Mary in the mystery of Christ and of the Church
Every treatise on theology aims to study the Mystery of Christ prolonged in the Church for the salvation of humanity. Mariology studies the mystery of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, associated with the salvific work as Mother.
The Mystery of Christ can be studied according to different moments of its reality and manifestation hidden for centuries in God (in the Trinity), prepared in time (revelation, salvific history), manifested and communicated (incarnation and redemption), living in us ( grace), present under signs (Church, sacraments), fullness of all humanity (eschatology). In all these Christological, ecclesiological and salvific moments, Mary can be found eternally chosen by God to be his Mother (Holy Virgin), associated with the redeeming mystery, our Mother in the order of grace, figure of the Church, glorified in Christ and sign of hope…
The figure of Mary can be studied as part of the Mystery of Christ (in Christology), as a peculiar figure or member of the Church (in ecclesiology), as a model of Christian and human perfection (soteriology and Christian anthropology)… But in at all times she is united to Christ the Savior, Redeemer, Universal Mediator, as her Mother and figure of the Church.
The peculiarity of Mariology appears in the fact that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, personifies the Church itself as the Bride of Christ. Mariology could be considered, then, as the treatise that studies the spousal function of the Church with respect to Christ the Bridegroom. When the Church studies and contemplates her “in the light of the Word made man, filled with veneration, she enters more deeply into the supreme mystery of the Incarnation and resembles her Spouse more and more” (LG 65).
Marian titles
The Marian titles that are studied in Mariology indicate an aspect of the Mystery of Christ, as well as of the ecclesial reality. They are, therefore, titles or gifts of God, which express the salvific reality of Christ, the only Savior and Redeemer, the Church “universal sacrament of salvation” (LG 48). In the Virgin Mary, through the work of the Holy Spirit, the divine filiation of Christ is revealed to us; in Mary Mother, the humanity of the Savior is revealed to us. In the holiness of Mary (without original or personal sin) and in her Assumption, the total victory of Christ over sin and death is revealed to us. Mary’s cooperation (with her “yes” and her association with “woman”) indicates God’s way of acting saves man through man.
This profound Marian reality manifests the unfathomable richness of the Mystery of Christ (perfect God, perfect man and only universal Savior), and is also an expression of the ecclesial reality “The Church in the Blessed Virgin has already reached perfection” (LG 65). Mary “is the image and principle of the Church that will have its fulfillment in the future life” (LG 68). The divine and virginal motherhood of Mary, under the action of the Holy Spirit and in all its integrity, allows us to understand the mystery of Christ (God, man, Savior) that is prolonged in the Church to become a salvific reality in every heart, in every culture. and “in all the families of the peoples” (LG 69).
The kerygmatic and missionary dimension of Mariology
The scientific study of Marian themes will lead to deepening their “kerygmatic” derivation (from the first proclamation of the Mystery of Christ) and their soteriological-salvific dimension (the role of Mary in salvation history). Due to these dimensions, Mariology can recover its evangelizing force. Each Marian title (which we present on its respective site), indicates some aspect of the universal salvation achieved by Christ, starting with Mary as “the great sign” (Rev 12,1) and figure of the entire humanity saved by the Lord.
If the “kerygma”, as the “first proclamation”, presents Christ the Son of God, the Word made our brother, Redeemer, dead and risen, the Marian themes should be approached from this “kerygmatic” perspective, as expressions of the Paschal mystery of Christ that it must be announced and communicated to all humanity, inserting it in all cultures.
References Assumption, ecclesiology, Immaculate Conception, kerygma, Mother of God, Mother of the Church, Mary in the mission of the Church, Mediatrix, Virgin Mary…
Document reading LG 52-69; CEC 466-564, 484-511; 963-975, 2617-2622, 2673-2682.
Bibliography D. BERTETTO, Maria la Serva del Signore, Mariologia (Napoli, Dehoniane, 1988); A.Mª CALERO, Mary in the mystery of Christ and the Church (Madrid, Edit. CCS, 1990); JM CARDA, The mystery of Mary (Madrid, Soc. Educ. Athens, 1986); S. DE FIORES, Maria Madre di Gesù (Rome 1992); A. DE PEDRO, Mother of God, Mother of men, image of the Church (Madrid, Paulinas, 1989); J. ESQUERDA BIFET, Maria in the mission of the Church (Barcelona, Faculty of Theology, 1981); Idem, the great sign, Mary in the mission of the Church (Barcelona, Balmes, 1983); JCR GARCIA PAREDES, Mariology (BAC, Madrid, 1995); CI GONZALEZ, María, Evangelized and Evangelizing (Bogotá, CELAM, 1988); A. MARTINEZ SIERRA, Mary, Mother of the Lord (Madrid, Inst. Teol. Distancia, 1986); L. MELOTTI, Maria la Madre dei viventi, Compendium of Mariology (Leumann, LDC, 1986); MJ NICOLAS, Theotokos, the mystery of Mary (Barcelona, Herder, 1967); C. WELL, Mary in the work of salvation (BAC, Madrid, 1974); A. SERRA, Maria according to the gospel (Salamanca, Follow me, 1988); S. VERGES, Mary in the mystery of Christ (Salamanca, Follow me 1972).
(ESQUERDA BIFET, Juan, Dictionary of Evangelization, BAC, Madrid, 1998)
Source: Dictionary of Evangelization
I. Statement of the issue
Here it will be understood by m., not the scientific reflection on Mary, her figure and her mission in the history of salvation, nor the orderly presentation of the results, but the reflection on this primary reflection.
It is not, therefore, primarily a question of the Mariological content, but of the ordering of this content in the totality of theology. To tell the truth, it is not possible to completely separate both elements, since the elucidation of the second is conditioned by the first. The solution of this scientific task stands out today with more determined contours. Until now, theologians have generally been content to elaborate and systematize the Mariological content; but in this way they have created the presupposition to value the Mariological treatises in the whole of theology. The problem covers three partial issues.
a) Is it convenient to develop a Mariological treatise of its own, in analogy with other treatises of dogmatic theology (treatise on grace, eschatology, Christology, etc.? No one can doubt the specific role of Mary in the history of salvation. It is worth asking, however, if the perspectives or points of view that are implied there can be included in the traditional treatises, almost generally accepted since the Sentences of Pedro Lombardo, or if they have to be elaborated in a peculiar Mariological exposition independent of the other treatises.
The first method was followed by the fathers and, as a whole, also by the medieval theologians, provided that it did not deal with particular Mariological questions (Mary’s virginity, assumption into heaven, sinless conception), whether in independent writings (sermons, speeches, homilies, monographs), or within other works (biblical commentaries). This method has the advantage that the isolation of the m. with respect to the rest of theology and therefore the distinction between theology and m. cannot arise; and it also has the advantage that what is said in the other treatises (for example, in that of grace or eschatology) can be illustrated by the superior form of being realized in Mary, since in each case it is possible to show the common between Mary and the other redeemed and at the same time the peculiarity of the redemption granted to her. The drawback is that Mary does not appear like this in the totality of her figure and mission, and that the particular statements about her do not show her internal connection.
The second method is free from these drawbacks, but has to give up the advantages of the first and easily falls into the whirlpool of an m. isolated, which forgets the theological limits that have been imposed on it and displaces the accents within the total organism of theology. If a decision is made in favor of the second method, the inherent dangers could be avoided by referring to Mary in certain places in the particular treatises and exposing in the Mariological treatise the position of Mary in the salvific acts ordered to all men (redemption, justification, consummation). In this way a reciprocal integration of treaties can be achieved and both excess and defect in the evaluation of the Mariological treatise can be prevented.
b) The second partial problem is the place that should be assigned to the Mariological treatise within the whole of theology. Inasmuch as the figure and activity of Mary depend entirely on Christ, said treatise can take Christology as a point of connection. Insofar as Mary is the spiritual mother of believers, as well as the most eminent member of the Church and even the beginning and figure of it (cf. Ap 12), the doctrine about her can go before or after edesiology. To the extent that medieval theology made Mariological statements at certain places in systematic theology, they were inserted into Christology (cf. e.g., Thomas AQUINAS, ST III q. 27-30, and the Commentaries on the Sentences, where Mariological issues are dealt with in book III). Thus, after exposing the hypostatic union and its consequences in the economy of salvation, Thomas proposes to deal with the life and work of Jesus. The Mariological statements are intended to clarify a part of the life of Jesus, namely, his entry into the world. The doctrine about his conception and birth, as well as about his work, requires a certain knowledge of the woman in whose womb the conception took place, of the peculiarity of her spiritual and religious figure, and of the consequences that her function implied for Christ. and for herself.
c) The third partial problem deals with the fundamental principle of m. For greater accuracy, a distinction should be made here between the fundamental reality of the salvific action in Mary and through Mary, on the one hand, and the fundamental point of view of a Mariological treatise, on the other hand. Although the fundamental reality of Mary must be reflected in the fundamental idea of the Mariological treatise, nevertheless this idea does not have to be properly identical with that reality. For, by reason of Mary’s position in the total plan of salvation, the fundamental idea can be superior to the fundamental reality and constitute its ideal presupposition.
II. Response
a) The fact that in general…