Father Richard Gribble, C.S.C., has taught at Moreau Seminary, Notre Dame, Indiana, and is a contributor to Catholic journals such as Homiletic and Pastoral Review. This article was originally published in Contemporary Insights On A Fifth Marian Dogma: Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations III, Queenship, 2000.
The Blessed Virgin Mary of Nazareth plays an integral role in Catholic theology and liturgical practice. Sprinkled throughout the liturgical calendar, Marian feasts remind us of the important role the Blessed Mother played in human salvation and how she continues to intercede for us with her Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Of her many titles, the Sorrowful Mother, or Mater Dolorosa, captures the unique purpose and role of Mary’s life. She was a woman who suffered much that she could not comprehend, but she never ran from her pain. Rather she embraced her cross of suffering, and in the process became partners with her Son’s redemptive work and today mediates between Christ and the world. Mary’s life lived in much pain and uncertainty can be a model for our lives today as we approach the new millennium.
The Sorrowful Mother in Scripture
Scripture, the primary medium of divine revelation, is the basic source for our knowledge of Mary and her association with the cross. The Gospels, together with the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, provide many insights into the life of Mary and her relationship with Jesus. While many episodes in the Virgin’s life were difficult, there are seven specific events that have been labeled the dolors, or sorrows, of Mary: 1. The prophecy of Simeon 2. The flight into Egypt 3. The loss of Jesus in the Temple 4. Mary meets Jesus on the Via Dolorosa 5. The hours beneath the cross 6. The slain Jesus rests in His mother’s arms 7. The laying of Jesus in the tomb (1)
The presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Lk 2:22-40) provides the background for the first, most prophetic, of Mary’s sorrows, Simeon’s prophecy.
We read, “This child is destined to be the downfall and rise of many in Israel, a sign that will be opposed—and you yourself shall be pierced with a sword—so that the thoughts of many hearts may be laid bare” (Lk 2:34-35). Origen (d. 252-3), the towering theological figure of the patristic Church in the East, understood Simeon’s prophecy in a unique way, believing that his words referred to a doubt that invaded Mary’s heart when she saw her Son’s suffering. In placing these words on Simeon’s lips, Luke is suggesting that the scandal to the cross experienced by the apostles would also be felt by Mary.
Origen’s great authority in the Church as a scholar made this interpretation popular in the East. St. Basil of Caesarea (d. 379) repeated the idea, and Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. after 451) in the mid-fifth century still spoke of “discord” within Mary as she witnessed the Passion of Jesus. (2)
In the Latin Church, in contrast, where Origen’s influence was weak, Simeon’s prophecy always referred to Mary’s own suffering under the cross. For Western theologians, such as Bernard of Clairvaux, who preached that Mary was martyred, not in body but in spirit, the key words of the relevant passage in Luke were “and you yourself will be pierced with a sword” (Lk 2:35a).
Simeon could have announced Christ’s future suffering without reference to Mary, but in directly addressing her he makes the announcement significant. Why did Simeon speak to Mary specifically and what was he telling her?
While there is some precedent for associating children predestined by God for greatness with their mothers, (3) it is more likely that Simeon (and probably Luke as well) wanted to demonstrate that Mary, by a unique right apart from Joseph, was to be associated with the sorrowful destiny of the Messiah. Even if he had not added the words indicative of Mary’s future suffering, the simple fact that Simeon spoke to Mary directly would be strong evidence to her place in Jesus’ suffering and death.
Mary was not destined to escape the feelings of darkness and abandonment that Jesus would experience on His way to Calvary; she was to suffer along the road that would take her Son to His salvific death. The theologian and Jesuit priest Jean Galot has concluded: “The prophecy, therefore, unites Mary and her child so closely that it reveals the Passion of Jesus to us through the sword of sorrow that will pierce the soul of His mother.” (4)
Scholars often ask what exactly was the sword that would pierce Mary? Some have suggested that the sword is the grief to be caused by the contradiction of which Jesus will be the object. Mary will suffer from the trial that will affect her Son to whom she is inseparably united.
In this view, the sword is an integral part of the prophetic picture, because it will play a major role in the drama of salvation. The majority of Scripture exegetes, however, believe that the sword refers to Mary’s act of offering her Son on Calvary. Returning to the basic association of Mary with suffering and the cross, Galot writes of Simeon’s image of the sword: “Under the effect of this revelation, Mary lives in the constant perspective of sacrifice, and she holds herself ready to share in her heart the tragic fate of the Messiah.” (5)
St. Matthew’s description of the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod most assuredly brought Mary sorrow. But it is in the conclusion of Luke’s infancy narrative that we again find specific reference to the psychological pain experienced by the Virgin.
The description of Jesus’ being lost in the Temple, where it becomes clear to Mary and Joseph that Jesus belongs completely to God’s service, must be associated with the Presentation as the logical conclusion to His consecration to God. The drama portrayed is a precursor to Calvary. For three days—a time period certainly not coincidental with Jesus’ suffering and resurrection—Mary and Joseph search “in sorrow” for their Son. The event makes Mary understand the threat of the sword that hangs over her and gives a foretaste of the sacrifice that will one day be her lot to present. The episode demonstrates again the close association of Mary with her Son, a bond that will find its culmination years later under the cross.
Scripture’s description of Mary’s sorrows finds its climax and fulfillment in the Passion account of St. John. Of all the Evangelists, John is the only one who posits Mary at Calvary, demonstrating by this the significance of her presence. Why would Mary come to Calvary to witness the painful and ignominious death of her only Son, and why would St. John describe these events?
For John, the suffering and death of Jesus is His greatest triumph, the time when He demonstrates fully His purpose and mission. Thus, the Church intentionally uses this Gospel at the Good Friday service as a clear indication of not only the necessity but also the greatness of Christ’s death. John wishes to draw attention to Mary and her sacrifice of love. She is there by intention, not by accident; she fully intends to walk the road of suffering to the end. Galot remarks: “We must conclude that Mary’s presence by the cross was not the mere result of a combination of circumstances, but proceeded from the firm determination of Mary to be united with the dramatic destiny of Christ.” (6) In the twentieth century, various papal documents have echoed the sacrificial nature of Mary’s action under the cross and her close association with the sufferings of her Son. Pope St. Pius X in Ad Diem (1904) spoke of Jesus as the victim that Mary places “near the altar at the appointed hour”:
Nor was she merely engaged in witnessing the cruel spectacle; rather she rejoiced that her only-begotten was being offered for the salvation of the human race, although her compassion was so intense that, if it were at all possible, she herself would have embraced even more eagerly all the sufferings that her Son endured.
In Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928), Pius XI described Mary’s action of “offering him at the foot of the cross as victim for our sins” as heroic. Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943) also wrote of Mary’s special sacrifice: “She offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam’s sin.”
In the end, the great contribution and challenge of Scripture with reference to Mary’s role as the Sorrowful Mother is the concept of belief. Dominican Father Thomas O’Meara has written: “When this night (of pain) reached its darkest intensity, Mary’s faith was such that it enabled her to stand near the cross.” (7)
Mary believed that God’s plan had a purpose that was beyond her understanding, and through her faith she was able to participate fully and without apparent hesitation, despite uncertainty and predictions of suffering. The words of Simeon prepared her, but it was only her faith that sustained her as the cross began to appear on her horizon.
The Sorrowful Mother in Tradition and the Magisterium
The cult of the Mater Dolorosa finds its earliest roots in the patristic Church. The Latin Fathers, save Ambrose, wrote that the trials and events of Calvary should be interpreted in terms of Mary’s sorrows.
Theologians saw Simeon’s prophecy as a foretaste of the experience through which
Mary would have to pass as the most involved spectator at the Crucifixion, as well as a reference to her own . The concept of prophecy and its fulfillment was important for the Latin Fathers. Jesus’ words from the cross, “Woman, there is your son” and “There is your mother,” appeared to clearly fulfill Simeon’s warning in the Temple. The great drama of this scene was depicted in the Kontakion of Romanos Melodos, written in the sixth century by order of Emperor Justinian for a Good Friday service:
I am overwhelmed, O my Son I am overwhelmed by love And I cannot endure That I should be in the chamber And You on the wood of the cross;I in the house And You in the tomb.
Mary appears to ask why God should have to suffer such a cruel death, but the answer comes that such a fate is the will of God to which she must submit. (8)
The cult of Mary as the Sorrowful Mother began to flourish in Italy, France, England, the Netherlands and Spain from the end of the eleventh century, reaching its full flowering from the fourteenth century forward. Promoters of the cult stressed Mary’s participation in humanity’s ordinary, mundane and painful lot. Her sorrows became a significant source of medieval popular piety; her life and suffering somehow made ordinary lives more meaningful. The theologian Marina Warner has written:
The Virgin was the instrument mediating bafflement at the mystery of the Redemption into emotional understanding. She made the sacrifice of Golgotha seem real, for she focused human feeling in a comprehensible and accessible way. (9)
The cult of the Mater Dolorosa reached its apex through the establishment of a liturgical feast on the Church calendar. One catalyst to the cult was the rapid spread of the Black through Europe, reaching its height in 1348 to 1350. Those who saw the plague as the retribution of a just God on the wickedness of humanity suggested the image of the Mater Dolorosa as a means of penance.
In the late-medieval period, especially in the Rhine area of Germany, the Church began to commemorate the sorrows of Mary during the season of Lent. In a provicial synod of 1423 at cologne, a feast honoring Mary as Our Lady of Sorrows was established on the third Sunday before Easter and was adopted by various dioceses and religious communities under the title Lamentatio Mariae (Wailing of Mary).
In 1727, Pope Benedict XIII extended the feast to the universal Church, for celebration on the Friday preceding Palm Sunday. In a parallel development, the Servites in 1667 were granted a special feast based on Mary’s sorrows, to be celebrated on the third Sunday in September. In 1814, Pope Pius VII, in thanksgiving for his safe return from exile in France, universalized the Servite feast. In 1913, Pius X transferred the celebration to Sept. 15, its present date in the liturgical calendar. In 1943, Pope Pius XII summarized the Church’s understanding of Mary as Our Lady of Sorrows:Bearing with courage and confidence the tremendous burden of her sorrows and desolation, truly the Queen of martyrs, she more than all the faithful “filled up these things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ…for his body, which is the church” (Col 1:24). (10)
Numerous representations of the Mater Dolorosa in art have been created over the centuries. Michelangelo’s “Pieta” was the best and most famous attempt to capture in statuary or in paint the depth of the Virgin’s grief as she held the body of her crucified Son. In his famous play “Faust,” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has his heroine, Grethchen, cry out to Mary in her hour of crisis:
Incline my countenance graciously to my need, thou who art abounding in pain. With the sword in thy heart and with a thousand pains thou dost look up at the death of thy Son. Thou dost look to the Father and send sighs upward for (thy Son’s) trial and for thine own.
In a more contemporary vein, the third symphony of Polish composer Henryk Gorecki uses an exchange between Christ and His Mother to expand the sorrows of the Mater Dolorosa by embracing all the suffering and the fallen of World War II:
Where has he gone My Dearest Son?Perhaps during the uprising The cruel enemy killed him. (11)
The most famous artistic expression of the Sorrowful Mother is the Stabat Mater, traditionally attributed to the Franciscan Jacopone da Todi (1230-1306). This hymn—based on John 19:35, Luke 2:25, Ezekiel, 2 Corinthians 4:10, and Galatians 4:17—speaks of the need for all people to share in the sufferings of Mary and Jesus. The prose version of this hymn reads in part: “Holy Mother, do this for me. Pierce my heart once and forever with the wounds of your crucified Son. Let me share with you the pain of your Son’s wounds, for He thought it right to bear such suffering for me.” The hymn continues later, “Grant that…I may feel the pains of my crucified Lord.” (12)
The establishment of a liturgical feast in honor of the Mater Dolorosa was complemented by the parallel theological development of Mary’s role in salvation history, beginning with the teaching that she was the “new Eve.” In the West, this idea began when theologians contrasted the obedience of Mary with the disobedience of Eve. Justin Martyr (d. 165), the first apologist to speak of Mary as the new Eve, wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho, “For Eve, an undifiled virgin, conceived the word of the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary, filled with faith and joy…answered, ‘Be it done unto me according to thy word.'”
Irenaeus in the second century was first to integrate the Eve-Mary analogy into theology: Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yes, yet still a virgin…became by her disobedience the cause of death for her herself and the whole human race, so Mary too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race. (13)
For Irenaeus, the cooperation of Eve with Satan in effecting humanity’s spiritual is matched and outstripped by Mary’s cooperation with God in effecting humanity’s return to life. In the West, Eve was viewed as the mother of the human race, but Mary the mother of salvation. St. Jerome (d. 430) succinctly stated the belief: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” (14)
Marian devotion in the Eastern Church was generally more advanced than in the West, but the concept of Mary as the new Eve gained acceptance in the East only after the belief was well established in the Latin Church. St. Ephraem, a representative of the fourth-century Syrian Church, saw the parallelism between Eve and Mary at the root of human dignity. He wrote that humanity’s “lovely and lovable glory was lost through Eve, (but) was restored through Mary.”
In 348, Cyril of Jerusalem preached to catechumens that “It was through the virgin Eve that death came; it was through a virgin, or rather from a virgin, that life had to come to light—that, just as a serpent deceived the former, so Gabriel might bring glad tidings to the latter.” By the end of the fifth century in the Eastern Church, Mary, as the second Eve, was called “cause of salvation,” “gate of salvation,” “cause of life” and it was said of her that “(she) brought immortality to the world.” (15)
The theological concept of Mary as the new Eve was the base upon which the Church doctrine of Mary as Co-redemptrix was built. Mary’s role in salvation history did not cease at Calvary but rather began anew in her mission as assistant to her Son in the work of Redemption.
It was not until the sixth century that the Syrian poet Jacob of Sarug (d. 521), in his sermon “The Passing of Mary,” gave the Virgin the title “Mother of Mercy.” But it was St Irenaeus in his late-second-century treatise Against Heresies who gave her a theological role in the Redemption of humanity: “Just as she (Eve)…having disobeyed became the cause of death to herself and to the entire human race, so Mary…being obedient (to the angel’s message) became the cause of salvation to herself and to the entire human race.” (16)
Jean Galot has expressed how Mary’s maternal role, initiated at Calvary when Jesus gave the beloved disciple to Mary, became the foundation for her function as Co-redemptrix: Ontologically, this motherhood (given to John at Calvary) is given to every man called to be a true disciple of Christ. On the Messianic plane where it is proclaimed, the motherhood of Mary cannot be limited to a private relationship with John, but must have universal scope. (17)
Although Church tradition had long associated Mary with her Son’s work in the Redemption of humanity, the title “Co-redemptrix” was only given papal sanction in the first decade of the twentieth century by Pope Pius X, who connected the title to devotion to Mary of the Seven Dolors. Several popes in their teachings this century have echoed Pius X’s approbation of Mary as Co-redemptrix and its association with Mary the Sorrowful Mother. Benedict XV in his apostolic letter Inter Sodalica (1918) wrote: To such an extent did (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such an extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man’s salvation, and immolated Him—insofar as she could—in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ. In 1933, Pius XI spoke of how Mary “accompanied Him (Jesus) in the work of redemption as far as the cross itself, sharing with Him the sorrows of agony and death.” The encyclical letter Haurietis Aquas of Pius XII (1956) best articulates Mary’s role in the word of her Son:
In bringing about the work of human redemption, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, by the will of God, so indissolubly associated with Christ that our salvation proceeded from the love and sufferings of Jesus Christ intimately joined with the love and sorrows of His mother.
Most recently, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II speaks of Mary’s “inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son.” (18)
The theology of Mary under the title of Co-redemptrix is complicated for the obvious reason of a human participating in the work of the divine. The theological foundation to every role of Mary, no matter how diverse interpretations may be, is found in her great fiat. Certainly, Mary’s association with Christ in the work of Redemption begins with the Incarnation, is exercised throughout her relationship with Him, and finds its climax in her cooperation with the great work for which He became human, His great sacrifice on the cross.
Mary does not through justice merit any role in the salvation of humanity; only God can do this. She does, however, merit her special role through friendship and her maternal relationship with Jesus. Understood in this light, Mary’s work as Co-redemptrix is not astounding; it is simply stating in technical terms that her life and suffering, and her willingness to offer both, were accepted by her Son and God the Father in a special way. The theologian Thomas O’Meara has succinctly explained this unique phenomenon: Mary participated in a maternal way, proper to her alone, in the redemption of mankind not only by becoming the Mother of God Incarnate, but by consenting to her son’s redemptive actions and by offering the Son to God. Her suffering and love were accepted by Almighty God and were joined to Christ’s infinite work to produce the same effect, the salvation of mankind. (19)
Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix can, therefore, only be understood in relation to her position as the Mater Dolorosa. Mary suffers with her Son and then offers Him to the Father for us. Her action is one of satisfaction; the pains she endured were accepted as partial satisfaction for the offenses of humanity. The immensity of her love, the intensity of her pain, her maternal dignity and the presence of Christ’s grace in her make her a fountain that provides the water of Christ’s Redemption for all people. Thus, Mary’s cooperation in her Son’s life, through motherhood and personal suffering, forms the base for her role in human Redemption.
As with her title of Co-redemptrix, Mary’s role as Mediatrix between her Son and the human race is directly connected to her role as the Sorrowful Mother. The theologian Jaroslav Pelikan has written of this association in Christian history:
Clearly there was a close correlation between the subjectivity of the devotion to Mary as the Mater Dolorosa and the objectivity of the doctrine of Mary as the Mediatrix. It was not the correlation of complemetarity. (20)
The doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix follows from her active roles in the Incarnation and Redemption. It was through Mary that the Savior came to humanity, and it is through her life and suffering that she participates in Christ’s redemptive work. Thus, Mary becomes the one through whom we have access to the Son.
As with most Marian doctrines, the theological principle of Mary as mediator begins in the Eastern Church. Germanus Constantinople (d. 733) seems to have been the first to state that Mary’s power of intercession rested upon her relationship with the Messiah. In a prayer, he writes:
You (Mary) can obtain forgiveness even for the greatest sinners. For He (Jesus) can never fail to hear you, because God obeys you through and in all things, as His true mother. (21)
In the Latin Church, the concept of Mary as Mediatrix developed in a parallel line with the cult of the Mater Dolorosa. Although the term “Mediatrix” was circulating in the West by the end of the eighth century, it was not until the High Middle Ages that the title received widespread acceptance.
Bernard of Clairvaux called Mary “our Mediatrix, the one through whom we have received thy mercy, O God.” Thomas Aquinas spoke of Mary’s grace that “overflows on to all mankind…Thus, in every danger thou canst find a refuge in this same glorious Virgin.” (22) In 1915, Pope Benedict XV in a speech remarked of Mary:Mother of the Prince of Peace, Mediatrix between rebellious man and the merciful God, she is the dawn of peace shining in the darkness of a world out of joint; she never ceases to implore her Son for peace although His hour is not yet come; she always intervenes on behalf of sorrowing humanity in the hour of danger. (23)Mary’s title of Mediatrix applies not only to salvation history but also to her ongoing position as intercessor between Christ and humanity. The consummation of glory, for the believer, was the knowledge that Mary stood as Mediatrix between the individual and her Son. Moreover, the belief that God had chosen Mary for the specific task of pleading the cause of humanity before her Son was a great consolation. Mary was seen as the one to bring succor against the temptations of Satan by her mediation between Christ and humanity.
Mary’s Cross and Contemporary Society
How can the understanding of Mary as the Mater Dolorosa and its consequent doctrine of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix become meaningful and efficacious for us today? The answer must be found in understanding Mary as a model for Christian life in the new millennium that we await. The Rev. Peter Gomes, pastor of Memorial Church at Harvard University, remarked, “Mary is an evangelical paradigm, a role model, an exemplary lady by whose example the faithful have a chance to play our part in God’s great drama.” (24) As the mother of all the faithful, Mary is the one who leads her children through the darkness of error to a new light that shines with the radiance of her Son: she is the perfect model of faithfulness. Her fiat, willingness to suffer and constant maternal vigilance must be our model and source of strength in the confusion and uncertainty of today’s world.
We need someone who experienced fear, doubt and pain, and transformed these human sufferings into life-giving moments. We need Mary!
Mary’s psychological cross, integral to her existence, was a reality from which she never sought escape. The Virgin’s life was uncertain, and she bore much pain that could not be understood. But she never shirked her responsibility, ran from her fears or surrendered in a defeatist attitude. Rather, she carried out God’s plan for her to its fullest.
Our future is as uncertain as was Mary’s, and certainly our lives are more complex. But unlike her, we often find excuses to run from experiences that are problematic or challenging, believing that we do not possess the requisite gifts to overcome the obstacles. Mary’s life must be our model, and her place as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix must be our hope that what we need for any situation will be provided.There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother Mary, who knew grief and was a Lady of Sorrows. She is our special patroness, a women who bore much she could not understand and who stood fast. To her many sons and daughters, whose devotions ought to bring them to her side, she tells much of this daily cross and its daily hope. (25)
The cross, the great paradox of Christian life, is unavoidable in life and thus we should not try to run from it. Nobody likes difficulty and pain, yet it is only through our embracing the cross that we can find the eternal life that is the goal of every human person.
Mary did not ask for the life that God gave her. But her great fiat of acceptance, voiced without clear vision or knowledge, was strong and genuine. Mary believed and she possessed the requisite faith to accept the opportunity presented her. The life of sorrow she experienced was anything but easy, but she bore the pain so that God’s plan for human salvation would find its fulfillment in her Son, Jesus.
Our challenge is to be like Mary, especially in today’s very busy, complicated and, at times, problematic world. What the future holds for the world and us individually is not known. But there is no doubt of God’s guidance and assistance in making the world what we wish it to be. Let us follow Mary’s lead to the cross, be the seed that dies, and the one that finds new life.
Endnotes (1) Over the history of the Church, debate raged on what specific events would be called Mary’s sorrows. In the seventeenth century, the seven sorrows in Luke, Matthew, and John were collected under the supervision of Pope XI. (2) Hilda Graef, The Devotion to Mary (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1963), p. 13. (3) One example of this phenomenon is found in Judges 13:3 when the angel of the Lord appears to the wife of Manoah to announce the birth of Samson. In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet describes how the Messiah, under the title Emmanuel, will come into the world by “the virgin.” (4) Jean Galot, S.J. , Mary in the Gospel (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1965), p. 92. (5) Ibid., p. 95. (6) Ibid., p. 181. (7) Thomas A. O’Meara, O.P., Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), p. 185. (8) Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976), p. 209. See also Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 127-28. In the full text, Mary laments: “I am vanquished by loving grief, child, vanquished / And cannot bear the thought of being in my chambers while You are on the cross; / I at home, while You are in the tomb. / Let me come with You! The sight of You soothes my pain.” To this Christ replies: “Lay aside your grief, mother, lay it aside. Lamentation does not befit you who have been called ‘Blessed.’ / Do not obscure your calling with weeping. / Do not liken yourself to those who lack understanding, all-wise maiden. / You are in the midst of my bridal chamber.” (9) Warner, p. 211. (10) Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis. (11) Pelikan, p. 127. (12) The twenty-stanza poetic version contains a similar message: “O Sweet Mother, font of love / Touch my spirit from above / Make my heart with yours accord. / Let me share with you His pain. / Who for all our sins was slain. / Who for me in torments died.” (13) Quoted in Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol II (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1955), pp. 89-90. (14) Ibid., Vol 1, p. 113. (15) Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 92, 98. (16) Quoted in O’Meara, p. 182. (17) Galot, p. 187. (18) Quoted in Carol, Vol. I, p. 37; Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 103. (19) O’Meara, p. 87. (20) Pelikan, p. 136. (21) Quoted in Graef, pp. 36-37. (22) Quoted in Pelikan, p. 132. (23) Pope Benedict XV, Our Lady (speech to all the consistory), Dec. 24, 1915. Selected and arranged by theBenedictine Monks of Solesmes (Boston: St. Paul’s Editions, 1961), p. 191. (24) Peter J. Gomes, “What Shall We Do with Mary?” (sermon), delivered Dec. 14, 1997 Memorial Church, Harvard University. (25) Constitution of the Congregation of Holy Cross, Constitution 8, “The Cross Our Hope,” no. 120.