic theologian both the past and present developments need to be kept in mind.

Another article on "Principal Problems of Modern Exegesis

Relative to Dogma," outlines several problems related to

Mariology. One problem is (a) that of the Bible as literature 78 and the various aspects of this problem such as the annunciation scene and the "parallel passages from the Old Testament, from

Zephaniah, Zechariah, Exodus, etc. Only by one who has these readings in mind and in their original context is the Lucan narrative fully understood."86

Another problem is the literary devices used in the Lucan chapters such as, diptychs (the two ), etc.

(b)Semitic play on words (Lk 1-2 has the Greek word

'rema' "used some nine times, a usage

significantly contrasted with the relatively rare use in the

rest of ."87

(c) The compenetration of images, where "more than one

figure is being reproduced in a passage," ... "Such a

compenetration has been forcefully argued for the Johannine

passage in 12, where Israel, Mary and the Church

can all be detected, either singly or together."88

(d) The Semites believed that the name expresses the nature

and "attributed great affect to the pronunciation of the

name,"89 such as the angel's address to Mary as 'full of

grace' (kecharitomene).

Biblical theology has brought out a gradual development of various biblical themes, such as Daughter Sion. "A knowledge of all the stages of their unfolding and an appreciation of the organic character of the development are essential to a proper exposition of Mary's place in the plan of salvation history."

Maly's comments could be very important for todays' debate on 79 dogma and whether dogmas can evolve or change: "Systematic theology, by its very nature, tends to 'freeze' or make absolute a concept that has only relative value in its biblical context.

Not only does this dogmatic approach tend to give more value to the passage than it may actually have, but it also tends to discourage any further insights, since dogmatic formulation is by definition a restricting process. It would seem that a greater awareness of this is demanded if excessive formulations are to be avoided and the door left open for a further explicitation of Marian truth. 119° For Mariology the following implications are relevant.

(a) The use of the biblical word 'sign'. "This is of

great importance in assessing Mary's intercessory role as

depicted by John in the scene of the at Cana. As

John states there, this was the 'first of the signs' (archen

ton semeion) that Jesus worked. 1191

(b) The liturgical character of the fourth Gospel,

could be based on the liturgical feasts, offers a wealth of

insights. These insights could come from, "Cana's

association with the Eucharist, once established on the

basis of its paschal and eschatological character,". 92

(4) A complaint against the systematic theologian who uses a philosophical approach contrary to a clear biblical approach.

(5) The question of Mary's knowledge of her child's messianic and divine nature, as in the annunciation scene where

"the possibility of an exhaustive knowledge on the part of Mary 80 has been widely defended." •.. "While it is certainly conceivable that Mary herself could have initiated this midrashic process both in her original reactions to the events and in her later reflection on them, it is most improbable that she is solely responsible for the final wording and arrangement. In other words later Christians and particularly Luke himself would have contributed something to the literary form. 1193 (6) The ecumenical implications of terminology applied to Mary need to be considered. Terms such as 'mediatrix and co­ redemptrix' can be justified by "proper theological distinctions. But these distinctions, at times quite subtle, are often meaningless to the one whose religious vocabulary is biblically oriented. It is proposed, therefore, that a greater effort be made to emphasize a Marian language with strong biblical bases. 1194 (7) "The seventh problem is one that touches the very heart of systematic theology, inasmuch as the theology does try to find the coordinating principles of its various branches. Thus the dogmatic theologians are much concerned to find the fundamental principle of Mariology. What is the one aspect of Mary, the one privilege that will explain the rest? 1195 (8) The final difficulty which the exegete encounters is the dogmatic presentation of Mariology. "It is that the subject is treated at times as though it were a science essentially distinct from the one theology of which it is a part .... But it is a Mariology that must ultimately lose its identity by being 81 absorbed into a Christology, the doctrine of Christ who is the full revelation of the mysterium, the Father's plan of salvation. 1196

Cardinal Ratzinger' book, Daughter Zion, asks the question:

"Is there any place at all for something like Mariology in Holy

Scripture, in the overall pattern of its faith and prayer?

Methodologically, one can approach this question in one of two ways, backwards or forwards, so to speak: either one can read back from the New Testament into the Old or, conversely, feel one's way slowly from the Old Testament into the New. 1197 Both ways should be in agreement and, if the search were to go from the new to the old testament, it becomes evident that the "image of Mary in the New Testament is woven entirely of Old Testament threads. In this reading, two or even three major strands of tradition can be clearly distinguished which were used to express the mystery of Mary. First, the portrait of Mary includes the likeness of the great mothers of the Old Testament: Sara and especially , the mother of . Second, into that portrait is woven the whole theology of daughter Zion, in which, above all, the prophets announced the mystery of God's love for

Israel. A third strand can perhaps be identified in the : the figure of Eve, the "woman" par excellence, is borrowed to interpret Mary.n98

Ratzinger considers these three strands while dealing with the different story types and layers found in the old testament.

Ratzinger points out that "Marian piety and theology is 82 fundamentally based upon the Old Testament's deeply anchored theology of woman, a theology indispensable to its entire structure."99 He concludes with an explanation of the Wisdom texts. The new testament incorporated the wisdom idea and in both Hebrew and Greek, "wisdom" is a feminine noun expressing, "that side of reality which is represented by the woman, by what is purely and simply feminine .... From the viewpoint of the New Testament, wisdom refers, on the one side, to the Son as the Word, in whom God creates, but on the other side to the creature, to the true Israel, who is personified in the humble maid. 11100 He concludes with the rather onerous statement: "To deny or reject the feminine aspect in belief, or, more concretely, the Marian aspect, leads finally to the negation of creation and the invalidation ·of grace. 11101

II. Symbolism, Scripture and Marian Theology Introduction: There was a definite development in Marian orientation after Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, the Primary Principle of Mariology seems to be a central issue. The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were the major reasons for this emphasis on principles. The divine Maternity was the view most widely accepted as the primary principle of Mariology. Vatican II refocused the attention from the primary principle of Mariology which is a christological emphasis to more of a ecclesiological emphasis with Mary in the Church. A healthy 83

balance of the two was attained.

After Vatican II a more biblically oriented Mariology arose

and with this questions of the historicity of the image and

symbolism of Mary in the Bible. Just as there were disagreements

as to the primary principle of Mariology, so there were and still

are disagreements about the historical image of Mary mother of

Jesus.

A. The Meaning of Symbol

The definition of a symbol is "1: an authoritative summary

of faith or doctrine: 2: something that stands for or

suggests something else by reason of relationship, association,

, or accidental resemblance; esp: a visible sign of something invisible.nl02

Dominic Unger, in describing the various senses of scripture has a category for the symbolic sense. Under the typical sense

(person, thing, action, called the type), "the basic object of the typical passage must be a real, historic object that has its own reason for existing; e.g., the manna (Ex. xvi.) .... If the object is real, but exists merely for the sake of being a type, we have a species of the typical sense called the symbolic sense cf. e.g., Is xx.2; Jer. xiii.1-11). 11103

A discussion of symbol is given by Karl Rahner in his exposition on the of the symbol in The Theology of the Symbol. "Our first statement, which we put forward as the basic principle of an of symbolism, is as follows: all beings are by their nature symbolic, because they necessarily 84

'express' themselves in order to attain their own nature. 11104

"To sum up and propound once more the results arrived at up to this, we may invert the first assertion which we put forward as the fundamental principle of an ontology of the symbol, by affirming as a second assertion: The symbol strictly speaking

(symbolic reality) is the self-realization of a being in the other, which is constitutive of its essence. 11105

The theologian gives an overall perspective on symbolism. He states, "In twentieth-century theology the idea of revelation as symbolic disclosure has achieved wide popularity.

This approach is represented, with important nuances and variations, by such esteemed thinkers as , H.R.

Niebuhr, Karl Rahner, Paul Ricoeur, Langdon Gilkey, Ray Hart,

John Macquarrie, Louis Dupre, and Gregory Baum. 11106 "According to this approach, revelation never occurs in a purely interior experience or an unmediated encounter with God. It is always mediated through symbol -- that is to say, through an externally perceived sign that works mysteriously on the human consciousness so as to suggest more than it can clearly describe or define.

Revelatory symbols are those which express and mediate God's self-communication. nlO?

In describing common properties of symbolism Dulles states: first, it does not give speculative but rather participatory knowledge (a universe of meaning and values); second, the symbol has a transforming effect (a healing capacity); and third, symbolism has a powerful influence on behavior and commitments 85 (such as the national flag); and fourth, it opens a person up to realms of awareness not normally accessible to discursive thought (as with mystery). 108 Dulles gives three examples of ; nature symbolism such as 'light', historical symbolism such as the 'cross' and sacramental symbolism such as the 'eucharist'. He goes on to situate symbolism in the five models of revelation, each with its own view. Elizabeth Johnson, a theology professor at Fordham University, states that there is a plethora of positions about the nature of religious symbolism. She cites a study that "has identified three major positions regarding religious symbolism: symbolic reductionism (Feuerbach, Freud), which sees religious symbols as existential projections of real or ideal states of human experience, discardable once their hidden truth has been uncovered; symbolic realism (Tillich, H.R. Niebuhr, Polanyi, Macquarrie), which understands religious symbols as nonliteral representations of a transcendent reality, which so mediate that reality that it is disclosed and communicated through the symbol and (in the judgement of one influential group of symbolic realists) experienced in it; and the symbolic formism (Cassirer, Langer, Toulmin, van Buren), which holds that religious symbols are imaginative constructs that neither project human experience nor mediate transcendent reality."109 She prefers symbolic realism (as does Avery Dulles) since it allows for a transcendent reality. 86 Johnson goes on to define two polar positions about Mary in scripture. The position tends to emphasize the historical facts whereas the Protestants look upon these statements as meditative reflections on the life of faith. Johnson's position on the Roman Catholic position is that "In interpreting statements about Mary, a certain literal-mindedness is out of place. As Karl Rahner has bluntly noted, 'The church does not know Mary's life-story,' but-and this is the important point--it does know 'what must be said about Mary in confessing the faith and praising the grace of God. 11110 She proposes that "theological statements about Mary have a symbolic character, which should guide their interpretation. 11111 Johnson continues by citing the u.s. Catholic bishops on Mary: "The Church saw herself symbolized in the Virgin Mary. The story of Mary, as the Church has come to see her, is at the same time the record of the Church's own self -discovery. " 112 B. Marian Symbolism and Mary's Sacred Memory The concepts of image and symbolism are often interwoven and, for the purpose of this work, there will be no distinction made between the concepts of "image" and "symbol." Before Vatican II there were many images of Mary from scripture. Today many Marian titles are still in use, such as Daughter Zion, Mother of God, Handmaiden of the Lord, Advocate, Immaculate Conception, Queen of , etc. Many of these titles existed long before Vatican II. 87

In one Pre-vatican work Our Lady's Titles (1928), there are forty eight titles listed. (There are numerous other works such as Our Lady's , A. Bishupeh, 1954) After each title a scripture quote is related to that title. Just the titles in

Luke and Matthew include: Holy Mary, Lk 1.28,42; Holy Mother of

God, Lk 1.43; Holy Virgin of Virgins, Lk 1.28; Mother of Divine

Grace, Lk 1.35; Mother Undefiled, Mt 2.2; Mother Of Our Redeemer,

Lk 1.47; Virgin Most Prudent, Mt 18.4; Virgin Most Venerable, Lk

1.27; Virgin Most Renowned Lk 1.28; Virgin Most Powerful, Lk

1.49; , Mt 2.2; Cause Of Our Joy, Lk 2.10;

Spiritual Vessel, Lk 1.30; Vessel of Honor, Lk 1.35; Tower of

David, Lk 1.32-33; , Mt 2.13; Gate of Heaven,

Lk 1.46; Morning Star, Lk 2.15; of Sinners, Mt 8.2;

Consoler of the Afflicted, Lk 2.48; Help of Christians, Lk 11.10;

Queen of , Lk 2.13; Queen of Patriarchs, Lk 1.45; Queen of

Prophets, Lk 1.28; Queen of Apostles, Mt 14.31; Queen of Peace,

Lk 2.14. 113 Many of these older works have numerous titles given to Our Lady. Yet after Vatican II this hasn't been a commonly accepted practice.

In his work The Sacred Memory of Mary, Fr. Brennan quotes from Vatican II: "[T]he faithful must in the first place reverence the memory 'of the glorious ever Virgin Mary,'". 114

He states, "[t]he memory of Mary has been covered over with layers of unauthentic images .... The Church has called us to a new and fresh approach to the memory of Mary. 11115 "The Council did what st. Paul told the Romans (he did) in writing to them: it 88

sought to 'refresh our memory' (Rom 15:15)."116 Thus, "[o]ur

basic memory of Mary is a 'scriptural testimony. '" 117

After explaining the group memory df Mary, Fr. Brennan goes

on to explain the memory of Mary in the Synoptic and Mary

in the Gospel of John and Mary in the early church. He concludes

with memory - the foundation of Marian piety. This

development of the liturgical aspect included, "'devotion' to the

heroic holy men and women remembered in the tradition."118

He points out the has very little to say

about Mary and what it does say is somewhat negative. Mark

emphasizes only the blood relationship of Mary to Jesus whereas

Matthew and Luke show her in a positive light, developing her

spiritual relationship to Jesus. Fr. Brennan cites R.E. Brown

and B. Buby in stating "a preference for Mark has influenced

Protestant estimation of Mary."119

Both Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel, among other

sources. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience and put his material together in "a narrative memory."120 Matthew, as with

Luke, sees Mary in a special relationship with Jesus through the

Holy Spirit. "God fulfills his promise to Israel, his promise to

Mary, and his promise to the Church through the Holy

Spirit. " 121 Matthew tells his stories of Jesus and includes

the memory of Mary. This memory of Jesus birth is a preface to the story of Jesus which for the starts with a genealogy.

Mary becomes part of the definition of Jesus in relation to the

Hebrew Scriptures. "She was more than a name and the blood 89 mother of Jesus. She is the virgin mother of Israel, promised sign of the Messiah. u122 l Luke developed the Synoptic's Gospel memory of Mary. His audience was more Hellenistic, more interested in discipleship.

Mary is found primarily before and after the passion and the

" of about the suffering servant of

Yahweh ... colors his infancy stories.n123 Fr. Brennan describes at length the comparisons between the Old and the New

Testaments. The contrasts start between Jesus and John the

Baptist, continuing on to Mary and Zachariah. The heavenly messenger brought to Zachariah a fear of 's awesome presence and silence, while the angel for Mary brought a questioning joy and rejoicing. Whereas Zachariah had been praying for a son, Mary was simply chosen. Zachariah is of the old way while Mary, who is from the old way, is the beginning of the new way. "Luke remembers Mary as the , filled with the Holy Spirit, full of faith, ... 11124 This presence of the Holy Spirit is through-out Luke's preface for his Gospel.

As a way of "midrash," Luke offers two stories to help explain Mary's relationship to the Spirit. Yet these stories do not comment on texts. "They are not literature about literature the way those Jewish forms of storytelling were.

Rather they are prefatory by hindsight. 11125 These temple stories discuss the new in the temple and the old notion of the temple is now changed. 's "sword" becomes a sword "'of discrimination' in Mary's inner heart 11 , 126 90

in which she starts to put the meaning of the old and the new

together. "Luke calls her 'symbolousa' in Greek, which means

'putting the symbolic meanings together:' ... He mentions this

characteristic of Mary three times (2:19,33,51). 11127

The second temple story builds upon the first, increasing

her wonder and realization of the difference between being Jesus'

blood mother and being a woman of faith. (also cf. Lk 12.51-52).

Mary becomes more then just a , she becomes a model of

the disciples. By finding Jesus in the temple on the third day,

he distinction of the blood relationship and 'his Father's work'

is made ever more clear. And "like Mary, the Church 'kept these

things in her heart. ' "128

Archetypes are not the study of theology per se but, more

accurately, the study of psychology. There are, however some

people who apply the use of the word "symbol" or "archetypes" to

Mary the Mother of Jesus. Brennan in his article, "The Issue of

Archetypes in Marian Devotion, 11129 notes several authors who

speak of the Virgin Mary as a mother or archetype. Much

of this goes back to Jungian Psychology: " defines

'archetype' as 'the unconscious image of the instincts themselves.' 11130 Jung "hypothesized that there is an

identical, 'impersonal' psychic system in all people. This

system owes its existence exclusively to heredity and not at all to individual learning of cultural content, because its form consists of preexistent archetypal symbols or collective representations that 'have never been in consciousness.'"131 91

Jung sees the Virgin Mary as a kind of "universal figure of the

Mother Archetype. 11132 Fr. Brennan then adds some criticism along the lines of methodology and anthrbpology: "1) Jung's own method is rather unclear. He moves from literature to history, from history to religion, from religion to psychology, without allowing for differences in the nature of the conclusions proper to each discipline .... 2) From the viewpoint of Religious

Anthropology it is not true to say that the psychic dimension is the deepest dimension of man .... As a conclusion we can say that caution should be used in making Jung's 'archetypes' into absolutes, especially if they are illegitimately transferred to the ontological or historical level, and a fortiori, to the theological level." 133

The first ecclesiologist of early Christianity was Luke, the historian. It was he, the evangelist, who interpreted Mary the

Mother of Jesus as a woman of faith. In discussing Mary as the model of the praying church in Acts 1.14, Fr. Bertrand Buby states, "The image of Mary and the image of Church in Acts cannot be separated from what we know about her and the community of disciples in the Gospels. 11134 In discussing the various related texts Buby states, "Luke's ecclesiology is neither systematic nor developed, but there are images of early Christian life and worship within his writings; ... It is clear from the text of Acts 1:14 that Mary was a full member of the group. People of

'one mind' cannot possibly have second-class members in the group. Mary is fully 'church' inasmuch as the Church is at 92 prayer. She is not mentioned, however, as being sent out on a mission by Jesus nor do we have any further mention of her in the .... Acts. If we are to speak of Mary as a model or image of the

Church, then we cannot simply identify Church with mission anymore than we can identify discipleship with mission. n135

In his opinion, Fr. Buby states, "Luke also gives an ecclesiological interpretation to Mary's presence with the eleven. She is the named model believer among women (Cf. Luke

1. 45.) who will usher in the age of the Church, ... " . 136 After conducting a study on the text of Acts 1.14, Buby concludes,

"Luke depicts Mary as an image of woman in this ecclesiology

•.. [ f] rom the context of Acts 1. 14, Mary is an image o·f the ecclesia- in the nascent Church. 11137

In his paper "Daughter of Zion: A Symbol for Jewish -

Catholic Dialogue," Fr. Buby points out that in Lumen Gentium, the Church states that Mary is 'exalted Daughter of Zion.' The chapter also suggests that "the Church is concerned with a

Christocentric and ecclesial appreciation of the Mother of Jesus.

The title has to be understood as part of the Tradition as well as having some type of foundation in the Scriptures .... The document contains a moderate and balanced faith-tradition when it speaks of the titles used for Mary from the Hebrew

Scriptures. " 138

Among catholic exegetes the title 'Daughter of Zion' is favored by R. Laurentin, L. Deiss, J. McHugh, S. Lyonnet, E.G.

Mori, B. Rigaux and P. Benoit ;-139 more recently in the studies 93 of A. serra, 140 and I. de la Potterie. 141 Other scholars like R.E. Brown point out that these "prophetic voices sometimes speak disparagingly of the Daughter of Zion. These lines would not be appropriate for Mary."142 And in connection with other scholars, Brown says "the connection of Mary as 'virgin' to Mary as 'Daughter Zion' is dubious, since almost all of the Old

Testament references to the virgin Zion or virgin Israel are uncomplimentary, portraying her in a state of oppression, waywardness and lust."143 Buby agrees that this is true but the multiplicity of texts give preponderantly positive view of

Daughter Zion. Buby offers his orientation to the problem by stating, "[M)ost North American scholars follow the suggestion of

R.E. Brown in critiquing the title from a historical-critical methodology. In my own presentation I am aware of their critique, but wish to use both the insights and results of Brown as well as the suggestions from Vatican II and from the host of scholars mentioned."l44

Buby goes on to explain that "both the Church and the exegetes work from certain . The exegetes go directly to the texts and explain their meaning from their historical context and their philological dimension. The Church, on the other hand, employs both her long tradition of utilizing other ecclesial commentators and theologians as well as the liturgical expression so necessary for nourishing the life of the faithful with a biblical presentation of Christ and his mother

Mary. Basically, the scientific approach to the Scriptures is 94 more logical and objective because it is highly analytical and is

based exclusively on the exegesis flowing directly from the texts ~- in their historical setting. The faith-tradition approach of the

Church is more intuitive and flexible when working with texts which themselves have a flexible symbolism. We can say that the

Church sees things in the light of faith through a method that tends towards a synthesis with the rest of its teachings. There

is within the Church a healthy respect for handing on of a tradition by those who first saw and taught such a linking of

Mary with certain titles, images, and symbols within the

Bible. " 145 c. Structuralism and Semiotics Structuralism has been around since the early 1900's but

semiotics was started in the 1950's and after Vatican II,

Semiotics was used in exegesis. Semiotics never really took off and faded away in the 1980's when the founder died and his

journal stopped publication. Semiotics was a philosophical system founded on the idea that mathematics and science could explain everything and they believed in the two-man philosophical argument (there is only man and his world). They did not believe

in the three-man philosophical argument (that there is man, the world and God) . This two-man argument was eventually part of the downfall of the whole system.

Others tried to rework the system with a belief in God.

Using the semiotics method for theology means using some kind of scientific or mathematical system as the basis for theological 95

discourse. The semiotic square (a method used in the process of

semiotic analysis) becomes this schema that is used for exegesis

by theologians that tried such an approach. Fr. Laurentin in his

book The Truth of Christmas spends considerable time, a third of

his book actually on semiotics. He even goes so far as to state

"Currently, semiotics is on the cutting-edge of exegetical

research. 11146 Perhaps someday this statement will be correct

but at least for the SO's and early 90's it is has not come

about.

Literary Theories such as phenomenology, ,

structuralism, semiotics and others were developed during this

last century. Literature itself is a system, not simply a matter

of a random collection of writings though out history. From

literature came various objective laws by which the various modes, myths, genres and archetypes were classified and

structured. Structuralism started to develop through the study

of literature.

Structuralism "is concerned with structures and more particularly with examining the various laws by which they work. 11147 Within this definition is the "belief that

individual units of any system have meaning only by virtue of their relations to one another. 11148 Languages are often

structured by an interplay of differences and contrasts. A poem has a structure in and of itself; it can be broken down and analyzed. The individual words, phrases and sections have meaning in relation to each other in the poem. Depending on the 96

viewpoint, different meanings can be derived from the analysis of

the structure.

"Literary structuralism flourished in the 1960's."149

As evidenced by the various schools of thought developed from

this interest. Out of structuralism came semiotics, the

systematic study of signs. The word semiotics comes from the

Greek semeion, meaning sign. The object of the study "is how

signs produce (or induce) a meaning."150 Whereas structuralism

indicated a general method of enquiry, semiotics was a more

particular field of study of the systems of signs. Semiotics "is

literary criticism transfigured by structural linguistics."151

Semiotics developed many classifications such as identifying the distinction between: denotation (what the sign stands for)

and connotation (other signs associated with it); codes (rule governed structures with meanings) and the messages transmitted

from them; iconic (a sign resembles what it stands for),

indexical (a sign is associated with the meaning) and symbolic

(arbitrarily is linked with its meaning); paradigmatic (a whole class of signs that may stand for one another) and syntagmatic

(signs are connected as in a chain); metalanguages (one sign­ system denotes another sign-system), and many other forms of classification.152

The study of the analysis of texts and their meanings goes back to the 1920's. But this study actually can be traced back to the Stoics who, in the third century, founded the logical theory of syllogism. The "semiotic square is found in Apuleius 97

(mid-second century) . nlS3 The methodical study of the elements of a text finds the elements whose combination and succession produce meaning.

The semiotic study of a text progresses through several stages. To study a text like Luke, Fr. Laurentin outlines the following five stages:

1. "The first approach consists in discerning the differences and contrasts that betray meaning in different registers: diverse grammatical data, diverse times, places, and modalities.

2. "Next sequential division (also called extraction) draws lines according to changes in time, place, and actant, between the sequences, sub-sequences, and segments of the narrative.

3. These first two stages are set up stages. "The first properly semiotic stage is the identification of the narrative program, which governs the coherent transformations of the story.

The program is realized by a subject in quest of an object, and it progresses by conjunctions and disjunctions.

4. "The program is achieved within the framework of a structured model (such as identifying the subject and object, addresser and addressee and other categories that create a schema. The schema is a relational structure with vectors.)

5. "A final stage tries to unlock the deep structures of signification, using the form of the semiotic square. 11154

This method explains only one aspect of text, namely, meaning. "But the real meaning of a text far exceeds the 98

'prod Laurentin considers semiotics to be a at has "the constitution of a new scie avoid erecting this remarkable metl: :;ystem. "157 He expresses concern thai too often underlies the historical- cri tging to faith. The same risk pre ~ith semiotics."158

he semiotics method is the problem of su :luence in the last two steps. While tt be considered exegetical, the last two, wJ with the semiotic square, are not n ~hese last two steps seem to make a c; do not doubt Fr. Laurentin's

otic square because his theological

~r thirty years experience in the field

gian. But a implies

1le to duplicate an experiment or confirm

'm the third step (the exegetical analysis

rth and fifth of the semiotic square

1r subjective leap.

' points, namely, first the validity of the

e direction of theological scholarship. Is

.p adding an intuitive or subjective level

logical scholarship clinging to an intuitive

h which pre-dates Vatican II?

A last couuu...... _ 1eeds to be made on semiotics. It could 99

become the first exegetical method that could be done by

computer. The squares involve contradiction and correlation, a

no - reject or a yes - accept. This sequence could be programmed

into a computer. Then if a person were to come up with two dozen

or so squares (yes-no theological statements) for Luke 1-2 they

could be programmed into a computer and analyzed. Then this new

scientific method could be called 'scientific' in the sense that

a computer could do it!

Two Tendencies of Error in Mariology

Fr. Rene' Laurentin points out two tendencies that are

dualist in nature and errors of the extremes. "There are two

tendencies: "maximism and minimalism" (or with more phonetic

amplitude: Maximalism and minimalism) .... This vocabulary supposes

a problematic in which there is question of knowing if one is

going to accord more or less to the Virgin. Do you wish 'to be

generous with her' as they say in Italy. Do you wish 'to

augment' or 'to diminish' her glory. 11159

"Pius XII speaks in dualist terms in his encyclical Ad Coeli

Reginam, 11160 where he suggests a phenomenological analysis of the present disequilibrium. "In questions concerning the Blessed

Virgin Mary, the preachers and theologians must take care to

avoid certain deviations in order not to become involved in two

sorts of errors: 1. Let them avoid then opinions without

foundation and those which go beyond truth by a certain

superabundance. 2. Let them also avoid considering with an excessive narrowness of spirit, the dignity of the Mother of God. 100

This text is taken up again in substance in the radio message of

Pius XII to the Mariological Congress of 1954, and in the

conciliar text. 161 To abstain with the greatest care:

From all undue exaggeration.

From every excess of a restricted mentality."

This can become an overly simplistic approach since no one wishes to (or would admit to) being caught in one error or the other. Everyone that he has arrived somewhere within these two extremes. And it is not a simple matter of a good tendency verses a bad tendency, or of two opinions, but of two attitudes. These attitudes have various components that make up the attitudes. Laurentin lists five components:

"1. The more and the less. It is this aspect which corresponds to the words 'maximism' and 'minimism,' to the excess and the narrowness of which Pius XII speaks. But this is but one aspect and the most superficial.

2. Mariocentricism and , according as one takes the Virgin or God as one's center of perspective.

3. Involvement or objectivity: according as one is polarized about the concern to do something for the Virgin, to commit one's self on her behalf, or rather to respect the objective criteria of revelation and of piety.

4. Necessity or gratuity: according to the component of the privileges of the Virgin which seem to necessarily imply each other and can be deduced theologically: first in the domain of piety, one tends to give the exercises of devotion towards the ~~-~ -~----~ ~------

101

Virgin an obligatory value, and to reinforce the prescriptions of the Church on this subject, with regards to the , for example. The other component underlines the freedom of God who has gratuitously filled Mary with grace, the freedom of Mary in her correspondence to grace, the freedom of the Christian before particular devotions.

5. Christotypism or ecclesiotypism: Christotypism considers the Virgin opposite the model of Christ. It tends to speak in the same terms to give her exteriorly analogous honors.

Ecclesiotypism considers the Virgin opposite the model of the

Church, as a believer in the face of God, as one redeemed in the face of the redeemer, as an example of our attitude as members of the Church towards Christ. 11162

D. Symbolism and the Historical Critical Method Controversy

Simply stated the historical critical method is "an approach to a text which attempts to determine its meaning in its time .... [and] [t]he great value of historical criticism is that it enables the modern to overcome his or her naivete in reading an ancient document. 11163 Yet Roland Murphy concludes that, "[i]t has limitations. It does not yield the only nor the complete meaning of a given text. 11164

An ongoing controversy since Vatican II has been the value of the historical critical method and its treatment of scripture.

In 1967, Lutheran theologian published an article in which "he contended that the New Testament does not give much historical information about Mary. He argued that in 102

the New Testament, Mary appears consistently as a symbolic

character, and that therefore symbolism, not history, is the key to Mariology. The Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown, s.s., has examined Pannenberg's argument and found himself in agreement

with it. 11165

In an article Thomas Rausch discusses pluralism in

theological expression and devotional practices in the church

today. He points out that Raymond Brown has "sketched the

'symbolic trajectory' of Mary's image as it was adapted

historically to concretize the ideal of Christian discipleship in

different times and places. Mary has taken on the

characteristics of an Egyptian for the ascetics of the desert

in the early church; in the chivalrous culture of the Middle Ages

she became 'Our Lady' to the knights, a symbol of chaste love; in

the 20th century Mary has been honored as part of the Holy

Family, a model of family life; most recently, she has been

portrayed as an example of the liberated woman in a letter of the

American bishops. This is normal, for the Gospel itself must be

retranslated for each ."166

A controversy emerged upon the publication of Raymond

Brown's paper and booklet on the problem of the virginal

conception of Jesus. His concern was not primarily theological,

but historical: "it cannot be an answer ... that, since Christians

of the past accepted the virginal conception, we must follow in

their footsteps blindly. 11167 He continues by stating: "while

Matthew and Luke apparently accepted the virginal conception as 103 historical, we cannot be certain where they got their information on this point .... Consequently, we must face the possibility that in good faith the evangelists have taken over an earlier belief in virginal conception that does not have an authentic historical basis. In short, the presence of the virginal conception in the infancy narratives of two Gospels carries no absolute guarantee of historicity."168

Rev. Manuel Miguens takes up this issue of virginity in his article on the alleged silence of Mary as a virgin in the New

Testament. 169 After quoting Brown, Manuel notes that Joseph

Fitzmyer also published a paper on this subject, with similar conclusions. 17° Fitzmyer is even more explicit when he insists that "'a palatable interpretation of the New Testament data' would be to consider the presentation of the virginal conception of the New Testament as a theologoumenon."171 Brown did not fully agree with Fitzmyer on this point though. Miguens gives a lengthy discussion of the gospels, detailing how both Brown and

Fitzmyer agree as to the lack of any historicity of the virginal conception in the New Testament. After lengthy reasoning,

Miguens concludes that "for the Bible, God expresses His wishes and carries out His design by facts and by real interventions."172

On the subject of theologoumena Miguens concludes,

"Resorting to theologoumena in order to go around the contents of a given text, is too subjective - and risky - a procedure to be scholarly sound •... There is nothing in the Bible and in 104 revelation that cannot be evaporated into some kind of theologoumenon. Not only 's calling, life and promises, not only 's birth and existence - and with them the reality of election and covenant - are gone; not only the mysteries of

Christ's life, death and resurrection become a symbol of

'nothing' else, but the very existence of Christ can become a theological 'allegory' necessary to give some sort of reality to the promises contained in the Old Testament. 11173

Dominic J. Unger states this problem very clearly174 ''As a matter of fact, in his study on the virginal conception of

Mary, Fr. Brown stated that this dogma (he does admit it is a dogma from the ordinary Magisterium) is not a foreclosed question, because the Church has changed dogmas before .... but in the case at point, to change from a historical fact of a virginal conception (the present dogma) to a mere theologoumenon is not a mere modification or change of formulary. It would be a denial pure and simple of a historical fact, a total reversal. 11175

After reviewing several distinctions, Unger states "Fr.

Brown accepts Pannenberg's idea that there is a difference between the Christology and the Mariology of the Gospels: the

Christology is based on historical information, Mariology is not. 176 What is said of Mary is merely symbolical, she is the personification of the new mankind, and so she is the model of

Christians. That distinction is gratuitous. The same writer, st. Luke, who gives information on Jesus, does so about Mary too, and the information about her is presented in the same as 105 that about Jesus. It is an unproved assumption to say that the first chapters of Luke have a different literary genre for verses, or even parts of verses, that deal with Mary than those that deal with Jesus. Why, for example, should Luke 1:35 give historical information about Jesus and contain only symbolical meaning for Mary? The total tradition of the Church upholds the

Gospels as giving us historical information about Mary as well as about Jesus."177

This issue created a controversy that lasted for over a decade. At the front of controversy is Fr. Laurentin who is at odds with the historical critical observations of Raymond Brown and others. The Marianum extended an invitation to Raymond Brown to write a 'non' in response to Rene' Laurentin's book on the infancy narratives. Raymond Brown authored "More Polemical than

Instructive: R. Laurentin on the Infancy Narratives."178 This article outlined the history of the disagreement and the two sides that have arisen as a result, namely the historical critical method and the methodology of symbolism.

Brown praises Laurentin's work on the Structure of Luke 1-2 done 30 years ago, "when I teach, I shall always tell the students that he has written a most significant book on the infancy narratives. 11179 Yet concerning The Truth of Christmas

Brown states, "This recent book is defensive and polemic and a step backward from the positive contribution of Laurentin's earlier book. 11180 "He (Laurentin) offers polemical broadsides against all historical critical scholarship and suggests that 106 reputable Catholic exegetes are undermining the faith, Mariology and spirituality."181 Brown also found Laurentin's second work on the discovery of Jesus in the Temple (1966) less satisfactory, a work that "crossed from symbolism into history."182

Brown's two major works, The Birth of the Messiah and Mary in the New Testament seemed "to have intensified his disagreement. Obviously, much of this [Laurentin's] recent book,

Les Evangiles, is aimed at me [Brown] and a host of other scholars who have written historical critical studies of the infancy narratives."183

Brown admits he does use the historical critical method but has never been an "advocate of the all-sufficiency of this approach."184 For Brown hermeneutics demands a wider approach involving literary criticism, narrative criticism, structuralism, canonical criticism, etc. as well as the Church tradition to interpret the Bible in its devotional, liturgical and creedal documents. Brown defends historical criticism, "and I will defend it vigorously against those who attack it because it disturbs pious presuppositions."185

Brown points out that there are others such as George A.

Kelly in his book, The New Biblical Theorists "which was an attack on me and other biblical exegetes."186 and Claude

Tresmontant's Le Christ hebreu. In the work Les Evangiles,

"There he (Laurentin) describes a dualistic world of biblical studies. On the one side is his own exegesis and that of 107 authors, past and present, who favor historicity or a high

Mariology. On the other side ... is a world of historical-critical exegetes (originally Protestant but now populated by Catholics of dubious standing) who are undermining the values of the infancy narratives. 11187 This scientific reductionism of the historical critical method was popularized in this century by

Catholics converted to the of , idealism, and positivism and a systematic suspicion of the miraculous, according to Laurentin. Brown concludes; "All of this means that an ecumenical harmony in agreement with Laurentin's earlier view of Marian symbolism (p. 59, as in the Ark of the Lord representative of Mary) is being undone. 11188 Many aspects of

Laurentin's Old Testament symbolism "were widely accepted in

Catholicism11189 but the ecumenically sponsored book, Mary in the New Testament "disagrees with his views and supports a critical approach to the infancy narratives. 11190

There is an important issue here, at least for this study because the emphasis on the disagreement is partly due to the issue of symbolism. After Vatican II some of this symbolism has come under criticism, especially Old Testament Marian symbolism.

In addition, Laurentin states that Brown believes Mary is not historical but more symbolic as evidenced in Brown's writings.

Brown denies that claim and defends himself: "I stated 'The New

Testament does not give us much knowledge of Mary as a historical character.' Discussing Pannenberg's contention that symbolism, not history, is the key to Mariology, I stated: 'Precisely 108 because we do not know much about the historical character and individuality of Mary, she lends herself more freely than Jesus does to a symbolic trajectory' .•. The fact that our study of her may profit from symbolism more than from history does not make her purely symbolical. 11191

Brown addresses two aspects of Laurentin's argument, first his approach to the historical critical method, and second his discussion of the infancy narratives and selected views on other passages. Brown concludes that he and Laurentin may disagree on certain points but that they agree on the most basic aspects of the infancy narratives: that the infancy narratives are true

Gospel with deep theology; they give an understanding of history; they should not become victims of rationalism or treated as fiction; they give a splendidly high Christology; they are essential to the Christian Mariological tradition; and they follow the proclamation of the identity of Jesus with others,

Jews and Gentiles alike. Brown states that a much longer list of agreements could be emphasized since, "Mostly we are in disagreement about the historicity of some narrative details in the two infancy narratives."192

Rev. James Reese writes about the historical image of Mary in the New Testament stating: "The term history means different things to different people. And the New Testament writings flowed out of a variety of . On what level are we to face this topic?11193 After much discussion on the synoptic tradition and various interpretations of the events he concludes, 109 "we have only 'thin historical material' that cannot bear the weight of being 'adapted to fit any and every current spiritual, ascetical, and theological development in the Church.'"194 Reese brings up two good points: first, what level of historicity is being considered and second; that the thin historical material on Mary has its theological limits. Perhaps these two points will help explain this controversy about the historicity of Mary in the New Testament. D. The Development of Two Schools of Thought One reason for presenting the controversy of symbolism versus the historical critical method is that it is mainly a post-Conciliar problem. Laurentin writes of a dualistic world in exegesis with the historical-critical exegetes on both sides: on one side, with a high Mariology, and on the other side a low Mariology (who in his opinion may be undermining the value of the infancy narratives). Even though there have always been controversies with exegetical methods, this post-Conciliar controversy has been, and still is, a bone of contention among prominent theologians. The long standing belief of Jesus' virginal conception and the symbols of Mary as Daughter Zion and as the Ark of the Covenant are being challenged and questioned. Laurentin's use of semiotics is criticized by Brown, while Brown's use of the historical critical method is criticized by Laurentin. The literature indicates there are people on both sides; e.g. Brown and Fitzmyer (and most American theologians) vs. Unger and Laurentin, (and some French theologians Lyonnet, 110

Benoit) with some people in the middle: e.g. Brennan, Buby, Reese and Neal Flanagan who see both sides as necessary for the balance of a healthy theology.

What has developed is probably two different schools of thought on the methodology of scripture scholarship. One school of thought with Brown is the historical critical method and the other school of thought with Laurentin involves an intuitive approach with images and symbolism. No one in the literature has identified this as a second school of thought or labeled it as such. Let us call this school of thought the 'historical theological method'. Thus the two methodological schools of thought that are in disagreement are the historical critical method and the historical theological method.

An interesting parallel to this in psychology is analytical psychology versus Jungian psychology. Jungian psychology deals a lot with images, symbolism, dreams and the unconscious. Even though Jungian psychology has a great following it is not well received in the scholarly circles of the American Psychological

Association and its publications.

The differences and theological positions taken by Brown and

Fitzmyer vs. Unger and Laurentin are rather clear, and present two distinct theological viewpoints. Placing Brennan, Buby and

Reese in the middle is more of a hypothesis then a conclusion.

The fact that they do not clearly identify with one group over the other, but rather attempt to integrate and synthesize these viewpoints, indicates a possible third, middle or neutral 111

category.

Raymond Brown's Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, 195

published in 1985 is in many ways a polemic against Rene'

Laurentin, whom he deals with in depth. Much of what is said is

a repeat of earlier writings on the issue, especially the

Marianum 1985 article, but this work sums up and expands upon his disagreement with Laurentin and other schools of thought on the

Marian texts.

An important point to keep in mind is that the disagreement

between Brown and Laurentin is not just between two theologians.

Brown notes that the disagreement is mostly with French

Catholics: Laurentin, Lton-Dufour, Lyonnet, Cazelles, Benoit and the Englishman McHugh. He notes that many of these theologians wrote on infancy material in the 1950's and 60's, and McHugh in the 70's. Brown also notes that there are many German and

American Catholic writers on the infancy narratives who also disagree with French tendencies: Schnackenburg, Schurmann, u Vogtle, Bourke, Fitzmyer (to name a few) and the French writer

Legrand. Brown states, "Thus in self-evaluation I deem it more accurate to say I disagree with one group of Catholic writers and agree with another. The ecumenical book MNT [Mary in the New

Testament] shows that I am far from unrepresentative of church­ concerned NT exegetes of all ." 196 Brown mentions the ecumenical support of Laurentin's mariological symbolism to

u • include: Fr. Lyonnet, 1939; Sahl1n 1946; Hebert 1950; and Thurian

1962. These two groups of writers are two schools of thought 112 that have dominated scripture scholarship in Mariology. The important finding here is that there are two schools of thought on Biblical Mariology. The historical critical approach is the predominant one in the scholarly circles today. In some works theologians rely in part on symbolism and imagery in their exegetic analysis. As with Fr. Francis Martin's scriptural foundation on the of the Holy Spirit which uses the imagery and symbolism in the Old Testament. 197 But the historical critical approach is used by both methods in the first half of its work, involving the gathering and analyzing the facts. It's in drawing the conclusions that the two methods differ in method and the resulting conclusion from the method. In the conclusion of the paper the author will give a hypothesis as to a possible underlying reason for these two schools of thought which have been around for many years. Brown concludes his chapter on Historical-Critical Exegesis with a comment that Laurentin would agree with because their major disagreement is on the methodology, "The future not with a rejection of the historical-critical method (which I regard as a permanent contribution to human knowledge), but in a refinement of the method, so that it will answer appropriately posed questions even more accurately, and its contributions to the larger picture of biblical interpretation can be seen in better perspective. " 198 113

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER 3

1. Rev. Thomas Aquinas Collins, O.P., "Towards a Biblical

Theology of Mary," Marian Studies XXV (January 1974): 82.

2. Ibid., p. 100. Citing Johann Philipp Gabler, Oratio de justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus (Altdorf, 1787); included in his Opuscula

Academica 2 (Ulm, 1831) 179-198.

3. Ibid., p. 83-84. Citing 0. Loretz, Die Wahrheit der Bibel

(Freiburg, 1964): revised version of the original edition, translated by D.J. Bourke, under the title The Truth of the Bible

(New York, 1968) 82.

4. Ibid., p. 84-85. Citing Loretz, op. cit., 89.

5. Ibid. Citing J. Barr. The Semantics of Biblical Language

(, 1961).

6. Ibid. Citing L. Alonso-Schokel, in Biblica 46 (1965) 378-380.

7. Ibid. Citing P. Benoit, in Revue Biblique 75 (1968): 132-133.

8. Ibid. Citing B. Brinkmann, in Theologie und Philosophie 41

( 1966) : 115-118.

9. Ibid. Citing E. Gutwenger, The Inerrancy of the Bible, in

Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 87 (1965): 196-202.

10. Ibid. Citing Barr, op. cit., 187.

11. Ibid. Citing Brinkmann, art. cit., 117.

12. Ibid. citing Alonso-Schokel, art. cit., 379.

13. Ibid. I p. 85-86. Citing Alonso-Schokel. 114

14. Ibid., p. 86. Citing Loretz art. cit., 380.

15. Ibid., p. 86-87. Citing J. Jensen, in Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 27 (1963): 276-277. 16. Ibid., p. 87. Citing Brinkmann, art. cit., 117-118.

17. Ibid. , p. 88.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., p. 89. Citing Gutwenger, art. cit., 198.

20. Ibid. Citing N. Lohfink, The Inerrancy of Scripture, in The

Christian Meaning of the Old Testament, trans. by R.A. Wilson

(Milwaukee, 1968): 24-51.

21. Ibid., p.90. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 26-39.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., p. 91.

25. Ibid., p. 92. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 29.

26. Ibid., p. 93. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 31.

27. Ibid. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 32-33.

28. Ibid. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 34-35.

29. Ibid., p. 95. Citing Lohfink, op. cit., 38.

30. Ibid., p. 97.

31. Ibid., p. 100. Citing Cf. Roland de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Doubleday & co., 1971): 49-62.

32. Ibid. Citing de Vaux, op. cit., 60.

33. Ibid., p. 101. Citing de Vaux, op. cit, 61.

34. Ibid., p. 97-98. Citing Benoit, Exegese et theologie 3

(Paris, 1968): 143-156. Originally given in Latin, the French 115 title is: La verite dans la Sainte Ecriture.

35. Ibid., p. 98.

36. Ibid., p. 101.

Ibid., p. 5.

Ibid., p. 7.

Ibid., p. 11.

Ibid. 116

(Osserv. Rom., Mar. 6/7, 1967). 49. Ibid. Citing n. General audience, May 26, 1971 (Osserv.

Rom., May 27, 1971); Address to~he Council Fathers in the

Basilica of St. Mary Major, Oct. 11, 1963 (AAS 35 <1963> p. 873);

Homily, Aug. 15, 1966 (Osser. Rom., Aug. 17/18, 1966). 50. Ibid. Citing n. At the , Dec. 8, 1967 (Osserv. Rom., Dec. 11, 1967). He had a similar thought that same day at the

Piazza di Spagna (Osserv. Rom., Dec. 9/10, 1967).

51. Ibid. Citing n. To the Clergy of the Roman , Feb. 20,

1971 (AAS 63 <1971> p. 222).

52. Ibid. Citing General audience, May 29, 1968 (Osserv. Rom.,

May 30, 1968).

53. Ibid., p. 18.

54. Richard N. Ostling, "Handmaid or Feminist?," Time (December

30, 1991): 66.

55. William H. Marshner. "Criteria for Doctrinal Development in the Marian Dogmas: An Essay in Metatheology", Marian Studies

XXVIII (January 1977): 47.

56. Rev. Eric E. May, O.F.M.Cap. "The Problems of a Biblical

Mariology," Marian Studies XI (January 1960): 21-59.

57. Ibid., p. 24.

58. Ibid., p.24-25. Citing R.A.F. MacKenzie, S.J., "The Concept of Biblical Theology," in PCTSA (1955) 65.

59. Ibid., p. 28. Citing Cf., for example, the manner in which

Pope Pius XII referred to Scripture and Tradition in his encyclical , in AAS 42 (1950) 568-578. 117

60. Ibid., p. 28-29.

61. Ibid. Citing J.R. Geiselmann, S.J., Das Missverstandnis uber das Verhaltnis von Schrift und tradition und seine Uberwindung in der katholischen Theologie, in US 2 (1956): 131-150.

62. Ibid. Citing W.J. Burghardt, S.J., "The Catholic Concept of

Tradition in the Light of Modern Theological Thought," in PCTSA

(1951) 42-75.

63. Ibid., p. 36. Citing R.A.F. MacKenzie, The concept of

Biblical Theology, in PCTSA (1955) 57-58.

64. Ibid. p. 37. Citing n. International Mariological Congress in Rome, Oct. 24, 1954.

65. Ibid., p. 38. Citing D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap, The First Gospel,

Genesis 3.15 (New York, 1954).

66. Ibid. Citing E.g., W.G. Most, Papal Pronouncements and Mary, in PstL 3 (June, 1955) 11-17.

67. Ibid., p. 39. Citing J.A. Grispino, S.M., The Liturgical

Meaning of Scripture, in AER 141 (1959) 155-164.

68. Ibid., p. 40. Citing E.F. Siegman, C.PP.S., The Use of

Sacred Scripture in Textbooks of Dogmatic Theology, in CBQ 11 (1949) 151-164.

69. Ibid., p. 41. Citng R.A.F. MacKenzie, The concept of

Biblical Theology, in PCTSA (1955) 61-62.

70. Ibid., p. 42-43. Citing M. Peinador, C.M.F., De argumento scripturistico in Mariologia, in EphM 1 (1951): 350. Cf. also D.

Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariiology, in MS 1 (1950): 67-116. 118

71. Ibid., p. 45. Citing R.E. Brown, The "Sensus Plenior" of

Sacred Scripture (Baltimore, 1955).

72. Ibid., p. 45-46. ~

73. Ibid. Citing Brown, p. 74-76.

7 4 • Ibid. , p. 4 6.

75. Ibid., p. 48. Citing c. Charlier, The Christian Approach to the Bible (London, 1958) 209.

76. Ibid., p. 53-54. Citing B.J. LeFrois, S.V.D., Semitic

Totality Thinking, in CBQ 17 (1955): 315-323. Also by LeFrois,

Semitic Thought Patterns in Sacred Scripture, in AER 134 (1956):

374-394.

77. Ibid., p. 55. Citing R. Laurentin, Structure et theologie de

Luc I-II (Paris, 1957).

78. Ibid., p. 58.

79. Ibid., p. 59. Citing Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, in AAS

42 (1950): 566, (translation by Cotter, No. 13).

80. P. Eamon Carroll, 0. Carm., "Reflections of a Dogmatic

Theologian About Exegesis", Maria in Sacra Scriptura, Vol. II,

Exegesis Et Theologia Biblico-Dogmatica (Romae, Pontificia

Academia Mariana Internationalis, 1967): 60.

81. Ibid. Citing Cf. example of Laurentin R., Structure et theologie de Luc 1-2, (Paris, 1957).

82. Ibid., p. 62. Citing Cf. cardinal Newman, Essay on

Development of Christian Doctrine.

83. Ibid. Citing Cf. J.R. Gei selrnann's studies, e.g., Die

Heilige Schrift und Tradition, (Freiburg, 1962). 119

Ibid., p. 68.

Ibid., p. 69. Ibid. Ibid., p. 70.

Ibid.

93. Ibid., p. 72. 94. Ibid., p. 73.

95. Ibid., p. 73-74.

96. Ibid., p. 77.

97. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Daughter Zion, (San Francisco:

Ignatius Press, 1983): 11.

98. Ibid., p. 12. Citing Cf. esp. F.M. Braun, La mere des fideles (Tournai, 1954). 99. Ibid., p. 13. Citing Cf. Louis Bouyer, Woman in the Church

(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1979).

100. Ibid., p. 26-27.

101. Ibid., p. 28. 120

102. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts, G. & c. Merriam Company, 1981): 1172. 103. Dominic Unger, "The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology," ibid., p. 91.

104. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. IV., pp. 224-

30, 234-42. Quoted in A Rahner Reader, Gerald A. McCool, ed.,

(New York, Crossroad, 1981) p. 121.

105. Ibid., p. 125.

106. Dulles, Avery. "Symbolic Mediation." Models of Revelation.

(New York: Doubleday, 1983), p. 131.

107. ibid., p. 131.

108. Ibid., p. 136-137.

109. Elizabeth A. Johnson, "The Symbolic Character of

Theological Statements About Mary," Journal of Ecumenical Studies

22:2 (Spring 1985): 320.

110. Ibid., p. 318.

111. Ibid., p. 323.

112. Behold Your Mother: Woman of Faith, catholic Mind 72 (May,

1974): 26-64; citation p. 35 (#38).

113. Albert Power, S.J., Our Lady's Titles (New York, Fredeick

Pustet Co., 1928).

114. Brennan, Walter O.S.M., The Sacred Memory of Mary. (Mahwah,

N.J.: Paulist Press, 1988), 1.

115. Ibid., p. 6.

116. Ibid., p.7. 121

117. Ibid., p.18. Citing Mary T. Malone, Who is My Mother? Rediscovering the Mother of Jesus. (Dubuque: Wm. c. Brown Co.,

1984), p. 32.

118. Ibid., p. 80.

119. Ibid., p. 25. Citing n. R.E. Brown, "Mary in the New

Testament Writings," America, May 15, 1982; A.J. Tambasco, What

Are They Saying About Mary? (Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1984), pp.

26-33; B. Buby, S.M., Mary, the Faithful Disciple (Ramsey:

Paulist Press, 1985), pp. 18-23.

120. Ibid., p. 27.

121. Ibid., p. 29.

122. Ibid., p. 30. Citing n. F.J. Moloney, S.D.B., Woman-First

Among the Faithful (Notre Dame: Press, 1986), p. 47;

R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1979), pp. 45-46, and The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of

Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 21-68, and Mary in the

New Testament, already cited, pp. 83-97, 205 (especially p. 96). 123. Ibid., p. 32.

124. Ibid., p.35. 125. Ibid. p. 36. Citing n. A.G. Wright, s.s., Midrash (New York: Alba House, 1967), pp. 139-142; R.R. Brown, An Adult Christ at Christmas - Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories

(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1978). 126. Ibid., p. 37.

127. Ibid. p. 37.

12 8 . Ibid. , p. 3 9 . 122

129. Brennan, ibid, The Sacred Memory of Mary, 1.

130. Ibid. I p. 35.

131. Jonas Langer, Theories of~Development, (New York, Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1969), p. 16.

132. Brennan, The Issue of Archetypes In Marian Devotion, p. 36.

133. Ibid. I p. 36. 134. Rev. Bertrand Buby, S.M., "Mary, A Model of Ecclesia-Orans,

in Acts 1:14," Marian Studies XXXV (1984): 87.

135. Ibid., p. 88,90.

136. Ibid. I p. 93.

137. Ibid., p. 97.

138. Fr. Bertrand Buby, S.M., "Daughter of Zion: A Symbol for

Jewish - Catholic Dialogue," an essay presented at Huelva, Spain,

September 12, 1992 for the 11th International Mariological

Congress. (International Marian Research Institute, University of

Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.)

139. Ibid., p. 12. Citing Nunzio Lemmo, "Maria, 'Figlia di

Sion', a partire da Lc 1.26-38, Bilancio esegetico dal 1939 al

1982. 11 Marianum, XLV (1983) pp. 175-258. (A doctoral dissertation listing all the Catholic and Protestant scholars who have written on this title.)

140. Ibid. Citing Aristide Sera, E C'era la Madre di

Gesu ••• saggi di esegesi biblico-mariana (1978-1988). Edizioni

Cens-Marianum, 1989: See especially, "Esulta, Figlia di Sion!"

Principali Riletture di Zc 2:14-15 e 9:9 a-c nel Giudaismo Antico e nel Cristianesimo del 1-2 secolo, pp. 3-43. And "Lo Spiritu 123

Santo scendera su di te ... " Aspetti Mariologici della

Pneumatologia di Lc 1.35, pp. 45-54.

141. Ibid. Ignace de la Potterfe, Mary in the Mystery of the

Covenant, translated by Bertrand Buby, S.M., (New York, Alba

House, 1992): 266pp.

142. Ibid., p. 20. Citing Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the

Messiah, (New York, Doubleday, 1977): pp. 320-328; 353, 465.

143. Ibid. Citing Raymond E. Brown, K. Donfried, J. Fitzmyer, J.

Reumann, (Eds.), Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia,

Fortress Press, 1978): p. 132.

144. Ibid., p. 12.

145. Ibid., p. 12-13.

146. Rene Laurentin, The Truth of Christmas, (Petersham,

Massachusetts: 1986), p. 111.

147. Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory an Introduction,

(Minneapolis, Minnestoa: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), p. 94.

148. Ibid., p. 94.

149. Ibid., p. 96.

150. Laurentin, The Truth of Christmas, (Petersham,

Massachusetts: St. Bede's Publications, 1982), p. 111.

151. Eagleton, Literary Theory, p. 103.

152. Ibid., p. 101.

153. Laurentin, The Truth of Christmas, p. 112.

154. Ibid., pp. 112-114. 124

155. Ibid., p. 115.

156. Ibid., p. 116.

157. Ibid., p. 116. 158. Ibid., p. 117.

159. Fr. Rene Laurentin, "The Present Crisis in Mariology, Rise

or Fall of Mariology", University of Dayton, June-July 1968.

160. Ibid., p. 26. (Pius XII, Ad Coeli Reginam, November 11,

1954, AAS, 46, 1954, p. 637).

161. Ibid. (AAS, 46, 1954, p. 697. conciliar text no. 67.)

162. Ibid., p. 27-28.

163. Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm, "Reflections upon historical methodology in biblical study," The Land of Carmel ed., Paul

Chandler, O.Carm., Keith J. Egan, (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum,

1991) : 19-20.

164. Ibid., p. 25.

165. Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., "The Image of Mary: A Catholic

Rsponse," America (March 27, 1982): 231.

166. Ibid., p. 234. 167. Raymond E. Brown, s.s., The Virginal Conception and Bodily

Resurrection of Jesus, (Paramus, N.J., Paulist-Newman Press,

1973): 30. Also, "The Problem of the Virginal Conception of

Jesus", TheolStud 33 (1972).

168. Ibid., p. 31-32.

169. Rev. Manuel Miguens, O.F.M., "Mary, A Virgin? Alleged

Silence in the New Testament," Marian Studies XXVI (1975):26-179. 125

170. Fitzmyer Joseph A. "The Virginal Conception of Jesus in the

New Testament," TheolStud 34 (1973) 541-575.

171. Ibid., p. 27-28. Citing Fftzmyer, "The Virginal Conception of Jesus ••• " 172. Ibid. Miguens, p. 178.

17 3. Ibid. , p. 17 8.

174. Dominic J. Unger, O.F.M., "Does the New Testament give much historical information about the blessed Virgin or mostly symbolical meanings?" Marianum XXXIX (April 1977): 323-347.

175. Ibid., p. 324.

176. Ibid., Brown, p. 86.

177. Ibid., p. 326.

178. Raymond E. Brown, "More Polemical than Instructive: R.

Laurentin on the Infancy Narratives" (Rome, Marianum, Annus

XLVII: 1985) : p. 188-207.

179. Ibid., p. 206.

180. Ibid., p. 206.

181. Ibid., p. 189.

182. Ibid., p. 188.

183. Ibid., p. 189.

184. Ibid., p. 190.

185. Ibid., p. 190.

186. Ibid., p. 191.

187. Ibid., p. 192.

188. Ibid., p. 192.

189. Ibid., p. 194. 126

190. Ibid. I p. 194.

191. Ibid. I p. 198.

1:.. 192. Ibid. I p. 205.

193. Rev. James M. Reese, O.S.F.S., "The Historical Image of

Mary in the New Testament," Marian Studies XXVIII (1977): 27. 194. Ibid., p. 43. Citing Dorothy H. Donnelly, "Mary, Model of

Personal Spirituality," in New Catholic World 219 (March/April

1976) 67. 195. Raymond E. Brown, s.s., Biblical Exegesis and Church

Doctrine, (New York, Paulist Press, 1985), 171 pp.

196. Ibid. I p. 71.

197.· Francis Martin, Baptism in the Holy Spirit - a scriptural foundation, (Steubenville: Ohio, Franciscan University Press,

1986), 62 pp.

198. Ibid. Brown, Biblical Exegesis ... p. 25. 127

CHAPTER IV

COMPARATIVE STUDIES - SCRIPTURAL AND SYSTEMATIC

The Pre- and Post-Vatican II Scripture Scholarship In this section Richard Kugelman Pre-Vatican II scholarship and Raymond Brown's Post-Vatican II scholarship of the Annunciation will be analyzed. An article by Richard Kugelman in Marian Studies (1960) on "The Object of Mary's in the Annunciation" will be compared with Raymond Brown's chapter on the Annunciation in The Birth of the Messiah (1977). Brown does not mention Kugelman's article anywhere in his chapter or bibliography. This whole chapter is a critical and scientific analysis by means of comparasion. I. The Scholarship of the Infancy Narratives

1. A. For Kugelman, St. Luke's Gospel is a "religious history" (Lk. 1.3,4) or a "theology presented through historical narration, ..•. " "The only witness of the Annunciation was Our Blessed Lady."1 Because of the years that elapsed between the event and the writing of the gospels, Kugelman comments, that there are written documents (Hebrew documents) which are the source and basis of the Lucan Infancy narratives. 2 Concerning the way the narratives have been stylized, "[t]he Annunciation narrative is a of Old Testament references and allusions; almost an 'anthology' of O.T. texts. 113 Rene' Laurentin suggests that these infancy narratives are an example of the popular 128

Hebrew literary form called the Midrash. "The Midrash is an attentive, meditative study of the Sacred Text to draw out the c. lessons of faith and religious conduct that are contained in

it ... to reinterpret the Scriptures, to 'actualize' them."4

The of Mary in .19,51 allowed her to convey the events of the Annunciation. "Anthological" is a reflection on the meaning of the Old Testament as presented through a narration of contemporary historical events and described in the

language borrowed from the Old Testament. Luke's Infancy Gospel

is "an excellent example of 'la style anthologique.'"5 For

Kugelman the angelic messenger's physical appearance to Mary (if it happened at all) "is irrelevant to our inquiry. 116 In addition, Kugelman, spends little time discussing the parallelism between the birth of Jesus and the birth of the Baptist, yet he affirms that "[s)cholars who have analyzed the literary structure of the Infancy , point out the parallelism between the Annunciations to Zachary and Mary. 117

Kugelman concludes that Luke's historical preoccupations with "[t]he events narrated are not fictions created by the author to illustrate his religious faith; they are a substantially faithful, although stylized, narration of real facts, transmitted and guaranteed by trustworthy witnesses .... We can confidently accept the Annunciation pericope as a faithful record of the revelation God gave Our Lady when He asked her consent to His redemptive plan."8 129

B. In Brown's commentary on the Annunciation, the introduction deals with the scholarship of the infancy narratives. Brown offers obser~tions of critical scholarship on historical problems in the infancy narratives and clarifies them with this footnote: "by 'critical scholarship' I mean a study of the Bible which employs scientific historical and literary methods. Such biblical criticism implies the recognition that, as a set of written documents, the Bible is open to the same methods of study as any other collection of literature. To many scholars who maintain a religious faith, such a recognition does not detract from the belief that the Bible is the work of God.

Nor does it necessarily deny the inspiration of the Bible, unless inspiration is equated with divine dictation and seen as the basis of a simple theory of inerrancy in all matters."9 The significance of this statement is that it gives Brown's views about critical scholarship.

The oldest Christian teachings were about Jesus' death and resurrection as found in Acts and the letters of Paul; the infancy stories were added later. "This addition to the Gospel is best explained in the light of the development of christology.

Matthew and Luke saw christological implications in stories that were in circulation about Jesus' birth."10 This would explain why they are found in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark. (John used a pre-existence christological route.) "[O)nce they were attached, however, they did begin to give a biographical cast to

Matthew's and Luke's account. nll 130

There was an passed on and the common belief

is that Mary was the originator. In discussing the various possibilities of the sources of~atthew's and Luke's accounts,

Brown concludes: "All of this means that, in fact, we have no real knowledge that any or all of the infancy material came from

a tradition for which there was a corroborating witness. If all the facts discussed thus far have raised doubts about the historicity of the infancy narratives, how are these doubts to be

resolved?1112 A footnote on this question sheds light on the problem and gives an insight into this century: "Protestant

biblical scholarship recognized these difficulties and began to wrestle with them seriously already at the end of the last century. The confrontation was postponed in Roman Catholicism because the anti-Modernist decrees of the Pontifical Biblical

Commission in the period 1905-1915 blocked the development of biblical criticism until the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. When critical scholarship was finally encouraged, the delicate question of the historicity of the infancy narratives became the subject of debate immediately before Vatican II. It was because of his cavalier rejection of the infancy narratives that Jean

Steinmann's La Vie de Jesus (1959) received the dubious distinction of being the last book to be placed on the Roman

Catholic Index of Forbidden Books. 1113

The problems of conflicting details within the two infancy narratives and miraculous public events lead Brown to the conclusion: "Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives 131 makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical. 1114 In both Matthew and Luke there is a plentiude of Old Testament parallelism an~ descriptions. Here Brown's comments are close to Kugelman's. Brown states "[i]t was at this point in the history of the investigation of the infancy narratives that the term "midrash" began appearing in the discussions .... While this term has helped focus attention on the

importance of O.T. motifs in the infancy narratives, ultimately

it does not do justice to them. The purpose of midrash was to make the O.T. account intelligible, and that is not the purpose of the infancy narratives. They were written to make Jesus' origins intelligible against the background of the fulfillment of O.T. expectations.nlS

In concluding the introduction, Brown defines the infancy narratives as vehicles of the eva~gelist's theology, or "the quest for the evangelist's intent." The Lukan narratives are

"basically Lucan constructions to fit his theological . 1116 He claims that the "hard-nosed" probing of the historicity of the gospels was indeed necessary, as was the quest for literary genre (the midrash discussion). "Now biblical scholarship seems to be moving into a more fruitful stage of research as it seeks to recover the value of the infancy stories as theology. In the past twenty years in general Gospel research, attention has shifted away from the pre-Gospel history of narratives and sayings about Jesus to the role of those narratives and sayings in the finished Gospels. 1117 132 The annunciation of the birth of Jesus in many ways parallels the annunciation of the birth of . Brown includes two tables showihg the parallels, the first table showing the texts and the second analyzing the texts. In these analyses of each of these annunciations there is a five-fold division of steps which is also found with the appearance of an angel in Genesis ( and Isaac) and Judges (Samson). From this perfect adherence to literary pattern by Luke, Brown draws the conclusion that "such a perfect adherence to literary form raises a question about the historicity of the stereotyped features in the Lucan story.n18 Brown suggests a pre-Matthean annunciation account from which both Matthew and Luke drew their own accounts and a "contention" that "if there was such a revelation, the way in which it could be pictured and described was supplied to Luke by OT birth narratives."19 But in stating this he does give the following qualifying statement: "The judgement that the Lucan annunciation pattern may have been borrowed from OT models and that therefore the appearance of an angel to Mary may not be historical tradition should not be equated with a denial of divine revelation pertinent to the birth of Jesus."20 In expressing his hypothesis, Brown quotes McHugh in a footnote: "The remark of McHugh is all the more significant because he is conservative: 'It is therefore reasonable to begin by asking whether the Annunciation to Mary is not Luke's way of presenting to the reader an account of some more spiritual and wholly 133 interior experience, of which no bystander could have been a witness.' 1121 2. Commentaries by Kugelman and ~ Brown A. Kugelman's Commentary on the Annunciation Kugelman cites s. Lyonnet on Lk 1.28, which are the opening words of the message by the angel, in "almost a citation, of the joyful Messianic prophecy addressed by Sophonias to Jerusalem

(So. 3.14-17). 'Rejoice exceedingly, 0 daughter of Sion.' 1122 Kugelman cites a translation of the following verse of which he approves: "But she was profoundly disturbed by the address, and debated within herself what this greeting might mean. 1123 The angel's response reassures Mary: "[F]ear not, thou hast found favor with God.(1.30) ... and thou shalt call his name Jesus"(1.31). In the next two verses (1.32,33), the Messianic title "son of the Most High" is followed by the well-known Jewish terminology, "throne of ... house of forever," indicating that the Messiah would be a descendant of David and rule over the house of Jacob. "This promise which occurs in Second Isaiah (Is. 49.6) and in Ben (Sir. 48.10) was a favorite theme of the .n24 Whereas the words in verse 31 evoke "the Emmanuel prophecy of Is. 7.14, so the description of the child would recall to Mary's mind the Emmanuel prophecy of Is. 8.23; 9.6: ' ... For a child is born to us, a son .... and his name is called: Wonder-Counsellor, Divine hero, Father for ever, Prince of peace 'n25 Kugelman quotes Fr. Lyonnet saying, "'We can thus 134 appreciate the delicate attention of in choosing from among all the Biblical texts precisely this passage to describe for Mary the missiori of the child whose birth had just been promised. 1112 6 Kugelman sees in the text Mary's knowledge of scriptures which gives her the understanding of the Messiah. "The Annunciation message is couched in phrases so reminiscent of the Biblical Messianic promises that any pious Jew with an average knowledge of the Sacred Writings would immediately understand that the birth of the Messiah was being announced. A fortiori Our lady, who is depicted by Luke as versed in the Scriptures and reflective in her faith." 27 "In the past, many exegetes thought that they had found in the titles of v. 32 and v. 35 "Son of the Most High" and "," an explicit revelation of the divinity of Mary's child.n2B

On Mary's question in verse 34: "how shall this happen, since I do not know man?", Kugelman points out: "Modern exegetes, even Catholics, are far from agreement on the precise meaning of Mary's words. 1129 Then he offers his personal view: "I think that the interpretation common in the past, which sees in Mary's words an expression of a resolution of virginity, still remains the most probable exegesis. 1130 After further discussion, Kugelman gives his conclusion: "A literal exegesis of the Annunciation pericope, based solely on a study of the text in the context of its literary form, yields the following answer to the question which is the subject of our inquiry: Mary consented to 135 become the virgin mother of the Messias through the action of God within her, •... " 31

The Fathers state that the~Church is guided by the Divine Spirit of Truth; therefore, they endorse the theory that the angelic message in Luke contains a revelation of Jesus' divinity. Origen sees a reference to Jesus' divinity in the expression: "he shall be great."32 "St. Athanasius, st. , St. Ambrose, [and] St. Bernard are quite certain that Mary learned of Jesus' divinity from the angel's message."33 Next

Kugelman goes on to quote five Popes (St. Leo r 34 , Pope Pius

IX35 , Leo XIII36 , St. Pius x37 , and Benedict XIV38 ), who express the teaching of the Magisterium. Kugelman then quotes Father De Tuya: "the interpretation of this biblical passage, according to the Papal Magisterium, is that the angel in announcing to Mary the conception of the Messias, announced him to her as man and as God."39 Kugelman notes this conclusion is too broad but that "[it] indicate[s], consequently, the direction the Catholic exegete should follow in his search for the full meaning of the Annunciation message."40 Verse 35 is argued to reveal the Divine Maternity to Mary by

Fr. stanislaus Lyonnet, S.J. and Fr. De Tuya41 • Rene' Laurentin wholeheartedly embraces Lyonnet's exegesis and develops his points further. 42 Their exegetical conclusion is that "Mary has understood from the angel's message that she will become the mother of the Messias. Because of her resolution to remain a virgin, she inquires how this will happen."43 Lk 1.35 136 alludes to Ex. 40.35: "[T]he cloud overshadowed it and the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord." This concept shekinah, the "Dwelling," held great~ importance in Rabbinical

Judaism and "came to be one of the usual substitutes for the divine name Yahweh."44

Lyonnet notes the Eric Burrows observation that the words of

Elizabeth echo the words by David concerning the Ark of the

Covenant. 45 With this insight, a progression is noted in the angelic message. First, in 1.28, Mary is the Daughter of Zion to whom the presence of God is announced; second, in 1.31, she is the Almah of Isaias, who becomes the mother of the Emmanuel; and third, in 1.35, she is the Ark of the Covenant, the Dwelling of

Yahweh.

Kugelman underscores the limitations of Mary's initial faith in the divinity of Jesus by quoting Rene' Laurentin: "The virgin, simple daughter of Palestine of two thousand years ago, was not in a position to understand the technical formulas of our modern manuals, not even those of Chalcedon: abstract formulas that are the fruit of a development. 'Person' and 'nature' were notions foreign to her culture. She thought in the language of the Old

Testament, and it is in this language that the message is delivered to her. It is through this that she knew of the Ark of the Covenant, of the cloud which manifested the divine presence to the heroes of Israel; it is by the light of Ex. 40.35 and

Soph. 3.14-17 that she could perceive who her son was. This knowledge, insinuated by tenuous allusions, was more implicit 137 than explicit, more real than notional, more intuitive than reasoned. Nothing of a tract. 1146 The object of Mary's consent

in the annunciation is her cons~nt to be the virginal Mother of the Messiah.

Kugelman cites Laurentin extensively in his article--s times--and is concerned with what he quotes. He also agrees with and cites Lyonnet (7 times). Kugelman, Laurentin and Lyonnet all

seem to have the same orientation in this article.

B. Brown's Commentary on the Annunciation

The salutation in Luke 1.28 has traditionally been

interpreted as "full of grace," Brown states, "[b]ut 'full of grace' is too strong •.. ," and translates it as "O favored one."

He continues, "[l]ater theology stressed the fullness of grace and made it a cardinal principle of mariology, so that Mary was thought to possess every perfection possible for a creature. 1147

" ••• No matter what one may think of this theological reasoning

(and some within Roman Catholicism today would want to reconsider it), it certainly goes beyond what Luke meant by kecharitomene. 1148 The "Daughter of Zion" symbolism has been

"accepted by both Roman Catholic (Lyonnet, Laurentin, Benoit) and

Protestant scholars (Sahlin, Hebert, Knight, Leaney)."49 After a lengthy discussion, Brown concludes that the terminology "is too fragile to establish either that Luke had Zeph 3:14-17 in mind or that he was thinking of Mary as the Daughter of

Zion. " 50

In his commentary, Brown acknowledges that Luke intended 138 virginal conception in Lk 1.34, but not a virginal conception woven through an exegesis of Is. 7.14, as some scholars accept it. 51 Brown agrees with Fitzmye\- that "there is no way of knowing that Luke was drawing upon Is 7.14." 52 From a study of the literary pattern of the two Lucan annunciations, Brown gives two explanations which point to a virginal conception: first, the build-up of the superiority of Jesus over John the

Baptist and second, the barrenness of Elizabeth was divinely overcome while Mary's virginity was overcome by divine power without the loss of virginity. Brown finds the "virginal conception hinted at in 1.27, 1.45, and 3.23; 1153 He accepts that the language of Luke 1.34-35 is Lucan. 54

Brown offers both a psychological and literary explanation of Mary's question in 1.34. The psychology of the question "How" she will conceive, assumes that she knows "the facts of life," and that conception would occur if she is taken to Joseph's home and had relations with him. One obvious explanation, a famous ancient solution, is that Mary had already committed herself to a lifetime of virginity. If the verb were in the future tense then the verse would read, "How can this be, since I shall not have sexual relations with a man?" The Protevangelium of James 9:2 comments: "I already have sons and am old, but she is a girl. .. ," supported this theory as did the evolution of ascetic or monastic orders. 55 Gregory of Nyssa56 was earliest proponent (386) of this theory in the East; it spread to the West through Ambrose and Augustine. The discovery of the revealed 139 that there was a of Jews that placed value on virginity or , shown in descriptions of Essene celibacy by Josephus,

Philo, and Pliny. 57 < A possible psychological explanation is that Mary meditated on, and understood, Is. 7.14 to mean the Messiah was to be born to a virgin (or the angel reminded her of it). 58 Another variant of the intention-of-virginity theory is that Luke wrote 1.34 because he knew Mary had been a virgin her whole life. 59 One theory is that Mary understood the angel's words in v. 31 to mean she was to immediately become pregnant: "you are conceiving," or "you have conceived. 1160 A final theory is that Luke introduced a modifying clause in 1:27: "to a virgin betrothed to a man of the House of David ... " because of the Davidic Messiah story since she had no relations with Joseph. 61 The Literary explanation contends that 1:34-35 was always part of the Lucan scene and makes perfect sense in both the literary context and the inherent christological implications. Brown explains how the literary explanation abandons the idea that the scene has a primary concern with Mary's psychology. "Behind many of the Roman Catholic psychological explanations of 1:34 discussed above, there is the assumption that we are dealing with a conversation that actually took place between Mary and Gabriel. (I have already pointed out ... that the historicity of 1:26-38 is not the most plausible assumption.) However, even if one recognizes that we are dealing with a narrative constructed by Luke himself, one must still seek to understand the logic of 140 that narrative. I am suggesting that the key to that logic is not a concern with Mary's learning about the virginal conception but a concern with the reader's~learning about that conception and its christological implications.n62

In a table on Biblical Annunciations of the Birth he shows a five step process which is found in six biblical apparitions:

Ishmael, Gen 16; Isaac, Gen 17; Samson, Judg 13; John Baptist,

Luke 1; Jesus, Luke 1; and Jesus, Matt 1. Similar steps are found in the lives of , Exod 3 and Gideon, Judg 6. The biblical authors used these steps to explain how God's plan would unfold. Luke's "narrative was determined both by the pre-Gospel tradition of the annunciation of the Davidic Messiah's birth

{which dictated the general literary form) and by the pre-Gospel tradition of the christology of divine sonship through begetting by the Holy Spirit."63 "I think that this literary explanation in which a pre-Gospel tradition plays a role offers a totally satisfactory explanation for Mary's question in 1:34."64

In commenting on the symbolism of Lk 1.35, Brown comments:

"Many of the exegetes {Lyonnet, Sahlin, Hebert, Laurentin) who think that Luke portrayed Mary as the Daughter of Zion also find the symbolism of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant or as the

Tabernacle of divine glory."65 The key to this symbolism is from the verse: "Power of the Most High will overshadow

{epskiazein) you." After some discussion, Brown concludes: "And it is totally a guess to assume from the verb episkiazein that

Luke thinks of Mary as the Tabernacle or the Ark of the Covenant 141 overshadowed by or containing the divine presence."66 " ••• Let me reserve judgement. But in showing myself dubious thus far, I do not wish to convey the impre~sion that in my opinion Luke did not think of Mary against the background of the OT. 1167 3. Conclusions on Comparison of Kugelman and Brown A. Differences in Scholarship of the Infancy Narratives Kugelman and Brown have differing opinions as to the quality of scholarship in the infancy narratives. Kugelman's Main Points are as follows: 1) The Infancy Narratives are a historical narration from a written Hebrew document which was, in some way, transmitted from Mary in the oral tradition. 2) Luke 1 and 2 are stylized as Midrash. 3) The accounts of Matthew and Luke are a "faithful," "stylized," "narration of real facts." Brown's Main Points are as follows: 1) The Infancy Narratives are an addition to the Gospels from the christological development of Matthew and Luke. The narratives are "Lucan constructions to fit his theological interests." 2)Luke 1 and 2 are not Midrash, but rather the investigation for Old Testament motifs from the discussion of midrash. 3) Neither Matthew nor Luke's account is "completely historical." These differences indicate both a lessening of 142 credibility of Marian authorship, and a lessening of credibility of historical facts. The difference of opinion on Midrash is basically a definition dispute ~isunderstanding and vague and not relevant to our investigation.

B. Differences in Symbolism of the Annunciation

Both Kugelman and Brown comment on Old Testament symbolism such as Daughter Zion, Emmanuel, and Ark of the Covenant.

Kugelman's comments are summarized as follows:

1) Verse 28 evokes the O.T. motif, Daughter Zion.

2) Verse 31 evokes the Emmanuel prophecy of Is. 7.14.

3) Verse 35 evokes the Ark of Covenant Symbolism.

Brown's comments summarized are as follows:

1) & 3) Verses 28 and 35 are "dubious" in reference to Mary

as Daughter Zion and the Ark of the Covenant. Yet Brown

states, "Let me reserve judgement."

2) Brown agrees with Fitzmyer that "there is no way of

knowing that Luke was drawing upon Is. 7.14."

The differences between Kugelman and Brown indicate that

Kugelman believes in the symbolic motifs while Brown is doubtful.

Kugelman, Laurentin and Lyonnet emphasize the pre-vatican orientation of critical acceptance for these three biblical concepts, while Brown and Fitzmyer emphasize a post-Vatican orientation of critical doubt and reserved judgement. c. Development in Exegesis and Magisterium Orientation Kugelman cites Fr. Lyonnet on Is 7.14 that Divine Providence chooses "from among all the biblical texts precisely this 143 passage .•. ," and, after citing four and five Popes, quotes Fr. De Tuya as saying, "the interpretation of this biblical passage ... (is] accordfng to the Papal Magisterium, .... " Kugelman concludes that "[t]hey indicate, consequently, the direction the Catholic exegete should follow in his search for the full meaning of the Annunciation message." In his commentary, Brown makes no reference to a saint, a Pope or teaching of the Magisterium. Yet within footnotes there are references to the Church Fathers' works. This could be a development in the methodology of scholarship after Vatican II, specifically the differences between biblical and dogmatic studies. Before Vatican II, Kugelman's idea of exegesis was closely associated with the idea of the influence of Divine Providence and the Papal Magisterium. After Vatican II Brown not only ignores the use of these terms as the "direction the catholic exegete should follow," but would, for instance, question the historicity of an angel actually appearing to Mary in corporeal form (as st. Thomas thought: STh. III, 30, 3). Brown is probably not the only one who would question this today. In speaking of Mary's knowledge of the old testament symbolism, Kugelman quotes Laurentin, giving insight into Laurentin's own thinking: "This knowledge, insinuated by biblical allusions, is more implicit than explicit, more experiential than notional, more intuitive than reasoned. Nothing of a totally objective tract." This type of psychological orientation may be found in the 144 early church; many were implicit, experiential and intuitive. Brown's psychological orientation toward exegesis with the historical critical method is r~latively new, occurring only in the last two centuries. The historical critical method is very "explicit," "notional," and "reasoned," being more of a totally objective viewpoint. This contrast between Laurentin and Brown exhibits a shift in psychological orientation in exegesis from implicit, experiential and intuitive to explicit, notional and reasoned. D. Points of Agreement and Development Kugelman and Brown agree on several points and there is some development in their commentaries such as: 1. Both Kugelman and Brown agree on the parallelism between the Annunciation to Zachary and Mary. 2. On Luke 1.35 Kugelman states that scholars are "far from agreement on the precise meaning of Mary's words," while Brown outlines the many different interpretations, psychological and literary, on verse 34 which could cause different interpretations of verse 35. 3. Kugelman characterizes Luke's Gospel as a "religious history," while Brown has concern with the christological implications about which Luke was writing. 4. In verse 34, Kugelman sees in Mary's words "an expression of a resolution of virginity ... to become the virgin mother," and Brown states, "I would agree with the majority of scholars that Luke does intend a virginal conception; •.•• " Brown further 145 develops his discourse on this verse by explaining the various psychological and literary approaches. 5. In verses 31 to 34 Kugefman sees Mary's understanding of the birth of the Messiah. For verses 32-33, Brown hypothesizes a "pre-gospel annunciation of the birth of the Davidic Messiah," and this is reflected in the angel's words. For Brown this idea of the birth of the Davidic Messiah already existed in pre­ Christian . While there is agreement between the two scholars, but a development on Brown's part who emphasizes a pre­ gospel annunciation account. E. Kugelman's Development - Post-Vatican II In an article on "Mariology and Recent Biblical Literature," in Marian Studies (1966) 68 Kugelman modifies his 1960 opinion. Today there are number of scholars, Catholic and Protestants alike, who accept the Annunicatio~ narrative as a theology, "presented in a dramatic dialogue constructed by a very skillful use of Old Testament texts and allusions .... An ever-growing number of exegetes would deny that the Annunciation pericope tells us anything at all about Mary's knowledge of her Child's divinity at that time .... ! have been won over to this opinion principally because of the better understanding I have now of the literary genre of the Lukan Infancy Gospel and of the late date to which I would now assign the composition of the Third Gospel, ca. 80-90 A.D. In my 1960 paper I characterized the Annunciation narrative as 'a stylized account of Jesus' conception, together with a reflection, probably Mary's own reflection, on the meaning 146 of that central event of sacred history.' I still ascribe to this statement, but I now attach a different meaning to the phrase 'probably Mary's own reffection.' I am of the opinion today that the exegete can not answer the question -- was Mary aware of the divinity of her Child at the Annunciation? He is concerned with understanding a Gospel pericope which expresses the Church's faith and the evangelists's theologizing on the meaning of an event which happened eighty and more years before; an event which the evangelist presents in a literary form that is an anthology, or a mosaic, of O.T. citations and allusions. Even if, as Lk. 2.19,51 probably insinuates, the reflections of Mary at the origin of the Lukan Infancy narratives, these reflections probably were the fruit of her , in the light of her Pentecostal faith, of the mystery of her Son's person."69

This growth and development in Fr. Kugelman moves him one step closer to Fr. Brown's position. Kugelman's witness alone is a statement about the development in scriptural thought before and after Vatican II. Surely others may have changed their views as scholarship develops, too.

II. Comparative Study - Systematic Theology

This section, will compare Juniper Carol's book,

Fundamentals of Marioloqy and Frederick Jelly's book, .

1. A) Fr. Juniper Carol, OFM - Life History The 1992 Marian Studies article on Juniper Carol states if 147

"asked to indicate one theologian to whom the cultivation of mariology in the United States is primarily indebted, we would not hesitate to name the late Ff. Juniper Carol, OFM, ... 1170 Juniper Carol was ordained in 1935, and from 1937 to 1940 he pursued doctoral studies in theology. Because of World War II, he was not able to defend his dissertation until 1948. In 1949

Carol launched the Mariological Society of America with 135 original members. In 1950 the society had its first meeting and the first edition of Marian studies was published. Carol was the founder, first president, long time secretary of the society and editor of the journal until he was succeeded by Fr. Koehler in

1979. 71 Additionally Carol published numerous works on the theory of coredemption. After Marian studies, his second major contribution to the field of Mariology was a three volume work entitled Mariology, published between 1955 and 1961. 72 His last and most significant scholarly contribution was Why Jesus

Christ?, a massive "annotated bibliography" dealing with the primacy of Jesus and Mary. 73

While a doctoral student in Rome Fr. Carol's mentor was Fr.

Balic. Carol's dissertation was on the coredemption. Fr. Balic was a major influence in Carol's scholarly formation, was involved in the organization of the international mariological congresses and influential in Church doctrine. He contributed to the preparation for the definition of the Assumption and to the eighth chapter of Lumen Gentium. In the introduction of Fr.

Carol's book, Fundamentals of Mariology, Fr. Cyril Vollert, S.J., 148

said of Fr. Carol, "He is unquestionably the most prominent

Mariologist in the United States and ranks with the best in the

world."74

Several months before the solemn definition of the

Assumption by Pope Pius XII, Carol's massive study of the

coredemption appeared in print. It was reviewed by such leading

theologians De Aldama, Garcia Garces, Roschini, Di Fonzo,

Sericoli, Philips, Gy, a Pobladura, Kaup, Kloppenburg,

Bertetto, Smith, Marcotte, Fenton, Vollert, and Laurentin. 75

The reviewers were not without critical observations; some "of

these were subsequently acknowledged as valid by Fr.

Juniper."76 Yet "not a single reviewer thought any of the

defects seriously detracted from the study as a valid and

substantial contribution."77

Fr. Carol is in agreement witp the views of Fr. Balic. "[I]n

general he (Fr. Carol) takes a christotypological approach," 78

and his publication on the topic of coredemption did indeed have

an effect on the Mariological studies in the 1950's. "It is, however, a fact that between the publication of Fr. Carol's study

in 1950 and the mariological congress of Lourdes in 1958 the center of interest shifted from the discussion-debate between the

Wars on whether or not Our Lady's part in the "objective" redemption was mediate or immediate, remote or proximate, to a discussion mainly of how such immediate participation might be explained: on a christotypological or on an ecclesiotypological basis. The shift might have taken place without Fr. Juniper's 149 Study. Nonetheless, his scholarly work provided a secure, if not absolutely perfect, for that shift. And chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium (parag. 61-62) ~ay be read as a kind of of that shift. 1179 In Lumen Gentium, chapter 8, #61 reads: " ... [t]hus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring life to . For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace." #62 reads: " •.. [t]herefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix .... 1180 Fr. Carol's views on coredemption "permitted his critics to depict him on occasion as one whose devotion to the Virgin dictated the conclusion of his scholarship, i.e., he was a maximalist in the pejorative sense of that term."81 But Fr. Fehlner notes: "This is unfair, for if anyone was rigorously scientific, keeping the mariological and marian almost in air­ tight compartments, it was Fr. Juniper. 1182 Fr. Barauna commends the consistency of Carol's analysis concerning the problem of coredemption. 83 Fr. Carol admitted that his works have imperfections. 84 Fr. Juniper's vision of theology is one inspired by the Augustinian-Franciscan-Scotistic tradition. 85 Fr. James McCurry, at the annual Mariological meeting, remarked: "[I]t is not so much on the 'originality of his analysis' (for which he was largely indebted to the Franciscan tradition), as in 'the 150 integrity of his synthesis', grounded in meticulous scholarship, faithful to the teaching of the Church, unto the greatest glory of , that his re!l contribution to mariology consists and enduring reputation rests."86 B) Fr. Juniper Carol - Fundamentals of Mariology Fr. Carol wrote only one mariological synthesis, Fundamentals of Mariology. 87 Fr. Sweeney comments: "There is nothing remotely approaching it in English."88 Another review praised many features but "seriously doubted the wisdom of using this as a textbook because excessive, unilateral attention was given to one theological position in the organization of the synthesis and in the treatment of disputed questions, and a patronizing attitude shown toward st. Thomas."89 A third reviewer praised the work in general but "because of its highly technical and scholastic character judged it useful as a manual only in courses directed to seminarians and priests."90 The book evolved from lectures on Mariology at st. University (1952-1955). These notes were put into the language, style and manner of presentation proper to a textbook. The outline adopted is shown in the footnote. 91 The general division of the book in part follows Fr. Gabriel M. Roschini's organization. 92 Carol relies heavily on the teaching of tradition throughout his book. "By Sacred Tradition we mean here the body of revealed truths not contained in the Bible, but transmitted from generation to generation under the guidance of the magisterium or teaching authority of the 151

Church .... It is well known that the teaching of Tradition has played a major role in the progressive development of Mariology; hence its importance cannot be 6verestimated. 1193

Chapter One discusses the of Mary, whereby the divine will has determined "the existence of Our Lady."94

The four propositions Fr. Carol uses in his book concerning the various phases of Mary's predestination may be summarized as follows: The first two are universally accepted: Mary, as the

Mother of God, and the Divine Maternity. The second two are peculiar to the Franciscan School: the Blessed Virgin is predestined after Christ and before the rest of creation and the

Blessed Virgin was the secondary cause of the predestination of all others. ("Now, since the Blessed Virgin shares the primacy of

Christ in the eternal decrees of God, she must share also the causality of her Son with regard to all others. In other words, we are all indebted to her, after Christ, for our own predestination.n95)

Chapter two, "Mary in the Prophecies" deals with Genesis

3.15 and Isaiah 7.14. Carol accepts that these old testament prophecies are of Mary. "In some of these Old Testament prophecies references are made not only to the person of the

Redeemer Himself, but also - quite understandably - to His

Blessed Mother."96 Gen 3.15 states "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; he

[she] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for his

[her] heel"; there are five opinions on this verse. 97 A. The 152

Woman of Genesis 3.15 is Eve and Eve alone. B. The Woman refers

to the all women with special reference to one among them, i.e.,

Mary. C. The Woman is Eve in th~ literal sense, and Mary in the typical sense. D. The Woman stands for both Eve and Mary (for

Eve in an imperfect literal sense; for Mary in a perfect or

fuller literal sense). E. The Woman is Mary alone in an

exclusive literal sense. This last view "is also the author's

own view because it seems to be more in accordance with the

magisterium of the Church, and also with the text and context of

the prophecy itself."98 After further discussion Carol

concludes that Gn 3.15 "does foretell the mission of the future

Redeemer and also that of His Blessed Mother. Her close

association with the Messia[h] is based on the fact that she is

to be His Mother."99

The Virgin-Mother of Emmanuel is found in Isaiah 7.14:

"[t]herefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a

virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be

called Emmanuel, ... " This verse also has various

interpretations. 1. Emmanuel refers to king Ezechias, son of

Ahaz, or another son and the virgin is an unmarried woman. 2. Emmanuel is literally the son of Isaiah, but as a type of the

future Messiah, and the virgin is the wife of Isaiah, a type of

Our Lady. 3. Emmanuel and the virgin are designated as Christ

and Mary, respectively, in the literal sense. The term "almah"

in Hebrew means "young maiden," not virgin, but in the six

biblical passages which use that term (Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Cant 153

1.2,6; Ps 68.26 and Prov 30.18-19) virginity in the strict sense

is implied. Furthermore, the Hebrew text literally states:

"Behold the virgin (is) pregnant and (is) bearing a son, ... In

other words, the young maiden is described by the as

retaining her virginity while conceiving and bearing her

offspring. 11100

In chapter 3, Carol examines "the unique mission assigned to

her by the Almighty, namely, to be the worthy Mother of the Son

of God. 11101 Essentially the chapter peretains to the dogmatic

definition of the 'Theotokos.' The next chapter 'Mary, the

Mother of God's Creatures,' provides explanations for Mary as

the Mother of Angels and the Mother of Men. "Mary's spiritual

Maternity extends to all those who come under the Headship of

Christ. That includes all rational creatures, angels and men,

although in a different manner according to the degree in which

they share the life of grace merited by Christ. 11102 Chapter 5,

Mary's Universal Mediation, and chapter 6, Mary's Universal

Queenship, are the logical and theological result of Mary's

spiritual Maternity and her unique mission.

Mary's universal Mediation coincides with spiritual

Motherhood; "she is our Mediatrix because she is our spiritual

Mother. 11103 When applied to the Virgin Mary, the term

"Mediatrix" designates "a twofold function: first, reconciling mankind with God through her cooperation in the redemptive work

of Christ while she was on earth; second, making available to

each individual the graces which were earned by Christ and . 154 by herself through the work of Redemption."104 The first function is called "Coredemptrix" and the second is called

"Dispenser of all graces." For~each of these, as for almost every topic dealt with in his book, Carol divides the discussion into six sections: 1. the meaning of .•. ; 2. various opinions concerning ..• ; 3. the teaching of the Magisterium; 4. the argument from Sacred Scripture; 5. the teaching of Tradition; and

6. objections against the doctrine.

Though Our Lady's Mediation, Mary cooperates with Jesus in the dispensation or distribution of graces to the members of His

Mystical Body. This is an important point and Carol's entire definition will thus be cited: "Meaning of this Marian

Prerogative. When we say that Our Lady is the Dispenser of all graces we mean that all favors granted by God to all men are granted in view and because of Mary's intercession. We say all favors and graces, without exception, that is: habitual grace, the infused virtues (theological and moral), the gifts of the

Holy Ghost, all actual graces, and finally all favors of the natural order insofar as they may help us attain eternal life.

We say, all men, without exception, regardless of any circumstances of time or space. Those living after the

Redemption was accomplished receive all graces through Mary acting as a secondary efficient (moral) cause. Those living before that time, received their graces through Mary acting as a final cause, that is to say, they received grace in view of the future merits of Our Lady.nlOS 155

On the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, Carol states that, before the dogmas, "not a few scholars held the opinion that the Bible was silertt on the subject ... " and after the dogmas were pronounced, "most Catholic theologians now admit that such an argument does exist. 11106 on the Assumption carol admits: "The Bible, of course, nowhere makes an explicit mention concerning Our Lady's Assumption, but this doctrine is undoubtedly implied in the Protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) . 11107

Finally, on devotion to Mary, Carol summarizes Fr. Roschini on the various elements which constitute Marian devotion: "1)

Veneration, by reason of the divine Maternity with regard to

Christ; 2) Love, by reason of her spiritual Maternity with regard to all the mystical members of Christ; 3) Gratitude, by reason of her Coredemption or cooperation in the acquisition of all graces;

4) Invocation, by reason of her cooperation in the distribution of every single grace; 5) Imitation, by reason of her singular sanctity; 6) Servitude, by reason of her universal

Queenship. " 108 2. Fr. Frederick M. Jelly, O.P. Madonna Mary in the catholic Tradition

The 14 chapters of Fr. Jelly's book Madonna (1986) are organized as follows: the first covers the sources of the faith in light of the teachings of Scripture, Tradition and

Magisterium. Chapters 2-5 give a summary of biblical .

Chapters 5-9 look at the patristic Madonnas, Chapter 10 discusses the "Common Doctor," St. Thomas Aquinas. Chapters 11-13 look at 156 devotion to Mary and the final chapter takes an ecumenical look at Mary.

In chapter 1, Fr. Jelly op~s with the question, "How is Mary portrayed in Catholic teaching today?" This theme of Mary's image is carried throughout the book, particularly in the biblical sections. Pope John Paul II called an extraordinary general assembly of the of Bishops in 1985 to commemorate the Council after twenty years. Jelly comments on this gathering: "The ways in which John Paul II referred to Mary, as cited above, portray the Christocentric (centered upon Christ) and the ecclesiotypical (Mary as prototype of the redeemed , the Church) characteristics of Vatican II's Marian teaching. " 109 Vatican II presented a "Renewed Portrait of Mary" although "it has frequently been misinterpreted, as though the Council were minimizing Mary's role in the Church, the results have generally been salutary. 11110 The council's emphasis, according to Fr. Jelly, has kept the truths of Mary in proper perspective. "Devotionally, the portrait of the modern Madonna in Chapter VIII of LG has drawn Catholics away from a "privilege-centered" Mariology toward one that is more "sharing-oriented. In other words, instead of beholding Mary's special graces and privileges as isolating her from us, we see them as revealing what God intends ultimately for all who have been redeemed by

Christ. nlll This renewed emphasis or rediscovery of the best about Mary gives 157

the church a better picture of Our Lady. Fr. Jelly is of the

opinion that "a previous Mariology which tended to place Mary at

the side of Christ, looking dow~ard upon us, distorted her relationship both to him and to us. And so the ecclesiotypical

emphasis - which sees her as one of us redeemed and a member of

her Son's Body, the Church, albeit an extraordinarily favored one

- is much less likely to distort the mystery of her unique role

in salvation history. At the same time, this approach is

completely compatible with the Christocentric emphasis in

contemporary . The ecclesiotypical is mutually

complementary with the Christocentric emphasis. 11112

Fr. Jelly reiterates this point when discussing other

characteristics of contemporary Mariology. "Vatican II's

teaching about Our Lady has proven to be an excellent impetus to

the cultivation and development of an ecclesiotypical approach to

Mary, but not at the expense of the Christocentric. 11113

Additionally, there has been a renewed emphasis in pneumatology

and Mary since Mary is the temple of the Holy Spirit par excellence. Biblical and liturgical renewals have emerged from

Vatican II which influenced Mariology. Vatican II's ecclesiology

(theology of the Church) has cast Mary "as the prototype or primary exemplar of being a faithful member of the Church. 11114

But the many fruits of Vatican II are not without problems.

"When asked why he thought a decline had taken place in Marian devotion, Karl Rahner replied: ' ... the special temptation that affects Christians today, Catholics and Protestants alike, is the 158 temptation to turn the central truths of the faith into abstractions, and abstractions have no need of mothers.'"115

Rahner here is not belittling s~olarly work but rather emphasizing the fact that too few people are penetrating into the reality behind the abstract ideas.

Fr. Jelly opens chapter 2 by stating "Vatican II begins to paint its biblical Madonna, or portrait of Mary, •.. 11 • 116 In quoting Lumen Gentium 55, three biblical images of Mary are clearly cited: the image of Eve (Gen 3.15); the virgin bearing

Emmanuel (Is 7.14; Mi 5.23; Mt 1.22-23); and the exalted Daughter of Sion (Mi 4.8; Is 62.11). These Old Testament themes are understood as a prophetic foreshadowing of the role of Mary, especially by Luke and John.

Next Fr. Jelly cites Behold Your Mother, (1973) the Bishops'

Pastoral, stating there "are remarkable likenesses between

Abraham and Mary, especially in the accounts of the birth of

Isaac, child of promise, and the virginal conception of Jesus, holy Child of Mary. Abraham, Old Testament man of faith, illuminates our understanding of Mary, New Testament woman of faith. Abraham, our father in faith, can teach us much about

Mary, our mother in faith. 11117 Another parallel is the

"Daughter of David." David conquered the city of Jerusalem to make it his capital and the prophet Nathan prophcized, " ... Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever." (2 Sam 7. 16). Centuries later this prophecy was fulfilled at the Annunciation: "and the Lord 159

God will give to him the throne of his father David ... and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Lk 1.32-33). The same prophet later prophecizes, "Behold a yol1ng woman shall conceive ... [and] call his name Immanuel" (Is 7.13.14).

The poor of Yahweh, the Anawim, were highly favored among his chosen people. Mary was among these poor and humble of the

Lord. Along with this Anawim is the "daughter of Zion." In Mary is found this daughter Zion, the spirit of the Anawim, "the

11 118 devout believers who counted on God for salvation • This is confirmed in the Magnificat which regards "the low estate of his handmaiden" (Lk 1.48). The final biblical quote Jelly emphasizes is Gen 3.15, traditionally called the "protoevangelium" or the first announcement of the Good News and Our Lady. Jelly notes that Vatican II sees Mary as "already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over th~ serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into " (LG 55).

In chapter 3, Fr. Jelly states how the evangelists paint their Madonnas to portray one or both of two characteristics.

"The composite picture of Mary revealed in the New Testament is both Christocentric ("Mother of God's Son") and ecclesiotypical

("The Perfect Disciple")."119 Vatican II was both a rediscovery and a renewal of biblical and patristic characteristics in Mariology. st. Paul, without mentioning Mary by name in Gal 4.4, gives witness to the Christocentric truth of

Jesus. This simple and direct testimony of Paul is also found in

Mark's Gospel, which is "completely Christocentric, with little 160 or no evidence of concern with Mary's own spiritual qualifications to be a disciple of her Son."120

The origin and development~of the Gospels are often accepted in three separate stages. First, the actual historical event; second, the oral traditions which have passed along about events; and third, the work of the in writing about these oral traditions. Over the years there has been difficulty determining who the historical Jesus really is, according to the historical critical method. Fr. Jelly notes: "If there has been so much difficulty in the quest for the historical Jesus, about whom there is an abundance of material in the Gospels, then we must recognize that it is that much more difficult to find in them a historical Mary, about whom very little is explicitly revealed. " 121 In seeking to address this problem, that he raised with the historical critical view of Mary, Jelly concludes: "And finally, the way the Gospels have unfolded in the Catholic Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium can teach us truths about Mary beyond, not against, historical criticism. " 122 Fr. Jelly gives excerpts from Lumen Gentium (56-59) relating the New Testament references to Mary. These references include: "full of grace ... " (cf. Lk 1.28); " ... Behold the handmaiden ... " (Lk 1.38); Elizabeth's greeting, (Lk 1.41-45); Simeon's foretelling, (Lk 2.34-35); the temple and Mary's pondering in her heart, (cf. Lk 2.41-51); " ... blessed are those who heard and kept the Word ... " (cf.Mk 3.35; Lk 11.27-28); "as she was already 161

doing" (cf.Lk 2.19-51); "the Mother of Jesus, and with his

brethren" (Acts 1.14).

In discussing Matthew's gospel Jelly points out that Jesus

in the womb of Mary is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, the Emmanuel

prophecy. "Although more recent biblical scholars do not hold

this to have been the literal sense intended by the prophet

Isaiah, the fact remains that Matthew so used it under

inspiration. 11123 In qualifying this statement, Jelly

continues: "We have already discussed that the Old Testament

generally came to be interpreted by the early Christians as

fulfilled in Christ and his Church. 11124

In commenting on Mary's portrayal in Matthew's gospel the

term 'midrash' is used. Jelly utilizes Brown's definition of midrash rather than Laurentin's. "To call this 'midrash' is not quite accurate, because the purpose of midrash is to make the Old

Testament account understandable, which is not what Matthew and

Luke precisely had in mind when they used this method in their

infancy narratives. They wished to make Jesus' origins

intelligible by showing how Old Testament expectations were

fulfilled in his coming into the world. 11125

Luke propounds several themes, each of which adds color to

Jelly's portrait of the Madonna. "Theologically, Luke/Acts reflects a definite plan or program, best described as a salvation-history approach."126 In addition to this, Luke

"combines this Christocentric emphasis ever so harmoniously with what we have been calling the ecclesiotypical, which sees Mary as 162 the prototype of all discipleship in her Son's Church. 11127 The rest of the chapter is a commentary on the Annunciation, the

Visitation, the Magnificat, the~irth, the Presentation, the

Finding, Mary in the Public Ministry of Her Son and Mary in the

Jerusalem Community Prayerfully Preparing for .

Chapter 4 focuses on the Woman of Faith, par excellence as described by the fourth evangelist. The three biblical references are the woman at Cana, the woman at the foot of the cross and the woman clothed with the sun. Jelly raises the question of the cross and Mary's presence there. Does John intend to report a historical fact or is it simply a literary creation to communicate a theological teaching? "Such a question cannot be answered with certitude on the basis of the historical­ critical method. The New Testament scholars who use this method are keenly aware of the difficulties with affirming the historicity of their presence on Calvary, e.g, the variance with the Synoptic Gospels. 11128 As to the woman of ,

Jelly offers this opinion: "Most likely, the 'woman' personifies

Israel, God's people of the Old Covenant, and, in the Christian appropriation of the symbolism, the 'woman,' after the birth of the Messianic child, becomes the Church, God's people of the New

Covenant. 11129 But as to the possibility of a secondary symbolism in reference to Mary, Jelly qualifies this theory by saying: "Although there is no known Mariological interpretation before the fourth century in the Tradition, it does seem that the

'woman' of Revelation 12 may have an extended meaning in relation 163 to Mary. 11130

The earliest image of Mary after the New Testament references to her is the image ~f "Eve." The Eve-Mary analogy was developed by the first Fathers of the Church and is also found in Lumen Gentium 63. The American bishops linked this "New

Eve" image to the Mary-Church tyopology in their pastoral letter,

Behold Your Mother, par. 38 and 41. Jelly chronicles the three ancient Christian writers (Justin, Irenaeus and ) and analyzes their parallelism for Eve and Mary. Other witnesses to this analogy include St. Germanus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St.

Cyril of Jerusalem and st. John Damascene. Between the fifth and early thirteenth centuries there have been two hundred terms identified with this Eve-Mary parallel. 131 Cardinal Newman, a patristics scholar, believed that the "Immaculate Conception and

Assumption are doctrines that follow directly from Mary's position at the , which is part of the tradition handed down from the Apostles. n132

Chapter 6, Ever-Virgin, addresses Mary's virginal conception of Christ, her virginal parturition or giving birth to Christ and her perpetual virginity for the rest of her life. Jelly takes note of the theological discussion in recent years regarding the historicity of Mary's virginity. The question has been raised as to whether Mary's virginity must be interpreted literally, i.e., as a historical fact; or could it be interpreted as a special symbol for our faith? Jelly rejects the proposal that the virginal conception may be interpreted as a theologoumenon - a 164 symbol of our Christian faith. The virginal parturition was not universally accepted by the Fathers of the East and the West, even though many did accept it. ~ Karl Rahner attempted to confront the problem by emphasizing that Mary's virginal parturition is a mystery of our faith. 133 Jelly accepts

Rahner's approach as the most acceptable. Mary's perpetual virginity was upheld by many early Church Fathers yet with different theories about the "brothers." Jelly accepts the perpetual virginity and states that the Church's acceptance indicates: "The doctrine about Mary's perpetual virginity in the

Catholic Tradition clearly illustrates a development in the

Church's understanding of her faith not explicitly found in her

Scriptures. " 134

On the special significance of Theotokos today (chapter 7)

Fr. Jelly reiterates his comments from an international ecumenical conference on Mary at Canterbury, England, in the fall of 1981. "In my opinion, we have yet to come up with a better title for Mary (than "Theotokos") which would express more aptly and with such succinctness the revealing word of God about Mary's predestined place in salvation history. 11135 Jelly cites Rene'

Laurentin and adds, "This is my conviction, for reasons that are not only ecumenical, but theological and spiritual. 11136

For the chapters on the Immaculate Conception and the

Assumption (8 and 9), Jelly adheres to the traditional teaching of the magisterium, the Church Fathers and history. He states

"there is no explicit biblical revelation of the dogma 165

(Immaculate Conception) as it came to be defined in the

Church, 11137 and "there is no explicit reference to her glorious

Assumption in the Bible. 11138 Th~ two principal biblical references invoked in support of the dogma are Gen 3:15 and Lk

1:28. Whether these and other verses (the woman at Cana, the cross, and clothed with the sun) are related to the Immaculate

Conception, Jelly states: "Although it is not possible for us to answer such questions with certitude regarding the strict literal sense intended by the inspired authors, we do believe that such text and themes have come to bear a Marian meaning in the

Catholic Tradition, and so in some sense a biblical basis for such a dogma as the Immaculate Conception. 11139 He refers to this meaning in his discussion on the Assumption.

Chapter 11 which discusses Mary and Joseph, and the

Communion of Saints, contains a section on Mary's unique share in her son's work of redemption. The unique relationship with the pilgrim church involves Mary's intercession. Jelly notes that

Mary's spiritual Motherhood in the of Saints is expressed in Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 60, 61 and 62 which he quotes at length. " ... vatican II does not call her our Co­

Redemptrix. This is a Marian title that had been frequently heard before the Council. one hardly hears it used any longer .... and so the council did not call Mary "Co-Redemptrix" to avoid confusion as well as to prevent any ecumenical misunderstanding, since our Protestant brothers and sisters find it offensive. 11140 166

On the public () and private devotion

chapters (12 and 13), Jelly offers these relevant comments: "This

(Mary as the model of virtues) fs an application to our

liturgical life of the ecclesiotypical Mariology emphasized by

Vatican II. 11141 After describing the rosary at length, he

comments: "Like every authentic Marian devotion, the Rosary is

Christocentric .... Looking at Jesus 'through the eyes of her who

was closest to' him is a very apt way of epitomizing the whole

Rosary devotion. n142

3. Conclusions and Comparasions - Fr. Jelly and Fr. Carol

A. Tradition and Magisterium

Fr. Carol and Fr. Jelly both share the same essential

orientation towards the Tradition and the Magisterium, as Fr.

Carol notes: "By Sacred Tradition we mean ... under the guidance of

the magisterium ... [they have] played a major role in the

progressive development of Mariology; ... ".

Fr. Jelly's attitude towards the historical critical method

can best be summarized by this statement: "beyond not against,

historical criticism." In chapter 3, while Fr. Jelly accepts

the historical critical method, he also cites the limitations of

finding the 'historical Mary' with this method. He goes on to say the "magisterium can teach us truths about Mary beyond, not

against, historical criticism." In essence he is stating that

historical criticism is a subset of a larger picture of Truth,

and to grasp the complete truth means to accept Tradition and the

Magisterium's teaching about the faith. 167

B. Schools of Thought

Both Fr. carol and Fr. Jelly would agree with the proposition of Mary's Motherhoo~ of God or the Divine Maternity.

But concerning the second proposition on the predestination of

Mary (which is from the Franciscan School), Fr. Jelly (who is of the Dominican School) may disagree. But this is a difference in schools of thought and not a difference between pre- and post­

Vatican II thought. c. Old Testament Prophecies on Mary

In reference to in Gn 3.15, Fr. Jelly quotes Lumen Gentium

55, where Vatican II observes Mary as "already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent .... "

They both refer to this verse as the "Protoevangelium," or the

First Gospel. Carol lists five varying opinions of the verse and to whom "Woman" refers. Carol is of the opinion that "Woman" refers to Mary in an exclusive literal sense. Fr. Jelly, being influenced by the historical critical method, probably would choose: c. The Woman is Eve in the literal sense, and Mary in the typical sense; or D. the Woman stands for both Eve and Mary

(for Eve in an imperfect literal sense; and Mary in a perfect or fuller literal sense). Whereas both would accept the magisterium's interpretation of Gn 3.15, they differ on the sense of scripture that refers to "Woman."

Concerning Is 7.14, Carol and Jelly differ slightly. Jelly accepts the verse as referring to Mary since "the Old Testament generally came to be interpreted by the early Christians as 168

fulfilled in Christ ... ," but he recognizes the exegetical

problems: "Although more recent biblical scholars do not hold

this to have been the literal s~se intended by the prophet

Isaiah, the fact remains that Matthew so used it under

inspiration." This is undoubtedly a comment about historical

critical scholars (such as Brown and Fitzmyer) who do not hold to

Matthew's usage of Is. 7.14 as referring to Mary. In Carol's

book, he accepts this verse (Is 7.14) in the literal sense: "In

some of these Old Testament prophecies, reference is made not

only to the person of the Redeemer Himself, but also - quite

understandably - to His Blessed Mother." Even though both Fr.

Carol and Fr. Jelly might differ on the "literal sense," this

difference is not as great as has been previously seen between

Kugelman and Brown.

D. The "Woman" in Rev. 12.1

In Madonna, Chapter 5, the historicity of Mary and John at the foot of the cross is questioned and Fr. Jelly indicates that,

"such a question cannot be answered with certitude on the basis of the historical-critical method." At the end of the chapter he gives his opinion of the "woman" in Rev. 12.1. "Most likely, the

'woman' personifies Israel, .... " In both of these comments, Fr.

Jelly is in harmony with the historical critical approach. Fr.

Carol accepts that the "woman" at Cana and the cross is also the woman at Rev. 12.1. E. The Virginal Conception

In Madonna, chapter 6, Fr. Jelly rejects the historical 169 critical proposal that the virginal conception may be interpreted as a 'theologoumenon.' And his statement that the acceptance of

Mary's perpetual virginity is "~development in the Church's understanding of her faith not explicitly found in her Scriptures," is another instance of Jelly's 'beyond not against' attitude towards the historical critical method. F. Mary's Mediation Carol's chapter on Mary's Mediation was only one of his many published works on the subject. In Fr. Jelly's chapter on the , the section on Mediation basically shares the same view as Fr. Carol, but Jelly does point out that the term co-redemptrix was not used in Lumen Gentium and is rarely heard any more. At Vatican II, 382 Bishops requested an affirmation or definition of Mary's mediation, and the Mariological Society of America petitioned the Preparatory Commission to include a definition of Mary's co-redemption on the agenda of the Council.

G. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption On the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, Fr. Carol and Fr. Jelly are in basic agreement. The major difference would be in the sense of scripture for Gn 3:15. Fr. Carol accepts Gn 3:15 in a literal sense, namely that the woman is Mary. Fr. Jelly does not accept a strict literal sense, but holds instead that the verse has come to have a Marian meaning for Catholics. Fr. Jelly and Fr. Brown use the same basic scriptural methodology 170 which developed from the methodology of Fr. Carol and Fr.

Kugelman.

H. Scripture and Systematic Theo~ogians In this section a comparison was made between two systematic theologians: Fr. Carol and Fr. Jelly, and two scripture scholars:

Fr. Kugelman and Fr. Brown. As a general observation the systematic theologians (Carol and Jelly) are in greater agreement than the scripture scholars (Kugelman and Brown) . This would indicate a greater change in scriptural exegesis than in church doctrine and dogmas. 171

FOOTNOTES

CHA~ER 4

1. Rev. Richard Kugelman, C.P., "The Object of Mary's Consent in the Annunciation," Marian Studies 2 (1960): 61. 2. Ibid., Citing P. Gaechter, Maria im Erdenleben (Innsbruck,

1953), 9-75; R. Laurentin, Traces d'allusions etymologiques en Lc

1-2, in Bibl 37 (1956) 435-456; 38 (1957) 1-23; P. Winter, On

Luke And Lucan Sources, in ZNTW 47 (1956), 217-242; id.

Lukanischen Miszellen, in ZNTW 49 (1958), 65-77.

3. Ibid., p. 62. Citing Re the Midrash cf. R. Bloch, Midrash in Dbls 5, 1263-1281; A. Robert, Litteraires (Genres), in DBIS 5,

405-421; W. H. Brownlee, Biblical Interpretation Among the

Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in BA 14 (1951), 54-76; R.

Laurentin, Structure et Theologie de Luc I-II (Paris, 1957), esp.

Ch IV, Genre Litteraire de Luc I-II, 93-119.

4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., p. 64. Citing A. Robert, Le genre litteraire du

Cantique des Cantiques, in VP, 3me Serie (1944), 192-213.

6. Ibid. I p. 61.

7. Ibid., p. 71. Citing P. Gachter, S.J., op. cit. 55-64; R. Laurentin, op. cit. 23-42; s. Lyonnet, S.J. art. cit. 5-8. 8. Ibid., p. 65. Citing Cf. P. Gachter, op. cit. 9-75. He demonstrates well the historical validity of the narrative. 9. Raymond E. Brown, s.s., The Birth of the Messiah (New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977), 26. 172

10. Ibid., p. 29. 11. Ibid., p. 31. Footnote: The correct insistence that the

Gospels did not have biography ~ their original focus has let to a neglect of this fact. For a modern attempt to reintroduce the biographical into Gospel discussion without becoming simplistic, see G.N. Stanton, Jesus of in New Testament Preaching

(NTSMS 27; Cambridge University, 1975).

12. Ibid., p. 33.

13. Ibid., p. 33-34.

14. Ibid., p. 36.

15. Ibid., p. 36-37.

16. Ibid., p. 302.

17. Ibid., p. 37-38.

18. Ibid., p. 296.

19. Ibid., p. 298.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid. Citing McHugh, Mother 128.

22. Kugelman, Annunciation, p. 66. Citing Cf. s. Lyonnet, s. J. , Xaire Kexaritomene, in Bibl 20 {1939), 131-141; J. Huby, S.J.,

Evangile selon s. Luc [Verbum salutis] (Paris, 1952) 11-21. 23. Ibid., p. 67. Citing The New Testament, The Four Gospels, translated by James A. Kleist, and Epistles etc., translated by J. Lilly (Milwaukee, 1954).

24. Ibid., p. 68. Citing M.J. Lagrange, O.P., Le messianisme chez les juifs (Paris, 1909), 198. 173

25. Ibid., p. 69. Citing Translation of E. Kissane, The Book of

Isaias (Dublin, 1941).

26. Ibid. Citing s. Lyonnet, S~J., Le recit de l'Annonciation et la maternite divine de la Sainte Vierge (Rome, 1956). (A conference delivered at the Pontifical Biblical Institute on Jan.

10, 1954.)

27. Ibid., p. 70.

28. Ibid. Citing Among recent defenders of this exegesis are: E. Florit, Maria nella esegesi biblica contemporanea, in SM 1

(1942-1943), 83-132: M. Peinador, C.M.F., La Maternidad divina de

Maria en el mensaje del angel, in EstB 8 (1949), 39-63; id. La Sagrada Escritura en la Mariologia durante los ultimos veinticinco anos, in EstM 11 (1951), 15-58; G. Hillion, La Sainte

Vierge dans le N.T., in Maria. Etudes sur La Sainte Vierge, ed.

H. du Manoir, S.J., 1 (Paris, 194~) 43-68. A Medebielle,

Annonciation, in DBIS 1, 286.

29. Ibid., p. 72. Citing Cf. Neal Flanagan, O.S.M., Our Lady's

Vow of Virginity, in MS 7 (1956), 103-121; C. Ceroke, O.Carm.,

Luke 1.35 and Mary's Virginity, in CBQ 19 (1957), 329-342. For a novel exegesis cf. J. Audet, O.P., L'annonce a Marie, in RB 63 (1956), 346-374; o. Graber, Wollte Maria eine normale Ehe eingehen? in Mm 20 (1958) 1-9, gives a brief, but well balanced criticism of Audet's thesis. Cf. also M. Villanueva, Nueva controversia en torno al voto de virginidad de Nuestra Senora, in

EstB 16 (1957), 307-328. N.T. Abstracts 2, 157-8, summarizes a number of articles on this question, e. gr. nos. 297, 298, 303. 174

30. Ibid. I p. 72.

31. Ibid. I p. 74-75.

t:. 32. Ibid. I p. 77. Citing PG 13 I 1816.

33. Ibid. I p. 75. Citing PG 22, 1931; 72, 475; PL 15, 1636.

34. Ibid. I p. 77. Citing PL 54, 190.

35. Ibid. I p. 76. Citing Const. Apost. Ineffabilis Deus, Dec. 8,

1854. cf. Doctrina Pontificia, IV: Documentos Marianos, ed.

Hilario Marin, S.J. (Madrid, 1954), 182, no. 288.

36. Ibid. I p. 76. Citing Document a Pontificia IV, 350, no. 471.

37. Ibid. I p. 77. Citing Documenta Pontificia IV, 367, no. 485.

38. Ibid. I p. 77. Benedict XIV, Bull Gloriosae Dominae, Dec. 17, 1748.

39. Ibid. I p. 77. Citing M. De Tuya, Q • p • 1 En el relato de la Anunciacion (Luc. 1, 26-38) jesta expresada la divinidad del

Mesias?, in CT No. 256 (1955), 395.

40. Ibid., p. 77. 41. Ibid., p. 78. Citing s. Lyonnet, S.J., art. cit. 11-16; M. De Tuya, O.P., art. cit. 385-418.

42. Ibid., p. 78. Citing R. Laurentin, op. cit., esp. Ch VI: Marie Fille de Sion et Tabernacle Eschatologique.

43. Ibid., p. 78. 44. Ibid., p. 79. Citing Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch, 2 (Munich, 1924), 314. 45. Ibid., p. 82. Citing Eric Burrows, S.J., The Gospel of the

Infancy and Other Biblical Essays (London, 1940), 56. 46. Ibid., p. 84. Citing R. Laurentin, op. cit. 174. 175

47. Brown, Messiah, p. 326. Footnote: The famous medieval

Mariale Super Missus Est, long thought to be the work of st.

Albert the Great, gives almost ~classic interpretation of the plentitude of grace: Mary had every gift, not only spiritual but secular, even above those given to the angels. See Graef, Mary,

I, 270-73.

48. Ibid., p. 327. Footnote: This is admitted by Lyonnet,

"L'Annonciation," 68-69, an exegete with a good control of patristic and scholastic interpretations.

49. Ibid., p. 321. Footnote: It is fascinating to compare two

Protestant books on Mary, respectively for and against this symbolism: M. Thurian, Mary, Mother of All Christians (New York:

Herder & Herder, 1964), 13-65; and s. Benko, Protestants,

Catholics, and Mary (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1968), 93-108.

(Thurian later became a Catholic .)

50. Ibid., p. 324.

51. Brown, p. 299. Footnote: This argument is accepted by such scholars as Vogtle, "Offene," 46; and Schurmann, Lukasevangelium,

62-63.

52. Ibid. I p. 300.

53. Ibid., p. 301, footnote.

54. Ibid., p. 302. Citing Taylor, Historical, 40-87.

55. Ibid., p. 304. Footnote: When the Church won acceptance in the Roman Empire with the edict of Milan (A.D. 311), replaced martyrdom as the chief public expression of sanctity.

Mary was held up as a model to Egyptian "" in a Coptic 176 document printed in the proverbs of the Council of Nicaea (325); see the English text in Hilda Graef, Mary, I 50.

56. Ibid., p. 304. Citing PG 1f40D- 1141A.

57. Ibid., p. 305. Citing See JBC, article 68, #95; and H.

Hubner, "Zolibat in Qumran?" NTS 17 (1970-71), 153-67. The

Therapeutae in had celibate women ( De Vita

Contemplativa 68 #155), but we do not know about the Essenes.

58. Ibid., p. 305. Citing Audet, "L'annonce," 365-74.

59. Ibid., p. 305. Citing McHugh, Mother, 193-99.

60. Ibid., p. 306. Footnote: A peculiar variation of this theory was advanced by R. Reitzenstein, Zwei religionsgeschichtliche

Fragen (Strassburg: Trubner, 1901), 112-31.

61. Ibid., p. 307. Footnote: This theory has appealed (with variations) to scholars like Kattenbusch, Sahlin, and Leaney; but the most famous proponent was Dibe_lius, "Jungfrauensohn," 12, who argued that in the original story Mary was of the House of David.

62. Ibid., p. 307.

63. Ibid. I p. 308.

64. Ibid., p. 309. Footnote: Since I drew attention above to a number of psychological explanations offered by Roman Catholics,

I should note that the literary explanation of the objection in

1:34 is now becoming widely accepted among catholic scholars in all countries, e.g., Munoz Iglesias, Oretensio da Spinetoli,

Gewiess, and Schurmann. MuHugh move in that direction but then shies away from its full implications. (McHugh, Mother, 193-99.)

65. Ibid., p. 327. 177

66. Ibid., p. 328. Footnote: Benoit, "L'Annonciation," 207,

although not opposed to OT symbolic background for Mary, is

uncertain about the applicability of the imagery of the divine

presence in the Tabernacle, since the motif of being filled with

glory is not present as it is in Exod 40.35. (However, that motif

is not in Num 9.18,22.)

67. Ibid., p. 328.

68. Rev. Richard Kugelman, C.P., "Mariology and Recent Biblical

Literature," Marian Studies XVI (1966): pp. 122-134.

69. Ibid., p. 130-31.

70. Fr. Peter D. Fehlner, OFMConv., "Fr. Juniper Carol, OFM: His

Mariology and Scholarly Achievement," Marian Studies XLIII,

(1992).

71. Ibid., Citing Marian studies, 30 (1979) 11. In fact, Fr.

Juniper edited vols. 1-20 and 22-29.

72. Ibid., Citing Mariology, ed. J.B. Carol, OFM (3 vols.;

Milwaukee 1955, 1957, 1961).

73. Ibid. Citing Why Jesus Christ? Thomistic, Scotistic and

Conciliatory Perspectives (Manassas, Virginia 1986).

74. Ibid. Citing Fundamentals of Mariology (New York 1956) prefatory note p. viii.

75. Ibid. Citing n. 31. J. De Aldama, SJ, Archivo Teologico

Granadino 14 (1951) 306-307, and in Estudios Eclesiasticos 26

(1952) 239-241; N. Garcia Garces, CMF, Ephemerides Mariologicae 2

(1952) 132-133; G. Roschini, OSM, Marianum 14 (1952) 129-133; L. Di Fonzo, OFMConv, Miscellanea Francescana 52 (1952) 604-605; c. 178

Sericoli, OFM, 27 (1952) 390-392; G. Philips,

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 27 (1951) 537-538; P.-M. Gy,

OP, Revue des Sciences Philosop~iques et Theoloqiques 37 (1953) 524; Melchior a Pobladura, OFMCap, Collectanea Franciscana 21

(1951) 444-446; J. Kaup, OFM, Franziskanische Studien 34 (1952)

432-434; B. Kloppenburg, OFM, Revista Eclesiastica Brasilerira 11

(1951) 776-778; D. Bertetto, SOB,. Salesianum 14 (1952) 160-161;

G.D.S[mith], Clergy Review 37 (1952) 250-251; E. Marcotte, OMI,

Revue De l'Universite d' ottawa 22 (1952) 250-251; J.C. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review 126 (1952) 79-80; c. Vollert, SJ, Theological Studies 13 (1952) 442-444; R. Laurentin, La Vie

Spirituelle 86 (1952) 188-189, and in Bullentin Thomiste V. 8, n.

2155, pp. 1097-1098.

76. Ibid. Citing n. 34. E.g., those of Laurentin concerning the

spurious character of the texts Fr. Juniper had adduced to

establish the earliest use of the title "Coredemptrix". Cf. "Our

Lady's Coredemption", in Mariology, vol. 2, p. 398, note 84.

77. Ibid. Citing n. 35. The judgement of the Dominican P.-M Gy,

author of the last of the reviews to be published, in Revue des

Sciences Philosophiques et Theoloquiques 37 (1953) 524.

78. Ibid., p. 26. 79. Ibid. p. 35. Citing Barauna, De natura corredemptionis ... , p.

7. "Together with Fr. Juniper the author of this history cites the work of c. Dillenschneider, CSSR, Marie au service de notre Redemption (Haguenau 1947) as equally significant for this shift.

It is also remarked by G. Philips, "Sommes- entre dans une 179 phase mariologique? Les publications mariales de 1948 a 1951", in

Marianum 14 (1952) 1-48, and "Perspectives mariologiques: Marie

11 et l'Eglise. Essai bibliographique, 1951-1953 , in Marianum 15

(1953) 436-511. II 80. Austin P. Flannery, ED. Documents of Vatican II, (Grand

Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975),

418-419.

81. Fehlner, Fr. Juniper Carol. OFM: His Mariology ... Citing Cf. the remarks of R. Laurentin, "Le probleme initial de methodologie mariale", in Du Manoir, Marie, vol. I, p. 698: and in his review of De Corredemptione in La Vie Spirituelle 86 (1952) 188-189.

82. Ibid. Citing n. 64, G. Philips, reviewing "De

Corredemptione" in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 27 (1951)

538.

83. Ibid. Citing Fr. Barauna, De Natura Corredemptionis •.. , p.

219, in "The Problem of Our Lady's Coredemption" in American

Ecclesiastical Review 123 (1950) 32-51.

84. Ibid. Citing n. 63 Fr. Juniper (cf. his "Notas marginales a la respuesta del Padre Alonso", in Ephemerides Mariologicae 26

(1976) 176].

85. Ibid. p. 36.

86. Ibid. Citing James McCurry, OFMConv, "Fr. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., 1911-1990: Vir Catholicus et Totus Apostolicus", Marian studies 42 (1991) 9-14.

87. Juniper Carol, OFM, Fundamentals of Mariology (New York,

Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1956): 203 pp. 180

88. Fehlner, Fr. Juniper Carol. OFM: His Mariology ... , Citing

J.F. Sweeney, SJ, review in Theological Studies 17 (1956) 432-

433.

89. Ibid. Citing T. O'Shaunessy, OP, review in Thomist 20 (1957)

101-103.

90. Ibid. Citing E. Weisenberg, SJ, reviewing in the Homiletic &

Pastoral Review 57 (1957) 676-679.

91. A. Preparation (1) Predestination

Part I (2) Prophecies

B. Fulfillment: The Divine Maternity

Mary's

Mission (1) Spiritual Maternity c. Corollaries (2) Universal Mediation (3) Universal Queenship

A. Beginning of (1) Immaculate Conception

her life (2) Fullness of grace Part II ( 1) Freedom from

Actual Sin

B. During (2) Perpetual Virginity

Mary's her life (3) Mary's Knowledge

Prerogatives (1) Immunity from

Corruption

c. End of (2) Anticipated her life Resurrection

(3) Bodily Assumption 181

D. Corollary: The Cult of Mary.

92. Carol, ibid. p. xi. Citing~Roschini, G.M., O.S.M., Mariologia, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (Rome, F. Ferrari, 1947-1948). 93. Ibid., p. 5. Citing Cf. W.J. Burghardt, S.J., Mary in

Western Patristic Thought, in Mariology (Carol), 1, 109-155; Id., Mary in Eastern Patristic Thought, ibid., 2 Ch. 3; G.W. Shea, Outline History of Mariology in the Middle Ages and Modern Times, ibid., 1, 281-327. 94. Ibid., p. 21.

95. Ibid., p. 25. Citing Cf. Bonnefoy, Le merite social de Marie

et sa predestination, in ASC, 2, 21-48, esp. 32 ff. 96. Ibid., p. 26. 97. Ibid., p. 28. Citing Cf. D.J. Unger, The First Gospel: Genesis 3:15 (St. Bonaventure, N.Y., 1954), 285-294. 98. Ibid., p. 29. 99. Ibid., p. 31. Citing Cf. B.J. LeFrois, S.V.D., The Theme of

the Divine Maternity in the Scriptures, in MS, 6 (1955), esp. 103-105. 100. Ibid., p. 34. Citing Cf. s. Bonano, C.M.F, Ecce Virgo concipiet lt pariet Filium (Isaias: 7:14). Text and Context, in EphM, 4 (1954); 89-115; May, art. cit., 62-65. 101. Ibid., p. 35. Citing cf. Roschini, op. cit., 2, part 1, 141-195; A'Ales, S.J., art. Marie, in DAFC, 3, 199-206; c. Feckes,The Mystery of the Divine Motherhood (London, 1941); Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, 5th ed. (St. Louis, ., 1926), 4-23; G. 182

Van Ackeren, S.J., Mary's Divine Motherhood, in Mariology

(Carol), 2 Ch. 5.

102. Ibid., p. 54.

103. Ibid., p. 55. Citing- Here we modify an opinion previously held against N. Garcia Garces in our article Adnotationes in opus

"Mater Corredemptrix" a Patre N. Garcia conscriptum, in Mm, 8

(1946), 277-283; cf. 278, footnote 1.

104. Ibid., p. 56. Citing- We abstract here and now from what

is called ontological Mediation. Cf. Carol, The Theological

Concept of Mediation and Coredemption, in ETL, 14 (1937), 642-

650.

105. Ibid., p. 66. Footnote: a few authors attribute to Our Lady a physical instrumental causality in the dispensation of graces.

In our humble opinion, this theory is foreign to the teaching of the magisterium and Catholic tradition; hence, it ought to be rE~jected. Even some of its more ardent advocates candidly admit that they have no solid arguments to prove it. Cf. R. Garrigou­

Lagrange, O.P., the Mother of the Saviour and our Interior Life

(St. Louis, Mo., 1949), 237. On the whole controversy cf.

Roschini, Mariologia, 2, part 1, 413-420. Not one of the so­ called "arguments" given by Roschini in favor of this theory would be considered serious in any other theological tract.

106. Ibid., p. 90, 186.

107. Ibid., p. 186.

108. Ibid., p. 195-96. Citing Roschini, Summula Mariologiae

(Rome, 1952), 196-197. 183

109. Frederick M. Jelly, O.P., Madonna Mary in the Catholic

Tradition, {Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing

Division, 1986), 7. 110. Ibid. 111. Ibid., p. 8.

112. Ibid., p. 8. Citing Otto Semmelroth, S.J. "Chapter VIII-

The Role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the

Mystery of Christ and the Church," in Commentary on the Documents

of Vatican II, Vol. I Herbert Vorgrimler, Gen. Ed. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967), p. 286.

113. Ibid. I p. 9.

114. Ibid. I 11.

115. Ibid., p. 13. Citing Leon Cardinal Suenens, "Mary and the

World of Today," in L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, June

15, 1972.

116. Ibid. I p. 19.

117. Ibid., p. 22. Citing Behold Your Mother: Woman of Faith, Pastoral Letter of the U.S. Bishops: par. 30.

118. Ibid. I p. 25. Citing Behold Your Mother, ibid. 1 par. 16.

119. Ibid. I p. 26.

120. Ibid. I p. 27.

121. Ibid. I p. 28. 122. Ibid.

123. Ibid. I p. 36.

124. Ibid.

125. Ibid. I p. 37. 184

1 26. Ibid., p. 38. Citing Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E.

Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., John Reumann,

Ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Pre~s and New York/ Ramsey, N.J./

Toronto: Paulist Press, 1978), pp. 9-12.

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid., p. 66.

12 9. Ibid. , p. 68 .

130. Ibid.

131. Ibid., p. 76. Citing O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological

Encyclopedia

132. Ibid., p. 77. Citing Cf. J.H. Newman, The New Eve (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1952), pp. 61-62.

133. Ibid. p. 85. Citing Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations

4 (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), "Virginitas in Partu: A contribution to the problem of the development of dogma and of tradition," pp. 134-162.

134. Ibid., p. 89. 135. Ibid., p. 97. Citing Rene Laurentin, The Question of Mary

(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965) ' pp. 40-53, 142-143. 136. Ibid.

137. Ibid., p. 103.

138. Ibid., p. 119.

139. Ibid., p. 105.

140. Ibid., p. 161.

141. Ibid., p. 175.

142. Ibid., p. 186. 185

CHAPTER V

A FUTURE DIRECTION AND DEVELOPMENT

This paper has reviewed the scriptural development of Mariology immediately before and after Vatican II. It has also shown that a development from a christotypical to an

E~cclesiotypical orientation has occurred. Vatican II upheld both 1:he christological and ecclesiological orientation as is stated i n the title of Lumen Gentium: "The Blessed Virgin Mary, God­ nearer, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church." Futhermore there has been a shift from a privilege-centered to a sharing-oriented Mariology after Vatican II. Along with this is an interest in a mariology centered more on practical issues (such as sexuality, abortion, feminism, social ethics,

E~tc.) and less on doctrines and dogma emphasis. Concerning the question of the two schools of thought, the literature does indicate that there are two groups of theologians who differ on t:he Marian narrative texts and these could imply two methodological schools of thought on scriptural scholarship in Mariology. Following are a few personal reflections on the paper and theologizing by the author about the present study. 186

1) A Future Direction - From Abstract to Concrete Issues This paper has chronicled the development in Mariology, and

1:his double approach of a chris~otypical and a ecclesiotypical orientation. In the process, several theological concepts have almost disappeared after the Council: the primary principle of

Mariology, mediatrix, and co-redemption. New doctrines and dogmas have spurred less interest for both the laity and t:heologians in this post-Vatican age. People's faith has become more abstract today; Jesus and Mary have become ideals and abstract concepts. This abstractionism seems to be weakening the faith. Thus, a more concrete and practical theology seems to be needed.

As the literature has indicated, there is a development away from doctrinal interest and towards ethical interest in the theological world today. Lay people and scholars are more interested in theological applications to questions about: war, crime, violence, abortion, , women, and other contemporary problems. Even though these are broad statements, the doctrinal interests of the 50's and 60's gave way to pastoral and ecumenical interest of the 70's and devotional and liturgical interest of the SO's. Marian studies in the 90's should be headed towards ethical and moral issues. The literature indicates a need for less abstraction in religion and more integration into society.

Whereas the understanding of Mary in scripture and in the early church has become more concrete, an understanding and 187

acceptance of her in general has become more abstract and unacceptable. And for the majority of the people an interest in a Marian doctrines has decline~ and an interest in apparitions has increased. As Marian scholars perhaps we need to make Mary more concrete in their lives.

:2) Mary as Advocate, Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix

A major undercurrent in Mariology this century has been an

:interest to proclaim a dogma about Mary as Mediatrix along with this also is found the terms co-redemptrix, Advocate and others.

This interest started in the twenties and developed to a climax

:Ln the SO's. Writers throughout history have touched upon this topic and according to the count of Juniper Carol, "over three thousand theological works were produced on these subjects before

1950."1 By the urging of Cardina~ Mercier of Belgium, a worldwide campaign was launched to elicit petitions to the

''atican in favor of a definition of the dogma of Mary's mediation. In 1950 a resolution was sent to Pius XII by a group of Catholic theologians for Mediatrix yet the Pope felt that the doctrine was not theologically mature enough for such a definition, and that the time was not yet "opportune. 112 But of c:ourse this was not meant to be and later Eamon Carroll points out, "As a Marian title it (Mediatrix] has virtually disappeared from the vocabulary of preaching and popular piety, at least in t:he United States. 113 188

In Lumen Gentium, we find the key statement. After affirming the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2.5), the t ext continues: "Therefore the~lessed Virgin is invoked in the

Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and

Mediatrix. These, however, are to be so understood that they neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator."4

Recently in the last year and a half to two years there has been a great resurgence of interest in proclaiming Mary as

Mediatrix. Much of this interest comes from a booklet Mary

Coredexptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate5 by of

Steubenville University. It is being distributed in various languages around the world and there is becoming a world wide interest in Marian groups and centers for this dogma. There is a petition going around to sign up a hundred thousand names for the Pope, since supposably, Mark was commissioned by someone in

Rome for this work and that the Pope himself is interested in it.

An interesting thing about this is that Juniper Carol one of the world's leading experts on Mediatrix passed away in 1992 and then two years later there is a big movement for Mary as

Mediatrix, which is presently taking shape. It makes one wonder if he is in heaven praying for this to happen after spending over forty years of his life on earth promoting it.

The problem with this effort for a dogma is that they are trying to proclaim three at once and that co-redemptrix is not a well understood or accepted term. Whereas Mediatrix was 189 incorporated into Lumen Gentium, co-redemptrix was purposely avoided and not even mentioned in the preliminary drafts of the document. Inaddition there has

And these two terms seems to overlap each other theologically in t:heir meanings because their definition is unclear.

These three terms are like three steps on a ladder going from Advocate to Mediatrix to Coredemptix. Perhaps a better approach to this effort would be to start with Advocate and make it a dogma. Advocate has the benefit of being an ecumenically accepted term, Orthodox, Protestants and Pentacostals all can accept the fact that Mary is praying for us. This would then become a uniting document in the church rather then one of division which the other two terms might become.

3) Two Schools of Thought: The Way of Truth and the Way of Beauty

One reason for presenting the problem of symbolism with its themes of Mary and the historical critical method is because it i.s primarily a post-conciliar problem which is still a concern among prominent theologians today. The newly accepted symbols of

Mary as Daughter Zion and as Ark of the Covenant (among others) are being challenged and questioned. An article on the Virginity of Mary (1973) by Raymond Brown sparked a major controversy which lasted years. In a later work, Brown made a list of general categories that him and Laurentin are in agreement on, then states; "Mostly we are in disagreement about the historicity of 190 some narrative details in the two infancy narratives."6

The literature indicates proponents on both sides: Brown and

Fitzmyer (and the American, Ger~an group) versus Unger, Laurentin

{and the French supporters). There are also others residing in

1:he middle, e.g., Brennen, Buby, and Reese, who see both sides as a necessary part of the balance and synthesis needed to obtain a healthy theology. Brown himself notes that the disagreement is among two groups of theologians: Laurentin, Leon-Dufour, Lyonnet,

Cazelles, Benoit and McHugh versus other scholars on the infancy narratives such as; Schnackenburg, Schurmann, Vogtle, Bourke, l~itzmyer, and Legrand. Brown states, "Thus in self-evaluation I deem it more accurate to say I disagree with one group of

Catholic writers and agree with another."' The historical c:ritical approach is the methodology that is the predominant one in scholarly circles in the 60's, . 70's and 80's other group which

I titled the historical theological method, is small and not a formally organized scholarly group.

Fr. Laurentin's and others' (Unger, Lyonnet ... ) concern about this problem is valid, as is Brown's concern. How far does one pursue the historical critical method? Where does one draw t .he line when it comes to faith? Should the historical critical method even be used for certain biblical texts? Is there an excess of rationalism in the use of historical critical method?

These and other questions led to discussions about the faith and morals in biblical scholarship, and about the philosophical and scientific uses of biblical methodology. 191

A second reason for the dispute surrounding the historical critical method involves philosophy. Fr. Laurentin has indicated that his basic problem with the~historical critical method is the philosophical underpinnings which influences the method.

Cardinal Ratzinger stated a similar opinion. "For him the cause of the problems created by the critical- historical exegesis is not in the method but in the philosophy it 'used as a vehicle.'

He finds that despite Rudolph Bultmann's (one of the method's creators) effort to grasp the text, the effort, finally, appears to have recreated the voice of Martin Heidegger (existentialist philosopher and Bultmann's ""), not the voice of Jesus. 118

Most of the disagreements in the literature about the infancy narratives concerned biblical interpretation and narrative details but perhaps the discussion should revolve around the philosophical influences of the methodology and its conclusions.

And a third and final reason for this problem that could be given is human temperament or personality orientation. The author would here theologize and propose that these two schools of thought are actually both part of man's psyche and anthropological structure. The traditional anthropology of man in the New Testament is body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5.17) and that there is a division between the soul and the spirit (Heb

4.12). There was a development of this understanding in the Old

Testament and the soul is identified with three aspects or functions: mind, emotion and will, these three functions are most often quoted by biblical scholars studying this area. (Today, 192 modern psychology often defines man's personality with a cognitive and an affective side). The spirit could also be hypothesized to have three facu~ties: , and communion. (This was the conclusion of a major paper on Hebrews

4.12, by the author under the scripture scholar Fr. Francis

Martin at the Univ. of Steubenville.) Thus this tri-partie structure of the soul and spirit is divided into three parts and could be represented thus: Communion

Spirit -

Intuition Conscience

Will

Soul -

Emotion Mind

Even though every human being works with both his mental and affective side of his being, scholars and scientists tend to work more from the mental side (mind, conscience). While artists and creative writers tend to emphasize and work from the affective,

(emotions, intuitive) side.

Jungian topology is very similar to what has been just stated. In the author's opinion, according to the Myers-Briggs

Personality scale (which is based on Jung's personality topology), Fr. Laurentin would fall into the category of an

'intuitive thinker' while Fr. Brown would be at the other end of the scale, a 'sensate thinker'. If this were true it could help 193 explain some of their methological differences in their theological approaches and would indicate some of the roots for the two schools of thought. <

An example of temperment differences is found in a study done by Rahner and Laurentin. There was a text prepared prior to the meeting of the Council which was calling for a formal proclamation of Mary as Mediatrix of graces. There was a sharp disagreement between the bishops and theologians on proclaiming this as a dogma. "Both Karl Rahner and Rene' Laurentin, who were present as 'periti', have analyzed the clash as due to differences in national cultural characteristics, with the

Mediterranean temperament stressing Mary's prerogatives in exuberant and affective terms, while the Northern temperament took a more critical and rational approach. 119 "In addition,

Rahner noted a differing methodological approach, as those more enthusiastic for Marian privileges drew heavily on papal teaching as a source, while those who wished a more tempered approach engaged in the return to scriptural and patristic sources. 1110

In the opening address of Pope Paul VI to the International

Mariological and Marian Congresses (May 16, 1975), he stated:

"What is Our contribution? We wish to offer an answer to a

question that is very important both for pastoral action and for doctrine: In what new and suitable manner is Mary to be brought to the attention of the Christian people so that they will be stirred to renewed zeal in their devotion to her? 194

"In answering this question, two ways lie open to us. One

is the 'Way of Truth'. By this We mean the path of biblical, historical, and theological stu~y of Mary's proper place in the mystery of Christ and the Church. This path, traversed by learned men in the past, is the one you are following and it is very profitable for Mariology. But there is another way, one t: is open to all, even the less learned. We shall call it

'The Way of Beauty'. It is opened to us by the mysterious but wonderfully beautiful doctrine of Mary's relation to the Holy

Spirit, which the Marian Congress will be studying.

"Mary is 'entirely Beautiful' and 'a spotless .'

She is also the supreme model of perfection which artists of every age have tried to capture in their work. She is the

'woman clothed with the sun,' (Apoc 12.1) in whom all the

purest rays of human beauty converge with those rays of

heavenly beauty which are of a higher order but which we can

nevertheless perceive."

Pope Paul VI sums up the purpose of Marian scholarship and devotion in a two fold orientation, 'The Way of Truth' and 'The

Way of Beauty.' Perhaps in the world today some scholars are m.ore drawn to the intellectual Way of Truth while others more drawn to the affective Way of Beauty in scripture interpretation.

4) Marian and Charismatic Prayer Groups

If the question were asked, "Has there been a decline in

Marian devotion since Vatican II?" The answer would be "Yes." 195

After Vatican II there was a definite decline in Marian devotion and a leveling off in Marian scholarship in the 60's and 70's.

In the SO's there seemed to be ~n increase in Marian piety and popular literature on Mary, possibly because of the nrultiplication of apparitions. An interesting relationship is found with the Catholic charismatic renewal. The renewal was popular in the late 60's and the 70's. By the early SO's it had quieted down and many of the people who were involved in charismatic prayer groups were now involved in Marian prayer groups. Thus, this decline may be a shift of the participants.

A strong Marian movement existed before Vatican II. After

Vatican II the charismatic renewal with the emphasis on the Holy

Spirit and scriptures came into being in the late 1960's. The renewal quickly became an international movement which lasted through the 1970's. During this time the Marian movement quieted down. By the early 1980's the charismatic renewal quieted down and the Marian movement witnessed an upswing of interest. Many of the people who had been involved in the charismatic renewal became involved in the Marian movement. Another example of shifts can be found in scripture scholarship. While the historical critical method existed in the 1950's, it did not come to the forefront until after Vatican II in the mid 60's. The historical theological approach dominated the pre-Vatican years.

Then the historical critical approach was the major focus of scriptural scholarship through the 70's up until the mid SO's.

Around the mid SO's several other methods of scriptural 196 scholarship became popular such as: reader response, rhetorical criticism and the whole social-political-cultural emphasis. The historical critical method (for~ criticism, literary criticism, textual criticism and traditional criticism) will always be a ntajor tool in scriptural scholarship, even as other methods gain acceptance for a better and deeper understanding and clarification of the biblical text.

In both of these movements (Marian- and the scriptural scholarship methods) there is an ebb and flow.

The Marian influence was the dominate influence pre-Vatican then the Charismatics into dominance post-Vatican and the Marian emphasis slowed down. In the eighties the Charismatics became less and Marian groups became greater in the arena of popular piety. And in the scriptual world of scholarship the historical theological methodological orientation was pre-Vatican then the historical critical methodology became the predominate focus post-Vatican. By having a better understanding of this ebb and flow scholars can have a better understanding of the practical needs of prayer groups and other movements.

Another point about these two groups and about the conclusion above on the need for concrete issues is concerning healing services. A concrete activity of prayer groups is to pr ay for healing and God's working in people's lives.

Evangelicals today thrive on the concrete situations of healings and . Catholics need to get into this orientation and use it for their own growth and the growth of the church. The 197 c:harismatic and Marian groups should work together on this for t:he benefit of the whole church.

_,"") The Spirit of Gratitude Finally it struck me that we need to be grateful for the different scholars and their respective positions. In Luke the Virgin Mary has a spirit of gratitude for the things that have happened to her, as with the Magnificat. We to as theologians need to be grateful and rejoice, even in the face of opposing schools of thought. TWo groups of people with different Biblical can have different conclusions on the same verses a.nd both be right because they are looking at it from different ways. This is important in this day and age when there are so many developments and different schools of thought and especially since some of them tend to be rather angry, negative and destructive to the faith. Even though it is important to deal with developments and differing schools of thought then our own orientation, it is even more important to keep our eyes on the Trinity and be grateful for all the good things that he has given us. To often, in our search for the truth, we focus on ourselves, getting caught up in ourselves, in our personal agendas and our corporate schools of thought and loose sight of all the good and beautiful things in life. The spirit of gratitude needs to pervade our work and especially when it is 198 necessary to be critical. Therefore let us thank God in all things. 199

FOOTNOTES

Chapter 6 l. Ibid., p. 317. Citing Junip~r B. Carol, De corredemptione lJ.V.M.; Disquisitio positiva (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950) 9.

2. Ibid. Citing Rene Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile (Paris: Lethielleux, 1956) 186, n. 26.

3. Ibid. Citing Eamon Carroll, Understanding the Mother of Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1979) 92-96.

4 . Ibid., p. 322. Citing LG 62.

5. Mark I. Miravalle, Mary Coredemptrix. Mediatrix and Advocate, (Santa Barbara, CA., Queenship Publishing, 1994).

6. Raymond Brown, "More Polemical than Instructive .•. "

7. Ibid. Brown, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, p. 71.

B. "Unlocking the Scriptures," Inside the Vatican, August­ September 1994, Rome.

9. Ibid. Citing Karl Rahner, "Zur konziliaren Mariologie," Stimmen der Zeit 174 (1964) 87-101; and Rene Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile, 20-21. 10. Ibid. 200

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahern, , C.P., .. Script~ral Aspects, ·· Vatican II An Interfaith Appraisal, International Theological Conference, , March 20-26, 1966; John H. Miller, ed., (Notre Dame, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1966). Anderson H. George; Stafford J. Francis; Burgess , Joseph A., ed., The One Mediator, The Saints and Mary Lutherans and Catholics in dialogue VIII, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1992); Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J. , .. Mary as Mediatrix ...

Balthasar, Hans Urs von, .. Retrieving the Tradition , The marian principle," Communio 15 (Spring, 1988): 122 -130. A reprint from Eluciadations (London: S.P.C.K., 1975): 64-72. Baum, William Cardinal, Prefect. ..The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation (Letter from the Congregation for Catholic Education, Rome, 25 March 1988) . " Marian Studies, Volume XXXIX, 1988 . Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1988, 203-221. Biblical Commission. The Historical Truth of the Gospels. Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist Press, 1964, 3-31. Brennan, Walter T., O.S.M. The Sacred Memory of Mary. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1988. Brown, R.E . The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. New York: Doubleday & Com., Inc., 1977. Brown, R.E., Fitzmyer, J.A., Murphy, R.E. The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc . , 1968 . Brown, R.E., Donfried, K.P . , Fitzmyer, J.A., Reumann, J., eds. Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. Brown, Raymond E., S.S., The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, (Paramus, N.J., Paulist-Newman Press, 1973): 30. Also, "The Problem of the Virginal Conception of Jesus", TheolStud 33 (1972). Brown, Raymond E., "More Polemical than Instructive: R. Laurentin on the Infancy Narratives" (Rome, Marianum, Annus XLVII: 1985). Buby, Bertrand, S.M. Mary, the Faithful Disciple. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1985. 201

Buby, Bertrand, S.M., ""Daughter of Zion: A Symbol for Jewish - Catholic Dialogue, ·· an essay presented at Huel va, Spain, September 12, 1992 for the 11th International Mariological Congress. (International Marian Research Institute, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.) c. Carroll, R. Eamon, 0. Carm. "Reflections of a Dogmatic Theologian About Exegesis.·· Marianum, Annus XXXIX, 1977. Romae: 1977 . Carroll, Eamon, R. O.Carm., "Revolution in Mariology 1949-1989" p. 456: Paul Chandler, O.Carm., Keith J. Egan ed., The Land of Carmel (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991).

Carroll, Eamon, R. 0. Carm., Understanding The Mother of Jesus, (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc . , 1979).

Carlen, Claudia, I .H.M. "Divino Afflante Spiritu." [September 30, 1943] The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958. Raleigh: McGrath Publishing Company, 1981.

Carol, Juniper B., O.F.M. Fundamentals of Mariology . New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc.

Collins, Thomas Aquinas, O.P. "'Towards a Biblical Theology of Mary." Marian Studies, Volume XXV, 1974. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1974, 82-103. Coyle, William, T. C.SS.R., "American Influence on Conciliar Decision Regarding BVM Schema,·· Marian Studies XXXVII ( 1986). (Monsignor Vincent Yzermans, American Participation in the Second Vatican Council, (Sheen and Ward, 1967) . )

Coyle, William T. C.SS.R, S.T.L., "Development of Vatican II's Doctrine on Mary, ·· Social Justice Review (November/December 1987). Dietz, Donald O.M.I., "The Hierarchy of Truths About Mary," Marian Studies XXVI (1976) .

Dorenkemper, Mark J., C.PP.S. "Subsidiary Principles of Mariology. " Marian Studies, Volume X, 1959. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1959, 121-177. Dulles, Avery . "Symbolic Mediation." Models of Revelation. Doubleday, 1983. Fehlner, Peter, D., OFMConv. , "Fr. Juniper Carol, OFM: His Mario logy and Scholarly Achievement," Marian Studies XLIII, (1992). Hogan, William, F. "The Fundamental Principle of Mariology According to the Magisterium," Marian Studies X (January 1959). Jelly, Frederick M., O.P. "The Theological Context of and Introduction to Chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium... Marian Studies, Volume XXXVII, · 1986. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1986, 43-74. 202

Jelly, Frederick M. O.P., Madonna Mary in the Catholic Tradition, (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1986).

Jelly, Frederick, O.P . , "Marian Dogmas Within Vatican II's Hierarchy of Truths," Marian Studies, XXVI t'1976) .

Jelly, Frederick, O.P., "Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII The Blessed Virgin Mary, God-Bearer, in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church," The Catholic Home Study Institute (Leesburg, Virginia) .

Johnson, Elizabeth A., C.S.J. "The Symbolic Character of Theological Statements About Mary." Journal of Ecumenical Studies . 22:2, Spring 1985: 312-335.

Kirwin , George F., O.M . I. "Lumen Gentium, Nos. 66 to 69--Twenty Years Later . " Marian Studies, Volume XXXVII, 1986. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1986 , 143-165. Flannery, Austin, P. ED. Documents of Vatican II, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975).

Koehler, Theodore A., S.M . , "Mary's Spiritual Maternity After the Second Vatican Council," Marian Studies, 23 (1972).

Kugelman, Richard, C.P. "Mariology and Recent Biblical Literature ." Marian Studies, Volume XVIII, 1967. Paterson , New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1967, 122-134 . Kugelman, Richard, C.P. "The Object of Mary's Consent in the Annunciation. " Marian Studies, Volume XI, 1960 . Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1960, 60-84. Jonas Langer, Jonas, Theories of Development, (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1969). Laurentin, Rene . The Truth of Christmas (Beyond the Myths, The Gospels of the Infancy of Christ). Translated by Michael J. Wrenn and associates. Petersham, Massachusetts: St. Bede's Publications, 1986. Laurentin, Rene, "The Present Crisis in Mariology, Rise or Fall of Mariology", University of Dayton, June-July 1968. Mahoney, Paul, O.P. "Mariological Principles: Nature, Derivation, Function. " Marian Studies, Volume X, 1959. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1959, 22-46. Maly, Eugene H., "Principl Problems of Modern Exegesis Relative to Dogma, " Maria In Sacra Scriptura. Marshner, William H, "Criteria for Doctrinal Development in the Marian Dogmas: An Essay in Metatheology", Marian Studies XXVIII (January 1977) . 203

May, Eric E., O.F.M . Cap. ''The Problems of a Biblical Mariology." Marian Studies, Volume XI, 1960. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1960, 21-59.

Miller, Charles H., S.M., "'A~ It Is Written' The Use of Old Testament References in the Documents of Vatican Council II," (St. Louis, Missouri, Marianist Communications Center, 1973), a doctoral dissertation, 1969.

Miguens, Manuel, O.F.M., "Mary, A Virign? Alleged Silence in the New Testament," Marian Studies XXVI ( 1975).

Murphy, Roland E., O.Carm, "Reflections upon historical methodology in biblical study, " The Land of Carmel ed. , Paul Chandler, 0. Carm. , Keith J. Egan, (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991).

Neumann, Charles W., S.M., "The Decline of Interest in Mariology as a Theological Problem," Marian Studies 23 (1972).

Neumann, Charles W. , S.M., "After Twenty-Five Years, Presidential Address," Marian Studies 25 (1974).

Neumann, Charles W., S.M. "Mary and the Church: Lumen Gentium, Arts. 60 to 65." Marian Studies, Volume XXXVII, 1986. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1986, 96-143. O'Carroll, Michael, C.S.Sp., Theotokos A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982).

O'Connor, James T. Lumen Gentium, Nos. 55 to 59." Marian Studies, Volume XXXVII, 1986. Paterson, New Jersey: The Mariological Society of America, 1986, 74-96. Ostling, Richard N. , "Handmaid or Feminist?," Time (December 30, 1991): 66. Pope John Paul II (Cardinal Karol Wojtyla), Sources of Renewal The implementation of the Second Vatican Council, translated by P.S. Falla, (San Franacisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1979). Power, Albert, S.J., Our Lady's Titles (New York. Fredeick Pustet Co . , 1928). Rahner, Hugo, Our Lady and the Church, trans. Sebastian Bullough, O.P., (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965). Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, vol. IV., pp. 224-30, 234-42. Quoted in A Rahner Reader, Gerald A. McCool, ed., (New York, Crossroad, 1981). Rausch, Thomas P., S.J., "The Image of Mary: A Catholic Rsponse," America (March 27, 1982). Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph, Daughter Zion, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1983) . 204

Ratzinger, Josef "Catholicism After the Council," The Furrow

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. ''The ~lace of Mariology in the Bible.·· Daughter Zion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1983, 9-29. Reese, James M., O.S.F.S., "The Historical Image of Mary in the New Testament,·· Marian Studies XXVIII ( 1977). Roten, Johann G., "Affetto Al Suo Piacer Quel Contemplante", "Mater Fidei Et Fidelium, Collected Essays to Honor Theodore Koehler on His 80th Birthday,·· Marian Library Studies. Thompson, Thomas A., S.M., "The Virgin Mary In The Liturgy: 1963-1988," Marian Studies 40 (1989). Thornhill, John, S.M., "The Mystery of Mary and the Church," The Homiletic and Pastoral Review LXVII, no. 1 (October, 1966). Ullathorne, William Bernard, Immaculate Conception, (New York, Benziger Brothers, 1855). Revised by Canon Iles, D.D. in 1904. Unger, Dominic J., O.F.M. Cap. "Does the New Testament Give Much Historical Information About the Blessed Virgin or Mostly Symbolical Meanings? Marianum, Annus XXXIX, 1977. Romae: 1977, 323-347. Unger, Dominic J., O.F.M. Cap. "Mary's Privileges in Proper Perspective." Marianum, Annus XXXVIII, 1976. Ro~ae: 1976, 1-18. Unger, Dominic J., O.F.M.Cap., "The Use of Sacred Scripture in Mariology," Marian Studies, (1950): 67-116.