The True Anathemas of Catholicism: Those Who Will be Damned When I’m Pope…

Note 15/11/2017: I have since come to an understanding of why protestants say “sola fide” and what Luther originally meant by it, and as such these condemnations are out of date and inaccurate (Thank God that I was not actually Pope when I drafted them!). I leave them here unedited as a historical curiosity, but let it be known that I no longer hold to many of these opinions.

cathedra+w+saint+peter[1].JPG

Concerning Grace and Salvation

  • If anyone claims that man is saved by faith let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that man is saved by works let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that man is saved by Grace alone let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that it is necessary for a man to freely cooperate with Grace in order to be saved let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that Grace is irresistible let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that Grace can be resisted forever let them be anathema

Concerning faith, works and Justification

  • If anyone denies that man is justified by works let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that man is justified by faith let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that man is justified by faith alone let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that man is justified by works alone let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that faith and works are inseparable let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that every good work is a demonstration of implicit justifying faith in Christ, regardless of whether or not the person performing the good work is Christian, let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that the good works of non-Christians do not demonstrate implicit justifying faith in Christ, and do not increase justification, let them be anathema
  • If anyone says they are saved or justified “by faith alone, but faith is never alone” let them be anathema

Concerning the law

  • If anyone claims that the moral component of the law has been abrogated, and need no longer be followed, let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that man is justified by following the law, whether the moral component alone, or the entire mosaic law, let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that breaking the moral law leads to a damaged soul and merits temporal punishment, let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that it is only necessary to follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law, let them be anathema

Concerning non-Christian religions

  • If anyone claims that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship different Gods, let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same, one true God, let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that Muslims or Jews have an exhaustive and inerrant understanding of the one true God, let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Calvinism is a form of Satanism, let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Calvinists attempt to worship God, but unintentionally worship Satan instead, let them be anathema

Concerning Christology

  • If anyone claims that Christ was merely human and not divine let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that Christ was merely divine and not human let them be anathema
  • If anyone claims that Christ was partly human and partly divine let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ was fully divine let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ was fully human let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ had a single nature that was both fully human and fully divine let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ had both a divine nature and a human nature let them be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ had only a single nature let him be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ had two natures let him be anathema
  • If anyone denies that Christ had only a single nature, yet simultaneously had exactly two natures let him be anathema

Concerning Mariology

  • I solemnly and dogmatically declare that both Mary and Christ possess infinite Justification
  • I solemnly and dogmatically declare that Mary is “Intercessor of all Graces”: every single Grace that God sends is united to a prayer of Mary, she prays in perfect accordance with the will of God, down to the smallest detail.
  • I solemnly and dogmatically declare that Mary is “Co-Redemptrix”: salvation depends on her freely given consent to God’s will that she be the mother of Christ; the gateway through which God enters creation.
  • I solemnly and dogmatically declare that both Mary and Christ are perfect icons of the invisible Holy Spirit, as both Mary and Christ perfectly display the fruits of the spirit
  • I solemnly and dogmatically declare that Mary possesses perfect and infinite theosis: She is fully human by nature, and fully divine by participation in Christ’s divine nature.

The Joyful Mystery of the Annunciation

Text: Luke 1:26-381

The original Greek according to the SBL critical text:

Ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρὲθ πρὸς παρθένον ἐμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυὶδ, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ. καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη καὶ διελογίζετο ποταπὸς εἴη ὁ ἀσπασμὸς οὗτος. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ· καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς Ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω; καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ· Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις Ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ· καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνείληφεν υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς, καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ· ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα. εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ· Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος.2

English translation of the Greek:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee whose name was Nazareth, To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And going in to her he said, “Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with you.” And she was greatly distressed at his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And see: You will conceive in your womb and will bear a son, and you shall declare his name to be Jesus. This man will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, And he will reign over the house of Jacob throughout the ages, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, as I have intimacy with no man?” And in reply the angel told her, “A Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; hence the offspring will be called holy also, a Son of God. And look at your kinswoman Elizabeth: She also conceived a son, in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who had been called barren; Because nothing, of all the things I have said, is impossible with God.” And Mary said, “See: the slave of the Lord; may it happen to me as you have said.” And the angel departed from her.3

Exegesis

Canonical Context

The Annunciation episode chronologically is the second “annunciation” in Luke’s Gospel. Occurring immediately prior (1:5-25) is an account of the angel Gabriel announcing the birth of John the Baptist to John’s father Zechariah. The fact that there are two annunciations one right after the other is important. In the first episode, Zechariah responds to the annunciation with disbelief, doubt, scepticism and incredulity,4 and the consequences are negative.5 This contrasts directly with Mary’s response to her annunciation, where she expresses confusion,6 yet total fidelity.7The parallelism is thus a narrative contrast between a correct response (trust) and an incorrect response (scepticism) to God’s promises.

The Annunciation episode is followed by Mary’s famous Magnificat,8 which is a crucial text in the liturgical life of the church, recited in the Divine Office every time Vespers is prayed.

There is a shorter account of the annunciation to be found in Matthews Gospel (1:18-23). In this version the angel is not identified by name (and so may or may not be Gabriel), and delivers the message to Joseph rather than Mary. The content of the message is similar in this version (ie, Mary has conceived by the Holy Spirit and is therefore still a virgin), however it occurs in the context of Joseph preparing to quietly back out of his betrothal on the assumption that Mary has been unfaithful; The annunciation in Matthew therefore has the purpose of reassuring Joseph and encouraging him to stay committed to Mary.

Characters

  • The Angel Gabriel

  • Joseph, husband of Mary

  • Mary, “highly favoured one.” The Holy Virgin and Mother of God.

  • Jesus, “The son of the most high”, “The Son of God”

  • David, Famous King of Israel.

  • Jacob: The Patriarch of Israel. Israel is sometimes called “The house of Jacob”

  • Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.

  • Elizabeth, friend of Mary, Mother of John the Baptist.

  • God the Father, sends Gabriel to announce Jesus’ conception. Sends the Holy Spirit to actually do the conceiving.

Text and Images

There is not much “imagery” in this passage, but there is lots of interesting terminology. For example:

A Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

In this phrase, David Bentley Hart translates “Πνεῦμα ἅγιον” literally as it appears in the underlying Greek, ie, without an article. This is controversial as it goes against Christian Tradition which identifies this spirit as The Holy Spirit, not some other, indeterminate holy spirit. Hart is consistent with his omissions of articles and follows the Greek text scrupulously (and controversially). Another important example is:

The offspring will be called holy also, a Son of God

See how Hart renders “υἱὸς θεοῦ” as A Son of God, rather than The Son of God, as in almost every other translation; purely on a grammatical level this is correct, but more traditionally minded Christians will most likely take issue with such a translation.

Much theological controversy revolves around the word “κεχαριτωμένη.” In Catholic translations (such as the RSVCE) this is translated as it is found in Catholic Liturgy and Popular piety: “Full of Grace.” This is more in line with the Latin Vulgate biblical textual tradition, which renders the Angel’s greeting as “Ave gratia plena.” In more evangelically-leaning translations (as well as Hart’s translation) the word is rendered in line with the Greek as “Highly Favoured one.” Theological arguments have sometimes been made for and against Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity purely on the basis of this single word.

Towards the end of this passage is Mary’s famous Fiat: “Ἰδοὺ ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.” The RSVCE translates this according to the popular English tradition: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” Compare with the Latin: “Ecce ancilla Domini: fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.”9

Structural Issues

The pericope is structured according to the following divisions:

v. 26,27Establishes context; Mary, Joseph and the Angel introduced as main characters. Joseph’s royal lineage (house of David) is noted, and Mary is pointedly and repeatedly referred to as “the virgin.” Angel speaks to Mary.
v. 28, 29 Gabriel greets Mary and calls her “κεχαριτωμένη,” Mary is confused by this form of address
v. 30Gabriel reassures Mary and explains the greeting
v. 31-33Gabriel announces that Mary will miraculously conceive a son and tells her what to name him (Jesus). Gabriel prophesies that Jesus will be a king and rule over an everlasting kingdom.
v. 34Mary expresses confusion to Gabriel about how this miracle could be possible (it seems that having children is not something Mary was expecting; the exact reason for this is debated amongst theologians)
v. 35Gabriel gives a (somewhat cryptic) explanation for how Mary will come to conceive (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you”), and then (arguably) prophesies that Jesus will be divine (“the Son of God”).
v. 36, 37Gabriel also prophesies the birth of John the Baptist, and delivers the important theological dogma “With God, nothing is impossible.”
v. 38Mary delivers her famous fiat, where she faithfully consents to these prophesies of Gabriel, and then Gabriel departs.

Literary Forms

All of the gospels – including Luke – are in the “Religious biography” genre, similar to the Hadith in Islam, and the sayings of and stories about the Buddha in the Pali canon. This particular pericope is part of the infancy narrative sub-genre.10 The main purpose of this genre is to simply to relay stories about Jesus during his youth, however there is often profound theological depth to be extracted from the straightforward surface of the tales and this pericope is no exception. In this particular passage the subject matter is Christ’s conception.

Historical Content

The pericope takes place in “a city of Galilee named Nazareth.” At this point, Palestine had been in shambles for quite some time, being successively conquered and ruled over by various foreign powers, the most current (at the time) being the Romans. Levitical temple sacrifices were once again taking place after a long period of interruption, and the Jewish community was doing its’ best to stay true to its heritage, mission and tradition. However the situation was very tenuous, with many different factions competing for influence, power and control. Importantly, there was much anticipation among Jews of the day that the many Messianic prophecies of the old testament were soon to come true. As it turns out, some of the most important of these prophecies are fulfilled in this very pericope: The annunciation that Mary will miraculously conceive a child just is the annunciation that the Messiah is imminently about to arrive. Understanding this historical context is important for understanding the significance and impact of the pericope: this is not merely a tale about an angel telling a woman that she is going to miraculously conceive a child; instead, it is an account of the very moment when God announces through Gabriel that all of Israel’s Messianic yearnings are about to come true in the baby Jesus. What begun as a private revelation to Mary is here immortalised in scripture as a message to all of Israel that their Messiah has arrived.

The fact that Mary is confused and startled by the announcement that she will have a child hints at an important fact concerning her social situation. Mary was betrothed to Joseph: Under normal circumstances, a betrothal would conclude in a wedding, a marriage, children and family life. Therefore Gabriel’s announcement that Mary is going to conceive should not have caused Mary so much confusion. The fact that it did indicates that Mary was not expecting to have children. There is debate as to exactly why this might be,11 but the standard (and compelling) Catholic apologetic is that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity and so her marriage to Joseph was not planned to include sexual intercourse and children.12

Traditional Interpretations

There are so many profound reflections of the fathers on this pericope, and it is impossible to discuss all of their insights here (on account of the word count for this assignment). However, look what Augustine has to say:

[Gabriel was sent to announce] to a virgin, for Christ could be born from virginity alone, seeing He could not have an equal in His birth. It was necessary for our Head by this mighty miracle to be born according to the flesh of a virgin’ that He might signify that his members were to be born in the spirit of a virgin Church.

To fully understand Augustine here requires a deep, familiar, and intimate knowledge of his theology of anthropology, virginity and sexuality. In any case, the fact that Christ was born of a virgin holds extreme theological significance for Augustine:13 See how he describes the virgin birth as “necessary.” It is informative to pair this with some commentary from Saint Jerome:

And rightly an angel is sent to the virgin, because the virgin state is ever akin to that of angels. Surely in the flesh to live beyond the flesh is not a life on earth but in heaven.

Jerome seems to indicate that Mary was living in a heavenly or eschatological manner, and it was fitting that Christ be born by means of someone living this sort of “perfect,” or “beyond the flesh” life.

Saint Ambrose has the following provocative reflection:

But what could be imputed to the Jews, or to Herod, if they should seen to have persecuted an adulterous offspring?

Ambrose seems to indicate that if Mary had not been a virgin, and had instead engaged in unethical, unlawful, unloving intercourse and conceived thereby; in this case the Jews and Herod would be justified in persecuting Christ. There is deep anthropology and theology of the body at play here.

Saint Jerome has the following to say about vs 28-29:

And it is well said, Full of grace, for to others, grace comes in part; into Mary at once the fullness of grace wholly infused itself. She truly is full of grace through whom has been poured forth upon every creature the abundant rain of the Holy Spirit.

This is a fascinating reflection, relevant to the notion of Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces.” Jerome here indicates that Mary possesses the “fullness” of grace infused into her, and “through” her grace is poured fourth upon “every creature.” Jerome immediately follows this with:

But already He was with the Virgin Who sent the angel to the Virgin. The Lord preceded His messenger, for He could not be confined by place Who dwells in all places. Whence it follows, The Lord is with you.

This is an interesting reflection. It’s not that God came to Mary and filled her with grace at the moment of the annunciation. It’s that she was always full of grace and God was always with her.

Origen has this to say about the greeting:

For if Mary had known that similar words had been addressed to others, such a salutation would never have appeared to her so strange and alarming.

A question that comes to mind here for me is whether or not similar words have indeed been addressed to others. Clearly the salutation is unique and strange and uncommon, but perhaps there have been many husbands who have made similar declarations of love and devotion to their wives throughout history? Perhaps such husbands insist on seeing their wives as perfect and full of grace, just as Mary was perfect, even in the face of contradictory evidence? Perhaps “full of grace” is in fact how all men should perceive their wives? Perhaps such a startling address is the recipe for a happy marriage?

Saint Chrysostom relates the following startling reflection:

By the word behold, he denotes rapidity and actual presence, implying that with the utterance of the word the conception is accomplished.

This is interesting as Chrysostom indicates here that the very annunciation itself is the very moment that Christ is conceived in Mary’s immaculate womb. There is much space for theological reflection here on how the utterance of the word effects that which it announces; is it not similar with the kerygmatic gospel proclamation? When Jesus – by means of the preacher or a minister of a sacrament – declares the sinner to be elect, predestined, saved and righteous – does not such a proclamation effect that which it proclaims, especially when the one to whom such a glorious promise is spoken places their trust (faith) in the message conveyed?

Saint Ambrose again offer some cryptic reflections:

But all are not as Mary, that when they conceive the word of the Holy Spirit, they bring forth; for some put forth the word prematurely, others have Christ in the womb, but not yet formed.

I would like to examine the Greek text of this patristic quote, but in the absence of time am unable to do so. But simply reflecting on this English rendition, it is curious how Ambrose seems to indicate that other women conceive of the Holy spirit too, but “prematurely.” I suspect there are some theological reflections to be made here concerning the phenomenon of “Josephite Marriage”14 in Christian history. Perhaps having total self control over your humanity and sexuality, and yet nevertheless getting married is a good way to emulate the Holy family of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. Perhaps having control over your sexuality in a way akin to Mary and Joseph has flow-on effects for the personalities and holiness of the resulting children? “Others have Christ in the womb, but not yet formed” says Ambrose; perhaps a Josephite marriage is the way to conceive holy, godly and saintly children?

Commenting on vs 34 and 35, Ambrose offers the following reflection:

She avows herself willing to do that which she doubts not will be done, but how, she is anxious to know. Mary had read, Behold, she shall conceive and bear a son. She believed therefore that it should be but how it was to take place she had never read, for even to so great a prophet this had not been revealed. So great a mystery was not to be divulged by the mouth of man, but of an Angel.

Ambrose understands this passage to convey that Mary did not doubt the fact that she would conceive, but rather was just baffled as to how this was to take place. Presumably Mary had taken a vow of perpetual virginity and so the possibilities that came to mind would have included 1. rape and 2. renouncing her vow. As it turns out, Mary was to conceive apart from sexual intercourse, which is an incredibly surprising miracle.

Saint Gregory Nyssa offers the following reflection:

Hear the chaste words of the Virgin. The Angel tells her she shall bear a son, but she rests upon her virginity, deeming her inviolability a more precious thing than the Angel’s declaration. Hence she says, Seeing that I know not a man.

It’s interesting here how Saint Gegory Nyssa juxtaposes Mary’s virginity with Gabriel’s declaration. He understands that Mary is fully committed to her virginity, such that even if Gabriel announces that she is to conceive Mary does not doubt her own sinless commitment to her virginal vow. Perhaps to a lesser woman, such an announcement would produce feelings of guilt and despair, as she thinks to herself that she will fail to keep her promises. Or perhaps a lesser woman would be (sinfully) relieved, thinking that she is free to break her vows with impunity in order to fulfil a fateful prophecy. Whereas Mary does neither of these things, and instead has faith in both herself and God.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa again offers some reflections:

Do you say, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Nay rather, shall it happen to you for this very reason, that you have never known a husband. For if you had, you would not have been thought worthy of the mystery, not that marriage is unholy, but virginity more excellent.

Gregory draws attention to the irony here: the cause of Mary’s confusion about how she could possibly conceive is simultaneously the very reason and justification for why she does indeed conceive. This is a profound paradox: by pursuing the perfect self-control of virginity and holiness, Mary proves herself worthy of conceiving the child so utterly perfect that he is in fact God himself. There is a profound lesson to be learned here for every day men and women: self-control and selflessness in the sexual sphere is a very good thing: By loving each other in a selfless way, and by a husband and wife mutually refraining from gratifying the flesh; when they do decide to have a child it will be very intentional and drenched in divine love and compassion (as opposed to an unplanned “accident”). The resulting children will more or less be predestined to saint-hood. The bottom line is that self-control and loving abstinence are beneficial even in marriage.

Saint Basil offers the following reflection:

Hence also, St. Paul says, God sent forth his Son, born not (by a woman) but of a woman. For the words by a woman might convey only a mere passing expression of birth, but when it is said, of a woman, there is openly declared a communion of nature between the son and the parent.

This lends support to the formula of Chalcedon, or at least the theological judgement that Christ was both fully human and fully man. Christ receives his human nature from Mary.

Literal Sense

Luke is here simply trying to tell the story of the annunciation, and hit the key notes: firstly, Mary was, is, and was intending to be a virgin. Secondly, she was informed that she was about to conceive Jesus by an angel. Thirdly, Mary was confused by this announcement while remaining faithful and consenting to the will of God.

Luke doesn’t seem to have much of an agenda himself in relating this episode (beyond relaying the facts), but the later church has found incredible theological and practical significance in that which he here records.

Application

The classic way of approaching the “application” of a passage is to look at it from four perspectives: the moral sense, the anagogical sense, the allegorical sense and the typological sense. In terms of the moral sense, this essay has already touched upon this, but I think it is fair to draw out of this pericope that Josephite marriage is the ideal form of marriage. Firstly, sexual intercourse between a married couple is lawful, beautiful, wonderful and holy; and yet there is a current in the tradition which holds sexuality to always and everywhere be infected with evil and sin. There is often also a “vocational dilemma” in young Catholics attempting to discern God’s will for their lives, in that the Church proposes celibacy and marriage as two mutually exclusive possibilities and then requires individuals to choose/discern between them. I would like to here tentatively speculate that Mary’s virginal marriage to Joseph represents the solution to this dilemma, in an incredibly profound way. Recall Christ’s words that “whoever loses his life will find it, and whoever holds onto his life will lose it.” I suspect that this can be applied to the human sex drive (which is arguably the most fundamental human “need,” going beyond the human needs for food, drink and sleep). Perhaps the one who is able to more fully “detach” themselves from their fundamental human need for physical sexual expression is the one who is more “holy” in general. In this sense, Josephite marriage (where the couple attempt to abstain from physical expression of their love) is not something “weird,” but rather a valuable spiritual disciple. Now, assuming that this is true, perhaps a couple who is better able to live out a Josephite marriage will be happier and enjoy a better relationship with both each other and God. Granting this, it raises a couple of questions: firstly, when do they have sexual intercourse, assuming that sexual intercourse and marriage are intimately related?15 Secondly, what is to be said about the Children resulting from the union of a couple committed to a Josephite marriage? Finally, if Joseph and Mary are the perfect expression of marriage, what implications does this have for the fruit and offspring of their marriage (ie, Jesus)?

For some tentative and speculative answers to the questions: Firstly, I propose that Mary and Joseph do actually engage in a physical consummation of their marriage and therefore they actually do have physical sexual intercourse, however this consummation of sexual intercourse is something that occurs in the eschaton rather than during their earthly lives, and furthermore that the biblical book of the Song of Songs is a description of what this “divine consummation” is like.16 I tentatively propose that during their earthly lives, Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, and yet in a timeless, spiritual, heavenly and eschatological sense they do indeed consummate their marriage – and conceive Christ – in the eschaton.17

The bottom line of all this in terms of moral application to our lives is something like the following: even the virgins, celibate, priests, monks and nuns have a soul mate waiting for them, and their commitment to celibacy is (somewhat paradoxically) the very way by which they sanctify their heavenly marriages yet to come. For those who are already married, Mary and Joseph’s marriage is an ideal: it’s appropriate to feel love and longing for you partner, but the longer you and your partner are able to mutually and charitably agree to postpone the physical consummation of your love, the deeper your love will become and the more holy and saintly will be the resulting children.

Finally, I tentatively propose that Mary’s perpetual virginity was necessary for Christ’s sinlessness. If celibate Josephite marriages are the ideal and lead to better children, then the ultimate and perfect Josephite marriage – that of Mary and Joseph themselves – lead to the ultimate and perfect offspring; Jesus the sinless son of God. In other words, the practical implications of this pericope for day to day christian living is that practising self-control, restraint, and moderation in the sexual sphere is actually a recipe for having better, holier children!18

Conclusion: The Immaculate Conception

Theologians have typically understood the word “κεχαριτωμένη” – traditionally translated as “[you who are] full of grace” – to be subtle and implicit scriptural support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In minimal form, this doctrine simply states that Mary was born without original sin. More maximally, the doctrine teaches that Mary remained free of any and all sin for the entire duration of her life. The linguistic arguments surrounding κεχαριτωμένη are dense and detailed, but suffice it to say that it is an unusual word and hard to translate directly to English. The word is rich and deep enough in meaning to fuel entire Mariologies. However, rather than here getting bogged down in linguistic arguments, I will survey the doctrine itself by means of some choice magisterial quotes.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi discusses Mary in the following terms:

Venerable Brethren, may the Virgin Mother of God hear the prayers of Our paternal heart – which are yours also – and obtain for all a true love of the Church – she whose sinless soul was filled with the divine spirit of Jesus Christ above all other created souls, who “in the name of the whole human race” gave her consent “for a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature.”

It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and her mother’s love were included in the holocaust.19

Notice how the holy father explicitly attributes “sinless” and “free from all sin, original or personal” to Mary. This is reflective of the sensus fidelium surrounding Mary at the time the encyclical was written, in the mid-20th century.

Pope Pius IX dogmatically defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus like so:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.20

This definition only concerns Mary being free from original sin, and does not explicitly affirm Mary’s personal sinlessness throughout her life, but it would be hard to interpret the entire encyclical in such a way as to conclude that Mary sinned. The thrust and atmosphere of Catholic writings – magisterial, mystical and popular – leans only towards the idea that Mary was completely sinless in every way.

1In producing this exegesis, I tried to follow the formatting of the example provided on blackboard (“An Analysis of Luke 8:4-15 – The Parable of the Sower”). I include this note because I am a little uncomfortable with the quantity of dot points used in this assignment, but I am doing so on the assumption that following the style of the example exegesis is valid (as well as being the easiest way for me to complete this assignment!) I pray that this doesn’t cost me any marks.

2Luke 1:26-38 (SBLGNT)

3Luke 1:26-38 (DBHNT)

4“How can I believe what you say? For I am an old man, and my wife is past the age of child-bearing.” – Luke 1:18

5“Behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” – Luke 1:20

6“How can this be since I am a virgin?” – Luke 1:34

7 The Fiat: “Let it be done to me according to thy word” – Luke 1:38

8Luke 1:46-55

9Literally “Behold the helper of the Lord; Let it be to me according to your word”

10This is a sub-genre peculiar to Christian tradition, but there are analogues in Hindu literature and there is even an Islamic account of Christ’s early years in Surahs Maryam (19) and al-Imran (3) of the Qu’ran. There are also other apocryphal Christian infancy gospels which did not make it into the canon of scripture. The early chapters of Luke are the “official” account received by the church.

11Protestants are generally hostile to the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and tend to oppose the Catholic teaching with a polemical stance that Mary and Joseph did indeed engage in sexual intercourse after Jesus was born.

12The scriptural references which seem to indicate that Christ had siblings are tentatively explained by Catholics in a variety of ways. Perhaps they were cousins of Jesus, or potentially they could have been children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

13I would like to do further research on this theme.

14Josephite marriage is the phenomenon of a man and woman being married – and truly loving each other as husband and wife – but (almost paradoxically) totally abstaining from sexual relations.

15Cf Saint John Paul II’s theology of the body.

16There are many profound and beautiful patristic commentaries on the Song of Songs which could be marshalled to elaborate on this.

17Further speculative implications of such a view would include the fact that Joseph was indeed Christ’s biological father, even when granting that Mary maintained perpetual virginity for her entire earthly life (which is to say that DNA testing would reveal a genetic link from Joseph to Jesus as from a (human) Father to a (human) Son).

18Which makes one wonder at the holiness yet to be revealed in the children of the many monks and nuns who have successfully lived lives of perfect celibacy for the sake of the church and the kingdom!

19Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi 110

20Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.

Understanding Mary as Mediatrix

Introduction

In this paper I will offer a theological meditation on the Marian title Mediatrix of all Graces. My interpretation and explanation of this title will be somewhat speculative, and I will make theological connections and draw out implications which others may not have noticed before. This assignment asked us to pick a Marian title from the Litany of Loreto and as it happens “Mediatrix of all Graces” does not feature in this litany. However the litany includes various titles which are intimately connected with the notion of Mediatrix of all Graces, specifically Mother of divine grace, Help of Christians, Mother of the Church. This meditation can therefore also be taken as a reflection on these three related titles.

Theosis as the Basis of Mediation

Salvation in the eastern churches is conceptualised in terms of theosis. In the western churches this concept is often referred to by the term “divinization,” but it is not a commonly known doctrine in the west, and it is eastern Christendom which has most fully developed the idea. Theosis is neatly summed up by a couplet attributed to various of the church fathers: “God became man so that man might become God.” There is a sense in which salvation consists of becoming God. However theologians are careful to emphasise that we become God by participation in the life of the Trinity; we do not become God by alteration of our nature. In an analogous way to how Christ had a totally divine nature and a totally human nature, it can be argued that we too will have both divine and human natures once we are saved.1

There are different levels of theosis, just as there are different levels of participation in the life of the Trinity. What does it mean to share in the life of the Trinity? I propose that this is simply to experience a finite share in the infinite attributes of God. A saint shares in God’s power, knowledge, presence, benevolence and so on, but to a finite degree.2 I would like to propose that this sheds some light on the phenomenon of patron saints. Different saints are mediators of different graces, and they do this by virtue of their unique (and finite) participation in the divine attributes. For example, St. Anthony of Padua is the patron saint of lost items; but another way of understanding this is that St. Anthony is a mediator of the grace of finding lost items, and he achieves this by means of his finite participation in the omniscience of God (ie, he has God’s supernatural and divine knowledge of the location of lost items). Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas is the patron saint of – among other things – students and academics. So another way of understanding this is that St. Thomas mediates graces that are relevant to academics and students, by means of the divine knowledge and power.

So when a Catholic prays to Saint Anthony to help them find something they have lost, they are literally praying to Saint Anthony; they are not merely asking St. Anthony to intercede for them (although that is happening too) but rather requesting that St. Anthony take an active role in the fulfilment of the prayer by means of the heavenly power and knowledge which he has obtained via theosis.

Mary Has Maximum Theosis

So how does all of this apply to Mary? Well, Mary was the perfect creature; she never sinned and she experienced a complete and total theosis.3 So Mary does not merely participate in divinity in a finite and imperfect manner like the other saints; rather, she participates in divinity in a perfect and infinite mode. She does not merely have a finite share in God’s power, knowledge, presence and benevolence; she actually participates in these things so completely and perfectly that she could be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, just like Christ!4 Mary’s will is so completely and perfectly aligned with the divine will and in submission to it that it is as if she does not possess a unique will of her own.

All of this can help to explain the doctrine of Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces.” Mary is a perfect mediator, because she perfectly shares in the mediation of Christ by virtue of her perfect theosis. What does this look like? It has two aspects: perfect intercession and distribution of grace. In terms of intercession, because Mary’s will is perfectly in accordance with the will of God, she also prays in perfect accordance with the will of God. This implies that every grace that we receive has a prayer from Mary attached to it. Even something as simple as the sun rising day after day is associated with a prayer from Mary. Her prayer life is profound, exhaustive and ineffable. Mary prays for literally everything.

The other aspect of Mary as Mediatrix is that she is a distributor of all grace by virtue of her participation in omnipotence. Mary shares perfectly in the power of God, and so wields his omnipotence simultaneously to God’s wielding of his own omnipotence. An analogical way of conceiving the situation is that Christ and Mary are both agents who work together to send forth grace to us. The saints also have this honour, however their participation in theosis is finite – and so they are only mediators of some graces – whereas Mary’s participation in Christ’s mediation is infinite and therefore encompasses all graces. It is therefore appropriate to refer to Mary as the Mediatrix of all Graces.

Another way of understanding this title is to think of Mary as the patron saint of everything. The church has identified certain patron saints as being mediators with respect to certain specific problems and issues. These saints share in God’s power in a real and unique way, and most perfectly with respect to the issues that they are patrons for. Whereas Mary is the patron saint of all things, because she has been so perfectly divinized and as such she perfectly shares in Christ’s knowledge and power.

Christ the Head, Mary the Neck

Pope St. Pius X referred to Mary as the “neck” which connects Christ the head to the rest of the church body.5 There is much value in this description, as it pictures all Grace flowing through both Christ and Mary. However there is a subtle danger in this image which may pose an ecumenical obstacle; it seems to imply that Mary stands as “another mediator” between the Church and Christ, and this would fall foul of a major Protestant objection. However, any Protestant worries would be misplaced; the doctrine does not put Mary in between us and Christ as a “gatekeeper” who Christians have to placate before being allowed access to Jesus; Mary is not acting as a second head of the Church. Rather, Mary stands between the church and Christ in almost exactly the same way that a neck stands between a head and its body.

Consider a neck: all it can do is faithfully serve the head; it is not a second brain – another locus of thought and decision – which has veto power over the commands emanating from the head to its body, or which has the power of censorship over the communications rising from the body to the head. Rather, a neck simply “does as it’s told” and serves as a conduit allowing communication between brain and body. So if Mary is a mediator between us and Christ this is not to be understood in a competitive way, as if we have to placate Mary first before we can get to Christ. Mary’s mediation is completely passive in the same way that a neck passively mediates between brain and body. She poses no obstacle between the Church and Christ, but rather enables healthy communication between the Church and Christ, just as a neck enables healthy communication between body and head.

Mary’s Fiat is relevant here: The Fiat reveals Mary’s total obedience to the will of God, just as a neck is totally obedient to the promptings of its’ head. Mary’s famous Fiat can therefore be understood to reveal one of her holy offices: Mary the neck of the Church.

Conclusion

The doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix is quite beautiful and it is unfortunate that the church seems to be backing away from it in recent times. Rather than sweeping it under the rug to appease Protestants, I propose that it would be better to offer more robust explanations and apologetics to present the doctrine to them in ways which they can understand. Mary can be considered to perfectly share in the omnipotence and omniscience of Christ, and this is the basis of her being the Mediatrix of all Graces. Mary does indeed mediate between the Church and Christ, but in a passive and enabling way, rather than a competitive way which would require Christians to appease Mary before being granted access to Christ. The relationship between Church, Mary and Christ is analogous to the relationship between body, neck and head. To conclude with words of wisdom affirmed by many of the saints; you cannot have Christ as brother if you will not have Mary as Mother.

1Important to note that Christ is essentially divine and only secondarily human, whereas we would be essentially human and only secondarily divine. The common ablative tossed around is that we will be divine by participation.

2This could be taken as a tentative justification for why Catholics sometimes literally “Pray to the saints,” rather than merely asking the saints to “intercede.” This is appropriate, because the saints have a direct participation in the power of God. The saints could be called “little gods” by virtue of their direct participation in the attributes of the one true God and so Catholics sometimes petition them as such.

3Her theosis was so perfect that a third category of worship – hyperdulia – had to be identified to differentiate between veneration of saints, adoration of God, and worship of Mary.

4Again, Mary would only be omnipotent and etc by participation, not by nature. I am here simply speculating that her theosis is infinite; I’m not trying to make her a fourth member of the Trinity.

5St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, AAS 36, 1904. 453-54.

Mary as Priest, Prophet, and King: Article Review

Summary

McGregor opens by pointing out that Mary is a member of the church. As Mary is a member of the church, she must then therefore participate in Christ’s kingship, prophet-hood and priesthood, just like all the other members of the church participate in these things. McGregor in his article goes on to examine how and in what special senses Mary participates in these three offices.

McGregor identifies some relevant difficulties and ambiguities in the magisterial source texts Lumen Gentium and the Catechism, and he then goes on to survey what these church documents have to say concerning the notion that disciples of Christ are also prophets, priests and kings. He establishes that priesthood is the primary one of the three roles with respect to Christ, and it is therefore also the primary role which Christ’s disciples participate in. From this, McGregor argues that the offices of prophet and king are subordinate (or subsequent) to the office of priest.

McGregor goes on to discuss how Mary is also anointed, in a similar way to Christ himself.1 He points to Mary’s immaculate conception as the moment when she was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Immediately following this, McGregor discusses with scriptural examples how Mary is a Prophet, Priest and King. In a footnote he makes it clear that he is truly speaking here of Mary as a king, not a queen, as the latter title carries all sorts of deep traditional and theological connotations which he does not want to evoke. McGregor devotes the rest of the paper to examining some episodes in Mary’s life as case studies of Mary as priest, prophet and king: The Annunciation, The Visitation, The “Pondering” of Mary in Her Heart, and the Wedding at Cana.

Comment

I found the most interesting and radical part of this paper to be McGregor’s meditations under the heading “The “Pondering” of Mary in Her Heart.” Due to the influence of secularism, atheism and materialism on our culture and education, I have often understood the mind and intellect to be nothing more than the brain, and in a similar way I have often understood the heart to simply be “that which pumps blood around the body.” Whereas in this paper, McGregor succinctly and powerfully explains the full theological force of the term “heart;” he theologically defines it to be far more than the physiological blood pump located in a persons torso:

As the affective center of the human person it is the locus of the passions. As the intellectual center of the human person it is the locus of thought, understanding, doubt and questioning, deception and belief. As the volitional center of the human person it is the locus of intention and decision. The heart is also the locus of imagination and memory. As the moral center of the human person it is the locus of virtue, including theological virtue. It is the locus of conscience. It is the locus of that holiness which is normally called singleness or purity of heart. It is the locus of relation with other human persons. According to Sacred Scripture, the heart thinks, chooses, feels, imagines, and remembers. If it does all these things it cannot simply be any one of these things, but must be the union of all these things.2

Such a rich description of the heart is compelling, and a powerful antidote to any materialistic leanings. How could a simple blood pump also be responsible for all of these important theological functions? McGregor also quotes Ratzinger on this theme:

The organ for seeing God is the heart. The intellect alone is not enough. In order for man to become capable of perceiving God, the energies of his existence have to work in harmony. His will must be pure and so too must the underlying affective dimension of his soul, which gives intelligence and will their direction. Speaking of the heart in this way means precisely that man’s perceptive powers play in concert, which also requires the proper interplay of body and soul, since this is essential for the totality of the creature we call “man.” Man’s fundamental affective disposition actually depends on just this unity of body and soul and on man’s acceptance of being both body and spirit. This means he places the body under the discipline of the spirit, yet does not isolate intellect or will. Rather, he accepts himself as coming from God, and thereby also acknowledges and lives out the bodiliness of his existence as an enrichment for the spirit. The heart—the wholeness of man—must be pure, interiorly open and free, in order for man to be able to see God.3

One part of this which jumps out at me is “The organ for seeing God is the heart. The intellect alone is not enough.” This would be an interesting area for further research, seeing as the western tradition (particularly in Aquinas) seems to place lots of emphasis on the intellectual beatific vision of God. It would be curious to mine the Christian traditions both east and west in order to examine the relative emphases on the heart and the mind in different quarters of the Christian world. As one example, the eastern saint Isaac of Nineveh (who was a member of the far eastern Syriac church) has this to say:

And what is a merciful heart? It is the heart burning for the sake of all creation, for men, for birds, for animals, for demons, and every created thing; and by the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful man pour forth abundant tears. By the strong and vehement mercy which grips his heart and by his great compassion, his heart is humbled and he cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in creation. For this reason he offers up tearful prayer continually even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth, and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner he even prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns without measure in his heart in the likeness of God.4

Personally, I find the idea of Mary as Priest, Prophet and King to be quite strange, even if – as the paper demonstrates – it is a valid way of thinking. I would tend to prefer to emphasise Mary’s distinct roles and feminine offices, rather than try and shoehorn her character into the more masculine offices and roles of Christ. Irenaeus’s developed theory of recapitulation is helpful here, as it emphasises the distinct ways that Adam and Eve each contributed to original sin, and the correspondingly distinct ways that Jesus and Mary contribute to the salvation on human kind. Both Mary and Christ participate in salvation and recapitulation, but in their own distinct ways;5 Mary recapitulates through her life of virginal motherhood,6 whereas Christ recapitulates through his life of sinless priesthood. This observation is relevant to the “female priests” debate; arguably, women ontologically cannot be priests in an analogous way to how it is ontologically impossible for men to be mothers. Arguably, the analogue of Christian priesthood for men is Christian motherhood for women. Understood in this way, the sacrament of marriage could be understood as a sort of “female ordination,” where the bride is “ordained” to the “Holy order” of motherhood.7 In this sense, Christian men are called to participate in the priesthood, prophet-hood and kingship of Christ, while Christian women are called to participate in the purity and motherhood of Mary.8

Conclusion

I don’t actually dispute or disagree with any of the ideas McGregor puts forward in his paper, but I just find the question of “How is Mary a priest, prophet and king?” to itself be somewhat of an “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” enquiry. I propose that it is far more important to focus on Mary’s virginity, motherhood and her being a faithful spouse to Saint Joseph. While it is true that all members of the Church participate in Christ and his mission (McGregors article is a good demonstration of this point), I propose that it is more appropriate for female members of the church to take Mary as their role model, while male members of the church should instead look to emulate Christ. Just as Mary and Christ had different and distinct roles in the story of humankind’s salvation and recapitulation, so too Christian men and women have different roles to play in the mission of the church. Mary – and Christian women in general – do indeed participate in Christ’s priesthood, prophet-hood and kingship; however I think it is more important to focus on Mary’s unique role and her feminine offices (Mother, Virgin, Wife, etc), rather than trying to shoehorn her into the masculine offices (Prophet, Priest, King) of Christ.

1Recall that the title “Christ” literally means “anointed one”

2McGregor, in Mariology at the Beginning of the Third Millennium, page 177.

3Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism, 92–93.

4St Isaac of Ninevah, Ascetical Homily 71

5Recall the Marian titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces”

6Cf 1 Timothy 2:15

7In saying this, I am assuming the theology of marriage which holds that marriage, sexual consummation and children are all three sides of the same coin.

8This idea is not developed here, but tentatively outlined. I would like to do further research on this theme one day.

Mariology and the Implications of Theosis: Mary is Fully God, the Feminine Christ

God Became Man so that Mary Might Become God

250px-StJohnClimacus[1].jpgSalvation in the east is conceptualised in terms of theosis. In the west this concept is often referred to by the term “divinization”, but it is eastern Christendom which has most fully developed the idea. Theosis is neatly summed up by a couplet attributed to many of the church fathers: “God became man so that man might become God”. To protestant ears this sounds blasphemous, but it is a quote with a lot of truth to it. Salvation consists of becoming God. However theologians are careful to emphasise that we become God by participation in the life of the Trinity, we do not become God by alteration of our nature. Similarly to how Christ had a totally divine nature and a totally human nature, we too will have both divine and human natures.

There are different levels of theosis, just as there are different levels of participation in the life of the Trinity. In Catholic theological lingo, your level of theosis is directly proportional to your level of justification. What does it mean to share in the life of the Trinity? It means that you share in the attributes of God! You share in God’s power, knowledge, presence, benevolence and so on. This is why we do not merely ask saints in heaven to intercede for us, we actually actively pray to them and petition them directly. This is appropriate, because the saints have a significant participation in the power of God. The saints are “little gods” by virtue of their participation in the one true God and we can petition them as such. Their wills are in perfect alignment with the will of God.

When you pray to Saint Anthony to help you find something you have lost, you are literally praying to Saint Anthony; you are not merely asking him to intercede for you (although that is happening too). Furthermore Saint Anthony takes an active role in the fulfilment of the prayer by virtue of the heavenly power and knowledge which he possesses via theosis.

Mary: A Fourth Member of the Trinity?

How does all of this apply to Mary? Well, Mary was the perfect creature; she never sinned; she had maximum Justification; she experienced a complete and total theosis. Mary does not merely participate in divinity, she participates in divinity perfectly. She does not merely share in God’s power, knowledge, presence and benevolence; she actually participates in these things so completely that she could be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent!

Mary participates in the life of the Trinity so closely that it is hard to distinguish between her and the other members. It is almost as if she is a fourth member of the Trinity by participation, without actually being a fourth member by nature. Mary’s will is so completely and perfectly aligned with the divine will and in submission to it that it is as if she does not possess a unique will of her own.

1200px-Immaculate_Heart_of_Mary[1].jpgAll of this can help to explain the doctrine of Mary as “Mediatrix of all graces”. Mary is a perfect mediator, because she perfectly shares in the mediation of Christ by virtue of her perfect theosis. What does this look like? It has two aspects: perfect intercession and distribution of grace.

In terms of intercession, because Mary’s will is perfectly in accordance with the will of God, she also prays in perfect accordance with the will of God. This implies that every grace that we receive has a prayer from Mary attached to it. Even something as simple as the sun rising day after day is associated with a prayer from Mary. Her prayer life is profound, exhaustive and ineffable. Mary prays for literally everything. The saints are similar: By virtue of the fact that their wills are aligned with God’s will and they share in his omniscience, they are able to intercede much more perfectly than us here on earth, although none as perfectly and exhaustively as Mary. This is why it is appropriate to ask for Mary and the Saints intercessions

The other aspect of Mary as Mediatrix is that she is a distributor of all grace by virtue of her participation in omnipotence. Mary shares perfectly in the power of God, and so wields his omnipotence simultaneously to God’s wielding of his own omnipotence. They are both agents who work together to send forth grace to us. The saints also have this honour, however their participation in theosis is less perfect, and so they are only mediators of some graces, whereas Mary participates in Christ’s mediation so perfectly that she is to be referred to as the mediatrix of all graces. Incidentally this is why we have patron saints for certain requests and issues: The church has identified certain saints as being mediators with respect to certain problems. Those saints share in God’s power in a real way, but they share most perfectly with respect to the issues that they are patrons for. Mary is the patron saint of everything, because she has been so perfectly divinized.

MaryPope Leo XIII referred to Mary as the “neck” which connects Christ the head to the rest of the body. While I can see value in this description insofar as it pictures all Grace flowing through both Christ and Mary, I think it is a dangerous image, as it seems to imply that Mary stands as “another mediator” between us and Christ. This is not the case. Mary is not “another mediator” between us and Christ, she is a “co-mediator” standing alongside Christ, and only mediates by virtue of her participation in Christ’s mediation. Mary mediates “in Christ”. She does not mediate “between us and Christ”. I prefer the idea of Mary standing alongside or within Christ and sharing in his mediation and dispensing of graces, by virtue of her perfect theosis and perichoresis. And it is the same situation with all the saints: all of the saints are indeed co-mediators, and co-dispensers of grace by virtue of their theosis – however they do not participate in mediation and dispensing as perfectly as Mary does.

If Mary participates in divinity so perfectly, is it appropriate to worship her? The answer is no. Mary is divine by participation, not by nature. When push comes to shove, she is still just a creature and it would be inappropriate to worship her. But she is the most perfect creature and so deserves a most perfect and complete veneration.

Praise the most venerable Theotokos!