Introduction

          In this paper I will focus first upon Mary as the Temple of the Lord and as the bridge between the uncreated nature of divinity and the created nature of humanity, [1] and how this role of mediation is manifested in the incarnation of the eternal Logos.  Mary, as the one “. . . who [has] borne God,” [2] becomes the visible sign of the newness of communion that is established between heaven and earth in the Christ event.  Thus, she is the focal point from which the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity takes His body and enters into the world of the diastemic (dimensional) and kinetic (moving) existence of mankind.  Now, once I have completed the first section of this paper I will then proceed to present a proper synthesis of the materials presented in class:  first by focusing upon Mary’s intimate relationship with Christ in the incarnation, and her cooperative role in the redemption of mankind as it is expressed in the four Marian dogmas (i.e., the Divine Maternity, Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and the Dormition) that form the foundation of her maternal mediation.  Once I have completed that task I will move on to explain how she cooperates with Christ in the redemption of the human race as Coredemptrix, and how as Queen of heaven she fulfills her roles as Advocate and Mediatrix of all graces, by interceding for all men with God, and by distributing the graces of Calvary to the entire human family.

Mary is the True Temple of the Lord, and the Focal Point for Reestablishing Communion between God and Man

          Through her acceptance of the word of the angel Gabriel at the annunciation, Mary became the Theotokos (i.e., the Mother of God), and by this mystery, which follows her fiat, she became the true Temple of the Lord.  Thus, Mary is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sign of communion between God and man, which was first signified by the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, and later by the Solomonic Temple built in Jerusalem during the reign of King Solomon.  Both of these Old Testament temples were mere shadows of Mary, who is the true Temple of the Lord, a temple that was not made by human hands, but which was fashioned by God Himself.  This true Temple was not constructed out of dead stone or other inanimate materials as the Old Testament shadows were, but is instead “the living Temple of the holy glory of Christ our God, Mary, the pure and blessed one.” [3] 

          Dr. Scot Douglass beautifully highlights the truth about the Old Testament Temple as the sign of communication and mediation between God and man in his dissertation on the Cappadocian Fathers.  In his book he shows how the Old Testament worship space, as the meeting place between God and man, prefigured the ultimate expression of this same reality, which was only made manifest in the New Testament through the incarnation of the eternal Logos.  Dr. Douglass first focuses upon what he calls the ontological gap that exists between the uncreated Creator and all that He has made, and how – for the Cappadocian Fathers – this gap can only be overcome by God Himself, who condescends to enter into created reality in order to draw it up into His own life and glory.

          The gulf between created and uncreated is experienced in a unidirectional manner, that is, it is only man who is unable to cross the gap between himself and God, but this human weakness does not restrict in any way God’s ability to communicate Himself to man through a kenotic act of self-abasement. [4]  In other words, that which is created cannot enter into that which is uncreated; but nevertheless, the uncreated can enter into the dimensional realm of limited being.  Clearly, man as a limited creature is constrained by his created nature, in that he cannot escape the limitations of his existence naturally, and so he is by definition a diastemic and kinetic being.  Now, as Dr. Douglass explains, the first of these terms “refers to the gap or interval, the espacement, both temporal and spatial, that is the fabric within which all created being exists,” while the second term refers to created being’s state of “constant movement . . . [i.e., to the] constitutional instability of a universe founded in alteration.” [5] 

          Thus, for the Cappadocian Fathers, and for the Eastern Fathers in general, man is a being with a beginning (i.e., come out of non-being into being) and an end (i.e., divine existence), and this means that he is a dimensional creature, and his dimensionality involves constant movement (kinesis).  In fact, if a man were to stop moving, he would cease to exist; while God, on the other hand, “. . . transcends even the hint of being diastemic,” and so there is an “. . . absence of any diastema . . . in God and within God, that is, there is no interval between the distinct persons of the Godhead.” [6]  Thus, God is not a dimensional being, while man is a diastemic (i.e., dimensional) being, and it is this constitutional difference that distinguishes created from uncreated existence, and which also signifies the ontological gap between divinity and humanity.  Moreover, this ontological divide can only be transcended, as was stated above, through the divine activity and freedom in which God condescends to reveal Himself within the diastemic order, while in His own essential being He remains adiastemic. [7]

          Bearing these distinctions in mind, it is in the Tent of Meeting and the Temple of Solomon that God condescends to become present in the dimensional world of created existence, and He does this in order to establish a life-giving communion with His chosen people.  These Old Testament theophanies are called "adiastemic incursions" by Dr. Douglass, but, unlike the incarnation, these intrusions are only temporary manifestations of the divine presence to man.  Now, it is only when man’s diastemic (i.e., dimensional) and kinetic (i.e., constantly moving) nature is understood, that it becomes possible to comprehend the true meaning of these original theophanies in the Jewish Temple, for they were in some sense eruptions of the uncreated into the created, and they signify, in a dark and murky way, what was only to be fulfilled in the New Testament.  But before describing the New Testament revelation of Mary as the true and immaculate Temple of God, it is important to first briefly set out the theophanic manifestations of God in the Old Testament period.

          After the events of the Exodus from Egypt, God gave Moses instructions on how to build the Tent of Meeting, and this Tabernacle was quite naturally built out of materials from the diastemic realm of existence in which man lives, and yet this dimensionally limited structure was destined to hold, at least in a temporary sense, the uncontainable divinity itself. [8]  The Tent of Meeting is analogous to a bubble of air, which is taken from the air that is above a body of water, and is placed under the water.  The surface tension of the bubble is seen as the convergence of these two different realms of existence.  In this analogy the air signifies the adiastemic incursion, while the water stands for the diastema (i.e., the created world), and like the air and water in this analogy, the divine glory became present in the bubble of the diastema (i.e., the Temple), and in the process a true convergence of the uncreated and the created occurred.  Thus, the Tabernacle itself acts as a kind of surface tension, that is, it acts as the focal point of communion between the two realms of existence, the diastemic and the adiastemic. [9]

          Now, it is also important to note (especially in regard to the incarnation) that as long as the glory of the Lord was present in the Temple, it was impossible for anything else to penetrate into the metadiastemic space that contained the divine presence, because anyone who would even try to do enter into the Temple while it was filled with the Lord’s glory would cease to exist.  This is so because man is a kinetic being, and as such he cannot experience the absolute stability which is God’s essential being, and that is why the Old Testament texts constantly refer to the fact that no man can see God and live. [10]  But in spite of these limitations, the Temple does give access in some way to the presence of God, because the Temple acts as an enclosed space that contains the uncontainable God within it.  Now, as I said before, while God is present in the Temple it is not possible for anything else to enter into it, and that is why Moses was unable to enter into the Tent while the Lord’s glory was shining within it, because the Lord God has “. . . simultaneously filled this space and made it inaccessible.” [11]

          Finally, before moving on to the New Testament experience of the mediation provided by the true Temple of God (i.e., Mary as Theotokos), there are two things that need to be mentioned:  first, the fact that once a space has become sacred by the presence of the glory of God, it can no longer be used for common purposes, and this is true because the sacred space has been in some sense transformed by its contact with the uncreated being of God; and second, it is not possible for man to make God inhabit the sacred space that he (man) has constructed, and so he is limited to prayers of supplication where he begs the all powerful God to bestow the gift of His presence upon His people. [12]  Thus, God’s presence is always a gracious gift, and this is true in the case of both Testaments.  But just as God’s presence cannot be controlled by man; so too, God’s presence cannot occur in a way that destroys human free will, and that is why Mary’s fiat, that is, her acceptance of the invitation to become the Mother of God (Theotokos) is so important.  Salvation does not negate true human (i.e., created) freedom; rather, it perfects and fulfills it, and this is exemplified in Mary’s answer to the angel Gabriel’s message of good news, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” [13]

          Mary’s positive response to the angel Gabriel inaugurates the most significant metadiastemic incursion recorded in Sacred Scripture, because it involves the ultimate revelation of God through the actual assumption of human nature itself by the second hypostasis (person) of the Holy Trinity.  Now, in the incarnation God does not occupy a sacred space made by human hands; instead, He occupies a Temple of His own making, an Ark of the Covenant that is simultaneously His own mother.  Mary is the Temple of the Lord and the Lord Himself takes up His abode within her womb as High Priest of the New and everlasting Covenant. [14]  This is possible because, Mary, as the true Temple of God, is immaculate from the first moment of her existence, and God Himself accomplished this great feat when He bestowed a real participation in His own uncreated life and glory on her at the moment of her conception.  God did this in order to prepare a vessel for His own habitation.  Mary is the Holy of Holies into which the true High Priest – the eternal Logos incarnate – entered, in order to prepare a sacrificce that would be acceptable to almighty God. 

          Therefore, Mary is the true Temple that was only foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and as such she is the true meeting place of God and man, of the uncreated and the created.  Mary, as Theotokos, is empowered to participate fully in the work of the redemption accomplished by her divine Son, and this ability on her part, which is a gift of God, does not detract from the honor and glory of Christ; rather, it adds to His glory.  It is precisely through her divine maternity, and the relationship that it establishes with her Son, that Mary is given to all mankind as spiritual mother and Mediatrix of all graces.

Mary’s Relationship to Christ is the Foundation for her Maternal Mediation

          In this part of the paper I will look at Mary’s relationship to Christ and highlight how her role as Theotokos (i.e., Godbearer) forms the foundation of her maternal mediation, for it is her divine maternity [15] that establishes her spiritual motherhood over both the Church and over all of mankind. 

          In reference to the title Mother of God (i.e., Theotokos) it is necessary to first clarify the meaning of the term by pointing out that “. . . Mary did not supply Christ with either His divine nature or His divine person,” because “both [of these] existed from all eternity.” [16]  In other words, Mary supplied Christ only with His humanity, but nevertheless, a mother does not simply gives birth to a human nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person.  So Mary, although she is not the source of the existence of the person (hypostasis) of the Logos made man, is the mother of the divine person of the Logos through the communication of properties (communicatio idiomatum). [17] 

          Now, in order to properly understand the mystery of the incarnation it is vital to have a solid grasp on the dogma of the hypostatic union, because it is the hypostatic union that allows one to predicate the properties of either of Christ’s two natures to the one acting subject, that is, to Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos made man, who is both the Son of God and Son of Mary in one person.  St. John Damascene explained the mystery of the incarnation in this way:

          For the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth conceived of

          the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature which, as

          soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so that

          these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our nature,

          the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by the

          Word. And thus it is that the holy Virgin is thought of and spoken of as

          the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also

          because of the deification of man's nature, the miracles of conception and

          of existence being wrought together, to wit, the conception the Word, and

          the existence of the flesh in the Word Himself.  For the very Mother of

          God in some marvelous manner was the means of fashioning the Framer

          of all things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, Who

          deified the nature that He assumed, while the union preserved those things

          that were united just as they were united, that is to say, not only the divine

          nature of Christ but also His human nature, not only that which is above us

          but that which is of us.  For He was not first made like us and only later

          became higher than us, but ever from His first coming into being He existed

          with the double nature, because He existed in the Word Himself from the

          beginning of the conception. Wherefore He is human in His own nature, but

          also, in some marvelous manner, of God and divine. [18]

From this quotation it is clear that Mary is the Theotokos in at least two ways:  first, by the conception in her womb of the eternal Logos and the resulting union of the two natures in the one person (hypostasis) of Christ that comes from that divine action; and second, because the eternal Logos divinized the humanity He assumed through Mary’s fiat from the first moment of His conception within her womb.  In this second sense Mary’s divine maternity includes all of those who will become sons of God in the only begotten Son of God through the sacrament of baptism, because Mary is a true cause, in a subordinate manner, of the divinization of all mankind through her role as the immaculate Theotokos.

          This idea leads in to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which is intimately connected to Mary’s role as Theotokos and Temple of the Living God, because it was fitting [19] that she, who was destined to contain the uncontainable divinity, should be pure and holy, and free from all “stain” of sin.  Now, before dealing with the scriptural basis for this dogma it is important to clarify what the dogma does not involve, because the dogma as it was formulated in the Church’s tradition – and as it was expressed by Pope Pius IX – does not involve the exemption of Mary from the necessity of being redeemed; rather, it concerns the special type of redemption that Mary, as Theotokos, received, that is, a “preservative redemption.”  In other words, in the case of all other men redemption involves the liberation from death and sin through the application of the sacramental grace of baptism, but in Mary’s case a special grace was given to her that exempted her, from the first moment of her conception in the womb of St. Anne, from all “stain” of sin and impurity. [20]  Reformulated positively this dogma affirms that Mary, from the first moment of her existence, was filled with divine grace (i.e., divine energy), and consequently, no impurity could ever be found within her.

          This dogma of the faith is clearly attested to in Sacred Scripture, in what is called the “Protoevangelium” from the book of Genesis, and is confirmed by the angel Gabriel in his greeting to the Holy Theotokos at the annunciation, which is recounted in the Gospel of Luke.  In the Genesis account of the fall of man, God reveals the first elements in His plan of redemption, for it is there that He speaks of the coming of the future Messiah and of the woman who will be His mother.  The Lord said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” [21]  This text affirms the complete enmity [22] that exists between the Serpent and his seed and the woman and her seed.  In other words, the woman (i.e., Mary, the mother of the Messiah) will not be under the dominion of Satan, and as a consequence no sin can touch her being.  She is the pure virgin from whom the eternal Logos will take His humanity – in order to become the true and final sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. 

          The other scriptural text that directly touches upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is the angelic salutation found in the Gospel of Luke, for it is in that Gospel account that the angel Gabriel describes Mary as “full of grace.” [23]  Gabriel in addressing Mary as “full of grace” speaks about a reality within her person that is pre-existing, and this is clear from the Greek word (kekaritomene) used to refer to Mary’s condition of sanctity.  As Fr. Juniper Carol explained in his book on our Lady, “. . . the original Greek text, as written by St. Luke, does not use the adjective ‘full,’ but rather the perfect participle of the verb ‘to endow with grace.’  Hence, a more accurate translation of the Greek expression (kekaritomene) would be ‘. . . thou who hast been graced.’” [24] 

          Now, as Fr. Carol goes on to say, this translation does not weaken the force of the Catholic understanding of the text; instead, it strengthens it, because the Greek text indicates that Mary has received grace in an exemplary fashion, that is, that she received it as an action that has already been completed. [25]  Thus, the texts of Genesis and Luke taken together clearly affirm that the mother of the Redeemer will be in complete opposition to sin and evil; and consequently, that she will not be under the dominion of the “father of lies.”  That being said, Mary is the all-pure and immaculate vessel, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Temple in which dwells the most high God. [26]  All of these titles for the Holy Theotokos reflect her various roles, which interpenetrate each other manifesting the plentitude of divine grace (energy) operative in her life.

          Now these titles are clearly reflected in the liturgical life of the Church, for one of the prayers for the Presentation of the Holy Theotokos in the Temple states that, “Mary, the temple who contained the Godhead, the Mother of God, the Virgin most holy, is placed today within the Temple of God.”  In other words, the true temple not made by human hands, the all holy Virgin Theotokos, has been brought into the temple made by man, and this signifies the fact that God is coming to live among His people in order to restore what had been disfigured by sin and death.  This restoration is effected in Mary through a preservative redemption, while the rest of mankind receives a liberative redemption.  The liturgy of the Roman Rite also, since the 15th century, has recognized Mary’s supreme sanctity through the approval of the Mass and office of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Sixtus IV in 1477. [27]

          This requisite holiness of the Virgin Theotokos leads into the next Marian dogma, that is, to her perpetual virginity.  Now, because Mary is the Temple of the Lord, her purity requires that she be wholly dedicated to the worship of God, and this means that she – as the spouse of the Holy Spirit – has given over her entire being to an exclusive devotion to the Holy Trinity.  Of course, by exclusive I do not mean that Mary did not love St. Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, but that in her communion of life with him, she remained completely continent, having dedicated her soul and body to God.

          The foundation for the dogma of Mary’s virginity both before and during her conception is to be found in the book of Isaiah the prophet, because, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he predicts that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign.  Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” [28]  This text clearly affirms that Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, will conceive as a virgin and give birth as a virgin, but it does not necessarily require that she remain a virgin throughout her life.  Support for Mary’s perpetual virginity is given by her response to the angel Gabriel at the time of the annunciation, for as she said to the angel, “How will this be since I know not man?”  This statement of our Lady, which is worded in the form of a question, was seen by many of the Church Fathers as a reference to “. . . a vow of perpetual virginity that she had already made and in which she had offered herself as a complete gift to God.” [29]  Since Mary was already espoused to St. Joseph at the time of the annunciation, her question does seem to imply, as the Fathers held, that she intended to live in perfect continence.

          Moreover, as I indicated earlier in this paper, that which has contained the all holy God cannot be violated by anything that stands outside of His glory and presence.  Therefore, like the Temple of old in which the shekinah glory resided, and which no man could enter while God Himself was present within it (not even the priests); [30] so too, nothing can, or ever will, violate the integrity of Mary’s person, for she is the true temple of which the Tabernacle was only a shadow. [31]  This is so because she carried God physically within herself – within her womb for nine months – and yet even after the birth of the Lord, God remained present within her in an exemplary fashion, because she not only conceived the eternal Word within her womb at the time of the annunciation, but she conceived the Word of God in her heart as well, and so she is the icon of the perfect disciple of Christ.  In other words, one must not think that after giving birth to Christ, that she was somehow devoid of the presence of God within her being from that moment on, because as the all immaculate Virgin Theotokos she continued to experience the presence of God through the gift of grace during her entire life, from her conception until her Dormition.  Thus, it is repugnant to pious sensibilities to hold that Mary, the all pure vessel of the Word of God could freely allow the violation of her virginal integrity. [32]

          Moving from our Lady’s perpetual virginity, I will now touch upon the dogma of the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos, because it is this dogma that serves as a transition between the other Marian dogmas, which primarily concern Mary’s relationship with Christ, and those elements of Marian doctrine that connect her to all of mankind, and in particular to the Church.  In the feast of the Dormition our Lady is held to have become “. . . the throne of the Most High,” because she has “gone from earth to heaven, [her] glory, shining forth with the radiance of divine grace, surpasses every other splendor.” [33]  The dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven is connected to her sacred position as throne of God, tabernacle of the Word, and Queen of Heaven.  Mary’s queenship is founded upon the connection she has with her divine Son, because “As Mother of Christ the King she intercedes for the members of the Kingdom of God,” and of course “This ‘Queen Mother’ guides and rules the members of her Son’s kingdom in complete subordination and submission to Christ the King in the law and order of sanctifying grace.” [34]  It is important to remember that Mary must never be seen as a competitor with her Son, because true devotion to Mary always leads a man to a deeper commitment to his baptismal promises, and to a greater participation in the divine life, which is found only in Christ Jesus as its source.

          Mary’s assumption into Heaven is a consequence of her role as Theotokos and is connected as well to her Immaculate Conception, [35] while it also signifies and makes clear the fact that her role in the work of mankind’s redemption continues, because she did not cease to intercede for humanity when she passed from her temporal existence into the glory of eternal life in Christ.  The Immaculate Conception manifests and reveals Mary’s triumph over sin, while her Assumption signifies her triumph over death and corruption, and clearly these two mysteries compliment each other, because she who was without sin should not experience the corruption of her body. [36]  Most importantly it is her Assumption – body and soul – into heaven that highlights her roles as Advocate and Mediatrix, but these two roles are dependent upon another office of our Lady, that is, her role as Coredemptrix, and it is that role that will be the focus of the final part of this paper.

Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood and her Connection to Mankind as Coredemptrix, Advocate, and Mediatrix of All Grace

          Having established Mary’s connection with Christ and her supreme holiness as Mother of God, it is now possible to move on to Mary’s connection to humanity in general.  Mary, through the incarnation, is the focal point for the entrance of deifying grace into the world, and as such she cooperates in a unique way with her divine Son – albeit in a subordinate sense – in the objective redemption of the human race.  As Cordemptrix [37] Mary assists Christ in the acquisition of grace, [38] while as Mediatrix she distributes the graces merited through the work of redemption, and as Advocate she intercedes for mankind with the Father.  Thus, from what has been said it is clear that Mary’s roles as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate are intimately bound together, and that is why they can be thought of as forming a single complexus, a single doctrine.

          Mary’s maternal mediation, according to Fr. Carol, has a twofold function:  “first, reconciling mankind to God through her cooperation in the redemptive work of Christ while she was still on earth; [and] second, making available to each individual soul the graces which were earned by Christ and by herself through the work of Redemption.” [39]  That being said, in this section of the paper I will begin by focusing upon her cooperation in the work of redemption that was accomplished through the Paschal Mystery of her divine Son, because her fiat in consenting to the incarnation involved more than simply agreeing to become the Theotokos, it also involved the acceptance of suffering in order to work with Christ in the restoration of fallen humanity to communion with God. [40]

          The doctrine of coredemption involves two distinct modes of participation; the first is a general participation in redemption, that is, it involves a type participation that is experienced by all the Christian faithful when they offer up their individual sufferings to the Lord.  Now, this type of coredemption is also called subjective redemption, because it concerns the release and the reception into the human heart of the graces of redemption merited by Jesus Christ in the Paschal Mystery.  An example of this type of coredemption can be found in St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians, where he said, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.” [41]  That being said, it is important to note that Mary does not simply participate in subjective redemption; instead, she participates in objective redemption, that is, she participates in the objective acquisition of grace through the sacrificial offering of her divine Son on Golgotha.

          Numerous popes have emphasized the teaching on Coredemption over the past two centuries, and with the dogmatic definitions on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the way is open for a definition on Mary’s role as Coredemptrix.  A definition of this kind would clearly be beneficial to the life of the Church, because it would clarify the nature of this doctrine, and in the process it would enhance true ecumenical dialogue.  Any definition on Coredemption should also include Mary’s other roles, which unite her as spiritual mother to the entire human race.  With that said, I will now briefly touch on Mary’s roles as Mediatrix of all graces and as Advocate.

          Mary’s mediation is connected to her spiritual motherhood, and this spiritual motherhood is itself connected to her physical motherhood in relation to Christ, for when she gives birth to Christ the head, she also mystically gives birth to the body of Christ, that is, to the Church.  In addition Christ Himself gives Mary to the Church and to all mankind from the tree of the Cross. [42]  Now of course these events signify the divine institution of Mary’s role of maternal mediation, but that being granted, it is important that the term mediation be defined, because some individuals and groups see the use of this term as harmful to ecumenism. [43]  The reason for this is that they have failed to grasp the true nature of Mary’s mediation, which is a mediation that is always dependent upon Christ’s mediation.  The error is to think of Mary’s mediation, or even the mediation of Christians in general, as somehow taking away from the glory and honor that is due to Christ the Lord; instead, Mary’s maternal mediation adds to the glory and perfection of Christ’s one mediation. [44]  Besides, Mary cannot act in separation from her divine Son, but only in union with Him, and that is why the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary are seen as intimately bound together. [45]  Mary’s heart worked in complete harmony with Christ’s heart during the nine months in which she carried Him within her womb, and she continued to maintain this intimate communion with Him even after His nativity. [46]

          Mary’s role of mediation, both as Mediatrix and Advocate, is exemplified in the Gospel of John when she intercedes at the wedding feast at Cana in order to inaugurate Christ’s ministry. [47]  As Pope John Paul II has pointed out, Mary, as the Mother of Jesus, “. . . contributes to that beginning of the signs which reveal the messianic power of her Son,” and although it appears as if Jesus refuses His mother’s request “Mary nevertheless turns to the servants and says to them: ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ (Jn. 2:5)  [and] Then Jesus orders the servants to fill the stone jars with water, and the water becomes wine, better than the wine which has previously been served to the wedding guests.” [48]  This intervention within the divine economy on Mary’s part exemplifies her role of mediation in relation to Christ, because she is clearly dependent upon Him, but He, out of deep love for His mother, listens to her voice.  Mary’s command to the servants at the wedding feast signifies the command that she gives to all of Christ’s followers, “Do whatever He tells you.” [49]

Conclusion

          Mary as the Temple of the Lord holds a pre-eminent place within the Christian dispensation, because the eternal Logos took flesh from her and became man through her cooperation (synergy).  Moreover, the special graces given to Mary as the New Eve (i.e., her role as Theotokos, her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and her Dormition), which unite her to her divine Son and which make her the frontier between the uncreated and created natures, [50] are also the foundation for her unity with all mankind.  Mary is the model disciple, for she conceived Christ in her heart even before the annunciation, and moreover she lived her entire life in complete fidelity to the Word of God.  As Mediatrix of all graces she continues to draw all men to her Son, and the glory of Jesus is reflected in His immaculate mother, and that is why I will end my paper with the words that we sing at every Divine Liturgy:

          It is truly proper to glorify you, who have borne God, the ever-blessed and

          immaculate and the Mother of our God.  More honorable than the Cherubim

          and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who, a virgin, gave

          birth to God the Word, you, truly the Mother of God, we magnify. [51]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M.  Fundamentals of Mariology.  (New York:  Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1956).

Roy Deferrari (Editor).  The Sources of Catholic Dogma.  (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1957).

Dr. Scot Douglass.  The Generation of a Diastemic Discourse in the Cappadocian Fathers:  Embracing the Limitations of Language in the Production of Theology.  (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Dissertation Services, 1999). 

Dr. Mark Miravalle.  Introduction to Mary:  The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion.  (Santa Barbara, CA:  Queenship Publishing Company, 1993).

Dr. Mark Miravalle (Editor).  Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today.  (Goleta, CA:  Queenship Publishing Company, 2002).

St. Gregory Palamas.  The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas.  Translated by Christopher Veniamin.  (South Canaan, PA:  Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002).  3 Volumes.

Pope John Paul II.  Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1987).

Archbishop Joseph Raya.  Byzantine Book of Prayer.  (Pittsburgh, PA:  Byzantine Seminary Press, 1995).

Philip Schaff (Editor).  Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.  (Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).  28 Volumes.

Matthias Scheeben.  Mariology.  (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1948).  2 Volumes.

Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.  (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1964).

Journal Article:

John A. McGuckin.  “The Paradox of the Virgin-Theotokos:  Evangelism and Imperial Politics in the Fifth-Century Byzantine World.”  Maria 2.1 (2001):  pages 8-25.

The Maternal Mediation of the Holy Theotokos

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 655:  Mary in the Modern World

Dr. Mark Miravalle

22 November 2005

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1] See St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 37; in his homily on the Dormition of the Theotokos, “Moses beheld the tongs of that great vision of Isaiah when he saw the bush aflame with fire, yet unconsumed. And who does not know that the Virgin Mother is that very bush and those very tongs, she who herself (though an archangel also assisted at the conception) conceived the Divine Fire without being consumed, Him that taketh away the sins of the world, Who through her touched mankind and by that ineffable touch and union cleansed us entirely. Therefore, she only is the frontier between created and uncreated nature, and there is no man that shall come to God except he be truly illumined through her, that Lamp truly radiant with divinity, even as the Prophet says, "God is in the midst of her, she shall not be shaken' (Ps. 45:5).”  In this text St. Gregory is affirming the fact that Mary is the focal point of God’s action in the world; in other words, she is the connecting point between the uncreated and the created, for it is through her that the uncreated Logos assumes a created nature and enters into the diastemic world of man, and this is the apex of God’s theophanic interventions into history. [St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, translated by Christopher Veniamin, (South Canaan, PA:  Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002), 3 Volumes]

[2] Joseph Raya, Archbishop, Byzantine Book of Prayer, (Pittsburgh, PA:  Byzantine Seminary Press, 1995), page 154.

[3] Raya, Byzantine Book of Prayer, pages 452-453.

[4] See Philippians 2:7.

[5] Dr. Scot Douglass, The Generation of a Diastemic Discourse in the Cappadocian Fathers:  Embracing the Limitations of Language in the Production of Theology, (Ann Arbor, MI:  UMI Dissertation Services, 1999), page 73.

[6] Douglass, page 76.

[7] Douglass, page 76-77; as Dr. Douglass explains, the gap between God and the world is not diastemic, for it is only man who experiences reality in a diastemic manner, for God the ontological “gap” is modal, because “God is completely free of any distanciation, [and so] there can be no diastema between Him and creation.  From the creature’s perspective, the gap is necessarily experienced as diastemic and is diastemically determined,” but that is not so for God.

[8] See Douglass, page 151; “The presence of this adiastemic nature [i.e., God] within the diastema must be mediated by diastemic nature.  In such a maneuver, even though the boundary between created and uncreated realms remains intact, there is a reversal of inside/outside, constained/uncontained and finite/infinite.  The ability of diastemic material to surround adiastemic nature creates the conditions for their being a diastemic disclosure of truth.”

[9] See Douglass, page 162; Dr. Douglass explains that “. . . the water constitutes the diastemic medium of creation.  The air within the bubble belongs to the uncreated order of existence – in this case, the divinity of the incarnated Christ.  As a result, there is an affinity of essence between the bubble within the water and the air completely outside the water, they are συγγενές.  The 'circle of air' is an ἐπιφάνεια – a word with a rich biblical and Christological history.”

[10] See Exodus 33:20-23; 1 Kings 19:13; Psalm 97:2 (clouds of thick darkness are around Him); etc.

[11] Douglass, page 152.

[12] See Douglass, page 154; as Dr. Douglass emphasizes, the presence of God within the temple is not to be thought of as a type of magical appearance brought about by man’s request, because “Metadiastemic intrusions are always an act of grace.  Dimensional man can construct the space but he cannot control God’s decision to occupy it.”

[13] Luke 1:38.

[14] See Douglass, pages 157-158; on these pages Dr. Douglass shows how the Johannine account of the incarnation is completely consistent with the Old Testament theophanies in connection with the Tent of Meeting and the Temple.

[15] The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos was solemnly defined by the Councils of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451), although, as John McGuckin explains, the use of the term “Godbearer,” as a pious expression, was already common in Egypt by the end of the 3rd century [See John A. McGuckin, “The Paradox of the Virgin-Theotokos:  Evangelism and Imperial Politics in the Fifth-Century Byzantine World,” Maria 2.1 (2001):  pages 8-25].

[16] Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., Fundamentals of Mariology, (New York:  Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1956), page 39.

[17] The dogma of Mary as Theotokos is founded upon the explicit teaching of various scriptural texts, primarily found in the infancy narratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the prophetic teaching of the book of Isaiah (see Matthew 1:18-25, 2:13, and 2:20; Luke 1:31, 1:35, and 1:43; Isaiah 7:14), because from these texts (and others) it is clear that Jesus Christ is God made man.  That being the case, it follows that His mother must also be the Theotokos, i.e., the virgin mother of the Immanuel (God with us) described by the prophet Isaiah (see Isaiah 7:14).

[18] St. John Damascene, “De Fide Orthodoxa,” Book III, Chapter 12; taken from the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, (Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Second Series, Volume 9, page 56-57.

[19] I use the term “fitting” here, not in order to deny the necessary connection between Mary’s divine motherhood and her purity and freedom from sin, but in order to indicate the appropriateness of the gift of her Immaculate Conception.  As Matthias Scheeben explained, “So long as Mary’s original destiny as Mother of God is conceived only in a general way, it cannot be said that, essentially and unconditionally, it demanded a permanent freedom from all inherited or personal sin previous to the beginning of her motherhood, and that, therefore, it contained a metaphysically cogent proof of this privilege.  On the other hand, the fitness of this privilege is at once seen to be an absolute necessity if, as has been already explained, Mary’s original destiny as Mother of God is conceived positively under the concrete form, the distinguishing mark of her person being the grace of motherhood, viz., a bridal, or spiritual and matrimonial association and union of Mary with God and Christ, accomplished in and with the creation of Mary’s person.”  Matthias Scheeben, Mariology, (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1948), 2 volumes, pages 2:51-52.

[20] In 1854 Blessed Pope Pius IX defined that:  “. . . the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been divinely revealed by God, and on this account must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” Taken from The Sources of Catholic Dogma, (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Company, 1957), translated by Roy J. Deferrari (Editor), page 413.

[21] Genesis 3:15.

[22] See Dr. Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary:  The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, (Santa Barbara, CA:  Queenship Publishing Company, 1993), page 18.  “Enmity means a complete and entire mutual opposition.  Since the seed of the woman is Christ the Redeemer, then the woman must also refer to the Blessed Virgin who, with her Son, has complete enmity against Satan and against sin.”

[23] Luke 1:28.

[24] Carol, page 92.

[25] See Carol, page 92; as Fr. Carol puts it, Mary is “the graced one, par excellence.”

[26] See McGuckin, page 8; Mary was called “Achrantos (immaculate) at Nicaea II in 787.”

[27] Carol, pages 106-107.

[28] Isaiah 7:14.

[29] Miravalle, Introduction to Mary:  The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, page 48.  See also McGuckin, page 8; “Mary is named Aeiparthenos (ever-virgin) at Constantinople II 553.”

[30] See Exodus 40:34-35 and 2nd Chronicles 7:1-2.  See also Douglass, page 154; in his dissertation Dr. Douglass points out that “Metadiastemic intrusions are always an act of grace.  Dimensional man can construct the space but he cannot control God’s decision to occupy it.  This is illustrated in Israel’s history when the glory of the Lord leaves the temple before the Babylonian captivity.”

[31] See Douglass, page 157; as Dr. Douglass explains, “The most significant biblical metadiastemic intrusion is, of course, the incarnation.  The language of the Johannine prologue makes a direct link between the incarnation of Christ and the previously discussed sacral spaces [i.e., the tent of meeting, and the temple of Solomon] found in the Jewish scriptures.  John 1:14 begins, Kai  o logoz sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin (“And the Word became flesh and ‘tented’ amongst us”).  With the verb eskhnwsen, the gospel writer embeds the incarnation within the Biblical tradition of the presence of God on earth constituted by the sacral space of the ‘Holy of Holies’ – a tradition which began with the wilderness skhnh.”

[32] Defarrari, page 39.  Writing to Anysius, the bishop of Thessalonica, in the year 392, Pope St. Siricius said that, “Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness has rightly abhorred it, that from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth.  For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a virgin, if He had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord’s body, that palace of the eternal King.”

[33] Raya, Byzantine Book of Prayer, page 580.

[34] Miravalle, Introduction to Mary:  The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, page 65.

[35] See Psalm 131:8.

[36] See Carol, page 194; Fr. Carol explains the connection between the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption by quoting Pope Pius XII, who said “These two privileges (i.e., the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception) are most closely bound to one another.  Indeed, Christ overcame sin and death by His own death; and the man who, through baptism, is supernaturally regenerated, has conquered sin and death through the same Christ.  However, as a general rule, God does not wish to grant to the just the full effect of their victory over death until the end of time shall have come.  And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and that only on the last day will they be joined, each to his own glorified soul.  Nevertheless, God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general law.  By an entirely unique privilege she completely overcame sin through her Immaculate Conception, and therefore was not subject to that law of remaining in the corruption of the grave; nor did she have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”

[37] The title “co-redemptrix” does not involve positing any kind of equality between Christ and Mary in the objective redemption; rather, “co” is used in order to signify that Mary is working “with” Christ in the activity of redemption, in a subordinate sense.  See Dr. Mark Miravalle (Editor), Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today, (Goleta, CA:  Queenship Publishing Company, 2002), pages 94-98.

[38] See Miravalle, Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today, page 109.  “As used by the Catholic Church, the term co-redemptrix expresses Mary’s active and unique participation in the divine and human activity of redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ.  Again, radically dependent and subordinate to the theandric redemptive action of Jesus Christ, the very perfection of this divine and human redemption provides for, rather than prohibits, various levels of true and active human participation.” [Taken from the article, “Mary Co-Redemptrix:  A Response to Seven Common Objections,” by Dr. Mark Miravalle]

[39] Carol, page 56.

[40] See Miravalle, Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today, page 61.  In May 1983 Pope John Paul II said that, “Redemption was the work of her Son; Mary was associated with it on a subordinate level.  Nevertheless, her participation was real and demanding.  Giving her consent to the angel’s message, Mary agreed to collaborate in the whole work of mankind’s reconciliation with God, just as her Son would accomplish it.” [Taken from the article, “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium,” by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins]  Thus, Mary’s fiat involves more than simply agreeing to become the Theotokos, it also involves her active participation in the sacrifice of her divine Son.  See also Miravalle, Introduction to Mary:  The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, page 72; “Crucified spiritually with her crucified Son (cf. Galatians 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she ‘lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth’ (Lumen Gentium, No. 58) . . . as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of His resurrection.  In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [Taken from, “Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Alborada in Quayaquil,” by John Paul II, reported in the English edition of L’Observatore Roman, March 11, 1985, page 7]

[41] Colossians 1:24.

[42] See John 19:25-27.  The Gospel of St. John recounts Christ’s giving Mary to St. John as his mother, and the simultaneous gift of St. John (who stands for all of Christ’s disciples at that moment) to the Holy Theotokos as her spiritual son.

[43] The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said the following in reference to the mediation of our Lady, “This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until The eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.  By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.” [Lumen Gentium, No. 62]

[44] Miravalle, Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today, page 105.  “The principle is clear:  the more humanity participates in the one mediation of Christ, the more the perfection, power, and glory of the unique and necessary mediation of Jesus Christ is manifested in the world.” [Taken from the article, “Mary Co-Redemptrix:  A Response to Seven Common Objections,” by Dr. Mark Miravalle]

[45] Luke 2:19, 2:35 and 2:51.

[46] As St. John Eudes indicated in his spiritual writings, the hearts of Jesus and Mary are so united that they are best understood not as two hearts but as one, and this is so because there is a complete and total conformity of Mary to Jesus, and thus one can say that they possess, in a mystical sense, a unity of heart.

[47] Mary’s mediation is also evident in the events surrounding the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, see Acts 1:13-2:4.

[48] Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater, (Boston:  Pauline Books and Media, 1987), no. 21.

[49] John 2:5.

[50] See St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 37.

[51] Raya, Byzantine Book of Prayer, page 154.

Copyright © 2005-2025 Steven Todd Kaster