Our Lord And Our Lady

They warned Our Lady for the Child
  That was Our blessed Lord,
And She took Him into the desert wild,
  Over the camel's ford.
And a long song She sang to Him
  And a short story told:
And She wrapped Him in a woollen cloak
  To keep Him from the cold.
But when Our Lord was grown a man
  The Rich they dragged Him down,
And they crucified Him in Golgotha,
  Out and beyond the Town.
They crucified Him on Calvary,
  Upon an April day;
And because He had been her little Son
  She followed Him all the way.
Our Lady stood beside the Cross,
  A little space apart,
And when She heard Our Lord cry out
  A sword went through Her Heart.

-Hilaire Belloc

The Most Holy Name Of Mary

Today is the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary. It commemorates the victory of the Christian forces led by John Sobieski at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, and thus preventing the Muslims from conquering all of Europe. 

Our Lady Exterminatrix of Heresies, Ora Pro Nobis!

Mary Guides Us To Truth

“Fides et ratio…desires to recover the face of truth. In Christ, ‘the Eternal enters time, the Whole lies hidden in the part, God takes on a human face” (§12). Thus while the eternal face of Christ is the answer, Mary’s is our guide. The human search for meaning does have a face, a human face. It is not the face of a monk or a scholar, it is not even the face of an angelic doctor; it is the face of a mother, the Virgin of Nazareth. Mary beckons all humans to know the truth of things: to open themselves up to what is, to give themselves to the direction of the Divine, and to rest in the loving knowledge of God. In this, Mary becomes, for all who yearn to know, the perfect model of created wisdom.”

-David Vincent Meconi, S.J., “Philosophari in Maria: Fides et ratio And Mary As The Model Of Created Wisdom” in The Two Wings of Catholic Thought: Essays On Fides et ratio.

My Greatest Love: A Jew

St. Josemaria Escriva participates in interreligious dialogue.

Genesis 3:15 And The Annunciation In The Fathers Of The Church

The following is from my article, The Church Fathers' Marian Interpretation of the Old Testament:

In his Quaestiones in Genesim, that great Spanish composer of Marian literature, St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) gives a marvelous exegesis of Genesis 3:15:

The seed of the devil is a perverse suggestion; the seed of the woman is the fruit of a good work, by which the perverse suggestion of the devil is resisted. She will tread upon his head, because from the beginning she expels his perverse suggestions from her mind. He will strike at her heel, because until the end he will try to deceive her mind, which he was unable to deceive with his first suggestion. Some have understood the following expression in reference to the Virgin, from whom the Lord was born: "I will put enmity between you and the woman," since it was promised that the Savior was going to be born from her, in order to defeat the enemy and to destroy death, of which the enemy was the author. For they also understand the following as a reference to the fruit of Mary’s womb; namely, Christ: "She will tread upon your head, and you will strike at her heel." This means: You will attack him to kill him, but he (Christ), after you have been defeated, will rise again and tread upon your head which is death (19).

We see here in this exegesis the intimate union between the woman and her seed. Mary’s fiat at the Annunciation leads to the birth of the Savior, the one who "will rise again and tread upon … death." Mary’s fiat wasn’t just a "yes" to the Annunciation, but rather also a "yes" to the death of her Son on the Cross, where Mary would also be crucified spiritually and a sword would pierce her heart as well. The Church Fathers, in seeing Mary as the "woman" of Genesis 3:15, unearth the seed for the doctrine of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces. Co-redemptrix because she actively participates in the crushing of Satan’s head, and Mediatrix of All Graces because she mediated Christ into the world, who is the source of all grace. Nobody sums this doctrine up in relation to Genesis 3:15 better than that great master of Scripture, St. Jerome when he states: "Death came through Eve; life through Mary" (20).

Notes:

(19) Quaestiones in Genesim 5, 5-7, quoted in Luigi Gambero. Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 378.

(20) Epistle 22, 21, trans. Charles Christopher Mierow, in Ancient Christian Writers, No. 33 (New York, NY: Newman Press, 1963), 154.

Mary, Co-Redemptrix

I normally don't do this, but I've been having a discussion with someone named Irenaeus over at Taylor Marshall's blog, who denies that the title of Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" is a doctrine of the Faith, and I typed up a long response on a word document and I was unable to cut and paste it into the comment box. So, not knowing what else to do (besides re-typing it all from scratch in the comment box), I have decided to post it here on my blog and put the link in the comments. I figure that this will allow me to answer him and at the same time it will serve to teach others about this title of Mary as well as refute others who would deny it. So without further ado, here is my response:

Irenaeus,

First off, I don’t appreciate your implying that I am some amateur hack who, as a convert, does not know the faith. I am aware that not all doctrines are dogmas and that all dogmas are doctrines. The CDF commentary was talking about both dogmas and doctrines. Go back and read it again.

Second, I am very familiar with Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.” Not only is it in “practically every Roman Catholic seminary,” but it is also in my own personal library. Thank you for reminding me of it!

On pg. 9-10, in discussion of the Theological Grades of Certainty, it expressly proves you wrong. Nowhere does it say that not all doctrines require the assent of faith, rather it says:

“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable…Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.”

Now, owning Ott’s book (which is subtitled: “A One-Volume Encyclopedia of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definitions by Popes and Councils), I decided to look in it for “Co-redemptrix.” And since it is indeed a doctrine of the Church, on page 211 (which is Chapter 3 of the section entitled, “The Mother of the Redeemer”) I find the heading “Mary’s Co-operation in the Work of Redemption.” On the next pages (212-213) I find what is quoted below:

“Mary’s co-operation in the Redemption:

The title Corredemptrix=Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (cf. D 1978a), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the Sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Tim 2.5). As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of herself merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him. As Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical ‘Mystici Corporis’ (1943), she ‘offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam’ (D 2291). As ‘The New Eve’ she is, as the same Pope declares, in the Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ (1950) ‘the sublime associate of our Redeemer’ (alma Redemptoris nostri social (cf. Gen 3.12). Cf. D. 3031: generoso Divini Redemptoris social.

Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action. Thus Mary is not entitled to the title ‘Priest’ (sacerdos). Indeed this is expressly laid down by the Holy Office (1916, 1927). Christ, as the Church teaches, ‘conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)’ (D 711); in the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary. The words of Luke I, 38: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord,’ imply Mary’s mediate, remote co-operation in the Redemption. St. Ambrose expressly teaches: ‘Christ’s Passion did not require any support’ (De inst. Virg. 7). In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.

The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical ‘Ad diem illum’ (1904): (Beata Virgo) de congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de condign promeruit (D 1978a) (The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condign) is, as the present tense ‘promeret’ shows, not intended to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.”

Now, I took the liberty of looking up the Denzinger quote (D 1978a) from his “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” which Ott references in the beginning of the above quote. There you will find this:

“In the decree of the S.C. of the Holy Office (section on Indulgences), “Sunt quos amor,” June 26, 1913 (AAS 5 [1913] 364), he [Pius XI] praises the custom of adding to the name of Jesus the name of “His Mother, our coredemptor, the blessed Mary”; cf. also the prayer enriched by the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary is called “coredemptress of the human race” (Jan. 22, 1914; AAS 6 [1914] 108).”

Also, you said that “Co-redemptrix” is not taught in Scripture, the Fathers, or the Magisterium. Just because the title is not explicitly named, does not mean it is not taught. The doctrine of Mary’s coredemption is actually quite Biblical, and can definitely be found in the Fathers and the Magisterium (as evidenced by Taylor’s quote from Irenaeus in this post).

So you see, the title of “Co-redemptrix” applied to Mary is not only fitting, it is a doctrine of the Church. Do you still wish to deny this doctrine in the face of all this evidence?

Ad Jesum per Mariam,

Danny