The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its Foundation in Her Role as Coredemptrix PDF Print E-mail
Written by Fr. Jason A. Jones   
Saturday, 15 August 2009 00:00
Page 2 of 4


The period before the definition of the Assumption was one when Mary as Co-redemptrix had its strongest support. It was at this time that the official investigation on the suitability of the proclamation of the Assumption began. In 1946 the Apostolic Letter, Deiparae Virginis was circulated to investigate the sensus fidelium on the Assumption of Mary. The favorable replies to Deiparae Virginis for the definition of Mary's Assumption may well have been argued from the wide acceptance and support of Mary as Co-redemptrix. In the same year of the definition of the Assumption there was an International Mariological Congress held at Rome. The title of the Congress was Alma Soda Christi, which may well have been chosen in the light of discussions about Mary as Co-redemptrix. Miravalle notes that a petition was sent from the Roman Mariological Congress for a dogmatic pronouncement on Mary’s coredemption and mediation now that her personal attributes were already defined. (14) This was followed by another petition in November 1951 from the Cuban hierarchy, headed by Cardinal Manuel Arteaga y Betancourt, Archbishop of Havana.

We can see then that as the influence and interest in Co-redemption rises, there is a simultaneous increase in the influence and interest in the Assumption. This eventually leads to the proclamation of the Assumption as a dogma of faith. This must lead us to ask what happened to the definition of Co-redemption? Or can we postulate that in the dogma of the Assumption there is implicitly contained the definition of Our Lady as Co-redemptrix. What is required now is to bring it to light. From the evidence I have shown so far, I personally believe that it is only from fully understanding Co-redemption that we can fully understand the Assumption.

Pius XII provides one solution which we can develop. He states that the new Adam and the new Eve, who was subject to Him, obtained the victory over sin and death. If Christ is victorious over sin and death by His crucifixion and resurrection, then we must ask: is it logical to deduce that Mary, the immaculate one, who suffers on Golgotha and acts as the Co-redemptrix, should therefore to that victory over sin and death by her anticipated Resurrection in her glorious Assumption? If she does share in the victory then it can only be as the consequence of her role as the Co-redemptrix.

When the Letter Deiparae Virginis was sent out, the different schools of Mariology promoted various arguments in favor of the Assumption. J. B. Carol in the American Ecclesiastical Review of March 1948 presents a short summary of these schools of thought and then his own understanding in favor of the definition of the Assumption from our Lady’s Coredemption.

There exists a positive correlation between the Assumption and the other Marian dogmas. The study of our Lady’s Assumption has for some been regarded as a consequence of the divine maternity in her role as Theotokos, the Mother of God. Others have seen that the prerogative of the Assumption as a consequence of the Immaculate Conception. Others argue in favor of the Assumption from the Perpetual Virginity of our Lady. I will now briefly present these different arguments.

1. The Divine Maternity

On January the first each year we celebrate the solemnity of Mary the Mother of God. Our Faith teaches that in Jesus Christ there are two natures, human and divine, united in the one person. As Mary is the Mother of the person of Jesus Christ she can be called the Mother of God. This unique role of our Lady as Theotokos, God bearer, gives Mary a unique place and dignity in the plan of salvation. The argument in favor of the Assumption from divine maternity rests upon the unique dignity of Mary as Mother of God. It is impossible to assume that the body of her, who conceived and gave birth to the God-Man and who by that very fact, was endowed with an almost infinite dignity, should be indefinitely confined to the state of death.

Carol views this argument as a weak one. The reasoning is based on what is unbecoming on the part of Christ, to allow His mother to remain in the state of death at the end of her earthly life. If it is unbecoming then it is impossible for Christ to allow this. But what is unbecoming for us is quite different from what is becoming or unbecoming for Almighty God. It would be unbecoming for us to give birth in the poverty of a stable or to be stripped and crucified; yet this is the way of God. Carol states “It must be borne in mind that we are here considering the divine maternity in its purely essential concept, that is, in as much as it implies the conceiving and giving birth to the God-Man and the quasi-infinite dignity of God’s Mother. We are, therefore, abstracting from any other privilege or aspect which, although not necessarily implied in the concept of the divine motherhood, is de facto connected with it in the present dispensation. And we are of the opinion that the divine maternity in this sense does not seem to furnish an apodictic argument in favor of the revealed character of Mary’s Assumption. In other words, a mere analysis of the concept of divine maternity does not disclose the concept of the Assumption.” (15)

2. The Immaculate Conception

It has been argued that by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, through which the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, and lived exempt from personal sin and concupiscence, she therefore, could not be subject to death up to the time of the general resurrection on the last day. This understanding of a preservation from death that necessitated the Assumption is based on the concept that death is a penalty for sin, therefore the argument runs, if our Lady is Immaculate she cannot be punished and consequently is assumed into heaven. Whilst it is true that the Scriptures make a connection between sin and death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12) it would be necessary to show that the doctrine of the Assumption is formally, implicitly revealed in the revelation of Mary’s absolute exemption from sin. It would have to be proved that death, whether final or transitory, until the day of resurrection, is always and necessarily a punishment for sin even after Christ has redeemed the world on the cross. This is the problem, for we know that through baptism original sin is forgiven and all punishment associated with it and yet those who are baptized and remain in that grace not only die, but are subject to corruption until the last day. Undoubtedly, the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady does have vital implications for her Assumption, but it is only a contributory factor.

3. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

The third argument proposed in favor of the Assumption is as follows: that Mary remained a Virgin before, during and after childbirth. The virginity during birth is rightly seen as an immunity from the curse of Genesis 3:15, but this particular curse referring to the pain connected with childbirth is only one of the punishments resulting from original sin. It is therefore proposed, that if she is immune from this, then it is logical to suppose that likewise she was immune from the corruption of the grave, which is another aspect of the same general curse.

This argument is not entirely convincing as an exclusive proof in favor of the Assumption. Just because Mary is free from one aspect of the curse, it doesn’t necessarily follow by simple analysis that she is free from all other aspects of the same. If virginal integrity before, during and after childbirth implied the concept of bodily incorruptibility, it would not necessarily establish the fact of Mary’s anticipated resurrection by her Assumption. It would prove that Mary was not subject to the corruption of the grave. But this is a privilege, which is not exclusive to the Blessed Virgin and has been granted to many saints, whose incorrupt bodies remain visible today and have not had the privilege of an anticipated resurrection.

The Coredemption of Our Lady


So far, our previous attempts have failed fully to assert the dogma of the Assumption. We now turn to our Lady’s Coredemption to find a fully comprehensive guide to the Assumption. Before we proceed it is useful and necessary to clarify the title Co-redemptrix and coredemption.

The title Co-redemptrix theologically connotes the cooperation of Mary in the work of Redemption. It is a co-operation that is dependent on Christ and subordinate to Him. It can be understood as a passive or a remote co-operation that is, Mary provided Christ for redemption, (by being His mother). Co-redemption can also be understood as it usually is, as an active and immediate co-operation uniquely sharing in Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice which destroys sin and death. This is a complete and total victory over the dominion of the devil and all that this implies.

When we consider this understanding of co-redemption in relation to the Assumption we see how fittingly and necessarily the two theological concepts match.

Carol presents the argument thus: "The manner in which Christ fulfilled His office as Redeemer of the human race was precisely by obtaining a complete and total victory over the devil and his dominion which victory culminated in His anticipated glorious resurrection. Now our Blessed Lady, being the Co-redemptrix of mankind, shared Christ’s identical victory over the devil and his dominion. Therefore, she, too, enjoyed the privilege of an anticipated glorious resurrection." (16)

The argument hinges on the association of Christ, the new Adam with Mary, the new Eve; the Redeemer with the Co-redemptrix, the man with the woman. This close association in the plan of Redemption must be continued through to the full fruit of redemption, the destruction of death and the promise of everlasting life and the resurrection of the body on the last day.

Throughout the numerous examples of magisterial approval of the cooperation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, either in its explicit reference to her as the Co-redemptrix or to its theology, we cannot doubt the close and indispensable association of Mary in the plan of God for the salvation of the world. We have seen how she has been called “the restorer of salvation,” how “she redeemed the human race together with Christ,” her “suffering as Co-redemptrix” and as her title of “the new Eve.”

Although the title Co-redemptrix is absent from the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus there is express recourse to the doctrine and paraphrases pertinent to the association of the theology of Coredemption with its consequence, the Assumption. This close association between Christ and Our Lady is stressed five times in the Constitution.

1. Pius XII speaks of the “wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this revered associate of our redeemer.”

2. The second reference is in connection with the scholastics who “base the strength of their proof on the incomparable dignity of her divine motherhood and of all those prerogatives which follow from it. These include her exalted holiness, the intimate union of Mary with her Son.”

3. The third reference in favor of the Assumption reads “All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the revered Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His Lot.”

4. We have already seen in our treatment of the new Eve that Pius XII in the Constitution speaks of the intimate association of Mary with Christ in that struggle against the infernal foe which as foretold in the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3, 15), finally resulted in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Consequently, just as the glorious Resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so that struggle, which was common to the Blessed Virgin Mary and her divine Son, should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “when this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”

< Prev   Next >
 

Articles

General Mariology
Marian Devotion
Private Revelation
Marian Apologetics
Papal Excerpts
Classic Excerpts
Christian Culture

Inside this issue

The Eucharist and the Death of Our Savior

Saint Peter Julian Eymard

Did Mary Truly Cooperate in Our Redemption?

Dr. Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

Pan's Labyrinth

Michael D. O'Brien

The Annunciation and Good Friday

Fr. John Saward

The Annunciation: Co-redemptrix Begun

Mark Miravalle

The Whole World Awaits Mary’s Reply

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

St. Joseph Speaks to Fathers

Anne a Lay Apostle

Guardian of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Custos)

Pope John Paul II

St. Joseph Patron of the Triumph, Part I

Fr. Richard Foley, S.J.

The Predestination of St. Joseph and His Eminent Sanctity

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Novena for the Fifth Marian Dogma "Day of Dialogue" : March 25, 2010

Mother of All Peoples

Shopping Cart

VirtueMart
Your Cart is currently empty.

Store


Private Revelation: Discerning with the Church
Private Revelation: Discerning with the Church
$9.95



Meet Mary: Getting to Know the Mother of God
Meet Mary: Getting to Know the Mother of God
$12.95



Editors | Contributors

Cardinal Patron:
Luis Cardinal Aponte Martínez

Editor: Mark Miravalle, S.T.D.

Assistant Editors:
Kevin Clarke
Martin LaMartina
Emily Stimpson

Youth Editor:
Christopher Padgett

Contributing Authors:
Jonathan Baker
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean, F.I.
Ambassador Howard Dee
Jason Evert
Fr. Robert Fox
Scott Hahn, Ph.D. 
Fr. Stefano Manelli, F.I.
Msgr. Charles Mangan
Fr. James McCurry, O.F.M.Conv. 
Michael O'Brien
Order of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Webmaster:
Christopher Wendt

Archive