The Battle for Mary’s Honor: Blessed is Her Womb or Blessed Who Hears God’s Words?

The recent release of the Vatican's Doctrinal Note, Mater Populi Fidelis, signed by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, unintentionally sparked a firestorm of controversy, leaving many Catholics reeling and the non-Catholic world puzzled. Many do not understand what caused the uproar from an ecumenical-centered document issued by the Prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Minimalist and Maximalist Views of Mary’s Relationship with Jesus

At the heart of the controversy are the two ways the Blessed Virgin Mary’s relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ is seen. This dynamic is perfectly exemplified in St. Luke’s Gospel when a woman cried out saying, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck." To which Jesus responded, "Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it."

No one can accuse the woman of error. Indeed, the blessing of being the mother of the Messiah was envied by pious Jewish mothers for millennia. Saints and popes have showered Mary with honors and praises for being the “Christ-bearer” (Christofera) and the God-bearer (Theotokos). The confusion comes in how people interpret Our Lord’s response. Some claim this is a rebuke of His mother, while others say Jesus is giving her an even greater compliment. This dichotomy is called by some the minimalist or maximalist viewpoint. Depending on which side a person takes, the two titles of Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-redemptrix, rejected by the Doctrinal Note, will make sense or not. No one in either camp refers to themselves in one way or another. The terms do not represent either side perfectly. Be that as it may, terms do make discussions easier.

Clarity in St. Louis de Montfort and Fr. Cornelius a Lapide

We can find clarity in the writings of the greatest Marian saint, the greatest theologian, and the author of the Great Commentaries on the Scriptures. The first is St. Louis de Montfort, whose body of work on Mariology is undisputed, to whom even the great Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, defers in explaining Mary’s role of “co-adjutrix in the Savior's work of redemption.” The second is St. Thomas Aquinas. And, the third is Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S.J., whose collection of Great Commentaries on the Scriptures compiles all the known commentaries from saints, theologians, and philosophers up to his time into one concordance. Hence, his work is not merely a fruit of his own brilliant mind, but a compendium of the thoughts of saints and elite theologians.

Fr. a Lapide explains Our Lord’s words.

The a priori reason is because to be the mother of God is precisely a charismatic grace and free gift of God, but external, and therefore, not necessarily sanctifying the soul, but to hear and keep God’s word is an internal grace which sanctifies and makes the soul pleasing to God.

Fr. a Lapide concludes, “Christ does not say that His mother is not blessed, as Calvin would have us believe, but only says that they are more blessed who hear the word of God and keep it.” Calvin definitely takes the minimalist side on this.

The Jesuit scholar quotes from St. Augustine, who says;

The near relationship of mother would not have profited Mary, had she not happily conceived Christ in her heart as well as in her womb. Mary, therefore, was more blessed in receiving faith in Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.

St. Augustine takes the maximalist side, upholding Mary’s honor. 

The opposing views, in reality, are non-exclusive and overlap, one from a more naturalistic perspective and the other from a more supernatural, symbolic, sublime, and prophetic perspective. The problem that Marian devotees have with the Doctrinal Note is that it completely ignores the more sublime aspects of Mary’s participation with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Take for example, these words of Saint Augustine, “Him whom the heavens cannot contain, the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our Ruler; she carried Him in whom we are; she gave milk to our Bread,”

Since there are many more writings defending Our Lady’s role of Mediatrix, we will expound in particular on the title of Co-redemptrix. There are two chapters in the Gospels that strongly argue for her unique participation in the redemption of mankind. 

What Is Redemption?

First, it’s necessary to understand what redemption means to grasp Mary’s role in it more easily. Redemption comes from redemptio, the Latin Vulgate rendering of the Hebrew kopher and the Greek lytron, which, in the Old Testament, generally means a ransom-price. A redeemer is the one who pays the ransom. 

The two essential elements from which man needed to be ransomed or redeemed are captivity and debt. 

St. Thomas teaches that man was held captive by the enslavement of sin, subject to the devil’s bondage, and incurred the debt of punishment, of which he is incapable of paying. He says that Christ’s Passion was “a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race.” “It was the price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations.”  

In the Old Testament, God required the sacrifice of animal flesh to satisfy debt. (Summa Theologica, P3, Q49, A1) Instead, Jesus sacrificed His own flesh, which, St. Thomas continues, is the most perfect sacrifice. And, he quotes St. Augustine to reinforce his point. 

What else could be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscences, and coming from a virginal womb? 

So the main element in the act of Redemption is the offering of Christ’s flesh. Now, we can look at two scenes in the Gospel that show how woven Mary is in Jesus’s act of Redemption. 

Zachary’s Prophecy of Redemption

The first passage is the prophecy of Zachary. St. Luke begins his gospel recounting St. Gabriel’s role in the conception of St. John the Baptist and Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary’s Fiat, Mary’s visitation to St. Elizabeth, the Magnificat, and the birth of John. The chapter is full of maximalist expressions like the following in regard to St. John, like “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb,” and, in regard to Jesus, “He shall be great, shall be called the Son of the most High.” 

When he recounts Mary’s visitation, he uses more maximalist language:

And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. (Luke 1:41-44)

Fr. a Lapide pointed out that Calvin interpreted the moving of St. John in the womb as something common to all babies. It’s hard to accept his narrative when St. Luke stated twice that the Holy Ghost was involved. Nothing in the first chapter of Luke can be interpreted as normal, natural, or ordinary. All the maximalist language would have to be redacted to push a minimalist narrative. Every word spoken and every action was either prompted by the Holy Ghost or by the Archangel Gabriel.

Now, we arrive at Zachary’s prophecy at the end of the first chapter, where Mary’s visitation is confounded with the Redeemer’s coming.

And his father Zachary was filled with the Holy Ghost. And he prophesied, saying:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people. Syriac, has visited his people and accomplished their redemption. (Luke 3:67-68)

In the chronology of the four Gospels, this is the first time the word redemption is used. Before Christ could utter a single word, perform a miracle, tell a parable, suffer pain, or shed a drop of blood, the Holy Ghost prompted Zachary to say that man’s redemption has been accomplished, when all Zachary sees as evidence is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Fr. a Lapide continues.

Zachary, therefore, by the spirit of prophecy knew of the incarnation of the Messias in the womb of the virgin, and, therefore, that the redemption of the world was already begun, inasmuch as the Redeemer was conceived, who after a few years would complete the redemption of the world by His death on the cross.

This first chapter of Luke alone should be enough to allay all of the fears expressed in the Doctrinal Note, which limits Christ’s act of redemption to His Passion, and Mary’s participation in it as a mother and witness. St. Luke does not limit Christ’s Redemptive act only to the Passion. His narrative is that Christ’s conception was the first act. 

Permit our own maximalization of this point. Modern science enriches our understanding of this truth. At the time of this scene, Mary would have been about 12 weeks pregnant. Jesus’s heart would have been fully formed by 10 weeks. The 12-week-old fetus would have been the size of a plum, not visible on the mother, but most of his organs would have already been formed and maturing. Literally, when Zachary spoke of the redemption being accomplished, the Divine flesh destined to be sacrificed as the price of redemption was being knit in Mary’s womb, drawing nourishment from Mary’s own body.

This role in the preparation of Jesus’s flesh and blood sets Mary apart from other saints and martyrs who suffered greatly, uniting their merits with Christ's. It is a singular participation that only God can orchestrate. 

The Redeemer of the Redeemer

If that is not enough to convince minimalists of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix, there is another scene in the Gospel that argues the point. It is the presentation of Jesus in the temple. In St. Louis de Montfort’s meditation on the mysteries of the rosary, he calls this the ransom of Jesus. Fr. a Lapide takes 30 pages to explain the verses on this mystery.

Here is a summary. In Jewish law, the firstborn belongs to God and is offered to God as a sacrifice, including the firstborn son. St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary presented their son, Jesus, as a sacrifice. The parents can opt to leave the child to be raised in the temple or redeem him. For poor people, five silver shekels was the prescribed amount. Once the ransom is paid, or, in other words, once the son is redeemed, he is returned to his parents. In other words, the mother of the Redeemer redeemed the Redeemer in this act. 

Minimalists might say Mary’s act was nothing more than paying a parking ticket. 

Maximalists, like Fr. a Lapide, dedicated many pages to explaining its significance and symbolism. St. Louis de Montfort soared in sublime contemplation on its significance. 

He has glorified His Independence and His Majesty, in depending on that sweet Virgin, in His Conception, in His Birth, in His Presentation in the Temple, in His Hidden Life of thirty years, and even in His Death, where she was to be present, in order that He might make with her but one same sacrifice, and be immolated to the Eternal Father by her consent; just as Isaac of old was offered by Abraham’s consent to the Will of God. It is she who has suckled Him, nourished Him, supported Him, brought Him up, and then sacrificed Him for us.

Truly, his writings are a paradigm of Marian maximalism. He evokes Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son on the altar as a parallel to Mary sacrificing her only Son to redeem us. No saint, not even St. Joseph, could have this depth of relationship with our Divine Redeemer.

Complexity for Theologians, Simplicity for Marian Devotees 

This topic is very complex. The author of this article is not a theologian, as are many of you, dear readers. However, we have the grace of baptism, which permits us to understand the Catholic faith in all its complexities, following like sheep the guidance and encouragement of saints, of whom even popes should follow. Popular devotions, like the rosary, have never started from academic theological discussions. However, they are refined and defined properly by them. Devotions frequently begin with a movement in the Vox Populi inspired by the grace of the faith.

The concept of Co-redemptrix can confuse people, requiring repetitive explanation. However, the uses terms that are more confusing and require repeated explanation, such as Theotokos, Divine Maternity, or Virgin Mother. Yet, throughout the Church’s history, it is better to assign terms to complex realities to make them easier to define. Whether or not terms are assigned to Mary's reality as both Virgin and Mother, the reality remains. In fact, they are more difficult to grasp without one.

Those who advocate the validity of the title, Co-redemptrix, accept that Christ is the only redeemer since He paid the ransom for mankind’s sins with His Passion and Death. However, they argue that Mary’s role in Jesus’ act of paying the ransom is woven inextricably, making it impossible to separate them. Thus, the title of Co-redemptrix does not denote parity, as some might mistakenly misunderstand, but inseparability. As St. Louis de Montfort argues,

Nevertheless, I say that, things being supposed as they are now, God having willed to commence and to complete His greatest works by the most holy Virgin, since He created her, we may well think He will not change His conduct in the eternal ages.

* * *

[Note: The undisputed champion of devotion to Mary is St. Louis de Montfort. The undisputed book on this devotion is his book, Treatise of True Devotion to Mary. The American TFP has mailed out over a million copies of this book in order to promote a “maximalist,” or as St. Louis referred to it, a true devotion to Our Lady. To get your free digital copy immediately, please follow the link below.]